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

[Mac Tonight]

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.

I guess I must be a different kind of Disney fan then, since I've never once left a Disney park and felt cheated by a perceived lack of Disney IP. For me, the parks have always been their own thing. Unique experiences that advocated for exploration and innovation. That's why I adhered myself to Epcot Center from '89-'94 so much. The lack of Disney characters was actually a selling point.

DCA to be sure, wasn't even "whelming" to me not because of it's lack of Disney characters, but because what it did contain just felt so thrown together and cheaply made. There's a reason Superstar Limo lasted as long as it did. That's how a majority of the park felt, and it was made even worse by being the companion piece to the vastly superior Disneyland.

My favorite early DCA ride? Grizzly River Rapids. No IP, and just a great experience overall.

 

[mickEblu]

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.

The changes were nicely done even if the waterfalls ended up being a little underwhelming. I just don’t like how they pretty much exposed the entire north portion of the ROA. Thankfully because of some good angles and TSI it’s not obvious but it felt much more like the untamed frontier or being in some remote backwoods somewhere before the change. And Hungry Bear was still on the water. So I guess if the goal was to improve show they did that but at the cost of immersion and a feeling that only really remains now on the Jungle Cruise.

 

[el_super]

DCA to be sure, wasn't even "whelming" to me not because of it's lack of Disney characters, but because what it did contain just felt so thrown together and cheaply made. There's a reason Superstar Limo lasted as long as it did. That's how a majority of the park felt.

But then look at Monster's Inc which is, what, 70 to 80% the same ride as Monsters Inc? The layout is the same, the cars are the same, the queue still looks like a bus station. The only thing that really changed was the IP (changing LA to Monstropolis) and yet that ride has stuck around for well over a decade now. Did the IP really fix it?

My favorite early DCA ride? Grizzly River Rapids. No IP, and just a great experience overall.

Soarin over California is (I guess was) my favorite.

 

[lazyboy97o]

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

That's the beauty of working in the world of NDAs. One simply "lead design and coordination of a large scale confidential project".

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

Personal disconnect. If money was the motivation there would have been at least some attempt to replicate Disney's biggest stateside success in years. Why forbid your team from doing something that made you money if that is the only driver?

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.

The park's original concept was very much flawed. The park's deep flaws in its layout has never been addressed. The flawed subject needed work but it didn't need the same concept that has been thrown onto every other Disney park.

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.

Disney's Animal Kingdom was one of the parks built with just barely enough to do. It needed more to do and still needs more. Yes, Pandora helped but the gains were more on par with Expedition Everest while costing at least five times as much.

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.

Cars Land started development long before Lasseter started to lose clout. Cars Land was part of him losing prominence at Walt Disney Imagineering because he insisted on not cheating out on the land which others thought would be fine since it was all about selling toys to little boys who wouldn't care how things looked so long as Mater was there.

 

[Mac Tonight]

But then look at Monster's Inc which is, what, 70 to 80% the same ride as Monsters Inc? The layout is the same, the cars are the same, the queue still looks like a bus station. The only thing that really changed was the IP (changing LA to Monstropolis) and yet that ride has stuck around for well over a decade now. Did the IP really fix it?

No, it still sucks. I'd be shocked if Monsters Inc. cracked anyone's top 10 attractions at DCA. For that matter, that whole Hollywood backlot area is atrocious, but I think now it's tied up in the Eastern Gateway/transportation terminal debacle...

Per Iger's philosophy, it's easier to just slap a familiar character onto something than admit you failed and try again from scratch. That's risk aversion 101.

 

[Miru]

I also feel like DCA needs a second run-through with that sledgehammer...

(I would prefer “scalpel” for how they handled Disneyland Park)
Namely, whack those cheap coasters in what was once Paradise Pier to bits to build something new and cool in their place that truly brings a good experience and fits the area like a glove. Then give PW an overview for potential rides. Smash the remaining 1.0 elements in Hollywood and make room for new stuff.

 

[bestcoastracer]

Pixar Pier is incredibly popular with most Disney fans, proving Iger's point of more IP draws more crowds. I think naming a whole land to a single studio is dumb, could of kept Paradise Pier and just added Pixar and Disney character elements.

Though I preferred Pixar Pier 2.0, the numbers don't lie. In attendance, queue time, and very important to Disney---social media posts and engagement. And if we are being honest, it's mostly the same outside of retheming and new paint jobs to the attractions there.

 

[Miru]

Pixar Pier is incredibly popular with most Disney fans, proving Iger's point of more IP draws more crowds. I think naming a whole land to a single studio is dumb, could of kept Paradise Pier and just added Pixar and Disney character elements.

Though I preferred Pixar Pier 2.0, the numbers don't lie. In attendance, queue time, and very important to Disney---social media posts and engagement. And if we are being honest, it's mostly the same outside of retheming and new paint jobs to the attractions there.

Most of the paint job could use some work. And yes, the big reason gnashers are everywhere is the lack of fanservice for them.
Also, Monsters Inc, while not stellar, is miles ahead of the original.

 

[flynnibus]

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.

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

No - the primary approach they did was to abandon the 'visit california, in california' scheme along with all the puns and theme that just relied on "but its california!!". That's why every section of the park except the hollywood, the wharf, and bugsland areas got reskinned at the minimum.

They did away with "california.. in a theme park!" and went and put CHARACTER and story into all the places (not just slapping Disney characters on.. which they did some too). It's why BVS was given new backstory and purpose.. it's why condor flats got redone.. its why we got paridise gardens, and the pier was skinned. But make no mistake, a large portion of DCA v2 was ADDING MORE TO DO while reducing the reliance on the failed walkthrough stuff in the Golden State Area and trying to mask alot of the 'pure carnival' aspect the pier areas had. Anchored by Cars land with 3 attractions and WoC... expansion included TSMM, TLM replacing a theatre, streetmosphere with the Trolly, classier dining, etc.

Prior to the expansion, DCA v1 had settled into the purpose of "see the parade, do the E tickets, leave". DCA v2 aimed to KEEP PEOPLE IN THE PARK and not just be a diversion for AP holders.

 

[Brer Panther]

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.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, Test Track is "anti-Disney"? How? Because it doesn't have an IP attached to it? Because it's a thrill ride? By that logic, are Space Mountain and Big Thunder Mountain Railroad "anti-Disney" too?

I'm not bashing Cars Land or anything, I just disagree with the claim that "no IP = anti-Disney".

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

The majority of people I've seen on here don't like Seven Dwarves Mine Train or Navi River Journey. I like them, though.

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.

Cars was released after Iger took over, right? Or does that not count because it's a PIXAR movie?

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.

From what I recall from Kevin Rafferty's book, Car Land became Cars Land because after the Imagineers found out about Cars, they decided to add a ride based on the film to the land, and that led to them theming the whole land after the film. Don't recall how much of it was on Lasseter.

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.

I think that even if DCA 1.0 did have more Disney characters but the overall quality of the park was still crummy, people still would've disliked it.

I guess I must be a different kind of Disney fan then, since I've never once left a Disney park and felt cheated by a perceived lack of Disney IP. For me, the parks have always been their own thing. Unique experiences that advocated for exploration and innovation. That's why I adhered myself to Epcot Center from '89-'94 so much. The lack of Disney characters was actually a selling point.

DCA to be sure, wasn't even "whelming" to me not because of it's lack of Disney characters, but because what it did contain just felt so thrown together and cheaply made. There's a reason Superstar Limo lasted as long as it did. That's how a majority of the park felt, and it was made even worse by being the companion piece to the vastly superior Disneyland.

My favorite early DCA ride? Grizzly River Rapids. No IP, and just a great experience overall.

Yeah, I think claiming that Disney fans dislike non-IP rides and only want IP rides is a bit absurd. People love rides like the Haunted Mansion, Big Thunder Mountain Railroad, Space Mountain, Expedition Everest, Test Track etc. There's a reason characters like the Hitchhiking Ghosts and Figment have such large fanbases.

But then look at Monster's Inc which is, what, 70 to 80% the same ride as Monsters Inc? The layout is the same, the cars are the same, the queue still looks like a bus station. The only thing that really changed was the IP (changing LA to Monstropolis) and yet that ride has stuck around for well over a decade now. Did the IP really fix it?

Yes, but not by a whole lot.

Disney's Animal Kingdom was one of the parks built with just barely enough to do. It needed more to do and still needs more. Yes, Pandora helped but the gains were more on par with Expedition Everest while costing at least five times as much.

What you said.

Per Iger's philosophy, it's easier to just slap a familiar character onto something than admit you failed and try again from scratch. That's risk aversion 101.

What you said too.

 

[Mac Tonight]

Yeah, I think claiming that Disney fans dislike non-IP rides and only want IP rides is a bit absurd. People love rides like the Haunted Mansion, Big Thunder Mountain Railroad, Space Mountain, Expedition Everest, Test Track etc. There's a reason characters like the Hitchhiking Ghosts and Figment have such large fanbases.

Something I wish the Bobs understood is that they themselves are capable of making their own, parks-exclusive IP that Disney fans can and will fall in love with.

Give me Figment and Dreamfinder, the Hitchhiking Ghosts, the (original)Pirates Auctioneer, etc. over Anna and Elsa or the emotions from Inside Out, any day. That's half the reason to go to the parks in the first place instead of staying home and turning on Disney+. Parades and shows, fine, have some characters, but not every single attraction has to be "from a movie".

Time and again, the Bobs prove that they truly fail to see the parks for what they are (were, and still could be) and instead have chosen to treat them like interactive Disney stores.

 

[1HAPPYGHOSTHOST]

He also took a sledgehammer to Pirates of the Carribean as well

 

[lazyboy97o]

From what I recall from Kevin Rafferty's book, Car Land became Cars Land because after the Imagineers found out about Cars, they decided to add a ride based on the film to the land, and that led to them theming the whole land after the film. Don't recall how much of it was on Lasseter.

This origin story has changed. It used to very much be told as being Lasseter's idea. Remember, part of the Pixar acquisition was Lasseter getting a title at Walt Disney Imagineering.

How Disney's imagineers transformed Carland into Cars Land

How Disney's imagineers transformed Carland into Cars Land

www.latimes.com

I do not recall when it was announced, but Cars was publicly known about by late 2003 as it was a point of contention in the very public dispute over Pixar's distribution deal. Pixar was cutting ties with Disney at this point in time, it seems odd that they'd be eager to see Disney build a Cars ride when Disney's ability to exploit Pixar's characters in sequels and attractions was a public point of dispute (Disneyland's new attraction for its 50th was a middle finger to Steve Jobs). If anything, adding Cars to Carland at this time sounds more like a vindictive directive from Eisner.

 

[J4546]

Whatever the case, Cars Lands is pretty awesome esp at night, and the fact that its exclusive to CA we are really lucky. Radiator Springs Racer is a top notch ride!

 

[TP2000]

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

I'm in the minority, but I don't think DCA 2.0 fell apart when Guardians replaced Tower of Terror in 2017.

I think DCA 2.0 fell apart when Pixar Pier opened in 2018. That whole thing was crap. It weakened the entire park's mission statement in one fell swoop. It also proved that Bob Chapek is a clueless and grumpy old dork.

It should be interesting to see how Marvel Land pans out when the park reopens this fall. I mean, it can't be any worse than Pixar Pier. But I think if Marvel Land isn't savvy and sharp enough, it's going to further weaken the brand of the entire park. Marvel Land needs to be a grand slam homerun, or else the park is in long term trouble.

 

[1HAPPYGHOSTHOST]

Pixar Pier is incredibly popular with most Disney fans, proving Iger's point of more IP draws more crowds. I think naming a whole land to a single studio is dumb, could of kept Paradise Pier and just added Pixar and Disney character elements.

Though I preferred Pixar Pier 2.0, the numbers don't lie. In attendance, queue time, and very important to Disney---social media posts and engagement. And if we are being honest, it's mostly the same outside of retheming and new paint jobs to the attractions there.

Um no. the pier was always popular. putting pixar crap on it just made it tacky(er) but still popular as it ever was.

 

[Mac Tonight]

Let me take you back...

The year was 2018. The world still had most of it’s innocence intact, SW:GE hadn’t disappointed anyone yet, and Paradise Pier was gone. Pixar Pier was soon to be unveiled...

The Incredicoaster had received its Jack Jack’s On a Stick...
The Abominable Snowman was soon to be selling yellow snow...
An entire Churro stand has received a Buzz Lightyear overlay...

And all of the wonderment and excited could be “previewed” the day before it opened... for a mere $299.

Ah, the good old days.

 

[SuddenStorm]

Let me take you back...

The year was 2018. Paradise Pier was gone, and Pixar Pier was soon to be unveiled...

The Incredicoaster had received its Jack Jack’s On a Stick...
The Abominable Snowman was soon to be selling yellow snow...
An entire Churro stand has received a Buzz Lightyear overlay...

And all of the wonderment and excited could be “previewed” the day before it opened... for a mere $299.

Ah, the good old days.

I forgot about that! Man, and to think there are some people who paid that! All to see the same land they'd been seeing for 15 years.

 

[Darkbeer1]

Um no. the pier was always popular. putting pixar crap on it just made it tacky(er) but still popular as it ever was.

Not at the beginning, Toy Story Midway Mania helped bring in the crowds.

folks would come ride the Coaster, and move on.

 

[1HAPPYGHOSTHOST]

Not at the beginning, Toy Story Midway Mania helped bring in the crowds.

folks would come ride the Coaster, and move on.

I stand corrected. But toy story mania was before pixar pier right? My point is changing the pier to pixar pier did not bring in the crowds on a already popular peir at that point. People just wanted to go to the pier again sfter being closed for months when pixar pier opened.