Originally Posted By disneywatcher I remember looking at the ugly plain concrete pool surrounding King Triton back in early 2001 and wondering if DisCo's planners and executives even had the sense and eyesight to say, good God, this is junk!! What the heck is wrong with us?! There were so many miscues similar to that scattered throughout Paradise Pier in particular that I really don't think such flaws were even noticed by some of the leading people at Disney at the time. When that amazingly ugly sound wall was built next to Mulholland Madness well after DCA premiered, that confirmed my suspicions.
Originally Posted By oc_dean With this talk of the Little Mermaid ride exiting through the former Golden Dreams entrance .... I wonder if that rotunda is wide enough to fit the carousel. If they are going to keep the same (small) King Triton's carousel ... why not at least put next to the proposed Little Mermaid dark ride? As some else already pointed out to. Have the Little Mermaid ride exit somewhere else.
Originally Posted By bean "This question is for Bean, Bean,is there any chance King Tritons Carousel will receive a 'plussing/remodel' before TSM opens next summer? it looks so bad next to the new TSM buildings." The whole pier is scheduled to get some changes including the buildings at the entrance of the area. Treasure in Paradise and Ariels Grotto. Remember, there are possibilities of another attraction behind Screamin's queue inside the helix.
Originally Posted By bean "You know ... the carriages themselves are nice. I can see some sentiment for this carousel .. but come on! It is one of the most rinky-dinky smallest carousels ever built for a full scale theme park?! Even the malls around So Cal have larger carousels! And here's a REAL carousel incase anyone's interested ..... <a href="http://www.tokyodisneyresort.c" target="_blank">http://www.tokyodisneyresort.c</a> o.jp/tds/english/7port/arabian/atrc_caravan.html " i agree the carousel lacks. not because of the actual attraction but its surrounding. Interesting you linked to the "caravan carousel" i and others never really cared for it. The structure is way over the top but it fit the surrounding theme
Originally Posted By TDR_Fan <<Interesting you linked to the "caravan carousel" i and others never really cared for it. The structure is way over the top but it fit the surrounding theme>> That's the beauty of it. Even a simple C-ticket attraction like a carousel is given an incredibly elaborate facade at Tokyo DisneySea.
Originally Posted By jonvn Has anyone ever heard of the word "garish?" Some folks need to look it up. At some point, you do too much, and it's NOT good. Sometimes less is more. Sometimes you can do too much and sometimes it turns out really ugly because of it. Just adding more is not a good idea, just to add more. You have to add what is needed and not keep going until it makes people nauseous to look at something.
Originally Posted By Nemo88 I have to agree with you Jonvn,I dont want my carousel looking like something Libarrachi designed lol
Originally Posted By jonvn I wouldn't go with garish. It's just as bad or worse. You don't go overboard, you do things right. That's why just throwing money at things and adding and adding doesn't really mean a lot. You can spend too much as well as too little.
Originally Posted By mstaft ^^^ Totally agree. I just wish concerning DCA, there was a more even "middle ground" between so-lightly-themed-its-easy-to-overlook and the extremely well themed GRR area.
Originally Posted By jmuboy Just a nicely painted/decorated permanent roof would be nice in place of the canvas roof.
Originally Posted By jonvn "I just wish concerning DCA, there was a more even "middle ground" " WEll, they put in what they did at first because they were, as someone else put it, extremely risk averse. They were not sure it'd be a hit, they wanted to spend only so much as to make sure it did not go into debt. They've since found that there is a lot of room to grow, and that if they spend more money, they'll be able to make it back. The park when it opened was fine as a means to get up off the ground. It was ok to visit, it was enjoyable. It has justified to the managers, though, that it can make them more money. So, hopefully it'll be good stuff. We'll see when it opens. If it was so easy to do, Six Flags and Cedar would be doing the same things. But they don't. I just hope they don't toss the money away.
Originally Posted By dshyates "WEll, they put in what they did at first because they were, as someone else put it, extremely risk averse. They were not sure it'd be a hit, they wanted to spend only so much as to make sure it did not go into debt." I think everyone agrees with this. It is the execution, or how they spent the initial funds that we argue about. And I believe that the fact that from ToT to just past soarin' will be bulldozed and rebuilt from the ground up, is very telling. The hyperion will stay but be completely refascaded, as will Animation, Monsters, and Soarin'. From the S.F.MoA Dome to the helix of screamin' will be bulldozed. The Pier will recive an extensive rethemeing. There has never, ever, ever been such a "retooling" of a Disney park. Especially one only 7 years old. Just how they are changing the entrance so drastically as to be unrecognizable from the DCA as we know it is a billboard sized sign. They obviously feel there were SERIOUS missteps made when the park was built. I can't wait for Al Lutz' new book, "Missteps in Time: The Soap Opera of DCA" ;-)
Originally Posted By jonvn "The hyperion will stay but be completely refascaded, as will Animation, Monsters, and Soarin'." That means they aren't bulldozed. Bulldozed means like ripped down. That means that most of the area then is pretty much staying. What isn't staying sounds like the muppet show, which really is so dated at this point it is time for it to go anyway. They really have to stop relying on film based attractions, they just have no legs in Anaheim like they do in WDW. I think everyone agrees with that, too. "There has never, ever, ever been such a "retooling" of a Disney park. " Well, they never really built a park like this, either. It's a learning process. But MGM pretty much has also been retooled like this as well. "They obviously feel there were SERIOUS missteps made when the park was built." I think a lot of this is internal corporate politics. Did you know that when a new male lion takes over a pride, he goes and kills all the children of the previous lion? It is to ensure that his genetic line is passed on, and not that of the previous one. A lot of that same idea is happening here. Stuff that really isn't worth changing is being changed because of politics more than anything. Why do I say this? Because what's there now really isn't that bad that it needs to change all that drastically. We'll see how it does change, but if it is simply change for the sake of change, making it blue instead of red, then what I'm saying is very likely the cause. If, on the other hand, it really is a lot better, then that's great. But change isn't necessarily good. It can be change for the worse, or change for the same level. You have to wait and see what happens, and then savage it if it sucks. I've grown a bit leery of their changes given what they've produced the last few years.
Originally Posted By Britain I'm a design pragmatist. When I want an mp3 player, I want minimalist, less is more design. If I can get more things done with fewer buttons, great! (The Apple store in Japan has an elevator without any buttons. It just stops on each of the three floors automatically.) When I'm going to a theme park representation of an Arabian city, the more garish the better! I want to be dazzled from 50 yards away and I want to see intricate details at 5 inches away. Context, my friends.
Originally Posted By Britain Some more thoughts: Minimalism v. Garishness Perhaps the line is drawn somewhere between functionality and entertainment. If the garishness begins to hinder the film/product/park from functioning properly, then it's part of the problem, not the solution. I love being taken over-the-top watching Moulin Rouge while others couldn't stomach the ride. Perhaps that film's "functionality" was strained by its form. So, does the garishness of the Caravan Carousel hurt its functionality? Does the minimalism of King Triton's Carousel hurt its entertainment? Which was damaged more?
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << WEll, they put in what they did at first because they were, as someone else put it, extremely risk averse. They were not sure it'd be a hit, they wanted to spend only so much as to make sure it did not go into debt. >> They were also working on a very short timeline. I don't know any major Disney park that went from concept to groudbreaking to grand opening in such a small amount of time. Typically, Imagineering would take a decade or more to tinker with these concepts. Animal Kingdom had been on the drawing boards since the mid 1980s and the Florida Disney Studios was originally a concept for EPCOT Center. In the case of DCA, they went for a much faster-paced approach to development. Many businesses are pushing the envelope of their project development and management timelines these days -- and there are some negative outcomes associated with those sorts of programs. However, sticking with a long, drawn out, and expensive project development process isn't necessarily the best way to go about things either. The trick is to find a happy medium and apply lessons learned from both approaches.
Originally Posted By jonvn "the more garish the better!" You know, I bet not really. I bet at a certain point you, as anyone does, would say "Ack! Awful!" Why? Because garish by it's very nature is a description of something unpleasant. And if they paint things in all colors of the rainbow all over the place, so much that it's dizzying and simply ugly, you won't really like it. Take the Hot Dog on a Stick place. Red, yellow, blue....toss in a few more colors everywhere so that the colors are not coordinated, they don't look nice next to each other, and then make them glow in the dark and neon. It's not pleasing to the eye. Then toss in loud unpleasant calliope music and you've got yourself a nightmare. That's one way to go that makes things bad, another way is to add too much detail. When you do too much, you start to CLUTTER your surroundings. That makes it difficult to enjoy as well. Now, everyone has different ideas as to what is pleasing to the eye. But you have to go where most people tend to think. And to me, since this is how I think, I feel most people would tend to follow along with what I'm saying...of course!
Originally Posted By dshyates "That means they aren't bulldozed. Bulldozed means like ripped down." With 4 building left standing between ToT and Soarin' it is pretty much buldozing that section. Especially when you take into account that the exteriors of the 4 remaining buildings will look completely different. "But MGM pretty much has also been retooled like this as well. " Absolutely NOT true. The overall look of MGM hasn't changed at all since it opened. With the exception of "The Big Ugly Hat" which is a boneheaded move if i've ever seen one. And they certainly didn't flatten from the turnstiles to the weenie and start over.
Originally Posted By disneywatcher There'd be a long way to go before King Triton's ugly plain gray concrete became too too garish. I'd guess that some of the misguided (or outright incompetent) people responsible for such aspects of DCA would have cautioned any of their naysaying colleagues that altering the design and look of Triton's carousel ran the risk of it ending up overdone.
