Originally Posted By Darkbeer From Saturday's LA Times Print Edition, in the "paper's" Editoral section(versus submitted opinons from other sources and persons) deals with DCA... Pretty strong wording. <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-adventure5apr05,0,732586.story" target="_blank">http://www.latimes.com/news/op inion/la-ed-adventure5apr05,0,732586.story</a> >>Disney, we are not amused California Adventure has fizzled, proving that consumers don't like to be taken for a ride. The first question about Disney’s California Adventure was so obvious that it seemed downright stupid: Why would anyone pay Disneyland prices to go there? When the park opened seven years ago, its deficits were clear even to the children who visited. One fabulous ride -- "Soarin' Over California" -- was buttressed by a small array of standard county-fair attractions, albeit given a Disney gloss: the ubiquitous flume ride, a Wild Mouse coaster, centrifugal-force swings, a giant Ferris wheel. Compared with Disneyland, where delights are tucked into every corner, California Adventure seemed barren, low on rides and big on restaurants and souvenir shops. Mainly, it seemed as if the Imagineers had taken the day off to go to Knott’s Berry Farm.<< Much more at the link....
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Here is a direct link... <a href="http://tinyurl.com/5ynf6e" target="_blank">http://tinyurl.com/5ynf6e</a>
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 Looks like Marty's got some more damage control to do ... hmm ... I wonder if he's too busy in Paris ... or if Disney was too cheap to even send him.
Originally Posted By ArchtMig This editorial seems like a cheap shot because it's something that should have been written a few years ago. Actually, it's old new because the same sentiments have been written many times in many publications and online over the years since DCA opened. I don't disagree with anything in the editorial, I just ask, why jump on the bandwagon now?? Especially since the rest of DCA's detractors have, for the most part, gone past that and are now patiently waiting for the makeover. But to that end, I make this request to Disney: Get on with it already. The makeover can't happen soon enough.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>I don't disagree with anything in the editorial, I just ask, why jump on the bandwagon now??<< Good point. I'm still wondering what, if anything, all this has to do with the Marty Sklar press release yesterday afternoon. Maybe I wasn't the only media guy it REALLY ticked off. It'll be fun to see if it goes national again this time. Note to Disney: just think what a wonderful distraction it would be if you announced the imminent DVD release of Song of the South. ;-)
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<What's happening in Paris?>> The official media debut, premiere and opening (to be as wordy as possible) of ToT and Stitch Encounter at the Studios. There's also a strong possibility that the new E-Ticket for DLP will be announced. <<This editorial seems like a cheap shot because it's something that should have been written a few years ago>> Yeah. Even though I agree with some (certainly not all) of the sentiment, the timing is very curious. There are many more worthy topics for the Times to write about like the homeless epidemic in the area, corrupt judges and the healthcare disaster. I don't think whether or not a theme park is worth $66 is something newsprint should be wasted on. <<Good point. I'm still wondering what, if anything, all this has to do with the Marty Sklar press release yesterday afternoon. Maybe I wasn't the only media guy it REALLY ticked off.>> Well, a little birdie told me that the lines were burning between TDA, Burbank, Glendale and the Times this week ... one must naturally wonder if the Times felt it was being muscled by Disney and took the very easy cheapshot.
Originally Posted By ArchtMig >>>Well, a little birdie told me that the lines were burning between TDA, Burbank, Glendale and the Times this week ... one must naturally wonder if the Times felt it was being muscled by Disney and took the very easy cheapshot.<<< I wouldn't put that past the Times. That paper is a disaster these days.
Originally Posted By bean LOL The times has always had a h..... for Disney. I believe the writer also has a connection with the site that started the original rumor too.
Originally Posted By bean ok i haven't read the article, i rathe rnot but this statement made me laugh "California Adventure has fizzled, proving that consumers don't like to be taken for a ride." not sure exactly what they mean sicne we all ahve known for a few years that DCA never reached full expectations but makes me wonder if they do realize that the parks attendance has been increasing steadily for all 7 years and that its getting a huge investment. Maybe they have not seen recent pictures of the park extremely packed whether it be on the 2fer or not it still has people coming and spending money
Originally Posted By Darkbeer There is not "One" writer to this editorial... This is an "Official" Editorial (Main three on the left side) that was written, edited, and approved by the entire LA Times editorial board. It was not a "single" person or an outside source, or even a letter to the editor. And you don't think the newspaper writers have MULTIPLE sources and connections, heck the LA Times was the first paper to get a "official" response to the "small world" changes, and printed them. Now, do newspapers in general like to access both "official" and un-official sources. Heck yes, they do, they want to break news, and not have the main section articles sound like advertisements. But an "editorial" (aka opinion) is just that, the opinion of the Editorial Board. Here are some links... <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-edboardbios23oct23" target="_blank">http://www.latimes.com/news/op inion/la-op-edboardbios23oct23</a>,0,4130157.htmlstory >>What exactly is an editorial? The simple answer is: an unsigned article expressing the newspaper's opinion on a matter of public interest. It's the one place in the newspaper where The Times tells you what it thinks as an institution. Speaking on the newspaper's behalf is the editorial board, consisting of nine writers and three editors, with a variety of viewpoints and expertise. We meet three times a week for an hour or so, bat around ideas and arguments, examine them for flaws, push them in new directions, (sometimes) discard them entirely and (ideally) mold them into coherence. We often have visitors from the worlds of politics, governance, academia and business.<< So the DCA Editorial is the "official" opinion of the LAT as an "Institution".
Originally Posted By 9oldmen >>but makes me wonder if they do realize that the parks attendance has been increasing steadily for all 7 years << Increasing every year? According to whom? Attendance went down in their 2nd year, 2002(THAT can be attributed to 9/11), and then increased from 2003 through '06, probably due to the travel industry recovering, the intro of 2fers in '03, and the 50th. >>Maybe they have not seen recent pictures of the park extremely packed whether it be on the 2fer or not it still has people coming and spending money<< Pictures of a packed park don't really say that much, and certainly says NOTHING about how much, if anything, people are SPENDING once they're inside. I agree that the article is old news, but it proves again that the park is having troubles unlike any other Disney park before it, and that it's not just the online fan insiders who acknowledge this. What the article didn't mention was that most of the main people who green lit the park in its original state are no longer with the company. The management shift/turnover that happened when Eisner left is the main reason behind the huge new investment. Does everyone agree?
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Here is a link that works for Post 13, and the info on the LAT editoral board... <a href="http://tinyurl.com/3vqqnj" target="_blank">http://tinyurl.com/3vqqnj</a>
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 News organizations have agendas. The LA Times hasn't been fair in its coverage of Disney and is in the midst of a giant urinating contest with the Mouse right now. I would argue that DCA hasn't the stature to be the subject of an editorial ... and the one that ran today had an expiration date on it of the day after either Iger's first annual meeting or the extreme makeover announcement. Timing is everything. This editorial just didn't happen to go in today's paper.
Originally Posted By DisDream This is old news. And yes, the LA times has always seemed to be biased against Disney. I also wonder why they didn't elaborate more on the new attractions planned for the park. I guess this side of the story didn't support their slant.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Here is a link to photos of the actual Print version of Saturday's LA Times, just to show the placement of the editorials. <a href="http://darkbeer.smugmug.com/gallery/4661342_NhDvG" target="_blank">http://darkbeer.smugmug.com/ga llery/4661342_NhDvG</a> (Not designed to read, go to the link above to actually read the editorials).
