Kaos Fletcher I... I never thought about it that way. I don't even have a problem with the "Incredicoaster" (Yes, that's its name so far) other than that we would be losing the score in favor of probably just the Incredibles theme. The problen most people have though is that Paradise Pier WAS just renewed... is that the trend for that area? Every 8 years it's going to be rethemed? Anyways... I think it's stupid especially that they are going to keep Mickey on the Fun Wheel and not rebrand it entirely and have it be some sort of UP ferris wheel (I want to see Carl's regular, straight face watching over Paradise Bay). But I am excited for the coaster especially if Edna Mode is the saftey announcer, because that's just BEGGING to happen.
You know, I've been realizing....why did Disney built Pandora in the first place when... The movie that it was based on, is an alien rip off of Pocahontas, and snuffed the Princess and the Frog at the box office. What a weird world we live in.
The land that Pandora sits on now was once going to be Beastly Kingdom, a place that had a lot more imagination and originality put into it (as seen through its concept art) than anything James Cameron has shat out in recent years. The reason it was never built was because Euro Disney had made things difficult for The Walt Disney Company financially so they held off from building anything that ambitious in Animal Kingdom and after many of the imagineers who were working on the project left to work for Universal Studios as the years progressed, it was ultimately scrapped altogether.
@@HerrDeutschBlood Thing is, if they couldn't resurrect Beastly Kingdom (though I don't see why they couldn't, even without the former Imagineers), couldn't they have picked something to fill that space other than a movie that was huge ten whole YEARS before but was now somewhat dismissed as derivative? (You know, all those "Dances With Smurfs" wisecracks. Seems to be a general agreement now that although Avatar is gorgeous visually, there's nothing all that memorable about its story or characters.)
@Mattbrain Now I know why it truly is a blessing for those individuals to be provided with TLC from TLCs (tender loving care from tender loving caregivers).
I can kind of see where the "change-is-bad" crowd are coming from...because the stuff that's being changed is the stuff that was there when you were a kid. And it's always bittersweet to see something from your childhood go. I wasn't the biggest fan of Mr. Toad's Wild Ride, but I was still a little sad not to see it there in Orlando.
Well, in that case, a big part of the outrage was that they closed the Florida Toad with absolutely zero advance notice, so people couldn't even have a nostalgic "last ride" or anything. Plus the replacement was such an obvious downgrade. And I get it, people don't want to outlive their own childhoods. But, we all must. It's even more tragic when we don't.
I'm still weirded out by all people that booed the PotC change at the D23 PotC panel, while an original imagineer that worked on that ride said he thought it was a good idea. Loved hearing your thoughts on the changes, can't wait for your thoughts on this topic next year.
TBF, Pixar Pier is the only thing I disagree with. And it's not because I think Paradise Pier is perfect, so much as I would like actual rides to be given to some of the most beloved animated projects, as opposed to just painting them on carnival rides.
And of course Eisner did the tacky carnival concept TWICE. Paradise Pier in DCA and Chester and Hester's Dinorama in Animal Kingdom. Dark times, my friends.
THIS! Some people seem to forget that Eisner's leadership was significantly different. Eisner's most successful years at Disney were when he had Frank Wells and Jeffrey Katzenberg by his side. Once Wells died and Katzenberg was fired, Eisner's bad decision making escalated. Also, it's not like Eisner didn't have Disney acquire companies and properties under his watch either. Buying ABC, ESPN, Miramax, FOX Family (along with the Saban library), and the Muppets were all him.
In the "Real Thoughts" vlog on The Haunted Mansion movie that I did with Doug & Rob Walker - th-cam.com/video/7bTNCsHosTU/w-d-xo.html - Rob made the excellent point that Eisner was not unlike General Patton. He got the company out of a jam, but then he sticks around and you realize "Oh shit...this guy's nuts." Say what you want about Iger, at least he's not irrationally afraid to spend money to get shit done.
Based on what I've heard over the years, it really seems like it was the initial failure of EuroDisney that made Eisner so afraid to spend money during the later years of his tenure. Of course Eisner always had a frugal side, as seen with his singles and doubles strategy of making low budget movies for more profit during his early years, but it became way more extreme later on.
I love your channel and have never heard of it before but you've definitely found a new listener in me because your sharp perspective and comedy have won me over
Well, in their defense, they did already give it a makeover- ten years ago, yes, but still, I can understand those who just thought putting their classic characters on the rides would make them interesting enough. I don't mind it, but I do prefer the Mickey Mouse esthetic, because it seems to me that no matter what they do, those rides will still be seen as just a bunch of spinny things. Still, I can't blame them for trying. I gotta say, though, these new version really draws attention to the fact that Disney doesn't have attractions for their Pixar films that do them justice (yet).
In some ways, I can understand...to me, it's not so much the retheming but that they're just slapping Pixar names on carnival rides when so many Pixar movies deserve more elaborate rides worthy of the best Disney Imagineering can do. It's the same reason the Aladdin ride in WDW's Adventureland makes me roll my eyes. That movie DEMANDS a dark ride through the Cave of Wonders (maybe a mild indoor rollercoaster...or a not-so-mild one like Universal's Revenge of the Mummy). And what do we get? A clone of a carnival-style ride that's already IN the park. TWICE OVER!
The only things I honestly can say I really do miss from Epcot's past is the original Journey and Jeremy Irons' narration on Spaceship Earth. (and the last time I was on Ellen was December 28th, 2002. It, to borrow from Charlie, "pulled an Indy" on us halfway through the dinosaur section and they had to drive the theater cars out manually one at a time)
Too many Disney fans are attached to “original ideas” as it’s own special category in Disney theme parks. Epcot and DCA are wholly original theme parks with original attractions. The difference is Epcot had a bigger budget and they look better, but that didn’t save their animatronic rides (11 down to 6). DCA was built cheap under Eisner and it looked cheap. Iger saved the park with Carsland, but it looks like Arizona instead. The crying about Pixar Pier is weird. I can see their point that it’s mainly cosmetic. However, I see it as repositioning. Generic lands are no more. The next step is fixing the awful boring Hollywood Land. Good luck with that.
Quick note: The big difference between EPCOT Center and DCA is the attendance and guest scores. Epcot was projected to have 6 million guests - got 12 million the first year. The "Epcot is boring, no one likes it" is all Eisner. The man literally hated the park - but guests went to it. They also pent more money than guests at MK and DL. Still do. The park prints money. Food and Wine Festival weekends see 60k guests on Fri/Sat's. On NYE Epcot has more guests in it than DL and DCA combined. Then there's DCA.. Projected to have 8 million the opening year - based on Epcot's data for the comparable size of the park and its offerings. It only got 4-5. It went down from there. Guest spending was non-existent, and until the redo park attendance was in a freefall. Comparing the two - especially by listening to anything Eisner had to say about Epcot - is not doing Epcot justice.
Okay, they got 12 million guests their first year. How many did they get their second year? Or their third? Or their fourth? Of COURSE they got huge crowds their first year. That's a given. Everyone wanted to visit the first new Disney park in eleven years. But in the pre-internet age, when you actually had to physically go there to learn what it was like...once they learned, how many felt like returning?
Tony Goldmark Epcot’s attendance didn’t significantly decline until 1991 - so did DL and MK because oil crisis. This triggered Eisner to do the 1994 “Epcot 94” which was the first 2.0 of Epcot. Epcot’s attendance lagged. Epcot has only recently recovered to attendance levels it had when it was named EPCOT Center. Eisner hated Epcot so much he stopped all money spent on it the week after it opened - to the point that there were benches and decor backstage never installed because he forbade any more spending. Epcot didn’t struggle critically or in attendance until Epcot 94. Eisner’s strategic planning Department created the “Epcot is boring” narrative to justify their choices. They used a research study they paid for that said “guests don’t want edutainment” to kill much of the park. The author of the study now admits it was totally bogus.
Also - DL and MK reporter attendance independently... until Epcot opened. They combined them to hide Epcot’s attendance and that it was drawing more guests than MK on certain days/periods. Pull up the critical reviews of the park when it opened from the worldwide news papers. It was liked from Day 1.
Tony Goldmark in 1990/1991 all parks saw a major drop thanks to gas prices. It spurred the Epcot 94 change in the park. Something akin to the post 9/11 drop but not quite as immediate and severe. All the other parks recovered, Epcot stumbled, and continued to do so for a long time. AK opening compounded things and while Epcot was a healthy park it was below where I should have been - at par with MK and DL for attendance. Right now it has climbed back to its 1982 attendance numbers, but that’s still several millions guests behind MK and DL
So wait, does this mean we won't be getting presumably the next State of the Parks video about the Redhead Scene until 2018 or rather that the 2018 in the title is referring to the updated scene itself coming in 2018 with the State of the Parks video discussing it coming sooner?
Makes sense. He doesn't want to break his 2 videos a month rule, and the other planned video for November is his One Movie Later on Thor: Ragnarok. He even had to do a poll for One Movie Later this month, for that reason. I guess he has another video in mind for December, alongside his One Movie Later on The Last Jedi.
I dunno...I've never been to the California park, but I think Inside Out deserves a more elaborate attraction than just slapping the theming onto a carnival ride and calling it a day. (Makes me wish they hadn't closed the Wonders of Life pavilion at Epcot. What could be more perfect for an Inside Out attraction? Especially since the wonderful Cranium Command seems to have influenced Inside Out in many ways. Shame that its stars dated the attraction so much.)
They'd better not replace the *ANIME MUSEUM* in EPCOT. Also, they'd better put a Ghibli ride in the Japan section. Also, Disney should rename Disney's California Adventure to Disney-Pixar Adventure, to remove the California association.
To be fair, I'm not sure if it's explicitly an anime museum, the exhibit changes every so often. Two visits ago, it was a yokai-based thing, and last time I went, it was about kawaii culture. In both, the anime connections were tangential.
EPCOT has a part of the park with iconic properties that Disney is not attempting to buy out, with themes relating to foreign culture EPCOT better stick with a theme or put an anime ride in its place
I actually rode Ellens Energy adventure nearly every time I went to Epcot, even before they announced it was closing. Even still, I acknowledge it was outdated and understand why it is being replaced.
Oh yeah no doubt. By sheer coincidence I went on that ride right before they announced it was being shut down and had two thoughts go through my mind. 1. Wow, this ride's still here? Why? 2. Holy crap, this ride's so much longer and dated than I remember.
I know it's an old video, but.... Yes, I'm an Epcot fan. And World Showcase is my favorite part of it. But I'm fine with changes and Disneyfication or whatever. They're keeping the basic outline. It'll be ok folks.
My mom has been one of Epcot's biggest defenders as long as I can remember (though I personally always hated that park) and even she admits that these changes couldn't come soon enough since on our last visit she had to acknowledge the park had become dated AF.
I can see Disney California Adventure being Eisner's answer to 'Hey, see all the Cool stuff you 'Could' see in California. Well why go to those. We got Everything you Could see in California Right HERE! In Our New Park Called CALIFORNIA ADVENTURE!!' The problem is that unlike Florida, most of the people that come to their parks in California are Local Residents not tourists. Thus to tell people 'Hey look a California Theme Park!' the people said 'Ya, so what!' lol
Paradoxically, that's kinda EXACTLY why Eisner did it - he knew they already had locals coming to the parks in droves, and this was their attempt to attract more tourists to a one-stop shop for all things California. Like Roy E. Disney said, Eisner cared less about the dream and more about the scheme.
The People Mover isn't at Disney Land?!?!?!?!?! I've only been to World and it's one of my favorites, and certainly one of the best value rides (time:enjoyment).
California Adventure I have no particular attachment to. I'll admit, I'm not thrilled with the push to basically make it all Pixar and Marvel, but that has less to do with the integrity of the theming and more to do with the fact that Disney seems to be actively avoiding their Disney licenses in all of their upcoming changes with the exception of a Mickey ride in Hollywood Studios. Apart from meet and greets, what Disney movie license is getting any new attractions in the next five years? While Pixar is getting five (possibly six) new attractions based on their properties plus a few rethemes and refurbishments. Where's Wreck-it-Ralph, Moana, Big Hero 6, Zootopia? Even Frozen was just a re-theme. With Epcot, I have to admit as a kid with an interest in science and history, it was my favorite of the Disney parks growing up. I think you also have to consider that these parks are designed for families. Sure, an adult couple can go globe trotting to visit actual foreign countries, but that's not always as easy for people with kids. It can be a way to at least expose them in a more physical way to some of the styles and cultural aspects of different parts of the world that won't stick with them as well from a book or video. The current stock of Disney additions, however, have nothing to do with actually exposing kids to anything apart from the franchise they're representing, which is largely what they were trying to avoid by keeping those characters out of the park in the first place. It just seems like if it were unavoidable to bring these characters into the parks, they could have done it in a way that at least kept the theming for each area and the science they were representing. Why even bother keeping the park with this configuration and theming if you're basically going to just make every section into a commercial for some Pixar or Marvel franchise, anyway? I'd also have to argue that Epcot was not a joke from the beginning. What made it a joke was the lack of change and innovation in the park. Rather than updating pavilions, they simply slapped on a new coat of paint with some Disney characters or a celebrity spokesperson, but didn't fundamentally change anything. Changing, or adding more country pavilions would have been a better move than adding the Donald to Mexico, or replacing Maelstrom with Frozen. Or simply adding new rides that more tastefully touched upon the history and culture, rather than just circlevision movies that get swapped out every few years. The Future Land buildings could have added new exhibits and updated rides based on what we've learned about each subject or just to expand what they have there, or even added new attractions. One of the great things about the Florida parks is that Disney is pretty free to expand them when they need to. Epcot should have been the park that would get that treatment the most often. Unfortunately, relying on sponsors ended up being the weak point in that plan. Now that they're moving away from that, however, they aren't exactly bringing the park back to the original vision, but simply trying to move it more in a Magic Kingdom 2 direction. The changes to these parks aren't really limited to just these two parks, either. Every Disney park is moving more towards the commercial aspects of Disney properties. They just opened a whole new section of Disney's Wild Animal Park that features zero animals and are looking to replace the paleontology themed section with Indiana Jones. Hollywood Studios is discussing a name change since apart from some superficial structures, they're basically abandoning their original theme. Two similar parks taking on different properties of a larger company I can understand, but do they really need four homogeneous parks in the same location? You're still going to have the same problem at the end of the day, only worse. At least previously people had a choice based on taste, but as the parks become more similar, it just becomes a matter of which park is structurally better than the others. Theming and personal interests become less important, which doesn't seem to be in line with what the parks were all about to begin with.
Interesting points, but I'm not sure I buy it. When I was a kid, I never felt like I learned much from EPCOT because I wasn't at Disney World with the intent to learn stuff, I was there to be entertained. And if they'd existed when I was a kid, stuff like the Frozen and Ratatouille rides would've entertained the hell out of me. The theme of World Showcase has always been all about "the cultures of the world, filtered through Disney." Why not be more overt about it?
Tony Goldmark Not all kids are the same. I also preferred zoos and museums over theme parks and didn't care for thrill rides. Also, how old are you? When you experienced the parks makes a difference. And you don't buy what, exactly? That I could have preferred that park over the Magic Kingdom? A lot of kids actually like experiencing and discovering new things about the real world, rather than just fantasy and SciFi. It's funny you should bring up Frozen, since it's a retheming of an existing ride, and one I actually enjoyed as a kid. I doubt I would have enjoyed it nearly as much had it been based on Frozen back then. A lot of the appeal for me was the fact that it wasn't franchise based, so it at least felt more like an authentic look at a corner of Norse mythology, rather than just a commercial for a Disney movie. I doubt I would have been too enamored with the additions of Finding Nemo in the Seas (I was there for the aquarium, not singing CG fish) or Ellen and Bill Nye in the Energy Pavilion. Certainly don't like what happened with the Journey Through Imagination ride or the closing of the exhibits in the pavilion. If I had grown up with what's there, now, yeah, I would have hated it, too. You're also taking the park out of the context of the time it was built. Many of the rides and attractions ARE outdated. I didn't contest that, but in their time, they were modern and impressive by those day's standards. Creating new experiences for modern audiences and simply converting everything into IP advertising are very different prospects, however. Neither seemed likely as long as they were relying on sponsors to manage each pavilion, but now that Disney is taking back control, they've made it pretty clear they prefer cheap and easy over what the park originally was. It's actually making the park into more of a joke. Why go to Magic Kingdom lite when there's much more to see and do at the Magic Kingdom? I don't see Disney doing a major overhaul of the structure and design of the park or rebuilding everything from the ground up with new attractions. It's just shoehorning popular franchises into what's there. At least with Hollywood studios you're talking new lands with new high profile rides, and that will bring in more guests. A lot of the Epcot changes are once again just adding a new coat of paint to what's already there in the hopes that brand recognition will sell more tickets than actually expanding on what the park used to be.
I'm 34 years old. I first visited EPCOT in 1993 (at age 9), 1996 (age 12) and 1997 (age 13). Your preferences are your preferences, but what I "don't buy" is this continued insistence among EPCOT purists that your preferences should dictate the course of a multi-million dollar park. There's a difference between your aesthetic preferences and artistic validity. Adaptation is a storytelling technique as old as the hills; sure, I'd LIKE it if Disney made more wholly original rides like Mystic Manor stateside, but Disney corporate culture being what it is, it doesn't look like that's gonna happen anytime soon. So I try to judge each new ride on its own terms as much as possible, because why break your own heart with unattainable standards? "I don't see Disney doing a major overhaul of the structure and design of the park or rebuilding everything from the ground up with new attractions." The Ratatouille ride is being built from the ground up. Soarin' was built from the ground up. Mission: Space was built from the ground up and it SUCKS, so clearly building stuff from the ground up is not the be-all end-all here. I will give this to EPCOT 1.0 - it felt far more like a unified whole than the park ever has since. Maybe someday it'll feel whole again, but we sure as hell won't ever get there without changing a whole lotta stuff. And I'm sorry, but I reject wholeheartedly the notion that a park full of IPs and a park that feels like a unified whole need be mutually exclusive.
Tony Goldmark You seem to be glossing over a lot of what I wrote and making a unhealthy number of assumptions about my opinions in your response. I didn't say I was against change. In fact, I've mentioned more than once that I thought that was one of the biggest problems with the park, that they haven't sought out enough change over the years. In regards to IPs, I am not in direct opposition to IPs. What I don't like is the execution. Disney has made it pretty clear that the park's mission statement isn't changing. They are keeping the general structure with pavilions based on countries and scientific categories (which is what I meant by them not giving the park a major overhaul, they aren't changing the perception of what the park is supposed to be, just adding an attraction in this pavilion, or changing this other one to a roller coaster). If they follow the trends set by Frozen and Ratatouille, though, any new IP-based attractions will be devoid of any educational value and will mostly just be centered around the IP. It's not impossible to use intellectual properties to make these concepts entertaining AND educational. EPCOT had no issue pulling that off in the past when the park was still relatively new. They avoided direct references to Disney IPs, but had no problem referencing celebrities and characters within attractions or creating their own characters in an effort to be entertaining. That's evidently become too hard for Disney, but rather than own up to that fact, they mislead people into thinking their intentions haven't changed. As I said before, though, that just makes the park into more of a joke. It's losing the educational aspect, but isn't changing enough to be appealing as a serious competitor to the other parks. It will still be a park with nothing to set it apart, and not enough rides to make it appealing. That's not just an issue of my personal taste in theming. Is it really worth it for Disney to be dumping millions into this park with no clear vision of what they want it to be? Just seems like they're setting themselves up for future failures that way.
I think it's a severe mistake to assume they have "no clear vision for what they want it to be" if you're not privy to what their plans actually ARE. And your emphasis on "educational value" is precisely what I mean by aesthetic preference. You prefer attractions that bend over backwards to try to teach. I don't, particularly. Yeah, Disney still tries to SELL the park as "the educational one," but so what? Their marketing methods don't change what the park actually IS.
I guess the big difference personally between Epcot 1.0 and DCA 1.0 is that there's more of a reason to respect the vision of Epcot 1.0, even thou it was boring it still tried to do some ambitious things with emphasis on culture and history and some of the best, most-elaborate dark rides of the era. Meanwhile DCA 1.0 was, by it's VERY ORIGIN concept and built to be a cheap, compromised, cash-in when the Disneyland Paris fiasco ruined their bigger more expensive ideas for the disneyland resort
I’d like to still see dinosaurs in the Guardians coater, I think they time traveled in one of the movies. I could be wrong it’s been awhile since I watched them. It would be cool to somehow put a show scene with Chris Pratt interacting with a dinosaur, maybe a raptor 😉 in the ride, universal can’t copyright an actor and a species of dinosaur.
There's a way to keep each park true to the theme but also have Disney elements, paradise pier featured a good amount of vintage Mickey styled characters so build a new ride where maliboomer was themed to vintage Mickey and friends and redo Hollywood Land if they have to redo some land so badly
Tony, I love your wit and well informed thought provoking take on how all of this shakes out. All of it so TRUE! Carsland redeemed not only DCA but in my mind, also Test Track in Epcot. Like Ah! Now I see how this ride tech could actually be cool and clever! What is really insane is how much it costs to add something now. 1.4 BILLION dollars for some new land? Billion with a B? What the total heck is going on with our money? And, $100 a head to walk in the gate? Playground for the rich!
Im more annoyed at people that magically care about rides theyd pass up on a regular. Im a Disney World Passholder and literally no one gave too fucks about Malestorm until they announced it was gonna be replaced by frozen.
Am I the only one who's surprised that there is no gag in the media where the Epcot golf ball gets hit by a giant club? I mean what else are we gonna do with it? Glue two smaller Death Stars onto it to make a bigger Mickey Mouse Death Star?
Oh God... I dipped my toe in the redhead waters when the rumors came out, and they are BROILING my friend. You're going to need a lot more than a backup dancer to help you through that hell...
If I were an Imagineer, I would have reskinned the Monsters, Inc. ride in Hollywood Land to an Incredibles ride. Maybe even get a really cool Omnidroid animatronic. Combine that with putting up new buildings in HL like a Wakandan building, the Anaheim Sanctum, and a Daily Bugle building for meet and greets with their respective characters, and that would be my revamped Hollywood Land: Super Hero Central.
DGilVids what ever they changed it to, I will always yell out "Yeah, Superstar Limo!" like I always do when I ride the Monsters Inc. Dark ride. I love getting the various responses from cast members(Which is often in disgust and saying, "Oh God, NO!")
@@Emplordxiii Superstar Limo, from what I've read, COULD have been a fun attraction with a zippy, Mr. Toad-style zoom through quick-paced sight gags. The premise was to have been your limo fleeing from paparazzi. And then, right in the middle of development in August 1997, a real-life tragedy occurred that suddenly made the idea of a limo fleeing from paparazzi not so funny anymore. So they re-tooled it into a much slower ride with so-called "gags" that consisted of nothing more than ugly caricatures of dated Disney-affiliated actors standing around and waving.
"The Anaheim Sanctum"...Wouldn't a replica of the Sanctum Sanctorum be a great idea for a ride along the same principles of Hong Kong's Mystic Manor? We'd have to find a reason for Rocket Raccoon to visit Dr. Strange ("Quill sent me to ask you to download some more of your albums for him"), but the good Doctor is called away: "Rocket, you can keep our guests entertained for a few minutes, can't you? Just don't touch any of these artifacts. Especially not THAT one." And Rocket, of course, takes the Schmuck Bait...and the Sanctum comes to life around us...
I stand in the middle of these two sentiments. I'd be perfectly fine with Haunted Mansion Holiday if it was JUST during November and December, but when it's Halloween, I wanna ride the original Haunted Mansion dammit.
@@TonyGoldmark same. It's one of my favorite holiday overlays, but I do think it would be more fitting if they opened it during Christmas time. It is pretty redundent to open a dark ride of a movie that takes place on two holidays on a ride that's already about the holiday you're opening it on.
There was a Circle-Vision attraction in the 90s that opened in France first, then was cloned in Florida. Its French title translated to "From Time To Time" while the American title was "The Timekeeper." But that's the only other time I can think of offhand when they cloned a French ride for America.
I have vague memories of that from when I visited Disneyland Paris when I was little. The only thing I can still recall is the super uncomfortable headsets you had to wear to hear it in English.
Probably the best example of an educational theme park ride I've ever been on was Tomorrow's Harvest at Queensland's The Big Pineapple, which wasn't boring or annoying in part due to the fact The Big Pineapple only had ONE of these educational rides because having more of them would just be retreading ground, pity about California Screamin' though.
Theory on Guardians Ride, it will be educational by discussing rollercoaster physics and why people like rollercoasters by going into adrenaline and dopamine.
ok i love education things but im fine with that going, but i REALLY wish that first rule was still a thing, Disney doesn't make new characters for the parks anymore and i really miss that, doesn't every one want another 9 eye?
As far as I know, the most recent Disney theme park attractions to include original characters made just for that attraction are Mystic Manor at Hong Kong Disneyland, which opened in 2013, and Roaring Rapids at Shanghai Disneyland, which opened last year. Basically, the Asian parks are getting all the Imagineers' original creations while the American and European parks are getting nothing but adaptations of existing franchises. Can't say I'm surprised...
I'm not sure about the Chinese parks, but aren't the Japanese parks only licensed through Disney? It might not be fair to say the Imagineers at Disney are behind the differences when it may well just be the overseas companies that own and manage the park coming up with these concepts.
The Japanese parks license the Disney name and characters (which admittedly does more than likely explain the higher quantity of original attractions than every other Disney park), but Hong Kong and Shanghai Disneyland are owned and operated by Disney themselves just like the American and European parks. Also, I know full well that these days it's not usually the imagineers' call as to which park gets what. I'm just pointing out the odd coincidence that in the last decade, pretty much every original attraction they've come up with has been built in the Chinese and Japanese parks, while every single attraction built at the American and European parks in the last decade have been based on existing TV and Movie franchises.
Apparently they are conveniently making the area with Silly Symphony Swings, Goofy's Sky School, and the Little Mermaid ride into a new land called Paradise Park
DCA 1.0 sucked. Epcot 1.0 was amazing but it took time for people to actually understand what the theme of the park was. The problem with Epcot was that since it wasn't a "castle" park, attractions could me moved in and out more frequently because it wasn't considered as "taboo" to do that. Disney execs could get away with it. However, those who love Epcot are the most passionate theme park fans in all of the amusement park industry, hands down. Attractions have come and go that really shouldn't have, like Journey Into Imagination, which Eisner ruined (jerk), and the 1994 version of Spaceship Earth (stupid Judy Dench ruining everything, stupid interactive screens that caused the ending descent scene to be removed), but like I said, its Epcot, so it doesn't matter as much. This is sad because I never got to experience attractions like Horizons, Communicore, original Innoventions, Listen to the Land or all of Wonders of Life (the greatest attraction pavilion ever built by man for amusement parks). But change is coming and the blue sky art looks really promising for the future. Let's hope that those working on the project realize how much people actually care about this park and they improve upon its current quality than diminish it.
Yeah, I never went to DCA, but I hear you about Epcot 1.0. I went to it as a kid in '90. I was six years old and honestly, the only thing that stuck with me from it was Journey into Imagination and the dinosaur scene in Universe of Energy. In fact, for years I couldn't even remember what ride that scene was from. Just that I remembered a dinosaur scene. And even today, aside from a couple of rides in Future World I tend to spend most of my time in World Showcase. Am I the only one who wasn't bothered by Paradise Pier though? I mean, yeah. I get the irony of building something Walt was avoiding when building Disneyland but 1) It's not Disneyland. If they built Paradise Pier in Disneyland I could see being mad but it was in it's own park. 2) In Walt's day, such parks were the norm and poorly done. Nowadays, while they still exist they're hardly the norm like in Walt's day and to many, a nostalgic bygone era. And if there was anything Walt was into, it was indulging in nostalgic bygone era. I guess it wouldn't be so bad if on opening day they had mor interesting things around the Paradise Pier area. Finally, you and I are going to disagree severely on Mr. Toad becoming Pooh. But then, I only rode Toad once. I was six, and I hated it. It scared the shit out of me and I came out of the pooh ride thinking "Why couldn't that be there in '90?"
This video actually answered a long question I had wanted to ask you but always forgot about: Was Disney thinking of putting a theme park in Virginia. I remember it being brought up when at Busch Gardens: Williamsburg for the umpteenth time because it's the closest theme park near me, and that it ultimately didn't happen because the landowners caught onto Disney and hiked up the prices for the land. It always stuck in the back of my mind, wondering if it was just an urban rumor or not, and then here it is in this video that confirms it actually was a plan. Just something I thought I'd bring up.
Disney did indeed intend to build a park in Virginia in the 90s. It was to be called "Disney's America" and from what I heard, they wanted to build it on a Civil War battleground, and local Civil War purists objected and turned it into a PR nightmare (though for all I know, maybe land prices were a factor too). After the Virginia thing didn't happen, Disney offered to buy Knott's Berry Farm and essentially turn it into Disney's America, but Walter Knott's kids refused. Then, as I say in this video, a LOT of the ideas for Disney's America were recycled into DCA 1.0 (including an attraction about farming, a tribute to seaside carnivals, and an early prototype of Soarin' that was to take you soaring over great American landmarks). Google "Disney's America" for more info on what might have been. Fascinating stuff.
Forgive me if I either heard this wrong, if the point was glossed over, or if somebody already asked this, but How can there be a "Guardians" ride in development at EPCOT if Universal Orlando Still owns the rights to making Marvel themed thrill rides.......Or DO they still own them? (Legal stuff confuses me)
Doesn't change the fact that it's still a Marvel Property--or in this case, an Ugly Duckling that turned into a multi-billion dollar movie franchise/swan. There has to be some legalities involved.
What Andrew said. Also, since the Avengers WERE covered in the Universal deal, legally Disney had to announce and start construction on the Guardians coaster BEFORE Infinity War comes out, because in that movie the Guardians kinda-sorta join the Avengers.
I never got the chance to see Epcot 1.0, but I'm convinced I would have loved the original Future World... because I'm a *complete dork*. I have a feeling none of my other family members would stand for it, and I'm not surprised it wasn't a universal favorite.
A question for you, Tony. I'm have never been to Epcot and was born in 94. So I'm don't that much about its run in the 80's. What are your thoughts on Eisner and his era of running Disney?
I remember that i see the california adventure during the monorial and parts outside the resort in 2008 whit my uncle and my dad,IT WAS BORING i remember think about it,i think was becuse the sun's ferries well,but it was before the sweet 2.0 version Love your videos Grettings from mexico
I was gonna say “get the people who worked on the Figment comic to redo the ride and make it all Steampunk,” but it was already proto-Steampunk in the original incarnation, right?
Despite all that was said here about avoiding "different for the sake of different," a direct contrast seems to be the new theme DCA is going for and (honestly) should have. What do I mean by that? Well, if you can put it into words, what's Disneyland's theme? If I recall correctly, it's a venue for escaping the modern day and visiting distant lands and times. What could be a perfect counter-balance to Walt's Southern-California Pleasure Palace is a park designed to instead embrace the modern day (or some time nearer to it). A good amount of Pixar's output and Marvel could be considered Contemporary Fiction. Not far back enough to be in the 19th century but not far forward enough to be Tomorrowland, but rather in a world resembling the modern day, or at the latest the not-too-distant future (next Sunday AD). This is actually my own artistic rationale for why Marvel is in DCA but Star Wars isn't (aside from boosting traffic for both parks, which is obviously the main reason). Star Wars, despite being science fiction and having the occasional modern element slip in, is based primarily around old tales/myths. The main saga has a bit of a King Aruthur legend flavor to it, and (lest we forget) this all takes place "a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away." Ergo, Disneyland actually makes a certain amount of sense as the location as opposed to Contemporary Fiction Land (actual name TBD).
Yes, for $100 a day per person, transport me away from my job and my troubles. That is why they should remove the Hall of Presidents btw. And queue's should be all gift shops and everything covered and air conditioned. Seriously, I should not have to endure ANY heat on my vacation day. At least cover up queues and have cooling or chillers with fans blowing down and interactive apps on our phones about the rides. I don't want to think about a thing or worse yet, be that weird time freak dad who shuttles the family around like some crazed time lord trying to manage fast passes and maximize time in the parks. Sorry, now I am rambling.
Disneyland never had the Hall of Presidents, that's at Disney World. The closest Disneyland has to an equivalent is Great Moments With Mr. Lincoln. Y'know, the one President everyone actually likes! And SonofMrPeanut, that's a fascinating theory about the delineation between Disneyland and DCA. Doesn't quite explain what Finding Nemo and Buzz Lightyear rides are doing in Disneyland though (or what a Little Mermaid ride is doing at DCA), but I guess those are exceptions that prove the rule.
Exactly the points that stuck out for me. Of course if Buzz becomes that Wreck-It Ralph ride*... * I guess even though the outside world is modern-day, video game/internet world is futuristic.
Jesus, how long do you have? On a molecular level, Disneyland is by definition an extremely American creation; everything about it, even the stuff based on stuff from other countries, is informed by and filtered through a quintessentially American perspective. Now, the Japanese have long been fascinated by American pop culture, so naturally Tokyo Disneyland has always done amazingly well. Whereas the French...kinda notoriously have a pretty low opinion of Americans, so it didn't go over too well there. Also, calling it "EuroDisneyland" was a Godawful mistake, since most Europeans associate the word "euro" with currency (which is why they changed its name to Disneyland Paris after a mere two years). But perhaps the biggest problem was that Eisner overextended. It was the first time an entirely new "castle park" was being built under his watch, and he poured an INSANE amount of money into it (especially at the last minute) to the point where when it finally opened and underperformed dramatically, it made the stockholders so angry at him that he was determined never to overspend ever again, which is how we got all those shitty decisions from the mid 90s to the mid 00s.
Goofy's Sky School is remaining unchanged for the time being, as the Northern side of Paradise Pier is now being called "Paradise Gardens Park." I shot a vlog about Pixar Pier a couple weeks ago, and I plan to release it later this summer.
Personally I'm fine for changing the Red Head scene but I wish the entire ride was changed instead of parts of it(The mix of original audio and new does not mesh well). Hell, if she's going to be a pirate now, why not make the village section be about a pirate invasion to the Red Head's turf and she and her crew have to defend it.
After watching many MANY episodes of Defunctland the distinct impression I've developed of Eisner is that he gets really excited about a terrible idea of his. His staff, realizing this new idea is god awful try to work it into something passable. Seeing the changes his staff are making Eisner gets pissy and suddenly loses interest in the project he was previously fully behind and leaves it to his staff to finish for him. Even though it was his damn idea in the first place. And then after the damnable project is finally finished the cycle starts all over again! See Alien Encounter and Superstar Limo.
Say whatever you want to say about Eisner, I still think he was better in terms of theme park that whatever followed him. At least he knew that theme parks needed it to be kept up to date (maybe he did not have the right ideas) still for him keeping the parks current was a priority. What followed pretty much sat on the parks for years stating they did not need to be kept updating them, for years no changes to the parks and increasing prices. Now what we have is called catching up, and honestly is still not fast enough. These changes that are coming now should have come years ago.
Of course Iger has his own flaws: namely a preoccupation with claiming and exploiting as many other IP's has he can get his hands. For the most part I have tolerated it, but gobbling up FOX crosses the lines for me
Iger is far worse than Eisner because of this. In the late stages of Eisner’s dynasty, Disney was a walking punchline and it should have stayed that way. At least they weren’t representing the worst of capitalism, the kind George A. Romero warned us about. Disney doesn’t even try to do anything close to resembling originality, and when they do, they’re few and far in between and they don’t put in as much effort into them as they do their Marvel or Star Wars films. Hence they flop hard. But maybe they flopped because they weren’t good? Nope, it’s because nobody wants anything original anymore, this is despite the fact many original films recently have made big bucks. Even Eisner allowed movies like Hidalgo to fucking exist. Iger doesn’t deserve any praise for “saving” Disney. Buying Fox is gonna result in thousands losing their jobs, limiting creative endeavors, shutting down their independent studio (The Shape Of Water would’ve NEVER been made under Disney), yet people only care about X-Men being in the MCU. I fucking hate every single person in this fucking planet.
Instead of having Mickey on the Fun Wheel in Pixar Pier, they should retheme it to UP, have the gondolas be balloons, replace Mickey's giant head with Carl Fredrickson's and have him watch over Paradise Pier...... wait.... WHY DOESN'T PARADISE PIER HAVE A WATERFALL CALLED PARADISE FALLS? That NEEDS to happen when they do Pixar Pier because otherwise, what's even the point
Before actually watching your video I have to say that Epcot Center version 1.0 was awesome, in my humble opinion anyhow...I was there. As far as DCA 1.0 I would not know...since I have not been to Disneyland since my one and only trip in 1976.
Yeah future world is for science fact! Like singing food and dragons! Also my emotional rollercoaster is a lot closer to Screamin' than sky school (thanks ADD, depression, and anxiety!)
Coming from someone who has never been to the California parks, DCA opening year was perfectly themed. I know that a theme park dedicated to California in California is ridiculous; but it is themed after California PERFECTLY. A monorail going across the Golden Gate Bridge, a mountain in the shape of a Grizzly Bear (California's state animal), a sea side amusement park themed after a sea side amusement parks of the past, and all the areas are themed after different parts of California
DCA 1.0... for someone who went... felt totally like a hyper expensive river bear ride and a TON of cheap carnival rides tossed into the parking lot. That roller coaster, not California Screamin, but Mullholland whatever was literally a ride we had at the Iowa State Fair. With a 1.5 hour wait! And a place to watch them make... Tortillas! The Grizzly mountain was and still is a great E ticket ride... not worth a whole park though. Dang, I kind of want some money back now. Even the carousel with sea creatures was rehash. Wow did DCA 1.0 suck... suck hard!
It was a mess at opening, and even into the years after, and while the park has picked up steam in the last 5 years or so, a lot of the original theming is gone and that's unfortunate because imo, it had potential (Soarin' Over California was one of the best Disney rides ever built). But brand recognition is Disney's bread and butter and they intend on milking that cow for every drop.
The Problem with DCA its first year or 2 was....yeah it was 3/4s of a day park. A FUN 3/4 of a day park but yeah. a 1/2 a day park if you didn't want to ride a lot of gussied up carnival rides(though i personally thought they where and a lot of fun and kind of sad to see of them go). And that didn't really work i think
See I feel like the thing that sucks about DCA is that the first park sucked, no doubts about that, but the revamping was so gorgeous and worked so well. Paradise Pier is so immersive and I just don't see how that is going to work with a jumble of pixar characters? Like are they all just hanging out at a pier together? That seems like the same kind of mess they made when they first made DCA.I loved what they did with soaring because it made the experience all the more immersive, and while Cars Land looks more Arizona-ish, it can still fit if you just imagine Death Valley has larger canyons. My issue with Guardians replacing tower and pixar pier is...what is the theme??? How is the immersion going to work? I'm not gonna judge it until I see it, but I must admit I'm wholly confused on how they're going to pull this off without looking lazy
"I still love the ride, no matter _who_ did the safety announcements." I think you could've had another joke about park purists. Oh well. I'll just pretend you made one and laugh anyway.
I always loved epcot.. i liked the og rides more 4 nostalgia.. i dont mind new ip as long as the basic concept of ws stays.. future world needs a total overhaul as much as i love some of those pavilions.
"I went to EPCOT as a kid, where's my ride?"
Uh...........Spaceship Earth? Leaving a legacy, technically?
Wait... for the Incredibles roller coaster, what if Edna Mode did the safety announcement?
A roller coaster would be a terrible place for a cape.
Please, keep your hands, arms, feet and legs inside the car at all times and most of all. NO CAPES!
Kaos Fletcher I... I never thought about it that way. I don't even have a problem with the "Incredicoaster" (Yes, that's its name so far) other than that we would be losing the score in favor of probably just the Incredibles theme. The problen most people have though is that Paradise Pier WAS just renewed... is that the trend for that area? Every 8 years it's going to be rethemed? Anyways... I think it's stupid especially that they are going to keep Mickey on the Fun Wheel and not rebrand it entirely and have it be some sort of UP ferris wheel (I want to see Carl's regular, straight face watching over Paradise Bay). But I am excited for the coaster especially if Edna Mode is the saftey announcer, because that's just BEGGING to happen.
Well....you were sorta right.
nel
You know, I've been realizing....why did Disney built Pandora in the first place when...
The movie that it was based on, is an alien rip off of Pocahontas,
and snuffed the Princess and the Frog at the box office.
What a weird world we live in.
Bc they needed something and God did they do a great job of it
Daniel Shull To compete with The Wizarding World of Harry Potter. But Pandora isn't it, Star Wars Galaxy's Edge is gonna be it
The land that Pandora sits on now was once going to be Beastly Kingdom, a place that had a lot more imagination and originality put into it (as seen through its concept art) than anything James Cameron has shat out in recent years. The reason it was never built was because Euro Disney had made things difficult for The Walt Disney Company financially so they held off from building anything that ambitious in Animal Kingdom and after many of the imagineers who were working on the project left to work for Universal Studios as the years progressed, it was ultimately scrapped altogether.
@@HerrDeutschBlood Thing is, if they couldn't resurrect Beastly Kingdom (though I don't see why they couldn't, even without the former Imagineers), couldn't they have picked something to fill that space other than a movie that was huge ten whole YEARS before but was now somewhat dismissed as derivative? (You know, all those "Dances With Smurfs" wisecracks. Seems to be a general agreement now that although Avatar is gorgeous visually, there's nothing all that memorable about its story or characters.)
Because it was popular.
man it's kind of sad, I'm on the autism spectrum and I can handle change better than most people....as long as it comes with a warning
Same here!
Same (although I haven't been OFFICIALLY diagnosed, it's just a gut feeling from my therapist)
totally agree.
@Mattbrain Now I know why it truly is a blessing for those individuals to be provided with TLC from TLCs (tender loving care from tender loving caregivers).
Same bro
15:08 Meanwhile there's literally a place called "Castle Park" about 40min away from DCA
I've never been to California Adventure or California period, but right you are my favorite reviewer...you have Weird Al posters! Love you!
Funny enough, Weird Al was in the show! Check out the Small World episode.
I can kind of see where the "change-is-bad" crowd are coming from...because the stuff that's being changed is the stuff that was there when you were a kid. And it's always bittersweet to see something from your childhood go. I wasn't the biggest fan of Mr. Toad's Wild Ride, but I was still a little sad not to see it there in Orlando.
Well, in that case, a big part of the outrage was that they closed the Florida Toad with absolutely zero advance notice, so people couldn't even have a nostalgic "last ride" or anything. Plus the replacement was such an obvious downgrade.
And I get it, people don't want to outlive their own childhoods. But, we all must. It's even more tragic when we don't.
@@TonyGoldmark Good point...
Wait, The Simpsons actually mentioned the park, WHILE they were still in their crude-cleaned animation?!
I'm still weirded out by all people that booed the PotC change at the D23 PotC panel, while an original imagineer that worked on that ride said he thought it was a good idea. Loved hearing your thoughts on the changes, can't wait for your thoughts on this topic next year.
TBF, Pixar Pier is the only thing I disagree with. And it's not because I think Paradise Pier is perfect, so much as I would like actual rides to be given to some of the most beloved animated projects, as opposed to just painting them on carnival rides.
Wait a second. Eisner is a producer on Bojack?
He owns the production company that makes it, Tornante Television.
Ah.
WeirdoTZero I love BoJack Horseman!
Yup...that awkward moment when the one person behind the Disney Parks most undesirable decisions is also behind your favorite TV show out right now...
Well, at least his television legacy wouldn't end with Glenn Martin DDS.
And of course Eisner did the tacky carnival concept TWICE. Paradise Pier in DCA and Chester and Hester's Dinorama in Animal Kingdom. Dark times, my friends.
THIS! Some people seem to forget that Eisner's leadership was significantly different. Eisner's most successful years at Disney were when he had Frank Wells and Jeffrey Katzenberg by his side. Once Wells died and Katzenberg was fired, Eisner's bad decision making escalated. Also, it's not like Eisner didn't have Disney acquire companies and properties under his watch either. Buying ABC, ESPN, Miramax, FOX Family (along with the Saban library), and the Muppets were all him.
In the "Real Thoughts" vlog on The Haunted Mansion movie that I did with Doug & Rob Walker - th-cam.com/video/7bTNCsHosTU/w-d-xo.html - Rob made the excellent point that Eisner was not unlike General Patton. He got the company out of a jam, but then he sticks around and you realize "Oh shit...this guy's nuts."
Say what you want about Iger, at least he's not irrationally afraid to spend money to get shit done.
Based on what I've heard over the years, it really seems like it was the initial failure of EuroDisney that made Eisner so afraid to spend money during the later years of his tenure. Of course Eisner always had a frugal side, as seen with his singles and doubles strategy of making low budget movies for more profit during his early years, but it became way more extreme later on.
I say fuck it, change it all change DCA to disney grand adventure and paint the sign with the tears of those who care!
My philosophy for everything in life: Even though this sucks, at least its not Journey Into YOUR Imagination.
I love your channel and have never heard of it before but you've definitely found a new listener in me because your sharp perspective and comedy have won me over
And now people are starting to find out about Pixar Pier and are complaining.
Like freaking clockwork.
Every time I read one of your comments, I can't help but hear the voices of Bolus and Horseflop. th-cam.com/video/UGxgFaMu8jM/w-d-xo.htmlm6s
bigevilworldwide1
Returning all those flat rides and whatnot is polishing a turd.
Well, in their defense, they did already give it a makeover- ten years ago, yes, but still, I can understand those who just thought putting their classic characters on the rides would make them interesting enough. I don't mind it, but I do prefer the Mickey Mouse esthetic, because it seems to me that no matter what they do, those rides will still be seen as just a bunch of spinny things. Still, I can't blame them for trying. I gotta say, though, these new version really draws attention to the fact that Disney doesn't have attractions for their Pixar films that do them justice (yet).
In some ways, I can understand...to me, it's not so much the retheming but that they're just slapping Pixar names on carnival rides when so many Pixar movies deserve more elaborate rides worthy of the best Disney Imagineering can do. It's the same reason the Aladdin ride in WDW's Adventureland makes me roll my eyes. That movie DEMANDS a dark ride through the Cave of Wonders (maybe a mild indoor rollercoaster...or a not-so-mild one like Universal's Revenge of the Mummy). And what do we get? A clone of a carnival-style ride that's already IN the park. TWICE OVER!
The only things I honestly can say I really do miss from Epcot's past is the original Journey and Jeremy Irons' narration on Spaceship Earth. (and the last time I was on Ellen was December 28th, 2002. It, to borrow from Charlie, "pulled an Indy" on us halfway through the dinosaur section and they had to drive the theater cars out manually one at a time)
Too many Disney fans are attached to “original ideas” as it’s own special category in Disney theme parks. Epcot and DCA are wholly original theme parks with original attractions. The difference is Epcot had a bigger budget and they look better, but that didn’t save their animatronic rides (11 down to 6). DCA was built cheap under Eisner and it looked cheap. Iger saved the park with Carsland, but it looks like Arizona instead. The crying about Pixar Pier is weird. I can see their point that it’s mainly cosmetic. However, I see it as repositioning. Generic lands are no more. The next step is fixing the awful boring Hollywood Land. Good luck with that.
And, he's also one of the cast members of "Mystery Science Theater 3000".
Push the button, Max!
Quick note: The big difference between EPCOT Center and DCA is the attendance and guest scores. Epcot was projected to have 6 million guests - got 12 million the first year. The "Epcot is boring, no one likes it" is all Eisner. The man literally hated the park - but guests went to it. They also pent more money than guests at MK and DL. Still do. The park prints money. Food and Wine Festival weekends see 60k guests on Fri/Sat's. On NYE Epcot has more guests in it than DL and DCA combined. Then there's DCA.. Projected to have 8 million the opening year - based on Epcot's data for the comparable size of the park and its offerings. It only got 4-5. It went down from there. Guest spending was non-existent, and until the redo park attendance was in a freefall. Comparing the two - especially by listening to anything Eisner had to say about Epcot - is not doing Epcot justice.
Okay, they got 12 million guests their first year.
How many did they get their second year? Or their third? Or their fourth?
Of COURSE they got huge crowds their first year. That's a given. Everyone wanted to visit the first new Disney park in eleven years. But in the pre-internet age, when you actually had to physically go there to learn what it was like...once they learned, how many felt like returning?
Tony Goldmark Epcot’s attendance didn’t significantly decline until 1991 - so did DL and MK because oil crisis. This triggered Eisner to do the 1994 “Epcot 94” which was the first 2.0 of Epcot. Epcot’s attendance lagged. Epcot has only recently recovered to attendance levels it had when it was named EPCOT Center. Eisner hated Epcot so much he stopped all money spent on it the week after it opened - to the point that there were benches and decor backstage never installed because he forbade any more spending. Epcot didn’t struggle critically or in attendance until Epcot 94. Eisner’s strategic planning Department created the “Epcot is boring” narrative to justify their choices. They used a research study they paid for that said “guests don’t want edutainment” to kill much of the park. The author of the study now admits it was totally bogus.
Also - DL and MK reporter attendance independently... until Epcot opened. They combined them to hide Epcot’s attendance and that it was drawing more guests than MK on certain days/periods. Pull up the critical reviews of the park when it opened from the worldwide news papers. It was liked from Day 1.
"Epcot’s attendance didn’t significantly decline until 1991"
Define "significantly."
Tony Goldmark in 1990/1991 all parks saw a major drop thanks to gas prices. It spurred the Epcot 94 change in the park. Something akin to the post 9/11 drop but not quite as immediate and severe. All the other parks recovered, Epcot stumbled, and continued to do so for a long time. AK opening compounded things and while Epcot was a healthy park it was below where I should have been - at par with MK and DL for attendance. Right now it has climbed back to its 1982 attendance numbers, but that’s still several millions guests behind MK and DL
So wait, does this mean we won't be getting presumably the next State of the Parks video about the Redhead Scene until 2018 or rather that the 2018 in the title is referring to the updated scene itself coming in 2018 with the State of the Parks video discussing it coming sooner?
The video is coming next year, as is the first episode of Season 4.
Makes sense. He doesn't want to break his 2 videos a month rule, and the other planned video for November is his One Movie Later on Thor: Ragnarok. He even had to do a poll for One Movie Later this month, for that reason. I guess he has another video in mind for December, alongside his One Movie Later on The Last Jedi.
Matt C Maybe Some Jerk Visits?
You'll be happy to know, there's an anouncement of an Inside Out ride replacing Flik's Flyers.
I dunno...I've never been to the California park, but I think Inside Out deserves a more elaborate attraction than just slapping the theming onto a carnival ride and calling it a day. (Makes me wish they hadn't closed the Wonders of Life pavilion at Epcot. What could be more perfect for an Inside Out attraction? Especially since the wonderful Cranium Command seems to have influenced Inside Out in many ways. Shame that its stars dated the attraction so much.)
I never noticed when Barbossa bites into the apple Jack the Monkey looks at him dribbling like 'Dude, even I think that's gross!'
They'd better not replace the *ANIME MUSEUM* in EPCOT. Also, they'd better put a Ghibli ride in the Japan section. Also, Disney should rename Disney's California Adventure to Disney-Pixar Adventure, to remove the California association.
To be fair, I'm not sure if it's explicitly an anime museum, the exhibit changes every so often. Two visits ago, it was a yokai-based thing, and last time I went, it was about kawaii culture. In both, the anime connections were tangential.
EPCOT has a part of the park with iconic properties that Disney is not attempting to buy out, with themes relating to foreign culture
EPCOT better stick with a theme or put an anime ride in its place
I actually rode Ellens Energy adventure nearly every time I went to Epcot, even before they announced it was closing. Even still, I acknowledge it was outdated and understand why it is being replaced.
Oh yeah no doubt. By sheer coincidence I went on that ride right before they announced it was being shut down and had two thoughts go through my mind.
1. Wow, this ride's still here? Why?
2. Holy crap, this ride's so much longer and dated than I remember.
I know it's an old video, but....
Yes, I'm an Epcot fan. And World Showcase is my favorite part of it. But I'm fine with changes and Disneyfication or whatever. They're keeping the basic outline. It'll be ok folks.
My mom has been one of Epcot's biggest defenders as long as I can remember (though I personally always hated that park) and even she admits that these changes couldn't come soon enough since on our last visit she had to acknowledge the park had become dated AF.
I can see Disney California Adventure being Eisner's answer to 'Hey, see all the Cool stuff you 'Could' see in California. Well why go to those. We got Everything you Could see in California Right HERE! In Our New Park Called CALIFORNIA ADVENTURE!!' The problem is that unlike Florida, most of the people that come to their parks in California are Local Residents not tourists. Thus to tell people 'Hey look a California Theme Park!' the people said 'Ya, so what!' lol
Paradoxically, that's kinda EXACTLY why Eisner did it - he knew they already had locals coming to the parks in droves, and this was their attempt to attract more tourists to a one-stop shop for all things California.
Like Roy E. Disney said, Eisner cared less about the dream and more about the scheme.
Give Disney a few years, there probably gonna rename California Adventure to something more Disney to make fans forget the shame
The People Mover isn't at Disney Land?!?!?!?!?! I've only been to World and it's one of my favorites, and certainly one of the best value rides (time:enjoyment).
I know, I know.
California Adventure I have no particular attachment to. I'll admit, I'm not thrilled with the push to basically make it all Pixar and Marvel, but that has less to do with the integrity of the theming and more to do with the fact that Disney seems to be actively avoiding their Disney licenses in all of their upcoming changes with the exception of a Mickey ride in Hollywood Studios. Apart from meet and greets, what Disney movie license is getting any new attractions in the next five years? While Pixar is getting five (possibly six) new attractions based on their properties plus a few rethemes and refurbishments. Where's Wreck-it-Ralph, Moana, Big Hero 6, Zootopia? Even Frozen was just a re-theme.
With Epcot, I have to admit as a kid with an interest in science and history, it was my favorite of the Disney parks growing up. I think you also have to consider that these parks are designed for families. Sure, an adult couple can go globe trotting to visit actual foreign countries, but that's not always as easy for people with kids. It can be a way to at least expose them in a more physical way to some of the styles and cultural aspects of different parts of the world that won't stick with them as well from a book or video. The current stock of Disney additions, however, have nothing to do with actually exposing kids to anything apart from the franchise they're representing, which is largely what they were trying to avoid by keeping those characters out of the park in the first place. It just seems like if it were unavoidable to bring these characters into the parks, they could have done it in a way that at least kept the theming for each area and the science they were representing. Why even bother keeping the park with this configuration and theming if you're basically going to just make every section into a commercial for some Pixar or Marvel franchise, anyway? I'd also have to argue that Epcot was not a joke from the beginning. What made it a joke was the lack of change and innovation in the park. Rather than updating pavilions, they simply slapped on a new coat of paint with some Disney characters or a celebrity spokesperson, but didn't fundamentally change anything. Changing, or adding more country pavilions would have been a better move than adding the Donald to Mexico, or replacing Maelstrom with Frozen. Or simply adding new rides that more tastefully touched upon the history and culture, rather than just circlevision movies that get swapped out every few years. The Future Land buildings could have added new exhibits and updated rides based on what we've learned about each subject or just to expand what they have there, or even added new attractions. One of the great things about the Florida parks is that Disney is pretty free to expand them when they need to. Epcot should have been the park that would get that treatment the most often. Unfortunately, relying on sponsors ended up being the weak point in that plan. Now that they're moving away from that, however, they aren't exactly bringing the park back to the original vision, but simply trying to move it more in a Magic Kingdom 2 direction.
The changes to these parks aren't really limited to just these two parks, either. Every Disney park is moving more towards the commercial aspects of Disney properties. They just opened a whole new section of Disney's Wild Animal Park that features zero animals and are looking to replace the paleontology themed section with Indiana Jones. Hollywood Studios is discussing a name change since apart from some superficial structures, they're basically abandoning their original theme. Two similar parks taking on different properties of a larger company I can understand, but do they really need four homogeneous parks in the same location? You're still going to have the same problem at the end of the day, only worse. At least previously people had a choice based on taste, but as the parks become more similar, it just becomes a matter of which park is structurally better than the others. Theming and personal interests become less important, which doesn't seem to be in line with what the parks were all about to begin with.
Interesting points, but I'm not sure I buy it. When I was a kid, I never felt like I learned much from EPCOT because I wasn't at Disney World with the intent to learn stuff, I was there to be entertained. And if they'd existed when I was a kid, stuff like the Frozen and Ratatouille rides would've entertained the hell out of me. The theme of World Showcase has always been all about "the cultures of the world, filtered through Disney." Why not be more overt about it?
Tony Goldmark Not all kids are the same. I also preferred zoos and museums over theme parks and didn't care for thrill rides. Also, how old are you? When you experienced the parks makes a difference. And you don't buy what, exactly? That I could have preferred that park over the Magic Kingdom? A lot of kids actually like experiencing and discovering new things about the real world, rather than just fantasy and SciFi. It's funny you should bring up Frozen, since it's a retheming of an existing ride, and one I actually enjoyed as a kid. I doubt I would have enjoyed it nearly as much had it been based on Frozen back then. A lot of the appeal for me was the fact that it wasn't franchise based, so it at least felt more like an authentic look at a corner of Norse mythology, rather than just a commercial for a Disney movie. I doubt I would have been too enamored with the additions of Finding Nemo in the Seas (I was there for the aquarium, not singing CG fish) or Ellen and Bill Nye in the Energy Pavilion. Certainly don't like what happened with the Journey Through Imagination ride or the closing of the exhibits in the pavilion. If I had grown up with what's there, now, yeah, I would have hated it, too.
You're also taking the park out of the context of the time it was built. Many of the rides and attractions ARE outdated. I didn't contest that, but in their time, they were modern and impressive by those day's standards. Creating new experiences for modern audiences and simply converting everything into IP advertising are very different prospects, however. Neither seemed likely as long as they were relying on sponsors to manage each pavilion, but now that Disney is taking back control, they've made it pretty clear they prefer cheap and easy over what the park originally was. It's actually making the park into more of a joke. Why go to Magic Kingdom lite when there's much more to see and do at the Magic Kingdom? I don't see Disney doing a major overhaul of the structure and design of the park or rebuilding everything from the ground up with new attractions. It's just shoehorning popular franchises into what's there. At least with Hollywood studios you're talking new lands with new high profile rides, and that will bring in more guests. A lot of the Epcot changes are once again just adding a new coat of paint to what's already there in the hopes that brand recognition will sell more tickets than actually expanding on what the park used to be.
I'm 34 years old. I first visited EPCOT in 1993 (at age 9), 1996 (age 12) and 1997 (age 13). Your preferences are your preferences, but what I "don't buy" is this continued insistence among EPCOT purists that your preferences should dictate the course of a multi-million dollar park. There's a difference between your aesthetic preferences and artistic validity. Adaptation is a storytelling technique as old as the hills; sure, I'd LIKE it if Disney made more wholly original rides like Mystic Manor stateside, but Disney corporate culture being what it is, it doesn't look like that's gonna happen anytime soon. So I try to judge each new ride on its own terms as much as possible, because why break your own heart with unattainable standards?
"I don't see Disney doing a major overhaul of the structure and design of the park or rebuilding everything from the ground up with new attractions."
The Ratatouille ride is being built from the ground up. Soarin' was built from the ground up. Mission: Space was built from the ground up and it SUCKS, so clearly building stuff from the ground up is not the be-all end-all here.
I will give this to EPCOT 1.0 - it felt far more like a unified whole than the park ever has since. Maybe someday it'll feel whole again, but we sure as hell won't ever get there without changing a whole lotta stuff. And I'm sorry, but I reject wholeheartedly the notion that a park full of IPs and a park that feels like a unified whole need be mutually exclusive.
Tony Goldmark You seem to be glossing over a lot of what I wrote and making a unhealthy number of assumptions about my opinions in your response. I didn't say I was against change. In fact, I've mentioned more than once that I thought that was one of the biggest problems with the park, that they haven't sought out enough change over the years.
In regards to IPs, I am not in direct opposition to IPs. What I don't like is the execution. Disney has made it pretty clear that the park's mission statement isn't changing. They are keeping the general structure with pavilions based on countries and scientific categories (which is what I meant by them not giving the park a major overhaul, they aren't changing the perception of what the park is supposed to be, just adding an attraction in this pavilion, or changing this other one to a roller coaster). If they follow the trends set by Frozen and Ratatouille, though, any new IP-based attractions will be devoid of any educational value and will mostly just be centered around the IP. It's not impossible to use intellectual properties to make these concepts entertaining AND educational. EPCOT had no issue pulling that off in the past when the park was still relatively new. They avoided direct references to Disney IPs, but had no problem referencing celebrities and characters within attractions or creating their own characters in an effort to be entertaining.
That's evidently become too hard for Disney, but rather than own up to that fact, they mislead people into thinking their intentions haven't changed. As I said before, though, that just makes the park into more of a joke. It's losing the educational aspect, but isn't changing enough to be appealing as a serious competitor to the other parks. It will still be a park with nothing to set it apart, and not enough rides to make it appealing. That's not just an issue of my personal taste in theming. Is it really worth it for Disney to be dumping millions into this park with no clear vision of what they want it to be? Just seems like they're setting themselves up for future failures that way.
I think it's a severe mistake to assume they have "no clear vision for what they want it to be" if you're not privy to what their plans actually ARE.
And your emphasis on "educational value" is precisely what I mean by aesthetic preference. You prefer attractions that bend over backwards to try to teach. I don't, particularly. Yeah, Disney still tries to SELL the park as "the educational one," but so what? Their marketing methods don't change what the park actually IS.
Wait... We gotta wait 2+ months for the redhead video??? But we wants the redhead now!
Are you going to do historical retrospectives for Disney's Hollywood Studios and Animal Kingdom?
Possibly.
I guess the big difference personally between Epcot 1.0 and DCA 1.0 is that there's more of a reason to respect the vision of Epcot 1.0, even thou it was boring it still tried to do some ambitious things with emphasis on culture and history and some of the best, most-elaborate dark rides of the era. Meanwhile DCA 1.0 was, by it's VERY ORIGIN concept and built to be a cheap, compromised, cash-in when the Disneyland Paris fiasco ruined their bigger more expensive ideas for the disneyland resort
I’d like to still see dinosaurs in the Guardians coater, I think they time traveled in one of the movies. I could be wrong it’s been awhile since I watched them. It would be cool to somehow put a show scene with Chris Pratt interacting with a dinosaur, maybe a raptor 😉 in the ride, universal can’t copyright an actor and a species of dinosaur.
The Guardians have yet to time-travel, but a dinosaur DOES briefly appear in the background of Mission Breakout.
There's a way to keep each park true to the theme but also have Disney elements, paradise pier featured a good amount of vintage Mickey styled characters so build a new ride where maliboomer was themed to vintage Mickey and friends and redo Hollywood Land if they have to redo some land so badly
In these Chapek times, we need more Goldmark. Where art thou, Tony?
Making a weekly podcast, that's where: escapefromvaultdisney.libsyn.com/
Tony, I love your wit and well informed thought provoking take on how all of this shakes out. All of it so TRUE! Carsland redeemed not only DCA but in my mind, also Test Track in Epcot. Like Ah! Now I see how this ride tech could actually be cool and clever! What is really insane is how much it costs to add something now. 1.4 BILLION dollars for some new land? Billion with a B? What the total heck is going on with our money? And, $100 a head to walk in the gate? Playground for the rich!
I know, I know. It's inflation man, whaddaya gonna do?
Im more annoyed at people that magically care about rides theyd pass up on a regular. Im a Disney World Passholder and literally no one gave too fucks about Malestorm until they announced it was gonna be replaced by frozen.
What was the point of the dca 2.0 project if they're already making changes? They should have just scrapped the entire park and started over new
Honestly I'm perfectly fine with loosing NPH's safety announcements IF they replace him with Edna Mode. I need this.
Am I the only one who's surprised that there is no gag in the media where the Epcot golf ball gets hit by a giant club? I mean what else are we gonna do with it? Glue two smaller Death Stars onto it to make a bigger Mickey Mouse Death Star?
By "the media" do you mean my video? Because I Love The 80s did that joke... th-cam.com/video/x9ovsBms8HQ/w-d-xo.html
Oh. I never saw that before...
Oh God... I dipped my toe in the redhead waters when the rumors came out, and they are BROILING my friend. You're going to need a lot more than a backup dancer to help you through that hell...
If I were an Imagineer, I would have reskinned the Monsters, Inc. ride in Hollywood Land to an Incredibles ride. Maybe even get a really cool Omnidroid animatronic. Combine that with putting up new buildings in HL like a Wakandan building, the Anaheim Sanctum, and a Daily Bugle building for meet and greets with their respective characters, and that would be my revamped Hollywood Land: Super Hero Central.
DGilVids what ever they changed it to, I will always yell out "Yeah, Superstar Limo!" like I always do when I ride the Monsters Inc. Dark ride. I love getting the various responses from cast members(Which is often in disgust and saying, "Oh God, NO!")
@@Emplordxiii Superstar Limo, from what I've read, COULD have been a fun attraction with a zippy, Mr. Toad-style zoom through quick-paced sight gags. The premise was to have been your limo fleeing from paparazzi. And then, right in the middle of development in August 1997, a real-life tragedy occurred that suddenly made the idea of a limo fleeing from paparazzi not so funny anymore. So they re-tooled it into a much slower ride with so-called "gags" that consisted of nothing more than ugly caricatures of dated Disney-affiliated actors standing around and waving.
"The Anaheim Sanctum"...Wouldn't a replica of the Sanctum Sanctorum be a great idea for a ride along the same principles of Hong Kong's Mystic Manor? We'd have to find a reason for Rocket Raccoon to visit Dr. Strange ("Quill sent me to ask you to download some more of your albums for him"), but the good Doctor is called away: "Rocket, you can keep our guests entertained for a few minutes, can't you? Just don't touch any of these artifacts. Especially not THAT one." And Rocket, of course, takes the Schmuck Bait...and the Sanctum comes to life around us...
Holy shit I can't wait for you to talk about the Pirates shitshow.
EDIT: WHEN ARE YOU OPENING THE CAN OF WORMS TONY?!??!! I MUST KNOW!!!
Haunted Mansion Holiday is Awesome! It could stand to start later in the year but it's one of the best Disney Theme Park attractions of all time.
I stand in the middle of these two sentiments. I'd be perfectly fine with Haunted Mansion Holiday if it was JUST during November and December, but when it's Halloween, I wanna ride the original Haunted Mansion dammit.
@@TonyGoldmark same. It's one of my favorite holiday overlays, but I do think it would be more fitting if they opened it during Christmas time. It is pretty redundent to open a dark ride of a movie that takes place on two holidays on a ride that's already about the holiday you're opening it on.
Wait, they're cloning a ride from Disneyland Paris? Has that been done before? If they're going to clone anything, it should be Cinemagique.
Jessica Wood I vote for Mystic Manor. Hong Kong Disneyland is keeping one of the best attractions all to themselves.
There was a Circle-Vision attraction in the 90s that opened in France first, then was cloned in Florida. Its French title translated to "From Time To Time" while the American title was "The Timekeeper." But that's the only other time I can think of offhand when they cloned a French ride for America.
I have vague memories of that from when I visited Disneyland Paris when I was little. The only thing I can still recall is the super uncomfortable headsets you had to wear to hear it in English.
I think you could also count Light Motors Action and more or less Raging Spirits in Tokyo Disney Sea.
EPCOT 1.0, I would love to see that again someday. DCA 1.0, not so much, and I'm a California resident.
We Are the Future.
Probably the best example of an educational theme park ride I've ever been on was Tomorrow's Harvest at Queensland's The Big Pineapple, which wasn't boring or annoying in part due to the fact The Big Pineapple only had ONE of these educational rides because having more of them would just be retreading ground, pity about California Screamin' though.
Theory on Guardians Ride, it will be educational by discussing rollercoaster physics and why people like rollercoasters by going into adrenaline and dopamine.
Literally A ride educating you about rides, it be meta, but it be so cool to get a short lesson on adrenaline before experiencing said adrenaline.
ok i love education things but im fine with that going, but i REALLY wish that first rule was still a thing, Disney doesn't make new characters for the parks anymore and i really miss that, doesn't every one want another 9 eye?
As far as I know, the most recent Disney theme park attractions to include original characters made just for that attraction are Mystic Manor at Hong Kong Disneyland, which opened in 2013, and Roaring Rapids at Shanghai Disneyland, which opened last year.
Basically, the Asian parks are getting all the Imagineers' original creations while the American and European parks are getting nothing but adaptations of existing franchises. Can't say I'm surprised...
I know that Mystic Manor in Hong Kong Disneyland are all original characters. Search TH-cam for it, it's like the Haunted Mansion but on Steroids.
I'm not sure about the Chinese parks, but aren't the Japanese parks only licensed through Disney? It might not be fair to say the Imagineers at Disney are behind the differences when it may well just be the overseas companies that own and manage the park coming up with these concepts.
The Japanese parks license the Disney name and characters (which admittedly does more than likely explain the higher quantity of original attractions than every other Disney park), but Hong Kong and Shanghai Disneyland are owned and operated by Disney themselves just like the American and European parks.
Also, I know full well that these days it's not usually the imagineers' call as to which park gets what. I'm just pointing out the odd coincidence that in the last decade, pretty much every original attraction they've come up with has been built in the Chinese and Japanese parks, while every single attraction built at the American and European parks in the last decade have been based on existing TV and Movie franchises.
BlueDragon992 Technically, the European parks weren't owned by Disney until this year.
Apparently they are conveniently making the area with Silly Symphony Swings, Goofy's Sky School, and the Little Mermaid ride into a new land called Paradise Park
DCA 1.0 sucked. Epcot 1.0 was amazing but it took time for people to actually understand what the theme of the park was. The problem with Epcot was that since it wasn't a "castle" park, attractions could me moved in and out more frequently because it wasn't considered as "taboo" to do that. Disney execs could get away with it. However, those who love Epcot are the most passionate theme park fans in all of the amusement park industry, hands down. Attractions have come and go that really shouldn't have, like Journey Into Imagination, which Eisner ruined (jerk), and the 1994 version of Spaceship Earth (stupid Judy Dench ruining everything, stupid interactive screens that caused the ending descent scene to be removed), but like I said, its Epcot, so it doesn't matter as much. This is sad because I never got to experience attractions like Horizons, Communicore, original Innoventions, Listen to the Land or all of Wonders of Life (the greatest attraction pavilion ever built by man for amusement parks). But change is coming and the blue sky art looks really promising for the future. Let's hope that those working on the project realize how much people actually care about this park and they improve upon its current quality than diminish it.
Yeah, I never went to DCA, but I hear you about Epcot 1.0. I went to it as a kid in '90. I was six years old and honestly, the only thing that stuck with me from it was Journey into Imagination and the dinosaur scene in Universe of Energy. In fact, for years I couldn't even remember what ride that scene was from. Just that I remembered a dinosaur scene. And even today, aside from a couple of rides in Future World I tend to spend most of my time in World Showcase.
Am I the only one who wasn't bothered by Paradise Pier though? I mean, yeah. I get the irony of building something Walt was avoiding when building Disneyland but 1) It's not Disneyland. If they built Paradise Pier in Disneyland I could see being mad but it was in it's own park. 2) In Walt's day, such parks were the norm and poorly done. Nowadays, while they still exist they're hardly the norm like in Walt's day and to many, a nostalgic bygone era. And if there was anything Walt was into, it was indulging in nostalgic bygone era. I guess it wouldn't be so bad if on opening day they had mor interesting things around the Paradise Pier area.
Finally, you and I are going to disagree severely on Mr. Toad becoming Pooh. But then, I only rode Toad once. I was six, and I hated it. It scared the shit out of me and I came out of the pooh ride thinking "Why couldn't that be there in '90?"
This video actually answered a long question I had wanted to ask you but always forgot about: Was Disney thinking of putting a theme park in Virginia. I remember it being brought up when at Busch Gardens: Williamsburg for the umpteenth time because it's the closest theme park near me, and that it ultimately didn't happen because the landowners caught onto Disney and hiked up the prices for the land. It always stuck in the back of my mind, wondering if it was just an urban rumor or not, and then here it is in this video that confirms it actually was a plan. Just something I thought I'd bring up.
Disney did indeed intend to build a park in Virginia in the 90s. It was to be called "Disney's America" and from what I heard, they wanted to build it on a Civil War battleground, and local Civil War purists objected and turned it into a PR nightmare (though for all I know, maybe land prices were a factor too). After the Virginia thing didn't happen, Disney offered to buy Knott's Berry Farm and essentially turn it into Disney's America, but Walter Knott's kids refused. Then, as I say in this video, a LOT of the ideas for Disney's America were recycled into DCA 1.0 (including an attraction about farming, a tribute to seaside carnivals, and an early prototype of Soarin' that was to take you soaring over great American landmarks). Google "Disney's America" for more info on what might have been. Fascinating stuff.
I would like to be able to hangout with Tony at the parks.
I am assuming they are going to charge for the new rides on top of entry?
...Nope! They'll probably raise the price of entry though, since they do that literally every year.
Thanks Tony. ONly recently have we been hooked on Disney parks :-)
What Pixar needs to do is get Neil Patrick Harris to narrate an into for Incredibles 2 so that DCA can keep his safety speech for the ride.
Forgive me if I either heard this wrong, if the point was glossed over, or if somebody already asked this, but How can there be a "Guardians" ride in development at EPCOT if Universal Orlando Still owns the rights to making Marvel themed thrill rides.......Or DO they still own them? (Legal stuff confuses me)
PIX Promos & More Guardians is not popular in comics books that why
Doesn't change the fact that it's still a Marvel Property--or in this case, an Ugly Duckling that turned into a multi-billion dollar movie franchise/swan. There has to be some legalities involved.
What Andrew said. Also, since the Avengers WERE covered in the Universal deal, legally Disney had to announce and start construction on the Guardians coaster BEFORE Infinity War comes out, because in that movie the Guardians kinda-sorta join the Avengers.
I never got the chance to see Epcot 1.0, but I'm convinced I would have loved the original Future World... because I'm a *complete dork*. I have a feeling none of my other family members would stand for it, and I'm not surprised it wasn't a universal favorite.
Perfect timing Jerk!!! They just announced Pixar Pier information!!! Get ready for the "Incredicoaster".
A question for you, Tony. I'm have never been to Epcot and was born in 94. So I'm don't that much about its run in the 80's. What are your thoughts on Eisner and his era of running Disney?
I kinda already described my thoughts on it in the first couple minutes of this video.
I remember that i see the california adventure during the monorial and parts outside the resort in 2008 whit my uncle and my dad,IT WAS BORING i remember think about it,i think was becuse the sun's ferries well,but it was before the sweet 2.0 version
Love your videos
Grettings from mexico
Sooooo, people have problems with the "wench" stuff in Pirates, but not the real corpses?
It annoys the hell out of me when anyone 'has a problem' with something that, at the very least, was HISTORICALLY ACCURATE...
(sheds a tear for NPH)
@@djgonzalez2492 neil patrick harris the actor ☺
I don't entirely share your opinions on Pixar Pier, especially after today's concept art but the video was great and the ending was PER-FECT.
Quick Question: Why does the Simpsons mention Disney parks so much?
When you're on the air for 83 years you're gonna eventually mention just about everything multiple times.
I love how this video has been put up on the day Pixar Pier had some more details removed!
I'm not sure if the end card is supposed to mean the next state of the park won't be till 2018... but that completely makes sense with you
Finally! A Harvey Birdman reference!
Hey Tony, just out of curiosity, do you hate haunted Mansion Holiday, or just the fact that it starts on Halloween?
The fact that it starts at Halloween. If it started after Halloween I'd have no problem with it.
You made some great points.
Especially with 15:00
I was gonna say “get the people who worked on the Figment comic to redo the ride and make it all Steampunk,” but it was already proto-Steampunk in the original incarnation, right?
Pretty much, yeah.
Tony you echoed a remark I made the other day that the Disney parks are becoming different versions of the Magic Kingdom..which is a bummer.
"Your obsessions do not make you a better person"
-Tony Goldmark, 2017
Mr. Mason My mommy says they do.
I personally don't mind World Showcase, mainly because of the dining and that kickass Japanese shop.
Despite all that was said here about avoiding "different for the sake of different," a direct contrast seems to be the new theme DCA is going for and (honestly) should have. What do I mean by that?
Well, if you can put it into words, what's Disneyland's theme? If I recall correctly, it's a venue for escaping the modern day and visiting distant lands and times. What could be a perfect counter-balance to Walt's Southern-California Pleasure Palace is a park designed to instead embrace the modern day (or some time nearer to it). A good amount of Pixar's output and Marvel could be considered Contemporary Fiction. Not far back enough to be in the 19th century but not far forward enough to be Tomorrowland, but rather in a world resembling the modern day, or at the latest the not-too-distant future (next Sunday AD).
This is actually my own artistic rationale for why Marvel is in DCA but Star Wars isn't (aside from boosting traffic for both parks, which is obviously the main reason). Star Wars, despite being science fiction and having the occasional modern element slip in, is based primarily around old tales/myths. The main saga has a bit of a King Aruthur legend flavor to it, and (lest we forget) this all takes place "a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away." Ergo, Disneyland actually makes a certain amount of sense as the location as opposed to Contemporary Fiction Land (actual name TBD).
Yes, for $100 a day per person, transport me away from my job and my troubles. That is why they should remove the Hall of Presidents btw. And queue's should be all gift shops and everything covered and air conditioned. Seriously, I should not have to endure ANY heat on my vacation day. At least cover up queues and have cooling or chillers with fans blowing down and interactive apps on our phones about the rides. I don't want to think about a thing or worse yet, be that weird time freak dad who shuttles the family around like some crazed time lord trying to manage fast passes and maximize time in the parks. Sorry, now I am rambling.
Disneyland never had the Hall of Presidents, that's at Disney World. The closest Disneyland has to an equivalent is Great Moments With Mr. Lincoln. Y'know, the one President everyone actually likes!
And SonofMrPeanut, that's a fascinating theory about the delineation between Disneyland and DCA. Doesn't quite explain what Finding Nemo and Buzz Lightyear rides are doing in Disneyland though (or what a Little Mermaid ride is doing at DCA), but I guess those are exceptions that prove the rule.
Exactly the points that stuck out for me. Of course if Buzz becomes that Wreck-It Ralph ride*...
* I guess even though the outside world is modern-day, video game/internet world is futuristic.
Since I highly doubt we're going to get an episode on it what exactly were the problems with Euro Disneyland?
Jesus, how long do you have? On a molecular level, Disneyland is by definition an extremely American creation; everything about it, even the stuff based on stuff from other countries, is informed by and filtered through a quintessentially American perspective. Now, the Japanese have long been fascinated by American pop culture, so naturally Tokyo Disneyland has always done amazingly well. Whereas the French...kinda notoriously have a pretty low opinion of Americans, so it didn't go over too well there. Also, calling it "EuroDisneyland" was a Godawful mistake, since most Europeans associate the word "euro" with currency (which is why they changed its name to Disneyland Paris after a mere two years). But perhaps the biggest problem was that Eisner overextended. It was the first time an entirely new "castle park" was being built under his watch, and he poured an INSANE amount of money into it (especially at the last minute) to the point where when it finally opened and underperformed dramatically, it made the stockholders so angry at him that he was determined never to overspend ever again, which is how we got all those shitty decisions from the mid 90s to the mid 00s.
Alright, thank you for taking some time to explain this to me.
Did they re-theme Goofy's Sky School, or are they leaving that as is? And do you plan to review the re-themed rides at Pixar Pier?
Goofy's Sky School is remaining unchanged for the time being, as the Northern side of Paradise Pier is now being called "Paradise Gardens Park." I shot a vlog about Pixar Pier a couple weeks ago, and I plan to release it later this summer.
Thank you. I had known they had re-named Mickey's Fun Wheel to Pixar Pal-A-Round - yet left Mickey's mug on the wheel. :/
@@tscream80we're just paling around! Paling around! Paling around!
Personally I'm fine for changing the Red Head scene but I wish the entire ride was changed instead of parts of it(The mix of original audio and new does not mesh well). Hell, if she's going to be a pirate now, why not make the village section be about a pirate invasion to the Red Head's turf and she and her crew have to defend it.
After watching many MANY episodes of Defunctland the distinct impression I've developed of Eisner is that he gets really excited about a terrible idea of his. His staff, realizing this new idea is god awful try to work it into something passable. Seeing the changes his staff are making Eisner gets pissy and suddenly loses interest in the project he was previously fully behind and leaves it to his staff to finish for him. Even though it was his damn idea in the first place. And then after the damnable project is finally finished the cycle starts all over again! See Alien Encounter and Superstar Limo.
Did you get permission from The Band That Played California Lady to play California Lady at the end?
Say whatever you want to say about Eisner, I still think he was better in terms of theme park that whatever followed him. At least he knew that theme parks needed it to be kept up to date (maybe he did not have the right ideas) still for him keeping the parks current was a priority. What followed pretty much sat on the parks for years stating they did not need to be kept updating them, for years no changes to the parks and increasing prices.
Now what we have is called catching up, and honestly is still not fast enough. These changes that are coming now should have come years ago.
Call me crazy but didn’t we already cover this in two different retrospective series?
sure why not
Of course Iger has his own flaws: namely a preoccupation with claiming and exploiting as many other IP's has he can get his hands. For the most part I have tolerated it, but gobbling up FOX crosses the lines for me
Iger is far worse than Eisner because of this. In the late stages of Eisner’s dynasty, Disney was a walking punchline and it should have stayed that way. At least they weren’t representing the worst of capitalism, the kind George A. Romero warned us about. Disney doesn’t even try to do anything close to resembling originality, and when they do, they’re few and far in between and they don’t put in as much effort into them as they do their Marvel or Star Wars films. Hence they flop hard. But maybe they flopped because they weren’t good? Nope, it’s because nobody wants anything original anymore, this is despite the fact many original films recently have made big bucks. Even Eisner allowed movies like Hidalgo to fucking exist. Iger doesn’t deserve any praise for “saving” Disney.
Buying Fox is gonna result in thousands losing their jobs, limiting creative endeavors, shutting down their independent studio (The Shape Of Water would’ve NEVER been made under Disney), yet people only care about X-Men being in the MCU. I fucking hate every single person in this fucking planet.
Instead of having Mickey on the Fun Wheel in Pixar Pier, they should retheme it to UP, have the gondolas be balloons, replace Mickey's giant head with Carl Fredrickson's and have him watch over Paradise Pier...... wait.... WHY DOESN'T PARADISE PIER HAVE A WATERFALL CALLED PARADISE FALLS? That NEEDS to happen when they do Pixar Pier because otherwise, what's even the point
Some people are just spoiled
"A Permanent Wods Fir!" - Some Jerk Who Probably Said That, 2017
They just announced that they are turning California Screamin' into The Incredicoaster.
Before actually watching your video I have to say that Epcot Center version 1.0 was awesome, in my humble opinion anyhow...I was there. As far as DCA 1.0 I would not know...since I have not been to Disneyland since my one and only trip in 1976.
Districts? Why not "Countys" then it would actually fit the theme of DCA
Yeah future world is for science fact! Like singing food and dragons!
Also my emotional rollercoaster is a lot closer to Screamin' than sky school (thanks ADD, depression, and anxiety!)
Coming from someone who has never been to the California parks, DCA opening year was perfectly themed. I know that a theme park dedicated to California in California is ridiculous; but it is themed after California PERFECTLY. A monorail going across the Golden Gate Bridge, a mountain in the shape of a Grizzly Bear (California's state animal), a sea side amusement park themed after a sea side amusement parks of the past, and all the areas are themed after different parts of California
Toku Nation but how can you talk about a park when you've never been there
Zappy425 Well, Google Images helps.
DCA 1.0... for someone who went... felt totally like a hyper expensive river bear ride and a TON of cheap carnival rides tossed into the parking lot. That roller coaster, not California Screamin, but Mullholland whatever was literally a ride we had at the Iowa State Fair. With a 1.5 hour wait! And a place to watch them make... Tortillas! The Grizzly mountain was and still is a great E ticket ride... not worth a whole park though. Dang, I kind of want some money back now. Even the carousel with sea creatures was rehash. Wow did DCA 1.0 suck... suck hard!
It was a mess at opening, and even into the years after, and while the park has picked up steam in the last 5 years or so, a lot of the original theming is gone and that's unfortunate because imo, it had potential (Soarin' Over California was one of the best Disney rides ever built). But brand recognition is Disney's bread and butter and they intend on milking that cow for every drop.
The Problem with DCA its first year or 2 was....yeah it was 3/4s of a day park. A FUN 3/4 of a day park but yeah. a 1/2 a day park if you didn't want to ride a lot of gussied up carnival rides(though i personally thought they where and a lot of fun and kind of sad to see of them go). And that didn't really work i think
>State of the park we want the red head video 2018
Dose that mean it comes out in 2018 or thats when they are changing it?
Both.
See I feel like the thing that sucks about DCA is that the first park sucked, no doubts about that, but the revamping was so gorgeous and worked so well. Paradise Pier is so immersive and I just don't see how that is going to work with a jumble of pixar characters? Like are they all just hanging out at a pier together? That seems like the same kind of mess they made when they first made DCA.I loved what they did with soaring because it made the experience all the more immersive, and while Cars Land looks more Arizona-ish, it can still fit if you just imagine Death Valley has larger canyons. My issue with Guardians replacing tower and pixar pier is...what is the theme??? How is the immersion going to work? I'm not gonna judge it until I see it, but I must admit I'm wholly confused on how they're going to pull this off without looking lazy
I love these state of the park episodes! Keep it up man!
Ah man, am I gonna have to wait till 2018 for a video on Pirates of the Caribbean? I wanna hear your opinion on it!
ChookaaFindlebean It’s been delayed to late 2019.
"I still love the ride, no matter _who_ did the safety announcements."
I think you could've had another joke about park purists. Oh well. I'll just pretend you made one and laugh anyway.
You visit Disney parks so much you do deserve a ride.
I always loved epcot.. i liked the og rides more 4 nostalgia.. i dont mind new ip as long as the basic concept of ws stays.. future world needs a total overhaul as much as i love some of those pavilions.