Is this not exactly what they did with the Columbia for Fantasmic? In that show, it is Hook's ship. Does fall of night edit your theory?Would they build the Sailing Ship Columbia now? No. They don't understand the park theming, and so we'd likely now get Captain Hooks ship in Frontierland. And some people would not see anything wrong with it. But it does weaken the entire park, makes the entire place Fantasyland.
Would they build the Sailing Ship Columbia now? No. They don't understand the park theming, and so we'd likely now get Captain Hooks ship in Frontierland. And some people would not see anything wrong with it. But it does weaken the entire park, makes the entire place Fantasyland.
If you go out far enough. you can say that Splash is a story told by animals (Song of the South) and so is Pooh (just south England).:rolleyes:Pooh is simply badly placed for many reasons.
To quote some one else " Don't worry, Be Happy!"
Disney is the "Happiest Place on Earth"--Right?
Results 51 to 60 of 144
Thread: LA Times review of Flicks
10-04-2002 02:16 PM #51
- Join Date
- Nov 2000
10-04-2002 03:54 PM #52
- Join Date
- Oct 2001
"In that show, it is Hook's ship. Does fall of night edit your theory? "
No, it actually completely validates it.
"If you go out far enough...."
Splash isn't really in theme either.
What's going on here is the total disintegration of Disneyland's themes.
The area around Splash Mountain is a prime example.
To go over the history, it opened to the public as the Indian Village in 1956 (originally the Indian Village was over by where Tarzan Treehouse is now).
That was a semi-realistic portrayal of things frontier-like. Native Americans doing authentic tribal dances, doing tribal crafts, and so on. They were out there on the edge of civilization on the other side of the town before the wilderness.
Well, the indians went on strike, and Disney wanted to put a good show in there, so instead of an Indian Village, we now had something called Bear Country. It was still the frontier, but now it was the Pacific Northwest. But it was no longer semi-realistic, relying instead a bit on the fantasy side with singing bears. Previous to this, the only bears in Frontierland were those doing things in a natural way along the river and Mine Train. Now, they were singing and dancing. Ok, that sort of is a jarring transition, but it was still the frontier of the Pacific Northwest of 1870 or so. Still sort of frontier like, but losing the realism aspect that was one of the primary aspects of park fame.
Problem was that Bear Country didn't get too many visitors. The show was static and just not as popular as hoped for. So after Eisner came in, they decided to build another ride there. Well, there were already singing bears there, what about other animals? Plus you had all these about to be scrapped characters from another misplaced ride, America Sings. So, you slide a bit further. Create something even further from what this area is, part of the frontier, and add things like singing pelicans and such which not only are not part of any sense of a frontier, but aren't even part of the film Song of the South. It really has very little to do with its surroundings, but it's vaguely southern and sits next to New Orleans Square, and hey, it's next to the singing bears, so why not.
Now, with Pooh, we've slid down one more notch. Heck, there are all kinds of singing "critters" over on splash, so lets put in a ride that features toy stuffed animals of English origin that were featured in a series of Disney cartoons.
So, you have this ride in Fantasyland in one park, and somehow it's ok in the frontier/south/northwest/whatever in another? Exactly what time and place is Critter Country now supposed to represent anyway? Because of Bear Country, it has Pacific Northwest landscaping. Because of Splash, it sort of is supposed to be the south? Now, with Pooh, it's a little chunk of fantasyland?
It's a mess theme-wise, and it's because the people doing the design of these places don't understand or care about why the parks were popular in the first place or what makes for theming. They do great on individual efforts, but completely fall apart when tying whole areas together.
So what's next? Since Pooh is in there, and that's somehow a "critter," why not put in a Little Mermaid ride? After all, she's sort of a critter. Or maybe a Beauty and the Beast ride? He's a critter, too. What's the difference? We'll just totally ignore the fact that this area is smack in the middle of the frontier, and does not need to flow logically from its surroundings because it has a different name on it, "Critter Country," now...
And this is happening all over the park.
10-04-2002 04:05 PM #53
- Join Date
- Jun 2002
Darren said "Same goes for the 2 hour movie, or full day DCA theory. Sure it equates to the same value when you only look at admission, but a family of five's $8 movie admsission comes to $40. The same family of fives DCA admission at $45 is $225. Even though divided by 8 hours, it's similar in per hour price as the movie, $225 is still a lot more money then the $40 is took for five movie tickets. No doubt it's a shortned day, but it's also about $180 less."
Good point Darren. The value per hour may be the same, but that doesnt matter to a family on a budget does it. Its like saying a Lexus is a better deal per dollar because of the quality and service of the product when all you can afford is a used car. And when FFF is available after 6 months for purchase at Walmart for $18.67 then I might buy it. Just like Monsters, Inc. LOL
I have no problem with FFF being at DCA. Its a better show then what was there and its good for families with children. But there is gonna be no way to keep reporters from asking the question of how it will affect attendance at the park. DCA and its attendance has been in all the papers and those questions will continue until Disney opens TOT (possibly) or until a bulk of changes are made there and it finds its audience.
One of the problems that Disney will continue to face with reporters and critics is the perception of things to do and things being opened. Because of the attendance many of the eateries are closed. That usually raises red flags. Not that I dont understand there arent enough people to justify the cost, but with SSL closed and Hollywood and Dine and now ABC Bistro closing, there is a sense of a ghost town feel. Not a good thing for a theme park under a microscope.
DCA is a park that is going to take a long time to find itself. My hope is that Disney will continue to invest in the park. If they are smart, they would start the next big attraciton now so that TOT opens one year then the next big thing the following year and so on till the park becomes the park it should be
10-04-2002 06:58 PM #54
- Join Date
- Jul 2002
Do you have some of this historic information on your site (I haven't checked into it deep enough to know), or could you start providing some content like this for a Disney site? I find your historical perspective on things quite enlightening (you obviously have done your homework over the years on DL)
10-04-2002 08:32 PM #55
- Join Date
- Oct 2001
Gee, that's very nice of you to say. Thanks.
On my site I give no commentary, other than to present the facts as best I know them and show what the park used to be like through photos and old souvenirs.
I'm SUPPOSED to be one of the writers for the JimHillMedia.com website, but instead, I'm the webmaster there, and don't have really a lot of time to do both right now.
10-04-2002 08:44 PM #56
Originally posted by tangaroa
- Join Date
- Oct 2002
At a movie you don't have to walk from scene to scene.
10-04-2002 11:10 PM #57
Originally posted by Marcie
- Join Date
- Mar 2001
- Orange County, CA
So what if bugs are not exclusive to California, that has absolutely nothing to do with the consideration if an attraction or show should be incorporated into DCA or not.
Oh, and Woody, the attendance goal for 2002 and certainly 2003 was not 7 million, so yes the reporter was incorrect - AGAIN!
10-04-2002 11:52 PM #58
- Join Date
- Nov 2000
- Business up Front, Party in the Back
This wasn't the thrust of my argument in citing the quotes. I was trying to say The Bug's Land was added specifically to improve DCA's attendance because DCA's original attendance was such an disappointment. Both the LATimes and OCRegister writers cite this reason for installing The Bug's Land.
Just because they cite a reason doesn't mean it's right. The media routinely screws up information. I'm not referring to just Disney but else where, too.Visit the MIBoards.com Guidelines Page for rules and regulations.
DCA is a creative and marketing failure. It's so bad, it's good. That's the unofficial motto of DCA.
- Woody 10/18/2004
10-05-2002 12:02 AM #59
Robert Niles responds to this thread...
It's been interesting to browse some of the Disney boards on the Web, to see reaction to my Flik's review......
First up: Yes, the Los Angeles Times is going to be more aggressive about reviewing local theme parks. It's my intent to review any new attraction at Disney, Universal, Magic Mountain, Knott's, Legoland or SeaWorld. True, the paper's never done that in the past. But I've not been reviewing theme parks for the paper before this year. I pitched this new emphasis to the paper's editors, and after several months, am thrilled that they've agreed to it....
Yet no one seems to have picked up on my comment about Disney management in the closing paragraph. I chose my words carefully. I did not ask Disney's ride designers to go back to Griffith Park. From what I've seen of their concept work, Disney's Imagineers are not the problem. It's Disney managers (specifically, Michael Eisner and Paul Pressler) who refuse to fund Imagineering's ideas.....
I am going to hold Southern California's theme parks to a very high standard in my future reviews, as I have to date. Theme parks are expensive ways to entertain a family. The best are worth every dime, and I intend to do what I can with the space The Times provides me to cajole and inspire our local parks to rise to that level.
Please do not hesitate to let me, or my editors at The Times, know what you think about my coverage--whether you like it and want more, or hate it and want less. I encourage you to write to The Times about any of its coverage, in fact.
Of course, as with anything, short, thoughtful, original letters with concrete examples will elicit the best response. But journalists, at any publication, need to know what their community thinks about their coverage. Don't be shy.
Check out my photos at http://darkbeer.smugmug.com
10-06-2002 09:35 AM #60
Many of you are being quite unrealistic. Just because Robert Niles has a site that isn't in favor of Disney and isn't entirely devoted to Disney doesn't mean that his opinions and review are rubish. Is it now a law that you are only allowed to review Disney if you have a site that is devoted to Disney or that you yourself bow down to Disney. And the statement that he is a coaster geek and his opinion doen't matter is completely false. He is a well respected coaster enthusiast that has probably been to more parks than any one here on this site and has more information about those parks than any of you. He isn't just a run-of-the-mill reporter that doesn't know anything about theme parks. so yes, his opinon is worth something because he knows what he's talking about unlike some of you.
The statement made about the reporter getting inot places free and that's why he was complaining about the prices is irresponisble. He jsut recently started writing reviews on parks for the LA Times, so he has definetly gone to Disney and payed numerous times. and he's right about the price issue, paying so much money for a desultory attempt at a them park is ridiculous.
MAny people on this site have been brainwashed by Disney and are in denial. Face the facts! After 1996 Disney started to do things half-heartedly and crushed Walt's dreams and ideas. Stop prostecting your precious Disney, the MAGIC is gone and its been gone for a long time. If FFF is just a kiddie land than shouldn't it be a spectacular kiddie land with one of a kind rides for ages "1 to 101" Well it isn't. What it is, is an amazingly themed carnival. Yes the theming is great, but I thoughtDisney was suppose to be on a completely different level than a carnival, but its not. Anyone can take mediocre rides and put lights and paint on it and call it amazing. This is what Disney did, but we were told by Walt himself this would never happen at a disney park. Unfortunately it did. Hopefully Disney can get back on track, but at its current state it will take time and money, which they don't have right now.
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
By MINewsBot in forum MINewsBotReplies: 0Last Post: 02-09-2007, 02:01 AM
By MINewsBot in forum MINewsBotReplies: 0Last Post: 08-26-2005, 10:04 AM
By MINewsBot in forum MINewsBotReplies: 0Last Post: 03-16-2005, 02:05 PM
By Darkbeer in forum Beyond the ParksReplies: 18Last Post: 05-26-2003, 07:15 AM
By B_Kustera in forum Disneyland ResortReplies: 5Last Post: 11-12-2002, 09:54 AM