Does it still bother you that DCA is not 100% California-themed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DARTH MAUL

Again, you don't have to like it, but it's essentially calling them liars. I work in a creative field and when I justify an idea, it's not a matter of opinion or debate. Someone may not LIKE my justification, but no one has any right to say it's not true and no one (especially not a general audience member with no background or training in design) is an any place or authority to accept or reject it. To do so is to argue a fact, which is absurd. Sorry, but that's just how it is. I'm not attacking anyone personally, but when an artist presents an idea and its formation, it's not an opinion. The only thing up for criticism is the ideas execution.

---

(bold mine)

"You don’t know about me without you have read a book by the name of The Adventures of Tom Sawyer; but that ain’t no matter. That book was made by Mr. Mark Twain, and he told the truth, mainly. There was things which he stretched, but mainly he told the truth. That is nothing. I never seen anybody but lied one time or another..."

- Huckleberry Finn, narrating in Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, by Mark Twain (a very creative individual, here essentially calling himself a "liar.")


"I bet there's been pirates on this island before, boys. We'll explore it again. They've hid treasures here somewhere. How'd you feel to light on a rotten chest full of gold and silver - hey?"

- noted liar Tom Sawyer, from The Adventures of Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain, as quoted by Disney as part of the lie that the Pirates of the Caribbean revamp of the island had anything to do with Tom Sawyer.

To answer the OP's question -

Yes and no. It doesn't bother me when I'm enjoying the park, but it does bug me in principle.


What we're seeing is the collision of two very different theme park ideologies.

1) The Eisner Regime (circa late 90's/early 2000's), which was all about running away from Disney's family image and looking "hip, modern and trendy" while also saving money on all that costly scenery and animatronics that franchise-based rides require.

2) The Iger Regime, which is all about paying for relative quality by making nearly everything an advertisement for popular franchises, but is at least trying to bring back the idea of period theming and going to a time and a place that you can't go anywhere else. (Actually, this is sort of two different ideologies just by itself!)


The problem is that the park was designed for the purpose of #1, and is now having #2 shoved into it. Unlike, say, Fantasyland, which was designed specifically to be the "home" of multiple Disney film properties, while standing on its own as this sort of crossroads for all things fantasy and fairytale.

Very few theme-park-adaptable Disney properties are set distinctively in California (i.e., where it actually matters that they're set there instead of Nebraska or Colorado or wherever). And the few that are - The Rocketeer for one - aren't the ones that Iger wants to promote.

No Disney park before has ever been tied to just one country - let alone one state. But I'm perfectly fine with the park venturing to places that are tied to California, even if they're not 100% physically in the state, like Route 66. (It's sort of like how New Orleans, which has been called "The Northernmost Caribbean City", is used as a jumping off point for an adventure into Caribbean pirate lore - which I'm also fine with). And if you're going to do a Route 66 land anyway, it makes sense to use the setting from a movie that was a love-letter to that concept.

The Little Mermaid and Toy Story in Paradise Pier are trickier for me. It doesn't work the same as Fantasyland, where we've gone through the castle and we've entered a portal into a magical realm. Here, we're at a Californian pierside amusement park in the 1920's, we get on one of the rides and suddenly we're in the magical world of a 1989 Disney film based on a European fairytale. That said, the "sea lore" connection to the pier works a LOT better than putting Monsters Inc. in Hollywoodland. More on that to come.

Toy Story Mania - it makes sense in a way that the toys are running an attraction that's all about playing games. But such modern plastic characters in an emerging period setting is still a little odd.

And "bugs land" - bugs are not specifically Californian in any way. But it's such a small land, I can probably overlook that...like a bug I'm not bothering to swat. It bugs me more that it's an entire land of off-the-shelf carnival rides and one 3D movie.

The other thing is that Pixar films (except for Brave) are more in the tradition of Disney films like Lady and the Tramp or 101 Dalmatians - i.e., the movies that never got rides at Disneyland. Which is how Pixar rides wind up shoehorned into lands where they don't fit, or taking up whole lands of their own. Neither park was designed for them.

So Monsters in winds up on The Island of Misfit Franchises - a.k.a. studio theming, the laziest form of Disney theming, and barely a step above the "random collection of rides" system that Disneyland was designed to get away from. To paraphrase Syndrome, "everything will fit the theme, and when everything fits the theme...BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA...nothing will!" OK, so "only" rides based on movies fit, but that doesn't help when all the rides nowadays are based on movies! It's especially bewildering when the "set" (the first thing we see upon entering the "backlot") is not even a set of Monstropolis, but of the opening credits sequence. Who builds a set of the stylized opening credits sequence? And then we're in a transit hub. ??? I think that in order to fit into Hollywoodland, the ride should either have something to do with Hollywood lore (ToT) or the filmmaking process (The Animation Building). The only thing I'll give them is that Monsters would probably fit worse anywhere else.

It makes me wonder - if the park was built under Iger, would we see an entire park of lands based on popular franchises, or one popular franchise (what we'll probably see with the Third Gate), and would it be better or worse than what we've got now? (Less distinctive, possibly).

What I think would help solidify the California theme - if that's what they want to do - is a full-fledged San Francisco land done a-la New Orleans Square, set in the 1800's, with a couple of original attractions to anchor it. (SF has a long history and is a port, so it shouldn't be hard to use it as a jumping-off point to adventure). Where they would put this, I have no idea, but it doesn't necesarrily have to be where the park's San Francisco Bathroom Street is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by animagusurreal

To answer the OP's question -

Yes and no. It doesn't bother me when I'm enjoying the park, but it does bug me in principle.


What we're seeing is the collision of two very different theme park ideologies.

1) The Eisner Regime (circa late 90's/early 2000's), which was all about running away from Disney's family image and looking "hip, modern and trendy" while also saving money on all that costly scenery and animatronics that franchise-based rides require.

2) The Iger Regime, which is all about paying for relative quality by making nearly everything an advertisement for popular franchises, but is at least trying to bring back the idea of period theming and going to a time and a place that you can't go anywhere else. (Actually, this is sort of two different ideologies just by itself!)


The problem is that the park was designed for the purpose of #1, and is now having #2 shoved into it. Unlike, say, Fantasyland, which was designed specifically to be the "home" of multiple Disney film properties, while standing on its own as this sort of crossroads for all things fantasy and fairytale.

Very few theme-park-adaptable Disney properties are set distinctively in California (i.e., where it actually matters that they're set there instead of Nebraska or Colorado or wherever). And the few that are - The Rocketeer for one - aren't the ones that Iger wants to promote.

No Disney park before has ever been tied to just one country - let alone one state. But I'm perfectly fine with the park venturing to places that are tied to California, even if they're not 100% physically in the state, like Route 66. (It's sort of like how New Orleans, which has been called "The Northernmost Caribbean City", is used as a jumping off point for an adventure into Caribbean pirate lore - which I'm also fine with). And if you're going to do a Route 66 land anyway, it makes sense to use the setting from a movie that was a love-letter to that concept.

The Little Mermaid and Toy Story in Paradise Pier are trickier for me. It doesn't work the same as Fantasyland, where we've gone through the castle and we've entered a portal into a magical realm. Here, we're at a Californian pierside amusement park in the 1920's, we get on one of the rides and suddenly we're in the magical world of a 1989 Disney film based on a European fairytale. That said, the "sea lore" connection to the pier works a LOT better than putting Monsters Inc. in Hollywoodland. More on that to come.

Toy Story Mania - it makes sense in a way that the toys are running an attraction that's all about playing games. But such modern plastic characters in an emerging period setting is still a little odd.

And "bugs land" - bugs are not specifically Californian in any way. But it's such a small land, I can probably overlook that...like a bug I'm not bothering to swat. It bugs me more that it's an entire land of off-the-shelf carnival rides and one 3D movie.

The other thing is that Pixar films (except for Brave) are more in the tradition of Disney films like Lady and the Tramp or 101 Dalmatians - i.e., the movies that never got rides at Disneyland. Which is how Pixar rides wind up shoehorned into lands where they don't fit, or taking up whole lands of their own. Neither park was designed for them.

So Monsters in winds up on The Island of Misfit Franchises - a.k.a. studio theming, the laziest form of Disney theming, and barely a step above the "random collection of rides" system that Disneyland was designed to get away from. To paraphrase Syndrome, "everything will fit the theme, and when everything fits the theme...BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA...nothing will!" OK, so "only" rides based on movies fit, but that doesn't help when all the rides nowadays are based on movies! It's especially bewildering when the "set" (the first thing we see upon entering the "backlot") is not even a set of Monstropolis, but of the opening credits sequence. Who builds a set of the stylized opening credits sequence? And then we're in a transit hub. ??? I think that in order to fit into Hollywoodland, the ride should either have something to do with Hollywood lore (ToT) or the filmmaking process (The Animation Building). The only thing I'll give them is that Monsters would probably fit worse anywhere else.

It makes me wonder - if the park was built under Iger, would we see an entire park of lands based on popular franchises, or one popular franchise (what we'll probably see with the Third Gate), and would it be better or worse than what we've got now? (Less distinctive, possibly).

What I think would help solidify the California theme - if that's what they want to do - is a full-fledged San Francisco land done a-la New Orleans Square, set in the 1800's, with a couple of original attractions to anchor it. (SF has a long history and is a port, so it shouldn't be hard to use it as a jumping-off point to adventure). Where they would put this, I have no idea, but it doesn't necesarrily have to be where the park's San Francisco Bathroom Street is.

---

Excellent post!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by animagusurreal

To answer the OP's question -

Yes and no. It doesn't bother me when I'm enjoying the park, but it does bug me in principle.


What we're seeing is the collision of two very different theme park ideologies.

1) The Eisner Regime (circa late 90's/early 2000's), which was all about running away from Disney's family image and looking "hip, modern and trendy" while also saving money on all that costly scenery and animatronics that franchise-based rides require.

2) The Iger Regime, which is all about paying for relative quality by making nearly everything an advertisement for popular franchises, but is at least trying to bring back the idea of period theming and going to a time and a place that you can't go anywhere else. (Actually, this is sort of two different ideologies just by itself!)


The problem is that the park was designed for the purpose of #1, and is now having #2 shoved into it. Unlike, say, Fantasyland, which was designed specifically to be the "home" of multiple Disney film properties, while standing on its own as this sort of crossroads for all things fantasy and fairytale.

Very few theme-park-adaptable Disney properties are set distinctively in California (i.e., where it actually matters that they're set there instead of Nebraska or Colorado or wherever). And the few that are - The Rocketeer for one - aren't the ones that Iger wants to promote.

No Disney park before has ever been tied to just one country - let alone one state. But I'm perfectly fine with the park venturing to places that are tied to California, even if they're not 100% physically in the state, like Route 66. (It's sort of like how New Orleans, which has been called "The Northernmost Caribbean City", is used as a jumping off point for an adventure into Caribbean pirate lore - which I'm also fine with). And if you're going to do a Route 66 land anyway, it makes sense to use the setting from a movie that was a love-letter to that concept.

The Little Mermaid and Toy Story in Paradise Pier are trickier for me. It doesn't work the same as Fantasyland, where we've gone through the castle and we've entered a portal into a magical realm. Here, we're at a Californian pierside amusement park in the 1920's, we get on one of the rides and suddenly we're in the magical world of a 1989 Disney film based on a European fairytale. That said, the "sea lore" connection to the pier works a LOT better than putting Monsters Inc. in Hollywoodland. More on that to come.

Toy Story Mania - it makes sense in a way that the toys are running an attraction that's all about playing games. But such modern plastic characters in an emerging period setting is still a little odd.

And "bugs land" - bugs are not specifically Californian in any way. But it's such a small land, I can probably overlook that...like a bug I'm not bothering to swat. It bugs me more that it's an entire land of off-the-shelf carnival rides and one 3D movie.

The other thing is that Pixar films (except for Brave) are more in the tradition of Disney films like Lady and the Tramp or 101 Dalmatians - i.e., the movies that never got rides at Disneyland. Which is how Pixar rides wind up shoehorned into lands where they don't fit, or taking up whole lands of their own. Neither park was designed for them.

So Monsters in winds up on The Island of Misfit Franchises - a.k.a. studio theming, the laziest form of Disney theming, and barely a step above the "random collection of rides" system that Disneyland was designed to get away from. To paraphrase Syndrome, "everything will fit the theme, and when everything fits the theme...BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA...nothing will!" OK, so "only" rides based on movies fit, but that doesn't help when all the rides nowadays are based on movies! It's especially bewildering when the "set" (the first thing we see upon entering the "backlot") is not even a set of Monstropolis, but of the opening credits sequence. Who builds a set of the stylized opening credits sequence? And then we're in a transit hub. ??? I think that in order to fit into Hollywoodland, the ride should either have something to do with Hollywood lore (ToT) or the filmmaking process (The Animation Building). The only thing I'll give them is that Monsters would probably fit worse anywhere else.

It makes me wonder - if the park was built under Iger, would we see an entire park of lands based on popular franchises, or one popular franchise (what we'll probably see with the Third Gate), and would it be better or worse than what we've got now? (Less distinctive, possibly).

What I think would help solidify the California theme - if that's what they want to do - is a full-fledged San Francisco land done a-la New Orleans Square, set in the 1800's, with a couple of original attractions to anchor it. (SF has a long history and is a port, so it shouldn't be hard to use it as a jumping-off point to adventure). Where they would put this, I have no idea, but it doesn't necesarrily have to be where the park's San Francisco Bathroom Street is.

---

+1! An excellent post indeed!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by animagusurreal

(bold mine)

"You don’t know about me without you have read a book by the name of The Adventures of Tom Sawyer; but that ain’t no matter. That book was made by Mr. Mark Twain, and he told the truth, mainly. There was things which he stretched, but mainly he told the truth. That is nothing. I never seen anybody but lied one time or another..."

- Huckleberry Finn, narrating in Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, by Mark Twain (a very creative individual, here essentially calling himself a "liar.")


"I bet there's been pirates on this island before, boys. We'll explore it again. They've hid treasures here somewhere. How'd you feel to light on a rotten chest full of gold and silver - hey?"

- noted liar Tom Sawyer, from The Adventures of Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain, as quoted by Disney as part of the lie that the Pirates of the Caribbean revamp of the island had anything to do with Tom Sawyer.

---

Obviously Pirates had nothing to do with Tom Sawyer, as they were an original story. However when Disney creates things they start by using things in their own canon as source material. If Tom Sawyer mentions pirates and they want to tie in pirates, then of course they're gonna use the ones from their own canon. I'm not a fan of the films, but the execution of the update was not badly done. And since the awful show has been ended, I think the two live together quite well. That's just my feeling, but the justification holds. Again, this is people just not LIKING it.

Thanks, calsig and gatheringrosebuds! :) :) :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DARTH MAUL

Obviously Pirates had nothing to do with Tom Sawyer, as they were an original story. However when Disney creates things they start by using things in their own canon as source material. If Tom Sawyer mentions pirates and they want to tie in pirates, then of course they're gonna use the ones from their own canon. I'm not a fan of the films, but the execution of the update was not badly done. And since the awful show has been ended, I think the two live together quite well. That's just my feeling, but the justification holds. Again, this is people just not LIKING it.

---

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what you're saying sounds like they went,

"Well, Tom Sawyer mentions pirates, so we should have some pirates on the island. But which pirates should we have? I know! OUR pirates!"

Here's my interpretation:

"We have to have another Pirates of the Caribbean attraction to meet demand and promote our popular franchise. But where can we put it? I know, we'll put it on the island with that unpopular Tom Sawyer stuff. But there might be a backlash from those literary types. I'll read the book and see what I can find. AHA! A mention of pirates! Perfect! Make a sign immediately!"

Add to that the fact that Tom Sawyer is a liar with delusions of grandeur - there were probably never any pirates on that island - and it begins to sound like an excuse (which I guess is a synonym for "justification"). I get that there was limited space and where else could they put it, but I still don't buy that the Sawyer quote had anything to do with why they put it there in the first place. It seems like this is how a lot of theming goes these days, including at DCA (trying to make this not too OT ;) )

Personally, the theme of the park is more consistent than before.

Buena Vista Street - 1920s LA
Hollywood Land - Hollywood
Paradise Pier - Santa Cruz Boardwalk in the 1920s
Grizzly Peak - Californioa's National Parks
Condor Flats - California's numerous Airstrips
Pacific Wharf - Fisherman's Wharf and Monteray
Cars Land - California's car culture and Route 66
Bug's Land - Califonia has bugs (joking aside, it is nicely detailed with many hidden features)

The park is a major improvement fromwhat it originally looked like when it opened in 2001.

On the contrary, I wish they'd remove the 'California' part of the theme from it entirely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by animagusurreal

Thanks, calsig and gatheringrosebuds! :) :) :)




Correct me if I'm wrong, but what you're saying sounds like they went,

"Well, Tom Sawyer mentions pirates, so we should have some pirates on the island. But which pirates should we have? I know! OUR pirates!"

Here's my interpretation:

"We have to have another Pirates of the Caribbean attraction to meet demand and promote our popular franchise. But where can we put it? I know, we'll put it on the island with that unpopular Tom Sawyer stuff. But there might be a backlash from those literary types. I'll read the book and see what I can find. AHA! A mention of pirates! Perfect! Make a sign immediately!"

Add to that the fact that Tom Sawyer is a liar with delusions of grandeur - there were probably never any pirates on that island - and it begins to sound like an excuse (which I guess is a synonym for "justification"). I get that there was limited space and where else could they put it, but I still don't buy that the Sawyer quote had anything to do with why they put it there in the first place. It seems like this is how a lot of theming goes these days, including at DCA (trying to make this not too OT ;) )

---

In the books it's not so much that they talk about pirates actually being in the island, rather there is a whole section where the boys decide to run away from home and move out to the island to actually become pirates themselves. They spend several days out on the island playing and imagining that they're pirates until they become homesick and return home. So in that sense, DL's pirate island makes some sense as it is a place for kids to go and run around and pretend that they actually are the pirates that the saw over in NOS.

My main hang up with DCA back in the day was that it lacked any Disney soul. Granted I grew up going to Disneyland, so it was hard not to compare, and accept DCA for what it was. I really like the direction DCA has taken, and I find myself feeling a hint of the magic that I have always felt when I enter Disneyland.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by animagusurreal

(bold mine)

"You don’t know about me without you have read a book by the name of The Adventures of Tom Sawyer; but that ain’t no matter. That book was made by Mr. Mark Twain, and he told the truth, mainly. There was things which he stretched, but mainly he told the truth. That is nothing. I never seen anybody but lied one time or another..."

- Huckleberry Finn, narrating in Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, by Mark Twain (a very creative individual, here essentially calling himself a "liar.")


"I bet there's been pirates on this island before, boys. We'll explore it again. They've hid treasures here somewhere. How'd you feel to light on a rotten chest full of gold and silver - hey?"

- noted liar Tom Sawyer, from The Adventures of Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain, as quoted by Disney as part of the lie that the Pirates of the Caribbean revamp of the island had anything to do with Tom Sawyer.

---

Here's the chapter where Tom Sawyer, the Black Avenger of the Spanish Main, Huck Finn the Red-Handed, and Joe Harper, the Terror of the Seas first set off to become pirates:

Tom Sawyer - Chapter 13

The whole thing covers several chapters, and is woven throughout the book.

Okay, now this may not have to do with the thread, but what if WDI put a Howard Johnson's Restaurant in Hollywood land, particularly in one of those fake buildings to the left (at end of 'block')? Not only would that fit the 1930's theme, but who doesn't love Howard Johnson! Doesn't Disney own a motel of their's anyway???