Originally Posted By trekkeruss <<You are being too soft. Why not just flat out declare that SF and France have nothing to do with each other, nothing at all... Please no French rats in Cal Adv>> I'm not arguing that Ratatouille has a place in DCA; I think it's a mistake, if indeed that is what Disney has in mind.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<I'm not arguing that Ratatouille has a place in DCA; I think it's a mistake, if indeed that is what Disney has in mind.>> I've heard that rats might wind up in Disney-MGM Studios too! But I do agree with Jon a great deal: you don't need a cartoon/movie tie-in on every attraction ... and WDI is quite capable of building great attractions that don't have the ties (see Everest at DAK or ToT at TDS for two most recent examples) ... however, I've also heard that there's practically a mandate from Burbank that every attraction needs a character tie-in ... I'm hoping that's mostly hyperbole due to the constant battles there, but then I hear things that make me wonder. At the risk of quoting Jim Hill's most recent column, does California Screamin really need Disney baddies to 'plus' it? I don't think so. Disney still can do amazing work with non-character themes. But someone has to let them go and do it. One quick point, though, as to the idea of something themed to earthquakes, I just don't ever see Disney taking that kind of chance (maybe using an earthquake effect as part of one, and even that's doubtful) because there COULD (and likely) will be quakes in the future in Cal and people will die. ... I just don't see a publicity concerned company like Disney taking that risk.
Originally Posted By barboy You're right Spirit, a quake attraction will not be considered. Much like what happened to Universal Orlando's Twister. The company had grave concerns about opening the attraction after a big hurricane hit Fla. Even DCA's original Superstar Limo idea was changed from evading the poporazzi due to the Princess Diana event.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Imagine riding in a cable car and the streets start to crack and buildings sway and debris is falling everywhere and then the fire portion kicks in-- A true E ticket masterpiece." Actually, there was a dark ride on SF's Fisherman's Wharf area back in the 80s that was exactly like that. It was made by Sid and Marty Kroft and was kind of tacky, but I liked it.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo " Why not just flat out declare that SF and France have nothing to do with eachother, nothing at all" Not true, Broadway used to be full of them doing the cancan and burlesque shows. Let's bring that to DCA please!!!!
Originally Posted By ChurroMonster A San Francisco burlesque show would be full of semi-naked men. Are you ready for that?
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Not the ones from the 1840's. But I can pass on a remake of Finocchios thanks.
Originally Posted By jmuboy what theme or area in DCA will Rataouille have any connection too? Parisian Rat in CA theme park? hmmmmmm.....well, they made Bugs "work" - I guess the "rat" will work too. Can't say this rumor excites me.
Originally Posted By twirlnhurl "This attitude only goes to indicate that the people putting stuff into these parks have absolutely no concept as to theming, beyond the exterior decor areas." I have read most books Imagineering has published about itself (And others about Imagineering). In reading them, one discovers that the Theme Park definition of themeing is all about visual intrustions, and has nothing to do with the literary definition of theme (the main idea of the story, or the message the author is conveying). In fact, if the literary definition of theme was to be applied to It's a Small World and it's location in Fantasyland (instead of Tomorrowland), one could conclude that the attraction is Walt Disney's metaphorical middle finger to the entire human race. The only Disney Park that the literary definition of Theme was considered from it's inception was EPCOT Center. Ratatouille probably would be a better fit in New Orleans Square or Fantasyland, but any land with Parisian-looking architecture would do. Haunted Mansion, Pirates, and many other successful attractions have less then a passing connection to their respective area's literary themes. All of this is not to say that a Ratatouille ride is a great idea, the film was one of my favorites, but it seems to lend itself to a restaurant more then a ride, due to it's scale and character-based story.
Originally Posted By disneywatcher >> I don't know what the Abilene Paradox is, but from everything I've read, the powers that be were totally shocked that DCA wasn't an instant hit right out of the gate << Facets of that paradox have been evident on, for example, this message board from before, and certainly after, 2001. That's where people -- for whatever reason -- are hesitant to, as they say, call a spade a spade. It's merely a variation of the game of office politics, which most of us should be well acquainted with. That's a situation where tact and manners (and, more importantly, a fear of losing our job and paycheck, or hurting workplace morale) prevent us from telling a co-worker, supervisor or boss, "your idea, plan or policy is horrible!!!" Example: "Michael, your idea for Paradise Pier is horrible!!" "Barry, the design of an open, non-boundary layout for DCA is pathetic!!" "Paul, your skills do not extend from the world of retailing to the world of high quality theme-park development!"
Originally Posted By bean love how people get so over excited on something that is not final yet. the other funny thing is that f the attraction is built within a nicely detailed area it will most likely have very long lines. If i am not mistaken a couple of you declared that Nemo was a mistake and that it would not keep a consistent line after the inicial passholders. Well guess what lines still hold at 120 minutes and it doesn;t seem to be slowing down. As for character attractions, people are just going to have to get used to it. Disney is a company that needs to produce money for its shareholders and at the moment some of these characters are big money makers. Occasionally you will see enw additions that do not require characters but you will see several that will have them.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Those words make me very sad indeed. If this trend continues, I think I will have to take my money else where. After 32 years of unhealthy obsession, maybe this will be a good thing for me. But Disneyland used to be about placemaking. Exploring areas that you might not travel to, being in different adventures. Before Epcot or DAK, DL might have had areas like that, but now it seems about the synergy of pushing the latest characters. Talk about dumbing down...even more.
Originally Posted By Pinocchio85 "the other funny thing is that f the attraction is built within a nicely detailed area it will most likely have very long lines." It doesn't matter if the area around the ride is detailed or not. A ride that doesn't fit the theme still won't fit even if the area looks nice. "As for character attractions, people are just going to have to get used to it. Disney is a company that needs to produce money for its shareholders and at the moment some of these characters are big money makers." That justifies everything doesn't it? Disney used to make money and give guests high quality rides that fit the theme. Disney seems to be content with placing low quality rides in areas they don't belong as long as they make money.
Originally Posted By ChurroMonster It's really kind a weird notion that profit demand of shareholders is the excuse for not providing paying customers what they are looking for. I can't see any character-based attraction topping the enduring popularity of Space Mountain. Shouldn't WDI be trying to make an attraction that is as big a draw as a 30-year-old roller coaster? No attraction based on Disney or Pixar characters has even come close. I just fear that relying on characters is a tactic less about appeasing stockholders than it is a tactic WDI is using to keep itself from taking any creative risks. People come to Disneyland to be transported to another time and place. It's escapsim at its most basic level. If you surround them with characters and stories that they see on their TV's every day at home then that sense of escaping the real world is seriously diminished. How am I supposed to feel like I am anywhere like New Orleans or The Frontier, or The Amazon, or San Francisco, or The Future when I am surrounded by cartoons reminding me that everything around me is just as fake and carefully crafted as they are? Depending on WDFA or Pixar to create storylines for attractions for you is lazy imagineering and it's why every Disney park is slowly merging towards becoming variations on the same idea: Cartoonland.
Originally Posted By irishfan >>No attraction based on Disney or Pixar characters has even come close.<< Pooh fans in Tokyo could argue that.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo That may be the case Irishfan, but if the same ride vehicles and quality of theming were used for a Sleepy Hollow attraction, or an adventure based on being a fisherman, I think the queues would still be long. But then again, given the lack of popularity of Sinbad at TDS, maybe not
Originally Posted By barboy I say it's time to take that billion and make a real "California Adventure" Some of my CA lineup: "The Red Triangle", a surfing attraction where you get "attacked" by a white shark. The Flower Power district, join a "sit-in" or congregate on Haight and Ashbury complete with incense in the air, candle and tie-dye shops. "The drive-by", in the tradition of Buzz or Universal's Men In Black guests board their choice of a a blue or red omnimover pod and try to rack up points with "uzis". San Fernando Valley-- a behind the scenes tour of the more alternative types of film making.....(with guest participation and interaction).
