Originally Posted By Doobie This topic is for discussion of the January 24th Guest Column on Epcot <a href="News-ID107130.asp" target="_blank">http://LaughingPlace.com/News-ID107130.asp</a>
Originally Posted By fabdisbabe Nice, balanced perspective. I think the GP (general public) would have been bored with Westcot, and there's not enought Theme Park Geeks like myself to finance an entire hi-tech park. Good point, also, about Disney's America. I really can't think of anything for Liberty Square that should be there (except, of course, me) Fab
Originally Posted By GCOND4 Great article, sometimes I forget how much fun I have had at CA Adventure when I have not been there for awhile. When you are reading all of the negative press on this park, mostly from other websites whose only job is to criticize, it is easy to be critical yourself.
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<. These new parks don't try to teach, they just try to be fun. That's an easy-to-achieve goal that bodes well for the new parks' long-term success, just as that same goal brought success to the Magic Kingdom parks years earlier.>> I always remember where Uncle Walt wanted us to learn by experiencing the past or invision the future. But I can see that I was wrong. We are only ther to have fun. Me not think so.
Originally Posted By JohnS3 Can't you just picture Homer Simpson standing in Epcot with a frown on his face as he screams, "Stupid EPCOT - Be More Fun!"
Originally Posted By Dizney_Tom I just got back from Tokyo DL, and I find it amusing that you think you can compare that park to DCA. DCA is flawed in so many ways, and guests and cast know it. The only ones who don't, are upper management. I'm not opposed to the fact that DCA has a Paradise Pier. I'm opposed to the fact that this park is just such an inferior looking product that I'm not getting my money's worth. I think an appropriate analogy can be found in the resorts at WDW (of which I was a high-level manager for 8 years). When we opened up Caribbean Beach, many people complained because while the Disney name was on the resort, the product wasn't what they were used to at the Polynesian or the Contemporary hotels. And, of course, the room size, resort amenities, etc. were aimed at a different audience and pocket-book. Over time, the public understood that Disney was now in different pricing segments, and they needed to pay closer attention to how the resort was positioned relative to price and description. But, those initial days were tough. Many people were booking rooms at the Caribbean for Christmas holiday thinking that the rate was an "opening special" and that the rooms were of similar quality to the other resorts. We had a lot of angry guests wanting to transfer to other Disney hotels but couldn't as they were full. Anyway, when people go to DCA they feel that the experience should be comparable to Disneyland's Magic Kingdom, but it just isn't. Since the experience isn't comporable, the price shouldn't be. On the other hand, Disney would never price position a park differently so I know that wasn't going to happen. The Disney MGM Studios was opened with a woeful amount of attractions, but they didn't chince on that park too much from a visual/comfort perspective. From the abominable Soap Opera Bistro to the tantric Superstar Limo, this park reaks of commmitte decisions and corporate spread-sheets. I could live with a Paradise Pier, and a few off the shelf rides if there was a cool Disney version of the classic fun house attraction, or other related rides that enhance the caliber of attractions at Paradise Pier. The only "E-ticket" there is California Screamin, and the rest of the attractions are B and C at best. And, might I suggest, the Zephyr ride is more aking to Main Street's Horse-drawn street cars. We'd all have cut some more slack to DCA if they added at least a few more noteworthy rides and didn't chince on decor. I mean, what's up with that are outside Golden Dreams, I'd rather have "warehouse" architecture than whatever this area is truly trying to depict. Of all the attractions, I found Anmimation and Bugs to be the most interesting, but what do Bugs have to do with the history of California. Truthfully, it would be a better fit in EPCOT's land pavilion, than at DCA. I respect that you're trying to get Disney to break their stodgey mold of park themes and attractions that lend themselves to getting too dated, too quickly. But if the parks were maintained and given the attention that they deserve, I don't think that proper management would let the parks get too dated. And, even if you did have a dated area, you and you add a killer attraction to it, that will detract the public's attention to the dated aspects of the other areas. Look at DL's Adventureland, before Indy, it didn't have much going for it except a first-generation Jungle Cruise with crude AA figures. The issue at hand is Disney got too big, ventured into things that they didn't need to get involved with, and made some poor management decisions (i.e. Ovitz, Wide World of Sports, sports teams), and now other aspects of the business have to pay for this short-sightedness. Tokyo Disney Sea is a park that doesn't have tons of attractions, but the ones that are there are so quality oriented that it's amazing. Their Aquatopia and Electric Railway are great examples. Aquatopia is a "C" or "D" ticket, but the Electric Railway is most definitely an "A" or even a "free attraction", but the point is the things is beautiful. Disney has sold-out on the American parks. I do hope Disney gets taken over because two things will happen. 1) Someone will come in and get things done right or 2) They'll sell of the parks or break them up or something similar, and at least the "slow-death" we're all going through now will finally end. I mean, I see the great things Disney is capable of in TDS, and then and Animal Kingdom comes along with 5 things to do. So instead of making it 6 things to do, and adding a great attraction, we get a Dumbo duplicate, carnival games, and a mad-mouse rolller coaster....what the heck? What purpose does sarnival style games hold at Animal Kingdom. Perhaps in the future, Disney will adopt a model that Sea World Orlando's new park has. For a truly stellar, high quality premium park experience, you'll have to pay 325% more than your core park's admission prices for a generally private, visually and audibly rich expereince. I'm referring to Discover Cove where you can swim with Dolphins in intimate surroundings for about $175/person. When Eisner touts that DCA exit poll give the park high marks, it's like Ken Lay saying Enron stock is a bargain, go talk it up to your friends and family. This is all just spin folks, that park is bobbing and weaving in the second round of a prize-fight, and it's not goign to beat the champ across the way (and it probably won't even go the distance if it keeps its current theme).
Originally Posted By Dizney_Tom Relative to my earlier posting, I should have proofed the typos, my apologies folks...
Originally Posted By disneylandking <<The only ones who don't, are upper management>> Uh, yeah, they know.
Originally Posted By leemac Here we go again..... No-one in their right mind would compare TDS to DCA. DCA cost one-third of TDS. We have already debated the reason why the budget for DCA was not available to the hilt. To suggest that Soarin' is not an E-ticket I find totally offensive to a truly amazing and novel attraction. Also, Aquatopia is probably the biggest "surprise" at TDS and definitely not a "C" attraction. It looks like your average Autopia style attraction, but throw in the Pooh Hunny Hunt LPS system and it is truly fantastic (when it is actually working!!). That ride is truly unique and Tim Delaney should be complemented on an accomplished job.
Originally Posted By TP2000 Dizney_Tom, thanks for the interesting post. Like you, I was a bit baffled by the short street area outside Golden Dreams. Come to find out that's the DCA version of San Fransisco! It's true. Apparently, one of America's most unique cities and a true California gem is best summarized by: 1.) Bland entertainment mall architecture that doesn't even have fake window displays to fill in the empty building shells. They simply have installed levolor blinds and heavy drapes to block out the window's view of empty interior space. 2.) A big bathroom facility. 3.) A fake Palace of Fine Arts housing a PC California history movie that makes the repeat value of the old Mr. Lincoln show look like Star Wars. 4.) An ATM machine. And not a cable car or Rice-A-Roni sponsored attraction or exhibit in sight. Not even a plaque or wall display describing San Fransisco's importance to California history. Kind of pathetic, isn' it? The small California town of Gilroy gets a bigger plug at DCA than San Fransisco, by way of the display describing the Gilroy Garlic Festival over at Bountiful Valley Farm.
Originally Posted By leemac <<<<. These new parks don't try to teach, they just try to be fun. That's an easy-to-achieve goal that bodes well for the new parks' long-term success, just as that same goal brought success to the Magic Kingdom parks years earlier.>> I always remember where Uncle Walt wanted us to learn by experiencing the past or invision the future. But I can see that I was wrong. We are only ther to have fun. Me not think so.>> I forgot that the majority of theme parks educate people. Walt may have said that he wanted to educate people through Disneyland, but it never materialised. How on earth can the attractions that have lasted like it's a small world, Pirates, Haunted Mansion etc. be educational. The only educational attractions were in Tomorrowland and that was due to corporate sponsorship dollars. Walt was far from a master educator....... EPCOT has slowly dropped its educational facade and although it continue to be the park for the showcase of innovation, it is the technological marvels in attractions like Test Track and HISTA that keep the guests coming back. How many people have fallen asleep on Spaceship Earth version 1.0 (and even the revised Bradbury attraction) and the original Universe of Energy. People want to be thrilled and if you can chuck in some element of education, then that is great, but the true difficulty is trying to educate without boring people.
Originally Posted By woody I disagree with "The idea that these attractions are truly "off-the-shelf" is misleading, too, since Disney's implementations are really quite special: California Adventure's Sun Wheel and Zephyr look far more beautiful than their more traditional amusement park cousins." No, DCA's versions look exactly like the real thing, NOT more beautiful or more original or Disney-like. That's my beef. DCA looks too much like the real thing. I truly feel Paradise Pier needs to be an idealized version of a seaside amusement park. It should be a fantasy version. I suggest they take the Little Mermaid motif and spread it around Paradise Pier. They should go to TDS' Mermaid Lagoon for inspiration. Also, the comparison with Animal Kingdom is flawed. AK is having problems for its ride count, NOT its theming. It needs to expand. Add more E-Tickets.
Originally Posted By disneywatcher >>>>> ...but the mainstream press deemed California Adventure a disappointment, and the general public picked up on the attitude. <<<<< While several published articles about DCA didn't exactly help word-of-mouth, I'm not sure if the overall response to the new park can't be described as a chicken-or-egg question. Especially when I've seen so many instances where TV shows and movies -- not to mention other forms of entertainment and culture -- have been disliked by much of the media but popular with much of the public, or visa versa. >>>>> Most of the Internet criticism centers on the park's budget, suggesting that Disney built it on the cheap. <<<<< I find Greg Maletic's column very interesting because it's another indication of the great difference in everyone's perceptions and likes and dislikes. As I've mentioned repeatedly, the idiosyncrases of personal taste and preference, more than money, have tremendous influence on the way many projects -- particularly the creative kind -- turn out. I think DCA reflects the creative preferences of its creators -- Michael Eisner and Barry Braverman in particular -- far more than their concern about bottom-line issues and budgeting alone. >>>>> ...California Adventure, on the other hand, takes many standard amusement park rides and repackages them in prettier designs. <<<<< Again, the reason things end up all over the spectrum -- from very good to very bad -- isn't necessarily a matter of dollars as much as a case of perception, as I'm sure Braverman and Eisner share the above assessment of the column's author. In my case, I see park features like Mulholland Madness or the Orange Stinger (to me, unimpressive enough with its plain steel-ribbed interior, even more so since the ride's seats now lack the former bee-body overlay) and have one reaction. Others see the same type of features and respond differently. Then too, everyone has a different definition of "prettier." >>>>> It's about having fun, and that's a goal that's been lost in Disney's recent efforts. <<<<< Since most amusement parks throughout America have never lost sight or changed the goal of offering simple fun, if the DisCo. has mishandled the fun quotient over recent years, then it would have consequently not only narrowed the pleasure gap between it and some of its competitors, but a bit of the gap in the area of design sophistication too. >>>>> There's a lot to be improved at California Adventure: it could use a few more attractions, and the two Disney-like attractions that are unique--Soarin' over California and Superstar Limo--were both disappointing to me. <<<<< While most people would agree with the author's comment about the Limo ride, far more people would scratch their head and think, "Soarin' is disappointing???" Another good example of everyone's likes and dislikes being so unpredictable and personal. >>>>> But Paradise Pier, California Adventure's standout area, is filled with enjoyable rides...and I felt an exciting ambiance while walking along the pier that I hadn't felt at any of Disney's other recent efforts. <<<<< I suspect some of the DisCo's top officials -- the ones in charge of creative matters in particular -- share this sentiment, illustrating that a lot of projects don't always evolve in certain directions because of money, corporate spreadsheets and bean counters alone.
Originally Posted By woody >>I suspect some of the DisCo's top officials -- the ones in charge of creative matters in particular -- share this sentiment, illustrating that a lot of projects don't always evolve in certain directions because of money, corporate spreadsheets and bean counters alone.<< I can't agree because those top officials care a lot about the numbers. Who reads those corporate spreadsheets? I can't see know the buck doesn't stop at Eisner's desk. I think the top officials built the park for themselves and hoped the public will feel the same. Too bad they don't.
Originally Posted By woody >>I can't see know the buck doesn't stop at Eisner's desk.<< Typo and fix: The buck stops at Eisner's desk.
Originally Posted By disneywatcher >> I can't agree because those top officials care a lot about the numbers. << But I think just as important as the people in charge of DCA caring about the numbers is that they most likely also thought their creative planning was really good, regardless of whether they were or were not meeting certain bottom-line stipulations. There's no reason to believe their perceptions were or are that different than many of Greg Maletic's, who certainly didn't have to base his impressions of DCA on things like how much money corporate management was willing to set aside for the new park.
Originally Posted By arstogas >>>Can't you just picture Homer Simpson standing in Epcot with a frown on his face as he screams, "Stupid EPCOT - Be More Fun!"<<< Brevity truly is the soul of wit. Better said than any number of paragraphs I could write. But I will quote Walt once again: "I'd rather entertain people, and hope they're educated, than educate them and hope they're entertained." I'm so glad Mr. Maletic finds DCA "more fun" than Animal Kingdom. I honestly find it a fun place, too. A terribly underachieving mess, but there is fun to be had. That said, I'd rather stare and stand near a Monet for twelve hours, than try to make sense of a "Cathy" daily strip.
Originally Posted By dlport I enjoyed reading the Guest Column, because it stripped away all the extraneous commentary and asked a simple question, "Did I have fun at DCA?" That is really the bottom line. All the talk about executives, budgets, themes, etc is just fluff. You either had fun or you didn't. >>DCA is flawed in so many ways, and guests and cast know it.<< Your OPINION is that DCA is flawed, but it is hardly a fact that "guests and cast" have divined. My opinion is that DCA is a lot of fun, but I would not be so presumptuous as to apply my opinion to a group.
Originally Posted By friarthe My first trip to DCA was with my wife on a $43 ticket, and we were disappointed. After we got our passes, we took our 2 toddlers and had a great time. A day at Disneyland with two very small children can be--dare I say it--tedious. A day playing on tractors, fireboats, irrigation sprinklers, and surfboards with two tiny kids is fantastic. Maybe Walt wasn't a master of education, but the idea of a place where parents & kids can have fun together seems to have fallen apart in the wake of brilliant, high tech rides geared towards teens and young adults at the Magic Kingdom. I don't mind, but my kids do.
Originally Posted By Croc Bites Good Article... I do disagree that DCA does not try to educate guests to the park. Did you go to the Mission Tortilla Factory? How about the informational signs outside of Grizzly River Run? Or the Pilots photographs inside the que area of Soaring Over California?
