Home

[Rocketeer]

Here's something I've been contemplating. We all know that ED isn't flush with cash, and new attractions are few and far between, but would you mind if the parks recieved attractions from other Disney parks?

For example, there's speculation of changes to Hollywoodland at DCA, which could see the dark ride 'Monsters Inc. Mike and Sully to the Rescue!' removed. Now rather than just junking it, could it not be put to use in Toon Studios?

It already happens with parades (naturally due to the transient nature of them), so why not recycle attractions? OK there's still a cost involvement, but Paris could get a 'cheap' additon to the parks.

Or, is that just a step too far?

[Puffin]

I would loooove to see the Electrical Parade return to Paris.

[mrpiggywinkles52]

It's probably a cost thing, They could probably transport the scenery and stuff relatively easily but the ride systems would be much harder and even after that you've got to build a show building, IMO it probably wouldn't be that much cheaper for the most part really, it would save on design and Imagineering costs though.

[mickey1980]

Recycled attractions are not going to save DLP.
The castle park hasn't received a new attraction since 1995. We deserve better.
(I don't count refurbs and upgrades as new attractions).

[ChipandDale99]

The castle park?
Also I think recycled attractions would be good. I don't think rocketeer is suggesting retheming existing rides at DLP. The recycled rides from the other parks would be new attractions (to dlp at least) so it would really help. If the monsters inc dark ride did come to ED I'd treat it as a new ride.
Though shipping it over would still be expensive, creating brand new, unique parts is very expensive too so it might save some money.

[Rocketeer]

I'll admit, this is certainly a hypotyhetical plan. Sure the shipping cost would proabably wipe out any savings, but on the other hand, it provides a 'new' attraction to the resort that seldom gets new attractions.

Although the caveat is, there have been plenty additons in the last decade - just that they've all been in the Studios.

Oddly though the two additions I've got in mind are more suited to that park. 'Mike & Sully' would work well in Toon Studio and there are at least two B tickets in 'a bug's land' that would work well tacked on to Toy Story Playland.

I suppose this argument is also another aspect of the 'to clone attractions or not' debate. Personally I prefer unique attractions, but if adding a direct clone of 'Ariel's Undersea Adventure' or 'Frozen Ever After' would boost attendance then go for it. (Of course I'd rather they clone the Millenium Falcon attraction, but all in good time!).

As for the park deserving better. Couldn't agree with you more. It's been left to tread water for far too long whilst the other 10 parks have had numerous expansions over the years or are planned to get expansions.

However perhaps a pragmatic approach is needed for now to keep things moving forward - with a mind on the budgetary constraints.

[Sulley's Arms]

The castle park hasn't received a new attraction since 1995.

Didn't Buzz Lightyear open in 2007-ish? I thought it was fairly new on our first DLP trip 

[Rocketeer]

^I had to look it up... and I'm surprised. Buzz opened April 8th '06.

Eleven years from Indy to Buzz, and another ten with nothing since. Sad.

[mickey1980]

Buzz replaced Le Visionarium. So technically is not an addition 

[Slimy yet satisfying]

Um there were a few rides added between Indy and Buzz...all the ones in the Studios in 2002! I dare say if you counted all of them and divided it with the number of years you would end up with a pretty good ratio of rides to years😉

[Rocketeer]

^Indeed, it's 9 additions in 9 years - with gaps between.

3 = '07 (Cars QRR, Crush, La ToT)
1 = '08 (Stitch)
3 = '10 (Toy Story Play Land)
1 = '14 (Remy L'adventure)
1 = '16 (Mickey and the Magician)

Which is why although I'd say they should take on the MI attraction, it's high time that Parc Disneyland got some new attractions - recycled, cloned or new.

[Askew80]

People.have ruled this out a lot based on transportation costs, iwould imagine any new attractions are shipped in, so this would still be a major factor weather new or recycled, doubt many rides have been Kate in France (maybe wrong though!!)

[MattR]

A lot of the rides are manufactured in Europe anyway. Most of the companies who actually design and build amusement rides are from Switzerland, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands.

[Rocketeer]

^Ride systems yes, but the thematic elements would not be made by them. I'm not sure if WDI's European arm (what's their name now?) manufactures everything or if Glendale still contributes.

However, in terms of recycling attractions, - keeping Monsters Inc as an example, shipping over the sets and the static AAs would be cheap in comparison to moving ride system as well. All they'd then have to do is get a ride system from their local, and construct a ride building. We're still not talking peanuts here, but (plucking figures out of thing air) it could be €30-40m instead of €90-100m.

[DLPme]

Recycling attractions is very common in the amusement/theme park business. Actually, there's several "ebays" for that kinda stuff (http://www.rides4u.com/rides/used/all/0/created/DESC/10/1).

Now, of course Disney is the godmother of all theme parks, and surely they wouldn't buy from sites like this. But if they could recycle rides from themselves, they would save big bucks. Remember that not only the scenery, but also the ride systems are always made to order. Even if the ride is "off the shelf", they never construct the actual ride before it's been ordered. And with new modern ways of constructing buildings, the showbuilding itself doesn't have to cost a fortune either (in Disney-money, that is).

So I say it would be a great way to boost the line of attractions in a cheaper way, without losing the Disney magic, if that's all they can afford.