Originally Posted By Manfried Tom Fitzgerald should have not produced that film at all. But if he was an executive with guts, he would have said so instead of producing that piece of politically correct clap trap.
Originally Posted By barboy Woopie should not have narrated/starred since, inherently, she is a NEW YORKER. I mean since they casted her for 'Califina' then we should have at least had a quality song at the end by Paul Simon, Neil Diamond or Jay Z instead of that borefest, poor rip off of American Adventure's ending song.
Originally Posted By barboy GD perfectly demostrated why so many scoffed at pre overhaul DCA: low budget and corny. I found this show to be a super duper painfully lite EPCOT's American Adventure.....saw it once, wanted to fall asleep and never went back in that theater again. The attraction should have been more like the attraction it tried to imitate by using large, fully developed show sets, moving 3D figures and a heart felt song with memorable lyrics. And again, why Woopie? Couldn't they at least have found a true Californian to cast as the Califina?
Originally Posted By leemac <<poor rip off of American Adventure's ending song>> Ha! It felt very....1982. Or even very 90s as it was written by that great bastian of cheesy 90s pop Walter Afanasieff - he should be hung, drawn and quartered for Mariah's Hero and Celine's My Heart Will Go On. It did have an awesome score though - Bruce Broughton has done a lot of great scores for the parks but DCA had GD and Seasons of the Vine from Bruce.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<GD perfectly demostrated why so many scoffed at pre overhaul DCA: low budget and corny.>> And what ya got now? Pixar crap (though very well done Pixar crap). Regardless of all the talk about "Westcot", Southern Californians never really wanted anything but Disneyland II... that is why DCA 1.0 bombed so badly. It was a different kind of park and they wanted nothing to do with it. What did they do to "save" it? They Disneylanded it. Give it an old-timey Main Street (this time called Buena Vista Street), create an elaborately landscaped "land" and fill it with film-based attractions. Voila! Disneyland II. Obviously very popular, but not at all in the spirit of DCA 1.0. I'll withhold final judgment until I visit next year, but for now I still like DCA 1.0 the best!
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>I'll withhold final judgment until I visit next year, but for now I still like DCA 1.0 the best!<< I never really got to experience DCA 1.0 in it's pure form (my first DCA visit was in 2005), but I think you will likely be disappointed in the result. As you said, the new stuff is done nicely, but it doesn't add anything new to my visit to the Disneyland Resort. Carsland felt to me like it was the next iteration of Toontown, with cheesy visual gags all over the place, and tongue-in-cheek signage whereever possible. It seems that they got rid of the much-hated puns of DCA 1.0 (many of which I thought were pretty clever) and replaced them with much-loved puns for DCA 2.0 (many of which feel tired already)
Originally Posted By barboy ///Californians never really wanted anything but Disneyland II... that is why DCA 1.0 bombed so badly./// I just don't see that as the ***BIGGEST*** rightful explanation. I say it was the park's woeful construction/design budget.....it direly needed at least another $500 million; and even if it had another .5 bil for startup then I wouldn't be surprised if guests would have come in and called DCA very cheap looking.
Originally Posted By barboy ///What did they do to "save" it? They Disneylanded it. Give it an old-timey Main Street (this time called Buena Vista Street), create an elaborately landscaped "land" and fill it with film-based attractions. Voila! Disneyland IIWhat did they do to "save" it? They Disneylanded it. Give it an old-timey Main Street (this time called Buena Vista Street), create an elaborately landscaped "land" and fill it with film-based attractions. Voila! Disneyland II/// But I still think the monstrous infusion of $1 billion+ to give it more attractions(fairly high quality ones at that) and far more eye candy/visual appeal attributes to the parks recent population boom way more than the 'Disneylandification' per se.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip ^^^ Well yes, they could have used a lot more money. But why instantly abandon the original concept? Further develop the San Francisco area with a first class seafood restaurant, perhaps a Chinatown style restaurant and exhibits on San Francisco's history including the great quake. Further develop the area based on Monterey's Cannery Row. If nothing else some type of exhibit based on the "17-mile drive". Some type of aquarium referencing the Monterey Aquarium would have been nice, but I doubt they would have had the space available even if they had the money. California is probably the most geographically diverse state in the United States and it has a WONDERFUL history. The original DCA concept was terrific but at the first sign of trouble they threw it under the bus. It is as if WDW threw out all the live animals at the AK and replaced them with a few animatronics once they discovered that it was consistently the least popular WDW park and probably always will be, Avatar or not. At least WDW had the guts to stick with their concept.
Originally Posted By barboy ///he should be hung, drawn and quartered for Mariah's Hero and Celine's My Heart Will Go On./// If by 'Mariah' you mean Cary and if by 'Celine' you mean Dion, then you were right to assign a traitor's death to him. Ya, he needs to out William Wallace style at once.
Originally Posted By barboy ///Further develop the San Francisco area with a first class seafood restaurant, perhaps a Chinatown style restaurant/// INDEED!!! ///and exhibits on San Francisco's history including the great quake./// even more 'INDEED!!!' ///Further develop the area based on Monterey's Cannery Row. If nothing else some type of exhibit based on the "17-mile drive". Some type of aquarium referencing the Monterey Aquarium would have been nice, but I doubt they would have had the space available even if they had the money./// That could have really put DCA over the top as being something terribly special. See, I told you we agree on a few things about life on this large rock. I mean there is more to life than US taxes and personal etiquette, no?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<See, I told you we agree on a few things about life on this large rock. I mean there is more to life than US taxes and personal etiquette, no?> So true. I don't sing "Kumbaya" though. ;-) I doubt you do either.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I think many at Disney made the immediate assumption that the large number of SoCal visitors just weren't interested in seeing a park all about California. They never stopped to consider that there was little interest because they hadn't done it very well. I don't know if this is true for most in the Los Angeles area, but for years I had an aunt, uncle and cousins living in the Orange County area. They were transplants from Minnesota, and they RARELY left the greater Los Angeles area. I think people like that would be very interested in learning about Monterey, San Francisco, Yosemite, and the area around Trinidad, Patrick's Point State park and the Redwoods National Forest in northern California! Frankly, I wasn't NEARLY as impressed with California until I saw what was there outside the SoCal area. EVERYONE should have a chance to see that. California is really a remarkable state. I thought the original intent of DCA was to celebrate that. Now it is just another rides park.
Originally Posted By Manfried <<But why instantly abandon the original concept? >> Because the original concept was stupid! I mean who comes to California to go to a theme park about California? YAWN.
Originally Posted By Manfried I agree with the assessment of Bruce Broughton. A great composer. As to more "historic" types of attractions, please no. They belong in museums.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip ^^^ Washington DC, one of my favorite destinations, seems to do very well with it's Museums. Not everyone needs a toon to turn their crank. Epcot was originally MUCH MORE museum-like than the Magic Kingdom and it was very successful. Frankly, that park has gone downhill since it abandoned that original concept. Oh well... say hi to Mater for me next time you are at DCA. I'm sure it will give you a little thrill.
Originally Posted By leobloom >> Washington DC, one of my favorite destinations, seems to do very well with it's Museums. Not everyone needs a toon to turn their crank. Epcot was originally MUCH MORE museum-like than the Magic Kingdom and it was very successful. Frankly, that park has gone downhill since it abandoned that original concept. << And a Disney theme park is the last place in the world I'd expect to find a world-class museum like those in DC.
Originally Posted By Mickeymouseclub But it is okay for Las Vegas...The last time i was in Vegas the Venetian had a limited world engagement tour displaying the genius of Leonardo Da Vinci ...it was so interesting I went to it twice on 2 different trips . <a href="http://www.DAVINCITHEGENIUS.COM" target="_blank">http://www.DAVINCITHEGENIUS.COM</a>
Originally Posted By Manfried Oh yeah, I would go to a Disney theme park to visit a museum. (Sarcasm setting is on high.) EPCOT is part museum, but really more of a World's Fair.
