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

[TROR]

Also, just because you have a strong POV that you've defended in some other posts doesn't give you the right to tell someone they can't debate you on it or that you are right. Lucky for you I'm at work right now!

Not that I'm right, I just don't have the strength to debate it anymore. So tired of saying the same things over, y'know.

Re: California, again, I just think it is too limiting in scope if there is any desire to integrate popular entertainment franchises as both Disney and park goers want to see.

Well Cars works pretty well, in my opinion, although not perfectly. I believe Car Land should've been built instead where the focus is on car culture and Route 66. Radiator Springs Racers would still exist in this land, and Cars characters could still be prominent, they just wouldn't be the focus. Herbie the Love Bug would also be a perfect fit for this type of broader themed land.

And it's not as though Marvel couldn't fit into the park, either, the only problem is that it would have to be 1960's set instead of out of the MCU which Disney wouldn't want to do because synergy. But Iron Man and Ant-Man are both good fits if they wanted to put them in a 1960's Los Angeles or San Francisco setting. Guardians of the Galaxy, however, certainly has no place in California, but if they wanted to build an attraction based off it so bad, why not in Tomorrowland where it actually makes perfect sense?

1930's-50's set Hollywood Land obviously allows for a lot of possibilities, from The Great Movie Ride to Tower of Terror. Grizzly Peak also allows for the resurrection of the Disney classic attraction Country Bear Jamboree and even a boat ride based on the Gold Rush, land permitting. Paradise Pier has a surprising amount of room if you just want to go off the premise that boardwalks are just amusement parks so if Disney wants to build a ride based off a classic short and say it's an homage to old boardwalk dark rides, it works thematically.

As for new lands, there's more than just boardwalks, Hollywood, Route 66, and national parks, the old designs for Discovery Bay were set in a fictional San Francisco harbor which could include rides based off 20,000 Leagues or Trip to the Moon.

If you want to say that it doesn't allow for Star Wars land, however, you're right. It doesn't. But there's no reason it needs to. Yes, guests want to see Star Wars, but even if you want to say the theme of DCA should be the United States of America, or Westcot, or Disney Sea, Star Wars doesn't fit in any of these. No matter the park you place it in, unless the theme is fantasy adventure and focuses on Greek gods, mysterious and forgotten worlds, etc., Star Wars isn't going to fit.

 

[dweezil78]

Not that I'm right, I just don't have the strength to debate it anymore. So tired of saying the same things over, y'know.


Well Cars works pretty well, in my opinion, although not perfectly. I believe Car Land should've been built instead where the focus is on car culture and Route 66. Radiator Springs Racers would still exist in this land, and Cars characters could still be prominent, they just wouldn't be the focus. Herbie the Love Bug would also be a perfect fit for this type of broader themed land.

And it's not as though Marvel couldn't fit into the park, either, the only problem is that it would have to be 1960's set instead of out of the MCU which Disney wouldn't want to do because synergy. But Iron Man and Ant-Man are both good fits if they wanted to put them in a 1960's Los Angeles or San Francisco setting. Guardians of the Galaxy, however, certainly has no place in California, but if they wanted to build an attraction based off it so bad, why not in Tomorrowland where it actually makes perfect sense?

1930's-50's set Hollywood Land obviously allows for a lot of possibilities, from The Great Movie Ride to Tower of Terror. Grizzly Peak also allows for the resurrection of the Disney classic attraction Country Bear Jamboree and even a boat ride based on the Gold Rush, land permitting. Paradise Pier has a surprising amount of room if you just want to go off the premise that boardwalks are just amusement parks so if Disney wants to build a ride based off a classic short and say it's an homage to old boardwalk dark rides, it works thematically.

As for new lands, there's more than just boardwalks, Hollywood, Route 66, and national parks, the old designs for Discovery Bay were set in a fictional San Francisco harbor which could include rides based off 20,000 Leagues or Trip to the Moon.

If you want to say that it doesn't allow for Star Wars land, however, you're right. It doesn't. But there's no reason it needs to. Yes, guests want to see Star Wars, but even if you want to say the theme of DCA should be the United States of America, or Westcot, or Disney Sea, Star Wars doesn't fit in any of these. No matter the park you place it in, unless the theme is fantasy adventure and focuses on Greek gods, mysterious and forgotten worlds, etc., Star Wars isn't going to fit.

Well sure... that's all well and good if we lived in a world where big projects not based on popular IP still get greenlit. While we can sit here and debate that for the rest of time, sadly those days are long gone my friend.

 

[TROR]

Well sure... that's all well and good if we lived in a world where big projects not based on popular IP still get greenlit. While we can sit here and debate that for the rest of time, sadly those days are long gone my friend.

I won't accept it! I won't!

 

[Disney Irish]

I'm a former DL Passhole who visited the parks more-or-less weekly for several years, far exceeding the dozen-or-so times I've been to WDW. I know people who have worked in operations, both on the ground and at the planning level in TDA. I'm plenty familiar with how DLR operates, handles crowds, and the specific peculiarities it has to deal with.

Those large scale waiting areas include the ROA riverbanks (holding around 9,500 guests), the hub (roughly 12,000), Main Street and the parade route (which vary, depending on the setup). Yes, using those areas bottlenecks the walkways for people passing through and create unique traffic patterns. Yes, there are other complications. But that's not the point.

The point is that they take the otherwise-uneventful walkways and turn them into places that people want to spend a large amount of time. When you have 20,000 people waiting for shows, they free up space for additional people in the rides, queues, restaurants, and shops, to get their 7.2-ish "things" accomplished in order for them to enjoy their day. Yes, it may take slightly longer for people to reach their ultimate destination through the crowds (I've often gotten routed in odd ways, but never been unable to reach any location in the park), but ultimately it's a wash (or even advantage) because the queues are so much shorting during those times, even though more people are in the park than earlier in the day

Disney knows that they technically can fit more people in the park, but they also know that once they drop below that certain number, satisfaction and per-guest-spending drop dramatically. Happy guests spend money and tell their friends to visit the parks; angry guests don't spend money and tell people to stay away. Disney knows that they can get more out of the park by keeping guests happy, which means artificially limiting the capacity and adjusting it throughout the day to reflect the number of things-to-do at any given point (whether that means planned refurbishments, additional entertainment, or unplanned downtime)

Anyway, my original point still stands: the 24 hour event did *not* use the "normal" park capacity that they would use on a typical peak day, because they knew that people weren't there for a normal experience. Disney can and often does limit entries far below what the Fire Marshal permits. I don't doubt that the Fire Marshal was involved during that event, but I also know that they don't allow nearly that many people into the park on a normal day, because on a normal day they care more about guest satisfaction metrics than they care about letting as many people as possible see the premiere of new entertainment

I'm sorry I lost the point of this whole conversation.

Are you saying that when SW:GE opens that park capacity (artificially induced or not) will be hit on a daily basis or not? And are you saying that SW:GE opening (and the several months there after) will just be a normal day with this artificial park capacity as it is today?

 

[Disney Irish]

They were sitting on it for a while, contrary to what you said.

Well actually no they weren't sitting on it. Post-Acquisition there is a thing called LEC (Legal Entity Change), where the acquired company legally becomes part of the new company. There is a period of time after the shareholders of both companies approve the acquisition that both companies still operate separately. Until LEC occurs you have to continue to do business as if you were still separate companies. Now LEC can happen very quickly or it can happen over a 12-18 month period. The LEC time frame depends on many factors including in the case of a multinational company the laws of different countries. So basically Disney could not touch or interact with Marvel (except on a very high level) until LEC occurred.

Now I personally don't know when LEC happened after Disney bought Marvel, but one can be sure its wasn't on Dec 31st, 2009 (basically 2010) when the shareholders approved the acquisition. It was likely closer to the end of 2010 before all pieces of Marvel were under Disney control.

Then you have the sticky situation with the Marvel/Universal contract. So that plays an important role in this discussion. Because Disney likely was trying to see what they could do to break that contract before any plans went forward with the domestic parks.

So with LEC and the Marvel/Universal contract we are talking well into 2011 and maybe into 2012 before all the legal stuff was out of the way. During that time they were likely throwing around ideas in WDI on different Marvel projects for the parks. But until the legal issues were out of the way they couldn't do anything. 2012 was probably the first time they could submit projects for approval. And then the 2013 announcement came for Iron Man in HKDL. From there it was probably the back and forth of what could be done at both DLR and WDW that wouldn't be limited by the Marvel/Uni contract. And the rest is known. And with that we are now where we are.

Bottom line, they haven't been sitting on it. Just because we don't see it doesn't mean that nothing is being done. I really think that if the Marvel/Uni contract wasn't an issue they would have planned for a Marvel attraction much sooner in the domestic parks.

 

[No Name]

Star Wars Land is certainly a worse fit in DCA.

Only your attachment to the original park makes you feel otherwise. Also, Walt had plans for an IP-based land, and also built a new land in New Orleans Square. So, aside from the massive weathering, I don't understand... what makes this so different?

 

[BrianLo]

Star Wars Land is certainly a worse fit in DCA.

Only your attachment to the original park makes you feel otherwise. Also, Walt had plans for an IP-based land, and also built a new land in New Orleans Square. So, aside from the massive weathering, I don't understand... what makes this so different?

Star Wars

 

[SuddenStorm]

I understand from an emotional perspective. But realistically there would have been a trade-off then. If you put SWL in DCA, then Marvel would be going in DL and the complaints would be the same. You can't have both in DCA without completely removing everything else. And then you would have complaints about that. And if they just put everything in WDW leaving DLR alone they would have gotten complaints about that. Basically they were going to have complaints no matter what. Ultimately its matter of available space, and there just isn't much of it in Anaheim. Again a 3rd park isn't in the picture any time soon, if ever. And there was no way they were going to just sit on either of these hot properties for very long. So they use the available space where they can. Now in a perfect world things would be different and space would be unlimited. But we don't live in a perfect world and there is only a finite amount of space.

Your post assumes that if SWL wasn't going in Disneyland, that that wouldn't effect DCA's Marvel plans (that we don't even know), as well as the size and content of the two lands. They could easily rework SWL and whatever Marvel plans they have to DCA, using area available for expansion as well as removing some of the weaker lands in the park. Marvel Pier anyone?

Unless, of course, you think that DCA's lands are all at 100% in terms of quality, and that part of the park shouldn't be gutted and rebuilt from scratch.

The point I'm trying to make is- with the placement and amount of work Disney went through to fit SWL inside DL park, I see little to no reason why they couldn't have figured out a similar solution at DCA- a park much more in need of strong, cohesive, fan loved attractions that Disneyland.

 

[jmuboy]

I’m fine with the fake studio theme for the new Marvel area to built behind GotG. It gives them flexibility. It won’t be forced or contrived. It allows random unrelated characters/properties to reside in a single area. And It’s “in theme” to California.

Wotid much rather see the current Hollywood area enhanced to “Mickeys Hollywoodland” with the rumored Mickey ride, animation building and Hyperion as anchor attractions. The red car trolly and some enhanced shopping / dining concepts pulled from DHS with Fab Five proprietors would help flesh the area out.

 

[jmuboy]

My other idea with Pixar Pier leaving this random Pixar Park section ..... turn the area into the Embacadaro.

We have the painted ladies Victorian buildings, mermaid loosely works. Remove jumping jelly fish. The Sky school, Corn dog castle and the souvenir stand all go away and a early 1900s brick warehouse replaces them. This becomes the home / show building of a Mystery Manor attraction. It’s a kookie collectors warehouse ( instead of mansion) where he stores artifacts from his world travels..

The zephyr and swings would remain. The swings will be given a repaint to highlight scenes Around California.

 

[Disney Irish]

Your post assumes that if SWL wasn't going in Disneyland, that that wouldn't effect DCA's Marvel plans (that we don't even know), as well as the size and content of the two lands. They could easily rework SWL and whatever Marvel plans they have to DCA, using area available for expansion as well as removing some of the weaker lands in the park. Marvel Pier anyone?

Unless, of course, you think that DCA's lands are all at 100% in terms of quality, and that part of the park shouldn't be gutted and rebuilt from scratch.

The point I'm trying to make is- with the placement and amount of work Disney went through to fit SWL inside DL park, I see little to no reason why they couldn't have figured out a similar solution at DCA- a park much more in need of strong, cohesive, fan loved attractions that Disneyland.

You'd then have the complaints of the loss of the California theme even more so than we hear now. Unless you can tell me that SWL fits the CA theme.

There are always going to be trade-offs when dealing with changes to the DLR. Its just the nature of having limited space in a land locked park. At this point things are done. We can continue to play these what if games all day long, but it won't change anything.

 

[Travel Junkie]

You'd then have the complaints of the loss of the California theme even more so than we hear now. Unless you can tell me that SWL fits the CA theme.

There are always going to be trade-offs when dealing with changes to the DLR. Its just the nature of having limited space in a land locked park. At this point things are done. We can continue to play these what if games all day long, but it won't change anything.

They could make Star Wars work at DCA work IF they changed the name and theme to Hollywood Adventure or whatever they do with Hollywood Studios in Florida. Most of it is there. Idealized LA at the entrance and each land is based on movies. Marvel, Pixar etc. The toughest fits would be Grizzly, Pacific Wharf and Paradise/Pixar Pier (Pixar Pier still doesn't fit if you are trying to recreate movies) It fits with the current trend of recreating movies in new lands.

 

[TROR]

They could make Star Wars work at DCA work IF they changed the name and theme to Hollywood Adventure or whatever they do with Hollywood Studios in Florida. Most of it is there. Idealized LA at the entrance and each land is based on movies. Marvel, Pixar etc. The toughest fits would be Grizzly, Pacific Wharf and Paradise/Pixar Pier (Pixar Pier still doesn't fit if you are trying to recreate movies) It fits with the current trend of recreating movies in new lands.

If it's Hollywood Adventure you can just argue that Paradise Pier is the Santa Monica boardwalk in the 1920's and Grizzly Peak is Big Bear (even though that's 2 hours east of LA). However, to do that, you're saying the park is centered around SoCal locations which contradicts the idea of putting a Star Wars land into it.

 

[Travel Junkie]

If it's Hollywood Adventure you can just argue that Paradise Pier is the Santa Monica boardwalk in the 1920's and Grizzly Peak is Big Bear (even though that's 2 hours east of LA). However, to do that, you're saying the park is centered around SoCal locations which contradicts the idea of putting a Star Wars land into it.

The idea of what they are sort of doing at DHS (not 100%) is that the front of park is idealized Hollywood and the other lands are "the sets" or real live locations of Disney movies. So Star Wars Galaxy's Edge is the land in the flesh. So in that sense it doesn't have to be So Cal. It could be anywhere.

At DCA you have idealized LA which is the Hollywood business arm and home of Disney studios. Then you have the worlds of Marvel, Bugs Land (although on the chopping block) Carsland. You would have to address Grizzly, the pier area and pacific wharf. I'm sure they could figure something out with them though.

 

[SuddenStorm]

You'd then have the complaints of the loss of the California theme even more so than we hear now. Unless you can tell me that SWL fits the CA theme.

Not sure anyone actually cares if DCA's weak and convulted "California" theme stays intact.

 

[TROR]

Not sure anyone actually cares if DCA's weak and convulted "California" theme stays intact.

I very much do. However, at the same time, I'm accepting of it and won't give my dollar to DCA anymore as a result.

 

[Rich T]

Not sure anyone actually cares if DCA's weak and convulted "California" theme stays intact.

Nobody goes to DCA to bask in California's history. I'd say 9,999 out of 10,000 guests probably don't realize there are Monterey and San Francisco areas. Nobody except extreme Disney forum posters care what state Radiator Springs is supposed to be in (according to DocHudson's business license, it's the State of Confusion).

The whole CA theme is a basic, generic framework that was deliberately, coldly chosen to give out-of-state guests fewer reasons to visit Knott's, Universal or any actual Califormia landmarks. I'd be happy to see it phased out and replaced by something more film-oriented, as it seems that's where it's heading anyway.

I've always liked Grizzly Peak, though (always one inch (and a Humphrey Bear AA) away from being a true Disney area). But...Watch. Grizzly Peak's gonna be Endor.

 

[TROR]

But...Watch. Grizzly Peak's gonna be Endor.

Grizzly Peak replaced with Mount Sorrow

 

[Disney Irish]

They could make Star Wars work at DCA work IF they changed the name and theme to Hollywood Adventure or whatever they do with Hollywood Studios in Florida. Most of it is there. Idealized LA at the entrance and each land is based on movies. Marvel, Pixar etc. The toughest fits would be Grizzly, Pacific Wharf and Paradise/Pixar Pier (Pixar Pier still doesn't fit if you are trying to recreate movies) It fits with the current trend of recreating movies in new lands.

Not sure anyone actually cares if DCA's weak and convulted "California" theme stays intact.

There are people that do care about the California theme. I'm not saying I'm one of them, but there are people that care. All you have to do is look at posters on this or any other Disney forum. You'll find people that care about the some of the smallest things to the largest things. That is what is great about the forums. However like I've said numerous times now, no matter what they did there were going to be complaints. What would have made you happy was going to upset someone else.

That is the issue with how the DLR is setup today. There is not enough space to keep everything and still create new experiences. Any time they make a change you'll have some fan/guest complaint. And their feelings are just as valid as yours, no matter how crazy you believe them to be. Point is that Disney had to make tough choices in the placement of these changes in DLR knowing its going to create some sort of uproar.

Now as for me, I actually would like them to get rid of the California theme. I think its too restricting, but that is just my opinion. With the current setup I do believe they were smart to split two of the largest franchises into different parks. That splits the load of guests into both parks in the long term. Instead of overloading one with guest flocking to all the new stuff. Plus remember that DL itself has had no E Ticket attraction since 1995 with Indy. So that played into the decision as well.

Anyways, as I said we can play these what if games all day long. But in the end its a done deal, there is no changing it now.

 

[No Name]

They could make Star Wars work at DCA work IF they changed the name and theme to Hollywood Adventure or whatever they do with Hollywood Studios in Florida. Most of it is there. Idealized LA at the entrance and each land is based on movies. Marvel, Pixar etc. The toughest fits would be Grizzly, Pacific Wharf and Paradise/Pixar Pier (Pixar Pier still doesn't fit if you are trying to recreate movies) It fits with the current trend of recreating movies in new lands.

But that park would have no theme. The fact that each land is based on a movie is tangential and has nothing to do with the park itself. That would be akin to, if each land's title was written in Times New Roman font, saying that the park's theme is Times New Roman. It's tangential. Does Pandora fit DAK and Cars land fit DCA because those parks are about movies?

What about the lands themselves actually connects them?