TROR
Well-Known Member
So does DCA, and I don't imagine they're removing Grizzly River Run anytime soon.
This may be the only time we're in complete agreement.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Theory, DCA is becoming a movie Park
- Thread starter Tank Man
- Start date
A movies park needs to be completely off of movies, every Disney park besides DHS and WDS are movie parks as they are all tied into movies,
They need to all be tied into a movie or franchise
What I did is share some ideas I had,
I never said they would.
If they were to change it to a movie park they might just tie Grizzly River Run into UP or Brother Bear
A movies park draws a lot of crowds because their favorite IP’s are in that park and DCA was a horrible idea since before the start. All the opening attractions were ok or the worst (Super Star Limo).
They are trying to heal a almost dead horse,
Replacing it would help more as with Epcot or DHS they have more possibilities.
They are trying to heal a almost dead horse,
Replacing it would help more as with Epcot or DHS they have more possibilities.
THE 1HAPPY HAUNT
Well-Known Member
is no one gonna mention how the dog can talk?!
TROR
Well-Known Member
A park celebrating the great state of California, her many natural wonders and rich history, has always been a great idea. The bad idea was doing it on the cheap.
Disney Irish
Premium Member
I think you're stuck on this term "movie park". But by all accounts Disney has been doing this since the beginning. Because all the parks have some form of movie tie-in in various different way, whether that be specific rides or overall lands.
What you're theorizing is actually under the banner of a different name, IP or Intellectual Property. DCA is being turned into a bunch of IP lands, or "movie" lands. So call it a movie park if you want, but its the same beast under a different name.
Kram Sacul
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- Yes
Grizzly River Run the movie coming soon.
Yes
Bob Iger did fix DCA and it is better but it would be easy for it to turn to a movie park
But they can just do nothing and do what they do as it won’t change anything as DCA is ok, not amazing but good for Disney so they can put money to add more things
TROR
Well-Known Member
DCA was a great park back in 2015 after Condor Flats was renovated and before Soarin' was changed. If it continued on that path, DCA easily could've been the second best stateside theme park with the only one better being across the Esplanade.
Similar, yes
The thing is just that it would be easy to turn DCA into a movie park just with all movie, not part movie.
But DCA is doing fine by itself just not amazing.
I may be making the term movie a bit alienated.
A “movie park” is a park based off multiple movie IP’s and only movies (DHS partly is that now) but in Paris they have that in WDS.
Not saying that DCA is bad.
But once again Bob Iger makes them use movie IP’s so DCA might just be getting a bunch of Ip’s to fix it but still be DCA
Well if everything gets replaced with a movie or IP it could be the Disney’s Movie California Adventure (that was a joke)
Yes,
DCA has been improved as I love it more now then I did before (Cars, GotG, etc.)
Well,
Does anyone have any ideas on what DCA could have in the future as I am apparently not good enough
Also DCA is my next armchair imagineering project and I did this as a test as I am wrapping up Epcot “Evolution”
TROR
Well-Known Member
Start by bringing back Tower of Terror and Paradise Pier, put a small Mulan dark ride in Pacific Wharf, give an aesthetic overlay to Hollywood Land to sell the 1930s/40s/50s setting, and add animatronics to Grizzly River Run. Easy, small ideas to improve DCA overall.
Last edited:
Californian Elitist
Well-Known Member
SuddenStorm
Well-Known Member
This is a fundamentally flawed premise that reduces IP to simply "based on movie" or "not based on movie". It ignores the many nuanced approaches there are to creating an attraction based on a property that originates in film. I'm gonna ramble for a bit here since I have thoughts on DCA's identity, but don't have a specific response to your original post.
Personally, I like Tony Baxter's take on the genre of park:
The Castle parks are magic made real.
MGM Studios is how to make magic.
EPCOT is the real world made magical.
Having different approaches to IP and non IP attractions for each type of park helps give each one an identity and provides a reason to go to different parks. Obviously, Disney has yet to build a park that fits one of those descriptors perfectly, but having a sort of loose guideline can help give creatives a jumping off point when designing for different parks. And, Disney's basically chucked the idea of differentiating between the parks out the window in the last 5 years. In no rational world should Galaxy's Edge work in both Disneyland and Hollywood Studios from a thematic perspective.
DCA is an amalgam of the three- at least moreso than other parks are. It's got a touch of magic made real, it's got a touch of how to make magic, and it's got a touch of real world made magical. That's why the park has zero identity and feels like a fragmented mess. Disney needs to lean more heavily into the 'real world made magical' aspect of it- that's where the park shines.
I was thinking on a similar idea.
GotG did not tie in with the California theme which I have decided will continue and stay. California landmarks will be in the entrance with the Golden Gate Bridge returning but in a different place. The lands will be the same but will grow a bit in size (or as much as I can).
USH is both,
The only studios thing they have are the tram tours, WaterWorld and the fact that it is a studios but I meant by USF, which is a full on movies park
DCA-Magic of California
Country Road: *starts playing in the background*
prberk
Well-Known Member
I actually agree with you. Even though the outdoor Test Track, um, er, Cars Land, ride is fantastic, I liked a lot of the research and love for California that was put into the park. It was landlocked and had cheap carnival rides put in, which affected its value, though. But I think if they had had more budget and time, it was on the way to something uniquely California, and good, I think.
And like other Disney parks, I think some smart use of IP would have worked without compromising the California narrative that was going on, and which matched the Grand Californian that was part of an entrance. Even the landscape of the Grizzly River Run grew.
But overall I think the park suffered from a perception of cheap off-the-shelf rides (including even the Grizzly River Run itself, but especially the pier area rides) that proliferated and were not up to the standards set next door. They were literally building next to the most iconic and revered theme park -- the one that defined "theme park". So to have so many off-the-shelf rides so obvious really hurt it, I think, despite beautiful and well-researched theming.
The theming would have succeeded with more well-done, Imagineering-quality rides. And, yes, Tower of Terror could be included in that idea -- they even built that on the cheap (smaller in scale). But I do think its theme was perfect for the area. And when I rode it, the cast members were much more "into it" than ones I have encountered at WDW.