Paradise Pier A WDI Concept

larworth

DIS Veteran
Joined
Apr 27, 2000
Messages
549
I think Jim is trying to get back on Michael's christmas card list. Here is another positive take on the design of DCA. http://www.laughingplace.com/News-ID115520.asp

I don't doubt Disney spent some reasonable change building PP. However, I would be surprised if it still wasn't cheaper to build than a traditional land and that this wasn't a big part of its appeal for DCA.

I wished Jim had gone all the way and addressed the other half of the legend. Whether the original concept for such a recreation was still an Eisner invention based on his boyhood Coney Island experiences and the imagineers were smart enough to know that including this concept in future projects would make the boss happy and likely help get the overall project approved??

I think Jim also forgot to mention that the concept art for BK had a woodie in the background. A woodie is a pretty reconizable icon so I can see why it might be commonly used in such advertising. Hoever, it does appear that Disney was destined to put one even if only in appearance.
 
It's an interesting article, particularly since it focuses so much on the coaster. From the people that I've spoken with, the ones that I've visited DCA with, and some (albeit not all) other posters, the coaster isn't the problem. Probably the best part of the "idealized beachfront pier" is the coaster and sun wheel. The killers are Mulholland Madness, the Orange Stinger, and their kin. And I'm sorry to hear that they worked so hard on the Zephyr, because, although the nostalgia is obvious (they *do* look like Buck Rogers rocket ships) the ride has a "cheap" feel to it, rather than a nostalgic one.

One thing I've always wondered about - if they were going to do something like this at the Boardwalk, how would they have handled it. Clearly, there aren't enough "attractions" to make the Boardwalk it's own park. Would they have gone whole-hog and put in a little ticket booth, where you bought separate ride tickets? Talk about coming full circle.

Gary
 
Nice article, Landbaron's going to have to stop using him as a source all together, because I KNOW Landbaron would not approve.


Now then on to the substance. Number one, Jim Hill seems to have stolen my thoughts again. I've been saying for a while that Paradise pier could be a very disney park, well themed and well thought out. And it would appear its better then expected.

BUT, I take issue with the notion that I shouldn't expect Indiana Jones every time. Darn Straight I should expect that every time. It MAY be true that PP was built to that level and he just spoke badly.

The real key here is in what Another Voice has said. It ignores the Demographics. I've been to Disneyland, and While I'm no So cal resident, you can tell that its a locals park. At the Same time. as I've said repeatedly, PP should have been brought to WDW.
 

One wonders why Mr. Hill is so suddenly defensive about the project. While I’ve always thought his reporting was very good but that sometimes his analysis was off. I thought that was because he is an outsider without the real “inside” background to help him, but now I’m wondering if there’s just too much fanboy in him. The whole tone of the article is rather strange, although it does fit the bias of the website that he writes for more so than most of his other writing.

The first official appearances of the Coney Island clone are WDW’s Boardwalk and Burbank’s Disney/MGM Backlot. There have been rumors that Mr. Eisner “suggested” it as an early addition to Disney/MGM Studios in Florida. The concept had worked its way into almost every proposal Disney churned out since Eisner came on board, and there are “rumors” it may reappear as a separate gate for WDW (hmmm, the motivation for Mr. Hill’s rants may becoming clear). It was the joke for a long time that putting a giant Ferris wheel in your plans would peak Mr. Eisner’s interest.

The Boardwalk section for the park in Port Disney was only in the last-gasp, try to save the project by making it really, really, cheap plan. Everyone at WDI hated the concept but at that point the budget slashing was so bad that it was either cheap carny rides or nothing. In the end, of course, it still turned out to be nothing. As far as I know, a Boardwalk was never part of the Tokyo DisneySea park (probably because the Japanese wanted a good park).

I’ve also heard that there are several steel coasters themed to look like wooden coasters around the country already. It’s mostly cheap decoration on smaller rides and for parks that don’t have the financial resources to build a real wooden roller coaster. I wouldn’t call the coaster “innovative” in any sense, other than it’s the first Disney coaster without any theme at all. Even the kiddie coasters in ToonTown and Mickey’s Fair try to be something other than a roller coaster. Decorating a coaster to make it look like another type of coaster is kind of like trying to dress up a grilled cheese sandwich. The effort may be appreciated, but the end result really isn’t that noticeable.

In the end though, this article is just another in a long line of spin that fails to address the fundamental problems with the park. There are many “fans” that have turned California Adventure into the equivalent of broccoli. These fans stand over us like parents giving us all the old lines: it’s good for use, you’ll get use to it, you should appreciate how much work it takes to put this on the table, that later we’ll learn to love it, and that starving children in China that would give their eye-teeth to have a park like this.

What is really distressing is reading Mr. Hill demand that I lower may standards. Sorry Mr. Hill – not every attraction needs to the size or scope of ‘Indiana Jones’, but I do expect at least as much imagination and effort in its creation. There is a huge difference between “themeing” and “decoration” and you know that. Your vehement defense the disastrous practices involved with California Adventure is a disservice to the fans you claim to speak for.

P.S. – My recollection is that WDI didn’t design the WDW Boardwalk at all. It was the work of DDC (the group that built the resorts) and it was designed to “fix” the mistakes they though WDI made with ‘Pleasure Island’.
 
Have you ever seen those shows on Oprah or "The View" the day after the Oscars where they show how you too can look like Gwyneyth Paltrow by buying this unnamed designer's dress for $250 instead of spending the thousands that Gwyneth spent. Well, that's what I feel about Paradise Pier, sure it may not be "cheap" in terms of dollars spent, but I have options that give me something just as functional for cheaper. I save my dollars for the things that I really can't get for cheaper elsewhere...like pretending to visit an archaelogical dig site or being in a fairytale.
 
Now wait a minute. I agree with you, AV, that essentially Jim Hill is wrong in his analysis of Paradise Pier...no matter how much the Imagineers tried to design the idea (or save the idea from itself, it depends on how you look at it) it is still just the regular old carny rides you can get anywhere without heavy doses of theming or WOW-ness.

But to say that the Baron's Bunch will get off of the Hill in the future based on this article?

Not me.

We can disagree as to what Jim Hill thinks is good quality theming. And you can disagree with the opinion he has of PP in the following quote. But can you disagree with his point that Disney does not need all E tix in a park? Instead Disney must focus on quality:


If you can honestly look at Paradise Pier with an unjaded eye (Not the eye of an unrealistic Disney dweeb who insists that every single attraction that the Imagineers burp out must be up to "Indiana Jones Adventure" standards), you'll see that the Imagineers that worked on this side of the park succeeded. They crammed plenty of quality into the area. So -- on those merits alone -- Paradise Pier isn't something that we should be dismissing. It's actually an area in DCA that Disneyana fans should be actively celebrating.

All he is saying is that Disney's job in the parks is not to create a park with 30 Indy's, Towers, and Space Mtns, but instead to cram a park with quality, cram a park with a-e tix but all with quality theming in the queue and the show.

Hey. I haven't seen DCA, so I am not a good one to argue with Jim Hill about the quality of the place. My gut feeling is that it is retreaded junk. So I am going to disagree, most probably, with his opinion. But he is still on the Show Quality bandwagon! He hasn't given that up. Either his friends at WDI have snookered him into thinking that Paradise Pier is Walt-like, or it really is one of the few things in the park that Disney fans should be proud of. Doesn't matter to me, cause he is entitled to his opinion.
 
/
The first official appearances of Cooney island...
Now, I'm sure this was a typo & I'm no 'perfect pecker' myself, but I thought this comment, taken totally out of any rational context was very funny...Sorry...(please tolerate the humor).

Decorating a coaster to try and look like another type of coaster is kind of like trying to dress up a grilled cheese sandwich.
Au contraire monfriar (I spells it likes I says it), decoration is a very significant part of that thing we like to call theming and if Disney decides to dress up a warn out transportation bus into the spitting image of Lawrence Welk, well I say "look at them bubbles!" Disney has been famous for all of these years for giving us imitation life and now you're saying that it's no longer ok because Mikey's doing it? Come on AV, you can't pull the underwear over my eyes (I saw the "atomic wedgie" episode of Seinfeld last night).

As for Hill, I find it perfectly ok to be two faced here on the DIS...I'll point out what I don't like & agree with the sensible side, after all we're just having fun. Certainly Hill has had, in the past, an agenda, but it appears that perhaps that agenda has been changed...That's ok, we're capable of reading the writing on the wall...As long as I have my glasses on.

Hopemax, can I look like Gwyneth for $250.00? I love Gwyneth!:D :D

In closing, someone please PM me and tell me what I mean!!!
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:
 
Actually, I meant to write George Clooney Island. I walked past the set for ‘E.R.’ a couple days ago and was amazed that they made a soundstage look just like a hospital!!!! Only Disney could pull off that kind of magic…

There’s a story from around here. A few years ago, Warner Bros. Studio was about to release a new animated movie. They screened it for test audiences – and the audiences hated it. Someone at WB got an idea, they showed the exact same movie to new audiences but told them it was a Disney movie. Those audiences loved it. People saw the brand on the film and assumed it was something they were supposed to like. It was a lesson that both Warner and Disney learned.

What’s most distressing about California Adventure is the complete lack of creative effort Disney put into the place. Décor is easy and there are several shopping malls around here with finer and more abundant decorations than DCA. Paradise Pier has absolutely nothing beyond what you’d find at a Six Flags park in terms of themeing AND attractions. In fact, shut off the speaker playing Beach Boys music (by the way, this is supposed to be themed to the 1920’s?) and this place could a be a county fair in Iowa just as easily as it could be an seaside amusement park in California. I don’t expect every attraction to be the size and scope of ‘Indiana Jones’ – but I do expect Disney to treat any project with care.

Had this place been called “Knott’s California Adventure” the world would have been mocking the park. Personally, I don’t think “Disneyana fans should be actively celebrating” low quality products. Like Mr. Pirate and his “Disney’s Bus of Bubbles”, DCA was designed for those who will accept anything with The Brand stapled on it.
 
Had it been "Clooney World" perhaps others would have found it amusing, too...Although I know Landbaron is out there, somewhere, laughing at my attempts of the imossible!

I like that WB/disney story - I've heard it a number of times. I don't exactly know if it shows Disney good or shows Disney bad but it was a very interesting outcome.

Now AV! I'm not actively celebrating low quality products, I just think quality can come in many forms. I love RnR because of the theming & the tie in to Aerosmith (off the shelf coaster + Disney theming = great experience). I just think it patently unfair to write off an entire form of entertainment because you or even the masses don't like it. That doesn't mean some things were't done well, just the plan as originally presented was ill-conceived. I still think PP with it's Sun Wheel & Screamin' Coaster is a good start to a nostalgic look at something that may or may not have really existed. As I've pointed out, I agree that it will take years, change and commitment to make DCA successful, just like MGM...And this page of opinion from a guy who's never even been there...Guess that gives me, like zero credibility!!!

Lastly, I don't buy the axiom that you can dress up a tuna fish sandwich anyway you like but it's still tuna fish...I don't like it because a lot of what Disney has always done (especially Walt) WAS to dress up tuna fish. Does it really matter that Kilimangaro Safari really takes place in a former orange grove in Central Florida? No. So would you really care it that hip new show, featuring the master of disaster himself, the Baron of the Bubbles, the pied piper of public tv...Lawrence Welk & the Swinging Americans (were it a truly first class, entertaining show - that all the hep cats adore) originated from redesigned transportation busses??? Illogical for sure - But if they did it & it was good, would it matter how they got from point A to point B, in the final analysis???
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:
 
It is curious why Jim decided to come to the defense of the Pier all of a sudden. He surely has inside sources and maybe one of them worked on this section of the park. Probably did an admirable job given the scope they were given. Maybe even designed all those sun icons. Who knows?

I still say the Pier is there largely because it was a pet idea that was less costly to build than other options. We have a theme many have explained was only a peripheral cultural node in CA’s history. A play on nostalgia that gets even weaker if one’s target audience is out-of-staters? It seems to have little of the prerequisite synergy and conveys no real sense of novelty. In fact it conveys just the opposite.

Yes, every ride can’t be an I Jones, but maybe this is exactly what is missing. I wonder what the take would be if an I Jones scale experience was the centerpiece of this land, with the Screamin, the Sun Wheel , and the carousel supporting attractions.

***

I guess I shouldn’t be surprised Lawrence Welk would get the nod. Glitz wins out over talent again. Will Mitch Miller ever get his due?
 
Mr. Pirate, If you don't have enough for all of us to smoke, then you shouldn't smoke any yourself. :)


Would Disney make more money on transportation with these new err busses?


I'm still of the opinion that PP is a perfectly good thing in the absolute wrong place.
 
Mr. Pirate, if you don't have enough for all of us to smoke, then you shouldn't smoke any yourself.
Awww Yoho, you should know better! There was no 'smoke' involved...A little rum perhaps but I am a Pirate after all and besides most of the gibberish is just me... :p

I can agree larworth, if they had (or will just add) a feature attraction to PP then who would complain? The same with a couple other areas of the Park I'm sure. So I don't think the basic idea of DCA was bad, except for the stretch of putting it inside of California itself, and the fact that they relied on too many second tier rides to provide first tier entertainment...Oh, and Mitch Miller WAS the true hep-cat, thanks for the rebuke larworth!
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:
 
Paradise Pier has absolutely nothing beyond what you’d find at a Six Flags park

AV, this is one point where I must disagree with you. For starters, DCA/PP is clean. My last visit to Magic Mountain was like walking through a dumpster. The CMs for the most part act like Disney CMs; most Six Flags employees fall far, far short of this standard. And there *are* features of the PP portion of DCA which do show attention to detail. For example, I appreciate the wave generator which generates the chop along the pier. The spray created by the chop breaking on the "breakwater" that supports the launch area for Screamin' is another nice touch. And Screamin' has music, which, although not as good as the music in Space Mountain, is a pretty good fit for the ride, and it does add to the overall experience.

I think these sorts of touches are present in much of the park, but some of them may have missed the mark. In Hill's article, I was fascinated by the fact that, in an attempt to recreate a "classic" feel, they had to basically re-engineer the Golden Zephyr. The (perhaps unforseen) result of their effort was the feeling that they had installed an old, off-the-shelf ride that wasn't "worthy" of Disney. They did their job of re-creating a typical old, crummy, boardwalk ride well enough to make people think that they had just purchased an off-the-shelf old, crummy ride. Whoops! (BTW, just because it's newly engineered doesn't prevent it from being a crummy ride, IMHO).

I believe that DCA has its high points. I think it can be fixed, but it's going to take time, money, and patience. In the meantime, lower the ticket prices.
 
I guess I must sound like a shill for Hill, but his next article shows he is truly a Car 2 or Car 3 rider....he talks about how he can't say that DCA is worthless, because he does find some of the detal work that WDI is so famous for. On the other hand, he can't say that DCA is magical, because the Imagineers or the Accountanteers (he doesn't really tell us which one) messed up so many other parts of the park that could have been hit with the Disney touch.

I sitll haven't seen the place.

See Hill at http://laughingplace.com/default.asp
 
And again Jim fails to respond to Another Voice's basic notion that the Theme is wrong.
 
The Warner Bros./Disney story I think is key to the whole California Adventure project. There comes a point in the life of many companies when they switch from relying on their product to relying on their brand. These companies believe that have a built in customer base and as long as they can maintain their product quality, that customer base will stay loyal. Take a look at how many annual reports contain the statement “our Brand is recognized as a leader in quality and value”. That page is usually followed by pages of explaining away declining market share, lower than expected earnings, and promises that a turn around is just around the corner. Pull out anything published by Nike, Xerox, Kodak or McDonalds.

Disney tried to do the same thing. “People are going to Disneyland anyway,” the corporate thinking went, “we just need to keep them an extra day. Our Brand will do that – who wants to see a dirty Hollywood when you can see Disney’s Hollywood!” The Brand alone was supposed to entice people, they had already traveled to Anaheim to see The Brand and they would willing to pay The Brand more to experience even more of The Brand. The flaw is that people are paying to experience The Quality and that’s absent from California Adventure.

Mr. Pirate, I am not writing off an entire form of entertainment – just one poorly executed work in the genre*. It doesn’t matter to me that the Safari in Animal Kingdom takes place in a Florida swamp, because through the addition of a storyline a bus tour becomes an African safari. The same way that watching George Clooney shivering on a cold Chicago night does not bother me, even though I know the snow is plastic, it’s really 74 degrees and he’s standing in Burbank around the corner from where they shot ‘The Dukes of Hazard’. It’s not the decoration that makes or breaks the work, it’s the storytelling.

But at California Adventure we have a roller coaster that’s a roller coaster, a ferris wheel that’s a ferris wheel and spinners that are spinners. Even worse, we get cheap carnival amusements presented as cheap carnival amusements, and copies of California icons minutes away from the real California icons. Where’s the attempt to create “magical” world or to evoke my imagination? Where’s that famous Disney storytelling? How about that extra effort to go beyond simple presentation? If the sheer quantity or quality of decoration is what we’re supposed to be impressed by, I’d think Las Vegas would beat Disney hands down. The number of triangles on ‘California Screaming’ that mimic the ‘Sun Wheel’ is irrelevant because that’s just decoration, not true themeing.

That’s the big difference between a pretty bus with musicians and an African safari.


* - although I almost swore off motion pictures entirely after I saw this summer’s ‘A.I.’
 
But AV, isn't a lot of what DCA represents part of something that never really existed or at least no longer still exists? Walt hated the traditional amusment Parks for what they had become...Dirty unappealing venues run by equally unappealing & scary people. Walt LIKED amusment Parks, but he wanted a place to amuse the whole family in a clean & safe environment...Is that not what DCA is trying achieve? Sure the idea of paying homage to California in California was bold, and in restrospect quite silly, but I understand the risk. Disney wanted to rebuild the feel of the best of the amusment park era without the worst of the amusment park era in the same venue as the original Disney success.

Further, as Hill pointed out, The Golden Zephyer, while a dinosaur (in fact an extinct dinosaur), was a bold project. I'm sure they had visions of granduer when commiting to the re-creation of an amusment park ride no longer available...What nostolgia, what magic...A pity is was a failure, but I think the attempt was laudable.

With regard to the lack of extraodinary, heretofore unseen imaginative theming, well it seems that in the re-creation of this type of Park that the typical Disney 'overkill' would be, well, overkill. It wouldn't fit the atmosphere they were attempting to create. This wasn't intended to be DL, it was intended to be something altogether different (unfortunately that prophecy was fulfilled in just about everyones opinion, pro or con). Again, I ask you to remember that I'm not excusing what seems to be a multitude of overwhelming mistakes, only stating that the idea of DCA itself has merits and that some good things WERE done and that repairs can and will be made. The eventual success of DCA may very well hinge on the attraction of the non-local, something not happening even a little, so far...But I would bet, given improvements and some quality imagineering, even the locals will learn to accept enough to visit occasionally.

Then again, I could be wrong! :D :D :D
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:
 
From what I know, Walt never intended to build simply a clean amusement park. Disneyland started out as a place for company picnics across the street from the studio. Then Roy suggested that they build a tour of the studio and let the general public in (there has always been a huge demand for a tour of the Disney lot). Walt let the idea sit for a long time, and then he suddenly several ideas came together and he pushed the project ahead.

Walt was first and foremost a storyteller. The best way to see what he thought about Disneyland is to watch the early episodes of his television series. Each “land” was a setting for a story. The Frontireland segment was where they should ‘Davy Crocket’, ‘Seal Island’ was in Adventureland, the ‘Men in Space’ series was in Tomorrowland, etc. And in the same way, the Jungle Cruise is a story “presented” in Adventureland.

I’ve heard that by the time Disneyland opened, Walt was getting rather bored with animated films. The park gave him a whole new set of toys to create stories with. Even something as simple as the way the ticket booths lead into Disneyland’s entrance plaza, and the way the train station and tunnels block your view into the park was very deliberately set up as the opening of a movie. You go from the Disneyland sign in flowers below the station (the “titles”), and then walk out of the dark of the tunnels into a “wide shot” of world that no longer existed even in Walt’s time. I’m sure you feel that sudden change in feeling when you make the same transition today. All of it was carefully created to produce that emotional effect.

To Walt it wasn’t an amusement park – that’s why he called it a “magic kingdom” or a “theme park” or any of a half dozen names it went by. But to sell the concept to the bankers, and even the public, the company had to fall back on something people already new. And the park had to rely on a bunch of amusement park business practices (tickets, concessions, etc.), but Walt went out of his way to make the place as different from amusement parks as he possibly could. Disneyland was his place and was created for his purposes – it wasn’t just something spruced up and painted prettier than the competition.

That’s a long way of describing what’s wrong with California Adventure. It turns its back on everything that Walt Disney learned from and created at Disneyland. Walt’s park tires to be more than just rides – just as a feature length film is more than a collection of short cartoons. DCA lacks that vision, and honestly, it lacks the effort as well. There is no attempt to fit all the pieces together to produce something greater and there’s no attempt made to create something new or original.

If the Company was trying for “something different”, why didn’t they DO something different? This “hip and edgy” place still is based on “themed lands” with “themed attractions” with “themed dining” and “themed shopping” – all the same basic elements that are in Disneyland but only partially executed. There were many concepts pre-DCA would have been far more complimentary to the resort and much more “adult” (imagine World Showcase on steroids), and there were concepts for DCA that really would have created uniquely Californian place (want to swim with sea otters and sea lions through a Catalina kelp forest or do you want to watch a real soap opera television show being produced right in front of you while it’s being broadcast live to the rest of the country on ABC?).

There’s certainly nothing wrong with a second gate at Disneyland, or perhaps even with the California theme. But the execution of California Adventure is a masterpiece of errors compounded by greed, cynicism and talent-free management. The root problem isn’t going to be fixed by firing up the giant Xerox machine at WDW and zapping off a few more attractions. And the costs of fixing the place will be more than the original construction cost. In the meantime, this place is going to bleed Disneyland and Walt Disney World dry.

By the way, I just watched the nightly local affairs program on the largest PBS station here in Los Angeles (KCET). They had a segment on a new book that’s just come out about L.A. in the 1950s. One of the places they talk about was Pacific Ocean Park, a huge seaside amusement park in Santa Monica. They had a big wooden roller coaster, a skyway across the ocean, parachute drops, food stands, and carnival games – all in a clean and modern environment. Lawrence Welk and his band even played in the auditorium (they showed a photograph of the marquee). It was exactly the type of place that Paradise Pier tries to replicate.

Pacific Ocean Park lasted only 9 years. It couldn’t compete with Disneyland and went bankrupt.
 
I didn't mean to imply that Walt ever wished to build an ordinary amusement park...Obviously he did not. But from what I've read Walt really liked the good aspects of the ordinary amusement park (he just hated the dirty, seedy side). It wasn't his intent to build one, but he DID NOT hate them (as so many would have us believe). I have always thought that if few of the amusement parks of the time had raised the bar of their establishements, Walt may have never had the burning "itch" to build DL (I could be very wrong here & fortunately for all of us this didn't happen). Which brings me back to why I don't think the basic DCA concept is such a stretch. It was designed to be nostalgic, kitschy and perhaps simple to a fault...The fault being all of the complaints you have so eloquently listed...

As to why they didn't do something "else" different, that perhaps would have wowed us, well thats a different conversation (and I too, wish they had). I'm only trying to say that I think I understand what they were going for with DCA, even if they missed the mark by a mile. I also feel that while it wil cost a fortune to fix DCA, this will happen and DCA will eventually become an acceptable companion gate for almost everyone (progresssing much like MGM)...

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














Save Up to 30% on Rooms at Walt Disney World!

Save up to 30% on rooms at select Disney Resorts Collection hotels when you stay 5 consecutive nights or longer in late summer and early fall. Plus, enjoy other savings for shorter stays.This offer is valid for stays most nights from August 1 to October 11, 2025.
CLICK HERE













DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest

Back
Top