Originally Posted By gadzuux Well for that matter, you can see the TZToT from the lagoon too. At the very beginning of illuminations, all of the buildings surrounding the lagoon go dark very suddenly and dramatically; and the TZToT (almost a mile away), goes dark at the same moment.
Originally Posted By Jim in Pasadena CA See what I mean? All that land -- 28,000 acres worth -- and they're making those kind of blunders.... I can excuse it more in Anaheim since they were stuck with the building around the area. In Florida, they had swamp land as far as the eye can see...
Originally Posted By themousemaster >"sort of like seeing the Acapocco Restaurant sign from the monorail platform in Disneyland"< The Acapocco restaurant was torn down last year and a beautiful new landscapped Mimi's cafe was built. It is definately a much beter view. MM
Originally Posted By woody >>So if the Convention Center and Hilton were more "beautiful", the visual intrusion into DCA would be acceptable? >> I whole-heartedly disagree. You kinda forgot the beautiful Paradise Pier Hotel and Grand Californian. They're not acceptable according to your definition. >>You must be kidding, Woody. The Swan and Dolphin are >much< more readily visible from Epcot than the Hilton or Convention Center are from DCA. They loom in the background of pretty much any view across the lagoon from the Future World side. >> How on earth could you NOT notice them? They totally overpower half the park. Amazing responses. So you notice them more than me. And others notice the *ugly* power poles, Convention Center, and Hilton from all parts of DCA.
Originally Posted By jonvn I noticed these things from inside the park in both cases. They did a bad thing in Florida with those hotels, and it's obvious. There was less choice in anaheim, and they just don't stick out as much.
Originally Posted By JohnS3 What I hate are tall, ugly visitors. They clearly need to establish some height and beauty standards at all Disney parks!
Originally Posted By Jim in Pasadena CA The Grand Californian was built intentionally as part of the Park -- and was specifically designed to blend in with the Grizzly River Rapids section of DCA. I have no problem with it. As for the Paradise Pier hotel -- no amount of paint and filigree can keep that from being a visual intrusion -- and I consider it to be just that. What rules or definitions did I set up? I don't recall.
Originally Posted By woody >>The Grand Californian was built intentionally as part of the Park -- and was specifically designed to blend in with the Grizzly River Rapids section of DCA.<< GC is huge. It folds over into the Paradise Pier section which wasn't designed to fit it. GC becomes a visual intrusion, even into the Condor Flats area. Your definition was any visual intrusion is not acceptable, even beautiful visual intrusions. I consider GC to be beautiful and it could fit in, but it appears to intrude into the other sections of the park. I think beautiful visual intrusions are acceptable (as an exception), but ugly intrusions are to be avoided and covered up as much as possible (with berms).
Originally Posted By Disneybrad How much you notice the Swan and Dolphin, very much has to do with which way to do World Showcase. Go counter-clockwise, you will not notice them interfering with the view. Now if you go clockwise, they are more noticbile, acroos the logon toward France, but once you get to Germany you will no see them at all. Plus the TOT is not light much at all, it is lit will a dull purple, and unless you are looking for it most peopel never notice. The only time it it very clear that MGM is so near-by is at the end of Fantasmic, and it is timed so it is over before Illuminations starts. Or doesn't start when MGM is open late, untill Illuminations is over.
Originally Posted By Jim in Pasadena CA Okay, woody. I throw in the towel just from sheer exhaustion.
Originally Posted By driftwood714 >>> "We basically come over here for the food, because the food's way better," said longtime Disneyland pass holder Cheryl Rivera, who braved the cold weather on a recent weekday with her husband and 4-year-old daughter for lunch at California Adventure's Fisherman's Wharf section. <<< Fisherman's Wharf? I must have missed this section when I visit DCA every week. >>> In the fall, when Wolfgang Puck Food Co.'s upscale seafood eatery Avalon Cove pulled out of the park, Disney turned the space into a casual restaurant where visitors can interact with Mickey and other characters. <<< Atleast they got it right that Puck pulled out, but I don't EVER remember seeing Mickey at ANY character dining location. Maybe they meant Minnie. I think they need to get better sources. >>> California Adventure already has added a new attraction based on the television show "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire," and industry watchers say that by this fall, the It's a Bug's Life attraction probably will be turned into an area of rides and shows for young children. <<< What!??!? They're getting rid of the Bugs 3d movie for an area of rides and shows? I think this article has been HORRIBLY researched and this reported needs to double check her sources before running a story. The media is sad.
Originally Posted By driftwood714 Oh yeah, they can't even get the name right "It's a Bug's Life". Pfffffft..
Originally Posted By Jim in Pasadena CA (Jim grabs the towel) Wait. Whatever rules or definitions I set up about visual intrusions is exactly what I meant. They have nothing to do with whether something is beautiful or not, or if it belongs to Disney or not. Dolphin and Swan from World Showcase -- major visual intrusion. Convention Center and Hilton Hotel and The Inn at the Park and the electrical towers -- visual intrusion for DCA. Grand Californian -- not an instrusion from anywhere inside DCA. It was built and designed to be part of that section of the Park. Much like the hotel in DLP on Main Street. Paradise Pier is a visual intrusion for Grand Californian. Looking into the back end of a DCA district is not my idea of a $300 per night room. Paradise Pier Hotel is a visual intrusion -- even though Disney went to great lengths to try and incorporate it into the park with the rename and the paint job. Now, if they want to re-establish the boundaries of DCA, and make the hotel part of the Park -- bingo -- it's not a visual intrusion. Disneyland Hotel -- also a visual intrusion for DCA. (see above) Again, my definition has nothing to do with beauty. If the Anaheim Convention Center were torn down tomorrow, and a Disney Third Gate created there, and the icon for the new Park was a giant SpaceShip Earth-like sphere, which could be seen from DCA, it would still be a visual intrusion. Hope this helps define my position. (Jim grabs the towel and throws up in it...)
Originally Posted By disneywatcher >> They also had the same idea of not introducing the charcters in Tokyo Disney sea... << If Disney planners originally resisted the idea of placing characters in a Disneylandish park like DisneySea, than I would imagine they really didn't want figures from animated features milling about "hipper" DCA. I suspect DisCo. higher-ups like Barry Braverman must think such characters are too cutesy and fuddy-duddy and would have been much happier if public response to DCA required no more than that cast members be dressed up in the comparatively avante-garde attire of plants and bean bags. >> So if the Convention Center and Hilton were more "beautiful"... << The Anaheim environment that the DisCo. is forced to deal with is so compromised in various ways, I would have been much less underwhelmed by the park's setting if at least the steel power poles had been concealed in some way, or, better yet, had been eliminated altogether via undergrounding of their lines.
Originally Posted By JohnS3 "I suspect DisCo. higher-ups like Barry Braverman must think such characters are too cutesy and fuddy-duddy and would have been much happier if public response to DCA required no more than that cast members be dressed up in the comparatively avante-garde attire of plants and bean bags." I agree with this line of thinking, but find it curious that all the ads I saw in Washington state, before DCA opened, showed traditional Disney characters peeking over a fence at the new park. You could technically say they weren't "in" the park, but why use Disney animated characters to jazz people up about a park that is going to turn out to be one which doesn't feature those characters?
Originally Posted By woody >>Again, my definition has nothing to do with beauty.<< That was my interpretation. No clarification needed, but it confirmed my thoughts.
Originally Posted By Dabob <Cancelling 'The Golden Horseshoe' show and giving Wally Boag his walking papers> Did they really do this? I always assumed that HE decided to retire, especially since the GHR continued in its original format with many of the same cast members, and a younger guy from Indiana (forget his name now) taking over Wally's part more or less verbatim. In fact, I thought he was Wally's protege, and Wally groomed him specifically to take over. Anyway, I saw the show a couple of times with the new guy in it; the songs and format were exactly the same as I remember (the Irish tenor, the can can girls, Slue Foot Sue taking her mirror and finding a bald man), and the new guy who took Wally's place was actually pretty good. It was a few years LATER that they went to the awful "Bartender Sam" show that lasted entirely too long. So did they really FIRE Wally? If they did, they didn't shut down the original GHR show for at least a couple of years after he left.
Originally Posted By Dabob I noticed the Swan and Dolphin much more often at EPCOT than I noticed the Hilton and Convention Center at DCA. In both cases I saw them...sort of mentally noted that I saw them...had sort of vague thoughts of "it would be nice if you couldn't see them." And then I proceded to not let it ruin my day.
