Walt Disney; Paradise Pier; & The Circle of Life

[Mr Wiggins]

But California is not an idea. California is a place with many ideas associated with it. You can't celebrate the California by exploring similar ideas expressed in other parts of the world. Then you're celebrating other parts of the world that happen to have some similarities to California!

Exactly right. I went to POP (Pacific Ocean Park) as a kid, but when somebody says "seaside amusement park with a pier & boardwalk" the first thing I think of is the east coast and Atlantic City. Not California.

IMO the idea of "Disney's California Adventure" as a Disney theme park -- located not only in California but cheek-to-jowl with Disneyland -- is exactly the sort of ambiguous, marketing-think BS that Eisner and his bunch would dream up in a meeting. Conceptually it never was a theme park in the Disney sense, just an excuse to throw together a mall with trendy eateries and cheap rides to tap the youth & young singles market. =P

[Datameister]

IMO the idea of "Disney's California Adventure" as a Disney theme park -- located not only in California but cheek-to-jowl with Disneyland -- is exactly the sort of ambiguous, marketing-think BS that Eisner and his bunch would dream up in a meeting. Conceptually it never was a theme park in the Disney sense, just an excuse to throw together a mall with cheap rides, to try to tap the youth & young singles market. =P

I agree that that was the motivation, although, as I've said, I still think a California theme could potentially have worked quite well for the park, if handled correctly. But the California theme they chose was the product of the kind of thought you're talking about, and it's cost them a lot.

[pianoman13]

Because there's not much that's romantic about an industrial facility that churns as many people through per hour as possible, feeding them carefully designed doses of emotions and thrills. The point of an attraction is to "be" somewhere other than that attraction. That's how the magic happens.

I just happen to think that magic can still happen with those limitations.

No...that'd be an experience you could easily get by going to a real seaside amusement park, such as the Santa Cruz Beach Boardwalk. They're less numerous than they once were, but they exist. And they're the genuine article. I'm not a fan of them, but at least they're authentic.

It would be "Disney Adventure," as you put it, if the roller coaster developed a mind of its own and decided to take you underwater, or if something went horribly wrong (never fails! ) and you had to take a detour through an area of the pier under construction, or if it were a roller coaster on another planet, or if it somehow raced through scenes that established an environment other than an amusement park. But none of those things would work in the context of a land that's themed to be nothing more than a run-of-the-mill pier, minus the authenticity and the beach. And more to the point, none of them would serve to honor California.

Yep, add a "something goes HORRIBLY wrong" plot and we're good, I (sort of) said that!

In the words of a friend of mine who'd never been to Disneyland before, upon seeing the top of Paradise Pier above the roof of the hotel he was staying in, before entering Disneyland itself and having a fantastic time:

"Why does Disneyland look so un-magical?"

And that about sums up what DCA means to the "average guest." No technicalities are required for one to realize that the plot of land occupied by Paradise Pier had SO much more potential.

I'm talking about once the Pier is "finished" with it's re-model.

[d.N.d.]

IMHO...

DCA is nothing but a cheap thrive by the former CEO to stake his name in the disney mountain. Think about it had he done nothing and just maintaned the parks and followed the straight and narrow his name would never be mentioned when he left the company.

Alas his name is attached to negativity (but all publicity is good publicity, and to be remembered is better than being forgotten to some).

DCA is a theme park. Disneyland is a childs dream

Would walt have built DCA. Who knows Walt obviously went bigger and louder with his purchase and production of WDW so who knows what he would have done to DL or if he would have been more focused on WDW.

What we do know is that tomorrow when we wake up DCA is one step closer to upholding that first intial and thats all anyone can ask for.
(well for the time being).

But thats just my opinion

[Datameister]

I just happen to think that magic can still happen with those limitations.

Then why go to Disneyland? Other places are a lot cheaper, and still provide the sensation of being on a ride.

Yep, add a "something goes HORRIBLY wrong" plot and we're good, I (sort of) said that!

You said they should add a room with an ocean horizon painted on the wall. That's slightly different.

I'm talking about once the Pier is "finished" with it's re-model.

Which, as I've said, will be a lot more attractive, but still suffer from most of the same fundamental issues.

[pianoman13]

Then why go to Disneyland? Other places are a lot cheaper, and still provide the sensation of being on a ride.

But what if they do the "something goes horribly wrong" plot and make it up to Disney standards?

You said they should add a room with an ocean horizon painted on the wall. That's slightly different.

I was talking about how I also said "plot points".

Which, as I've said, will be a lot more attractive, but still suffer from most of the same fundamental issues.

If your friend was talking about the attractiveness issues when it comes to being magical than I think the pier should be fine. If you're talking otherwise, I admit that my argument doesn't hold up.

Sorry that I didn't say anything specific..my posts probably sound like generalizations.(spelling?) I'm just a little tired at the moment to elaborate on things.

[dizzneeland]

Ok..So I just came out of a day at the studio to see a wave of posts. Let me catch up and I'll respond. I'm glad the original post has sparked such a discussion and I hope this post doesn't kill it.... hahahaha

[Datameister]

But what if they do the "something goes horribly wrong" plot and make it up to Disney standards?

Then we're no longer talking about a boardwalk theme. We're talking about a boardwalk theme with a twist - something I'd welcome in a Disney park that weren't supposed to be about glorifying California.

If your friend was talking about the attractiveness issues when it comes to being magical than I think the pier should be fine. If you're talking otherwise, I admit that my argument doesn't hold up.

The buildings will indeed, I think, look "magical." It'll be a lot nicer. I really enjoyed seeing the Midway Mania exterior and new facades for the first time a few weeks ago. Made me feel better about all the changes. But again...the same fundamental problem is still there.

If I want to go to a seaside amusement park, I go to a seaside amusement park. A Disney park's job is, in part, to provide an experience you can't get somewhere else.

[MasterGracey]

Even porno?

Maybe someday.

But seriously, what is the alternative? Saying that Disney can never built a Ferris Wheel? They can never build a roller coaster or space shot? Why limit the possibilities?

If the guests come and enjoy what they have to offer, then what is the problem with building it?

"Maybe someday."

Even if that's a joke (and coming from you, I'm not entirely sure), it's not a very good one.



The problem is that guests aren't coming and enjoying the offerings as much as you've deluded yourself to believe.

If they were there wouldn't be plans to remove the Maliboomer. If they were there wouldn't be plans to eventually remove Mullholland Madness. If they were, they wouldn't have replaced the Burritos and Chicken Strips with a new ride. If they were, they wouldn't be completely retheming two key areas of the theme park. If they were, they wouldn't have thrown some Disney characters at midway games in a desperate attempt to make them more palatable to guests.


What will it take for you to acknowledge that DCA isn't the home run that you keep trying to paint it as? This $1 billion budget it's burning through does include expansion projects, yes, but plenty of it is also being spent to rebrand and retheme the park as a whole.


As for Paradise Pier, the land suffers, and will likely continue to suffer, because it, like most of DCA, serves no purpose. The land as it was built had no substance, and was simply built to be meaninglessly "fun," and failed at even being that. Adding Disney characters to Paradise Pier is going to do very little to help that, not because the characters themselves are devoid of meaning, but because they have no relevance to the pier/carnival setting, adding little value to the pier.

In Fantasyland, the carnival rides with character themes work because the rides fit characters and their stories and their stories work within the realm of Fantasyland. At Paradise Pier, the characters and their stories are irrelevant to Paradise Pier. Goofy in a Southern California pier makes no sense. Mickey on a Ferris wheel is meaningless. Toy Story characters hosting midway carnival games is pointless.

The question is and will be - why are these characters existing in this world? What is their function here?

The answer is, of course, Disney's so-called guest research that claims people want to see more "Disney (characters)" in the park.

And doesn't that seem the be the answer for everything these days?

[Datameister]

Bingo.

[animagusurreal]

...
As for Paradise Pier, the land suffers, and will likely continue to suffer, because it, like most of DCA, serves no purpose. The land as it was built had no substance, and was simply built to be meaninglessly "fun," and failed at even being that. Adding Disney characters to Paradise Pier is going to do very little to help that, not because the characters themselves are devoid of meaning, but because they have no relevance to the pier/carnival setting, adding little value to the pier.

In Fantasyland, the carnival rides with character themes work because the rides fit characters and their stories and their stories work within the realm of Fantasyland. At Paradise Pier, the characters and their stories are irrelevant to Paradise Pier. Goofy in a Southern California pier makes no sense. Mickey on a Ferris wheel is meaningless. Toy Story characters hosting midway carnival games is pointless.

The question is and will be - why are these characters existing in this world? What is their function here?

The answer is, of course, Disney's so-called guest research that claims people want to see more "Disney (characters)" in the park.

And doesn't that seem the be the answer for everything these days?

The way that they could possibly sort-of work is if we imagine that these are Disney characters who were "licensed" to a pierside amusement park during their heyday in the 1920's and 30's. Of course, that doesn't explain what the Toy Story characters are doing there :P .

I have to admit, the Toy Story characters do sorta-kinda work, just within TSMM itself, with the idea of the guests playing the games, because the toys are all about play. (Even if the "under Andy's bed plot" of the attraction still makes zero sense .)

I don't care for those survey justifications, either. Of course people would say want to see more Disney characters. People (especially ones who visit Disney theme parks) tend to like Disney characters. That doesn't mean that slapping a Disney character on an off-the-shelf ride automatically makes it "more Disney," nor does it mean that people will only like an attraction if it involves a popular Disney character.

I believe putting popular characters into everything is just a way to make management feel "justified" to use the funds to build and update attractions, since they can be seen as "commercials" for merchandise.

[MasterGracey]

The way that they could possibly sort-of work is if we imagine that these are Disney characters who were "licensed" to a pierside amusement park during their heyday in the 1920's and 30's. Of course, that doesn't explain what the Toy Story characters are doing there :P .

I have to admit, the Toy Story characters do sorta-kinda work, just within TSMM itself, with the idea of the guests playing the games, because the toys are all about play. (Even if the "under Andy's bed plot" of the attraction still makes zero sense .)

I don't care for those survey justifications, either. Of course people would say want to see more Disney characters. People (especially ones who visit Disney theme parks) tend to like Disney characters. That doesn't mean that slapping a Disney character on an off-the-shelf ride automatically makes it "more Disney," nor does it mean that people will only like an attraction if it involves a popular Disney character.

I believe putting popular characters into everything is just a way to make management feel "justified" to use the funds to build and update attractions, since they can be seen as "commercials" for merchandise.

Themes should make sense without having to make excuses like "Toy Story kind of works, just within the ride itself," or without contrived backstories like "The characters are licensed out to a Pier's midway."

The themes and creative decisions Disney are adding and making should feel natural. Force justifying the themes defeats the purpose of having those themes in the first place.

You can put lipstick on a pig, but then you have to ask why the pig is wearing lipstick at all. It doesn't feel natural, and it isn't fixing any of the pig's problems.

[animagusurreal]

Themes should make sense without having to make excuses like "Toy Story kind of works, just within the ride itself," or without contrived backstories like "The characters are licensed out to a Pier's midway."

The themes and creative decisions Disney are adding and making should feel natural. Force justifying the themes defeats the purpose of having those themes in the first place.

You can put lipstick on a pig, but then you have to ask why the pig is wearing lipstick at all. It doesn't feel natural, and it isn't fixing any of the pig's problems.

I agree with you. The themes of Disneyland were designed specifically for the attractions that Disney placed within them, and they were broad and universal enough to allow other attractions to be placed within them. DCA's themes aren't like that. I read somewhere that the only thing they planned to add in the early years was an Ursula-themed spinner in Paradise Pier. I don't know if that's true, but I don't think they really thought about what attractions could be added to the existing themes. And I don't think any of the Pixar attractions fit properly into Disneyland or DCA, which is why I once suggested a seperate Pixarland, with themes specifically designed to accomadate Pixar-based attractions.

Despite all that, as I said in my previous post, I think Disney characters on a nostaligic 1920's pier, if done right, can sorta-kinda work, on some level, even if it's not "the best of all possible lands."

[Coheteboy]

I'd be in full support of a Pixar Place area, but it's too late. The damage has been done throughout the world. You even have something like Epcot's Nemo and Friends Living Seas.... and then Animal Kingdom's Finding Nemo Musical.

Nothing is in its right place.



Back to Paradise Pier, I'd be completely fine with a 'disney' Paradise Pier with the main core characters... but yah, Toy Story doesn't work and to me, neither does Little Mermaid. I'm sure it'll be a great attraction, but being a part of Paradise Pier?

I personally would prefer they execute another theme-crime and just add a Little Mermaid themed land to serve as the other half of Paradise Pier. What that means is that Golden Zephyr would need to go but Jumpin Jellyfish makes more sense.


But of course you still have Paradise Pier Hotel and the Grand Californian to ruin any kind of theme you have going on. Even a pier theme.

[Mr Wiggins]

I'd be in full support of a Pixar Place area, but it's too late. The damage has been done throughout the world. You even have something like Epcot's Nemo and Friends Living Seas.... and then Animal Kingdom's Finding Nemo Musical.

Nothing is in its right place.

Bingo. You just identified Disney's thematic tone-deafness, dead on the money.

Today's "Walt Disney" Company sticks Mickey's face on a generic ferris wheel and Pixar toons in Tomorrowland. They make Woody walk the streets of Frontierland, accompanied by background music from The Good, the Bad and the Ugly and City Slickers. They choreograph hip hip moves for Mary Poppins to perform on Main Street, where turn-of-the-century buildings have been repainted the bright colors of your local trendy mall.

DCA's theming is a joke because Disney execs don't get theming in general. They see no difference between Mickey Mouse and Buzz Lightyear, Donald Duck and Dory the Fish. Like Michael Eisner, whose plans to buy the Muppets included having Kermit and Miss Piggy cavorting side by side with Mickey and Goofy in Disneyland, they think toons are toons, and that all of it is "Disney brand," and that all of Disney brand is for the youth market.

Today's "Disney" jams characters and themes together willy-nilly, in a desperate push to sell, sell, sell.