Originally Posted By danyoung >Maybe it's because I've actually done some whitewater rafting in my lifetime, but I think the theming at GRR is spot on.< I'm sure you're correct in that, but I didn't come to a Disney park to get realistic versions of real world adventures. I came to do something I could never do in the real world. I want to hang out with Brer Bear, I want to swashbuckle with pirates, I wanna see ghosts in their natural habitat. Even in the non-Fantasyland areas, there's fantasy element to a classic Disney attraction. Not cartoon - fantasy. And that's what's missing from GRR, and a lot of the other attractions in DCA.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy I recommend you read the dedication plaque for Disneyland and see whether it talks more about fantasyland or real life adventures -- generally, DL (and by association DCA) are on their "A" game when they re-create themed environments and let guest nostalgia and imagination do the rest.
Originally Posted By danyoung Goof, I can quote the dedication plaque from memory. Take a look at one of the attractions from the early days of Disney - a mine train through Nature's Wonderland that included many simple moving figures, beautiful underground waterfalls, etc. Not just a static ride with no effects, but effects designed by Disney to enhance the environment. Disney is unique in that they can recreate a wild west or a section of a great old American city or a land right out of storybooks, and then use technology to either tell a story or make an environment more realistic to the guest. In my opinion, they only did this halfway with GRR. I can remember as they were building it, and the rumors got out on the net that there were going to be NO AA figures on this ride. Well, I just didn't believe it. I couldn't fathom how Disney would go so far from the successful formula that made Pirates and the HM and Indy such successes. But then in opened, and GRR was just a raft ride. A good one, with nice natural surroundings, but for me still a disappointment.
Originally Posted By bean "Interesting to note, out of the 4 White Water Raft rides here in Southern California, three of them are themed to a wilderness theme, with trees, rocks and caves (SFMM, Knott's and DCA)." I can't even believe you would put SFMM and Knott's raft in the same sentence as DCA's grizzley. neither one of them compare to anythng to DCA. SFMM has a large trough filled with water a few rocks and nothing else. Knott's which is better is still just a large almost unthemed trough with landscapign around it. Grizzley has a storyline and its theming is way superior than Big foot Rapids and the crap at SFMM. I do agree that IOA's raft ride is the best but i hate the idea that you get completly soaked through out the ride.
Originally Posted By bean "Changing the direction or this discussion: Where is Disney getting the capital for this expansion? Will it come out of cash flow? Will they sell bonds or resort to some other form of borrowing. With the capital markets so topsy turvy these days, I just wondered." cash flow
Originally Posted By bean i think if people actually looked around and enjoyed the park they would find that areas like Grizzley peak and the attraction itself has a an actuall story to it. Even the area next to grizzley rapids, (the play area) has a connection with the mountain that links the spirit of the black bear with the area.
Originally Posted By bean i think if people actually looked around and enjoyed the park they would find that areas like Grizzley peak and the attraction itself has a an actuall story to it. Even the area next to grizzley rapids, (the play area) has a connection with the mountain that links the spirit of the black bear with the area.
Originally Posted By BlueOhanaTerror >>>If GRR has a fault, it's not with the execution of it's theming as much as lack of ambition. It's only as good as it needs to be, and just barely.<<< Great observation, Gad. I've done a good bit of whitewater rafting in my lifetime as well, and GRR, while a fun couple of minutes, is underwhelming. Why? Because when I go to do the real thing, I expect to see some pretty scenery, and enjoy nature. When I go on a rafting ride at Disney, I expect an adventure I can't experience anywhere else. A surprise. Something - at risk of sounding corny - magical. There SHOULD be bears. There should be "something" that takes you beyond the real and the mundane. It doesn't have to be fairies, or Winnie-the-Pooh to accomplish that. I don't think you have to have been a "real" whitewater rafter to appreciate that the ride could be better, and should be better, simply because it's Disney who's supposedly putting their best foot forward. The whole of DCA, including this attraction, is timid in doing that very thing. It puts a toe just across the line, and accomplishes some measure of entertainment and some measure of polish. But for a company that had, at the time of DCA's opening, nearly 50 years of practice doing this sort of thing, there's no excuse for timidity in showmanship.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> Grizzley has a storyline << It does? More than just "we're rafting down a river in the mountains"? I can't think of a single storytelling element in the entire attraction.
Originally Posted By liveforvacations I agree with trekkerus in that I have never really noticed much of the "theming" in GRR because I am too busy laughing and interacting with the other people in my raft. Therefore, I find it to be a great ride to go on with my family and friends because it is fun!!! I love POTC but it is a ride you get on and watch, like a movie, and then get off and talk about. On GRR you actually have fun on the ride interacting with everyone on your raft-even the people you didn't know when you got on but somehow feel closer to them when you get off. I love Disneyland and DCA but only get there once a year or sometimes two times a year so during my time there I am so busy having fun that I don't notice all these things all of you do-I guess it is a luxury and a negative all in one. From the perspective of someone who has only gone to DCA a few times, my first thought was that they planned for it to be alot better and have a lot more but then didn't want to spend the money. ???? I think all of you are quite critical, and I don't mean that in a bad way, of DCA because you have had the opportunity to visit so often so you notice more things and being from California you have many other theme parks to choose from. I am sure that none of you would visit Playland where I come from except maybe to go on the wooden rollercoaster but it is all we have so in comparison Disneyland and DCA is exceptional! That brings me to ask-do you think Disney needs to or even tries to please the people who come so often and obviously keep coming back regardless of it's failings or tourists like myself who are not so hard to please?
Originally Posted By jmuboy Where are they going to park everyone if the Simba lot behind the PP Hotel and the Timon lot go away?
Originally Posted By Daannzzz ""I agree with trekkerus in that I have never really noticed much of the "theming" in GRR because I am too busy laughing and interacting with the other people in my raft."" I guess Disney could have save a lot of money and done it just like Six Flags or Great America.
Originally Posted By jonvn "I find it to be a great ride to go on with my family and friends because it is fun!!!" It is fun, isn't it. And it's very nicely themed. "I guess Disney could have save a lot of money and done it just like Six Flags or Great America." But they didn't. They made a very nicely themed experience out of it. That's why it's a Disney style ride, and not a six flags type of ride.
Originally Posted By liveforvacations I indicated that I did not notice "much of the theming" while on the ride as I am having so much fun. However, I do appreciate the theming,especially how it makes you anticipate the ride before you go on and how it looks in the park. Kind of like good dining, the decor makes you enjoy the experience and when the food is nicely arranged it makes you anticipate how good it will be but once it gets in your mouth, it would actually taste the same if it was just slopped on the plate and you were sitting in your own kitchen. No one answered my question though about whether they think Disney is trying to appeal to the frequent visitor who is harder to please or the tourist who they hope will come back but know it cannot be often?
Originally Posted By Britain Since nobody's brought it up yet... <a href="http://jimhillmedia.com/blogs/jim_hill/archive/2007/08/10/a-special-what-s-in-a-name-edition-of-why-for.aspx" target="_blank">http://jimhillmedia.com/blogs/ jim_hill/archive/2007/08/10/a-special-what-s-in-a-name-edition-of-why-for.aspx</a> I've always thought "Walt Disney's California" would be better. "Walt Disney's California Adventure" is a step in the right direction. A new Carolwood Pacific Railroad! Excellent idea!
Originally Posted By disneywatcher >> I do not think anyone at Disney has ever thought "Let's slap the Disney name on it; that will be good enough." I do think some of those in charge did not understand what the Disney product is all about. That former is malevolent; the latter is ignorance. << I would say it's *naive* to believe that no one -- again, no one -- in the upper echelons of the DisCo ever had the hubris to believe that the "Disney" name contained enough built-in charm and magic that liberties could be taken with a new Disney park built in Anaheim in 2001. Beyond theme parks alone, I've read that marketing surveys carried out several years ago (by either the DisCo itself or one of its competitors) revealed that respondents would rate an animated feature more positively once it was identified as being from "Disney." So the exact same product, regardless of its innate quality, got judged based merely on whether the name "Disney" was affiliated with it or not. Furthermore, the DisCo -- particularly under the Eisner regime -- had a rather easy time in getting good annual attendance at its various parks in Florida, most notably the rather lackluster Disney-MGM and the rather limited Animal Kingdom, no matter what. So you take these 2 factors in mind, and you still think no one -- repeat, no one -- at the DisCo was affected by the hubris of "Let's slap the Disney name on it, and it will be good enough, or we'll get away with it!"?
Originally Posted By disneywatcher >> From the perspective of someone who has only gone to DCA a few times, my first thought was that they planned for it to be alot better and have a lot more but then didn't want to spend the money. << If you've read through the various postings under this one topic alone (of "One Beeeeelion Dollars!"), and noticed the differing opinions and attitudes -- and assume that those opinions and attitudes likely are mirrored in at least *one* major executive, manager or employee at the DisCo, then I hope you'll understand that the way DCA turned out goes way beyond the far too easy and simple explanation of they "didn't want to spend the money."
Originally Posted By disneywatcher ^ I should add that if DCA were the victim of primarily restricted economics instead of poor creativity, something like Mulholland Madness would have been eventually deleted -- if not axed from the very beginning -- not only because that would have saved money, but because the attraction would have been judged as being too tacky and non-Disneyized to deserve inclusion in final plans for, and actual development of, the park.
