Greg Maletic
Page 1 of 3
Disney Returns To Its Roots
Yes, Disney's California Adventure could be better. But Disneyland's newest park and
Tokyo DisneySea illustrate that Walt Disney Imagineering has finally remembered what an
amusement park is supposed to be like.
This is part three in a three part series on recent Disney moves - for the better and worse. Part One on Animal Kingdom was two weeks ago. Part Two on Epcot was last week.
It didn't take long for public opinion to turn against Disney's California Adventure. It's not just because of the negative Internet talk--it's common for Internet discussions to trash everything in their path--but the mainstream press deemed California Adventure a disappointment, and the general public picked up on the attitude. Low attendance combined with high ticket prices, a few lackluster attractions, and the fact that it competes with the greatest amusement park in the world directly across the street all conspired to give California Adventure the scent of failure.
Most of the Internet criticism centers on the park's budget, suggesting that Disney built it on the cheap. (More money means a better park, they say, and as evidence, look at what money did for Tokyo DisneySea!) Many complain that the attractions are off-the-shelf, and that even the custom attractions aren't very special. Secondary criticism revolves around the theming. A simulation of California--in California? What happened to the ambitious west coast cousin to Epcot? Or Disney's "America?"
Well, wait a second. True, California Adventure isn't the most ambitious project Disney has undertaken. But where has ambition gotten them in the recent past? The last two parks Disney built in the U.S. were California Adventure and Walt Disney World's Animal Kingdom. Of the two, Animal Kingdom would be considered by a lot of people the "truer" Disney park, with heavily themed, custom attractions that you won't see anywhere else. California Adventure, on the other hand, takes many standard amusement park rides and repackages them in prettier designs. The attractions that aren't off-the-shelf amusement park rides are exact replicas of attractions found at other Disney parks. Using the rationale that a lot of the DisneySea/California Adventure critics are using--custom rides plus bigger budget equals better park--Animal Kingdom should be the clear winner. But the results show the formula to have shaky foundations.
The plain fact is that I found California Adventure a whole lot more fun than Animal Kingdom, and it stands to expand Disney's audience in a way that Animal Kingdom--or even DisneySea--can't. It aims lower, but hits its target more squarely. And like Tokyo DisneySea, California Adventure doesn't get bogged down in trying to impart an educational experience to its guests. It's about having fun, and that's a goal that's been lost in Disney's recent efforts.
Whoopi Goldberg in Superstar Limo
There's a lot to be improved at California Adventure: it could use a few more attractions, and the two Disney-like attractions that are unique--Soarin' over California and Superstar Limo--were both disappointing to me. But Paradise Pier, California Adventure's standout area, is filled with enjoyable rides (the California Screamin' roller coaster is particularly outstanding) and I felt an exciting ambiance while walking along the pier that I hadn't felt at any of Disney's other recent efforts. Although it may not be yet, I think it's easily on track to be a better park than Epcot (see my related article here). I think it's already a better park than Animal Kingdom (see my related article here), where real animals defer to audio-animatronic poachers, and an amorphous environmental message oversimplifies important issues. In the end, the problems that plague California Adventure will be substantially easier to solve than the ones facing either of Disney's "educational" parks.