Wookies, & Rebels, & Droids... OH WHY?! The Anti-SWL in Disneyland Thread

[drizgirl]

I'm almost certain they wouldn't be opening it in 2019.

Almost?

 

[SSG]

Considering the significant hurdles the company would face if it had decided to build another theme park - state and local regulations, parking, roads, pedestrian access, and other external infastruture needs, the need for at least one new hotel, plus public review - how long do you think it would have taken for Disney to concieve and build a third gate in Anaheim had they began planning it when they started planning SW Land? I'm almost certain they wouldn't be opening it in 2019.

That's pretty much how I see it, too. While I would argue that Disney should have been working on the long term infrastructure issues long before now, the reality is those things were put on the backburner. Spilled milk now. Disney's plan now is build out DL and add to DCA in order to ease the pressure on DL. It isn't how I would have done things but the Disney board didn't ask me (the fools ).

 

[Curious Constance]

I think DCA needs to have several areas fixed and beefed up substantially before they even think about another gate. Besides Hollywood land being as lame as lame can be, I think Bugs Land needs to go. Also, one of the biggest misses for DCA, I feel, is Paradise Pier. This really should be the park's highlight land, but it's filled with run of the mill, very boring, very unpopular attractions. The swings, jellyfish, golden zepher, Goofy's sky school, those never should have been built in a new theme park. Whether they fit the theme or not, they just end up coming across lazy and run of the mill to me.

Downtown Disney would also need a lot of beefing up. It needs more "stuff" besides stores and restaurants. Splittsville will certainly help, but they need to keep going with those kinds of additions.

And with hotels already being filled nearly to capacity at all times, they certainly will need more hotels if they add a new park.

 

[Bandini]

I think DCA needs to have several areas fixed and beefed up substantially before they even think about another gate. Besides Hollywood land being as lame as lame can be, I think Bugs Land needs to go. Also, one of the biggest misses for DCA, I feel, is Paradise Pier. This really should be the park's highlight land, but it's filled with run of the mill, very boring, very unpopular attractions. The swings, jellyfish, golden zepher, Goofy's sky school, those never should have been built in a new theme park. Whether they fit the theme or not, they just end up coming across lazy and run of the mill to me.

Downtown Disney would also need a lot of beefing up. It needs more "stuff" besides stores and restaurants. Splittsville will certainly help, but they need to keep going with those kinds of additions.

And with hotels already being filled nearly to capacity at all times, they certainly will need more hotels if they add a new park.

Not that I disagree, but you have pretty much covered the entire park. The exceptions being: Carsland and Carthay Circle.
The thing I hate about Paradise Pier is the lack of shade and the abundance of cement! But one of my favorite areas is the walk from Paradise Pier to Carsland. I really do think that's some great theming, with the Burma Shave ads.

 

[Curious Constance]

Not that I disagree, but you have pretty much covered the entire park. The exceptions being: Carsland and Carthay Circle.
The thing I hate about Paradise Pier is the lack of shade and the abundance of cement! But one of my favorite areas is the walk from Paradise Pier to Carsland. I really do think that's some great theming, with the Burma Shave ads.

Yes, I think a lot of the park does need work. There just isn't enough to do there. It definitely has great parts, and should be experienced. I just think it could be so much more than what it is.

 

[D.Silentu]

The potential is always there, yet, as others have said, Disney can't seem to get on the same page about how it should be improved. If there is any hope of it really becoming its own destination, then the upcoming Marvel attractions must be truly outstanding. Another thread mentioned that the Marvel budget may have seen cuts. I ask, can they really afford that in the long run? It's too early to say but that almost feels like Disney has bought the image of DCA that the public accepts. If they can't figure out a direction for the park, then it will remain the kid sister, no matter how much makeup they buy. I'd like to see Marvel as its salvation, but I still have an inkling that the ship has sailed.

 

[Donaldfan1934]

I disagree. While I agree DCA probably needs another e-ticket and a third gate would probably crash DCA attendance numbers, I think DLR desperately needs a third gate. DL is often near capacity and anybody that's been caught in the esplanade when WoC and Fanstasmic end at the same time know the current esplanade/transportation system can't handle it.

Adding a third gate in the Toy Story lot would have pulled some of this crowd to a new location and would have given DL some much needed breathing room. Putting Star Wars in DCA would not have helped. Where would people go if there is a 2 hour line to get into DCA and DL is already at capacity? At least with Star Wars in DL, DCA returns to it's previous unintended purpose...the AP lounge for DL. Unfortunately in my mind this means DCA is just going to be more crowded with people waiting for SW return times and Disney won't be motivated to continue fixing the park because of the artificially high attendance numbers.

The only positive I see in all this is hopefully there will be finally be an alternate exit from Fantasmic to go directly to the Mickey and Friends parking lot. But that could have been done without Star Wars.

Thanks for explanation. I justify the need for a third gate for the very same reasons. Like you said, DCA needs another E-Ticket, but it's the closest to a full day park that a non MK park has gotten aside from TDS. Of all the Disney resorts around the world, DLR is one of the most in need of a massive expansion. In fact, it might even be THE most due to the overcrowding issues that you mentioned. Yes, SWL by itself is expensive no matter what, but if taking the cheapest possible route to success wasn't the name, then no one in their right mind would abuse Disneyland's already struggling infrastructure by putting it there.

 

[Donaldfan1934]

Considering the significant hurdles the company would face if it had decided to build another theme park - state and local regulations, parking, roads, pedestrian access, and other external infastruture needs, the need for at least one new hotel, plus public review - how long do you think it would have taken for Disney to concieve and build a third gate in Anaheim had they began planning it when they started planning SW Land? I'm almost certain they wouldn't be opening it in 2019.

Oh please, Disney is one of the most powerful companies on the planet and they 've come across hurdles just as big in decades past. Even in this cheaper situation, they're still tackling a number of issues you mentioned such as parking and building an entirely new hotel. Yes, it would've taken a bit longer, but I'd rather wait to see something done the proper way than the wrong way for immediate satisfaction.

 

[Deleted member 107043]

Oh please, Disney is one of the most powerful companies on the planet and they 've come across hurdles just as big in decades past.

So how's Disney's America doing? And Westcot? Or how about Mineral King? Oh that's right, all three were DOA in part because of local opposition. Point is while Disney wields considerable influence it can't just arbitrarily make momentous decisions like building a theme park in the middle of Orange County just because it wants to.

Yes, it would've taken a bit longer, but I'd rather wait to see something done the proper way than the wrong way for immediate satisfaction.

A bit longer? How long is a bit? 2, 3, maybe 5 years of planning and negotiating before construction would commence without any guarantee that they would be given permission to build. It shouldn't be difficult for anyone here to understand why they took the less risky route and expanded DL Park to include SW Land.

 

[Donaldfan1934]

I'm with Curious Constance on this one. I no longer love SW (guess which movie killed it for me), and superheroes bore me to tears. If I wanted to go to a park that focused on destruction, make-believe wars, shooting, smugness and noise, I'd go to Universal... and I never go to Universal. I do think the public will eventually have its fill of SW and I agree with Spielberg that the Superhero films will go the way of the westerns. And they'll probably be replaced by something even louder.

Classic Disney is about as timeless as pop culture gets. I wouldn't invest billions on a separate park focused so heavily on a theme that could quickly fade unless those lands could be readily converted into something less specific. I still say that if SW ever runs its course, that area in DL would make a great Discovery Bay.

I completely understand where you're coming from, but like I said previously, the feelings you have towards Star Wars and Marvel can easily be applied to Classic Disney. The fact is that all three are objectively among the most beloved brands in the world regardless of how one individual may or may not feel about. I get what you're saying about Universal as well, but again, that is exactly my point. If Disney wants to have that type of IP in the parks, they should build it in a place that doesn't "Universalize" the existing parks. In DHS' case, many already see it as a Universal knock off of sorts so SWL is perfect for that park ideologically speaking. If they want to do it at DLR, then they should build a park that is closer to Universal's thematically. Also, as much as I would like to see it happen as well, I wouldn't hold your breathe on Discovery Bay ever taking over.

 

[Donaldfan1934]

So how's Disney's America doing? And Westcot? Or how about Mineral King? Oh that's right, all three were DOA in part because of local opposition. Point is while Disney wields considerable influence it can just arbitrarily make momentous decisions like building a theme park in the middle of Orange County just because it wants to.



A bit longer? How long is a bit? 2, 3, maybe 5 years of planning and negotiating before construction would commence without any guarantee that they would be given permission to build. It shouldn't be difficult for anyone here to understand why they took the less risky route and expanded DL Park to include SW Land.

You have a point about local opposition, but at least Disney attempted to get something of the ground with those projects. And while they didn't build Westcot, they did end up building DCA on that very same lot. And as cheaply built and poorly executed as that original park was by itself, the fact of the matter is that it was just the centerpiece of a property wide resort transformation that required most, if not all, of the resources needed to add yet another gate. Yes, it could be a risk and it would be 2-5 more years, but I do believe getting a third gate centered around some of the biggest blockbusters of all-time is an easier sell than the other properties you mentioned. Remember, if Disney didn't take risks, they wouldn't be where they are today. And that legacy of risk taking should be continued especially considering that they're more powerful and virtually invincible now than ever before.

 

[Deleted member 107043]

Remember, if Disney didn't take risks, they wouldn't be where they are today. And that legacy of risk taking should be continued especially considering that they're more powerful and virtually invincible now than ever before.

You don't think plopping SW Land in DL is risky? I do, at least financially. Maybe not as extreme as building a separate adjacent gate, but considering the apparently unlimited budget the SW Lands have been given it is certainly a risk in terms of shifting the DL brand and what the world's most celebrated theme park will be from here on out.

 

[Donaldfan1934]

You don't think plopping SW Land in DL is risky? I do, at least financially. Maybe not as extreme as building a separate adjacent gate, but considering the apparently unlimited budget the SW Lands have been given it is certainly a risk in terms of shifting the DL brand and what the world's most celebrated theme park will be from here on out.

Financially, I don't think it's a risk at all. The very idea of a highly immersive 14+ acre Star Wars Land is a garunteed success. Yes, it has a seemingly unlimited budget, but that budget only solidifies that garuntee even further. As far as the risk of its affect on DL's identity, I agree with you. The concerns that fans have over this situation is the very point of this thread after all. However, Disney knows full well that the grievances of hardcore fans aren't enough to stop the inevitable money train that's steaming towards them. So yes, fan alienation is a risk, but today's Disney thinks primarily in the short term. And in the short term, they have a smash hit on their hands and the potential ripple effect that this will have on future decisions is the last thing on the executives minds.

 

[spacejockey]

They've owned Marvel since 2009...

Yes, but Disney need time to make new Marvel movies to get the public familiar with the characters before they build a land. I don't know all the legalities of the Marvel purchase. But, I read somewhere that that Disney wants to utilize the vast library to capitalize on "less known" characters like GOG, Avengers, Ant Man, Dr. Strange, Etc. As there are already Marvel rides in other non-Disney parks such as Spider Man and Hulk in Islands of Adventure in Universal Florida.

 

[drizgirl]

Yes, but Disney need time to make new Marvel movies to get the public familiar with the characters before they build a land. I don't know all the legalities of the Marvel purchase. But, I read somewhere that that Disney wants to utilize the vast library to capitalize on "less known" characters like GOG, Avengers, Ant Man, Dr. Strange, Etc. As there are already Marvel rides in other non-Disney parks such as Spider Man and Hulk in Islands of Adventure in Universal Florida.

You mean the ones they can legally use?

 

[cheezbat]

The more I've thought about this, the more I think what SHOULD have happened was: 1. Leave Tower of Terror alone. 2. Build Star Wars land in the expansion pad behind ToT. 3. Eventually demo the sound stages in the Hollywood section for Marvel stuff. And 4. Build ORIGINAL non-IP attractions in Disneyland.

Make everybody happy.

 

[Travel Junkie]

Though it is talking about the eastern gateway, today's MiceChat article talks about the difficulty of dealing with the current Anaheim city council. If they are having this much trouble (much of it Disney's own doing) getting a parking lot completed then imagine them trying to push a 3rd gate through.


http://micechat.com/159148-miceage-disneyland-rumor-update-schedule-struggle/

 

[dweezil78]

So how's Disney's America doing? And Westcot? Or how about Mineral King?

Or Port Disney?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Disney

 

[Donaldfan1934]

The more I've thought about this, the more I think what SHOULD have happened was: 1. Leave Tower of Terror alone. 2. Build Star Wars land in the expansion pad behind ToT. 3. Eventually demo the sound stages in the Hollywood section for Marvel stuff. And 4. Build ORIGINAL non-IP attractions in Disneyland.

Make everybody happy.

I don't know if there'd be enough room for that in DCA, but that's not a bad idea at all.

 

[BrianLo]

2. Build Star Wars land in the expansion pad behind ToT.

Make everybody happy.

Unless you prescribe to the California Adventure mission.

I don't see how Star Wars makes more sense in DCA, other than people are happy turning it into the dumping ground park. I'd rather DCA gets the really good original attraction to make it a worthy counterpart to Disneyland.

As mentioned, the plot behind ToT is 4 acres. Which would be a major downgrade for what they are currently planning. The tower of terror would then loom over Star Wars land, therefore necessitating it still be changed.