-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News Pacific Wharf to be Reimagined into San Fransokyo
- Thread starter DCBaker
- Start date
Disney Analyst
Well-Known Member
I dunno. San Fransokyo works for me, even though it’s such a minor little area. It blends the California concept with fantasy, which is what DCA so sorely lacked.
I prefer what they are doing with Pacific Wharf than Avenger’s Campus and Pixar Pier.
It feels more in line with Cars Land, in the sense of fitting something in between fantasy and California.
I prefer what they are doing with Pacific Wharf than Avenger’s Campus and Pixar Pier.
It feels more in line with Cars Land, in the sense of fitting something in between fantasy and California.
mickEblu
Well-Known Member
As a concept it works quite well for DCA 2.5. In fact “Fantasy/ Romanticized California” is what the park should have always been. San Fransokyo may be leaning a little too far into the Fantasy but as a concept works much better than Pixar Pier. Definitely better than Avengers Campus that’s a bad concept with poor execution. Concept art doesn’t look great so far. Just hoping it ends up looking better in person.
Last edited:
Disney Analyst
Well-Known Member
If they could fit in a little BayMax / BH6 ride somewhere… a cute little dark ride, or a unique to the parks spinner… I feel it would actually be a full net positive.
Suspirian
Well-Known Member
I don't mind the idea at all I just think the execution is poor and theres no ride involved. I feel like they should've expanded Pacific Wharf into Paradise Gardens Park and turned that left over area where Goofys Sky School is into a San Fransokyo mini land.
mickEblu
Well-Known Member
A good dark ride to give the area some meat and Substance would make it a net positive. It wouldn’t feel unnecessary and like a step backwards like it does now. A spinner not so much IMO. I’d prefer some sort of dark walk through to where you end up seeing a really cool Baymax AA to a meet and greet.
mickEblu
Well-Known Member
Oh ya forgot to mention that in my post but I’m sure he’s aware of that.
Suspirian
Well-Known Member
I would love that but I don't really think theres room. Maybe they can take out the Nappa Valley restaurants and the Victorian houses next to it?
If they got rid of the Napa Valley food area that would be less than ideal imo. I love that little area and the food is great. Its so nice to get a table on the 2nd floor and look out at the wharf.
But if disney did redo that area and put in a top notch dark ride or something.....I could live with that
But if disney did redo that area and put in a top notch dark ride or something.....I could live with that
No room but I'd love to ride on Baymax over San Fransokyo à la Pan.
Last edited:
BlakeW39
Well-Known Member
The park should have never even been themed to California. That was a bad idea to begin with
That said. San Fransokyo is half fantasy California, half fantasy Tokyo. The California half could fit. The Tokyo part doesn't and we shouldn't be pretending that the Tokyo half doesn't exist here. Why is a land half themed to Tokyo in California Adventure???
Last edited:
Californian Elitist
Well-Known Member
What’s bad about the idea?
BlakeW39
Well-Known Member
Well I will retract my statement that it was a bad idea. That's subjective. But from a marketing standpoint it was just a dumb idea imo. It's so low concept and niche.... a really narrow premise to base an entire theme park on. A whole park dedicated to one state? Who'd want to go to a park based on the state they already live in anyways?
Suspirian
Well-Known Member
It's not half themed to Tokyo it's a fictional version of San Francisco. San Fransokyo is a Californian city in the movie and its not like enclaves with cultural influences from other countries don't exist irl.
Californian Elitist
Well-Known Member
Considering California’s history and what the state has going for itself, I wouldn’t say the concept was narrow. Regarding your last sentence, plenty of us have gone and are still going.
mickEblu
Well-Known Member
Oh, well if you’re going all the way back to a blank slate sure I would take Westcot or AK or Disney Sea for sure. Pretty much anything other than a Studios park. San Fransokyo makes perfect sense at DCA 2.5. Much more sense than the Collectors Fortress or the Little Mermaid or even Cars Land as much as everyone wants to give it a pass because of its quality. I feel like your question of why there is land themed to Tokyo would make much more sense if this was 2001 or maybe even 7 years ago. These days we have an Alien collectors fortress that “landed in DCA KABLAM!” As per Joe Rohde. At this point DCA is just Disneys Universal Studios with a touch of California. And the touches of California that exist are because they are aesthetically beautiful and attached to the flagship hotel (Grizzly Peak) or on the chopping block (Hollywoodland). San Fransokyo isn’t being added to make the park more California. It’s being added to bring IP to a part of the park that has none and to sell more merch.
Personally I think DCA would have more of an identity and more character if they stuck to more of Fantasy/ Romanticized California as opposed to Disneys IP dumping ground. Stuff like San Fransokyo, maybe an area representing Old Town SD with a Coco ride. Big Foot at Grizzly Peak etc.
TP2000
Well-Known Member
So, that's exactly what I've been thinking this entire time.
I just assumed I was too stupid/old/fuddy-duddy to know that the Michelin Man Robot guy was some huge hit with the kids.
Is that character not a big hit with the kids? Is it only a minor thing from a modestly successful movie a decade ago (which is what Google told me he was) and not really a big deal in 2023?
Because if that's true, I'm suddenly even more upset at this for losing a big chunk of shaded dining space for a gift shop. Not to mention wondering what illicit romantic relationship exists between the Purchasing Manager at WDI and the patio lantern salesman at Party City.
Last edited:
Model3 McQueen
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- No
Respectfully, I think a romanticized idea of California for a theme park is a gem. The architecture of the Grand California and all of the airfield area is an example of it. Sure, hollywood land and paradise pier were underwhelming, but it could've been so much more with a bit of TLC and cash.
A romanticized idea of CA gave us Tower of Terror, Soarin over CA, Grizzly RR, hell even Cars Land fit the bill with american (CA) car culture and the movie Cars put into a super efficient utilization of the small land. Bug's Land was cute with ITTBAB obviously being the star, and those CA mountains are full of them. Carthay Circle theater and the street cars, another example of brilliance when Disney actually cared for the theme.
Now compare that to DCA today. Disney's vomit of IP with no rhyme or reason of placement. They've removed more attractions than they've added. Just.. wasted money. It's turned into a Six Flags parody of a true Disney park.
Californian Elitist
Well-Known Member
I agree. Using California as inspiration wasn’t the problem; execution and a lack of vision were. And I guess they still are the problems.
If I could do it my way, I would start all over and spend time coming up with a creative vision that both made sense for the park and was innovative. Piece by piece, I’d remove and replace. The only things I wouldn’t touch are BVS, Cars Land, and maybe Grizzly Peak. Everything else would be changed or completely removed and replaced with something better.