Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt Yes, and I seem to recall at the time many people were saying just that.
Originally Posted By DlandDug My two cents... I don't think there will be any dimensional construction on the section that parallels the Screamin' loading station. (Actually, there's a parade show building between them.) Here's an image of the model showing the area in question: <a href="http://www.mouseinfo.com/gallery/files/4/1/2/7/d230903053_original.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.mouseinfo.com/galle...inal.jpg</a> It's a pretty highly detailed model...
Originally Posted By avatarmickey115 So your saying there might be a building there instead of a blank wall of a mountain range? I dont see the difference...so we're either getting a wall or a wall.
Originally Posted By avatarmickey115 Wow. I did not know there was a building there already. I was picturing it in my mind a whole different way. I'm just gonna shut up now.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros I still think my biggest issue with it is the abrupt ending on the side, just to the right of the rock arch. That will be (and already is) visible from within the Wharf area, and it looks like that will be one of the entrances to the land. It's going to be really hard to pull me and make me believe that it's a real setting when the edges of it are so obvious on the approach. Yes, there are other attractions and lands where you can find details that give it away (the Plaza Pavilion's gingerbread trim sticking over the roof of the Tiki Room comes to mind), but seldom are they so big and so obvious, in a place that is designed to set the stage for what is to follow.
Originally Posted By barboy2 ///but great attractions always have great details./// "always"?? I don't think so! I would say "usually" is a better fit.
Originally Posted By barboy2 ///I guess Disney should stop building attractions and just focus on details instead./// Your sarcastic comment, unintentionally, bears some truth. Disney should build more details like those in Tokyo, even at the expense of attractions. Disney Sea's architecture, ride facades, pathways and shop & restaurant fronts are worth the price of admission alone.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA "always"?? I don't think so! I would say "usually" is a better fit.> See how some peoples demands on Disney become less and less over the years? It's an interesting phenomenon. In the future, we'll be hearing 'well...at least they're still open.'
Originally Posted By barboy2 I quickly just thought about two attractions that have been widely deemed "great" but really don't have stellar details: Space Mountain's(minus the Paris version) and the Soarins'. I'm sure there are more out there, too.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "Your sarcastic comment, unintentionally, bears some truth... Disney Sea's architecture, ride facades, pathways and shop & restaurant fronts are worth the price of admission alone." I agree. The same could be said for DLP... at least when it first opened and everything was functioning and looking spiffy. "I'm sure there are more out there, too." There are lots of them, and what qualifies as "details" seems to change over time. The Matterhorn, for example, was originally thought to be quite clever in that it covered up a rather convention mad mouse type ride. Fast forward to Big Thunder, Grizzly River Rapids, and Everest and the Matterhorn looks rather bland in comparison.
Originally Posted By emohyuessee I understood the Matterhorn to be quite groundbreaking for it's time. Wasn't it the world's first steel tube coaster? It's still one of my favorites and almost always has a long line. never thought of it as a covered up wild mouse ride... Unless you mean Mickey Mouse.
Originally Posted By Yookeroo "I was just three this week and took a view from everywhere on the pier just for this purpose. You can see this unfinished wall from all vantage points from the food court," Yes, This is an issue. "the WOC viewing area, Mermaid, Mulholland Madness, Fun Wheel (ground level), Midway Mania, Screaming, basically anywhere in this 1/4 of the park." There's one small section of the wall that needs some palm trees planted in front of it or something. The rest of the the wall is mostly blocked by the building, trees and various other obstructions. Yeah, if you're looking for it, you can see bits of the wall through the obstructions. But it won't be an issue other for the mast obsessive Disney nuts.
Originally Posted By Yookeroo "I still think my biggest issue with it is the abrupt ending on the side, just to the right of the rock arch. That will be (and already is) visible from within the Wharf area, and it looks like that will be one of the entrances to the land. It's going to be really hard to pull me and make me believe that it's a real setting when the edges of it are so obvious on the approach." Yeah.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>I still think my biggest issue with it is the abrupt ending on the side...<< I, too, am concerned about this. I am really curious to see what they will do with this area visually.
