Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt Sorry Churro, I keep forgeting that whenever I enter the DCA discussion boards that I'm leaving today and entering the world of yesterday, tomorrow and fantasy.
Originally Posted By disneywatcher >> Hans, please don't try to confuse Disneywatcher with logic. << I'm sure Michael Eisner, Barry Braverman and Paul Pressler thought and said words similar to that -- both before and after 2001 -- to the various critics of DCA. Those guys truly were creative geniuses. And when you're entering the world of DCA, you're entering a land of wonder and amazement (wonder and amazement at how something so tacky ever was approved in the first place): <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHWgr7oIv5I" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =yHWgr7oIv5I</a>
Originally Posted By ElKay "No matter how you spin it Dumbo is not a creatively ingenuous attraction by any stretch." Trashing Dumbo because all it is is just a carnival spinner is a really old double standard between DL and DCA. IF the Mailboomer was properly themed and especially if it was linked to a Disney film property or something truely California. Likewise with MM. You'd have a point. However, most of DCA comes from a dumbed down school of design that seemingly thinks that Disney theme parks are rubes that'll throw down hard earn cash on ANYTHING that's preceed with the name DISNEY on it. DCA comes from the same regime that brought us Dinorama at DISNEY's Animal Kingdom or pretty much all of Walt DISNEY Studios. Disney did a heck of a job in retheming Dumbo back in the New Fantasyland project of the 1980s. They added better kinetic elements to the basic spinner that while it doesn't make much sense overall, it visually makes it interesting to look at. Besides Dumbo's audience is for children, while most of the offering at the PP are geared to teens and adults. I'd really like to see the plans that John Lassiter has for PP and I'll bet most of the changes will have more in common with Dumbo than most of whats offered to Guests at DCA today.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros Actually, they redesigned Dumbo for the opening of Disneyland Paris in the early 90's. When one of the arms from the original in DL broke, they sent the completed DLP ride to be installed, and made a copy for the intended location. The design makes sense to me, since it looks like the inside of a giant music box. With the key on top and the giant gears, I feel like it really completes the circus theming between it and Casey Jr., without having to resort to the traditional cheap-looking traditional circus images.
Originally Posted By ElKay I didn't know that about new Dumbo, thanks for the info, FerretAfros! Dumbo is still a great asset to New Fantasyland. I'll wager that had that arm fallen off Dumbo in 1999 or 2000, Pressler would have urged that they get wire and fix the attraction to look like it was part of a cheap travelling carnival. If DCA's busness model was sound, then there would have been hoards of guests enjoying DCA, but that just didn't come to pass and Disney will have to spend in the neighborhood of what it originally cost to build the whole park just to fix that single blighted area of DCA.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt “Trashing Dumbo because all it is just a carnival spinner is a really old double standard between DL and DCA.†No one is trashing Dumbo. If you were paying close attention to what is being said here you would understand this. My response was in direct response to someone who made exaggerated claims about a lack of creative ingenuity with MM. The point is, for the one-millionth time, Walt Disney himself recognized the entertainment value of simple amusement rides. He seemed to be okay with Dumbo as it existed in his lifetime, so why is MM such an issue with folks around here? Again, for the record, I am no fan of MM; I just get tired of all the nonsensical double standard bashing.
Originally Posted By ChurroMonster Hans you just don't get it. Simply-themed spinner attractions are okay as long they were around when Walt lived. New ones are simply an abomination that are a sign of the end of the world. Please stop insulting the sensibilities of the faithful.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >> Hans, please don't try to confuse Disneywatcher with logic. << <I'm sure Michael Eisner, Barry Braverman and Paul Pressler thought and said words similar to that > And there we have it again; Disneywatcher's version of "so's your mother" - only less creative.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss <<My response was in direct response to someone who made exaggerated claims about a lack of creative ingenuity with MM. The point is, for the one-millionth time, Walt Disney himself recognized the entertainment value of simple amusement rides. He seemed to be okay with Dumbo as it existed in his lifetime, so why is MM such an issue with folks around here?>> I suppose the answer is because it's no longer 1955, and Disney has shown they can do great things beyond what other amusement parks already do. Basically, "everyone" wants only E-ticket theming, even for A through D-ticket attractions. Personally, I like MM. Is it up to "The Disney Standard?" No, but it's fun to ride.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "I suppose the answer is because it's no longer 1955, and Disney has shown they can do great things beyond what other amusement parks already do." Right, and this logic has little merit. Up to the time of his death the people responsible for creating Walt Disney's first park were developing numerous new creative resources. One only has to look at DL's slate of new attractions following the park's 10th anniversary to see what the company was capable of doing during this period. Yet, Dumbo, the Motor Boat Cruise, and other basic amusement rides at the park remained in their simplistic 1950's state right up to Disney’s passing and well beyond. Almost 30 years to be exact.
Originally Posted By disneywatcher >> Disneywatcher's version of "so's your mother" - only less creative. << In this case, I don't care whether it's creative or not. I only care about whether the sentiments of Braverman/Eisner/Pressler and people with the reactions of "don't confuse [insert name of critic of DCA here] with logic" are more alike than different. They probably are.
Originally Posted By disneywatcher >> He seemed to be okay with Dumbo as it existed in his lifetime, so why is MM such an issue with folks around here? << Dumbo was (and, even more so today, is) at least customized to the specifications of the DisCo, using a figure associated with "Disney" and Disney animation. Mulholland Madness, in comparison, is generic enough (not to mention being big, clunky and overtly cheesy) to be associated with AnyAmusementPark USA, including some place owned and managed by Six Flags or Cedar Fair.
Originally Posted By ElKay "Yet, Dumbo, the Motor Boat Cruise, and other basic amusement rides at the park remained in their simplistic 1950's state right up to Disney’s passing and well beyond. Almost 30 years to be exact." Wasn't New Fantasyland built in the mid-80's, so the planning had to of started about 15 years after Walt's passing? Statements like this still seem to justify the p#ss-poor rides and theming found in DCA. Almost 35 years after Walt's passing. Give your logic, if Disney was soooo remiss as NOT to pluss Dumbo or the motorboat cruise, then Eisner/Pressler/Braverman should be raked over hot coals for making even worse rides when WDI had either revamped Dumbo and ripped out the motorboats years earlier. Again, I maintain that Dumbo and much of Fantasyland are intended to tots and children, Dumbo works just fine pre-New Fantasyland or not. On the other hand, DCA was from its outset geared for a "hip and edgy" demographic, to the exclusion to the DL kiddy demographic, so exactly why are the PP rides so dreary and tacky? It seems it's pretty much because the top managers didn't frequent Disney parks and felt their target demographic didn't much care to as well.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >> Disneywatcher's version of "so's your mother" - only less creative. << <In this case, I don't care whether it's creative or not.> Obviously. <I only care about whether the sentiments of Braverman/Eisner/Pressler and people with the reactions of "don't confuse [insert name of critic of DCA here] with logic" are more alike than different. They probably are.> That's simplistic and simply doesn't hold any water. But pigeonholing people so you can allow yourself to feel superior to them seems to comfort you somehow.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "Statements like this still seem to justify the p#ss-poor rides and theming found in DCA." The justification is that Walt Disney was fine with attraction like this one: <a href="http://www.yesterland.com/astrojets.html" target="_blank">http://www.yesterland.com/astr ojets.html</a> Did you know it existed in Disneyland for over ten years? That almost twice as long as MM has been in DCA.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 It was built in 1956 -- exactly how does Walt having that ride in the park in 1956 justify the Dis Co building rides like MM today?? Or justify dedicating an entire land (two actually, if we count DinoRama) to rides like this??
Originally Posted By mstaft I'm no DCA hater or apologist, but I do not understand your line of reasoning on this, Hans. Please help me understand.
Originally Posted By ArchtMig >>>It was built in 1956 -- exactly how does Walt having that ride in the park in 1956 justify the Dis Co building rides like MM today?? Or justify dedicating an entire land (two actually, if we count DinoRama) to rides like this??<<< I agree with this statement wholeheartedly. It is THE fundamental reason why the poorer aspects of DCA are inexcusable for a company like Disney. Walt had no money left in 1955, so he did whatever he could to put *something*... *anything*... in Tomorrowland. By the way, until Walt decided at the last minute to throw less costly rides and displays in Tomorrowland, there were serious plans to not open the land with the rest of the park on July 17, 1955. So Walt did what he did because he had very little money to do anything better. 45 years later, however, Eisner/Pressler/Braverman did what they did because they chose NOT to spend any money to do anything better. That's the difference. Sure, it was their decision to make, for whatever reasons they had. But the public is able to make choices also, and the Company has paid the price for their leaders' foolish miscalculations. >>>I'm no DCA hater or apologist, but I do not understand your line of reasoning on this, Hans. Please help me understand.<<< Hans just likes the debate. He's not all that appreciative of the less adequate aspects of DCA... he just likes the sport of the argument. Sorry Hans. Couldn't resist.
