How would YOU fix DCA?

[Californian Elitist]

If you want to play that game, I feel then you might as well say, well you haven’t been to Tokyo DisneySea, or on Shanghai’s Pirates, so you don’t actually get good theme parks and attractions.

The argument that being there from 2001-2012 matters even though the park was awful back then is hilarious. It’s like, I’ve been to Wall Disney Studios, now that is a bad park, but I wouldn’t hold it on someone’s head if they’ve only been now that Avenger’s Campus is open, for instance.

And what, you’ve only been to WDW a couple times right? Versus people that’ve been like 40?

You have no authority to speak on WDW’s vs. Disneyland’s parks. /sarcasm.

It’s not a game.

You’re right, I don’t have authority because I HAVEN’T BEEN. I’ve been to MK and can speak on it. Haven’t been to the others, therefore, I can’t debate with someone who has.

Now we’re starting to get it.

 

[Professortango1]

The only significant difference from 2015 to 2017 was Tower of Terror, the same clone which he’s gone on at Walt Disney Studios. Maybe the park was better being “thematically” consistent, but it was inferior for just spending a day at and hanging out. In a vacuum, I’d take Mission: Breakout any day over DCA’s inferior Tot. Same for Pixar Pier’s theming to Paradise Pier 2.0, or WEB Slingers to It’s Tough to be a Bug.

You completely dissed my Disneyland Guide I put hours into legitimately trying to help people a few a weeks ago, and you are now calling people clowns? Come on, just be more respectful, being bitter all of the time is no way to enjoy oneself on a forum designed to celebrate one another’s viewpoints… on a topic that’s purely for fun. This is “gatekeeping.”

The change to TOT was huge. They had just re-done Buena Vista Street and the Tower was integrated into the storytelling and new direction for DCA. Then they closed one of their top attractions to make it no longer fit the park, added a bunch of ugly pipes to it, and did a -poor job retheming the interior, and created a one-note experience. DCA's TOT was a fantastic 2.0 of the Tower model and I really enjoyed the pacing and additional effects it had.

As for Pixar Pier, Paradise Pier 2017 wasn't phenomenal, but it had some great subtle theming with the hotdog news stand and such. The new Pixar Pier reminds me of the LA County Fair with cut-outs of IP characters and big gaudy food booths that seem designed to assault the eyes rather than tell a story. I will say that the Bandshell is nice looking.

 

[Californian Elitist]

Even a bug’s land bathrooms were better themed than AC.

 

[Californian Elitist]

What experience is necessary to understand this untouchable subject that is plebeians cannot comprehend?

Tower of Terror and Soarin’ Over California. Two attractions which have been ridden elsewhere.

2 years really makes that much of a difference. Really? The audacity.

Y’all need to get off a high horse. I don’t go around mocking people for not having visited Tokyo for instance, I say “you gotta go it’s wonderful and worth doing!” Not, “I’m better than you for having gone, heheheheh.”
If we’re talking OG EPCOT there’s absolutely an argument because it was so different.

But DCA? When the difference has already been ridden? You’re creating an ad hominem by emphasizing the 2-year exclusivity club of importance, I’m sorry.

They didn’t even know that prizes have been sold at the Pier since 2001.

It’s not just 2015. They’ve tried to debate about various eras and years of DCA in various threads.

There is no high horse. You were either there or you weren’t.

Anyways…

 

[Californian Elitist]

Sure, but the posters you’re responding to (myself included) have visited A Bug’s Land…

Point is, no reason to make this forum toxic. Let’s bring each other up, not down.

Okay, then we can debate that.

Again, please take your own advice. I’m not here to bring people up. This isn’t a therapy group.

 

[Californian Elitist]

Anyways, getting back to the actual topic at hand, the fact that Disney has let Hollywood Land be for so long is honestly perplexing and not perplexing at the same time. If the park can’t be demolished and reboot, the first thing that absolutely must go is Hollywood Land. It’s a poor use of space with horrible aesthetics and mediocre attractions. Disney keeps neglecting it and needlessly changing lands over and over again. Maybe they’ll actually do something for the 12th round of changes.

 

[J4546]

They were/are gonna redevelop it when they build the eastern gateway expansion. It was planned for like 2018 but got mothballed due to pushback from businesses on Harbour blvd. But I think they might still do it and then Hollywood land would be demoed and expanded by quite a lot

 

[Consumer]

...For the last time, I agree that the park’s thematic consistency peaked in 2015, that’s not really up for debate...

So case closed?

 

[truecoat]

If the Bug's Land had been anchored with a real ride instead of a 3-D theater, things might be different. The 3-D theater attractions have very little repeatability for most people.

 

[Californian Elitist]

If the Bug's Land had been anchored with a real ride instead of a 3-D theater, things might be different. The 3-D theater attractions have very little repeatability for most people.

a bug’s land did have rides. I do agree that It’s Tough to be a Bug wasn’t personally repeatable.

 

[Californian Elitist]

Agreed, the end of Hollywoodland reminds me of Animation Courtyard at Hollywood Studios.

They both have no place in a world-class theme park.

Any other things about the park you think should be replaced or just needs improvement?

 

[SplashJacket]

you are now calling people clowns?

To be fair, I started with the clowns

 

[truecoat]

a bug’s land did have rides. I do agree that It’s Tough to be a Bug wasn’t personally repeatable.

Yeah, but they all were kid/infant rides. If the land had a great dark ride or something else that had a decent line of people, it could have survived. ITTBAB would run movie previews to try and get people in there.

 

[Californian Elitist]

I would argue there are no limits to a California theme. The state has plenty going for it to pull off an entire theme park dedicated to it.

The original DCA at least had that part down, for the most part. It’s the execution that suffered.

 

[Professortango1]

I will say that I enjoyed visiting the park in 2017. Now, the only reason I would visit would be RSR, and it simply isn't great enough to justify me spending another $60-$100 to park hop. In the past, TOT and TTBAB were my "must-do's" when visiting the resort, Now those have both been replaced by lesser experiences. Add in the ugly look of Pixar Pier, the bland look of AC, and the downgrade in entertainment offerings, the park has lost significant value for me.

 

[PiratesMansion]

Legitimately, no. This is a “grass is greener” situation. Animal Kingdom has absolutely world-class theming unmatched by really any park outside of Tokyo DisneySea, but there’s just hardly anything there. If you’ve actually experienced Animal Kingdom consistently, the park quickly tired because it’s just lacking so greatly in quantity, which is far less noticeable for a one-off trip across the country. That said AK is still easily a highlight for WDW.

As for DHS, it’s ENTIRE ride-lineup barring Slinky is spread between the two parks at Disneyland, so anything “killer” is already there. DHS is basically just a collection of rides/lands strung together, so y’all already have DHS, just without the operational nightmare of it being one of the most overcrowded parks in the world (maybe the most outside of Universal Japan).

Each WDW park has one headlining attraction, FoP, Rise, and Guardians. DCA has RSR. The ride line-up is stronger than 3 of WDW’s parks, and has a coherent, fantastic night-show, unlike AK and Epcot at the moment.

And I said at the outset that it likely was a grass is greener situation. THAT SAID, DAK is genuinely my favorite Disney park in Florida and I've expounded on this at length in several threads in the last several months. There are certainly plenty of legitimate critiques with DAK, and you have certainly been there more frequently to experience them. BUT DAK's lineup works better for what I personally desire in a park (similar reasons to why you prefer DCA), and to me the animals provide a level of repeatability. The level of theming to me makes it a more desireable place to be than DCA; so far as I'm concerned, DAK only has one truly bad area (Dinoland) and DCA, for my money, has one I think everyone would agree on (Hollywoodland), others that might be more debateable (Avengers, Pixar Pier), one that kinda just exists as a result of "Pixar Pier fallout", for lack of a better turn, and one that's being changed right now. So for my money, a gorgeous park with E tickets that I value more and only one bad area wins out over a park that has portions that are nicely themed, with E tickets that are mostly ok from my perspective (and many of which have been, for me and others, devalued over the years) and arguably three bad areas. As I've said before, and as evidenced by @Professortango1's post, those changes post-2015 did impact people's enjoyment of the park, even if they don't necessarily seem like huge changes from afar.

Perhaps I'm overrating fun table service restaurants, OG TOT, which I still think is one of their best efforts ever, and RNRC, which isn't high art but I honestly would prefer to have over Incredicoaster (almost certainly a minority opinion), but yeah, I'd probably still take it over DCA. As I've said, it's one thing to hypothesize over a computer screen and I might well get there and hate it. But until then, yes, I probably would take DHS over DCA.

@Henry Mystic you likewise did not experience DCA pre-2016 (coincidentally, you and SplashZander visited the same years, and at least this last year in a very, very similar timeframe). That doesn't mean your opinion has no merit, but it does mean that, because you weren't there, your frame of reference isn't the same as those of us who did experience the way things used to be. Nothing necessarily wrong with that, but when people say "No! It can't have been better because I, a person who never experienced the way it was before, am right, simply because I believe I'm right," it becomes more of an issue. Neither you nor anyone else needs to take the opinions of those who were there as gospel, but it would be nice if people didn't just dismiss them entirely out of hand because they're fine with what's there now, or don't feel the changes/differences in the same way that we do.

At any rate, isn't it interesting that only the DLR forum gatekeeps, when I was essentially just told that my preferences for DAK or potentially DHS over DCA weren't valid because I hadn't been to WDW frequently enough to have the "correct" opinion? I think we're all doing a little gatekeeping, frankly.

 

[Californian Elitist]

And I said at the outset that it likely was a grass is greener situation. THAT SAID, DAK is genuinely my favorite Disney park in Florida and I've expounded on this at length in several threads in the last several months. There are certainly plenty of legitimate critiques with DAK, and you have certainly been there more frequently to experience them. BUT DAK's lineup works better for what I personally desire in a park (similar reasons to why you prefer DCA), and to me the animals provide a level of repeatability. The level of theming to me makes it a more desireable place to be than DCA; so far as I'm concerned, DAK only has one truly bad area (Dinoland) and DCA, for my money, has one I think everyone would agree on (Hollywoodland), others that might be more debateable (Avengers, Pixar Pier), one that kinda just exists as a result of "Pixar Pier fallout", for lack of a better turn, and one that's being changed right now. So for my money, a gorgeous park with E tickets that I value more and only one bad area wins out over a park that has portions that are nicely themed, with E tickets that are mostly ok from my perspective (and many of which have been, for me and others, devalued over the years) and arguably three bad areas. As I've said before, and as evidenced by @Professortango1's post, those changes post-2015 did impact people's enjoyment of the park, even if they don't necessarily seem like huge changes from afar.

Perhaps I'm overrating fun table service restaurants, OG TOT, which I still think is one of their best efforts ever, and RNRC, which isn't high art but I honestly would prefer to have over Incredicoaster (almost certainly a minority opinion), but yeah, I'd probably still take it over DCA. As I've said, it's one thing to hypothesize over a computer screen and I might well get there and hate it. But until then, yes, I probably would take DHS over DCA.

@Henry Mystic you likewise did not experience DCA pre-2016 (coincidentally, you and SplashZander visited the same years, and at least this last year in a very, very similar timeframe). That doesn't mean your opinion has no merit, but it does mean that, because you weren't there, your frame of reference isn't the same as those of us who did experience the way things used to be. Nothing necessarily wrong with that, but when people say "No! It can't have been better because I, a person who never experienced the way it was before, am right, simply because I believe I'm right," it becomes more of an issue. Neither you nor anyone else needs to take the opinions of those who were there as gospel, but it would be nice if people didn't just dismiss them entirely out of hand because they're fine with what's there now, or don't feel the changes/differences in the same way that we do.

At any rate, isn't it interesting that only the DLR forum gatekeeps, when I was essentially just told that my preferences for DAK or potentially DHS over DCA weren't valid because I hadn't been to WDW frequently enough to have the "correct" opinion? I think we're all doing a little gatekeeping, frankly.

I didn't know they didn't visit until 2017 either. Makes sense.

I don't feel bad about dismissing someone's opinion regarding something they've never experienced. That's like debating someone about whether the original or the remake of a movie is better and they haven't actually seen both.

 

[Phroobar]

DCA was at it's best when it looked like this

 

[DavidDL]

... it would be nice if people didn't just dismiss them entirely out of hand because they're fine with what's there now, or don't feel the changes/differences in the same way that we do. ...

You want people to disagree and respect each other?! But that's impossible! It's not like we're discussing some stupid, trivial thing like human rights or the future of the planet here. We're talkin' about Disney California Adventure! If ever there was a time to get in another's face about what they think of something, this. is. it.

 

[PiratesMansion]

The thing is, I've done clones of the "ride changes" Tot, etc., so I can easily see what the differences were. I saw Paradise Pier 2.0 and "A Bug's Land" in 2017 and can imagine BuenaVista Street & Hollywoodland making more sense with a version of the Tower of Terror (including easter eggs) I have personally been on. I've been on Soarin' Over California, in fact, I just did it again during Food & Wine (a vastly superior version to Around the World)...

I generally prefer the park's new additions to what is now history, and it's not like I've never been. On both visits, I spent 2 days at Disney California Adventure, while I struggle to stay longer than 1 at both Animal Kingdom (despite me personally adoring the park's theming due to a lack of rides) and Hollywood Studios (which to me is the most overcrowded theme park in America and uglier than DCA despite its excellent, top-heavy rides).

An interesting tidbit, DisneySea's theming not only in quality but thematic consistency is leagues better than any other park (and on a scale that Animal Kingdom just can't match), but until Fantasy Springs, its ride line-up is not as elite as you'd expect. It's honestly not that much better than DCA or Hollywood in terms of rides, better no doubt, but not much better. There are different metrics you can use to rate theme parks. I take a more comprehensive approach than just theme or rides.

Again, I can't emphasize enough that I 100% think California Adventure's mission statement worked better in 2015 versus now. I am NOT arguing otherwise.

As a theme park, yes, DCA is absolutely less thematically consistent than it used to be, and that is a real shame, but as a park to spend time in, I vastly enjoy 2023 DCA as I prefer Pixar Pier and Avenger's Campus plus Mission: Breakout to what was in their places before. You can disagree with that, but claiming "Oh, shucks, you didn't go in 2015? Sorry you don't get an opinion" is laughable given I have done the rides that have been replaced, am intimately familiar with the park's history before then, understand its thematic consistency has gone down, and because of that, it's logically fallacious to assume I can't comprehend what it was like. It's not that different, y'all are acting like it's comparing 2001 to 2015. I'm again, not arguing it wasn't more consistently themed, but that taken together I think the park is more enjoyable now than it was before. That is my opinion. It is not a fact, but it is based on evidence, and if you disagree because you enjoyed ToT more, or liked the consistency better that's totally fine.

The thing is, theme consistency is not the exclusive thing that matters for enjoyment in a theme park, people like different things, but gatekeeping opinions on it is hilarious because the thematic aspect isn't what I'm arguing about; I'm more annoyed with people getting hung-up on legitimately a couple changes making any opinions invalid that didn't happen to go one year. It honestly could be argued that if I hadn't been on those rides, or if it was like 2015 to 2023, but man, ya'll are arguing with the wrong person. I've been on them, I know how they altered the park's theme, and the funny thing is I'm arguably more informed than both of you on theme parks worldwide. It's very easy to deflect or distract from my main points, so if you take away anything rather than whataboutism, it's that I believe the 2-year difference is laughably silly to get caught up on since I've done the exact clones of the rides that were swapped. 2015 is probably a better park than 2017 DCA, but 2015 to 2023? In my opinion, no way, but that's what I value in parks, you guys can just value different things, but it's hilariously pretentious to argue no one can have an opinion even when I have laid out why I believe I actually can. It's definitely not like I haven't been at all, or haven't experienced defunct attractions elsewhere. Would I have preferred a thematically consistent take with all the new additions? Absolutely, but that's not the reality we were given. Just, I'm sorry, I don't buy the argument that 2015 changed so extensively to 2017. Perhaps list what else I missed out on? A specific restaurant that you fell in love with that went away in those two short years? Anything, really because what I have seen talked about to me just further adds credence to my views.

I imagine I should do that for DisneySea to people that go after Fantasy Springs opens compared to views on it right before since its theme will be ruined.

For me, the changes to Soarin' and Tower were huge, and while there are aspects of MB that I've come to like, I will never see SOTW as anything other than a downgrade. Little changes too, like that Zoetrope that got taken out and the Animation walkthrough that got shortened, both in service of a Frozen meet and greet. Neither Avengers Campus nor Bugs Land ever had any real value to me, but at least A Bugs Land was more pleasant to walk through-maybe if they ever build that E ticket it will change but until then? I prefer A Bugs Land.

I literally said in that post that you quoted from me that you can have your own opinion. What I don't appreciate is selective reading of my posts and then people jumping off of that to seemingly intentionally misunderstand what I said.

I don't appreciate the insinuation that you and you alone (or you and SplashZander, as the case may be) look at theme parks in a uniquely detailed fashion that none of the rest of us could ever match. How is your approach more sophisticated? Because other than valuing different criteria it doesn't seem demonstrably different from my own. If it is, please enlighten me as to how that is the case. From what I can tell, we value similar things in terms of atmosphere and thematic consistency, only for you to turn around and say "eh, but it's better now anyway, largely because I said so." So I see no evidence that you possess any unique qualifications that the rest of us do not have.

I'm glad that you're well travelled, but so am I-that signature of mine's attached to every post I make and has been there for eons. I've done all of those same parks you have. So you need not provide comparisions or make presumptions because I know. I've ALSO been to those places Whether intentional or not, it does feel like you are talking down to anyone who is or is perceived to be less experienced than yourself and that, more than anything else, is governing the general tenor of my responses to these posts.