Originally Posted By crapshoot August 12, 2008 The Vineyard Room Closing at Disney's California Adventure Park Anaheim, CA -- While the announced departure of McDonald's from Disney's theme parks has made headlines a lesser known, but finer dining experience will also be leaving Disney's California Adventure. The Vineyard Room, the last of three fine dining experiences at Disney's California Adventure park, will be closing at the end of this month. The Vineyard Room is one of the lesser-known restaurants in Disney's California Adventure because of the upstairs location and limited operating days. The restaurant was originally sponsored and operated by Robert Mondavi Wines. Located upstairs in the Golden Vine Winery the Vineyard Room serves pasta, seafood and gourmet salads paired with fine wine. An 18-foot California plein-air mural is part of the décor of this upscale restaurant. While the current concept may be ending, sources sayt that Disney plans to continue to use the space for a restaurant. The plan calls for an expansion of the popular Wine Country Trattoria restaurant downstairs, into the space currently occupied by The Vineyard Room.. The Vineyard Room is the last of three fine-dining, full-service restaurants within the theme park. The other two, the ABC Soap Opera Bistro in the Hollywood Pictures Backlot closed and Avalon Cove by Wolfgang Puck in Paradise Pier has been converted into Disney Character Dining. The upstairs Avalon Cove bar however remains sans the Wolfgang Puck <a href="http://www.ultimaterollercoaster.com/news/stories/20080812_01.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.ultimaterollercoast...01.shtml</a>
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Thank you for showing that Disney didn't get the attendance they wanted, and that Puck and Mondavi pulled out as a result. That a). isn't anything we didn't know; and b). isn't what I asked for.
Originally Posted By crapshoot TEA-AECOM summary of 2010 data Data keys Top 25 amusement parks/theme parks worldwide DCA 6.28 Million guests Disneyland 16 Million guests
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<That a). isn't anything we didn't know; and b). isn't what I asked for.>> What you ask for is impossible to come by officially. That also isn't something that we didn't know. So we hit an impass and agree to enjoy corn dogs on Main St, my treat.
Originally Posted By Bob Paris 1 "So having old washed up guest musical acts is a sure sign that the park is a failure?" Straw man. Not to mention simplistic and insulting. Not to MY intelligence but to yours. I was adding to the long list of desperate measures and half baked attractions TDA used to try to create and then bolster DCA with. Please brush up on your comprehension before making yourself look silly. "In that case, that Epcot place in Florida better watch its back! They have not one, but two annual concert series (Eat to the Beat for Food and Wine, and Flower Power for Flower and Garden) featuring musical acts that have been "has beens" for several decades. Yep, that park will never last..." I am well aware of what Epcot has, both in terms of events AND attractions. Surely even you can see that the musical acts COMPLEMENT a theme park with a huge line up of attractions of various scale and scope. In NO WAY are they rushed in to bolster a flagging theme park struggling for attendance. Rather they are a fun diversion within seasonal festivals. You aren't a Friend of Dorothy, are you? You seem to have a great fondness for straw men!
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA I'm constantly fascinated by executives like Paul Pressler, who walk in to a company - like GAP and Disney -- screw things up completely -- then walk away with a big paycheck. In other circles, they'd be branded as failures. With American CEOs, they are rewarded and get to serve on boards of directors and make even more money.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <What you ask for is impossible to come by officially.> How silly of me to want actual facts and data. <So we hit an impass and agree to enjoy corn dogs on Main St, my treat.> If you're buyin', I'm flyin'.
Originally Posted By danyoung >But be prepared to be called an "apologist" or someone who can't support his opinion, Dan.< I don't feel any pressure to support my opinion, as I'm not presenting myself as knowing the absolute facts of the case (not that I think you are either, Dabob). It's just my opinion, subject to change. I've been enjoying the input on both sides. Seems like folks could be a bit nicer in their arguing, but that's just me. As to being an apologist, I really hate being labeled like that, or with the even worse "defender of mediocrity" every time I don't join those who are up in arms over the latest perceived decrease in service or quality or whatever. I don't like it any more than the next guy when Disney opens a so-so park like DCA. But I'm completely thrilled (as, I think, are most people) with the changes going on, and can't wait to see the result for myself this summer.
Originally Posted By danyoung From a recent USA Today article - ""California Adventure did not return what we typically would expect to return in terms of capital investment and felt that with some smart creativity and investment, we could change the fortunes of that park," CEO Robert Iger said in September 2010 at the Goldman Sachs Communacopia Conference. Last year, California Adventure played host to 6.3 million visitors, which trails even the least-trafficked Disney park in Orlando, Disney's Hollywood Studios, with 9.6 million visitors. However, even a disappointment by Disney standards is hardly a bomb. The park is still the most visited amusement park in the Western U.S. after Disneyland, according to Themed Entertainment Association and AECom. It's the sixth-most-visited amusement park in the U.S." <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/money/advertising/2011-07-07-disney-california-adventure_n.htm" target="_blank">http://www.usatoday.com/money/...re_n.htm</a>
Originally Posted By crapshoot Robert Iger went on record during the company's annual stockholder meeting on March 10, 2006, when someone asked about a potential third park being built in Anaheim. "We're still working to assure the second gate is successful", Iger said, referring to California Adventure. "In the spirit of candor, we have been challenged.
Originally Posted By crapshoot Disney's California Adventure�: Imagineers Design A Unique Disney Theme Park "First thing, we threw out the rulebook," Braverman explains." "There's a kind of brash California attitude that we wanted to capture," Braverman says. "Much more pop culture and MTV with a little tongue-in-cheek thrown in. It's shorthand, impressionistic, and cinematic." "He goes on to explain, "DISNEY'S CALIFORNIA ADVENTURE was planned to enhance, not compete with, the DISNEYLAND Resort experience. Frankly, if we had tried to compete with DISNEYLAND on its own terms, we would have failed." "When we started working on it there was a tremendous amount of suspicion in the air because it was so different," Braverman recalls. "This wasn't to be a theme park in the traditional Disney sense." <a href="http://disney.go.com/vacations/grandopening/press7.html" target="_blank">http://disney.go.com/vacations...ss7.html</a>
Originally Posted By crapshoot LP: Moving on to California - Disney’s California Adventure. Has it met the company’s expectations? Pressler: The answer is yes, unequivocally yes. We are very proud of the park. We think that there are a lot of things that are new and unique So I think that the disconnect - I say "disconnect" because our audience expectations certainly were higher in the first couple of months than what we acheived - was certainly related to over-ambitious expectations on our part for how long it was going to take for Disney's California Adventure to be fully embraced by our guests."
Originally Posted By danyoung Yeah, it was really interesting to see the spin that they tried to put on it in the early days.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>Frankly, if we had tried to compete with DISNEYLAND on its own terms, we would have failed.<< I think that this statement really says a lot about the intent, and problem with that, of DCA opening day. They wanted it to be something different that would expand the offerings that DLR had. The guests wanted another Disneyland. Disney was hoping to expand the audience to include hip-and-edgy people who previously ignored DLR. Those people continued to, and families continued to be the primary audience. Whie the Pressler quote does sound like he's saying "Really now, lower your expectations. It's not supposed to be THAT good," I think that he meant to say that the park wasn't really designed for the existing guests I've said it before, and I'll say it again: if DCA was built as part of WDW instead of DLR (for arugment's sake, there would be no DAK, so there would stil, be 4 parks total), it would have been much more warmly received. WDW's guests have a much longer history of different types of experiences, and expect different things from their theme parks. DLR guests only had DL proper to base their expectations on, until relatively recently. While DL was built first, it was anther 46 years before the complementary park was added. In WDW, it was only 11 years (the time since DCA opened until now, for reference). The WDW experience has always been much more multifaceted than DLRs, and it seems like Disney thought that guests wanted that; guests wanted more of DL. Having 'grown up' with both places, I appreciate the differences between them, but I also think that I liked the original stuff at DCA a lot more than most people who 'grew up' with DL. I knew that Disney did stuff beyond the 'magic kingdom', and was excited to see what those possibilities were. I think that a lot of the actual audience (not the intended one) wasn't really interested. In my many discussions with southern California locals who have grown up on DL(and DLR), I've often asked if they've ever visited WDW. The response is usually "Why would I want to do that?" When I explain that there are different experiences there that just can't be found at DLR, due to scope, size, and the essence of the experiences themselves, they seldom seem interested. Despite how great the 3 other parks are in WDW, they just can't get past the concept of the whole thing being a copy of DL, which it isn't at all. Much like early DCA, if they visited with an open mind and tried things, they might be surprised how much they liked it. But if they went in expecting another version of DL, they would hate it. And in the case of DCA, they did.
Originally Posted By tashajilek "In my many discussions with southern California locals who have grown up on DL(and DLR), I've often asked if they've ever visited WDW. The response is usually "Why would I want to do that?" When I explain that there are different experiences there that just can't be found at DLR, due to scope, size, and the essence of the experiences themselves, they seldom seem interested. Despite how great the 3 other parks are in WDW, they just can't get past the concept of the whole thing being a copy of DL" I think this goes for both coasts. While at Epcot i heard a guy say Disneyland has only the Magic Kingdom. This guy had no idea that Disneyland was a better MK and that DCA exisited. I talked to a lot of people all who have never been to DL and wont. I think a lot of people are very closed minded and wont give other things a chance.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Sure, but "this place was a failure!!" is a lot sharper axe...<< Sure is. And the point? >>By any objective criteria, "this place has good points and bad points and a mixed record" will be more factual than "this place failed, full stop."<< Only if it is supported by something more than a lot of objective rambling. >>Sorry I thought of a stronger metaphor than you did.<< Oh brother. Yes, yes, a long, rambling anecdote is so much stronger. Really? >>...The discussion is DCA, not the whole Resort.> This is a common mistake.<< No, it's the matter at hand. DCA.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>But be prepared to be called an "apologist" or someone who can't support his opinion, Dan.<< >>Show me the actual numbers please. Otherwise you're only assuming.<< Pot, kettle. Kettle, pot.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >>Sure, but "this place was a failure!!" is a lot sharper axe...<< <Sure is. And the point?> One would think this obvious, but here goes. A view of "this worked, that didn't work; this was well done, that was so-so, that other thing didn't work at all" is hardly axe grinding at all. "This failed, full stop" eliminates complexity and is reduced to axe grinding. >>By any objective criteria, "this place has good points and bad points and a mixed record" will be more factual than "this place failed, full stop."<< <Only if it is supported by something more than a lot of objective rambling.> Thanks for the Freudian slip. >>Sorry I thought of a stronger metaphor than you did.<< <Oh brother. Yes, yes, a long, rambling anecdote is so much stronger. Really?> Yes. And it wasn't an anecdote (look it up). Your analogy, which you seemed to think was brilliant, was terrible. As though a theme park or a political campaign is a one-act drama. They aren't. They are processes. >>...The discussion is DCA, not the whole Resort.> This is a common mistake.<< <No, it's the matter at hand. DCA.> Only if you see DCA as existing in some sort of vacuum. It does not. >>But be prepared to be called an "apologist" or someone who can't support his opinion, Dan.<< >>Show me the actual numbers please. Otherwise you're only assuming.<< <Pot, kettle. Kettle, pot.> Just the opposite. Neither Dan nor I have ever claimed to know just how successful or unsuccessful DCA has been financially. Others have made some pretty wild assumptions.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>...pretty wild assumptions.<< Since this is apparently the coin of your realm, it is no surprise you would bring it up.
