Originally Posted By Nobody "...especially the mousse on the wall!! " Was there a food-fight in there that I was unaware of? ;-)
Originally Posted By refurbmike CrouchingTigger: Exactly what happens to Alice when it rains or something of that nature happens. (no pun intended)
Originally Posted By JohnS1 Alice shrinks when it rains and grows when it snows. (Unless she eats the little cake that says "Eat Me.") Hope that helps.
Originally Posted By CrouchingTigger Actually, I never thought about it. What does happen to Alice? Does it just close?
Originally Posted By terwyn I believe it does, because the cars don't get traction when it too wet. The difference between Splash and Pooh is that you don't see Brer ANYTHING outside, but you will see those strange moving bee hives and that dripping honey too. Also Pooh is an English fantasy stuffed toy that magically comes to life in the stories, hence Fantasyland.
Originally Posted By Santa Monica Alice cars will slip down that plant vine track. So they must close it. Nothing happens with the station.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Splash Mountain has a very cartooney look to it from the exterior. Although you don't see the AA's from outside the attraction, the giant briar patch branches and the exaggerated grassy knolls & "erosion' certainly suggest that this isn't a "real" mountain. The Matterhorn, Big Thunder & even GRR at DCA are more reality based. The mix of "real" and cartooney elements are now throughout Disneyland. The more "realistic" Swiss Family Treehouse became the cartooney Tarzan Treehouse. This "clash" of real vs. cartooney just doesn't bother me all that much if the attractions are done well. The Disney version of Pooh is very Americanized at this point (back in the early 70's, Sears had a line of "Pooh for President" kids wear). So Pooh fits as well in the back of critter country as anywhere. If it had been added there 20 years ago, no one would have questioned if it "belonged" there or not. In fact, if it had been added 20 years ago, there'd likely be a move by Disney now to remove it, and a Disney Fan Internet protest would commence!
Originally Posted By mrichmondj >>The difference between Splash and Pooh is that you don't see Brer ANYTHING outside, but you will see those strange moving bee hives and that dripping honey too.<< Should we just ignore that big ol' cartoony Briar Patch? >>Also Pooh is an English fantasy stuffed toy that magically comes to life in the stories, hence Fantasyland.<< Absolutely! Talking bears, rabbits, and foxes are straight out of Animal Planet documentaries. Now where is that bluebird?
Originally Posted By Fairest One of All >>Absolutely! Talking bears, rabbits, and foxes are straight out of Animal Planet documentaries. Now where is that bluebird?<< He's on your shoulder. It's the truth...
Originally Posted By frederic You know what: I think that most visitors will be happy to have a new ride and won't car that it is in Critter Country or Fantasyland! Only Disney Fanatics can talk about such unimportnant things? It's not like if they had put Pooh in Tomorrowland! And it is far less disturbing than to have the Festval of fools few years ago just behind Big Thunder
Originally Posted By aracuanbird Sorry Kar2oonMan, but I don't buy this notion that the exisitence of certain Splash elements (like the briar patch and odd eroded clay elements) are the equivalent of the new Pooh props. The dividing line for me is the efforts taken to make Splash's exaggerated elements appear as if they are natural to the landscape. Consider the rockwork. The forms are perhaps outlandish but they appear plausible in their context. Contrast that with the synethic Pooh elements, such as the painted wood signage and the honey. What is that? Looks like Disney Afternoon just landed. Compare ride vehicles. They couldn't be more different. Splash's logs, though again not realistic, fit the setting. They are far from these fiberglass jalopies with the Pooh-stick coming out of their behinds. I am a firm believer that what happens inside the walls of a show building can and should be distinct from their surroundings and that--although a general tone may be appropriate to a themed area--different attractions can look and feel different. But on exteriors there should be a consistenncy. To my eye, there looks to be a definite schism between pre- and post-Pooh-queue Critter Country.
Originally Posted By JohnS1 Today's assignment: Use the word "schism" in a 1,000-word essay discussing the pre- and post-Pooh architectural and thematic elements in any facet of our contemporary society. Compare and contrast Pooh with other applicable Bear characters, animated or live action. Extra credit: Discuss Walt Disney's fondness for or frustration with the species Ursidae Majorus in his cinematic, theme park or personal endeavors.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt I think it's all about the setting and story. The characters from Song of the South were based on African American tales, which many believed were intermixed with some Native American Folklore. These stories are an essential part of the American fabric and using this backwoods part of the Park, adjacent to Frontierland and New Orleans Square with its references to Mark Twain and Native Indians, seems fairly logical. Trying to fit Winnie the Pooh into all of that is a real tough one for me. It's kind of like Buzz Lightyear in Tomrrowland - how are his antics representative of what the future is supposed to be like? To be honest, the Country Bears never really made sense either. For me they represented one of the first attractions at the park that marked the beginning of the slow transition from the park being history/reality based to being more fantasy and cartoonish.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I am a firm believer that what happens inside the walls of a show building can and should be distinct from their surroundings<< That's because Pirates and mansion were done that way. You're used to seeing it that way. If the haunted mansion had been built as a delipidated old shack back in the late 60's, that would have been appropriate. If the Pirates exterior was a giant pirate ship, you'd have been used to that. Pooh is new and since Splash Mountain is more cartoonish than Big thunder, there's sort of a transition toward Pooh being even more cartooney. >>and that--although a general tone may be appropriate to a themed area--different attractions can look and feel different.<< Now I'm confused. Are you saying it's okay for some attractions to look more cartooney that their neighboring attractions? If so, then the new Pooh should be okay with you. No?
Originally Posted By refurbmike "That's because Pirates and mansion were done that way." Um... Kar2oonMan: Look at most of the rides at Disneyland. Space Mountain, Star Tours, Peter Pan, Snow White, Mr. Toad's Wild Ride, Pinnochio, etc. All of those look like normal buildings which hold an adventure inside. They don't look cartoonish like their inside. And splash mountain looks relatively real still. It doesn't betray the imagination too much. Sometimes, I forget that it's suppose to be a rabbit hole in the bottom of a tree trunk; it just looks like sizeable mountain with a tree on top.
Originally Posted By terwyn "That's because Pirates and mansion were done that way. You're used to seeing it that way." Those attractions were carefully designed that way for the maximum effect. Pooh was shoehorned into the CB Hall building, because it was cheaper to do so, not because it was the most effective way of presenting the ride. "If the haunted mansion had been built as a delipidated old shack back in the late 60's, that would have been appropriate. If the Pirates exterior was a giant pirate ship, you'd have been used to that." It was Uncle Walt's decision that nothing in DL should look cheap and cheezy. Unlike that other park south of DL. "Pooh is new and since Splash Mountain is more cartoonish than Big thunder, there's sort of a transition toward Pooh being even more cartooney." LOL! I can't believe you're making that kind of argument K2M. I could accept that if Splash and Pooh were built at the same time, like FFF. However, recall that CJB was built first with the landscaping designed for that attraction; much later Splash was placed there because it fit superbly for that area. Talk about rationalizing cheap TDA decision making. Using that kind of reasoning, Toontown and RR Cartoon Spin fits exactly in Main St. They both have old timey buildings and old cars. I think Disney got the wrong man to head up the Parks Division.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan The Fantasyland buildings have a storybook illustration look to me. Not what I'd call cartooney, but also not exactly "reality" based, either. The Mansion takes on a very cartooney look from October to January 1. Splash Mountain looks cartooney to me. Giant erroded grassy knolls, giant tree/rabbit hole. Giant briar patch. With miniature logs flowing through it. It's not a big deal to me that a few steps away an even more cartooney looking attraction is going in. Especially since this is a C or D ticket sort of attraction, tucked way away in the back corner of Critter Country. This stuff, as Westsider pointed out, has been going on for some time.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj >>Those attractions were carefully designed that way for the maximum effect. Pooh was shoehorned into the CB Hall building, because it was cheaper to do so, not because it was the most effective way of presenting the ride.<< Having renovated several old houses, I would offer that demolition and renovation is nearly always more expensive than new construction. If cheap was the ultimate goal, they would have built a brand new building without incurring the additional expense of having to renovate the Country Bear Theater. In reality, I think the goal was to work within the limited acreage that is left in DL and replace an aging attraction with something new.
