Disney non-Disneyland Parks:

[NiceBlue]

There are 12 Disney Parks, not including the water parks. Of these 12 parks 6 are Disneyland type parks (DLP) located at 6 areas around the world - Anaheim, Orlando (WDW), Tokyo, Paris, Hong Kong and Shanghai. The remaining 6 are non-Disneyland type parks (NDLP). Three of these - Epcot, Hollywood Studios and Animal Kingdom - are located in WDW, one California Adventure is located in Anaheim, one Disney Studios is located near Paris and the last one Disneysea is located near Tokyo.

What is interesting is that the DLPs do much better in terms of attendance when compared to the NDLPs at the same locations. Going back at least to 1992 attendance at the DLP exceeded attendance at its partnered NDLP in every of the four world locations, sometimes by a significant amount. For example in 2019, the last year data is available prior to the lockdowns, attendance at the Magic Kingdom was 34% greater than attendance at the Animal Kingdom, 41% greater than at Epcot and 45% greater than at Hollywood Studios. Attendance at Disneyland in Anaheim was 47% greater than that at California Adventure and attendance at Disneyland Paris was 46% greater than at Disney Studio. The one exception was in Tokyo, Disneyland Tokyo’s attendance was only 18% greater than Disneysea. Further, for every year from 2006 to 2021 attendance at the Magic Kingdom was the highest among all in the world, not just Disney parks and for every year from 2006 to 2020 either the original Disneyland or the Tokyo Disneyland were either second or third in the world and while Disneyland Paris did not do that well worldwide it did have the highest attendance in Europe. During 2021, with the lockdowns, Shanghai Disneyland jumped to second place while Tokyo fell to fifth. Anaheim Disneyland was closed for a third of that year. This started me thinking about why the DLPs did so well while the NDLPs did not keep up.

Here are six fundamental concepts that were used in designing the original Disneyland that are somewhat lacking in the most of the NDLP:

1. Rides; Disneyland parks have more rides than the NDLPs. The difference can be quite significant.
2. Imagination over thrills: Many of the DLPs rides are slow and even the fast ones, the roller coasters, are not extremely fast and depend on fantasy for their attraction.
3. Fake, Cute and Idealized: The structures are models of reality, they show the fantasy of life, not the dirty realities. Think the Jungle Cruise and the false perspective used for the Main Street buildings. Further, structures are emphasized over nature.
4. Consolidated: The lands and attractions are placed close together and visitors can move directly from one land to another. In this way visitors remain immersed in the imagination and walking is reduced,
5. Variations on a theme: While the parks themselves do not have a set theme, the various lands do, but the themes are somewhat general and do not limit to one story or concept.
6. Interwoven: Being of similar themes the attractions and rides in each land build on each other. For example the riverboat adds to the feeling of all of Frontierland, while the street vehicles do the same for Main Street.

Tom,

 

[NiceBlue]

The data used for the above post was obtained from the AECOM Theme Index and from Scottware theme feature attendance Disney parks. An additional post is planned to go more in depth regarding the Non-Disneyland parks. I have not been to all of those parks so most of the information is obtained from maps and videos. I have frequently been to the Magic Kingdom, been to Anaheim Disneyland once and have also been to Epcot and Hollywood Studios. If anyone has been to the other parks kindly add to this thread.

Tom,

 

[NiceBlue]

Starting with the Non-Disneyland Parks (NDLPs) in WDW, all three were based on parks not owned by Disney. Epcot is basically a World Fair, with science and technology pavilions and pavilions from various nations, most of Hollywood Studios started as a studio tour similar to the 1964 one at Universal Studios and Animal Kingdom is designed as a Safari drive through park and a modern zoo where instead of the animals being caged they are placed in areas similar to their habitats. These are not necessarily bad but they indicate the amount of imagination put into these projects. While the Magic Kingdom has 25 rides, Epcot has 11, Hollywood Studios has 9 and Animal Kingdom has 8. The Magic Kingdom has almost the same number of rides as the 3 NDLPs put together.

Two of the WDW NDLPs, Epcot and Animal Kingdom are fairly spread out, partly because of the water in the parks. However, even the areas without water, such as what was originally called Future World and the Oasis and Discovery Islands seem spread out. Hollywood Studios, with the exception of the studio tour, started out being consolidated, however the addition of Sunset Boulevard meant that there is a relatively long walk to the Tower of Terror, which visitors would then have to retrace. Future World is basically an enlarged version of Tomorrowland and even the two names mean pretty much the same. The structures in Epcot are idealized and attractive, particularly in World Showcase and so are many of the structures in Hollywood Studios with the exception of Star Wars land. This latter area is purposely made to look rundown and shabby, it only has two rides and these have height limits. In terms of characters, there is the menacing Darth Vader and “Imperial Stormtroopers” walking around with what look like machine guns and who seem like Nazis. It is large, 14 acres and this whole area is devoted to just one movie franchise and not even the entire franchise.

The communities of Africa and Asia in Animal Kingdom are a good start being comparable to Main Street as a community of North America. But Main Street is idealized, while the Port of Harambe and the community of Anandapur are purposely made to look somewhat shabby and rundown. Then there is Dinoland. This is an area of an amusement park that is themed as an amusement park and not just any amusement park, but a tacky amusement park. Not only is such a tacky tourist trap not Disney like it is anti-Disney. Lastly is Pandora. This land has the most fantasy, but its name restricts it to one story line. Also looking at a google map of the area it appears to be the smallest of the Animal Kingdom “lands.” Further, there is too much nature in Animal Kingdom for Disney.

Tom,

 

[BrianL]

I think the "Kingdom" style parks do the best because they are iconic and offer the most for all ages. Younger kids who don't meet the height requirements of larger rides have much less to do at say, Hollywood Studios, than at the castle parks. The castles are the statement that this is Disney (it's their logo)! They are where everyone wants to go.

 

[Smugpugmug]

I think the "Kingdom" style parks do the best because they are iconic and offer the most for all ages. Younger kids who don't meet the height requirements of larger rides have much less to do at say, Hollywood Studios, than at the castle parks. The castles are teh statement that this is Disney (it's their logo)! They are where everyone wants to go.

I agree, Brian. I also think that they have the rides that people think of when they think of "classic Disney attractions" and people want to experience those. For instance, Tokyo Disneyland can be best described as "Disney's greatest hits" vs. Disneysea, which IMO has significantly better theming with less attractions.

 

[NiceBlue]

The trouble with Disney Studios near Paris is that it appears to have been done on the cheap. It has a low number of attractions, 13 compared to Paris Disneyland with 41. It appears to be the smallest of the 12 parks. The facades of many of the structures have a 2 dimensional appearance, although that may have been improved in later years. Disney Studio 1 is an interesting and colorful entrance to the park, but it is small. The area surrounding the Ratatouille ride is well done, but it depicts Paris which is itself a short distance from the park.

In many ways California Adventure was done well, its “lands” are interestingly themed and its structures are attractive. It has 19 rides, which is more than most of the NDLPs have although the original Disneyland has 36. The problem here may be that it is a California themed park in the middle of California. So, however interestingly California Adventure’s lands are themed, the real California is just outside of the gates. This also means that the park’s theme limits what the park can contain. California Adventure has 7 “lands” plus its “Main Street” Buena Vista Street. The issue with one of them, Pixar Pier, is that it is part of the amusement park themed as an amusement park. Visitors do not have to go to a Disney park in order to experience the type of rides at Pixar Pier. There are plenty of such parks around the US. Disney has developed a certain market niche, which makes it unique and Pixar Pier is not it. Part of this niche is that Disney puts imagination above thrills. The roller coaster at Pixar Pier has a 360 degree loop and not much imagination. On the other hand the aesthetics of Pixar Pier, particularly that of the roller coaster which looks as if it is wooden is good. Another positive is that the rides in Plixa Pier are themed to a variety of stories.

Now the success. Disneysea in Tokyo. Of all of the NDLPs, Disneysea is closest in attendance to its Disneyland partner and has done well compared to non-Disney parks worldwide. It has been in the top five of the world’s parks for every year from 2006 to 2020. This park has 7 seas (lands) that are well themed in a general way. They are placed fairly close to one another, although it seems quite a walk to get from the entrance located in Mediterranean Harbor to the other seas. I have only seen them in videos, but the aesthetics are amazing. In particular are the Tower of Terror, Arabian Coast, Mermaid Lagoon and Mysterious Island. Mount Prometheus is visible from most parts of the park including the entrance and periodically has flames shooting from its top. Somewhat like the Disney Railroad at Disneyland, Disneysea’s Transit Steamer Line, can transport visitors to different seas/lands as can the Electric Railway.

What is most interesting is that of all the 12 parks the design for Disneysea is the least like the original Disneyland. Most DLPs are designed as a flower, with Main Street being the stem and the central plaza being the center of the flower from which four petals branch off (originally Hong Kong only had three petals). Disneysea is designed as a spiral, starting at Mediterranean Harbor and winding around to Mysterious Island and Its seas/lands are themed differently from that of the original park. This shows that the basic design is not needed for a NDLP to be successful.

Conclusions:
The much lower attendance in five of the six Non-Disneyland Disney parks is due to a failure to follow some basic principles which were used in designing the original park. These principles include, significant number of rides, imagination over thrills, fake, cute and idealized structures and lands, keeping areas close together so that visitors are kept immersed in the imagination and designing each section (land, sea) in a general theme that is not limited to one story line. The patterning of Epcot as a World Fair, Hollywood Studios after an existing studio tour, Animal Kingdom after Safari drive through parks and a modern zoos and patterning California Adventure after the state it is located and theming parts of the parks after amusement parks, indicates the level of imagination put into this. It seems that Disney is continuing in this same vein with its Star Wars Lands.

There are two problems with the low attendance in these parks. One, attracting more visitors could have increased revenues for Disney and two, more visitors in the NDLPs could have reduced crowding in the DLPs, in particular the Magic Kingdom.

Brian, thank you for commenting. I feel a Non-Disneyland-like park could be as successful as long as the six fundamental concepts listed in the first post are followed - more rides, imagination over thrills, fake, cute and idealized, consolidated, variations on a theme and interwoven, even if the actual set up or the actual rides were different than the original iconic Disneyland. Disneysea is different from the original Disneyland, but comes closer to following those six concepts than the other Non-Disneyland like parks and Disneysea does much better than they do in terms of attendance. More children-friendly rides would be positive.

Smugpugmug, thank you for commenting. Have you been to Disneysea? I agree that its theming is good and comparable to Disneyland, but I have only seen it in videos. If you have been there I would like you to comment on that. Disenysea has fewer attractions than Tokyo Disneyland, but not that much fewer and Disneysea does almost as well in terms of attendance as Tokyo Disneyland. My feeling while watching the video is that Disneysea is a bit more spread out than Disneyland. Also, upon entering Disneysea, it appears that the wide open vista and large buildings of the Mediterranean Harbor are somewhat overwhelming for a Disney Park. Is that the case?

Tom,

 

[Moliphino]

The trouble with Disney Studios near Paris is that it appears to have been done on the cheap. It has a low number of attractions, 13 compared to Paris Disneyland with 41. It appears to be the smallest of the 12 parks. The facades of many of the structures have a 2 dimensional appearance, although that may have been improved in later years. Disney Studio 1 is an interesting and colorful entrance to the park, but it is small. The area surrounding the Ratatouille ride is well done, but it depicts Paris which is itself a short distance from the park.

They're finally giving this park a much needed overhaul and expansion with Marvel and Frozen (though the Star Wars part that was initially part of the plan is presumed to be canceled now). There was really not much to do in this park last time I was there (2017).

 

[NiceBlue]

Moliphino, thank you for your comment. It’s helpful to read comments from people who have been to the parks. After reading your comment I looked up plans for the park. While I personally don’t care for Marvel it does seem to fit the Disneyland mold since there are a number of stories that can be utilized. I’ve seen drawings of the plans for Frozen and it seems to show a “large lake” in front of the Arendelle area. In the past Disney has placed lakes in the way of visitors getting to attractions. The most obvious cases are the Seven Seas Lagoon that has caused a bottleneck on the way to the Magic Kingdom and the lake in World Showcase, which caused that area to be spread out and caused unnecessary walking. Star Wars as it has been presented is not a Disneyland like area. I wonder if the presumed canceling of it in Disney Studios is due to Disney realizing that.

Tom,

 

[Karin1984]

You do know that the Studios in Disneyland Paris are getting a major overhaul with 3 new lands?

 

[NiceBlue]

Karin, the only things I know are what I mentioned in the comment to Moliphino. What are the names of the three new lands?

I’m beginning to feel more and more that the problem with the Non-Disney like parks, with the exceptions of Epcot and Disneysea, is that they are trying to get by, by spending the least possible, then, in the cases of California Adventure and Disney Studios having to rectify errors. And I am beginning to think that the Disney Studios overhaul will not be that major. It seems that the Marvel section only replaced an existing area and part of the rest of the expansion is replacing the Studio Tour/Cars Road Trip. So, it may come down to this overhaul adding a lake with not much else. Hopefully you or someone else, can provide me with information that would change my mind about this.

Tom,

PS I realize that I was a bit sloppy when I wrote that “they are trying to get by, by spending the least possible” as the least possible would be nothing. What it seems to me is that they spend less than on the other parks, particularly the Disneyland-like parks.

 

[Karin1984]

Avengers just opened, Arendelle is next (similar to Hong Kong), with a lake for night time shows like Epcot. The third land was rumoured to be Star Wars, but as this land had a bit of a rocky start in the US, this is not confirmed.

 

[NiceBlue]

Karen, thank you for the information.

Tom,

 

[starry_solo]

I'm sure I'm in the minority, but I really liked the original Disney's California Adventure (with the apostrophe and the s too!). I did think that Paradise Pier was kind of corny with their carnival games, but that was a way for them to make more money, lol.

But then again, I remember when they didn't have park hopper tickets, you had to buy two one-day park tickets to get into both parks on the same day, write down which ticket you used for which park entry, etc.

 

[NiceBlue]

Starry Solo, I’m glad you commented as I have never been to California Adventure. I wrote earlier that “In many ways California Adventure was done well, its ‘lands’ are interestingly themed and its structures are attractive. It has 19 rides, which is more than most of the NDLPs have although the original Disneyland has 36.” In trying to figure out why the park does relatively poorly I suggested the idea of it being a California themed park in California and that Pixar Pier is too much like other amusement parks. Perhaps if it had been placed in another country or even on the east coast it would have done relatively better. Also earlier I wrote that it seems to me that Disney spent less on California Adventure than on other parks. I think I felt this because it seems Disney felt the need to make so many changes to California Adventure, but now I am reconsidering that and beginning to think that Disney was not stingy in building the park. I'm glad you brought up “park hopper tickets.” It doesn’t make sense to me to charge more to go to more than one park in a day. After all, a person can only be in one park at a time and allowing people to go to more than one park in a day would attract more visitors.

Tom,

 

[bcla]

I'm sure I'm in the minority, but I really liked the original Disney's California Adventure (with the apostrophe and the s too!). I did think that Paradise Pier was kind of corny with their carnival games, but that was a way for them to make more money, lol.

But then again, I remember when they didn't have park hopper tickets, you had to buy two one-day park tickets to get into both parks on the same day, write down which ticket you used for which park entry, etc.

When was that? My first visit was in 2003. I didn’t actually intend on going (was there to watch some college sports) but I was staying with relatives (who has annual passes) and was encouraged to go since other relatives were visiting Disneyland. They had park hoppers. I got a special deal as a guest of a Southern California resident. For the price of a single day’s admission (maybe $60) I could use it either as a park hopper for a single day, or separate admissions to DL and DCA on different days within 14 calendar days. I chose the latter. They also had to pay for a blockout admission on a Saturday, but not on the Sunday before Labor Day.

It was Eisner”s pet project and there was a lot of criticism that it was done on the cheap with several off the shelf amusement rides and mundane rides like a rapids ride. Of course there was some innovation with Soarin’ Over California and California Screamin’. The latter’s motor system was revolutionary. I’d never been on a roller coaster that could accelerate going uphill. Even shuttle loops that used an aircraft carrier style launch weren’t like that.

 

[starry_solo]

When was that? My first visit was in 2003. I didn’t actually intend on going (was there to watch some college sports) but I was staying with relatives (who has annual passes) and was encouraged to go since other relatives were visiting Disneyland. They had park hoppers. I got a special deal as a guest of a Southern California resident. For the price of a single day’s admission (maybe $60) I could use it either as a park hopper for a single day, or separate admissions to DL and DCA on different days within 14 calendar days. I chose the latter. They also had to pay for a blockout admission on a Saturday, but not on the Sunday before Labor Day.

It was Eisner”s pet project and there was a lot of criticism that it was done on the cheap with several off the shelf amusement rides and mundane rides like a rapids ride. Of course there was some innovation with Soarin’ Over California and California Screamin’. The latter’s motor system was revolutionary. I’d never been on a roller coaster that could accelerate going uphill. Even shuttle loops that used an aircraft carrier style launch weren’t like that.

spring of 2002 or 2003. My employer at the time had its team building event there. The price (value) of the ticket was $34. Each employee could get two tickets if they were single. If they had kids, they could get as many tickets as they had kids, plus themselves and partner.

I remember it was about $50/ticket regular price at the ticket booth, no specials.

 

[bcla]

spring of 2002 or 2003. My employer at the time had its team building event there. The price (value) of the ticket was $34. Each employee could get two tickets if they were single. If they had kids, they could get as many tickets as they had kids, plus themselves and partner.

I remember it was about $50/ticket regular price at the ticket booth, no specials.

I was looking at the dates of the event. They were games at UC Irvine, and I went Sunday and Labor Day Monday. Looked up the single day admission. This claims it was $47 in 2003.

https://jansworld.net/disney-ticket-history

 

[starry_solo]

I was looking at the dates of the event. They were games at UC Irvine, and I went Sunday and Labor Day Monday. Looked up the single day admission. This claims it was $47 in 2003.

https://jansworld.net/disney-ticket-history

right. Our value was $34 because my employer bought bulk. Like 500-1000 tickets. We upgraded to an AP and couldn’t use multiple unused tickets towards one AP. i had a dozen tickets because some of my coworkers got tickets but didn’t go….

 

[NiceBlue]

The Plan for the following is to examine the Non-Disneyland parks as to how they could or could not be changed to better embody the six fundamental concepts outlined in the first post and presumably become more successful in regard to attendance. California Adventure will deal with a somewhat different issue. The outstanding factor in most of these parks is the low number of rides.

The aesthetics of the pavilions of the various nations in the World Showcase are up to the same quality as the structures in the Magic Kingdom and the other Disneyland parks. This is a positive aspect to Epcot and it shows that a good amount of money and effort were put into their design. I think they are great. What is not typical of the Disneyland parks, is that the World Showcase is so spread out. This results in longer walks for visitors and means that visitors would have to leave the imagination of one pavilion to go to another one. The lake is nice, but not worth over $100 a visit. It is really too late to do much about that now, but when the park was first designed the lake could have been placed to the west or the east of the entrance so that visitors could enter the park without having to go around the lake then could enter the lake area in the evening without having to first exit the park and after the fireworks show could exit the lake area directly to the parking lot, the parking lot trams or the monorail station. There could be seats placed around the lake and visitors would be saved from the crowded walk from where the lake is now to the exit. Most importantly it would have allowed the nation pavilions to have been placed closer together so visitors could have been able to walk directly from one to another. One factor which could make a change now is if more rides are added to the entire park.

Future World is also spread out, but it appears that something can be done about that by adding more structures to fill in some of the spaces. Then all aesthetics, which suggest a Tomorrowland theme, except Planet Earth and the monorail, could be removed. Not that Tomorrowland is bad, but there already is a Tomorrowland. There is now a plan to divide this area into three parts - World Discovery, World Celebration and World Nature. This is a good start as long as there are differences in aesthetics and not just names. One thing I am hopeful about is the plan to add the Journey of Water, Inspired by Moana.

Tom,

 

[NiceBlue]

Hollywood Studios started off as a mishmash of a working studio, a studio tram tour and a small park themed around Hollywood. The small Hollywood theme park is good, with its Art Deco ``Main Street '' (Hollywood Boulevard) leading to Graumen’s Chinese Theater. The working studio and the studio tram tour have since been removed, but the park is still somewhat of a mishmash. Dividing it into “Lands'' could add some organization to it. The area from Toy Story Land down to Animation Courtyard, Mickey and Minnie’s Runaway Railway and the Frozen Sing a Long, could be combined into an Animation Land, with at least one of the three Toy Story rides being themed to some other animation story to add some variety. Star Wars Land, which is large, 14 acres, could become Science Fiction Land. One attraction in this redesigned land would remain Star Wars but smaller and without its current shabbiness. Another themed area in Science Fiction Land could be based on my favorite Science Fiction film of all times - “Forbidden Planet.” While still another could be based on Time Travel. During the 1950s Disney had a TV episode about what space aliens would look like. This could be another attraction and may be particularly interesting now, with the discovery of planets outside of the solor system. As it is now Star Wars Land is limited to one thing, Star Wars, plus it is purposely designed to look shabby, rundown and dirty. Changing it to Science Fiction Land would provide more variety and make it more Disneyland-like. It could also become more Disneyland-like by giving the land a more idealized aesthetic and “cleaning” it up.

The area from Grand Avenue, where the Muppets are located to Echo Lake could become Comedy Land with the other existing attractions in that area being rethemed to fit into the comedy idea. At the end of Sunset Boulevard where the Tower of Terror is located could become Terror Land. The Rock ‘n’ Roller Coaster would fit just because it’s a roller coaster, but could be rethemed into a terror ride. One thing that I thought was good about the studio tram tour was Catastrophe Canyon. Just that part could be added to a new Terror Land. Lastly the area of Sunset Boulevard from Hollywood Boulevard to Gower Street could be redesigned in a Paris theme and become Romantic Musical Land. This would fill in a relatively boring area by replacing the “farm stands' ' and the lawn in front of the Beauty and the Beast theater. The lawn is nice, but it is not that Disneyland-like. Beauty and the Beast theater would remain as it would fit in with the romantic musical theme. Lastly, as Hollywood Studios only have 9 rides compared to the Magic Kingdom’s 25 adding more rides would be important.

Tom,