Do Europeans Actually Think of the W.D.S.P. Concept as Being Legitimate?

[PragmaticIdealist]

I'm a California boy, so my perspective may be somewhat different from the average guest to Walt Disney Studios Paris. But, does the fake studio with the ersatz Hollywood actually appeal to Europeans?

To me, the fundamental concept of Walt Disney Studios Paris is fatally flawed because a fake studio tour will always seem like a tourist trap.

I can't imagine anyone seeing the second gate in France as being particularly edifying or worthwhile, as long as the original concept remains the same.

[StrongStyle]

i don't think that anyone actually goes to the park because they want to get the feeling of a recreated Hollywood, but I don't think people go to MGM for that reason either. I think the general premise is that the rides there are prodominently movie related and thus the decor of the park and theming is also movie related and when you think of movies you think of Hollywood so it fits.

Hollywood is quite unique in that its really only place worldwide that is such a symbol of movies and film, tons of movies are made at studios not far from where i live, but its just a huge allottment in the middle of nowhere.

[nathan detroit]

WDS in DLP does make some allowances for its location and French cinema is marginally acknowledged.

[pussnboots]

Originally Posted by PragmaticIdealist

I'm a California boy, so my perspective may be somewhat different from the average guest to Walt Disney Studios Paris. But, does the fake studio with the ersatz Hollywood actually appeal to Europeans?

To me, the fundamental concept of Walt Disney Studios Paris is fatally flawed because a fake studio tour will always seem like a tourist trap.

I can't imagine anyone seeing the second gate in France as being particularly edifying or worthwhile, as long as the original concept remains the same.

I will take a chance and say I think Europeans are not as critical with their theme parks as they are with, say, wine. Whereas Americans take their pop culture and commercial fluff painfully seriously, labeling 50-year old hot dog stands historical monuments and naming Denny's an "institution", Europeans tend to separate "culture" from "vacuous hedonism" and no respectable newspaper will ever dedicate an article to a theme park unless it causes a national outrage or loses billions of euros. Or someone dies in one. But never to the extent of the LA Times or the Orlando Sentinel.

I know this because I've been looking for them on my quest to make DLRP's Wikipedia article somewhat less ludicrous, and my thesis was about Googie architecture in CA. I found that there really is a stark contrast there.

As a result of that mentality, your criteria and complaints may be 100% valid (and they are in my opinion) but they have little or no resonance on this particular continent. Had they built DCA in Paris instead of Anaheim, the Simpsons would probably have had no reason to ridicule it, for it would have caused no outrage.

Having said that, it doesn't take Ebert & Roeper to see that the WDS sucks, and we've seen the results of this in the park's attendance.

In conclusion, even though Europeans may not cognizantly lament the park's conceptual flaws, ED still needs to act like they do if it ever wants to see the park blossom.

[StrongStyle]

That was a very impressive way of saying "the park needs more and bigger rides to make the park worth spending a whole day in".

[pussnboots]

Originally Posted by StrongStyle

That was a very impressive way of saying "the park needs more and bigger rides to make the park worth spending a whole day in".

It's people like you who are killing the newspapers in favor of inhaling it all from CNN's news ticker.

[nathan detroit]

I'm hopelessly out-classed in this thread - I'm leaving!

[PragmaticIdealist]

One of the reasons I ask this question is because I've made the same criticisms in the past, and, when I did, I was surprised by the number of MiceChat users who defended the concept.

Do the things I consider flaws actually appeal to Europeans? For example, many, if not most, Californians look at Universal Studios Hollywood as a tourist trap, but British people seem to devour the place whole.

In a way, I can understand the appeal because Universal Studios is one of the few working facilities for the production of motion pictures and television that actually welcomes the general public. But, so much of the place lacks convincingness that many Californians see through the contrivances and find the manipulations grating.

Walt Disney Studios Paris doesn't even have the benefit of being a working facility, so how can the pretense of a studio not insult the intelligence of the park's audience? All of the most recent capital expenditures seem to be going to waste because they don't address the most glaring creative problems W.D.S.P. has.

[fizzog]

I think a movie park can work really well, and actually I think WDS can work really well as well as the concept, but the execution has to be brilliant. Sadly, WDS's execution was, uh, not quite brilliant for one reason: contrast. It was one big concrete mass. I think the concrete mass that is there now (really backlot and some of prod.courtyard) has an atmosphere all of its own and is great but it has nothing to complimenht it, it makes up the park's bulk. Toon Studio has helped, Hollywood has helped even more but what they really need is two more large street sets and another backlot-style section behind them.

[nathan detroit]

Originally Posted by fizzog

Toon Studio has helped,

Sorry Fizzy I disagree. Toon Studios is a completely wasted opportunity and remains a concrete mass with a few banners featuring Disney characters. The Cars section at least makes an effort but I long for a much more consuming theme. If we are to believe that 'toons' go to work in a studio, I doubt that it looks just as ugly as a real studio. However, I suspect the execution was more about a limited budget than limited ideas.

[fizzog]

I didn't say it was good, I said it broke it up a bit...

[nathan detroit]

Yes, and it is a step in the right direction but I was crushingly disappointed by the place once I got there after seeing the photos of the 'toony' bits - I thought it was all going to be like that. The Cars photo op and the 'entrance' to Toontown are great but I hate the fact that Crush's Coaster is a giant monolith painted blue.

[fizzog]

It's the lead-up that gets me. If all the area was like the toony section I'd actually be quite happy but it isn't. I think it needs just some little touches, such as a camera crane hanging over the pathway with Goofy hanging off it, that sort of thing, dabs of life. Also it needs an entrance gate or arch, something to really segregate it from the rest, maybe even make a planter bottleneck just so there's some feeling of passing through to another realm

[CaliforniaAdventurer]

[quote=PragmaticIdealist;2143936]One of the reasons I ask this question is because I've made the same criticisms in the past, and, when I did, I was surprised by the number of MiceChat users who defended the concept....[quote]

Pure, simple unadulterated fun. Try it prag, going to Disney parks can be more fun than typing online critiques of them, sometimes.

[jml338]

As a French guy who went to Disney MGM Studio before WDS was build, I can tell you that I was really disappointed by the 2nd gate in Paris. I remember being so excited to see the animators working as well as visiting part of a real movie studio in Orlando (they had just made an episode of ER there). It was so magic for me.

So, when I learn that they were going to build the WDS, I could not have been more thrilled. Plus, it was around that time that Tarzan was made almost exclusively in France. Things seemed to move in the right direction... until they decided to save money and closed their real "studio" in Paris (Eisner's decision). I was literally heartbroken. The whole concept of the second park was not holding up anymore for me. I knew that it could not work out. Without the main attraction, how could this be a success ? Well, it was not.

Maybe I am completely wrong with this but it seemed to me that this flaw was the downfall of the park. Not only because the public was disappointed (the rides were not that good and everything looked so cheap including the merchandise.... ) but also because the initial intention behind it disappeared. There was some kind of vacuum creatively. It seemed like the Imagineers did not know what to do with it anymore. It was not only because of money but also because it could not work no matter what. The main reason for the 2nd gate existence was not there. The Tram tour became ridiculous (except the Canyon part), Armageddon was out of place and I will not even talk about the "animation building"... a total shame... The stunt show and perhaps the TV studio were the only thing that were "in" the theme. Of course, now that I have been to Disney-MGM studio again, I have quite a different feeling since a lot has disappeared

Again, maybe I am wrong. But this the way I fell it.