Originally Posted By woody >>It still amazes me how WDSP is not badmouthed MORE than DCA. DCA ia 10 times the park of WDSP.<< Many more people visited DCA than WDSP. Despite that, there are more stories of DCA failures than WDSP. DCA is quite the fiasco that deserves more commentary.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt It's the localization factor. I've finally come to the conclusion that there is a group of Southern California Disney "fans" who are completely obsessed with the various so-called "failures" of DCA, and will never ever let it rest.
Originally Posted By woody wangaroa: Who's calling who juvenile. You offer nothing in your post except ad hominem attacks. You're very un-adult like.
Originally Posted By woody >>It's the localization factor. I've finally come to the conclusion that there is a group of Southern California Disney "fans" who are completely obsessed with the various so-called "failures" of DCA, and will never ever let it rest.<< So what's this. <a href="http://imagineerebirth.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">http://imagineerebirth.blogspo t.com/</a> These imagineering are obsessing about Disney theme parks especially DCA and it massive failures. ------- Quote: Friday, March 03, 2006 The Disney Parks: Haute or Not? By opening lackluster attractions like Disney's California, Disneyland's Pooh ride, and the Parisian Disney Studio park, it's obvious current Disney management no longer views their parks as something special but just another corporate division whose budgets can be squeezed without damaging the Company image. They're so not getting it. Make a crappy sitcom and you can cancel it, but build a crappy ride or park and you're stuck with it. (And seriously, y'all do know when you're making a crappy ride.) The investments made in the parks do not always return in an easily accounted for fashion, I realize, so it is difficult to justify spending so much on time and money on them. But Disneyland is not a TV Network, it is not a publishing wing, it is not a film distribution company.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By wangaroa Oh, and, contrary to ol' man Lutz, that idna a 'real' Imagineering blog, nor is it an electro-water-cooler for Pixar (peace bros.).
Originally Posted By ArchtMig >>>It's the localization factor. I've finally come to the conclusion that there is a group of Southern California Disney "fans" who are completely obsessed with the various so-called "failures" of DCA, and will never ever let it rest.<<< Well, maybe not until Disney dramatically transforms the place into something of a level of quality and uniqueness that the fans expect. Nobody anymore complains about the time in the past that the Circlevision building was in dis-use or abandonment, now that a legitimately wonderful attraction fills it. Nobody anymore complains about the long abandoned and stagnating submarine lagoon, now that serious attention is being paid to it with the promise of good things to come. Nobody anymore complains about the seriously deteriorating state of the monorails, now that it is certain that new ones are on the way. Nobody anymore complains about the waste that was once known as Superstar Limo at DCA, now that a generally recognized unique and detailed attraction occupies it. . . . . . Fix DCA, and we'll all shut up.
Originally Posted By dennis-in-ct <<So what's this. <a href="http://imagineerebirth.blogspo" target="_blank">http://imagineerebirth.blogspo</a> t.com/ These imagineering are obsessing about Disney theme parks especially DCA and it massive failures. >> Yeah - I read that .. tipped off by another website. <a href="http://www.jimhillmedia.com/article.php?id=1866" target="_blank">http://www.jimhillmedia.com/ar ticle.php?id=1866</a> in the article, he says only professionals can post but reading through, it didn't seem like the case.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros "This is strange. Does Disney have unlimited funds to build temporary buildings? Why didn't they build a pernament parade building in the correct location?" Just from looking at some overhead pictures, I would geuss that they didn't build the parade building in the final location because of the traffic flow in the parking lot. When the Timon Lot is closed, they direct people out a road behind Screamin and to Mickey & Friends. The road is quite wide, so it could easily accomodate a building. There is also room on the other side of the building, where there are currently trees. Once the lot is completely closed down, they will close that road, opening up more room for the parade barn. Once they move that, they can put some new attractions where the parade barn currently sits, possibly adding the long-roumored spook house dark ride.
Originally Posted By Zwitek >>>> . . . . . Fix DCA, and we'll all shut up. <<<< Amen. The park has come a long way since it opened. If the park had opened today instead of 5 years ago, I figure there'd be a lot less bellyaching. It's still not good enough to be a standalone park, but it's getting there.
Originally Posted By gurgitoy2 "Oh, and, contrary to ol' man Lutz, that idna a 'real' Imagineering blog, nor is it an electro-water-cooler for Pixar (peace bros.)." Yeah, I kind of found that obvious when I read the posts from various people...with screennames I recognized. "Yeah - I read that .. tipped off by another website. <a href="http://www.jimhillmedia.com/ar" target="_blank">http://www.jimhillmedia.com/ar</a> ticle.php?id=1866 in the article, he says only professionals can post but reading through, it didn't seem like the case." Yeah, especially coming from Jim Hill...I have a REAL hard time believing anything he says anymore.
Originally Posted By bean "Did you realize that TOT is at the end of the Condor Flat runway? Nice way to fly an airplane. It's makes the restaurant with the airplane sticking out of it look prescience in a Twilight Zone sort of way." This is the most stupid arguement i have ever seen. As if there isn't buildings at the ends of any airplane runway. have you also noticed the the color scheme used in TOT also matches and blends in to the color scheme used throughout condor flats. How do you expect to place a runway. there has to be a start and a finish to the runway and either side has to focus onto something wether it be a buildign several hundred feet away or an empty field. basically it attracts you to go and explore that side of the park. Stop coming up with stupid criticisms just to point somekind of point. We know you hate the park. Stop trying to overevaluate it and give it a rest. the park does have several flaws but some of the ones you come up with are just plain ridiculous
Originally Posted By bean "Every major investment is carefully thought out. After the placement of these attractions are decided the surroundign areas are filled in with stores and facilities that could be easily replaced in the future if needed." "No, this is laziness. If they were carefully thought out, they wouldn't need to replace them in the future. " So do you expect disney to leave areas empty so that they could just plop in a new attraction in the future? or to build attraction buildings in these plots not knowing what attraction will eventually be placed there? Woody you make no sense. You have no idea what you are talking about. I am sure if they built a land with an attraction and just left the surroundign areas empty with just gardens you would be the first person to criticize. You have no sense of how a land needs to be created filling in the area with facilties that could be re-arranged if needed without being costly.
Originally Posted By woody >>This is the most stupid arguement i have ever seen. As if there isn't buildings at the ends of any airplane runway. have you also noticed the the color scheme used in TOT also matches and blends in to the color scheme used throughout condor flats.<< You think it's normal to have buildings at the end of runways. That's odd. The only way to avoid the building is a very high pitch. What the heck does the color matter? The blending in of colors does nothing to make the theming more realistic. >>Stop trying to overevaluate it and give it a rest.<< Maybe you should stop reading it. >>So do you expect disney to leave areas empty so that they could just plop in a new attraction in the future?<< Yes. >>or to build attraction buildings in these plots not knowing what attraction will eventually be placed there?<< No. You're the one that keeps saying the parade building will get replaced for attractions in the future. I thought its a waste of money to remove a building for a future attraction. DCA was built with limited funds. They probably is still working with that philosophy so why waste money on temporary infrastructure. I think you're completely reactionary. You seem to think there is logic with DCA's plans. Nothing that's been done with DCA makes any sense. Neither do you make sense.
Originally Posted By ChurroMonster ToT is not at the end of the runway. It is within sight of it. Thinking people know the difference. DCA certainly has its problems but this one is a real stretch.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss I have never realized there *was* a runway, and I am guessing I am like most guests.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>You think it's normal to have buildings at the end of runways. That's odd. The only way to avoid the building is a very high pitch.<< If you notice the runway markings, they lead the 180° opposite direction from ToT. If the "runway" at Condor Flats were actually in use, the aircraft would be flying t'other way.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan See this photo. Big ol' arrows pointing the total opposite direction from ToT. <a href="http://www.disneypix.com/Disneyland/CA/GS/2002/GS-011702-22.htm" target="_blank">http://www.disneypix.com/Disne yland/CA/GS/2002/GS-011702-22.htm</a>
