News Coco Boat Ride Coming to Disney California Adventure

[Disney Irish]

I do think that people still care and I could see another project startdust-type resort plussing/triage being applied leading up to Disneyland Forward just as we had prior to Galaxy's Edge. Or what we saw in Toontown with the opening of MMRR.

Dinoland was a point of criticism that was finally addressed. I see DLR addressing 3 aspects within the next 15 years:

Backlot Area (Avatar Announced)
Tomorrowland
Pixar Pier/West Corner.

I know Marvel and Star Wars were both planned for Tomorrowland at different, which is why I believe that land has sat stagnant for so long. Hopefully they can now lock into what TL will be moving forward vs waiting to see if we're going to use that for something else soon.

How long did Dinoland sit until it was addressed? 28 years? Tomorrowland? 28 years and counting, could very well be 35 years before we actually see a redo for that land.

This idea that Pixar Pier is going to be redone quicker, especially after it was just redone 8 years ago, is where I have the issue and say its less likely to happen.

Its not impossible, but its less likely they would be willing to redo it yet again anytime in the next 10-15 years. 25 years out is probably the more likely scenario.

There are much more pressing areas that need to be addressed before they ever touch the Pier.

 

[DrStarlander]

I do think that people still care and I could see another project startdust-type resort plussing/triage being applied leading up to Disneyland Forward just as we had prior to Galaxy's Edge. Or what we saw in Toontown with the opening of MMRR.

Dinoland was a point of criticism that was finally addressed. I see DLR addressing 3 aspects within the next 15 years:

Backlot Area (Avatar Announced)
Tomorrowland
Pixar Pier/West Corner.

I know Marvel and Star Wars were both planned for Tomorrowland at different, which is why I believe that land has sat stagnant for so long. Hopefully they can now lock into what TL will be moving forward vs waiting to see if we're going to use that for something else soon.

I think a comparison is New Fantasyland in 1983. 28 years after Disneyland opened, they refreshed Fantasyland at a 2026-dollars cost of $150 million. As far as I know ride capacity didn't change, or at least much. I haven't watched any documentaries about the reasons for the project (are there?). But from the outside, it seems that theming and aesthetics, and some layout changes for traffic flow perhaps drove the project? Obviously it was a masterful improvement though, and has stood the test of time since (43 years since).

There are grumblings about PP now in the fan community. And I think it's easy to dismiss that. But fans aren't grumbling about Main Street, Fantasyland, Adventureland, New Orleans Square, Cars Land, Grizzly Peak. Not like the grumbling about Tomorrowland, Hollywood Backlot, and Pixar Pier. That is, fans don't just grumble at everything in equal degrees. When fans grumble it's smoke, and where there's smoke there's fire. For a long while that fire may just be a small ember, hardly worth noticing. But over the years it can slowly grow, and catch on.

A few things will happen over the next 20 years I think that will lead to a change:

1. The land's hardware will get 20 years older. Rides age and while they can be kept alive quite long, maintenance costs increase, parts become scarce, and overhauls become necessary, and replacements get discussed. That goes for everything: wood, roofs, walkways, etc. Much of that infrastructure will be nearing 50 years old in 20 years.

2. Pixar, as a concept, is something we can hold in our head now. With just over 30 years of feature film history, there are fewer than 10 true hit franchises people associate with Pixar. The unsuccessful movies like Good Dino and Brave and Onward...can be ignored. The successes are few enough to hold as a curated collection that feels like it embodies a style and point of view. Twenty years and another mix of successes and failures to ignore and classic franchises milked for their third, fourth, or fifth movies, and I'm not sure Pixar will feel the same way. At some point when we can't hold it in our head, or even want to try, the theme will feel like what it is: mostly about the company's marcom agenda rather than what guests want, experientially.

3. DCA will be built out, potentially including Simba. So much of DCA's acreage will have been recently built that there will be nowhere to build new things, and showcase new IPs or ride systems, unless something existing is lost. They won't be tearing down Avatar/Zootopia, Avengers, Cars Land, or anything in Simba. Their eyes will wander across the park as they wonder "what needs to go?" to make room for whatever they think the park needs, and Pixar Pier will be the spot to reclaim.

But I think on a timeline side, @Disney Irish is right to suggest 25 years.

 

[Professortango1]

How long did Dinoland sit until it was addressed? 28 years? Tomorrowland? 28 years and counting, could very well be 35 years before we actually see a redo for that land.

This idea that Pixar Pier is going to be redone quicker, especially after it was just redone 8 years ago, is where I have the issue and say its less likely to happen.

Its not impossible, but its less likely they would be willing to redo it yet again anytime in the next 10-15 years. 25 years out is probably the more likely scenario.

There are much more pressing areas that need to be addressed before they ever touch the Pier.

Dinoland's closure started in 2020 with the closure of Primeval Whirl. It was on borrowed time ever since.

Tomorrowland 98 was itself 28 years ago and the area continued to see updates and improvements through 2007 with the addition of Nemo. HISTA closure date in 2010 is what I'd mark as the date TL 98 officially died; so 16 years ago rather than 28. And I do feel like Disney will be doing something to TL in these next 10-15 years.

It seems that Disney has a time span of about 20 years of patchwork before finally recommitting to a less than great area, which is why I can see a future where they get around to taking another swing at the area in about 10-15 years.

 

[Disney Irish]

Dinoland's closure started in 2020 with the closure of Primeval Whirl. It was on borrowed time ever since.

Tomorrowland 98 was itself 28 years ago and the area continued to see updates and improvements through 2007 with the addition of Nemo. HISTA closure date in 2010 is what I'd mark as the date TL 98 officially died; so 16 years ago rather than 28. And I do feel like Disney will be doing something to TL in these next 10-15 years.

It seems that Disney has a time span of about 20 years of patchwork before finally recommitting to a less than great area, which is why I can see a future where they get around to taking another swing at the area in about 10-15 years.

Ok, Dinoland might have been on borrowed time, but it still remained open for almost 6 years after PW closed, so point still remains as it was 28 years before it was redone.

And yes TL has had some updates since 1998 (very few), but it wasn't redone, so the point still remains, it'll probably end up being over 30 years before its actually redone.

And again this all assumes that Disney sees Pixar Pier as a "less than great area", and not the final version they wanted. So again I don't see Pixar Pier getting touched for a major overhaul again for about 25 years, sure maybe some updates here and there, but not a full major redo.

After these 4 upcoming projects at DCA DLForward is likely where most major investment for the Resort goes for the next 25-30 years, the only exception will be TL and maybe the Motorboat area in DL. But I don't see them putting much investment into redoing any of the existing DCA lands after they redo the Backlot for Avatar (or whatever it'll be) until after that expansion for DLForward is complete.

 

[coffeefan]

I think a comparison is New Fantasyland in 1983. 28 years after Disneyland opened, they refreshed Fantasyland at a 2026-dollars cost of $150 million. As far as I know ride capacity didn't change, or at least much. I haven't watched any documentaries about the reasons for the project (are there?). But from the outside, it seems that theming and aesthetics, and some layout changes for traffic flow perhaps drove the project? Obviously it was a masterful improvement though, and has stood the test of time since (43 years since).

There are grumblings about PP now in the fan community. And I think it's easy to dismiss that. But fans aren't grumbling about Main Street, Fantasyland, Adventureland, New Orleans Square, Cars Land, Grizzly Peak. Not like the grumbling about Tomorrowland, Hollywood Backlot, and Pixar Pier. That is, fans don't just grumble at everything in equal degrees. When fans grumble it's smoke, and where there's smoke there's fire. For a long while that fire may just be a small ember, hardly worth noticing. But over the years it can slowly grow, and catch on.

A few things will happen over the next 20 years I think that will lead to a change:

1. The land's hardware will get 20 years older. Rides age and while they can be kept alive quite long, maintenance costs increase, parts become scarce, and overhauls become necessary, and replacements get discussed. That goes for everything: wood, roofs, walkways, etc. Much of that infrastructure will be nearing 50 years old in 20 years.

2. Pixar, as a concept, is something we can hold in our head now. With just over 30 years of feature film history, there are fewer than 10 true hit franchises people associate with Pixar. The unsuccessful movies like Good Dino and Brave and Onward...can be ignored. The successes are few enough to hold as a curated collection that feels like it embodies a style and point of view. Twenty years and another mix of successes and failures to ignore and classic franchises milked for their third, fourth, or fifth movies, and I'm not sure Pixar will feel the same way. At some point when we can't hold it in our head, or even want to try, the theme will feel like what it is: mostly about the company's marcom agenda rather than what guests want, experientially.

3. DCA will be built out, potentially including Simba. So much of DCA's acreage will have been recently built that there will be nowhere to build new things, and showcase new IPs or ride systems, unless something existing is lost. They won't be tearing down Avatar/Zootopia, Avengers, Cars Land, or anything in Simba. Their eyes will wander across the park as they wonder "what needs to go?" to make room for whatever they think the park needs, and Pixar Pier will be the spot to reclaim.

Just spitballing here, but I wonder if how Hollywood Drift is perceived by locals will factor into their timeline. I don't mean just as a thrill coaster, but as bragging rights for having the top modern coaster on the West Coast. On the East Coast, Cosmic Rewind holds its own as Disney's modern flagship. But unless Disney builds another coaster, I don't think Incredicoaster can hold on to that for another 25 years, especially given its lack of high-level Disney theming to differentiate it.

 

[coffeefan]

When people talk about replacing the pier, are they talking about the Pixar Pier area or the Paradise Gardens area that used to be a part of Paradise Pier? If its the latter, I can see them replacing that section eventually (Goofy, Jellyfish and Zephyr), but the actual Pixar Pier area is unlikely because of Coco, right? Surely, the fact that they are actually expanding Pixar Pier with the addition of Coco, even though we don't know how large Coco is yet, is something to be considered. If they weren't happy with Pixar Pier, they wouldn't be making it a larger land at the park?

It’s common for locals to view both sections as a single land out of habit, and considering how similar they are, it’s not surprising. There is also the historical context of the area once being a unified land.

As for Coco, so far, based on construction it appears to be doing its own thing rather than integrating into the current pier design. So based on what we've seen so far, I wouldn't take that as doubling down on the pier.

 

[Disney Irish]

Just spitballing here, but I wonder if how Hollywood Drift is perceived by locals will factor into their timeline. I don't mean just as a thrill coaster, but as bragging rights for having the top modern coaster on the West Coast. On the East Coast, Cosmic Rewind holds its own as Disney's modern flagship. But unless Disney builds another coaster, I don't think Incredicoaster can hold on to that for another 25 years, especially given its lack of high-level Disney theming to differentiate it.

DLR is due for another coaster, I doubt it will replace Incredicoaster itself, but rather it'll go into a DLForward plot.

I also don't think Disney is worried about Hollywood Drift having bragging rights, as there are other coasters in California that already have bragging rights for being "fastest" or "most thrilling" like Superman and X2, both in SFMM. Incredicoaster will still have the title as longest roller coaster on the West Coast, so I doubt they care about whatever bragging rights Hollywood Drift has.

 

[coffeefan]

DLR is due for another coaster, I doubt it will replace Incredicoaster itself, but rather it'll go into a DLForward plot.

I also don't think Disney is worried about Hollywood Drift having bragging rights, as there are other coasters in California that already have bragging rights for being "fastest" or "most thrilling" like Superman and X2, both in SFMM. Incredicoaster will still have the title as longest roller coaster on the West Coast, so I doubt they care about whatever bragging rights Hollywood Drift has.

That wasn't the point at all, nor did I say it was the reason; it was just another aspect to consider. I like to look at situations from all angles and not have tunnel vision as you do. That's such a boring way to approach discussions.

 

[Disney Irish]

That wasn't the point at all, nor did I say it was the reason; it was just another aspect to consider. I like to look at situations from all angles and not have tunnel vision as you do. That's such a boring way to approach discussions.

Funny, because I thought the whole recent discussions which your post was part of was all based on the fact that I suggested we start looking at things from an entire Resort level decisions not just the individual Park level decisions. So I don't believe I look at things with tunnel vision even if my specific response might seem that way.

 

[MistaDee]

I think a comparison is New Fantasyland in 1983. 28 years after Disneyland opened, they refreshed Fantasyland at a 2026-dollars cost of $150 million. As far as I know ride capacity didn't change, or at least much. I haven't watched any documentaries about the reasons for the project (are there?). But from the outside, it seems that theming and aesthetics, and some layout changes for traffic flow perhaps drove the project? Obviously it was a masterful improvement though, and has stood the test of time since (43 years since).

There are grumblings about PP now in the fan community. And I think it's easy to dismiss that. But fans aren't grumbling about Main Street, Fantasyland, Adventureland, New Orleans Square, Cars Land, Grizzly Peak. Not like the grumbling about Tomorrowland, Hollywood Backlot, and Pixar Pier. That is, fans don't just grumble at everything in equal degrees. When fans grumble it's smoke, and where there's smoke there's fire. For a long while that fire may just be a small ember, hardly worth noticing. But over the years it can slowly grow, and catch on.

A few things will happen over the next 20 years I think that will lead to a change:

1. The land's hardware will get 20 years older. Rides age and while they can be kept alive quite long, maintenance costs increase, parts become scarce, and overhauls become necessary, and replacements get discussed. That goes for everything: wood, roofs, walkways, etc. Much of that infrastructure will be nearing 50 years old in 20 years.

I think a redevelopment of PP into something like the New Fantasyland is the most likely outcome for the land over the next 25 years: significant investment and upgrades to the aesthetics, probably some new rides, but not a fundamental bulldozing of the land down to the studs and starting entirely over, which is what some have been hoping for.

I also agree with those who think a return to the Victorian era seaside aesthetic would be best, a fantastical Toontown-esque world where various Pixar IP make their home - not because that's the correct era for their respective stories, but just because it's an interesting, transportative jumping off point for each attraction. This also has the bonus of remaining tangentially related to the seemingly dead "California" theme since the Victorian era played such a large role in California's transformation from a rough and tumble Gold Rush frontier into the "Golden Gate of the Pacific" as the country began to look to the east with the conquest of Hawaii, the Phillippines, the expansion of trade with Japan etc.

2. Pixar, as a concept, is something we can hold in our head now. With just over 30 years of feature film history, there are fewer than 10 true hit franchises people associate with Pixar. The unsuccessful movies like Good Dino and Brave and Onward...can be ignored. The successes are few enough to hold as a curated collection that feels like it embodies a style and point of view. Twenty years and another mix of successes and failures to ignore and classic franchises milked for their third, fourth, or fifth movies, and I'm not sure Pixar will feel the same way. At some point when we can't hold it in our head, or even want to try, the theme will feel like what it is: mostly about the company's marcom agenda rather than what guests want, experientially.

This is interesting speculation, and you may be correct that in the future the meaningful identity of Pixar as a differentiated studio will be far less strong than it is today, I think with the adoption of 3D animation and success that mainline Disney Animation has had with Frozen, Zootopia, Moana, etc. that this line has already been blurred to a greater degree than when Pixar Pier was announced.

All that said, I'm not sure if it will necessarily have major bearing on the viability of Pixar Pier, so long as the IP's that they do choose to showcase remain those true hit franchises that do occupy such a large place in the hearts and minds of the generations that grew up with them. In the same way that Beauty and the Beast, Lion King and even Little Mermaid here at DCA have been viewed as viable decades on from their heyday, I would project that Toy Story, the Incredibles and even Inside Out and Coco will remain viable two decades on from here.

At that point, giving the land an experientially compelling theme and aesthetic will be enough to tie together Pixar's greatest hits, and for modern Disney I would think that would be sufficient.

3. DCA will be built out, potentially including Simba. So much of DCA's acreage will have been recently built that there will be nowhere to build new things, and showcase new IPs or ride systems, unless something existing is lost. They won't be tearing down Avatar/Zootopia, Avengers, Cars Land, or anything in Simba. Their eyes will wander across the park as they wonder "what needs to go?" to make room for whatever they think the park needs, and Pixar Pier will be the spot to reclaim.

But I think on a timeline side, @Disney Irish is right to suggest 25 years.

Pending Paradise Gardens potential inclusion in the Coco project, I think that corner including Sky School + flat rides will be the #1 plot for whatever comes next, potentially even before the Simba lot depending on their appetite. Redwood Creek Challenge trail could be another area to utilize for something more ambitious as well.

Setting those areas aside, and after the Simba lot is built out, I agree that Pixar Pier would move to the top of the list. Now as for if they feel they can get away with a New Fantasyland style upgrade package + a few new things here and there, or if they do feel the need to bulldoze the whole thing and begin anew will depend on how successfully all these preceding projects are at generating demand relative to big brother DL across the esplanade. At this point I'm projecting way off into the future, but my suspicion would be that an upgraded PP would still be viewed as "good enough" and eyes would look to the Toy Story lot before wanting to spend the money to tear PP down to the studs and begin again.

 

[parksandtravel]

We have had 3 versions of the pier so far. I think they know the area isn't good, but cheap fixes have been the 2 updates. Hopefully with Coco pulling folks that way, they can fully fund a refresh/redesign that makes that area feel like a Disney park and not a cleaner version of the Pomona Fair.

The fair carney rides really cheapen California Adventure and the Disney brand. #BulldozeIt

 

[Disney Analyst]

 

[DrStarlander]

This is interesting speculation, and you may be correct that in the future the meaningful identity of Pixar as a differentiated studio will be far less strong than it is today, I think with the adoption of 3D animation and success that mainline Disney Animation has had with Frozen, Zootopia, Moana, etc. that this line has already been blurred to a greater degree than when Pixar Pier was announced.

All that said, I'm not sure if it will necessarily have major bearing on the viability of Pixar Pier, so long as the IP's that they do choose to showcase remain those true hit franchises that do occupy such a large place in the hearts and minds of the generations that grew up with them. In the same way that Beauty and the Beast, Lion King and even Little Mermaid here at DCA have been viewed as viable decades on from their heyday, I would project that Toy Story, the Incredibles and even Inside Out and Coco will remain viable two decades on from here.

At that point, giving the land an experientially compelling theme and aesthetic will be enough to tie together Pixar's greatest hits, and for modern Disney I would think that would be sufficient.

There are a few aspects that would determine whether a "Pixar" themed land could work well (and I don't mean by "Modern Disney" standards, I mean by "modern theme park" standards, which is higher). For one, I agree, applying an overall umbrella aesthetic like Victorian pier amusement park (just as Fantasyland imposes medieval village) would help.

The mishmash of pier amusement park, Victorian, mid-century modern, and scale-play (Poultry Palace)...is theme park malpractice.

Currently, so much of what's there is so half-baked. Take Inside Out for example. This ride looks so cheap, out of place and temporary, I actually expect it to have tires under it so they can drag it away to the next county fair. Compare that to how integrated Dumbo is with Casey Jr. as a sort of miniland. Same for teacups with Mad Hatter and Alice in Wonderland. If this is "showcasing" Pixar IPs, they can be super hot or popular and I don't think it saves the land from criticism.

or for this to represent The Incredibles? Are we at Knott's? Six Flags? 25 years later and this is what Disney wants us to see?

The overal impresison is they don't care about these IPs. It's not worth their investment. And that sends the signal it's not worth our attention.

So, yes, they need to pick top IPs (and those may change...there used to be A Bug's Land...IPs come and go). And they need to treat them with whatever reverence they want us to have for them. And to the extent the IPs will be all over the map milieu-wise (and they will, such is Pixar), an overlay of some aesthetic/treatment would go a long way.

 

[coffeefan]

or for this to represent The Incredibles? Are we at Knott's? Six Flags? 25 years later and this is what Disney wants us to see?
View attachment 916363

Based on the concept art, the new Incredibles attraction at TDL looks like a hybrid of a coaster and Rocket Rods. Something like this would fit perfectly in a fully themed Pixar land, which with the Incredibles and Up, it basically is already. You could easily incorporate Coco and Midway Mania to form a truly cohesive, high-quality land.

 

[Disney Vault]

I just thought of another possible outcome for the maintenance building by coco. It could stay and become the maintenance/ boat storage for just coco. It would obviously need to be retrofitted but each attraction usually needs a space like this anyway

 

[mickEblu]

I just thought of another possible outcome for the maintenance building by coco. It could stay and become the maintenance/ boat storage for just coco. It would obviously need to be retrofitted but each attraction usually needs a space like this anyway

Just when we were feeling confident again.

 

[coffeefan]

I just thought of another possible outcome for the maintenance building by coco. It could stay and become the maintenance/ boat storage for just coco. It would obviously need to be retrofitted but each attraction usually needs a space like this anyway

So if that were to become part of the show building, what size does that put Coco at?

 

[MistaDee]

There are a few aspects that would determine whether a "Pixar" themed land could work well (and I don't mean by "Modern Disney" standards, I mean by "modern theme park" standards, which is higher). For one, I agree, applying an overall umbrella aesthetic like Victorian pier amusement park (just as Fantasyland imposes medieval village) would help.

The mishmash of pier amusement park, Victorian, mid-century modern, and scale-play (Poultry Palace)...is theme park malpractice.

Currently, so much of what's there is so half-baked. Take Inside Out for example. This ride looks so cheap, out of place and temporary, I actually expect it to have tires under it so they can drag it away to the next county fair. Compare that to how integrated Dumbo is with Casey Jr. as a sort of miniland. Same for teacups with Mad Hatter and Alice in Wonderland. If this is "showcasing" Pixar IPs, they can be super hot or popular and I don't think it saves the land from criticism.
View attachment 916359
or for this to represent The Incredibles? Are we at Knott's? Six Flags? 25 years later and this is what Disney wants us to see?
View attachment 916363
The overal impresison is they don't care about these IPs. It's not worth their investment. And that sends the signal it's not worth our attention.

So, yes, they need to pick top IPs (and those may change...there used to be A Bug's Land...IPs come and go). And they need to treat them with whatever reverence they want us to have for them. And to the extent the IPs will be all over the map milieu-wise (and they will, such is Pixar), an overlay of some aesthetic/treatment would go a long way.

I'm not trying to defend Pixar Pier - there are thousands of pages on the forum detailing its many flaws, just trying to project what I think is most likely to happen, which is to continue to lean into the lazy "meta-musement pier" that gives them an excuse to justify the lack of theming. Hopefully, that can at least include an eventual Victorian pier wrapper to provide something more compelling than the current chaos.

 

[britain]

Replace “I Was Going Faster” with “I Did Put A Victorian Wrapper On It.”

 

[Pizza Moon]

While it’s not as large scaled as a lot of us hoped, I feel like this will be a perfect addition for Pixar Pier and the park as a whole.

Would be nice if they slotted similar types of rides into World Showcase and Hollywood Studios.