Negativity toward Disney

[WrongWay]

Fine, I'll say it. DCA is like a Kmart parking lot carnival. Happy?

No. Because you're not furthering the conversation in search of people's true feelings.

You list 1 movie set in a wine country. How many movies can we list set in jungles? Dozens? In the Old West? Hundreds? To counter these hundreds you list a single sit-com which was set in a small airport?

Really, you don't see a difference in the strength of the theme.

Cannary row was set in the hey-day of Montery bay fishing industry. Again, 1 book, compared to the hundreds of books and movies about medieval Europe and sci-fi lands of the future.



You may have heard this argument over-and-over agian, but from you're reaction, it is clear that you are far more interested in obfuscation and dismissal of people's opinions than in understanding and engaging in intelligent conversation.

[Taxi3]

Isn't DCA supposed to be based on the different icons that create and define California? Yea, sure they have themes, but the "lands" of DCA don't have to be as imaginative as Disneyland's. Since things like HPB, Condor Flats, etc. are based on existing places or places that have existed, you can't compare them to Disneyland. DCA is supposed to be based on real California, not a whole different world of fantasy.

Also, you can say that Disneyland's lands are based on real, existing times or events. Frontierland isn't just a "wild west" theme, it's meant to celebrate the pioneer days of the old west. To show the way people lived in the past. Tomorrowland isn't supposed to be "sci-fi land," it originally showed the developments of the future; science related, real inventions, but not fiction.

[disneyfreak62]

1. Good points MattO


2. Doesn't anyone else think that tutu made the pig look fat?

[cinder]

Yes, but the red really brings out the color in her eyes.

[WrongWay]

Yea, sure they have themes, but the "lands" of DCA don't have to be as imaginative as Disneyland's. Since things like HPB, Condor Flats, etc. are based on existing places or places that have existed, you can't compare them to Disneyland. DCA is supposed to be based on real California, not a whole different world of fantasy.

That was certainly the concept.

And, few now deny that the park that was built on that concept fell flat on its face.

While DCA still has its few Polyannas that maintain their statements that DCA is an awesome park as is, for the most park the discussion has changed from "is DCA awesome or does it suck?" to "is the problem the initial concept of a reality based theme or the poor execution of the reality based concept?".

I'm of the camp that the root problem it the reality based concept. That ANY park based on here and now, everyday reality will be unmagial. I base this opinion on the knowledge that it is the use of imagination that creates magic, and here and now, everyday reality does not evoke the imagination.

Therefore, the lands do not NEED to have strong theme to fit the initial concept, as you point out. However, fitting the initial concept is not where I'd place the bar for judging the successfulness of a theme.

I'd place the bar at "does the theme contribute to creating a park that millions of people a year would be willing to pay full price for the oppertunity to visit".

While the themes of DCA's lands fit the failed reality concept, they do NOT contribute to making a park that people are really chomping at the bit for the oppertunity to visit. Therefore, the themes have proven themeselves to be failures.

I thing Disney realizes this, which is why everything they've added to the park since opening has been moving away from the reality California theme of the initial concept. Aladdin, Playhouse, Bugsland, TwilighZone, Brother Bear, Monsters, rumors of Cars, rumors of conversion of the modern day backlot into 1930s golden age Hollywood.

I applaud Disney's moves, and hope the pace of the change accelerates.

Is that statement negative (I hate the original concept) or positive (I think the park will get much better, and it certainly can't get any worse)? I would guess that depends on your opinion of the current incarnation of DCA.

[WrongWay]

Another link to a pig in a dress:

http://disneyland.disney.go.com/disn...ureLandingPage

I expect Disneyland's official web site to try to put the pig in a dress. I don't expect it from fellow fans. I expect honest discussion from fans.

Do they really list the chew-chew train as a "must see"? Come ON!! It's cute, but it is FAR, FAR, FAR from a must see.

[cinder]

Hmmm, my pig must be fleet of foot, b/c I don't see her in there. I'll keep looking, maybe it's like "Where's Waldo".

[MattO]

No. Because you're not furthering the conversation in search of people's true feelings.

I'm not sure where you came up with the idea I care about others' true feelings.

You list 1 movie set in a wine country. How many movies can we list set in jungles? Dozens? In the Old West? Hundreds? To counter these hundreds you list a single sit-com which was set in a small airport?

And? You said you could think of none and I was just helping you remember. Simple.

Really, you don't see a difference in the strength of the theme.

No, not really.

Cannary row was set in the hey-day of Montery bay fishing industry. Again, 1 book, compared to the hundreds of books and movies about medieval Europe and sci-fi lands of the future.

And? You said you could think of none and I was just helping you remember. Simple.

You may have heard this argument over-and-over agian, but from you're reaction, it is clear that you are far more interested in obfuscation and dismissal of people's opinions than in understanding and engaging in intelligent conversation.

I'm not the one on a crusade.

[jonvn]

DCA is a very nice generic amusement park

Um, no.

It's not a "generic" amusement park. There is a generic amusement park near my house, and they are absolutely not the same. DCA is plainly and obviously a Disney park, and you can tell by the content much of which is only found at Disney, such as the Disney Animation building, the Disney themed shows, the Disney themed rides, and the Disney walk around characters. Not to mention the level of theming, quality, and detail not found at "generic" parks.

Your statement is simply false. Completely false.

That is an honest and factual assessment of DCA's problems.

No, it's not. It's your opinion based on a slanted and false viewpoint that is not borne out by facts. You're simply incorrect, and no matter how often you manage to say the word "mundane," it does not make the park so.

Your opinion, and it is only your opinion and NOTHING more, is incorrect.

Your opinion is simply not the gospel. There are others around who simply have more knowledge and experience on the subject, and they don't agree with you.

Some opinions are "factual". That is, based on evidence, not mearly subjective taste.

This is not the case with your OPINIONS, as they are based on what you claim to be facts which are false on their face, such as a "raft ride themed raft ride." The raft ride is themed to the Sierras. That you simply refuse to either understand or accept this basic fact regarding the theming of this ride, as well as the theming of other rides in the park, is your issue. However, it does make your OPINIONS both invalid and unworthy of much consideration as they are based, again, on falsehood. And it is faksehood that you refuse to acknowledge any other information on.

You don't have a factual opinion. You have an opinion based on false assumption and slanting of the truth to fit some sort of strange crusade against a Disney theme park. The reasons for which I simply can not understand.

Maybe Im way off base here,but isnt Disneyland itself a hodgepodge of reality and fantasy?

No, you're not off base. Most of Disneyland is based on reality and realism. Only in the last few years have they put that aside in totality to go with strict fantasy themes. Much to the detriment of Disneyland, I feel.

The falsehoods, half-truths, and lies that we see here and on a few other websites which are used to justify the pointless slamming of a theme park are just that: falsehoods, half-truths, and lies. They are based on false rules and false concepts. Rules that never really existed, don't exist now for any other Disney theme park, and likely will never exist going into the future. That a few individuals feel that these are the rules or should be the rules means absolutely nothing, beyond it being their opinion that things should be a certain way.

I have my own opinions as to how things should be. That doesn't mean they are right, or "factual opinions." That means they're my opinions, which are based on my views of the park over the last 50 years or so of observing its operation and growth, as well as that of the management of the corporation in general.

There is nothing realistic about Frontierland, Main Street or New Orleans Square.

There is nothing real about Paradise Pier, then, for that matter. Go to the Santa Cruz Boardwalk to see what one of these really looks like.

In that vein, DCA is about on a par with Disneyland in taking reality BASED themes and romanticizing them.

But the reality and fantasy mix perfectly

Only because that is what you grew up with and what you are used to. I've seen Disneyland as a park transform over the years, and the mixture is far from "perfect." Nothing is perfect, first of all, and there are many places in Disneyland that can be best described as badly done, improperly placed, or generally weak.

Main Street ends at the hub,

Main Street ends at the Castle, going in that direction. The "hub" is part of Main Street.

Disneyland is a hodge podge of the most imaginative and exciting settings from pop culture of the 1950s.

Yeah, the 1950s were years of cultural zenith that make its contents just perfect. Right

They did the same things in the 1950s as Disney does now, only now they build the parks a bit better, for example with wider walkways and better sewage systems. Main Street, for example, is not a real Main Street as you would see in a victorian era town. I live in a town filled with victorian era buildings, and have visited the Missouri town that Main Street is based on. They don't look like Main Street. What Main Street consists of is 1950s era strip malls that have been given a fancy facade. These types of malls were, and still are, all over Southern California, albeit without the facade. They are literally nothing more than that, and that is what they look like.

Does that make Main Street a "strip mall themed strip mall?" Of course it doesn't, even if it is plainly obvious to me that is precisely what it is at its base. It IS a strip mall, but it is themed to appear to be victorian era buildings.

How many books and movies have been set in the Wild West? In an untamed jungle? In the future? In medieval Europe? Bazillions!!! Why? Cause these are WAY cool themes!!!

And how many books or movies have been set in California? Again, the analogy makes little sense and does not logically mean much of anything.

Because you're not furthering the conversation in search of people's true feelings.

This is not a therapy session for you. If you need to do what you describe above, I suggest seeing a counselor.

And, few now deny that the park that was built on that concept fell flat on its face.

Considering the park, by all acounts I read, is doing quite well now with almost no changes, it would appear that the concept was actually fine. A couple of restaurants did close, yes. But to say it "fell flat on its face," especially considering the aftermath of 9/11, is again, false, and based on no real information or understanding of the situation.

I expect Disneyland's official web site to try to put the pig in a dress. I don't expect it from fellow fans. I expect honest discussion from fans.

Nobody is putting a "pig in a dress." Honest discussion is not only that which agrees with your very narrow and implausible viewpoints, again generally based on false doctrine.

The simple fact of the matter is that you have your opinions, and others have theirs. Yours are not the correct ones. Far from it, as you base them on statements that are easily countered by the facts of the matter.

you are far more interested in obfuscation and dismissal of people's opinions than in understanding and engaging in intelligent conversation.

Considering you have dismissed any opinion that differs from yours as "putting a pig in a dress," I would suggest that you're not particularly interested in either understanding or engaging in intelligent conversation. You do seem, however, to be interested in insulting anyone who disagrees with you.

[WorldEpcot]

While DCA still has its few Polyannas that maintain their statements that DCA is an awesome park as is, for the most park the discussion has changed from "is DCA awesome or does it suck?" to "is the problem the initial concept of a reality based theme or the poor execution of the reality based concept?".

Do you think it's wise to point out the ones who like DCA, and pretend that the ones who constantly take low shots at it and repeat the same old 'mundane' things are innocent?

I'm not sure where you came up with the idea I care about others' true feelings.

But I thought we had something!

BTW, I thought this was a topic about the neverending negativity towards Disney, not the "I'm going to complain about DCA" thread. Then again, I might be wrong. As long as it furthers the discussion, right?