Originally Posted By Doobie This topic is for discussion of the March 15th interview with Tim Delaney. This interview is at: <a href="News-ID502310.asp" target="_blank"><a href="http://LaughingPlace.com/News-ID502310.asp" target="_blank">http://LaughingPlace.com/News- ID502310.asp</a></a>.
Originally Posted By themousemaster Doobie I think the interview was great ,And from his coments it shows how DCA is very much a work in progress, You can tell that he is as anxious to add to the park as we are to have them. MM
Originally Posted By Coaster207 Tim Delaney is my idol! =) he is so awesome because he has a genuine creative mind for the parks, Look at Space Mountain at Disneyland Paris, It's an amazing structure, with a great story. It's just AMAZING! =)
Originally Posted By aracuan_bird you sure can appreciate Space Mountain in Paris. that said, i think the stuff Delaney worked on for DCA amounts to some of the most disjointed product available at that park. these folks who worked on DCA should face it, no one is measuring their park against Disneyland. stop using that as an excuse for this place! guests are measuring this place against basic ideas like quality and value and--just maybe--heart and conviction. i absolutely love elements of DCA. i think i may have some kind of cathartic experience in the Animation attraction. regardless, no matter how many times i read about it from Disney's marketing engine, i never got the whole postcard reference at the entry. the sun icon is less memorable than the french lyrics in O Canada. paradise pier is flat and wholly without passion. the design rationale (or rationalization) about visual intrusions is laughable. maybe these imagineers just need more money. maybe they need corporate leadership with a vision and middle management that stands up for what is right. of course, it may be that what these folks really need are the hard knocks that the fallout from DCA could provide. if Universal building a superior park isn't enough of a wake-up call, maybe a deserted park in July will be.
Originally Posted By magic19 aracuan bird--I think I felt the same way you did about Paradise Pier. Hollywood came off much better and the Grizzly/Condor area is also quite effective. I think Paradise Pier has a solid impact when you look at it from afar at night, but walking through it anytime of day or night is not so impressive. The whole south side by the coaster is horrible--its flat and cheap. I do like a few elements of Paradise Pier like the coaster launch, but overall it does not work for me. And the visual intrusion thing--I am doing a private party for my wife at the Golden Vine Winery, and the facilty is truly impressive-but the view for us, if you look at eye level or higher (as opposed to looking down since our event will be at the second floor dining level) is pathetic! Power lines, parking lot, hotels, even traffic on Katella is visible. This is just so wrong. And I remember many moons ago, when DCA was under construction, I posted about my dissapointment of having the Anaheim Hilton so visible from the "postcard" entrance. I was strongly chastised by a number of posters who said that the Sun Icon will take care of that. Nope.....any picture you see here on LP or any other site or with your own camera always includes that green blob of a hotel in the frame. That is not good art direction, so to speak. Anyway, not to be very negative, there is plenty about DCA that I enjoy, and Tim has done superb work for Disney over the years, but the elements he mentioned in this interview--well, I just don't agree that they are DCA's strong points.
Originally Posted By damon63 I found the article very interesting. I think that one of the things that separates Disney parks from the others is the sense of care that it taken in the design of the attractions - little things like elevating the Maliboomer platform so that the faces of the riders are visible.
Originally Posted By tangaroa >maybe these imagineers just need more >money. maybe they need corporate >leadership with a vision and middle >management that stands up for what is >right. of course, it may be that what >these folks really need are the hard >knocks that the fallout from DCA could >provide. There are some things that I look at when thinking about DCA that I can say "well I know it wasn't their fault, they didn't have money." But there are other things about DCA which lead back to bad management and creative vision. When I look at DCA, and I look at what Tim did with Paradise Pier, I think, it was a wonderful execution of a horrible idea. I don't think anyone can blame Tim for how it turned out, and one could even think it might have been worse without his work. I've seen what these people can do with the right climate. Imagineers are extremely talented people for what they do, and it's only under certain rare circumstances that they produce something that I find less than appealing. DCA IRONIC TRIVIA: I recently went up to San Francisco for a bit and one of the things I absolutely wanted to see was the Palace of Fine Arts (no the real one). I bought a book with some insight into the wonderful structure, and located on the front face of the rotunda is a sculpture which supposedly represents art being attacked by materialists... with the idealists holding them back. And the weeping women around the colonnade represent a life without art. These sculptures were left off the replica built inside DCA.
Originally Posted By Shang Capt >>And the weeping women around the colonnade represent a life without art.<< What a wonderful insight! I think this sums up the point of view of many DCA skeptics.
Originally Posted By Doobie tangaroa wrote: <<< When I look at DCA, and I look at what Tim did with Paradise Pier, I think, it was a wonderful execution of a horrible idea. I don't think anyone can blame Tim for how it turned out, and one could even think it might have been worse without his work. >>> My read of the interview is Tim was a force in pushing for Paradise Pier. Maybe I'm misinterpreting this line from the interview: <<< I like Paradise Pier. I knew it would be challenging but I knew we could do it. I knew that there was something there so I had to fight. It's a fight. >>> But it doesn't sound like someone forced to work with a concept. It sounds like someone 100% behind the concept to the point of fighting for it. But I don't know the history and could definitely be wrong. Doobie.
Originally Posted By damon63 >These sculptures were left off the replica built inside DCA.< Not really. The sculptures that you're referring to are actually on the colonnade structure BEHIND the rotunda. The actual rotunda itself, like the one at DCA, does not have the weeping women.
Originally Posted By aracuan_bird honestly, you know what i think this really boils down to? it's that WDI is the best producer of high quality, high-cost experiences. without a doubt. and i think guys like Delaney, when given the liberty of huge project budgets, can work real honest-to-goodness magic. they are the designers who answer the question, "what is the absolute best thing i can create?" what WDI is sorely lacking are individuals that are able to answer the question, "what is the absolute best thing i can create WITH THIS VERY LIMITED BUDGET?" they are lacking folks with the discipline and the foresight to realize that what they are seeing in their minds can't be bought with what's in their wallets. DCA stinks of concepts that far exceed the very real parameters of budget, physical area, and audience interest. it is the victim of management and creative teams that could not recognize this, or recognized it too late. if more of the folks responsible for DCA had the ability to see (and acknowledge) these huge disconnects, this could have been a very special, very quaint little park, rich in detail but small in bambast. with this mantra of "comparing and contrasting" between DCA and its sister park, i offer this comparison: Tarzan's Treehouse. a small little re-hab, to be sure, and inexpensive when related to other attractions. you know what was done right with this experience? someone--be this person on Baxter's team or Harris's or whoever--someone fit the concept to the scale of the project. sure it's no Indy, but it was done right. in the end, that is the one thing i always expect of Disney. whether it is big or small, i expect a project that is well-done.
Originally Posted By Rsey103 Why did they put the Golden Gate bridge on one side of the park and San Francisco on the other side of the park? Seems to me San Francisco would have made an ideal "main street" for this park, especially with the bridge at the entrance.
Originally Posted By arstogas >>>But it doesn't sound like someone forced to work with a concept. It sounds like someone 100% behind the concept to the point of fighting for it.<<< Right... though there's a couple of things that sound like he might have had his reservations - like the Ferris Wheel. That, and there's a place in the middle of the interview where he seems to be overcompensating in his assertions that he thinks the park really works. It just sounds like too much (to me, anyway) and a little something for PR more than for the sake of sharing a candid opinion. I think what it boils down to is that even creative wunderkinds can sometimes create something that isn't a runaway success. To expect them to hit 100% with the public's taste every time is just setting oneself up for disappointment. Even Spielberg has had his HOOK and Jurassic Park 2.
Originally Posted By dennis-in-ct wow ... thanks for digging this up Rsey103. It is a real interesting read looking back after all this time.
Originally Posted By disneywatcher >> I think what it boils down to is that even creative wunderkinds can sometimes create something that isn't a runaway success. << An awareness that even great composers, artists, musicians, scientists, athletes, inventors, etc., can have off-days and make mistakes or do C-grade work should remind people that DCA didn't turn out better merely because more MONEY wasn't spent on it. This is even truer if Tim Delaney, as one example, believes he did truly fine, if not great, work on Paradise Pier and the titanium sun. And truer still if he shares the creative instincts and tastes of the person (assuming he wasn't responsible for the job) who designed the sound wall for Mulholland Madness.
Originally Posted By Disneyland Resort > > And from his coments it shows how DCA is very much a work in progress < < Just like Disneyland, all other Disney parks and most amusement and theme parks worldwide. > > Look at Space Mountain at Disneyland Paris, It's an amazing structure, with a great story. It's just AMAZING! =) < < Headbanger. Far from perfect. Actually it hurts.. But being a Vekoma the chances of pain were incredibly high to begin with. > > guests are measuring this place against basic ideas like quality and value and--just maybe--heart and conviction. < < Which DCA has quite a bit of. > > the sun icon is less memorable than the french lyrics in O Canada. paradise pier is flat and wholly without passion. < < Both 100% opinion and both completely opposite of my and many other peoples POV.
Originally Posted By Disneyland Resort > > I think what it boils down to is that even creative wunderkinds can sometimes create something that isn't a runaway success. < < Even.. Walt Disney. Yes, Walt. Some people never quite understand that.. Everything nowadays must be perfect and entertain every single hardcore hardliner Disney fan in every single way possible and be crammed with AAs or it gets slammed and trampled buy 'those fans' that know better than 'all other fans how Disney should operate'. Yawn..
Originally Posted By arstogas >>>> > I think what it boils down to is that even creative wunderkinds can sometimes create something that isn't a runaway success. < < Even.. Walt Disney. Yes, Walt. Some people never quite understand that.. <<< Very true. The difference is that Walt would usually admit where he'd stumbled, or call himself on it (Alice in Wonderland - the movie - and the Mickey Mouse Club Circus come to mind) and then in the case of Disneyland, replace it. That was part of his delight in the opportunity the parks represented personally. He could change things, experiment. I grant you it's much more expensive a proposition these days, but some people today never quite understand THAT, either.
Originally Posted By Disneyland Resort Sometimes it is more expensive.. DCA ToT is gonan be just over 70 mil and Pooh was somehow 30 mil. (I do like Pooh BTW tho it's shortcomings are obvious and I look forward to my very local ToT opening). With ToT just over 70 mil and Pooh at around 30 mil.... that tells me 2 things.. Bruce Gorden blew a whole lont of money on Pooh(somewhere, somehow) and the man in chage of and working on ToT is amazing. ToT empty looks like it should cost more than 70 million.
