Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>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.<< No! No! No! It can't be something that logical. It must be because TDA is CHEAP! You've been on the boards long enough not to make that kind of rookie mistake, mrichmondj!
Originally Posted By refurbmike "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." But they've been using some aspects of the Theatre for this attraction. So it may have been more cost-effective to do it this way.
Originally Posted By refurbmike "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." That makes sense. Since there's an abadoned lagoon across the park, and an abandoned lakeside area across from Big Thunder, and an abadoned area under the Fantasyland Skyway (perfect place for Pooh, like I've said before), plus should we forget that well used area from Critter Country to Toon Town; but they decided to utilize the "dead space" in Critter Country and take out an old attraction to replace it with a new one. Hmmm...
Originally Posted By terwyn A few nights ago, I saw a link with an aeral view of DL and looking very closely, it seems that there's some room to the north and a little bit west of the CJB show building that could have incorporated an expanded Pooh building. I believe that it was reported that Pooh will be floating above peoples head in the same area that Teddi Bara swung in the Jamboree theater. So they are utilizing existing engineering elements to the attraction. How well it fits in with the story will determine if it was really "shoehorned" into that space. The fact of the matter is that the CBJ building was used just because there wasn't any other existing building to house Pooh. Clearing land and constructing a brand new building in addition to building a show will cost more money than remodeling an existing one and fitting the ride to the building's layout is much cheaper. I've done remodelling too and the big cost is to rearrange a house for different usages. But if you convert a powder room into a dining room and nobody complains or you can get people to justify your design decisions, that's how you save money and get away with murder
Originally Posted By mrichmondj >>but they decided to utilize the "dead space" in Critter Country and take out an old attraction to replace it with a new one. Hmmm...<< I guess they probably should have considered using some of the more prime real estate for a "C" Ticket attraction. I'm sure everyone here would have been immensely happy with that turn of events.
Originally Posted By Jim in Pasadena CA Using existing buildings is done all the time... "Innoventions" is housed in the old 'Carousel of Progress' 'Redd Rocket's' Restaurant is the old pre-show area from 'Mission to Mars' The theatre where 'Honey I Shrunk the Audience' used to be an open-air theatre. Disneyland used the existing 'America The Beautiful' queue area and movie theater building for the queue area of 'Rocket Rods.' Disneyland also did the same thing with 'Star Tours' -- incorporating the exact same queue area that was there for 'Adventure Thru InnerSpace' -- The funniest thing was, when they built 'Star Tours' at Disney-MGM Studios, they used the same queue area floor plan -- essentially using the old queue area from Disneyland's 'Adventure Thru InnerSpace' for a brand new theme park. explain that one...
Originally Posted By ahecht "Hmmmm - Pooh in Tomorrowland. I think I've got this great idea..." Bathroom of Tomorrow?
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 JohnS1 "Nothing in the park today even comes close to the cheeziness of a sliced in half '54 Olds running on a miniature train track, a lion trainer jumping lions through hoops of fire, a treeless picnic ground filled with boozed up union members, a chain link fence surrounding a paved area where people raced radio controlled cars and boats, plastic cows attached to faux milking machines watching television, Ramblers and washing machines sitting in the actual audience viewing area of a major attraction, a shucking and jiving Aunt Jemima character, stinky old mules, a pirate ship sitting in a sea of concrete with no "purpose other than to sell bad tuna sandwiches, displays on "industrial flow control", jars of leeches, etc. etc. etc." You're merely listing what was hip and edgy in the mid-1950s. Times change.
Originally Posted By Dabob <By the way, these people are often the same ones who have a hissy fit every time Mickey Mouse and Peter Pan are laid off from their part time jobs of cruising around the Rivers of America and slaying dragons on the western frontier.> LOL! Too true. I've always thought Fantasmic on the ROA was the worst "fit" of anything in the park thematically - yet it works. Go figure. <The reality: Disneyland has always been elaborate, amazingly well themed, cheap, cheezy, great, horrible, brilliant, and stupid. One thing it never was and never will be is consistent. > Well said. And although I don't agree with all your examples from #72, you still said a mouthful, bro. And this is from someone who sometimes wishes they WOULD exercise a little more consistency theme-wise. But Davko reminds me that inconsistency is nothing new (if, perhaps, more understandable in the early days when they were feeling their way around the concept).
Originally Posted By Santa Monica <<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.>> It could be worse. Have you seen the WDW queue? Ugly book pages everywhere. <<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.>> They could have left the theater closed with no replacement. How's 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 terwyn refurbmike, I think Davko58 was referring to me, not you in particular. He really sounds like someone who's not found his laughingplace. So sad. About the junky things that were originallyput in DL55. Davko58, despite his supposed superior knowledge of all things DL, ignores the simple historical fact that Uncle Walt was mortgaging everything he had in his "Disney's Folly" project. If memory serves, he put up his home in Hombly Hills, his life insurance policy and even struck a deal with 3rd placed ABC-TV that put great strains on the resorces of Disney Productions inorder to fulfill. If DL was NOT a success, that would ruin Disney's reputation and imperil the financial stability of WDP. After DL became an overnight success (that's a fact), Uncle Walt was then able to tear out the below standards attractions and do what he wanted all along. In the 11 years prior to his death there just happened to be three Tomorrowlands (the junky one, the late 1950's improved version and finally the beloved TL67. Truely, Walt was working to get TL and the rest of the park to his idea of what DL should be. I believe that most of the money for DL had nearly run out before the park was nearing its debut and decisions were made to cutback where ever possible and TL was the most convient land to cut. I doubt anyone here actually thinks that Walt indented the model airplane ring to be a permanent fixture of TL. Mickey's Circusland (?) seems to be an expedient addition which allowed use of the Tobey Tyler serial sets with the ability to showcase the Mouseketeers, saving WDP some cash. Regardless if it was junky or cost effective, it was gone within a very short period and better things were added in quick succession. The leaches? That was not an attraction like the tortilla or bread shows, but a small decoration in the Upjohn Apothicary. Talk about nitpicking and whinning. Fastforward to 2001, DCA was clearly not designed to be a masterpiece of WDI, but a cost effective attempt to fill the DL Hotel, Pacific Hotel and the proposed Grand Cal Hotel rooms. Mulholland Maddness was so cheap that it is designed to be replaced and sold as secondhand sometime in the future. The Disney of today, could have easily added ToT and themed the place better. It wasn't for the lack of cash. Disney bought Fox Family Channel last summer for $5billion. That's how cheap and uninterested in quality they happen to be. So objectively what Walt created nearly from scratch 47 years ago can't be compared with the missteps that Uncle Mikey & Co. have wrought in the last five years or so. Now in my book, TDS could be compared with what Walt wanted to achieve for DL if he only lived long enough and had the money to do so.
Originally Posted By refurbmike terwyn: Thank you for being more positive and uplifting than I was (hence the ADMIN)
Originally Posted By Jim in Pasadena CA Please, friends... let's not start deciphering who's found his or her laughing place -- just because someone gets a little passionate, means nothing. Everybody gets admin'd occasionally -- even your ol' pal Jim in Pasadena, CA -- doesn't mean anything about the person. Davko58 rocks!
Originally Posted By Davko58 I was admined? Oh well. Guilty! Thank you, that is all. I appreciate the responses. Regarding my laughingplace, it has always been at Disneyland (at least I still enjoy the park..). Placing what appears to be a wonderful cartoon dark ride (my favorite type of attraction) in an area already themed as the home of singing geese and alligators doesn't seem jarring, junky, cheap, or tacky to me. The post with the laundry list of Disney flops and mistakes contains some thoughts I actually agree with. But that wasn't my point. Someone claimed Walt Disney never would allow anything cheap or cheezy in his park. That statement was and remains factually incorrect. The original Tomorrowland was in fact a rush job and contained things he didn't like (I liked them all anyway). But it took 14 years for him to sweep away the junk so it couldn't have bothered him all that much. And a lot of the improvements to the 1955 Tomorrowland were even junkier than the original stuff. There seems to be this perception out there among some people (Doobie--that's directed to nowhere in particular..) that Disneyland used to be some pristine, always fabulous, non-commercial, filled with 100% hits type of theme park. It wasn't. When I was in high school and college I was looked at by my anti-establishment friends as some sort of lunatic for enjoying what was considered at the time to be the capital of crass commercialization, corporate cheerleading, and cheap plasticized diversionary entertainment. The entire park was viewed as being of gutter level quality for people with brains. All I'm trying to get across is that when people complain about developments in the park they should do so because they don't appeal to their personal taste. They should not attribute an imaginary series of dogmas to Walt and then claim the new development violates the sacred spirit of the park. If you don't like something, fine. But don't come onto this board and tell me Walt wouldn't have liked it. There's no way any of us could possibly know that.
