PDA

View Full Version : Disneyland's Third Themepark


Another Voice
05-02-2001, 10:52 PM
Disney has just asked the Anaheim City Council for permission to develop to the property that has been earmarked for Disneyland Third Theme Park. Now, before everyone gets excited, Disney has asked to develop that land as a parking lot and to leave it there for the next five years. Pretty interesting, because Disney’s own website (http://www.thirdthemepark.com/) talks about the first phase of the “new” park opening in 2003.

The new parking lot would be used by Disneyland overflow parking (they are currently using the Anaheim Convention Center when they can), and would also be available for convention parking as well. “Rumors” have the second parking structure construction on hold if not outright cancelled. Other rumors say that Disney may ask for city, county, state and/or federal money to build the parking structure.

I wonder if someone ran the numbers and found that Disney would be making more money had they just left the parking lot as it was instead of building California Adventure?

DVC-Landbaron
05-03-2001, 12:30 AM
Voice - YOU are a genius!!!!!

I wonder if someone ran the numbers and found that Disney would be making more money had they just left the parking lot as it was instead of building California Adventure?


:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

swinginevilmike
05-03-2001, 02:29 AM
I think they should finish DCA before event dreaming about those Strawberry fields....

I wonder if someone ran the numbers and found that Disney would be making more money had they just left the parking lot as it was instead of building California Adventure?

LOL I'm sure someone did and they are kicking themselves... http://www.wdwinfo.com/sites/family/128.gifhttp://www.wdwinfo.com/sites/family/128.gifhttp://www.wdwinfo.com/sites/family/128.gif

mrgoofy
05-03-2001, 09:25 PM
I checked out the anaheim local website, and sure enough disneyland is on the agenda for monday's meeting. If anyone is in the area, the website says that the meeting starts at 1:30, so maybe take lunch a little later than usual and go check it out. I know from experience that these things can be rather dry and boring, but any details that they disclose at that meeting become part of the public record.

I suspect that by tuesday morning there will be a lot of interesting reading to do.

Janet2k
05-05-2001, 04:17 AM
Another Voice, I loved your statement: "I wonder if someone ran the numbers and found that Disney would be making more money had they just left the parking lot as it was instead of building California Adventure?"

Comedy, as they say, is not pretty. Thanks for the laugh!

Peter Pirate
05-05-2001, 09:38 AM
But a little too slapstick, maybe.

I know your opinion on DCA Voice and your perspective has caused me to give thought to my own views on this particular project. In fact, given the results of the opening thus far, my family has cancelled our plans to visit DL this summer for something a little more sure (we'll wait until DCA is more viable).

But still, aren't you being a little hard on a Park that really hasn't had an opportunity yet? Shouldn't we give it the courtesy of a full cycle and give Management the chance to fidget, fiddle & fix before writing it off across the board?
:jester: :jester: :jester: :p

Another Voice
05-05-2001, 02:37 PM
I am very critical of California Adventure not because there aren’t any “E-Ticket” attractions or that the prices are too high, but because Disney simply didn’t even TRY with this project. The planning for Disneyland’s second gate started over a quarter century ago – from the initial D/L Expansion to Tony Baxter’s ‘VenturePort’ to the talks with Lucas and even to WESTCOT. Some ideas were good, a lot weren’t so good. But they all had passion – someone wanted to build these things because there was some creativity they wanted to express, there was a story that they wanted to tell, there was an experience they wanted to share.

California Adventure’s very premise is a shallow marketing “formula” created by a committee sitting in a posh executive retreat. No one really loves the theme, but it was the one that fit the business model the easiest. DCA’s intent is to show you all of the things that you came to California to see – but to make sure you paid Disney to see them. Don’t go see the real Hollywood, just buy a ticket here. Don’t visit the mountains, just get your FastPass. Don’t ride a real wooden coaster in Santa Cruz, ride our imitation sitting right by our imitation lagoon. Don’t actually travel around the state, just watch our three minute film and visit the shop afterwards. All of this can be yours starting at $175 per night (double occupancy required).

Unlike any other Disney park, this place lacks a sense of joy about its subject - it lacks a soul. “Main Street” was built by a man driven to create the idealist childhood hometown that he always wanted and “Paradise Pier” was built by committees trying to meet this year’s return on investment targets. To me, California Adventure has the same feeling that I have at one of the Vegas mega resorts. The “themeing” and detailing are well down, but no matter how many ancient Roman statues you put in the place, I still know it’s a shopping mall and casino.

No matter how many hidden Mickeys they put on it, I know it’s still just a Ferris Wheel.

Peter Pirate
05-05-2001, 05:19 PM
OK AV, I'm understanding your point of view better, but you statement about DCA, saying "don't visit the real California, visit our slice of it" (paraphrase) bothers me, because in fact all of Disney Parks, anywhere, encourage us to visit the made up place rather than really exploring the world. We got to go on Jungle Cruise for Walts version of a safari now we have Kilimangaro Safari for a more realistic 'fake' adventure.

Disney in and of itself is a whitebread concept meant to appeal to people who wish to escape withing the realm of safety and with guaranteed entertainment & value unlike the real world.

Most people who hate Disney hate it because it represents pretend experiences for people who don't really want to experience life adventures themselves...Again, just a whitebread, homoginized version.

So from my idea of what and who things Disney appeal to, the creation of an artificial California right in the real California doesn't seem all that far fetched (silly maybe but understandable).

I am not saying I agree with the decision to build this project or even that it's good or will be good, only that the concept makes sense to me...Do I make any sense to you?

:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

Another Voice
05-07-2001, 10:06 PM
Mr. Pirate – your post makes perfect sense and I completely agree with it. I would even add that most people think California as artificial anyway, so a theme park version of the state it probably a truer expression of its nature <grin>.

I think there is a vast difference between “themeing” used in the world today, and “themeing” as it was intended for Disney parks. Today’s themeing is really used to describe “replication”, to copy and incorporate recognizable forms and elements into another structure. It’s used widely from The Rainforest Café to shopping malls to casinos, and it’s used to unify different elements – hotel to casino to restaurants to the costumes the waitresses wear. But it has no purpose beyond that – the half scale model of the Eiffel Tower in Vegas is amusing, but it serves no other purpose than to look nice. To me, this gives off the fake, homogenized feel that many people (me included) can not stomach. I’d much rather marvel at the real Eiffel Tower.

But as originally envisioned for Disneyland, themeing was supposed to be something different. Everything in the park was original constructed as a storytelling device. The attractions were created as three dimensional movies – and the best ones like ‘Pirates’ and ‘Mansion’ are cinematic in every aspect. The themeing of the land was supposed to set the background for the story; to set the mood for the adventures that waited within. The lands were to be like the first ten minutes of a movie – a sequence to separate you from the real world and to get you interested and excited about the story that was about to come. To work effectively, it needs to be carefully created and all of its elements need to serve the larger purpose. I think this way has a far greater emotional impact and the reception that Disneyland continues to receive proves that people respond to it.

Unfortunately in my mind, California Adventure is the first, easier type of themeing (a replica of California) rather than the second, more artistic type (adventures about California). I can look at and appreciate the design and workmanship that went into the park, but there’s nothing behind the facades. There’s no emotional build-up to ‘Hollywood’, but there is a great one walking through Adventureland to get to the ‘Jungle Cruise’. Really nothing in California Adventure tries for that memorable “you’re living the story” feel that sets Disney apart from Six Flags.

Many people will argue that California Adventure is supposed to be a “reality” park. But why duplicate reality when the “real thing” is both so accessible and so much better than the recreation. ‘Paradise Pier’ has nothing on the boardwalk in Santa Cruz (or even on Venice). Beyond that, there are many experiences about California that can probably only be created at a theme park. I can go look at the La Brea Tar Pits, but it be a lot more interesting watching a twenty foot tall woolly mammoth struggle against the goo while bear-sized tigers with 12 inch fangs circle nearby, only to realize that the cats’ attentions are now focused on me…

But doing something like that is hard work. It’s much easier, and safer, to copy something that someone else has created. That’s my beef with California Adventure. They simply didn’t even try to create. Worse, the working plan for the third gate is even less ambitious than DCA. A high ticket price water park with duplicated shows from other parks. I am not gloating about the poor showing of DCA, I just want it to serve as an example to those that create something else.

YoHo
05-07-2001, 10:30 PM
Another Voice, that was an Eloquent post, I wish it were a bit more quotable ( Landbaron has more quoting skills then I) aside from the point you make about DCA, this sums up the entire Disney Theme Park expireance, the next time someone talks about universal's themeing, I need merely point here.

Now comes the real question, will DCA be a kick in the pants? Animal Kingdom has lovely themeing that draws you in in the way you describe, but the studios are hit or miss with the themeing of each section seemingly unrelated to the rides therein. Or perhaps there's a hollywood subtly I'm missing there.

It seems to me that Imagineering has the skills, Will the next Disney undertaking have the same attention to detail as MK? Its another example of the worry that's creeping in for me, not that the people up top can't envision this stuff, but that they won't.

wdwguide
05-07-2001, 11:49 PM
Originally posted by YoHo
It seems to me that Imagineering has the skills, Will the next Disney undertaking have the same attention to detail as MK? Its another example of the worry that's creeping in for me, not that the people up top can't envision this stuff, but that they won't.

For the answer to your question,. just look at the photos of Tokyo DisneySea, and your jaw will drop. It looks even more elaborate than Disneyland Paris, and that says a lot.