Tiana's Bayou Adventure: Disneyland Watch & Discussion

[Californian Elitist]

That’s exactly what I was getting at when I asked how many times they’ve gone and if their visits were sporadic. It’s easy to not see where people are coming from if someone has only been maybe two or three times over the course of five or so years. Many of us who post here are regulars who have been a countless number of times over the course of decades and can actually pinpoint, based on first-hand experience and not assumptions, when and how the decline began.

I also feel like anyone whose first visit may or may not have been in 2017, and is asking us why the parks were better in 2015, should really only be listening and not trying to combat and challenge what we say, since they may or may not have even been there in 2015.

 

[Consumer]

View attachment 708023
Not sure if anyone's spotted it yet, but Splash has been removed from the DL website's banner. It was beween Galaxy's Edge and HM.

Splash Mountain refurb confirmed. They’re finally going to fix all of the effects. This is great news.

 

[SplashJacket]

@SplashZander I want to say that I'm genuinely happy you had a fantastic time at DLR. However, because you have been to the resort I believe only twice (2017 and 2023? Please correct if incorrect), you probably saw all of the positives and few of the negatives during your trips. I don't want to make it seem like the resort isn't doing great things and isn't still a pretty great experience-I myself have pushed back at what I saw as a lot of negative hyperbole when I returned to the resort in 2022 after a four year absence. Much of DLR is better than many here give it credit for, and certainly it is overall a more functional place at the moment than its Floridian cousin.

That said, I experienced some issues on that 2022 visit that I don't think would have happened ten years ago that I catalogued previously, and may do so again if they seem relevant. Additionally, I don't believe there's a single person here who is visiting the parks more regularly than you are that genuinely believes that things have never been better than they are right now, and there's a reason for that. There absolutely are things that used to be better than they are now. Not all of these things may have been of equal value to all, but nonetheless these changes did occur and have, to varying degrees, negatively impacted my visits, as well as those of most here posting on the DLR board.

A few reasons that I don't believe have come up yet about why the park can't be the best it's ever been? Prior to 2020, the park didn't have a reservation system that currently serves no purpose except to help Disney staff with the absolute minimum needed to make the parks operate functionally and to arbitrarily annoy people by not letting them in because they didn't properly do a park reservation. Additionally, prior to 2019 or so, it would have been inconceivable that the park's most popular ride would shut down hours before the rest of the park. Perhaps early on when Rise was constantly having problems this made sense, but to still be doing it now? What benefit does that serve the park's guests?

I really don’t understand the extreme issue people have with the reservation system. I have family right now at a Magic Kingdom, and it’s busy, very busy, but it’s been booked-up for about a week. It would be even busier if it didn’t have reservations. That’s a fact. It does serve a purpose.

It causes very little inconvenience to vacationers from around the country and world unless you are trying to book a trip within the next few days. Anyone who books a trip, will wander on Disney’s website ahead of time where it makes it explicitly clear reservations are needed.

It’s no different than needing to buy a ticket ahead of time to a music festival or sporting event.

Outside of a select few days, day-paying guests are unrestricted by reservations, but the reservations do screw over passholders. Disneyland is absolutely worse for passholders today than 2019, for example, because their access is much more restrictive and the death of free skip-the-lines. Will elaborate further later.

Anyway, now to address points you made:

You seem to be operating under the assumption that I'm mostly talking about Covid when I mention the entertainment cuts. I'm not. To be sure, there's a lot that's still there, a lot that's still good, and there's definitely more of it than there is at, say, WDW. But I'm specifically referring to some of the groups and shows that are no longer there and were cut between my first visit as an adult in 2013 and my last pre-Covid visit in 2018, including:
-Billy Hill & the Hillbillies (a demonstrably popular group that nonetheless somehow ended up at Knott's because of Disney blundering)
-The Laughing Stock Co., and a subsequent dueling piano show (BH&THB also were in Golden Horsehoe-with each act it appeared to get smaller and smaller scale)
-Mad T Party
-The aforementioned Pixar Parade at DCA
-The Happy Camper
-Oparation: Playtime! Featuring the Green Army Men
-A dance party that would go down the parade route prior to the main DCA parade (in 2013, Phineas and Ferb themed)
-Minnie's Fly Girls
-Instant Concert-Just Add Water
-With the loss of Big Thunder Ranch came the loss of another venue
-A whole slew of Tomorrowland Bands that would rotate and play actual music in the park and attract dedicated fans-all replaced with WDW-esque dance parties

I'm not going to say that all of these things were 100% my thing, or that I even saw all of these things (I actually didn't know the Happy Camper had ever been a thing until I pulled out my 2013 entertainment guide from that trip, but I love the idea of what seems like a charming little throwback sort of leisurely show-just a place for people to sing campfire songs. Love it). I know that they have brought in some entertainment and characters that didn't exist at that time, notably all of the things they've brought into Avenger's Campus. But there's a number of things that disappeared between even 2013 and 2018 that were never really replaced, or given inferior replacements (the dance party thing, for example). Additionally, comparing those 2013 and 2018 times guides is instructive-in 2013, both parks received their own four-page times guides, with DL's completely full of stuff (DCA filled three pages with entertainment, and the backside with guest info). By 2018, both parks had been consolidated into a single times guide pamphlet that was additionally smaller and printed on less sturdy-feeling paper. In 2022, either I just flat out never grabbed one (unlikely, given that I have tons of maps and entertainment guides from previous visits) or they just didn't exist and they directed people to the app. Declining by degrees.

Even before they outright killed some shows, there were some shenanigans that sometimes happened over time. Like the way that Magical Map went from featured show to a show they could barely bother to run on weekends. Things that just didn't make sense and wouldn't have happened in the past. To me, it's a clear decline.

And here I must explain why I strongly disagree. Ticket price increases have continued to happen anyway, and will continue regardless into the future. At this point, the price for Genie is too low, which results in WAY too many people using it.

If Disney wants a paid skip-the-line, I personally wish Genie+ was priced like Universal’s Express pass where only a select few bought an extreme upcharge to minimize the effects on standby, but that serves a different purpose entirely. The only real benefit goes to a small group once-in-a-lifetime wealthy guests.

This was true for FastPass as well, but at least then it was free and theoretically everyone could use it. Now there's an upcharge, and it's priced at what seems like a "value" price of $20-30 on the face of things. But other line skipping services (Universal Express, Flash Pass, Fastlane, etc) are priced significantly higher, and as a result, the standby line is significantly less affected at other parks because few will pay for the privilege at the price that is being charged. With Genie, the price is too high for some to justify, but low enough that it's justifiable for enough people so that it is widely used and significantly impacts the wait of the standby line (and all of these systems demonstrably impact standby waits-witness the way that waits for rides like Buzz Lightyear and Monsters Inc, both of which could pretty much be reliably experienced in 15 minutes or less most of the day, both ballooned in popularity, resulting at one point in a two hour wait for standby, for Monsters Inc of all things. So as a result, Genie has the MOST negative impact to a guest that doesn't use the service of any such pass in the industry.

I strongly agree as well, but the old Fastpass system subsidized the trips of annual passholders while harming the inexperienced guests. Annual pass holders not only knew how to use the system, but they knew which rides to prioritize, etc, so they extracted substantial value from it. Even a raw standby system is exploited by passholders who know better times of day to ride and that wait-times are often inflated/which waits are worth it.

Additionally, there are limitations that exist with Genie+ that didn't exist with either FP, MP, or FP+. With Genie, I can only ride each attraction once per day. This assumes that I find equal value in every attraction, and that's just not the case.

I’d argue the average goal of a day-guest is to experience a lot of everything, rather than a lot of a few things (which more closely aligns with passholders). Preventing a few people from clogging up the access is more valuable than giving them a bunch of rerides. Disney is trying to maximize the average enjoyment at their parks. Theoretically saying riding Space Mountain once produces an enjoyment of 1, but riding it a second time, because it’s more familiar, gives an enjoyment of 0.7. Letting a new guest who hasn’t experienced the ride redeem an enjoyment of 1 maximizes overall guest enjoyment. While people will say Disney doesn’t care about the guest experience, that’s just false. They know if they make it better, they can charge more for it, so there’s always a push to make the parks better.

Furthermore, it's a limitation that didn't exist prior to Genie+. Why could I ride Space Mountain as many times as I desired three years ago with FP or MP for either free or a similar price to what I'm paying now, but suddenly because it's Genie I can't? And now I don't even get access to all of the park's attractions with the line skipping because now the most highly coveted attractions are about $20 apiece by themselves?

If I had to guess, the volume of released ILLs is much lower than normal Genie availability, but in terms of people paying for Genie, it’s better to be forward and let people know they won’t get a top ride (that’s super hard to get) than let most everyone be disappointed and feel scammed because they didn’t get it. That said, 100% these rides should just be all standby, but depending on how Disney uses the cash flow (it’s estimated Guardian’s ILL revenue will cover the construction cost within about 4-years, so while this may be optimistic, we will know shortly if they treat ILL as a ride-construction budget, especially if ILL demand decreases within a few years of its debut).

I also want to point out that Disney is pretty much the only company that puts such arbitrary limitations on how I can use their system-if I were to go to Knott's, I could ride whatever I wanted, whenever I wanted, as many times as I wanted. At Six Flags, it wouldn't be as flexible, and it would give me a return time like Disney does. However, I'm still free to more or less do what I want, when I want, as many times as I want. How can Genie be an upgrade in the context of not only what FP/MP used to be, but in the context of other systems of other parks? From every way that I can see, it's precisely the opposite.

Completely separate systems with completely different motivations and goals. They’re not comparable.

Additionally, the idea that it will help the vacationers at the expense of the locals? That's true, but if I'm a local and I continue to see people fly through the Genie line (because, again, so many people will buy it because of the low price), that's not going to endear the place to me.

100%, locals get the short end of the stick.

And as much as sometimes there are annoying overzealous locals, DL still needs them and has shown through the way they've handled things like, say, the Magic Key program that they continue to make choices that are only logical if the locals are truly going to keep showing up no matter what-something that may not be as true as it once was.

Yup, locals belong in the parks and they should be able to experience the parks to their heart’s content.

It is nonetheless an example of declining by degrees, is it not? Of small touches that used to set Disney apart that they've now decided aren't worth maintaining?

It is something that is a personal negative that I now have to consider that I didn't a few years ago. Is that not a valid reason for me to be frustrated? I'm sure you have things that you don't care for that wouldn't bother me in the slightest, but it matters to you, and because of that, it's important. You have your things, I have mine.

It’s valid to be frustrated.

Except that the point is that when I am hungry, I would like to have the choice to eat now, and I should be able to assume as a guest that I will not be inconvenienced if I just want to get into a line for a nearby restaurant. But that is not accurate, as Disneyland has essentially goosed the system by making virtually every restaurant have only a single worker for a line of people waiting to get food that is just as long as it would have been five years ago. And not every mobile order experience I had was smooth-my friend and I ordered a snack in the confectionary and there wasn't any clear signage or indication of where to pick up our order, and the CMs weren't particularly helpful either. Additionally, I like to save up for my trip and pay with Disney gift cards, which are less intuitive to use on the Disney apps than they should be. So it should be seemless, but in my experience it's certainly not to that point. Perhaps it will be in the future, but seeing as Disney seemingly has no idea how an intuitive app works, I doubt it will ever be where it should be. Not everyone has or wants to use their phone to order a meal. If I have to wait a little bit of time in a restaurant to be able to order, that to me is more tangible and understandable than "you can get your food in 40 minutes" on the app and I'm nowhere near the restaurant in question.

I'm glad you enjoy it, and I'm not denying that it can be beneficial. But I don't appreciate essentially being forced to use it because of their desire to save some money on staffing.

Having the option to order using a regular line does not force you to use it. While anecdotal experience is valuable, I’ve had plenty of negative human ordering experiences long before mobile-order was introduced, so let’s just call a stalemate.

Anyway, you shouldn't be a customer, you should be a guest.

AND value has gone down, by virtue of things that had once been included no longer being included. It's not a 1:1 comparison.

Sure, to some people, as prices have risen at a rate faster than inflation, value can absolutely go down, even if the overall experience is better. Some may find the improved experience (if we assume it’s improved) to be worth more than the increase in price, and others won’t. Hard to argue again that.

It doesn't ruin the experience, but remember when Disney had the reputation of being a company that thought of everything and being proactive at addressing issues in the park/resort experience? They built that reputation, and for a long time they deserved it, and they still crow about how meticulous they are in every single piece of company literature they publish. Yet that is not shown in their actions. While I personally didn't use any businesses on that side of DTD other than eating at Earl from time to time, it is nonetheless indicative of a company (or DLR leadership team) that is clearly acting without a plan. I can't imagine the Disney of Walt's time, or the Disney up through the early nineties, just demolishing something without clear, concrete plans to immediately replace those services with something. It's not like people suddenly decided they hated Rainforest Cafe and left it destitude, you know? Or like ESPN Zone suddenly didn't fit in the context of modern Disney, the company of synergy and brands. They would have made more money, and the space would be more aesthetically attractive, if they had let those tenants stay in place until they had some sort of plan. And even if they were at a point where the contracts were going to expire and businesses were going to be displaced regardless, they should have been proactive at making sure everything was a go by that point. Clearly they didn't, and that doesn't reflect well on them.

I think a lot of plans and their scale, ambition, and overall scope are up in the air right now, they easily could’ve had a plan, but then realized the space had the potential for a lot more. Definitely a tad sloppy, but depending on the end-result, I’m not upset yet.

Frankly, that Earl location must have made bank, because the fact that they keep coming back even as they've had to deal with a lot of nonsense from Disney beggars belief.

I am genuinely looking forward to experiencing MMRR, and get the feeling that I will enjoy it more than many here. It sounds perfect for the area, and Toontown has needed some love for a long time. I'm hoping that this will be an improvement and I can 100% get behind.

Perhaps this is where not being a Star Wars fan leaves me out of the loop, but I genuinely don't see any way in which Smugglers improves upon what Star Tours 1.0 AND 2.0 have done in the time they've been around. And it's similar enough to Star Tours to be redundant in my eyes, and clearly park guests must agree, because Star Tours last year had shorter lines than I have ever seen before. It's not even genuinely interactive for most guests-and I'm still not convinced that most people actually want that level of interactivity in any case, no matter how much the theme park industry crows about it.

Variety is the spice of life, if every ride was as interactive as Falcon, I would not be a fan, but I think Falcon is a great, if flawed, ride and concept. As for their redundancies, to me the only overlap is the IP and that they’re simulators, nothing else. I hope Star Tours never closes because it’s truly a great ride, but all around the world it seems to get low waits now, which scares me regarding its future. Add mando, perhaps? Tokyo, which doesn’t have Galaxy’s Edge, and Paris, which doesn’t have Galaxy’s Edge, both fail to pull impressive waits for either, with a pre-covid visit to Tokyo shocked me when they had several simulators closed in the middle of the day due to low demand.

So now the longevity of a genuine park classic is more in question than it was in the past because Disney opened what is basically a glorified knock-off in the same park? How is that smart planning? Does that not point to a lack of imagination to envision Star Wars in a theme park beyond a motion simulator (and even Rise has moments where it too engages in Star Tours cosplay!), and shouldn't we expect more?

Falcon isn’t “just a motion simulator” and Rise’s 30-second simulator portion has a one of a kind impressive drop sequence.

To me Webslingers did nothing to improve on, say, Ninjago at Legoland, which did the same sort of interactive thing back in 2017. Perhaps it's a me problem, but I don't feel like the ride did a particularly good job explaining what we were supposed to do on the ride. And again, it just doesn't make sense to me that Universal opened a far more-impressive Spider-Man attraction more than 20 years ago, and rather than taking advantage of the fact that one of their most popular characters can actually have his own theme park attraction in California and do something to raise the bar, they build...a glorified Midway Mania in sleeker clothing. For the character and the alleged leaders of the theme park industry, it's a letdown. I'm not saying that they shouldn't build smaller rides, but why not both? It's certainly not an attraction strong enough to anchor the opening of a new land, and retroactively adding Guardians into Avengers doesn't really solve the problem either. They NEED an anchor, a reason for people to care, beyond Webslingers and a pre-existing ride reskin.

They are building an anchor. It’s the Avenger’s E-ticket. Avengers campus feels like Galaxy’s Edge before Rise opened. That said, It’s still better than what previously held it’s spot, and thus, made the park better.

It’s a shame they haven’t built the E-ticket ride yet, but I’ll admit, I haven’t been impressed with the concepts I’ve heard so far, so hopefully when it does happen it’s really good.

As for the Ninjago comparison, I honestly have to disagree. Yes, they use the same concept, but I don’t think the ride is based off a gimmick, I think it’s just a good ride. It doesn’t feel like TSMM and that’s good. Everyone doesn’t need to love it, and that’s fine, I just think it’s a solid ride and positive addition.

The alleged leader of the theme park industry should know this, but given that they did something similar with GE, perhaps they don't? It doesn't speak highly to their abilities in any case. Maybe I'd like the land and attraction more if I were more into Marvel, but honestly the whole area is just less aesthetically pleasing and pleasant to be in than ABL was. And I personally can't get beyond the vast disparity between what Universal is offering as their Spider-Man ride when compared to the much newer, but less impressive, Disney offering.

The only similarities between Universal’s Spider-Man and Disney’s is the IP. They have completely different goals, and I think both achieve them. I fully agree that Universal’s Spider-Man is better, but again they’re only tangentially comparable.

I disagree that the Soarin' change is minor. While Soarin' over California perhaps wasn't intended to be a park-thesis attraction, that's what it ended up becoming as one of the few unqualified successes of OG DCA. And yet they threw it out to replace it with a CGI fest where fake animals throw things in your face and you go to weirdly-askew and much more obvious (read: predictable) landmarks, all scored to a less impressive derivative of the original soundtrack. There's probably some nostalgia at play, as with anything else, but still-they did a park landmark, a park classic, dirty. As I've said, the OG Soarin' was an attraction I did multiple times a trip, and World is lucky to get hit once. Maybe that's another me problem, but I genuinely believe that the loss of the original Soarin' was the first, and in many ways still the worst, DCA change that made me less invested in the place. It's been all downhill from there, and perfectly symbolic to me of a park that lost its way.

I prefer SOC, and while I’m the type of person to only ride Soarin’ around the world once, if it wasn’t for the limited ability to see around the world at other parks and during other months, it would’ve gotten my 1-ride treatment as well.

Yes, I think it’s better, but I think the rides are comparable if you never experienced the original, that said, the theaters should alternate or they should have the one theater do one and the other theater play the other, similar to Mission Space.

I'm not going to go into this because I don't feel like I have anything to say here that is unique from what I've said in the past, but I honestly feel better and more uplifted leaving the following parks than I feel leaving DCA, in no particular order:
-Knott's
-Kennywood
-Knoebels
-Disneyland
-Cedar Point
-Kings Island
-Silver Dollar City
-Six Flags Fiesta Texas
etc.

Highly recommend going to Dollywood or even the European classics like Phantasialand and Efteling if you can!

Disneyland is absolutely better than DCA, no argueing against that, I just don’t think DCA is terrible by comparison.

I can't speak for you, but it appears to me that you may be allowing your feelings about IP you like and what you felt was an excellent piece of day-ending entertainment elevate the rest of the park more than it perhaps deserves. And that's fine. But that doesn't jive with my experience with the place over the last decade. If I'm incorrect in my reading, you are by all means welcome to refute it. It is only an impression and nothing more.

We only did WoC once because we head to the airport on the second visit’s evening, but I think you’re saying the IPs within WoC? I love WoC, just standing there for the post-show is gorgeous. After WoC, just like with IRoE, I have to stay for a few minutes to process my thoughts. I think this is an odd impression, I don’t exactly know how to refute or respond to it? Only way would be to say I hate all the included IP? But that’s not true, even if I didn’t love or even like some of them.

As I've said, it's a lot easier to say there haven't been (or to not see) a thousand minor inflictions if you've only been twice. That's the nature of how it is to visit parks. You could undoubtedly point out things that used to be better at parks/places that you frequent that I wouldn't notice or wouldn't strike me as significant, but nonetheless held some meaning for you personally.

Of course, Disney park fans are very vocal about what they perceive as the way things should be, and sometimes they, as are any members of fandom, are subject to spout hyperbole. I remember seeing complaints about Project Sparkle and so on that didn't at all register to me and seemed to be an overreaction. If someone does genuinely go to Disneyland and all they can see are the negatives, they should probably take a break from visiting, because we both agree that there is a lot they still do right. BUT if basically every person here regularly visiting the parks can list a number of things they don't care for in regards to how the park is currently run, or how this or that thing that had value to them disappeared over the past ten years, should that not be cause for concern? Especially if there are concerns that many, MANY people share? It's definitely true that people can get bogged down in negativity, and that many of those complaints might strike others as nonsense. But that doesn't inherently mean that every negative thought or gripe is wrong.

Restricting myself to only Disney parks, I would say the only parks that across the board made almost entirely positive decisions were Hong Kong and Animal Kingdom. Some are more arguable (Hollywood Studios), but I'd say most others were defininitively better ten years ago (and even TDS' Fantasy Springs would have to be pretty incredible to make up for the massive downgrade in entertainment that has occured at that particular park over the past ten years). Again, doesn't mean that they're bad or terrible now, or that I can't/won't enjoy them when I visit. But I'm not getting the value for the money that I did ten years ago.

Speaking of pricing in general: over the past decade, pricing has skyrocked significantly across the board, and again, things that used to be included in large or small ways simply aren't anymore (everything from bread at table service restaurants to FP and so on). Unless you have unlimited funds, that does start to wear on you after awhile and affect how you see the place. My dollar doesn't go as far as it did ten years ago, and while I still have fun, I do think I am justified in being frustrated by that fact. Additionally, the way the resort is increasingly engineering your experience and directing you to your phone and revenue-generating schemes (i.e. park reservations, mobile order, Genie, more and more of the Fantasmic viewing area being reserved for dining package guests, etc) in a way that makes your experience less free and more stressful than it used to be, while the resort has simultaneously closed off or eliminated several quiet places to take a breather from what can often be a chaotic overwhelming environment even at the best of times (i.e. Big Thunder Ranch, Court of Angels). That doesn't mean there isn't still good there, but it does mean that a number of changes that have had a negative impact have nonetheless occurred.

The experience HAS been altered. Not to the point that it doesn't have value, but it has less value than it used to for many people. If you disagree, that's fine, but your experience is not the only experience.

Hundred percent agree, addressed this earlier and will more later.

Other people have watched the decline over a longer period of time and have visited more frequently, and their opinions are certainly valid on this topic. No one that regularly posts here thinks everything is bad-if they did, they wouldn't still go to the parks-but there is plenty about the resort that could be pointed to as decline. But I don't think there's anything wrong with expecting more-we should expect more. We DO expect more. If we didn't, we wouldn't still be here talking about this and hoping for things to be even better than they are right now. We know this not just because of what Disney could do in the future, but because we saw and experienced them doing better than they are now with our own eyes.

I appreciate, and wish I could share, your optimism. But please understand that if I'm being negative, it's not just because it's fashionable to be negative online or on forums like this. So if you think the resort is better than ever, that's great-but understand that many will not share that opinion for a variety of legitimate reasons.

My main overall gripe, and probably a distinction I should’ve made previously, I think the Disney experience for first timers and non-passholders is overwhelmingly better now that it was previously.

As for passholders, the argument can be made against. I’ve been a passholder for chunks of most of my life, but because they are now so expensive and not always sold, I haven’t been since covid. I had an annual pass to WDW, Universal Orlando, and Six Flags when COVID hit. Since covid, I’ve only gotten my six flags pass again but only because it was $60 one year and then $30 to renew. WDW is very frustrating from a previous passholder perspective, and I imagine it’s similar for Disneyland. Prior to Covid, I believe I only bought day-tickets to WDW once in my life, yet since then, I’ve but the bullet three times and yikes. Strikes a pretty penny. I also think certain aspects of WDW are better than ever, while others have downgraded, but overall still think it has improved,

The pricing is indisputably expensive. But I don’t think it effects the quality of the experience. No one likes spending more money, of course, but it should, in an ideal world, only effect your willingness to indulge in the experience, and that willingness will vary from person to person. It’s unfortunate that Disney has gotten this expensive because it prices a lot of people out, but, in the end, the value of money differs wildly from person to person, so ultimately personal conclusions need to be made. In addition to increased ticket prices, I think Genie is absolutely necessary for all infrequent day-guests, so just consider that an adage to the ticket price.

My overall pith to all this was that if you’re considering a Disneyland trip, and you’re debating whether you should or not, especially if you’re on the east coast, you should absolutely just go, I really don’t think you’ll regret it. The parks are awesome, and I’d argue provide tremendously better value for your money. Disneyland may be the greatest theme park in the world, and it just keeps receiving love and additions. If you’re considering a trip, just go, was honestly one of the most enjoyable trips of my life and I intend to return soon.

Saying that is necessary to counter the overtly negative impressions and perspectives from passholders. Ultimately, I would argue the average enjoyment at Disneyland is higher than it was pre-pandemic. The parks look gorgeous, the shoes and entertainment are great, and the attractions are world-class.

And finally, as quick little caveat, I feel like the parks have been changing at an unprecedented rate, both operationally and other ways, compared to pre-pandemic trends, so a trip just a few months earlier can feel incredibly different.

 

[PiratesMansion]

I really don’t understand the extreme issue people have with the reservation system. I have family right now at a Magic Kingdom, and it’s busy, very busy, but it’s been booked-up for about a week. It would be even busier if it didn’t have reservations. That’s a fact. It does serve a purpose.

It causes very little inconvenience to vacationers from around the country and world unless you are trying to book a trip within the next few days. Anyone who books a trip, will wander on Disney’s website ahead of time where it makes it explicitly clear reservations are needed.

It’s no different than needing to buy a ticket ahead of time to a music festival or sporting event.

Outside of a select few days, day-paying guests are unrestricted by reservations, but the reservations do screw over passholders. Disneyland is absolutely worse for passholders today than 2019, for example, because their access is much more restrictive and the death of free skip-the-lines. Will elaborate further later.

It creates unnecessary friction, especially because Disney didn't even integrate it well into the ticket-buying process. And it took them WAY too long to just give people buying a one day ticket an automatic reservation. My mother almost wasn't let in to Magic Kingdom because apparently she didn't make a reservation correctly, and she would have been SOL if she hadn't been able to convince the CM she talked to that she was on my dinner reservation. It's also bizzarre to me that it's the ONE rule that they have chosen to doggedly stick to when it's clearly causing problems and image issues. There's a reason no other park has stuck with reservations, and it's not because Disney is just so much exceptionally better or smarter than everyone else.

It's pretty well established at this point that the reservation system has very little bearing on how many they'll let into the park. If they can find the staff for it at this point, they'll let people in. Which again begs the question: why have it at all? At one point it was clear they were using it for covid restrictions-now they're clearly using it to value engineer the number of CMs working at any given time.

If Disney wants a paid skip-the-line, I personally wish Genie+ was priced like Universal’s Express pass where only a select few bought an extreme upcharge to minimize the effects on standby, but that serves a different purpose entirely. The only real benefit goes to a small group once-in-a-lifetime wealthy guests.

Every system is going to be exploited by passholders unless you do what every other park does and prices like Universal. There's a reason every other park prices it that way.

I strongly agree as well, but the old Fastpass system subsidized the trips of annual passholders while harming the inexperienced guests. Annual pass holders not only knew how to use the system, but they knew which rides to prioritize, etc, so they extracted substantial value from it. Even a raw standby system is exploited by passholders who know better times of day to ride and that wait-times are often inflated/which waits are worth it.

I don't appreciate the park restricting my choices for completely arbitrary reasons.

I’d argue the average goal of a day-guest is to experience a lot of everything, rather than a lot of a few things (which more closely aligns with passholders). Preventing a few people from clogging up the access is more valuable than giving them a bunch of rerides. Disney is trying to maximize the average enjoyment at their parks. Theoretically saying riding Space Mountain once produces an enjoyment of 1, but riding it a second time, because it’s more familiar, gives an enjoyment of 0.7. Letting a new guest who hasn’t experienced the ride redeem an enjoyment of 1 maximizes overall guest enjoyment. While people will say Disney doesn’t care about the guest experience, that’s just false. They know if they make it better, they can charge more for it, so there’s always a push to make the parks better.

If there was a push to make the parks better, they wouldn't rip out or change stuff that was completely fine (i.e. most of DCA in 2015) while letting things that everyone knows needs help (i.e. Tomorrowland, Hollywoodland-the one part of DCA that has actually needed work for eons) just sit there for 30 years.

If I had to guess, the volume of released ILLs is much lower than normal Genie availability, but in terms of people paying for Genie, it’s better to be forward and let people know they won’t get a top ride (that’s super hard to get) than let most everyone be disappointed and feel scammed because they didn’t get it. That said, 100% these rides should just be all standby, but depending on how Disney uses the cash flow (it’s estimated Guardian’s ILL revenue will cover the construction cost within about 4-years, so while this may be optimistic, we will know shortly if they treat ILL as a ride-construction budget, especially if ILL demand decreases within a few years of its debut).

I do not understand why it's bad to give people the opportunity to secure a popular ride, even an unlikely one, but it's good to just say that you can get it if you pay an additional $20 or more. Again, it's creating an unnecessary stratification of guests and creating friction that didn't used to exist for no reason except to maximize Disney's revenue.

Completely separate systems with completely different motivations and goals. They’re not comparable.

They're completely comparable. Pay money to get a shorter wait on attractions. That's what they are.

Having the option to order using a regular line does not force you to use it. While anecdotal experience is valuable, I’ve had plenty of negative human ordering experiences long before mobile-order was introduced, so let’s just call a stalemate.

Have you previously heard lots of anecdotal evidence finding ordering food the way you order it at 99% of fast food restaurants in the country frustrating before? I haven't, but I've heard plenty of anecdotal evidence about the frustrations of mobile order and experienced some firsthand. Just because it has never happened to you doesn't mean that these problems don't exist.

And perhaps you're not forced to use mobile order, but by virtue of Disney basically limiting the in person ordering to a single CM, you are being penalized if you don't use mobile order. Not exactly great guest service!

Sure, to some people, as prices have risen at a rate faster than inflation, value can absolutely go down, even if the overall experience is better. Some may find the improved experience (if we assume it’s improved) to be worth more than the increase in price, and others won’t.

Have you found a dramatically improved experience at Blue Bayou, Carthay, Napa Rose, etc. that has made up for obvious cuts in value?

I think a lot of plans and their scale, ambition, and overall scope are up in the air right now, they easily could’ve had a plan, but then realized the space had the potential for a lot more. Definitely a tad sloppy, but depending on the end-result, I’m not upset yet.

There have been a lot of sloppy efforts over the last 20 years ago. This is not a one-time issue.

the only overlap is the IP and that they’re simulators, nothing else.

Those are pretty significant overlaps IMO.

Falcon isn’t “just a motion simulator”

What is Falcon then?

They are building an anchor. It’s the Avenger’s E-ticket. Avengers campus feels like Galaxy’s Edge before Rise opened. That said, It’s still better than what previously held it’s spot, and thus, made the park better.

So they've been saying for a LONG time, with no demonstrable or meaningful progress. Perhaps it'll make the park better when it's open. Until then, I'd take an area that had nothing for me, but was pleasant.

It’s a shame they haven’t built the E-ticket ride yet, but I’ll admit, I haven’t been impressed with the concepts I’ve heard so far, so hopefully when it does happen it’s really good.

Right, so why are we giving them the benefit of the doubt? Have they truly earned it?

The only similarities between Universal’s Spider-Man and Disney’s is the IP. They have completely different goals, and I think both achieve them. I fully agree that Universal’s Spider-Man is better, but again they’re only tangentially comparable.

I don't understand how one company DOESN'T look bad when another company did something demonstrably more impressive with the same IP before the park the newer use of the IP is in even existed, but that may just be me.

Highly recommend going to Dollywood or even the European classics like Phantasialand and Efteling if you can!

Been to Dollywood. Phantasialand, Efteling, and Europa are all on the list.

Disneyland is absolutely better than DCA, no argueing against that, I just don’t think DCA is terrible by comparison.

For me, it's terrible in comparison to what it used to be.

We only did WoC once because we head to the airport on the second visit’s evening, but I think you’re saying the IPs within WoC? I love WoC, just standing there for the post-show is gorgeous. After WoC, just like with IRoE, I have to stay for a few minutes to process my thoughts. I think this is an odd impression, I don’t exactly know how to refute or respond to it? Only way would be to say I hate all the included IP? But that’s not true, even if I didn’t love or even like some of them.

The IP within the park as a whole. It seems to me you're saying that you're excusing the direction the park has gone because they've been putting in IP you like.

Hundred percent agree, addressed this earlier and will more later.

My main overall gripe, and probably a distinction I should’ve made previously, I think the Disney experience for first timers and non-passholders is overwhelmingly better now that it was previously.

Can't agree when you have a reservation system that didn't exist previously, and you also have a more complicated and expensive Genie system to work around, and you're increasingly pushed to use an app that's not good enough for how often you have to use it.

As for passholders, the argument can be made against. I’ve been a passholder for chunks of most of my life, but because they are now so expensive and not always sold, I haven’t been since covid. I had an annual pass to WDW, Universal Orlando, and Six Flags when COVID hit. Since covid, I’ve only gotten my six flags pass again but only because it was $60 one year and then $30 to renew. WDW is very frustrating from a previous passholder perspective, and I imagine it’s similar for Disneyland. Prior to Covid, I believe I only bought day-tickets to WDW once in my life, yet since then, I’ve but the bullet three times and yikes. Strikes a pretty penny. I also think certain aspects of WDW are better than ever, while others have downgraded, but overall still think it has improved,

The pricing is indisputably expensive. But I don’t think it effects the quality of the experience. No one likes spending more money, of course, but it should, in an ideal world, only effect your willingness to indulge in the experience, and that willingness will vary from person to person. It’s unfortunate that Disney has gotten this expensive because it prices a lot of people out, but, in the end, the value of money differs wildly from person to person, so ultimately personal conclusions need to be made. In addition to increased ticket prices, I think Genie is absolutely necessary for all infrequent day-guests, so just consider that an adage to the ticket price.

My overall pith to all this was that if you’re considering a Disneyland trip, and you’re debating whether you should or not, especially if you’re on the east coast, you should absolutely just go, I really don’t think you’ll regret it. The parks are awesome, and I’d argue provide tremendously better value for your money. Disneyland may be the greatest theme park in the world, and it just keeps receiving love and additions. If you’re considering a trip, just go, was honestly one of the most enjoyable trips of my life and I intend to return soon.

The pricing absolutely effects the quality of the experience. The average person expects more if they're paying more. I'm less patient with Disney for things that I might let slide at other parks precisely because Disney is significantly more expensive on average when compared to other parks and sells themselves as the most premium of premium experiences.

As for the last part, I'm assuming you're talking to anyone who happens to be reading this post who is on the fence about the value of a DLR trip? I'm neither a passholder nor someone who has never been to Disneyland.

Saying that is necessary to counter the overtly negative impressions and perspectives from passholders. Ultimately, I would argue the average enjoyment at Disneyland is higher than it was pre-pandemic. The parks look gorgeous, the shoes and entertainment are great, and the attractions are world-class.

And I'm not a passholder, and I've spent quite a lot of time explaining why I disagree, what used to be better, and how there used to be more entertainment. It's not awful, it's still a good product. But it used to be better, and there's nothing wrong in stating that fact.

 

[SplashJacket]

It creates unnecessary friction, especially because Disney didn't even integrate it well into the ticket-buying process. And it took them WAY too long to just give people buying a one day ticket an automatic reservation. My mother almost wasn't let in to Magic Kingdom because apparently she didn't make a reservation correctly, and she would have been SOL if she hadn't been able to convince the CM she talked to that she was on my dinner reservation. It's also bizzarre to me that it's the ONE rule that they have chosen to doggedly stick to when it's clearly causing problems and image issues. There's a reason no other park has stuck with reservations, and it's not because Disney is just so much exceptionally better or smarter than everyone else.

It's pretty well established at this point that the reservation system has very little bearing on how many they'll let into the park. If they can find the staff for it at this point, they'll let people in. Which again begs the question: why have it at all? At one point it was clear they were using it for covid restrictions-now they're clearly using it to value engineer the number of CMs working at any given time.

Just as an overall statement, if you cap the number of guests entering the park with reservations, isn't that reducing the number of guests entering the park, regardless of what's going on behind the scenes?

I've been at WDW before when they weren't expecting large crowds and the parks were low-staffed as a result. It was chaos. Pretty sure it was January 2019 or 2020. Not fun. They valued engineering staffing before reservations, now they can ensure they never get overrun. Maybe the average day has less staffing, but the worst days at the parks, the ones the reservation system is meant for (because those are the only ones where reservations aren't available) are made significantly better, and that should be obvious if you've been to Epcot on NYE and seen Figment at over 2-hours. Yikes.

I think they could make the reservation system better, especially for Passholders during non-peak times, but honestly, I think it's a necessary evil that makes the parks better during peak times.

Every system is going to be exploited by passholders unless you do what every other park does and prices like Universal. There's a reason every other park prices it that way.

True, but just having a pricing barrier means that pass holders are, on average, using Genie far less than the average guest and far less than they did with Fastpass, leveling the playing field. I'm not saying it's the ideal system, or the system I like, just that it's not necessarily all bad.

I don't appreciate the park restricting my choices for completely arbitrary reasons.

If there was a push to make the parks better, they wouldn't rip out or change stuff that was completely fine (i.e. most of DCA in 2015) while letting things that everyone knows needs help (i.e. Tomorrowland, Hollywoodland-the one part of DCA that has actually needed work for eons) just sit there for 30 years.

I do not understand why it's bad to give people the opportunity to secure a popular ride, even an unlikely one, but it's good to just say that you can get it if you pay an additional $20 or more. Again, it's creating an unnecessary stratification of guests and creating friction that didn't used to exist for no reason except to maximize Disney's revenue.

I don't necessarily disagree that restricting re-rides is silly, but was just trying to rationalize possible reasons, but I don't see how preventing re-rides maximizes Disney's revenue, because Genie+ doesn't charge per ride.

They're completely comparable. Pay money to get a shorter wait on attractions. That's what they are.

Six Flags, Knotts, and Universal's skip-the-line options are meant to be bought by a super small minority and provide a much better experience than any Disney Fastpass system ever has.

Genie+ is basically meant to be bought by nearly every day-paying guest/increase the per-spending visit of pass holders if they want to disproportionately effect the experience of others.

Have you previously heard lots of anecdotal evidence finding ordering food the way you order it at 99% of fast food restaurants in the country frustrating before? I haven't, but I've heard plenty of anecdotal evidence about the frustrations of mobile order and experienced some firsthand. Just because it has never happened to you doesn't mean that these problems don't exist.

And perhaps you're not forced to use mobile order, but by virtue of Disney basically limiting the in person ordering to a single CM, you are being penalized if you don't use mobile order. Not exactly great guest service!

I've waited in really long lines pre-mobile ordering, if anything, mobile ordering allows you to bypass long lines (assuming the line would be long anyway, as it likely would be). Mobile ordering transfers the traditional bottleneck of food service (ordering) to the kitchen's output, which is traditionally much higher.

Out in the wild, at my local Chick-Fil-A, all registers could be open, but the line can still be incredibly long, so I will just place a mobile order and get my food much faster. The space physically doesn't have room for more registers, as is often the case at the space-hungry Disneyland.

Have you found a dramatically improved experience at Blue Bayou, Carthay, Napa Rose, etc. that has made up for obvious cuts in value?

Meant more of an overall improved experience, and not necessarily at any specific restaurants, that said, I had no problems or complaints after visiting Blue Bayou in 2017 and 2023, both times portions were filling and delicious. The pricing for the Sea Bass was honestly comparable to prices back home despite no obvious quality shortfalls, but I may just be an uncultured idiot.

There have been a lot of sloppy efforts over the last 20 years ago. This is not a one-time issue.

Those are pretty significant overlaps IMO.

What is Falcon then?

I think qualifying Falcon as just another simulator, or very similar to Star Tours, is missing the point. Soarin' and the Simpsons could have their media swapped and the experiences would be nearly identical. Sure, their dressings would be different, but the focal point of the experience remains unchanged, the content on the screen.

Falcon is not about the screen, it's about your actions and how they interact with the environment. You could change that concept and get a flight simulator over Europe, and sure, that would effectively be the same ride, just reskinned, but it's still not the same as Star Tours. Personally, I think guests would love a flight-sim experience, so it's not even a crazy concept. I do think Falcon has flaws and its execution could've been improved, but it's not the same ride as Star Tours.

Even FoP and Soarin', even though they are far closer to being the same ride (even though they lack IPs), FoP's vehicle amplifies the experience dramatically to the point that playing FoP's film in the Soarin' theaters would be an incredible neutered experience. Changing Soarin' over the World to Soarin' over Pandora would be a terrible idea, but by the same logic, make sense.

This goes back to my original point, Star Tours and Falcon are really not overlapping rides or even concepts, outside the IP. If Star Tours is at risk of removal, its from its disappointingly low current waits, or them deciding there is too much Star Wars in the parks, but personally, I love Star Tours and find its low waits a lovely refuge from the general madness found at the GE attractions.

So they've been saying for a LONG time, with no demonstrable or meaningful progress. Perhaps it'll make the park better when it's open. Until then, I'd take an area that had nothing for me, but was pleasant.

Right, so why are we giving them the benefit of the doubt? Have they truly earned it?

I don't understand how one company DOESN'T look bad when another company did something demonstrably more impressive with the same IP before the park the newer use of the IP is in even existed, but that may just be me.

You can go just about any route with just about any IP. The concept of "slinging webs like Spider-Man" is a cool one, and it's a concept that Universal Creative ignored, and that's fine. I would have no issue with BatB attractions coming to other parks in a non-headlining fashion, and that doesn't mean those less impressive iterations are failures. There are different calibers of rides, and not everything needs to be a headliner or E-ticket. The rides will obviously be compared, and that's fine, I prefer IOA's Spider-Man, but they're going for different things and each individually succeed.

As for the Avenger's E-Ticket, this is just looping, but once again, the original concept sounded aggressively mediocre, so the jury is still out. The

Been to Dollywood. Phantasialand, Efteling, and Europa are all on the list.

For me, it's terrible in comparison to what it used to be.

The IP within the park as a whole. It seems to me you're saying that you're excusing the direction the park has gone because they've been putting in IP you like.

I had never watched TBA until Covid, I think both Cars and most of Marvel are aggressively mediocre, and I honestly think Finding Dory was quite atrocious. MMRR honestly feels like a non-ip attraction to me, sure I like Mickey and Minnie, but they're just so synonymous with the parks. Once again, this seems like a very bizarre take.

Can't agree when you have a reservation system that didn't exist previously, and you also have a more complicated and expensive Genie system to work around, and you're increasingly pushed to use an app that's not good enough for how often you have to use it.

The pricing absolutely effects the quality of the experience. The average person expects more if they're paying more. I'm less patient with Disney for things that I might let slide at other parks precisely because Disney is significantly more expensive on average when compared to other parks and sells themselves as the most premium of premium experiences.

I agree, but I think you're conflating that with the value of the experience. You can't really definitively state the value of the experience because everyone has a different value for their money. Sure, you can say the relative value is more or less, but the definitive value is hard to quantify or qualify. I also hold Disney to a higher standard than my dumpy Six Flags park because if it wasn't, I would receive much less value for the quality of the experience. The value of Disney parks is highly personal, so I don't really think it's worthwhile. If someone was on the cusp of appropriate value prior to a price hike, returning doesn't make sense. That said, if you were just below the appropriate value if they added an expansion or your favorite entertainment returned (like a parade), you should probably consider another trip to the park. The moral of the story, and the value of the experience, are not the quality of the experience. The value of the experience is what determines how often, how long, and when I go to the parks, and the quality of the experience contributes to the value, but they're still not the same thing.

Personally, to me, peak Disney value was when discounts and low crowds were prominent in the early 2000s and the recession era. I personally wouldn't take those parks for a second over the parks we have today, but I also wouldn't pay the prices we have today for those parks. I would also say the overall quality is higher now, even if the quality of certain aspects is lower, but distinctly, value and quality of the experience, are not the same thing.

As for the last part, I'm assuming you're talking to anyone who happens to be reading this post who is on the fence about the value of a DLR trip? I'm neither a passholder nor someone who has never been to Disneyland.

Just a general statement regarding the overall discussion. It feels like self-fulfilling and undue negativity permeates every thread in the Disneyland forum, whereas the WDW forum is just general chaos. If I came onto these threads it would make me rethink a trip to DLR, which is honestly sad since my experiences there have topped pretty much any other theme park experience I've had globally.

And I'm not a passholder, and I've spent quite a lot of time explaining why I disagree, what used to be better, and how there used to be more entertainment. It's not awful, it's still a good product. But it used to be better, and there's nothing wrong in stating that fact.

I agree, there's nothing wrong with having personal preferences, but it's still very hyperbolic to say "for me, it's terrible in comparison to what it used to be," even though you just said it's still a good product.

You're claiming one thing, but your comments say another. If I read your comments, at face value, for what they were, I would think Disneyland is a terrible, rotting dump, that shouldn't be visited, and while I'm being hyperbolic in saying that, I don't think the general sentiments reflect reality.

Visiting Disneyland and DCA vary so drastically from the perceptions reinforced here. On a day at MK, I would thoroughly miss Splash Mountain because it's such a highlight, and the transformation to TBA puts that in jeopardy. In Disneyland, Splash, while a solid ride, wouldn't even be top five for me, which should be surprising given my username, but, as a result, Disneyland has a lot less to lose and a lot more to gain. Thematically, won't harm the park, nor does diminishing the mountain destroy site-lines, arguably, it improves them.

To me, the overall direction of Disneyland is positive, but once again, reading these boards does not reflect that, I appreciate the discussion though.

 

[PiratesMansion]

Just as an overall statement, if you cap the number of guests entering the park with reservations, isn't that reducing the number of guests entering the park, regardless of what's going on behind the scenes?

I've been at WDW before when they weren't expecting large crowds and the parks were low-staffed as a result. It was chaos. Pretty sure it was January 2019 or 2020. Not fun. They valued engineering staffing before reservations, now they can ensure they never get overrun. Maybe the average day has less staffing, but the worst days at the parks, the ones the reservation system is meant for (because those are the only ones where reservations aren't available) are made significantly better, and that should be obvious if you've been to Epcot on NYE and seen Figment at over 2-hours. Yikes.

I think they could make the reservation system better, especially for Passholders during non-peak times, but honestly, I think it's a necessary evil that makes the parks better during peak times.

We'll agree to disagree. And if they must keep it, the least they could do is make it more intuitive to use and fully integrate it into the ticket-buying process. Perhaps they've made it better since I bought a ticket last, but their current system is more convoluted than it needs to be.

True, but just having a pricing barrier means that pass holders are, on average, using Genie far less than the average guest and far less than they did with Fastpass, leveling the playing field. I'm not saying it's the ideal system, or the system I like, just that it's not necessarily all bad.

I don't necessarily disagree that restricting re-rides is silly, but was just trying to rationalize possible reasons, but I don't see how preventing re-rides maximizes Disney's revenue, because Genie+ doesn't charge per ride.

Six Flags, Knotts, and Universal's skip-the-line options are meant to be bought by a super small minority and provide a much better experience than any Disney Fastpass system ever has.

Genie+ is basically meant to be bought by nearly every day-paying guest/increase the per-spending visit of pass holders if they want to disproportionately effect the experience of others.

So we agree that the other systems are better, including FP/MP because they didn't limit or restrict rerides. And again, if Genie+ is meant to be bought by basically everyone, than it contradicts what you were saying earlier and essentially becomes a ticket price increase, albeit one less immediately obvious to the consumer.

I've waited in really long lines pre-mobile ordering, if anything, mobile ordering allows you to bypass long lines (assuming the line would be long anyway, as it likely would be). Mobile ordering transfers the traditional bottleneck of food service (ordering) to the kitchen's output, which is traditionally much higher.

Out in the wild, at my local Chick-Fil-A, all registers could be open, but the line can still be incredibly long, so I will just place a mobile order and get my food much faster. The space physically doesn't have room for more registers, as is often the case at the space-hungry Disneyland.

Disneyland, however, DOES have room for more registers, as made evident by the fact that they used to exist. The convenience of mobile ordering and the fact that you have never had any issues with it does not mean that the park is doing everything 100% right and perfectly when it comes to managing quick service, particularly when compared to before.

Meant more of an overall improved experience, and not necessarily at any specific restaurants, that said, I had no problems or complaints after visiting Blue Bayou in 2017 and 2023, both times portions were filling and delicious. The pricing for the Sea Bass was honestly comparable to prices back home despite no obvious quality shortfalls, but I may just be an uncultured idiot.

It's pretty customary that any given "nice" restaurant in the real world does include some sort of bread free to the guest. Disney itself used to do it until fairly recently. The relative goodness of the rest of the food does not mean that they aren't skimping here.

I think qualifying Falcon as just another simulator, or very similar to Star Tours, is missing the point. Soarin' and the Simpsons could have their media swapped and the experiences would be nearly identical. Sure, their dressings would be different, but the focal point of the experience remains unchanged, the content on the screen.

Falcon is not about the screen, it's about your actions and how they interact with the environment. You could change that concept and get a flight simulator over Europe, and sure, that would effectively be the same ride, just reskinned, but it's still not the same as Star Tours. Personally, I think guests would love a flight-sim experience, so it's not even a crazy concept. I do think Falcon has flaws and its execution could've been improved, but it's not the same ride as Star Tours.

As far as I'm concerned, close enough. Star Tours was already a flight simulator experience, and the fact that guests get to flip knobs and push buttons, only some of which are actually relevant to the experience, to me is not a measurable improvement.

Even FoP and Soarin', even though they are far closer to being the same ride (even though they lack IPs), FoP's vehicle amplifies the experience dramatically to the point that playing FoP's film in the Soarin' theaters would be an incredible neutered experience. Changing Soarin' over the World to Soarin' over Pandora would be a terrible idea, but by the same logic, make sense.

We're not talking about Flight of Passage, or even Soarin'. We're talking about Star Tours and Smugglers.

This goes back to my original point, Star Tours and Falcon are really not overlapping rides or even concepts, outside the IP. If Star Tours is at risk of removal, its from its disappointingly low current waits, or them deciding there is too much Star Wars in the parks, but personally, I love Star Tours and find its low waits a lovely refuge from the general madness found at the GE attractions.

To this Star Wars indifferent, there's no appreciable difference, except one has fancier trimmings than the other but a less substantive overall experience.

You can go just about any route with just about any IP. The concept of "slinging webs like Spider-Man" is a cool one, and it's a concept that Universal Creative ignored, and that's fine. I would have no issue with BatB attractions coming to other parks in a non-headlining fashion, and that doesn't mean those less impressive iterations are failures. There are different calibers of rides, and not everything needs to be a headliner or E-ticket. The rides will obviously be compared, and that's fine, I prefer IOA's Spider-Man, but they're going for different things and each individually succeed.

I'm glad we agree that IOA's Spider-Man is better.

As for the Avenger's E-Ticket, this is just looping, but once again, the original concept sounded aggressively mediocre, so the jury is still out. The

I had never watched TBA until Covid, I think both Cars and most of Marvel are aggressively mediocre, and I honestly think Finding Dory was quite atrocious. MMRR honestly feels like a non-ip attraction to me, sure I like Mickey and Minnie, but they're just so synonymous with the parks. Once again, this seems like a very bizarre take.

I was speaking specifically within the context of DCA, where your opinion seemed to be that the park was improved by throwing in IP in every possible location, regardless of whether or not it made sense. By TBA do you mean Princess and the Frog?

I agree, but I think you're conflating that with the value of the experience. You can't really definitively state the value of the experience because everyone has a different value for their money. Sure, you can say the relative value is more or less, but the definitive value is hard to quantify or qualify. I also hold Disney to a higher standard than my dumpy Six Flags park because if it wasn't, I would receive much less value for the quality of the experience. The value of Disney parks is highly personal, so I don't really think it's worthwhile. If someone was on the cusp of appropriate value prior to a price hike, returning doesn't make sense. That said, if you were just below the appropriate value if they added an expansion or your favorite entertainment returned (like a parade), you should probably consider another trip to the park. The moral of the story, and the value of the experience, are not the quality of the experience. The value of the experience is what determines how often, how long, and when I go to the parks, and the quality of the experience contributes to the value, but they're still not the same thing.

Personally, to me, peak Disney value was when discounts and low crowds were prominent in the early 2000s and the recession era. I personally wouldn't take those parks for a second over the parks we have today, but I also wouldn't pay the prices we have today for those parks. I would also say the overall quality is higher now, even if the quality of certain aspects is lower, but distinctly, value and quality of the experience, are not the same thi

Value absoulutely affects the consumer's impression of quality. If I have do more work to get the same experience that also costs more, I'm less happy than I was before. It is a lower quality of experience.

Just a general statement regarding the overall discussion. It feels like self-fulfilling and undue negativity permeates every thread in the Disneyland forum, whereas the WDW forum is just general chaos. If I came onto these threads it would make me rethink a trip to DLR, which is honestly sad since my experiences there have topped pretty much any other theme park experience I've had globally.

And there's negativity on the WDW side of the boards too.

I agree, there's nothing wrong with having personal preferences, but it's still very hyperbolic to say "for me, it's terrible in comparison to what it used to be," even though you just said it's still a good product.

You're claiming one thing, but your comments say another. If I read your comments, at face value, for what they were, I would think Disneyland is a terrible, rotting dump, that shouldn't be visited, and while I'm being hyperbolic in saying that, I don't think the general sentiments reflect reality.

Visiting Disneyland and DCA vary so drastically from the perceptions reinforced here.

Where did I say the resort was terrible? The only thing I said was terrible, and I stand by this, is DCA compared to what it was in 2015. The rest of the resort still does a lot right, but yes, it did used to be better. This is not just a me opinion; if you asked virtually every person here if the resort was better in the past, they would say yes.

Now maybe that means we all have nostalgia goggles on, but if essentially everyone who regularly visits would agree that things in general were better than they are now, perhaps there's something to that.

I might also be trying to emphasize things that have declined because you don't seem particularly interested in taking those opinions seriously, and I can't deny that I find that frustrating. My impression remains that you haven't visited the parks as much, and seem to think that because you had two great visits, there can't possibly be anything wrong with the current experience, or any legitimate complaints.

 

[Professortango1]

Splash is not, and never has been, one of my favorites. Wouldn’t even make Top 10, honestly.

It's always been a back and forth between Indy and Splash for my fave Disneyland attraction. Splash, for many, feels like the last old school level Disney attraction.

For anyone under 35, the ride has just always been there. A staple of the park filled with iconic music, AA's, and gorgeous scenery; just as Mansion and Pirates.

I can understand it not being someone's favourite. Heck, I find Space Mountain incredibly overrated. But I think most everyone can agree that the attraction is iconic for a huge portion of Disney fans and a beautifully designed attraction.

And now they are making it look a bit more generic and adding a water tower with a tiara. Modern Imagineering for ya.

 

[Professortango1]

The reason people are angsty about Splash going away is because it’s a great ride.

The Great Movie Ride was a great ride.

Horizons was a great ride.

World of Motion was a great ride.

DCA’s ToT was a great ride.

I’d argue, though, that Horizons and GMR were both individually more significant removals. Both rides saw a total elimination of theme, ride system, concept, and story.

Guardians is well done and super fun. ToT may have died, but its guts are still there.

Splash, may be dying as well, but its guts will remain. Obviously the execution of the flesh will decide whether it’s well done, but Splash would still be a great ride even if it was themed like Dudley at Islands.

I think the context in which Splash is getting removed is the driving contentious factor.

Horizons, GMR, WoM, were all very dated when they closed. They still had fans, people still loved them, but they were admittedly dated.

ToT at DCA was a notable exception. It had decades of relevancy left. Same with Splash. People were very upset about ToT, but as mentioned previously, Guardians is actually very good.

From everything I’ve heard about TBA, I’ve gone from totally against, to cautiously optimistic, to genuinely excited (especially at Disneyland).

If they can deliver, the anger should fade, but the context surrounding its removal adds an entire extra element which will fuel the rage for a while.

Hard disagreement about Mission BO being good. I won't be hyperbolic and say it's terrible, but it feels like one of the cheapest and laziest modern E tickets Disney has.

I also think it shows a lack of understanding of psychology. Whereas TOT was designed with the queue acting as Act 1, Acts 2 and 3 were both present in the ride allowing for dynamics. Dynamic storytelling has been a staple to Disney attractions.

Mission BO has the Act 1 queue as designed, but tries to maximize the drop sequence and, by doing so, essentially eliminates Act 2. The whole physical ride feels one-note and grows tiresome without a satisfying ending. You just bounce around for the pre-selected and then the Guardians thank you for helping. Huh?

The ride was also designed to accentuate the thrill of a large drop. It builds tension prior to the drop, leading up and toying with guests, keeping them anxious and fearful. It was designed as a scary attraction. Thrilling.

Mission BO tries to reframe the fear of falling into jumping around at a concert. It tries to force action beats and feelings into an attraction designed to make people scared. And it doesn't work.

And now Disney is attempting to do that again. The drop for Splash was always designed to be somewhat scary. The build up, the multiple pass-bys we do at the start. But Disney doesn't want it to be scary in the new version, they want it to be a magical celebration. So in the end, people will feel one emotion leading up, due to the design, while the ride tries to tell you to feel a different emotion. It's incongruent and that's my fear with the retheme. It is indicative of modern imagineering emphasizing IP and sanitization over storytelling.

Design matters and modern Disney has a willfully ignorance of it.

 

[Brer Oswald]

And now Disney is attempting to do that again. The drop for Splash was always designed to be somewhat scary. The build up, the multiple pass-bys we do at the start. But Disney doesn't want it to be scary in the new version, they want it to be a magical celebration. So in the end, people will feel one emotion leading up, due to the design, while the ride tries to tell you to feel a different emotion. It's incongruent and that's my fear with the retheme. It is indicative of modern imagineering emphasizing IP and sanitization over storytelling.

It’s like they’ve completely lost sight of the point of the ride. Intimidating outside, whimsical inside. They can change what they want about the inside, but they can’t change the fact that it has a 50 ft drop unless they tear it down.

If they don’t want to make a PatF attraction that is intimidating, daunting, scary, and thrilling…why not choose something else for the retheme? It feels forced. Even more forced than the initial basic pitch of PatF Splash Mountain. They could’ve done something so much more fitting with this overlay.

 

[Californian Elitist]

It's always been a back and forth between Indy and Splash for my fave Disneyland attraction. Splash, for many, feels like the last old school level Disney attraction.

For anyone under 35, the ride has just always been there. A staple of the park filled with iconic music, AA's, and gorgeous scenery; just as Mansion and Pirates.

I can understand it not being someone's favourite. Heck, I find Space Mountain incredibly overrated. But I think most everyone can agree that the attraction is iconic for a huge portion of Disney fans and a beautifully designed attraction.

And now they are making it look a bit more generic and adding a water tower with a tiara. Modern Imagineering for ya.

I can and have admitted that Splash is iconic. I’ve never enjoyed the ride, but, despite this, I never thought the ride should go. I was against this decision when it was announced. Now that it’s 2023 and since then, the conversation as gone in circles, there has been so much fake concern about the preservation of traditionally African/black American folklore (that was appropriated by a white man) and our community in general, and people have been overly dramatic about the loss of Splash Mountain…I want them to just close it already.

Chickapin Hill comes directly from SotS. There is no equivalent of that in PatF. TBA takes place in between the movie and the upcoming Tiana series. I don’t know what folks were expecting. I’m still waiting to see more plans before coming with sweeping judgements.

 

[Professortango1]

I can and have admitted that Splash is iconic. I’ve never enjoyed the ride, but, despite this, I never thought the ride should go. I was against this decision when it was announced. Now that it’s 2023 and since then, the conversation as gone in circles, there has been so much fake concern about the preservation of traditionally African/black American folklore (that was appropriated by a white man) and our community in general, and people have been overly dramatic about the loss of Splash Mountain…I want them to just close it already.

Chickapin Hill comes directly from SotS. There is no equivalent of that in PatF. TBA takes place in between the movie and the upcoming Tiana series. I don’t know what folks were expecting. I’m still waiting to see more plans before coming with sweeping judgements.

But they had a design with Mama Odie's tree and ship atop the mountain. I didn't love it, but it still looked visually interesting and unique. The downgraded concept art just looks like they are removing the gnarled tree. The problem is that the mountain was designed to draw the eye up to that spire. Without that top feature, the mountain looks squat and lacks character.

They really should had Tiana replace Pooh or gone through with removing Splash and building an attraction designed for Princess and the Frog.

 

[Californian Elitist]

But they had a design with Mama Odie's tree and ship atop the mountain. I didn't love it, but it still looked visually interesting and unique. The downgraded concept art just looks like they are removing the gnarled tree. The problem is that the mountain was designed to draw the eye up to that spire. Without that top feature, the mountain looks squat and lacks character.

They really should had Tiana replace Pooh or gone through with removing Splash and building an attraction designed for Princess and the Frog.

That was initial concept art. For whatever reason, they decided not to go with that.

This isn’t Splash Mountain. Putting in a bunch of elements of the ride to remind folks of what was once there is pointless, in my opinion. Nothing needs to be sitting on top of the hill for guests to be drawn to the ride.

 

[EPCOTCenterLover]

I just hope the new ride is excellent, strong enough to exist on its own merits and not on the bones of what was there before.

 

[Consumer]

I'm glad they didn't go with Mama Odie's boat house on the top of the mountain, but I'm also not pleased with the water tower, either. Being located right on the Rivers of America, it is imperative that the structure appear as natural and organic as possible. Once the Mark Twain has left New Orleans Square, it needs to feel like the wilderness. Other than the water tower, I do believe the new design accomplishes that, even if it's not the most eye catching.

As for the criticism that a ride with a 50 foot plunge isn't right for Princess and the Frog, I'm inclined to agree. We can argue from dawn to dusk about Splash Mountain, but when the sun sets, the truth is people ride it for the drop. That is the main draw. The very structure of the ride is designed in such a way as to emphasize this feature. Even the name "Splash Mountain" propels the drop to the forefront of one's mind. The drop is what matters on Splash Mountain more than anything else. A ride based on Song of the South, with its delightful music and wonderful Marc Davis designs, would not work in any context except for Splash Mountain, and I believe that is because of the drop.

Princess and the Frog, however, is different. Tiana could easily hold her own dark ride alongside Snow White, Alice, and Peter Pan. There is no need for this gimmick of a drop in order to make a Tiana ride work. In fact, I believe the opposite is true: the drop will hurt the ride's reception amongst the average guest. The greatest audience for a princess ride will be three year old girls, many of whom will be too short to even ride the attraction. Those who are not will likely be scared by the drop that is the focal point of the attraction's exterior.

I'm not casting judgment on the ride when there is so little information out there, however I don't believe Princess and the Frog is some perfect fit to replace Splash Mountain that so many want to claim it to be.

I think it's all very similar to the Incredicoaster. As a six year old, I enjoyed The Incredibles and would have enjoyed a ride based off the movie, but I never would have willingly gotten on California Screamin' at that age due to the launch, drops, and central loop. California Screamin' was a more older audience oriented ride, and the same goes for Splash Mountain. With California Screamin', at least The Incredibles has a wider range of fans making its overlay less jarring, but Princess and the Frog is primarily little girls.

Simply put, the experience was built for an older audience, and the incoming theme is built for a younger audience. There is an inherent contradiction within the ride very existence.

 

[shambolicdefending]

It's always been a back and forth between Indy and Splash for my fave Disneyland attraction. Splash, for many, feels like the last old school level Disney attraction.

For anyone under 35, the ride has just always been there. A staple of the park filled with iconic music, AA's, and gorgeous scenery; just as Mansion and Pirates.

I can understand it not being someone's favourite. Heck, I find Space Mountain incredibly overrated. But I think most everyone can agree that the attraction is iconic for a huge portion of Disney fans and a beautifully designed attraction.

And now they are making it look a bit more generic and adding a water tower with a tiara. Modern Imagineering for ya.

I relate a lot to your thoughts here. I'm going to miss Splash. If I had it my way, I'd keep it and put PatF in a brand new attraction.

That said, I understand times change. I'm willing to give Disney the benefit of the doubt and hope that they can make the retheme a worthy successor to the original. But, nothing I've seen or heard so far through the official channels makes me optimistic that they will.

The concept art is so-so, the name they chose is uninspiring, and the story they've described sounds very dull and overly manufactured.

 

[Professortango1]

That was initial concept art. For whatever reason, they decided not to go with that.

This isn’t Splash Mountain. Putting in a bunch of elements of the ride to remind folks of what was once there is pointless, in my opinion. Nothing needs to be sitting on top of the hill for guests to be drawn to the ride.

A new mountain wouldn't, correct. And the story doesn't require it. However, the mountain they are using was designed to have that steeple feature. The other elements tie into that. The architecture and design supports an element that will be absent. Because they wanted it faster and cheaper. The same reason Mission BO never had it's enclosed top window as was the original intention for the changeover.

It would be like if they changed GRR and instead of changing the bear I to something else. They just lopped off the top of the mountain.

 

[MagicHappens1971]

As for the criticism that a ride with a 50 foot plunge isn't right for Princess and the Frog, I'm inclined to agree. We can argue from dawn to dusk about Splash Mountain, but when the sun sets, the truth is people ride it for the drop. That is the main draw. The very structure of the ride is designed in such a way as to emphasize this feature. Even the name "Splash Mountain" propels the drop to the forefront of one's mind. The drop is what matters on Splash Mountain more than anything else. A ride based on Song of the South, with its delightful music and wonderful Marc Davis designs, would not work in any context except for Splash Mountain, and I believe that is because of the drop. Princess and the Frog, however, is different. Tiana could easily hold her own dark ride alongside Snow White, Alice, and Peter Pan. There is no need for this gimmick of a drop in order to make a Tiana ride work.

I had responded to a similar post probably 30-50 pages back, I totally agree, PatF/Tiana could easily hold her own dark ride. In that same regard yes, Tiana does not need a gimmick to draw people to an attraction based on it. With that being said, I have two things based on your post I'd like to mention.

In fact, I believe the opposite is true: the drop will hurt the ride's reception amongst the average guest. The greatest audience for a princess ride will be three year old girls, many of whom will be too short to even ride the attraction. Those who are not will likely be scared by the drop that is the focal point of the attraction's exterior.

The drop won't hurt the ride's reception amongst the average guest, once open almost every guest will realize this is Splash Mountain with different dressing. My point there, being that Splash is a universally beloved and iconic attraction in the Disney parks. Average height for a 3 year old is just about 40", and I agree that they may not be able to ride, but I don't think it's as big a problem as some make it out to be. 3 years old will barley even know this is a PatF attraction from the outside, and will ride it when they can.

I'm not casting judgment on the ride when there is so little information out there, however I don't believe Princess and the Frog is some perfect fit to replace Splash Mountain that so many want to claim it to be.

It's not perfect, it's killing two birds with one stone. I don't really think anyone's argued it's a perfect fit. Most have argued an extreme opposite viewpoint.

I think it's all very similar to the Incredicoaster. As a six year old, I enjoyed The Incredibles and would have enjoyed a ride based off the movie, but I never would have willingly gotten on California Screamin' at that age due to the launch, drops, and central loop. California Screamin' was a more older audience oriented ride, and the same goes for Splash Mountain. With California Screamin', at least The Incredibles has a wider range of fans making its overlay less jarring, but Princess and the Frog is primarily little girls.

Simply put, the experience was built for an older audience, and the incoming theme is built for a younger audience. There is an inherent contradiction within the ride very existence.

Incredicoaster was definitely not designed for kids, and appeals to all. As a 22 year old male, I would argue that PatF's primary audience is not just little girls. Princess movies have definitely shifted in popularity with little boys as well. Everyone loves Tiana.

 

[Consumer]

As a 22 year old male, I would argue that PatF's primary audience is not just little girls. Princess movies have definitely shifted in popularity with little boys as well. Everyone loves Tiana.

 

[Brer Oswald]

As a 22 year old male, I find the princess movies to be shallow, repetitive, and boring. To each their own I guess.

 

[Consumer]

As a 22 year old male, I find the princess movies to be shallow, repetitive, and boring. To each their own I guess.

As a 24 year old male, I love the classic Disney princesses, especially Sleeping Beauty. Renaissance and modern I couldn't care less about, with a major exception for Tangled.