Walt Disney; Paradise Pier; & The Circle of Life

[dizzneeland]

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.

What about the Safari ride at Animal Kingdom...Couldn't you just go to the zoo???

[MrLiver]

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.

No they don't. Unless it's marketed correctly.

Disneyland was full of experiences that weren't all that unheard of at the time. Fantasyland had the carnival rides. Frontierland was pretty much built in the image of Knott's Ghosttown.

But it was shown on TV as DISNEYLAND and what you were doing was driving across the country to go to the same DISNEYLAND you saw on TV. You were driving across the country to see the celebrities (Davy Crocket and Mickey Mouse). The rides were really just a bonus.

[dizzneeland]

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 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. (Of course, even Paradise Pier looks better than the park shown in the movie.)

This is off topic, but that was shot at Kennywood right? Isn't that Steel Phantom in the background?

[Datameister]

I will concede this: if Disney went totally all-out in theming the exterior landscape of Paradise Pier to a completely convincing (although not 100% accurate) simulacrum of these old boardwalks, providing an intensely nostalgic and warm and magical experience, I just might be able to support that. Maybe. But there would have to be no expense spared. It would need to be really special. The kind of place that makes you yearn for the past. Main Street in amusement park form. Which is, to a certain degree, the direction Disney is starting to take with the land.

But the rides are very, very problematic. In such a land, each ride would represent exactly what it is: a mechanical amusement park ride. And there's no Disney "magic" in that. Riding an unusually thrilling Ferris wheel that pretends to be an unusually thrilling Ferris wheel is great, but not in a Disney park at Disney prices. Riding a drop tower that pretends to be a drop tower is great, but not in a Disney park at Disney prices.

When I go to a Disney park, I don't want to be thinking about the fact that I'm in a large facility that's designed to provide automated thrills and storytelling and immersion in exchange for beaucoup bucks. (Well, sometimes I do want to think about that. But I want to do it because I want to do it, not because the environment reminds me.) The way you make guests half-forget they're in an amusement park is by immersing them in simulated environments...by taking them on adventures that have nothing to do with amusement parks.

[Coheteboy]

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.

Excellent post.

And like Data, I think I can fall in love with a Paradise Pier that is done to perfection. No expense spared. A true seaside atmosphere. There IS something romantic about it as I said before. But they've got a long way to go.

What about the Safari ride at Animal Kingdom...Couldn't you just go to the zoo???

Yah you could ... but what's your point? The park is called Animal Kingdom. What's wrong with seeing animals at Animal Kingdom?

[Seawolf]

No they don't. Unless it's marketed correctly.

Disneyland was full of experiences that weren't all that unheard of at the time. Fantasyland had the carnival rides. Frontierland was pretty much built in the image of Knott's Ghosttown.

But it was shown on TV as DISNEYLAND and what you were doing was driving across the country to go to the same DISNEYLAND you saw on TV. You were driving across the country to see the celebrities (Davy Crocket and Mickey Mouse). The rides were really just a bonus.

Yet again, just because something was good enough in 1954 does not make it right for 2009. DCA should not be trying to immitate Disneyland during its infant stage when there wasn't any money, technology, or real foundation for the company.

What about the Safari ride at Animal Kingdom...Couldn't you just go to the zoo???

HMMM didn't know you could ride 100 million dollar + attractions at a zoo?

[dizzneeland]

I will concede this: if Disney went totally all-out in theming the exterior landscape of Paradise Pier to a completely convincing (although not 100% accurate) simulacrum of these old boardwalks, providing an intensely nostalgic and warm and magical experience, I just might be able to support that. Maybe. But there would have to be no expense spared. It would need to be really special. The kind of place that makes you yearn for the past. Main Street in amusement park form. Which is, to a certain degree, the direction Disney is starting to take with the land.

But the rides are very, very problematic. In such a land, each ride would represent exactly what it is: a mechanical amusement park ride. And there's no Disney "magic" in that. Riding an unusually thrilling Ferris wheel that pretends to be an unusually thrilling Ferris wheel is great, but not in a Disney park at Disney prices. Riding a drop tower that pretends to be a drop tower is great, but not in a Disney park at Disney prices.

When I go to a Disney park, I don't want to be thinking about the fact that I'm in a large facility that's designed to provide automated thrills and storytelling and immersion in exchange for beaucoup bucks. (Well, sometimes I do want to think about that. But I want to do it because I want to do it, not because the environment reminds me.) The way you make guests half-forget they're in an amusement park is by immersing them in simulated environments...by taking them on adventures that have nothing to do with amusement parks.

That's what made me think of the initial question in the first place. The reality is Pressler f*t up. Sorry, but he did. The entire execution of his tenure is just....yeah.

So I asked if Walt had came up with the idea for Paradise Pier and ran with it, obviously sparring no expense, would it be so bad. Is it the idea of Paradise Pier or the execution of 10-cent-Press' bored-walk?


Personally I'd like to see Screamin's cars revamped to look like the Giant Dipper's at santa Cruz or Belmont, change the screamtubes to the wood-style housing tunnels old school coaster had, and make the que/station inclosed, with the initial turn to the launch station dark. It would make screamin a themed coaster. You'd see supports, but that is part of the theme. BTMRR's engine on the front doesn't obstruct the view of the ride, it adds to the theme. The same theory could be applied to screamin.

[Datameister]

Disneyland was full of experiences that weren't all that unheard of at the time. Fantasyland had the carnival rides. Frontierland was pretty much built in the image of Knott's Ghosttown.

It also had the Jungle Cruise. Mr. Toad. Snow White. Peter Pan. Rocket to the Moon. And a great framework within which many better attractions could later be created.

When the best you can do is make weak comparisons to a park that opened 54 years ago, there's a problem. If being "relevant" is truly that important, comparisons like that should be a red flag for Disney.

EDIT:

I asked if Walt had came up with the idea for Paradise Pier and ran with it, obviously sparring no expense, would it be so bad. Is it the idea of Paradise Pier or the execution of 10-cent-Press' bored-walk?

For the exteriors, sure, it's mostly the execution. But for the ride experiences, it's the very idea, like I said above. Unless it's a boardwalk with a very significant Disney-ish twist, the rides still represent exactly what they are. And that's a problem. A Disney ride should take me somewhere else - it should be an attraction. It should aim to be a lot more than a system of mechanical vehicles that take you through scenes or provide views or pump you full of adrenaline. But to aim that high would be out of theme in a land that simply emulates the boardwalks of the past.

[dizzneeland]

Excellent post.



Yah you could ... but what's your point? The park is called Animal Kingdom. What's wrong with seeing animals at Animal Kingdom?

What's wrong with seeing Pier rides at Paradise Pier?

[animagusurreal]

This is off topic, but that was shot at Kennywood right? Isn't that Steel Phantom in the background?

According to Google: yes, it is Kennywood .

[Seawolf]

And like Data, I think I can fall in love with a Paradise Pier that is done to perfection. No expense spared. A true seaside atmosphere. There IS something romantic about it as I said before. But they've got a long way to go.

I also agree, if the area was done with no expense spared and was treated as a piece of art then yes it would be ok. However, it would need to include attractions that push the envelope, not ones that you can buy freely on the market.

What's wrong with seeing Pier rides at Paradise Pier?

The problem is they aren't special in any way. I hope you realize that Disney has the funds available to drastically change an ordinary carnival ride concept and convert it into something amazing. Instead of buying ordinary carnival rides on the market how about creating new ones from the ground up that push the limit of technology?

[Coheteboy]

What's wrong with seeing Pier rides at Paradise Pier?

Nothing.

The argument between Liver and everyone else is that, if it's okay for Fantasyland, why isn't it okay for Paradise Pier? Which leads to the question of whether or not Paradise Pier is okay for a Disney park.

[dizzneeland]

It also had the Jungle Cruise. Mr. Toad. Snow White. Peter Pan. Rocket to the Moon. And a great framework within which many better attractions could later be created.

When the best you can do is make weak comparisons to a park that opened 54 years ago, there's a problem. If being "relevant" is truly that important, comparisons like that should be a red flag for Disney.

EDIT:



For the exteriors, sure, it's mostly the execution. But for the ride experiences, it's the very idea, like I said above. Unless it's a boardwalk with a very significant Disney-ish twist, the rides still represent exactly what they are. And that's a problem. A Disney ride should take me somewhere else - it should be an attraction. It should aim to be a lot more than a system of mechanical vehicles that take you through scenes or provide views or pump you full of adrenaline. But to aim that high would be out of theme in a land that simply emulates the boardwalks of the past.

I think the direction the Pier is taking is more appropriate to what you're talking about. There isn't a way around having a 'wood' coaster, ferris wheel and at least 1 spin ride at any pier. And that's where you see the fault in the overall theme...BUT, with the inclusion of TSMM, TLM, WoC, and the design overlay taking place, the off the shelf but needed rides balance with the true to heart Disney attractions. The land will(should) further take shape once the beer garden, possible new E-ticket to replace Goofy, and etc start to happen. Once the upgrades are complete, the land should be amazing and truely Disney in the same sense that Animal Kingdom isn't just a zoo.

[PragmaticIdealist]

No they don't. Unless it's marketed correctly.

Disneyland was full of experiences that weren't all that unheard of at the time. Fantasyland had the carnival rides. Frontierland was pretty much built in the image of Knott's Ghosttown.

But it was shown on TV as DISNEYLAND and what you were doing was driving across the country to go to the same DISNEYLAND you saw on TV. You were driving across the country to see the celebrities (Davy Crocket and Mickey Mouse). The rides were really just a bonus.

With thinking like that, is there any wonder D.C.A. experienced such difficulty?

Apparently, all D.C.A. needed was a television series featuring Mickey Mouse riding his roller coaster and his fun wheel.

[dizzneeland]

The problem is they aren't special in any way. I hope you realize that Disney has the funds to be able to drastically change an ordinary carnival ride concept and convert it into something amazing. Instead of buying ordinary carnival rides on the market how about creating new ones from the ground up that push the limit of technology?

I hope you realize Disney is investing 1.2 billion of those funds correcting the problem prior management created. I see a lot of posts saying it's 2009 but the same people posting those comments are still talking about Paradise Pier like it's 2001! And as far as converting off the shelf rides into something amazing, dumbo is astro jets with a different car. The surrounding atmosphere is what mkaes those rides acceptable in a Disney park.