Originally Posted By TP2000 Hans, the swings get dismantled quite regularly. This used to happen when it was the Orange Stinger. But back then, the big orange peel structure still surrounded the ride and so it didn't look as weird because the "orange" was still there. But without that giant covering, when they do these routine rehabs on the thing there's nothing left to hide the fact the ride has been disassembled. Here's a pic of one of these full rehabs from the mid 2000's. The ride is temporarily being removed, but the orange peel hides the damage. <a href="http://www.mpimages.net/dlr/compressed/DCA/Paradise_Pier/ParadisePier-030204-DM.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.mpimages.net/dlr/co...4-DM.jpg</a>
Originally Posted By TP2000 Oops, Ferret already answered this for us. Enjoy the duplicate info and free photo Hans!
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt Geez, I'd forgotten how much improved that whole area of PP is now. Nothing illustrates it better than your photo TP.
Originally Posted By TP2000 Yeah, DCA 1.0 looked very cheap and tacky. It's amazing what some extra cash can do, and how their attempt at only trying for a "good enough" level experience to save a few bucks cost them untold profits for years until they actually got the place up to Disney standards. You just hope they learned their lesson, and there's not another Paul Pressler waiting in the wings somewhere to make all the same mistakes again in a few years.
Originally Posted By danyoung >Makes you wonder how often the similar swings attractions at traveling carnivals are completely disassembled and rehabbed.< Umm, they'd be disassembled every time they move to a new city . . .
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Yeah, DCA 1.0 looked very cheap and tacky. > Some portions did, and this was one of them. To tell the truth, I'm still not crazy about a Pier as a theme to begin with, but it certainly looks better than it did.
Originally Posted By tonyanton The sheer size (land wise) of the Pier is obvious when you look at how much has been updated (The Fun Wheel itself, the restaurant area, Mermaid, the Swings, Midway Mania, along with some upgraded/in-theme extras like the colors of the railings, Cove Bar, etc) and yet how much STILL needs work to bring it up to what has been done so far. Ariel's Grotto, the Fun Wheel and Screamin' queues, the shops, the carousel are all still essentially the same. Also, does anyone know what happened to the plan for the Ariel meet-and-greet and 'sandcastle' water play area that was going to go in next to the attraction? Is it coming later or was it cut for good?
Originally Posted By TP2000 There was more of DCA 1.0 that looked cheap and tacky than looked good. That's why the majority of DCA 1.0 is now gone, or dramatically improved and re-themed to look very different. The Pacific Wharf, Condor Flats/Grizzly area and some of Hollywood Blvd. looked good enough, or at least good enough to only need dressing up a bit, to make the cut for DCA 2.0. The rest was junk and cheap looking, and has been redone or replaced entirely. There are still some pockets of DCA that look cheap and weren't touched for 2.0 and that still need help; the Hyperion Theater exterior, and a few corners of Paradise Pier underneath some sections of Screamin' track.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <There was more of DCA 1.0 that looked cheap and tacky than looked good. > I'd say about a third looked good, about a third looked cheap, and about a third looked so-so.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 MGM did, and that was part of the problem. It did better than expected, and they didn't understand that that wasn't because it was so great, but because they already had a captive audience buying 5-7 day hoppers as the norm. A situation that was not the case in Ansheim.
Originally Posted By TP2000 Great point there. Anaheim is very different from Orlando. And even though Cars Land and DCA 2.0 have changed Anaheim since 2012, the two places are still very different. I would even say that Cars Land made Anaheim act and feel even more different than it already was. Sadly, I don't think enough Disney execs get that. They are too busy following the bouncing ball on the PowerPoint show as their underlings keep telling them they two places are the same and can do the same things. They can't.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt Although Anaheim and Orlando are different, I would argue that Disney/MGM set the precedent for what a Disney second gate looks like from that point on.... with the exception of DisneySea that is. And as grand as it was TDS has a very short list of attractions.
Originally Posted By gurgitoy2 Although DLP did come right after MGM, so they didn't quite stick to the cheaper model. I think DLP really did scare them from creating something so lavish (on their dime) for a long time. Even AK, although a nice park, personally I think it only looked good because of all the vegetation. When it opened, it was pretty light on attractions, but looked like a nice, lush park, so it got a pass.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "Although DLP did come right after MGM, so they didn't quite stick to the cheaper model." There's definitely a pattern. There are likely a myriad of factors that dictate how much money is spent on any given project, but it appears that the unspoken rule is that the second gate is built on a significantly lesser scale than the first. The only real exception to this so far has been EPCOT and TDS.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Yep. MGM became the BASIC (every park is different) template for secondary parks that Disney paid for. EPCOT of course came before it, so the only real semi-deviation was DAK.
