EPCOTCenterLover
Well-Known Member
Walt Disney Studios Paris makes California Adventure look incredible. We were there in 2007. Here's our photos and a trip report.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Transformative Multi-Year Expansion Announced for WDS Paris
- Thread starter Jwhee
- Start date
Disney-Universal Fanboy
Active Member
Agreed. If it wasn't for the main castle parks failure, this wouldn’t have happened. How on earth did disneyland Paris fail?
Sir_Cliff
Well-Known Member
I am always curious to know what the balance was between budget constraints and bad Imagineering with that park.
Obviously, they were massively constrained in terms of budget. I am, though, curious about why it had to be quite so aggressively ugly. It is quite possible the Imagineers really had nothing left over after building the park's few initial attractions, but a lot of smaller parks seem to manage to make their parks at least look appealing on smaller budgets than this park surely had.
TheLewisHK
Active Member
I am not sure - I know Jim Shull had some strong opinions on X about the parks imagineering. I'd probably guess the more corporate side of the business had a strong arm around the entire project, but I don't really know all too much other than what is probably common knowledge anyways.
I agree, it was (and still somewhat is) a hideous park. The elegant entryway essentially catfished the rest of the park which was just a sea of tarmac, industrial facades and concrete. With a magic carpets plonked in the corner lol. Perhaps some more greenery would have helped brighten it a little.
I'd be interested to see a cost breakdown for everything and see how much exactly went towards each section. All of the options (shows, rides, dining) were absolutely skeletal. & yet despite everything, the park is much better than it used to be, although still fails miserably as a Disney park.
Attachments
Last edited:
It’s well documented (though it didn’t fail. The legacy park was consistently Europe’s most visited paid attraction)
Phase one park cost well over 2.5 billion in 1992. Resort total over 5. The resort as a whole took on huge debt to get that money and opened during one of Europe’s worst recessions. That debt got bigger with spiralling interest rates. Most guests did a day trip or stayed one night at most as opposed to the expected multi day trips. They spent less than expected. Disney made some cultural and operational mistakes. There was also the curious system of paying TWDC annual rights and fees.
Diluting DMGM-Europe to WDSP didn’t do any favours. It was meant to attract more Guests to a marketable second gate but that second park had a budget of just 600 million (I need to double check that) to cover everything from ground clearing and infrastructure to buildings, landscaping and attractions. It opened with 2 QSRs and one TSR (and 2 of them shared the same kitchen). It had 4 toilet blocks for the whole park. It was (and still is) the only Disney park without a body of water. You could stand in one spot and see all 4 berms, though berm is being kind. Eisner was heard to say on opening eve “maybe we did build it too small”.
In a nutshell.
Last edited:
mrflo
Well-Known Member
Maybe that's their interpretation of contemporary theming - or just an excuse to justify the bare ceiling.
Though it looks closer to the actual current Walt Disney Studio Store in Burbank rather than one of the Hollywood themed stores in DHS.
mrflo
Well-Known Member
As a DLP fan as of the early 90s and former Euro Disney shareholder, I was very excited when the second park was announced. I attended the special shareholders meeting for its presentation, bought the new shares for the capital increase to fund the new park and was following the construction online. Unfortunately it quickly became very clear how basic this park would become and that it would not be comparable to the quality of the Disney MGM Studios and for sure not the first park. There were lots of debates among fans online, many voicing their concerns while others - including some insiders - argued not to complain and wait for its actual opening. They said the park would be small but a gem and people would not understand the concept behind it. So I kept my hopes up to only get very disappointed when attending one of the first previews of the park. To be fair, the entrance sequence, the Stunt show, to some extent RnRC and especially CinéMagique were some great additions to DLP. Though, as I wrote after my visit to Euro Disney management, the experience after leaving Studio One felt like having taken a wrong turn and ending up on a car park rather than in a Disney park.
Flash forward almost a quarter of a century, the park definitely has had its continuous significant investments and improvements over the years. Is it or will it be - with the currently announced plans - a park that would have me fall in love with Disney Parks like the first park did? Most likely not. From a creative perspective it is just not ambitious enough and too much of a departure of what makes a Disney theme park unique to me. Though it does not mean that I will not have some good time spending a few hours visiting it.
I can only echo that the first park was never a failure from a creative & visitor perspective. Management made many wrong strategic & financial decisions - like building too many hotels at once - that made it hard for Euro Disney to make any profit. If you consider that - apart of new shows and events - nothing major has been added to this park in more than two decades, yet it is still attracting a huge of amount of visitors, this is a testimony on how amazing this park is and what a great job the WDI team behind it did.
Flash forward almost a quarter of a century, the park definitely has had its continuous significant investments and improvements over the years. Is it or will it be - with the currently announced plans - a park that would have me fall in love with Disney Parks like the first park did? Most likely not. From a creative perspective it is just not ambitious enough and too much of a departure of what makes a Disney theme park unique to me. Though it does not mean that I will not have some good time spending a few hours visiting it.
I can only echo that the first park was never a failure from a creative & visitor perspective. Management made many wrong strategic & financial decisions - like building too many hotels at once - that made it hard for Euro Disney to make any profit. If you consider that - apart of new shows and events - nothing major has been added to this park in more than two decades, yet it is still attracting a huge of amount of visitors, this is a testimony on how amazing this park is and what a great job the WDI team behind it did.
Disney-Universal Fanboy
Active Member
So, let me get this straight: The park was overbuilt and visitors only spend less than what Disney was going to hope for? So the reason behind this transformation is because visitors spend less? I hate reality.
nickys
Premium Member
No. The biggest factor in the “failure” was the massive bank loans.
Disneyland Paris as a whole is now doing better than ever. In fact it’s arguably the jewel in the crown for Disney. Since Disney took control of it, things have improved immensely. Yes, it had been neglected but that will hopefully be put right with the injection of cash.
Disney-Universal Fanboy
Active Member
I mean it like Disney is a panda bear choosing WDSP/DAW as their favorite child and are leaving DLP itself to starve without any new rides since 1995.
nickys
Premium Member
Not true either.
Hyperspace Mountan is getting a revamp, and there is talk of 2-3 new “D/E ticket” rides coming.
But the Studios needs the expansion. It should have been done by this summer, with Arendelle and Galaxy’s Edge “lite” completed in time for the Paris Olympics. Covid put paid to that and the plans have been changed.
Remember the Studios expansion is not part of the new injection of cash, that was budgeted before the recent announcement. Disneyland Parc should benefit from the new money.
Disney-Universal Fanboy
Active Member
Gut the lake, put frozen in the other park, give DLP expansions to make up almost 3 decades of underdevelopment and make the studios park less cringe.
nickys
Premium Member
What does “less cringe” mean?
And you’re proposing the castle park dwarf the Studio / “Adventure” park? What would go where the lake is, since it’s already complete?
Disney-Universal Fanboy
Active Member
Absimilliard
Well-Known Member
If you can read french, I strongly suggest picking up a copy or Hop!, the book written by Philippe Bourguignon. Among his long career at Club Med, Accor hotel group, he did a stint at Euro Disney/Disneyland Paris. He was to be in charge of the hotels, but by late 1992, he was the president of Euro Disney.
He was the only one who confronted Michael Eisner about the decisions in Paris and he once spent a weekend going over the books and financial numbers back in 1992. His conclusion? He was given a park capable of receiving 50 000 guests on peak days, but the financial reality with the debt and day to day charges meant that he needed 60 000 guests on those days.
Michael Eisner was shocked and not pleased, but his team came up with the same conclusion. This is what lead to the emergency 1993/1994 expansion that finally gave the park the extra capacity it required.
Space Mountain was built solely due to Philippe Bourguignon vision and creative way of getting financing. Disney main financial controller in Burbank was not going to approve the project as Disney had already invested a lot in the 1993-1994 expansion. How did he pull it off? Discreetly asked Tim Delaney and his team to quietly scale down the ambitious Discovery Mountain to something that can be built quickly and cheaper.
This was the pre internet days, so harder for the head office in Burbank to find out that a massive pit was appearing in Discoveryland. I remember hearing the payment to Vekoma to start design and fabrication being covered up as an emergency repair project to Big Thunder Mountain.
The plan worked perfectly, because when Mr. Bourguignon went to go see Eisner, he showed up with an already started project, fully designed and requiring the last millions to complete. They had no choice to give the money and this is what saved DLP, along with Bourguignon's pricing adjustments.
Space Mountain opened to massive crowds, revenues jumped up and Bourguignon's vision was correct: he knew he needed a super project to capture the public's imagination. The park was profitable until 9/11 sadly.
On the topic of the Walt Disney Studios, I remember a senior manager telling me back then that when they came down to the final steps, budgets were too low for both Tower of Terror and Rock n Roller Coaster at opening. Coaster was selected, since France building code made the Tower of Terror one of the most expensive attraction ever.
Disneyland Paris had to build a second gate per the original contract with France, but they spent too little at first and the original plan was to rapid fire open new rides after opening. Buzz Lightyear was one of those and could be seen on a park future development plan. 9/11 put an end to that plan sadly.
nickys
Premium Member
What would you do specifically? All you’ve said on that is “less cringe” and “less cheap”. What goes in the lake area, what else gets changed?
You can’t expand the Studios and put nothing in it. The expansion is already done, so tell us what rides you would add and change (if any).
Disney-Universal Fanboy
Active Member
I mean a darn alternate universe where DLP is a success instead of a failure and the studios park gets built with a higher budget and size
nickys
Premium Member
So all your posts are referring to an alternate universe? Nothing at all to do with Disneyland Paris as it is?
In that case your posts should be in the Imagineering forum. This thread is about what is as actually happening, not some wild armchair imagineering of the past.