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. Todays themeing is really used to describe replication, to copy and incorporate recognizable forms and elements into another structure. Its used widely from The Rainforest Café to shopping malls to casinos, and its 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. Id 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 theres nothing behind the facades. Theres 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 youre 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. Its much easier, and safer, to copy something that someone else has created. Thats my beef with California Adventure. They simply didnt 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.