Walt Disney; Paradise Pier; & The Circle of Life

[MrLiver]

I could swear I just read a trip report saying that the two who visited rode the teacups 15 times!!! People do like the 'off the shelf' type rides but the execution and surrounding details that add to the experience are very important. That's where the premium price comes in. That's what Paradise Pier in it's original form was lacking.

Well how does that explain the popularity of the Teacups when they really were just a carnival ride with fancy paint surrounded by a chain link fence?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v470/bananaphone5000/GORILLLAS/Fantasyland7-60.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v470/bananaphone5000/NEWGORILLA/7-58Dumbo.jpg

It's really just a matter of occam's razor: Why can't we just say that people liked these rides because they were fun?

[Coheteboy]

Well how does that explain the popularity of the Teacups when they really were just a carnival ride with fancy paint surrounded by a chain link fence?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v470/bananaphone5000/GORILLLAS/Fantasyland7-60.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v470/bananaphone5000/NEWGORILLA/7-58Dumbo.jpg

It's really just a matter of occam's razor: Why can't we just say that people liked these rides because they were fun?

They WERE fun. They ARE fun. But why? Is it because they spin you around? No.

it's the total package. You're at disneyland in a medieval fantasyland. You're flying on Dumbo. You're spinning in a mad tea party. There's something FUN about the impossible.

Paradise Pier does not give you the impossible. It gives you what's real and what already existed... in a less than interesting land.

[dizzneeland]

Well how does that explain the popularity of the Teacups when they really were just a carnival ride with fancy paint surrounded by a chain link fence?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v470/bananaphone5000/GORILLLAS/Fantasyland7-60.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v470/bananaphone5000/NEWGORILLA/7-58Dumbo.jpg

It's really just a matter of occam's razor: Why can't we just say that people liked these rides because they were fun?

Peace, man. I agree with you. But as far as people paying a premium price and not cah-vetch-ing about it, the surrounding detail is important. That's all I'm saying.

[PragmaticIdealist]

People generally don't pay thousands of dollars and travel halfway around the world for the fun of a carnival ride. So, your simple explanation is really just simpleminded.

[MrLiver]

To be perfectly fair, Dumbo and Teacups are perfect examples of a Disney animated property matching an existing ride. Dumbo is a flying elephant. Mad Tea Party sets you inside spinning tea cups.

Dumbo I might give you, since he does fly, but the teacups? No where in the movie did the teacups dance and spin like they do in the ride. The teacups were never made an integral part of the movie.

This really is just a case of finding an already existing amusement ride and dressing it up to thinly fit some movie.

What does Paradise Pier offer in that level of theming?

Well I guess that the new swings will be perfectly matched to the original animated short.

And to add on another... Flik's Fun Fair TRIES to be Fantasyland and fails miserably. The only ride remotely well thought out was Flik's Flyers.

I like Hemlich's Chew Chew Train. It's cute.

[dizzneeland]

They WERE fun. They ARE fun. But why? Is it because they spin you around? No.

it's the total package. You're at disneyland in a medieval fantasyland. You're flying on Dumbo. You're spinning in a mad tea party. There's something FUN about the impossible.

Paradise Pier does not give you the impossible. It gives you what's real and what already existed... in a less than interesting land.

As far as this is concerned....

It allows me to ride a Ferris Wheel that has innerswinging gondolas. I've never had that happen.

It allows me to go through a loop at the Disneyland resort. I've never had that happen.

I could enjoy an adult beverage on property without sneaking it in. I've never had that happen.

And it developed Disneyland into a resort worthy of a couple days.



The thematic element wasn't up to par, but to say it wasn't an interesting land is a short statement.

[dizzneeland]

People generally don't pay thousands of dollars and travel halfway around the world for the fun of a carnival ride. So, your simple explanation is really just simpleminded.

And insulting someone for having a different opinion is childish...

[PragmaticIdealist]

The climax of "Alice in Wonderland" has the Mad Hatter and the March Hare insist that Alice join them in a final cup of tea. The teacup happens to be the size of a Buick, though, and she literally joins them "in" a cup of tea. That kind of visual gag would make Lewis Carroll proud.

The attraction is one big visual gag.

[PragmaticIdealist]

And insulting someone for having a different opinion is childish...

The comment was in reference to Ockham's razor and Mr. Liver's simplistic explanation.

[MrLiver]

They WERE fun. They ARE fun. But why? Is it because they spin you around? No.

Then why do you think they spin around at all? Do you think they would be just as interesting if they were just static exhibits?

it's the total package. You're at disneyland in a medieval fantasyland. You're flying on Dumbo. You're spinning in a mad tea party. There's something FUN about the impossible.

So then tying the carnival rides of Paradise Pier into Disney properties really IS the answer, and will suddenly make these attractions more palatable to the audience?

Personally I enjoy a little realism here and there. I think Walt did too. Like I said before, not everything has to be tied to Fantasyland.

Paradise Pier does not give you the impossible. It gives you what's real and what already existed... in a less than interesting land.

What's wrong with giving people a REAL experience? What's wrong with giving them something that already existed?

It's funny to see the two different camps react so differently to the same situations. On one hand you have folks claiming that Main Street isn't real enough, and then you have folks complaining that Paradise Pier is too real.

[Coheteboy]

Dumbo I might give you, since he does fly, but the teacups? No where in the movie did the teacups dance and spin like they do in the ride. The teacups were never made an integral part of the movie.

This really is just a case of finding an already existing amusement ride and dressing it up to thinly fit some movie.

Oh but they do! Watch the movie again. There is a moment where a lot of stuff go mad. It's all in good fun and they've done so much to improve it since it opened.

Well I guess that the new swings will be perfectly matched to the original animated short.

Mmm... not exactly. Everything in Paradise Pier is just a ride. Silly Symphony Swings is still a swings ride but just Disneyfied.

In Fantasyland, you can really pretend that you're flying on the one and only dumbo. You can pretend that you're partaking in a mad tea party. Or that you're a circus animal on Casey Jr, etc.


What do you exactly pretend on Silly Symphony Swings?

I like Hemlich's Chew Chew Train. It's cute.

Cute is a description of appearance. It doesn't mean it's worth paying money to experience.

[dizzneeland]

The comment was in reference to Ockham's razor.

The bulk of your contributions in this topic have been quite condescending towards Mr Liver. But this not the time or the place.

[Seawolf]

Of course he would have agreed! Wasn't a carnival area pegged for the original concepts of Disneyland?

Some people today forget that Walt was about entertaining people, and anything that entertains people certainly has a place inside his park.

To think that Walt would have approved making a carnival area with off the shelf rides in 2009 is ridiculous. You are comparing apples and oranges because back then the technology simply wasn't available and Disneyland was in its infant stage, not only that but there was a severe lack of funds. Over the years Walt realized that his imagineers were better than that and his true dream started to be realized by constantly pushing the envelope and delivering a show that no one else had ever seen before. This is what got us Pirates of the Caribbean and Haunted Mansion and if Walt was still alive today he would have already blown these attractions out of the water by now. Please don't compare DCA to a park that was built in 1954, we have advanced too far to stoop down to that level and Disney should't be given any excuse to do so either.

[Coheteboy]

So then tying the carnival rides of Paradise Pier into Disney properties really IS the answer, and will suddenly make these attractions more palatable to the audience?

Personally I enjoy a little realism here and there. I think Walt did too. Like I said before, not everything has to be tied to Fantasyland.

If you want the REAL experience, you can get it for a lot cheaper at the county fair.

And that's the whole point. We go to Disney for something else. There's a lot more 'something else' left to create. But instead, we got DCA.

[animagusurreal]

While it's an interesting argument, personally, I don't believe pulling the rug out from under the competition by doing the unexpected was what Disney had in mind when they chose the theme for Paradise Pier (as the OP suggested), but rather:

1) Imitation of Six Flags and other amusement-park-model "theme parks"

2) An excuse to cut corners, i.e. "it's not supposed to really look like Route 66 - because it's a carnival themed to Route 66!"

And I don't think that's a good way to go about choosing a theme. It started off on the wrong foot.

As it is, I think Paradise Pier actually looks pretty good from across the "bay," especially at night. But up close, there are a lot of exposed mechanisms, stucco walls, muddled cheapie theming, and other things that are very un-Disney. The walk from TSMM to Mulholland Madness past all those cheezy carnival-themed shops is depressing.

Some of the old fab five cartoons did have them going out to the carnival for a good time. I think that they could capture some of the nostalgia for that sort of innocent, old-timey, bygone-era carefree fun experience, and, atmospherically, the land can be salvaged.

HOWEVER - there will always be the thematic problem of the rides in the land being actual rides at a carnival, rather than magical gateways to adventure. The warning sign on California Screamin' describes it as an "adventure," just as the signs on Splash Mountain and Space Mountain do. But, as much as I love Screamin', it's not an adventure - it's a roller coaster.

Not to mention, there is the flipside, the negative cultural impression of this sort of carnival/amusement park. I recently saw the movie Adventureland, and it made me appreciate all the more the difference between an amusement park like the one shown in the movie, and the genuine Disney theme park. Even though Paradise Pier looks cleaner/nicer than that type of amusement park, there is still that association. Hopefully, the retheming will overcome that.