Originally Posted By Dabob2 <>> 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.> It doesn't "have" to mean that at all. An uninspired area is an uninspired area, and the visitor sees them as similar, I imagine. At least PP has an excellent coaster, a one-of-only-two type of ferris wheel, and looks great at night. Dino-rama doesn't even have that. >> 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.> But, as I said, PP also has superior attractions. >> 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.> In your opinion. IMO, the vibe of HPB is more interesting than the "hey, a real working studio!" vibe that MGM attempted, which makes no sense now that it hasn't had much actual production work there for a while. >> 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.> Now you're amateur pychoanalyst for us, too. Great. You have no idea how much displeasure I'd have expressed. Zero. If you knew me, and have ever seen me collaborate on creative endeavors (which I do all the time), you'd know that if I don't like where something is going, I SAY SO in no uncertain terms. But as a visitor to a Disney park, I can wish for things that might have been, but also enjoy what is. I recognize the difference between being in on the project, and being a visitor. <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's the saying? God grant me the serenity to change what I can, accept what I can't, AND THE WISDOM TO KNOW THE DIFFERENCE? <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.> That shows how much you don't know me. Ask anyone on world events how tenacious I can be when I don't agree with something. Even here, actually. >> 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.> The difference is: we armchair imagineers KNOW it's navel gazing. You don't seem to grasp that.
Originally Posted By disneywatcher >> Why don't you go psychoanalyze yourself? << If that test were aimed at the people responsible for DCA, I'd want visuals of various aspects of DCA, with questions along the lines of: Is this themed area good or not? Is this feature tacky or not? Is this idea corny or clever?
Originally Posted By disneywatcher >> An uninspired area is an uninspired area << Sure, but you did say that DCA's flaws should be judged next to, or seen as countervailing examples of, the strengths of Epcot. I'm saying that Paradise Pier, therefore, is a far bigger blunder than Animal Kingdom's Dino-Rama is. >> You have no idea how much displeasure I'd have expressed. << Quite a few of the comments you've directed at DCA since 2001 have never given me a sense you've been all that displeased with DCA, or at least quite a bit of it. I can only go by what I've seen posted here at LP.com. >> You don't seem to grasp that. << That assumes you believe I see this message board as being somehow so important. Why should I judge any of the words keyed into this place as going beyond just idle chatter? And the rather frivolous kind at that because almost none of us work for the DisCo, certainly in a position of great authority.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>If that test were aimed at the people responsible for DCA, I'd want.....etc., etc., etc.<< And what would you do with the results, doctor? Make a paper hat?
Originally Posted By WorldDisney <<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*>> LMAO, I couldn't stop laughing at this . Sorry DisneyWatcher, but like it or not, Kar2oonMan clearly has a point.
Originally Posted By Blacksheep Uncle >>>But as a visitor to a Disney park, I can wish for things that might have been, but also enjoy what is. I recognize the difference between being in on the project, and being a visitor.<< and that is quite possible the most logical and reasonable comment of the 125+ in this thread...(and maybe in all the innumerable "whaa DCA isn't what I wanted whaa whaa" threads here too...)
Originally Posted By socalkdg Of all the Parks at WDW, Disney Studios has to be the one that needs the most work. You have two "E" ticket rides right next to each other, then really nothing else in the whole park. Check out the place at night when Fantasmic is about to start(this is the one major thing it has over DCA - although the ELP comes close) and I swear you can hear the crickets chirping. Its not a fun place to be at night if you aren't seeing the Fantasmic(except when they have the Osbourne Lights, which I haven't seen yet). The layout is disorganized, with seemingly everything you want to do on the outskirts of the park with nothing in the middle. Good luck finding any rides for kids under 6. DCA in 5 years has passed DS in both theming and substance, and if the current work they have been doing at DCA is an indication of the direction that Disney is taking, then DCA will continue to put distance between itself and DS.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "Is this idea corny or clever?" I ask myself that question everytime I set foot in the Enchanted Tiki Room.
Originally Posted By Pixie Glitter I'm in a Charlie Brown special. . . . "Wah, wahhhh, wah, wahhhhhhhh, wahh." "What was that, Miss Othmar?"
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA It reminds me of when I worked in this office years ago. You see, some people liked Mr. Waters and so supported his ideas. Others thought Mr. Graves was the one who had the better ideas, so supported him. It wasn't about money spent, but personality types in the office. Some liked Graves, some liked Waters. So, we were at lunch later that year....
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >> An uninspired area is an uninspired area << <Sure, but you did say that DCA's flaws should be judged next to, or seen as countervailing examples of, the strengths of Epcot.> I did not say that. You may have inferred it, but I did not say it. I brought up EPCOT as an example of a fully-blown-out-of-the-box 2nd gate, and MGM as an example of a start-modest-and-add-later 3rd gate, and said it was clear Disney took the 3rd gate model for their second gate - which was a mistake if they wanted to make a bigger splash right from the get-go, but not necessarily for the long term. Anything else, you read into it. >> You have no idea how much displeasure I'd have expressed. << <Quite a few of the comments you've directed at DCA since 2001 have never given me a sense you've been all that displeased with DCA, or at least quite a bit of it. I can only go by what I've seen posted here at LP.com.> Again, I recognize the difference between being in on the project and being a visitor. That's a huge difference. You have no idea what my input would have been if I'd been part of the project. >> You don't seem to grasp that. << <That assumes you believe I see this message board as being somehow so important. Why should I judge any of the words keyed into this place as going beyond just idle chatter? And the rather frivolous kind at that because almost none of us work for the DisCo, certainly in a position of great authority.> That's how it should be seen. But I gotta tell ya' - the tone of your posts does come off as rather SELF-important and "listen children, as I tell you how things are - again and again and again." Downright condescending sometimes. (If you're open to a little criticism yourself.) That's all's I'm sayin', though I wish I could do it with 2oony's good humor.
Originally Posted By disneywatcher >> And what would you do with the results, doctor? Make a paper hat? << If such a test couldn't have detected and screened out the creative ineptitude of Michael Paradise-Pier Eisner and Barry hip-and-edgy Braverman, then, yes, I guess it would have been worth not much more than a paper hat.
Originally Posted By disneywatcher >> I brought up EPCOT as an example of a fully-blown-out-of-the-box 2nd gate, and MGM as an example of a start-modest-and-add-later 3rd gate, << But you equated Dino-Rama with Paradise Pier, judging the former as even worse than the latter, while I rate them as just the opposite, even more so since Dino-Rama is relatively hidden inside Orlando's fourth Disney park while Paradise Pier sits in full glory in Anaheim's second Disney park. >> You have no idea what my input would have been if I'd been part of the project. << I think even those who strongly dislike DCA, were they employed by the DisCo and under the supervision of Eisner or Braverman, would moderate their disapproval. In other words, people who aren't even employed by the DisCo, who aren't even dependent on Eisner or Braverman for their job, and yet who've been rather easygoing about -- if not even moderately enthusiastic towards -- DCA, flaws and all, likely would have been far more willing to go with the flow. >> Downright condescending sometimes. << However, I bet if I said repeatedly, "Eisner and Braverman were rather skillful in their work on DCA, in that the park isn't as mediocre as its toughest critics claim, and all you who say otherwise are blind dolts," you'd think I was just a tad bit less condescending.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>However, I bet if I said repeatedly, "Eisner and Braverman were rather skillful in their work on DCA, in that the park isn't as mediocre as its toughest critics claim, and all you who say otherwise are blind dolts," you'd think I was just a tad bit less condescending.<< Don't bet a lot. Once again, you're projecting. You clearly enjoy labeling people and imagining you can categorize them by how much they like/dislike DCA. You haven't Clue #1 as to how anyone here on the boards, given the same budget and a blank slate to create a second Anaheim theme park would handle the task. Not one. For example, you might be the most creative person on planet Earth, but based on you hammering the same two points over and over again, you give the appearance of someone who gets very stuck on a particular point, unable to move ahead. One might be tempted to think that you'd be a pain to work with because you would get stuck in this way on a given project and hold the thing up out of an inability to cooperate on a team -- beyond merely having a principle you believe in, but someone who is stubborn for the sake of it. Much like a kid sticking his fingers in his ears and singing "LA LA LA LA LA" so as to block out any input that interferes with his world view. Is that a correct assessment of you? Probably not. At least, I'd hope not. See how wrong it is to attempt to draw certain conclusions about people based on posts to a message board? See how easy it is to give the wrong impression?
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA Your comments, Kar2oonMan, remind me of an office I used to work in. You see, some people liked Mr. Waters and so supported his ideas. and so another guy...
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >> I brought up EPCOT as an example of a fully-blown-out-of-the-box 2nd gate, and MGM as an example of a start-modest-and-add-later 3rd gate, << <But you equated Dino-Rama with Paradise Pier, judging the former as even worse than the latter, while I rate them as just the opposite, even more so since Dino-Rama is relatively hidden inside Orlando's fourth Disney park while Paradise Pier sits in full glory in Anaheim's second Disney park.> First of all, that's a non-sequitur with my paragraph before it. Second, I only brought up Dino-rama to show that PP was hardly alone in recent Disney history. You keep inferring things that I never said. >> You have no idea what my input would have been if I'd been part of the project. << <I think even those who strongly dislike DCA, were they employed by the DisCo and under the supervision of Eisner or Braverman, would moderate their disapproval. In other words, people who aren't even employed by the DisCo, who aren't even dependent on Eisner or Braverman for their job, and yet who've been rather easygoing about -- if not even moderately enthusiastic towards -- DCA, flaws and all, likely would have been far more willing to go with the flow.> Once again, 2oony put it better than I could: "Don't bet a lot. Once again, you're projecting. You clearly enjoy labeling people and imagining you can categorize them by how much they like/dislike DCA. You haven't Clue #1 as to how anyone here on the boards, given the same budget and a blank slate to create a second Anaheim theme park would handle the task. Not one." >> Downright condescending sometimes. << <However, I bet if I said repeatedly, "Eisner and Braverman were rather skillful in their work on DCA, in that the park isn't as mediocre as its toughest critics claim, and all you who say otherwise are blind dolts," you'd think I was just a tad bit less condescending.> Nope. Condescending is condescending. "Blind dolts," for example, is condescending - (and it's how you seem to regard people who like DCA, even a little bit) - and if someone said that about people who DIDN'T like DCA, I'd still say "geez, what a condescending post." I see posters who usually agree with me who come off that way, too, so it's got nothing to do with content. I also see posters who tend to agree with you who don't come off that way at all.
Originally Posted By disneywatcher >> You haven't Clue #1 as to how anyone here on the boards, given the same budget and a blank slate to create a second Anaheim theme park would handle the task. Not one. << And you're not being honest about or denying the way *most* people respond in a boss/employee, payer/payee situation. It's ridiculous to assume people who are rather easygoing about DCA -- much less who rather like it -- when they're not even dependent on DisCo executives for their monthly salary and jobs will somehow become more demanding or nitpicky about the park if they suddenly became a DisCo employee and had to deal with a boss or assortment of managers who, in comparison, absolutely, totally loved DCA or clearly favored team players. I think DCA is second-rate, but I admit that office politics -- or knowing which side my bread is buttered on -- would influence how vocal I was in my disapproval of or disappointment in the park.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Forget all that, and let's get down to brass tacks, disneywatcher. Do you consider yourself a Graves or Waters man?
