Originally Posted By gadzuux I think a good idea for the park's new "iconic structure" would be a redwood, or maybe a sequoia. It would be fake of course, and idealized. But it would be a way of adding something that's about as tall as the tallest structures in the park, without taking up a big footprint in what is really a rather small park to begin with. They can impress with size and height, but also keep it narrow and somewhat natural at the same time. If it's visible from some portions of DL, so what - it's a tree. Since it's an imagineered tree, it might be a good idea to build lights into it from the beginning so that it's easy to turn it into a christmas tree during the holidays - just hang some ornaments and flip a switch. I agree with the idea of removing the GGB - it's just silly looking, completely out of proportion, and a gaudy orange color that works fine for the real thing but is garish for a theme park entrance. I also agree that GD needs to get the heave-ho. It's just not "fun" or "special" - it's a rather dry and grim little documentary that has barely any entertainment value in it's first viewing, and essentially zero repeat value. Sell it on DVD at the giftshops in specially numbered collectors tins for $100, but don't take up valuable real estate with this thing - it's one of the first things that needs to go in order to improve the overall image of DCA - it's just not "up to snuff" as a disney attraction, let alone a centerpiece.
Originally Posted By Pinocchio85 They would be stupid to take out the bridge. It is California's most recognizable icon. It automatically lets people know what the park is about. There's nothing they can put there that would represent CA like the bridge does.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<It's my opinion that most people don't go to theme parks to watch a 20 minute movie that recreates historical events.>> Spoken just like a SoCal resident whose ultimate experience is riding a little vehicle around in the dark looking at black-light scenery on plywood flats. Golden Dreams was very well done and deserves a far larger audience than it gets. It is at least equal to the Epcot films (Canada, France, Norway, and China) and comes close to having the impact of AA-assisted presentations like the Hall of Presidents and the American Adventure. Disneyland will start to move into the future when the uber-fans stop holding up dark-rides as the ultimate theme park experience.
Originally Posted By ChurroMonster Most people I take into Golden Dreams for the first time kind of shrug and say that it was okay. Nobody hates it and nobody loves it. I think that makes it perfect for a world audience whcih is what the DLR is trying to attract. I think it has a place in the park, but a less prominent one. The Bay Area District needs a serious tweaking and freeing up space by removing (or moving) Golden Dreams could only help.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I think a good idea for the park's new "iconic structure" would be a redwood, or maybe a sequoia. It would be fake of course, and idealized. But it would be a way of adding something that's about as tall as the tallest structures in the park, without taking up a big footprint in what is really a rather small park to begin with. > I've had a similar idea, but mine actually had 2 trees - a redwood and a palm tree, representing northern and southern California - with a 3D sun between and above them, representing California as a whole. Think the current sun plaza sun, only much larger, more impressive, and 3D (and much higher, as it would be above the two trees). Both trees and the sun itself would be stylized/idealized. It would be something of a tableaux. Then near this triple icon would be a building that would serve as kind of a "welcome to California visitor center." This would include Golden Dreams in a small theatre than currently, and the rest of the building would be static exhibits on California history and culture. There's certainly enough that the exhibits could change over time. Think the Opera House with its static exhibits AND the Lincoln Show. As with the Opera House, you wouldn't have to see the theatre presentation if you didn't want to. Something like this could serve as a central "orientation," and provide something coherent for the California theme, yet not seem like a centerpiece attraction.
Originally Posted By Park Hopper "Golden Dreams was very well done and deserves a far larger audience than it gets." What exactly do you mean when you say Golden Dreams "deserves a far larger audience than it gets." It's an attraction. It deserves whatever response it is able to engender. The film has been offered to an an audience but very few theme park patrons choose to see it. Don't take it personally. It has very little to do with weather you like it or I like it, it has to do with the response it gets from the general public on a day to day basis. And that's not good. It needs to go.
Originally Posted By theones >>I think the reason that Golden Dreams doesn't draw more guests is partly because of the building housing it. Judging by the exterior it really doesn't look like much and the entrance and preshow area are just plain bad.<< It is failing because it's a bad movie. Lib's may want to go to Disney to get "I hate America stuff" but most Americans get that on CNN or CBS or ABC or NBC or The New York Times every day. They want to have fun not sit through garbage like Golden Dreams.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss I like Golden Dreams, but I can understand why some people would find it boring. I wonder what kind of response it would have if it was built as originally intended.
Originally Posted By theones >>I like Golden Dreams, but I can understand why some people would find it boring. I wonder what kind of response it would have if it was built as originally intended.<< And what was that?
Originally Posted By Lobo I will say Golden Dreams is awful and I HATE it. It is so cheezy and gives truth to the idea of history being "Disnified"(aka whitewashing) by the Disney corp. Besides that I love Disneyland and its othe parks! I believe DCA is going to rock in 10 years.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss <<>>I like Golden Dreams, but I can understand why some people would find it boring. I wonder what kind of response it would have if it was built as originally intended.<< And what was that?>> My understanding of it is that Golden Dreams was supposed to be closer in spirit and execution to the American Adventure at EPCOT, rather than merely a movie.
Originally Posted By danyoung >It is failing because it's a bad movie. Lib's may want to go to Disney to get "I hate America stuff" but most Americans get that on CNN or CBS or ABC or NBC or The New York Times every day. They want to have fun not sit through garbage like Golden Dreams.< A big ol' HUH? Where in the movie is the slightest flavor of "I hate America"? And whether you agree with the spirit of the film or not, it's an incredibly well made movie.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss I agree that it's a well made movie. I can't imagine why someone would say it's a Disney whitewashing of history. Granted, I have only seen it once, but I would say the movie is fairly even-handed. Besides, it's supposed to celebrate the culture of California, not be an all-out documentary. That, and it's only 22 minutes long.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<What exactly do you mean when you say Golden Dreams "deserves a far larger audience than it gets." It's an attraction. It deserves whatever response it is able to engender. The film has been offered to an an audience but very few theme park patrons choose to see it.>> It does not get the audience it deserves because the entire Bay area of the park is poorly done and therefore does not generate traffic for the attraction. For the most part there is little reason to be in the Bay area of DCA. << Lib's may want to go to Disney to get "I hate America stuff" but most Americans get that on CNN or CBS or ABC or NBC or The New York Times every day.>> Yes, that would certainly be it. Idiot.
Originally Posted By disneywatcher >> move Golden Dreams to a location far far away! << Send it packing to the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History in Exposition Park. Or the Autry Museum of the West in Griffith Park. Or short of that, just send it to the dust-collecting vaults of PBS. >> My understanding of it is that Golden Dreams was supposed to be closer in spirit and execution to the American Adventure at EPCOT, rather than merely a movie. << I'm glad they never spent that much money on it. First of all, I don't think a far more elaborate presentation would have made Golden Dreams much more popular than it is now. Second, a very costly audioanimatronic-laden attraction would have been far harder to toss out the window. For instance, if County Bears had been merely a film presentation, you can be sure the DisCo would have dumped it years ago, well before it finally was shuttered and replaced by the Adventures of Pooh ride.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss <<First of all, I don't think a far more elaborate presentation would have made Golden Dreams much more popular than it is now.>> So an attraction that is more Disney, in a park you feel is avoid of Disney, wouldn't be a good thing?
Originally Posted By danyoung >I don't think a far more elaborate presentation would have made Golden Dreams much more popular than it is now.< This is one of the sillier statements I've seen in this thread. OF COURSE it would be more popular if it were a full blown AA show! And it would have very little resemblence to the film now showing, as they'd have a completely different medium in which to tell the story of California. An AA show on the scale of the American Adventure would almost certainly be the park's premeire E-ticket draw. Of course, just being an AA show doesn't guarantee a successful attraction. But compare a film to a big AA show and the AA's will win, every time!
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>This is one of the sillier statements I've seen in this thread. OF COURSE it would be more popular if it were a full blown AA show! And it would have very little resemblence to the film now showing, as they'd have a completely different medium in which to tell the story of California.<< Absolutely. Don'tcha love the logic that Country Bears wouldn't have been any more/less popular as a film attraction than an AA extravaganza. LOL!
