Rumor Coco attraction coming to DCA

[Blu]

Based on the picture, my best guess is that Disney is looking at some kind of re-theme of the Ratatouille ride system for Coco. Not necessarily an exact reskin, but using the basics of the ride (a mix of practical sets and screens, with 3-D glasses) to create a Coco ride. Which makes sense: There isn't really a place for Ratatouille in DCA or Disneyland, but Coco fits perfectly in DCA. Considering financial limitations, a re-theming of an existing ride system is the next cheapest option to a straight clone, and is still a lot cheaper than developing a totally original ride/ride system.

Coco is a tough world to re-create without screens. The most dramatic parts (anything showing the stunning views of the Land of the Dead) can't be re-created realistically with practical sets, and also can't be omitted from a Coco ride. But there's lots of smaller locations within the Land of the Dead that Disney could re-create practically. I wouldn't expect this to be an Indy/Dinosaur situation (with the EXACT same layout), since the story/pacing needs are probably different, but I wouldn't be surprised if the end result is a ride that uses the same vehicles and a similar mix of practical sets/screens and 3-D glasses as Ratatouille, with a show building about the same size.

Also I have a hard time imagining Disney putting this anywhere but Paradise Gardens. I agree with others that they aren't gonna abandon the Little Mermaid anytime soon (not with the $100 million I still can't believe they paid for it). No offense to those of you who are fans of Paradise Gardens, but it's a dead corner of the park. It features 4 of the least popular, least creative rides in DCA, plus two bland restaurants. If Disney does things right, they could squeeze a show building, plus a small plaza for Santa Cecilia and a small Mama Coco-themed restaurant into that corner, and make it feel unique from the rest of Paradise Pier. That would require them to remove all four rides and the restaurants, and to fix the messy bay coastline over there (seriously just look at it in Google maps, it's a mess of weird blobs jutting into the bay and useless space). Just extend the main walkway to where Silly Symphony and Golden Zephyr are now and you'd got yourself enough space for the ride, a themed plaza area, and a restaurant with seating.

The value add would be HUGE: One big E-ticket would have roughly the same hourly capacity as the four rides it replaces, except it would be operating at capacity, instead of being sorely under-used (I was last at DCA in January, and Golden Zephyr was running with NOBODY on it). It would draw guest to that corner of the park, instead of encouraging them to all enter Pixar Pier from the bridge. And it would eliminate some of the cheapest-looking rides left over from DCA 1.0. Seems like a win to me.

A second scenario could see a ride like this placed where the current Pixar bandstand is with the show building behind the coaster ... not sure if a tall building would mess up site lines.... the proposed paradise garden scrapping would be a wish come true but, difficult to envision Disney doing considering the rather easy to bulldoze areas like the Hollywood backlog or area again behind the coaster. Overall cool idea on the ride.

 

[IndyAdventurer]

A second scenario could see a ride like this placed where the current Pixar bandstand is with the show building behind the coaster ... not sure if a tall building would mess up site lines.... the proposed paradise garden scrapping would be a wish come true but, difficult to envision Disney doing considering the rather easy to bulldoze areas like the Hollywood backlog or area again behind the coaster. Overall cool idea on the ride.

Agreed that the area behind Pixar Pier is an option too. Though I'm secretly hoping that they'll go big with that space (there's a LOT of it, if they reconfigure the backstage buildings) and turn it into a Finding Nemo themed area "under" Pixar Pier, sort of like Mermaid Lagoon in DisneySea, with a grand indoor space that feels like you're underwater, and access to several rides and attractions, like Crush's coaster and possibly a re-purposing of jumpin jellyfish). But I obviously won't hold my breath for a project of that size!

I think Hollywood backlot is gonna be a tough sell because of current constraints. There isn't enough room for a show building of the size they need without a) moving the monorail; b) expanding the park boundary northward or c) removing Monster's Inc. All of those are possible, but less likely right now (a and b are expensive projects and c doesn't make a ton of sense, since they'd be scrapping a moderately successful dark ride). But again, this COULD go almost anywhere. I just think Paradise Gardens makes the most sense for Disney given the cost/benefits.

 

[Ismael Flores]

removing all of Paradise Garden eatery and sit down area would make no sense. That is the only eatery in the western side of the park that doesn’t require a reservation.
i could see them loosing part of it and maybe expansing the menu for the under used pizza and pasta place but thats about it.
removing silky symphony and zephyr also does jot accomplish much because the entertainment corridor wouldn’t be able to be pushed that far into this space. It would create a very un even flow because it would need to realign to the access gates by the coaster in the south side. The zephyr is on its own circular pad so that small footprint is useless for other uses.

the only visible gain would be the elimination of the orange stinger to be able to push the road closer to the lake.

I still think the relocation of one of the eateries into that area would be the most logical. the oark needs to maintain its food place options. A place with upper deck seating and extended boardwalk area into the oddly shaped lagoon. They would have plenty of room for a good size showbuilding on northern side of paradise park.

I would of course prefer a ride that is not coco themed there. Coco should go in Paradise pier using bandstand area and midway games as queue and show building behind coaster

 

[IndyAdventurer]

removing all of Paradise Garden eatery and sit down area would make no sense. That is the only eatery in the western side of the park that doesn’t require a reservation.
i could see them loosing part of it and maybe expansing the menu for the under used pizza and pasta place but thats about it.
removing silky symphony and zephyr also does jot accomplish much because the entertainment corridor wouldn’t be able to be pushed that far into this space. It would create a very un even flow because it would need to realign to the access gates by the coaster in the south side. The zephyr is on its own circular pad so that small footprint is useless for other uses.

the only visible gain would be the elimination of the orange stinger to be able to push the road closer to the lake.

I still think the relocation of one of the eateries into that area would be the most logical. the oark needs to maintain its food place options. A place with upper deck seating and extended boardwalk area into the oddly shaped lagoon. They would have plenty of room for a good size showbuilding on northern side of paradise park.

I would of course prefer a ride that is not coco themed there. Coco should go in Paradise pier using bandstand area and midway games as queue and show building behind coaster

If you replace Paradise Gardens eatery with a Coco-themed sit-down restaurant, then not much is lost.

I've drawn up a simple map of how much land could be freed up by eliminating the three flat rides on the waterfront, and re-routing the bypass, without needing to realign the gates by the coaster. It helps to create enough space on the east side for both a Ratatouille-sized show building (the white box), a themed plaza area, a full sit-down restaurant and gift shops. It would also smooth out the shore of the lagoon a bit, and generally speaking make that entire corner look less cheap.

I'll explain briefly why I think Coco shouldn't go behind the bandstand. While Pixar Pier was absolutely poorly planned and executed, the idea behind it makes a degree of sense. You have a bunch of Pixar properties that you can't create immersive worlds for because it would be too expensive (The Incredibles), too cheap-looking (Toy Story) or just too hard to execute effectively due to levels of fantasy in the IP (Inside Out). So you create a land where they can all exist, free from the constraints of customized immersive theming, like Fantasyland does for classic Disney IP across the way.

Coco, however, is different. The town of Santa Cecilia would be relatively easy to execute, it wouldn't be too expensive to build and it wouldn't look cheap. It could actually be a charming little corner of the park, and could be designed in a way where the sightlines from the main plaza prevent any views of the pier or the bay, making it feel like you're immersed in the actual town of Santa Cecilia.

DCA has very limited space left for creating immersive, Disney-quality lands or mini-lands (without bulld-dozing otherwise working spaces). All that's left is Paradise Gardens, Hollywood Backlot and the expansion area to the south of Avengers Campus (which is gonna be largely gobbled up by the E-ticket). Pixar Pier has plenty of room for ride expansion behind it, I'd love to see them use Paradise Gardens for something more immersive, for which there are increasingly fewer expansion options.

 

[Ismael Flores]

I see what you are doing and it would be interesting to see,

The issue i have is the development of another mini land. The whole mini land idea is what is destroying the integrity of the parks These mini lands take up larger amount of real estate than just having a themed attraction that can fit an overall theme of the land.
The pier became such a jumbled mess because of that thinking and created these unnecessary districts to justify the design. There really wasn't a reason to create mini themed districts or lands and then bundle them together to create a Pixar themed area.

They could have easily themed the coaster to the incredibles, left midway mania as Toy Story and added the spinner for Inside out without the need for the overly thought district concept. The architecture could have stayed victorian or even have eclectic style of architecture with subtle Pixar themed ornamentation. This could have still been called "Pixar Pier but given them the liberty of adding newer details for future movies. As it is now they are locked with either Incredibles, Toy Story, Inside out and the jumbled mess where the bandstand is.

I do not feel it is necessary to destroy an already popular eating area that is necessary for that part of the park but also because it is used their ever expanding food and wine festival and seasonal offering. I think a stand alone attraction nicely themed to match the surrounding area would work well. If they were to eliminate only goofy sky scool and everything east of that up to the seaside shop, The gazebo and everything east of it that is placed next to goofy sky scool, The restrooms and the Paradise Garden Grill that would give them 1 acre of land that can be modified to fit a nice dark ride. Would be even better if they designed something that can be two floors to even add to the experience. The parade route pushed down would widen that area as well. The park would still have its dining area and gain a better ride than Goofy.

TDA and WDI really need to get out of the idea that eveyrthing needs to be mini lands. They started that idea and habit when they saw that the popularity of Potter and the influence of John Lassitor and can not seem to pull themselves out of that thinking. All they are doing is creating areas with themes that is locking them into IP's that take up large real estates and limits further development.

I had posted something like this before

 

[IndyAdventurer]

I see what you are doing and it would be interesting to see,

The issue i have is the development of another mini land. The whole mini land idea is what is destroying the integrity of the parks where these mini lands take of larger amount of real estate than just having a themed attraction that can fit an overall theme of the land.
The pier became such a jumbled mess because of that thinking and created these unnecessary districts to justify the design. There really wasn't a reason to create mini themed districts or lands and then bundle them together to create a Pixar themed area.

They could have easily themed the coaster to the incredibles, left midway mania as Toy Story and added the spinner for Inside out without the need for the overly thought district concept. The architecture could have stayed victorian or even have eclectic style of architecture with subtle Pixar themed ornamentation. This could have still been called "Pixar Pier but given them the liberty of adding newer details for future movies. As it is now they are locked with either Incredibles, Toy Story, Inside out and the jumbled mess where the bandstand is.

I do not feel it is necessary to destroy an already popular eating area that is necessary for that part of the park but also because it is used their ever expanding food and wine festival and seasonal offering. I think a stand alone attraction nicely themed to match the surrounding area would work well. If they were to eliminate only goofy sky scool and everything east of that up to the seaside shop, The gazebo and everything east of it that is placed next to goofy sky scool, The restrooms and the Paradise Garden Grill that would give them 1 acre of land that can be modified to fit a nice dark ride. Would be even better if they designed something that can be two floors to even add to the experience. The parade route pushed down would widen that area as well. The park would still have its dining area and gain a better ride than Goofy.

TDA and WDI really need to get out of the idea that eveyrthing needs to be mini lands. They started that idea and habit when they saw that the popularity of Potter and the influence of John Lassitor and can not seem to pull themselves out of that thinking. All they are doing is creating areas with themes that is locking them into IP's that take up large real estates and limits further development.

I had posted something like this before

View attachment 450221

I think it's important to differentiate between Mini-lands and "neighborhoods".

The "neighborhoods" idea of Pixar Pier was absolutely a disaster. There's no way to re-theme 50 feet of boardwalk and then have the next 50 feet be another theme without it being a mess. "Neighborhoods" fail because they lack immersion and consistency. If you can see a bunch of other themes from your "neighborhood" then it won't work. It will feel cheap and half-baked.

But that's pretty different from a self-contained mini-land. A mini-land that manages to shut out the outside world and immerse people in its world can be every bit as effective as a full-sized land. .

I was lucky enough to visit the Disneyland Paris Resort two years ago and got to see the Ratatouille mini-land, which is about as big as this Coco land would be. It's essentially a big courtyard, a restaurant and an E-ticket ride, but it WORKS. It's immersive and beautiful and transports you to something new and beautiful that exists nowhere else in the park. In the case of Coco, the plaza in the center of Santa Cecilia would be the perfect, self-contained centerpiece of a mini-land, with buildings and trees blocking out the outside world (mostly just the Incredicoaster). That kind of mini-land can absolutely work and if Disney is willing to put the cash in, they can fit something very special into a dying corner of DCA.

I saw your map before, and it's definitely a solid option if Disney's goal is to make a marginal improvement while disrupting the least amount of currently existing infrastructure. They wouldn't be able to fit a Ratatouille-style dark ride in there, but something on the scale of Little Mermaid would fit and would be cheaper. It may indeed be the way that budget-conscious Disney decides to go. I for one hope they'll think a little bigger

 

[Ismael Flores]

I don't disagree that the mini lands like the one in Paris are beautiful and nicely detailed but they are also secluded and piece meal. In topic to the Paris location you mentioned. they have this ratatouille mini land sandwiched between a toy story miniland which is also sandwiched between a themed Crush area and then a jumble mess of Cars and Alladdin.
The creation of those two minilands which are secluded from the rest of the attractions in the area made the crush coaster, cars spinner and Alladdin spinner seem even more out of place and there is no flow between each one.

Hong Kong is going thru the same error and also created a park that consists minilands with one attraction and maybe a food area and then nothing else. Guest transition from one mini themed land to another constantly having to break immersion within minutes when you walk from Adventureland to Grizzley Gulch then Mystic point and then the abrupt toy storyland. There is a lack of flow and connection between them.

In Florida DHS now has some of the most awkward transitions because of these minilands. Going from a highly surreal SWGE and then passing backstage gates and then getting a slap in the face with the brightly colored Toy story theme.

Gone are the unified themes that the original WDI created and places like Fantasyland and New Orlenas Square are perfect examples of them. They both have a unified theme that allows them to fit several attractions of very distinct themes but still fit the land they are built in-This allowed them to add and replace attractions as needed like they did with the new Fantasyland in the 80's.

Having focused ideas on minilands only landlocks them with the singular IP. what are you going to replace a frozen attraction with in an Arrendale themed land? what are you going to replace A Coco attraction with in a Santa Cecilia themed land?
The concepts are great and maybe are the perfect ideas for places like Florida that have acres and acres of land but in Anaheim these small minilands will use valuable space that in order to change in the future will require a complete demolition.

I do not think that i will see a stand alone attraction as going the cheap route, plenty stand alone attractions have been done before and worked nicely.

 

[Disney Analyst]

I'd much rather have a larger show building/ride then a fully theme mini-land. Give me a full out Coco Boat Ride-Coaster hybrid and make it huge and beautiful.

 

[IndyAdventurer]

I don't disagree that the mini lands like the one in Paris are beautiful and nicely detailed but they are also secluded and piece meal. staying in topic to the Paris location you mentioned they have this ratatouille mini land sandwiched between a toy story miniland which is also sandwiched between a themed Crush area and then a jumble mess of Cars and Alladdin.
The creation of those two minilands which are secluded from the rest of the attractions in the area made the crush coaster, cars spinner and Alladdin spinner seem even more out of place and there is no flow between each one.

Hong Kong is going thru the same error and also created a park that consists minilands with one attraction and maybe a food area and then nothing else. Guest transition from one mini themed land to another constantly having to break immersion within minutes when you walk from Adventureland to Grizzley Gulch then Mystic point and then the abrupt toy storyland. There is a lack of flow and connection between them.

In Florida DHS now has some of the most awkward transitions because of these minilands. Going from a highly surreal SWGE and then passing backstage gates and then getting a slap in the face with the brightly colored Toy story theme.

Gone are the unified themes that the original WDI created and places like Fantasyland and New Orlenas Square are perfect examples of them. They both have a unified theme that allows them to fit several attractions of very distinct themes but still fit the land they are built in-This allowed them to add and replace attractions as needed like they did with the new Fantasyland in the 80's.

Having focused ideas on minilands only landlocks them with the singular IP. what are you going to replace a frozen attraction with in an Arrendale themed land? A Coco attraction within in a Santa Cecilia themed land?
The concepts are great and maybe are the perfect ideas for places like Florida that has acres and acres of land but in Anaheim these small minilands will use valuable space that in order to change in the future will require a complete demolition.

I do not think that i will see a stand alone attraction as going the cheap route, plenty stand alone attractions have been done before and worked nicely.

It kinda sounds like your beef is with poor transitions between lands, not mini-lands. Your example of SW:GE and Toy Story Land at DHS is an argument for having more care with the transitions, not mini-lands (neither of those lands could be described as "mini"). Also, jarring transitions have always been around, we just give them more slack because we're used to them. There's nothing organic about an American main street running into a European castle with a future world to the right and a jungle to the left. But we forgive it because a) we're used to it and b) it was designed pretty well.

You're correct that unified themes of WDI yore are largely gone. Whether that's good or bad is a matter of taste and execution. Cars Land is a single-IP land that's done well and folks seem to like it. Avengers Campus is a unified theme land with unlimited ride potential and we already know it's going to be dull and un-loved. The Paris example you gave of the messy Crush's Coaster/Aladdin/Cars area is actually an example of a "unified land" (one themed around a "toon studio"). Unified lands have the same opportunity to be big thematic messes as IP-specific lands or mini-lands, what matters is all in the details.

Why do I think Coco would work? Because Mexico and southern California are neighbors and culturally linked. A Mexican town square in the corner of Paradise Bay could actually look thematically consistent, since Southern California is loaded with Mexican-style architecture (and used to actually be a part of Mexico). I wouldn't advocate for a Toy Story mini-land or a Ratatouille mini-land in that corner, specifically because they WOULD look crazy out of place. But Mexican/Southern California architecture can co-exist.

I'm also not sure why you're so focused on replacing attractions. If you build a ride right the first time, it should be able to survive with updating, and not need full-on replacement, at least not for a very, very long time. A good Frozen ride will likely be a hit with guests long into the future, just like classic rides like Peter Pan are still hits today, despite the film being old. If and when Frozen gets stale, say 40 years in the future, Disney will either re-theme or demolish and re-build those lands. Hell, there hasn't been a good Indiana Jones film in over 30 years (I'm choosing to ignore the ill-advised Crystal Skull entry) and yet the ride is as popular and fun as any other E-ticket.

All that being said, I don't think DCA should replace areas that ARE working for mini-lands. But the Paradise Gardens/Park corner of DCA isn't working by any reasonable metric and Disney knows that. Hopefully they'll invest the necessary money to make it an anchor and not just the long way to get to Pixar Pier.