Originally Posted By Rebekah This topic is for discussion of the 6/26/2001 news item <b><a href="http://www.theadvocate.com/enter/story.asp?storyid=4882" target="_blank">TheAdvocate: Old Mouse, New Tricks</a></b> The June 24th <I>Advocate Online</I> offers an overview of the Disneyland Resort expansion's offerings.
Originally Posted By damon63 This article was so upbeat and right on target that I actually cracked a smile while reading it. It's nice to see someone publish something positive about DCA. "If you're looking for a great American adventure, a park that shares the delights of one of America's most interesting states, then you've come to the right place." Finally, someone understands the theme!! "The beauty of Paradise Pier is the feeling it offers. Visitors can close their eyes, feel the warm California sun on their faces and imagine themselves on the Coast, without the nasty smells and trash washing up on shore. It's a trip to a bygone era, a la squeaky clean Disney." Hmmmm... didn't another author say recently that he preferred the bums and dirt at the Santa Monica Pier to Disney's "sanitized" pleasure pier? "It's Tough To Be A Bug" should not be missed. The waiting area alone provides endless fun with choruses of bugs singing Broadway tunes." I guess some people actually DO find this queue and waiting area entertaining. "One of the best aspects of this new park is the numerous spots for children to cool off, making one realize that as much as Disney entertains, sometimes a water hose can bring as much pleasure." Did she say that the numerous spots for children to cool off is one of the best aspects of DCA? Now that's a first! Gosh, compared to some of the other media reviews of DCA recently, you'd think the author was talking about a completely different park!
Originally Posted By Britain Well, all I can say is that this author is easily amused. And now that the ticket prices are temporarily cheaper, she can more easily recommend DCA. But all the "cool-off" spots? Rides, man! Kids want rides! The reason they need so many "cool-off" spots are because there aren't enough indoor rides! I'm also glad she enjoied Paradise Pier. She must have had good Californian weather. It is just too unfortunate that Disney decided to devote so much land and so many "attractions" to a theme so totally at the mercy of the fickle weather. What ever happened to the genius imagineers who created alternate crowd control routes throughout Disneyland Paris in order to practically guarantee a dry visit there? Oh yeah, they got fired for wanting to build something right the first time.
Originally Posted By Doobie Or perhaps the author has likes and dislikes just like anyone else and happened to like DCA. You can criticize the park all you want, but just because someone likes it doesn't mean their "easily amused". Why can't people just disagree? Why does there have to be something wrong with someone who likes DCA? Doobie.
Originally Posted By jonvn Exactly. No one can say they like the place without being called some kind of dummy. I like the place, and I suspect I'm not that stupid, and being in six different Disney theme parks over the last few decades might give me some idea as to what Disney offers. Some people don't like it, that's fine. But what is the story with people not allowing others to like it? I don't understand that, or the people who hate the park who have never been there. These are two things that make zero sense to me. You don't like it? Fine. Others do. I do. I like it even though I know it needs some work. I like it and appreciate it for the many many good parts to it. You don't think it has good parts? That's fine, too. I do. Please stop trying to convince me I'm wrong or stupid for liking it.
Originally Posted By bookgrrl I'm glad to hear that others feel the way I do about DCA. I've got no problem with differing opinions about the park -- believe it or not, there are even some people out there who don't like Disneyland! What does bother me is this attitude that if you like DCA, there's something wrong with your taste. If you've actually been to the park (with your mind open at least a little) and didn't like it, fine. However, just because I happen to love DCA doesn't mean I have low standards or that I'm easily amused. In fact, I'm not easily amused, and wouldn't spend plenty of $$ in a place that I didn't consider worth my time. I appreciate what Disney's done in creating a park that's very different, but still a lot of fun. And it's nice to see an article that appreciates it too.
Originally Posted By AgentLaRue <<But all the "cool off" spots? Rides, man! Kids want rides!>> I see statements like this a lot, which cause me to wonder if the person has kids. For many kids, they DO NOT want rides, in fact are terrified by them. Ever tried to take a four year old on Pirates or in the Mansion? Take ten of them, and 6 will probably cry they are so scared. Snow White can be terrifying for children. On the other hand, a water spray maze in a big farm, a recreation area unlike any they have seen, a mountain with a huge waterfall, a beautiful sun fountation that keeps changing, these are the very types of things that young kids adore. At least mine did. For every post I read that jumps on the "DCA is bad for kids" bandwagon, I always wonder just how many of those people have ever taken a kid to the park. All's I know is that my son liked it more than DL. That doesn't mean the park's great for everyone, but it means it's great for me. As for the article, it is well written and notes many of the things I enjoyed at DCA. Among many others, I completely relate to the author's enjoyment of the SPACE at DCA. For many, the crowding at DL is a negative and the relative sense of freedom at DCA is quite noticeable. I liked DCA for many of the reasons stated in the Advocate article. Accordingly, I understand that I am easily amused, like "cheap" parks, have kids who don't understand that the park isn't supposed to be fun, yada yada. So be it. I understand that these are conclusions and opinions, not fact. Why is it so hard for so many to fathom that people may just reach a different conclusion about this park than they do?
Originally Posted By driftwood714 AgentLaRue, I couldn't agree with you more about how "kids want rides!".. I took a 4 year old to the park who was too scared to go on Small World, yet they went on Star Tours. Go figure. But with kids, every child has different tastes. While one child likes Jungle Cruise, another may not.
Originally Posted By cstephens Britain wrote: > Well, all I can say is that this author is easily amused. So if someone writes a review that completely slams DCA, then that person is just telling it like it is, but if someone else writes a review that says DCA might be fun (I haven't read the article yet, but from others' comments, I'm assuming that's what it says), that person should be disregarded and dismissed? Yeah, right. /cs
Originally Posted By jonvn I don't think I ever see kids have so much fun as they do in the water fountains, like at the farm area. They just go bananas over it. It's a lot of fun to watch. Really, small kids are entertained by very very simple things. Some water, a petting zoo, some tasty snacks, and being with parents who are also having fun. The really don't need more than that.
Originally Posted By AgentLaRue Driftwood: your four year old taking on Star Tours is impressive, indeed! My eight year old won't do Star Tours, but GRR, Big Thunder, Soarin', no problem. Go figure. I thought I'd share another note about this issue. On another board, a member was ranting about how the DCA kids map/sticker promotion was distasteful to him, not to Disney standards. I posted a message asking whether his kids liked it. He asked them, thinking it had been bad, and the kid's loved, wanting to do it again. To the poster's credit, he willingly ate crow and realized that he had judged the promotion from an adult's perspective, rather than from watching the reaction of his kids. My impression is that much of the criticism of DCA as not a kid's park is made in the same way, based on an adult's, not a child's, view of the park. From my experience, parents (at least me) cannot fully comprehend what kids are going to like (did someone say Pokemon?). I've come to accept this and rely on my children to tell me the answer.
Originally Posted By Park Hopper So what is wrong with being easily amused? I know lots of people who are easily amused. It doesn’t make them bad people -- in fact, quite the reverse. They are also usually easy to get along with, (For one thing, they laugh at my jokes.) and they’re usually happier individuals. I don’t think calling someone easily amused is necessarily an insult.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 "Some water, a petting zoo, some tasty snacks, and being with parents who are also having fun. The really don't need more than that." Just had to add my $.02 here -- yes, I'll agree that children are easily entertained when they are young, but what about the rest of us? Should Disney not have to try anymore to entertain the "whole" family with an attraction just because children are easily amused? This trend of Disney's lately of developing attractions that divide the family disturbs me. Yes, I think there should be a few roller coasters and such, but the rest of the attractions should be suitable for everyone -- and that means entertaining for everyone. I don't like these excuses for building cheap entertainment by claiming "kids like it". That's great, but what would be even better would be if everyone liked it too. True, it costs more and is a lot harder to do, but in the end everyone has a great time - whether you're with a family or not.
Originally Posted By disneywatcher >> bookgrrl: I've got no problem with differing opinions about the park << Which the writer of the review in The Advocate did acknowledge; she does give both sides of the running debate about DCA, below, in one part of her article (although most locals wouldn't consider themselves, or aren't, "Angelenos,"). Even though she wrote a review -- which is different than a pure news story -- many reporters still like the credo that both side of the story should be given. (And the article includes a great shot of Downtown Disney, mis-identified as "DCA," which is a very critical part of the DisCo's expansion of their Anaheim operations---if that doesn't do well, I think Disney will lose a lot of enthusiasm for this part of the country)... >>>>> But is it up to Disney standards? That's the big question among Los Angelenos, many of whom have said no... <<<<<
Originally Posted By AgentLaRue <<I don't think that calling someone easily amused is necessarily an insult." True enough, in this case. But the problem is in pre-judging someone based on whether or not they like/dislike DCA, that is the insulting part, whether the pre-judging is flattering or insulting doesn't matter. It's the same as saying someone is intolerant or unobservant if they don't like DCA. Why do people need to attribute assumed characteristics to people based solely on their reaction toward DCA? <<Should Disney not have to try anymore to entertain the "whole" family with an attraction just because children are easily amused?>> The original discussion was whether kids want rides vs. other attractions, not whether DCA attractions appeal to all age groups. Having raised the issue, I agree in part only. From my experience, which is admittedly anecdotal, it is very difficult to create an attraction that appeals to all age groups. I'm struggling to think of one that meets this category at DL for my family. The sophisticated rides that parents and older children enjoy are often too intense for smaller children (Pirates, Mansion, Jungle Cruise, etc.), while Small World, Storybook, etc. hold little intrigue for older children. I don't disagree with your suggestion that Disney shouldn't strive, to the extent possible, to create attractions that appeal to all age groups. I'm just not convinced yet that there is an attraction model that necessarily covers all age groups. I also think you can't discount an attraction being enjoyable for parents simply because their kids love it. The attraction to the parent is in the enjoyment of the children, not the parents own enjoyment of the attraction itself. For example, if I go to DL alone, I'm not going to ride Casey Jr. But if my kids go, I'll glad join them to watch the wonder in their eyes.
Originally Posted By jonvn "I don’t think calling someone easily amused is necessarily an insult." I would definitely say it is, because it implies that the person saying it is more sophisticated and knoledgeable than the person they are talking about. I see "easily amused" being applied in this manner as the same as "stupid." "I don't like these excuses for building cheap entertainment by claiming "kids like it"" I don't think they are doing that. Some of these things are not necessarily cheap. I personally don't like rides that segment out the family by age brackets, either. But you have to remember that it's kind of always been that way. Grandma wasn't likely going to go on the Teacups or AstroJets. Nor would my mother go on the Matterhorn. But most rides were suitable for everyone. The problem is that for older kids, it got increasingly boring. Small World for a 16 year old boy is torture. Sure they can all go on it together but are they having fun? Usually, by the time kids get a little older anyway, they want to break free and do stuff on their own. It's simply not all that easy to come up with stuff that everyone can do that is also fun for everyone. Of course, that IS their job, and what they get paid a ton of money for.
Originally Posted By Simba19 i haven't even been to the park yet and i'll admit, when i first heard the idea of the park i didn't like it. but seeing the way it has taken shape and knowing that the future of this park could be very bright my opinion has done a complete 360. i'll be trying it in the end of July and i am sure i will have a lot of fun and see many of the attractions as repeats. does that make me stupid? no. personally i think it's not very smart to judge something based on others opinions alone.
Originally Posted By meomi You know i was thinking about the last time I did something with my nephews. I went to the fair with them. I rode rides that made me want to hurl and tracked through the dirt and looked at the farm animals and ate gross fried food. By the end of the day I had spent more than 30 bucks on each kid including those games of chance to win a pokemon toy. Now to compare the "cheapness" of DCA to a fair to take a child somewhere, I would take a kid to DCA 100 times more than I would to a fair again. The park is clean and it has mix of all kinds of entertainment. I read the article in question and I liked what I read, it was nice to see someone got what the park was about without being so darn critical. Why can't people just have fun and stop analyzing every perceived fault with this park???? I had so much fun at DCA and my husband loves to talk about the GRR and Soarin. (and he isn't a big theme park lover like me.)
Originally Posted By cstephens OK, I've actually read the article now. I think the author did a great job. You could tell that the author enjoyed DCA as a whole but disliked some things (just like many of us) and brought up concerns that people might have. I did think the picture of DTD that's misidentified as DCA is kind of strange and very unfortunate. I think Disney marketing could definitely take a cue from the following comments by the author: > If you're looking for Disney characters in the general sense, you'll be disappointed. Better to head to the right of the entrance and stick to the original park. > If you're looking for a great American adventure, a park that shares the delights of one of America's most interesting states, then you've come to the right place. I don't really understand why some people expect another Disneyland at DCA. My view is, if I want Disneyland, I'll just go there, and I don't want the exact same kind of thing across the esplanade. I like the different experience that I get at DCA, and it's too bad that Disney marketing doesn't understand that. I'm not saying that attendance would skyrocket if they had a proper marketing campaign, but at least they would be telling you really what to expect, so people could have an informed view of what DCA offers. My favorite comment is as follows: > The beauty of Paradise Pier is the feeling it offers. Visitors can close their eyes, feel the warm California sun on their faces and imagine themselves on the Coast, without the nasty smells and trash washing up on shore. It's a trip to a bygone era, a la squeaky clean Disney. That's the most perfect description I've seen of Paradise Pier and completely explains why I love that area so much. This author didn't much care for Superstar Limo either. Oh, well. Maybe I'm just a member of the quirky minority who actually likes this ride. I also like the following comment: > While in "Hollywood," be sure and notice all the details on the faux fronts, names on doors such as Philip A. Couch Casting Agency and Dr. Nipantuck. Like Disneyland, the beauty of this park is in the details. I completely agree with the last sentence. I know DCA has been criticized for not having theming and that the small things are lacking, but I completely disagree. There are so many little touches at DCA that aren't neon-light noticeable but that combine to add to the atmosphere. Nice to see that someone in the press corps appreciates what DCA has to offer. Some of us have had that opinion for months. /cs
Originally Posted By Britain Sheesh, I get back home, turn on the net and what do I find? Complaints about MY opinion about the article. What else are these discussion boards for if not to share our opinions of how on- or off- target the article was? It's nice to see more opinions on the actual article within the last few posts. If I disagree, I'm going to say so, and if you agree, I'd hope you say so instead of saying, "Geez, man, those guys who just insult other people for liking DCA are jerks."
