Originally Posted By driftwood714 I'd like to see some of these posters try to make a modest park with a limited budget. Then try to explain why one section of the park isn't as complete as another. Jim Hill is dead on, in some places the money just ran out. After the park opened, there have been many changes over the year, with many yet to come.
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<I think Disney's California Adventure Park is NOT Disneyland Park.>> One more time, tell the guests that. Because they are comparing their experience between the two parks. And they want the same level of experience at DCA that they get at DL only different. Preception is as preception does. And right off the bat they see a smaller, albiet fun park. The bigger the park the greater the experience. This preception is going to haunt DCA for many years to come. Ok, it doesn't need as many guests than DL, but the ratios haven't been acceptable. And a lot of time will pass before noticable changes occur, from the guests point of view, that bring it up to or even close to par with the DL experience. And don't answer back with, "And you know this because?" Because it is simple human nature to know that bigger is better. More is indeed more. And the other park has more rides.
Originally Posted By woody <<I think Disney's California Adventure Park is NOT Disneyland Park.>> >>One more time, tell the guests that. While you're at it, tell people that Tokyo DisneySeas isn't Tokyo Disneyland, its better.
Originally Posted By hopemax >I'd like to see some of these posters try to make a modest park with a limited budget. Then try to explain why one section of the park isn't as complete as another. I wish more people on this Message Board have been to Silverwood Theme Park in Northern Idaho, wonder what it would do to this conversation. Has anyone but me even been there?
Originally Posted By tangaroa "Has anyone but me even been there?" I've never even been to Idaho. Don't really plan on going anytime soon. What's it like?
Originally Posted By tangaroa "I'd like to see some of these posters try to make a modest park with a limited budget. Then try to explain why one section of the park isn't as complete as another." But... you're just not understanding our complaint. There was absolutely no reason why the budget for DCA had to be as low as it was. It was decided that it should be that low, because some manager somewhere made the brilliant assumption that no one would complain, AND still be willing to pay the same price as Disneyland, whether they spent 1 billion or 2 billion. If I had a modest budget, and was given the task of creating a park, I would create... a modest park. But I would also charge a modest price to get in. And I wouldn't build it next to one of the oldest and greatest theme parks ever built. And that's why DCA is flawed.
Originally Posted By driftwood714 No matter how many ways you say it. Disney's California Adventure Park is not Disneyland Park. Just as much as Tokyo Disneyland isn't Tokyo Disney Sea. Magic Kingdom, Disney/MGM Studios, Animal Kingdom and Epcot are not similar, as well. They are all very different theme parks with different concepts, as well as capacities.
Originally Posted By driftwood714 The whole "Resort concept" here very new in Anaheim. It'll take at least another theme park, water park, as well as a few more Disney hotels to get people used to it. Going to Florida, you're staying for at least 4 to 10 days so if you don't enjoy one park, there are 3 others to choose from. Most visitors are locals to the Disneyland Resort. There is a growing number of multi-day tourists, which is a good indication of the whole expansion project. It was designed primarily to encourage tourists to stay a little longer.
Originally Posted By tangaroa "Jim Hill is dead on, in some places the money just ran out. After the park opened, there have been many changes over the year, with many yet to come." Jim *IS* right. Some places the money just ran out. But saying 'it will get better later' is NOT a fix for the problems. From Jim's article, it sounded as if he just wanted people to stop complaining about Paradise Pier, which is defiantely *NOT* the thing to do. If people have problems/issues/concerns about Paradise Pier, the best thing for them to do is to continue complaining about them. 10 years ago... oh well 14 years ago.. (jeez has it been that long?) Michael Eisner said that the Disney company couldn't afford to rest on it's laurels, that it must continue moving on. Giving up the arguement, thinking that "Paradise Pier will be fine and Dandy in ten years, so I should just ignore the problems now" is just giving them permission to sit there and do nothing with it. And then 10 years later you're stuck with another Bear Country or Tomorrowland. I don't want this company to sit on it's laurels. I don't want them to have any excuse to leave things the way they are.
Originally Posted By driftwood714 "Jim *IS* right. Some places the money just ran out. But saying 'it will get better later' is NOT a fix for the problems. From Jim's article, it sounded as if he just wanted people to stop complaining about Paradise Pier, which is defiantely *NOT* the thing to do. If people have problems/issues/concerns about Paradise Pier, the best thing for them to do is to continue complaining about them. " I never said that "waiting for it to get better" is a fix. I said there have many changes over the past year with more to come. I agree that the park is lacking. But arguing on a Disney fan message board doens't solve it. "I don't want this company to sit on it's laurels. I don't want them to have any excuse to leave things the way they are. " I don't want this company to sit on it's "laurels" anymore than you do. I want Spiderman-like breakthrough attractions. I want immersive rides too. Unfortunately, management is trying to play it safe and appease stockholders at the same time.
Originally Posted By hopemax DCA's got a value perception problem, I think mostly agrees with that. It suffers the poor fate of being built on the doorstep of one of the best theme parks in the world. But it wasn't DL that I found myself comparing DCA to, it was Silverwood. And value wise, DCA isn't the winner. Silverwood is a small park, it's only open weekends in May, Sept, and Oct and fully only June, July and August. So I'm asking everyone to keep that in mind. It's also located in the middle of nowhere, the only decent population centers are Spokane, WA 417,000 (1 hr) Moscow, ID 22,000 (3 hrs). Seattle is 6 hours, and Boise is 9. So also keep that it mind. With those conditions Silverwood draws about 350,000 per year. Full price admission is $23.99, but you can usually get a discount from Burger King. It is also family owned. It was built in 1988 around a working airfield. During it's early years, they had an air museum and air shows, and for $65 or so you could fly in a bi-plane. (Condor Flats anyone) The museum has been removed, but if you own a prop plane you can still fly in and out of the airport. In 1990, they acquired their first coaster. They bought it second hand, it's called the Corkscrew. Yes, that Corkscrew. (Golden Zephyr type nostalgia) Around the Corkscrew is a land called Country Carnival. These are your off-the-shelf carny rides. I forgive them though, because of things I asked you to remember above. In 1993, they built their raft ride, called Thunder Canyon. There is one Silverwood Fan Site. Here's a link to their description <a href="http://www.rollercoasteralley.com/thunder.html" target="_blank">http://www.rollercoasteralley. com/thunder.html</a> In 1996 they built their first wooden coaster, in 1999 the second. Tremors, the second coaster has a little interesting detail. It runs thru the gift shop. Go to rec.roller-coaster and read the trip reports, many of that groups readers think these two coasters are the best 1-2 punch in the US. While your at it don't forget to pay attention to the customer service reviews, merchandise reviews and dining reviews. I was going to post a few sample comments. But now that I've typed all of the above I found a paragraph in a trip report that sums up Silverwood. But since I don't want to delete all of this, I'll post it anyway and then post the quote. Now by posting this, I don't mean to convince anyone that they should hop in their car and drive up to Silverwood. Nor am I trying to claim that the park is better in every way than the Disney parks, because it's not. But Silverwood and DCA are not really that different, from an enjoying your day point of view even though one was built with the benefits of Disney's design staff and $1 Billion, and one was not.
Originally Posted By hopemax Here's a few paragraphs from a Trip Report, you can read the whole thing at <a href="http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&threadm=3BAC21FF.4A5C" target="_blank">http://groups.google.com/group s?hl=en&threadm=3BAC21FF.4A5C</a>%40hotmail.com&rnum=3&prev=/groups%3Fq%3DSilverwood%2BTheme%2BPark%26hl%3Den%26scoring%3Dd%26rnum%3D3%26selm%3D3BAC21FF.4A5C%2540hotmail.com [begin quote] Silverwood Theme Park in the small town of Athol, ID, about 15 minutes north of CoeurD'Alene, ID defies all laws of common business practice in the amusement park industry, and does so in a very low profile, but efficient manner- offering its guests top notch attractions, helpful and friendly employees, wonderfully kept grounds, and an overall atmosphere that makes people WANT to travel hours upon hours to experience this small gem of a park. The park draws from far and wide- mostly from the Spokane metro area, but from as far away as southern Idaho, western Montana, Canada, and Seattle. And then of course there are the coaster enthusiasts who will travel thousands of miles to experience two of the top wooden coasters on the planet and an overall atmosphere that is inviting enough to make one go through the efforts of visiting this remote area of the country. [end quote]
Originally Posted By Funand joy Why not Paradise Pier? Now I am writeing at a disadvantage because I have not seen DCA yet but I think there is one point I would like to make. Someone here stated that if they wanted to go to that type of attraction they could stay in their own back yard. I ask one question: Can you? The old amusement parks have mostly disappeared and those that survive may not be around for long. You may be surprised to find that the old amusement park in your back yard disappeared when you weren't looking, replaced my homes or condos. Believe me I know what I'm talking about as my relatives owned San Francisco's Playland at the Beach. (Long gone)Sure those place are kinda seedy but since when does everything have to be whitewashed. They did have a romance all their own that is now a part of our history. So now Disney builds a section based on the parks of old. The way that the old parks are going, in a couple of years places like DCA may be the only place we can go to, too show our kids the way amusent parks used to be.
Originally Posted By DL-2000 ::If they made up the bulk of the attractions, you'd have a case. But PP is only 1/3 of DCA.:: Uhhhh...DCA has about 19 attractions. I mean true attractions, not exhibits or any of that nonsense. Paradise Pier holds 9 of them. That's a bit more than 1/3. ::That's how it was intended. All of it fits together into one gorgeous piece.:: That's good to know. Although I'm sure DouglasDubh will be disappointed to hear that DCA now only has 11 attractions..... ::Actually, Mack, I'd bet dollars to Krispy Kremes he's parrotting someone else's opinion.:: What? You don't think that anyone can come to the conclusion that Paradise Pier is substandard on their own? Or should be say that you're "parroting" the Disney company line? :isney's California Adventure Park is NOT Disneyland Park:: Agreed. If only Disney's California Adventure Park's ticket price was NOT the same as Disneyland Park's. ::too show our kids the way amusent parks used to be.:: Yech! Why would they want to see that when parks have come so far in the past century?
Originally Posted By KanakiKid driftwood714 wrote: " No matter how many ways you say it. Disney's California Adventure Park is not Disneyland Park." If that's true what's the D in DCA stand for? By placing the 2nd gate a few dozen yards away from Disney's land, invites comparisons. Say you have a Jack-in-the-Box in the same block as a Taco Bell, don't you think customers will compare the two fast food joints? Dispite the differences burgers vs. faux-Mexican they really boil down to ground meat food that you hold in your hands. Likewise with DL and DCA. Only DL has a more comprehensive design plan and contains possibly higher entertainment attractions per capita. Disney was asking for trouble by not only placing DCA next door to DL, but compounding their "discount imagineering" at the same price of DL. Possibly if Disney planned DCA a an evolving work in progress they might have seriously considered lowered admission for DCA. Yes, the accountanteers would have a fit, but it would have allowed DCA to find it's audience. As it turned out, Disney nearly did this anyway with their unheard of discounts in the peak of summer. It does seem that the Disney folks thought their audience would flock to DCA just because Disney built it. Afterall, it works for merchandising Pooh and all of those classic Disney animated film sequels? Disney didn't know their audience for DLR. Seems like much of the planning was done with the WDW resort model in mind. Florida vacationers use WDW as an excuse to escape the awful winter weather on the East Coast. DLR doesn't have that market and Disney hadn't cultivated that audience for DCA. All the while locals were not too enthralled with its California theme nor its top drawer attractions.
Originally Posted By Futurist HOLY GOLITELY BATMAN! 1 to 356 in 8 days!!! Incredible! I just started reading this, and after getting from post number 1 to 40 (and it's 2 in the morning) I can't stand the wait of going through 316 .... and HAVE to make some response now .... and then another after the remaining posts. After reading Mr. Hill's editorial, he, on one hand provided a "positive light", but like all things in life.... everything is not all one sided .... And then on the other hand it appears as a patronization to the current Walt Disney Company. (Just my opinion, maybe he's sucking up to the mouse because he wants an official position of somekind, and will throw ONLY the MOST positive light of an area of DCA that does have a few things going for it....as well as not having a few things going for it. For me, it was all too one sided. Now, I have been an artist my whole life. I have immersed myself in the world of television, film making, amusement parks, and other forms of art in our world. I try to educate myself about what is truly artistic, and what are futile attempts, and semi futile attempts. Paradise Pier fits the latter one. Is anyone going to tell me, that all the concrete walling around the area is "pretty"....starring at basically the supports to the Orange Stinger is suppose to "ignite" my imagination to that harkened era of simpler rides? Or how about the 70s looking (Colossus-Magic Mountain) queue for Screamin' is suppose to remind me of waiting in line for a 1920s type roller coaster? Or that the Maliboomer with it's whopping 10 second thrill is to make up for that 30 to 60 minute wait worth while? Or how about the punny size of King Triton's Carousel....as if budget cutting didn't get there! Now, I think Paradise Pier is visually stunning at night. The lights make all the difference. And for as short the Golden Zephyr is (90 seconds) I can atleast get a unique view of the area at night which is nice. I'd have to say the most crazy comment he had was the following: >>If you can honestly look at Paradise Pier with an unjaded eye (Not the eye of an unrealistic Disney dweeb who insists that every single attraction that the Imagineers burp out must be up to "Indiana Jones Adventure" standards), you'll see that the Imagineers that worked on this side of the park succeeded. They crammed plenty of quality into the area. So -- on those merits alone -- Paradise Pier isn't something that we should be dismissing. It's actually an area in DCA that Disneyana fans should be actively celebrating. << So .... "they crammed plenty of quality into the area" ......huh?.....BULL! I'll watch the first 20 minutes of Rodgers and Hammerstein's 1956 film Carousel, and will find more charm and a "slightly" romantized version of a carnival/pier amusement area than DCA's Paradise Pier! I've educated myself pretty well with many forms of Hollywood "art", from Hollywood itself (the golden era), films, especially musicals, and poored my mind into what is considered artistic when it comes to amusement park 'creating'.... and I have this conclusion: If Disney was really hell bent on creating a seaside/pier type amusement park, they would have spent more time examining what was done between 1880 to 1920, and exaggerated the style very carefully to create a fun zone that looked like it came out of the Jolly Holiday sequence of Mary Poppins with some nice brushes of the "paint brush" here and there to make people feel that Paradise Pier isn't just another nearly bland, run of the mill Pierside Amusement Park....but made gave it a surrealistic quality .... as if someone was stepping into (lets say) "Walt Disney's vision" of a more stylized, romantized, more detailed area.....After all ...this is called DISNEY'S California Adventure. People are in a theme park, and should feel like they stepped into a drawing that has come to life....a drawing that would come only out from Disney. But I guess generic railing along the queues and those lovely gray cement walls will suffice for what Jim Hill describes as ..... "They crammed plenty of quality into the area." UH, sorry, I'll just put on my DVD of a Technicolor MGM Musical that is far more detailed than Paradise Pier could ever hope to be.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh "Uhhhh...DCA has about 19 attractions. I mean true attractions, not exhibits or any of that nonsense. Paradise Pier holds 9 of them. That's a bit more than 1/3." But far less than the "bulk" of the attractions. How do you get 9 attractions in PP? Screamin', Zephyr, Orange, Maliboomer, Mouse, Carousel, Sun Wheel, Jellyfish. That's only 8. If you count the boat and the games, you'd get more, but then you'd have more than 19 total attractions.
Originally Posted By WrongWay Futurist, great rant! Before entering into this conversation, I was convinced the theme of Paradise Pier was chosen as a way to cram a bunch of cheap rides into a small area. However, I'll eat a little crow and say I think I was wrong. Now I'm convinced that the theme was chosen to look good from a distance. Individual rides aren't meant to be great, just add to the overall appearance of the area. They aren't meant to look good up close (conctrete walls and plain hand rail queues), just from across the bay. As I said in another post, everytime I hear someone saying how great the pier is, they are sitting across the bay at the Cove bar.
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<As I said in another post, everytime I hear someone saying how great the pier is, they are sitting across the bay at the Cove bar.>> Yeah, and the longer they sit in the Cove Bar, the better Paradise Pier looks. LOL! And yes, The Cove Bar will open up again with a different name and a new entrance. But I'll tell you, PP looks cool while staring at it through the bottom of an empty glass. "YO, Bartender! Another round for me and my mates!"
