Originally Posted By WorldDisney You know I always liked Golden Dreams, again, one of the FEW attractions in the place that is actually about California, but also now will be gone as well. *sigh* But yeah, it never reached the potential it could have, especially when it was suppose to originally be the American Adventure of DLR, but it was a nice film. The problem is that it was a film in a loooong line of them and it was a straight forward one as well. No '4D' effects and all of that. It simply wasnt repeatable. You go in watch once, have a polite clap at the end and for most people they only needed to see it once and never again. Contrast that to an American Adventure type attraction where its something I HAVE to see everytime I'm in Epcot. The first time I saw it, I went and saw it twice in the same day, it was simply amazing to see it. I've seen GD about 3 times I think and honestly the last two to kill time more than a real interest to watch it again. GD is simple a nice inspirational film, but nothing more. As for the structure, I actually liked it. It was one of the few things in the park that was actually a califonia land mark . I mean to this day I still find it odd, you build an entire park about California, but you dont include any actual landmarks?? And that dinky bridge at the entrance barely counts. TDS (sorry lol) managed to include more real Italian landmarks in its ONE section of the park vs DCA an entire park based on one theme. They were very good with the silly puns (Buuuurbank Ice cream, etc) but there was nothing to draw you in to most places in the park because it all felt and looked so generic. When you that oversized hub cap as your introduction versus a beautiful castle, or the Epcot Sphere or the Chinses Theater like MGM or the amazing Tree of Life at DAK, you already know you screwed up somewhere . I always wished they found more landmarks and maybe placed one in the entrance like they will FINALLY do with the new entrance. Although I wouldve found something a little better than the Cathay theater, it does work and actually be something that existed in California. Gee, how about that . But getting back to GD, I still dont understand how come they just cant throw that film in the Cathay theater until they DO make another film. Someone help me out here, you can still keep the film alive, give people an extra attraction to visit even if not a big crowd and yeah, keep something that is California based alive. Is the film THAT unpopular these days?
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo I agree WD. Golden Dreams and Seasons of the Vine were both fine attractions. And they are a part of my lament. Sure, I would much rather have had Circle of Hands with the AA's, but I still loved Golden Dreams - the story, the music, the heart. To me, the Little Mermaid has very little heart and soul. It may look pretty and all, but I much prefer the ethos of something like Golden Dreams. Now if we had a dark ride based on the story of Golden Dreams, then I would be jumping for joy!
Originally Posted By disneywatcher >> You know I always liked Golden Dreams, again, one of the FEW attractions in the place that is actually about California, << I guess from that comes the rolling of the dice, leading to either success or failure. It also means anyone of us can easily bet the wrong way, on any given thing, at any given moment. But at least in your case -- since you have a very good sense of what makes things Disneyesque or not -- the odds would be stacked in your favor (compared to that of, for example, Barry Braverman). I recall visiting New York City several years ago -- the most tourist-popular, well-known city in all of America -- and had a chance to see a movie about it presented in a theater expressly aimed at visitors. I had very little interest in watching the film. By contrast, I had a lot of interest in directly experiencing the sights and sounds of the city, just not viewing a movie about such things. In a somewhat similar vein, I recall reading about Eisner's proposal for "Disney's America" park slated for a site in Virgina. I remember being uneasy about the theme, believing it too narrow for a Disney park, at least a park the DisCo wanted to be a guaranteed, sure-fire success. Now fast forward to the late 1990s, when I first heard the new park next to Disneyland was going to be themed to "California." My mouth dropped and I thought, oh-oh, localism and home-town navel-gazing are not a good mix for any Disney park. >> Seasons of the Vine << I totally forgot about that bit of edutainment. As for a hint of how both Golden Dreams and the film on winemaking would fare in the long run -- how the public would greet them -- I first saw those two attractions during the preview days in early 2001. Even when they were brand new, and DCA was filled with thousands of excited, curious Disney fans, the Whoopie and Mondavi movies were running in locations with sparse attendance, or certainly sparse when I dropped by to view them---and apparently for many others, based on countless descriptions of DCA and the size of crowds (or lack of such) observed at those 2 film presentations I read about from that day forward.
Originally Posted By disneywatcher >> As for the structure, I actually liked it. << I forgot to mention that the re-creation in DCA of the rotunda originally built in the early 1900s for a world exposition in San Francisco was well done. That's likely the reason it's being retained and will be thematically attached to the new building for the new Little Mermaid attraction. As for things that should be demolished or removed, I'm anxious to observe the next few weeks as the outer layer of the Orange Stinger is ripped down. Of course, I'm even more interested in, and anxious about, seeing the removal of the entire front entryway of DCA. That will be a treat, and a long, long overdue one.
Originally Posted By barboy ///But the park has continued to be a revenue center for the company./// When used to defend DCA(or any park) it's statements like those that baffle me. As a guest touring parks I don't care about company financials; I only care about quality architecture, rides, shows, landscapes, music, shops, customer service and eats. Whether DCA profits or not is beside the point: the park is lackluster, doesn't inspire and is an embarrassment----just one colossal wasted opportunity to do something meaningful. Hypothetically if you told me Saturn is doing great financially so their cars must be quality then I'd still disagree and call their cars junk. And if Ferrari were heading into bankruptcy their cars are still mighty fine to me. So when Darkbeer posts ticket prices/deals/discounts and takes pictures showing an empty DCA as some form of justification that DCA sucks, I just shake my head because that is no proof, none.
Originally Posted By disneywatcher >> you already know you screwed up somewhere . << One more thing: I notice the new viewing area for WOC is going to have an interactive water feature, a spot where kids can run through spouting shots of water. My question is didn't that type of design create a soggy mess in Tomorrowland? Didn't they get rid of that because of the mess? I still have way more confidence in the current crowd working on DCA, but as I mentioned before, any person can roll the dice on any number of occasions and come up empty.
Originally Posted By danyoung My only point in saying that is to counter others who think that DCA is a total waste of space. There are obviously enough people coming to DCA and buying food and souvenirs to indicate that the park is doing OK. Not spectacular, just OK. Is that good enough? Of course not. But is it a waste? Hardly.
Originally Posted By barboy ///I would argue that it was Soarin' and Grizzly that were the most Disney to me/// There isn't even 1 AA among the 2 so how can they epitomize a Disney attraction?
Originally Posted By WorldDisney <<Whether DCA profits or not is beside the point: the park is lackluster, doesn't inspire and is an embarrassment----just one colossal wasted opportunity to do something meaningful.>> Here, here!! The attendence issue has always been nothing more than internet fodder for most of us although it always has been part of the argument that its small circulation of people through the park at least PARTLY correlated with the low quality that was found in DCA. That said, it didnt matter if 10,000 people saw it a day or 30,000 the park still sucked thematically and certainly in execution and basic Disney standards. That said, if this park actually did reach its attendance, would we be seeing the fix they have now, this amount of money? Hell no!! So I dont know how well it is or isnt doing financially but it is telling the only parks that are getting the hundreds of millions in cash are the parks with the lowest attendance worldwide at the moment: HKDL, WDS and DCA. I mean it doesnt take a brain scientist to know these parks simply have awful reputations and Disney is (now) doing everything in their power to change that. I just glad that a team of people finally came along to realize these parks failures, either financially or artiscally, and finally willing to do something about it.
Originally Posted By WorldDisney <<I guess from that comes the rolling of the dice, leading to either success or failure. It also means anyone of us can easily bet the wrong way, on any given thing, at any given moment. But at least in your case -- since you have a very good sense of what makes things Disneyesque or not -- the odds would be stacked in your favor (compared to that of, for example, Barry Braverman). I recall visiting New York City several years ago -- the most tourist-popular, well-known city in all of America -- and had a chance to see a movie about it presented in a theater expressly aimed at visitors. I had very little interest in watching the film. By contrast, I had a lot of interest in directly experiencing the sights and sounds of the city, just not viewing a movie about such things.>> Sure, I agree with all of that and you know my thoughts on having a California themed base park in California at this point....dumbest idea on paper . BUUUT, if you are going to do it, then do it right! I'm also a California native so I guess this doesnt apply to people like us, but for the tourists, I can see if you are going to do something like this, give them a real sense of what Cali is about. GD DID do that and provided a nice sense of the history and culture of California at least. So its a shame its gone. But if not enough people were watching it to justify the 2-3 CMs just to run the thing, then I guess that tells you how much people really cared. Soarin is now the only attraction in the entire park that is directly about Calif. Thank god its not just the film itself or that wouldve been yanked years ago as well . And I have never been to New York . Its one of those places I hope to see one day at least, if I ever get the chance. And yeah, I wont be watching the film of it when I'm in the actual city lol.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo >>>///I would argue that it was Soarin' and Grizzly that were the most Disney to me/// There isn't even 1 AA among the 2 so how can they epitomize a Disney attraction?<<< They were the most Disney for that park (though ITTBAB and MV3D had AAs). Not every great DL attraction has AA's, just most of them. But as a kid, America the Beautiful was as much of a must see as all the AA attractions.
