California Adventure or Hollywood Studios?

[RollerCoaster]

Let's look at the two parks circa 2019, as if Star Wars Land had opened fully in DHS, but the pandemic had not yet closed DCA for over a year. The facts speak for themselves, even before Marvel Land and the Spiderman D Ticket debut once DCA reopens later this year. (They aren't included below)

Disney California Adventure
18 Rides

• 5 E Tickets - Soarin', Grizzly River Run, Incredicoaster, Radiator Springs Racers, Guardians of the Galaxy
• 3 D Tickets - Little Mermaid, Goofy's Sky School, Toy Story Midway Mania,

Disney's Hollywood Studios
9 Rides

• 6 E Tickets - Tower of Terror, Rock n' Roller Coaster, Star Tours, Mickey's Railway, Millennium Falcon, Rise of the Resistance
• 2 D Tickets - Toy Story Midway Mania, Slinky Dog Coaster

If Star Tours is an "E-Ticket" then so is Slinky Dog Coaster and Toy Story Midway Mania.

Disney California Adventure is the most underrated theme park in the world. It's been that way since it opened in 2001. In the first 20 years, that park has seen more capital expenditures in terms of expansion, new attractions, replacement of attractions, and redoing themed areas than any other theme park in the world.

Watching the evolution has been nothing short of incredible and thoroughly enjoyable.

 

[PiratesMansion]

If Star Tours is an "E-Ticket" then so is Slinky Dog Coaster and Toy Story Midway Mania.

Disney California Adventure is the most underrated theme park in the world. It's been that way since it opened in 2001. In the first 20 years, that park has seen more capital expenditures in terms of expansion, new attractions, replacement of attractions, and redoing themed areas than any other theme park in the world.

Watching the evolution has been nothing short of incredible and thoroughly enjoyable.

Slinky Dog is MAYBE an E, though it's kind of skimpy compared to even 7DMT IMO. TSMM strikes me as more of a D ticket. If your argument is that TSMM qualifies because there's motion, I'd argue that the overall level of polish to the experience and the film is much greater on Star Tours, thus making it more deserving of the E ticket label. When a Star Tours video game comes out that provides an identical experience to what's in the park, perhaps we can downgrade it at that time.

DCA is simultaneously underrated and rightly criticized. Both are true. Just as there are undersung areas, rides, design features, etc, especially to locals, there are plenty of legitimate problems (layout, problematic entertainment infrastructure, areas that have never worked and still sit there, Disney breaking things that weren't broken, etc).

It WAS enjoyable to watch DCA evolve. Then 2017 or 2018 happened (depending on what your criteria is) and it's clearly devolving now. I'd be hard pressed to think of many people who think that it's going in the correct direction currently.

I wouldn't even call DCA the most underrated DISNEY park in the world at the moment (that would be Hong Kong, which has continued to go in a largely positive direction since its early decade expansion and has been rewarded with crickets). What about Silver Dollar City? Efteling? Europa Park? Phantasialand? There's no shortage of parks that have less exposure and are, in many cases, more deserving of it than DCA.

 

[October82]

If Star Tours is an "E-Ticket" then so is Slinky Dog Coaster and Toy Story Midway Mania.

Disney California Adventure is the most underrated theme park in the world. It's been that way since it opened in 2001. In the first 20 years, that park has seen more capital expenditures in terms of expansion, new attractions, replacement of attractions, and redoing themed areas than any other theme park in the world.

Watching the evolution has been nothing short of incredible and thoroughly enjoyable.

Unfortunately to mixed effect and only because the initial offering was so poor. California Adventure is nowhere near the most underrated park in the world - plenty of midsized parks, especially in Europe, are superior and much less well known.

 

[RollerCoaster]

Unfortunately to mixed effect and only because the initial offering was so poor. California Adventure is nowhere near the most underrated park in the world - plenty of midsized parks, especially in Europe, are superior and much less well known.

I'm not so sure that many of the critics of DCA would've thought the initial offering at Disneyland was that great. Parks take time to grow up.

 

[J4546]

I'm not so sure that many of the critics of DCA would've thought the initial offering at Disneyland was that great. Parks take time to grow up.

true that, a lot of the parks we know and love today have been getting built up with additions and expansions for 30+ years

 

[PiratesMansion]

I'm not so sure that many of the critics of DCA would've thought the initial offering at Disneyland was that great. Parks take time to grow up.

Well, sure.

But there wasn't really anything like Disneyland in 1955, and they quickly identified mistakes and worked to correct them, and arguably built a park that only got better for around 40 years. They had a budget that didn't *quite* allow them to do everything they wanted, but there was an emphasis on quality to the best of their ability. Even in 1955 with financial constraints, Walt was insisting on things and certain level of quality that others (i.e. C.V. Wood) thought were unnecessary because they weren't clear money makers or didn't really fit the budget.

Can't really say the same thing about California Adventure, where there were seven other Disney parks that already existed and were clearly superior, let alone other parks run by other companies. The Disney that conceived and built DCA had considerably more resources at their disposal than did the Disney of 1955. Rather than straightforward attempts to improve a flawed product, there was a lot of denial and saving face excuses for DCA before the original executives were canned and different executives admitted there was a problem. And there have been a lot of lateral moves or downgrades to DCA since it opened, certainly nothing resembling the outright improvement the changes to Disneyland represented for many years afterward.

And, of course, it's clear to see that TDS, which opened the same year, opened with both superior attractions, design, and detail. TDS tried to meet the raised expectations of a subsequent theme park, and many would argue it blew past those expectations. DCA...well...

So the "of course it sucked, Disneyland sucked when it opened too" argument doesn't really hold up to any scrutiny. It's not remotely the same playing field. And by the time it was 20 years old, Disneyland had already added the Mine Train, TSI, Columbia, Storybook, Alice, the Monorail, the Subs, the Matterhorn, the Tiki Room, Lincoln, the train dioramas, Carousel of Progress, upgraded the Jungle Cruise, added New Orleans Square, completely redone Tomorrowland, Pirates, Mansion, Bear Country and CBJ, and had been bringing back the improvements they could from WDW. DCA, in 20 years, prettified a few areas, added an ok nighttime show, added a few ok dark rides, and built Cars Land, then set about ruining a lot of the improvements they had just spent billions on a few years ago, while problematic areas like Hollywoodland have still hardly been touched.

DCA has always existed in the context of a much richer company than the one that built so much of what made Disneyland great. So what's DCA's excuse for such enduring mediocrity?

 

[el_super]

The Disney that conceived and built DCA had considerably more resources at their disposal than did the Disney of 1955. Rather than straightforward attempts to improve a flawed product, there was a lot of denial and saving face excuses for DCA before the original executives were canned and different executives admitted there was a problem.

The thing that really separated Disneyland and DCA was the fact that Disneyland existed in 2001.

I don't think we can gloss over how much easier it was for Disneyland to break into that market, when there was nothing to compare it to. There were no expectations set. People didn't walk into Disneyland thinking that a Disney Parks Experience® had to fit XYZ. Those expectations, more than anything else, sunk DCA originally. If the only complaints about DCA were the flat rides and stucco walls everywhere, those all could have been fixed with time. The fundamental flaw in DCA was that it wasn't Disneyland. It didn't have the characters. It didn't have the IP tie ins. It didn't have things for children to do.

I actually give Eisner a lot of credit for building a park that tried to be something other than what Disneyland was. To try to expand the definition of what a Disney Parks experience could be. It just came at a really awkward time in Disney park history, where the audience pivoted hard toward those classic, character/IP driven experiences. Even if they had approved Westcot, I can't imagine what a mess that park would be, with IP content being wedged in everywhere over the last 20 years. They'd probably be looking at bulldozing the whole thing and starting over like they are doing at Epcot.

Making something like DCA (or even the original TDS) would have taken far more work than I think most at Disney wanted to do, and it was just easier to provide the same Disneyland experience the audience wanted. It took a few years, but even TDS hasn't been immune to it. You know something isn't working right when you spend 3+ billion on a theme park and the most popular attraction is a teddy bear.

Edit to Add: Since I didn't realize what thread we were in, to try to tie this back to DHS: There are a lot of similarities between what the original DHS and DCA were trying to do, and with DHS pivoting hard with Toy Story and Star Wars land, I think it's safe to say that the original concept of a park that appeals to the adults of the room is a dying, failed concept. Every step after Rock N Roller Coaster has been one that has moved DHS closer and closer to being another Disneyland.

 

[aliceismad]

The thing that really separated Disneyland and DCA was the fact that Disneyland existed in 2001.

I don't think we can gloss over how much easier it was for Disneyland to break into that market, when there was nothing to compare it to. There were no expectations set. People didn't walk into Disneyland thinking that a Disney Parks Experience® had to fit XYZ. Those expectations, more than anything else, sunk DCA originally. If the only complaints about DCA were the flat rides and stucco walls everywhere, those all could have been fixed with time. The fundamental flaw in DCA was that it wasn't Disneyland. It didn't have the characters. It didn't have the IP tie ins. It didn't have things for children to do.

I actually give Eisner a lot of credit for building a park that tried to be something other than what Disneyland was. To try to expand the definition of what a Disney Parks experience could be. It just came at a really awkward time in Disney park history, where the audience pivoted hard toward those classic, character/IP driven experiences. Even if they had approved Westcot, I can't imagine what a mess that park would be, with IP content being wedged in everywhere over the last 20 years. They'd probably be looking at bulldozing the whole thing and starting over like they are doing at Epcot.

Making something like DCA (or even the original TDS) would have taken far more work than I think most at Disney wanted to do, and it was just easier to provide the same Disneyland experience the audience wanted. It took a few years, but even TDS hasn't been immune to it. You know something isn't working right when you spend 3+ billion on a theme park and the most popular attraction is a teddy bear.

The biggest complaint I heard about DCA early on was that it wasn't special. You could go to the boardwalk or Six Flags and get a similar experience. This is a park that was primarily going to be visited by people from California or nearby states. People wanted the "Disney," not a Mickey slapped on a plain roller coaster. Superstar Limo? Mulholland Madness? A generic carousel, spinning swings, and ferris wheel? Bored.

 

[DanielBB8]

Tokyo DisneySeas opened at the same year of DCA and Walt Disney Studios in Paris 6 months later. I'm pretty sure Disney is capable of doing their best work if the money is there.

 

[aliceismad]

Tokyo DisneySeas opened at the same year of DCA and Walt Disney Studios in Paris 6 months later. I'm pretty sure Disney is capable of doing their best work if the money is there.

I know DisneySeas is widely praised, but isn't Walt Disney Studios considered among the worst of Disney parks globally?

 

[el_super]

The biggest complaint I heard about DCA early on was that it wasn't special. You could go to the boardwalk or Six Flags and get a similar experience. This is a park that was primarily going to be visited by people from California or nearby states. People wanted the "Disney," not a Mickey slapped on a plain roller coaster. Superstar Limo? Mulholland Madness? A generic carousel, spinning swings, and ferris wheel? Bored.

Yeah but it's sort of weird how that "Disney" experience gets defined. There isn't really anything special about painting spinner cups to look like Tea Cups, and you can't even see the paint on them from the inside. But somehow making the allusion to Alice in Wonderland made them special? Then being there 40+ years made them nostalgic? A tradition for most families. It's hard to define.

There was a bit of a movement in 1990's Disney that wanted to get away from those sort of cheap contrivances of slapping characters on everything, and wanted to move into this weird 90's meta humor that acknowledged that a big chunk of people felt Disney was fake and hokey. They wanted to embrace the audience that felt Disney was too fake and give them something to come and enjoy too. It didn't really work because those people who weren't interested in Disney at all, still weren't interested in going.

And meanwhile the people who were going, the Disney fans, were turned off by how real and adult the whole thing was. Contrary to what most people seem to think about Iger coming in and changing direction, the first major expansion of DCA that was announced about a year after opening was adding Bug's Land: purposefully addressing both the missing whimsy and giving children something to do.

I know DisneySeas is widely praised, but isn't Walt Disney Studios considered among the worst of Disney parks globally?

Yeah it's ... not great. Walt Disney Studios was contractually obligated to be built, at a time that Disneyland Paris was still not making a lot of money. There's no real need or audience there to support having two parks, but they had to built it anyway. They are/were going thru the same thing with Hong Kong, but I think they might have finally lost their rights to build a second park there.

 

[DanielBB8]

I know DisneySeas is widely praised, but isn't Walt Disney Studios considered among the worst of Disney parks globally?

And DCA as the second worst at the time. So DisneySeas is the best new park and still highly ranked. WDS is still horrible, but soon to be improved with a new Frozen Land, a half sized Galaxy's Edge, a Marvel Land with some ride conversions, and an updated tram ride.

 

[DanielBB8]

The biggest complaint I heard about DCA early on was that it wasn't special. You could go to the boardwalk or Six Flags and get a similar experience. This is a park that was primarily going to be visited by people from California or nearby states. People wanted the "Disney," not a Mickey slapped on a plain roller coaster. Superstar Limo? Mulholland Madness? A generic carousel, spinning swings, and ferris wheel? Bored.

I went to DCA a lot when it opened. That's when it had the factory experience at it's height with free tortillas, free chocolate, and free sourdough sample. The Boardwalk was nothing to be excited about. The Eureka parade was actually excellent with a catchy tune. The rides were on the boring side since Disney's IPs were largely left off the attractions. People who wanted unique attractions were still disappointed with the California styled attractions. It's like Epcot's penchant for marketing reduced in half potency while boring increased by 10. While Epcot got a supersized Energy tram vehicle, DCA got a tiny Superstar Limo.

 

[PiratesMansion]

Yeah, Walt Disney Studios is horrifically bad. MUCH worse than DCA ever was, and since Disneyland Paris is signficantly more ornate than DL, it stood out all the more.

Anyone praising Walt Disney Studios to high heaven either hasn't been to many theme parks, or is a Disney employee being paid to lie to you.

DCA, though flawed, has redeeming values. Therefore, it is better than WDS by default.

Hong Kong has, indeed, lost the land that had previously been designated for Park 2. It's a bummer they weren't able to get an extension, because there is no way on earth they're ready for a second gate. They can barely get people to care about Park 1 over there. An unfortunate situation that is largely Disney's own fault.

 

[aliceismad]

And DCA as the second worst at the time. So DisneySeas is the best new park and still highly ranked. WDS is still horrible, but soon to be improved with a new Frozen Land, a half sized Galaxy's Edge, a Marvel Land with some ride conversions, and an updated tram ride.

So DisneySeas is the example of what could happen if the $$$ backed the Imagineers. I see what you were trying to say and went right over my head.

Maybe I'm naïve or optimistic or something, but I am rather impressed at the amount of change that has happened at DCA in the past 20 years. I appreciate that they've built a variety of attractions to appeal to a wider audience and age range, and I think Avengers will complement that growth.

 

[October82]

So DisneySeas is the example of what could happen if the $$$ backed the Imagineers. I see what you were trying to say and went right over my head.

Maybe I'm naïve or optimistic or something, but I am rather impressed at the amount of change that has happened at DCA in the past 20 years. I appreciate that they've built a variety of attractions to appeal to a wider audience and age range, and I think Avengers will complement that growth.

This was true, circa 2012. Not really any longer.

They've been rather explicit that their goal is not to appeal to new demographics, but to increase spending from their existing customers. Marvel is in California Adventure so that parents with 8 year old boys have Star Wars to buy merchandise for in Disneyland, and the Avengers to buy merchandise for in DCA.

Ironically, 2001 DCA and TDS actually were about appealing to new demographics. TDS, in particular, was meant to draw in adults with Japan's overall aging population, not merely expand on the family demographic that TDL had already captured. DCA wasn't inspired by widespread changes in the US market, but it was also going for an adult oriented park that would appeal to parents spending money on vacations to California.

 

[George Lucas on a Bench]

DCA was certainly an adult park and that's something I still respect about the original version, even if it had a load of crap in it. The few attractions there to appeal to babies were originally overshadowed by big thrill rides, a Daytime Soap Opera restaurant, Superstar Limo which had absolutely no celebrities that would appeal to kids, Soarin', the Whoopi Goldberg Show, which no kids would ever want to see, the booze everywhere, the cheap Farm Exhibit, the Bread Factory etc. It was NOT a kid-friendly park. I like that!

 

[aliceismad]

This was true, circa 2012. Not really any longer.

They've been rather explicit that their goal is not to appeal to new demographics, but to increase spending from their existing customers. Marvel is in California Adventure so that parents with 8 year old boys have Star Wars to buy merchandise for in Disneyland, and the Avengers to buy merchandise for in DCA.

Ironically, 2001 DCA and TDS actually were about appealing to new demographics. TDS, in particular, was meant to draw in adults with Japan's overall aging population, not merely expand on the family demographic that TDL had already captured. DCA wasn't inspired by widespread changes in the US market, but it was also going for an adult oriented park that would appeal to parents spending money on vacations to California.

A lot of people beyond 8 year old boys like Avengers. And Star Wars. Actually neither franchise has ever been targeted toward 8 year old boys exclusively.

I'm sorry I thought the point of moving/demoing little-kid-focused Bug's Life and replacing with Avengers was to increase capacity for rides that might appeal to older kids, teens, and adults. Focusing on IPs for their popularity and merch $$ is apparently a given no matter what new attraction Disney puts in.

 

[October82]

A lot of people beyond 8 year old boys like Avengers. And Star Wars. Actually neither franchise has ever been targeted toward 8 year old boys exclusively.

People outside that demographic aren't why Disney is adding Avengers and Star Wars to the parks. Disney's corporate strategy is to create synergies between the studios, parks, and merchandising. They want you to take your 8 year old to Disneyland for Star Wars, DCA for Marvel, then buy Star Wars souvenirs while signing up for Disney+ to watch The Mandalorian.

Parents will spend on a princess vacation for their daughter and a Marvel/Star Wars vacation for their son. Then go home and spend more on those same properties. Unfortunately, this attitude is reflected in the quality of the offerings. When your goal is to make sure 8 year olds are impressed, the quality of the experience is going to suffer, no matter how much you spend on it.

I'm sorry I thought the point of moving/demoing little-kid-focused Bug's Life and replacing with Avengers was to increase capacity for rides that might appeal to older kids, teens, and adults. Focusing on IPs for their popularity and merch $$ is apparently a given no matter what new attraction Disney puts in.

A Bug's Life isn't kid-focused. Or more properly, A Bug's Life doesn't have any demographic. It's not a franchise Disney can sell. What matters to Disney is how many times they can get you to spend money on their core intellectual property. Families with children buy vacations, and they also buy merchandise and consume studio content. Adults just don't spend in the same way that families with children do. So why cater to them?

Of course, that doesn't mean Disney won't still sell them an overpriced drink in Pixar Pier.

 

[el_super]

I'm sorry I thought the point of moving/demoing little-kid-focused Bug's Life and replacing with Avengers was to increase capacity for rides that might appeal to older kids, teens, and adults. Focusing on IPs for their popularity and merch $$ is apparently a given no matter what new attraction Disney puts in.

This is actually a really interesting idea worth exploring. While DCA's original criticism were all surrounding how different it was from Disneyland, and the general lack of things for kids to do, they have still stubbornly insisted on offering more adult content at DCA.

Bugs Land was added to offset the perceptions of the park as not kid friendly, but what you didn't see are things like Tower of Terror or Screamin' removed.

In more recent times, additions like Guardians of the Galaxy and Avengers Campus are pushing DCA back to appealing to a PG-13 demographic. Maybe not as adult as factory tours and wine tasting, but still an interesting compromise.