News Paradise Pier Becoming Pixar Pier

Curious Constance

Well-Known Member
Hate to say it, but last week with a 4,3, and 2 year old, the adults and the 12 and 9 yo with them had some pretty good times in Bugs Land. It's about seeing the reactions and their faces as they experience things - especially the 2 year - WITH them. Just because its a "lame" ride to a person over 10, doesn't mean experiencing it with a younger sibling or your kid cant be fun.

I couldn't agree more. I do all kinds of stupid, crazy stuff just to see my kids smile.

However, one mark of a successful "family" attraction, in my opinion, is that it can be enjoyed by families with little kids and families without.
 

D.Silentu

Well-Known Member
I couldn't agree more. I do all kinds of stupid, crazy stuff just to see my kids smile.

However, one mark of a successful "family" attraction, in my opinion, is that it can be enjoyed by families with little kids and families without.

I have friends who are also lamenting the closure of Bug's Land. Their son recently turned five, and as passholders they have many fond memories with him there. Yet, redundancy of the rides aside, I feel like one of the bigger gains of closing Bug's Land is that the park is eschewing an AP hangout. Indeed, small children visit the park as tourists, but with respect to my friends, the area seemed to me an enabler for passholders with small children to remain at the park with the little ones long into the evening. This family talked about strategizing, sending one adult for drinks, and then another to go on a ride, using the land as a base camp.

Perhaps I'm unqualified to evaluate this, not being a parent, but hearing their stories made me wonder how young is too young to go to a Disney park. In their experience it sounded like they were getting more out of the visits than their son. It's also worth noting that the Grizzly Challenge Trail offers much to occupy young children. I like @Curious Constance 's quote because I think it sums up the whole situation well. After all, rides akin to those in Bug's Land can be easily found in other amusement venues and Disney rides ought to aspire to a better standard. Bug's Land offers conventional entertainment, which is what these frequenting families have turned their Disney park experience into.
 

Curious Constance

Well-Known Member
I have friends who are also lamenting the closure of Bug's Land. Their son recently turned five, and as passholders they have many fond memories with him there. Yet, redundancy of the rides aside, I feel like one of the bigger gains of closing Bug's Land is that the park is eschewing an AP hangout. Indeed, small children visit the park as tourists, but with respect to my friends, the area seemed to me an enabler for passholders with small children to remain at the park with the little ones long into the evening. This family talked about strategizing, sending one adult for drinks, and then another to go on a ride, using the land as a base camp.

Perhaps I'm unqualified to evaluate this, not being a parent, but hearing their stories made me wonder how young is too young to go to a Disney park. In their experience it sounded like they were getting more out of the visits than their son. It's also worth noting that the Grizzly Challenge Trail offers much to occupy young children. I like @Curious Constance 's quote because I think it sums up the whole situation well. After all, rides akin to those in Bug's Land can be easily found in other amusement venues and Disney rides ought to aspire to a better standard. Bug's Land offers conventional entertainment, which is what these frequenting families have turned their Disney park experience into.

I also think they should aspire to greater things than just simple spinners or bumper cars. And in a park with limited space, I don't think they should waste the space on things that only small children who hate rides can ride. It just makes more sense to think unique and a wider appeal margin.
 

mickEblu

Well-Known Member
I also think they should aspire to greater things than just simple spinners or bumper cars. And in a park with limited space, I don't think they should waste the space on things that only small children who hate rides can ride. It just makes more sense to think unique and a wider appeal margin.

What if they just keep Bugs Lands theming and replace the rides with Marvel E tickets? Win win
 
D

Deleted member 107043

Well if that means that DCA is missing a POTC or two i agree with cricket muncher.

OK, sure, but I'm asking for opinions about the ratio of attractions with greater restrictions on age/height. In principle I see nothing wrong with a Disney theme park with a bit more muscle and that caters more to an older audience than Disneyland.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

mickEblu

Well-Known Member
OK, sure, but I'm asking for opinions about the metrics related to the number of rides with greater restrictions on age/height. In principle I see nothing wrong with a Disney theme park skewed more for an older audience.

I don’t either really but I don’t consider DCA to really be skewed for an older audience. There is a lot of stuff for kids to do. There’s just not a lot of stuff for kids and adults to enjoy together.

EDIT: but then again let’s be real. Are 4 year olds enjoying POTC and HM? Probably not. So we should start rephrasing this as their is not a lot of rides for parents to go on that is entertaining for them and can get their kids on so they don’t need a rider switch or babysitter.

My son is 2 years 5 months old and he’s already 35 inches tall. I’m assuming this means he ll hit 40 inches in the next 18 months and he ll be able to go on RSR. So what are we really talking about here? Not enough rides for parents to do with their 4 year olds and under?
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom