Cloned attractions in California

[CaliforniaAdventurer]

There is a sizeable crowd out there who thinks Disney should imagineer a ride only once and then shelve the plans and let it be exclusive to one park.

We know how you feel. No need to blast me.

Other people may have the opposite view, that once an attraction has been imagineered and engineered and created, and the blueprints are in a file, that these should be reused to create similar attractions in other parks accross the country or 1/2 way around the world. Few travelers have time to crisscross the world hitting Hong Kong DL for PhilharMagic or Tokyo for Aquatopia or Florida for Mission: Space. Much less the money to travel there and then to give to Mickey and Michael Eisner,

So my question is this, which existing attractions at Disneyland Paris, Tokyo Disney or even Hong Kong and Walt Disney World, could be cloned and brought to either of Disney's two California parks? It's a legitimate question that I'm sure Matt Ouimet is asking himself, so why not pose it here?

I wish something based on The Living Seas could go into Disney's California Adventure. But a NEW attraction, not an exact clone. I also love EPCOT's THE LAND but thats highly unlikely to debut here. And Mission: Space in Tomorrowland instead of Innoventions. OK I guess I'm overdue for an EPCOT trip but I seriously think a lot of opportunities exist to bring Disney magic to CA.

[Jspider]

I've already said that Living With the Land should be put into DCA's farm but themed more to farms and crops grown in California rather then agriculture in general

as far as clones go all attractions that are hits should be put on file to be cloned, however I like the policy of altering details scene orders and changing up the effects on the clones (something Disney does anyways) that way people who can only visit one Disney park will get to see everything major but all the hardcore fans can travel out to all the Disney parks and compare not only magic Kingdoms and path structures but decide which version of what attraction is best

I support cloning but altering clones everytime is prime. clones don't always have to be big hits either as long as they're popular and they match the themes in another park. however filmed attractions should probably never be cloned (they're cheep anyways just take the concepts and do different things with them)

[1stStarIC2nite]

I've already said that Living With the Land should be put into DCA's farm but themed more to farms and crops grown in California rather then agriculture in general

I LOVE that idea.. I think it would work perfectly and provide a great ride for the family, with a few scene changes of course to keep it interesting and unique.

[ah schucks]

In regards to cloning I'll be honest if they had left Tommorrowland under the 1998 theme, I would have loved to have seen a clone of there Man on the Moon version of SM. Then I would have installed "Journey to the Center of the Earth" near Autopia, overhauled the Subs to harken back to 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea and lastly I would have built a massive playground with fake hot air ballons with bridges, nets, walkways between them to cover "Around the World in 80 Days"

I guess my point is I love the romance of the old Julies Verne towards out future. A retro future that never came to pass. I think cloning current rides from the various parks could have achieved that and overcome the lackluster half-assed 1998 remodel they applied to Tommorrowland.

My last clone suggestion is "Storm Chasers" which I would have also slammed down in DL replacing Innoventions. Storm Chasers is a ride much like Star Tours but more advanced. Then I would have replaced ST in the backlot area of DCA, rebuilt the simulators and created a more interested standby entranced- new movies, a whole new ride experiance and the start of a reason for DCA to host there own version of Star Wars Days!

Last but not least I like the concept for the Viking ride: Maelstorm which I believe could be placed behind BTM where the old Skyway station.

My thoughts- are silly I know but just suggestions. Rip them if you must.

[MiceMan]

In regards to cloning I'll be honest if they had left Tommorrowland under the 1998 theme, I would have loved to have seen a clone of there Man on the Moon version of SM. Then I would have installed "Journey to the Center of the Earth" near Autopia, overhauled the Subs to harken back to 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea and lastly I would have built a massive playground with fake hot air ballons with bridges, nets, walkways between them to cover "Around the World in 80 Days"

I guess my point is I love the romance of the old Julies Verne towards out future. A retro future that never came to pass. I think cloning current rides from the various parks could have achieved that and overcome the lackluster half-assed 1998 remodel they applied to Tommorrowland.

My last clone suggestion is "Storm Chasers" which I would have also slammed down in DL replacing Innoventions. Storm Chasers is a ride much like Star Tours but more advanced. Then I would have replaced ST in the backlot area of DCA, rebuilt the simulators and created a more interested standby entranced- new movies, a whole new ride experiance and the start of a reason for DCA to host there own version of Star Wars Days!

Last but not least I like the concept for the Viking ride: Maelstorm which I believe could be placed behind BTM where the old Skyway station.

My thoughts- are silly I know but just suggestions. Rip them if you must.

Rip Rip Rip Rip RIP!

[Metal God]

living seas would be awesome. as it is I have to wait about 10 years till I get to go to japan so having it here would be great.

[fearsnda]

OK, well I see your point but... No more clones! I just don't care for it. Some clones are okay, but Tomorrowland is getting out of hand... We're the original park and it'd be nice to have some original attractions.

[sediment]

I agree. Similar is ok. Identical is not. So, too bad that one will be "better" than the other.

[Villains Fan]

I don't mind them "cloning" some of the better rides, with differences, but the more they duplicate rides to each park, the less reason I have to go to the other parks. Why would I spend all that money to see basically the same rides?

[Jspider]

I don't mind them "cloning" some of the better rides, with differences, but the more they duplicate rides to each park, the less reason I have to go to the other parks. Why would I spend all that money to see basically the same rides?

they don't WANT you to visit other parks, especialy not the ones they don't have much ownership over

they want YOU to give them your money and if you save money on travel then you are more likly to give them more money then you would have otherwise

so their goal is to create as many money collectors as possible (preferably without creating a drain on the money collectors already in existance) not to get you to diversify your tastes and enjoy traveling

and yet they also take into account that there are those who enjoy traveling as well as taking advantage of the opportuinity to fix precieved weakness's from earlier incarnations of the attractions

[CaliforniaAdventurer]

I don't mind them "cloning" some of the better rides, with differences, but the more they duplicate rides to each park, the less reason I have to go to the other parks. Why would I spend all that money to see basically the same rides?

That's the point: Families on a budget can realistically only go to the Disney resort on their side of the country, and why spend all that money on airfare when Disney has resorts on both coasts and plenty of possibilities to expand. The percentage of people who actually go around the world for DISNEY vacations is so minimal, and these diehards are def not Disney's bread and butter. People with four kids on an annual vacation spend more at the hotels and souvenirs etc. So give them something to stay and see.

The most economical thing Disney can do is imagineer a ride for TOKYO, charge Tokyo Disneyland (OLC LLC) for the cost of engineering and installing it, and then use the "paid for" blueprints again at their U.S. parks.

Once the overseas parks pay for the blueprints, the domestic parks can use them for "free". Whereas if the ride debuts here, Disney pays all the development costs themselves and the overseas parks get the discount.

[figment1986]

My theory is that if the ride is a "exact" duplicite.. it needs to be changed... as said before DL relies on more locals than tourists... thus clones attractions may not be the best things.... Look at HISTA..... how often are the theaters full??

Look at DCA... How much of the park is cloned??? how many people go...

You should take what you have... and re-develope it into something similar yet different for the park.... Take Mission Space for Example and change the plot... new and more orignal ride.... yet same system... it somewhat worked on Countdown to Extention... before it got "played down" into dinosaur and changed it's profile more....

If you create an idea... devcelope it... but then change it somewhat to be unique for the new park.... (a little more money... but still good ideas....)

Heck. if a ride retires at another park... bring it over.. like say Alien encounter.... they did say DL needed thrills right?

[ModHatter]

See... Disney actually wants guests who can afford it to stay on property, at BOTH parks. So, there should be a mix of flagship attractions that are cloned at every resort (PotC, for instance), and there are others that should remain unique to one park. After all, as has been said many times, many ways, in this day and age it is often as cheap, if not cheaper, for West Coasters from SF up to go to Orlando rather than LA. Plus, WDW has more to offer in a number of categories. Going for the local dollar was fine back in the days of one park. But Disney is trying to create a Disneyland Resdrt in Anaheim. All other variables being more or less the same, WDW has a massive advantage. The ONLY way Anaheim can compete is to promote unique experiences.

That said, previous posts have made the necessary point that there is literal cloning, and there is the OPs contention that you can create SIMILAR but distinct attractions, which I'm all for. The example I was thinking of is DLP's Haunted Mansion. Clearly the same basic ride, but a whole new and interesting story. Also, there's the less obvious (to the casual visitor) Aquatopia re-use of Hunny Hunt technology...

Having never seen Tokyo's offerings, I'll basically stick to WDW and say I'd love to see Livin' with the Land come to a WestCOT concept, as well as Figment. Okay, I basically want Epcot Center '88 in Anaheim. And of course, I think we could have a Great Disney Movie ride in HPB, and a Great Toon Ride in Toon Town.

Finally, just because it's been demolished doesn't mean I wouldn't want Disney to look at the file and re-Imagineer Horizons.

[Jspider]

Disneyland has NEVER been a locals park

heck it seems to me that both Kevin and Al talk about this local park thing as something that recently developed

my guess is that Pressler slowly moved it into a locals park position because it made his job easier, not having to ask for much money for attractions and all and he seemed to be all about quick results for really cheep and changing a tourist park like Disneyland into a locals park is sure to bring in a ton of money in the short term while creating a very poor outlook for the long term

then it also becomes obvious that Disney the company or at least Eisner wanted Disneyland to become it's own resort, not really to compete with WDW in florida but to compete with the other tourists attractions in California

I mean California itself is a place that tourists go to visit or at the very least pass through on their way to places like Mexico so Disney's goal was to increase the amount of time Tourists spend at the resort,

I'm guessing somewere in all of the budget cutting in the 2nd gate construction plans that Pressler was doing an insperation came to him about the construction of DCA, if they're looking at competing against every other draw in California and pulling numbers from those attractions then why not COPY all those areas and thus the gimmicky and tourist trap sounding California adventure came to be


as far as cloning rides from florida goes, there isn't actualy anything wrong with it since your looking at creating a new market, Disneyland does need some phasing back into the tourist market and it needs to expand its advertising a bit to make people more aware of it's resort status and it's offerings

I would however say that it should try to stick to more recent clones so that people don't get as much of a "been there done that" attitude about it


it's interesting that most Disneyland fans didn't care much about cloning back when it was Disneyland that got stuff first and WDW still getting the hand me downs

I do think we need to remeber something, right now land is one of the most valuable assets that the California resort has, were as at WDW land is probably the most expendable asset they have. Logicaly WDW makes a much better testing ground for attractions because WDW will have a bigger tolerance for mediocer attractions then Disneyland will. So it might be in Disney's best interest to create attractions first in WDW and then take what attractions work and refine them and upgrade them as they're transplanted and shifted into the other resorts

[AP2CM]

There is a sizeable crowd out there who thinks Disney should imagineer a ride only once and then shelve the plans and let it be exclusive to one park.

Unfortunately, The WD Parks and Resorts division is not run by "disney fans" or people like you and me, it's run by business men and women who have to answer to the investors and large-cap stockholders of the company. The cold, hard reality is that carbon-copy attractions are cheaper and they still sell admission tickets and keep the crowds coming in.

[ModHatter]

Let's face it... Disneyland began as a park. WDW, on the other hand, was always a resort, featuring the Polynesian and the Contemporary. 70% of WDW's visitors come from out of state, whereas Disneyland's attendance is driven by locals, anywhere from 50-70%. Certainly, Disneyland was THE destination when it was the only park, but once WDW opened, and especially after Epcot Center joined it, the tide had officially turned. You could see it all over TV in that period. The famous "I'm going to Disneyland" line was changed to "Disney World." The Seavers on Growing Pains tried to plan their trip to Disneyworld. The family from Full House even went there on the show. WDW had gone national, and left Disneyland to cater to the folks who didn't want to make the trip. OR, to keep money coming to Disney while families visited Knott's, SFMM, and USH too.

Pressler didn't turn Disneyland into a local's park. WDW did that. DCA and GCH were an attempt to reverse that trend.

As for cloning... if you'll recall, Disney fans were actually iun favor of it in many respects. WDW MK could have had WRE, but what they wanted was their own PotC. Even thought it wouldn't be functiona as it is at DLl, WDW guests wanted a more complete clone of HM to include the stretching room.

But again, part of the cloning problem is evident in DCA. How many 3-D attractions do the WDW parks have? If I recall correctly, one apiece. So why clone two of them for DCA? GRR is AK' s KRR, but why did ours have to be put in such a horrible, traffic-mangling location? You can't just clone things willy-nilly. WDW cloned rides with the intent of fixing many perceived problems (even though some of those "problems" turned out to create cherished ride features). Just as Pooh is a perfect example of how not to clone, Buzz is a good example of how to clone. If we can't get unique rides, we at least need to get BETTER versions of existing rides to give people a better incentive to come here instead of flying East.

[Alan-A-Dale]

Economies of Scale

Cloning attractions is not some "latest trick" Disney has come up with to mess with us...it's been around as long as there was even a concept of Walt Disney World in FL.

In fact, in some cases, I think it might really make sense for Disney to build the same attraction at multiple parks at the same time (e.g. Disneyland and Magic Kingdom's Haunted Mansion attractions were literally built at exactly the same time). Even when they are not assembled at the same time, borrowing all of the concept/design work from an already established attraction must save Imagineering hundreds of thousands.

Now that said, what I *really* love to see is when they take the opportunity of a clone to upgrade it. It appears that Disneyland's Buzz Lightyear Astroblasters is a good example of that.

[Jspider]

Let's face it... Disneyland began as a park. WDW, on the other hand, was always a resort, featuring the Polynesian and the Contemporary. 70% of WDW's visitors come from out of state, whereas Disneyland's attendance is driven by locals, anywhere from 50-70%. Certainly, Disneyland was THE destination when it was the only park, but once WDW opened, and especially after Epcot Center joined it, the tide had officially turned. You could see it all over TV in that period. The famous "I'm going to Disneyland" line was changed to "Disney World." The Seavers on Growing Pains tried to plan their trip to Disneyworld. The family from Full House even went there on the show. WDW had gone national, and left Disneyland to cater to the folks who didn't want to make the trip. OR, to keep money coming to Disney while families visited Knott's, SFMM, and USH too.

Pressler didn't turn Disneyland into a local's park. WDW did that. DCA and GCH were an attempt to reverse that trend.

As for cloning... if you'll recall, Disney fans were actually iun favor of it in many respects. WDW MK could have had WRE, but what they wanted was their own PotC. Even thought it wouldn't be functiona as it is at DLl, WDW guests wanted a more complete clone of HM to include the stretching room.

But again, part of the cloning problem is evident in DCA. How many 3-D attractions do the WDW parks have? If I recall correctly, one apiece. So why clone two of them for DCA? GRR is AK' s KRR, but why did ours have to be put in such a horrible, traffic-mangling location? You can't just clone things willy-nilly. WDW cloned rides with the intent of fixing many perceived problems (even though some of those "problems" turned out to create cherished ride features). Just as Pooh is a perfect example of how not to clone, Buzz is a good example of how to clone. If we can't get unique rides, we at least need to get BETTER versions of existing rides to give people a better incentive to come here instead of flying East.

yousee this is were I dissagree, the whole "I'm going to Disneyland" thing continued all the way through the 80's almost but ended completly pretty much once we reached the 90's

it's true WDW has always been almost completly driven by tourist only attendance, I wouldn't say that Disneyland has always had super high local attendance but rather that it has used the local market to supliment it's number throughout the year especialy since Disneyland has/had an off season, and even then Disneyland was mostly one day visiters at the time

Pressler managed to turn things clearly over into the relm of advertising for AP's, Indy was pretty much the last thing that was EVER advertised seriously on a large scale now WDW runs the show (and this is RECENT)

as far as DCA and the Grand Californian go it's not as much an attempt to reverse the tide as it is to create a way to encourage familys that take vacations to California rather then Florida to spend more time at Disneyland, WDW is pretty much the biggest draw in Florida at least theme park wise, WDW doesn't HAVE that many other things that compete with what it does. Disneyland on the other hand has always had a number of factors that compete with it, guests want to see California or visit the beach or drive down to Mexico even. Disneyland was just a stop on the trip and even way back in the 80's Eisner wanted to change that.

the movie rides were cloned because they were cheep, GRR is not the same route as Kali Rapids it's just the same type of attraction, both have totaly different effects and enviornments I believe

there were many choices that were made poorly at DCA but cloning was the least of them, if DCA had cloned a few of WDW's attractions that had real substance it would be diff but DCA cloned mostly off the shelf rides and movies, DCA was based on TONS of movie attractions and then to top it off they tried to pull an MGM on us and make the park last off of Streetmosphere and tons of other shows (there's hardly a land in DCA that doesn't have a stage of some sort) MGM philosophy works well for a third gate when you already have established yourself as a resort but for the second gate people are looking for more things to do still at that point, this is why Epcot and DisneySea made GOOD second gates they added substance to the second day stays

[ModHatter]

Having been on both GRR and KRR, GRR is clearly an example of the cut rate clone. It is essentially the same ride, but without the effects and added touches. I wasn't even on the Disney boards back then, and it was plain as the nose on my face

True, cloning is not the problem. But the fact that DCA and even Disneyland itself picked poor rides to clone, AND cloned them poorly, is a major problem for DLR. Think of a clone as a sequel. Even a decent sequel will tend to pale in comparison to a good original.

[aluisi]