Spirited News, Observations & Thoughts Tres

[asianway]

Maybe it's the cold meds but I think you may have just indicated that I have a bit of a problem. Is it bad that I'm perfectly okay with that? J/K. Right now the cruise vacations are a good fit for us on many levels. If I was totally opposed to any other travel I think I'd be worried. I'm just rollin' with the seasons of life. Plus, it's always in my mind that all but 1 of those future bookings are completely refundable until I hit the penalty phase. I'm never opposed to wiping them away in lieu of other things.

Still haven't made it to DLR. Killin me. That's exactly what I wanted for our anniversary in September. Stupid commitment to the big extended family hoopla on the Allure of the Seas ((See?? I'm going to vacation AWAY from Disney!)) for Thanksgiving seriously limits the fundage for this shoe-horned afterthought of a 20th anniversary getaway. Whatever we do, we want a week. Hubby must take a week away from his project in the fall to hit the manhour numbers they need. We want our first trip out to DL to be the way we want it. Unfortunately, we want it to be at the DLH. Just the cost of the hotel for 6 nights, no tickets or food, is only a few hundred less than booking a week long cruise where pretty much all expenses are covered PLUS we'd be walking into about $300 in spending money. Basically, going to DLR would cost us double what the cruise would. That's pretty hard to overcome when funds are limited. There's also logistical things...I'll already be in Central Florida the 2nd week of September so the hubby would just be joining me vs. fly home then both of us fly west a few days later. We only have so many rewards miles to burn. All that said, I'm still asking myself if I want DLR enough to compromise and stay offsite. Ugh. I just hate thinking I'd get there and be pining for something more so then I'd need to go back to do it again. Like wanting to go back on the Fantasy because I felt like I left way too much undone. It's like a psychological gumbo, idn't it???? ROFLMAO!

Panama Canal. Wonder from Miami to San Diego sailing May 2, 2014. 15 nights. How's that for Faux Top One Percent? Don't even have to hunt down any disabled folks to impress your other faux one percenter friends.

**edit**
Literally just happened. Hubby got offered a job in Martinez, California. Mmmmm...much as I'd love to pounce it's just not enough money to cover the increase in living expense. But life is ever-changing so who knows? We may be on the moon come September, completely changing EVERYTHING. Ya just never know..

Have you priced the Panama sailings? You can get them dirt cheap. Sadly, unlike many lifestylers, I have a job.

 

[Californian Elitist]

Yeah I agree. I think DCA 1.0 in Florida would have been criticized, but people would have still gone. Local Californian's tend to vote with their wallet more than in Florida. In California they not only complained, they stopped going, forcing Disney's hand.

It was mentioned that DCA in Florida would have been compared to IOA. Here we compared DCA to Tokyo Disney Sea that opened the same year and to what didn't open (Westcot and Disney Sea in Long Beach.)

Right. I remember I would ride Soarin' Over California and maybe Mulholland Madness (now Goofy's Sky School), then I'd walk, no, run to Disneyland. I remember reading all the criticisms and backlash towards the park. It was just bad and DCA was always referred to as "the other park." I remember a lot of locals saying they had wished the parking lot was still there.

Westcot was unrealistic, IMO, with that GIANT Spaceship Earth that was going to go there, not to mention all the land it would have taken up. I can hear the complaints, now. Westcot was just not going to happen.

 

[RSoxNo1]

Yep. I didn't see it until late 2007, but I really liked DCA before all of the more recent additions, too. Even before the massive makeover, I thought it was in the same league as DHS and DAK.

Sometimes I actually wonder if DCA 2.0 would have been as successful as it is now without DCA 1.0 preceding it... i.e. there was a good chance locals would react poorly to whatever they built in the parking lot, because it "wasn't Disneyland". If they opened the 2012 version of DCA back in 2001, would it get 10 million people per year? Or would there still be an adjustment period with people foaming at the mouth because of the differences from Disneyland proper? I think the way things worked out for Disney here borders on "New Coke" level of good fortune. DCA was like the loser girl in a prom movie... she just needed to take off the glasses and get a pretty new dress to become prom queen. DCA was a pretty decent park looking at it objectively, but it needed to be made "cool".

The attraction lineup at DCA was decent. It's proximity to Disneyland made it work as "ooh, there are additional rides across the street when we're waiting for our Space Mountain Fastpass".

 

[BryceM]

Right. I remember I would ride Soarin' Over California and maybe Mulholland Madness (now Goofy's Sky School), then I'd walk, no, run to Disneyland. I remember reading all the criticisms and backlash towards the park. It was just bad and DCA was always referred to as "the other park." I remember a lot of locals saying they had wished the parking lot was still there.

Westcot was unrealistic, IMO, with that GIANT Spaceship Earth that was going to go there, not to mention all the land it would have taken up. I can hear the complaints, now. Westcot was just not going to happen.

Did you ever get a chance to ride Superstar Limo?! Hahahaha.

 

[EPCOTCenterLover]

I liked more than you, Mark. I loved Soarin -- and still do. I loved Screamin -- and still do. I enjoyed Muppetvision and Tough to be a Bug. Also, liked Golden Dreams too ...and everything you listed above.

I thought the park was troubled because if the way it was conceived and put together, but I liked it ... Even in 2001.

Interestingly, after my first visit, I realized I really like the part of DCA that truly represented the more historic or natural parts of California and attempted to recreate the beautiful areas of the state- versus a shopping center or a working Hollywood studio. I wish they would have done that to a more fully realized result.

 

[EPCOTCenterLover]

Yep. I didn't see it until late 2007, but I really liked DCA before all of the more recent additions, too. Even before the massive makeover, I thought it was in the same league as DHS and DAK.

Sometimes I actually wonder if DCA 2.0 would have been as successful as it is now without DCA 1.0 preceding it... i.e. there was a good chance locals would react poorly to whatever they built in the parking lot, because it "wasn't Disneyland". If they opened the 2012 version of DCA back in 2001, would it get 10 million people per year? Or would there still be an adjustment period with people foaming at the mouth because of the differences from Disneyland proper? I think the way things worked out for Disney here borders on "New Coke" level of good fortune. DCA was like the loser girl in a prom movie... she just needed to take off the glasses and get a pretty new dress to become prom queen. DCA was a pretty decent park looking at it objectively, but it needed to be made "cool".

From friends and family that live in the OC, the objection to DCA wasn't that it wasn't DL, it was that the attractions were either undressed carnival type rides, 3D movies found at WDW, and too few new and "classic" Disney attractions. They didn't want a DL clone of sorts- just a Disney park with high end storytelling and atmosphere.

 

[Californian Elitist]

Did you ever get a chance to ride Superstar Limo?! Hahahaha.

Oh my gosh... NIGHTMARES!!!! What in the world were they thinking? One of the worst Disney ever came up with. Probably the worst. SO BAD. An embarrassment to native Californians.

 

[EPCOTCenterLover]

I didn't think the original DCA attraction line up was good at all...MUCH better now. And SSL (SuperStar Limo)... what drugs were they on?!

 

[Californian Elitist]

From friends and family that live in the OC, the objection to DCA wasn't that it wasn't DL, it was that the attractions were either undressed carnival type rides, 3D movies found at WDW, and too few new and "classic" Disney attractions. They didn't want a DL clone of sorts- just a Disney park with high end storytelling and atmosphere.

This is true, but the fact that it wasn't Disneyland was also a major reason why locals hated it. "The other park" was no match to the great Disneyland (still isn't). Even after the makeover, you've still got a lot of fans saying DCA is nice but they still won't spend the entire day there or they still visit Disneyland more often. Some still dislike DCA, even after its makeover, believe it or not.

 

[doctornick]

Especially after NGE, but even without that consideration am I the only one who has trouble believing Disney is really prepared to make large investments in both Animal Kingdom and the Studios at the same time? This is the same WDW which went several years without a major addition (and even prior to that we generally got maybe one new attraction per year property wide, while everything else just grew more stale).

Perhaps I am about to be surprised - I certainly hope so - but its just that history would suggest otherwise.

I certainly agree, but the reality is that they should be making large investments in both DAK and DHS at the same time and do so immediately. They both need it.

With WDW being as profitable as it is, there certainly is the money to make major additions to both parks simultaneously, especially if P&R doesn't have as many other major outlays going on (new cruise ships, DCA makeover, etc.) as it has during the recent ignoring of WDW.

 

[spaceghost]

From friends and family that live in the OC, the objection to DCA wasn't that it wasn't DL, it was that the attractions were either undressed carnival type rides, 3D movies found at WDW, and too few new and "classic" Disney attractions. They didn't want a DL clone of sorts- just a Disney park with high end storytelling and atmosphere.

I've just been to DCA the one time earlier this year, and while I loved parts of the park, I still found many parts disappointing. I still find it odd that there is a whole area dedicated to the type of amusement park that Walt didn't want when he built DL. On top of that, if you take PP, Bugs Land, and even the non-RSR attractions in Cars Land, you have a whole bunch of glorified midway rides still there now. That's just not what I think of from a Disney park.

 

[doctornick]

I've just been to DCA the one time earlier this year, and while I loved parts of the park, I still found many parts disappointing. I still find it odd that there is a whole area dedicated to the type of amusement park that Walt didn't want when he built DL. On top of that, if you take PP, Bugs Land, and even the non-RSR attractions in Cars Land, you have a whole bunch of glorified midway rides still there now. That's just not what I think of from a Disney park.

I've never understood the significant dislike that Disney fans have with "carnival rides" considering that two of the most seminal Disney experiences so closely associated with the nostalgia of the parks (Dumbo and the Tea Cups) are such rides.

Now, I certainly wouldn't advocate having a large number of flat rides as the basis for a Disney park, but having some of them is a very good thing in terms of helping capacity and providing for different experienced. As long as the rides are well themed and fit into the general ambiance. I think PP at DCA was a problem because it was basically all that type of ride when the park opened (and largely still is like that). But having a small handful of such rides scattered in a theme park in appropriate places with appropriate look is totally fine and does not diminish the experience.

 

[Californian Elitist]

I've just been to DCA the one time earlier this year, and while I loved parts of the park, I still found many parts disappointing. I still find it odd that there is a whole area dedicated to the type of amusement park that Walt didn't want when he built DL. On top of that, if you take PP, Bugs Land, and even the non-RSR attractions in Cars Land, you have a whole bunch of glorified midway rides still there now. That's just not what I think of from a Disney park.

Seaside piers are a big thing in California, hence the reason it has a presence in California Adventure.

Santa Monica Pier:

Santa Cruz Pier/Boardwalk:

Belmont Park in San Diego:

Walt Disney opened Disneyland, specifically Fantasyland with the same, carnival-type rides.

 

[Californian Elitist]

I've never understood the significant dislike that Disney fans have with "carnival rides" considering that two of the most seminal Disney experiences so closely associated with the nostalgia of the parks (Dumbo and the Tea Cups) are such rides.

Now, I certainly wouldn't advocate having a large number of flat rides as the basis for a Disney park, but having some of them is a very good thing in terms of helping capacity and providing for different experienced. As long as the rides are well themed and fit into the general ambiance. I think PP at DCA was a problem because it was basically all that type of ride when the park opened (and largely still is like that). But having a small handful of such rides scattered in a theme park in appropriate places with appropriate look is totally fine and does not diminish the experience.

I'm actually surprised a bug's land never went to DAK.

 

[flynnibus]

I've just been to DCA the one time earlier this year, and while I loved parts of the park, I still found many parts disappointing. I still find it odd that there is a whole area dedicated to the type of amusement park that Walt didn't want when he built DL

Disney didn't dislike carnival rides - he hated the stigmas and environment that traveling amusements had. It was that atmosphere... of distrust.. filth.. and unwholesome.. that he intended to keep out of his parks - not the type of rides.

People forget Disney's holidayland.. and even the circus on mainstreet (both in Walt's time) that would be far more similar to a circus than Paradise Pier ever will be.

 

[GLaDOS]

I'm actually surprised a bug's land never went to DAK.

Bug's Land is the only place I dislike flat rides. Such a cheap feeling area.

Paradise Pier, however, is breathtaking IMO.

 

[doctornick]

I'm actually surprised a bug's land never went to DAK.

Me too. I think they could fit at least a few of the rides on Discovery Island, near It's tough to be a Bug. Would certainly help a bit with the lack of rides issue at DAK.

 

[Californian Elitist]

Bug's Land is the only place I dislike flat rides. Such a cheap feeling area.

Paradise Pier, however, is breathtaking IMO.

I don't like a bug's land, either. It's themed well (honestly, how could not theme bugs and grass?), but I wish it would just go away. I'm all for the same type of rides to stay, but a different theme would be great.

 

[Californian Elitist]

Me too. I think they could fit at least a few of the rides on Discovery Island, near It's tough to be a Bug. Would certainly help a bit with the lack of rides issue at DAK.

Which park has the least amount of rides, DAK or DHS?

 

[Goofyernmost]

Which park has the least amount of rides, DAK or DHS?

Without looking it up, I would have to say DAK.