An alternate Disneyland Paris

[Elijah Abrams]

If the management at Disney, especially Michael Eisner, at the time, had more common sense and made Disneyland Paris (Euro Disney Resort) different from the final version in order to appeal to the French and visiting Europeans, especially the British, what do you think the resort and the Disneyland park there would’ve looked like, how would it have been different, and how would it have operated differently?

 

[Karin1984]

I think there would have been less start up problems, but I think 30 years later we would be around the same point as we are now.

What do you think? Why do you say they should specifically keep the Brits in mind?

 

[walt34]

I don't think they should have built Disneyland differently - they just should have built it in a different place.

Disneyland Paris is a beautiful version of Disneyland with countless improvements on previous parks, most of them quite gentle (BTM, Pirates) and in the spirit of the original.

Building a Disney park in a new location without building a 'castle park' first seems wrong - it's quintessentially Disney.

What they did underestimate is how much the French rejected Disney as an American cultural icon (much more so than any other European country). So they could have had a much easier start if they had built 'Euro-Disney' in Italy, Spain or the UK.

Where they did go wrong is with the second gate: now I understand the underlying problems (they were forced to build a second park for contractual reasons, 'studio parks' were still in fashion at the time) but 'Walt Disney Studio Park' was a half-hearted execution of a mediocre idea. Compare this to 'Tokyo Disney Sea' and you can see what could have been. Tokyo Disney Sea is a phenomenal second park with great rides which takes into account the local cultural expectations. It also cost a lot more money than was available to 'Euro-Disney' at the time.

 

[Karin1984]

What they did underestimate is how much the French rejected Disney as an American cultural icon (much more so than any other European country). So they could have had a much easier start if they had built 'Euro-Disney' in Italy, Spain or the UK.

Where they did go wrong is with the second gate: now I understand the underlying problems (they were forced to build a second park for contractual reasons, 'studio parks' were still in fashion at the time) but 'Walt Disney Studio Park' was a half-hearted execution of a mediocre idea. Compare this to 'Tokyo Disney Sea' and you can see what could have been. Tokyo Disney Sea is a phenomenal second park with great rides which takes into account the local cultural expectations. It also cost a lot more money than was available to 'Euro-Disney' at the time.

I agree with most of your post, but I think that the Americans would have underestimated the cultural aspect regardless of where the park was build.

I am not a fan of comparing Tokyo Disney to the other Disney parks as with the Oriental Company behind it and the amount of money they have, it never is a fair comparison.

 

[walt34]

I agree with most of your post, but I think that the Americans would have underestimated the cultural aspect regardless of where the park was build.

Probably. But I don't think many other countries would have reacted as strongly. At the time, it was very much seen as cultural imperialism. E.g. no other country in Europe tried as hard to eradicate borrowed words. Remember baladeur for what everyone else called walkman?

I am not a fan of comparing Tokyo Disney to the other Disney parks as with the Oriental Company behind it and the amount of money they have, it never is a fair comparison.

I'm aware of the ownership structure of Tokyo Disney but why should this be an unfair comparison?