Transformative Multi-Year Expansion Announced for WDS Paris

[SaveDinosaur]

They couldn’t even afford a berm.

Did Tower of Terror mark the point where the park started to turn a profit? That was the case for DCA, but what about WDSP?


One thing I never understood is why they didn’t build the Indiana Jones Stunt Spectacular on day one. It had great capacity and was well received at MGM. Maybe they couldn’t afford more Indiana Jones licensing from Lucas, since they already had two attractions from him next door?

 

[Aramar]

One thing I never understood is why they didn’t build the Indiana Jones Stunt Spectacular on day one

Maybe because they already had the motor stunt show and having 2 stunt shows in such a small park made no sense.

 

[Gusey]

One thing I never understood is why they didn’t build the Indiana Jones Stunt Spectacular on day one. It had great capacity and was well received at MGM. Maybe they couldn’t afford more Indiana Jones licensing from Lucas, since they already had two attractions from him next door?

I'm pretty sure MGM Studios Europe (WDSP's initial plans) was going to have both the Indiana Jones Stunt Spectacular and the Lights Motors Action Stunt Show.
This has models for both stunt shows in the advert for MGM Studios Europe

 

[SaveDinosaur]

Maybe because they already had the motor stunt show and having 2 stunt shows in such a small park made no sense.

In a park that had almost nothing to offer, it would have at least been something to do and provided some kind of return to the guests...

 

[SaveDinosaur]

I'm pretty sure MGM Studios Europe (WDSP's initial plans) was going to have both the Indiana Jones Stunt Spectacular and the Lights Motors Action Stunt Show.
This has models for both stunt shows in the advert for MGM Studios Europe

The original plans for MGM Europe were great. I really wish they had gone in that direction instead of what we’re getting now.


It’s also pretty interesting that Disney basically pitched the same concept from MGM Studios Europe to OLC, only switching American/French culture for American/Japanese culture before the idea was rejected in favor of DisneySea. They really believed in the Studios concept and wanted to prevent any Universal expansions in their areas.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

The original plans for MGM Europe were great. I really wish they had gone in that direction instead of what we’re getting now.


It’s also pretty interesting that Disney basically pitched the same concept from MGM Studios Europe to OLC, only switching American/French culture for American/Japanese culture before the idea was rejected in favor of DisneySea. They really believed in the Studios concept and wanted to prevent any Universal expansions in their areas.

It is not my favourite theme, but I don't get why Disney seems to have soured so much on the concept of the studio theme park that they threw around those weird alternative names for DHS a few years back and are giving WDS this ridiculous new name.

They seem to want to build parks that are full of lands themed around disconnected, film-based IPs. A "studio" seems like the best over-arching theme if you want to do that and have it all cohere in some way. Instead, they seem intent on taking that approach to building parks but ditching not just the studios theme, but any overarching concept whatsoever. What is even weirder in this case is that they are still kind of keeping the studios conceit as the first act of the park which frames it as stepping into a Hollywood studio and the movies. Yet, for some reason, they can't bear to keep "studios" in the name anymore and prefer to rename it to something that sounds like a generic regional park. Even "Adventure" sits weirdly with the combination of IPs they're including.

 

[marni1971]

It is not my favourite theme, but I don't get why Disney seems to have soured so much on the concept of the studio theme park concept that they threw around those weird alternative names for DHS a few years back and are giving WDS this ridiculous new name.

They seem to want to build parks that are full of lands themed around disconnected, film-based IPs. A "studio" seems like the best over-arching theme if you want to do that and have it all cohere in some way. Instead, they seem intent on taking that approach to building parks but ditching not just the studios theme, but any overarching theme whatsoever. What is even weirder in this case is that they are still kind of keeping the studios conceit as the first act of the park which frames it as stepping into a Hollywood studio and the movies. Yet, for some reason, they can't bear to keep "studios" in the name anymore and prefer to rename it to something that sounds like a generic regional park. Even "Adventure" sits weirdly with the combination of IPs they're including.

Indeed. I always gauged it by having attractions a castle park wouldn’t have. Now it’s leaning towards a confused second gate that’s only missing a castle in the middle.

 

[HauntedPirate]

Indeed. I always gauged it by having attractions a castle park wouldn’t have. Now it’s leaning towards a confused second gate that’s only missing a castle in the middle.

And by "leaning", do you mean...

 

[Animaniac93-98]

Indeed. I always gauged it by having attractions a castle park wouldn’t have. Now it’s leaning towards a confused second gate that’s only missing a castle in the middle.

The lake area's focus on Disney animated classics and European inspired gardens makes it Fantasyland 2.0...Just with an Islands of Adventure layout.

The Frozen and Lion King attractions are more logical additions to Disneyland, and even within the IP mandate it makes more sense to me to have the animated films in Disneyland and the live-action stuff (Marvel, Star Wars, Avatar) in Studios.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

Indeed. I always gauged it by having attractions a castle park wouldn’t have. Now it’s leaning towards a confused second gate that’s only missing a castle in the middle.

The Frozen and Lion King attractions are more logical additions to Disneyland, and even within the IP mandate it makes more sense to me to have the animated films in Disneyland and the live-action stuff (Marvel, Star Wars, Avatar) in Studios.

Yes, the IPs and attractions they have chosen are kind of remarkable for how easily they would slot into the park next-door. The Ratatouille and Toy Story mini-lands, for example, do feel like things that wouldn't fit Disneyland. Every attraction planned to open as part of this new addition, however, would fit logically in either Fantasyland or Adventureland. It's part of the reason a Star Wars or Pandora section would have made more sense than this Lion King mini-land, IMO.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

Yes, the IPs and attractions they have chosen are kind of remarkable for how easily they would slot into the park next-door. The Ratatouille and Toy Story mini-lands, for example, do feel like things that wouldn't fit Disneyland. Every attraction planned to open as part of this new addition, however, would fit logically in either Fantasyland or Adventureland. It's part of the reason a Star Wars or Pandora section would have made more sense than this Lion King mini-land, IMO.

To me, it's like this when looking at properties:

Period = Disneyland ("once upon a time")

Contemporary = Studios

Ratatouille and Toy Story, like most Pixar, is set in our modern world.

Frozen is an archetypal fairy tale. Very traditional Disney.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

Instead, they seem intent on taking that approach to building parks but ditching not just the studios theme, but any overarching concept whatsoever.

That the same core Frozen ride has been slotted into a castle park, a studio park, and EPCOT is proof of this.

They pick the IP first and then decide what park to stick it in.

 

[cjkeating]

The lake area's focus on Disney animated classics and European inspired gardens makes it Fantasyland 2.0...Just with an Islands of Adventure layout.

The Frozen and Lion King attractions are more logical additions to Disneyland, and even within the IP mandate it makes more sense to me to have the animated films in Disneyland and the live-action stuff (Marvel, Star Wars, Avatar) in Studios.

Frozen could have certainly fitted into Disneyland Park however based on the scale they need to build [multi- billion dollar] IP to nowadays I doubt they could have fit it into Fantasyland. I do think in an ideal world a small scale ride near Casey Junior would have been best.

Regarding Lion King I've said this before but it's too cartoon for the Adventureland in Paris. All of it is human based. Pirates, archaeologist, explorer.

If anything I think Frozen could be the outlier of the expansion lands around the lake as it is based closer to real life than the rest, but that does give WDSP the parks castle which I think was the aim as WDSP was seen as a more masculine park than the first gate.

 

[Jordan dby]

i definitely agree that "pick an IP, plop it wherever you need to build next" is the approach they're taking, but a big advantage of frozen in paris (in my view) is that it borders a lake. the Frozen body of water serves a purpose as it links backstage area to the bigger show lake. I've not visited but i imagine Hong Kong loses something when the "fjord" is basically just a pond that ends where the land ends.

 

[mrflo]

Regarding Lion King I've said this before but it's too cartoon for the Adventureland in Paris. All of it is human based. Pirates, archaeologist, explorer.

I remember one of the insiders bringing up this point as well before the official announcement. Based on that I had actually expected the outside of the Lion King land to be even more cartoony than what they have shown so far. Considering Rafiki and gang already are at home in Adventureland, I don't think it would have been a huge dealbreaker compared to IPs like Coco in Frontierland, etc.

Personally I would have preferred a Jungle Book Splash Mt. in Adventureland instead - character designs by Marc Davies (who also did characters for Jungle Cruise, Pirates, etc.) as well as music by the Sherman brothers. Mowgli would be the human explorer character while the attraction would be the perfect DLP replacement for the Jungle Cruise. I guess that cruise has sailed now.

 

[DisneyDean97]

I remember one of the insiders bringing up this point as well before the official announcement. Based on that I had actually expected the outside of the Lion King land to be even more cartoony than what they have shown so far. Considering Rafiki and gang already are at home in Adventureland, I don't think it would have been a huge dealbreaker compared to IPs like Coco in Frontierland, etc.

Personally I would have preferred a Jungle Book Splash Mt. in Adventureland instead - character designs by Marc Davies (who also did characters for Jungle Cruise, Pirates, etc.) as well as music by the Sherman brothers. Mowgli would be the human explorer character while the attraction would be the perfect DLP replacement for the Jungle Cruise. I guess that cruise has sailed now.

It's still mind boggling that Disney never built a dark ride or boat ride based on the classic Jungle Book animated movie.

 

[mrflo]

Maybe some of you have already seen the discussion on the French forum or on X. I thought I bring it here as well:

A rumour suggests that the application for the Lion King land building permits at WDS Paris is delayed due to budget cuts, including potentially a shorter ride, fewer animatronics and more screens, changes to the ride-system, etc. Some believe nothing is final, while others worry the cuts are more severe than usual. The main issue seems to be that ambitions don’t match the budget that the US mothership wants to grant.

 

[TheDisneyParksfanC8]

Maybe some of you have already seen the discussion on the French forum or on X. I thought I bring it here as well:

A rumour suggests that the application for the Lion King land building permits at WDS Paris is delayed due to budget cuts, including potentially a shorter ride, fewer animatronics and more screens, changes to the ride-system, etc. Some believe nothing is final, while others worry the cuts are more severe than usual. The main issue seems to be that ambitions don’t match the budget that the US mothership wants to grant.

Go figure. Paris always gets the short stick for funding.

 

[mrflo]

No budget cut.
According to insiders, Disney does not want to allocate more budget than what was already planned in the expansion plan, and the initial vision for the ride did not fit within this budget. Ultimately, DLP could have secured a bit more money, but Disney will not provide more. A budget cut is when a project is about to be funded, and at the last minute, Disney revises the proposed budget downwards compared to what had been promised.

The final version of the ride has been greenlit last week, they can now move foward.

Thank you very much for the clarification and the update!

Do you know what this means for the final/greenlit version of the ride in terms of quality and scale? When insiders were talking about how ambitious the ride will be, were they talking about the initial vision or about what has been greenlit?

 

[Aramar]

That mountain looks very impressive! Disney is talking about this Parisian ride more than usually, so I hope it's a good one!