Originally Posted By woody "But exaggerate away." You call my criticism an exaggeration while agreeing with it at the same time in parts. I think you're very sensitive. Is saying DCA is a mixed bag (your words) more reasonable? How about these words? Number 1. DCA halfway sucks. Number 2. DCA is a mixed bag. Number 3. DCA is half full, but occassionally half empty. Number 4. DCA is really better than Six Flags. Number 5. DCA is alright. Number 6. DCA is good in spots, but bad in others. Number 7. DCA is a California favorite, but ignore Paradise Pier. Number 8. DCA has the best burgers. Number 9. DCA looks nice (holding my breath). Number 10. DCA is Disney's own.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA How about this? 11. woody is exhausting and has no concept of how to have an online conversation.
Originally Posted By woody Jim: Is whining your deal? Obviously, you're not talking to me. Are you following me around from thread to thread?
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA Yeah, woody, I'm following you around from post to post. I want to be like you when I grow up. How am I doing?
Originally Posted By mrichmondj If I want to be like Jim when I grow up, does that mean I will end up like woody?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<But exaggerate away.>> <You call my criticism an exaggeration while agreeing with it at the same time in parts.> Yes. Can you wrap your head around that concept? If you said (for example purposes only) the POC movie featured a good performance by Johnny Depp, I'd agree. If you said the sets were good, I'd agree. If you said the Geoffrey Rush character was compelling, I'd disagree - I thought he was too generic a villain. If you then said you thought it was the greatest movie ever made, I'd say you were exaggerating; even though I agreed with you in part, and even though it's all ultimately in the realm of opinion. Can you wrap your head around that? <Is saying DCA is a mixed bag (your words) more reasonable?> Far more reasonable. As for the rest, I'll take choice #11.
Originally Posted By woody >>If you then said you thought it was the greatest movie ever made, I'd say you were exaggerating; even though I agreed with you in part, and even though it's all ultimately in the realm of opinion.<< I would say your response is an exaggeration. You sound like a mellow guy who thinks only in moderate tones despite strong reactions from virtually everywhere. The excitement was strong and you don't agree with it so you want to change the dialog even though it doesn't change feelings or perceptions. DCA is a mixed bag, but I suppose that description makes you feel more reasonable because it isn't quite the debacle as some others perceive. I think DCA is an assortment of mixed bags which makes it into the mess that it is. Normally, you have to like the parts enough to like the final result. DCA is a long long away from that.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >>If you then said you thought it was the greatest movie ever made, I'd say you were exaggerating; even though I agreed with you in part, and even though it's all ultimately in the realm of opinion.<< <I would say your response is an exaggeration.> ???? (why do I bother?) <You sound like a mellow guy who thinks only in moderate tones despite strong reactions from virtually everywhere. The excitement was strong and you don't agree with it so you want to change the dialog even though it doesn't change feelings or perceptions.> You seem to think the reaction to DCA was more uniform than it was. And we're taking about DCA - that's the dialog, not a change in dialog, unless you want "DCA sucks and you must agree with this" to be the extent of the dialog. You have one point - I don't expect you to change your feelings or perceptions. <DCA is a mixed bag, but I suppose that description makes you feel more reasonable because it isn't quite the debacle as some others perceive.> It's more reasonable because it's closer to the mark. From the beginning, DCA had good parts and bad parts. It didn't have the attendance they wanted, but it's grown. Most people see improvement. <I think DCA is an assortment of mixed bags which makes it into the mess that it is. Normally, you have to like the parts enough to like the final result. DCA is a long long away from that.> But DCA is not a "final result." Like all parks, it's a living, growing entity. I acknowledged plenty of flaws in DCA from the get-go, but gave it more slack than some other people precisely because I recognized that the final chapter has not been written. Plus, it seemed obvious to me that the model they followed most closely was MGM - a big mistake business-wise because that was a 3rd gate with the WDW demographic as opposed to a 2nd gate with the SoCal demographic - but nonetheless that meant that they planned substantial additions over the first decade or so. So I could simply enjoy the good parts of it, and look forward to a better park in the future.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros I geuss I look at DCA as the glass being half air. What is there is there, and probably won't change too much any time soon. They might throw some facede work in there, which is like adding food coloring to the water. The air is the potential that it leaves for the future. What is there isn't going to undergo any major changes any time soon. That doesn't mean that there isn't any hope for the future. There are plenty of empty locations within the park, as well as the Timon lot in the back. It is how they use this that will untimately decide how good the park is. If they just add things in like they have been doing, they will end up with a terrible park, but if they add things that make sense with the existing (or completely new) lands and help the overall traffic flow of the park, then it could be amazing. In my eyes, DCA isn't anywhere near being finished, which is a problem that it had when it opened. How fast they add to it and the quality of the additions will really show what will happen in the park.
Originally Posted By woody >>???? (why do I bother?)<< Because you get off on it? You have a lot of nerve to say I'm exaggerating and then to assume I'll back down. >>You seem to think the reaction to DCA was more uniform than it was. And we're taking about DCA - that's the dialog, not a change in dialog, unless you want "DCA sucks and you must agree with this" to be the extent of the dialog.<< No, I know the responses are extreme at times. I had many arguments with people who don't agree. SO WHAT? The fact that there is a dialog means... I enjoy arguing with people who don't agree with me. Keep arguing with me. It means YOU DON'T HAVE TO AGREE WITH ME. Are you really a professor? >>You have one point - I don't expect you to change your feelings or perceptions.<< Huh? Are you still bothering? >>It's more reasonable because it's closer to the mark. From the beginning, DCA had good parts and bad parts. It didn't have the attendance they wanted, but it's grown. Most people see improvement.<< You're entitled to your opinion. Even I see an improvement. >>But DCA is not a "final result." Like all parks, it's a living, growing entity. I acknowledged plenty of flaws in DCA from the get-go, but gave it more slack than some other people precisely because I recognized that the final chapter has not been written. << For now, DCA is the final result. It is the result of which it is presented to the public. Take it or leave it. >>So I could simply enjoy the good parts of it, and look forward to a better park in the future.<< If I say DCA sucks, it doesn't mean you or I can't enjoy the park. I can look forward to the future too. I will keep saying DCA sucks until it doesn't. This is a dialog. That mean I have my opinion and you have yours.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros I think that if we have all learned anything in the last 292 posts, it is that we will never all agree on how good or bad DCA is.
Originally Posted By danyoung Another fine example of intelligent debate - "you said" "no I diiunt" "yes you did" "don't put words in my mouth" "I never said" ........ ad infinitum. Time to give it a rest, boys.
Originally Posted By disneywatcher >> Plus, it seemed obvious to me that the model they followed most closely was MGM - a big mistake business-wise because that was a 3rd gate with the WDW demographic as opposed to a 2nd gate with the SoCal demographic << I think the executives' and planners' inability, at the weekend conference in Aspen, to even come up with a decent theme -- to even realize how provincial and flat "California" or any American-state-based concept was and is -- speaks volumes about basic creative ineptitude, far more than anything related to plain economics, being the reason DCA is DCA.
Originally Posted By disneywatcher >> it is that we will never all agree on how good or bad DCA is. << However, it would be fascinating to know what people like Barry Braverman, Paul Pressler and Michael Eisner truly, honestly think of the park. I know I'd see them in a different light if they said, "Mea Culpa! DCA is a dud, and, our egos aside, we do admit to being incompetent when it came to the creation and development of that theme park!"
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <"Mea Culpa! DCA is a dud, and, our egos aside, we do admit to being incompetent when it came to the creation and development of that theme park!"> disneywatcher, have you ever admitted anything like this in your job? I'll bet not. And even so, you expect others to do so. Weird...
Originally Posted By disneywatcher ^ Quite to the contrary. In fact I'm quite hard on myself when I'm guilty of errors or blunders, and have admitted as much to colleagues or -- obviously with great embarrassment -- superiors. By comparison, I wonder if people who are enablers to DCA and its inept creators are the ultimate slackers when it comes to their own shortcomings?
