Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "MM and DinoRama at AK were both conceived by the same cheap mall mentality." I kind of disagree with this because I found DinoRama to a far more immersive experience than MM. Primeval Whirl was a clever adaptation of the attraction and felt and looked more "Disney", that is, special, than MM. MM is pretty bad. And I do agree with those who say that the execution is lacking, however I do like PP. To be honest the Bay Area section is DCA's worst section by virtue of the fact that no one I know can identify the section as the Bay Area. At least PP looks and feels like what it's supposed represent - a seaside pier.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<I prefer the other idea that rumor has it was bandied around, the 20's. But I suppose the Cove Bar would have to close. Prohibition, you know...>> <It would just have to be a speakeasy, that could be fun> LOL, AD! Yeah, that could be fun. I do think the roaring 20's would be a better fit for PP than Victorian 1900's. Knott's made a stab at the roaring 20's in the 70's and succeeded fairly well... if Disney put their minds to it, they could really nail it.
Originally Posted By disneywatcher >> How would people react to Fantasyland if it opened today? << Are you aware of the modest expectations that many people had back when Disneyland opened in 1955? For instance, look at all the small, cheap tract houses built throughout Orange County, or the neighborhoods adjacent to Disneyland, during the 1950s and 1960s. Many homebuyers of today would snicker and sneer at any developer who tried to duplicate such junk today. Sort of like the DisCo trying to build a park with the design elements and features of -- well, come to think of it -- DCA in 2001.
Originally Posted By pitapan16 Not every attraction needs to be an E-ticket. Without the nostalgia value, how would people react to a Mr. Toad or Snow White or Teacups that opened today? How would people react to Fantasyland if it opened today? Lol, If a new ride opened at DCA that was on par with any fantasyland attraction, It would automatically become....one of my top 7 things to visit at the park no doubt.
Originally Posted By pitapan16 The new dark ride going into Toon Studios at DSP *should* be the Disney way to do a wild mouse. Tushay!
Originally Posted By BrigmanMT 2 "Lol, If a new ride opened at DCA that was on par with any fantasyland attraction, It would automatically become....one of my top 7 things to visit at the park no doubt." Yeah, it would be in my top 3! And I third the idea that the crush indoor/outdoor wild mouse with spinning vehicles, comical phrases, water effects, animated scenery, and a decent storyline is the Disney way to do a wild mouse. Actually, if you look though Disneyland History books, Mr. Toad and the Matterhorn in many different stages were seen as Disney counterparts to wild mouse coasters. Mulholland Madness has a long way to go.
Originally Posted By pitapan16 Actually, if you look though Disneyland History books, Mr. Toad and the Matterhorn in many different stages were seen as Disney counterparts to wild mouse coasters. Mulholland Madness has a long way to go. Is'nt that funny, I cannot ever remember thinking of Matterhorn or Mr Toad as any kind of wild mouse coaster. I guess because they really are not.
Originally Posted By RogRabbit 've been thinking that a good way of improving the Maliboomer is to add a burly, hndle mustachioed, weight lifter AA in the classic black leotard in the middle of the three launchers (or whatever they are called) that can spin around to each of the launchers and with the mallot in his hand swing down and hit a fake pad. It could be sincec so that the operators could push a buttom that starts him going and then when he hits the pad the "rockets" are launched. Granted the people on the outsides wouldn't be able to see all of this but it could add for a good show for people in line.
Originally Posted By RogRabbit >>What I'd love to see is getting rid of Route 66 and replacing it with a proper SF area. Then they could do the following with MM: Enclose it completely and make the exterior look like an SF Victorian house/apt. building. Turn an eyesore into a positive.<< I love that Idea Dabob. And for a Victorian house exterior how about the Seven Sisters near GG Park, that would look cool.
Originally Posted By gurgitoy2 "You're kidding, right? They are going to take a park that celebrates California and model it after 19th century England? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. I admit PP could use a firmer identity era wise, but let's go for mid-twentieth century America, OK??" Well, like others have said, "Victorian" was a style not confined to the UK. There were LOTS of Victorian structures built in America (heck, I live in a Victorian house). Anyway, yes, there were also Victorian/turn-of-the-century amusement piers in California too. Here are a few examples. Venice Beach: <a href="http://naid.sppsr.ucla.edu/venice/" target="_blank">http://naid.sppsr.ucla.edu/ven ice/</a> Belmont Park: <a href="http://www.beachcalifornia.com/misbch.html" target="_blank">http://www.beachcalifornia.com /misbch.html</a> The Pike - Long Beach: <a href="http://www.beachcalifornia.com/pikesouth.html" target="_blank">http://www.beachcalifornia.com /pikesouth.html</a> Santa Cruz Beach Boardwalk: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Cruz_Beach_Boardwalk" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S anta_Cruz_Beach_Boardwalk</a> So, it's certainly in keeping with the tradition to retheme Paradise Pier to a Victorian look.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt To be honest, none of those piers qualify as Victorian in architectural style. They tend to be a mishmash of different things, most likely because there was little thought was given to cohesive amusement park design in those days. Personally, I would prefer it if PP followed this chaotic design a bit more carefully. The biggest problem I see with the area now is that it looks spectacular from a distance, but up close it's almost completely void of Disney's trademark attention to detail.
Originally Posted By gurgitoy2 Hans, you do have a point. Especially looking at all the additions to those seaside piers. Many rides were added to them in the 1920's, and they do tend to have a mishmash of styles. The Victorian base was there at the start though, and I wish Paradise Pier would take it to a whole new cohesive level. I like what Disney did with the Boardwalk Inn at WDW, and they could replicate that for PP.
Originally Posted By Daannzzz On Coney Island there were alot of Victoria referances in the srchitecture. Some of it did make west. I think making it more like this would be of interest. <a href="http://www.coneyisland.8k.com/photo4.html" target="_blank">http://www.coneyisland.8k.com/ photo4.html</a>
Originally Posted By pitapan16 it looks spectacular from a distance, but up close it's almost completely void of Disney's trademark attention to detail. I would agree with that. The set up across the bay and with the actual pier going out to PP over the water, it really looks pretty darn nice, especially at night time. And then you walk in for a close up and....blah, nothing. Lol, very UNspectacular.
Originally Posted By pitapan16 Oh wow, I know Coney Island is East Coast but man....their is great potential for the Pier theme. Paradise Pier as it is now is lacking majorly. It looks nice from a distance at first glance but then you walk up and its so modern looking, unclassy, kind of new age carnival look going on, and no detail. Bad show over in that land of DCA. The good news is that DCA amazingly is pulling in decent numbers(atleast from my viewpoint, being that a place like PP is in the park), and thats good BECAUSE now Disney has the opportunity to continue working and investing in the park to really take it to a new level and turn the place into what I beleive has MAJOR potential. California Adventure could be....Unbeleivable and unquestionably spectacular.
Originally Posted By pitapan16 California Adventure SHOULD BE ....Unbeleivable and unquestionably spectacular.
Originally Posted By disneywatcher >> it looks spectacular from a distance << Maybe at night, with all its lights on. But during the day, the sight of the clunky, graceless Mailboomer tower and the Any-Park-USA tracks of California Screamin' -- even more so when all observed against the backdrop of the power lines along Katella Ave -- hollers "It's Six Flags time!!" to me.
Originally Posted By danyoung >Primeval Whirl was a clever adaptation of the attraction and felt and looked more "Disney", that is, special, than MM.< Well, they did better at DAK than at DCA. And once you've ridden the Primeval Whirl, a simple wild mouse just doesn't cut it. But I still don't like the overall theming of Chester & Hester's Dinorama. It has that same parking lot of the local mall feel of a travelling carnival. And in my mind that's just not special enough to be considered a Disney environment.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt ^^I agree dan. However, I did find myself smiling at the clever little details that the designers used to convey the story of Chester & Hester's roadside attraction. I thought the parking lot markers were pretty amusing and thoughtful. This is exactly the kind of detail that is generally lacking at Paradise Pier.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "...the sight of the clunky, graceless Mailboomer tower and the Any-Park-USA tracks of California Screamin' -- even more so when all observed against the backdrop of the power lines along Katella Ave -- hollers "It's Six Flags time!!" to me." Maybe you should stop listening to the voices in your head. BTW, since when are California seaside amusement pier attractions supposed to be graceful?
