Originally Posted By jonvn A golf course is a lot better than what the alternative might otherwise be.
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORGOCH: Well, Heck's Checks! jonvn, ducklin', where the @#$% ya been all this dang time?! Don'tcha know yer Auntie Orgoch's been lookin' fer ya?! Never did go on that frog hunt like ya promised ya would! Anyways, welcome back!
Originally Posted By DisneyFreak96 <<Thanks. I've been cleaning my room.>> And you are already back? If it were me, I'd still be cleaning away. Good to see you, even if we don't agree that often.
Originally Posted By Dabob <Screams and Themes - The Evolution of Theme Parks> Oooh! I vote for that one, Fab!
Originally Posted By Brer Rabbit I was saying 'thanks' to Kar2oonMan for telling me he liked my title. Sorry, should've quoted him for context. -nico
Originally Posted By ArchtMig Fab, count me in as one of those who thinks the golf course is a bad idea. The second gate we got is way too badly conceptualized and implemented to ever fire on all cylinders, no matter how many WDW knock-offs and kiddy ride areas they add. Better they use the 3rd gate land for something "unique" and "creative" (assuming they learned their lesson with the DCA debacle) for once that appeals to a much wider spectrum of the population than just those that know how to play golf.
Originally Posted By ArchtMig In other words, that land is just too precious and scarce and valuable to squander on a single use, single appeal land usage. They need to prove once again that their primary mission is to appeal to families, not just one narrowcasted segment of their customer base. And they need to also appeal to their local customer base, which they basically thumbed their noses at with the disastrously miscalculated DCA, and look what happened. A golf course will do nothing to bring in more "locals" from their regional market, which is the only market that's keeping them going right now, anyway. I'm sorry you disagree because you are a golfer, but I'm not, and a golf course just smacks with more of that "hotels and retail and dining venues" mentality that Disney is stuck on right now, while their theme park efforts go lackluster, or at most, are simply rehash after rehash of experiences that their tourist customer base have been able to experience at other Disney parks for years.
Originally Posted By whitetiger I personally don't take the golf course rumor as a big "threat" to the existing resort. Just the idea of a 2nd park still thrills me...and yeah I'm one of those people who actually enjoys Disney's California Adventure. If I could have a vote, I would want money for adding to and enhancing Disneyland and DCA, instead of investing it into a 3rd park. I would also like a couple more Disney themed hotels with different price tiers. There are plenty of locations around the U.S. that Disney could stake a claim in. Heck, my fingers are still crossed for Disney to resurface in Long Beach someday. Anyways, a golf course, maybe even a miniature golf course, would be fine.
Originally Posted By jonvn I'd personally like to see them build World Showcase there, but that might be too much of a copy. It should be remembered that they are trying to turn the area into a destination resort. If that is their goal, they are going to continue to do things that appeal to that sort of crowd, which a golf course does.
Originally Posted By JohnS1 Am I completely naive, or does anybody else think that - in changing the goal from "creation of a quality theme park experience" to "a reason for more people to spend more money in more hotels" - the whole emphasis of the Disney Corp has drastically changed? Actually, I think it is indisputable that this is the case - the real point I want to make is that if "the bottom line" is the new mission and goal statement of the Disney Corp., then we will never see the sort of third park experience that those of us who love its theme parks dream of appearing. This reminds me of the old mom and pop cafe in a small town which is slowly becoming a tourist destination that is one fateful day bought out by yuppies who turn it into a chic micro-brewery - and the charm it once had is suddenly replaced by a contemporary, rubber-stamped mass-market and maximum profit enterprise (which mimics the 58 other micro-breweries in the nationwide chain. Sigh. Why can't anyone see what made Disneyland unique when it opened?
Originally Posted By jonvn "Why can't anyone see what made Disneyland unique when it opened?" Why when I complain about things like Winnie the Pooh in the frontier people think it's a non-issue? The answer to your question is that the vast park going public does not notice or care. So why should they? Disney is not out on any kind of mission other than to make money. This is how it has always almost entirely been. It has to be this way. They are a corporation. You have to either be able to enjoy their offerings for what they are, or just leave it. You can't change it, you can't make it be different. It's just how it is.
Originally Posted By Mr X >>>Why when I complain about things like Winnie the Pooh in the frontier people think it's a non-issue?<<< I don't see it as a "non-issue" Jon, it really bothers me in fact. And while you are correct that nobody can "change" anything, it certainly can be disappointing to those of us who DO care about the legacy that the company has created and get upset when that legacy (and the cool concepts that made it special in the first place) get ignored in favor of the almighty dollar. Yeah, it's reality. But I don't have to be happy about it! And frankly, I for one AM speaking with my wallet by patronizing the parks that I think DO try and hold on to those ideals better. For example, I do currently patronize the Tokyo parks. I'm also hoping for a Paris vacation sometime in the next couple of years. When I go there, I will patronize Disneyland Paris because I think it is beautiful and well done. I will not set foot in the WDSP because I think it is not well done. Now, that's just one person. But if EVERYONE did that, hey...maybe the company would have to address the problem, no? I think to an extent that's already happened at DCA. They've gone through several shows at the Hyperion to try and find a "crowd pleaser". Plus opening up several new rides, and accelerating the ToT project. If they'd had a slammin first year, with people clammoring to get into the new park, I don't think you'd see all these changes and adjustments so quickly.
Originally Posted By whitetiger >>Why when I complain about things like Winnie the Pooh in the frontier people think it's a non-issue?<< Just to clarify the "issue"-- Yes, the area that holds Pooh used to be part of Frontierland, and then in the early 70's it became Bear Country. The new "land" complimented Frontierland and New Orleans Square, the same as Mickey's ToonTown is to Fantasyland. Bear Country, from what I recall from an old Disney souvenir book, is a late 20th century American setting in the north woods. For a long time I tried to figure out what that meant. The Country Bears seemed very country western to me...I felt those woods could've been the Appalachians or Ozarks. I went with Ozarks because it was the closest thing to the Mississippi River-- a place north of New Orleans. At Disneyland it felt that way-- New Orleans Square at the bend of the river and further north it became Bear Country. Now as far as I know, Song of the South was set in Georgia-- a state full of backwoods and swamps. Splash Mountain obviously is themed to bayous. Granted, there is Brer Bear, but he is very different from those old country bears. Plus there were a lot more animals involved now. Gators, rabbits, geese, frogs, etc... all were moving into Bear Country. Bear Country didn't seem like the correct name anymore, so it became Critter Country to accomodate them all. The land had a face-lift with American folkloric(?) overtones. It even brought New Orleans Square closer to the woods than before with the very Southern Chickapin Hill (Splash Mountain). A great transition, in my opinion. Now it is 2003. About 15 years since Bear Country became Critter Country. Pooh and friends have moved in now. What the heck now...? Kangaroos and orange Tiggers?!?!? At first when I heard a rumor about a Pooh ride, I hoped for a Fantasyland placement, like Tokyo Disneyland. But Pooh became a reality in Critter Country- a very American land in Disneyland. I now think that Critter Country has evolved into Fantasy Country. I see it now as a place where the animals "the critters" live, work, and play, kind of like the Toons do outside of Fantasyland. These are the critters with stories to tell-- their points-of-view about the human condition. That's basically what a folktale is anyways. Fairytales belong in Fantasyland. Winnie-the-Pooh is a cute story, but not magical, like say Peter Pan. I even think Mr. Toad would fit in Critter Country quite nicely. As would Bambi, The Rescuers, and Tod & Copper. I read these boards and wonder why it has become such a controversy whether or not Pooh belongs in Critter Country. I think Disney has actually done a great job with adding elements of the 100 Acre Wood to Critter Country. It really looks right. I think it is so cool to have a dark ride outside of the Fantasyland/ToonTown area. Now if you want to complain about things being out of place, look me up if they ever place Stitch in Adventureland. I'll be one of the first fans to kindly suggest that the alien belongs in Tomorrowland... :O)
Originally Posted By Mr X I'm honestly a little confused about your post, WhiteTiger... For most of it, I got the feeling that you were AGREEING with what Jon and I were complaining about. Then you took a hard left near the end, suddenly praising the thing. Guess it just kinda threw me. >>>I think Disney has actually done a great job with adding elements of the 100 Acre Wood to Critter Country.<<< Right about...THERE. Before that sentence, I thought that you were in agreement with the whole idea that Pooh was a whimsical fantasy character that belonged in Fantasyland like in Tokyo (and Florida for that matter)...but then you made another point about it not being as "magical" as say "Peter Pan" so I guess you were moving into the direction of "it's cool in that location". Anyway, a touch confusing to say the least! Appreciate the input though! And, just for clarification, I think that FLORIDA is the only "properly located" Pooh ride...cause the one in Tokyo is kinda shoe-horned in (just like the Haunted Mansion is, and also the train to be honest!), standing at the "crossroads" between Fantasyland, Toon-Town (another shoehorn was used for THAT zone, unlike in Florida and California), and TOMORROWLAND where it is highly visible and could almost be costrued as adjacent to THAT land as well (consider this, the closest attractions to Pooh's Hunny Hunt in Tokyo are Roger Rabbit's Kartoon Spin, and STARJETS!). GREAT, SUPERB attraction. Lousy location. imho. And if you wanna talk about bad theming, they now have character greetings on the Tomorrowland Terrace stage consisting of Mike and Sully (okay, Monsters...KINDA science fiction movie MAYBE, but surely better in Fantasyland) and Buzz and WOODY!! WOODY? in Tomorrowland?? HUH? Will someone tell me how this makes sense. Again, the Buzz deal, I can KINDA buy into, cause he's a spaceman. But not really, cause he's actually A TOY, T-O-Y TOY, a child's plaything, which really would fit into fantasyland better anyway... But WOODY? In Tomorrowland? Huh? Better to have a "Buzz and Emperor Zurg" in Tomorrowland, and a Woody and Jessie greeting in Westernland, don't ya think? Still not perfect, of course, but MILES better in keeping everything at least vaguely "within the construct" of the lands. Oh well, there's always the coaster parks! At least there's no real issue of THEMING there, and no chance for them to mess it up either!
Originally Posted By Jim in Pasadena CA jonvn wrote: <The answer to your question is that the vast park going public does not notice or care. So why should they?> If this sentiment were true, wouldn't 'Disney's California Adventure' be a huge hit? If the 'general theme park going patron' doesn't know the difference [or care as you wrote] between a Six Flags experience and one in a Disney theme park that contains detailed theme-ing, high quality, immersive, and innovative attractions, why isn't DCA just packing them in? It should be an absolute slam dunk. Fact is, people do notice, they do care, and while they may not know the terms 'visual intrusion' 'off-the-shelf' 'berm' and 'good show vs. bad show' the average person visiting a Disney theme park can 'feel' the difference.
