Originally Posted By Dreamerica While watching WDW footage from 1972 on Youtube I noticed that the Tea Cup attraction at MK originally did not have a roof over it. It was shocking for me to see MK's Fantasyland with open air tea cups and I thought it looked way better that way like the Disneyland version. I do realise the roof was probably added later due to the heavy rains during the summer months, but does anyone know when the roof was added and do you think the attraction looked better without it?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Given Orlando's daily rain during the summer, I prefer anything covered at WDW. If they could figure out a way to dome the whole park and air condition it, that would be GREAT!
Originally Posted By FerretAfros According to Wikipedia, the roof was added in 1974, which sounds about right from my knowledge of the park Currently, DL is the only park whose teacups don't have a roof, since the desert climate in California means it only rains a few days a year (and those days tend to have very light crowds) I really like the glass canopy that they have in DLP, but I understand why they might not want to use it in the other parks. Even with open sides, the glass roof could make it much hotter on the ride, which really wouldn't be fun for anybody
Originally Posted By FerretAfros And for what it's worth, here's a really nice picture of the teacups without a roof (from 1971, judging by the trees). It does a really good job of showing just how awkward that location is, against the side of the castle and halfway into TL. They've built some more FL stuff along the barren castle wall (snack stand, restrooms, princess storytime) and the trees have done A LOT of growing, but it's still pretty awkward <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lyb8p8BHUs1r1pz1eo1_500.jpg">http://25.media.tumblr.com/tum..._500.jpg</a>
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt I went to WDW for the first time in 1975 and that's pretty much how the place looked back then, with the exception of the tented Teacups, of course.
Originally Posted By Brad Wow - the place looks barren. And it maybe more due to the low res of the camera but wow does that castle wall look bare and unthemed! Maybe the Carsland and DAK mountain bare back sides are not unprecedented? And yeah, I know I said bare back sides.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt This is why I defended certain aspects of DCA when most people here seemed to think the place was beyond redemption. Disney parks evolve and change over time. You'd think this would be obvious to most Disney geeks, but apparently it isn't.
Originally Posted By 9oldmen >>Disney parks evolve and change over time. You'd think this would be obvious to most Disney geeks, but apparently it isn't. << Yeah, but it's one thing for a park to "evolve", it's another thing for it to practically MUTATE. That's pretty much what DCA had to do.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>This is why I defended certain aspects of DCA when most people here seemed to think the place was beyond redemption. Disney parks evolve and change over time.<< While I really did enjoy a lot of the original stuff at DCA, and I'm very sad that I wasn't able to visit the park until 2005, I think that the Disney Parks (capital P) evolution is the heart of the problem. While they did have some really great and unique stuff, they also seemed to forget many of the lessons that they learned from building and operating the other parks. Mistakes that were made during DL, MK, and even Epcot's early years were repeated again, causing people to wonder if WDI had actually learned anything through the years On the one hand, I enjoyed nearly everything that has been removed from DCA. I appreciated the 'hip and edgy' approach, and was glad that they tried to make it a very distinct park, rather than DL2.0; that said, the execution (mostly led by the small budget) lacked some of the 'oomph' that people had come to expect from Disney
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost ^^^I wouldn't fret to much about not seeing DCA in 2005. I did! I went there with no pre-concieved notions about what was there and if it was "Disney" or not. I just went to see what it had to offer. For me, it had Soarin and.. er.. er.. did I mention it had Soarin? I wandered around that park for hours, had an iced coffee (because I couldn't find iced tea anywhere) attempted to choke that down, couldn't. I saw a number of things that were obviously an effort to take things from each park that already existed in WDW, but, it didn't succeed. I suppose if it had been great there, they wouldn't have had to spend that much money to do it right. I haven't been back since, but from what I've seen and read about, it seems much more interesting now. So to paraphrase an old song from the early years of WDW... Now is the time, now is the best time, now is the best time for DCA!
Originally Posted By Mr X ***And DL didn't dramatically change over it's first decade?*** Actually, no. It didn't. It expanded like crazy, sure, but it was always expanding into the already brilliant ideas that were at least semi-realized right out of the gate thanks to the brilliant vision of Walt Disney. Case in point, they only expanded on lands iirc, they didn't drop some in favor of others. And even when it came to attractions, aside from real placeholders like the toilet of the future and whatnot in the underfunded Tomorrowland that got replaced by *real* stuff, they didn't get rid of many attractions either, simply expanded and added even more to an already brilliantly conceived overall package. DCA? Come on...they threw stuff right out the window, including large swaths of the originally conceived park, and quite rightly since so much of it was garbage. Would anyone consider DCA to have been brilliant right out of the gate, merely in need of more funds for expansion and additions? That's the question you need to ask yourself honestly Hans.
Originally Posted By oc_dean >>And the dance goes on. *sigh* << ditto! I thought after ALL the discussions going on here (and I've been reading it all right here on LP since 2000) .. that it is a widely known fact - DCA 1.0 was "built on the cheap" in more ways than one - And in no way shape or form can EVER be compared to the development of other Disney parks before it. The consensus is in ... has been in .... and is now history!
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "I think that the Disney Parks (capital P) evolution is the heart of the problem. While they did have some really great and unique stuff, they also seemed to forget many of the lessons that they learned from building and operating the other parks" No need to rehash all of that Ferret. Yes, they missed the mark with DCA. That can't be denied. All I'm saying is that DCA was no different from any other Disney park in the broad sense that evolution and change were inevitable. Just look at the picture of the Teacups you posted and compare it to the same spot today.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt ***And DL didn't dramatically change over it's first decade?*** "Actually, no. It didn't. It expanded like crazy, sure, but it was always expanding into the already brilliant ideas that were at least semi-realized right out of the gate thanks to the brilliant vision of Walt Disney." You contradicted yourself. Either it changed or didn't.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I really enjoyed DCA when I first visited in in 2003. I much preferred it to the pre-renovation version I saw in 2009 (my last visit). I enjoyed the fact that it WAS a very different type of Disney Park... just as I enjoy the AK at WDW. Being a big fan of passenger trains, I really liked the mock-up of the California Zephry near the entrance. I enjoyed the various shops near the entrance, and liked that they actually had DCA branded merchandise... unlike my visit in 2009. The Hollywood Pictures Backlot was really lacking... this was after Superstar Limo had closed and before the Tower of Terror had opened. There really wasn't much there, but I thought the Animation Building was very well done. The Muppet Movie was... the Muppet Movie. Can't really figure out why they put an attraction into DCA that had already grown very stale at WDW, but whatever. I liked the themeing of Condor Flats and of course was totally impressed by Soarin'. After riding it so many times at DCA and now at Epcot it can be easy to forget just how FANTASTIC it seemed the first time. The Grizzly Peak area was beautiful to look at and the Grizzly River Run was a great raft ride... so much better than Kali at the AK that I thought WDW had really been screwed. I really enjoyed the Golden Vine Winery. This was back when they had people there who actually knew wine and had wine tastings. My experience there turned me into the wino I am today. ;-) I didn't want to spend the $$ for the Vineyard Room, but dined at the Trattoria which in 2003 was actually very good (it was a disappointment in 2009). I thought Seasons of the Vine was a great small attraction and provided an early-Epcot feeling. I returned to the Winery in the evening and loved sitting on the Terrace enjoying a couple of glasses of wine while watching the lights come on at Paradise Pier. Whatever negative you can say about the Pier 1.0, it was absolutely gorgeous at night and the view from the Winery was a visual treat. The Wharf area seemed less than it could have been, but I actually enjoyed the factory tours. Again, small attractions with an early-Epcot feel. The Pacific Wharf Cafe is still one of my very favorite Disney counter service places to eat. Unlike most I guess, I thought Golden Dreams in the woefully underutilized San Francisco area was a great attraction. Paradise Pier 1.0 is always ripped as the worst thing about DCA, but I enjoyed it. California Screamin' was a great coaster and I really enjoyed the Sunwheel of Death. I also tried the Maliboomer, Mulholland Madness and the Orange Stinger. No big deal, but actually just as enjoyable as either the Teacups or Dumbo except for lacking the iconic status. The Bug's Land/Flick's Fun Fair area was visually appealing and probably about as good as any other Disney Kiddieland. I've always thought "Tough to be a Bug" was Disney's most enjoyable 3-D movie, and enjoyed visiting it at DCA. Although I look forward to visiting the new DCA, I really enjoyed the different outlook and experience of DCA 1.0. While I look forward to seeing Buena Vista Street and Carsland, I'm afraid the new DCA will seem too much like Disneyland 2 for my taste. In 2003 I spent 4 nights and 3 full days at the DL resort. Two of the three days I spent at DCA. While Disneyland was a much improved version of WDW's MK, I still had a feeling of "been there, done that" when I visited. DCA was new and different.
Originally Posted By mrkthompsn Open air Tea Cups is one of the first visual memories I have of WDW when I was a wee little kid
