Why Are Disneyland Fans Complaining?

FYI, my editors at the Register liked my Don't get angry; it's just vacation Blog Flume post here on TPI and asked me to write about that issue in a more Disneyland-specific way for my column in the paper this week. So that's where this is coming from, in case anyone cares wonders.

Here's an element that I missed in the column that I want to include here:

For many people who feel anger at something Disney has done, ultimately, it's not really about Disney.

Let's say you are feeling angry with someone, or frustrated with some part of your life. But you don't have any way of effectively addressing that without creating a lot of messiness. That anger or frustration has to "come out" somehow, though, so Disney makes a convenient target.

As I mentioned in both pieces, fans' relationship with Disney is one way - venting at Disney isn't going to change the way the company does anything. So that makes it a "safe" target. There's very little chance of blowback to the individual fan.

In this way, our anger at Disney - or a sports team, or anything else we follow as a fan - is protective. It allows us to vent anger at some monolithic target that can take it, without having to aim it at a friend, family member, or coworker who might create unpleasant consequences for us.

But we're still wallowing in anger. And as I wrote in the original blog post, that's not healthy over the long term. Passion is great. But anger is corrosive. If a passion is twisting into anger too often, then it's time to redirect that passion toward something that doesn't tick us off so often.

Or... it's time to find another way to address the core problem in our lives that is making us so angry at stuff like theme parks. But that's the work for a person to take with a licensed therapist... not a theme park blogger or newspaper columnist. ;^)

Here's the other issue. There are some people who make their living by riling people on a daily basis. Every single change - whether it's at Disneyland or whatever other element in society they cover - is the sign of the impending apocalypse, and all their readers and viewers out there need to get angry about it RIGHT NOW!

Eventually, a few wiser readers catch on that none of these changes actually ever do lead to the apocalypse - that people ultimately are pretty resilient and we find ways to make things work. But the rabble-rousers find new readers and viewers to enrage, and many people are happy to keep getting angry at whatever new target the rabble-rousers find for them.

It's a crappy thing to do to people and a crappy way to make a living, IMHO, but it works. Anger drives traffic, sales, and ratings. Being chill about things doesn't.

But it's a much healthier way to live.

Anger is one thing, but it is a different issue from complaining. Disney fans have a right to complain when the company tries to offer less, because of skimping on budgets. The fans were especially burnt by Eisner's California Adventure.

Disneyland now suffers from extreme overcrowding, and they're building Star Wars Land which can do nothing but make the crowds worse. I'm not concerned about the quality of Star Wars Land, because Harry Potter has shown Disney up, but I am concerned that they didn't build a third theme park.

Disfan: Sort of like the complaining that sounds irrational. Star Wars Land can only increase park capacity. It'll likely offset the limited capacity in New Orleans Square with another way out. What are justifications for the third park when the two existing parks are not fully built out? Disney World's DHS and Animal Kingdom were half day parks for over 20 years. This is a poor value for guests since overcrowding with few attractions is hardly a better choice. California Adventure has room for many more attractions. I'm looking forward to Marvel Land. You feel burnt from Eisner's CA. Huh? And now you want a third theme park? Maybe you want the third theme park to have Star Wars. Okay, but they still need to fix Disneyland.

Star Wars Land may increase capacity, but can the infrastructure of the rest of Disneyland support it? Did you see the bottleneck of Main Street during the Paint the Night parade? Now they want all those extra people to funnel through Main Street?

Talking about increasing capacity, have you heard the plans to make the Battle Escape attraction with multiple sequences, involving getting on and off the ride vehicles? It's reported to have an hourly capacity of 1,500, half of Pirates. That doesn't sound like adding capacity, it sounds like adding crowds in the walkways or lines waiting to get on.

Disneyland is extremely crowded, even on weekday nights. Now, not even after Star Wars. That's why I think they made a mistake not building the third park. The crowds are having a real impact on the enjoyment of Disneyland, you can hardly move sometimes. I can see people not going or not renewing their APs because of it.

Disneyland IS fully built out, it's mainly Tomorrowland that needs to be fixed. If they wanted to add to Disneyland, they should have put a Frozen Ride in Fantasyland and the Geyser Mountain ride in back of Frontierland. DCA does need more attractions, but it is still hampered by the California theme. Hampered still, yes because of the decisions that Eisner and Pressler made.

The third park should have been Star Wars and Marvel. That would have evened out the crowds. Your argument about DHS and Animal Kingdom doesn't apply to the Disneyland Resort. Anon, I enjoy your posts and usually agree with your comments, but I have to defend my right to complain. Complain yes, anger no.

A third park means you're paying a marginally higher admission ticket with two half day parks and an even more crowded Disneyland. Although you say the Disney World example doesn't apply, that's what will happen. The Magic Kingdom has higher attendance with less attractions. People will feel like going to Disneyland since its a more complete experience. The half day California Adventure and third park means two parks where the guests will dump into Disneyland. That's why it's better for Disneyland to increase capacity and California Adventure to get enough attractions and shows to keep people there. Marvel Land might be enough to help. The third park needs enough attractions to be a full park experience. Disney isn't a miracle worker. They are limited to their reality.

The rumors about the Star Wars attraction sounds like a early blue sky. It is irrelevant. Having people both on the ride and the land itself is adding park capacity. In fact, it's adding the equivalent of New Orleans Square with two major attractions, shows, restaurants including table service. I think it will add 20% capacity from square footage. This means Disney can add more people in the park and it will feel as crowded as it does currently. It can pull people to the north so the other rides can be shorter. Insisting the park is fully built out doesn't make sense especially after complaining about being cheap and offering less. There's that many people because many want to go. So to fix the crowding, you give them more to do.

The issue of an over crowded Disneyland doesn't sound like a problem that needs to be solved. Who are we kidding? It is more correct to not turn anyone away and this only happens a few days around Christmas and New Years, and the 24 Hour event. The park seldom reaches capacity.

"I can see people not going or not renewing their APs because of it."

So you should be glad they aren't going or renewing. Someone once said "Nobody's going to Disneyland because it's too crowded."

I love this discussion.

Disneyland doesn't have to increase capacity - DCA needs more capacity to siphon off crowds from Disneyland, the third park would do the same thing. If DHS and AK are half day parks, the first priority should be to make them full day parks, not add more to the Magic Kingdom, thankfully, that's what they're starting to do.

You talk about reality - the reality is that Disney spent 1.5 billion on My Magic Plus, now they're talking about using smart phones for doing the same thing. They also spent 5.5 billion on Shanghai, which had cost overruns which caused the domestic parks to cut back. They could have easily spent that money on the third park. Was Shanghai a good investment for the future? I hope so.

I hope you're right about the capacity issue, but I don't trust Disney to be concerned about capacity - look at the Frozen ride in Epcot, instead of spending more to make it higher capacity, they used the same ride system and layout and ended up with 5+ hour waits.

You still didn't address the issue of the Main Street bottleneck. I've seen the crowds back up, the overflow corridors back of the east side of Main Street may help, but the crowds seem too overwhelming. Even building a west side corridor may not relieve the problem. Then you have the issue of sending people through a plain, unthemed corridor. Yes, it reduces the magic.

You say the park seldom reaches capacity, but it doesn't need to reach capacity to reduce the quality of the experience. It's not fun when the walkways are always crowded.

I think 'complaining' is not the right term, 'criticizing' is better. I think Disney fans have a right to criticize when the experience becomes less and less, as I've heard others say, Disney is charging premium prices, they need to keep offering a premium experience.

Will prices keep going up? I'm afraid that's inevitable. But I would have felt they were more justified charging more because they opened a third theme park.

I think the root of many Disneyland fan complaints is that the Disneyland Resort today is not the Disneyland Resort of their childhood, and due to the nostalgia factor many regard it as inferior. They choose not to look at the reality, which is that a vast majority of the changes made since the mid-2000s have been a net positive for the resort, and instead look back at the Disneyland of the 1970s-1990s and wish it had stayed that way. They either ignore or don't believe that the entire themed entertainment industry started to change in major ways beginning in the 1990s and that today's parks are the result of adapting to a modern audience. Gone are the days where taking a (relatively) standard theme park ride system and adding extensive theming to it was a big deal. Now, the destination theme parks are all about innovative experiences, immersive themed environments, and allowing people to live out the worlds of their favorite IPs.

Are the fan complaints justified? That depends. In my opinion, it is only acceptable to complain about things you have personally experienced. For example, someone who complains about the new Frozen show replacing Aladdin, but who has not actually seen the new show, holds little weight in my opinion. Can you be disappointed at the loss of Aladdin? Sure, but that doesn't mean you can automatically dismiss its replacement. It's the same with the new Guardians of the Galaxy attraction replacing Twilight Zone Tower of Terror. Yes, you can be unhappy about the loss of Tower of Terror, but it is a bit premature to outright dismiss Guardians of the Galaxy. You can say you're not excited about it or you're not a fan of the change, but you can't go out and say it's the worst decision Disney has ever made and expect to be taken seriously. While admittedly not likely, there's always the possibility it could dethrone Radiator Springs Racers as DCA's best attraction.

The other thing that really annoys me are people who insist on complaining just to complain. These are the people that will find things to complain about no matter how minor they are. Nobody is every going to have a perfect visit to a theme park, but if all the negatives are rather negligible it is better to just ignore them. If something noteworthy happens, by all means voice your displeasure. However, I can't believe that some people are so sensitive that seeing a sign with a burnt out lightbulb has a significant negative impact on their day.

As for the other discussion in this thread, the Disneyland Resort currently sees an average of 75,000 visitors per day, with roughly 2/3 of those in Disneyland Park and the remainder at DCA. This is about right for the resort as is, and it means that the parks are usually busy without being so packed that the experience of the average visitor is diminished. However, as they are now the Disneyland Resort is approximately at the carrying capacity for the current infrastructure, and it is impossible for significant attendance growth without increasing resort capacity, as the lesser experience would likely result in fewer repeat visitors (and unlike WDW, 80% of Disneyland's guests are returning visitors).

Now, the quick solution to increase resort capacity is obvious: Build a third theme park. However, a third theme park would need to generate sufficient additional revenue to be worth the investment. Due to limitations in other areas, it is more likely that a third theme park, if built now, would simply increase operating costs without increasing revenue long term as the current crowds would mostly spread out over the three parks. There just isn't enough infrastructure to support the 20,000-30,000 additional visitors needed to justify the park.

What is Disney doing instead? Investing in infrastructure for the resort. More parking and more lodging are at the top of the list, with two new parking structures and three hotels supposedly in the works (one of which has been announced). This allows the resort as a whole to handle a greater number of visitors. To fit these additional guests into the two existing parks, Disney is developing Star Wars Land, Marvel Land, and other projects. Star Wars Land alone will increase Disneyland's capacity by 15-20%. Of course, increasing capacity is more than just increasing attraction counts, and there will be crowd control improvements coming to Disneyland over the next several years (DCA got most of theirs during the overhaul). Once Disney feels that the resort has enough capacity to support the additional demands of a third park, then it will happen.

Another thing that Anon brought up is that most visitors still do not consider DCA a full day park. While a first-time visitor could easily spend a full day there, repeat visitors often only do a half-day at DCA due to a lack of repeatable attractions. Marvel Land, along with other improvements planned for the park, is intended to fix this issue. The goal is to get DCA to the point that Disney can stop selling one-day park hoppers without losing visitors to either park. Only then will additional parks truly siphon guests away from Disneyland.

Lastly, a note about ride capacity. As Disfan mentioned, the two new E-ticket attractions in Star Wars Land will both have capacities of around 1,500 riders per hour. While this number may seem low, it is actually on par with a modern Disney E-ticket. Radiator Springs Racers, Soarin' Over California, and Twilight Zone Tower of Terror all get 1,500 riders per hour, and several headliners at Disneyland (Matterhorn Bobsleds, Space Mountain, and Splash Mountain) only get slightly above that. In fact, there are only 8 attractions at the resort that routinely get 2,000+ riders per hour, and nothing that gets 2,500+ (yes, Pirates can do 3,000 theoretically but never gets near that in actual operation anymore). So while the Star Wars Land rides will not be the highest capacity ever built, they will have a sufficient capacity for the park and should likely follow a pattern similar to Radiator Springs Racers (2.5+ hour waits throughout the first summer, 90-120 minute waits for the first two to three years, and generally waits under 90 minutes after that).

I think Disney complaints show a very important thing that Disney has that others wish they had: Brand Loyalty.

It is really something when an American company has such passionate customers that they are willing to fully invest emotionally into a ride or experience. I really can only think of Apple as another company that has these kinds of fans.

For my two cents, Disney (and to an extent Universal) has always been the parks that never catered to the lowest common denominator. These were the quality parks that heavily invested in theming and quality entertainment. Look at the Six Flags Parks. They come up with Battle for Metropolis and all of a sudden, they are the geniuses of the Theme Park World. Metropolis is a weak comparison to Spiderman, Toy Story Mania, or Men in Black. However, since it is Six Flags, it is seen as a positive. I even remember some on this site hailing Magic Mountain as a park really stepping up their game.

Disney, in my opinion, is acting very sloppy. Taking Maelstrom and the Tower of Terror and just throwing Frozen and GOTG into it isn't a good show, it looks like a cheap money grab which Disney should leave for the Six Flags parks.

Disfan: The bottleneck at Main Street is a problem. I wish they will solve it. I suggest they do a back store front to the west and east side instead of having that plain corridor on the east side that's not often open. They need better signage, lighting, and crowd control. This won't resolve the issue entirely so Disneyland should have a second west exit that directs people to the Mickey and Friends parking lot on the west side near Critter Country and the new Star Wars Land. This is surely radical, but diverting thousands away from Main Street will also fix the rush to use the trams.

The Frozen ride in Epcot is 60 minutes waits currently for standby. This is better than Toy Story Mania that seldom was below 120 minutes until the third track. The initial rush didn't last. You can't knock the Frozen makeover. Maelstrom wasn't popular. It was a wasted attraction. Frozen added a credible attraction back into the lineup.

They aren't done with the Magic Kingdom. More new attractions are rumored to be coming. Maybe they will replace the their Tomorrowland Speefway ride with a new princess attraction. So you can't keep complaining about getting less when they are giving you more to do and you have it in your head that it worsens the experience by making the parks more crowded. Certainly, prices goes up with each new addition. So you're chasing what you think you should be paying versus what Disney wants to charge you, thus the dissatisfaction.

Speaking of cheap money grabs, throwing VR on existing roller coasters at Six Flags is much worse than doing a theming makeover of Tower of Terror and Frozen/Maelstrom. There's no comparison.

AJ, thanks for explaining, I guess the resort does need to build up it's infrastructure before it can open the third park. The problem I had was Disney spending so much on My Magic Plus and Shanghai and not investing enough in Anaheim. When Euro Disney failed, I thought that Disney put so much money into a park in France where Disney is not appreciated, and was not even wanted, and they put so little money into California, where Disney IS appreciated. I agree China is a huge untapped market, I'm just concerned that the Chinese aren't into Disney as much as Americans are. Hong Kong hasn't done so well.

Anon, I've heard of the possibility of the back side exit directly to Mickey and Friends. While this would solve a crowd flow issue, I don't think it's ideal. It feels too county fair-ish with multiple exits, although I realize the one entrance would remain at Main Street. And there would have to be big signs, saying "Exit to Mickey and Friends Parking only, other parking areas please exit from Main Street". Another break in the magic. Also, a lot of people exit after the parade, or want to shop on Main Street before they leave.

Also, I realize that Disney probably calculates capacity numbers for the long term. Yes, there may be long lines for the first season or year, but I realize that crowds do die down after a while. But this is Star Wars, the response is going to be huge. I just hope Disney doesn't shut out APS for two months as been rumored. You can limit access, but don't shut them out completely.

Another crowd issue will be the parades. Paint the Night had huge crowds, can they accommodate even bigger crowds after Star Wars opens? Maybe if they run three parades a night. Again, is that an ideal solution? Again, it would have been better to open a third park.

AJ, you also mentioned the nostalgia factor behind many fan complaints. Well, nostalgia is the primary reason that brings people back and makes Disney fans so hard core. That may be a reason that overseas parks, besides Tokyo, have a hard time, because nostalgia takes time to build. We want to bring our kids to Disneyland because we have so many great memories going as a child. I'm not against changes like ToT into GOTG, but I may be concerned about the ugly warehouse power plant museum that will be visible from all areas of the park. A landmark like that should be iconic, something that people already know, or at least looks nice.

Yes, Disneyland is not a museum. But while I bemoan the loss of Country Bears, I would have been ok with it if they didn't cheap out on the Winnie the Pooh ride. Aladdin is still better than Frozen, and yes, I've seen both. If you're going to talk about improving Disneyland, then the thing that replaces should be better than what it replaced, not just different, and not just hip, new technology, in the case of the Frozen show.

I do agree that people should not judge before they've actually seen something in person. But I probably won't visit Shanghai in the near future, I can still bemoan the fact that we in the states don't have something as awesome as the new Pirates ride that I've seen on youtube. The new Pirate ride could also go into the third park, along with the Tron Lightcycles, instead of calling it POTC, it could be called 'Adventures of Captain Jack Sparrow' or something like that.

One other thought, if Disney really wants to solve the crowd flow issue and build up the infrastructure, they should build moving walkways on the Mickey and Friends tram route and the Eastern Gateway. I heard they cut the budget on the moving walkways on the Eastern Gateway, where people may be parking half a mile away. A moving walkway to Mickey and Friends would be nice too, because the wait for the trams is terrible. Keep the trams, just add a moving walkway. Disney needs to take care of it's customers outside of the theme parks, not just inside. Tired and standing in a crowd watching multiple trams go by before you board is a lousy way to end the day at the happiest place on earth.

Disfan, a ton of money was invested into the Disneyland Resort to redo DCA. After that, Disney decided to ride on the success of that for several years while working on improvements at WDW, which was pretty much neglected for a decade. This is mainly possible because the Disneyland Resort has a stable base of passholders who are going to keep visiting no matter what, so only 2-3 major investments per decade is enough to sustain the resort. Still, Anaheim has received a lot more investment than I think some realize recently, just in the form of smaller projects rather than big E tickets. Since 2012, the following capital expenditures have occurred...

Disneyland:
-Autopia refurbishment
-60th Anniversary Celebration, including Disneyland Forever and Paint the Night
-Big Thunder Mountain Railroad overhaul
-Fantasy Faire addition to Fantasyland
-Hyperspace Mountain
-Matterhorn Bobsleds upgrades
-Several dark ride upgrades (Alice in Wonderland, Haunted Mansion, Indiana Jones Adventure, Peter Pan's Flight)
-Star Wars Launch Bay and Super Hero HQ

Disney California Adventure:
-Frozen: Live at the Hyperion
-Grizzly Peak Airfield
-Luigi's Rollickin' Roadsters
-New version of Disney Junior
-New version of World of Color
-Soarin' Around the World

While I don't know any numbers, I'd say all those combined probably amount to at least a couple hundred million dollars. It's not a Cars Land sized number, but that's still a lot of money. Additionally, like I mentioned before it didn't make sense for Disneyland to do a major expansion when the resort couldn't support enough additional attendance to justify it. There's a very good reason the new parking structure will be completed before Star Wars Land opens.

As for the international parks, Disneyland Paris's biggest problem was that it entered an existing market rather than starting its own. Unlike California, Florida, or Japan, Europe has a number of destination theme park resorts, many of which have been around since before the 90s. Disneyland Paris in its initial form was not competitive with these places, and this nearly resulted in bankruptcy. As a result of significant investment, it is now the most popular theme park resort in Europe, but it will never do the same numbers as California or Japan due to the amount of regional competition. As for China, I agree that Disney moving into that market was never a good idea. The Chinese primarily treat a theme park the way an American would treat a city park, and as a result the Disney model doesn't really work. Hong Kong was a failure, and while the results of Shanghai won't be known for a couple years it sounds as if it going to be more successful than Hong Kong but still fail to meet expectations.

As for shutting out passholders from Star Wars Land, I don't know what Disney will end up doing, but I did hear a rumor a year ago that there was serious consideration given to the idea of an extended preview. Essentially, Star Wars Land would be open only to AP holders for months before the official opening (with the land scheduled to open in May 2019, I heard previews could potentially begin as early as December 2018). Reservations would be required to visit the land, and each passholder would get a certain number of reservations to visit during the preview period. Once the land opened, all but the highest tier passes would be blocked from entering Disneyland until the end of the summer peak period, but would still be valid for entry to DCA on non-blockout dates. I do not know if this is actually something that will happen, but I would support it as it would give everyone the opportunity to experience Star Wars Land without completely overwhelming crowds. Though on a much larger scale, this is similar to what USH did for Wizarding World of Harry Potter and it worked really well there, so I wouldn't be surprised if Disney tries something similar.

As for the nostalgia factor, I don't think that is bad at all. I just think people need to not get so wrapped up in it that they can't appreciate what currently exists and are constantly trying to live in the past. Change is inevitable in all industries, and without it something will die out. I just wish more fans would be more open-minded about changes and not dismiss them as soon as they are announced because they don't personally agree with them. For example, I think the new Rivers of America looks like it will be an improvement over the former version, but there are plenty of fans who are saying it is completely ruined just because 15% of the route was removed. Wait until it opens and you experience it, then see what you think.

Lastly, when it comes to crowd flow I agree that Disneyland has a lot of issues there. A moving walkway to Mickey and Friends probably isn't a good option since the distance is significant, but it would be a good idea from the new structure (and I've heard both it will and won't be happening, so I don't know what to believe). My idea? Build an aerial ropeway running between the two parking structures and the hub. Modern gondola systems can transport 3,000-4,000 people per hour in each direction and are not overly expensive (one like I described would probably be $20 million or so). Using something like this to supplement the existing trams and walkways would be a major improvement to resort transportation.

Interesting...you mentioned some stuff I never heard about, thanks AJ.

"And there would have to be big signs, saying "Exit to Mickey and Friends Parking only, other parking areas please exit from Main Street". Another break in the magic. Also, a lot of people exit after the parade, or want to shop on Main Street before they leave."

You got to be kidding. Which is more important to solve? The crowding issue or keeping the magic plus shopping. This devolved into a big nothing. Frankly, having a second exit doesn't remove the magic. Convenience is magic in itself. Shopping takes care of itself. There's already a store in Critter Country. They don't need big signs. A simple exit sign will do. Plus an announcement from the tram will be quite enough. I suspect the new proposed Luxury hotel that will go on the Downtown Disney parking lot will likely encourage a separate entrance for these hotel guests and high paying guests at Disneyland Hotel. They will advertise as the closest hotel to Disneyland with many perks. California Adventure has a separate entrance and exit for Grand Californian guests and there's no big sign. No one is confused about who should use it.

I still haven't heard a better way to alleviate congestion on Main Street. They simply need to further limit guest viewing at certain spots to allow for better guest movement. Plus, they need to use other areas for expanded fireworks and parade viewing. The hub is ripe for the removal of the numerous planters and trees that restrict viewing. The parade should route around the hub. Push back the land entrances for guest seating. The Magic Kingdom completely renovated their hub to allow for better fireworks viewing. Seems to work out well.

VR is a limited time only. Its no different than changing Haunted Mansion or Country Bears due to the holidays.

Then again, I never said VR wasn't a cheap money grab. Thats also Six Flags. Does Disney or Universal want to get on Six Flag's level?

Line length also does not equal the quality of an attraction. Scooby Doo made more money than Lilo and Stitch.

Anthony: "it looks like a cheap money grab which Disney should leave for the Six Flags parks."

Then what is Six Flags doing? Trying to hit Disney and then saying what Six Flags is not doing, when they are doing VR is not making any sense.

To me some complaining is to be expected. It's rather like the grieving process for a close friend or family member. However, one needs to keep things in perspective as it's not life or death. When something goes out, I can feel a little miffed...but as Walt said, "Disneyland will never be completed..."

Having said that, I do worry about corporate America screwing up a good thing. That's happened before. Don't want to see Disney milk the cow dry nor kill the Goose. I do think some of the little stuff is going by the boards, the stuff that's cool for the little kids and their parents. Disneyland is about much more than the big attractions like Indiana Jones. It's about Mickey and Goofy climbing the Matterhorn, the various roving groups providing entertainment throughout the Park. My family's sense is that there's less of all that "magical" stuff than existed ten years ago. Disney has always worked on the little things which made the Park experience more rewarding, more special. Attention to detail...I just hope they've not taken they're eye off the ball.

And I am a bit unnerved about the Star Wars/Marvel
initiative. What will that do the crowd size? What will it do to crowd composition? Will it bring with it a different feel to the Park? Will a whole land, rather than just an attraction or two, and one that most would really not consider "Disney," fit with the Disney atmosphere? To me, instead of a land, this initiative would have been better as a separate Park.