DLP Guide Forum - The Disneyland Paris magicforum community

Panpan from Micechat.com who also follows the French Disney Boards claims that a €500 million investment is coming to Disneyland Paris during 2012 - 2020. Most of that money will be used for WDS. Ratatouille still isn't confirmed, because Disney is still waiting for the approval from the banks. It seems Philippe Gas, ED SCA CEO, said that during a shareholder round table discussion.

He also says that Imagineer Tom Fitzgerald from WDI in Glendale, he is responsible for Star Tours, works now for Disneyland Paris and he spends a high amount of time at DLRP. Mr. Gas wants a closer relationship with WDI.

I'm not sure if that's all true, but maybe someone else has some informations on that.

I was aware of the capital clearance, though much of it I thought was designated for Parc Nature. Though there are some debates about possibly Rat (though this is still not green lit) or Little Mermaid.

How does this amount compare to the amount the Resort received for the 15th anniversary celebrations and improvements?

Also, how much of that would go to Ratatouille/The Little Mermaid?

This is a lot more than just a few extra rides in studios. This to me says at least 2 expansions to the studios. Exciting

Well, the average e ticket is about 150,000 euros each, so do not expect a huge amount over the next 8 years.

Considering DCA is getting a Billion for it's 5 new attractions and retheming.

Either way, this is great news! :D If this is true, along with talks of a closer relationship with Imagineering, then this is going to mean a brilliant improvement for the studios! :D

I hope you are right Meph. They have to do something, and TSPL and Toon Studios type projects or Magical Moments are not the answer. Fingers crossed.

Quote from: "Meph"Either way, this is great news! :D If this is true, along with talks of a closer relationship with Imagineering, then this is going to mean a brilliant improvement for the studios! :D

A closer relationship with WDI doesn't mean that we get better attraction. Toy Story Cheap Land was also designed under Tom Fitzgerald and his WDI team. As long as there is no money to design great rides, the relationship can be as close as possible and we still will not get better ones.

Sorry for ranting about TSPL again, but I've just seen new construction pictures of DCA and it is so frustrating what's happening in Paris. So hopefully the rumours are true and there will be an investment in WDs, but there is still so much more to do at DLRP. I will not get my hopes to high.

I hope this rumour is true. If it is, I want to see the following attractions built with those €500 million:

• Ratatouille
• Soarin' (Up or Iron Man themed)
• Red Car Trolley
[strike:ahhoi8ov]• Night-time show (either Fantasmic or World of Colour)[/strike:ahhoi8ov]
• Mickey's PhilharMagic (digitally projected)

Red Car Trolly is a new one on me, especially as they rarely use the trolly in Main street.

But that would be cool, I would love a F! like tokyo got, but not one like WDW please. Or World of Colour would be cheaper, so that would make the most sense. But I still doubt it as people get very wet in the show, not something that is good for Paris. That said, efteling is opening a similar show next year, so you never know.

Alan - I'd agree with most of that, but I think that before building a Red Car Trolley in our Studios they should first concentrate on retheming... A scenic retro transportation ride wouldn't make much sense in our current park, not even on the Studio 1/Tram Tour/TOT stretch of land which is heavy on movie set facades and light on immersion.

Hopefully DCA will lead the way...

David, you're totally right. Before they add a new attraction like the Red Car Trolley, they first need to do extensive placemaking on Production Courtyard and maybe even Studio 1.

Studio 1 is a big problem. Should they keep the building? Personally I find it a bit tacky and messy, and always rush through it. What if they demolished Studio 1 and replaced it with a Hollywood street set that took you back to the 1920s/1930s? They could do something similar to Buena Vista Street under construction at DCA.

(//http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/42/Buenavistastreet.jpg)

Funny, I really like Studio 1, it reminds me of the old soung stages of the 30's - 60's in Hollywood. And it was even planned as a part of the original MGM Studios back in the early 90's. Lol

Given the poor weather of Paris, I like that it is indoors.

I have a love/hate relationship towards Studio 1. I think WDS has one of the most beautiful themepark entrances with the Studio Gate and Front Lot with the fountain. Front Lot needs the huge studio to work.

On the other hand Studio 1 became too small in recent years. It takes some time to pass trough. The bad weather isn't really the problem. Even in DLP the arcades don't get that crowded when it is raining. Most people stay outside and use Main Street. When the weather is bad the Studio 1 can't accomodate many visitors. WDS lacks indoor restaurants to spend some time.

Fair enough, but whenever I enter Studio 1 I always ask myself, is this full Disney quality? Is this Disney doing their best? Would they ever have an entrance of this quality in California or Tokyo? And the answer that comes into my head is... no.

I think the idea of having a covered entrance isn't a bad one, it's just Disney's execution of that idea in Paris. Universal Studios Japan has an excellent implementation of a Hollywood street that retains the daylight of an outdoors environment, while being completely protected from bad weather:

(//http://thethemeparkguy.com/filestore/themepark/universal-studios-japan/35/usjapan3-big.jpg)

Do we really need a covered entrance in the first place. I know the weather can be bad in Paris, but most of the parks is still an outside area. There are better options than a covered entrance. They just need to offer more indoor restaurants and shops. That also helps that people will spend more money on beverages, food and merchandise.

There are so many themeparks across Europe, Japan and North America and there the weather is also bad and many don't have a covered entrance.

So many responses. I actually do not like USO or Sentosa's covered walkways. Being covered with that detail, it does not look like sets, it feels like "oh, I'm in a theme park). I think Studio 1 looks like a scene out of Singing in the Rain - 1 of my fav movies, so  I am biased.

As to other parks not having coverage, well most of them in bad weather areas are closed through winter. DLP is still too cold for me from November through April, so we do not go during that time of the year too often. If the studios were more covered, we might.

But I grew up at studios and theatres as many of my family are in the business. That is why I loved WDSP when it opened, it felt like the real deal. Clearly it does not resonate as a theme with folks though.

Personally, I like Studio 1. However, I could see the area getting revamped - revamping the internal aspects and  replacing the doors with bigger ones to open up the space.

Also, what I could see them doing is giving it an extension at the rear - add a extra building on either corner and utilising some of the existing building, creating two new proper restaurants. This would of course give some much needed restaurants, as well as give Studio 1 a bit more of a purpose and make the area a bit more busy (other than just walking in and out of the park through it!).

If a band is on, I never just walk through there ;-)

To be honest, I would rather they built shops and restaurants throughout the park, there are already 3 shops in that area (if you could Front lot) and a large counter service. We really need themed table service options - I know that is the one thing that drives us out of the park.

Quote from: "davewasbaloo"Considering DCA is getting a Billion for it's 5 new attractions and retheming.

If thats a billion dollars then that's 690million euros, so they are getting a fair amount more.

Yes, but that 1bn is for this three year programme - not 8 years. Sorry if my point was not clear.

Also construction costs are about 25% higher in DLP than Anaheim

I think that amount is a good start, since the money is not coming from the world's biggest entertainment company, like at DCA. Instead ED SCA is founding the money, if I'm not mistaken. Taken that in account, I think there is not more possible.

As I mentioned somewhere else, TWDC should take a little bit more responsibility in Disneyland Paris. Although it is not wholly owned by them, they still have the last word on all decisions. Unfortunately TWDC is focusing on their own parks and on SHDL and Paris is left behind. Even in Hong Kong they are investing. When did they invest in DLRP the last time? I think it was WDS and that money was transferred to the ED SCA debt. The company also didn't invest in TOT and Toon Studios. That money came from a restructuring. I think SM was the last time when TWDC invested directly into the resort and SM is still owned by WDI and leases it to DLRP.

Exactly. When you do see the incomes of the resorts you can see why DLP isnt getting funded though.

The fundamental thing they need to do in my opinion, is in addition to building more attractions, reduce the prices. If you have people going to McDonalds instead of getting counter service food in the park it is because of the price. 11/12 euros for a burger and fries and drink which cost 5 euros in mcdonalds is ridiculous. It's not just the food though. The price of day tickets is ludicrous and the hotels are vastly overpriced. Attracting more visitors would surely increase profits.

On the other hand, if this is true, 500 million euros is a lot of money but I'd hope they'd manage to secure a similar amount within the next 4-5 years, as one new e-ticket every 3 years really isn't going to cut it when you have vast expansions with whole new attractions opening up in the US.

With the 500k I'd love to see Soarin and Test Track come over, though TT seems unlikely due to the weather. So maybe a little mermaid attraction would be nice too, it just doesnt fit in the studios in my opinion. Plus I imagine upgrading Star tours would be a lot cheaper than an e-ticket. I'd also like to see Captain EO replaced.

This also pretty much eliminates the idea of a third theme park coming any time soon.  :cry: Any idea what kind of cost that would entail? I'd guess in the region of around 3-5billion depending on the size?

Quote from: "davewasbaloo"Though there are some debates about possibly Rat (though this is still not green lit) or Little Mermaid.

Debates among fans or debates at DLP? Is iThe Little Mermaid being considered for the Park?

Debates within the company.

Thanks! Wow, fantastic. Great to know they they're considering it.

Updating Pirates of the Caribbean, updating Phantom Manor and bringing Star Tours 3D to the park should all be priorities over The Little Mermaid.

But then, after they've done those three, they should get cracking on the Little Mermaid.

Updating POTC with the movie characters shouldn't be a priority. I wouldn't mind if the characters would not come to Paris, but I'm also not against them. I just think that there are more important things to do at DLRP than adding Jack.

I would be very happy if Disney would update the sound and the special effects of PM and POTC. We have experienced the Haunted Mansion at WDW after Disney upgraded the ride. The effects and the sound were fantastic and that's what should happen in Paris as well.

Just wondering, how much is the fantasyland expansion at wdw being done for?

That is a good question Peter, I am not sure. I know they were still haggling the budget at New Year, but not sure now.

To be honest I agree that PM needs to be upgraded. I don't know if it's an inherent fault in the omnimover system but I found it very destracting when rotating that the omnimovers would constantly keep shaking back and forth when turning.

But at the end of the day would an updated PM bring any new visitors in? Probably not. L mermaid would. Star Tours 3D would too probably. For PM to bring new visitors it would have to be a total upgrade and a complete new ride like Star Tours would provide a complete (54) new ride(s).

A jungle cruise, now that would be exciting! They could even have separate boats with english and french jokes. Though I don't think we'd have the same excited skippers like they do in WDW to be honest.

I don't think we'd have enough room for a Jungle Cruise, anyway. Most of it is taken up by the caves, instead. :) I don't think it would work in Paris, because of the rain. I know the boats are sheltered, but it's still outside, so it might not be as nice in the Winter.

I don't think it's a problem of space, actually. There have been plans to build a Jungle Cruise in Paris. Climate issues, maybe... but I think that's secondary. The two biggest problems IMO are those cited by gldc: language issues (which could probably be worked around) and perhaps a lack of showmanship in the average DLP cast member. At the same time, I have seen a few great and funny skippers on the keelboats when they were open -- and those had the added difficulty of actually steering their boats... so who knows, with proper casting it might even work!

We have done the Jungle Cruise at WDW twice. The first it was okay, because the skipper was really good, but the second time it was bad. To be honest I don't want to see that attraction in Paris. Disney has created many better attraction. In my opinion it isn't that good. The construction would be expensive and for that money there are definately better choices.

I've been on the Jungle Cruise in Tokyo, Florida and California... the quality of the skippers varied, but even in TDL where I didn't understand a word I enjoyed the attraction as an immersive scenic ride that takes you to tropical jungle rivers in the early-to-mid 20th century. To me personally, that makes it a quintessential Disney attraction. Of course it depends on what you expect...

Don't get me wrong, it is a wonderful attraction, especially the scenery. I just think there are better rides for Paris, since, like you' also mentioned, the weather and the languages will be a problem. I would be happy to see it in Paris, but if Disney wants to build a ride in Adventureland it should be the Indiana Jones Adventure. Firstly it would be indoor and secondly you don't need CMs as skippersto entertain the guests.

Indiana Jones Adventure too would be a brilliant idea, though as always it's money stopping them from building it. It looks like a very elaborate attraction to the point that I think it would be Disneyland Park's most elaborate if built. I'd take it over the Indiana Jones coaster any day. I absolutely loved the coasters at DLP and love them in general but IJ is just too small and short, the loop is very tight and it is in my opinion the worst themed of the coasters, I even think that Crush is very well themed inside compare to IJ and much more fun.

I have to admit, although (naturally) I am a huge Disney Ride fan and I love the classics, I never understood why Jungle Cruise is considered to be so good, I found the animatronics to be pretty lame and the script to be rather painful.

What I am really disappointed in is Disneyland Paris not getting a Star Tours upgrade, that movie is so old and film effects have come on such a long way. We really missed out on something fantastic there.

I must say, I really like Front Lot as an entrance to a studio park. It´s  gorgeous and stunning and it´s like they built the big studio entrances in the 20s/30s/40s. Take the great paramount studio gate (1917 I know). A studio entrance with a big arch, and soundstages in the background is the best theme you can have for a studio entrance. And the whole area looks like they spent much time to keep it as perfect as possible.

What I don´t like is the inside of studio 1. After this great entrance you will be disapointed by this not very detailed decorations. I like the idea of a nightime/sunset theme but I think they haven´t done it very well. For me you can clearly see that it´s just a fake set at every angle and every moment. I also like the idea that you see at some point that everything in the movie business is a backdrop but I don´t need to know it at every moment.

For me studio 1 should be a crossover or a kind of gate where you go from the studio to the real hollywood (on the other side of studio 1). But to get this they mus redesign the interior of the studio. It must look more real on the fronts of the facades.

True, I agree that a better solution would be to treat Studio 1 like a classic Disney dark ride, keeping up the illusion throughout -- and then giving the option at the very end to look behind the scenes. It could spark interest in the craft behind movie/theme park magic without reminding guests at every turn that it's a (faux) set.

Everyone who critiques Studio 1, please watch Singing in the Rain, then you will truly see the inspiration behind it.

Remember up until almost opening day Studio 1 was called "Lights, Camera, Hollywood!", named after the fictional film being shot in the Studio, hence why there's things like production stamps on the back of the sets. In fact it probably has one of the most detailed stories of any theme park entrance world wide.

Quote from: "SM:M3"In fact it probably has one of the most detailed stories of any theme park entrance world wide.

I think that Eddie Sotto or Steve Kirk might have something to say about that...

I don't contest the theme or the general feel of the area, but the way that it's handled. My point is that I'd prefer an immersive area that is deconstructed only after the first impact; it would probably make for a more compelling experience.

I would realy like to se Splash Mountain beeing made at MK.
This is a brilliant ride, and speek to anyone young and old.
You know if you look closely as you enter Main Street, there is actualy a poster of Splash Mountain on one of the walls???
But the ride dosent exist in the park??
And there are truly a good spot for building the atraction in Critter Coral(Frontierland).
I know there where a plan for building it at some point, but because of the whether condisions in Paris the atraction was never made!
But now it is 2011 people, and surely the imagineers could find a way to solve the problem with the weather.
I truly hope that this atraction will be made some time in the future, Mk needs it!

While I would welcome it, I am cynical it will ever happen. The weather is a convenient issue (though they get around this in Tokyo), but I think more to the point, it is the cost that is off putting. If it were a replica of the others, it is more expensive than ToT or PotC. But yes, I would love it to come across, more than any addition since ToT.

Alain Littaye has posted a good article about the Indiana Jones Adventure and why it will not come to DLRP in the near future. Maintenance is just too expensive for ED SCA.

So I also think that Splash Mt. would be a perfect choice, maybe they can alter the story to fit better into Frontierland, except they create a Critter Country.

I think copies of existing attractions are the best way for DLRP at the moment, because research and development have already been done and that reduces the cost. Ratatouille is basically a copy of TDL's Winnie Pooh.

WEll Indy is in a bad state in California compared to when it opened, and Splash is in terrible condition in WDW. I could only imagine what both would be like in Paris.

I know that this atraction is a wery big investment for the park, but beside that I would say that this is the best dark ride that is ever beeing made at WDW. The park is now turning 20 years old, and MK needs a new and great ride in its tribute!
Why not the best ride insted of cheap rides like the once in Toy Story Playland!
I realy think this ride will pay off over tim!
And could anyone tell me what is happening at Critter Country today? On the DLP website it says its closed for future enjoyment! But its been closed for over a year, why is that?

Quote from: "Ole Vidar"And could anyone tell me what is happening at Critter Country today? On the DLP website it says its closed for future enjoyment! But its been closed for over a year, why is that?

Do you mean Critter Corral, because there is no Critter Country in Disneyland Paris?

Yes i ment Critter Corral :thumbs:

I don't know what they are doing, but I hope they get rid of the Toy Story meet and greet. It really doesn't fit there. Disney should put them into TSPL and not into Frontierland.

Yep, Tarzan is running this year, Critter Coral is dead (of course, you can pay to see those characters at Cowboy Cookout BBQ). Hope something for the future, but none of my sources have indicated anything. as far as I am aware, the prospect was killed 5 years ago.

What I don't understand is if DLP is to recieve a 500 million euro investment then why do they still require the banks to lend to them in order to finance the construction of Ratatouille?

If you don't know what I mean its at the bottom of this article..

http://www.dlrptoday.com/2011/05/16/oh- ... /#comments (http://www.dlrptoday.com/2011/05/16/oh-la-la-first-ratatouille-ride-concept-art-detailed-new-layout-plans-revealed/#comments%22%20onclick=%22window.open(this.href);return%20false;)

Quote from: "spicy"What I don't understand is if DLP is to recieve a 500 million euro investment then why do they still require the banks to lend to them in order to finance the construction of Ratatouille?

If you don't know what I mean its at the bottom of this article..

http://www.dlrptoday.com/2011/05/16/oh- ... /#comments (http://www.dlrptoday.com/2011/05/16/oh-la-la-first-ratatouille-ride-concept-art-detailed-new-layout-plans-revealed/#comments%22%20onclick=%22window.open(this.href);return%20false;)

Since ED SCA is nearly €3 billion in debts, the banks want to make sure that the money isn't wasted. If ED SCA has €500 mio to invest, it can also be used for paying back the debts.

I've read in the newspaper that French banks are heavily involved in Greece. Now I wonder if that will have any influence on ED SCA, since the banks need to secure their money elsewhere.

Quote from: "dagobert"I don't know what they are doing, but I hope they get rid of the Toy Story meet and greet. It really doesn't fit there. Disney should put them into TSPL and not into Frontierland.

That's true. How I loved the quiet environment with all the animals - a perfect contrast to the crowded Thunder Mesa. But a wonderful atmosphere does not animate children to buy merchandise. So betray your old ideals and include Disney characters and toons wherever you can.

Quote from: "Patrick89"

Quote from: "dagobert"I don't know what they are doing, but I hope they get rid of the Toy Story meet and greet. It really doesn't fit there. Disney should put them into TSPL and not into Frontierland.

That's true. How I loved the quiet environment with all the animals - a perfect contrast to the crowded Thunder Mesa. But a wonderful atmosphere does not animate children to buy merchandise. So betray your old ideals and include Disney characters and toons wherever you can.

Unfortunately that's the future of Disney Parks.

Yep, the Disney I knew and loved that worked for perfect theme experience in it's first 40 years at least, is now dead. It is toons, synergy and getting away with cheaping out now.

Walt Disney would turn in his grave if he knew what is happening with his parks...

davewasbaloo have you ever worked for The Disney theme parks? Or even considered working for them?

It's just you seem incredibly passionate about the Disney company and it's parks and have some genuinely good ideas that should be put forward from what I've read of your posts. It's clear how you feel about the Disney parks by how active you are on these forums and I feel Disney are currently lacking your sort of enthusiasm and passion for the parks which make them go for these cheaper alternatives such as TSPL.

Just my opinion obviously but thought I'd voice it  :)

That is very kind spicy, I did work for the Disney Store as a teen and had dreamed of working for Disney when younger. But I know many senior people at Disney, and decided not to work for them for fear that the magic would disappear. It has disappeared for me, but hopefully much slower than if I had been inside.

But a number of the awesome imagineers have been relegated to "special projects" to get rid of their influence, and folks like Jay Rasulo has been promoted and promoted for increasing margins through cutting. Sadly, that is what Wall Street is interested in - short term profits. Long term vision no longer really exists, not at Disney anymore.

So now although I try to campaign for change, I am trying to find new companies to be passionate about. Mack, Red Bull etc. these firms understand quality and long term impact.

In the halls of TWDC and WDI there is an insult they commonly use, they are called Walties.  They do not think folks that trust in Walt's vision has a place in the company anymore.

Well that's your view of the Walt Disney Company but I don't share it and I just have to say so. If you look at all the work being done at DCA, the expansion of Fantasyland at the MK. It doesn't look like a company that has lost site of Walt's vision to me. The company has built some great things on Walt's legacy, but he couldn't  afford to buy his own hotel, he had to beg the Wrather Company to build a hotel at Disneyland. Look at the company now, 11 theme parks  and breaking into mainland China with many exciting things to look forward to there I'm sure. The Disney Store, Cruise Line, hotels and Disney Theatre. I'm not surprised that Wall street and profits matter to the WDC, people invest their money with Disney, pension funds, small and big investors, these people don't want to loose their savings they want dividends. That's how it works isn't it?

I am not sure walt would have been pleased with half the attractions, nor the tooning. And he was notorious about pushing the envelope, which has been lacking in many ways unless tied to toons.

What do you mean half the attractions, what are you talking about? Splash Mountain, TOT, SM, BTM, Star Tours, Electrical Parade, Little Mermaid, World of Colour, etc etc. You think Walt Disney wouldn't have liked them. And as for Toons, he didn't name his castle Sleeping Beauty Castle for nothing, he was working on the toon film at the time.

But you named less than 10% of the creations since his death, and while he did enjoy animation, it was in his later years, only a very small part of his interests. He was very disinterested in the MK when designing WDW, there are numerous books written on the subject, for him it was all about Epcot.

Also look at his proudest creations. Most of the toon stuff was done in 1955 and a little bit after. The things he was really excited about had nothing to do with toons - Mine Train Through Natures's Wonderland, the Subs, Monorail, Matterhorn, the World's Fair of 64, the opening of the Winter Olympics, the Mineral King and Pyramid Lake projects, Tomorrowland on the move 1967, NOS (inc PotC, and the early designs of the Haunted Mansion), Epcot etc.

Mineral King and Pyramid Lake (not heard of that one) never happened. What Walt did in 1955 is fair enough, but it's 2011 now and I doubt you could run a company or a theme park in the same way today, the world has moved on. The roots of the WDC are in animation, it may have become a small part of his  interests, but he still kept making the films. Walt Disney sadly is no longer with us, in spirit yes so it's left to a new generation of imagineers and executives to run the company now, and they will have new ideas of how things should be done, and there's no way round that. It doesn't say much for Walt Disney if he was very disinterested in the MK when designing WDW, you make the same criticism of the WDC today. I'm quite happy to have wood carvers (which we could probably find at a craft fair) in Frontierland if DLP want them, and shows at the Lucky Nugget Saloon, but I don't have trouble with Toons as such because I think people want to see the characters, and they won't find them anywhere else other than in a Disney park. It was Walt Disney who introduced characters into his park in the first place. WDC have built on Walt's great legacy, so we have more parks and more characters. Disney can't keep repeating Subs and Mine Trains through Natures Wonderland, and yet they still came up with DAK and Expedition Everest. Sometimes they might want to try something else even if the idea does come from a film.

I think that there's a real dislike for toons outside of Fantasyland at the parks, that was the place where you could step into the world of the movies you loved and meet the characters. It was an experience purely for that land. Tomorrowland was to show people the world of tomorrow, Adventureland tied into his toonless True Life Adventures series, Frontierland told stories of old and the West.

Each land was originally designed to have a unique experience, toons were the unique part of Fantasyland, and to have them bleed slowly into other areas of the park kind of dilutes the charm of the other Lands. The exceptions to this would be the Fab 5 who have always appeared in themed variations in each land, but aside from those, the areas were more focused on theme, and not toons. That escapism attracted people to the parks, and it's purely down to bad (easy route) marketing which has swung the park's attraction over to the toons.

The approach I take is to think about the experiences you'd like, and I always come up with the thought; "surely you can't argue that you'd rather take a ride through a story you already know, over exploring a new and fantastic experience where things are surprises and you don't know what the ending will be?"

Just my two cents..

I agree with much of what's been said so far...

What made me such a big fan of Disneyland (some might say obsessed with it :lol:) was the immersive experience that captured me when I first visited DLP in '94 - just 4 years old. I didn't dare to try many attractions, I was afraid of the characters and didn't understand a word of what was being said. But to this day I can still remember how I felt taken away to five different vacations all at one place. I visited the park every second year and as I grew older I became more and more aware of the amount of details put into the place - of course I hunted the autographs at one period, but what I remember now was how I explored Adventure Isle, Thunder Mesa and Critter Corral - I was absorbed into a new and unknown adventure at every corner. I might have taken a plush Pluto home but it is these memories that has given Disneyland a special place in my heart.

I've visited the last 3 years - not to appreciate the new character celebration - but to relive these moments and once again be captured by the true adventures that is around every corner - my top five attractions not being influenced by any movie (Pirates, BTM, PM, IASW and ToT). I will keep going back to experience this and I visit this forum every day to see of something like this comes up again - right now I am keeping a firm eye on the beautiful refurbishments in Paris and 2/3 of the expansion in Hong Kong.

Regarding the toons, as Scissorsboi mentioned Fantasyland has been the home to the toons - and I have always loved and do still love to get my character fix on Peter Pan or Snow White - this being one of the 5-6 different vacations I can get at one spot. I understand why characters are the easy way to get people to visit, but a park like Europa Park, which I understand is overtaking many of DLPs german guests, make new creations each year and they are forced to use their imagination to create new adventures. In the end it looks like this beats the Disney characters by the germans.

Every once in a while I read through my Imagineering book, visit websites and watch Disneyland documentaries to experience the work of some of the great minds that once were in control.

Regarding the future of our Disneyland Paris; I love the fact that the main part of this years budget is being used to refurbish some of the masterpieces in our park and I have hope, which might me very naive, that this is a sign that the people from the top has been made aware by the european threats and realize that Disney can outrun these parks at any time if the effort, creativity and perhaps most importantly bravery of former times will be brought back.

The Little Mermaid ride has just opened a DCA, and that seems to have gone down very well, that's taken from a toon film. World of Colour has been a huge success at DCA, that show mostly features Disney cartoon characters. Tarzan is back on in Frontierland at DLP, that shows got toons in it. Most people were sorry when the Lion King show closed in Discoveryland, that was based on a toon film. The Disney parades are full of toon characters. The Tree House comes from a film ( Walt's idea) Star Tours comes from a film. There's always been a mixture of rides. Opening a second park at DLP was brave, at least Europa Park has never done it, nor has any other theme park  done it in Europe. According to the TEA & AECOM report for 2010, WDS comes in at number 19 in the world with 4.5 million visitors doing better than Europa park at number 20 with flat attendence of 4.25, even if it is more popular with the Germans now.

Yes there has always been a mix - but lately all new things have to have toons attached in some way.. at least it seems like that..

The Little Mermaid ride looks great and it is a classic WDI dark ride. However, for me it belongs in Fantasyland and so I am happy that is placed there in WDW. World of Color has been succesful yes - I do not if it still is - but at least this also has some of the essences I mentioned - it is state-of-the-art use of the possibilities and creative.

Tarzan is back on and it is good, because it at least is top class entertainment. However, I would prefer to see more themed entertainment in stead (e.g. Lucky Nugget and I seem to remember something with cowboys on the rooftops of Thunder Mesa - correct me if I am wrong here). Regarding the Lion King; it was sad to see it go (again it was top class), but it never belonged in Videopolis - it did seem odd to go inside this Jules Verne inspired building and then see lions sitting in the restaurant and african rock work on the stage.

The parades: yeah, based on toons and more and more on personal interaction. For me the parades started by being a celebration of the magic of Disneys movies which didn't interfere with the atmosphere in Frontierland, Adventureland and Discoveryland. While stile not doing this, it now fails to do the first thing for me - it just seems like an advanced meet'n'greet opportunity. I have no problem with a good old parade and please do not think I want the characters completely out of the park.

The Tree House and Star Tours are inspired by movies - however not toons. The Tree House blends in and isn't recognized as being a "movie attraction" by many. Star Tours is inspired by movies but still succeeds in telling a whole new adventure. For me it still contradicts with the Jules Vernian theme of our Discoveryland however.

Correct it was brave to open a second park, but budgets were low and that has given us a park which still in some areas and up until recently completely lacked creativity, deep-thought stories and top class themening. (ToT and Hollywood Boulevard has done a lot of good things for WDS, but to me it still lacks the feeling and atmosphere of Disneyland Park)

You have to suspend disbelief  when you go into Disneyland Park, it is a Magic Kingdom after all, if you don't nothing will make sense.

Ed, Europa Park is huge compared to DLP, so no point opening a second gate. And it is not open year round like DLP either. Those must be considered as a point of comparison.

The tooning has actually turned me off of the parks, and it is a shame. I have been obsessed by the parks for 37 years nearly, and growing up in California, it was the idea of a cruise through a jungle, a flight into space, a trip to the old west or New Orleans that were always far more compelling. If it were all about characters, surely next year Blackpool would be in the top 20 as you can now meet Sponge Bob and Dora. Somehow, I think it will not be.

But Disney has taken a very dangerous road IMHO, and my 6 and 8 year olds both prefer Europa Park to DLP. I never thought that would happen. And they are the core demographic the parks seem to be aiming at.

But DLP isn't all about characters now. You can still take a flight into space, cruise through the jungle ( well not at DLP ) go on TOT, Phantom Manor, Pirates of the Caribbean. I think Disney want to create more synergy between their films and parks, no doubt, Is that a bad think? You don't like it. But if DLP built Little Mermaid would you baulk at the idea of going on it, or take the ride? It is a magic Kingdom, how realistic is it ment to be? I'd like Splash Mountain, but that's about toons-Song of the South. What Disneyland Park hasn't had for a long time is a new E-ticket attraction, maybe thats whats missing.

No it's not all about characters. BUT through many years all additions - with the exception of ToT - have been based on characters and synergy - no matter if it has been in Frontierland (Woody's Round-up), Dicoveryland (Buzz replacing Le Visionarium) or the studios (TSPL, Toon Studio). You mention Pirates - soon this will be synergized too with the addition of Jack Sparrow, Barbossa and Davy Jones/Blackbeard - why do we need that? The last couple of visits I have been on, I have queued outside of the fort for Pirates with no Johnny Depp inside.

How realistic is it meant to be? This is it - to me the lands of Frontierland, Adventureland, Discoveryland and Main Street U.S.A are meant to be way more realistic than FANTASYland. In those lands you blend the realism with the myths and stories of former time - in Fantasyland you absorb yourself into the complete Fairytale fantasy. I would love to see an E-ticket and Splash Mountain would be good, but Western River Expedition to name one would be even better! The Little Mermaid would be good too, but it would have to be placed in Fantasyland.

For me this is not a campaign against characters or toons, it is a campaign for the variety and blend of fantasy, education and entertainment that Disney offered to me when I was little.

I'm not sure. Main St. USA is ment to be way more realistic you say, but how Main Streets do you know of with a fairy tale castle at the bottom of the street? Only in Disneyland would you get that. And in WDS there was no Fantasyland area for toons, that's why they built toon studios. Some children are very young when they're taken to DLP, there has to be something for them, doesn't there?

Funny, I have been going to Disney parks before I can remember, there was always something to do for me. As a baby, apparently my favs were It's a Small World and Jungle Cruise. By the age of 5, PotC and HM were the top of the list. My daughter loved the Matterhorn when she was 2.

None of us are that interested in the fantasyland dark rides other than IASW.

Walt was the first to say not to talk down to kids.

Well I hope you don't think I talk down to kids. I 've heard that some kids like the Parachute Drop.

I first visited DLP in '94 - just 4 years old. I didn't dare to try many attractions, I was afraid of the characters and didn't understand a word of what was being said. But to this day I can still remember how I felt taken away to five different vacations all at one place. :D

Quote from: "ed-uk"I'm not sure. Main St. USA is ment to be way more realistic you say, but how Main Streets do you know of with a fairy tale castle at the bottom of the street?

The Castle is simply one of the themed entrances - the Central Plaza hub is at the end of Main Street U.S.A ;)

I know the castle is at the entrance of Fantasyland. it's also the symbol of the park. I know central plaza is the hub of the park. My point was if we were walking down a real Main Sreet we wouldn't be heading towards a fairy tale castle, only in Disneyland would you find that. People of all ages will take something different  away from their experience. I 'm just wondering, if Disney was thinking about  building a new ride in 2011, about a boat trip around the world of singing and dancing dolls and call it IASW and did a survey, I'm  wondering what response Disney would get from boys.

That is unfair, as it was added at a time where Nature's Wonderland was expanded, the dinos moved into the train, Lincoln was added to Main Street, and New Orleans Square was under construction (with leeks about a Haunted House and Pirate ride, as well as the New Tomorrowland on the Move with Carousel of Progress under construction). An entirely different proposition.

In paris, Toons and Thrills are the only additions since WDSP opened nearly 10 years ago. Not cool and not a valid comparison at all.

But as the WDS opened in 2002 with only two rides Flying Carpets and Rock n Roller coaster, some people might take the view the park could do with some more thrills and toons. It was mostly shows when it opened.

but think, if they hadn't concentrated on the shows up until now, would we have:
stitch live
cinemagique
animagique
lights, action, moteurs?

i don't know about you, but i think its good that they started with this. they had what was probably the smallest budget a disney park has ever had, and they created impressive shows. it was a great exercise for imagineering, and because they didn't rush into anything, every few years, a new attraction has opened, and ever few years, we will see more and more attractions and shows opens. we now have a park which will stay new and fresh for decades to come. and we will get imports from wdw, and they will imagineer new attractions and shows, and i can seriously predict that once the park is expanded, it will become something similar in size to the mgm studios europe designs, and from what i have heard, the plans drawn up for that were nearly twice as big as dhs.

sorry to rant, but i do feel that wdsp gets a bad wrap, and yes, it was a bit disappointing for a disney park, and sure, it has only just become a full day park, but surely that should make us think "this has potential".

sorry about that.

I' m a fan of WDSP, I think it gets a bad wrap.

WDS is the shining light of hope for the resort I feel. It's the park where they can try pretty much anything (including TSPL) and see if it works, if it fits and really push to it's limits. TSPL is a bad addition yes, I've said before it's not as terrible as I expected it to be, there are a few nice touches, but the area as a whole is less intrusive in this 'vauge' park, than it would be in DLP.

If anything gets added to/changed in DLP it does take away from the majesty which the Imagineers designed way over 25 years ago now, and unless done very well it will (often rightly so in my opinion) receive a negative feedback from many fans. However WDS is often seen as a lesser 'budget' park, and I think that is the reason you can plug in attractions like Crush and Cars (Cars is my favourite ride visually at Studios, it shows the movie well and the setup still feels a little movie set to me) and fill out under developed areas. DLP already has developed areas so cramming anything new in doesn't ever seen to quite fit the park right, but at Studios it can almost use that 'jumbled' feel to it's advantage.

Long story short, with the exception of big, well thought out, and tastefully done E-Tickets coming straight from WDI then I'm more excited for developments in Studios, and I honestly think with the right attractions and marketing it could swing the park back into the top spot in Europe!

Quote from: "Scissorsboi"If anything gets added to/changed in DLP it does take away from the majesty which the Imagineers designed way over 25 years ago now, and unless done very well it will (often rightly so in my opinion) receive a negative feedback from many fans.

In their genius they left gaps for Splash Mountain, Indiana Jones Adventure and others too, so if those were filled it would not detract.

My wife and I (in our 30's) and 2 and a half year old daughter just got back from our first trip to Disneyland Paris so I am coming from a different angle than most on this topic where most of you have been going for decades.  We all had a brilliant time and plan to go back hopefully next year.

I read somewhere on this forum that Walt Disney once said you can't make theme parks just for kids as the adults won't want to come. But I think this is not as relevant in today's world as it was back in the 50's and 60's for adults with kids. Back then children were not so much in parents minds as they are now. Today most parents do everything they possible can to please their children so a Disney theme park with more toons goes down better with the general public. My daughter loved Toy Story Land, went on Parachute drop 3 times and slinky just the once as it was under maintenace some of the time we were there.

What I don't understand from most of the posts on here is what's so bad with having toons in all areas of Disneyland and WDS? Surely it does not ruin your holiday or experience by seeing Baloo walking down the street. Especially when it makes the kids nearby smile, laugh and is the highlight of their day. I know my 2 year old loved seeing a few toons when we were in Adventureland, Frontierland and WDS.

Quote from: "stevenlatham01"But I think this is not as relevant in today's world as it was back in the 50's and 60's for adults with kids. Back then children were not so much in parents minds as they are now. Today most parents do everything they possible can to please their children so a Disney theme park with more toons goes down better with the general public.

What you're forgetting about is that not everyone who visits DLP are a family, and thats what a lot of fans get annoyed at. There's old couples, teenagers, twenty somethings, middle aged couples all without kids who visit disney parks still in hope of enjoying themselves but these days there's not a lot to offer them and i think thats a place where DLP are going wrong. There is a big market out there for people without children, who probably also have a lot of money to spend and DLP forget about them.

Even adults with children still want to have just as much fun as there kids on a disney holiday, defiantly the majority of parents on this forum anyway.

Quote from: "stevenlatham01"What I don't understand from most of the posts on here is what's so bad with having toons in all areas of Disneyland and WDS? Surely it does not ruin your holiday or experience by seeing Baloo walking down the street. Especially when it makes the kids nearby smile, laugh and is the highlight of their day. I know my 2 year old loved seeing a few toons when we were in Adventureland, Frontierland and WDS.

Because it completely goes against Walts concept and dream of his parks. Heck when he designed MK at WDW he created an underground network of tunnels to make sure cast members from different parts of the kingdom did not go into the wrong land and ruin the allusion of the disneypark. We are major fans on here and disney is our religion and part of the religion is sticking to the original rules. We dont want baloo running down MSUSA, he should be in the jungles of adventureland. On MSUSA we should have Dapper Dans, Marching Bands, Mary Poppins etc.

Unfortunately Disneyland Paris is only focusing on kids. It's not a park for the whole family anymore. WDW offers a lot for couples without kids, but DLRP doesn't. They are missing an opportunity here, but it seems the resort doesn't want our money. That's also a reason why so many consider Disneyland a park only for children.

I remember a French couple we met at Walt's in 2007. We talked to them and they told us, that they first visited DLRP in 1992 with their kids. Since then they have returned each year and now they are going without their children. I'm sure there are more older couples who still go to DLRP without their kids and they spend a lot more money than the average family. They can afford the fancy restaurants and nicer hotels and they deserve the same attention like children.

It is frustrating how the management is ruining the experience with all the toons. It should be madatory to read all the Imagineering books when applying for a management job, because toons shouldn't be in a turn of the century Main Street.

As long as people are happy with bad quality, meeting toons and carnival rides, there is no need for Disney to do a better job and create big original attractions.

Sorry, when I said "the street" I did not mean main street. Baloo was actually walking around Adventureland so glad to hear that you agree that it would be okay to see that.

The only toons I saw on main street was when the parade and Disney Dance Express were on. Do you all take offense to the toons on the parade? Personally I thought the parade was great but the Dance Express was a little boring and we only watched it once.

I do take your point that the park is suited more to kids and I would say under 12. I would not have wanted to go there as a teenager. Think I would have been a bit bored but I prefer big thrill rides and I don't think DLP has enough of them to be there more than 1 day but then that's not really what Disney is about.

I would say about 90% of the people we saw there were there with kids and taking that we went last week when most Europeans are in school term lots of people must have pulled their kids out of school to go. What do you think they could do to attract more adult only groups?

Of course. After all, I grew up at DL with elder relatives that went all the time without children. I courted my wife at DLP. I honeymooned at Walt Disney World. And we decided to have a family when we went to DL in California for our anniversary.

You have made the point in your post above. Disney used to be for all ages, and appeal to all ages (in the 90's, Walt Disney World was the most popular honeymoon spot in the world, beating the Caribbean, Hawaii, Rome etc.).

Problem is, for at least 10 years now, the focus is on kids. And that is terrible. Kids grow up. I know mine do, and they are less compelled by DLP now, because of all the damn toons.

And it is not just meet and greets replacing the live music, actors and craftsman, but also the stupid attractions that have been added over the last 10 years too.

Disneyland was designed as a place for the whole family, Walt was inspired by Tivoli Gardens and even used to do date nights and adult aimed events in the parks in the 50's and 60's. And the shows used to aim more at family (as in adults too) humour.

Modern Disney, especially in Paris, does not get this. They create juvenile attractions, market at little ones, and frankly it is ruining the parks around the globe.

Steven, did you know that the Disney Village used to have 5 stages of live bands, plus a nightclub (now there is 1).

There used to be a Jazz Club with live music in the Hotel New York

the DLH used to have a live String quartet

Newport Bay had a nautical music group.

Sequoia Lodge and Cheyenne used to have country groups

and the Santa Fe used to have a mexican mariachi band.

Main Street, Frontierland, Adventureland and Discoveryland used to be teaming with live music, and fantasyland used to have jugglers and fire eaters.

DLP used to be a place where you could see indian crafts made, wood carving, middle eastern carpet weaving.

There used to be state of the art productions on all the stages every day.

Fireworks used to explode over the castle all year.

There were piano players, brass bands and barber shop quartets on Main Street. 5 of the table service restaurant chefs used to have Michelin stars.

The place used to ooze quality and there was much on offer to those without children. Sadly finances mean that is no longer the case....

Such things would definately attract people.

In 2007 and I think in 2008 as well, there were bands playing at the Santa Fe. And in 2006 we spent one evening at Billy Bob's Country Saloon, because there was also a band playing. That was a lot of fun, because many people did line dancing. DTD and many hotels at WDW still offer bands in the evenings.

I want to make clear that I'm not totally against toons, but currently there too many characters out in the parks and too many cheap attractions related to toons. I also enjoy getting a picture with Mickey and Co, but I prefere how it is done at WDW. There are designated areas with queues and no pushing like in Paris.

Quote from: "davewasbaloo"Sadly finances mean that is no longer the case....

Therefore those things you mentioned did not bring in enough money to justify keeping them....

I like Disney, and was perfectly happy to go to DLP twice and Florida once (so far). But I don't have any trouble at all in accepting that Disney's demographic IS mainly children. It makes sense to me. Couples have so many other options. Ask the vast majority couples where they would go for a weekend away and they are going to think of a city trip, some fancy hotel, museums, art galleries etc etc. And as a european, your options in that area are very extensive.

To be frank, even other amusements parks aim particularly at the younger end of the market. I know you are planning to go to the Efteling, there you are also going to find "toons' and the the latest development in the wood comes directly from the associated TV series and one of the big new attractions will be based around the Efteling icon character. This does not seem to provoke howls of protest among Dutch adults, even those who would consider themselves as fans. Perhaps Europeans are just less inclined to think amusements parks are adult entertainment?

Quote from: "DutchBrit"

Quote from: "davewasbaloo"Sadly finances mean that is no longer the case....

Therefore those things you mentioned did not bring in enough money to justify keeping them...

Disneyland Paris was successful at the begining and wasn't killed by the entertainment it offered. It brought enough money in. The problem was the high interest rate due to building too many hotels. If Disney would only have built one or two hotels, it would have been a huge success from the begining.

I am not advocating just aiming at Adults, what I want to see is more offered for the whole family. Not many things in DLP added in the last 10 years would really fit that description. Sure, adults can ride the parachutes or slinky dog, but would they want to without kids? How many crying kids do you see come off of Crush coaster, because their parents thought it would be fine as it is a toon?

The last 10 years has seen a major decrease in adult only activities and entertainment aimed at adults. Another and at least equally as disturbing factor and reason for the lack of alone adults in the parks is the advertising - it has become more and more toon-fixated each year and it is getting harder and harder for adults, who has never visited, to realize why they should visit if they do not have kids.

I mean, there is still lots of things to do for adults without kids. I went last summer with one of my friends and we are going again this summer and are very excited, I went with my parents at Christmas and with my mom/sister in 2008/2009. No kids and we enjoyed ourselves, but I think it is mainly down to the fact that we have seen what Disney has the ability to do. When we visit it is not only to visit the magical lands of Disneyland, it is also to revisit our memories of an even more magical place. A feeling that adult new-comers will not get IMO with the last 10 years additions.

Quote from: "forza_united"The last 10 years has seen a major decrease in adult only activities and entertainment aimed at adults. Another and at least equally as disturbing factor and reason for the lack of alone adults in the parks is the advertising - it has become more and more toon-fixated each year and it is getting harder and harder for adults, who has never visited, to realize why they should visit if they do not have kids.

OK, but you are working from a premis that everyone SHOULD visit. Which I think is a false one. If you like amusment parks, you are likely to visit. If you don't much care for amusement parks, then you are better off elsewhere.

Neither do I think that the idea that amusement parks are mainly for younger people is an incorrect one. This, of course, does not mean that an adult won't enjoy them. For example, Harry Potter books are actually children's books, who have adult fans. And that's fine. But dressing Harry Potter up in "adult" covers is a deception and rather tragic in my opinion.

No, then you have misunderstood me - of course I do not think people SHOULD visit if they don't want to. I just think that with the current advertisement many adults, who are not obsessed with Disney (like me and my family) do not realize that they would actually enjoy a stay at Disney. Everytime I tell my friends that I am going to Disneyland again, they keep telling me that it's only for children. When I then tell them of things like Pirates/PM/ToT and the extensive stories behind many of the areas they look surprised because to them Disneyland is just a place to meet Goofy. I would get the same impression if I had never visited before and saw the current advertisement :)

Just as Davewasbaloo I am not saying kids shouldn't be getting attention from Disney, I just wish they would once again do more to please travellers without kids, who would end up enjoying the parks equally as much - or even more!

Quote from: "forza_united"No, then you have misunderstood me - of course I do not think people SHOULD visit if they don't want to. I just think that with the current advertisement many adults, who are not obsessed with Disney (like me and my family) do not realize that they would actually enjoy a stay at Disney. !

Hmmm. The thing is that if you don't find the idea of seeing Goofy etc in any way attractive I really don't think that Pirates, TOT or PM is going to be enough to get you to come. And frankly, the main demographic for Disney ARE children. As a company, that's who they are mostly selling to. As I said before, it makes sense to concentrate on your core business.

Quote from: "forza_united"Just as Davewasbaloo I am not saying kids shouldn't be getting attention from Disney, I just wish they would once again do more to please travellers without kids, who would end up enjoying the parks equally as much - or even more!

I'm not sure this was ever really the aim. Also I went to DLP in 1986 as an adult without children and I can't say I found my visit last year plus child as any way inferior to the first one. Rather the contrary.

Adult travellers have a lot of alternative options. To try to overturn the idea that Disneyland is for children would take a big and expensive advertising campaign, and introducing the sort of things that would appeal to adult travellers who don't find the idea of Disney appealing enough would be an extra expense, with a very doubtful result. I doubt it would be worth it. Disney's marketing department clearly hold the same views.

A few things, I am guessing that you meant 1996, DLP did not open until 1992.

Also, if it is aimed at kids, why do DLR, WDW and TDL all have wedding chapels? Why does Disneyland do live swing dancing and all the live entertainment, as well as re-opening a speciality perfume store?

Why did TDS run a campaign for TDS as a place for elderly people to go ( no kids focused on in those ads?).

I suspect you haven fallen into the trap...

You can also add:

Why does DL, WDW and TDR offer nightclubs, bars and adult only restaurants?
Why does DCL offer a pool on the ship where only adults are allowed and why is there an adult beach at Disney's private island?
Why do the Disney Resorts offer golf courses?
Why do the Disney Resorts offer business solutions?
And why did Disney build rides that aren't aimed towards children. E.g. SM, Expedition Everest, Mission Space or Test Track?


I hope none of the parents leave their kids in the rooms while enjoying a few drinks at a bar or a nightclub.

"You are dead if you aim only for kids"

"It's no secret that we were sticking just about every nickel we had on the chance that people would really be interested in something totally new and unique in the field of entertainment."

"Disneyland is a work of love. We didn't go into Disneyland just with the idea of making money."

These three things seems to be lacking in the latest additions in attractions, entertainment and advertising. All three are quotes of Walt Disney.

WDW is also advertising the resort towards adults only. I have a WDW/DL planning DVD and there is a section that shows what WDW or DL offer for adults only. Just DLRP isn't offering anything.

Nicholai - this is why I am really worried about the logevity of the resorts. Kids grow up, they outgrow baby and kiddy things. I never outgrew PotC or HM as a kid, I still love them now. However, my kids have already outgrown Playhouse Disney, and most of the toon stuff (other than the Art of Animation) does not interest them much. It is a very dangerous trend.

Quote from: "davewasbaloo"Nicholai - this is why I am really worried about the logevity of the resorts. Kids grow up, they outgrow baby and kiddy things. I never outgrew PotC or HM as a kid, I still love them now. However, my kids have already outgrown Playhouse Disney, and most of the toon stuff (other than the Art of Animation) does not interest them much. It is a very dangerous trend.

I agree - my fascination of the parks is down to my early encounters in the 90's where I experienced what to me is the true Disneyland Paris and that has stayed with me and made me "addicted". Now the kids are told that Disneyland is all about meeting princesses and being dressed as one - while this is great it is only relevant for a very short range of age. Of course I do not know it, but I have a feeling that this experience doesn't make you want to keep going more than 15 years later...

Quote from: "davewasbaloo"A few things, I am guessing that you meant 1996, DLP did not open until 1992

Ah yes, 1996.

Quote from: "davewasbaloo"Also, if it is aimed at kids, why do DLR, WDW and TDL all have wedding chapels? Why does Disneyland do live swing dancing and all the live entertainment, as well as re-opening a speciality perfume store?

Why did TDS run a campaign for TDS as a place for elderly people to go ( no kids focused on in those ads?).

I suspect you haven fallen into the trap...

First, not europe, yes? Different places, different cultures. This is sort of the point of this discussion. In the US etc, there is a demand for a wedding chapel. Perhaps if there was a perceived demand in Paris, there would be one there too. But I personally think they have made the correct decision in DLP. When I was 8, I might have thought getting married in Disneyland was a marvellous idea...but later? Not so much.

This is part of why I sometimes regret DLP being built at all. When it opened, it was the greatest park in the Disney empire (except the original), but the poor management choices and dumbing down of the place makes it a shadow of a Disney resort.

Quote from: "dagobert"You can also add:

Why does DL, WDW and TDR offer nightclubs, bars and adult only restaurants?
Why does DCL offer a pool on the ship where only adults are allowed and why is there an adult beach at Disney's private island?
Why do the Disney Resorts offer golf courses?
Why do the Disney Resorts offer business solutions?
And why did Disney build rides that aren't aimed towards children. E.g. SM, Expedition Everest, Mission Space or Test Track?


I hope none of the parents leave their kids in the rooms while enjoying a few drinks at a bar or a nightclub.

Again, mostly not europe (see other reply).

And for the things that are at Disney Paris, then that kind of negates the whole "There is nothing for adults at DLP" argument. But that is not the point: the point is the way that a European market considers amusement parks. I simply think that most people DO think of them as places mostly for children. And if you are operating in a European market, then those the parameters you have to work in. You may not like it (well, clearly you don't), but there you are.

Quote from: "forza_united""You are dead if you aim only for kids"

"It's no secret that we were sticking just about every nickel we had on the chance that people would really be interested in something totally new and unique in the field of entertainment."

"Disneyland is a work of love. We didn't go into Disneyland just with the idea of making money."

These three things seems to be lacking in the latest additions in attractions, entertainment and advertising. All three are quotes of Walt Disney.

Uh-huh. I wonder if he would be saying the same things, today, if he was running Disneyland Paris? But seeing as he's been dead for almost 60 years, I guess we can never know....

Quote from: "forza_united"

Quote from: "davewasbaloo"Nicholai - this is why I am really worried about the logevity of the resorts. Kids grow up, they outgrow baby and kiddy things. I never outgrew PotC or HM as a kid, I still love them now. However, my kids have already outgrown Playhouse Disney, and most of the toon stuff (other than the Art of Animation) does not interest them much. It is a very dangerous trend.

I agree - my fascination of the parks is down to my early encounters in the 90's where I experienced what to me is the true Disneyland Paris and that has stayed with me and made me "addicted". Now the kids are told that Disneyland is all about meeting princesses and being dressed as one - while this is great it is only relevant for a very short range of age. Of course I do not know it, but I have a feeling that this experience doesn't make you want to keep going more than 15 years later...

But is this a reasonable expectation? That you continue breeding an obsessive audience? Does anything work like that now? The Morecambe and Wise Christmas shows used to get 30 million viewers in the 70s. No-one expects any programme produced and shown today to get that. Not the way the world works anymore.

The thing about children is that there are always more of them. If you went to Disneyland as a child and enjoyed it, you'll probably take your children there and so on. You may not go repeatedly every single year every year of your life, but if every generation makes 2 or 3 trips, then I guess Disney will survive pretty well as a business.

Funny, when Walt was developing the concept of the park, he was criticised for not having coasters and ferris wheels, when the park was opened, he was criticised for not having characters everywhere. And yet it was a very success template that Disney has copied all over the globe, and other parks have copied Disney as well.

I think saying "if you aim at kids you are dead" is still very true today as it was in Walt's time.

There are people in the US and Japan that think Parks are for kids, they used to change their mind when they finally went.

There was an international incident when Krushev was not allowed to visit DL, I could never see that happening these days.

Of course you have to look at your market, and of course you have to look at the business part of it, but it is not for fun that these parks are filled with hints to Walt Disney and his original ideas. They are part of his legacy and maybe it is naive, but I would expect that they keep listening to him and his thoughts about the parks and their purpose - even though he's been dead for a long time. I see Disney as being way more than your average amusement park and I am sure that if they could convince every guest about this, they would come back even more times and Disney would survive even better as a business.

It is the legacy of the original ideas that has gotten Disney Parks to where they are today. Call me naive, but why not listen to Walt again: "When you're curious, you find lots of interesting things to do. And one thing it takes to accomplish something is courage." It just seems as the easy choice to aim so concentrated on kids and only just surviving. Perhaps if they dared taking a chance they would get the families and many more coming (ToT did this when it opened).

Quote from: "forza_united"I see Disney as being way more than your average amusement park and I am sure that if they could convince every guest about this, they would come back even more times and Disney would survive even better as a business. ).

It is more than the average amusement park. It's the most popular one in Europe. And that's great. But I don't think adding things like jazz bands, michelin stars and wedding chapels would really make it any more popular. Or that trying to appeal to a market that generally isn't there is a good way of spending their money.

Quote from: "forza_united"It just seems as the easy choice to aim so concentrated on kids and only just surviving. Perhaps if they dared taking a chance they would get the families and many more coming (ToT did this when it opened).

Firstly, most popular park. So doing more than just surviving. And secondly, appeal to the kids and you get the families automatically. The under 16s generally don't travel unaccompanied.

The fact is, would Disneyland (Paris) be the most popular park if it didn't have that name behind it? Probably not by much. Other parks may not offer the full round themed experience of the main park, yet many come close and even have arguably "better" rides that everyone can enjoy. And although the Studios is basically a diamond in the rough, parks across Europe blow it out of the water. The sooner the current management realise this, and the fact that continual investment will bring guests, they'll pull their socks up. For example; last year Alton Towers opened TH13TEEN, widely panned by enthusiasts as it was arguably over-hyped, but the public love it and as a result Alton Towers celebrated one of the best seasons they've ever had, and I for one can't wait for my summer trip to Alton. My family had looked at Disney, but not only was the cost extortionate for 4 adults, but my parents genuinely thought it was for kids, despite the fact they went in the early days.

I'm just hoping that "most popular in Europe" doesn't become a sleeping pill for them - that's why I want them to keep attracting the older generations too. German parks are expanding with great themening, a new park is opening in Italy and Paramount is going to open a rival park in Spain - three main markets who get parks at home which offer top quality stuff.

Quote from: "DutchBrit"Firstly, most popular park. So doing more than just surviving. And secondly, appeal to the kids and you get the families automatically. The under 16s generally don't travel unaccompanied.

Again, I am not saying that you shouldn't appeal to the kids - that would be crazy and also not in the spirit of Walt. I am just saying that you shouldn't only be doing this. :)

Agreed Forza, I was dumstruck at how amazing Europa Park, and to a lesser extent, Phantasialand were at Easter. I had read people on Trip Avisor stating they thought EP was better than Disney, and I thought these might come from thrill seekers. But when we got there, although I would not say they were better overall, they certainly were better at many things, and we were very pleasantly surprised. The hotels were miles better (and cheaper too). The service, maintenance and cleanliness were better too. The kids meals. The range of options.

As a life long Disney obsessive I was shocked. No, they do not have the theming on the scale of DLP (though the China section of Phantasialand and the Swiss section of EP did rival it). But in everything else, they beat it - shows, extending the hours because it was busier than planned, running attractions at capacity to get the queues down).

DLP needs to wake up.

Quote from: "forza_united"Again, I am not saying that you shouldn't appeal to the kids - that would be crazy and also not in the spirit of Walt. I am just saying that you shouldn't only be doing this. :)

Doesn't the fact that you continue to go back show that this is not the case? If it really was only for kids, then you and people like you would have stopped going. But you still keep visiting and wanting to visit. I agree, the main marketing does seem to be aimed at the family with younger kids demographic. But I happen to think that that is the demographic which makes the most sense in Europe, so there is actually nothing wrong with that strategy.

But then look at the last developments. Are those really ONLY aimed at kids? ToT? The Crush coaster? Even TSPL has a ride that most under 7s can't go on. So actually what DLP is lacking is attractions aimed at younger children. Personally I think they should have added to TSPL to make an actual playland that younger children could run about in and climb on things. In the absence of that sort of thing, they deserve a few more furry characters.....

I think Disney has something special that will keep people going that the other parks lack. I'm a good example: I am frankly not really a theme park person. I have never been to Alton Towers, Legoland, Europa Park or pretty much most of the other ones in Europe, nor would I have considered going to them when I was childless. But in that time I went to Disney parks twice. The only one I've been to more is the Efteling, and that's because it's about 40 minutes away from where I live!

Quote from: "DutchBrit"Doesn't the fact that you continue to go back show that this is not the case?

No not all - as I have stated several times I only go because of the special connection I got in the 90's when the park was completely different. If I hadn't been there then, I probably wouldn't have been visiting at this time - I would ismply not have been aware that this park had something to offer for me. I even know a girl who is even more obsessed with Disney than me and the same age as me. She doesn't want to go, because she is afraid of being disappointed by it being to much for kids - that is a potential customer who would spent loads of money at the resort. I am afraid she is not the only one.

Quote from: "DutchBrit"Are those really ONLY aimed at kids? ToT? The Crush coaster? Even TSPL has a ride that most under 7s can't go on.

As I have stated several times ToT is the expception and that proved to be a major success. It took much courage to build such an expensive ride in a park that was crying out for something for the younger audiences. Yet people flocked to WDS to experience this - no toons, no kids, but lots of atmosphere, themening and unique story-telling. TSPL is quite a paradox and as is Crush. It was clearly made to satisfy kids and I agree that this was needed in WDS at the time. However, Crush is a wild rollercoaster not suitable for kids, RC Racer has extreme height restrictions.

You could say that this should satisfy the older audience and it sure does when they go, but in advertisement these are advertised as childrens attractions and then fail to attract the audience who would really like it (this is mostly the case for TSPL).

Quote from: "DutchBrit"I think Disney has something special that will keep people going that the other parks lack.

We agree in this and this in fact all I want them to keep having. Unfortunately right now this extra Disney touch seems to become more and more threaten and that saddens me. Don't get me wrong, I still see DLP as being superior to all the parks I have mentioned - I simply just want it to stay this way. :)

I can clearly feel that we both want the best for DLP - we just see two very different ways of securing this  :)

mmm, just to be inflammatory as is my want. Does this whole discussion boil down to;

I love DLP more than most = my views and feelings about DLP are different to many = I am a minority of DLP visitors = marketing and/or business decision are not aimed at me!

differences are wonderful things but I'd be surprised (and worried) if their business strategy was aimed at fans.
Fans are the people who like it for what it is, if it changes they may lose fans but they're going to make decisions (many bad) on a different basis.

Of course many people here will feel that they could have made better decisions and without DLP input it's difficult to know what all the factors were. Would Walt really be making the same business decisions now? Maybe, but the world has changed enormously since then so maybe not. Please don't get me wrong, I love DLP dearly and that is only based on 4 years of visits, but we loved it from day 1 and that was shared with our children so for us at least the childrens' experience of the place does come first.
But for now I think that with Ratatouille, rumours starting about the hub disappearing, Star Tours 2 still possible, a rumoured face lift to OUAPAD and whatever Davewasbaloo has previously hinted at about WDI and Fantasyland is, then the future could be very good.
If more entertainment, in restaurants, throughout lands and quality shows in the theaters came back then it could be excellent if they can extent stays and guest spend enough to service and reduce their debt and start making money for themselves rather than their creditors for a change.


(PS, parachute drop height restriction is so low a 2 year old can ride it, not to undermine your point Forza just didn't want people to think their children might not get on it)

Quote from: "DopeyDad"But for now I think that with Ratatouille, rumours starting about the hub disappearing, Star Tours 2 still possible, a rumoured face lift to OUAPAD and whatever Davewasbaloo has previously hinted at about WDI and Fantasyland is, then the future could be very good.
If more entertainment, in restaurants, throughout lands and quality shows in the theaters came back then it could be excellent if they can extent stays and guest spend enough to service and reduce their debt and start making money for themselves rather than their creditors for a change.

Agreed - if all rumours are true and if we get a quality 20th celebration with focus on entertainment of the "good old standard" (e.g. no hub shows, all stages used for broadway class shows, land specific entertainment) and then a second celebrationary year with a state-of-the-art E-Ticket attraction they could be on their way to turn things around. This however cannot be succeeded without the courage and creativity of former times. With the current refurbishments they are showing respect to these times and that is reassuring.

Quote from: "DopeyDad"I love DLP more than most = my views and feelings about DLP are different to many = I am a minority of DLP visitors = marketing and/or business decision are not aimed at me!

I think this is a bit too simplified ;) I'm trying to see it from different angles, what has worked in the past, what has given the biggest boosts in attendance and such things. No one know if the strategy I suggest would work in today's world, it is just the way I would have tried to do it if I were in their shoes. However, I am sure that Walt would have sticked with his principles regarding Disneyland had he lived today. Whether it would have worked, it looks like we will never get an answer to :)

Hi Forza, just realised i should have added a few smileys too,  :D I think my text tone can come off a bit severe sometimes :lol:

not aimed at any individuals either, just chewing the cud ;)

Quote from: "forza_united"as I have stated several times I only go because of the special connection I got in the 90's when the park was completely different.

And yet your last trip report seemd to indicate that you had a pretty good time, even with things so very different from when you were a child. And how old were you in the 90s when things were so much better? Doesn't everyone remember things from their childhood with rose-coloured spectacles? When I visited in 96, I was 29 so didn't have spectacles of any colour on. And I can't say I saw any dramatic changes for the worse when I went back last November, just extra rides that I'd seen (and enjoyed) in Florida a few years earlier.

Quote from: "forza_united"I even know a girl who is even more obsessed with Disney than me and the same age as me. She doesn't want to go, because she is afraid of being disappointed by it being to much for kids - that is a potential customer who would spent loads of money at the resort. I am afraid she is not the only one

I'm not. I rather doubt that there are that many adults who take Disney that seriously. And even if these very few people could get over their hang-ups, go and spend half their salarly, it won't equal what Disney makes out attracting families with children, grandparents along for the ride and all that goes with it. Fact.

Quote from: "DutchBrit"It took much courage to build such an expensive ride in a park that was crying out for something for the younger audiences. Yet people flocked to WDS to experience this - no toons, no kids, but lots of atmosphere, themening and unique story-telling.

Umm, not really. It was expensive, no doubt, but already tried, tested and successful elsewhere. And of course, meant to appeal to teenagers and older, to add to the "younger" appeal of the earlier Disney park...

Quote from: "forza_united"I can clearly feel that we both want the best for DLP - we just see two very different ways of securing this  :)

To be fair, I think you have a much stronger emotional attachment than I do!

Quote from: "DutchBrit"

Quote from: "forza_united"as I have stated several times I only go because of the special connection I got in the 90's when the park was completely different.

And yet your last trip report seemd to indicate that you had a pretty good time, even with things so very different from when you were a child. And how old were you in the 90s when things were so much better? Doesn't everyone remember things from their childhood with rose-coloured spectacles? When I visited in 96, I was 29 so didn't have spectacles of any colour on. And I can't say I saw any dramatic changes for the worse when I went back last November, just extra rides that I'd seen (and enjoyed) in Florida a few years earlier.

Quote from: "forza_united"I even know a girl who is even more obsessed with Disney than me and the same age as me. She doesn't want to go, because she is afraid of being disappointed by it being to much for kids - that is a potential customer who would spent loads of money at the resort. I am afraid she is not the only one

I'm not. I rather doubt that there are that many adults who take Disney that seriously. And even if these very few people could get over their hang-ups, go and spend half their salarly, it won't equal what Disney makes out attracting families with children, grandparents along for the ride and all that goes with it. Fact.

Quote from: "DutchBrit"It took much courage to build such an expensive ride in a park that was crying out for something for the younger audiences. Yet people flocked to WDS to experience this - no toons, no kids, but lots of atmosphere, themening and unique story-telling.

Umm, not really. It was expensive, no doubt, but already tried, tested and successful elsewhere. And of course, meant to appeal to teenagers and older, to add to the "younger" appeal of the earlier Disney park...

Quote from: "forza_united"I can clearly feel that we both want the best for DLP - we just see two very different ways of securing this  :)

To be fair, I think you have a much stronger emotional attachment than I do!

Of course I had a good time, I love it. I didn't mean that I don't enjoy it anymore - if I didn't do that I could just look at pictures from back then. I meant that I only go now because I was made aware of Disneyland back then :) I was a child back then, but what I remember is completely different to what I see the children experiencing today.

Of course I chose an extreme example with this girl. But I think you still know what I mean. It is as if you want me to say they shouldn't aim at kids at all - that's not what I am saying. I do not hink we will agree on this point.

Quote from: "DutchBrit"Umm, not really. It was expensive, no doubt, but already tried, tested and successful elsewhere.

Yes, in the US and Japan but not in Europe. If people here are so different from people these places, as you say, it was still a brave decision with the financial status of the park in mind.

I am sure that I am more emotional attached too, but I still think and hope that you want DLP the best with your suggestions and that was all I wanted to say with that statement :) I actually think that we agree more than we think - we just disagree on one huge point: the level of ambition.

Wow I'm loving this thread and everyone's opinions  :thumbs:

I love Disney and all things Disney. I was watching the making of doco about Mary Poppins, of which Walt Disney obviously featured heavily and it made me realise what a genius he really was. I really have no desire to enter into the "toons" debate but I just wanted to say who'd know what Walt would be upto at this moment in time if he was alive. He was highly ambitious and continually pushing boundaries with animatronics and animation, I really believe he was well ahead of his time.

The other thing I wanted to say is that I really love DLP. I went as a child in 1992, I loved it, my parents were disappointed then (so lets not pretend it's a recent thing eh?) and did not return until 2008 and then 2009. I love this forum, some forum members know so much I just can't comprehend how you know so much information! I am known as a bit of  Disney Expert amongst my friends but compared to you lot I know b*gger all  :lol:  This forum makes me happy because I love hearing all the things that make Disney what it is, I love seeing how DLP has evolved in the 20 years since it was opened, I love hearing how it differs from it's American counterparts, I love hearing about the renovations - I'm basicallay Disney bore! But one thing that amazes me is the negativity that I read in some threads and posts - some people, who blatantly return to Disney year on year seem to hate it as they constantly pull it apart. I know you don't by the way, it's just how it comes across sometimes.

The American market is different to the European market - you don't need to be a Disney Expert to realise that! So as someone else said, would there really be the same need for wedding chapels, etc in DLP? I don't think so either. For the record, my boyfriend won't go anywhere near DLP but we are going to WDW in a couple of years, my good friend also got married in WDW despite being a complete non-Disney fan - she wanted a Florida wedding and liked the package. And that's why you can't really compare what WDW offers and what DLP offers, if someone goes to Florida you would pretty much expect them to goto WDW but I know from personal experience that when any of my friends have holidayed in France or even Paris it wouldn't even occur to me to ask if they were going to drop in at Disneyland. I don't know why that is, I just think people maybe in the majority have different needs over?

Hi

Great you love the forum - it is a wonderful place, isnt it? :-)

I Really dó not hope that I come across as hating DLP in any way. That is not the case in any way - I love it very much.  :D

Of course the so-called Disney experts' opinion aren't any more right or wiser than others.. Interesting points you make about the lack of your friends wanting to visit - is it because of a deep lack of interest or missing public knowledge of the parks' offers... Only a big survey could answer this :-)

Regarding the wedding chapels, I am not sure those would fit in Europe either and I only Think they were brought up to point at some of the adult activities in other Disney parks in the World... Definetely you have to respect your geographical market - we have also seen this in DLP with the more "scary" and "dark" Halloween celebrations of previous times as a good example :-)

FWIW, I do not hate DLP, been going since before it opened to the public, own a timeshare on the golf course, have had APs for 10+ years and have been 57 times. As well as growing up at DL in California with 300 visits, and two week long trips to DL since DCA opened. I have been to WDW 4 times as well. But I am worried about a major negative trend in the company over the last 10 years and am passionate because I want it to improve.

Also, after being on disney boards and forums for the last 15 years, I am a little past "what's your fav ride/character" type topics.

Hiya Davewasbaloo and forza_united  :)  Believe me I absolutely know where you are coming from and I love that you're passionate about Disney. I don't think I will ever be as knowledgable about Disney and how everything works as you and some other forum members are but I have to admit, to a certain extent I kind of like that way  :roll: lol.

There a few areas where I do feel Disney have fallen down and to be completely honest during my last visit in August 2010 I was pretty disgusted by the state of things and opted not to go this year. I do however feel really positive about all the renovations work and I'm seeing this as a nice new positive step toward better things for DLP  :)

I just wanted to add that somebody mentioned the live bands that used to frequent the park and it was questioned about how much revenue they brought into the park; well during my first visit in 1992 my dad took a major shine to these bands and although I think overall I think my parents were a little disappointed with DLP, my dad did say the best thing about it was the band he had seen on MSUSA and he'd have loved to see more of that kind of thing. Well as a 28 year old mum I'm taking my little girl back in March along with my mum. I would take my dad but apart from perhaps Cinemagique I really don't see what DLP has to offer him...?

Randomly whilst I was washing up today this question popped into my head and it's meant without any underlying meaning or intention, but to those of you actively opposing the increase in "toons" invading DLP, namely forza_united and davewasbaloo, do you like the Disney films? Or is your love affair solely with Disneyland and Disneyworld?  :)

My love came from the parks first and foremost and always. I started watching the animation to get a greater understanding and own all the main VHS and DVD releases. But I have to be honest, they are secondary by far. I have always preferred the Warner Bros. shorts of the 30's-50's than the Disney ones with a few exceptions, and for modern films, I would rather watch Kung Fu Panda or How to Train Your Dragon before Tangled or the Princess and the Frog.

I do love some animated features - Sleeping Beauty, Peter Pan, Beauty and the Beast, Lion King, Tarzan, Atlantis and Treasure Planet. But to me it is all about the theming and attention to detail, and I find the toons take A LOT away from that. In fact, if we could have all the bands and themed shows (like can can dancers in the Lucky Nugget as it used to be) with no characters, that would be preferrable to me.

As a kid, it was Pirates of the Caribbean and Haunted Mansion, Jungle Cruise and Adventure Through Inner Space, Mission to Mars and the Submarine Voyage that captured my imagination. With the exception of It's A Small World, I found Fantasyland to be a bore, even when I was a child. It was the world of adventure, the old west, New Orleans, Tomorrow and the turn of the century that facinated me. Jules Verne and Mark Twain. A sense of place and time. Menus, shopping, entertainment and state of the art attractions that make me go wow.

In WDW I hate the MK because it is too toony, to me it is all about Epcot and Animal Kingdom there. And in Tokyo, I really want to go to Disney Sea.

I am ok watching the toons at home, or going to see Lion King (been 5 times), Beauty and the Beast (2 times) and Mary Poppins (once) on a stage in London, LA, New York. But I will not travel and spend a fortune on a glorified father christmas IPR experience. And I really scratch my head at those who do.

I think they have ruined Buffalo Bill's Wild West Show, LA Bar and Grill, the Lucky Nugget, the Auberge de Cindrillon (one of my former favs) and Cowboy Cookout BBA.

But it is obvious that the market they are targeting want this stuff.

However Kate, I suspect your father might like Tivoli Garden in Denmark. It is full of gorgeous gardens, live music and some rides, and it is what inspired Walt in the ethos of DL.

I Really do love the Disney movies - mainly the classics and the older ones like Pinocchio, Robin Hood, but also the great from the nineties like Lion King and Beauty and the Beast.. I went to see Beauty and the Beast as a very Young child and my parents keep telling me how I - in the cinema - loudly said "great ending" after the ballroom Dance scene and then I fell asleep.. Today I think memories like this have made me into the movie fan I am today..

I guess mé and my family's love for the Disney films made us go to Disneyland at the first time in 94, but then it was the atmosphere of the parks that has made us return many times again.

So I guess my love for Disney films and Disneyland are equally as big, but they are two very different things for me with no major connection now.

I love most of the Disney movies too, but I guess mostly because they remind me of Disneyland ;)

While reading these pages, so many thoughts came to my mind, I guess I have already forgotten half of them again  :D
Steven mentioned that Disneyland would not attract too many teenagers/adults because of the lack of thrilling rides. In part this might be true, but for me theming and atmosphere is much more important than corkscrews and gigantic steel-constructions. And I think most uf us here would agree with me here (but unfortunately we are not the majority of the visitors  ;) )
Here, I agree with the problem davewasbaloo mentioned, namely that children will grow up and lose interest in the attractions just based on thrill, or loveless attractions like in TSPL. Why should you go to DLRP again, if you can have rollercoasters in other parks, too?

Now the atmosphere becomes important. I think it is no coincidence that most uf us here name POTC, BTM, PM etc. as their favourite rides. We are (more or less  :D ) adults and still keep going to Disneyland and I think the memories of the past, as forza pointed out, play an important role here. In my opinion it is impossible for people visiting the Park for the first time now to experience the perfection that has once characterized Disneyland. I have been there with two friends of mine, for whom it was the first trip to DLRP, in fall 2009. They said it was pretty nice, but they could not understand my obsession. This was the first time I realized that much of the former atmosphere in the park had been gone already.
But maybe our prayers will be answered someday and we will experience a resurrection of the old virtues...

Agreed. We go to DLP more than the others now as it is closest. But if money were no object, I would go to Disneyland in California or Tokyo.

In both, there is still the atmosphere that is Disneyland. These days DLP is a little bit of a nightmare, it looks like Disneyland, it just doesn't feel like it anymore. Instead of the clip clop of the horsedrawn street car and the sounds of a barbershop quartet, we have a toon train with pop music and character dancing.

As I rode Big Thunder Mountain, it was a highly decorated coaster, but virtually none of the effects were working.

I used to love to stand on Boot Hill and watch the geysers erupt, surely an attraction rarely seen elsewhere, and they have laid dormant for over half a decade now.

My last trip on Buzz, I lost, my gun did not work.

So it felt a little like DL, but it wasn't. What was shocking was the same trip we went to Europa Park and Phantasialand, and when it came to maintenance, cleanliness, entertainment, food offerings and hotels, they out Disneyed Disneyland Paris. No, the theming and the rides were not quite on par (though I would tell thrill seekers to skip DLP and go to Europa Park or Alton Towers anyway, I don't want DLP to be a thrill park, it is supposed to be a family park - not a kid park, or teen park, but a park that appeals to all ages in every stage of their life - fwiw - my great grandmother went to DL for the first time for her 75th birthday and loved it, so much she returned 2-3 times a year until she died age 99, I couldn't see DLP having that effect now), but the feeling and atmosphere were. Shocking to me as a life long DL fan.

The other thing is, I think perhaps it was a bad move to make the park so toon based. Ok, I am biased, my first trip to DL was in 1974, my grandmother and mother had been going since 1955, I quite simply grew up going to a park that generations loved, and knew many Disneyland fans who could care less about animated features. I think that is what made DL so great (when I was a kid, other than a few characters roaming around, the only toons were in Fantasyland - much better then). I have taken my own children to DL too. So here was a park where I was the 2nd or 3rd generation to go, and I have taken my kids - the 4th gen. In DLP, the place was ripped apart from about 1997 onwards and we are only now having adults going who went as kids. To the vast majority, the toons are a big part of the experience, but also I have heard many say they have "grown bored of DLP, it's for kids". This rarely happens in California or WDW (although with more tooning there, the sentiment is growing). But so many do not know what they are missing because maybe they have only been to a local coaster park before. But I am always saddened when I see Americans in the park I love, and when I ask them what they think, often the answer is "It's pretty, but it does not feel like Disneyland/World", and they cannot put their finger on it.

Before anyone says, but we are in Europe, actually that is what I love about it. I love the mix of cultures. I love having a glass of wine on Main Street. I love what DLP was in the early years. And it would not be hard to fix if they had the money.

More live entertainment, better maintenance so everything works like new (if a 56 year old park can do it, surely a 20 year old park could), better cleanliness etc. Add in a night time show. Bring back the variety in shops and restaurants, and bingo, you have a world class Disney park again. The refurbs this year make me somewhat hopeful.

But think about all the additions in the last 10 years. With the exception, every single one of them have been toon themed with the exception of Tower of Terror (which was designed 15-20 years ago).  How many would be compelling to a teen/young adult that they love currently as a child? Buzz maybe, Crush Coaster for the visceral thrills, but none I could call a classic. How many restaurants have been turned into either buffets or character meals? too many IMHO.

Not everything has to be the next Pirates of the Caribbean, but by the same token, they do not need to be steel or toon based either.

Quote from: "davewasbaloo"More live entertainment, better maintenance so everything works like new (if a 56 year old park can do it, surely a 20 year old park could), better cleanliness etc. Add in a night time show. Bring back the variety in shops and restaurants, and bingo, you have a world class Disney park again. The refurbs this year make me somewhat hopeful.

Morning Dave, as you know I have a very different perspective and experience of DLP but I think that's pretty much spot on. Our first visit (still less than 5 years ago but we've been twice a year most years since) had working geyser, great effects on rides like BTM, park in a much better state (some very severe winters since but still!), loads of main street vehicles, The Lion King (holiday highlight) and (I hesitate to add) loads of random character experiences, these were a real favorite with wife and children alike but they were far better than these organised scrums like the Roundup etc as you just encountered them in a spontaneous way rather than queuing for the usual 1 hour or so for a photo or being very English and watching your child continuously get ignored while they patiently wait and I muster a stern 'tut' to myself but can't quite manage the more continental tactic of throwing your children to the fore, (sorry rant over).
Anyhoo, all these things made the parks something to discover, things that would become familiar to us on subsequent visits but we'd still connect with that initial emotion.

The studios on the other hand have consistently improved in our experience since then with the exception of some amazing shows WDS felt like a fairly barren place compared to it's neighbour and only kept us for 1/2 a day. Here I think they need an E ticket, far better landscaping and a body of water. But absolutely for DLP it's the basics of quality and discoveries/encounters like entertainment, detail and atmosphere.

Quote from: "kate&phoo"Randomly whilst I was washing up today this question popped into my head and it's meant without any underlying meaning or intention, but to those of you actively opposing the increase in "toons" invading DLP, namely forza_united and davewasbaloo, do you like the Disney films? Or is your love affair solely with Disneyland and Disneyworld?  :)

By and large, I'd say that the vast majority of european people who are likely to say that their attachment to the parks is greater than their attachment/familiarity with the films are a)under 20 and b) French. How can it really be otherwise? I'm considerably older than 20, and when I was growing up, people didn't tend to go to America on holiday, and even if they did, it certainly didn't happen every year. So Disney was the films, and Disneyland was a semi-mythical place where Mickey, Minnie et al lived. When you combine that with my (european) tendancy to believe that theme parks are supposed to appeal to children more than adults, I guess it's pretty easy to work out why I simply can't get upset about character themeing in Disneyland....!

However I do of course agree that what they have should work, the parks and hotels should be clean and that something ought to be done about the quaility and value for money of the food.

Quote from: "davewasbaloo"More live entertainment, better maintenance so everything works like new (if a 56 year old park can do it, surely a 20 year old park could), better cleanliness etc. Add in a night time show. Bring back the variety in shops and restaurants, and bingo, you have a world class Disney park again. .

That's so true. I loved going into every shop crossing my path, because each of them had its on atmosphere and souvenirs you couldn't get elsewhere.

Concerning the focus on kids in the recent past: Why should kids prefer TSPL or Crush's Coaster over BTM or POTC? Just because there are toons in the former? When I was young, I was more fascinated by the attractions where no toons appeared. I wanted to know everything about the stories behind the attractions, there was a thirst for knowledge concerning the rides like PM, BTM, De la terre à la lune etc. The mysteries of the rides captivated me. That was the reason why I could ride them again and again. And today we have BLLB, where the only secrets are some hidden targets. While I wasn't bored of other attractions in 15 years, I grew tired of Buzz after 2 days.

Quotewe have a toon train with pop music and character dancing.

Also great: This Stitch show in the shadow of Space Mountain. Of course this is much better than the Jules Verne theming... :-"

:lol:

now that was a masterpiece wasn't it
it really brought adults and children together as they all thought 'what the hell is all this about?'

Lol. BTW Disney Brit, it was Walt Disney who developed the idea of Disneyland to be a place for all ages and not just kids or thrill seekers. He got tired of just watching his daughters sit on the merry ground while he sat on the bench. We thought carnivals were too seedy, and he wanted something to stretch and treat everyone the same, maturally.

I grew up being indoctronated by this idea, and other parks in the US (and elsewhere) have tried to copy it. If you still think the after 19 years of DLP being open, parks should be for kids, well, you are entitled to your opinion. But it also evidences that DLP have failed to truly bring the vision to Europe.

In the US, that was the view before DL opened. Parks for kids, or for date nights where kids do not belong after dark (Like Coney Island in NYC). Disneyland changed it all in the US 56 years ago next month. Sadly Iger and his minions do not pay attention, and in Paris it is even worse.

Little darlings being done up in costumes and meeting the characters should only be a small part of the menu. In DLP, it is the main. And I am fed up of it, hence my campagning, lobbying and use of the boards.

But this year's Magical Moments festival and the brochure for this winter show the resistance is futile so it seems. Though what is interesting is I used to be a lone voice pretty much about this stuff. Now, look how many others are vocalising.

Even folks who go to DLP every 3 or 4 years are starting to notice. That is terrible.

Quote from: "davewasbaloo"I grew up being indoctronated by this idea, and other parks in the US (and elsewhere) have tried to copy it. If you still think the after 19 years of DLP being open, parks should be for kids, well, you are entitled to your opinion. But it also evidences that DLP have failed to truly bring the vision to Europe.

Perhaps visions also have a life-span.

I didn't actually say just "for" kids: I said appeal mostly to children and be somewhere where "age relives fond memories of the past" and enjoy those childhood things again. To use my Harry Potter example again, I enjoyed the books very much. But they are children's books. To dress them up in arty covers and pretend otherwise is slightly pathetic, in my opinion.

I was an adult when I first went to Disneyland. So I appreciate the care with which the facades are built, but I can't be made to believe that they are not facades. I can enjoy them, and I can very much enjoy my son enjoying them, but they can't be magic for me like they are for him. As I happen to think magic is pretty damn important for children, I prefer that it's directed at him, who gets the most from it!

So if they make a spectacular and imaginative ride, I'm not going to have a fit if it's based on a well-know and well loved Disney character/film. And only Disney CAN do that: Europa park or Legoland are hardly going to start building the Little Mermaid ride, are they? Makes sense to capitalise on a monopoly, when you've got it.

Quote from: "DutchBrit"

Quote from: "kate&phoo"Randomly whilst I was washing up today this question popped into my head and it's meant without any underlying meaning or intention, but to those of you actively opposing the increase in "toons" invading DLP, namely forza_united and davewasbaloo, do you like the Disney films? Or is your love affair solely with Disneyland and Disneyworld?  :)

By and large, I'd say that the vast majority of european people who are likely to say that their attachment to the parks is greater than their attachment/familiarity with the films are a)under 20 and b) French. How can it really be otherwise? I'm considerably older than 20, and when I was growing up, people didn't tend to go to America on holiday, and even if they did, it certainly didn't happen every year. So Disney was the films, and Disneyland was a semi-mythical place where Mickey, Minnie et al lived. When you combine that with my (european) tendancy to believe that theme parks are supposed to appeal to children more than adults, I guess it's pretty easy to work out why I simply can't get upset about character themeing in Disneyland....!

I disagree! I'm not much of a Disney film fan. I love Mary Poppins but although I like other Disney films I would probably never go go the cinema to watch one and as, I think, someone else said I always preferred Warner Brothers animation over Disney. Maybe I'm in the minority but personally I almost cometely regard DL as a complete separate entity to the films and tv programmes. Oh and I'm neither French nor under 20.

I do agree what you say in your other post about monopolizing their strengths and needing to improve the quality of their food though - sorry I'm typing this on my iPhone and can't multiquote!

Nope, while DCA got an ok Little Mermaid ride, Legoland got an awesome submarine ride with real sharks.

Quote from: "davewasbaloo"Nope, while DCA got an ok Little Mermaid ride, Legoland got an awesome submarine ride with real sharks.

Great. So when my son is more interested in sharks than Lightening McQueen, I can take him to Legoland or any of the many other parks/zoos which have sharks. And of course when his interest in lego gets a bit more active, Legoland will be a good place to take him anyway. Because that's THEIR monopoly...

Out of interest, would this ride be based on Lego's new range of Atlantis products? With the subs and sea monsters etc? So it's OK for them to exploit their products in their parks but not Disney?

Personally anymore live bands would not make much a difference to me. We did see a brass band in main street square for a few minutes on one afternoon which was good but I would not say it would bring me back. I can see it would have appealed more to people older than me though. We also had a live music (singer and guy on a keyboard) in our hotel (Hotel New York) on the Saturday night. Live music at the hotel would appeals to me more and I was surprised it was only on the one night for a 4 star hotel of that size.

I world prefer they spent some of the 500m on another adult themed outdoor coaster rather than dark rides. I think there are enough dark rides at DLP and WDS. I can see why they do it, climate, probably easier to theme, cheaper to maintain, easier to hide the ride from the rest of the park, etc. but I think a lot of the fun gets lost when you can't see anything. Peter Pan was such a let down for me and my daughter. Everyone on this forum loves it so we were really looking forward to it but all I could see was Big Ben and lots of curtains with little lights on them. Space mountain was the worst coaster I think I have ever been on. The special effect were so dated and so faded. I did not go on Crush as there was no fastpass and could not waste an hour queuing but I have heard that is good.

Taking into account inflation how much would it cost to build another ride like Indiana Jones et le Temple du Péril? I thought that was the best ride there.

Quote from: "stevenlatham01"Personally anymore live bands would not make much a difference to me. We did see a brass band in main street square for a few minutes on one afternoon which was good but I would not say it would bring me back. <snip>
I world prefer they spent some of the 500m on another adult themed outdoor coaster rather than dark rides. I think there are enough dark rides at DLP and WDS. I can see why they do it, climate, probably easier to theme, cheaper to maintain, easier to hide the ride from the rest of the park, etc. but I think a lot of the fun gets lost when you can't see anything. Peter Pan was such a let down for me and my daughter. <snip>

Taking into account inflation how much would it cost to build another ride like Indiana Jones et le Temple du Péril? I thought that was the best ride there.

And therein lies the beauty of Disneyland, I don't really give two hoots about the rides and I have a little girl who, even though she loves Peter Pan and Snow White; absolutely detests the rides and will only really go on POTC, IASW, the teacups and carousel. I go to Disney for the theming, the atmosphere and the fact that I know I can go with my little girl and be completely safe and happy and never have to struggle for something to do.

I think she'll like TSPL when we go in March too, although she really isn't big on the characters. We both love the shows in WDS  :)

I guess everyone has their own reasons for loving Disneyland...?

QuoteOut of interest, would this ride be based on Lego's new range of Atlantis products? With the subs and sea monsters etc? So it's OK for them to exploit their products in their parks but not Disney?

Exactly, and it's impossible for me to take seriously now. Disney, Mack, Merlin they're are all there to make money selling their merchandise. I find it hard to make comparisons between Legoland, Merlin parks and DLP. Coloured plastic bricks and ugly, steel Roller Coasters, that's Legoland and Merlin for me. There's much more for adults without children to do at DLP than Legoland, and I should know because I've been, too. I love classic Disney animation, and I have no trouble with Disney story telling in Disneyland, their rides and shows. To me it's all Disney, it's the same company behind both, and Walt Disney was the founder of the company, he created the films and Disneyland. I love Peter Pans Flight. Peter Pan was my favourite story when I was a child, I love the film and when I go to DLP I always make sure I go on the ride. And if some people get sick and tired with things to do with Walt Disney, they might just as well go to Europa Park, they won't find anything to do with him there.

For crying out loud! Bring us back the olde days, where no Buzz Lightyears invaded Discoveryland, where no Jack Sparrows ruined great Dark Rides, where you couldn't buy a Laser Gun in a Pirate-themed souvenir shop...I could continue this for hours. It's sad, isn't it?

Or to put it another way, how does Buzz Lightyear fit into Jules Vernes Discoveryland ? The same way as Star Tours, Hista and Captain EO.

Quote from: "DutchBrit"Out of interest, would this ride be based on Lego's new range of Atlantis products? With the subs and sea monsters etc? So it's OK for them to exploit their products in their parks but not Disney?

You are right. It is not ok for Disney to exploit their products, because they are selling out all the ideals Walt Disney had, when he created Disneyland in California.
The stories behind every stone and tree in Magic Kingdom (written by the Imagineers) was, what defined Disneyland Paris. What made it special in comparison to the other parks like Legoland.
Now they're replacing every stone and tree with tons of buzz lightyear figures and (even worse) Jack Sparrow figures.
I mean the Jules Verne Theme in Discoveryland was unique (!)...gone...replaced by Buzz Lightyears.

Quote from: "ed-uk"Or to put it another way, how does Buzz Lightyear fit into Jules Vernes Discoveryland ? The same way as Star Tours, Hista and Captain EO.

Discoveryland is a celebration of visionaries, and George Lucas was considered a visionary to the Imagineers of the time. HISTA and Buzz show no visionary thinking, and I hope whichever idiot thought it would be a fantastic idea to add a multicoloured toy themed shooting ride to Discoveryland and the Studios has subsequently had creative decisions removed from them.

And the shows in Discoveryland, Lion King, Mulan, Disney Classic Show, how did that work for you? And what about Michael Jackson, does he fit into Discoveryland ? Every Disneyland Park from California to Tokyo has Buzz Light year in Tomorrowland.

Well it didn't work for me. The Shows were the first sings of the decline of the jules-verne-discoveryland. And besides that these Shows didn't destroy the whole ensemble of the discoveryland, because they were hidden in a building. Captain EO himself didn't fit too, but it wasn't pushed into the foreground as it happened (and happens) with buzz lightyear.

We can go to a shop in Main Street USA and buy a Disney DVD, Bambi, Toy Story maybe. We couldn't have done that when Walt Disney was alive.

Well, Star Tours and Captain EO/HIStA are located in a separate part of Discoveryland, dedicated to today's visionaries. Buzz might have fitted in there. Every Tomorrowland has the problem that what may look futuristic today will look dated tomorrow. The brillant idea behind Discoverland was that the Main Part was dedicated to visionaries of the past, therefore representing the look they envisioned 100 years ago, thus avoiding the danger of looking antiquated by being antiquated in a victorian, therefore romantic Way in the first place. Never mind the shows, they may not have fit the theme, but they were in a theater at least and not destroying the feel of the land.
Yes, Timekeeper looked dated in 2002, it would even more of it was still operating today. I guess noone would have had a problem if they replaced it with something else Fitting the theming. But Buzz is too modern and in no way as timeless as the tales by Verne and Wells. DLP should not be a museum, if an attraction's time is over so Be it. But do it in a way that keeps the story intact.

Quote from: "Burzgrokash"It is not ok for Disney to exploit their products, because they are selling out all the ideals Walt Disney had, when he created Disneyland in California.

Walt Disney's idea was to make a successful and popular business, both in films and in amusment parks. He had his own ideas about how you do that, but he's been dead for nearly 60 years and time and the market moves on. Disney needs to sell merchandise and be successful, just like every other theme park, and the way to get ahead is to do it better. If you can accept Legoland selling lego, accept Disneyland selling disney.

Quote from: "pfspock"DLP should not be a museum, if an attraction's time is over so Be it. But do it in a way that keeps the story intact.

That is exactly what bothers me, they're doing it the wrong way. I'm not complaining about Buzz, I'm complaining about where they put him. Discoveryland is not the right place for him. The Studios are.

And also the Walt Disney company have to make commercial decisions. Toy Story is a big money spinner for Disney ( Jules Verne isn't really ), so why wouldn't they have a Toy Story attraction in their parks. OK it might not fit that closely with Jules Verne in Discoveryland. But Toy Story is big for Disney, the films and the merchandise.

That's right and I do like the Toy Story Movies. But in my opinion they have the studios for their Toon-Theming.
I know that Disney is a company, that wants to maximize their profit like every other company in the world. But then I think of the effort they put into the magic kingdom. The Frontierland for example, where every Attraction is connected to the others through the story of thunder mesa and so on. I mean they imagineered the whole thing...and now they're destroying it in a way. And that's what's sad in my opinion, because this imagineering was, what DLRP made special in comparison to the other Parks.

I think this is once again all about a question of level of ambition...

Correct Toy Story is popular, it is a huge merchandise hit and an obvious choice for a new attraction due the fact that it will probably create a good revenue flow right after. But it is also the easy choice and I doubt that Toy Story Playland for instance will be the reason for serious attendance growth in a longer period. Really the only two additions since opening that has accomplished this are the highly ambitious Space Mountain and Tower of Terror which had absolutely nothing to do with the easy choices, which a company of Disney's size without a doubt posseses in their huge collection of movies.

Some are satisfied with the easy choices, but some want them to show the same level of ambition of previous times, which has put them where they are - on the very top of theme park visionaries. This position is not a result of Buzz Lightyear - it is the result of Walt Disney Imagineering who has made so many "firsts" in theme park creation that is hard to count - lately all they done is to do just enough to stay on top. I guess some of us just feel a little bit left down by this knowing what they are capable of.

I don't compare TOT to Buzz Lightyear just like I don't compare Stunt Show to Tarzan show. We all know what great things Disney Imagineers are capable of when budgets allow. We all want big block buster rides with great themeing, and the cost of some of these rides is huge, Disney couldn't do it everytime. I like Buzz Lightyear better than Orbitron as a ride.

Quote from: "ed-uk"I don't compare TOT to Buzz Lightyear just like I don't compare Stunt Show to Tarzan show. We all know what great things Disney Imagineers are capable of when budgets allow. We all want big block buster rides with great themeing, and the cost of some of these rides is huge, Disney couldn't do it everytime. I like Buzz Lightyear better than Orbitron as a ride.

No of course although you can compare Stunt Show and Tarzan (both are top class entertainment - haven't seen Moteurs... with Lightning McQueen yet though - it doesn't sound good to me) - I was just trying to cast a light over some of ours disappointment with the many easy additions lately which in the end has taken up quite a lot of the budgets.

Take TSPL for instance - that was actually quite a big investment and still it brings nothing "new".. I think we all know and agree that money are tight now, but that just makes it even more important that they are used wisely - to me a wise use would be on fewer, yet better additions, which would not only secure their top spot in the world of theme parks but build on it.

Personally I am way more excited by this years refurbishments than with the addition of Toon Studio and TSPL - after all I think people are more likely to be coming back to a park which seems new and well maintained than a park which is falling apart, while a giant Buzz Lightyear welcomes people to the newest land, which offers simple carnival rides with huuge waiting times. (Roughly said)

As was said above: Even if i don't like attractions being replaced (or better: old attractions - I would not be too disappointed if, for example, Mission 2 would be replaced  ;) ), I would probably welcome new rides fitting in the theme and improving the -lands. But in my opinion the opposite has happened, cheap attractions destroying the former atmosphere and dispossessing the park of what has made him so special.

And still, while nearly everything has fallen off in quality (at least in my opinion...), Disneyland is still the best park in the world (again my opinion  :D ), but as forza has already mentioned: It is sad to see rides like in TSPL while imagining what Disney was possible to do in the past...

I also agree with Burzgrokash: Why not put all the Buzz stuff (Pizza Planet, BLLB) in the Studios? I think nobody would have complained about that, because we would still have Jules Verne...
And another proposal: Kick Woody & friends out of Frontierland and return to the American West feeling that has characterized Cottonwood Creek Ranch once...

I don't teach Disney to suck eggs, I think they know what they're doing. New additions to the park and maintanance are both important to me. I haven't seen Stunt show with Lightning McQueen but I have seen it with Herbie and there's not a  whole lot of difference to me. I'm not a big fan of the Herbie films. And TSPL did bring in something "new" to the studios. Smaller rides true, but they sit along side the bigger rides like TOT and Rock n Roller Coaster. If TSPl had Orbitron, Flying Elephants and a Carousel in it, maybe people would have liked it more. Who would go to a Disney theme park and be surprised to find Snow White, Buzz Lightyear, Lightning McQueen And Nemo ? Some people go for that very reason. the Studios is much busier now thanks to Toon Studios.

Quote from: "ed-uk"Who would go to a Disney theme park and be surprised to find Snow White, Buzz Lightyear, Lightning McQueen And Nemo ? Some people go for that very reason. the Studios is much busier now thanks to Toon Studios.

And you should be able to see them - don't get me wrong, I love seeing a few Disney characters every now and then when going as they are part of the experience. It would just be so much easier to enjoy them if they were placed where they fit in and don't ruin the many other parts of the experience you get when going to Disneyland...

Buzz doesn't fit in along Jules Verne and other great visionaries.

Lightning McQueen doesn't belong in a serious stunt show, which honors the work of the great stunt drivers, who create the biggest, best and most dangerous scenes of the biggest action movies - Lightning McQueen is a CGI car. Herbie didn't fit in either, but at least he was from a real life picture.

Nemo doesn't fit into a Toon Studio, which should still tell us a story about "toon studio life". I like Crush, but it doesn't really fit into the Toon Studio idea.

Snow White fits into Fantasyland, which is a celebration of fantasy and the many fairytales that Walt Disney Pictures has brought to life. A fitting place for her.

Nemo is a Toon, so he does fit in to Toon Studios. Toon Studios takes you into a scene from a Toon film. I agree Buzz Lightyear hasn't got anything to do with Jules Verne, but he has got a lot to do with Disney and it is Disneyland. Every new ride in Discoveryland would have to be taken from Jules Verne otherwise. Would that always be possible? Every Disney park from California to Tokyo has put Buzz into Tomorrowland, but at DLP it's called Discoveryland. Maybe it wasn't possible for EuroDisney to build a new show building for Buzz in the Studios at the time. And just because Lightning McQueen is from a CGI film it doesn't make him less important to Disney than Herbie, even if he does come from a "real" film made in the 1960's.

Quote from: "ed-uk"Nemo is a Toon, so he does fit in to Toon Studios. Toon Studios takes you into a scene from a Toon film.

That is a very thin connection - and if this was to "justify" it, why aren't there any references to this being a "working set", where you experience this scene being shot?

Quote from: "ed-uk"Every new ride in Discoveryland would have to be taken from Jules Verne otherwise. Would that always be possible? Every Disney park from California to Tokyo has put Buzz into Tomorrowland, but at DLP it's called Discoveryland.

You got it - in Disneyland Paris it is not Tomorrowland, it IS Discoveryland, so yes in my opinion every main addition should be connected to Jules Verne, turn-of-the-centery visionaries, etc.

Quote from: "ed-uk"Maybe it wasn't possible for EuroDisney to build a new show building for Buzz in the Studios at the time.

So if they wanted to add Indiana Jones Adventure and no place were free in Adventureland they should just put in Main Street if space was free there? ;)

Quote from: "ed-uk"And just because Lightning McQueen is from a CGI film it doesn't make him less important to Disney than Herbie, even if he does come from a "real" film made in the 1960's.

No it does not make him less important, but it certainly does make him less relevant for a show, which show how real life stunt effects are made ;)

In my view Disney say how Toon Studio should be, even if some people don't get it. You couldn't have a working set ( although they tried it with the Flying Carpets ) because Disney don't make cartoon films on sets, they're are made in an animation department and on computer. The Art of Disney Animation attraction in Toon Studio tells you more about that. I think Toon Studio has added to the appeal of WDS and has opened the park up to a bigger audience. They would never want to  add Indiana Adventure to Disneyland Park because they've already got Indiana Jones and the Temple of Peril and that is in Adventureland, not Main Street. So they've never done that.

Quote from: "ed-uk"In my view Disney say how Toon Studio should be, even if some people don't get it. You couldn't have a working set ( although they tried it with the Flying Carpets ) because Disney don't make cartoon films on sets, they're are made in an animation department and on computer. The Art of Disney Animation attraction in Toon Studio tells you more about that. I think Toon Studio has added to the appeal of WDS and has opened the park up to a bigger audience.

It is their call, but it is also our right to question what they do sometimes :)

I know how animation is and I agree that you cannot recreate this in an attraction and that makes the name "Toon Studio" the main problem. Why this renaming if they weren't going to make it with a Studios themening? Why not have kept Animation Courtyard and then added a Pixar Place? After all, the additions that made Toon Studio is all Pixar and with Ratatouille coming it will stay that way... That would have made more sense after all...

I agree that the additions has helped making WDS a full day park - I just think they weren't completely thought through - or at least the name change wasn't.

Quote from: "ed-uk"They would never want to add Indiana Adventure to Disneyland Park because they've already got Indiana Jones and the Temple of Peril and that is in Adventureland, not Main Street. So they've never done that.

Oh, I sure think they would love to add Indiana Jones Adventure if they had the money - after all it has been planned since the beginning and the land is actually still there. But my reason for mentioning Main Street was because you suggested Buzz was built in Discoveryland due to lack of room in the studios. You didn't really answer my question or it didn't really come through - would it be fine by you if they put e.g. Indiana Jones Adventure into Main Street because of a hypothetical lack of space in Adventureland and some hypothetical free space in Main Street? (It is an extreme hypothetical situation, I know, but it still captures the essence of your point)

I must say I didn't know EuroDisney hoped to add Indiana Adventure if they had the money. I hadn't heard that, I didn't know it had been planned from the beginning. Would you want two Indiana jones rides in Adventureland? Buzz Light year replaced Le Visionarium Circle Vision as is the case in all Disney Parks. Except you think EuroDisney should have built a new show building for it with added costs, and put it in the studios. They could have kept Animation Courtyard, and called the rest of Toon Studio Pixar Place or Disney-Pixar Place, I suppose. I think I prefer Toon Studio, the Flying Carpets aren't Pixar. In the future they might want to build something that isn't Pixar?

You haven't answered forza's question though, is it, in your opinion, acceptable to add a ride that doesn't fit the theme of a land to said land just because there is space?
I think most people would say no, which is why many disagree with Buzz in Discoveryland, but seeing as you defend that, would you be happy to have Indiana Jones Adventure in the Studios for example. You also mention two IJ rides in Adventureland, yet you defend a whole land based on Toy Story?

Quote from: "ed-uk"I must say I didn't know EuroDisney hoped to add Indiana Adventure if they had the money. I hadn't heard that, I didn't know it had been planned from the beginning. Would you want two Indiana jones rides in Adventureland?

Fair enough - I would prefer Temple of Peril to be replaced, but as Indiana Jones Adventure is a top class E-Ticket attraction I would applaud if it were added to this mini Indiana Jones Land :)

Quote from: "ed-uk"They could have kept Animation Courtyard, and called the rest of Toon Studio Pixar Place or Disney-Pixar Place, I suppose. I think I prefer Toon Studio, the Flying Carpets aren't Pixar. In the future they might want to build something that isn't Pixar?

Again fair enough, but then the themening is very low if it is to live up to the name of "Toon Studio"

No, that's not right, I've never said I would like to see Indiana Jones in the Studios and as far as I'm aware Disney have never said that. Buzz Lightyear replaces Le Visionarium. You would have liked something else. It's for Disney to defend it, I except it. Maybe placing it in the Studios wasn't an option at the time. It was new for Disneyland Park. And I thought it was popular. I defend TSPL in Toon Studios, but I don't see the point in two Indiana Rides in Adventure land, that's right.

@forza_united

I totally agree. I would love to see Temple of Peril replaced. It's a painful off-the-shelf coaster that isn't up to Disney standards. Plus it's not a family ride; it separates and divides families.

I've read that even if Disneyland Paris could afford to build the Indiana Jones Adventure, they couldn't afford to keep it running due to the high maintenance costs. Apparently it's an attraction that requires a lot of engineers and mechanics to keep running.

As I've said before, if Disney can't afford to built the Indiana Jones Adventure in Paris, how about they replace the Temple of Peril with an Everest themed version of the Grizzly Trail coaster currently being built at Hong Kong Disneyland. It would provide a cheaper (more feasible to get built) version of Expedition Everest, and give the park another excellent family roller coaster, similar to Big Thunder Mountain.

(//http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5013/5464855795_ff92134d4f_b.jpg)

now that would be nice, but now expedition everest wouldn't cost so much, because alot goes into research and development. if you bring a slightly smaller version in, it would be ok

I don't think they should replace Indiana Jones and the Temple of Peril, and certainly not with another Indiana Adventure, I think it would be a waste of money. I would probably go for Splash Mountain. But they might have to do something about the Splash in the winter, or people would never dry off. I wouldn't want a version of Grizzly Trail Coaster, It might turn out a bit like BTM, which Hong Kong Disneyland doesn't have.

Quote from: "ed-uk"I don't think they should replace Indiana Jones and the Temple of Peril, and certainly not with another Indiana Adventure, I think it would be a waste of money. I would probably go for Splash Mountain. But they might have to do something about the Splash in the winter, or people would never dry off. I wouldn't want a version of Grizzly Trail Coaster, It might turn out a bit like BTM, which Hong Kong Disneyland doesn't have.

So you wouldn't replace Temple of Peril of you got Indiana Jones Adventure in stead? Have you seen Indiana Jones Adventure? :O

[youtube:20y3lrqd]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjA7Hdokv5c[/youtube:20y3lrqd]

I haven't looked at the video, I will do. But I still think it would be a waste of money for EuroDisney to pull down Indiana Jones and the Temple of Peril and replace it with Indiana Adventure. I would be surprised if they did. Why did they build Indiana Jones and the Temple of Peril in the first place? I'd go for Splash Mountain because DLP doesn't have a floom ride. Add just to add I don't see any new Jules Verne themed rides coming to Discoveryland in the future. Unless it's based on a Disney Film like Captain Nemo's Submarine and 20,000 Leaques Under The Sea. I'm still trying to work out how Autopia fits in with Jules Verne.

I really enjoyed The Temple of Peril actually. It was my first roller coaster with a looping and it made me very proud after I rode it. So I wouldn't say it separates and divides families that much. And if it did, why do we still have Space Mountain, Tower of Terror and Rock 'n Roller Coaster?

And I agree with ed-uk: the Grizzly Trail looks to much like BTM.

I like the Temple of Peril, too. And why should it seperate families? If you argue that  way, a theme park mustn't have any thrilling rides...And I wasn't frustrated or anything like that while waiting outside when I had been too small to ride, it just increased my anticipation. I think children can bear not seeing one of their parents for some minutes...Or does La Cabane des Robinsons also divide families because some people are afraid of heights? ;)

Concerning Autopia: Maybe we shouldn't have called it "Jules Verne theme", because it actually focused on how visionarys in the past imagined the future. But nevertheless, Jules Verne played the leading role.

I agree that Temple of Peril isn't a problem by seperating families and for me Indiana Jones Adventure would fit in nicely next to it - however, I wouldn't cry if it were demolished in order to make place for it.

Exactly Patrick, Discoveryland celebrate visionaries and I actually think we have mentioned it several times and simply used Jules Verne as an obvious main person to symobolize this :)

Quote from: "Patrick89"I like the Temple of Peril, too. And why should it seperate families? If you argue that  way, a theme park mustn't have any thrilling rides...

Very true, although that point has been used to criticise TSPL often enough

About Autopia, and the future of DLP, I really hope this attraction is treated with some priority, I know some love it but it is antiquated technology, offering a slow loading experience with less to offer the driver than say Driving School at Legoland. Lovely grounds but getting very tatty.

I think this expanse could really offer new opportunities, and yes I would love to see the Vernian theme continue more strongly in a replacement, I think the Atlantis Lost Empire offers the right kind of tone and could provide a story for some kind of vehicle ride if a movie must be used, but the 20,000 leagues or Journey to the centre of the earth stories are obviously great. All that space could provide an attraction and proper restaurant even  8)

If you compare the size of Autopia with Space Mountain (sorry for the bad image made in Paint...), they could do a lot with that space!
(//http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll213/jellepeterse/Discoveryland.png)

Man, I am involved with family in the hospital and I read so much untrue junk in here, I sadly do not have time at the mo to reply to it all. A few things to set straight:

Indiana Jones and the Temple of the Forbidden Eye was originally designed to integrate the jungle cruise, train, the EMV attraction (which is PotC scale of awesomeness) and a mine coaster. Because of R&D budget issues, it was scalled down in California to just the ride. In Tokyo it has a whole themed land (which is not a first, we have the pathetic TSPL and Fliks Fun Fair, with Carsland coming, so not without precedent). Paris was also designed to have both and the pad is still vacant. But maintenance in the supperior managed DL and TDS suffer, so I would be shocked to see it come to DLP.

Peril is somewhat temporary too, one of the plans considered ripping it out. It is an off the shelf coaster, an unthemed version can be found at Brighton Pier.

Secondly, Grizzly/Everest are not really family friendly at all. It has a number of positive and negative g's and the backwards portion is quite fierce indeed (but very fun). The only comparison that should be made is it is a coaster in a mountain. It is like comparing It's a Small World to Pirates of the Caribbean.

Lastly, I do wonder about bothering to participate on these boards. It is clear to me that I am of a time that appreciated quality, and there are far too many defenders of mediocracy on here. It is a waste of time, you will never see the light, and I will never give Disney a pass for selling out.

Now go and read some history of the company, and then we'll talk....

If/when Disney build on that land, they will either go for Indiana adventure, or a bigger project.

I've got to say, autopia has to be the most expensive ride to run in dlp. You need at least 7 people working one boarding area, a engineer all the time, you have another section not used, the cars run on petrol, so they cost more money, landscaping must have a nightmare with it, and to top it off, the ride is just a disappointment. In that space you could fit so much more

Quote from: "davewasbaloo"Lastly, I do wonder about bothering to participate on these boards. It is clear to me that I am of a time that appreciated quality, and there are far too many defenders of mediocracy on here. It is a waste of time, you will never see the light, and I will never give Disney a pass for selling out.

I like you man! :) And I think, they are selling out with Space Mountain: Mission 2 (I mean...it's the same ride at all, except for the horrible theming inside and the removal of the cool Jules Verne Theme), Buzz Lightyear's Laser Blast (in Discoveryland! It would be ok in the studios) and Jack Sparrow installed in the Pirates of the Caribean.

That's just for summing up my opinion :)

Quote from: "davewasbaloo"Lastly, I do wonder about bothering to participate on these boards.

Would be a bit boring and restrictive if everyone thought the same and agreed all the time, wouldn't it?

It's great that some of you like the Temple of Peril. But I think as a "Disney" attraction it fails for a number of reasons:

• It's rough and painful, which makes it unattractive. Who wants to ride something that hurts?
• The loop is an intense element, which actually does limit the amount of people the attraction will appeal to
• It's an off-the-shelf coaster, with relatively minimal theming compared to Thunder Mountain

I guess I just don't like loops on Disney rides. I mean, theme parks don't need looping coasters or rides that go upside down to be HUGELY popular. Put it this way, how many rides go upside down at the Magic Kingdom in Florida? Zero. What about Disneyland in California? Zero. How about Tokyo Disneyland? Again, zero. What about Universal Studios Florida? Zero. Ok, how about Disney's Animal Kingdom? Zero. Epcot? Zero (not counting the temporary robocoaster they have). So basically, all the best theme parks in the World don't have looping coasters; they're not required.

Indiana Jones was added, with a loop, due to a lack of thrilling rides, although you may not like it many people do, plus I would say it is a family attraction by the amount of children who go on it. It appeals to people looking for their first looping "big" rollercoaster, and all rollercoasters get rough, look at Space Mountain, that gives some serious head-banging.
I don't want to seem as if I'm attacking your view, I'm not, but people go to Disneyland for different reasons, and personally I see less reasons to go these days.
And davewasbaloo, if you do leave I think it would be a disaster for these forums, recently there has been a reduction in serious conversation such as this and to lose your valued input would be very bad.

Quote from: "Alan"It's great that some of you like the Temple of Peril. But I think as a "Disney" attraction it fails for a number of reasons:

• It's rough and painful, which makes it unattractive. Who wants to ride something that hurts?
• The loop is an intense element, which actually does limit the amount of people the attraction will appeal to
• It's an off-the-shelf coaster, with relatively minimal theming compared to Thunder Mountain

I guess I just don't like loops on Disney rides. I mean, theme parks don't need looping coasters or rides that go upside down to be HUGELY popular. Put it this way, how many rides go upside down at the Magic Kingdom in Florida? Zero. What about Disneyland in California? Zero. How about Tokyo Disneyland? Again, zero. What about Universal Studios Florida? Zero. Ok, how about Disney's Animal Kingdom? Zero. Epcot? Zero (not counting the temporary robocoaster they have). So basically, all the best theme parks in the World don't have looping coasters; they're not required.

None of those are in Europe, DLP didn't have loops before Indy and SM opened, and they was a huge successes at the time (not just because of the loops but they certainly helped, and make our SM more unique). My (and I think Disney's) perception is that a larger part of the European theme park market wants big thrills (and therefore looping coasters) than those in other parts of the world. But I agree with your criticisms of temple du peril: it is not much fun to ride, despite the lovely jungle surroundings.

If I'm not mistaken, Indy was added to DLP, because the park was killed by attendance. That's also the reason why Storybook Canal Boat and Casey Jr. were added as well.

They chose the looping coaster, because people demanded another thrill ride and SM was still two years away. I think it should have only been a temporary ride, that's why it is not very well themed. I have to admit that I also like Indy, especially in the evening when it's already dark. But I would be very very happy to see it replaced with the Indiana Jones Adventure. I've ridden the Dinosaur at DAK, it's the same technology, and I loved that ride. Unfortunately DLRP can't afford such an attraction, because it needs a lot of people and money to maintain that ride.

According to Tim Delaney, the Imagineer of Discoveryland and SM (the first version, I wonder what he thinks about that stupid Mission 2), he chose a launch coaster with loopings and corkscrews, because he didn't like the lame SM coasters in the US parks. I thought that if you travel into space than it should be intense and fast, like a real rocket launch.

Quote from: "davewasbaloo"Lastly, I do wonder about bothering to participate on these boards. It is clear to me that I am of a time that appreciated quality, and there are far too many defenders of mediocracy on here. It is a waste of time, you will never see the light, and I will never give Disney a pass for selling out.

As someone else stated, that would be a disaster for this forum. The tagline of the forum is "discuss the magic" and you more than anyone lives up to this, and that would be very bad to lose. Look back at last year when TSPL was discussed - waay more people defended the mediocracy back then and a lot fewer defended the top class of previous Disney theme park entertainment and imagineering. Each day now I go on this forum to follow this debate and your inputs are part of the reasons for this.

Quote from: "Alan"It's great that some of you like the Temple of Peril. But I think as a "Disney" attraction it fails for a number of reasons:

• It's rough and painful, which makes it unattractive. Who wants to ride something that hurts?
• The loop is an intense element, which actually does limit the amount of people the attraction will appeal to
• It's an off-the-shelf coaster, with relatively minimal theming compared to Thunder Mountain

As dagobert I actually like Temple of Peril but I would not hestitate any second to replace it would an attraction like Indina Jones Adventure be a possibility. The highlighted point is the reason for this.

Actually, I like the atmosphere and the surroundings of the Temple of Peril...Even if it does not have a story like BTM and the tracks inside the Temple lie pretty bare, I like the scenery. For me it's part of the "old" Disneyland, even if it's not as sophisticated as other attractions, I would be very sad if it was replaced.
And if I look at some of the new attractions and how poorly they are themed, the Temple of Peril appears like a paradise of theming to me...

One serious question: Does Indy really hurt you that much? I cannot remember having any problems myself...However, after every SM ride I have the feeling that my knees are gone (especially in the second row of the vehicles) and my head hurts, too...

Quote from: "dagobert"Tim Delaney, the Imagineer of Discoveryland and SM (the first version, I wonder what he thinks about that stupid Mission 2)

I would say he'd like to launch it into outer space ;)

Quote from: "Patrick89"One serious question: Does Indy really hurt you that much? I cannot remember having any problems myself...However, after every SM ride I have the feeling that my knees are gone (especially in the second row of the vehicles) and my head hurts, too...

I've also never had any problems, but I liked the backwards version better.

Quote

Quote from: "dagobert"Tim Delaney, the Imagineer of Discoveryland and SM (the first version, I wonder what he thinks about that stupid Mission 2)

I would say he'd like to launch it into outer space ;)

You should listen to the Tim Delaney 3 part series of the Season Pass Podcast. He and his team were so passionate about Discoveryland and Space Mountain and now it's such a run down place. I'm sure he is really disappointed by the current state of SM and Discoveryland.

Quote from: "Patrick89"For me it's part of the "old" Disneyland, even if it's not as sophisticated as other attractions, I would be very sad if it was replaced.
And if I look at some of the new attractions and how poorly they are themed, the Temple of Peril appears like a paradise of theming to me...

For me I would be very sad too. It was my first thrill ride with a loop ever. Besides that I think that a Theme Park needs some Thrill rides. I mean those rides in Disneyland are not that "badass"(Did you ever ride the "Black Mamba" in Phantasialand, Germany? You feel like a milkshake afterwards ;) ). If they would remove them, for me it would be kind of boring, although I'm not going to DLRP, just because of the Thrill Rides in the first place.

Quote from: "dagobert"If I'm not mistaken, Indy was added to DLP, because the park was killed by attendance. That's also the reason why Storybook Canal Boat and Casey Jr. were added as well.

They chose the looping coaster, because people demanded another thrill ride and SM was still two years away. I think it should have only been a temporary ride, that's why it is not very well themed.

Yes, but it was still successful and the cars had to be altered to accommodate the huge numbers wanting to ride it.

I really don't enjoy riding it, the loop is far too tight and there's no story to get into, but I do like the surroundings.

Quote from: "dagobert"You should listen to the Tim Delaney 3 part series of the Season Pass Podcast. He and his team were so passionate about Discoveryland and Space Mountain and now it's such a run down place. I'm sure he is really disappointed by the current state of SM and Discoveryland.

Wasn't that what made Disneyland so special once? The passionate Imagineers and their great works. And if we, as fans of Discoveryland, are so frustrated about all of the changes there, how should its creator feel? I think he is not too amused the development in DL...

Quote from: "Burzgrokash"It was my first thrill ride with a loop ever.

Same for me...I still remember how nervous I've been before my first ride and how I admired my mother for riding it the years before...I would never forgive Disney if they removed this place of memories  ;)

Quote from: "Burzgrokash"Did you ever ride the "Black Mamba" in Phantasialand, Germany? You feel like a milkshake afterwards ;) ).

I did, and I have to admit I felt a little bit queasy afterwards :-" But that's not what I want in Disneyland. I mean, I really like Indy and I really liked Space Mountain, they had/have some thrill and also a nice scenery/theming,  but my favourite rollercoaster is BTM, because for me, theming will always be more valuable than thrill...

Quote from: "andrewuk"I really don't enjoy riding it, the loop is far too tight and there's no story to get into, but I do like the surroundings.

Except that, as I have already mentioned, like riding it, I agree with you. The story is missing, but I really love the surroundings and the general atmosphere with the howling created by the wagons.

Quote from: "davewasbaloo"Now go and read some history of the company, and then we'll talk....

Oh behave! Should everyone have the same perspective in order to have a sensible conversation? And I don't think it fair to suggest that there is some kind of pedigree people must earn by their knowledge of the company. I personally enjoy hearing what you and all the others on this forum have to say but it is not for me to say what their comments are worth. I think you diminish your own position when you undermine others.

Quote from: "Patrick89"

Quote from: "Burzgrokash"Did you ever ride the "Black Mamba" in Phantasialand, Germany? You feel like a milkshake afterwards ;) ).

I did, and I have to admit I felt a little bit queasy afterwards :-" But that's not what I want in Disneyland. I mean, I really like Indy and I really liked Space Mountain, they had/have some thrill and also a nice scenery/theming,  but my favourite rollercoaster is BTM, because for me, theming will always be more valuable than thrill...

Theming will always be more valuable...you are very right! But a little thrill once in a while is also cool :) Don't get me wrong, I don't want a Black-Mamba-Style Ride in the DLRP, despite the theming of it would be great of course.

I think there's no need for a Black Mamba at DLP because Space Mountain is THE BEST rollercoaster I've ever tried. But, anyway, I think there should be more thrill rides. No need for a thrill ride to be necessarily a rollercoaster, but I really would like to ride something really scary at Disneyland.

By the way, if that rumour of a Marvel superheroes park ever comes true at DLP, this would be the greatest opportunity Disney will ever have to build a fantastic park full of thrill rides, and then the other two parks could still be as family friendly as they are now. However, Disneyland and Walt Disney Studios need an update URGENTLY!!! at least 3 or 4 new rides should be added at Disneyland, and the expansion of the Studios is something I want to get to see someday.

I would argue that if you are looking for thrills, do not go to a Disney park. They are theme parks. If you want thrills, may I recommend Port Aventura, Walibi World, or Cedar Point and Six Flags Magic Mountain.

Quote from: "Aladar"By the way, if that rumour of a Marvel superheroes park ever comes true at DLP, this would be the greatest opportunity Disney will ever have to build a fantastic park full of thrill rides, and then the other two parks could still be as family friendly as they are now. However, Disneyland and Walt Disney Studios need an update URGENTLY!!! at least 3 or 4 new rides should be added at Disneyland, and the expansion of the Studios is something I want to get to see someday.

Sorry, but I totally disagree with you. I hate the idea of having a superhero park in DLRP, because it just does not fit for me. Disney and superheros like Spiderman? No way.
And concerning new rides: Before getting more bad rides like the recent ones, especially in TSPL, I would prefer continuing the refurbishments of older attractions. You cannot build new attractions each year and letting the old ones fall to decay.
For me, Disneyland Park could have stayed forever as it was some years ago. If something is perfect, there is no need for updates or add-ons. And the Studios had a lot of new attractions in the last couple of years.
If I had the choice between 3-4 new rides like in TSPL every year or 1 new ride like TOT every 5 years, I would choose the latter. Not that I depend on new rides - If I look at the recent ones, I wish there had been none ;)

Edit: Dave, I totally agree with you  :thumbs:

Am also against a Marvel Park, we need something in the scale of our Disneyland Park, rich theming, hhigh quality, and good rides with less movie ti ins... but am not against Marvel charakter/movie based rides in the Studios. The only thing realy needed in this park, We have a part of Hollywood and Pixar, so make another land of Marvel and we have all this park need. Okay don´t get me wrong, they need to be heavily themed and the Pixar and Hollywood section can grow. But we realy dont need a stand alone Marvel park....

I also somehow argee with Patrick, i realy don´t need every year another new Ride to get build, but then they realy schould do some special events vor a short time or better entertainment to draw in peeps. But for this they need good marketing and because this is not happening they schould just focus on maintenance xD

The only thing that I could imagine in a Marvel Park is a lot of tall skyscrapers. I don't think there's much potential to make it look very exciting.

That's a good point, the Marvel universe ostensibly is our own, but with the existence of powers, gods, magic etc. That doesn't make for a great physical representation were it to be along the 'land' concepts. I guess things would look much more like decorated attractions rather than the thematic experience Disney typically try to sell in their parks.

Saying that, I do think a third gate needs to have some kind of fundamental difference to the other two if its going to create new attendees as well as lengthen vacation stays and guest spend. But 'Marvel' on it's own, IMHO wouldn't be it. As a land within WDS could be a slightly different proposition but it would entirely depend on its design and execution.

To be honest an epcot-style park could do wonders for DLP. I think it has the perfect balance of culture, learning a couple of very high quality rides and an opportunity for a decent fire/water show.


Maybe in 15-25 years time, when (if) DLP has paid back all its debts we'll see it.


For the marvel land in the studios something such as the "amazing adventures of spiderman" as a dark ride would work perfectly, perhaps with the added element of "this is how we film spidermAn...here's the first scene" etc

Don`t get me wrong! I'm not saying that DLP should be full of thrill rides everywhere! But 2 or 3 aditions would be ok! For me DLP is perfect, it could stay like that for ages and I would keep going again and again, but  2 or 3 more thrill rides would be great, don't you agree? And as I said before, Thrill rides do not have to be necessarily rollercoasters, and they don't have to be the kind of rides that are forbidden for children or make you feel that you're going die, they can be softer and family friendly. Here some examples: Soarin' (From California Adventure and EPCOT), Storm Rider (From Tokyo Disney Sea), Mission Space (from Epcot), Test Track (From Epcot), Indiana Jones Adventure (From Disneyland), Expedition Everest (From Animal Kingdom... ok, this one's a rollercoaster). All of these are very well themed attractions that would fit very well at the Studios, at Discoveryland and Adventureland, which are in urgent need of new E-Ticket rides. And what do you say about that small Snow White rollercoaster that's being built at the Magic Kingdom in Florida? It probably won't be the kind of rollercoaster where you scream like a lady, but we could have it at DLP with another film's theming, like Fantasia, or Alice in Wonderland or Winnie the Pooh, or whatever you like. And don't say we cannot have a Splash Mountain because of the weather, because winter in Tokyo is very cold and hard, and they have Splash Mountain. The thing is that I don't want to go to parks like the ones that Davewasbaloo suggested, what I want is to go to Disneyland and find the world famous rides that make fans want to go, even if they live 30 minutes from DLP. Is there something at DLP that would make someone from California, Tokyo or Florida want to come to Paris? All we have is a more fantastic and elaborated theming and decoration at the Disneyland Park, nothing else!
And about the third gate, I definetly would prefer something like Tokyo Disney Sea, not only because it's Disney's most beautyful park, but also because it would be a reason for people from other continents to come to DLP. But being realistic, a Marvel park is more probable, because it would not only be cheaper, it also would be the opportunity to build a unique theme park that, if it's well themed, it could attract Marvel fans from all over the world to DLP.
I don't want to sound as if I were complaining, this is only an opinion and none should feel bad about it.

For me The Magic Kingdom was perfect before the removal of "Space Mountain: De la terre à la lune". There was just no need to add something new.
They could've added more to the studios, but leave the rest as it was.
Instead of that, they added more stuff to the Magic Kingdom and let the old attractions (for example The Nautilus) fall into decay!

The thing is, licensing stuff means that they aren't allowed to build a marvel park in USA, and there isn't enough space at any of the other resorts. So dlp is the only place it can be done. I seriously think that building a marvel park could bring in the crowds.

Sounds a little like Islands of Adventure at Universal Studios Orlando, don't they have Marvel Island there. I'm not keen on a whole theme park dedicated to Marvel. I'd prefer something on the lines of Epcot, but i think that might cost EuroDisney  way too much.

Quote from: "peter"The thing is, licensing stuff means that they aren't allowed to build a marvel park in USA, and there isn't enough space at any of the other resorts. So dlp is the only place it can be done. I seriously think that building a marvel park could bring in the crowds.

Hong Kong Disneyland has mountains of free space - http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?oe=utf-8& ... d=0CAQQtgM (http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&q=tokyo+disneyland&fb=1&gl=uk&hq=tokyo+disneyland&hnear=tokyo+disneyland&ei=1ZkPTqhxhOyyBvu4mZIP&sa=X&oi=local_group&ct=image&ved=0CAQQtgM%22%20onclick=%22window.open(this.href);return%20false;)

And there's only 1 park there. I'm not sure whether that it turning a profit when compared to the shambolic profits (or lack of) at Paris.

but hong kong doesn't have an agreement with the government saying they need to build another park

don't they need to build a third gate in paris by 2017?

Quote from: "gldc"

Quote from: "peter"The thing is, licensing stuff means that they aren't allowed to build a marvel park in USA, and there isn't enough space at any of the other resorts. So dlp is the only place it can be done. I seriously think that building a marvel park could bring in the crowds.

Hong Kong Disneyland has mountains of free space - http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?oe=utf-8& ... d=0CAQQtgM (http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&q=tokyo+disneyland&fb=1&gl=uk&hq=tokyo+disneyland&hnear=tokyo+disneyland&ei=1ZkPTqhxhOyyBvu4mZIP&sa=X&oi=local_group&ct=image&ved=0CAQQtgM%22%20onclick=%22window.open(this.href);return%20false;)

That link was to Tokyo Disneyland. ^_^'

Quotedon't they need to build a third gate in paris by 2017?

 I don't think that EuroDisney have to build a third park by 2017 now, that dated was extended with the French goverment. It's going to be built on the parcel of land over the road from the NPBC, apparently. Some people take the view that EuroDisney wont take up the option in the future, and that a new theme park will never be built. We'll just have to see.

Wasn't it all planned to become the European version of disneyworld? I always heard that eurodisney was imagineers way of fixing the problems of disneyworld. Unfortunately one of the views in the theme park industryis that the only way to get more visitors is too add new things.

All that needs to be done is better advertising and a clean happy park. But who am I?

It seems that the Future isn´t so bright if you look what just happend... Just read this News...

QuoteThe head of the Walt Disney Co.'s global theme-park division promoted a pair of Central Florida executives Tuesday in a management shakeup triggered by the departure of another senior official.

Walt Disney Parks and Resorts Chairman Tom Staggs appointed Walt Disney World President Meg Crofton to the new post of president of operations in the U.S. and France. Crofton will maintain her current responsibilities as president of Disney's Orlando resort — a position she has held since 2006 — but she will also assume oversight of Disneyland in Anaheim, Calif., and Disneyland Paris.

I don´t know but i don´t have the feeling she did anything good for WDW since 2006 and now she is going to be president of operations here at DLP too...omg..!

So this means that the One Disney initiative is coming to DLP too, wow so there is no need to go to the American Parks when we are getting all the same events ect. We are heading back to the pressler era, be ready for it!!!


Sorry if it dosent fit in here!!

if you're working on the theory that WDW is some kind of flop, which it isn't. WDW is different from DLP because it has four theme parks of course, including DAK and EPCOT and water parks which DLP doesn't have, so there will still be the need to go to America if you want to visit these other parks and experience other events.

I think you doidn´t  get the point at all... Sure there is a lot to do in WDW it was just about the One Disney Entertainment stuff..

Just on a side note, be happy about every little maintenance they do now, because if she is in charge nothing gets realy done right.. her motto is, if it isn´t broken, don´t fix it. and she will be the boss of mr. gas, so he has to do what she says. Isn´t DLP not enough in trouble, does it needs more? wow i never thought another pressler era will come, but here it is. Many many cut backs, and cost savings. poor poor DLP

No I don't get the point, DLP is undergoing a large maintenance program at the moment, and it's been well reported on this forum. I can't talk about the maintenance at WDW directly because I havent been for awhile. But it's a huge resort and  has been very successful so they must do something right, but it's probably not perfect. And a resort the size of WDW I wouldn't be surprised if there were some issues.

As i said, we can be happy about all those maintenance right now, if she would have been in charge a few month before you will see the pirate ship in Adventureland rotten away till its gone. We can be sure less new attractions, and lots of more cutbacks when shes going to be president of park operations. Disneyland in Anahmein had so much trouble in the 90´s under the pressler regime, the same goes for WDW and DLP.

If you ever were at DLP in 1992 you would know what the standart for the park can be. After Frank Wells died and pressler got in charge, the parks got worse. Mr. Crofton is a pressler kid, she has the same thinking, Cut Costs as much as you can and aim everything towards kids to get in more revenue. but the Maintenance will just be done if realy needet. The Fantasyland expansion at WDW would not happen if Burbank would not have forced it to Team Disney Orlando, they had no other choice. Also Star Tours 2 at DHS got Forced to them but with heavy Cost Cutting. Don´t think now that DLP is going on the right track now just because of a few renovations going on!!!

I think Davewasbaloo can say much more than i do!!!

If we're talking about EuroDisney the issues are different because EuroDisney wasn't a financial success when it opened in 1992, it lost a lot of money. And I do know about this because I first went to DLP in 1993, I remember the big hole in the ground where SM should be. So EuroDisney doesn't have the same budget to work with that WDC has in America. The Pressler regime is over just look at all the improvements happening at DCA, and the Fantasyland expansion at the MK. And it's Miss Crofton not Mr.

You realy believe the pressler regime is over, than i have to say you are wrong. Mrs. Crofton learned from Pressler and Weiss, and she is sharing theyre thoughts... Right it wasn´t a financial sucess at that time, but we all know why. Space mountain was never meant to get build in first place! Don´t take this so easy, there is something wrong at Disney Parks an Resorts!

did you know about the rumors that Disney Parks and Resorts are on sale on the stock market? That means The Disney Company don´t want they´re parks anymore!

QuoteThere are some pretty serious rumors on laughingplace that the board of directors are pressuring bob iger to SELL the parks. Iger and tom staggs were spotted recently touring WDW with a saudi prince and a reliable insider is saying that they originally were planning to sell the parks in 2008 but they couldn't find any serious buyers when the stock market exploded.

QuoteIger has, as a matter of FACT, been in discussion with the Prince and Wall St. to sell off the parks or at least parts of them. I don't see how anyone never saw this comming. Eisner warned the Board before he left that Iger had no love for the parks. Even Roy did not accept Iger as CEO after SaveDisney but had to because he had been named successor. Iger does NOT CARE abiut AA Pirates or ghosts, flying elephants, subs, founatin shows, etc. The parks are just another portfolio asset to him. And one that loses money to him and Wall St.

Nice try.

Why nice try? those rumors got puplic in 2008, all the american forums were full of it, just here were nothing to read about... sorry but michael eisner warned roy disney about bob iger! and iger was not the right person in roy disneys eyes, but he had no chance to give him the ceo, because of the shareholders and investors.

do i believe those rumors? no i don´t, but they also don´t sound good. The fact is, we still can dream of better quality, because it won´t happen. Lets see if Ratatoille (if getting greenlit) will have some major cut backs! I also read a post from an CM of WDW that mrs. crofton is an evil. The accidents on the monorail ect. would not happend if the money for the maintenance were given, but all they got is a big NO from her, and this will also be the future of DLP...

WDW is very poor quality now thanks to over her head Meg. DLP is about to take a further slip into the gutter. If maintenance is already terrible at WDW (it was on our last trip, worse than DLP in some cases), and DLP is an embarrassment, watch this space.

The future is bleak, not bright. But if the rumour of a sale is right, then there may be a huge change anyway.

Sorry Ed, once again I think you are way off base. Meg has really trashed WDW over the years including being responsible for deaths of cast members on her watch, diminishing returns on retail, very poor maintanence on attractions, and cut backs in entertainment, and that is a resort that is the so called most visited in the world with what has been healthy ROI.

Meg was one of Rasulo's cronies, and she is bound to screw this one up....anyone want to buy a Marriott Villa, I might do you a deal and throw my pin collection into the mix :)

Just look at the History of her, she got president of WDW in 2006 and the Yeti on expedition everest broke in 2007 so it didnt got fixed till today... in my eyes this is what will happen in DLP too. She and Mr. Gas will be the evils who can destroy DLP in a very bad way...

I don´t know but somehow i realy miss the Eisner and Wells era!!!

And how would they "destroy DLP in a very bad way" exactly?

Trying to cut costs and increase revenue isn't anything new, DLP have been doing that since it opened.

As for Disney selling their parks? I don't believe it for a minute..

You have the answer in your question... Cut costs!!
Cutting costs in a company is something totaly normal. I also have to do it in my own company.
but if the Cost cutting hurts maintenance, food and lives of people than its not okay anymore. Sorry but i don´t
get it how anyone can say its not bad! You know that this person have serveral accident on her list just because she didnt
spend money in maintenance just because of cutting cost!

Cant wait to see, once upon a dream parade in 10 years, paintet all over and get a new name, so we have a new parade, fantillusion will be there forever... nice future i argee!!

Quote from: "lil-shawn"if the Cost cutting hurts maintenance, food and lives of people than its not okay anymore!

So where would it be OK to cut costs? Saving money is a fact of business life, so budgets have to be managed and priorities have to be set. Don't do that and you are bankrupt. And I'm assuming you'd rather that didn't happen, although it's a bit hard to tell sometimes.

Seems like some of you are almost looking forward to a disaster...?

No am not looking for a disaster. Right cuts have to be made, i know this for myself, i need to do this every month for my company, but am always watch out for my workers, and try to get the quality for my customer as high as possible. All machines are in top conditions just to play the safty card for my workers. sorry but cut backs are okay just do it wisely!

Quote from: "lil-shawn"No am not looking for a disaster. Right cuts have to be made, i know this for myself, i need to do this every month for my company, but am always watch out for my workers, and try to get the quality for my customer as high as possible. All machines are in top conditions just to play the safty card for my workers. sorry but cut backs are okay just do it wisely!

Uh-huh. But I'm pretty sure that Disney management would say that IS what they were doing. You might not agree, but you are not part of the team, you don't see the figures and you don't know the targets.

I never wanted to be someone of the Team, i don´t Like Igner and his Brainwash thinking! Sure they do Cut Cost, but they should be done at Entertainment, or at some other areas but not on maintenance or Food!

QuoteAs for Disney selling their parks? I don't believe it for a minute..

In a business kind of thinking, of making more profit without spending any money, like Iger does it,
i think its more plaussible than the building of Ratatouille Attraction.
The Parks costs Disney a lot of money every year, if they would sell it to someone else they can earn a lot of money for the licence and don´t have to bother to spend money on maintenance at all.

is it Possible they do it? i say yes it is,  and do i believe it? no i don´t but i realy don´t like the fact they have it maybe in mind!


Guys don´t think just because its Disney, everything in the Company is okay, we all don´t realy know whats going on behind the doors, an if am honest i realy don´t wanna know at te moment!

You think Iger doesn't spend money on parks? He's spending a billion dollars on DCA and the park is looking very good now. Let's give him credit for that. The WDC also have two new cruise ships in service, but some fans choose to focus on some broken AAs at WDW, and when we look at the expansion of Fantasyland at the MK, we can see money is being invested in WDW. I'm sure owning a resort the size of WDW, brings some big challenges concerning maintenance. We all think maintenance is important.

one question, why does everyone have such a negative view on this new management thing? i've never been to wdw, but i understand that the size of it is beyond comprehension. i think people are being a bit harsh towards her. what if someone says "ok, we're gonna give you this amount of money to look after 4 theme parks, 2 water parks, hundreds of shops and restaurants, over 20 hotels, directly and indirectly over 1000 staff, and you need to keep making us a profit, and because this is a business, if you don't create more profit, then we'll fire you". will your prioritis be on a couple of broken things?

also, we need to remember that in 2008, it was the worst part of the economic downturn, so of course there would be rumours going round about selling off assets, but if this was happening, then why would they spend 1 billion dollars in california?

But this is not how business works... WDW is making a lot of money every month, this money is for the Paychecks, buying new food, merch, electricity ect. ect. with the rest of the money they have, it needs to get used for rfurbs or for maintenance, but she isn´t going to use it for such thinks, she holds the money back for the end of the year, to show, lthat WDW was making lets say $1 billion win. i wouldn´t say anything if they would say "okay lets hold the money back for the rest of the year, and after the end results we spend some of it for maintenance or refurbs. but she dosent do it like it should be to garante the safty for the CMs and guests. On the other hand she isn´t to blame for everything, she worked under Al Weiss, if he said no she has to say no too, but Mr Staggs and Mr. iger wouldn´t promote her if she would change now the status quo of Al Weiss thinking.

Sure it is better for the stockholders and banks. Money for new Attractions ect. is comming from Burbank so WDW don´t have to bay it, and if they do its a repay of the new attractions in a monthy basis or at the end of the year. As i said, the new Star Tours 2 got a very big Cut in costs, and also the Fantasyland Expanion, also both were forced to Team Disney Orlando, if Burbank wouldn´t had did it, Mrs. Crofton wouldn´t brought it to WDW!

With Selling the Parks it´s a bit different, I Don´t believe it but its also nothing good. First Mr. Satggs and Mr. Iger were seen in WDW with a Saudi Prince and with a Chinese Investor. Right maybe they got a special preview of the Parks, but why did the Board Visit the Parks at the same Time? they never Visit the Parks if there is no Change.
Just remember back wit the Blackstone group (Universal) They wanted to sell the Parks, so they added a few new things, when it got puplic they wanna sell the Universal Parks, they didn´t add anything new in years, after 5 Years they decided not to sell them anymore and since then they added WWOHP, Rip Ride Rockit and much more...
Also Disney Sold the Disney Stores around the world for a big amount of money, the group who was the new owner did let the Stores run down so Disney bought it back with lees money, so it was a win win situation for the Disney Company.
Thats how business works, so if they wanna sel them they could do it, but they also know if they would do it, its not good at all for the stocks!

Also interessting is, that TWDC and OLC did Talked about the CEOs of the Asian parks, the talk is that OLC will get them so they have some influence on the Asian parks, because the chinese law forbit it that OLC is running the Parks, but in this Case they can.. but if this is true or like the other thing just speculation, i realy don´t know... But its very interesting to read about it on other boards!!!

Disney haven't said that they want to sell their parks which is the point. Why would Disney want to sell Disneyland in California to the Chinese?  Disney are building parks in China anyway, and Chinese companies are being set up to  run and invest in those parks. The Disney Company talks to goverments and investors all over the world. It doesn't mean that Disney want to sell Disneyland to a Saudi Prince. As you said at the end of your post "I really don't know", to me it sounds like make believe, and I'll believe it when I see it.

Who was talking about Disneyland in California? And i also didn´t say i believe it, but it is possible, not that they would do it at all. Its just something good to have a disscusion about it, but now i see that this Forum is not ready for such disscusions!

lil shawn, there is an excellent discussion about this on Laughing Place, the best site for Disney business discussions. And there is the possibility of a sale. Just like some people do up their houses before selling, or there is the case of the WWOHP before Blackstone sold Universal too.

Nobody seems to have discussed what was said during the Table Ronde Actionnaires on 7th December 2011. There's a great post about it on DisneyCentralPlaza. Here's what it looks like when you run it through Google Translate:

http://translate.google.co.uk/translate ... mpte-rendu (http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.disneycentralplaza.com%2Ft25773-table-ronde-du-7-decembre-2011-mon-compte-rendu%22%20onclick=%22window.open(this.href);return%20false;)

Sounds interesting, thanks Alan for posting.

Thanks for that.

December 21, Philippe Gas will sign a deed of part of the Esplanade (between Disney Village, train station and parks), to facilitate this movement (one common excavation Disney Village and parks) and the management of undesirable persons on this one (street vendors).

I can think of many a person who will be chuffed with this. A friend of mine's young daughter used to really cower when entering this area :x  However, free trade and all that :)

The future of the show of Buffalo Bill's Wild West Show, which begins to make his time is also being studied (optimization of the room while keeping the ability to restore).

Not sure if I've got this right but is it saying that the future of the BBWWS is in dought? I'm not sure how many upgrades there have been to this show, but I for one think it's well past its sell by date ;)

Interesting. I thought I'd highlight certain bits:

"He also stressed the arrival of the Word of Disney, with the study of the overhaul of the street (the World of Disney find themselves in duplicate with the Disney Store). And the ability to recover (or not taken based on the options for the future of the street) the starry night on this one."
What does it mean by "starry night"? It looks like this bit wasn't translated correctly by Google. :)

"and the management of undesirable persons on this one (street vendors). "
What's this? Getting rid of the street vendors? :D

"Star Tours 2 is studied but not a priority, because for a guest who comes in the park illegally (according to polls), Star Tour (1) is a great experience. Despite this he still admitted that the two tested a few days apart (the first two) and is aware that there is no picture between the two, especially since Star Tours 2 has a great ability to return direct (guest who once again) because you never know what movie we will find ourselves immersed. "
So it's not a priority, but they're considering it. I don't think we can expect anything better than that, so that's good. :)

"Ratatouille is a study with the banks, an expected result (final decision) is the beginning of 2012. after must be provided within 2 years of construction."
Final decision, eh? I hope they say yes. But it's good if the banks want to force Disney to complete it within two years.

"A study is made of Armageddon (since the license to use the film ends soon and that it is in significant decline in attendance). Given the number of licenses owned by Disney, the choice will be difficult (spiderman was mentioned as likely as not licensing issue with Universal in France, unlike other countries where universal parks are installed)."
So -- in other words -- we'll get a new ride. A spiderman one will be much more popular, and will no doubt make the Marvel fans happy. XD They might base it on the new Spiderman film and recreate a particular scene in it.

"Expectations of short films are in development with teams from John Lasseter, but it may be very long as it is very picky about the quality of his films ... "
I'm not sure what is meant by "films", but I'm assuming they mean Imagineering projects. It's great to see that John is taking an interest in DLP. It seems typical that he would take a while for being a perfectionist. XD

Ok, here's a proper translation of the text done by an actual human being I know, and not by Google Translate. I reworded some of the sentences because the original French was crap (apologies to the author).

QuoteDisney Village

Philippe Gas is very pleased about the arrival of new brands in the Disney Village (Starbucks Coffee and Earl of Sandwich) and reminded us that the Starbucks store, a week after its opening, was generating the best global revenue, and continued doing so for several consecutive weeks. For the Earl of Sandwich, he emphasised the fact that the location was risky (furthest away from the entrance to the parks) but in a pleasant setting, with an unobstructed view over Lake Disney and the Resort hotels. He also emphasised the arrival of the World of Disney store, with a study about the general overhaul of the street (due to the Disney Store now being redundant). He also mentioned the possibility of bringing back the starry sky lights (or not, depending on what is decided for the future of Disney Village).

One shareholder mentioned the idea of a culinary contest between restaurant chefs in order to boost catering performance. Philippe Gas bounced off the idea and announced that top chefs have been negotiating to have some of their signature dishes appear in the parks' restaurants.

The future of Buffalo Bill's Wild West Show, which has been around for a while, is also being considered (optimising the use of the venue, while retaining its catering facilities).

There will be a range of 20th Anniversary marketing products (seems logical).

On December 21st, Philippe Gas will sign a certificate of land ownership for part of the esplanade (between Disney Village, the RER station and the parks), to improve guest flow (to have only one security search for Disney Village and the parks) as well as remove the unwanted people there (street traders).

The Parks

The Central Plaza stage is going to be removed (we already knew that but now it's official).

The 20th Anniversary will mainly focus on shows (especially one that'll be very unique. It makes you wonder what he's talking about since he never mentioned Dreams!)

As far as catering is concerned, Videopolis is the biggest earner in the park, but they have trouble deciding on a new show for the venue, since it would reduce the area where people can sit down and eat. On the other hand, he told us that a survey about Discoveryland (which he called Tomorrowland) has been requested because of bad guest flow and attractions with little appeal (I think he used the Visionarium as an example to avoid talking about Captain EO).

Star Tours 2 is being considered but not a high priority, because for a guest who regularly visits the parks (according to surveys), the original Star Tours is still an excellent experience. Despite that, he admits having ridden both within a few days (Star Tours 2 first) and is aware of the fact that there is no contest between the two, especially because Star Tours 2 has a high repeatability factor (meaning guests go back on it straightaway) since you never know which film you'll be shown. He thinks it's a very strong concept but the main focus is the Walt Disney Studios Park, so that it can grow to be the same size as Disneyland Park.

Ratatouille is still being considered by the banks and there's hope of results (meaning a definite decision) by early 2012. After that, a construction period of two years is to be expected.

To the question (that I found on Facebook) "What do you plan to do between Christmas 2011 and the start of the 20th Anniversary celebration?", the answer was that the off-peak period is difficult to manage, so they're going to work on some last minute deals (e.g. early booking) to prevent a severe attendance drop. They're also planning to announce the 20th Anniversary celebration as late as possible so that people don't think, "why don't we wait for the 20th Anniversary? There's nothing special to see right now" or something like that.

Someone mentioned wait time issues with some attractions (e.g. Crush's Coaster, Big Thunder Mountain and Peter Pan's Flight, among others) and was told that a guest who gets on seven rides in a day, is a happy guest. A guest who gets on six rides in a day is dissapointed. And a guest who gets on eight rides or more is on cloud nine. But the design of Crush's Coaster doesn't allow for a Fastpass system to be installed.

A study has been carried out about Armageddon, because the licence for using the film is coming to an end soon and also because attendance has dropped significantly. Given how many licences Disney own, it's going to be a difficult decision (Spiderman has been mentioned as a possible replacement, since there won't be any licence problems with Universal in France, unlike other countries with Universal parks).

Short films for some of the attractions' queues are being developed by John Lasseter's teams at Pixar, but it's probably going to take a very long time, seeing how fussy he is about the quality of his films.

It would be great if they brought back the sky lights in the Disney Village.

Also, John is working on films for the attraction queues? That's a good idea. We knew he was working on ones for TSPL.

Thanks for that translation Alan.

Pity about Star Tours 2. Reading into that it sounds like we won't be getting much in Disneyland Park until WDS has grown a lot bigger, which is a shame as Star Tours 2 could lead to Star Wars weekends, more visitors etc. It also isn't consistent with them stopping development of Ratatouille, but that seems to be in hold until things like Dreams and Disney magic on Parade have been finished.

I'll be interested to see what they do with Armageddon - changing it to Spider-Man could be interesting but it's not a very big building and its not really themed for Spider-Man - it would need a total overhaul. They won't, because they don't create things that don't have films attached these days, but they could use the current building to house a space themed attraction, a better one than Armageddon. That'd save money by not needing to rip everything out and start again and could be quite fascinating and educational.

The short films are much needed. Cars attracts lots of young children and is a deathly slow and dull queuing area. I always wondered why they don't show the Mater Cartoons.

I would not like a Spiderman attraction, to me it just wouldn't fit and Marvel; even though its owned by Disney to me it just isn't Disney iykwim.

^Yet Armageddon is 'Disney' to you?

Thank you for posting that Alan, a really good read. Hopefully Ratatouille will be confirmed in the new year and they can get on with expanding WDS.

Didn't know they were closing the whole village Disney store because of the World of Disney store, that frees up a huge amount of space in the village, will be interesting to see what they do with it.

As for the videopolis, it just seems so badly designed in there. I would like that to have a complete overhaul and make it into a really good theatre before they create a new show, it doesn't really work with how it is now, you never get a good view of the stage. Won't happen though.

Nothing to get too excited about there though, at least Ratatouille is still on the cards, lets just hope the banks approve it as its pretty vital for the whole resort if they aren't adding anything to Disneyland Park until WDS is the same size.

TWDC are going to have to do something soon though, if nothing new is going into disneyland park until WDS is the same size, well its going to be an even bigger task than DCA.

Ok so here's my own opinion and reaction to that information I posted the translation of...

I think the idea of Disney redesigning the esplanade, and finally getting rid of the street traders and building one unified security point, is great. That will really improve the experience of arriving at the parks, which is currently very ugly and messy.

Getting rid of the Central Plaza stage is also a great idea because it should provide a clearer view of Sleeping Beauty Castle again, and provide more space for guests to stand (so that they stop trespassing on the grass).

If Videopolis is such a big earner, can't they just get rid of the Lion King stage and go back to having some simpler/cheaper stage entertainment? Perhaps some live musicians, such as a small brass band? Space Brass Nano!

Even if Star Tours 2 isn't a high priority, they really ought to build it as soon as possible. Star Tours 1 is very dated and gives you a sort of depressed feeling, like you're in a theme park that's been abandoned. It's kind of a disgrace to the Disney name (which is supposed to stand for quality) that the video and projection systems used in Star Tours 1 are worse than the HDTVs most people now have at home! They need to build Star Tours 2, not necessarily to attract new visitors to the park, but to maintain the Disney quality for guests already in the park.

I hope Ratatouille gets approved in April 2012 and is open by Summer 2014. It's exactly what the Walt Disney Studios park needs.

I don't understand this thinking of announcing the 20th Anniversary as late as possible, to avoid an attendance drop. If the theme park is truly excellent, people will come at all times of the year, and they'll come back again when your new attraction is open! Do the management of Disneyland Paris think the announcement of Cars Land at Disney California Adventure in October 2007 has stopped people from visiting that park for the last 4+ years? What about the Fantasyland Expansion in Florida? Have people really not been visiting Walt Disney World since they announced that in 2009?

Crush's Coaster doesn't allow for a Fastpass system to be installed because by design it has too low of a capacity to exist in a Disney theme park. But, knowing that, they went ahead and built it anyway.

I'm glad to hear that the license for Armageddon is expiring soon. That attraction is hugely disappointing, has poor word of mouth, and is something that no-one ever wants to do again. It should be closed immediately, gutted, and replaced with a proper attraction that actually ATTRACTS people.

What sort of Spider-Man attraction could replace Armageddon? Armageddon exists on a relatively small section of land. You couldn't build a ride there.

Short films for the queues of the Pixar rides is a good idea. It would be nice to have animated videos custom-made for the queues of Crush's Coaster and Cars Race Rally.

Quote from: "Alan"I don't understand this thinking of announcing the 20th Anniversary as late as possible, to avoid an attendance drop. If the theme park is truly excellent, people will come at all times of the year, and they'll come back again when your new attraction is open!

I think I might just put this quote in my signature! An excellent post Alan.

Armageddon is interesting, I had no idea they had a separate licence to use that film. Makes me wonder when exactly it runs out - 10 years, 15 years? In any case, I wouldn't personally hope for too much with a replacement at this point. You could probably retheme it to Spider-Man keeping much of the main show room in place, perhaps suggesting guests are part of some villain's experimental lab which Spidey saves us from. Although whether Disney would want to put their name to that as their "first Marvel attraction", I don't know.

The news about taking ownership of the main esplanade is almost too fantastic to take in... Although you know the street traders will still find somewhere around there where they can't be moved, it'll at least give Disney Hotel guests an unobstructed route through to the parks each morning.

Thanks Anthony. I'm glad you enjoyed my post. I actually always look forward to your posts, because you have a fantastic understanding of the parks (better than Philippe Gas') and your opinion is always spot on.

I'd hate to see Armageddon simply given a Spider-Man overlay. It would be like putting a plaster on a broken arm. It wouldn't solve the problem. The attraction would still stuck, and it would bring down the Spider-Man brand with it.

The street traders will probably move their business to the car park, so that you have to dodge little eiffel towers as you find a parking space! Actually, I think Disney should buy some of their crap and add it to Buzz Lightyear Laser Blast as a series of targets. How satisfying would it be, to shoot one of their little robotic dogs with a laser gun?

Thanks for sharing the translation Alan.

I am pleased to hear the street traders are going to sorted out - but as you say, they will move elsewhere! It will be interested to see where they actually put the security gate, as it is a wide expanse to put gates etc across.

I don't think Buffalo Bill's Wild West Show will last long, as adding Mickey was simply to try and extend its life. It is wise to commit to keeping the catering element, as people seem to like this.

What if they replaced Buffalo Bill's Wild West show with Legend of the Lion King from Discoveryland? That way it would still be a show, it would now be 100% Disney so kids would want to see it, and you could eat African-themed food while you watched it.

Just a thought.

That sounds like a nice idea Alan. I'm sure people would pay to see this as long as it was high quality.

Quote from: "Alan"What if they replaced Buffalo Bill's Wild West show with Legend of the Lion King from Discoveryland? That way it would still be a show, it would now be 100% Disney so kids would want to see it, and you could eat African-themed food while you watched it.

Hmmm. I think the Disney Village is targeted more towards adults anyway. They probably see it as a night out for local towns as well as Disney's guests.

@Meph

Buffalo Bills Wild West Show with Mickey and Friends is targeted towards adults? I don't think so. Sure, Disney Village as a whole is an entertainment nightspot, but any show "with Mickey and Friends" is definitely for families and kids.

I'd call Disneyland Paris family entertainment, and Disney Village is child friendly. Some parents might avoid the bars in Disney Village and late nights, but I've often seen children in the hotel bars. I can't think of anything much targeted just towards adults.

They'd need to make it a longer show for people to get value for money, or even Disney value for money, if The Legend of the Lion King were to replace Buffalo Bill's Wild West show. People who have seen the old Legend of the Lion King may resent having to pay the same show in a different location.

Personally I would like to see the Buffalo Bill's Wild West show replaced with something else as I find the food pretty awful and as a show it's fun once, but at that price I've never felt the urge to go again.

If they ever do replace Buffalo Bill's, I can't think what sort of theme it would have. There's no genre like a western that gives the sort of atmosphere that Buffalo Bill's has.

Quote from: "Alan"@Meph
Buffalo Bills Wild West Show with Mickey and Friends is targeted towards adults? I don't think so. Sure, Disney Village as a whole is an entertainment nightspot, but any show "with Mickey and Friends" is definitely for families and kids.

It's definitely a family show (particularly now that they've added the characters). I just mean the village in general. I don't think kids would enjoy the New Year celebrations there, for example, as much as in the hotels or the parks.

I'm not saying that the village is for adults only, but a lot of the things that they offer there are things that adults would enjoy more. In a child-friendly way, of course.

When I said Legend of the Lion King what I meant was, a show similar to Legend of the Lion King. Thinking about it more, Festival of the Lion King at Disney's Animal Kingdom would be a better fit for the Buffalo Bill space, because the audience surrounds the show. Here's a full video of Festival of the Lion King, if you're not familiar with it:

[youtube:3heqk9br]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqQxVGZ5RH0&[/youtube:3heqk9br]

Alternatively, Disney could bring a permanent Cirque du Soleil show to Disney Village, to replace Buffalo Bill. Or how about Disney On Ice, or a European version of The Golden Mickeys from Hong Kong Disneyland? Again, here's a video:

[youtube:3heqk9br]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-_gyO5YFt8&[/youtube:3heqk9br]

P.S. Why aren't embedded YouTube videos working properly on this forum any more?

I doubt we will ever see CDS at DLP. Crescend'O was a flop in spite of it's awesomeness, and they are closing the CDS show at Tokyo next month despite it being only a year old. And I really would love a non synergistic entertainment that is good for all the family. Why should we pay extra for a show that is poor quality (that stupid lk show in DAK, I'm looking at you). I think the challenge with BBWWS is it is marketed wrong, and for those of us that love it, the cut backs in food quality, Preshow quality and the addition of the rubber heads have turned us off. Loads of DLP visitors don't even know what bbwws is, let alone it's existence. I remember once going and the family next to us had already eaten, they didn't know dinner was included.

If it were to be replaced with something like The Lion King, it'd have to be an adaptation of the Broadway musical. But since that recently played in Paris, continues in London and has toured just about everywhere (the film is worn out, surely), it's probably not the best option.

Disney on Ice has been suggested a lot in the past. I've never seen one of those shows, do they have the style to hold an expensive dinner show? The Golden Mickeys is a nice suggestion, but maybe it isn't big/outlandish or different enough compared to in-park entertainment for people to shell out the extra money?

All things considered, Buffalo Bill is still pretty perfect for that space. I agree with Meph there's no other genre that gives that kind of atmosphere to a show. It just needs better promotion, more respect for its history and story, and for audiences to fall in love with the Western again. The Lone Ranger is out in 2013, you never know...

Quote from: "Alan"Thanks Anthony. I'm glad you enjoyed my post. I actually always look forward to your posts, because you have a fantastic understanding of the parks (better than Philippe Gas') and your opinion is always spot on.

Wow. You're mad, but thanks! :)

Quote from: "Alan"P.S. Why aren't embedded YouTube videos working properly on this forum any more?

Oops, fixed. It was getting confused when there were extra variables in the URL.

I don't think Disney on Ice would work well in the Village, simple because the success of DOI is that the magical world of Disney is being brought to your home town. Since you are already in the world of Disney it just wouldn't be the same. At least, that's my understanding of it.

@Anthony
Well, there are three Lion King productions that I can think of, that could replace Buffalo Bill's:

• The Legend of the Lion King (from Discoveryland)
• The Festival of the Lion King (from Animal Kingdom)
• The Lion King (the award-winning musical)

But, like you said Anthony, the Lion King could be a bit overused and worn out by now.

@15MagicalYears
I agree that Disney On Ice wouldn't make sense in Disney Village, for the reason that you stated.

So I'm trying to think of other shows that would be appropriate for Disney Village. How about something percussive and arty, like the Blue Man Group, which they have at Universal CityWalk in Orlando? Or how about The Power of Blast, like they used to have at Disney California Adventure and Epcot?

[youtube:k3bc1ima]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwLBBK4eXcM[/youtube:k3bc1ima]

Or how about the incredible 360? Peter Pan production that was recently in Kensington Gardens and then San Francisco? Imagine this in Disney Village. Everyone would want to see it.

[youtube:k3bc1ima]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aarxJRr7_xE&feature=related[/youtube:k3bc1ima]

(//http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/12/Fantasia-poster-1940.jpg)



You know, I've sometimes wondered if they could replace BBWWS with a show along the lines of 'Fantasia'. It could have some lovely music scores, and I bet they could really have fun using indoor strobe lights etc 8)

Quote from: "Alan"@Anthony
Well, there are three Lion King productions that I can think of, that could replace Buffalo Bill's:

• The Legend of the Lion King (from Discoveryland)
• The Festival of the Lion King (from Animal Kingdom)
• The Lion King (the award-winning musical)

But, like you said Anthony, the Lion King could be a bit overused and worn out by now.

Now I've given it some more thought, perhaps The Lion King could really work for a dinner show. It has an epic story arc, many dramatic, pivotal scenes, but also very fun and rowdy scenes with the likes of the Hyenas and Timon and Pumba. The African theme is popular, colourful, great for atmosphere and something which isn't really exploited all that much elsewhere in the resort, unlike the Old West.

You couldn't directly lift "Festival" or "Legend", being short theme park shows usually included in the ticket price. But a mix of both the Broadway musical and Festival of the Lion King could work really well, with Timon and Pumba presenting their rendition of the story. Big musical numbers, big "festival" set pieces. Would it be able to fill a mini-arena? I'm guessing they wouldn't use live animals, so they'd need a big cast to fill that space.

They could always increase the capacity, that way they are increasing the amount of people who can watch each show but decreasing the huge performance space.

What if it was a series of shows, sort of like a circus, with magic acts and dancing. And they could have guest interaction with clapping and whatnot.

There is one Disney show which we already have, which could be transferred beautifully should they ever replace BBWWS. Tarzan.

[youtube:1trst9sv]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-MMT2DfC8Q[/youtube:1trst9sv]

But not our in park version, the short(ish) lives Broadway spectacular, imagine sitting in the jungle with with Tarzan and Jane unfolding in front of you, swinging from vines around and over your heads. The action packed fight scene with Sabor in the middle of you and finally a ship pulling in to take the Gorillas back to the mainland.. if it was done correctly it would be a MASSIVE draw for me, and I'm sure others would like it too. It's a toon yes, but it would be a classy experience, especially based on how loved the park show is!

It looks like more changes are afoot in the Parks and Resorts division's leadership:
http://www.insidethemagic.net/headlines ... isneyland/ (http://www.insidethemagic.net/headlines/disney-parks-leadership-change-has-george-kalogridis-replace-meg-crofton-as-president-of-walt-disney-world-michael-colglazier-to-take-over-at-disneyland/%22%20target=%22_blank%22%20rel=%22nofollow)

Meg Crofton is no longer the WDW president, so she'll have more time dealing with the wider scope of operations in the US and Paris. (Hopefully this doesn't mean she'll be bringing her One Disney initiative here, too.)

Claire Bilby is now here at DLP to manage sales and marketing. She used to manage the marketing for the Disney Vacation Club, so maybe we'll see some improvements here.