Originally Posted By jonvn "The overall look of MGM hasn't changed at all since it opened." Well, the look is similar, but it's changed a bit as well. That hat really does change a lot. "With 4 building left standing between ToT and Soarin' it is pretty much buldozing that section." Well, I was thinking only of the Hollywood section, and the only thing that would go would be the muppet theater, right? Are you also talking aobut the entrance area buildings?
Originally Posted By TDR_Fan <<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.>> But that is not the case with the Caravan Carousel. I see your point and it is very valid, but does not apply to the attractions at Tokyo DisneySea. They are tastefully and elaborately themed. They are not brassy or gaudy by any means, as they are very pleasant to look at. Now if it were painted a rainbow of colors with pieces of jewellery everywhere, then I would agree. I think the Caravan Carousel is very artistically done.
Originally Posted By jonvn I think that's all anyone really would ever want. I hope they don't go over the top with some of this stuff. They usually don't, though.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << I hope they don't go over the top with some of this stuff. They usually don't, though. >> Not so sure about that. I would classify the Monsters, Inc. entrance as "garish," and the cartoony paint job on the DCA Tower of Terror is over the top in my book.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "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." I wouldn't argue that. My question would be what is a merry-go-round doing in an Arabian city in the first place.
Originally Posted By TDR_Fan <<Not so sure about that. I would classify the Monsters, Inc. entrance as "garish," and the cartoony paint job on the DCA Tower of Terror is over the top in my book>> And believe it or not, some people actually find the Sleeping Beauty Castle at Disneyland Paris to be tacky and gaudy. I sure don't, so I guess it all depends on your taste and preferences. Personally, I love detail and elaborateness. The more visually, architecturally, and artistically breathtaking, the better. But like I mentioned above, it has to be tastefully done like everything at Tokyo DisneySea. But I can tell what's an artistic masterpiece (Tokyo DisneySea) and what's not (California Adventure). One of the biggest examples of over the top and gaudiness is the lobby of Burj al Arab. It's so garish that it is a vomit fest for the eyes. Gold and bright colors everywhere.
Originally Posted By jonvn Actually, I think the castle in Florida is pretty tacky, too. Mostly because it's covered in a thin fiberglass shell. When you touch it, it feels like a huge version of a Barbie playhouse or something.
Originally Posted By disneywatcher >> so I guess it all depends on your taste and preferences << And when all is said and done, that is a key component of why DCA wasn't better. I'd assume otherwise -- and point to economics as being an equally significant or bigger factor -- if I were certain that the people responsible for DCA took one look at the park they created and said "Oh, for gawd's sakes, we sure have botched this one!" But here it is 6 years since the park opened, and just as we're still arguing about the pros and cons of DCA -- including with those who favor giving it a lot of benefit of the doubt -- I'm sure the same type of responses was (if not still IS) evident in those who directly supervised the development of the park. So if certain major decisionmakers in the DisCo are too easygoing about DCA's flaws, how will that affect the remodeling of the park?
Originally Posted By bean "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" ;-)" One thing that needs to be understood is that some of these changes are not being done because they failed. For example, the changes that are being considered for the facade of the animation building or the changes being considered for all of Condor flats. Some of these changes are being done because the overall focus of the parks theme is being zeroed out so that each land has a more specific meaning. In order to create a more coehisive story in some of these areas changes need to be done to some of those structures or areas so that they match the new additions. The animation facade has never been considered a failure but since the area is being given a more specific time line some of the facades need to be addressed so that they do not throw of that new storyline. Condor flats has also been considered one of the most succesful areas. Mainly due to the attraction but its execution only had one flaw. The land was too small too allow for further expansion in what could have been a anchor for more development. Now that a new land is being considered in DCA's expansion zones the repetitive desert theme might seem awkward. The best decision is to expand in one of the most succesful and best executed land in the park which is grizzley peak.
Originally Posted By jonvn I can see that. If they are building carland ( or whatever it will be called ) and it is themed to the desert you don't want two desert themed areas. That would be not good...
Originally Posted By Pinocchio85 Why not? California has more than one desert. It's no more or less redundant than having characters being used in more than one place. Or DL and DCA both having a large forest area. It's a waste of money.
Originally Posted By Nemo88 lol Pinocchio if it was up to you they wouldnt change ANYTHING at DCA,be honest bro.
Originally Posted By Pinocchio85 I've responded to you saying this many times. I have also listed many things I would add and change about DCA, but you never seen to notice.
Originally Posted By jonvn "California has more than one desert." Yeah, but you don't want one desert area here, and another there. That'd be odd in a park.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy "California has more than one desert." And none of them really resemble the landscapes featured in the movie Cars.
Originally Posted By bean not really, the south east area of California has desert that resembles the desert found in Arizona.
Originally Posted By rocket jet California's Mojave Desert has mostly Joshua trees, not Cactus trees. Both tree species are related to each other to be sure, but cacti don't appear until you get further into Arizona. Correct me if I'm wrong?
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy It's not just the vegetation, it's the coloring of the landscape and shape of rock formations. The California and Arizona deserts may be geographically nearby, but they are for the most part entirely different worlds.
