Originally Posted By BlueOhanaTerror >>>"They already tried a park full of non-cartoon based rides (DCA when it opened). Nobody liked it."<<< DCA's failure to connect with the public never had anything to do with a lack of characters. There were always "walk around" characters to provide the obligatory meet and greet/autographs and warm and cuddly moments. DCA's lack of enthusiastic response with the public was the result of underbaked attractions, not enough spectacular attractions, and a perceived undercurrent throughout of a lack of quality. Beyond all that, simply not enough to do where one person feels "gee, I've got lots and lots of choices of great stuff to do." The average visitor, given the nature of human personality, probably only had a handful of appealing options as to where to spend his/her time. Disneyland truly has something for everyone, in ABUNDANCE. It's had decades to develop to that point. But that park was CONCEIVED with a diversity of appeals in theme and in execution of entertainment offerings (I mean attractions along with performed entertainment). DCA's conception was spotty: "We'll have one of these, and one of these, and here and here and here we can stick some short movies." And in between all that, they stuck a bunch of restaurants and shops, hoping to distract you from your wallet, thinking (how bizarre!) that shopping and eating is a replacement for quality attractions. EPCOT CENTER opened with very few cartoon or character references - and where it did have those, they were mostly NEW characters. Contrary to the opinion of people who were born after 1982, the park WAS quite a success in its first few years. It was hugely expensive though, and represented 1/4 of the entire company's net worth (at the time). It wasn't until Michael Eisner came on board a couple of years later and looked at the place, that there was a reaction to parents asking "where's the characters?" Maybe it was a good idea to bring some Disney characters to EPCOT Center, but it was a mistake to pursue that path as a crutch. The park's STRENGTH was in the confidence it held in its core themes. When various characters were called upon to "prop up" attractions and environments, designers got lazy with established themes, and stopped thinking so hard. Jon earlier said that designers have gotten lazy. There's truth to that, particularly when everywhere you look, an attraction HAS to have some kind of character tie-in. PIRATES created its own cast. THE HAUNTED MANSION created its own cast. LINCOLN appropriated a beloved historical figure and gave him a new platform to inspire. Ditto for endless great attractions that have displayed longevity. No such vision seems in the offing for these new Disney creations, which makes me weep for the money that's about to be spent. Give me ONE attraction about the diverse sea life off California's coastline. That attraction will never need updating. And it certainly won't need NEMO.
Originally Posted By Skellington88 How does the Cars ride NOT fit in a land called Carland about california's car culture?
Originally Posted By jonvn um...cause it takes place elsewhere? How about a car factory ride instead? Whre you are in a suspended car flying through a factory, and it is assembled as you move along, and at the end, you ride off on a test track. That really should have been what test track was in epcot. Who cares about Cars, the movie. It was dull as dishwater.
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORWEN: Not to everybody, it wasn't. ORDDU: It all comes down to personal preferences and tastes. What bothers us is when an attraction is made cheaply and it shows--such as Winnie the Pooh. ORWEN: But that doesn't mean we don't still like Pooh! ORGOCH: Yeah, I'm sure ya does!
Originally Posted By jonvn "Not to everybody, it wasn't. " Oh gee, that film had long stretches of nothing in it. I'd say it's Pixar's weakest. I actually liked Ratatoullie much better.
Originally Posted By Skellington88 <um...cause it takes place elsewhere? How about a car factory ride instead? Whre you are in a suspended car flying through a factory, and it is assembled as you move along, and at the end, you ride off on a test track.> A portion of the film takes place in California and the rest of the movie is about Route 66..which is tied to californias history. That ride you described sounds an awful lot like Test Track at Epcot. Which is one of the worst rides I've ever been on.
Originally Posted By spacejockey What about a "Tunnel of Love" staring Little Mermaid. A "Tunnel Of Love" would fit the pier theme.
Originally Posted By jonvn "That ride you described sounds an awful lot like Test Track at Epcot. Which is one of the worst rides I've ever been on. " I've been on test track, and it's not the ride i was describing. "A portion of the film takes place in California and the rest of the movie is about Route 66..which is tied to californias history. " Hey, you know what else is tied to California history? The Norman Invasion of 1066. Because of that, the English language changed, and we speak English in California, so let's have some knights and heraldry attractions in DCA, too.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros If I remember the movie correctly (and there is no doubt in my mind about this part of it, at least), there was a huge deal made about how Radiator Springs (where the majority of the film takes place) is specifically NOT in California. They don't say where it is, but Lightning keeps mentioning how he needs to get to California, which would be a stupid thing to say if he was already in the state. Sure, they could do something with the race scene, but that really wouldn't be particularly interesting. If they wanted to recreate a desert town for the attraction, I would expect that it would not be Radiator Springs. It could have references to it (like signs saying how far away it was, or shops owned by relatives of the RS cars), but it should be it's own place. From what I've seen of the concept art (which is addmitedly not too much), there seems to be no effort made to make sure that is actually is in California, and therefor has absolutely nothing to do with the vague references to California that seem to be so important.
Originally Posted By dshyates I always liked the idea of a "Kiss the Girl" Tunnel of Love. It would fit the pier. Use the Pirates ride system. It would be a no-brainer.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss Boats with more than 20 people wouldn't work for a Tunnel of Love, unless it is a Tunnel of Free Love.
Originally Posted By 2001DLFan <<Skellington88: How does the Cars ride NOT fit in a land called Carland about california's car culture?>> Probably the fact that everything in Carland is referencing Pixar’s Cars movie and not at all oriented towards California’s car culture.
Originally Posted By 2001DLFan <<jonvn: "I really get the feeling that the Little Mermaid idea is their grabbing at straws for something enjoyable to put into the park" That's really sad, if true. I've seen many ideas from all sorts of people who have presented ideas online that sounded like they'd be great. I can't imagine it'd be that hard to come up with something good.>> Of course, that’s not intended to mean that the Little Mermaid ride was in any way bad. It was initially designed for Disneyland Paris. In that location, it would have been outstanding. But just trying to sandwich it into DCA is just flawed thinking.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 "On this we're completely agreed." <<It's interesting that some people who agree on almost NOTHING seem to agree on this. This is either a sign of the coming apocolypse, or it is something Disney might want to take notice of. If people from all over the map on opinions otherwise start saying similar things, it might actually project into the general public in terms of perception and opinion.>> I just think Disney has reached critical mass (if that's the right term) with stuffing characters everywhere and anywhere. I love Disney characters. Where they belong. In MK-style parks, in Fantasyland and Toontown. Now, they're everywhere. If you think things are bad at DL/DCA, I'd suggest a visit to WDW. The MK has become so cartooned that the land absolutely have no meaning. None. Go back to 1987 and the characters only existed (other than out for photo ops in land appropriate garb) in Fantasyland. Hell, there wasn't even a single character meal at the MK. Shops all had different merchandise, only Fantasyland and the Emporium were character-filled areas. It really is sick. I also don't buy that it's because people want it. Guests are like sheep. They accept whatever it is that Disney offers. If they offer immersive non-character attractions like Mansion or PoC (even with Depp), they'll go on them. And if they offer a Tomorrowland with Buzz Lightyear and a sub voyage to find a clownfish, well ... they go for that as well. I'm really torn on Mermaid, though, because it's been proposed for almost every Disney park in existence since the early 90s and hasn't made it off the drawing board. I'd much rather see it in Fantasyland (especially in Florida and Hong Kong, where it's needed) ... but I suppose if the extend/expand the bay area, they can make a VERY tenuous argument for why it is there. But then you have the rat coaster next door too ... and it all becomes muddled, which is really the point if you've made it this far in this muddled post. If Disney adds 10 attractions to DCA and half are character-related, I'll bitch, but live with it. But, so far, I haven't heard of one non-character attraction that has got the budget approval yet ... and that is very worrisome.
Originally Posted By jonvn Yes. The ride might be great as an individual ride. But as part of a cohesive whole of what Disney theme parks have been, it has no real place. They could easily salvage the little mermaid ride and make it appropriate for where it is being put. Do they have the ability to even think in these terms anymore? I'd like to see something that shows it.
Originally Posted By jonvn "If Disney adds 10 attractions to DCA and half are character-related, I'll bitch" You may just bitch, but I just may stop visiting. Not much point. But, what if they add 10 and they are all character based? At a certain point anyone will simply overload on this.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<EPCOT CENTER opened with very few cartoon or character references - and where it did have those, they were mostly NEW characters. Contrary to the opinion of people who were born after 1982, the park WAS quite a success in its first few years. It was hugely expensive though, and represented 1/4 of the entire company's net worth (at the time). It wasn't until Michael Eisner came on board a couple of years later and looked at the place, that there was a reaction to parents asking "where's the characters?">> Yep. I remember the first year when Mickey and the gang weren't around AT ALL! You couldn't see them at EC. Figment was the only 'character' perse. Even when the Disney characters moved in, it was limited in scope through the rest of the decade. But by the 1990s they just went pedal to the floor to add characters everywhere. Thankfully, they haven't 'ruined' the park. But they still are much too prevalent. <<Maybe it was a good idea to bring some Disney characters to EPCOT Center, but it was a mistake to pursue that path as a crutch. The park's STRENGTH was in the confidence it held in its core themes. When various characters were called upon to "prop up" attractions and environments, designers got lazy with established themes, and stopped thinking so hard. Jon earlier said that designers have gotten lazy. There's truth to that, particularly when everywhere you look, an attraction HAS to have some kind of character tie-in. >> Yup ... but the other thing to realize is that Marketing Dept.has gotten so much stronger over the past decade. In many ways, marketing runs WDW ... that's why until four months ago, they were going to simply ignore EPCOT's 25th. Too bad, those crazy fans were unhappy and word got out ... and the new EPCOT VP was none-too-happy either with ignoring the milestone. So now on 10/1 you'll have Bob Iger and Jay Rasulo crowing about the park and ... well, off on a 1:55 a.m. tangent. But if Marketing wants everything to have a character tie-in, at least in Florida (with the exception of DAK) they'll get their way. It sure seems like it's the same in Anaheim these days.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<They could easily salvage the little mermaid ride and make it appropriate for where it is being put. Do they have the ability to even think in these terms anymore? I'd like to see something that shows it.>> So would I ... so would I ... "If Disney adds 10 attractions to DCA and half are character-related, I'll bitch" <<You may just bitch, but I just may stop visiting. Not much point.>> I respect that. I may be with you. I just need to see/experience what they decide to build first. If they build 10 solid attractions and five are wonderful and have no character ties ... and five that are also enjoyable and do, I think I can live with that. <<But, what if they add 10 and they are all character based? At a certain point anyone will simply overload on this.>> They do that, they lose me as a guest. Simple as that. Candy is great. Eating nothing but candy is not.
