Originally Posted By oc_dean >>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.<< For me ... I got all that .. and more .. from the countless bits of information delivered by the likes of posters like Darkbeer, Galaxie500, Crapshoot, DL&Dug, Westsider and so many more .. here on LP for the last 10 years, +. It's as simple as this for me: DCA was built on the cheap. That in itself .. is a colossal failure. Where's the quality? Where's the rides like PotC? Where's the flow-through design .. synonymous with the imagineering greats who did that so well with DL,WDW,EPCOT,DISNEY-SEA .. etc? Why was Soarin's preshow so lacking? Why is Screamin's queue so lacking? Why is GRR this big rock, and nothing else really cool going on? Well .. there's one omission Crapshoot brought up (again) ... Barry Braverman admitting to throwing the rule book out. All that experience from 1955 .. leading up to DisneySea .. all thrown out! Isn't it revealing enough how the AP was structured at the time of opening? There was no AP for DCA. What happened a bit later? DCA was offered right into the same DL AP for the same price. So ... the topic of how much money DCA did make in it's first several years (to prove it was or wasn't a "total financial failure" can go on until the 22nd Century .... But the larger and more important point has been made .... and this makeover that it's going through now ... Is now trying to reverse that lack rides like PotC, and the quality expected in a Disney park.
Originally Posted By dshyates I think we can all agree that there was no amount of fail that would have resulted in the DisCo. razing it back into a parking lot. The original budget was $630M. And they are dumping $1.2+B. So either A. Their ROI was so spectacular that they would be idiots not to triple their investment to capitalize on its popularity. Or B. Their ROI was so bad that in light of the fact that going back to a parking lot is not an option it is going to take at least double the initial cash outlay to fix what's wrong and add what's missing. I'm going with B.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "I think we can all agree that there was no amount of fail that would have resulted in the DisCo. razing it back into a parking lot." They could have sold it (remember when Eisner toyed around with the idea of selling EPCOT and threatened to close Euro Disney?), converted the property into condos, hotels, a shopping mall, heliport, or any number of other real estate ventures that would help recoup losses is always a possibility. If it had really truly been a hopeless failure then it would have been closed and transformed into something else. That's what businesses do.
Originally Posted By CuriousConstance Is it crazy to think that they wanted a second park open ASAP to make the average visit by an average vacationer at least a day longer, and rather than go at it all at once and open it as a pristine, perfect park, they opened with limited money invested. The whole while assuming that they will invest more in the future, but for at least the first 10 years or so, they have 2 parks and that means longer hotel stays, more meal money, etc, etc. Then as they gained more money in revenue, they would invest it back into the park to create a more popular park and possibly extending the stay by maybe even another day? I certainly don't know jack about the business side of things, but it could have succeeded in making more money overall because now the DLR is seen as a resort with many things to do, not just one park. So, maybe it wasn't as popular as DL but it's still making them money in the long run.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "Is it crazy to think that they wanted a second park open ASAP to make the average visit by an average vacationer at least a day longer, and rather than go at it all at once and open it as a pristine, perfect park, they opened with limited money invested." Yes, Constance, that is absolutely crazy. Absolute failure is the only answer.
Originally Posted By danyoung CC, I'm one of those that thinks the park wasn't a total failure. That said, I'm gonna disagree with you a bit. I agree that the concept you described would have made good sense. But with all of the history and experience and knowledge of the Disney company in making theme parks, they had the ability to make a smaller, introductory park that was so much better than what they opened with DCA. And all of the things that closed, all of the investors that pulled out, all of the radical changes that they made over the years right up to what they're doing now, all of that is a very strong indication that they finally realized that they didn't do a very good job with DCA 1.0.
Originally Posted By Yookeroo "Is it crazy to think that they wanted a second park open ASAP to make the average visit by an average vacationer at least a day longer, and rather than go at it all at once and open it as a pristine, perfect park, they opened with limited money invested. The whole while assuming that they will invest more in the future, but for at least the first 10 years or so, they have 2 parks and that means longer hotel stays, more meal money, etc, etc. Then as they gained more money in revenue, they would invest it back into the park to create a more popular park and possibly extending the stay by maybe even another day?" Right. Calling DCA a failure ignores the bigger picture. So does calling it "on the cheap". They spent a ton of money creating a multi-day resort. That the new park didn't get the investment it possibly could have and didn't live up to expectations was a disappointment, but obviously, one that was fixable over the long term.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Is it crazy to think that they wanted a second park open ASAP to make the average visit by an average vacationer at least a day longer, and rather than go at it all at once and open it as a pristine, perfect park, they opened with limited money invested. The whole while assuming that they will invest more in the future, but for at least the first 10 years or so, they have 2 parks and that means longer hotel stays, more meal money, etc, etc. Then as they gained more money in revenue, they would invest it back into the park to create a more popular park and possibly extending the stay by maybe even another day? > No, that's not crazy. It's correct. It's been the dominant paradigm for Disney-owned secondary parks since MGM. In Hong Kong, they even did it with a primary park. We may not like the model, and probably all of us would have liked DCA to have had more E-tickets from the beginning, etc., me included. But that's just not Disney's model any more. It didn't start with DCA (see MGM), and they continued with it after DCA (see DSP and HKDL). In each case they're adding more and making them more like the parks most people would have preferred to have from the get-go. But opening a 4-star, fully-fleshed out park from opening day on is just not their business model any more (unless OLC is paying). I'll also throw in with davewasbaloo and inlandemporer on missing some of the more adult elements that they at least tried to introduce early on. I'm hoping that future expansions lean more in that direction, but I'm not holding my breath.
Originally Posted By dshyates I don't believe that they believed they they were building lite to fleshed out later. I am pretty sure they had no intentions of injecting $1.2+B in the first decade. A huge portion of which went for corrective surgery on what they had just Premiered.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I don't believe that they believed they they were building lite to fleshed out later.> Oh, I do. It worked for them at MGM, so although they opened SOMEWHAT more complete than MGM '89, it still wasn't enough for a). the more critical SoCal audience, or b). being a second park rather than a third. Now, do I think they thought it would get better attendance than it did and they might not have to add so much so soon? Sure. But clearly this was closer to the MGM model than the EPCOT model.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>The image-conscience Walt Disney Co. close a 55 acre park straight across from it's Flagship Park?<< When DCA opened, I would not have called DL the flagship park of TWDC. That was around the time that WDW was getting hugely successful big-budget annual celebrations (Millennium Celebration, 100 Years of Magic, etc), while DL was literally rotting away. It really wasn't until the smash success of the 50th that the focus was shifted back to DL. In the time since then, the tables have clearly turned, with maintenance dropping at WDW, huge discounts (in a way, still recovering from the 9/11 slump that hit WDW far worse than DL), and endless special events that are now meaningless (they've been celebrating something constantly since October 1, 1999, except for a couple months). Then again, I would have been pretty surprised if they were going to close the park directly across from DL, so it's kind of a moot point. >>(remember when Eisner toyed around with the idea of selling EPCOT and threatened to close Euro Disney?)<< I don't remember Eisner talking about that, but I do recall reading that part of the reason Epcot's location was chosen was that it could be sold off more easily. It was built at a time when TWDC was having a long stretch of tough times, and came very close to killing the company. At the time it was the largest private construction job ever undertaken. Luckily it turned out to be a success (though it did take some years to really build attendance), so it stayed a part of TWDC, and they didn't need to sell the company off in pieces. While I've done some reading about this time, I'd like to do a lot more; the implications of Epcot's potential failure were huge, and could have created a very very different Disney than we know today. I believe shortly after Eisner took over, work began on the movie park (using his insider knowledge from his time at Paramount), so there wouldn't have been much time to talk about selling Epcot.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>If it had really truly been a hopeless failure...<< Well, there's a new thought, at least. No, DCA was not a "hopeless" failure, but (by any reasonable measure), a failure it was. The frustration for me (and I am sure for others here) is the endless effort to lump all who call DCA a failure into one mold. We all have access to the same information (factual; and anecdotal), and when I put it together, it's pretty plain that the DCA of 2001 failed. It's not a matter of simply crying "DCA sucks!" and slamming the door. The other frustration is the presentation of alternative opinions as though they are the facts. Good example: "Disney set up a new paradigm with Disney-MGM (build small and expand later), which they have followed ever since." Not true, as evidenced by the fact that larger parks, including DCA itself, have opened since. The DCA of 2001 was presented to the public, to the investors, and internally at the Walt Disney Company as a fully designed theme park to complement Disneyland. Of course there was room for expansion (this is true of all theme parks), but the public reaction and subsequent fallout were most definitely not part of the original plan. And the wholesale reaction (hastily shuttered venues, cutbacks on personnel, quick-fix attractions) was most definitely not part of the original plan. Finally, what is happening now-- an unprecedented recasting of large swaths of the original DCA-- is definitely not part of the original plan.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>When DCA opened, I would not have called DL the flagship park of TWDC. That was around the time that WDW was getting hugely successful big-budget annual celebrations (Millennium Celebration, 100 Years of Magic, etc), while DL was literally rotting away. It really wasn't until the smash success of the 50th that the focus was shifted back to DL. In the time since then, the tables have clearly turned...<< I am inclined to agree with this. DIsneyland through the 1990s was languishing, and under the mindset of the same people who were making business and creative decisions for DCA. >>Then again, I would have been pretty surprised if they were going to close the park directly across from DL...<< You and me both. It has been surprising in recent years to learn that there were credible plans being floated to either close DCA, selectively demolish portions, or take it down and start over. In the long run, I cannot imagine that any of these schemes would have come to fruition.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "I believe shortly after Eisner took over, work began on the movie park (using his insider knowledge from his time at Paramount), so there wouldn't have been much time to talk about selling Epcot." In the late 1980's Eisner floated the idea of selling EPCOT and leasing it back as a way to raise cash for company expansion, specifically for the studio, if I'm not mistaken. Remember that back then the WDCO was not the gigantic billion dollar enterprise that it is today.
Originally Posted By Mickeymouseclub <The frustration to lump everybody into the DCA Failure Mode> I share your frustration except it is the exact opposite. So we are either DCA was failure or DCA was a success. Neither is correct and neither is wrong but this information being presented as fact not fiction is very frustrating. I keep reminding myself this is just a spirited discussion without a spirit. I guarantee I have many wonderful memories of viewing the construction from the PP Pier elevator and many memories of the AP Previews and Grand DCA Opening Day and the first 2 years of special offerings/holiday themes...etc. I will never believe DCA was a failure. My memory does not say Failure and it was heavenly to have a DCA that was not crowded and full of construction walls. I vote not failure with a crowded future.
Originally Posted By Mickeymouseclub I wonder if DCA will ever be a financial success. How much will a day cost if we really had to recoup this investment over a year; over 10 years?
Originally Posted By dshyates fail·ure [feyl-yer] noun 1. act or instance of proving unsuccessful; lack of success 2. nonperformance of something due, required, or expected 3. subnormal quantity or quality; insufficiency 4. deterioration or decay, esp. of vigor, strength, etc. 5. insolvency 6. person or thing that proves unsuccessful 1,2,3, and 6 apply here I believe. And 5 is not the only answer.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 < The frustration for me (and I am sure for others here) is the endless effort to lump all who call DCA a failure into one mold.< That's not my effort. I realize you're not just saying "DCA sucks." But "DCA failed" is not correct either. It failed at certain things, and succeeded at others, both artistically and in the larger context of changing DL into DLR. Its record is mixed, and any mixed record can not be truthfully called failure-full-stop. The irony is I don't think our views of DCA as a park, what worked and what didn't, are all that radically different. Though you'd never know it sometimes. <Good example: "Disney set up a new paradigm with Disney-MGM (build small and expand later), which they have followed ever since." Not true, as evidenced by the fact that larger parks, including DCA itself, have opened since.> We've been through this. But DCA was hardly larger than MGM (and physically was smaller I believe). And remember historic context: The first secondary parks added to the Disney empire were EPCOT and MGM, obviously radically different models. MGM drew good crowds without spending nearly what they did on EPCOT. I believe Disney learned the wrong lesson from that (overlooking the different CA/FL demographics, and the difference between a 2nd park and a 3rd) and decided to go closer to the MGM model. All parks are unique, but come on now; which model does DCA MORE closely resemble - EPCOT or MGM? Same for WDSP and HKDL (a primary park, no less). DAK not so much, it's true. But that's most of the Disney-paid-for secondary parks since MGM, and even one primary park. <I share your frustration except it is the exact opposite. So we are either DCA was failure or DCA was a success. Neither is correct and neither is wrong > Thank you. Exactly.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >><The frustration to lump everybody into the DCA Failure Mode> I share your frustration except it is the exact opposite. So we are either DCA was failure or DCA was a success<< I alluded to this earlier. I agree it's just as unreasonable and frustrating for those who believe DCA was not a failure to be dismissed as "apologists" or worse, "defenders of mediocrity." I don't believe anyone has tried to make a case that DCA was a full-on success. And it would be a very hard position to defend. As pointed out in post #137, "failure" can also describe a matter of degree. The only way to refute the argument that DCA was a failure is to recast the whole thesis without any acknowledgement of these degrees.
Originally Posted By Mickeymouseclub ? So if I was writing a thesis and hoping for a grade based on truths It would be a failure maybe more than a success maybe ? Is that what you are saying? And if I was betting odds would I win with 51% failure or 49% success?
