Originally Posted By jonvn "Disneyland was allowed to rot away for several years after all resources were used to prop up DCA." Interesting quote of yours, I guess. How is this a fact or even a declaration from Disney? I'm going to have to give up. You really don't know what the difference is and think repetition makes for reality. The Aspen meeting was in August of 95. Oh and of these things: A revitalized Disneyland, filled with beloved classics and new adventures and attractions; -- A second Disney theme park (Westcot in 1990, by 1993 this was California Adventure); -- Future expansion for a third gate; -- The Resort Hotel District, consisting of a newly renovated Disneyland Hotel and three new themed hotels; -- Disneyland Center, a retail, dining and entertainment center located around a six acre lake; -- an amphitheater for live concerts and other performances; -- an internal circulation system of walkways, moving sidewalks, elevated people movers and an expanded monorail; and -- a transportation and parking management plan that involved three massive parking structures, linked to the Resort via the transportation system. None of them happened as described. Not one. There is no Westcot, there is no dining and entertainment complex around a six acre lake, no three big parking structures, none of it. It didn't pan out. Some aspects of these ideas did make it to fruition. But not like they were described. Aside from all that, you were talking about Disney expectations, and how they've declared what they wanted, and how they were disappointed in the results. When you can actually be bothered to back up what you have said I'll be listening. If you can actually provide real information, again, that's what I'd love to hear.
Originally Posted By jonvn It's really just sad w hen people make declarations and just don't even realize what they are saying....
Originally Posted By jonvn "Disneyland was allowed to rot away for several years after all resources were used to prop up DCA." Nice quote of yours. However, it is rank speculation at best, and is based on what? You don't seem to understand what actual information is. And just because you keep repeating the same things does not make it reality. The Aspen retreat was in August of 95. I don't see how they came up with DCA two years before that. In any case, of all the things mentioned in your Disney Decade master plan, exactly NONE of them came to fruition as described. There is no hotel district, there is no entertainment district around a six acre lake, there is no westcot. None of it happened. Some aspects of these plans did eventually get built. We have a second gate. But somehow it doesn't say that Disney never considered it anything but a second gate as you claimed. In fact, nothing of what you have claimed that was declared by Disney is anywhere in there. You have a preliminary plan for expansion of which almost nothing happened. This is followed by your opinions. Your opinions are not facts. I really didn't think you could come up with anything, because there hasn't been anything put out like you are describing.
Originally Posted By berol "claim, "I ate a cookie today." If I really did, it's true whether or not I say any more." "I can't know that is true. " You can't know that it is false, either. Calling it false doesn't follow by any level of logic cuz you don't have enough info to know it's false. If you meant that you don't _believe_ it (don't accept it as a truth), as you said later on, that makes sense. Here's the proof. I secretly eat a cookie. I say "I ate a cookie." You say "I have no proof, it's false" "It's false" means I did not eat a cookie. I did eat a cookie. I ate a cookie and did not eat a cookie. error. error. will robinson. error.
Originally Posted By berol So, if the Maliboomer falls in a forest, it makes a noise whether I know it or not.
Originally Posted By jonvn You can't know that it is false, "either." I don't know if it is true. If there is no reason to believe something is true, then it's not true. "I ate a cookie and did not eat a cookie." We are talking about different things. You're using three state boolean logic, I'm not using it directly. The reason I am not using it is because it does not apply here. This is because of the sort of information we are dealing with. The default of the information here is always false, because nearly all of it is false, and has repeatedly been shown to be false time and again. Everyone just says random things. It's almost always wrong. Either someone does or does not have the information they claim to have. If they claim to have it, and as proof of this information they show something that is different than what they claimed they have, they've not shown they have the information. It means their information is false. Because of this basic assumption of false, if someone wants to sit here and make claims of truth, then they have to show reason why. Otherwise the assumption is that it is false. This is how our courts work. You are guilty or not guilty. Not maybe. It's one or the other. If you are trying to show something is true, you have the burden of proof. If you can't provide it, what you say is not accepted. Good stuff.
Originally Posted By berol In the court of public opinion, it's probability of being true or false. Absolutes are rare and I don't see how we'll ever get an absolute with this. I don't think any one person on Earth knows the whole story. My cookie thing is 2-case. We know the answer is true or false, so there is no other case. 3-case would be I ate a cookie, I ate part of a cookie, I did not eat a cookie. When I took far more than my share of logic classes, it was true, false or can't be shown with the info presented (whatever the phrase was); not true, false, or false.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer So did what did Barry Braverman say, the person in charge from WDI of designing and building DCA.... ''We always said we would never do rides sans some imaginative twist, We would say, 'That's our competitors' business.' But when you consider the whole design here, it works.'' So is it true tha much of Paradise Pier is without an imaginative twist? And based on comments I have read from others over the years, many folks agree with the person who was in charge of the issue. So my vote is True.
Originally Posted By berol Get to the real point, Darkbeer! Did Braverman eat a cookie in the woods or not?! *swing and a miss for Berol*
Originally Posted By Socrates I like my idea even more tonight. Socrates "The more things change, the more they stay the same -- French proverb"
Originally Posted By jonvn "I don't see how we'll ever get an absolute with this. I don't think any one person on Earth knows the whole story." No one is asking for the whole story. Simply, that if someone says A, and claims that A is true, then they should have a reason other than "I claim it is true." If they can't, then there is no reason to believe A is true. If it is not true, then it's false. "My cookie thing is 2-case." It's called three state boolean logic. Here, in wiki it is ternary logic.: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ternary_logic" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T ernary_logic</a> It does not apply here, for the reasons I gave. I took my unpleasant share of logic classes as well.
Originally Posted By berol 2nd strike for me with ternary logic I just talked myself into getting what you're doing (and erased the ramble). Assuming False is for contradiction proofs. Assuming Unknown is for direct. I'll give myself a strike 3 anyway, on with the show.
Originally Posted By jonvn <a href="http://www.jimloy.com/math/proof.htm" target="_blank">http://www.jimloy.com/math/pro of.htm</a>
Originally Posted By berol I typed contraposition before I looked it up and got the right contra- word. Sometimes if I'm messing around about logic, I'll hit them with 'prove existence first and then we can talk' while grinning and ducking.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer To make WorldDisney happy... Some very nice young lady was kind enough to send me an internal PointPoint presentation file years ago. I totally trust this person in the fact that this is the real Mc Coy, and not a fake. If I could share my source, I am sure you would agree that it is a true document. Sorry, guys I will not post the file, nor will I share it. I am sorry, but you are going to have to trust me on this one. I will clearly identify my comments with brackets [like this]. I am also only going to post selected information, mainly related to the infamous comment, and other points discussed over the last few years. I received a 10 slide presentation, based on the wording, is an internal WDI presentation. The first slide is the title slide... Quote: >>THE "OFF THE SHELF" DECISION<< Slide 2 is titled "1995 Company Mentality", which had 7 points. Point 2 is "Can we do a "E" attraction for $70M?" Point 6 is "With Paul Pressler's arrival our client became the "parks", not MDE." Slide 3 is Quote: >>1996 KEY TO A CHEAPER PARK Facility, Show or Ride - Pick any 2. Capitalize on an improving ride industry. Take known technology & theme it with paint color, lighting & graphics. Take advantage of engineering already spent by others. "Direct Lifts" If it's good enough for Six Flags .... The "Guiding Principles"<< As to the second point of Capitalizing, [To me, this is looking at outside companies, such as S&S Power, since the outside vendors have been making better products in the last decade or so] And the fifth point, "Direct Lifts" [and as described in a later slide, this is taking attractions from other Disney parks, such as Muppets 3-D (the example they used)] Slides 4 and 5 talks about the Guiding Principles. The 4th slide is titled "How can Disney's California be realized for less than traditional practice?" Then we have 11 points for the sub-category "Park Planning/Design/Theming" (the next slide has the other sub-category). Point 1 is "No berm around the park", other points mention outside visual intrusions are OK, themed facades are faux, show-like, not immersions or period reproductions, that only the entries and front facades are to be themed, and to keep the Monorail as is. Slide 5 contains 5 "Backstage Philosophy" points, including "First cost before life cycle savings" Slide 6 is titled "Embracing the Industry... Their way" 5 points, my favorite is "We don't have any lawyers & we don't want to get any." Slide 7 is titled "Our Experience", with the category of "good" and 11 points Slide 8 is the category "Lessons Learned" and 6 points. Slide 9 is just a title slide, "Would we do it again?" and nothing else. Slide 10 starts with "Yes" in large letters, and then the sentence "The pros far out weigh the cons. But..." Then we have 5 points, my favorite on this page is, "Have attractions partners sign(underlined) in advance of the buy." [OK, this is the end of the PowerPoint presentation. So what have we learned, that the statement "If it's good enough for Six Flags..." was actually made at a meeting inside the Disney company, and not made up, as some folks wanted us to believe! That Disney had serious cost control issues while designing and building DCA. That Disney made the decision to use "Off the Shelf" rides instead of designing and building their own. That Disney is looking to keep the costs down on new "E" attractions (the $70 million comment, and now the LA Times report of DCA's ToT costing $75 million). That Disney purposely cut back on the theming at DCA.]
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Let's look at the fourth slide, and the "Park Planning/Design/Theming" points. point 1, "No berm around the Park", matches up with what was built. point 2, "Each attraction will be designed to achieve a specific emotional impact. “Mega E’s with elaborate facilities, shows and rides will be avoided in favor of story.", and the park opened with no Mega-E's, finally we are getting a large E with ToT, but nothing of that level was included in the original park. point 3, "Some visual intrusions are okay, including structures outside park boundary", as people have mentioned (and complained about) seeing the city from GRR, the Sun Wheel, etc. detracts from the attraction. point 4, "Themed facades are faux, show-set like; not immersions into replications of period themed architecture." Once again, matches up with what is offered at DCA. point 5, "Themed facades are limited to entries and front facades and thus cover only a portion of the visible facility." Once again, a perfect match to what was delivered with DCA. point 6, "Keep the Monorail as is". And that is exactly what happened, they didn't move one inch of track, instead the attractions and other park structures were built to accommodate the Monorail. Disney did try to hide and/or use the monorail a part of the design, for example the Golden Gate Bridge at the front entrance, or the Superstar Limo sign. And they helped to limit the intrusion, but by no means did it eliminate it. They also helped keep costs down by not moving the Monorail, or adding a DCA station. Point 7, "Use “direct lifts†(e.g. Muppets 3-D) where possible." And we got direct lifts, Muppets 3-D, WWTBAM-PI (but of course, without the pre-show offered at WDW) and ITTBAB. And Animation, which I would not call a "Direct Lift", but the majority of the attraction was. Point 8, "Surf City rides are “off-the-shelf†except for paint, lighting, graphics and show features.", And what did Paradise Pier (the revised name for Surf City) get ? Point 9, "Where possible no new ride systems to be invented. We will use developed technology." And what did we get, the one new ride system (Soarin') was actually part of the Westcot design, so much of the design work was already completed. Point 10, "Make “provisions only†for the future addition of a parade or water spectacular." And what did they do, build a large path through the park to accommodate a Parade, and added no infrastructure to the lagoon. They had to build the Parade building after opening, and had to add many features when they attempted LuminAria. And some of those "provisions" for the water spectacular were not that well thought out in regards as to where the guests were going to gather to watch the future show. And the last point "No upgrades or tie-in to the existing Disneyland systems.", also how DCA was delivered.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer And while looking for that Powerpoint Presentation, I found an old post of mine from August 5th, 2005.... <a href="http://www.micechat.com/forums/dca_interesting_look_back_last-t9078.html" target="_blank">http://www.micechat.com/forums /dca_interesting_look_back_last-t9078.html</a> >>FYI, I decided to post this information here because some folks want to re-write history, and claim things like DCA was designed as a park just to get folks to stay another day, when if you go read the LA Times article from 2001, you can see that is totally incorrect... Or when you see folks like John Cora say that the park primary focus was to have it built as cheap as possible, then folks like Roy Disney confirm it... well, no wonder people are disappointed and upset with what Disney delivered in DCA.... But there is hope, as Al Lutz stated in his last update on Tuesday, maybe the poor performance of the park will finally get the attention of the new folks in charge, and they will be willing to address the problem, and approve some funds to help improve the park....<< And glad to see 2 years later, that the folks in charge did step up to the plate and approved the funds needed for the major overhaul. It should be fun to watch the bulldozers transform the park to something better (I HOPE!), but I think it has a very good chance of becoming better.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer OK, the history of the "2fer" Southern California Disneyland Resort ticket. The revised "SoCal" special started in 2001. At first it was a 2 day NON park hopping ticket for a few dollars more than a single day price, they tried different pricing points anywhere from $10-$25 more. Also, in 2001 and early 2002, you could use both days at Disneyland, and were not required to attend DCA at all. In the fall of 2002, they had the 2-day ticket for $54 ($9 more than a single day ticket), but this time it was one day at Disneyland, and one day at DCA. Well, the ticket sellers at the main gate would explain the offer when asked if there were any SoCal specials (and they have signs at the ticket windows saying to ask about the SoCal specials), but many folks decided to just get a single day ticket to DL, and not bother to pay the extra $9. The folks at TDA were not happy with the numbers, even though Flik's Fun Fair had just opened. Well, in early 2003, the "Pay for Disneyland, get DCA for free" ticket was announced, now just $47, the same price as a one-day ticket. This offer started in early January, and expired in mid-May.... well, now when the guests went to the ticket window, and asked about the special, they were told for NO extra charge they could get a 2-day ticket (some asked for just a discounted DL only ticket, but were told those tickets are not discounted), so folks ended up with a 2-day whether they wanted it or not. Well, these folks went to Disneyland for the day... and then put the ticket on the fridge, or somewhere else... and then folks realized that the ticket to DCA was about to expire..... so many folks in fact that Disney had to extend DCA hours, staffing , and offer extra showings of shows for the last three weekends of the deal(No such additions were added to Disneyland). This really drove up DCA's numbers in May. Since then, Disney has marketed the ticket as "Pay for Disneyland, get DCA for FREE!" in 2004, adjusted the program to maximum 30 days to return to eliminate the rush to DCA at the last weekend the ticket was valid, but still had the problem in 2006, so once again revised the program, and now only the first day of use has to be at the end of the period, and can be used for a maximum of 30 days no matter what. Here is a photo of the early 2007 tickets, which clearly state "Purchase a Disneyland Park ticket for one day and visit Disney's California Adventure Park on another day for FREE!" <a href="http://darkbeer.smugmug.com/gallery/2348468/1/122919197/Large" target="_blank">http://darkbeer.smugmug.com/ga llery/2348468/1/122919197/Large</a> The same ticket showed up on August 1st, right in the middle of summer peak, this time good to late November, but now with a 30 day fuse, to prevent the problems they had in May by not having all the tickets expire at the same time. They also offered the ticket in early December as an AP holder special (for AP guests). So basically for 3/4th's of the year the SoCal ticket was offered. I checked eBay in early 2007 and found that many SoCal's that ended up getting the 2fer opted to sell the DCA portion on eBay for $10 to $20 instead of visiting the park for themselves... <a href="http://www.micechat.com/forums/much_dca_really_worth_ebay-t53927.html" target="_blank">http://www.micechat.com/forums /much_dca_really_worth_ebay-t53927.html</a> It is clear that the SoCal promo was popular and helped drive significant attendance to DCA that would not have gone if they didn't get the second day to DCA for "free".
