DCA version 2.0 - Will It Be Enough?
 

There's no doubt in anybody's mind that Disney('s) California Adventure will be a better theme park by the middle of June. I'm really looking forward to the beautiful changes and additions.

But is that going to be enough:confused:

Remember - one of the main complaints about California Adventure was the abject stupidity and frankly cynical ploy of situating a California-themed park in, um, California.

That defect is going to remain. While the theme has been a tad diluted (it was never very strong to begin with), it is hardly gone - and, in fact, has been accentuated by the park's major change - the 1st entire re-do of a Disney theme park entrance - Buena Vista Street.



And while DCA has taken major strides in added attractions and especially in the Pixarification of the Park (being directly across and merely 100 steps from Disneyland, it should by all rights be called Pixarland), many of the negatives about DCA remain. It's still got an odd layout of overly wide and shadeless, characterless, sprawling avenues and a generic feeling to its theme of sorta California-ish.

BUT it is going to be so much prettier than it was in 2001. And it will have a decent number of fun attractions. And, of course, it's got lots of super popular PIXAR.

For a while in fact, it will be hard to see beyond the splendor of Cars Land, Cars Land, Cars Land!!! (Al's review, now that previews have let the cat out of the bag, or the car out of the garage as the case may be.). But once you look past all the fabulous changes ... take an objective look at DCA version 2.0 as a whole and not just as very much improved.



:cheers: California Adventure WILL be better. But it will still be the California park in California. Will the changes be enough to finally make DCA a successful Disney theme park ... or is it sadly no more than lipstick on a pig?

The world is grey.

Some will love it, some will hate it, most will enjoy it for a few hours and not give it much thought past that.

Yeah, but there is an objective view of it too in terms of attendance and revenue.

I think it's going to be a success. Yes, many shortcomings remain, however Walt knew as well as anyone that good show can make up for many shortcomings. While the stupid theme concept makes success more difficult and is something to overcome, it was never the real root of the problem. The real root of the problem has always been execution and quality. And this redo is shaping up to deliver that in spades. As long as they have really followed through and created an environment that FEELS like a quality Disney experience, then any quibbles about overall theme or re-cycled technology become moot.

However, I am concerned about the wisdom of making the centerpiece of the transformation a strip of black asphalt with no trees and short buildings. Because DCA totally needed MORE ways to walk around in blazing sun.

Why is a theme park based on California being in California a problem? Because locals who live in California are board with it because they live here? Because visiters to California can step outside of the park and see the real California?

I was born and raised in California, as was my mom. I studied the history of California because it is so interesting. It's a very unusual place. I love California, so I enjoyed DCA, but not as much as I would have had it not been done on the cheep.

When I first visited Hollywood as an adult in the 80's, I was shocked. It was not what I had in mind. Then I went to USH, and found it a lot more fun (Hollywood is in a lot better shape now, BYW). So, is there really that much wrong with people visiting the state and seeing a stylized or fantasy version as well? Would I go to Paris and visit a theme park based on France? I could see it. Disney Sea is by the sea. Aulani is a Hawaiian resort based on Hawaii (ok, it's not a theme park, but it is a Disney property in Hawaii based on Hawaii).

The fact that Walt had a connection to LA & Hollywood is a reasonable usage of the idea. And my complaint from 2001 was that DCA, unlike other Disney parks, did not transport you to another time and place. At least now it's another time. And the lack of the Disney touch (Like disney characters) sorely lacking when it opened has also been adressed, as well as more things for smaller kids to do.

One measure of "if it is enough" (besides ticket sales, which will be skewed by curiosity about Carsland for the first year or two) will be the lack of complaints. In my opinion, yes I think they will be down to the level that Disneyland gets (I'll call that the standard, or norm), therefore "enough" to be considered successful. And I think it will stand up to the same hours and admission costs as DL, thus stand on it's own.

The other measure will be "can it stand the test of time". Will it still be here in 10 or 20 years? Or will it be razed to be replaced by a whole new idea? That I cannot say for sure, but I bet the Disney company is expecting to amortize the $1.1 billion over at least that long withought starting over again.

That's not really a fair analogy. "Hollywood" isn't Hollywood, "Hollywood" IS Universal Studios (or the studios in Burbank, or Vasquez Rocks, or countless other areas around SoCal that are not in the 90028 zip code). The actual city of Hollywood at it's BEST is a symbolic tourist trap. By visiting Universal you visited a legitimate, authentic experience of Hollywood not replicable anywhere else in the world (yes, the theme park is replicated, and surpassed, in Florida, but they will NEVER have the true Hollywood history that's up on that hill).

No one visits the Golden Gate Bridge then shows up at DCA and says, "Geez, why did I waste my time THERE?!"

By visiting Hollywood Pictures Backlot you are visiting a pale imitation of something real and historical that's accessible with little to no extra effort. By visiting Redwood Creek you are visiting an underwhelming imitation of spectacular nature that's entirely accessible with little to no extra effort.

No, it's not impossible to achieve a Disney-worthy feat of fantasy and "transport you to another time and place" within the confines of the California-in-California theme. But by inviting comparison to truly wonderful REAL places that are practically visible by peeking your head over the lack-of-berm, Disney started with one foot in a crater. To pull that off, the result has to be at least as amazing, if not more amazing, than the real deal. Even at Disney's best that's a tall order. And where DCA has succeeded (ToT, World of Color, Little Mermaid....um....) it's with stuff that has gotten away from that theme, avoiding the uphill battle against expectations.

California IS a wondrous place. Yet I felt mildly amused and mildly insulted by the theme of DCA. Perhaps it was the general poor quality of the park, but it seemed less a tribute to than a mockery of California to me. I confess I feel more kindly to it now that a sense of time shift is strongly set by the Buena Vista Street entrance.

There's an element of the New DCA that I quite like which won't be finished this month. When it eventually is, by the 50's-ification of the Golden State area, I wonder if many guests will even notice it. I really like that each "land" will be a different decade in time. It's a great idea, but I think it's going to be a subtlety beyond the perception of the vast majority of guests.



But at least the park will try to establish a sense of a Time I cannot otherwise visit, rather than just a Place I would enjoy far greater if I drove a few hours in any direction.

It's a start. ;)

I never had a problem with the theme and was generally fine with the look of the park from the beginning (except the back part of PP and the Hollywood & Vine corner of backlot).

Yes, the rides generally sucked, but that is of limited import to me since on 80% of my visits to Disney parks I don't go on any rides or only go on rides because companions want to (Yes, Pirates of the Caribbean is a vastly superior ride to Winnie the Pooh but after five rides each I find them equally boring). It is the company that makes the park, not the parks. At least for me.

I'm happy with the visual upgrades but the content of Carsland is of little appeal to me.

So I imagine my opinion of DCA will be little changed.

That's very true GD, but do visiters realize that? I have heard dissapointment from visiters from out of state or out of the country. But you are right, that was a bad analogy. The Hollywood that people know is what they see on their screens, which comes from the studios, not the city it's self. That's not to say there aren't parts of the city that are important landmarks, but those are little more than tourist attractions now. And seeing replicas of landmarks like the Golden Gate is never a replacement for seeing the real thing. I don't think anyone expected it to be. It's the ambiance or character of the place that people can enjoy. For instance, now you will be able to enjoy feeling what it would be like to go back to Los Angeles in the 1920's.

And I agree, ISM, that the annoying puns and cartoonish look of parts of the park made a mochery of the state. I'm glad it's being removed for the most part.

The point is, will it be enough? I think if they hadn't fixed it's flaws, the park would have been closed as a seperate gate, or razed completly with in 5 years. Now it has a chance, and I feel it will continue to improve, to stay as a stand alone park. Will the California theme stay? Only time will tell.

In my opinion, the most similar thing to DCA Disney has previously done is the World Showcase at Epcot. Those are theme versions of a dozen or so countries. The subtle fact that it's as those countries generally were about 50 years ago (while cultures were still quite separate and distinct) is lost on nearly all visitors, I think. But, to me, it works because you can't really go to all those places - perhaps even in an average lifetime. You may visit Paris or London, but never Norway and Mexico and Italy and China in one afternoon.

Furthermore, the closest country to Florida, Mexico, is still several hours away - and the rest need a plane ride and a passport to experience in real life. So the World Showcase is, to me, a perfectly acceptable (not to mention enjoyable) fantasy environment - even though it's based on real places.


California just doesn't do it for me. Part of it is it bugs me that the real deals are but a few hours drive away, and thus the facsimiles seem cynical. But mostly it's because, since I live in California, the theme seems completely meh to me. And at least half of the Resort's guests also live in California.


But I'm with Alex in that the rides and attractions are not what makes Disneyland enjoyable for me. It's the Park itself. I dig the themes and the beautiful execution of those themes. If DCA is now going to be reasonably beautiful and themically impressive, perhaps it won't matter if I'm less entralled with the theme, but wowed by the execution in fantastic Disney style.


But it would indeed be the first Disney park I enjoyed where the theme meant nothing to me. And to the extent DCA has attempted to downplay the California theme, it's made it even more generic a park. That's always been my main complaint - it seemed like a generic theme park and not a Disney one. Here's hoping it seems much more Disney (or Disney presents Pixar) come June 15th. :snap: