Originally Posted By pitapan16 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. -Absolutely agreed. I forgot to mention daytime visuals about the pier because well, I never go over there on that side of the park much because I know how bad it is. Lol, call me crazy but you know its bad when a guest purposefully plans his day out at the park according to lighting to help disguise bad show(Even for "annual passholder guests like me.")
Originally Posted By pitapan16 This is exactly the kind of detail that is generally lacking at Paradise Pier. -I think detail in general is lacking over there. But hey atleast its clean! lol
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> you know its bad when a guest purposefully plans his day out at the park according to lighting to help disguise bad show << I do something similar - I try to time my park touring to put me at the cove bar at sunset. It sure is a pretty spot at sunset to enjoy a cocktail, take in the view and relax at the end of a long day. But it just doesn't work in daylight.
Originally Posted By disneywatcher >> Maybe you should stop listening to the voices in your head. BTW, since when are California seaside amusement pier attractions supposed to be graceful? << Speaking of "voices", and in light of your rationalizations -- and conjuring up the idea of mind melds -- I have to believe that your brain and that of Michael Eisner and Barry Braverman must have been wired together on at least one occasion over the past several years.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt Thanks for the compliment, disneywatcher. It is certainly comforting to know that you think that I am capable and talented enough to both manage a multi-billion dollar Fortune 500 comapany and oversee the design of a major theme park.
Originally Posted By ArchtMig >>BTW, since when are California seaside amusement pier attractions supposed to be graceful? << Since when was a major part of any "Disney" theme park NOT supposed to be graceful?? Normally harsh and gritty parts of the world have been "recreated" with style and, yes, "grace" in all previous Disney theme parks, ie. Frontierland, Adventureland, practically all of Animal Kingdom, etc. etc. Disney put in a tremendous amount of thought and care into everything they did in their parks. That all ended dramatically when the evil triumverate of Eisner, Pressler and Braverman squirted out DCA in the manner that a baby squirts out, well... you know what... into his diaper. Some of what's left there is solid, but most of it is an uncongealed, watery mess, and taken all together, it all stinks. With the evil triumverate now gone, let's hope those days are behind us.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "Since when was a major part of any "Disney" theme park NOT supposed to be graceful??" I just checked the Imagineering Rule Book, Vol 5 and I saw nothing about grace being a required feature of Disney themed entertainment design. All kidding aside, I would not call those faux worn torn buildings in Adventureland "graceful", would you? The purposely dilapidated structures around Big Thunder's loading area in Frontierland? Not the least bit graceful to me. The designers communicate the idea that you are in a remote tropical location, an old wild west mine, or a California seaside pier through visual cues. Some things they depict are graceful, and some things are not. Where they missed the mark in PP, in my opinion, is by cutting back on the subtle details that would complete the illusion of strolling along a pleasure pier.
Originally Posted By ArchtMig >>>All kidding aside, I would not call those faux worn torn buildings in Adventureland "graceful", would you? The purposely dilapidated structures around Big Thunder's loading area in Frontierland? Not the least bit graceful to me.<<< Yes, Hans, I would definately call those installations "graceful". Being purposely dilapidated just conveys the theme... the feeling. Maybe we are defining the word "graceful" differently, but it takes a deft hand to gracefully combine all the elements these areas feature and do it under the physical constraints of the space allocated. The bottom line with Paradise Pier is that they did absolutely nothing to create the theme that they CLAIM the area is supposed to reflect. They SAY that Paradise Pier is a "recreation of the historic seaside parks of days gone by". It is nothing of the sort. It is an ultra modern installation painted with a palette of contemporary design elements and materials... and done quite economically and minimalistically to boot. It's not just the quantity of the "subtle details", but the quality of them that matters, especially with regard to their authenticity to the period that the designers are trying to replicate.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "The bottom line with Paradise Pier is that they did absolutely nothing to create the theme that they CLAIM the area is supposed to reflect." Did they do enough? No. Saying that they did nothing is a gross exaggeration.
Originally Posted By oc_dean Not when you compare what Disney HAS shown in past parks, most notably DisneySea created in the same year.
Originally Posted By dresswhites i like DCA alot, but Mullholland madness is horrible in every sense. it definately not fun to ride by yourself, because they put a stranger in the car with you. It looks like the ride is built on sawdust. It just not disney in anyway. i don't mind midway rides if they are done nicely, dumbo with it fountains,teacups with the lighting and music, even Golden Zenphir, the jellyfish and the Orange Stinger are done nicely. Mullholland madness looks like a ride that Disneyland stole from the State Fair.
Originally Posted By ArchtMig I said: "The bottom line with Paradise Pier is that they did absolutely nothing to create the theme that they CLAIM the area is supposed to reflect." Hans replied: Did they do enough? No. Saying that they did nothing is a gross exaggeration. The operative idea is that they did nothing to make the pier look like the piers of bygone days. Oh sure, they did a few things to sprinkle a bit of "interest" around in the manner of contemporary design. But nothing to foster an atmosphere of being in a place from a past era, such as what it feels like when you're on Main St., USA. Unless you think that listening to carny versions of Beach Boys songs sufficiently draws you into a "bygone era". I don't. DCA claims that Paradise Pier is a recreation of the seaside amusement piers of the past. It is not. It's a so-so effort in creating an interesting looking contemporary amusement facility. But it's not what Disney claims that it is. It might be someday, but that will take a lot of work. I stand by my statement.
Originally Posted By disneywatcher >> It is certainly comforting to know that you think that I am capable and talented enough to both manage a multi-billion dollar Fortune 500 comapany and oversee the design of a major theme park. << I'll just say that DCA has been an excellent example of the Peter Pinciple at work: >>>>> Peter Principle Management is the concept that in bureaucratic organizations, new employees typically start in the lower ranks, but when they prove to be competent in the task to which they are assigned, they get promoted to a higher rank, generally management. This process of climbing up the hierarchical ladder can go on indefinitely, until the employee reaches a position where he or she is no longer competent. At that moment the process typically stops, since the established rules of bureaucracies make it very difficult to "demote" someone to a lower rank, even if that person would be a much better fit and happier in a non-management role. The net result of this principle is that most of the management levels of a bureaucracy will be filled by incompetent people, who got there because they were quite good at doing different (and usually, but not always, easier) work than the work they are currently expected to perform. <<<<<
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> It might be someday, but that will take a lot of work. << To my taste, it would just be throwing good money after bad. The pier we have now took some doing too, and they didn't end up with much as a result. The only 'silver lining' is that by virtue of it's location at the back end of the park, guests don't need to walk through it on their way to someplace else - it's much more skippable that way. 'Screamin' is a massive ride, and isn't going anywhere. So is the sunwheel, but as a visual piece only, and not nearly as interesting to ride it as it is to just look at it - and even then, only after dark. What a pity. As I've mentioned before, almost everything else is just a detraction to the park - maliboomer, mullholland madness, mcdonalds, orange stinger, the dino, korndog kastle - it's all garish low-brow trash.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "DCA claims that Paradise Pier is a recreation of the seaside amusement piers of the past." Really, when did they make that statement? Again, if that were the case, then please explain how Maliboomer fits into that scheme.
Originally Posted By pitapan16 I do something similar - I try to time my park touring to put me at the cove bar at sunset. It sure is a pretty spot at sunset to enjoy a cocktail, take in the view and relax at the end of a long day. But it just doesn't work in daylight. I always kinda felt weird like that. Planning my day according to the daylight visuals in a themepark. I dont do that at Disneyland though.
Originally Posted By pitapan16 As I've mentioned before, almost everything else is just a detraction to the park - maliboomer, mullholland madness, mcdonalds, orange stinger, the dino, korndog kastle - it's all garish low-brow trash I totally agree.
Originally Posted By ArchtMig >>>"DCA claims that Paradise Pier is a recreation of the seaside amusement piers of the past." Really, when did they make that statement? Again, if that were the case, then please explain how Maliboomer fits into that scheme.<<< Right. My point exactly. Thanks for making it for me so eloquently.
