Originally Posted By bean I have to agree in regards to DAK it had a soli theme when it opened and only lacked attractions. Where i do not agree is MGM. MGM's theme was easy to accomplish cince it was basically a movie studio with plenty of box like structures and a few billboards and signs. The only area that had some kind of theming was the entrance which was a long strip of facades with a few stores up to the main central hub. Not until the park went thru its second pahse to help with the overflow traffic of an already established two park tourist detsination (Epcot and magic kingdom) did they start adding to the existing entrance theme by branching out woards what would then become TOT and RNRC expansion area. The second half of the park which included the animation courtyard and sound stages as well as the tour had little to no theming with a usable park layout. As it evolved instead of evolving for the better that half of the park has become a mismatch set of ugly walkways (behind the chinese theatre with a row of studio like buildings to house Millionare and mermaid show) with a layout that is inconstistent that lead to many dead ends and turnarounds. Now you have Star tours meshed against Muppets and the back of city facades. which then wrap around stale studio buildings that are mostly closed thruout the majority of the parks operating hours. Basically it evolved backwards. From having a somewhat good beginning and theme at the parks entrance to a mismatch set of unthemed studios. Although DCA doea have flaws it has an overall theme that could easily be transformed with proper investment and some minor tweaking. DCA's layout is actually perfectly suited for further expansion. What few dead ends it has could be easily corrected since they have room behind them to open up (TOT into Timon -- warf into timon -- bugs land into timon)
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "There was nothing there about market saturation. In fact, they concluded that the frequency at which people attend theme parks is a constant. In other words, people go to theme parks today as much as they ever did, no more and no less." So what does that mean to you? How would you interpret that data? To me it means that there is little room for growth based on the current population base. Seems pretty obvious to me. "Therefore, as the population increases the number of potential theme park customers should increase along with it. And the population for Southern California is increasing by leaps and bounds." No, it is not. As it has been repeatedly pointed out to you (both by me and in the article) theme park business in Southern California is stagnant. From the article: >... Southern California’s theme parks have experienced consistently slow attendance growth over the past two decades. Market shares have also remained very stagnant, and no park has been able to consistently capture share from the others. Every year each park takes their portion of the region’s total theme park attendance, and that total attendance grows extremely slowly. Attendance is an interesting issue because it connects all of the parks in the region.< This tells us that the actual number of people attending the parks is growing (if at all) at a snails pace, despite the addition of new parks (ie: DCA and Legoland). Thus, the parks are essentially cannibalizing one another, indicating little room for growth, which leads to my conclusion that the market is saturated. Considering this, DCA is lucky to be pulling in the numbers that it does. It's no wonder that the 3rd park was dropped from Disney's plans. Another key point from the article is that I've been arguing for years is that DLR does not exist in an attendance bubble. The iindustry as a whole has been impacted by numerous shifts, including domestic and international travel trends, the economy, and so forth and so on: >Although the theme park companies in Southern California view each other as competitors, growth at each individual park is dependent on the growth within the industry as a whole. The industry faces competition from a wide variety of entertainment options. Today’s consumers have many entertainment choices, including zoos, museums, beaches, shopping malls, video games and DVDs. Cooperation would allow the parks to learn from each others’ experiences, and strengthen the entire industry.< "There could be countless other reasons for the dips in park attendance." Well of course. The authors of the article admitted that even the managers of the local parks they interviewed seemed to have little understanding of what drove attendance (kind of a scary thought). However, I suggest interested in this topic print the article and read it carefully. I think it will answer any questions you or anyone else has regarding my opinion on this subject.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA I was there when Disney-MGM Studios opened. I thought it was pretty weak overall. the Hollywood entrance was okay, with the Main Street-like section and wonderful Streetmosphere characters. Beyond that, the studio 'tour' with the tram was such a copy of Universal Studios -- especially since there wasn't much to look at from a working movie studio perspective, and stuff like 'Catastrophe Canyon' provided a semi-thrill. Since then, the Florida Animation group has left, the Post Group and their pseudo-production group has left. They don't fill much of anything at the Disney-MGM Studios. Which leaves this hodgepodge of attractions like 'Star Tours' and 'Muppets' and 'The Great Movie Ride' --which has really gotten old and tired, imo. Park for park, opening for opening, DCA and MGM were about the same experience. With DCA getting a slightly better score because of 'Eureka!' and that it was closer to me geographically.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA Didn't mean to slough over 'Tower of Terror' and 'Rock and Roller Coaster' both decent attractions. It's just, overall, parks with the 'movie' theme -- eh -- it's not the most original theme ever invented. And what did Disney do with it to make it more interesting? Backlot streets that aren't used for filming anything, and soundstages that aren't used for shooting TV shows or movies.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> Another key point from the article is that I've been arguing for years is that DLR does not exist in an attendance bubble. << When you compare DLR to all theme parks nationwide, I would tend to agree. But when you narrow it down to socal theme parks, I think DLR actuall DOES exist in a kind of "attendance bubble". DLR consistently pulls from outside the socal market - in a way that KBF, MM, legoland, seaworld and USH cannot hope to. Sure - they all get a share of the out-of-towners, but nothing near to what DLR does. As evidence of this, look at the marketing that DLR does in the bay area, portland, seattle, and the sacramento valley. They have an important market in these locations, and they actively go after it. Not so with the other socal parks - at least not nearly to the degree of DLR. International travelers are also much more likely to visit DLR than the other parks. Whether these segments of visitors is growing or contracting is a debatable point, but it's a market that DLR has the lion's share of, and that alone makes it unique among socal parks - hence the "existing in an attendance bubble".
Originally Posted By woody >> I have to agree in regards to DAK it had a soli theme when it opened and only lacked attractions.<< >>Where i do not agree is MGM. MGM's theme was easy to accomplish cince it was basically a movie studio with plenty of box like structures and a few billboards and signs.<< >>Basically it evolved backwards. From having a somewhat good beginning and theme at the parks entrance to a mismatch set of unthemed studios.<< MGM's theming was solid enough that I thought it didn't miss the mark. That isn't the feeling I get when I visit DCA. MGM's entrance alone is quite immersive. The nice old Hollywood touches gave a Disney magical feeling. I completely enjoyed my time there unlike DCA's Hollywood Picture Backlot. >>Although DCA doea have flaws it has an overall theme that could easily be transformed with proper investment and some minor tweaking. DCA's layout is actually perfectly suited for further expansion. What few dead ends it has could be easily corrected since they have room behind them to open up (TOT into Timon -- warf into timon -- bugs land into timon)<< I agree DCA is suited for expansion. That empty Timon parking lot is quite enticing for the next addition. Yet the current layout makes it very difficult to fix. I think the entrance and the performance corridor is horrible. There is nothing there. The theming is very sparse, almost nonexistent. Adding anything would be an improvement. Minor tweaking won't work. They barely added any theming to HPB with the new Hollywood Studio section. The new makeover didn't do much. Where's the studios? Hint: No where to be found except for the tacky sign. Is DCA's future some new paving and planters? LOL!!!! DCA deserves its reputation of cheapness. If you think only minor tweaking works, then perhaps DCA will never get better if Disney imagineering shares your viewpoint.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer It's been five years, guys. You can't grieve the loss of the parking lot forever. Don't you think it's about time you moved on from anger to bargaining?
Originally Posted By Dr G <<It's not that the average guest is going to come in and say "hmm, the perspective is off on this entryway" or "I don't like the color scheme on that store", etc. But they know that something's wrong, that something just doesn't feel up to Disney standards.>> The first time we went to DCA was in December 2002. We'd been there maybe 20 or 30 minutes when my 7 year old daughter asked to go back to Disneyland. She said DCA "looks just like the streets and stores back home". So, little kids notice the difference. I should say that when we went back when she was 9, she had a lot of fun at DCA. We loved Soarin', GRR, ToT, Screamin', the Muppets, Redwood Creek?, etc. We had a great time there. So, the family has grown up a little bit, along with DCA, and we're excited to go there in June as part of our Disneyland Trip. We love the fact that DCA is there, as it provides more activities to do and rides for us to go on. No, it's not as great as Disneyland, but it's a nice added bonus. Just my 2 cents worth as a big-time Disney fan living outside California and only visiting every couple years.
Originally Posted By woody >>It's been five years, guys. You can't grieve the loss of the parking lot forever. Don't you think it's about time you moved on from anger to bargaining?<< Who's doing the bargaining and to what end? This is a discussion about DCA and you know DCA is all about nothing. Nothing to see here. Nothing to talk about. We can move on. How about that?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <For gosh sakes, it's not the fact that they built modestly. It's that they built badly. MGM started out rather "modestly". So did Animal Kingdom. But no one will argue that those two parks didn't have the basic framework of Disney beauty and magic right out of the box.> Oh I would, about MGM (I've always liked DAK). Bean hit the nail on the head. MGM opened with few attractions and an okay-but-hardly-beautiful-or-magical studio theme. Many of the buildings were beige stucko sound stages - in theme, I suppose, but hardly beautiful or magic. The entry street was well enough done, but that was it. As it expanded, it added better attractions, but even the theming they had got all mushed up. MGM was the first Disney park I ever walked into and thought "okay... but where's the magic?" It seemed obvious to me that they rushed it to compete with Uni Orlando, and the "it factor" got left behind. The same was true for many areas of DCA, but at least there were a few areas there that had "it." Also, DCA seems to me thematically much more likely to provide "it" in the future; unless MGM gets over the conceit of being a working studio, I don't know that it will - as anyone who's worked at or even visited an actual working studio will tell you, it's much more utilitarian than beautiful.
Originally Posted By woody "The entry street was well enough done, but that was it." Not just that. The city streets was good and Sunset Blvd with TOT was very good. MGM had a lot more going for it than DCA. DCA was botched to where you perceive the whole park as having warehouse buildings and plain stucco buildings. On the other hand, MGM had a real excuse... it tried to present a studios park with an actual working studio. There's no such pretense with DCA. >>DCA seems to me thematically much more likely to provide "it"<< Based on what? DCA's backlot is one third of the park. Thematically, DCA is held back on that alone. Then, the rest of DCA looks sparse and ugly with no excuse since California does offer interesting architecture. Just because California also has strip malls doesn't mean DCA should have it. This argument goes to the dumpster. If you think MGM is NOT better than DCA, then Disney Imagineering really does have a vision problem.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <Sunset Blvd with TOT was very good.> Sunset Blvd. with TOT didn't show up until much later. It was not there opening year. I don't think MGM is better than DCA. Heck the name alone 'Disney-MGM Studios Theme Park' is ridiculous.
Originally Posted By woody One more note, DCA is thematically held back by it's carnival, airfield, and studios themes as well as it's uninspiring entrance. Then you add it up with the future expansion of the Timon parking lot. So what do you have? The parking lot "factor". "Sunset Blvd. with TOT didn't show up until much later. It was not there opening year." Yes, but I'm pointing out the good things in MGM. "I don't think MGM is better than DCA. Heck the name alone 'Disney-MGM Studios Theme Park' is ridiculous." They have some things in common like the awful names of the park. I do think you're right in pointing out how weak MGM's theme really is so why is DCA so much worse?
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <I do think you're right in pointing out how weak MGM's theme really is so why is DCA so much worse?> They didn't learn from the mistakes of the other 'post Magic Kingdom' parks???
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<"The entry street was well enough done, but that was it.">> <Not just that. The city streets was good and Sunset Blvd with TOT was very good.> The city streets were only okay, and TOT didn't show up till later (and at that point I was talking about MGM at opening, so yes that matters). <MGM had a lot more going for it than DCA.> Many of us disagree. Which is fine - it's just opinion at the end of the day. <DCA was botched to where you perceive the whole park as having warehouse buildings and plain stucco buildings.> But the whole park isn't plain buildings. <On the other hand, MGM had a real excuse... it tried to present a studios park with an actual working studio. There's no such pretense with DCA.> As I said, in-theme, but not beautiful or magical. >>DCA seems to me thematically much more likely to provide "it"<< <Based on what? DCA's backlot is one third of the park. Thematically, DCA is held back on that alone.> Just the opposite. Only a third of DCA is beholden to the studio concept, and its rather dull reliance on plain buildings. Two thirds are non-studio, and thus more likely to be able to provide something beautiful or magical. Some areas already do. <Then, the rest of DCA looks sparse and ugly with no excuse since California does offer interesting architecture. Just because California also has strip malls doesn't mean DCA should have it.> There are not strip malls in DCA. The GRR area is very nice and looks better than anything in MGM (IMO). Condor Flats is also well done. The wharf, though it needs a proper attraction, also has a nice atmosphere. Even PP, my least favorite area, has a certain ambience - and certainly a kinetic energy - that most of MGM lacks. <This argument goes to the dumpster. If you think MGM is NOT better than DCA, then Disney Imagineering really does have a vision problem.> No, it's called a differing opinion. Several of us have given reasons why we hold it. But at the end of the day it's no big deal if you or I prefer DCA to MGM or vice versa.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt >But when you narrow it down to socal theme parks, I think DLR actuall DOES exist in a kind of "attendance bubble".< Except that it is still impacted by long-term trends within the industry. Market share at DLR remains constant, even with the addition of DCA.
Originally Posted By woody >>There are not strip malls in DCA.<< The entrance stores look like a strip mall with the large sign in the front. >>Just the opposite. Only a third of DCA is beholden to the studio concept, and its rather dull reliance on plain buildings. Two thirds are non-studio, and thus more likely to be able to provide something beautiful or magical. Some areas already do.<< I did state the carnival and airfield are equally dull and unexciting. Poor uses of theming. "But the whole park isn't plain buildings." Of course not. You also have the carnival and airfield. Iron and Asphalt heaven. "But at the end of the day it's no big deal if you or I prefer DCA to MGM or vice versa." Yeah, both are crappy, yet I thought MGM was more promising with a nice entrance. DCA is only the most ugly presentation of California that I've ever seen. K2: There's your answer.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>I finally get it. Woody doesn't care too much for DCA.<< Our Woody? Nah, he loves it. He's just talking bad about it so he can hang out with the "cool" kids.
