Bob Iger treated Disneyland with kid gloves — but took a sledgehammer to the ill-conceived DCA - OCR/SCNG

[Disneylover152]

My issue with late career Iger is that his need for "new" things constantly in each parks has led to giant investments, and then cheap investments to offset the large projects.

In nearly every case he would be better off for not bothering with the low tier "new" stuff (Avengers Campus/ Pixar Pier/ Guardians/ Toy Story Land). If his legacy was only Cars Land, Pandora, and Star Wars Land, that'd be pretty impressive in my eyes.

But he had to have more of his IP infusion and toy sales and synergy without the proper investment into doing so.

The synergy is also how Disneyland has a giant percentage of its square footage dedicated to Star Wars The Last Jedi.

New for the sake of new is how we ended up with DCA 3.0, when the 2.0 version that Bob himself made had very little complaints.

If you want to get technical, while Bob Iger oversaw all of these projects, I don't know if he necessarily lead them. He was in charge and had the final say, but the head of parks & resorts was the main person working and developing the new projects. The new stuff you listed is all Chapek, minus Toy Story Land, and the old stuff (Cars Land, Pandora, and Star Wars) was all Tom Staggs.

A lot of the IP overload is Chapek. Iger & Staggs lead DCA 2.0 and did a great job with it. Yeah, they added a bunch of new IPs, but none of them really took away from the park and only added to it. The park still had a lot of non-IP rides and experiences, and he kept the thematic integrity of the park. The last great addition was Grizzly Airfield, and coincidentally that was the last project under Staggs. Chapek doesn't care about "theme first, IP second"- it's the exact opposite. He just throws IP in wherever he wants and will adapt the park to fit that IP, and let's face it sometimes he doesn't do that. It's gotten to the point where they can't even create a splash pad without it being tied to an IP (Moana in Epcot).

 

[mickEblu]

I will never forgive DCA for being not WestCot.

I like DCA as a park you can hop to for a ride or a few hours here or there. I’ve never been to Epcot but I would imagine even just a West Coast version of the World Showcase would be better than DCA. With some different countries and maybe different rides. If DCA kept going in the trajectory it was going up until 2015 I may not be saying this but that’s how I feel today.

 

[flynnibus]

It's way too easy to fall into the trap of thinking that's the one and only problem with DCA. They could have fixed a park that was opened cheaply, if they felt the core concept was sound. They could have added more anti-Disney attractions like Tower of Terror such as Rock N Roller Coaster or Test Track, but they decided to spent a billion dollars on the movie CARS instead.

Rubbish - There was a lot of time inbetween DCA's opening and the Carsland and DCAv2 relaunch. Disney did try 'fixing' things by just adding attractions... Bugsland, ToT, etc. But the underlying problems were still there, and why DCA v2 wasn't just 'add carsland' like they had done previously.

The Cruise Line kind of proves the point. Could you imagine a Disney cruise with no Disney IP?

The cruise line is praised and adored for it's SUBTLY of Disney IP. It's adored for it's service and product - not because of meet & greets.

 

[el_super]

I will never forgive DCA for being not WestCot.

But wouldn't it have been much harder to have to watch them add Pixar and Marvel to Westcot?

 

[Mac Tonight]

But wouldn't it have been much harder to have to watch them add Pixar and Marvel to Westcot?

Considering they've already done it to Epcot, I'd still consider it an overall win over DCA.

 

[el_super]

Rubbish - There was a lot of time inbetween DCA's opening and the Carsland and DCAv2 relaunch. Disney did try 'fixing' things by just adding attractions... Bugsland, ToT, etc. But the underlying problems were still there, and why DCA v2 wasn't just 'add carsland' like they had done previously.

It wasn't just adding attractions I was referring to, but specifically adding attractions that didn't really fall into the Disney-IP realm. The park opened with Screamin and Grizzly and Soarin, none of which had any IP ties. Tower of Terror was the last one they added in 2004. After that the park took a 180 degree turn, and went full-IP.

That was the mistake that Iger acknowledged. That was the direction Iger took the park. That's the direction it continues to go today. It doesn't seem right to suggest that Iger somehow changed his intent. Everything added recently still fits the model dictated in 2007.

 

[Miru]

All the bad with none of the good.

Seven Dwarves Mine Train, Radiator Springs Racers, Navi River Journey? Those weren’t his?

 

[George Lucas on a Bench]

Navi River Journey? Look, I enjoyed it too in a weird way due to its cheese and charm, but that's hardly their best work.

 

[the.dreamfinder]

Seven Dwarves Mine Train, Radiator Springs Racers, Navi River Journey? Those weren’t his?

I’m talking big picture. Iger didn’t cheap out as much as Eisner did, but he turned the theme parks into branded franchise interaction points.

 

[CaptinEO]

If you want to get technical, while Bob Iger oversaw all of these projects, I don't know if he necessarily lead them. He was in charge and had the final say, but the head of parks & resorts was the main person working and developing the new projects. The new stuff you listed is all Chapek, minus Toy Story Land, and the old stuff (Cars Land, Pandora, and Star Wars) was all Tom Staggs.

A lot of the IP overload is Chapek. Iger & Staggs lead DCA 2.0 and did a great job with it. Yeah, they added a bunch of new IPs, but none of them really took away from the park and only added to it. The park still had a lot of non-IP rides and experiences, and he kept the thematic integrity of the park. The last great addition was Grizzly Airfield, and coincidentally that was the last project under Staggs. Chapek doesn't care about "theme first, IP second"- it's the exact opposite. He just throws IP in wherever he wants and will adapt the park to fit that IP, and let's face it sometimes he doesn't do that. It's gotten to the point where they can't even create a splash pad without it being tied to an IP (Moana in Epcot).

Any way I see it, the man they are reporting to is Iger. He signs off on this stuff whether it is directly or idirectly. I doubt Chapeks budget cuts are imaginary, they take place for a reason.

I agree, the Airfield expansion looked nice, as did the new additions for the train. The few non-IP enhancements.

I agree about Chapek, he doesnt understand he properties OR the parks. Makes no sense to me.

 

[CaptinEO]

.... ?

There was (maybe still is) a massive disconnect between what internet fans think DCA needed and what the guests were actually telling them in visitor surveys. The fans were complaining about the cheap carnival rides, garish colors and stucco walls, while the real guests were telling them they wanted to meet more Disney characters and have more attractions geared toward children.

Nothing has changed about the direction DCA has undertaken since 2007. Maybe the definition of what is Disney has changed a little, but it's still the same concept of bringing people more IP.



Eisner thought the Disney brand was powerful enough to grow the audience. That there was somehow this untapped market of people that didn't care for the traditional Disney experience, but would become fans if they offered those things. Sort of like McDonald's offering up salads. That was the real core issue with DCA from the beginning, not really the amount invested in it.

I'd be really curious to hear why Iger's strategy of selling hamburgers at a hamburger stand suddenly feels like it's failing?

People from the start said there was not enough to do at California Adventure. And there still isn't. This is the compliant I'm drawing off of.

Them slapping known characters onto the same set of rides doesn't change this fact and never will. Them renaming a ride doesn't change the fact that you are not netting a new ride.

My family went opening summer. We went to themeparks constantly all around socal, for the experience and for something fun to do, just like most people, not just to "see Disney characters".

Our main complaint, we were out of there at 1pm and had been on / seen everything. You can't act like DCA 1.0 was some great park and that adding characters fixes its flaws.

You think vacationers pick their destination based on if it has Disney characters or not? Hardly. Theres a billion options and Disney has to compete with all of them.

Disney characters are one small part of a Disney theme park experience and shouldn't be the entire thing. Otherwise you are limiting your auidence to only fans of your existing characters, instead of general vacationers.

Eisner's idea that not everyone stepping through the door is a Disney fan is a much better approach to take then what he did in the future, which was make everything a movie ad so kids can point and recognize characters.

The new concepts done under the Eisner era have a legacy far greater than Iger's projects.

Eisner even brought in outside IP just cause it was cool and fit well with the parks, despite them not owning the brands.

 

[SuddenStorm]

I like DCA as a park you can hop to for a ride or a few hours here or there. I’ve never been to Epcot but I would imagine even just a West Coast version of the World Showcase would be better than DCA. With some different countries and maybe different rides. If DCA kept going in the trajectory it was going up until 2015 I may not be saying this but that’s how I feel today.

I've only spent two days open to close at DCA- and both get remarkably boring around the late afternoon. It's not like Disneyland where the entire 16 hour day is exciting.

DCA is best as a "I'm a local and want to drink a $10 beer and ride a ride right after work then go home" park.

 

[CaptinEO]

All the bad with none of the good.

Couldn't agree more.

Eisner, regardless of his failures, was at least willing to experiment a bit. I don't think anyone can name a property that was created under Iger. Marvel Studios existed as did Lucasfilm. The movies he made were all remakes and sequels to existing series.

Maybe there was Frozen? That got a sequel.

The fact is, Eisner was there at a high point for both the parks and the movie side of Disney, not just financially, but critically.

The movies made under Eisner's tenure are held in the same regard as Walt Disney's animated features for many.

No way in hell would Iger build something like Animal Kingdom or Soaring Over California.

 

[mickEblu]

But wouldn't it have been much harder to have to watch them add Pixar and Marvel to Westcot?

Not for me as I don’t have nostalgia for Epcot as I’ve never been so Frozen to me looks like one of the better done overlays and modern fantasyland dark rides (thanks to it being a boat ride and it’s good Maelstrom bones. With that said I’d probably prefer Maelstrom. I also don’t mind the idea of Ratatouille in France or the thought of a Mary Poppins ride in UK.

At the very least it would have been a park with a real theme and not a hodge lodge of things.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Or was it... as Iger suggested.... adding more IP?

Except that the best return on investment to open in the past 15 years was the nondescript roller coaster themed like India or whatever. You don't forbid your company from trying to repeat a huge success if you're just following the money.

It's way too easy to fall into the trap of thinking that's the one and only problem with DCA. They could have fixed a park that was opened cheaply, if they felt the core concept was sound. They could have added more anti-Disney attractions like Tower of Terror such as Rock N Roller Coaster or Test Track, but they decided to spent a billion dollars on the movie CARS instead.

Cars Land replaced Car Land to make Lasseter happy whom Disney had spent $7.4 billion to get back into the company. The same reason they needlessly redid Paradise Pier for a second time.

 

[Mac Tonight]

It's still saddens me to think that someone's Imagineering resume contains the phrase "Pixar Pier project leader".

 

[mickEblu]

I've only spent two days open to close at DCA- and both get remarkably boring around the late afternoon. It's not like Disneyland where the entire 16 hour day is exciting.

DCA is best as a "I'm a local and want to drink a $10 beer and ride a ride right after work then go home" park.

It really hit me when I was stuck there with my cousin and his girlfriend who had 1 park per day tickets. To make matters worse Paradise Pier was closed for the Pixar conversion.

 

[el_super]

Our main complaint, we were out of there at 1pm and had been on / seen everything. You can't act like DCA 1.0 was some great park and that adding characters fixes its flaws.

Adding characters didn't fix all of the flaws, but that was the primary approach that Iger took when he "fixed" the park.

You think vacationers pick their destination based on if it has Disney characters or not? Hardly. Theres a billion options and Disney has to compete with all of them.

That's true, but that's the heart of the mistake Eisner made with DCA: People who want a Disney experience felt cheated out of the lack of Disney at DCA, and people who didn't want a Disney experience, didn't even consider DCA an option. A Disney Park has to appeal to a Disney audience, and the Disney audience wanted DCA to have more Disney IP.

Eisner's idea that not everyone stepping through the door is a Disney fan is a much better approach to take then what he did in the future, which was make everything a movie ad so kids can point and recognize characters.

I think generally, I would agree with you here. I would have rather seen a Westcot version of DCA the actually had a deeper historical/realistic context rather than IP after IP. But we have seen what has happened to the Disney parks that took that route, and we have seen the success they made by moving away from that premise.

That was the point of the article here. Iger fixed DCA by adding more Disney IP. Changing Screamin' to Incredibles isn't all that different from slapping Goofy on Mulholland Madness. For some reason it works.

 

[PiratesMansion]

This is all basically true, but I still don't really understand the hatred for what was done to the river and railroad, both of which were, IMO, enhanced as a result of the changes.

I DO think something feels wrong with the way the railroad snakes around now, but there's more to see with less "nothing space" for both the river attractions and the railroad than there were before the re-routing.

 

[el_super]

Except that the best return on investment to open in the past 15 years was the nondescript roller coaster themed like India or whatever. You don't forbid your company from trying to repeat a huge success if you're just following the money.

If not the money though, what's the motivation?

If the original concept of DCA had worked, they could have just added a couple more flat rides, roller coasters and more alcohol and waited for the money to roll in. If it was just a matter of needing to flesh out the details a little more, they could have built a clone of Everest, or added more trees and details to Screamin, without the need to completely change directions.

I love Everest, and it's probably my favorite ride type ride at Animal Kingdom. Did it fix the park though? They still had to add Avatar.

Cars Land replaced Car Land to make Lasseter happy whom Disney had spent $7.4 billion to get back into the company. The same reason they needlessly redid Paradise Pier for a second time.

I doubt it was just an effort to make Lasseter happy, because he was already falling off the rails by the time they announced it. It also falls completely in line with Iger's other IP efforts. They're not building Avenger's Campus just to appease Kevin Fiege.