Originally Posted By gadzuux And it still seems to me that dug's assessment of DCA is more strident today than it was at the time.
Originally Posted By Britain Iger was quite clear about calling DCA 'mediocre' If DCA was meant to be a stellar A-grade Disney park, it failed, by being a mediocre C-grade Disney park. That doesn't mean it was a 'hopeless failure' or an F-grade park. It just failed at being up to snuff.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >>But "spin" indicates an ulterior motive behind the "spinner"...<< <Maybe for you. For me, it just means "spin." As in, reading the tea leaves and coming up with Shakespeare.> Well, no. I do not think that word means what you think it means. "Spin" in this context comes from a very specific place - the political spin doctors starting in the 80's. The inference is that the opinion expressed does not come from an honest place, and I do not appreciate the inference. You really do not get to redefine "spin" any more than you get to redefine "failure." >>It's an attempt to dismiss the opinion as motivated by something other than honesty...<< <I don't believe there is anything inherently dishonest about spin, if that helps.> Asked and answered, to use a much overused (and often misused) phrase. >>And the "silly" part didn't help.<< <But it fit...> Those of us insisting on nuance and a non-black-and-white view have done a much better job in defining why DCA was a mixed bag than your silly attempt to declare it a failure, full stop. >>You've never heard of terms like "qualified success," "partial success," "artistic success but commercial flop" (or vice versa), etc. etc. etc.?<< <Sure I have. I've also heard of the term "failure," and know when it applies. Nu.> Apparently, you really don't know. >>No, the facts point to a mixed bag...<< <For you. For me (obviously), they point to a failure.> I can't keep you from having that opinion. But the "period" part obviously fell flat on its face, as plenty of people disagree and can say exactly why. The "period" part, you might say, "failed."
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "If DCA was meant to be a stellar A-grade Disney park, it failed, by being a mediocre C-grade Disney park. That doesn't mean it was a 'hopeless failure' or an F-grade park. It just failed at being up to snuff." Exactly.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "No one views a "C" as a failure." I do. In fact, if I get below a B average for two consecutive semesters, I get kicked right out of school. To complicate the analogy anymore, DCA was a grad student. What's success for Knott's (a high school drop out at this point) is failure for California Adventure. It was put on academic probation and told to get it together. Hooray!
Originally Posted By Dabob2 DCA failed at CERTAIN THINGS. It failed to draw the numbers hoped for. It failed to be a fully-fleshed out home run park from the beginning. Certain areas failed to provide a convincing (or at least pleasantly stylized) sense of place. But it also succeeded at certain things. It succeeded in changing the paradigm in Anaheim and creating longer stays for out of towners. It succeeded in raising overall attendance in Anaheim. And certain areas succeeded in creating a convincing (or pleasantly stylized) sense of place, or providing top-notch attractions such as Soarin', the Animation Building, and name-your-favorite here. So it failed at certain things and succeeded at others. Which is why "it failed, period," is so head-scratchingly simplistic.
Originally Posted By barboy2 ///It failed to draw the numbers hoped for./// because guests expected to see at least **ONE** attraction in the park that was on par with Indiana Jones, Space Mountain, Splash Mountain, Pirates or H. Mansion. They expected immersive theming on the park grounds too but didn't see that either. ///It failed to be a fully-fleshed out home run park from the beginning./// Home run? I would have settled for a 2 bagger. I don't think it even got a base hit---- at best it made it to 1st on an error or fielder's choice. //certain areas failed to provide a convincing (or at least pleasantly stylized) sense of place./// I am curious as to which part of the park you mean?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Condor Flats and the GRR area were pleasantly stylized representations of specific CA areas, and worked well for me. The winery area too, although small. And I liked the "is it real or fake and what does 'fake' even mean in Hollywood" vibe of HPB, but I know that didn't work for everyone. Even the wharf was kind of evocative, though it needed a proper attraction. The entrance area and the original PP I didn't care for. A mixed bag.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Oops, sorry - I was answering which places DID "work," not which ones didn't.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt I think the most glaring problem, as someone else mentioned, is that it didn't have one big E Disney ticket type attraction. I think people would have been a lot more forgiving if something the caliber of WOC, Mermaid or Carsland had been there at the start.
Originally Posted By barboy2 ///Condor Flats and the GRR area were pleasantly stylized representations of specific CA areas, and worked well for me./// Interesting, me too. Those were the only two areas I found worthy. For me the Grizzly area even surpassed any part of Dl for total immersion of a given theme.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>You really do not get to redefine "spin"..."<< Not "redefining" anything, nor should anyone here. So, let's look at the definition, OK? In this context, "spin" means: To provide an interpretation of (a statement or event, for example), especially in a way meant to sway public opinion. <a href="http://www.thefreedictionary.com/spin" target="_blank">http://www.thefreedictionary.com/spin</a> No more, no less. And nothing about dishonesty, NOR WAS IT INTENDED. All caps only because I can't italicize, not because I am shouting. In simple terms, I accuse no one of dishonesty when I use the word "spin." >>Those of us insisting on nuance and a non-black-and-white view have done a much better job in defining why DCA was a mixed bag than your silly attempt to declare it a failure, full stop.<< And this is true because... you say so. >>Apparently, you really don't know.<< Yes, yes. I really don't because... you say so. (See how easy this works?) >>I can't keep you from having that opinion.<< Nope. >>But the "period" part obviously fell flat on its face...<< "Obviously, because... well, you know... >>...as plenty of people disagree and can say exactly why.<< Well, two, anyway. And they can "say exactly why" in the same why I can "say exactly why" it was a failure. Period. And that's the way discussion/debate/argument works. Have a nice day!
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >>You really do not get to redefine "spin"..."<< <Not "redefining" anything, nor should anyone here. So, let's look at the definition, OK? In this context, "spin" means: To provide an interpretation of (a statement or event, for example), especially in a way meant to sway public opinion. <a href="http://www.thefreedictionary.com/spin>" target="_blank">http://www.thefreedictionary.c...spin></a> From wiki: "spin often, though not always, implies disingenuous, deceptive and/or highly manipulative tactics." <No more, no less. And nothing about dishonesty, NOR WAS IT INTENDED. All caps only because I can't italicize, not because I am shouting. In simple terms, I accuse no one of dishonesty when I use the word "spin."> But why accuse anyone of "spin" at all? It at the very least implies an ulterior motive. Which I don't have. Only an honest opinion. "Spin" at the very least implies the opinion so described is not to be trusted. >>Those of us insisting on nuance and a non-black-and-white view have done a much better job in defining why DCA was a mixed bag than your silly attempt to declare it a failure, full stop.<< <And this is true because... you say so.> Nope. Because of the reasons I gave. But nice try. >>Apparently, you really don't know.<< <Yes, yes. I really don't because... you say so. (See how easy this works?)> No, because you showed you didn't. This is indeed easy. Your attempted definition of "failure" just doesn't make sense. >>I can't keep you from having that opinion.<< Nope. >>But the "period" part obviously fell flat on its face...<< <"Obviously, because... well, you know...> Because multiple people pointed out it was flawed. As 2oony said, if it was "it failed, period," we wouldn't still be discussing it. We are; therefore the "period" part is demonstrably untrue. >>...as plenty of people disagree and can say exactly why.<< <Well, two, anyway.> More than two. Me, 2oony, Hans, and everyone else who pointed out that they do not see it as a failure, full stop, and/or why it succeeded in certain aspects (moonwaffle, fkurucz, et al). Your definition of "failure" is not ringing true with more people than just me. Sorry. <And they can "say exactly why" in the same why I can "say exactly why" it was a failure.> Nope. They gave specific reasons why certain aspects succeeded or why it just makes more sense to see it as a mixed bag, as nearly anything with any degree of complexity in life is. < Period.> And there's that "I have spoken" attempt to shut down communication and have us all accept your great wisdom. Sorry, not buying. <And that's the way discussion/debate/argument works. Have a nice day!> You too!
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>And there's that "I have spoken" attempt to shut down communication and have us all accept your great wisdom.<< Seriously, I am sorry you have problems with people who have a very definite opinion about something. I try not to always be as didactic as I am accused of being, but, again, seriously, I accuse no one here of dishonesty; I understand nuance; and I really think I'm clearly not the only one here who needs to get over his bad self.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 It's the "period" that does it. If it was merely "DCA was a failure," it would still be a definite opinion (which is fine). It would still be wrong IMO and we could still say why we disagreed with that. But "DCA was a failure. Period." is saying "I'm right, period, and there's nothing more to discuss."
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>"Period." is saying "I'm right, period, and there's nothing more to discuss."<< Maybe in your world, but not in mine. I honestly don't know any way to state that more clearly.
Originally Posted By Manfried I have spoken, well posted. Period. I know what I am talking about. The rest of you are beneath me. (Gets head slammed into the sand.) Of course there might be other points of view.
