How does Disneyland really compare to Walt Disney World? I've never been to Disneyland I just want to know.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
now be honest
- Thread starter jimmything7
- Start date
Jerm
Well-Known Member
This is the one of those things like which is better pizza or more pizza? Disneyland is where it all started, it's where Walt walked, it is where he put his dreams into motion. WDW is where everyone else took Walt's dream and ran with it. I have gone to Disneyland more times then I can count and will always love it more then anything else, but......WDW is magic!!! You can't stand in the middle of any of the parks in WDW and look over and see some hotel (not Disney owned). At WDW to get to the outside world you have try to get there....at DL you step outside the gate and you are steps away from the outside world. But at DL you have the lack of space that makes if fell like you are home.
WDW is huge and great 4 parks, 2 water parks, PI, DTD, and tons of hotels. DL is small and magical 2 parks, 3 hotels, and DTD.
You must judge for yourself,
J
WDW is huge and great 4 parks, 2 water parks, PI, DTD, and tons of hotels. DL is small and magical 2 parks, 3 hotels, and DTD.
You must judge for yourself,
J
thanks
The truth? I love DL but WDW truly is vastly superior on virtually every imaginable level. In fact, I personally don't see how anyone could consider DL better for any reasons other than sentimental ones (i.e. "I grew up with DL so it's special" or "It's where Walt walked", yada yada yada....). But if you're really going to stack up the features of one against the other, I don't think there's any contest. Some examples:
-Escapism: When Walt built DL, he built a berm around the park to block out the outside world. Ingenius, but not necessary at WDW. It's so vast and even in between the parks it is magical and beautiful. No danger of the outside world intruding there. At DL, all you have to do is walk out to Downtown Disney and you can see surrounding hotels of Anaheim.
-Downtown Disney: The one at WDW is phenomenal compared to the one at DL (people will use the excuses "Oh, it's because they don't have as much land!"...They could have allocated more land for it if they'd wanted to. Or they'll say, "Oh, but it's because it is newer than WDW's!"...Even when WDW's was brand new, it was better than DL's is now.
-Hotels: WDW has like 20+ and they run the entire spectrum of tastes and budgets. DL has 3 and they are all kind of on the pricey side.
-Theme parks: WDW has 4 and they are all unique and innovative. DL has 2 and one of them has attractions that have nothing to do with it's main theme and are made up mostly of carnival type rides that you can find anywhere.
-Vacation destination: WDW is so vast, and has so much to do, a week long vacation would barely be enough to scratch the surface. Disneyland tries to be a vacation destination but I have to wonder what the bigwigs were thinking. They actually thought some family of 5 from the Midwest would say to each other, "Honey, let's drag the kids out of school and spend our vacation this year at the Disneyland 'Resort'. They got this big ferris wheel out there and I've never seen one of those before!"
-Stuff other than theme parks: WDW has elaborately themed water parks, miniature golf courses, Fort Wilderness, water craft to rent, horseback riding, canoeing, hiking trails, a sports center, etc. DL?.... Not much other than the theme parks and a collection of shops they refer to as "Downtown Disney"
-Freshness and cleanliness: WDW looks brand new and clean all the time. At DL, it is more and more common to see peeling paint, graffitti that hasn't been removed, burnt out light bulbs, etc. (People will argue, "That's because DL is older"...Hogwash! There are attractions at DL that are newer than some at WDW. But if you put them next to each other, you'd generally think the DL one was older because of poorer upkeep).
-Safety: I feel completely safe at WDW. I've never heard of a serious accident there. DL's safety record lately has been horrible. (and it's all due to our good friend, Cynthia Harriss)
Of course, this is all my opinion. I could be wrong.
-Escapism: When Walt built DL, he built a berm around the park to block out the outside world. Ingenius, but not necessary at WDW. It's so vast and even in between the parks it is magical and beautiful. No danger of the outside world intruding there. At DL, all you have to do is walk out to Downtown Disney and you can see surrounding hotels of Anaheim.
-Downtown Disney: The one at WDW is phenomenal compared to the one at DL (people will use the excuses "Oh, it's because they don't have as much land!"...They could have allocated more land for it if they'd wanted to. Or they'll say, "Oh, but it's because it is newer than WDW's!"...Even when WDW's was brand new, it was better than DL's is now.
-Hotels: WDW has like 20+ and they run the entire spectrum of tastes and budgets. DL has 3 and they are all kind of on the pricey side.
-Theme parks: WDW has 4 and they are all unique and innovative. DL has 2 and one of them has attractions that have nothing to do with it's main theme and are made up mostly of carnival type rides that you can find anywhere.
-Vacation destination: WDW is so vast, and has so much to do, a week long vacation would barely be enough to scratch the surface. Disneyland tries to be a vacation destination but I have to wonder what the bigwigs were thinking. They actually thought some family of 5 from the Midwest would say to each other, "Honey, let's drag the kids out of school and spend our vacation this year at the Disneyland 'Resort'. They got this big ferris wheel out there and I've never seen one of those before!"
-Stuff other than theme parks: WDW has elaborately themed water parks, miniature golf courses, Fort Wilderness, water craft to rent, horseback riding, canoeing, hiking trails, a sports center, etc. DL?.... Not much other than the theme parks and a collection of shops they refer to as "Downtown Disney"
-Freshness and cleanliness: WDW looks brand new and clean all the time. At DL, it is more and more common to see peeling paint, graffitti that hasn't been removed, burnt out light bulbs, etc. (People will argue, "That's because DL is older"...Hogwash! There are attractions at DL that are newer than some at WDW. But if you put them next to each other, you'd generally think the DL one was older because of poorer upkeep).
-Safety: I feel completely safe at WDW. I've never heard of a serious accident there. DL's safety record lately has been horrible. (and it's all due to our good friend, Cynthia Harriss)
Of course, this is all my opinion. I could be wrong.
No you're right. I know I've never been there but I wanted to hear all that because now I don't have to go and make my own opinion. I figured that Disneyland was like that, I was just making sure.
ShanenLuvsDsny
New Member
Hey Jimmything:wave:, don't let one person's opinion keep you from visiting Disneyland. You HAVE to go - I think you'd LOVE it, and then you can share your OWN opinion! You've got to go at least once(don't be so narrow minded).......:animwink: 
Re-read my post. I didn't say that it "doesn't have ANY attractions that have to do with the theme." I said, "It has attractions that have nothing to do with the theme." There is a difference in what I said and how you're interpreting it. What I was pointing out was that the theme is California but they have attractions that don't have anything to do with California. Sure you could argue that A Bug's Land has to do with California because California, like everywhere else on the planet, has bugs. I've heard people use that argument, but it's a weak one.
Well for starters, giving DL's poor safety record lately, I'm not sure they take care of their's either. I know that OSHA made them shut down Mullholland Madness and retool it because it was deemed unsafe. But again, that wasn't my point. My point was that they are carnival-type rides. I just went to the California State Fair a few weeks ago and saw an exact clone of Mullholland Madness (minus the "themeing" if you want to even call it that). There's another one just outside of Hobby City in Buena Park. Likewise, ferris wheels and those spinning type rides are all ones that you see at state fairs and carnivals. One of the points of adding DCA was to turn DL into a "resort" destination like WDW (go back and read archived articles on this if you don't believe me). But why would the top brass at Disney have ever thought that this would be a draw to bring people there on vacation? People typically plan vacations around either visiting relatives or seeing something they can't see anywhere else.
You've probably supported my point even better than I could have myself (i.e. "It has nothing to do with uniqueness"). Thanks!
Originally posted by ShanenLuvsDsny
Hey Jimmything:wave:, don't let one person's opinion keep you from visiting Disneyland. You HAVE to go - I think you'd LOVE it, and then you can share your OWN opinion! You've got to go at least once(don't be so narrow minded).......:animwink:
Agreed! I may sound like I'm being really harsh on DL, but your question, Jimmything, was how it compares to WDW and I'm providing an honest answer based on my own personal opinion. Other people will have differing ones and you should consider those as well. One caveat or recommendation though: I don't know where you'd be traveling from should you decide to visit DL, but these days vacations cost a lot of money regardless. Carefully read the pros and cons that people offer about DL and try to separate the ones that are promoting it because of personal sentiment rather than actually supporting their position that DL is better (or even as good) as WDW by offering concrete examples. As I stated before, my observation has been that usually when someone says Disneyland is better, the reasons they give are things like, "It was the original", or "It has fond memories for me", or "It's a part of my childhood". Those are great reasons for it to be special to the individuals making those statements, but they don't really illustrate HOW DL is better. That's my only advice to you.
DisneyDJ
Member
There is something "magical" about Disneyland. It's such a great experience to see the original... to walk the streets that Walt once walked. I took a tour through Guest Relations called "Footsteps of Walt" or something like that, and it made the experience so much better.
Then again, I feel more at home at WDW, not only growing up there as a child... but starting my career with the WD Company... I also me my soon to be wife here.
But I actually prefer Disneyland, probably because I never worked there and don't know anyone. Who knows!? But check it out, search for all the nifty hidden history, and if you want to get on the Club 33 list, let me know.
Until Next Time...
Then again, I feel more at home at WDW, not only growing up there as a child... but starting my career with the WD Company... I also me my soon to be wife here.
But I actually prefer Disneyland, probably because I never worked there and don't know anyone. Who knows!? But check it out, search for all the nifty hidden history, and if you want to get on the Club 33 list, let me know.
Until Next Time...
SNS
Active Member
So, one section isn't based on the theme. Big deal, it's only one section.
The other theme parks have much worse safety records. It's just that you don't hear about them since they don't have big reputations like Disney.
Even if they take poor care of them, it's better care then a real carnival would ever give.
Why would you go to a dirty carnival with bad workers when you could go to Disney's clean carnival with good Cast Members?
That's what the rest of California Adventure is for.
Like I said before, it has to do with the theme.
:heavy sigh: So many people on these boards have made this remark but they can't support it with facts. I, however, CAN support my claim. First of all, I'd be curious to know exactly what you're claiming here. The starter of this thread asked about a comparison between DL and WDW, not DL and non-Disney theme parks. So part of me is assuming that when you make the claim that "other theme parks have much worse safety records", that you are either referring to WDW's theme parks (in which case, you have no idea what you're talking about), or that you've ignored what the original poster was asking and are referring to non-Disney theme parks (in which case, you STILL have no idea what you're talking about). After the Big Thunder accident I did some checking on the Internet, and it turns out that DL's safety record in the past few years is horrendous compared to other theme parks. Check out the Consumer Product Safety Commission's web site for example. They are unbiased and their reports have nothing whatsoever to do with Disney's "reputation" compared to other theme parks. They simply state the facts. You have the PERCEPTION that DL is safer, but that is not the case. So don't go making claims that you can't back up. When you look at the CPSC web site, you'll see they have a section on amusement park safety. The accident reports for DL are 48 pages long. Most of the individual Six Flags reports are no more than 1 page. Additionally, the types of accidents reported at DL versus Six Flags are shocking. Almost all of the reports at Six Flags are based on guests doing something they shouldn't, whereas at DL a lot of the accidents are due to actual mechanical malfunctions (i.e. derailments, wheel assemblies breaking apart, etc.). Again, this is not me expressing my opinion. This is based on documented reports by an impartial government agency.
Many have agreed that this is due to a massive cutback in maintenance at DL. This is something that was initiated by T. Irby under the leadership of Cynthia Harriss. These two are devoted to DL only and so these maintenance cutbacks were not adopted by WDW. As a result, WDW does not have the safety problems DL has.
I wish to point out two things about this post: First, I'm not ragging on DL (as I've already stated). I LOVE Disneyland and it tears me apart to see Walt's dream being run by idiots who put money as a higher priority than guest safety and innovation. Second, I'm not ragging on any other members on these boards, however it is a pet peeve of mine when people make claims that are, in actuality, just their opinion and not based on facts. And no offense to anyone, but I tend to see that a lot on these boards. If I'm expressing something as just being my opinion, I'll identify it as such. But don't make a claim like, "Other theme parks have much worse safety records" if you can't back it up with anything.
I was just referring to A Bug's Land as ONE example because I didn't really want to get into a thread drift. However if you honestly think that's the only example of a section of DCA that has nothing to do with California, then maybe I'll go ahead and give a few more:
-MuppetVision 3D: What does this have to do with California?
-Who Wants to Be a Millionaire: This game show is taped in New York and they make a big deal of letting you know this at the beginning of the show. This definitely has nothing to do with California
-Paradise Pier: Disney claims this section is to "celebrate California's 'Beach Culture'". I've lived in California my whole life. If people outside our state visited DCA and left with the impression that we had this huge culture of amusement park rides at our beaches, then I would be disappointed. A tremendous amount of real estate in DCA is devoted to this section, and it is such a minute bit of what California is about. The last time I checked, we essentially have two oceanside amusement parks...Santa Cruz Beach Boardwalk, which is generally regarded as pretty slimy, and Mission Beach in San Diego, which has a historic roller coaster and a couple of carnival rides. Neither of these places are something that I would consider to be representative of California. I think it was just a cheap attempt on Disney's part to get away with adding some carnival rides. Also, I've been to both Santa Cruz and Mission Beach and I can tell you that Paradise Pier looks NOTHING like either of those. It looks more like Coney Island, which is in NY (Hey, with Who Wants to Be a Millionaire, maybe they should turn the park into "Disney's New York Adventure"!).
-Aladdin: I'm sure it is an excellent show (Haven't seen it yet), but that's not the point. What does it have to do with California???
Bottom line here is that I think Disney thought they had a great concept for a theme when they first set out to design this park. After all, California is easily the most diverse state in the union so I would have agreed that it presented a lot of material upon which to base attractions (Unlike many Californians, I was personally very excited when they announced the theme). So I'm disappointed that they've generally ignored what California is truly about and instead have chosen to develop a park that seems to have no direction or clear themeing.
SNS
Active Member
Look back at the conversation, you were the one that said "and are made up mostly of carnival type rides that you can find anywhere." Which I replied to, then you replied back, & then I repied back.
Disneyland has been opened for 48 years, how long have those Six Flags been open? I doubt it was 48 years. Not to mention Disneyland gets more visitors then any of those Six Flags (thus increasing the chances of an accident).
Disney needs a place to make a clone of this. Would you rather it goes in Disneyland (& replace a classic attraction) or California Adventure?
Same as the Muppets.
Carnivals are an important part of California's history, they should be included in a theme park about California.
No, it wasn't. It was a tribute to the old carnivals. What's wrong with a tribute?
Of course it's not going to look exactly like the carnivals, it's a tribute not a 100% copy.
Disney always includes attractions based on their characters, regardless of it matching the theme or not.
I disagree, I think California Adventure does a good job.
I could go into great detail to explain my opinions...but I'll just sum it up:
I loved Disneyland, but it isn't as much of an experience as Walt Disney World.
Here's the thing I've figured out: If you want to go to Disneyland, go for a full vacations worth of the whole LA area. The 2 times I've been there, Ive oly stayed at DL for about 2-3 days. Thats all you really need. Then, after that, go visit the rest of LA! There's plenty to do there.
~Universal (also on a smaller scale, but at least this time you don't have to worry about deciding between one park or the other)
~Studio Tours: I have toured Disney Studios before, and that was great fun for me. If you like that stuff like I do, check out which studios are offering tours. I heard Warner's has a good one.
~Random sight seeing: all the landmarks, like Hollywood, Graumans, Walk of Fame, etc. Yes, its kinda dirty in these parts of LA, but I head there was a big project to clean up some of that...
All in all, I think its just a fun trip to LA in itself, along with Disneyland, which I still think is the best theme park I've ever been to (While the resort is nowhere near as great as WDW, the park, on its own, I think, is better than the Magic Kingdom and any other theme park, which has been discussed in previous threads). But in the end, even Walt would have liked WDW better, I think!
Still, jimmything7, I'm not sure if you were planning on going there yourself, but if you ever have the oportunity, go ahead and do it. Ive been to WDW plenty of times, and my trip to LA was a nice change of pace.
I loved Disneyland, but it isn't as much of an experience as Walt Disney World.
Here's the thing I've figured out: If you want to go to Disneyland, go for a full vacations worth of the whole LA area. The 2 times I've been there, Ive oly stayed at DL for about 2-3 days. Thats all you really need. Then, after that, go visit the rest of LA! There's plenty to do there.
~Universal (also on a smaller scale, but at least this time you don't have to worry about deciding between one park or the other)
~Studio Tours: I have toured Disney Studios before, and that was great fun for me. If you like that stuff like I do, check out which studios are offering tours. I heard Warner's has a good one.
~Random sight seeing: all the landmarks, like Hollywood, Graumans, Walk of Fame, etc. Yes, its kinda dirty in these parts of LA, but I head there was a big project to clean up some of that...
All in all, I think its just a fun trip to LA in itself, along with Disneyland, which I still think is the best theme park I've ever been to (While the resort is nowhere near as great as WDW, the park, on its own, I think, is better than the Magic Kingdom and any other theme park, which has been discussed in previous threads). But in the end, even Walt would have liked WDW better, I think!
Still, jimmything7, I'm not sure if you were planning on going there yourself, but if you ever have the oportunity, go ahead and do it. Ive been to WDW plenty of times, and my trip to LA was a nice change of pace.
I'm not following what you're trying to say here. Sorry.
There's a flaw in your logic. The accidents that have occurred at DL aren't generally attributed to guests. They are due to the rides themselves malfunctioning. So why would it make a difference how many people are visiting? A malfunctioning ride is a malfunctioning ride regardless of how many people were in the park at any given time. The only way I could see any logic in your statement would be if you're saying that the additional people leads to the rides being run more and therefore a greater likelihood of breakdowns. But even if that's what you're saying (and I'm not sure it is) wouldn't you think Disney should compensate for that with extra maintenance? If I'm an attraction supervisor and I know how many people are going on a particular ride, shouldn't I be aware of that ride's tolerance level?
If you want to use numbers to compare the safety record of DL to Six Flags, that's fine. Have you considered this...DL has 4 roller coasters. In the past three years, one of those (Space Mountain) has had two major accidents resulting in guest injuries (through no fault of the guests involved but rather due to ride malfunction). Another (Big Thunder) had a major accident recently that resulted in one death and a number of injuries. That means that in the past three years, 50% of DL's roller coaster have had major malfunctions. In contrast, Six Flags Magic Mountain has 13 roller coasters. In that same 3-year period they have had not one single guest injury as a result of a ride malfunction.
This was in reference to the Muppets. First, why does Disney "need a place to a clone of this"? Why does it need to be duplicated? Secondly, between the two parks I think DL would have been a more appropriate park to place this. It could have gone in Fantasyland.
Since when??? Where are you from??? Certainly not California! I happen to be a major history buff (California in particular) and I challenge you to locate a SINGLE history book on California that so much as MENTIONS carnivals. Yet you're claiming they are "an important part of California's history"???? Where the heck are you getting that??? I'd REALLY like to know.
This is in response to Aladdin being in DCA. I disagree with your statement that they "always include attractions based on their characters, regardless of it matching the theme or not". That is ludicrous. So you think Disney is in the habit of just haphazardly tossing character shows and attractions in their parks with no regard for the themeing? I'll admit it has happened before (i.e. the Hunchback of Notre Dame show that used to be at Big Thunder Ranch...at DISNEYLAND), but to claim they "always" do it is WAY off!
SNS
Active Member
You where questioning why I was comparing Disneyland to other theme parks & I explained it.
The longest a park has been opened, the largest the chance of a malfunction. Six Flags Magic Mountain might have 13 roller coasters but I doubt they have been opened as long as Disneyland's mountains.
So people won't have to go to Disneyworld to see the Muppets.
And replace a classic ride?
If carnivals never existed, Disneyland wouldn't exist (since the concept of rides wouldn't exist). I don't think I need to tell why Disneyland existing is important to Calfornia...
I'll use Disneyworld as an example. What does Buzz Lightyear & Stitch Encounter in Tomorrowland have to do with the future? Nothing (saying they are from space is weak since they are not from the future). What does the soon to exist "Under the Sea" in Future World have to do with the future? Nothing, it's a Little Mermaid ride! What does Tarzan have to do with Dinoland USA? Nothing. As you can see 3/4 of the Disneyworld parks have rides that have nothing to do with the themes.
Your "explanation" doesn't really explain why you were making that comparison, but no biggie.
That's absurd. So you're saying that the age of the PARK determines how safe it's individual rides should be? If anything, shouldn't it be the age of the rides themselves that would determine that? And continuing down that path, wouldn't the age of an attraction also determine how much attention it gets in the way of continued maintenance? Big Thunder Mountain RR opened in 1979, Space Mountain in 1977. The Revolution roller coaster at Six Flags has been open since 1976 and Collossus has been open since 1978. Yet out of these four rides that are all roughly the same age, it is the two at DL that have had serious incidents.
So following that logic, are you saying that eventually every attraction at WDW should be duplicated at DL or DCA so people won't have to go to WDW to see them? I'm just trying get a better understanding of what exactly you're saying here.
Hey I'm not the one who insisted they even need to have the Muppets in the first place. You said they should so that people won't have to go to WDW to see it. I was just addressing the question of where it fits in better with the themeing. At least you could make a case (albeit a loose one) that it could fit into Fantasyland. But you still haven't been able to tell me how it fits into the California theme. As with several of my questions, you've dodged this one by trying to put words in my mouth. I never said a classic attraction should go away because I never said the Muppets belong there in the first place.
Oh okay. Well did you know that Walt's brother Roy was crucial to the business success of the Disney corporation and many have theorized that without his business expertise the company would not have survived and would not be here today? Did you also know that the reason the two Disney brothers went into business together was because Walt was living in California and Roy moved here because he had tuberculosis and moved here for the warmer climate? So one could make the ridiculous, yet technically true, argument that if it weren't for tuberculosis, there would be no Disneyland today. Does that mean we should salute tuberculosis by devoting a huge portion of the park to it? My point is that everything that happens affects something else that WILL happen. That doesn't necessarily make it "an important part" of a state's history. Again, I challenge you to back up that statement and give me one history book title on California that covers carnivals as an important part of California history.
I think these are loose examples of how the characters fit into the theme. When Buzz Lightyear first opened in Tomorrowland I thought the same thing. "What does this have to do with the future?" But Buzz Lightyear fits into the sci-fi genre to some degree which means the BEST place for an attraction based on him would be Tomorrowland. I'll admit however that you've kind of got me on this one. But several wrongs don't make a right. And I still think the Muppets, A Bug's Land, Aladdin, and Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (especially this last one) have no place in a California themed park.
Chernabog's Mom
New Member
I'm going back to the original question or Disneyland vs. Disney World. I have never found this to be a fair question. I feel you can compare the Magic Kingdom in WDW to Disneyland but not resort to resort. The Florida property is huge and isolated which allows for more parks and more magic.
However, I find Disneyland to be a far superior park to the Magic Kingdom. Fantasyland, the heart of Disneyland is magical in CA. The facades have much better themeing. While we could use some of the rides they have their like Buzz and The Tomorrowland Transit authority, I would not want to lose Alice in Wonderland, Mr. Toad, Casey Jr. and the other Fantasyland rides that are missing in Orlando. IASW there is just another attraction and does not have the beautiful exterior of the one in CA. There is no comparison between the two POC and Indiana Jones is a great ride.
I've headed to WDW next month and we spend very little time in the MK because the park just doesn't seem to have charm.
However, I find Disneyland to be a far superior park to the Magic Kingdom. Fantasyland, the heart of Disneyland is magical in CA. The facades have much better themeing. While we could use some of the rides they have their like Buzz and The Tomorrowland Transit authority, I would not want to lose Alice in Wonderland, Mr. Toad, Casey Jr. and the other Fantasyland rides that are missing in Orlando. IASW there is just another attraction and does not have the beautiful exterior of the one in CA. There is no comparison between the two POC and Indiana Jones is a great ride.
I've headed to WDW next month and we spend very little time in the MK because the park just doesn't seem to have charm.
SNS
Active Member
You questioned why people would visit Paradise Pier & I explained because Disney takes care of the rides better which lead to the conversation about the safety records.
Okay, maybe you're right. However, Disney cleans their rides better then any carnival does, so again I asked why would you go to a dirty carnival when you can go to Disney's clean carnival?
If they are going to make a second park it's pointless not to copy the WDW rides (the reason why some WDW rides aren't in Disneyland is because of space).
Since California Adventure is new land, it is better to put it there because it doesn't replace classic Disneyland rides. Muppets needs to be cloned, Disneyland visitors have been missing this great show for over a decade.
If you are going to argue that for Buzz, then the Muppets fit in because some of their shows where filmed in California, Aladin fits in because the movie was made in California, A Bug's Land fits in because there are bugs in California, & Millionaire fits in because there are game shows in California.