Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <It certainly would have been better if it had something as good as Soarin'. The GMR to me was a missed opportunity.> Boy -- amen to that one, brother. "Great Movie Ride" is such a strange attraction. It had/has no 'story' really doesn't -- doesn't really go chronologically or historically -- and the whole notion of 'stepping into the movies' is a hodge-podge at best. While the 'Wizard of Oz' scene is cool, and the 'Raiders' sequence is neat, by the time you reach the movie clips by Chuck Workman, I'm always left with a bit of a 'WTF just happened?' feeling when it's over. It's like a upgraded wax museum with figures that have very limited movement.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>It's like a upgraded wax museum with figures that have very limited movement.<< Sounds like Congress.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I'm not sure what to do with the Great Movie Ride. It is kind of a hodge podge of unrealted scenes (and it's very clear when riding it exactly when the GMR was made.) I can see setting the whole thing to some original musical score, losing the live action stuff, and then just making it a large scale ride through a whole bunch of famous movie scenes. There wouldn't be a story any more than there's a story on It's a Small World, just a series of enjoyable scenes tied together with a catchy original song.
Originally Posted By dshyates See, I never got the cheap tacky that DCA 1.0 gave me from MGM. I just didn't like it. I felt the tram tour was boring. And the GMR was pointless. But I thought the entrance corridor was fantastic. And the place making was well done. I thought it had a lot of potential for growth. I guess I was wrong about that. At DCA I hated the entrance corridor, and the elements of Paradise Pier. I also though HPB didn't really work as well as MGM's main drag. In summary, I thought MGM was weak at opening, but had potential. They didn't blow it with MGM until later. I thought they blew it with DCA from the get go. As they stand now, or at least next year, DCA will definitely be the stronger park.
Originally Posted By Yookeroo "Well, it was their basic model 1989-2005, anyway." Is this argument going to start infecting every thread the way the "tooning of the parks" has? I guess it probably won't escape the DCA threads. "1989 D-MGM would have been a lot better if it had a mad mouse, wave swinger, and Farris Wheel." Wouldn't have hurt. The park was pretty weak at opening. And it's still my least favorite Disney park (I wonder how different my opinion would be if I hadn't grown up going to an actual working studio park...shoot, when I was a wee lad, I think there was only the tour, no park). "It's like a upgraded wax museum with figures that have very limited movement." I have never loved the GMR. The Oz scene is great, and the movie clips at the end are cool. Much of it is hokey though. And the drama they add with the gangsters and cowboys?) is pretty lame. There's potential there. But it would take a major upgrade. Almost rebuilding the ride.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt See, I never got the cheap tacky that DCA 1.0 gave me from MGM. I just didn't like it. I felt the tram tour was boring. And the GMR was pointless. But I thought the entrance corridor was fantastic. And the place making was well done. I thought it had a lot of potential for growth. I guess I was wrong about that. At DCA I hated the entrance corridor, and the elements of Paradise Pier. I also though HPB didn't really work as well as MGM's main drag." Pretty much my feeling about both parks as well Dshyates, although I will say that I liked DCA a whole lot better than the Studios, especially as it stands today. DHS started off OK, but it's really a mess thematically now.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Funny. I saw so much more potential in DCA than MGM. The latter wasn't really a working studio, seemed a pale attempt at doing a USH tour plus a few park-y things, with no actual film history there... I saw no potential to be an interesting actual studio like USH, and if they lurched into pure park like they did, I got the sense it wouldn't be pretty (as much of it hasn't been, despite some good additions). While with DCA I saw the potential of so much they could do with the theme.
Originally Posted By dshyates Really? I find California more limiting than movies. Movies covers everything from Cavemen to Space and the relms of make believe. That's pretty broad. California does cover from Le Brea tar pits to Brandenberg Air Force Base. But the land of Make Believe is in Pittsburgh.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt I think the problem Dshyates, is that the theme of DHS is "the making of movies", not just "movies". Perhaps that has changed slightly over the years, but the sense I get is that Disney's studios parks in Florida and France are designed to present a behind the scenes look at film making... Hollywood film making, in fact. A place with as many rich subcultures and the unique geography that California posses makes for a far less specific story line than a park about Hollywood filmmaking. Think about it: DCA includes Hollywood, but goes beyond it and its movie making industry to celebrates the entire state.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan More than ever after the makeover, the park will be Southern California Adventure. The few San Francisco/Northern California things that were there are gone entirely (GG Bridge) or transformed into something unrelated (Little Mermaid/Palace of Fine Arts dome). Redwood Creek challenge trail is pretty much it (I guess GRR could be any mountainous region) but the major anchor points are all SoCal based.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt Yeah, that's a sore point for me Kar2oonMan. As I sit back in my little Armchair Imagineering Chair I envision A Bug's Land ultimately being replaced by a immersive and carefully detailed San Francisco streetscape with an E ticket centerpiece attraction of some sort.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Hans, do you remember this attraction in San Francisco? DlandDug found the footage on YouTube. (go to 4:40) It was located where Rainforest Cafe is now at Fisherman's Wharf. <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62gJtTUYf5U" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...JtTUYf5U</a>
Originally Posted By dshyates The major component of MGM was the working studio aspect, but from the beginning or at least in the first year, it had the "ride the movies" aspect with The Great Movie Ride, Star Tours, and Here Comes the Muppets stage show.
Originally Posted By ImgineerBob I think they built MGM to compete with unviersal. Also keep in mind disney did shut down river country, so they aren't above shutting down an entire theme park forever. Clearly they saw promise with DCA.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>...but the major anchor points are all SoCal based.<< Hey, hey! San Francisco is still represented by a bathroom. [INSERT OWN JOKE HERE.]
Originally Posted By tashajilek "There are so many more now then there were 10 years ago, that both parks are getting filled to the gills somedays just because DL fills up and there's nowhere else to go. " Are you being serious??? I am an out of Country passholder and i spend more and more time at DCA because it is a decent park. Will 1 billion save DCA?? no. DCA doesnt need saving anymore. During my visit last month i saw waits for GRR, TOT and TSMM over an hour. The park is getting busier and more popular.
Originally Posted By crapshoot << i spend more and more time at DCA because it is a decent park.>> I agree. My June visit to DCA proved to me that The WDC was bringing a new level of detail to the park that the original planners had blatently passed on. By next year this time, we will be griping about long queues not longing for a great park.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <I think they built MGM to compete with unviersal.> Yeah, ya think? Including a 'tram ride' to the 'back lot' at Disney-MGM Studios. A back lot with bits of junk leftover from 'The Rocketeer' 'Honey, I Shrunk the Kids' and 'Down and Out in Beverly Hills' Oh, those movies weren't filmed there, they were shipped out from Calfornia -- enjoy! (remember 'Hollywood East'?) <The major component of MGM was the working studio aspect, but from the beginning or at least in the first year> Yeah, once the novelty of going to Disney World to shoot a movie wore off, and once movie companies figured out that the 'working studio' portion was nothing but show, and that every time 'Catastrophe Canyon' exploded, it ruined a take inside the sound stages, production companies just said 'shine it.' The trams at Universal Studios Hollywood were born out of necessity -- the actual backlot there (a place where movies like 'Spartacus' 'To Kill a Mockingbird' 'Back to the Future' and the original 'Phantom of the Opera' were actually filmed) is so vast that they had to put visitors into a mode of transportation to get them around. Universal Studios Hollywood is first and foremost, an actual movie studio where actual television shows and movies are made. I'm not a big fan of 'copy cat' business. It's like the TOMS brand of shoes -- the company that donates a pair of shoes for every pair sold. Now Sketchers comes out with a very similar looking style of shoes -- they're now donating a pair of shoes for every pair sold -- the name? BOBS. Stupid... And building a theme park with 'movies' or 'Hollywood' as your theme? Oh, brother. Talk about a theme that is overdone, boring and all-inclusive to a fault. I'll take a 'California' theme any day. Disney-MGM Studios Theme Park and Disney's California Adventure both suffer from the same thing: Rushed planning (they both could have used another year of tweaking) and cut-to-the-bone budgets (both were built on the cheap.) And maybe on some spreadsheet, it makes sense to 'start small' and build over the first 10 years -- but when you're building your park across from Disneyland -- the granddaddy of all theme parks -- and you don't expect people to notice the huge holes in your concept and execution...you must really think your customer is stupid. This round: The customer called Disney out Calfornia Adventure, and said 'this place sucks.'
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "Hans, do you remember this attraction in San Francisco? DlandDug found the footage on YouTube. (go to 4:40)" Yes! That video caused me to giggle uncontrollably. Do you remember the Haunted Gold Mine attraction at Fisherman's Wharf?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Really? I find California more limiting than movies. Movies covers everything from Cavemen to Space and the relms of make believe. That's pretty broad.> As Hans said, DCA has a Hollywood/movie section (albeit smaller), plus everything else. But it's interesting how our reaction varied when seeing the two parks near their openings, and how one of us saw more potential in the one, and the other in the other. Those are both valid opinions, and our own honest responses, which is a concept sometimes forgotten around here.
