Originally Posted By EighthDwarf At first I thought the parade building would mostly cover-up the wall in question, but looking at the pictures again, there is a large area that really stands out for its exposed lack of detail. Perhaps there are plans to do something to the parade building? Maybe enlarge it? I can't figure out why they would design the Cadillac mountains with such a large exposed area on the backside. I have to believe they have something in mind.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "I understood the Matterhorn to be quite groundbreaking for it's time. Wasn't it the world's first steel tube coaster?" Yes, that's exactly what I meant: the definition of "a great attraction with details" has evolved greatly since the Matterhorn was built.
Originally Posted By Manfried I can see the ads for the Disney parks now. Interviews with visitors asking them why they go to Disneyland: "I go for the details." Yeah, right. I think you go to ride entertaining attractions. You know, to be entertained. If there's a lot or a few details, it doesn't matter, as long as you felt you were entertained and got your money's worth.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "You know, to be entertained. If there's a lot or a few details, it doesn't matter, as long as you felt you were entertained and got your money's worth." Oh brother. If that were true then why have that big honkin' castle at the end of the street that's basically empty? With your line of reasoning they should built an asphalt path directly from the Hub to the carousel without any scenery at all.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Interviews with visitors asking them why they go to Disneyland: "I go for the details." Yeah, right.<< Actually, guests are routinely surveyed about what they find so appealing about the Disney theme parks. High ratings are regularly given to "cleanliness." I hope that doesn't mean that they will start emphasizing sweeping over new attractions, nor do I want them to skip cleaning up in favor of new E-tickets. I tend to think there's room for both. (P.S. One reason I tend to skip Magic Mountain and Knotts is because I find the lack of cohesive detail depressing. But then, I'm funny that way.)
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>...they should built an asphalt path directly from the Hub to the carousel without any scenery at all.<< They did that. It's called Magic Mountain.
Originally Posted By Manfried I'm not saying they should just build a line of asphalt. But I bet if they could get millions of people to pay for it they would. It would have one sign on it, "This way to the Egress."
Originally Posted By TP2000 Manfried, they've already tried your suggested tactic on theme park design and execution. It's called Disney California Adventure. They are now spending a Billion dollars to fix that mistake by adding details that were never there. I think they learned their lesson on that one, and aren't yet in a position to repeat that mistake.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <You know, to be entertained. If there's a lot or a few details, it doesn't matter, as long as you felt you were entertained and got your money's worth.> Three comments in response. 1. Disney built their reputation in the Theme Park Industry on 'the details' -- that's what separates a Disney attraction from the rest of the pack. 2. 'Being entertained' is very subjective. My sister and her husband and kids like to 'power it out' at Disneyland. They spent 15 hours in Disneyland on Tuesday, and 15 hours on Wednesday. Why? To get their money's worth. That's not my personal idea of value or fun. 3. Surveys. I don't care what 'Joe Tourist and his wife' think Disneyland should or should not have. It's typically not what I want anyway. Survey taking about 'what should we build next' is like polling my sister at midnight in the Emporium and asking 'you want to stay another hour?'
Originally Posted By tashajilek "If there's a lot or a few details, it doesn't matter, as long as you felt you were entertained and got your money's worth." Hell yea it matters!! If that were the case then why are people spending 3x more money going to Disneyland over a basic theme park? All the attention to detail is what makes Disneyland magical.
Originally Posted By barboy2 /// "I go for the details."/// Again, Manfried, you have put forth a very sarcastic statement and unintentionally delivered something that bears so much truth. Most responders on a survey would not or could not articulate underlying/profound reasons(like "details" or "ambiance") why they come to Disney parks. They are more likely to spout off more generic, quick qualifiers while neglecting a deeper and far more meaningful analysis.
Originally Posted By Manfried What makes Disney work, when it works, is putting details in where its important and visible from the guest point of view. So that said, I think the backside of CarsLand is not as important an area to hyperventilate over. In particular, the side facing Katella. Those cheap motels did not want to sell their land to Disney, why should Disney spend a single dime on anything other than green paint. The side that can be seen from inside the park, yeah, they should do something with that. But I think that's it. And I'm thinking a mural of some kind there should suffice on the Paradise Pier side. So again its details where seen. Where blown by at 40 miles an hour in a darkened area, or in a bobsled. Not as important nor worth the cost.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "Hell yea it matters!! If that were the case then why are people spending 3x more money going to Disneyland over a basic theme park?" I think this statement pretty much sums it up. Story and themeing are petty much at the top of the list when it comes to defining the Disney theme park experience from other parks. I'm curious to know Manfried's opinion of the overwhelming success of Harry Potter at USO. Obviously the ride is stellar, but I question how successful that attraction would have been if they'd just plopped it in a non-themed warehouse and left out the adjacent village, shops, etc.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "And I'm thinking a mural of some kind there should suffice on the Paradise Pier side." Hopefully at least do that, but as Ferret pointed out, even with a painted mural the visible abrupt stop of the rock work near Pacific Wharf would be problematic.
Originally Posted By tashajilek "but I question how successful that attraction would have been if they'd just plopped it in a non-themed warehouse and left out the adjacent village, shops, etc." LOL, probably not well.
Originally Posted By Manfried My opinion of Harry Potter is that it is an incredible attraction. It also cost an incredible amount of money. Universal is all ready looking at how to make it look like they are doing other new things without spending more money. That big of a capital expense will take a while to make up, so I would be surprised to see if they actually spend elsewhere for a while.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "That big of a capital expense will take a while to make up, so I would be surprised to see if they actually spend elsewhere for a while." I read on another thread here that only Universal Orlando has the rights to build at Harry Potter attraction. Considering that few film franchises have the draw of Harry Potter it's unlikely that we'll see Universal produce another attraction like HP anytime soon for that reason.
Originally Posted By Manfried I doubt it too. It will take them a long time to make their investment back. Several still working associates of mine have said the same thing. Great attraction, but it could break Universal's financial back. And back to details. John Hench said it best. Direct the people where to look and put your efforts there. Paint the rest black. Black is a negative space and no one remembers it or cares.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt Sounds like he was talking about the inside of the attractions, not the exterior details.
Originally Posted By Manfried Dr. Hans, have you ever looked at a matte painting up close? It's actually blurred for objects farther away. Yet it actually looks more realistic and highly detailed when viewed from afar or on film. Too many details in places too far away are a waste. Details in the right places are fine, where needed. But you have to know when is enough, enough. The backside of Cars Mountain is just that, the backside. Now I do think some kind of mural on the side facing Paradise Pier is fine. But that's it. And not some kind of mural that someone would look at with a magnifying glass.
