Originally Posted By GGGD And middle ground is not in the eye of the beholder, either. That's the excuse people use when they don't want to do the right thing, even when they know what it is. A poodle is a poodle, no matter the point of view.
Originally Posted By leemac Guys, guys.... I was thinking about hiring out the MGM Grand for the next disputed title fight....tangoroa VS Mack Attack. Now, guys you'll have to tell me what weight category you'd like to be in....is it Super-heavyweight? The honour and integrity of DCA is at stake. I'll open up a book on fight. Please email bets to.......
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 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 meomi Hey, Great articles Jim. I am glad to be called middle ground where i Have always been. The one and only time i ever had something deleted from this board was on this neverending DCA discussion. I stopped reading the expansion debates, but Jim's attention brought me here, still debating strong as ever. Well, all I can say is I think Jim put it into pretty good perspective. I'm with you, on middle ground where I always have been. Now "ding"... round?????
Originally Posted By leemac I was wondering if maybe we could take a new tangent with this discussion. What SHOULD have gone into a California Adventure park? What is missing? What could be done to improve the park for all? Any ideas?
Originally Posted By shevys Here's my take, for what it's worth. They built a new park, which, right or wrong, was the antithesis of any park that Walt Disney (yeah...remember him, the founder of the company and the man whose name is on the park?) ever wanted built. One of his sole reasons to build Disneyland was because he hated the whole boardwalk type of affair. I don't doubt that the park is pretty (it does look nice in pictures). I do doubt that it has enough to do to justify spending for a full price ticket. And I doubt it would be something Walt himself would be proud of, which I suppose should be the last thing Eisner should be asking himself before they build a park like this again.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh "One of his sole reasons to build Disneyland was because he hated the whole boardwalk type of affair." Where do people get this and why does it keep getting repeated when it's not true? Walt didn't hate boardwalk amusement parks. He didn't like that they weren't clean and that the people working them were less than desirable. He also wasn't fond of the fact that adults couldn't ride "kiddie rides" with their children. He never expressed a displeasure with a certain type of ride, or park.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer What should have gone in, one, if not, two, WOW rides that are NEW and BETTER than things found elsewhere. The closest they go to that in the park, IMO was Soarin', which I enjoy, but alas, had problems from the begining. The film quality was not the best the first couple of times I saw it. (They have improved the situation), plus the lack of themeing in the queue area did not make it seem like a "Disney" ride. Heck, one of the first things that was fixed was the Soarin' queue. Seems someone forgot that people might actually wait for the ride, and failed to have enough shade in the queue and also added misters. They could have also placed more "rides" in the park, movies are nice, but I can see a movie at home or my local theater. I know the movies at the park have extra features, but it is not the type of attraction that makes you want to drive to the park. Also, the best movies are copies from other attractions, the only new movie really has no WOW special additions, just a couple of projectors that project on a plastic head. Also, bread and tortilla making is a nice little diversion, calling them a ride/attraction seems to be pushing it for me. That whole area seems like a mall food court area. (And that is not all bad, I do like the resturants together, so large parties can have different options, but still eat together.) What to do today, add the Disney extras to the rides already in the park, IMHO, that is adding pre-shows to the queues. WWTBAM-PI has a pre-show in ints WDW version, add that. Add a pre-show, even if it is just monitors in the Soarin' line. Add a NEW and BETTER ride at DCA (not ToT, though I would like to see that added too.) Heck, seems the park has a lot more choice of places to eat than DL, there is a big area if you get rid of SSL and Hollywood and Dine. Try and get rid of as many views of the outside world as you can, there are areas of the park, like Hollywood Blvd and the Aviation area which do a good job of blocking out the outside, other areas, Anaheim is clearly visable. Many of these I have mentioned in the past. And hopefully more ideas/suggestions will be placed. Another problem from the beginning was the Marketing of the park, which had many flaws, one of which was the attempt to try and collect the same price as DL. The park could have charged say $33, basically saying, yes, it's a nice park, but doesn't yet have as much as DL does. Of course as the park expands, you could start raising the price to get closer to what DL charges. Now, what they could have done for me personally, replace Mondavi with a Hooters, and each guest got a free pitcher of beer with admission
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<Where do people get this and why does it keep getting repeated when it's not true? Walt didn't hate boardwalk amusement parks. He didn't like that they weren't clean and that the people working them were less than desirable.>> This is quite laughable, everything that Walt planned for Disneyland went completely against the amusement park mentality. He querried many operators of amusement parks throughout America and they told him how his concept would fail especially without so much as a Ferris Wheel. When he went about the task of hiring his "cast members", if they indicated that they had worked at an amusement place prior, he would not hire them for DL. Anyway all this information is quite well documented in many books, but a good one was the book on Disneyland written by Marty Sclar in 1965. Walt Disney was against carney rides and thats how the family Theme Park concept was born.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh I've read those books, I've read Walt's quotes - you're misrepresenting what he said. Find me a quote where Walt said he was against carney rides.
Originally Posted By meomi I also thought that one thing Walt was very opposed to were the games of chance like the ones on the pier. I would like to read some of the books, can you give any titles?
Originally Posted By AgentLaRue Stepping back for a moment, I find it interesting how much reaction has erupted to this article. Basically, the criticism has been over two parts of the article: (1) Mr. Hill's view that Paradise Pier wasn't "cheap"; and (2) his take that "Disney dweebs" are not the target audience. Reading some of these posts leads me to believe Mr. Hill may have been getting somewhere with his "dweebs" comment, no offense intended. Although calling Disney fans "dweebs" may not have been the most politically astute choice of words, he makes a fair point in observing that theme parks are directed at the masses, not people who have the level of knowledge, interest and intensity toward Disney parks held by many on these boards. I agree with this, recognizing that I may fall in the group he is referring to. The average visitor will judge Paradise Pier based on whether they like the experiences at the park, not based on their perception of whether "Walt would have liked it" or many other issues raised by Disney enthusiasts but not known by the public in general. I enjoy reading the informed opinions of those who disagree with Mr. Hill. Consider, however, that the greater the depth of analysis people direct back at Mr. Hill in criticism, the more his point is well taken that such level of analysis is not the target audience.
Originally Posted By woody >>(2) his take that "Disney dweebs" are not the target audience. The non-dweebs are not reading his articles. The "Disney dweebs" are the ones going to DCA and "some" of them are criticizing it while others are eating crow.
Originally Posted By AgentLaRue "The non-dweebs are not reading his articles." True. But the target audience isn't people who read Jim Hill columns.
Originally Posted By DisneyAce Woody, I am not eating crow, I enjoyed the park from the first sketches in '96, through the construction phase to the actual visit. I give it a solid 'B' while the rest of my family, except my daughter who was too young to give it a grade, mostly had a pleasureable experience. While I may be the only 'Disney Dweeb' in my family, I still think compared to MGM/89 and DEFINITLY AK 98 DCA is much better at opening. I respect and that is why I read the comments of those who have problems with the park, I am just thankfull you folks of THE VOCAL (that may be too strong a word, I don't think your loud at all) MINORITY, are not outside the gates protesting and ruining the experience of others. You didn't get the experience you want, you have every right to complain. To be fair, Jim called all of you and me 'DISNEY GEEKS'. I prefer the long term 'Walt Disney Knights of Tradition and Quality'. But again, great debate and Woody you could take back your crow.
Originally Posted By Uncle_Walt Flaws can be found wherever and whenever you want to find them. I have a very loving and beautiful wife. Is she perfect? Most of the time. 8;-) If she does something *I* don't like, *I* have two choices. I can dwell on the fault, thereby making us both misrable as long as I want to. -OR- I can look for the positive things in her that make me happy and remind me of inumrable reasons that I married her. It's always sad to see poeple tear apart what they claim to love the most.
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<I've read those books, I've read Walt's quotes - you're misrepresenting what he said. Find me a quote where Walt said he was against carney rides.>> I and thousands of others are misrepresenting what he said? My apologies then to Walt Disney for we would never want to do that. So how about this, where are the Carney rides that Walt loved so much inside Disneyland? Any way, as you wish: Designing Disney's Theme Parks, 1997 - page 33 Excerpts from the memo outlining the 16 acre park originally planned for Burbank. "And there will be no roller coasters or other rides in the cheap thrill category." page 74 - "Narrative was what separated Disneyland from all those other parks." But mostly I think we all can see that Disneyland is devoid of carney rides. You have yourself a ding-dang-Disney day.
Originally Posted By MackAttack <<This is quite laughable, everything that Walt planned for Disneyland went completely against the amusement park mentality. He querried many operators of amusement parks throughout America and they told him how his concept would fail especially without so much as a Ferris Wheel. When he went about the task of hiring his "cast members", if they indicated that they had worked at an amusement place prior, he would not hire them for DL. Anyway all this information is quite well documented in many books, but a good one was the book on Disneyland written by Marty Sclar in 1965. Walt Disney was against carney rides and thats how the family Theme Park concept was born.>> Crapshoot (nice name by the way), you are correct that Walt was dead set against any of "those" amusement park operators working in his new park. However, that speaks to what many of us have been saying all along. Walt didn't like the atmosphere and element that made the amusement parks of his generation trashy and unfriendly places to be and much of that was attributed to the lack of quality in the employees. And yes, you are correct that Walt encountered the criticism from some of the amusement park operators in the 1950's that said his park would fail without a ferris wheel. However, that didn't mean that Walt was against those types of rides. Walt set out to build a completely different experience in the beginning. Every aspect of Disneyland from being a gated park and charging an admission fee to adopting a different practice in hiring and training his staff was unlike the amusement parks back then. However, much of Disneyland was made up with the typical amusement park rides that just were themed by Disney to complement his particular stories and themed lands. That too was unique for the amusement park industry. A ferris wheel didn't fit into any of his themes at that time. Do you think a ferris wheel would have themed in well in Adventureland or Frontierland? Or how about Fantasyland or Tomorrowland. I guess not. Walt Disney spent much of his "Daddy" life with his daughters at the Pike in Long Beach. He loved going there with his daughters. He just felt that over time the Pike, along with many other amusement parks, were going downhill and becoming dirty and filled with employees and clientale that was less desirable. That right there was the primary reason why Walt built a gate around Disneyland to keep the less desirables out. It wasn't the rides that turned Walt off. And that is the challenge. You cannot find one quote by Walt to indicate that. To use the ferris wheel comment is a very weak link to try and prove your point - especially when most of the rides in Disneyland in 1955 were true amusement park rides after all. The ferris wheel comment was referring to the criticism that without any BIG rides like ferris wheels and roller coasters (which was also included in the criticism back then that you left off) the park wouldn't survive. Eventually Walt did add a roller coaster to appease a part of his audience that wanted something a little more thrilling than what he was offering. His comments were always, "I thought there should be a place built where the kids and parents can enjoy their time together." I know that wasn't word-for-word, but it is pretty much correct on his intent in building Disneyland. By the way, when the idea crossed Walt's mind about building a place for everyone was while he was sitting on the bench watching his two girls ride the merry-go-round. It wasn't as if he was riding a "blow-your-brains-out" roller coaster while his wife waited with the girls and felt bad that they all couldn't ride the coaster together. He had just as much opportunity to ride the merry-go-round with his daughters. He just felt that the amusement parks back then were no longer a family environment and he wanted to build a place that was once again clean, friendly and a nice family enviornment. Where does that speak about the rides? It doesn't because it wasn't all about the "carny" rides like some of you want to suggest. Do any of you think that a seaside amusement park is dirtier than a circus environment? Circus' certainly seem dirtier and are often times very cheap in their presentation of the overall experience. However, Walt loved the circus and included various aspects of the circus in Disneyland throughout the first 10 years of the park's existance. For anyone to make a claim that Walt would not have been proud or even liked this park is simply reaching. There is NO evidence of that anywhere in his quotes or actions that he took in the creation and building of Disneyland. In fact, there is plenty more evidence to point that Walt probably would have really liked DCA. But then again, I'm sure if Walt were alive today that all of the Disney parks built after Disneyland would not be anything like they are today. Since he is dead, that is simply a moot point.
