Originally Posted By crapshoot Woody, nice stats. Also the hotels are booked five years in advance and weddings are at least two years out at TD & TDS.
Originally Posted By Yookeroo It's funny how those who think they can predict what a dead man would have thought about DCA can't even figure out what his tastes were when he was alive.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Why don't we talk about the circus that was in DL. What happened to it, and what lessons did that management learn from it?" The original argument was that Disney hated carney stuff. And that is simply wrong on the face of it, because he himself put in a circus. Now, whether that circus did well or not is beside the point of him liking these sorts of things or not. That is shifting the argument. What did they learn from the circus? Mostly, that once people go to the park, they're not going to sit and watch a two hour circus show. Did they learn to not put in "carney" acts afterwards? Absolutely not, because they kept on the lion taming act for a good time after that. An animal training act, straight from the circus, complete with doped up lions. How carny, eh? "Where did it ever say that Walt hated carny rides, people?" It does not say that anywhere. Anywhere. This argument is one taken from the story about how Disney thought there was not much to do for whole families at then existing theme parks, except maybe "having your bottom dropped out from under you on a roller coaster." That's it. What it is said he did not like was the unclean and un-family like ATMOSPHERE of these places. This has been said numerous times, and is always conveniently ignored by bashers who just continue on mindlessly bashing. The story from the Bob Thomas book goes that Disney's wife asks him "But why would you want to build an amusement park, they are so dirty." His reply was "Mine won't be." That's the difference. The fact is that Walt Disney actually did put in industry standard type rides for the time, although he spent extra money on them to pretty them up. Additionally, to think that in a new theme park, every single ride has to be the caliber of Haunted Mansion is unrealistic. Without variation in types of rides, you get a feeling of sameness and the park is less inviting. A mix of different types of rides is needed to balance out the park for everyone to be able to enjoy things. In TDS, the supposed ultimate in theme parks, they have a section that has a number of these same types of rides. There, of course, they are ok. One of the problems in DCA, in fact, is that there is a bit too much weight placed on film based attractions, and there is not a Haunted Mansion type ride at all. That is a definite problem. I think they probably recognize that and are working to fix it. To respond to the one portion of fact from another post above: TDS is doing well. The fact is that theme parks in Tokyo all do very well. Universal Studios Tokyo broke records (not the only broken records heard of around here)for worldwide theme park attendance upon opening. Those that go to the parks also spend a lot more once inside. This little bit of information is also conveniently forgotten in the bashers constant refrain. This fact (along with other factors) allowed for more money to be spent on TDS. Of course, this has been said several times as well, but that does not matter, as this chunk of info never seems to get processed either...
Originally Posted By Jim in Pasadena CA <DCA is just an amusement park. Another park for Disney to take 10 years to fix. Not that you mind, or do you?> I don't mind. I'll be going from this year to year 10 -- and beyond.
Originally Posted By jonvn "It's funny how those who think they can predict what a dead man would have thought about DCA can't even figure out what his tastes were when he was alive." Yes, it is funny, but it is also sad that people would presume to know what a man dead 35 years would want based solely on corporate PR. The thing that's even more "funny" about this is that the people who worked closely with him at the time never were sure what he might like or not like. Yet, the people online seem to be able to channel him, and know exactly what he would have wanted. I'm sure it's only a coincidence that Walt always seems to want whatever it is that a particular poster also seems to want.
Originally Posted By damon63 It's also "funny" how the Disney "experts" on these boards seem to overlook the fact that early renderings of Disneyland, when it was to be situated on a plot of land across from the Disney Studio, contain "Carnival", "Fairgrounds" and "Granny's Farm" themed areas.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By jonvn Yes, that's true too, of course. The thing is that there are a lot of these little bits of information that are floating around that belie a lot of what is said that would make one think that Walt Disney put in only rides like POTC. It's just not true, never was true.
Originally Posted By DisneyFreak96 What I find interesting is this is the corporate PR Disneyland was selling at the resort in a series of Walt Disney themed merch. (including a book of quotes) while they were building DCA.
Originally Posted By tangaroa "Yes, it is funny, but it is also sad that people would presume to know what a man dead 35 years would want based solely on corporate PR." Well I don't know. A lot of people are presuming that he would have LIKED carnival rides without any proof of that. And I still stand by the fact (yes, fact, remember those?) that Walt himeself moved away from building cheap thrill rides as soon as the park started making money. You can say Walt liked Fantasyland. He loved his dream kingdom. He would take kids thru it, and smile and walk thru it with pride. Put when it still comes down to it, he always hated those tents. Same deal.
Originally Posted By hopemax It's also funny that when you go to seminars and hear people like Bob Gurr, or Marc Davis or Harriet Burns or Sam McKim speak. Yes, they mention that at times they couldn't figure out what Walt wanted, but at other times they could tell exactly what he wanted with just a look or a raised eye brow. And they talk about how they never had a problem working with Walt, and the people who did never really could figure out what those cues were or how to respond to them. It's also funny that even though there were plans that were more of a traditional boardwalk or carnival style, they ended up not getting built. >The original argument was that Disney hated carney stuff. And that is simply wrong on the face of it, because he himself put in a circus. Now, whether that circus did well or not is beside the point of him liking these sorts of things or not. That is shifting the argument. I'm sorry I didn't realize that all the people who didn't like PP had to use the same argument and that once that one argument was disproved that that was the end of story and PP was fine.
Originally Posted By Yookeroo "I'm sorry I didn't realize that all the people who didn't like PP had to use the same argument and that once that one argument was disproved that that was the end of story and PP was fine." The problem is that once an argument gets disproved it keeps getting repeated.
Originally Posted By jonvn "A lot of people are presuming that he would have LIKED carnival rides without any proof of that." No. A lot of people are saying he put them in his parks, and that he had planned his original park next to the studio to be filled with them. Now, some may consider that PROOF that he liked them, but I simply consider it proof that he was not against them in principle, as has been repeatedly stated here. "And I still stand by the fact (yes, fact, remember those?) that Walt himeself moved away from building cheap thrill rides as soon as the park started making money." Yes, I remember facts. And the fact is that by 1959, the park was making money. And what got put in, for example? The Motor Boat Cruise (at least it was updated). What else? An Alice dark ride. Etc. He never stopped putting standard amusement staples in the park. What he did do was in the last couple years of his life, install shows that were (gasp) lifted from his extravagant World's Fair participation. That in turn was (gasp again) helped to be paid for by partnering with corporations. The FACT is that the history of the park runs counter to the ideas as presented by the bashing contingent, and that anything else is the result of biased speculation that is unprovable. Now, what happened after his death? POTC and HM were put in. Excellent shows, no doubt. But in looking over the large amount of attractions put in by Walt Disney during the course of his life, they are quite the exception rather than the rule. "Yes, they mention that at times they couldn't figure out what Walt wanted, but at other times they could tell exactly what he wanted with just a look or a raised eye brow. And they talk about how they never had a problem working with Walt, and the people who did never really could figure out what those cues were or how to respond to them." And this is different from my point how? As I said, these guys didn't know what he wanted always, and they worked side by side with him for years. For someone who had never met the man, or knew what he was like personally, to claim to know what he would want is rather presumptuous. "It's also funny that even though there were plans that were more of a traditional boardwalk or carnival style, they ended up not getting built." There were all kinds of things that were designed but never got built. And before that, all kinds of movie ideas that got pitched and worked on and never saw the light of day. That's what happens. "I'm sorry I didn't realize that all the people who didn't like PP had to use the same argument and that once that one argument was disproved that that was the end of story and PP was fine." No, everyone who does not like PP does not have to use the same argument. But when an argument is specious, it should be shown to be such. There is nothing to be said to the comment "I don't like Paradise Pier because it I find it boring and ugly" or some other such thing. But when people say something like "Walt wouldn't have liked it" then that's simply unsupportable. And if you do find it boring and ugly, my suggestion again is to avoid it. I personally find it not that interesting in terms of rides available. No one can tell you that your opinion is wrong. What is being said here is that reference to factual information to support your opinion is rather difficult and murky to say the least. If you don't like it, you don't like it. There is nothing wrong in saying you don't like it. But if you don't like it and you need historical backing for your reasons why, I think that's pretty muddy ground. Because you aren't being true to your feelings, and your historical backing can be easily shown to be not entirely valid. Just be honest with your feelings and like it or dislike it for what it is. No one can fault anyone for that.
Originally Posted By hopemax >Yes, I remember facts. And the fact is that by 1959, the park was making money. And what got put in, for example? The Motor Boat Cruise (at least it was updated). What else? An Alice dark ride. Etc How about the Submarine Voyage, Monorail, Matterhorn, Mine Train thru Nature's Wonderland, Flying Saucers, Tiki Room? The ratio of "basic" rides to non-basic rides doesn't show that there wasn't a moving away from the basic amusement park rides at least not for me. And then how *do* we count things like Alice in Wonderland. If we asked people in 1958 if the experience of riding Alice was similar enough to those other rides to lump them into the same category, I wonder what they would say? On the otherhand I wonder what people would say about the experience of riding the Maliboomer, or Mulholland Madness compared to things at other parks. >What is being said here is that reference to factual information to support your opinion is rather difficult and murky to say the least. Ditto. I am making an assumption that Walt wouldn't like the choice of Paradise Pier. I am assuming that he would take one look at it and say, "All the tools you have in your toolbox and *this* is what you decide to build?!?!" Can I know for certain, no, but I feel that my assumption is more right than it is wrong, and so far I haven't seen enough to sway me the other direction.
Originally Posted By tangaroa "Yes, I remember facts. And the fact is that by 1959, the park was making money. And what got put in, for example? The Motor Boat Cruise (at least it was updated). What else? An Alice dark ride." Funny. You got your facts wrong. Motor Boats were added in 57 and Alice was added in 58. After 59 what was added? The Matterhorn, The Submarines, and the Monorail. Hardly typical amusement park fare. What was added after that? The Treehouse, The Tiki Room, Lincoln, Small World, The Primeval World, and then of course just after he died, Pirates of the Caribbean. Maybe he was so busy building new and exciting things, he just plain forgot how much he loved carnival rides. You can't tell people they're wrong when they say "walt didn't like carnival rides" because you have no proof otherwise. You may think it's corporate propaganda, but the company has(had) said in the past that Walt was against the cheap entertainment(thrills) that these rides produced. And you can sit there and whine that it's unfair, but the perception that Walt hated the kind of place that Paradise Pier represents is an actual fact to several Disney fans and nothing is going to change that.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By crapshoot One aspect that I love about the attitude of the Japanese when it comes to building themeparks designed here in the USA, is their obsession to detail. The Art Director's model is scrutinized with magnifying glasses by them to recreate the model's detail perfectly. So much so that if there happens to be a thumb print that wasn't smoothed out in say some rockwork, then they want that thumbprint recreated in the actual rockwork within their park. There is no interpretation allowed. Walt Disney treated these models as gospel when planning DL and the Japanese do this as well and even more so. Anyway the difference between the level of detail of the TDS model and DCA model was huge. The quality of the TDS model was spectacular and this is a result of the Japanese knowing how important the model's flawless execution is to the success of their park. In the end I feel that DCA is an experiment done by those who should have emulated the attitude of their Japanese counterparts who in turn emulated the "Old School Imagineers".
Originally Posted By woody >>But aside from that, is this actually the proper way to do anything now? "What would Walt do" was the mantra that got the company nearly destroyed by the early 1980s. You're so right!!! Whenever people ask that question, there is a real lack of leadership in the company. Now they say, what will Eisner (and accountants) do? Thus, the Walt Disney Company is at its lowest point. Time for Eisner to go. Disney always had imagination as its greatest asset and a commitment to quality products. They need to get back to basics which includes better quality THEME parks. I agree that "what Walt wants" is a weak argument for or against DCA. But Walt left a legacy of creativity and quality products, something that DCA sorely lacks. They could have been more creative with Paradise Pier. PP should have a more fanciful and elaborate design. Until then, I consider PP a cheap addition.
Originally Posted By crapshoot One more thing, while everyone is still bantering the carney ride issue around. In pulling together bits and pieces of the history of Walt Disney planning Disneyland a few pieces fall into place about how DL would develop into anything but an amusement park. The first thing I find interesting was Walt Disney's desire to understand how tourists moved from one place to another. The use of the vertical wienie became very important to pull people along. Also utilizing the dark rides to put the guests in the 3-D story and use the electric driven buggies to move them through in order to tell the story. Obvioulsy he wasn't against amusement rides pre say, that is until he visited Tivoli Gardens in 1950. Then he wanted more of an American version to come about. But really it is using the amusement devices, dark rides and spinners only to convey the story being told. I think everyone gets irritated a little when trying to enjoy the Sleeping Beauty attraction in the castle when there are a bunch of guests blocking the windows or storybook pages. Contrast that with Peter Pan where without having to do anything other to sit back and enjoy the experience. But that is as far as I will concede Walt Disney's use of "carney" type attractions. He certainly wasn't promoting that type of atmosphere, he was merely trying to tell the stroy of Disney film classics in a 3-D immersive environment. The difference in the end is that the carnival ride uses the thrill of kinetics while the Disney themed attraction is story first, kinetics second. Kind of a one - two punch. <<As I've said before, if you don't PP, you don't like it.>> I would have to agree with this.
Originally Posted By jonvn "In the end I feel that DCA is an experiment..." I think it and AK were both attempts to build theme parks for less of an initial expenditure. They did this in response to problems with Blizzard Beach and EDL. It's not an unreasonable thing for them to have done. How did it work? Well, in AK, they created a very lush and very interesting park. It did not have much when it first opened, though. I think to follow through with a smaller opening, you need to continue to add at a more accelerated pace than you would if you had opened a more full built park. The problem with AK right now is that they built a small initial park, and then didn't put it on an accelerated growth schedule. So it stagnated. The next park they did like this, DCA, was less lush, but good theming, and a weak mix of attractions on opening day. Some areas did not get any attractions, and there is certainly a couple of major "E" tickets that are missing. However, it seems that they are in fact adding attractions at an accelerated rate than they normally would, which is what is needed in that park right now. In Japan, they just had a lot more money to play with, and were able to pull off a bigger park. However, I think it is also a bit light on attractions, especially given its size. "The difference in the end is that the carnival ride uses the thrill of kinetics while the Disney themed attraction is story first, kinetics second. Kind of a one - two punch." Yeah, that's about right, I'd say. And it's the sort of thing I like in Disney rides. This is why I kind of not like the rides in the PP area. They are just physical thrill things, and usually they only succeed in making me ill. It's also why I rarely go on other rides of this type, such as the late Rocket Jets or Teacups. Quite honestly, I see no difference in "story" between these sorts of rides in Disney parks, and what you see in PP. In PP, however, they are just concentrated together, whereas in other disney parks thus far, they are kind of spread out. I think this may be causing some of the consternation about this area. It is the monotony of many of the same types of rides in one area of a park. This is why I say if they had broken up the pier area by adding a couple of dark rides of some kind, then it would have seemed more interesting, as you'd get different rides, and more of a traditional Disney like experience.
