Originally Posted By jonvn Yes. Plainly they CAN do it. And plainly it can be successful, and plainly it can be successful at DCA. For while these surveys allegedly show that the public wants characters (and I've seen no proof of these surveys other than a supposition) the most successful attraction in the park has none at all. So it's obvious that such a concept-the requirement of characters-is absolutely false.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<Also, soap operas generally aren't closely identified with their studio settings -- unlike, for example, the TV sets of classic sitcoms, such as "I Love Lucy" (conjuring up a bit of the inspiration for something like a Sci-Fi Diner) -- and tend to be very generic in a "House Beautiful magazine" sort of way. And so the interiors of the Soap Opera Bistro seemed as exceptionally forgettable or as charmlessly glossy as the model units of a new housing development in Orange County. >> That's your opinion ... and since it seems you dislike everything about the park (please tell me you aren't one of the nuts who thinks the parking lot was better?) I'm not surprised. But the 'sets' were very well done and quite representitive of popular locales on ABC's shows, which have all been on since the 1960s. I have a friend who was on one of the soaps at the time and she was amazed at the detail in there. But I'm sure the empty building it is now is much preferable. You think 'I Love Lucy' is a classic and I agree. But I guarantee you that more teens and 20 and 30 somethings know Erica Kane and Luke and Laura Spencer than Lucy and Ethel. You may find that sad, but that's the way it is. If Prime Time Cafe is so wonderful and popular at WDW, and so many DCA haters say that's the kind of experience they would have liked at DCA, well ... you had it. <<And although this wasn't quite as apparent back in 2001, Nielsen ratings for daytime soaps have been falling steadily for some time now, and so maybe a DCA restaurant themed to "Oprah" would have been no more misguided.>> Cheap shot. Soap ratings have in reality been falling since 1994 when the networks decided to kill them. What did they do? Simple. For the better part of the year they constantly pre-empted them for wall to wall O.J. Simpson coverage, treating their loyal viewers like trash. When they finally returned, many viewers had found better things to do in the afternoons. (just a little TV history lesson) <<But whether a person thinks the idea for a Soap Opera Bistro was good or bad, this certainly is one more example of why it's way too easy to conclude that DCA is DCA because of the sticking point of money, money, money (or a lack of enough of it). That's even more the case when there were reports several years ago that Michael Eisner wanted DCA to be a place his wife would love and enjoy---hence, she perhaps was a big fan of soap operas? Stranger things have been true.>> So what if Jane did like soaps. Tens of millions do just in the US. No matter where the idea came from, it was a good idea, like many in DCA 2001. It just wasn't developed or marketed correctly and in the opening disaster was sacrificed by short-sighted execs.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 "So yes...your worst nightmare jonvn...cartoon characters. " <<But that's not correct. Disney is a lot more than that, and by simply taking surveys and pandering to whatever thing anyone says, they are again lowering themselves to the lowest common denominator. Disney is not just a bunch of cartoon characters, and people who think this simply don't know what Disney has and can offer.>> You really need to send this post to Burbank and Glendale, Jon. There's a whole group of execs in power who feel if it doesn't have a character tie-in, it doesn't belong in the parks. I guess people forget that PoC was a beloved attraction for decades before they added fem pirate AA's ;-)
Originally Posted By jonvn They won't listen to me, or anyone like me. I will get a form letter in response, if that. My thoughts on the matter are basically meaningless to those who think they know better.
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf This drives me crazy - there are so many great attractions without character/cartoon tie-ins Space, Matterhorn, BTMRR, etc,). In fact, the best attractions IMHO don't have them. They leave you to imagine being somewhere else without having an aminated nightmare beating it into your head.
Originally Posted By disneywatcher >> No matter where the idea came from, it was a good idea, like many in DCA 2001. << Just as long as you don't make the claim that the prime reason DCA couldn't have been improved upon was because of economic restraints, or because Anaheim's economy isn't lucrative enough, or because DisCo's stockholders are too demanding and money hungry, I can tolerate where you're coming from.
Originally Posted By jonvn Economic restraints did cause problems. To continue to deny this is to have blinders on.
Originally Posted By disneywatcher Soap Opera Bistro was a great idea. Paradise Pier is nicely themed. Mulholland Madness is a lovely little ride. Bountiful Farms was (and is) so rustic and charming. Grizzly Rapids is so enjoyable and fast-paced I can easily see why audioanimatronics were deemed not necessary for it. The Sunshine Plaza and titanium sun are impressively designed. I think DCA is better than DisneySea.
Originally Posted By Sweeper With over a billion dollars to spend, we will soon see what WDI thinks about cartoons. I think asking the public for reactions in surveys isn't leadership anyway. Walt knew the formula. It takes courage and imagination to design great rides without a character crutch. But it sure looks like we have the design by survey crowd in charge still.
Originally Posted By jonvn That's right. But truth is Walt Disney also started using focus groups for his movies in his last years, too.
Originally Posted By bean "Yes. Plainly they CAN do it. And plainly it can be successful, and plainly it can be successful at DCA. For while these surveys allegedly show that the public wants characters (and I've seen no proof of these surveys other than a supposition) the most successful attraction in the park has none at all." i agree that Disney can do it and they actually have plans for attractions that have no cartoon characters in them but in reference to the above comment one thing you seem to be ignoring is that the most popular attraction in DCA not only has somekind of thrill factor but also has a height restriction which in part seperate the families. Sonething which was constantly criticized in these boards from days one. People easily kept quoting Walt Disney and one of the reasons for building Disneyland. To be able to keep parents from standing in the sidelines while watching their children have fun. Lately its been the opposite. children stay on the sidelines with one of the aduls while the rest enjoy the ride
Originally Posted By bean I am just a bit curious, what do you guys think about the them of what could be disneyland's next "E" ticket attraction for frontierland? For those that still have not heard it might open in 2010 and be themed around the legends of "The Lone Ranger"
Originally Posted By danyoung >People easily kept quoting Walt Disney and one of the reasons for building Disneyland. To be able to keep parents from standing in the sidelines while watching their children have fun.< I'm never going to accept that Walt's idea was that every person should be able to ride EVERY ride. C'mon, do you expect parents and grandparents to flock to the carousel, which was opened in '55? And there certainly was a height and/or age restriction to the Matterhorn when it came online in '59. This idea of all rides for all people IMO comes from a distortion of Walt's idea that there should be a PLACE where people of all ages can come and have fun. That doesn't mean that every ride has to be dumbed down or simplified to where people from 2 to 90 can ride. But then there's no need to make every new ride into the latest and greatest super duper thrill attraction, either. Disney's strength has always been with the AA attractions since the days of tiki birds and pirates. They've proven that they can add an element of thrill with Splash Mountain. That's the kind of attractions that they need to put into the new DCA.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << I'm never going to accept that Walt's idea was that every person should be able to ride EVERY ride. >> I'm reminded of an old episode of the Disneyland TV show celebrating the 5th anniversary of Disneyland -- they had a segment featuring the Ozzie & Harriet Nelson family. Harriet was filming the family's adventures at the park, including Ozzie sleeping on a park bench while the kids were playing on Tom Sawyer's Island.
Originally Posted By jonvn "the most popular attraction in DCA not only has somekind of thrill factor but also has a height restriction which in part seperate the families." Not everything Walt Disney built was for every person. Rides had age restrictions all along. Be that as it may, I was not ignoring that as much as not really pointing it out as it has nothing to do with the idea of Disney being able to create a non-cartoon based attraction.
Originally Posted By jonvn The Lone Ranger? Why? I mean, what does that character have that is of any interest to people nowadays? I recall the last film based on it bombed really badly. Beyond that, it all depends on what it is. Is it another shooting gallery ride? That would be pretty seriously lame, to have yet another one like that. One attraction like that is a great idea, two is pushing it, but three of them and it's a tiresome gimmick. Why not go back and do the Western River Expedition, or some modern equivalent of it? Would it be like that? Perhaps that would be good. It all depends on the content, but where did the Lone Ranger come from?
Originally Posted By bean "I'm never going to accept that Walt's idea was that every person should be able to ride EVERY ride. C'mon, do you expect parents and grandparents to flock to the carousel, which was opened in '55? And there certainly was a height and/or age restriction to the Matterhorn when it came online in '59." i never quote Walt Disney. i was just saying that people were constantly doing it when DCA opened in 2001 and continue. Sometimes people take Walt disney's words to literal. I don't think he expected everyone that visits the park to ride every attraction together. Everyone has diferent tastes of what is fun. I know people that can't stand going on Pirates but adore fanatsyland for its quirkiness. And i agree with everything you said Danyoung. I do not thing that every new attraction needs to have thrills or that every new attraction has to appeal to the whole family. The problem is that out of the 4-5 "E" attractions and several "c" and "d" attractions being worked on for DCA to open within the next decade people on these boards have already made up their mind of the direction WDI and Disney is taking. Someone spilled dout the info on a possible Ratatouille attraction and the upcoming "CARS" attraction and see the toys tory midway mania and think that everything from now on will be cartoon based and that WDI and Disney is taking the cheap and easy way out. The rreality is that their are several other projects in the works and they are not all based on Pixar or cartoons. right now DCA will see several family based attractions to be built and created before its anniversary to help round out the park and like every other company take advantage of its very lucrative franchises.
Originally Posted By bean "The Lone Ranger? Why? I mean, what does that character have that is of any interest to people nowadays? I recall the last film based on it bombed really badly. Beyond that, it all depends on what it is. Is it another shooting gallery ride? That would be pretty seriously lame, to have yet another one like that. One attraction like that is a great idea, two is pushing it, but three of them and it's a tiresome gimmick. Why not go back and do the Western River Expedition, or some modern equivalent of it? Would it be like that? Perhaps that would be good. It all depends on the content, but where did the Lone Ranger come from?" well to answer this question, Jerry Bruckheimer is due to release Disney's next possible franchise based on the Lone ranger with the first ovie out around 2010 - 2011. Why not the Lone Ranger? I agree not every attraction has to be a shoot them up attraction like midway mania and buzz btu remember those are cartoon based attractions considered a low "d" ticket and a high "d" ticket experience. The Lone Ranger is being considered as an elaborate "E" ticket attraction thatw oudl finally add a second reason to visit Frontierland.
Originally Posted By danyoung >Someone spilled dout the info on a possible Ratatouille attraction and the upcoming "CARS" attraction and see the toys tory midway mania and think that everything from now on will be cartoon based and that WDI and Disney is taking the cheap and easy way out.< It just cracks me up to sit back and watch the rabidity (is that a word? The act of being rabid...) of Disney fans, and the way they take a totally unsubstantiated rumor and build it into a world ending panic. They do it every time a new attraction is about to come online, while those of us older (much older!) and wiser folks always say the same thing - "Ride the danged thing first, then comment on it!!!"
Originally Posted By jonvn "people on these boards have already made up their mind of the direction WDI and Disney is taking." The last several things they've done have all been about the same thing. And then we hear about a rat ride in DCA? More of the same. If they actually did do something else, that'd be great. But how do you expect people to react when every thing coming out has been a cartoon, or sounds like it will be one? "Why not the Lone Ranger?" Well, without the movie, it seems rather random. "add a second reason to visit Frontierland." There used to be a few reasons to visit the area, until they were removed.
