Originally Posted By PetesDraggin "The question of the day is what will happen to the schlocky Orange Stinger, the chintzy Jumpin Jellyfish, the corny Golden Zephyr (noticing the cheap plastic seatbelts used in that ride's seats was one of those pffftt! moments back in 2001), and, last but not least, and in regards to existing structures, the ugly dinosaur?" According to the map (linked to in post #4), it appears that Junpin' Jellyfish is changing but the Golden Zephyr is not. Can't tell about the Orange Stinger, but it looks like that may be gone as well. The dinosaur looks to be staying, though. Looking at the same map, I don't see any changes to the Mission Tortilla Factory. It looks like something will be changing right next to it, but to me it doesn't seem to be changing. One thing that looks to be changing in the Wharf area is the old Chinese restaurant.
Originally Posted By jmuboy My guess is that the old Chinese Restaurant and Ariel's Grotto are colored because they will be changed out to different dining concepts.
Originally Posted By oc_dean Isn't it true the Zephyr can't handle winds beyond 7mph? I don't see the point in keeping it. Especially if it's in direct view of the World of Color show from the beer garden. Heck .. the more they demolish .. the happier I'll be!
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I've read (unsubstantiated) that they were going to move the GZ. I think (again, unsure) that the 7 mph was extra caution near park opening and that the winds have to get higher than that before they close it these days (it's always been open on my visits, including a moderately windy day). I don't like the Stinger, Maliboomer, MM, or Jellyfish (though the last seems okay for small fry and fairly unobtrusive), but visually I like the Zephyr. It's nostalgic, fits the Victorian theme in a "Jules Verne" way (and seaside piers did have such rides at least back to the 20's), and of course the footprint is minimal. It always would have worked better on the other end of the pier anyway.
Originally Posted By jonvn I remember reading that they worked on the GZ to make it less wind sensitive.
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf Hey, could the Golden Zephyer fit into the Maliboomer space? If so, maybe they could do some placemaking around the Screamin' support structure to tie in the Jules Verne theme. That way 'Boomer is gone, GS fills the gap, and they can bulldoze the entire area where GS came from in preparation for the Beer Garden, Little Mermaid and the terraced World of Color viewing area.
Originally Posted By Britain Or better yet, find a way to put the Zepher where King Triton's carousel is, and put the carousel next to the new Mermaid ride.
Originally Posted By disneywatcher >> According to the map (linked to in post #4), it appears that Junpin' Jellyfish is changing but the Golden Zephyr is not. Can't tell about the Orange Stinger, but it looks like that may be gone as well. The dinosaur looks to be staying, though. << If you're referring to the diagram in the Orange County Register, then I'm not sure how you're determining all those specifics. The map shows most of Paradise Pier as a vague gray blob. I hope you're jumping to the wrong conclusion about the ugly, clunky dinosaur, because the more that's retained of the existing park, especially around the Pier area, the less meaningful or effective the revamping of DCA will be.
Originally Posted By ChurroMonster So disneywatcher, been to DCA yet? Care to judge these matters in real life?
Originally Posted By WorldDisney DW, is it true? You NEVER been to DCA?? Now, that's funny if true lol. (I been though and take my advice, don't bother ;D)
Originally Posted By jonvn There are a few things worth seeing. I would not go out of my way or make a special trip, though.
Originally Posted By jonvn No, but I get to point and laugh. When we went and visited the first time, the place was nice. It was ok. Not worth a drive from SF to LA to just visit. But if you were already there, it was worth taking a look at. It was perfectly fine as a starter park. For the first three or four years. Then it just sat, and they not only did not add things I wanted to see, they took away things I liked, and added stuff that I really actively disliked. The last couple of visits, we did not go in. How many times can you see Soarin? How many times can you see the same loop in the Animation lobby? How many times can you see a film of any sort, 3D or not? And since I'm not going to go on any thrill rides (Golden Zephyr made me motion sick), and I think theme park shows are ghastly bad, and I don't like having to sit through kiddie crap, that was about it for the place. It's still worth a look if you haven't been to it. After they add all this stuff they are adding, I'll likely go on the car rides, and depending on my annoyance factor with the cartoon aspect of it, may or may not go on it again. So, to me this is kind of all a wash. I don't care about the entrance mall that much. It looks pretty, but it's going to be a shopping mall, like Main Street, which I tend to zip through unless I'm in the mood to buy something expensive and useless. But for that it will be nice. The rest, cartoons. As someone who really dislikes Toontown, this does not bode well for me staying in DCA for very long after the changes are done. I think that if they don't stop with this STUPID trend of cartoons on everything, most fathers are likely going to grit their teeth and just grimly get through it once or twice, and then veto the idea of going back. I personally do not want to sit through cartoon after cartoon after cartoon after cartoon. We don't do it here at home. There are other things for kids to watch besides cartoons, such as Animal Planet shows, and things on the Science and Discovery channels. The favorite "kid" show in this house happens to be Mythbusters. Followed closely by "How it's Made." Animal Planet is actually preferred over cartoons. I don't foster this, it's just the choices that are made. What they are doing so far is simply crap. Expensive, ornate, crap.
Originally Posted By dshyates To be as vocally against the park it would add more credibility if you had actually been there. That said, aside from the snippy nature of your tone, I agree with you view that DCA suffered not only from budget, but the fact the only taste the designers have is in their mouths. But keep on keepin' on, DW. Your opinion is valid based on your somewhat limited knowledge of the place. If Disney made a park that truely doesn't inspire you to visit, then say so. Uninspiring product with botched marketing make for some rough numbers for the company.
Originally Posted By disneywatcher >> DW, is it true? You NEVER been to DCA?? Now, that's funny if true lol. << Considering how many years I've been posting here -- and the many years that *certain* other LPers have been writing to and reading this board too -- the question I had been asked was so silly I didn't think it deserved a serious reply. It's sort of like asking someone who's sitting in the middle of a house that's been wrecked by a hurricane, earthquake or brush fire, "have you ever experienced a natural disaster before?"
Originally Posted By disneywatcher >> If Disney made a park that truely doesn't inspire you to visit, then say so. << I know that if I didn't live in Southern California -- and, just as importantly, had read all the endless articles and commentary on DCA's mediocrity since 2001 (if not before) -- I certainly wouldn't have bothered stepping foot inside it. As an aside, I had relatives visiting L.A. last week and they spent a day at Disneyland. They asked me whether they missed out by not dropping by the park next to Disneyland. I told them no. In fact, I would have been embarrassed if I had given them any other impression before or after their drive to Anaheim.
Originally Posted By WorldDisney <<Considering how many years I've been posting here -- and the many years that *certain* other LPers have been writing to and reading this board too -- the question I had been asked was so silly I didn't think it deserved a serious reply.>> Ah, so that's a yes right . Well, even if you didn't go before, I honestly don't think it matters. I mean if it looks bad, it looks bad, people shouldn't have to justify everything by sampling and doing EVERYTHING in life to have an opinion on it, right? Do I REALLY have to watch 'SAW IV' to say it just looks like a mindless horror movie that is thin on plot and waaaay thick on gore and violence for me to say I think its a bad movie---like the other 3, all which I never seen eitehr unless I have to see all of them to come out with the same conclusion? God, I hope not lol. Anyway, sure an opinion is more credible and educated when you experienced something you are criticizing...but it doesn't make it less valid .
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< . I mean if it looks bad, it looks bad, people shouldn't have to justify everything by sampling and doing EVERYTHING in life to have an opinion on it, right? Do I REALLY have to watch 'SAW IV' to say it just looks like a mindless horror movie that is thin on plot and waaaay thick on gore and violence for me to say I think its a bad movie---like the other 3, all which I never seen eitehr unless I have to see all of them to come out with the same conclusion? God, I hope not lol. >>> No, not to draw that conclusion. But hopefully you would before you took on what's effectively a second career in participating in a SAW movie franchise fan board, spending inordinate numbers of hours telling the movies' fans how much the movies actually suck. That would be very odd to do if you had never actually seen the movies.
