Originally Posted By CuriousConstance "Do the Tow Mater sheets come in California King sizes? I may rethink not having that accessory, because Cars Land is just that good! " I'll hand sew you a set.
Originally Posted By oc_dean As long as this topic is all over the place, I'm sure no one is going to mind me mentioning a few words about ToT .. to those who agree WDW's is superior to DCA's: I guess the "clunkiness" of WDW's is something you will only notice of you've gone on it multiple times. I went on it once - last time I was in WDW. Which was 1995. And I thought the whole attraction was a breath of fresh air. Coming out of the elevator, traveling across the 5th Dimension ... quintessential "Disney" ... to do things UNEXPECTED. (Since when is a Disney attraction suppose to be about 'the Expected'?) Wasn't clunky to me at all. And as for it being too warm - perhaps the a/c isn't working well? That trip was August '95 .. peek of the summer - I don't remember that portion being hot, at all. And some may say - it's an improvement at DCA? I don't think so. So, a shortened ride experience is "better"? Bull! DCA's really disappointed me. I'll never bother with DCA's again. Total ride time 1:10. With 20-30 seconds devoted to the one and only "show room" scene. Way too short attraction experience. But if I ever find myself in Florida again ... and in WDW ..... I'll happily take another spin on it.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 You do notice the clunkiness at WDW the more you go on it. The first time I didn't mind it either. After that I did.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "I think Cars Land bugs people because it turned out so darn good." You'd think wrong, but okey dokes. I don't mind it, it's nice, but again, just don't know how it's going to do over the long haul.
Originally Posted By oc_dean Didn't turn out perfect as Luigi's is a waste of time! The kiddy rides in FFF get around better than that - And that's not saying much!
Originally Posted By crazycroc Breaking News: The Oz land at Disneyland will now be focused on the "Dr. Oz" television program. Thus far, three attractions, an upscale restaurant and a gift shop have been announce. An e-ticket: A Colon too Swollen: Dr. Oz to the rescue. -Join Dr. Oz as he milks a prostate, and delivers antibiotics to a diseased colon! Look out for the drop through the small intestines! A film attraction: "Dr. Oz the TV Show!: Now in 4-d. Pretty self explanatory. Every day, a new syndicated episode of the Dr. Oz program is brought to you in 4-d! And finally, eh never mind...
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Join Dr. Oz as he milks a prostate, and delivers antibiotics to a diseased colon!<< I hate it when they do inferior copies of classic attractions. <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_Wars">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_Wars</a>
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>Even if you hate the Cars movie, you can't really deny that the little Radiator Springs town is cool, and would be awesome to actually be able to visit a town like that in real life. And thanks to Carsland, now you can!<< I agree that Radiator Springs is really neat, and I would actually like to visit a town *like it* in real life. However, they took the obvious route and simply created the town itself. To me, there was no sense of discovery or excitement in Carsland, since I knew the city from the film. Yes, they did a great job detailing everything (even if it is a little too tongue-in-cheek for me personally), but it just doesn't feel new. I would have rather had them build a town *like* those that Radiator Springs was based on. On the one hand, it would help stay with the park's California theme (although we don't know the exact location of RS, it's repeated throughout the fim that it's *not* in California). On the other hand, it would give them a lot of flexibility to add new attractions and experiences, and overall depth to the land. Yes, it's fun to see Flo's, but is it really any more fun than any other similarly-designed diner simply because it's the one from the film? Probably not. And since I know Flo from the film, there's a whole lot less to discover about the place than if they had created an entirely new backstory. Additionally, as leemac pointed out, Carsland (still a dumb name) is huge geographically. The way that it was laid out really limits any potential future attractions to being relatively small (likely cycle loading flat rides) in awkward locations, if anything. They could probably squeeze in some more shops and restaurants, but I think that area is already maxed out in that category Looking at Google Earth, CL is roughly the same size as DL's Adventureland (including Indy and JC) and the 'French Quarter' part of NOS (including POTC). That area has 3 headliner attractions, several smaller experiences, and countless charming shops and restaurants. Yet Carsland only has one headliner, a couple smaller ones, and a handful of charming shops and restaurants. Given how limited DLR has always been for future expansion, I've been routinely shocked at the poor space management of DCA. I know they have to deal with ADA (and others) requirements that require larger spaces, but there's always just been a lot of unused dead space between things. I'm glad that DCA is finally doing well and hitting the attendance marks. I'm glad that they have a couple really well themed and detailed areas that people are genuinely excited to visit. I just wish that the decisions behind what got added were a little more thoughtful, and considered what the park will be like 10, 20, even 50 years from now. So many of the changes just seem shortsighted for such a big investment
Originally Posted By CuriousConstance "Yes, it's fun to see Flo's, but is it really any more fun than any other similarly-designed diner simply because it's the one from the film? Probably not." Maybe not for adults, but I think that's a plus for kids.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt To me, there was no sense of discovery or excitement in Carsland, since I knew the city from the film" How much of your Ho-hum reaction to Cars Land do you think had to do with the almost 24/7 construction updates and over sharing of details from Disney over the years before it opened? For people like us the only real "surprise" when Cars Land opened were the show scenes in RSR.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip +1 I had never thought of that, but it is an excellent point. How much of my "WDW burnout" comes from having visited over 25 times in the past 20 years, and how much of it is from hearing about it and discussing every aspect of it on a daily basis here for the past nine years? It has made me a better consumer and better-able to plan my visits, but at the same time has taken away the sense of discovery and wonder that I had in the early years.
Originally Posted By CuriousConstance Which is why the average visitor, who may come once every few years, and not think about it much inbetween, is going to be MUCH less critical or even notice half of the complaints we beat to a pulp on this board.
Originally Posted By CuriousConstance The average visitor may have seen Cars once a few years ago, may not remember much from the movie at all, may have never seen it. Carland to them won't be ho-hum or pulled right from their memory bank from the movie.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>How much of your Ho-hum reaction to Cars Land do you think had to do with the almost 24/7 construction updates and over sharing of details from Disney over the years before it opened?<< I think that had a relatively minor impact on my feelings about it. I've watched Disney reveal information for other projects in the past and watched the construction progress in person, but the only two that I felt underwhelmed by were Carsland (pretty much right away) and WOC (which suffered greatly after the initial excitement wore off). Even stuff that others felt underwhelming (like the Mermaid ride), I was able to enjoy for their own merits. Other than the brief RSR scene in the main part of Radiator Springs, I had a pretty tepid reaction to nearly everything in Carsland. I appreciated the work that went into hyperdetailing every element to match the film, but I would have rather seen that effort directed to detailing every element to match a unique concept. >>The average visitor may have seen Cars once a few years ago, may not remember much from the movie at all, may have never seen it.<< Then why base an entire land on it? If we're assuming that the average visitor has a relatively limited knowledge of the film, then there's not a very compelling reason to use it as a tie-in
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt As cynical as this may sound, most visitors don't really care either way as long as it's done well and fun to experience. It's also less risky for management to drop millions of dollars on a huge expansion like the one DCA had when it's based on lucrative properties like Toy Story, TLM, and Cars.
Originally Posted By hbquikcomjamesl There's a view at Flo's? I just go there for the food. DCA needed a comfort food sit-down joint somewhat analogous to The Plaza Inn, or The French Market, some middle ground between the lousy hamburgers at Taste Pilots, the Cinderella's Royal Table-style all-inclusive prix-fixe of Ariel's Grotto, and the faux-haute-cuisine of Wine Country Trattoria (and now Carthay Circle, and the defunct Golden Vine). The defunct Soap Opera Bistro came close (and put a new spin on character dining, and was as much fun for anybody who'd ever been involved in TV or film production as it was for the soap opera fans), but no cigar. Now, DCA has something truly in that middle ground. I never saw any of the "Cars" movies (at the time, they seemed far too close to a certain Chevron ad campaign), but I enjoy the Cars Land attractions. And actually, I found Luigi's to be remarkably easy to get the hang of, and could develop quite a bit of momentum. And the sight-gags throughout Cars Land are at least as good as the ones throughout Toontown.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "There's a view at Flo's?" Yup, the best view in the entire resort. Go have a seat on the side patio in back of the restaurant along the road that leads to Pacific Wharf and soak it all in.
Originally Posted By CuriousConstance "Then why base an entire land on it? If we're assuming that the average visitor has a relatively limited knowledge of the film, then there's not a very compelling reason to use it as a tie-in" Because it's a win-win for them either way, it'll appeal to kids and adults who like the movie, and it's also going to appeal all on it's own to those who may not be as familiar with the movie.
