Originally Posted By AladdinAZ The article is very short of ANY specifics, or ANY general type of explaination of what this possible redo is going to entail. Certainly, for such a BIG project, there must be a plan for what DCA will eventually become. But nothing was noted in the article. There isn't even a mention of who is involved with this. You would think that John Lasseter would certainly be a force in this "DCA do-over", BUT even that wasn't mentioned in the article. Certainly, what the article suggests doesn't even go beyond the "place-making" projects, either. And what about other purported project, such as the Buzz Lightyear type project for Paradise pier, and the Cars attraction that is suppose to expand out into the Timon lot. Are those project all part of this, too. If so, this really isn't news at all.
Originally Posted By woody >> In 10 years time, you won't even be able to recognize the place. << That even better because no one recognizes it now.
Originally Posted By AladdinAZ Now, if bulldozing Paradise Pier and expanding DCA into all Available adjacent space, and replacing it with at least one or two new New Orleans type lands, with comprable attractions, THAT would be news.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA TMICHAEL, glad you enjoyed the link. I think the 'Ice Age' project they did is very, very impressive. Not only how it looks, but also how quickly it was installed, and how cost effective it was. It's hardly just a lay-over along the lines of 'Nightmare Before Christmas.' Kudos to Thinkwell!
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> The article is very short of ANY specifics, or ANY general type of explanation of what this possible redo is going to entail. << That's true. Projects tend to start out enormous in the planning stages, and get whittled down to, well - DCA by the time they're done. But it's fun to play "lets suppose". For starters, I wouldn't anticipate many wholesale changes in HPB. The hyperion, TOT, monsters, and the animation exhibit are already fully realized, and unlikely to be changed significantly. A lobby addition for the hyperion would certainly be appreciated, and muppets would be on its last legs if they had legs. I think it's safe to assume that HPB will remain largely intact and we'll recognize it just fine ten years from now. Same with grizzly peak - it's a centerpiece icon of the park, and unlikely to see any significant changes. So too with 'soarin' - the one unqualified hit in the entire park. There could be some cosmetic changes to the exterior and queue, and even a new film, but the gist of the attraction will remain throughout any major reconstruction. Fliks fun fair was installed as a response to the complaint that there wasn't enough for little kids to do. The idea was good, the theming is top-notch, but the rides themselves bore all but the dullest children. I can see new and different rides within this area, but I'd also expect that they'd maintain the overall theme of the area itself. That already covers about half of the park. Route 66 is ripe for redesign, and there's nothing of significance within this area now, so I'd guess that this is ground zero for the redevelopment proposals for the park. But consideration must be given to its proximity to the GCH - whatever is to be placed here needs to be visually attractive. Between the dome for the palace of fine arts and the victorian row houses, they've already got a pretty good head start on a san francisco area. The actual palace of fine arts dome is a leftover from the 1915 panama-pacific exhibition, so hopefully they could create a san francisco area set in the early 1900s. And of course I hope they don't take too long to ditch 'golden dreams'. It never worked. As much as us internet jockeys diss PP, I've got big doubts about any wholesale removal. For one thing, they've got a major investment in 'screamin'. For another, without the pier theme the lagoon loses it's reason for being. People may think maliboomer is tasteless and garish, but almost nothing else would fit in its location within screamin's helix. That leaves us with 'pacific wharf' - a land without any respectable attraction, and the agriculture and wine areas. And again, pacific wharf's theming is fine - the problem is that there's nothing to do there. I don't see any good reason to toss out what's already been done - just put in a decent attraction. The agricultural area has been a placeholder since day one, so it will come as a surprise to no one when it's scrapped in favor of something better - which would be pretty much anything else. The wine area is long and narrow, and directly adjacent to the performance corridor, and has lots of existing infrastructure well suited for dining. The theme may change, but there's really no room for an ambitious attraction, and the terraced levels for dining are perfect right where they are. The biggest change here might turn out to be the price point for food and beverage - currently ridiculously high. And of course the entrance plaza, which sorely needs some kind of 'placemaking' but not much more. It will always and forever be a stepping off point for other areas of the park, and not a likely location for a major attraction right inside the gates. So for all the rumors about large-scale changes for DCA, my best guess is what we've been saying here all along - ditch route 66 in favor of a san francisco area, add new attractions in other areas of the park, and tinker around the edges of existing infrastructure. The notion that "we won't even recognize the park in ten years" is probably excess hyperbole.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<The notion that "we won't even recognize the park in ten years" is probably excess hyperbole.>> Not from what I've heard. Jim Hill actually got this one right IF it happens. I've heard that Matt was in favor of this, and Bob was 'enthusiastic' ... but I also heard someone else with considerable clout didn't agree. We can only hope that this park in 2016 resembles what should have been there in 2001.
Originally Posted By idleBrain <<I've heard that Matt was in favor of this, and Bob was 'enthusiastic' ... but I also heard someone else with considerable clout didn't agree.>> Do you mean 'clout' or 'gout'? 8^D
Originally Posted By gurgitoy2 "No idea what this Ice Age thing is but the comparison seems skewed. I'm certain that they couldn't have re-purposed a building, installed a track and show scenes for $3m. It might be more like a layover (like HMH or iasw holiday)." I don't know...it certainly seems like more than a layover if you ask me. Especially since the attraction was the Looney Tunes Adventure before that...and I see no traces of previous attraction. Also, Monsters Inc. didn't really have to repurpose the building. Yes, they added the facade, but really it was a big box, and they did NOT have to install track either. Basically I see that the Ice Age and Monsters Inc. attractions are great comparisons. I have to say, from what I've seen of ThinkWell's products, I'm very impressed. If Disney can't even keep up with the competition anymore, than it really is time to gut WDI and contract it out to places like Thinkwell. WDI just needs a creative core left in place.
Originally Posted By leemac gurgitoy2 I was referring to Pooh when I said "re-purposing" a building. I didn't make that clear. I'm not familiar with the Ice Age attraction but I'm skeptical that it only cost $3m if it isn't just a layover but I don't know what was there before. If it did then your comments are spot-on. Makes you wonder why someone hasn't tried to outsource more WDI work before.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros "People may think maliboomer is tasteless and garish, but almost nothing else would fit in its location within screamin's helix." But people would say the same thing about the space where the Haunted Mansion facade is, where Splash Mountain's Chicapin Hill is, where Indy's queue starts, the spot where Alice in Wonderland is, the area where small world sits, and even the loading area from the PeopleMover and Rocket Rods. One of my big problems with the recent developments in Disney parks is that they don't seem to use space well at all. Just because it looks like a small area, doens't mean that it can't access another place. I believe there is some room (enough, but not a lot) behing Screamin' right next to the Maliboomer, before reaching the parking lot road. The entrance to an attraction could be where the Maliboomer is now, and then the attraction could actually be on the other side of the tracks, similar to how the train works at DL. If there isn't enough room to really build anything big back there, because of the parade route or something, they could build an attraction that is multiple levels. Not many people would have thought that there was enough room for something the scale of Pirates where it sits, but they managed to make it work. They could even have the attraction go underground, passing under the backstage parade area, and have a show building on the other side. At this point, I believe that a huge part of DCA's expansion issues deal with the Timon lot and the roads that access it. If they closed down the road behind the Pier alone, they would be able to add something huge back there, possibly even another land. I think that they also need to be creative with the use of space, with multiple attractions sharing one building (like Fantasyland and parts of Tomorrowland) and save space. The one huge issue with the DLR is that it isn't huge. They really need to plan for the future when they build now, because eventually they will hit the city roads and have nowhere to go. This is the problem that DL has had recently, and they are not really doing anything to solve it.
Originally Posted By barboy "hundreds of millions" If the budget will be $200 million then whoever is looking forward to bulldosers will be sorely out of luck. Now if we're talking about $850 million then a total park facelift/makeover can be done. There is no way possible to totally change the theme from "California" to "oceans/sea", "Westcot" or "Villians" if the budget is in the "hundreds of millions". Not that this is even on the table but A totally new park assuming demolition and hauling away existing structures would be easily 2 billion+ . Islands of Adventure in Orlando was approx 2 billion and that was built in the late 90's and universal started with a clean slate(but I believe that figure also included "City Walk")
Originally Posted By idleBrain <<Makes you wonder why someone hasn't tried to outsource more WDI work before.>> You know that answer as well as I do, Lee: politics. Take a look at Nemo Subs. At least three executives have charged significant time against this project (two Sr VPs and one VP). And executive compensation at WDI, particularly for those who've been around for well more than two decades like Baxter and Rothschild have, is high in the stratosphere compared to the rest of the industry. I have no doubt that a significant number of projects will be outsourced in the future to groups like Kirk Design, BRC Imagination Arts, and Thinkwell. Kirk/Rogers/Hanna can do this work as well as Imagineering, and for far less cost. Several years ago, a well-known Imagineer referred to DCA as the "heroin monkey on Disneyland's back." How ironic indeed that Imagineering has become the heroin monkey on WDC's back. It's time for rehab. Let the detox power of the pink slips begin!
Originally Posted By fkurucz Also, it will be interesting to see how much faster the outsourced contractors will be at completing projects. The status quo can at best be described as glacial. Hopefully these advantages will translate into more new attractions over the years.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <Makes you wonder why someone hasn't tried to outsource more WDI work before.> One word. Ego.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA As for out-sourcing, I'd rather have a contracted group out there that is excited about a particular project, with people who want to make it happen, who keep it under budget. Many times at WDI, salaried staff are assigned to a particular project and they end up pouting about it, because it's something 'they didn't want to work on.' Guess they won't have to be worrying about that soon enough.
Originally Posted By BlueOhanaTerror >>>The article is very short of ANY specifics, or ANY general type of explaination of what this possible redo is going to entail.<<< Of course. It's Jim Hill. Much of what he posts is composed of supposition and speculation, painted to look like fact. I'm puzzled as to the question of why WDI hasn't outsourced before, as much of DCA and attractions/enhancements in other parks, like DAK, actually WERE outsourced, and they in fact continue to do this. What WDI looks to become, is a synthesis of what they were once upon a time - a core design group with vision - and a variety of non-Disney "service shops" that provide even deeper involvement in design and execution of guiding concepts. It doesn't make sense to keep hundreds of architects on staff, and they started realizing this some years ago. This really could be a good thing for WDI and the quality level of what's implemented in the future. The downside is, without in-house R&D, which seriously looks threatened with this overhaul, WDI will no longer be a place that really advances "the new". It will be up to other places to do that, and the vast majority of these sub-contractors do not designate money for R&D. They can't do that and remain competitive.
Originally Posted By BlueOhanaTerror A postnote - the ICE AGE attraction, while cute and ambitious, looks kind of "cheap". If the animatronics featured really fluid movement, doubtless they would've highlighted some in the video, and their expressiveness seems fairly devoid of emotion overall. Might have been better to tweak some of that digital information scanned in from the movie's character models. The set dressings and propping look really cheap to me. Not saying they did a lot with a little bit of money, but these are the kinds of art-direction details that ARE done quite a bit better, on average, by WDI.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <but these are the kinds of art-direction details that ARE done quite a bit better, on average, by WDI.> I guess the question is this... Given that they're both re-dos of existing attractions, and both used existing ride systems... Is the 'Monsters, Inc.' attraction worth 10 TIMES the cost of 'Ice Age'? dunno...
Originally Posted By FerretAfros I have a question about the video: if the ride is based on a CGI movie, then why is the first half of the "making of" video showing them making computer models of the characters. Maybe theycould have just used the models from the movie, and then used the money they saved to make it look a little less cheap. I agree that it looks kind of cheap and temporary. I really think that the figures could have used more work. In Monsters Inc, you don't really notice THAT much that none of them move, since they all look like they are already reacting to what is going on. In this, they just seem to have taken the same figure and put it in several different places in the ride. From the video I was also not able to get any sense of what the story line was supposed to be, but it is quite clear in Monsters, even for people that haven't seen the movie.
