News Paradise Pier Becoming Pixar Pier

[Hatbox Ghostbuster]

So there will be two Incredibles rides opening synergistically with Incredibles 2 just after doing the same thing with GOTG:MB. What are they going to do when they run out of rides in DCA to retheme? (Chappie looks over at Disneyland and grins)

It greatly concerns me that you're probably not that far off from the truth.

I wish management wasn't so eager to transform the latest box office offering into the latest park offering. I get cross promotion and synergy blah blah blah....but seriously...treating attractions like a revolving door or flavor of the month is just an awful way forward for the parks.

 

[djlaosc]

California Screamin closed for 6-month refurb after Christmas, so I will not get to ride that during my trip in April.

Same here!

It would have been nice to know before we booked that it would be going down, but hopefully, it Screamin' is down, the other major rides won't be...

 

[Deleted member 107043]

So if they use IP they can pay for it themselves but not if they do something original? Why, because they think the returns will be less?

In the case of Disney's tent pole brands (ie: Marvel, Pixar, Disney Animation, ESPN, etc) I think a business unit and its IP can act in place of a sponsor in respect to being an advertisement for that brand. This in turn benefits Parks & Resorts as the IP helps drive traffic. I'm making broad assumptions, but based Disney growing reliance on IP there must be internal metrics and data that proves his strategy is working. Even from our perspective as customers it's quite evident that most of the IP driven content at the parks is very popular.

 

[djlaosc]

I'm also going to make another wild predication and suggest that Pinocchio's will remain Red Rose Tavern and become the new home for Princess character dining. At least until Fantasyland gets its expansion.

Looking at the latest Disneyland map (July 29th), Red Rose Taverne changed back to being named Village Haus, so who knows how much longer it will last.

 

[PrincessJulia1207]

with a new pixar land, do you think they'll keep the monsters inc ride over by the tower of terror?

also i have a crazy theory (just a wild thought): what if over time they phase out/retheme all of the California themed stuff (except the carthay circle theming toward the front) and whatever the new name is gonna be for DHS ("Disney Hollywood Adventure" keeps being thrown around) also becomes the new name for California Adventure

 

[mickEblu]

It greatly concerns me that you're probably not that far off from the truth.

I wish management wasn't so eager to transform the latest box office offering into the latest park offering. I get cross promotion and synergy blah blah blah....but seriously...treating attractions like a revolving door or flavor of the month is just an awful way forward for the parks.

Agreed. This seems like a very scary and probably not viable long term approach

 

[Hatbox Ghostbuster]

Agreed. This seems like a very scary and probably not viable long term approach

The one thing that excites me most (knocks on wood very hopefully) is that current management's time is almost up. And I hope replacements are selected who can see the value in investing in SMART ideas, not just something quick to make a buck.

 

[mickEblu]

In the case of Disney's tent pole brands (ie: Marvel, Pixar, Disney Animation, ESPN, etc) I think a business unit and its IP can act in place of a sponsor in respect to being an advertisement for that brand. This in turn benefits Parks & Resorts as the IP helps drive traffic. I'm making broad assumptions, but based Disney growing reliance on IP there must be internal metrics and data that proves his strategy is working. Even from our perspective as customers it's quite evident that most of the IP driven content at the parks is very popular.

Yeah it probably shows this because that's the only NEW QUALITY stuff they re giving us. If Disney created something on the level of POTC or HM today would that not also get favorable results?

What is the last original E ticket we got at DLR? Soarin?

 

[Hatbox Ghostbuster]

Yeah it probably shows this because that's the only NEW QUALITY stuff they re giving us. If Disney created something on the level of POTC or HM today would that not also get favorable results?

It REALLY irritates me that there's probably a segment of corporate that sits and thinks, "There's no WAY guests will enjoy this experience unless they see a familiar character face throughout the whole journey".

I think its safe to say, if current management were in charge in the late 70's-early 80's we would never have gotten Epcot Center.

 

[Antaundra]

Serious question. Why do they need sponsors? Why can't Disney just pony up the dough themselves? They could use like the money they make off corn dogs in one day.

Because corporate sponsors are how Disneyland has run since the very beginning of its existence. Walt required funding from ABC just to get the park built. ABC wasn't even the only opening day sponsor. Off the top of my head Disneyland opened wth Chicken of the Sea pirate ship, Monsanto hall of Chemistry, and Carnation Garden just to name a few early sponsors. Even the gold standard of Disney Imagineering, Pirates of the Caribbean and The Haunted Mansion were planned as walk through attractions until Pepsi and Monsanto paid to have their respective ride systems developed.

 

[mickEblu]

Because corporate sponsors are how Disneyland has run since the very beginning of its existence. Walt required funding from ABC just to get the park built. ABC wasn't even the only opening day sponsor. Off the top of my head Disneyland opened wth Chicken of the Sea pirate ship, Monsanto hall of Chemistry, and Carnation Garden just to name a few early sponsors. Even the gold standard of Disney Imagineering, Pirates of the Caribbean and The Haunted Mansion were planned as walk through attractions until Pepsi and Monsanto paid to have their respective ride systems developed.

Right, i get why sponsors are used. I was trying to get at this - if they don't have the confidence to spend their own money unless it's an IP attraction, we ll most likely never see an original E ticket again.

 

[Antaundra]

Right, i get why sponsors are used. I was trying to get at this - if they don't have the confidence to spend their own money unless it's an IP attraction, we ll most likely never see an original E ticket again.

Never is a really long time. But I think we'll most likely see a third gate at Disneyland before we see an original attraction that's not attached to an IP.

 

[mickEblu]

Never is a really long time. But I think we'll most likely see a third gate at Disneyland before we see an original attraction that's not attached to an IP.

Haha ya "never" was said for dramatic effect. I agree with you on your third gate comment.

 

[Hatbox Ghostbuster]

Haha ya "never" was said for dramatic effect. I agree with you on your third gate comment.

Step 1: Fix issues with Anaheim City Council
Step 2: Eastern Gateway project
Step 3: Marvel Land at DCA
Step 4: Refurb DL areas (Tomorrowland, FL, etc)
.
.
.
Step 29: Third Gate.

 

[Antaundra]

Step 1: Fix issues with Anaheim City Council
Step 2: Eastern Gateway project
Step 3: Marvel Land at DCA
Step 4: Refurb DL areas (Tomorrowland, FL, etc)
.
.
.
Step 29: Third Gate.

Step 29?
That awfully optimistic of you.

 

[mickEblu]

Step 1: Fix issues with Anaheim City Council
Step 2: Eastern Gateway project
Step 3: Marvel Land at DCA
Step 4: Refurb DL areas (Tomorrowland, FL, etc)
.
.
.
Step 29: Third Gate.

Lol. Step 41: original ride

 

[SSG]

Step 1: Fix issues with Anaheim City Council
Step 2: Eastern Gateway project
Step 3: Marvel Land at DCA
Step 4: Refurb DL areas (Tomorrowland, FL, etc)
.
.
.
Step 29: Third Gate.

You're probably right, and while I'd like to see a third gate as much as anyone, considering that the cost would be 6 or 7 billion (for starters) it's tough for me to say Disney is being unreasonable by tackling other issues in the resort first.

 

[Hatbox Ghostbuster]

You're probably right, and while I'd like to see a third gate as much as anyone, considering that the cost would be 6 or 7 billion (for starters) it's tough for me to say Disney is being unreasonable by tackling other issues in the resort first.

Its not unreasonable. and I really hope that Disney can not only fix their current issues first, but also fix their mentality off of IP-only attractions. Otherwise, they'll open a third gate with everyone groaning on opening day.

 

[Deleted member 107043]

Yeah it probably shows this because that's the only NEW QUALITY stuff they re giving us. If Disney created something on the level of POTC or HM today would that not also get favorable results?

Maybe we would like to see a new attraction with original content like 1967 POTC, but today Disney clearly has different metrics for what it deems a worthwhile investment than it did 50 years ago, and for better or worse millions of guests and fans seem to prefer the current strategy. No one is going to always agree with every move they make, but looking at it objectively Disney's current C level leadership's track record for Parks & Resorts' success speaks for itself.

 

[Deleted member 107043]

Right, i get why sponsors are used. I was trying to get at this - if they don't have the confidence to spend their own money unless it's an IP attraction, we ll most likely never see an original E ticket again.

I'm surprised that you're just now realizing this.