First...
When I read the subject line I thought you were talking about actual cloning!
Me too! I thought it was a joke of some kind, but still, I thought it was about human cloning. When I finally open the thread, lo and behold, I find I was the inspiration for the thread! Even though most disagree, its nice to know somebody actually read some of my chicken scratch.
Now, on to the REAL topic...
Does Disney really care if we go to more than one Disney destination? I mean, if I spend a week at
Disneyland rather than Disney World, it's still a week of giving Disney my money, right?
True, but my thoughts were that providing different, unique experiences at different destinations would result in more overall trips to Disney destinations. Many WDW visitors visit very infrequently. So the idea is that if a family visits WDW every 5 years, providing a unique experience at the Disneyland Resort (DLR) might get them to visit DLR in between those 5 years. Example, WDW in 2003, DLR in 2005, WDW in 2008.
Its the same principle as the
Disney Cruise Line. Disney provided a vacation experience different from WDW, not with the intention of having folks substitute the
DCL for a WDW trip, but instead add a trip to another Disney destination.
Now, obviously its a bit more difficult to differentiate one theme park from another than it is to differentiate a theme park from a cruise line, but its the same principle.
Until you realize that WDW was a clone of DL from the beginning, as was DLP and TDL. Did that reduce attendance?
Yes, I do realize that MK is essentially a clone of DL, but that does not change my opinion, for several reasons.
Back when MK was built, cross-country travel was not as convenient or as common as it is today. I'm sure that the number East Coasters willing to make a trek to the West Coast was much smaller in 1971 than now.
Using essentially a clone of DL as a base for another resort makes sense, given the immense popularity and now proven lasting appeal of DL.
Clearly, Disney is (or at least was) trying to develop the idea of having two resort destinations in the U.S., and obviously they would not want people to just switch a couple of days at WDW for a couple of days at DLR.
By cloning attractions for cost reasons (and lets face it, the primary reason IS cost), they are hurting the chances of the resorts to succeed as standalone vacation destinations that complement, rather than compete, with each other.
Clearly DCA failed in its objective. Disney's response? Add a nice show, some kiddie rides, and clone three more attractions, ToT, Pooh (at DL) and Playhouse Disney. Nothing to really entice anyone who goes to WDW to visit DLR.
The population and available travel dollars continue to grow... Disney could get a bigger overall piece of that pie by providing unique experiences at its different resorts.
There's a major difference (in my mind, at least) between re-using a ride mechanism and duplicating a ride, a la Pirates.
Yes, when talking about theme park attractions, there are different degrees of cloning. The DL and WDW versions of Pirates and Pooh are not technically clones, as clones are supposed to be identical, but they are close enough.
The same ride mechanism and pattern, but with a different story and theme, like Dino and Indy, could be called clones, but I don't really consider them clones. No, its not as unique as say, M:S vs. Space Mountain, but its better than simply cloning, like Soarin' is essentially reported to be.
As an example, even though the architecture is somewhat different, and a few of the effects are reportedly different, the two ToT's appear to essentially be clones. However, if Disney had used the Tower ride mech, and instead used it as a "Journey to the Center of the Earth", or a "Haunted Mine Shaft", with completely different story elements and themeing, it would have significantly upped the uniqueness factor.
:
