Originally Posted By Dabob2 >>There are not strip malls in DCA.<< <The entrance stores look like a strip mall with the large sign in the front.> The entrance could be better (and apparently soon will be), but it doesn't look like a strip mall. You don't help your case with exaggeration. >>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.> I don't like PP (though, as I said, at least it's kinetic, unlike really any place at MGM), but I quite like Condor Flats. It's got that high desert feel, and it seques into the GRR area well. It has as much a sense of "place" as anywhere in MGM, with the possible exception of their TOT area. <<But the whole park isn't plain buildings.>> <Of course not. You also have the carnival and airfield. Iron and Asphalt heaven.> See above. Plus, you have the GRR area. The Wharf area. The Bugs Land area (not much for grownups, but well themed for kids even if the rides are pretty lame). Even the small winery area is more pleasant than most places in MGM. <<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.> I thought it was promising in a way, too, when it opened, because although I didn't think they did much with the theme, at least it was consistent. But, as bean pointed out, if anything they've gone backwards thematically since opening. DCA has gotten better in a few areas and has considerable promise to get better in others. <DCA is only the most ugly presentation of California that I've ever seen.> I could send you to a few neighborhoods...
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>Even the small winery area is more pleasant than most places in MGM.<< I think some of the posters here would feel very comfortable in the whinery area.
Originally Posted By woody "The entrance could be better (and apparently soon will be), but it doesn't look like a strip mall. You don't help your case with exaggeration." Several people already said this in this thread. "I could send you to a few neighborhoods..." Great. I suppose DCA is slightly better.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <Great. I suppose DCA is slightly better.> LOL! good one woody!
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <>"The entrance could be better (and apparently soon will be), but it doesn't look like a strip mall. You don't help your case with exaggeration.">> <Several people already said this in this thread.> I think you're the only one to use the term "strip mall," but if others used it, they're equally guilty of exaggeration. <<I could send you to a few neighborhoods...>> <Great. I suppose DCA is slightly better.> Thanks for proving my point about exaggeration.
Originally Posted By woody It is no exaggeration except for what's in your head. I said DCA look ugly. So why did you bring up the neighborhoods? You've set the benchmark. To think they spend 100s of millions on DCA and it looks the way it is. Pretty amazing. "Strip mall" is description. Certainly you can't say it looks like South Coast Plaza. DCA does not look like a classy shopping center. It looks pared down.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <It is no exaggeration except for what's in your head. I said DCA look ugly. So why did you bring up the neighborhoods?> Because you said DCA was one of the ugliest representations of California you'd ever seen. Considering that there's real ugliness in California, I was pointing out your exaggeration. <"Strip mall" is description. Certainly you can't say it looks like South Coast Plaza. DCA does not look like a classy shopping center. It looks pared down.> South Coast Plaza is not a strip mall. A strip mall is just a strip (row) of stores, not as nice as a shopping plaza like SCP. According to some sites that came up with a google search: "a mercantile establishment consisting of a row of various stores and business and restaurants along a road or busy street" or "A strip mall is a shopping center where the stores are arranged in a row, with a sidewalk in front. Strip malls typically have large parking lots in front" That does not describe the entrance of DCA.
Originally Posted By woody DCA does look ugly and that's not an exaggeration. The entrance stores have that strip mall look. It doesn't look like SCP, which I used as a comparison.
Originally Posted By disneywatcher >> If you really believe that no number crunching was done, and that DCA's financial planning was 100% seat of the pants, that is your perogative. << I'd be the last to claim DCA wasn't put through the wringer when it came to its bottom line. But what I am saying is that the biggest reason why I believe DCA is such a dud is because people like Barry Braverman, Michael Eisner and Paul Pressler, among others, weren't even capable of judging the quality or mediocrity of their project. I suspect they looked at early plans for DCA and said "excellent," looked at finalized plans for DCA and said "excellent," looked at ongoing construction of DCA and said "excellent," and then saw the completed park and said "we love cheesy seaside fun parks, factory tours and restaurants that cater to soap-opera-watching housewives, and therefore give thumbs up to DCA!!!"
Originally Posted By disneywatcher >> The same was true for many areas of DCA, but at least there were a few areas there that had "it." << I think the DisCo's ability to attract large crowds from the day Disney-MGM first opened is where some of the company's hubris came from, in which they could build anything and everything, slap the "Disney" name on it, and be a success. However, Disney-MGM at least was spared the indignity of DCA's rather small, squeezed-in urban setting, in which a backdrop of hotels and power lines combined with the slightly fancier vision of a Six Flags park, referring to Paradise Pier, scream "schlock-orama!!
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <DCA does look ugly and that's not an exaggeration.> You're entitled to your opinion, but I think most people, even those who find it uninspiring, would find "ugly" an exaggeration. Especially "one of the ugliest depictions of California there is." If you don't find that exaggerated, fine. <The entrance stores have that strip mall look. It doesn't look like SCP, which I used as a comparison.> But nor does it look like a strip mall.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >> The same was true for many areas of DCA, but at least there were a few areas there that had "it." << <I think the DisCo's ability to attract large crowds from the day Disney-MGM first opened is where some of the company's hubris came from, in which they could build anything and everything, slap the "Disney" name on it, and be a success.> I agree. As I've often said, MGM was obviously the closest "model" they used for DCA, and they tried to squeeze the square peg of the Orlando demographic and a third park... into the round hole of the SoCal demographic and a second park. <However, Disney-MGM at least was spared the indignity of DCA's rather small, squeezed-in urban setting, in which a backdrop of hotels and power lines combined with the slightly fancier vision of a Six Flags park, referring to Paradise Pier, scream "schlock-orama!!> On the other hand, at least DCA had some very pretty, pleasant areas that MGM didn't, especially at its opening when aside from the entrance corridor, it was all pretty utilitarian looking.
Originally Posted By ArchtMig What's become clear to me is that the people who like (even *really* like) DCA see only the nicer looking parts and are able to overlook the truly horrid parts and accept the place for what it is, and call it good. Whereas the people who dislike the park (me included), or even *really* *really* *really* practically HATE significant portions of the place, (me included), tend to deny, or at best, ignore the truly nicer parts and focus on the parts that are substandard, and refuse to accept that this is the best that Disney could have done, and call the place bad. I guess it all boils down to whether you're more of a "glass half full" or "glass half empty" kinda person. I'm just looking for the spigot so I can see the glass become fully full someday.
Originally Posted By Disneyworldland >>A Disney theme park is not just the individual attractions. It's the entire presentation. The whole is definately more than the sum of the parts, and right now, DCA is just parts.<< You are so right on about DCA, no one has ever said it better.
Originally Posted By bean "Not just that. The city streets was good and Sunset Blvd with TOT was very good." But again sunset Blvd was not there in park opening. It was an addition later on as the park evolved. The whole entrance section of MGM has changed thruout the year as they tried to turn the park from what they considered a working studio to just a clone of a studio. The whole second half has become a mismatch of attractions and facades with no real layout. Even parts of the first half of the park were built without much thought on park flow. Way to many dead ends with no way of ever correcting them. Consider the area behind GMR. What theming does it have? you have a row of ugly office looking buildings that mostly sit empty except for Millionare. This buildings then end at what used to be a simple preshow for the tram tour which has nothing really to offer. As you enter the park and turn left to the 50's cafe you have another dead area with mismiaatched themed buildings. You have star tours next to sound stages backed against fake facades leading into useless buildings with nothing in them except for a childrens play area. You have an Area with a courtyard themed to muppets yet a large ugly building next to it with large cutouts of Pixar characters. Its just as bad as the mismatch the universal Hollywood has become. With Flinstone midway games next to a badly themed shrek castle next to a french street that has a large metalic building housing an attraction based on robots from the future.
Originally Posted By woody >>"You're entitled to your opinion, but I think most people, even those who find it uninspiring, would find "ugly" an exaggeration. Especially "one of the ugliest depictions of California there is." If you don't find that exaggerated, fine."<< Since DCA is the ONLY attempted California theme park of it's kind, DCA truly depicted California in the worse light. 1. Carnival. That are a dying entertainment concept in California. Paradise Pier looks horendous. You think it looks pretty. At least some say it look pretty at night, but during the day, it is a mess. 2. Airfield. It's just a hangar with a store with corrugated steel and a unremarkable restaurant. 3. Hollywood. With warehouses and ugly facades, it looks terrible. Overall, the park looks bad. The theming is slight. There is no excuse. If Disney expects people to pay full price to visit, the park shouldn't look like the bargain basement Six Flags park. Think... what if Six Flags was designed as a California theme park? You get DCA.
Originally Posted By DCAdude Im not sure how HPB could connect to FFF if they parade crosses throung there.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <What's become clear to me is that the people who like (even *really* like) DCA see only the nicer looking parts and are able to overlook the truly horrid parts and accept the place for what it is, and call it good. Whereas the people who dislike the park (me included), or even *really* *really* *really* practically HATE significant portions of the place, (me included), tend to deny, or at best, ignore the truly nicer parts and focus on the parts that are substandard, and refuse to accept that this is the best that Disney could have done, and call the place bad.> And then there are people who can see both, acknowlege both, and call the park a mixed bag. <I guess it all boils down to whether you're more of a "glass half full" or "glass half empty" kinda person. I'm just looking for the spigot so I can see the glass become fully full someday.> Now this I kinda agree with. I can acknowlege the good and bad in DCA, but I tend to be "glass half full" and I look forward to good things for DCA, especially with the new management team in place.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >>"You're entitled to your opinion, but I think most people, even those who find it uninspiring, would find "ugly" an exaggeration. Especially "one of the ugliest depictions of California there is." If you don't find that exaggerated, fine."<< <Since DCA is the ONLY attempted California theme park of it's kind, DCA truly depicted California in the worse light.> More exaggeration, but let's go into it... <1. Carnival. That are a dying entertainment concept in California. Paradise Pier looks horendous. You think it looks pretty.> I didn't say that. In fact, I've often said it was my least favorite section. But even calling it "carnival" is something of an exaggeration. It's themed on an seaside amusement pier. And yes, those are two different things. It isn't a theme I'd have picked. <At least some say it look pretty at night, but during the day, it is a mess.> Not so much a mess as what I'd call "uninspired." <2. Airfield. It's just a hangar with a store with corrugated steel and a unremarkable restaurant.> Better burgers than anywhere in DL. And it does have a high desert feel to it (if you've ever been to the part of the state that it is a tribute to, where so much aviation history was made). If you don't know the history, or are hell-bent to dislike DCA, I can see where you might diss it. <3. Hollywood. With warehouses and ugly facades, it looks terrible.> The "main street" looks rather nice. I like the way the Hyperion facade looks real from the end of the street, then looks exactly like a facade when you get close - in a way that might make you think there was nothing behind it (like most facades)... yet behind it is an actual theatre. I've said this before and others have disagreed (which is fine), but I like the way HPB plays with that "what, after all, is real in Hollywood" thing - it's rather more interesting than the attempted verisimillitude in MGM. Much of the rest of HPB looks as dull as MGM, though. <Overall, the park looks bad. The theming is slight. There is no excuse.> Overall, the park is a mixed bag. Some theming works, some doesn't, some was lazy. But there are at least some attractive sections, which is more than one can say for MGM. <If Disney expects people to pay full price to visit, the park shouldn't look like the bargain basement Six Flags park. Think... what if Six Flags was designed as a California theme park? You get DCA.> Nope. I'm old enough to remember the original Six Flags, which was called Six Flags over Texas, and was themed to the six countries who have claimed Texas at some point. Most of the theming was slight (things like calling the autopias in the France section "Les Autos"), and this was when they actually ATTEMPTED theming. It's pretty much non-existent now. But even when they tried it, it wasn't nearly what Disney does, including at DCA. But exaggerate away.
Originally Posted By Sweeper What has become clear is the fact that nothing is clear about DCA's problems. Perhaps that is why we will have to wait until year 10 for a better park.
