Originally Posted By gmaletic Since it's come up a few times, I'll explain why I was disappointed with "Soarin'". The quality of the film print itself left a lot to be desired. The colors were washed out, and enormous specks of dirt (it’s unclear to me whether those were on the print or on the projector lens) dominated the leftmost portion of the screen. (Whatever it was, I hope it's gone now. I'll be visiting California Adventure again in a couple of weeks, so I'll certainly check the attraction out again.) The "simulator" action seemed a bit tame. A lot of simulator rides overdo their motion, and I'm guessing the ride's designers were proud of their restraint. But since it was the first ride I went on that day, I longed for something a tad rougher. Not too much mind you--I know Soarin' is supposed to be a simulation of a hang-glider and not a spaceship--but I barely felt anything. The best part of the attraction by far was the exhilirating rush as our chairs lifted into the air when it started. Unfortunately for me, nothing else during the attraction matched it for excitement. I didn't think it was a bad attraction, it just didn't leave me very inspired. The best attractions are more than the sum of their parts: Universal's Spider-Man presents a much more effective illusion than I would expect if you simply told me that you took the ride vehicles from Indy and combined them with a 3-D movie. Similarly, Tower of Terror is a lot more than a freefall ride crossed with some special effects. Even the Jungle Cruise is better than "plastic animals viewed from a boat." Soarin' just felt like I was watching a movie from a hanging chair. It wasn't a single bit more convincing or immersive than I imagined it would be. With regards to "kennect"s question about who the heck I am, I'm a Disney fan that decided to sit down and write how he was feeling about some of his recent experiences visiting Disney parks. After I was done, it occurred to me that maybe someone would like to read what I had written, so I submitted it to LaughingPlace. I have a few very minor connections in the industry, but I wouldn't consider myself an "insider." I do have a pretty extensive knowledge of Disney overall, and amusement parks in general. I think the biggest misperception of me here is that I only like thrill rides. Not true: "It's a Small World" and "Tom Sawyer's Island" are possibly my two favorite attractions in the Magic Kingdom. And I'm not against educational rides, either. One thing I didn't point out in this column--and this will probably infuriate a few of you--is that I think the small-scale "educational" aspects of California Adventure actually work. Making tortillas or sourdough bread certainly isn't as fascinating a topic as the animal kingdom, but at least I felt like I got the whole story: a simple story, well told. Animal Kingdom told me the complex story of the animals in what I thought was a reckless, irresponsible way, as I pointed out in my review. No need to rehash the pros and cons of that argument here--I know not everyone agrees with me on that point--but that's how I felt. I think Disney has bitten off more than it can chew on certain occasions, and that's what I don't like. I'm certainly not a hater of education or more peaceful, leisurely rides and experiences.
Originally Posted By lectrorail "Think things are politically correct now? Imagine trying to grapple with issues relating to history that have different interpretations based on what group you happen to ask. It's probably for the best that it never got built." What I think is if WDI goes into a design charette for an American themed park knowing the PC beast lurks in the shadows, they'd eventually come up with more attractions like Soarin', lands like NOS (today's wersion) and TDS's American Waterfront, resorts like the Grand Floridian and Wilderness Lodge and so on. The original plans and concept art had room for revision. I agree with the article writer, concentrate on good theming and more "fun". Let the history lessons come subliminally like the fire insurance relief medallions on the facades of certain bldgs. in New Orleans Square. Now that's good teachin' thru details.
Originally Posted By ScroogeMcDuck I'm sorry, but I just don't agree with this guy! I just have the feeling that this guy doesn't know nor understand Disney at all! Epcot is SOOOOOOOOOOO much better than DCA (though I think DCA is very good), I don't care what you say! And yes - AK too is superior to DCA in my eyes. SIR, PLEASE GO TO AMAZON.COM AND ORDER A BOOK ABOUT DISNEY OR SOMETHING... Oi!
Originally Posted By ScroogeMcDuck Oh yeah I would like to add something... Mr. Maletic, you say you like Disney parks, but you obviously don't. You don't see anything of it through the eyes of a child, but through the eyes of a critic! That was exactly what happened to DL in the fifties! Critics hated it, the children loved it. HAVE FUN, enjoy the parks, see the magic. Don't be a party pooper and critisize every single inch of Epcot!
Originally Posted By Dabob It's funny; I quite liked DCA too, but for (mostly) completely different reasons than the author of the article. PP was my least favorite area of the park, for example, and I think Soarin' is one of the best things in any Disney park. Go figure. It does go to show at least that, despite what some people try to claim, there's far from being a consensus on this park. Even those who like it may like it for entirely different reasons. Same with those who dislike it. <<California Adventure's Sun Wheel and Zephyr look far more beautiful than their more traditional amusement park cousins.">> <No, DCA's versions look exactly like the real thing, NOT more beautiful or more original or Disney-like. > Actually, the sun wheel has only one counterpart in the whole country, which sits a few miles from me in Brooklyn. It is ancient, creaky, rusted all over the place, painted in butt-ugly colors (where it's painted), no sun face, not fanciful in the least--in short, it does NOT look exactly like the sun wheel. As for the Zephyr, those rides disappeared from most parks 50 years ago, so I enjoyed the Zephyr as pure nostalgia. I'd actually like PP to be more fanciful in general too; however, because it works for me as nostaligia, strangely enough I'm GLAD they made the Zephyr look very much like the old ones (and they did decorate the center post more fancifully that the old ones, with the gears and all that). The sun wheel, zephyr, and screamin' were the highlights of PP for me. Most of the rest of PP didn't do much for me, although the other 2/3 of DCA did. Again, go figure. It ultimately all comes down to personal taste.
Originally Posted By friarthe Maybe I missed something, but aren't Dumbo, the Rocket Jets, the Teacups, King Arthur's Carousel, the shooting gallery in Frontierland (and the indoor one between Frontierland and Adventureland), the Starcade, and to some extent Mr Toad's Wild Ride slight variations on traditional amusement park rides? Weren't they all around when Saint Walt was in charge? It's not like the Sun Wheel and California Screamin were firsts in a Disney park. And, like the attractions mentioned above, they are much more sophisticated versions of the rides that inspired them.
Originally Posted By Jim in Pasadena CA I always crack up when people comment (with a negative twist) that the crowds were light at DCA. Rejoice! It's not going to always be this way. As the Park grows, it will get more and more crowded. I wish I could go over to Disneyland with a lighter crowd -- lately though that seems to be beyond wishful thinking. I can't stand big crowds, so Parks like Epcot, Animal Kingdom, and Disney's California Adventure are heaven. It seems like people want to be part of the 'popular' group, and if it's not crowded at DCA, they feel like they're not in the right place.
Originally Posted By Schmitty Good Vibes (Please forgive any punctuation errors in the following, I still haven't found a font on my computer that will allow me to work on the word processor, then paste to the boards without turning my apostrophes into question mark's, etc. Any help would be appreciated) I found the article very interesting as well as most everyone's comments. I agree with so much that has been said ? even though it means I'm agreeing with both sides of many arguments. Well, I am. I've found points to agree with on all sides. Thanks for the nice discussion. With so much said that I agree with, it's hard to add anything more. However, until now, I've posted nearly nothing about DCA, as I wanted to visit the park before joining into the fray. Not many months ago there was a lot of comments made by those who had never even been to the park. Now that I've spent some time there I feel I'm finally qualified to share an opinion. Mind you, it is just my opinion, nothing more. Of course, if you disagree with me, there is a place reserved four you in Dante's Sixth Ring of Hell, but that's your problem, not mine. I enjoy DCA, but I would not enjoy it even half as much if I had to pay separate admission. I broke down and bought a Premium AP so I could drop into the parks whenever business took me down to Southern California ? hopefully that will be often. With the issue of admission price no longer an objection for myself, I'm free to have more fun there without thinking about my wallet so often. I disagree with the author on the theme versus fun issue. "Theme", which is a little bit abstract, is why I go to Disneyland and not Magic Mountain. No doubt, Magic Mountain has more adrenaline thrills, but, for me (and any of you who fear Dante's Sixth Ring of Hell) the immersion into fantasy is what is more "fun". Good themeing accomplishes that ? for me. I would rather spend one afternoon in New Orleans Square taking in only Pirates of the Caribbean and the Haunted Mansion than two days at Magic Mountain seeing and riding all that park has to offer. Unfortunately, I found nothing so immersive at DCA. Personally, I find DCA's themeing very weak. I'm also of the camp that a California themed park in California was a lame brained concept, but that doesn't stand all that much in the way of my enjoying the park, I just think there could have been greater opportunities for "fun" and theming if Disney hadn't handcuffed themselves so. Now just a little bit more critisism: There seems to be an incredible amount of wasted space and an over abundance of plazas that seem to serve no purpose. Also, what were they thinking with Super Star Limo? That attraction is so poor it's pathetic. Now I'll try to be more positive. I really enjoyed Paradise Pier. I think Imagineering did a good job of recreating a seaside amusement park, and doing so on a buget. The carny area just fits in well. I'm not a fan of carnivals, but this worked for me as it remined me so much of Santa Cruz. California Screamin' is one of my favorite coasters. Sure, it isn't comparable to Viper, or other adrenaline rush coasters, but I enjoy it's launch and the smoothness of the entire ride. As for "fun" I find it very "fun". BTW, my favorite coaster as of now is Ghost Rider, so I am a bit of an adrenaline junkie, and , fortunately, Ghost Rider isn't so far away. I was also very surprised to find that I didn't mind the lack of a berm, and the intrusion of the neighboring hotels was no problem for me. I sure didn't expect that to be the case. Also, I don't really mind "off the shelf" rides if they are themed. Fantasyland's dark rides are generally off the shelf scooters made by Arrow Developent ? as are so many other Disneyland attractions. But Disneyland's theming makes them magical. DCA is fine, but it doesn't measure up to it's neighbor when it comes to the application of these "off the shelf" attractions. Lack of themeing is why. Unlike the author, I thought Soarin' over California was terrific. One way I measured this was how I picked my feet up so as not do drag them in the ocean. I noticed that everyone else on my row was doing likewise. That attraction worked very well for me, and I wish it could have gone on and on. Bugs Life is great. Animation is also terrific. Grizzly Rapids is also fine ? although I wish they could have added some Audio Animatronics to make it even better. All in all, there is much to see and do at DCA that I enjoy. My own concept of it is that it is a nice oversized "land" added on to the original park. DCA needs a lot more attractions to be a "stand alone" park, but I believe they will come. I'd hate to pay separate admission for the park in the state it is in now. I'm sure my business trips will mean that I'll have only one afternoon to go to the Disneyland Resort. Given that restraint, it is unlikely I'll venture into DCA unless something unusal happens and I find I have plenty of time to go across and ride Soarin' and Screamin'. If there was anything I could change about the entire thing it is this: DCA's fixes and improvements are bleeding my favorite park across the esplanade. I wish so much that it weren't so, but it is. Well, that's my two cents. I don't think I've articulated anything that hasn't been said better by someone else, but I wanted to add my opinions. Were I to paste in the points I agreed with, this post would be ten times as overly long as it is. For those who disagree with my two cents, don't forget to bring a skewer and some marshmellows. See you there!
Originally Posted By woody >>Actually, the sun wheel has only one counterpart in the whole country, which sits a few miles from me in Brooklyn. It is ancient, creaky, rusted all over the place, painted in butt-ugly colors (where it's painted), no sun face, not fanciful in the least--in short, it does NOT look exactly like the sun wheel.<< >> It's not like the Sun Wheel and California Screamin were firsts in a Disney park. And, like the attractions mentioned above, they are much more sophisticated versions of the rides that inspired them.<< Whether the Sun Wheel or any other Paradise Pier rides has a real world counterpart is besides the issue because the DCA version represents rides that we expect in that kind of environment. I desire a more fanciful design. The author said DCA's versions are more beautiful. I say, they are more of the same. Being more of the same is awful because Disney should do better. Dumbo, the Rocket Jets, the Teacups, King Arthur's Carousel are all examples of a better version. It's what we expect from Disney.
Originally Posted By Schmitty Good Vibes O.K. I edited most of the ["] and [']'s, but I just found out I missed the [-]'s, so they came out as [?]'s. Sorry.
Originally Posted By Dizney_Tom I wanted to respond to a few points from my previsous post... Pertaining to Soarin, I think it's an amazing concept, and it certainly is fun at many levels. But guess what folks, they could have shown me images of Brooklyn, or Gary, Indiana or Nepal for that matter, and I'd still say I had fun because the ride technology, heights, etc. is interesting. But, does this make it an "E-ticket", nope, not in my book. T he issue I have with this ride is that there is no narration, not even a bit. As a "tourist" or even a California resident, I would like to have learned (at least a little bit more) about where all these images were located. Would it have killed the Imagineer's (and those that hold their purse strings) to allow Patrick Warbuton (Paddy from Sienfeld, the pre-show warning guy) to tell me what I was seeing? If the attraction's goal is to inspire you to head out and see this great beauty of the Golden State, tell me where the stuff I'm looking at is located so that I can endeavor to do so. Also, someone was huffy because I didn't give Aquatopia at TDS "E-ticket" status. Well, while I agree it's an innovative attraction, and the fact that it incorporates "Pooh Hunny Hunt technology" (btw..Pooh is incredible, it rivals Indy and Pirates and Splash), and this makes the attraction infinitely more fun an interesting, but I don't think it ever aspired to be an E-ticket attraction, and it doesn't qualify as one. And, if this is the new caliber of what an "E-ticket is", then that's sad. The Aquatopia attraction is fun, I enjoyed it, and had a ball in fact, but a park can't have all E-ticket rides and this one isn't classified as such. (On the other hand, it's more fun and interesting than StormRider, a relative waste of time). Stormrider is like Alien Encounter meets Star Tours, and the effect comes across like Rocket Rods. But while Aquatopia is a lessor attraction than TDS' Indy or 20,000, it's certainly much more superior than anything installed at an American Disney park recently....including Rocket Rods, Buzz, "Dino-sham U.S.A." at DAK, and WDW MK's newest attraction - Flying Carpets...wow, that attraction makes me want to come back and drop 3k at WDW!!!!! It's a shame really, the Aquatopia attraction would be an "easy win" for the company to invigorate the parks. The guests would love it, and it would be an incredible draw if it was specifically introduced into the lagoons at DL's Tomorrowland or WDW MK's Fantasyland, where the submarine's used to be. Heck I could even tolerate riding it at DCA in their lagoon, it could be themed to swans or clown vehicles or something. Not only is this attraction visually appealing and has great "kinetics" (Eisner likes things to be moving and very visual at the parks), but it's fun, kids and adults would just love it. By the way, don't you also hate the fact that if Disney is going to install the schlocky Dumbo clones at the parks, why does it have to take 14 months to do it? I mean really, most parks (i.e. Six Flags) can install a roller coaster between October and the following Spring, but not Disney it takes double the time. Interesting, they try to emulate these parks now, but they can't be as efficient as they are in installing the attractions. At WDW they can seemingly build access roads over night, and relocate trees from the tree farm to a park if necessary, but it takes forever to install an "A or B-ticket" attraction. Oh yes, I forgot, it's that incredible Disney themeing, spitting camels and what not that protracts the release date, I forgot about that. Those other parks don't have to contend with the exacting Disney theming standards (my bad). You know as I write this, the sarcasm and rage just keep flowing, and I aplogize for that. It's just that it's all such a shame to me that this is now what Disney gives us and that we're still so hooked on the classics that we continue to frequent them.
Originally Posted By imawebsurfer >>Would it have killed the Imagineer's (and those that hold their purse strings) to allow Patrick Warbuton (Paddy from Sienfeld, the pre-show warning guy) to tell me what I was seeing?<< Actually, the locations of all the places you visit during Soarin' are listed in the pre-show video before Puddy talks.
Originally Posted By jmbostick <<Since it's come up a few times, I'll explain why I was disappointed with "Soarin'". The quality of the film print itself left a lot to be desired. The colors were washed out, and enormous specks of dirt (it’s unclear to me whether those were on the print or on the projector lens) dominated the leftmost portion of the screen.>> Hasn't anyone told you about the famous California Giant Dust Bunnies? ;-) Actually, as I recall, the dust specks are the inevitable result of running large-format film through the projector which builds up lots of static electricity. I don't know if they've figured out how to reduce the side-effect since they only have two choices: filter the air or scrape off the dust. <<The "simulator" action seemed a bit tame. A lot of simulator rides overdo their motion, and I'm guessing the ride's designers were proud of their restraint. But since it was the first ride I went on that day, I longed for something a tad rougher. Not too much mind you--I know Soarin' is supposed to be a simulation of a hang-glider and not a spaceship--but I barely felt anything.>> Of course, it's a hang glider so the ride is much smoother. But besides, it's probably a fundamentally more risky ride vehicle than, say, Star Tours (as a traditional sim). In Star Tours, if you don't wear your seat belt, you could get tossed about the room but that's it. On Soarin' if you don't wear a belt or if you get thrown, YOU DROP. You need to mitigate the risk with the "illusion" of movement. Besides, what's this about looking for thrills? In California (a key distinction I'll follow up soon), if you want thrills you go to Magic Mountain. If you want, or at least wanted, quality then you went to Disneyland. <<I didn't think it was a bad attraction, it just didn't leave me very inspired. The best attractions are more than the sum of their parts: Universal's Spider-Man presents a much more effective illusion than I would expect if you simply told me that you took the ride vehicles from Indy and combined them with a 3-D movie. Similarly, Tower of Terror is a lot more than a freefall ride crossed with some special effects. Even the Jungle Cruise is better than "plastic animals viewed from a boat." Soarin' just felt like I was watching a movie from a hanging chair. It wasn't a single bit more convincing or immersive than I imagined it would be.>> You've caught on to DCA's other weakness. Soarin', Golden Dreams, Muppet 3D and Tough to be a Bug are ultimately just movies. Look at Star Tours again. When it opened, there was a three hour line that snaked halfway down Main Street. Today, it's the old maid of Tomorrowland. Given a choice between Space Mountain and Star Tours, guests choose SM more often because of the physical experience of actually moving through an environment. Even though SM doesn't have the computer generated randomness of Indy (one onboard vehicle computer from Indy actually has the computing power to RUN Space Mtn), the actual randomness of the Real still makes SM attractive. With Star Tours, the action is identical to such a degree that interest fades and long-time fans like me have been praying for a decade that Lucas and the Mouse would SOMEDAY send Star Tours to any planet OTHER than Endor. DCA, with all its eggs in the movie basket, is incredibly weak in this regard. The only attraction with long-term viability, IMO, is Muppet 3-D simply because there is too much to look at the first time around. So the majority of the park is based on tame thrill rides and short-lived movie rides. Spidey, BTW, will not have this problem because it is so completely immersive and because the technology is truly the next generation (Discovery Channel occasionally shows hot it works--very cool!) <<With regards to "kennect"s question about who the heck I am, I'm a Disney fan that decided to sit down and write how he was feeling about some of his recent experiences visiting Disney parks. After I was done, it occurred to me that maybe someone would like to read what I had written, so I submitted it to LaughingPlace. I have a few very minor connections in the industry, but I wouldn't consider myself an "insider." I do have a pretty extensive knowledge of Disney overall, and amusement parks in general.>> Yet another Cliff Klavin of Disney fandom! <<I think the biggest misperception of me here is that I only like thrill rides.>> If the overhead restraints fit.... <<Not true: "It's a Small World" and "Tom Sawyer's Island" are possibly my two favorite attractions in the Magic Kingdom.>> We left-coasters simply call it "Disneyland." <<And I'm not against educational rides, either.>> Actually, I would classify IASM as educational. In 1964, at the height of the cold war and especially coming off the heels of the Cuban Missile Crisis, Walt creates an attraction for UNICEF at the World's Fair that simply advocates a childlike vision of peace and togetherness. You don't think acknowledging Russian culture was potentially controversial? Would today's suits have the guts to do that? You don't think the cowboy and indian chief children standing together was an accident? Walt preached world unity at a time when his neighbors were literally building bomb shelters in their backyard. <<One thing I didn't point out in this column--and this will probably infuriate a few of you--is that I think the small-scale "educational" aspects of California Adventure actually work. Making tortillas or sourdough bread certainly isn't as fascinating a topic as the animal kingdom, but at least I felt like I got the whole story: a simple story, well told.>> First, the Mission Tortilla room isn't a "ride"--it is barely an "attraction." To even use those terms shows how far we've fallen. Walt would have included the display AND put a real ride or attraction in the Pacific Wharf area. It clearly would add to the overall park experience and thus be justified, but since Pressler's day every separate unit has to generate "profit" on the books so "adding to the experience" has been accountanteered out of existence. We use the term "attraction" because if we didn't, Pacific Wharf wouldn't HAVE an attraction. That being said, I am forced to admit that Mission Tortillas does generate some tourist interest. Maybe it's because they have nothing else to do, I don't know, but when my wife and I dropped in to DCA on New Year's Day we found a large number of tourists (mostly leftover Cornhuskers I suspect) and an actual line at Mission Tortilla. For the first time in my visits, people were actually paying attention and waiting in a line to watch tortillas being made at 1/10th speed of the real factory! This scene brings to the front the other central problem for DCA. Mission Tortillas works for out-of-state visitors, but not for locals who probably drove past a dozen tortillerias on the way to see a fake one in the park. Eisner & Co. designed DCA with the Florida model in mind. Big mistake. On the East Coast, people travel from home to visit WDW. Here in CA, we live in the shadow of the Mouse. I grew up watching the fireworks from my grandparents backyard in Garden Grove. As an adult, I lived 20 minutes from the park off Harbor Blvd in Santa Ana. Now, I live in Glendale: 40 minutes from the park on the I-5; two blocks from the headquarters of the Disney Store; 10 minutes from the studio in Burbank which we visited for the first time last November during the Magical Holiday Faire. That sense of place and geography is fundamentally different. DCA MUST appeal to the locals or it will fail. If we want to see tortillas we go to a hispanic market. If we want hard thrills and classic coasters, we have Six Flags and Knott's. Disneyland was and should still be a cut above the rest in theming, sense of family (Walt wanted a park where children could play with their parents), and quality. <<Animal Kingdom told me the complex story of the animals in what I thought was a reckless, irresponsible way, as I pointed out in my review. No need to rehash the pros and cons of that argument here--I know not everyone agrees with me on that point--but that's how I felt. I think Disney has bitten off more than it can chew on certain occasions, and that's what I don't like. I'm certainly not a hater of education or more peaceful, leisurely rides and experiences.>> Disney has always had an awkward relationship with its moral overtones. They toned town the barbarism of POTC from raping and pillaging (they're PIRATES, for the love of Pete!) to gluttony; they changed the burning cabin on TSI from an indian attack to a still accident which threatened an eagle's nest then they removed the flames altogether. Come to think of it, I'm amazed there are still headhunters on the Jungle Boats! On the other end of the spectrum is the preachy new morality of AK. Hopefully it'll change sometime in the future.
Originally Posted By Dabob >>Actually, the sun wheel has only one counterpart in the whole country, which sits a few miles from me in Brooklyn. It is ancient, creaky, rusted all over the place, painted in butt-ugly colors (where it's painted), no sun face, not fanciful in the least--in short, it does NOT look exactly like the sun wheel.<< <Whether the Sun Wheel or any other Paradise Pier rides has a real world counterpart is besides the issue because the DCA version represents rides that we expect in that kind of environment. I desire a more fanciful design. The author said DCA's versions are more beautiful. I say, they are more of the same.> Hey, Woody, as I said in my original post, I'm with you in terms of desiring more fanciful design for the PP rides in general. I just said that Zephyr worked for me as pure nostalgia, and that the Sun Wheel IS a more beautiful version of the only other wheel in the country it can be legitimately compared to. I don't know if you've ever seen Brooklyn's Wonder Wheel up close. Trust me, the Sun Wheel is a MUCH more beautiful version. Now, if you didn't want a wheel of any kind there at all, because that's "expected," well, that's a whole different issue.
Originally Posted By woody >>I don't know if you've ever seen Brooklyn's Wonder Wheel up close. Trust me, the Sun Wheel is a MUCH more beautiful version.<< Because Brooklyn's version is in disrepair is not a valid comparison. Imagine both versions in excellent condition when comparing the two. The Sun Wheel should be something better. Other than the sun icon, additional decor would be nice. How about customized cars with a sun paint job with flames and such? The structure is blandly presented. The current design is no better than a typical ferris wheel at a carnival or pier. The lighting is nothing new. They didn't even bother with adding different colors. Instead red and yellow are the typical colors you find in any other park.
Originally Posted By missmarymack I love the Wonder Wheel, personally... It's more than 75 years old, so yeah, it looks like crap, but it's still a classic. I don't understand what's wrong with the AK "message." I didn't find it preachy or overbearing or anything. What is controversial about saving the environment by recycling and planting trees? Seems pretty mild to me.
Originally Posted By Dabob <I love the Wonder Wheel, personally... It's more than 75 years old, so yeah, it looks like crap, but it's still a classic. > Oh, I love it, too--don't get me wrong. It's a classic, and though it looks like crap, it's still a blast to ride. You get that "what's that creaking noise...that can't be good" vibe that even the Sun Wheel can't provide! Actually, though it doesn't LOOK like it, and doesn't FEEL like it when you're on it, the Wonder Wheel is in good shape structurally. It's an official historic landmark (like the Cyclone), so it HAS to be. And the state picks some of the cost of making sure it is. Even at its cosmetically spiffiest in years gone by, though (I have several books on Coney Island), it was never as pretty as the sun wheel. The seating is also rather uncomfortable. But like the Cyclone, ya' gotta go there in the summer and do it!
Originally Posted By cmpaley I did a little search and found this picture of the Wonder Wheel at Coney Island. <a href="http://www.wonderwheel.com/movies.xhtml" target="_blank">http://www.wonderwheel.com/mov ies.xhtml</a> Scroll down and you'll see a pretty good picture of it. And yes, the Sun Wheel is much prettier, but keep in mind that we have better construction techniques than they did when the WW was originally built, so you won't get that same...precarious feeling on the Sun Wheel.
Originally Posted By damon63 >Look at California Adventure not as another park on par with the Magic Kingdom, but view its themed lands as additional themed lands that complement the Magic Kingdom's (especially Paradise Pier's thrill rides), and it starts to make more sense.< That sums it up for me. This was probably one of the most insightful and balanced articles I've ever read concerning the subject of Disneyland's expansion. I thought it was excellent.
