Tiana's Bayou Adventure: Disneyland Watch & Discussion

[mickEblu]

Disneyland hit their highest annual capacity ever marketing an anniversary that's not that noteworthy (60? Really?) with a new parade, fireworks show, merchandise, and some minor refreshes to classic attractions. When they hadn't built a new E ticket since '95.

Heck, World of Color starring NPH was really just a "Look at how great the park across the plaza is!".

Star Wars getting an entire new land in Disneyland flopped. It didn't create buzz, it didn't create crowds, and it didn't do anything to gain the park new fans.

People like good ole' fashioned Disneyland. It sells. Does it need to be adapted and improved over time? Of course! But Disneyland is the star- and everything else, even DCA, is ancillary to that and always will be.

That is one benefit to DCA- they can do whatever the heck they want over there to generate 'new attractions' and stuff, giving them much more flexibility to keep Disneyland park pure while still marketing to those who need new attractions to book trips.

Feels good to be back in harmony with you my man! It just didn’t feel right disagreeing about Snow Whites name yesterday.

 

[mickEblu]

Yeah but that's kind of the point I was making: you can say they didn't move the needle attendance wise, but that also means removing Tower of Terror and Screamin had absolutely no negative impact either. People complain about things being removed, but it doesn't seem to stop the core audience from attending.

Also true but that’s not what you were talking about in the post I responded to. With that said however, those two rides are in DCA. If you replace those two rides with POTC and HM then I think there would absolutely be a negative impact. I’m really curious to see what the reaction to Splash will be. That will be telling for me. Like where do people really draw the line? Is there a even a line Disney can cross or is it an imaginary line in our fan boy heads? Then again maybe Splash isn’t the best indicator as there is a racial/ political component that throws off my experiment. Really wish there was no experiment.


Also kind off topic but they really blew it with TOT. They should have made GOTG a summer overlay. It would be the perfect summer overlay which isn’t something they typically do. Music and dancing outside the tower at night TL terrace or Mad T party style and the randomized drops and GOTG music and whatever non permanent show scenes they could cook up. That would have built the anticipation for TOT at Halloween time even more. I could stomach losing TOT for 4 months in the summer like we do with HMH in the fall

 

[mickEblu]

Disneyland hit their highest annual capacity ever marketing an anniversary that's not that noteworthy (60? Really?) with a new parade, fireworks show, merchandise, and some minor refreshes to classic attractions. When they hadn't built a new E ticket since '95.

Heck, World of Color starring NPH was really just a "Look at how great the park across the plaza is!".

Star Wars getting an entire new land in Disneyland flopped. It didn't create buzz, it didn't create crowds, and it didn't do anything to gain the park new fans.

People like good ole' fashioned Disneyland. It sells. Does it need to be adapted and improved over time? Of course! But Disneyland is the star- and everything else, even DCA, is ancillary to that and always will be.

That is one benefit to DCA- they can do whatever the heck they want over there to generate 'new attractions' and stuff, giving them much more flexibility to keep Disneyland park pure while still marketing to those who need new attractions to book trips.

Death, Taxes and Agreeing with @SuddenStorm

 

[Figments Friend]

Disneyland hit their highest annual capacity ever marketing an anniversary that's not that noteworthy (60? Really?) with a new parade, fireworks show, merchandise, and some minor refreshes to classic attractions. When they hadn't built a new E ticket since '95.

Heck, World of Color starring NPH was really just a "Look at how great the park across the plaza is!".

Star Wars getting an entire new land in Disneyland flopped. It didn't create buzz, it didn't create crowds, and it didn't do anything to gain the park new fans.

People like good ole' fashioned Disneyland. It sells. Does it need to be adapted and improved over time? Of course! But Disneyland is the star- and everything else, even DCA, is ancillary to that and always will be.

That is one benefit to DCA- they can do whatever the heck they want over there to generate 'new attractions' and stuff, giving them much more flexibility to keep Disneyland park pure while still marketing to those who need new attractions to book trips.

Tony Baxter agrees with you.
Disneyland Park IS 'the star' and everything else is a 'supporting role'.


Like that guy Walt wanted it to be....


-

 

[lazyboy97o]

Yeah but that's kind of the point I was making: you can say they didn't move the needle attendance wise, but that also means removing Tower of Terror and Screamin had absolutely no negative impact either. People complain about things being removed, but it doesn't seem to stop the core audience from attending.

It’s a negative because it’s tens of millions of dollars with little return.

 

[Mac Tonight]

Yeah but that's kind of the point I was making: you can say they didn't move the needle attendance wise, but that also means removing Tower of Terror and Screamin had absolutely no negative impact either. People complain about things being removed, but it doesn't seem to stop the core audience from attending.

Not moving the needle attendance wise should 100% be seen as a negative impact. Disney should not be in the business of spending tens of millions of dollars on a "new" experience just to simply have park attendance remain the same.

 

[SuddenStorm]

Tower of Terror and CA Screamin' weren't rethemed to boost each attraction's popularity long term- they were both rethemed because Marvel and Pixar Merchandise sell.

 

[el_super]

Also true but that’s not what you were talking about in the post I responded to. With that said however, those two rides are in DCA. If you replace those two rides with POTC and HM then I think there would absolutely be a negative impact.

Maybe... Maybe not. How much more do they have to be changed before there is a discernable impact? One has been mucked up over the years and the other is closed five months of the year and well... Is there a negative impact?

I’m really curious to see what the reaction to Splash will be. That will be telling for me. Like where do people really draw the line? Is there a even a line Disney can cross or is it an imaginary line in our fan boy heads? Then again maybe Splash isn’t the best indicator as there is a racial/ political component that throws off my experiment. Really wish there was no experiment.

The other problem with this experiment is that Splash is pretty severely underutilized during the colder months. Disney wasn't even bothering to open it from January to March some years. So there is a significant base group of people who went to Disneyland and didn't bother to ride it.

Also kind off topic but they really blew it with TOT. They should have made GOTG a summer overlay.

I'm actually glad it's different from other parks. If I want to ride Tower of Terror, I can always go to Florida. October is usually a good time to go too.

 

[ParaRaven]

Disneyland hit their highest annual capacity ever marketing an anniversary that's not that noteworthy (60? Really?) with a new parade, fireworks show, merchandise, and some minor refreshes to classic attractions. When they hadn't built a new E ticket since '95.

Heck, World of Color starring NPH was really just a "Look at how great the park across the plaza is!".

Star Wars getting an entire new land in Disneyland flopped. It didn't create buzz, it didn't create crowds, and it didn't do anything to gain the park new fans.

People like good ole' fashioned Disneyland. It sells. Does it need to be adapted and improved over time? Of course! But Disneyland is the star- and everything else, even DCA, is ancillary to that and always will be.

That is one benefit to DCA- they can do whatever the heck they want over there to generate 'new attractions' and stuff, giving them much more flexibility to keep Disneyland park pure while still marketing to those who need new attractions to book trips.

I couldn't agree more, and I think that DCA has provided a unique and currently missed opportunity to experiment with new attractions and storytelling opportunities that could really set it apart from Disneyland. A lot of people don't have a large emotional attachment to most of the park, so it could be much more of a sandbox for really cool ideas, but I don't think Disney views it that way. Instead, we got the most timeless attractions in the park rethemed to a relevant IP. So much missed potential...

One thing I would be careful of is blaming Imagineers specifically for a poor retheme or badly executed project. Fans rarely know the details that go into a project, and there are a lot of factors at play (especially in a company as bloated as TWDC). A classic example is the Tarzan Treehouse. It was literally weeks away from being axed due to low attendance and high costs, only to be saved by Tony Baxter and Bruce Gordon proposing the retheme. I can pretty much guarantee that they both preferred the original incarnation, but they had a love for the park and found a way to save a classic attraction in *something* resembling its original form. I can only wonder if a similar thing is (or was) happening over in Critter Country.

 

[el_super]

It’s a negative because it’s tens of millions of dollars with little return.

Maybe? If these were money losers for Disney, it would be hard to justify the continued pressure to spend on them. I can't imagine putting characters in Small World moved the attendance needle too much, or really resulted in extra merch sales, but they did it anyway, and many more overlays afterwards. They must be benefitting from it somehow.

 

[el_super]

Not moving the needle attendance wise should 100% be seen as a negative impact. Disney should not be in the business of spending tens of millions of dollars on a "new" experience just to simply have park attendance remain the same.

Suppose it depends on how much they raised admission prices that year.

 

[el_super]

I can pretty much guarantee that they both preferred the original incarnation, but they had a love for the park and found a way to save a classic attraction in *something* resembling its original form. I can only wonder if a similar thing is (or was) happening over in Critter Country.

Or small world?

 

[lazyboy97o]

Maybe? If these were money losers for Disney, it would be hard to justify the continued pressure to spend on them. I can't imagine putting characters in Small World moved the attendance needle too much, or really resulted in extra merch sales, but they did it anyway, and many more overlays afterwards. They must be benefitting from it somehow.

Different projects can and do get tangled into different motivations. “It’s a small world” was part of not wanting to discuss the need for the major work. Mission Breakout was a chance to finally open a ride with a movie. Pixar Pier was tangled into Lasseter’s ego. Despite being a business, decisions are not these dispassionate occurrences. They’re also tied into the larger franchise mandate which came despite the success of the Nondescript Coaster Themed Like India or Whatever and returns on investment having getting worse since then due to costs that have spiraled out of control.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

Different projects can and do get tangled into different motivations. “It’s a small world” was part of not wanting to discuss the need for the major work. Mission Breakout was a chance to finally open a ride with a movie. Pixar Pier was tangled into Lasseter’s ego. Despite being a business, decisions are not these dispassionate occurrences. They’re also tied into the larger franchise mandate which came despite the success of the Nondescript Coaster Themed Like India or Whatever and returns on investment having getting worse since then due to costs that have spiraled out of control.

The franchise mandate also makes more sense when you look at Chapek's background prior to being head of Parks and Resorts.

His Disney career began in 1993 as marketing director for the company's home video division, before becoming its president in 2006. This was followed by a brief stint as President of distribution for the Studios as a whole, before becoming President of Consumer Products in 2011. Even prior to Disney, his career focused on brand management and advertising.

He has no hospitality experience, or any experience being at the Disney parks beyond annual family trips to WDW as a child. He spent decades with Disney selling movies and merchandise and now his parks strategy revolves around...movies and merchandise.

The IP strategy is institutionalized because nobody in charge knows or cares why theme parks are not the same as movies or retail stores.

 

[ParaRaven]

The IP strategy is institutionalized because nobody in charge knows or cares why theme parks are not the same as movies or retail stores.

This is something that has always irked me about the western view of theme parks. In Japan they are viewed more akin to seeing a theatre production - you don't see anyone on their phones during the pre-shows. Theme park rides are such a unique storytelling medium that has so so much potential beyond "Mission Breakout" level stories. Disney doesn't seem interested in being a trendsetter, unfortunately.

 

[mickEblu]

Maybe... Maybe not. How much more do they have to be changed before there is a discernable impact? One has been mucked up over the years and the other is closed five months of the year and well... Is there a negative impact?




The other problem with this experiment is that Splash is pretty severely underutilized during the colder months. Disney wasn't even bothering to open it from January to March some years. So there is a significant base group of people who went to Disneyland and didn't bother to ride it.



I'm actually glad it's different from other parks. If I want to ride Tower of Terror, I can always go to Florida. October is usually a good time to go too.

Yup just a quick convenient flight to Florida.

 

[Californian Elitist]

I really do think Mission Break our was the exception, not the rule. The only reason being that the Florida Tower is objectively the better experience.

And even then, the announcement received the most backlash out of any previous change (mostly thanks to the Internet).

ToT may be an exception only because of the ride’s popularity that really stemmed from the DHS original. Fans don’t care about what happens over at DCA, for the most part. It’s Disneyland that is deemed sacred and untouchable.

 

[Mac Tonight]

Yup just a quick convenient flight to Florida.

Maybe he drives??

 

[tirian]

Disneyland fans, specifically the purist, hardcore ones, screamed when the Main Street Cinema was temporarily turned into a shop.

We don’t really welcome change, unless something is being added without anything being taken away, and even that’s suspicious sometimes.

I can’t blame you after years of Pressler and Tarzan and Light Magic and DCA 1.0 and Pixar Jack-Jacks on Sticks and...

 

[el_super]

Different projects can and do get tangled into different motivations. “It’s a small world” was part of not wanting to discuss the need for the major work. Mission Breakout was a chance to finally open a ride with a movie. Pixar Pier was tangled into Lasseter’s ego. Despite being a business, decisions are not these dispassionate occurrences. They’re also tied into the larger franchise mandate which came despite the success of the Nondescript Coaster Themed Like India or Whatever and returns on investment having getting worse since then due to costs that have spiraled out of control.

Yeah, but at the end of the day the motivation is always going to be providing value to the company. The value may be something very obvious, like direct increase in attendance, or something less obvious, like increased merchandise sales or guest satisfaction ratings. Even something like adding characters to Small World could be seen as a net positive by just increasing ridership on one attraction.

If they continued pushing these overlays and refreshes, and there was a significant backlash from the audience that offset whatever gain they were looking for, they would stop doing them right? They're not going to keep throwing their money away. The only real argument I can see against this idea, is if they felt an attraction was so inherently flawed, they had to do something to change it, whether or not they knew that overlay would be a success or well received.

Which brings us back to Splash Mountain. Even if you don't think the ride springs from racist roots and the subject matter needs to be changed: you still have to admit that the ride is falling apart and can't continue in the flawed state it is currently in. The ride needs to be gutted and redesigned. Disney is going to justify that cost by swapping out the theme and creating a new attraction which will cover the expense through increased ticket sales and merchandise. But leaving the broken Splash Mountain in place for another decade is not an option.