Originally Posted By disneywatcher >> creativity trumps dollars in most creative endeavors << You seem to contradict yourself when you raise the point repeatedly that DCA is DCA because it didn't have the big budget of Epcot. And while Disney-MGM started off modestly, I don't think there's as great a sense (if any) that in order to improve it today will require the service of some wrecking balls and bulldozers. In other words, there's nothing at Disney-MGM that is as overtly tacky as Eisner's Paradise Pier is. Or as overtly mediocre as the central plaza's "hubcap," or as unsightly as portions of the Hollywood backlot still are (even with some alterations here and there).
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >> creativity trumps dollars in most creative endeavors << <You seem to contradict yourself when you raise the point repeatedly that DCA is DCA because it didn't have the big budget of Epcot.> Repeatedly? I mentioned EPCOT once. And DCA didn't have EPCOT's budget - that's one factor, and probably not the most important, but a factor nonetheless. <And while Disney-MGM started off modestly, I don't think there's as great a sense (if any) that in order to improve it today will require the service of some wrecking balls and bulldozers. In other words, there's nothing at Disney-MGM that is as overtly tacky as Eisner's Paradise Pier is.> DAK's Dino-land makes PP look like New Orleans Square. <Or as overtly mediocre as the central plaza's "hubcap,"> I think much of the theming at MGM is mediocre. Big beige studio buildings don't do much for me. Yes, HPB has them too, but it's a much smaller area, and it also "plays" with the "what is real?" vibe in a way that MGM doesn't. <or as unsightly as portions of the Hollywood backlot still are (even with some alterations here and there).> Again, I disagree. MGM has large portions that are basically HPB writ large. It has some nice areas too, but nothing, IMO, as nice as the GRR area of DCA.
Originally Posted By disneywatcher >> DAK's Dino-land makes PP look like New Orleans Square. << First of all, that lousy area is in Orlando's 4th Disney park, not in its second or third. And its saving grace is that it doesn't dominate Animal Kingdom (or take up as much land, or is as visible from far and wide) the way that Paradise Pier does. >> Yes, HPB has them too, but it's a much smaller area, and it also "plays" with the "what is real?" vibe in a way that MGM doesn't. << I don't think things like exposed steel girders are a vibe I care much for. Now such a design likely did cost less money to create, but the fact you not only don't mind that approach but even appreciate it merely reinforces my belief that DCA is DCA for reasons that have nothing to do with money. I know you have a soft spot in your heart for DCA (witness your giving more benefit of the doubt to Paradise Pier instead of Dino-Rama), or at least more parts of it than I do, and that's fine. But that means when I criticize the people who created DCA, I can't help it if you take that more personally than otherwise would be the case.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>But that means when I criticize the people who created DCA<< Gee, I'd be happy if you criticized them in some new, innovative way. I mean, the same couple of points ad nauseum is beyond old. But five years later and you are still on about "it's not money money money" -- good grief. Take a fresh tact allready. Better still, share your vision of DCA's future. You done whooped this dead horse into the ground looooong ago. What theme ideas do you propose? What sorts of rides, shows and attractions specifically do you think should be added to the park?
Originally Posted By disneywatcher >> You done whooped this dead horse into the ground looooong ago. << That horse still must have a bit of life in it because there continues to be people who believe DCA isn't better because more money wasn't spent on it (or because Anaheim isn't Orlando, or Tokyo, for that matter), and who make excuses for it accordingly.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Oh, brother. I appear once a year like Marley's ghost to appeal to you to offer something new to the discussion, and time and again you don't take it under consideration. See ya next Christmas. *poof*
Originally Posted By disneywatcher >> and time and again you don't take it under consideration. << I think that's because I find the reasons behind DCA's goofs to be more important and interesting than playing a game of armchair Imagineer, where I give rather specific, and certainly detailed, descriptions of what should or shouldn't have been done to make it better. And, besides, most of that has been rehashed here over and over again (Install audioanimatronics into Grizzle!! Make Paradise Pier look more authentic!! Add a ride about Silicon Valley!!) as much as anything else. Also, until and unless we know what's going on in the minds of people (both executives and Imagineers) at the DisCo -- in other words, how many of them like or don't like giving a lot of benefit of the doubt to DCA's shortcomings, even today? -- nothing else is quite as important.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <>> DAK's Dino-land makes PP look like New Orleans Square. << <First of all, that lousy area is in Orlando's 4th Disney park, not in its second or third.> So? Seems to me you'd think that tacky is tacky. <And its saving grace is that it doesn't dominate Animal Kingdom (or take up as much land, or is as visible from far and wide) the way that Paradise Pier does.> On the plus side, PP at least is themed to a seaside pleasure pier. Dino-land is themed to a literal parking lot carnival. And PP is consistent in itself. What in the world do dinosaurs have to do with a parking lot carnival? >> Yes, HPB has them too, but it's a much smaller area, and it also "plays" with the "what is real?" vibe in a way that MGM doesn't. << <I don't think things like exposed steel girders are a vibe I care much for. Now such a design likely did cost less money to create, but the fact you not only don't mind that approach> You're assuming too much again. I never said I didn't mind that; in fact I said one of the reasons I didn't like MGM was there was too much "bare bones studio" look. And, using your own argument, there's much less space devoted to that in DCA than there is in MGM. <but even appreciate it merely reinforces my belief that DCA is DCA for reasons that have nothing to do with money.> I never said I appreciated bare steel girders. I said I appreciated the "what is real, after all, in Hollywood" vibe; for instance, the Hyperion appears to be real building at the far end of the street; get closer and it's just a 2-D facade. Step behind that facade and you have a real theatre. <I know you have a soft spot in your heart for DCA (witness your giving more benefit of the doubt to Paradise Pier instead of Dino-Rama),> It's my least favorite section of DCA, but I think it's better DONE than Dino-rama. <or at least more parts of it than I do, and that's fine. But that means when I criticize the people who created DCA, I can't help it if you take that more personally than otherwise would be the case.> Not at all. I've said repeatedly that I would have designed something far different. You keep thinking I'm taking issue with your opinions themselves. No. I'm taking issue with continually harping on the same pet points, using the same language, and as a result, offering nothing new to the discussion. Exactly what Kar2oonMan just talked about.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Also, until and unless we know what's going on in the minds of people (both executives and Imagineers) at the DisCo -- in other words, how many of them like or don't like giving a lot of benefit of the doubt to DCA's shortcomings, even today? -- nothing else is quite as important.> You've just described why your constant harping is an exercise in futility. None of us know what's going on in the minds of Disney execs, even as much as like to pretend you do. It becomes navel gazing, frankly.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >> that's because I find the reasons behind DCA's goofs to be more important and interesting than playing a game of armchair Imagineer<< Instead, you play armchair psychologist, attempting to project personality "types" on Disney execs and Imagineers.
Originally Posted By disneywatcher >> So? << You're the one who was putting the onus of burden on the fact that DCA is Anaheim's second Disney park, and that it therefore should be seen as sort of a parallel to Epcot. In other words, that has to mean the mediocrity of Paradise Pier in the context of Anaheim's second Disney park is far more of a mistake than a second-rate area in the context of Orlando's fourth Disney theme park. >> On the plus side, PP at least is themed to a seaside pleasure pier. << But as I said before, that is offset by the large amount of land that Paradise Pier takes up in DCA, and the fact that it's far more visible -- from Katella Avenue, for instance -- than the Animal Kingdom's crummy, smaller Dino-Rama area. >> Step behind that facade and you have a real theatre. << But the attempt to distinguish the real from the fake is attempted elsewhere in the backlot area, where the rear side of the facades of Hollywood Blvd is made up of steel girders, but in a manner that I find to be clumsy and far too literal-minded. So any possible cleverness of a real-or-fake vibe comes off as merely cheap and lazy. >> I've said repeatedly that I would have designed something far different. << But not so much so that if, for example, you had been one of the people involved in DCA's planning and development you would have expressed strong displeasure about many of the elements and concepts that were eventually incorporated into the park. I think I can say that because I believe your reaction to DCA in general from the beginning has been one of mild (if not firm) approval or come-see-come-saw nonchalance. What I mean is if your paycheck depended on the DisCo, and your boss were Barry Braverman or Michael Eisner, you likely would have expressed even more mild approval of, or, at worse, nonchalance about DCA. >> It becomes navel gazing, frankly. << And that's why playing armchair Imagineer, where we shoot the breeze about various specific ideas we'd like to see incorporated into DCA, is even more of an exercise in futility or navel gazing. After all, so much now depends (and always has) on whether key decisionmakers at the DisCo share the opinions of people who give a lot of slack to DCA's flaws or people who make no bones about their unhappiness with the park.
Originally Posted By disneywatcher >> Instead, you play armchair psychologist, attempting to project personality "types" on Disney execs and Imagineers. << Well, far more people on these boards like playing -- and have been playing -- armchair Imagineer ("Let's do this or that to DCA!! Let's build this or that in DCA!") than armchair psychologist, so I'm merely injecting a different angle to the conversation.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan You haven't injected a different angle to the conversation in three years. Just the same three points, reworded only slightly. But whatever floats your boat.
Originally Posted By disneywatcher And what have you injected in 3 or whatever years that goes much beyond the comments typical of armchair Imagineers here at LP.com?---e.g., "Let's make Paradise Pier look more like the 1920s! Let's make Grizzly Rapids more interesting. Let's incorporate additional California history into DCA!!", etc, etc.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Why don't you go psychoanalyze yourself? <a href="http://bl.net/forwards/psychtest.html" target="_blank">http://bl.net/forwards/psychte st.html</a>
Originally Posted By SuzieQ LOL - this is like reading a game of Mine is Bigger Than Yours! Very amusing, boys.
