Not that Punny: The negative effects of Disney's California Advenuture's wordplay

[MrLiver]

Many people currently in Imagineering have just as much hatred for these things.

I've known several folks in Imagineering, and I know that several of them share the same unfounded jealousy and biases that you do. At least on some level their biases are founded as their professional work was rejected in favor of the ideas that went into DCA.

But, aside from the biases, that doesn't mean that the ideas that went into DCA were flawed or lacking quality. I'm sure you think so, and I'm sure that all the old Imagineers that got all huffy after being rejected think so too. But then there are still 6 million people a year going to DCA and it's still on the top ten of US parks. Obviously all those flawed concepts are appealing to someone.

All those Imagineers hate to admit that the park is still drawing people with all those half brained ideas. When it comes down to it, they can't see past their own egos.

And, the internal culture of toxic politics and oppressive conformity fostered under Eisner has to change in order for Disney to succeed in the future.

I agree. Conformity is not a good thing, and Disney needs to break free from the ideas of the past by putting an end to the idea that every Disney park needs to look and feel like Disneyland.

The Imagineers of the past need to give way to a new generation that could actually build a new park, and not rely so much on what was done in the past.

[MasterGracey]

So the name doesn't matter at all?

The name of the Maliboomer alone isn't meant to carry the whole theme of the attraction. It's meant to be a clever name that relates to the other games of the boardwalk. It's meant to be fun, that's all. It's no different than Disneyland naming a generic food stand in Tomorrowland the "Lunching Pad."

The name of an attraction shouldn't be the only trace of theming.

But you still went there, so obviously it had some value to you.

Yeah, the value was to get pictures of progress on NEW entertainment which is rumored to be of much better quality than of what is already there.

So you're saying that it didn't matter what was built in the parking lot, because as long as there were park hoppers and annual passes, it was guaranteed to draw guests from the other parks? Doesn't that prove the whole point Eisner and Pressler were trying to make? It seems that despite whatever you think of the park, or whatever excuse you come up with, you still go to DCA and I'm guessing you go fairly often.

Twist my words to make them justify your beliefs that DCA is a Disney-quality park worth $63 of admission.

If my Annual Passport didn't allow me to visit DCA, I wouldn't be visiting the park as often as I do. The fact of the matter is that I've visted Disneyland alone enough times this year to pay off my pass numerous times. DCA is a free excursion into a less-crowded area where I can get some good air conditioning and check up on projects that are in progress.

The purpose of DCA wasn't to build a park that could stand on it's own, it was to build a park that would compliment the Disneyland experience, by offering experiences that were not available in Disneyland proper.

And yet it seems you implied that DCA could stand alone, since it has, afterall, "already overtaken all of the competition in California to be the second most visited on the West Coast."

[PleaseRemainSeated]

But isn't this the purpose of the park?

Absolutely not. DCA is meant to be an amusement park that is based on California, yes, but it is not meant to be an informative walkthrough of the history or attractions of that state.

Disney's California Adventure can still be a quality park like its sister just because its overall theme is different. DCA, at least to me, is not a quality park yet. It is a "so-so" park.

In fact, it is because Disney's California Adventure lacks so, so much in attractions and overall design that it fails with the crowds.

Maybe if the designers had worried less on the numerous puns in the park and focused more on the design of the actual park, the quality of its ride and its attractions at the beginning when it was being built, Disney wouldn't be in the mess it is currently in now.

That's why I really don't find the puns funny.

To me, quality of attractions has almost nothing to do with their titles and whether or not the puns are funny. I've always thought that "Snow White's Scary Adventures" was kind of lame, but it doesn't have much to do with the quality of the ride. Do the puns or titles of any shop or attraction in DCA dictate whether or not they are well-designed? Of course not. Therefore, the puns have absolutely nothing to do with the problems you describe. There's nothing inherently wrong with any of the rides at DCA or what they're called. Maybe some feel that no Disney park should ever have 'generic' rides, but this is a completely different issue. If DCA was successful and approved of by Disney fans, I doubt that anybody would mind how many restaurants had puns in their titles.

Why should any attraction in Disney's California Adventure actually have anything to do with California? Is that what you're asking? I don't see any reason why anything in DCA shouldn't be themed to California. California is the park's theme!

Exactly so. Indiana Jones is the theme of Indiana Jones and the Temple of the Forbidden Eye, but the ride does not take you through an experience that tells you exactly what happens in the films - it's meant to create the same feeling that the flims create, not to duplicate the real thing.

Likewise, DCA isn't supposed to be a road trip. If you take me to "The San Francisco Shoe Shop" in DCA because, I'm informed, San Fran is famous for making shoes, I'll shrug and say "Oh. Kay. That's nice." -- But it doesn't make for a fun attraction. I can "get" the joke of a Bur-r-r-rbank Ice Cream shop without having to either be a Californian, or hear a history lecture.

You're absolutely right. DCA is not supposed to be a Disneyland experience. It's supposed to be a Disney experience. The Disney brand is deepy rooted in entertainment, quality, and nostalgia. DCA lacks greatly in these areas.

This may be entirely true. But it has nothing whatsoever to do with how many puns are used in the park. Again, the name of the attraction does not define its quality.

DCA rides are only generic because thats what the park's budget dictated. The generic, off-the-shelf nature of the attraction in the park isn't some brilliant strategy to make all of the rides fit in the theme - its a cop-out for poor planning by management. Don't fool yourself into thinking that Paradise Pier's unattractive, stucco- and vinyl-covered walls, and the off-the-shelf carnival rides is a well thought-out plan by Imagineering and management to provide an excellent Disney experience. It's not.

Again, this is a separate issue. If the nostalgic feeling and otherworldly quality of a good theme park is missing, this problem goes a lot deeper than the idea to use puns all over the park as a running gag. Disneyland's Hidden Mickeys are one big running gag. The idea itself works - perhaps the restaurant or ride under the sign is lacking, but again, this isn't the same thing.

I don't dislike puns. I do, however, dislike the mis-use and over-use of them. I also dislike when the only trace of theme in a themepark is via the wholly un-clever puns littering the building facades and attraction marquees.

As I said before, this is not a misuse of puns, it's absolutely the right way to use them. A lot of the puns are quite clever and cute, and furthermore, they aren't exactly meant to appeal to Disneymaniacs or intellectuals, they are meant to appeal to young people and families - the great unwashed masses. And, again, how many is too many? This is totally a matter of personal preference. Disney rides like the Haunted Mansion and Jungle Cruise rely heavily on pun humor. Why? Because most average people like them.

To me, this seems like sour grapes. The theming of the rides is unsatisfactory, therefore the puns are stupid and annoying. If the quality of DCA is lacking, it isn't just due to the fact that puns were used. If the park lacks a coherent theme, then maybe the attractions need adjusting.

Perhaps using puns in titles as the only way to tie things together is not a satisfactory way to run a Disney theme park - that's a reasonable point of view. This is why DCA is getting reworked. But it doesn't make anything inherently wrong with the ones that are there.

[MasterGracey]

I've known several folks in Imagineering, and I know that several of them share the same unfounded jealousy and biases that you do. At least on some level their biases are founded as their professional work was rejected in favor of the ideas that went into DCA.

You act as though DCA is the Holy Grail of Walt Disney Imagineering. You act as though the people who are in displeasure of what DCA is are jealous because the park is actually a top-notch, perfectly themed escape into the magic and wonder of the Golden State!

How can a wild mouse coaster with painted flats strewn haphazzardly across its structure be something that garners jealousy? Certainly, attractions like Mulholland Madness, the Maliboomer, California Screamin', and all of the under-themed shops and restaurants don't strike up jealousy. They strike up discontent because they're cheap and were miserably underfunded.

If you seriously think the PragmaticIdealist and the people within DCA are jealous because their better ideas for DCA didn't get implimented because of Micro-Managing Eisner and his budget-slashing cronies, then I just don't know what to say to you anymore.

[MrLiver]

The name of an attraction shouldn't be the only trace of theming.

In the case of the Maliboomer, it is not.

Yeah, the value was to get pictures of progress on NEW entertainment which is rumored to be of much better quality than of what is already there.

I hope you have fun taking the pictures.

Twist my words to make them justify your beliefs that DCA is a Disney-quality park worth $63 of admission.

I never said that I personally thought that DCA was a Disney-quality park worth the price of admission.

If my Annual Passport didn't allow me to visit DCA, I wouldn't be visiting the park as often as I do.

But it does and you do visit the park.

If the park is really half as bad as you say, why go at all?

By continually going, whether you are paying or not, you are still counting toward the total attendance for the park and the perceived success of the park.


If you don't like the park, stop going. Otherwise you are simply proving that the Annual Pass program has validated every mistake that Pressler made.

[TrojanSkippa]

So the name doesn't matter at all?
It's no different than Disneyland naming a generic food stand in Tomorrowland the "Lunching Pad."

It's very different, and I'm stunned that there are quite a few who don't see the difference...

The "Lunching Pad" was a generic food location located directly beneath the Peoplemake....er PeopleMover and a massive Rocket Jet attraction within Tomorrowland. The PeopleMover and Rocket Jets Created the theme of the land of toomorrow. While the clever play on words of "The Lunching Pad" exists to Support the theme.

If Tomorrowland were created with the DCA credo in place, The Peoplemak...uh PeopleMover and Rocket Jets would be eliminated, and The Lunching Pad would be left to stand alone to try and create the theme with word games instead of quality attractions.

I know a couple of Imagineers as well, and they are giddy to begin replacing the components of DCA that are lacking. I do not doubt, that there are designers out there who think what they created is thier personal gift to the Disney legacy, but I believe that those are the same ego driven yes-men who personify the Pressler era.

[MrLiver]

How can a wild mouse coaster with painted flats strewn haphazzardly across its structure be something that garners jealousy?

Because of a simple truth on the primordial nature of human beings. It's the same reason why Disney could spend hundreds of millions of dollars on their themed dark rides, and yet the most popular attractions are all roller coasters and thrill rides.

Which is a more popular attraction: the 100+ million Finding Nemo Submarine Voyage or the 20 million dollar Space Mountain?

It's a sad truth that people would rather ride on a roller coaster than a 40 minute, well detailed boat ride, but it's still the truth.

Certainly, attractions like Mulholland Madness, the Maliboomer, California Screamin', and all of the under-themed shops and restaurants don't strike up jealousy. They strike up discontent because they're cheap and were miserably underfunded.

If they are so horrible, why do people still ride them?

Because they're free? Because they get in with the Annual Passes?

So mediocrity is acceptable as long as it is free?

[MrLiver]

If Tomorrowland were created with the DCA credo in place, The Peoplemak...uh PeopleMover and Rocket Jets would be eliminated, and The Lunching Pad would be left to stand alone to try and create the theme with word games instead of quality attractions.

So instead of playing word games, they should simply name it "Generic Food Location?"

They shouldn't attempt to make a creative name unless they have attractions to back it up?

[MasterGracey]

Absolutely not. DCA is meant to be an amusement park that is based on California, yes, but it is not meant to be an informative walkthrough of the history or attractions of that state.

Disney's California Adventure is meant to be a theme park. A place where cohesive themes take you to different places and let you escape.

You're right in the sense that DCA is closer to an amusement park, rather than a theme park... but DCA isn't supposed to be an amusement park.

Likewise, DCA isn't supposed to be a road trip. If you take me to "The San Francisco Shoe Shop" in DCA because, I'm informed, San Fran is famous for making shoes, I'll shrug and say "Oh. Kay. That's nice." -- But it doesn't make for a fun attraction. I can "get" the joke of a Bur-r-r-rbank Ice Cream shop without having to either be a Californian, or hear a history lecture.

San Francisco is famous for its cable cars, Alcatraz, Chinatown, architecture. I think the posibilities of representing those aspects of the city in the park would have been far superior to a row of empty facades, or even a shoe shop, as you suggested.

This may be entirely true. But it has nothing whatsoever to do with how many puns are used in the park. Again, the name of the attraction does not define its quality.

Maybe not quality, but the name of an attraction can certainly define an attraction's relevance and theme significance. Especially, when the only thing supporting said relevance and theme significance is the attraction name itself.

Again, this is a separate issue. If the nostalgic feeling and otherworldly quality of a good theme park is missing, this problem goes a lot deeper than the idea to use puns all over the park as a running gag. Disneyland's Hidden Mickeys are one big running gag. The idea itself works - perhaps the restaurant or ride under the sign is lacking, but again, this isn't the same thing.

Ah, yes, but Hidden Mickeys are typically subtle, hard to find, and a lot of people don't actually know about them. The puns at DCA are openly visible every few steps in the park, commonly obnoxious and emblazoned in neon, and often aren't conscious of the area's theme in which they exist.

As I said before, this is not a misuse of puns, it's absolutely the right way to use them. A lot of the puns are quite clever and cute, and furthermore, they aren't exactly meant to appeal to Disneymaniacs or intellectuals, they are meant to appeal to young people and families - the great unwashed masses. And, again, how many is too many? This is totally a matter of personal preference. Disney rides like the Haunted Mansion and Jungle Cruise rely heavily on pun humor. Why? Because most average people like them.

And yet, the very nature of the Jungle Cruise and Haunted Mansion attractions are specifically designed to be witty and clever. The Haunted Mansion's gloom is cleverly offset by the macabre wit of the Ghost Host. The Jungle Cruise's charm lies in its ability to openly make fun of itself. And even still, the Haunted Mansion and Jungle Cruise are secluded incidents of the use of puns in Disneyland. At DCA, puns are used relentlessly in almost every area of the park, sometimes with complete disregard to theme - and the puns are used soley to make mis-placed attractions and shops seem like they fit in the park.

To me, this seems like sour grapes. The theming of the rides is unsatisfactory, therefore the puns are stupid and annoying. If the quality of DCA is lacking, it isn't just due to the fact that puns were used. If the park lacks a coherent theme, then maybe the attractions need adjusting.

Certainly the attractions need adjusting! That's the whole point. Many of the attractions, shops, and restaurants in DCA needed adjusting from the moment they were planned. But instead of properly adjusting them to properly function with the park's theme, park designers gave them punny names and called it a day.

Perhaps using puns in titles as the only way to tie things together is not a satisfactory way to run a Disney theme park - that's a reasonable point of view. This is why DCA is getting reworked. But it doesn't make anything inherently wrong with the ones that are there.

If DCA is getting reworked because of a lack of proper theming, then certainly there is something inherently wrong with the overuse of the puns, because clearly they arent doing their job of sufficiently theming the park, right?

[TrojanSkippa]

So instead of playing word games, they should simply name it "Generic Food Location?"

They shouldn't attempt to make a creative name unless they have attractions to back it up?

They shouldn't create "clever names" INSTEAD OF quality attractions.

The problems I have with the puns at DCA are that the names are used in place of actual themeing...that is to say instead of creating an actual immersive environment that Disney parks are famous for, they use word games to imply a location. Sam Andreas shakes...vs an actual Earthquake attraction. The biggest problem is within the Hollywood Pictures backlot, where these word games are repeated over and over with NO connection to the land they represent. It's the sort of cynical, cleverness that was prevelant in the late 90's.

[MrLiver]

You're right in the sense that DCA is closer to an amusement park, rather than a theme park... but DCA isn't supposed to be an amusement park.

DCA is supposed to be entertaining. What difference does it make if it is called a theme park or an amusement park. There are many amusement parks that call themselves theme parks, but folks really don't care.

Maybe not quality, but the name of an attraction can certainly define an attraction's relevance and theme significance. Especially, when the only thing supporting said relevance and theme significance is the attraction name itself.

You seem to be the only one arguing that the Maliboomer's name is the only thing that supports the attraction's theme. That is simply untrue. If the name was changed to something entirely different, the theme of a beach front striker game would still remain.

If DCA is getting reworked because of a lack of proper theming, then certainly there is something inherently wrong with the overuse of the puns, because clearly they arent doing their job of sufficiently theming the park, right?

DCA is not changing. The placemaking project is only there to enhance the themes which already exist. There were a lot of areas of DCA that were not fleshed out at opening that will now get the attention they deserve. From the looks of it, the Pier theme is going to be stregthened significantly, and if there was a problem with the California Pier theme, wouldn't they be trying to eliminate it entirely?

I'd like to hear your thoughts on why you think "Toy Story Mania" is a better name, and supports the theme of the area better than "Maliboomer."

[MasterGracey]

I never said that I personally thought that DCA was a Disney-quality park worth the price of admission.

You've certainly implied that you think DCA is a quality park, numerous times.

If the park is really half as bad as you say, why go at all?

I've told you my reasons for going. If one cannot read and comprehend them, then I suggest taking an English course.

If you don't like the park, stop going. Otherwise you are simply proving that the Annual Pass program has validated every mistake that Pressler made.

I hate it when people tell me to stop going. It's such a silly, childish rebuttal.

I hardly think I'm validating Pressler's mistakes. Considering a rarely contribute to attraction attendance counts, and rarely purchase anything in the park, Disney is getting nothing from me other than a turnstyle tick through the main gates that they aren't getting much payment for at all.

It's very different, and I'm stunned that there are quite a few who don't see the difference...

The "Lunching Pad" was a generic food location located directly beneath the Peoplemake....er PeopleMover and a massive Rocket Jet attraction within Tomorrowland. The PeopleMover and Rocket Jets Created the theme of the land of toomorrow. While the clever play on words of "The Lunching Pad" exists to Support the theme.

If Tomorrowland were created with the DCA credo in place, The Peoplemak...uh PeopleMover and Rocket Jets would be eliminated, and The Lunching Pad would be left to stand alone to try and create the theme with word games instead of quality attractions.

I know a couple of Imagineers as well, and they are giddy to begin replacing the components of DCA that are lacking. I do not doubt, that there are designers out there who think what they created is thier personal gift to the Disney legacy, but I believe that those are the same ego driven yes-men who personify the Pressler era.

A fantastic post.

Because of a simple truth on the primordial nature of human beings. It's the same reason why Disney could spend hundreds of millions of dollars on their themed dark rides, and yet the most popular attractions are all roller coasters and thrill rides.

Which is a more popular attraction: the 100+ million Finding Nemo Submarine Voyage or the 20 million dollar Space Mountain?

It's a sad truth that people would rather ride on a roller coaster than a 40 minute, well detailed boat ride, but it's still the truth.



If they are so horrible, why do people still ride them?

Because they're free? Because they get in with the Annual Passes?

So mediocrity is acceptable as long as it is free?

And yet Space Mountain is a highly-themed, quality E-Ticket with a custom track design, special effects, and storyline.

Mulholland Madness is an off-the-shelf ride that can be found at Six Flags parks. The only difference from its Six Flags clones is that it has painted flats on the sides, depicting a cartoonized version of Mulholland Drive. Clearly, that sort of theming is comparable, if not completely superior to that of Space Mountain's!

[MrLiver]

They shouldn't create "clever names" INSTEAD OF quality attractions.

You're creating a false dilemma here. It's not an either/or decision. No matter what they make, attractions or not, they should have clever names.

The problems I have with the puns at DCA are that the names are used in place of actual themeing...

So you're angry that there is not enough in DCA to occupy your attention, and you are directing that anger at the names in the park?

The problem you have is obviously not with the names themselves and you should admit that. If the puns were all removed, and the names changed to less creative and generic names, would you suddenly say "I'm glad they gave these attractions and restaurants such dull names to match with the surroundings?" My guess is that you would be complaining about such dull names.

Which would you rather have: clever names and dull attractions, or dull names and dull attractions?

[MasterGracey]

You seem to be the only one arguing that the Maliboomer's name is the only thing that supports the attraction's theme. That is simply untrue. If the name was changed to something entirely different, the theme of a beach front striker game would still remain.

Do tell me, then, how the outer space-themed tarps covering the Maliboomer shafts make any sense to the park's California theme? Certainly, they don't. Therefore, the Maliboomer is the only thing tying the attraction to the California theme.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on why you think "Toy Story Mania" is a better name, and supports the theme of the area better than "Maliboomer."

Toy Story Mania! is an awful attraction name. The only reason its the name is because the attraction, which was designed for Paradise Pier, is being cloned at Walt Disney World. Since both attractions are being advertised together in press releases and are opening around the same time, the conformity of attraction titles was important, and unfortunately, the title suffered as "Midway Mania" wouldn't have made sense in the Disney-MGM Studios setting.

"Midway Mania" would have been a far more appropriate name for the attraction. While I think "Mania" is a poor choice of word, I think it's pairing with "Midway" is far better than "Toy Story Mania!" as "TSM!" neither describes the attraction experience or supports the Pier's midway theme.

[MasterGracey]

You're creating a false dilemma here. It's not an either/or decision. No matter what they make, attractions or not, they should have clever names.

The simple elegance of "Haunted Mansion" far outweighs the so-called cleverness of "California Screamin'" ... Attractions don't necessarily need clever names - they need names that are easy to remember, and describe the experience the attraction provides.