Originally Posted By disneywatcher >> Why do you continually harp on only these points without considering all the considerations... << Because I have no reason to believe that Eisner and Braverman (and many others) ever doubted the creative aspects of DCA, during and after the Aspen conference. If I could pick their brains apart and found out they really thought DCA was a stinker, from start to finish, then I'd gravitate over to the issues you raise (cost of capital, regulatory process, etc.). However, I bet if some of the key decisionmakers responsible for DCA were posting to this board, their comments would sound more like the ones you've been making (or certainly the ones expressed by those who've admired or been rather favorable towards the park), not the ones made by a lot of people who clearly are not fans of DCA.
Originally Posted By woody I don't think you can find their brains in their decision with DCA. There is no logic except for the lower cost of opening.
Originally Posted By LuvDatDisney ''Both Pressler and Harriss are obviously smarter then all of us. Can you imagine getting paid millions of dollars for screwing up over and over again? ie Disney Store basically doesn't exist anymore because of overexpansion, DL Resort had the most guests deaths in a short period of time (IMO due to budget cuts), and the worst maintained era. Now that the GAP is doing poorly, Pressler and Harris will probably get another golden parachute. And after that, they'll get another high paying job. So where did I (we) go wrong in my career?'' Me too. The most astounding thing to me is that some folks here, who either wish to appear to see both sides or just want to push pro-Burbank spin, actually would defend Pressler and Harriss. They have done performed abysmally in their recent jobs. Yes, even a Disney geek on the Internet who sleeps with Pooh plush and wears pin lanyards and has a secret crush on certain Imagineers, would understand this point. Ultimately, a fish rots from the head down or so the saying goes. Barry was the creative head of DCA, which most people reasonably view as, at best, a creative and financial underachiever and, at worst, an unmitigated disaster that will haunt Disney for decades. This idea that it was a team effort and that everyone at Imagineering thought DCA was a great idea is just simply not true, and is rewriting history as well. Of course I don't understand a lot. Like how DCA/management apologists can claim the place is a success when on one day you can have 60,000 people at DL and barely 10,000 at DCA ... but I'm just a dimwitted Floridian who'se been out in the sun too long.
Originally Posted By leemac <<This idea that it was a team effort and that everyone at Imagineering thought DCA was a great idea is just simply not true, and is rewriting history as well.>> More nonsense. So WDI isn't a collaborative enterprise anymore? It was Braverman, Pressler and Eisner's fault entirely. Heck throw Judson into the mix too as he was the boss of WDA when they first began considering the second gate. Always blame the bosses as there couldn't ever be anything wrong with anyone else's jusgements. <<Like how DCA/management apologists can claim the place is a success when on one day you can have 60,000 people at DL and barely 10,000 at DCA ... but I'm just a dimwitted Floridian who'se been out in the sun too long>> Then every single non-MK gate has failed. Every last one. Ultimately only one park caters for every single demographic and that is a Disneyland park. It is where the characters live and the history of the Company is bound up. That last sentence is too much of an easy target.
Originally Posted By ChurroMonster DCA could only be considered "an unmitigated disaster" if it put the entire resort or the whole company in financial ruin. Neither, of course, is happening. DCA is currently underperforming but still turning a profit. This is understood by those in charge and improvements are being made. Some will always hate this park for not being Westcot or DisneySea. Some of us will enjoy it for what it is and enjoy it more for what it will become. Life's too short to get bitter about a theme park.
Originally Posted By idleHands <<They have done performed abysmally in their recent jobs. Yes, even a Disney geek on the Internet who sleeps with Pooh plush and wears pin lanyards and has a secret crush on certain Imagineers, would understand this point.>> "Phone call for idleHands... white courtesy phone... paging idleHands... white courtesy phone please." (BTW... it's an iPod lanyard, not a pin lanyard. And has Jobs started his MacWorld tap dance yet? I wanna check my Mac mail, and still can't log in!) "This idea that it was a team effort and that everyone at Imagineering thought DCA was a great idea is just simply not true, and is rewriting history as well." Thank you, LutDat, for reiterating this one important point. Not everyone in Glendale -- and more importantly -- retired from Glendale, was drinkin' the DCA Joy Juice. There were plenty of senior Imagineers and Legends who strongly believed that this was the wrong design direction for the second gate. Executive designers, Braverman and Fitzgerald, must be held accountable, along with Pressler and Eisner. That's why they all get the big bucks. If Barry and Tom had problems with DCA's final design per Pressler's and Eisner's vision, then it was their responsibility to say so. And if they were afraid to speak out against these design decisions, for fear of losing their high-paying executive careers, well, boo hoo for them. They put their signatures on the sign-off papers, so they can very well suck it up and take the criticisms when the final product fails to deliver. "Of course I don't understand a lot. Like how DCA/management apologists can claim the place is a success when on one day you can have 60,000 people at DL and barely 10,000 at DCA ... but I'm just a dimwitted Floridian who'se been out in the sun too long." Naah, it's not the sun. It's the humidity. Your brain has been steamed into moldy mush. ;^)
Originally Posted By DlandDug I have been following this thread with great interest. Aside from the inevitable forays into psychoanalysis (of individual posters here), most arguments have been well represented. I am inclined to believe (as I have for some time) that the basic flaw with Disney's California Adventure is that it was cynically conceived and poorly executed. The cynicism was/is that by using "California" as a theme, that guests (and their well stuffed wallets) would find no reason to leave the confines of the Disneyland Resort during their multi-day visit. Bear in mind that the entire business purpose of the expansion was to entice multi-day visitors. That the notion that people would accept a simulation of California over the actual item was not only seriously considered, but given a green light was, in my opinion, the fatal flaw that started this whole enterprise off in the wrong direction. It is the height of cynicism to believe sincerely that the public would believe that DCA was somehow an acceptable substitute for the very real experiences lying just outside its gates. It assumes that the public is not just gullible, but deserves to be tricked. The poor execution of DCA has nothing whatsoever to do with budgets, large or small, cut or uncut. Vast sums of money can be spent on the most trite and dreadful of product. Gems can be produced with the barest of resource. The earlier analogy of King Kong to Cheaper by the Dozen in this regard is specious. One is simply a bad movie, the other is not. The argument that DCA was universally approved at WDI is also difficult to defend. Many here realize that acceptance of the inevitable does not constitute approval. Very few at WDI were willing to buck the obvious will of top management when it became increasingly clear that DCA would prove less than pleasing. It is a fact that many Disney legends (whether the "L" is large or small, we all know of whom we speak) were vocal in their criticism of this inferior park. (I will cite a single example, John Hench's famous utterance, "I liked it better as a parking lot.") That some were either silent or gave tacit approval is merely the outcome of workplace dynamic. Working Imagineers had few options: criticize, and face the consequences; remain silent and become irrelevant; join in and hold onto a job. The luckiest were those who had other projects that kept them clear of what was widely perceived, outside the charmed circle as a looming disappointment. And what of that charmed circle? How could anyone set out to create a bad theme park, we are asked. This is where the touchy issue of personality intrudes. To many, the answer is quite simple: the creators of DCA were a pack of no-talent designers who wanted to create the cheapest possible park. Others counter that these were extremely talented, sensitive artists whose vision was compromised by business decisions over which they had no control. Somewhere in the middle lies the truth that informed the facts that created what was/is DCA. Bear in mind, what opened to the public in February of 2001 is far, far different from what is across the esplanade today. As one who followed the construction, previews and opening closely, I have a very clear memory of what was going on, and what resulted. The first, and foremost impression I received after hearing the "pitch" for DCA at an NFFC convention was disappointment. I was unhappy that so banal a theme had been selected, and that after all the smoke and mirrors were cleared away, there wasn't much that was genuinely exciting. (I still recall the crowd leaving the seminar-- the majority were either somber or disgusted. I was annoyed by one person, who was loudly declaiming into a cell phone, "Yeah, they think people will want to come and see grapes growing!") I did, however, vow to keep an open mind and positive attitude, believeing that the actual product would exceed my lowered expectations. After touring DCA (during previews I visited nine times), I became convinced that it would fail to attract the public. The single biggest issue I had was the over all lack of show. "Show" is the term that is used to cover what the average person thinks a theme park is all about. It's the rides and stage shows and atmosphere. It's the stuff that doesn't obviously generate revenue. (When Walt wanted Snow White's Wishing Well added to Disneyland, someone asked how it would be paid for-- with a gate and a dime admission, or what. Walt replied that it was an "in-between." In animation parlance, that's part of the show.) DCA's show was so pitifully thin that in some areas it was hard to find. And what was there was often so obtuse and inaccessible that guests were, frankly, baffled. The signature stage production at the Hyperion Theater, Steps in Time, was deemed so unpleasing that it was hastily retooled between previews and public opening. (For the record, I prefered pieces of the original over the bandaged up production that eventually settled in for its abbreviated run.) Atmosphere entertainment included three cloth bags that silently wriggled about. A group of acrobats who tangled with props while a techno-beat thrummed. Percussionists who jumped up and down on over sized drums. (If there are fans of Three Bags Full, Lights! Camera! Chaos! or Le Feet in the house, my apologies. This is not intended to denigrate your personal taste in entertainment.) The problem with these offerings is that they were not only less than pleasing to the public, they were purposely conceived to be as "un-Disney" as possible. And for many who have a disquieting sense that DCA was somehow a "put on," the show was the proof. The creators of DCA, and most of those who provided its entertainment, sincerely believed that they should create a park that was not only unlike Disneyland and its cousins, but one that was unlike Disney itself. A club to which I belonged had as a guest speaker a member of the entertainment team that was selecting and creating the atmosphere performers for DCA. Her proud assertion was that this wouldn't be "just a lot of that Disney entertainment." No, DCA would be hip, edgy, and avant garde. Apparently no one in charge ever considered that this was the wrong show for the Disney audience. The other major observation I made about DCA in its original form is that it was heavily weighted in favor of commercial activity. Shops and restaurants are an important part of the theme park experience. I know that many here believe that they are simply adjuncts to the "real" purpose of a theme park, which is great rides. But in reality, a successful theme park must offer great shopping and dining experiences. Indeed, in my opinion, the divide should be in thirds: one third show, one third shopping, one third dining. Obviously, DCA was heavily tipped in favor of dining. And it included some dramatically high end dining. Let us revisit the original line up: The Vine Room, Avalon Cove, Soap Opera Bistro, Hollywood and Dine, Taste Pilots Grill, Burger Invasion, Pizza Oom Mow Mow, MalibuRitas, Award Weiners, Farmers Market, Boardwalk Betsys, Corn Dog Castle, Cucina Cucamonga, Bakersfield Bakery, Boudin's Bakery, Lucky Fortune Cookery. (I am sure I missed a couple.) It seemed every place you looked, there was a restaurant. There were shops. There were games. There were mysterious live entertainers. But where, oh where, was the show? That the cynically conceived, poorly executed DCA of 2001 was unsuccessful is, quite simply, a fact. The proof, as the old saw goes, is in the pudding. Let's look at the record. Almost immediately, the live entertainment was revamped as guests made it clear that they were displeased. Lights! Camera! Chaos! was cancelled before the park's official album was released, achieving the curious distinction of being memorialized only in a soundtrack. Steps in Time, as mentioned above, was revamped before opening to the public. Goofy's son Max "joined" Le Feet, to no avail. Disney characters (who originally, we were told, merely "vacationed" at DCA) began turning up at every corner. Donald painted Grizzly Peak. Mickey farmed. Goofy got a whole Beach Party in the Backlot. Restaurants contracted and folded up like night blooming flowers in a noon day blaze. Both Robert Mondavi and Wolfgang Puck took huge losses in order to break their contracts to run the Avalon Cove and Golden Vine Winery, respectively. Shops were hastily reshuffled, as DCA exclusive merchandise was shoved off the shelves, to be replaced by all that "Disney" stuff. As fast as possible, show elements were added. And as slowly as possible, dining and shopping has contracted. Most emblematic of this is the Soap Opera Bistro, which is now Playhouse Disney Live. Attractions have been steadily added. No new retail or dining locations have followed. (Withe the single exception of the Wine Country Trattoria, which replaced the Bistro.) Indeed, Hollywood and Dine is now behind a fence, without even identifying signage. And much, much time is spent trying to figure out where it all went wrong. This is the legacy of DCA.
Originally Posted By disneywatcher >> You mean you haven't? << I know that your question is mainly a quip, but quite honestly it wasn't until I started seeing the divergence of views in Disney fandom -- here, for example -- over 5 years ago that I became aware of how easily projects could go in the wrong direction. Prior to that, I'd have guessed that certain viewpoints of people who supposedly admire Disney theme parks enough that they regularly visit a web site like this probably would have emanated from people who actually disliked Disney theme parks, or weren't that picky about the quality of such parks -- and couldn't tell or couldn't care less about the difference betweeen a Disneyland and a Sea World -- or were just as likely to be into Six Flags parks as much as anything else. Extrapolating the pro and con opinions of people who weren't and aren't even dependent on the DisCo for their job and paychecks, and applying that to a probable similar split in viewpoints among ACTUAL employees and executives was all I needed to know in trying to understand "Why Things Go Bad!"
Originally Posted By disneywatcher >> I'm just a dimwitted Floridian who'se been out in the sun too long." << It's been embarrassing to me that non-locals (in Orlando or Tokyo, for example---people in Paris are another matter) have been able to watch and perhaps chuckle over the DisCo botching its nearby properties, in Anaheim, to such a great degree. >> This is the legacy of DCA. << Very well thought out and composed---couldn't have said it any better.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA Excellent write-up in post #88, DlandDug. Yes, we were there opening week, and to me, DCA did have a different vibe -- and I mean that in a positive way. Among other things, 'Eureka!' was one of the coolest Disney parades I've seen. Still miss it. Add me to the 'I liked Three Bags Full' list. Are there 14 of us in the world? Had the park been more fleshed out -- more of what you describe as 'The Show' portions -- the minor elements like 'LeFeet' and 'Light, Camera, Chaos' and even 'SuperStar Limo' to a certain extent, would not have been so heavily focused on. I feel they really jumped too soon in changing some of the entertainment offerings -- certainly 'Eureka!' I'm not a big fan of seeing Mickey, Minnie, Donald, Pluto and Goofy dressed in their 'vacation' clothers at DCA. I would have preferred to see some new characters. And those live shows that were cobbled using the Disney characters -- awful. Throwing together the 'Kid-Cot' type of craft areas. Terrible. I've mentioned this before, but I think it would be neat to see a live, face character of 'Califia' -- or perhaps famous characters from California history. And while the approach may have been cynical, I do commend the notion of doing something other than 'Disneyland II' for the second gate. There's already a Disneyland -- it's right there [pointing across the Esplanade] -- why build an entirely new park if it's going to be another Disneyland? I also don't think it's the 'California' theme, moreso the execution, but that's been tread ad nauseum on these boards. Great write up DlandDug!!!
Originally Posted By Britain Great summation of the DCA's history thus far. What do you think of the upcoming 'placemaking'?
Originally Posted By trekkeruss <<it wasn't until I started seeing the divergence of views in Disney fandom -- here, for example -- over 5 years ago that I became aware of how easily projects could go in the wrong direction. Prior to that, I'd have guessed that certain viewpoints of people who supposedly admire Disney theme parks enough that they regularly visit a web site like this probably would have emanated from people who actually disliked Disney theme parks, or weren't that picky about the quality of such parks -- and couldn't tell or couldn't care less about the difference betweeen a Disneyland and a Sea World -- or were just as likely to be into Six Flags parks as much as anything else. Extrapolating the pro and con opinions of people who weren't and aren't even dependent on the DisCo for their job and paychecks, and applying that to a probable similar split in viewpoints among ACTUAL employees and executives was all I needed to know in trying to understand "Why Things Go Bad!">> Good God... what a bunch of gibberish. Care to try writing an intelligible sentence?
Originally Posted By disneywatcher >> Care to try writing an intelligible sentence? << Hmm, interesting you're more fussy about something like that than the glaring mediocrity of DCA. I think an easygoing, it's-good-enough attitude is a major reason DCA turned out to be such a dud.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss You call it easy going, I call it thats's what we got so I live with it. I enjoy what's there, and the parts I don't enjoy, I don't go to. Kinda like DL... there are parts that don't interest me, so I don't go there either. I absolutely do not understand why you continue on your pointless crusade. It's one thing to learn from the past... and another to be stuck in it.
Originally Posted By disneywatcher >> You call it easy going, I call it thats's what we got so I live with it. << Don't blame me if you would have been a poor supervisor or manager in the creation of a new Disney park.
Originally Posted By LuvDatDisney "More nonsense. So WDI isn't a collaborative enterprise anymore? It was Braverman, Pressler and Eisner's fault entirely. Heck throw Judson into the mix too as he was the boss of WDA when they first began considering the second gate. Always blame the bosses as there couldn't ever be anything wrong with anyone else's jusgements." Lee, no one does nonsense quite as well as you, buddy. It's amazing how you disappear for months, when you are losing a discussion, only to resurface with pro-management propoganda. Frankly, since you are the publisher of a fan magazine that touts its access to WDI and execs as better than Time Magazine and other hard journalistic endeavors and you NEVER criticize the powers that be, your opinions are always going to be suspect to me. It is thoroughly ridiculous to attribute DCA's problems (do you actually admit the park is flawed, like you feel TDS is, yet?)to everyone in Glendale. Ultimately, it's the people who are in charge, who get paid huge salaries and stock packages, who either thought DCA was just dandy the way it was created or thought the SoCal audience would be so excited to get a new park that they couldn't tell they were getting a bunch of disparate elements, mostly cheap, tossed together under an umbrella theme of ''hip, historic, histrionic California." When you think of the hubris ... the sheer arrogance of people like Eisner, Pressler, Harriss, Braverman, Fitsgerald etc ... it's just astounding that DCA does have some wonderful parts, that it is a quality (though deeply flawed) park. <<Like how DCA/management apologists can claim the place is a success when on one day you can have 60,000 people at DL and barely 10,000 at DCA ... but I'm just a dimwitted Floridian who'se been out in the sun too long>> "Then every single non-MK gate has failed. Every last one. Ultimately only one park caters for every single demographic and that is a Disneyland park. It is where the characters live and the history of the Company is bound up. That last sentence is too much of an easy target." And you like easy targets don't you? TDA projected daily shutdowns due to reaching capacity of 30,000 at DCA. This hasn't to my knowledge happened once since the park opened FIVE years ago! They are thrilled when during the busiest week of the year, the place can pull in high teens or even 20,000 (mostly parkhoppers and APers). I would never expect a non-MK theme park to match or exceed the attendence of that type. But Epcot can stand on its own just fine. TDS can. To a large extent Disney-MGM Studios can. Can DCA? DlandDug's post 88 may be the finest explanation of the DCA mess I've ever read anywhere, so I won't repeat it. I'll just print it out and have as a reference whenever anyone wants to discuss the place.
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 LuvDatDisney Trekkeruss, first off I thought we weren't supposed to use bad language here. But I could never understand the whole arguing against debate/discussion deal. That's the purpose here. If you don't like the topic or feel its played out, by all means, don't take part. It's wasting valuable life and you are guaranteed to not get extra time back at the end ;-) But I see nothing wrong with debate like this. And I feel it's healthy and can be constructive since our friends at Disney do monitor these sites. It's kind of like saying you don't like the direction our government is talking, go move to Canada. Dissent and bitching (if I can say that?) are healthy. yes ... even over a theme park and its designers. This is a Disney site after all.
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>
