Originally Posted By SpokkerJones Perhaps he liked it better when it was a parking lot. I wish Mr. Hench was still around now that everybody else is being so honest about DCA.
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<Perhaps he liked it better when it was a parking lot.>> The scuttle-butt around the halls and backalleys of WDC, as of three years ago, was that it as costing Disney about $5 a person when they walked through the turnstiles of DCA. And the figure was triple that for each guest who took in one of the Hyperion Theater shows. Unfortunately, the original parking lot was a better cash cow for Disney.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost Well, according to some at -$5.00 per head that would only amount to about $650.00 per year. So, no big problem.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "He can admit DCA was a huge turkey because he didnt approve of it." "Mediocre" and "huge turkey" are two completely different things. I wouldn't say that his comments about brand withdrawel in anyway suggested that DCA "sucks" as you so lovingly put it.
Originally Posted By WorldDisney Lol! Sorry, medicore turkey then, do u approve of that? My god, i see why few people come to this site anymore. And would love to see what they say of DCA behind closed doors. Bet the language is a little stronger than 'brand wthdrawal' and 'turkey' lol.
Originally Posted By Bob Paris 1 "We are going to try a Seine Cruise...." LOL! I originally read that as "senile cruise". I know you're getting up there Dave but that would be ridiculous! LOL!!!
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<"Mediocre" and "huge turkey" are two completely different things.>> Oh I don't know, anytime semantics becomes the argument . . . . . However, when the President and CEO of the WDC comes out and makes comments like these to the WSJ, then it is quite obvious that DCA's problems are known or precieved by Wall Street, not just fan sites. My belief is that the use of the word, mediocre was a very strong and serious description for Iger to have made. Now that DCA is on the radar scope it will be more closely watched by investors. My opinion here is that Disney is moving forward with DCA in a positive manner and with proper mindset. Thankfully.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "My god, i see why few people come to this site anymore." Do you think it's because some people have an issue with wild hyperbole? Or because the people that dish it out are offended for being taken to task for their extreme exaggerations? "My belief is that the use of the word, mediocre was a very strong and serious description for Iger to have made." Well of course it is, and it's an accurate description too. In fact, I used the exact same word to describe the park here in the years after it opened. In any case, that doesn't make "mediocre" equal to "huge turkey" or "it sucks!".
Originally Posted By CuriouserConstance Am I going crazy, or is someone using the words "huge turkey" to describe DCA?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 "Mediocre" means "fair to middling," with an implied meaning of "could have been better." Which is what I've always said about DCA. I usually say "mixed bag" since that's a more accurate acknowledgment of the parts of DCA that were well done, along with those that were semi-well done, and the parts that weren't done well at all. My other point was that the mediocrity did not begin with DCA, but with MGM, which was a decidedly mediocre park when it opened, and arguably still is and will be longer than DCA. Nor did DCA end the trend of Disney opening mediocre parks, as they continued to do so with WDSP and HKDL (and to a lesser degree DAK). In fact, there's only been one secondary Disney-financed park that's been top-notch right out of the box, and that was EPCOT nearly 30 years ago (and a trend of one does not a trend make). MGM started the new trend, and that's how they do things now.
Originally Posted By crapshoot (MGM started the new trend, and that's how they do things now.) How about; that's how they did things up until now. Obviously striking a better balance between cost and content with initial projects will be delt with with more scrutiny from this point forward. I don't believe that the untold cost of negative public relations and an under performing gate regarding DCA will ever be allowed again.
Originally Posted By tashajilek You know it's funny because the people who say DCA sucks are people who still go to the park! AKA mousermurf.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Obviously striking a better balance between cost and content with initial projects will be delt with with more scrutiny from this point forward. > No way to know till the next park is built. But the experience with DCA did not prevent them from building an even sparser park with WDSP, and even a sparse FIRST gate (!) with HKDL.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I think they're more likely to risk a sparser park in the future than take a gamble like EuroDisney. They can always add stuff as needed to a sparse park, but if they build something more elaborate and it doesn't take, that's a dicier problem. Some of the DCA cutbacks can be traced back to now wanting to repeat the experience of EuroDisney's early years.
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<I think they're more likely to risk a sparser park in the future than take a gamble like EuroDisney.>> Except ED dug itself out of trouble without significant makeovers. The only mistake made was not understanding the demographic and too many hotel rooms. But the park was able to right itself. DCA straightlined to under performance out of the gate. Again, I believe that they will strike a better balance in the future, if for no other reason, they have a different CEO with a much different mindset than the previous CEO.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>My other point was that the mediocrity did not begin with DCA, but with MGM, which was a decidedly mediocre park when it opened...<< I found Disney-MGM to be a far from mediocre park when it opened. In fact, it was far and away my favorite park at WDW, a small gem. "Small," of course, was the real problem, as it was almost immediately overwhelmed by guests who, apparently, found it just as attractive as I did. There was no sense (at the time) that it wasn't any good-- just that there needed to be more. The contrast with what happened at DCA couldn't be more pronounced. The public stayed away, the park was initially contracted (not expanded) as they closed shopping and dining venues, and efforts to create popularity via piecemeal additions failed until the new management had to take the rather unprecedented step of remaking the place. Do bear in mind that this is, after all, just my opinion; that we will have to agree to disagree; and when I say "I found Disney-MGM to be a far from mediocre park I'm not attempting to shut down the conversation with declarations.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "Except ED dug itself out of trouble without significant makeovers." Please. Euro Disney is still burdened with incredible debt that has contributed to the resort's horrible financial performance since day one. On the other hand DCA and DLR have never had any financial problems since DCA's debut, which can obviously attributed to Disney's reluctance to go overboard with the 2001 expansion budget. Point is, in the long term, DLR makes money for the company while Euro Disney remains a financial mess. "But the park was able to right itself." Yep, by cutting operating standards to a point so low that Southern California fans would be having seizures if DLR maintenance were to drop to such levels. I literally saw large swaths of mold growing on the towers of the castle on my last visit several years ago. >>My other point was that the mediocrity did not begin with DCA, but with MGM, which was a decidedly mediocre park when it opened...<< "I found Disney-MGM to be a far from mediocre park when it opened." Really? I thought it was OK, but pretty mediocre compared to the two other parks that were at WDW at the time. From the very start Disney/MGM always seemed like a park that was incomplete and rushed to the finish line (which it was). Beyond the nicely detailed Hollywood Blvd, Disney/MGM definitely felt cheaper to me than DCA did at opening.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>...pretty mediocre compared to the two other parks that were at WDW at the time.<< I didn't have a lot of experience with WDW at the time, so I didn't have a real basis of comparison. Over time, I came to realize what I liked about Disney-MGM. It was scaled closer to Disneyland, the park I "knew." I still prefer the smaller scale parks! I don't much care for the present Disney Hollywood Studios. Over the years the additions and changes have created, in my opinion, a badly muddled experience. And the Great Movie Ride is just a mess. I hate to say it, but it needs to be put out of its misery...
