Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>Anyone really think people would actually boo Cynthia Harriss? Paul Pressler?<< Considering how much gum has 'accidentally' been stuck on their bricks in the Espalande, yes, I do. It always amazes me how tactless people can be, but that never seems to stop them. I'd hope that the amount of time since their reign would help lessen the reaction, but there are enough people out there that something's bound to 'go horribly wrong' (stealing WDI's favorite plotline).
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA I agree oc_dean. The story of DCA 1.0 is FASCINATING! It is truly amazing that a theme park was designed and approved and built by Walt Disney Imagineering (the blue chip theme park design firm) right next to Disneyland, the Granddaddy of all theme parks and a place that essentially invented the modern-day theme park -- and the new park was reviled by the theme park going public. That is fascinating! And the questions that come up -- 'which Imagineers designed it?' 'who approved it?' 'who justified it?' 'who stood behind it?' 'how could they have really done THAT?' -- will provide interesting reading for years to come.
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<And the questions that come up -- 'which Imagineers designed it?' 'who approved it?' 'who justified it?' 'who stood behind it?' 'how could they have really done THAT?' -- will provide interesting reading for years to come.>> These questions can all be answered without bias or an emotional slant. This information is all in black and white. The Cynthia Harriss story is kind of sad. She was simply told what to think and how to act towards certain people. She did that job well. It wasn't until the 365 day, 23rd hour, 59th minute and 59th second that she realized the BS that she had been fed during her term before she decided to step out of line and finally ask the right someone what she should do to turn things around. Unfortunately for her, and the rest of us for that matter, it was too late and she was ousted. I really had a lot of respect for her. So, the final unanswerable question remains. Was DCA an abject failure . . . ?
Originally Posted By 999HAUNTS This whole thread has been a very interesting read. I'm not very well versed in the business end of it all, but wish I was so I could contribute. Having family working for the Mouse has allowed me to go to many events - and meeting Cynthia was actually one of my highlighted memories. She was very attentive and pleasant and actually held a conversation without being dismissive. I truly liked her as a person, too bad the business end of it worked out as it did. Regarding the Carsland opening - What I do know is that I will be there, hours before opening, waving my PAP in the air, taking pictures, and enjoying every damned second of the experience. Viva DCA!
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <And then, of course, there's the tactic of simply leaving the whole topic at hand and turning it into a discussion of those we disagree with. If I find myself falling down that rabbit hole, I usually prefer to say "noted" and move on.> Again, just the opposite. I wasn't leaving the discussion - I was answering point by point, until you ultimately were reduced to "nu-uh," and then "noted." And yeah, if you say that a post of mine (#78) contains wild assumptions when it does not, I will indeed insist on setting the record straight. Noted?
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>These questions can all be answered without bias or an emotional slant. This information is all in black and white.<< Yes, information is "all in black and white." Conclusions, not so much. Based on all available information, it's pretty obvious to me (and others) that the original DCA failed. Others disagree. And that's all good, until it devolves into claims that one mindset is "simplistic" and the other is nothing more than "apologist." It's possible, really, to hold completely divergent points of view on a given topic without insisting that all other views are inherently false.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Considering how much gum has 'accidentally' been stuck on their bricks in the Espalande...<< I actually take a glance at those bricks from time to time. And it has been quite a while since it has been defaced. Is it possible that people have moved beyond this?
Originally Posted By Yookeroo "Anyone really think people would actually boo Cynthia Harriss? Paul Pressler?" There are a handful of (rude and classless) crazies who would. I suspect most would barely remember them. Assuming they knew who they were in the first place. "I actually take a glance at those bricks from time to time. And it has been quite a while since it has been defaced. Is it possible that people have moved beyond this?" I would hope so. But as this thread reveals, there are some who can't let go. Pressler & Harris committed great heresy. "Having family working for the Mouse has allowed me to go to many events - and meeting Cynthia was actually one of my highlighted memories. She was very attentive and pleasant and actually held a conversation without being dismissive. I truly liked her as a person, too bad the business end of it worked out as it did." It doesn't matter what kind of person she is, she's a sinner and can never be forgiven! Let's go gloat over her lack of success post-DL.
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<Yes, information is "all in black and white." Conclusions, not so much.>> What I mean is that all of the stakeholders of DCA were very congratulatory among one another. They were very upfront with how they came up with their design decisions. They were very vocal about how they had developed the best themepark model.
Originally Posted By crapshoot Someday a "Tell-All" will come out regarding DCA 1.0. The decision making process that was used needs to be delineated as a "Lessons-Learned" example of how not to take basics for granted.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >Yes, information is "all in black and white." Conclusions, not so much. Based on all available information, it's pretty obvious to me (and others) that the original DCA failed. Others disagree. And that's all good, until it devolves into claims that one mindset is "simplistic" and the other is nothing more than "apologist." It's possible, really, to hold completely divergent points of view on a given topic without insisting that all other views are inherently false.> Oh please. "Without insisting that all other views are inherently false" is exactly what you do when anyone dares say they think DCA was a mixed bag and didn't fail, full-stop. No! says Dug. It "obviously" failed, it "objectively" failed, yada yada yada and any other view... This despite the obvious attempt there to posit yourself as some sort of reasonable center view; please spare us the sanctimony.
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<DCA 1.0 was a giant failure.>> At least you didn't say Colossal Failure. In the case of DCA, the original management was very adament that DCA would definetly stand on its own two feet period. That simply did not happen. Funds earmarked for Disneyland were funneled across the esplanade and other sources were tapped as well. It is okay for some Business Units to lose money for a pre-determined periods. The idea is that other BU's will pick up the slack. It is simply how large companies run. In many cases, underperforming BU's will be sold off for tax advantage reasons. BUT, it would not make sense for Disney to go that route. So the only reasonable course to take is for them to retool the park. Frankly, I think that they should have sold DCA to the Oriental Land Company. And I am only half kidding.
Originally Posted By inlandemporer The DCA I first saw was hardly Disneyland, but it wasn't a strict failure either. Some parts were good, and as someone old enough to remember when there was just DL and a fairly seedy area around it, the transformation into something larger was pretty impressive, and that was the main reason for building the park. Well, that and getting more people overall to Anaheim, and getting tourists to stay longer. And if it succeeded at some of its goals, then it can't be said to be a strict failure. Even if some of it, like the farm, just made you say "wha?" And as someone who saw MGM shortly after it opened, I recognized it as a park that would obviously be added to a great deal in years to come. If it was a strict failure, it would have closed, like DisneyQuest and Go. Things do fail, but DCA isn't one of them. jonvn used to point this out, and it drove people crazy, but he was right. He also pointed out that it was successful enough for them to feel confident in pouring an extra billion into it. Some people saw that as evidence of failure, but actually as jonvn pointed out, that's something you do with an entity that is struggling, as DCA was with attendance, but not with something that has already failed. I also agree with Dabob2 that a park is a process (like Walt used to say: when a movie is done it's done, but a park can develop over time) and with davewasbaloo who was sorry to see some of the more adult elements of DCA bite the dust. I largely bowed out of these discussions because the hysteria around the place was just weird.
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<I largely bowed out of these discussions because the hysteria around the place was just weird.>> That's the nature of "fansites", just weird. For me, I will simply enjoy the "Tell-All". It will be a great read.
Originally Posted By oc_dean >>If it was a strict failure, it would have closed, like DisneyQuest and Go.<< The image-conscience Walt Disney Co. close a 55 acre park straight across from it's Flagship Park? I find that very hard to believe. It's one thing to close a Disney Quest. Or a Disney store. Or a tenant in DtD ... it's entirely different with a major gated park.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "It is okay for some Business Units to lose money for a pre-determined periods. " True. Just look at Xbox's history. But I don't really care if DCA makes money or not. It could be a financial success or failure. It means nothing to me. It was a creative failure and it is difficult to refute such a claim.
