Originally Posted By Dabob2 <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.> We have no problem then. I found MGM decidedly mediocre (as in "could have been a lot better") when it opened, and I'm convinced that without the wildly different WDW demographic and people who were staying all week anyway that it would have done worse than DCA did, but some people liked it. Some people liked DCA much better than I did. That's valid too. And by the way, we agree totally on the current DHS. The one thing MGM had for me when it opened was a certain coherence, but what's there now is sort of "neither fish nor fowl." Or muddled, as you put it. It's kind of like Knott's in that respect for me - I like many of the additions, but it lost a lot of its "feel" in the process.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "...and I'm convinced that without the wildly different WDW demographic and people who were staying all week anyway that it would have done worse than DCA did...." For sure. Can you imagine the response if the exact same park had been built in Anaheim instead of DCA?
Originally Posted By Ohana I havent been to Florida in many years now, but am fond of the Great Movie Ride. What has happened to it? (in detail if you please)
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>...but some people liked it.<< Sure did. From May 2, 1989: >>Despite a cloudy sky and scattered rain, a massive wave of tourists Monday descended on Walt Disney's latest fantasy--a movie industry theme park--forcing officials to close the gates within an hour of opening them. The size of the opening-day crowd caught the film and entertainment giant by surprise...<< <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/1989-05-02/business/fi-2636_1_chief-executive-eisner-epcot-center-disney-mgm-studios-theme-park" target="_blank">http://articles.latimes.com/19...eme-park</a> From November 17, 1989: >>Walt Disney Co., bolstered by the success of its movie theme park in Florida, announced Thursday that it will open a similar attraction in 1996 next to its planned Euro Disneyland park in France... The Disney MGM Studios Theme Park at Orlando, Fla., has been attracting capacity crowds since it opened in May. Disney announced plans in August to double the size of the $500-million attraction.<< <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/1989-11-17/entertainment/ca-1531_1" target="_blank">http://articles.latimes.com/19...a-1531_1</a> From January 10, 1990: >>If Walt Disney Co. had to select a mascot for its theme parks, Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck might be passed up in favor of a new character: Cash Cow... Last year, Disney opened its $500-million Disney-MGM Studios Theme Park to capacity crowds as part of its 27,000-acre Walt Disney World in Florida. Walt Disney World will officially add more than 2,000 hotel rooms this year...<< <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/1990-01-10/business/fi-253_1_theme-park" target="_blank">http://articles.latimes.com/19...eme-park</a> So, Disney-MGM opens to a massive wave of guests, attracts capacity crowds for a year, and inspires the Company to add more capacity and more hotel rooms on property. Disney's California Adventure opens to tepid crowds, limps through a year of benign indifference from the public, and features a number of highly public closures of venues. But other than that, the early history of the two parks is exactly alike!
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>I havent been to Florida in many years now, but am fond of the Great Movie Ride. What has happened to it?<< Oh, Ohana, where to begin? How about with the first scene-- "By a Waterfall." The marvelous fountain of Busby Berkely chorines hasn't budged an inch in years. In fact, they've hung a scrim in front of it on which they project images from the film. AAs are routinely missing, broken, or just bad looking. Our last trip there was no alien queen in the ceiling, and no Tarzan swinging through the trees. Cast members no longer seem to really care about "selling" the interaction with the attraction. And if that doesn't work, the rest of it doesn't really work. But hey, other than that, it's just fine!
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "But other than that, the early history of the two parks is exactly alike!" Doug, the wild success of Disney/MGM vs the less than stellar performance of DCA is not what's being debated here. Everyone understands and knows how the parks performed. What is being said is that a number of key comparisons can be made between the dramatic growth and change of the two parks ten years after they first opened their gates. In your opinion, do you believe that if Disney/MGM circa 1989 would have performed equally as well as it did had it been built in Anaheim instead of DCA?
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>What is being said is that a number of key comparisons can be made between the dramatic growth and change of the two parks ten years after they first opened their gates.<< Yes, and some of us believe that the comparisons aren't really all that valid, and what is happening at DCA really is unprecedented. I don't know why this view is so difficult for some people to either accept or reject without going nuclear. >>In your opinion, do you believe that if Disney/MGM circa 1989 would have performed equally as well as it did had it been built in Anaheim instead of DCA?<< In 1989? Almost certainly, although I can't really know any better than anyone else. In 2001 it could hardly have done any worse than DCA. Bear in mind that I was a big fan of the original Disney-MGM, so my judgement is hardly objective. I have also never been part of the "DCA sucks!" crowd, as I find that a rather simplistic view. I do believe, quite sincerely, that DCA demonstrably failed, and that the current work being done is unprecedented. Not unprecedented in the sense that there have never been changes or additions to a Disney theme park, but unprecedented for its scale, as well as for the reason it is being performed.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt >>What is being said is that a number of key comparisons can be made between the dramatic growth and change of the two parks ten years after they first opened their gates.<< “Yes, and some of us believe that the comparisons aren't really all that valid, and what is happening at DCA really is unprecedented. I don't know why this view is so difficult for some people to either accept or reject without going nuclear.” Doug some of the frustration comes when you present arguments that have nothing at all to do with the current roster of changes coming DCA. For example: “So, Disney-MGM opens to a massive wave of guests, attracts capacity crowds for a year, and inspires the Company to add more capacity and more hotel rooms on property. Disney's California Adventure opens to tepid crowds, limps through a year of benign indifference from the public, and features a number of highly public closures of venues”. The reasons for the changes at the two parks aren’t being debated here at all. >>In your opinion, do you believe that if Disney/MGM circa 1989 would have performed equally as well as it did had it been built in Anaheim instead of DCA?<< "In 1989?" No. In 2001. I specifically said instead of DCA. “Bear in mind that I was a big fan of the original Disney-MGM, so my judgement is hardly objective. I have also never been part of the "DCA sucks!" crowd, as I find that a rather simplistic view. I do believe, quite sincerely, that DCA demonstrably failed, and that the current work being done is unprecedented.” Which do you think was better at opening, DCA or Disney/MGM Studios?
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Doug some of the frustration comes when you present arguments that have nothing at all to do with the current roster of changes coming DCA.<< I can only respond to what is being presented. The argument that was being advanced was that the history of D-MGM's early years created a valid precedent for what is happening at DCA. I disagree, and presented evidence to support my opinion. >>No. In 2001. I specifically said instead of DCA.<< And you also said "circa 1989," which made me decide to answer for both 1989 AND 2001: "In 2001 it could hardly have done any worse than DCA." >>Which do you think was better at opening, DCA or Disney/MGM Studios?<< Disney-MGM Studios. (And I was there a month after it opened, even before they had the entire Stunt Show up and running.) Both parks had a huge, pent-up anticipation factor, but only one delivered (and it weren't DCA!).
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Which do you think was better at opening, DCA or Disney/MGM Studios?*** This question wasn't directed at me or others, but I'll answer anyway. MGM, by far.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***>>In your opinion, do you believe that if Disney/MGM circa 1989 would have performed equally as well as it did had it been built in Anaheim instead of DCA?<< "In 1989?" No. In 2001. I specifically said instead of DCA*** He DID answer your question about in 2001 (in addition to 1989), and then you quoted him out of context. Pretty weak, dude.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost OK, OK the damn thing was unprecedented. Now can we move on to a discussion that means anything? Why does it matter? On a list of trivia questions it would end up at the very bottom of the list. DCA didn't work so they are making an attempt to fix that. Will it be enough? Will anyone that has Disneyland as a destination really switch their allegiance to the "other" park? In my opinion, only if they unique it and make it Disneylandish and not be an amusement park that they can get too in a million other places. Answering the question of would Disney/MGM worked in Anaheim. Not just no, but hell no. Not with Universal just down the road. No matter how good the park might have ended up, it wouldn't hold a candle to Universal Hollywood. The backlot tour alone, complete with history, would have beat them to a pulp. No, Disney, in California, needed to stick to what it did best and that was to bring fantasy to life. The others were already light years ahead in the reality business. It could work in Florida because it didn't have the, pardon the use of this word, "precedence" establish by others in the area.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***OK, OK the damn thing was unprecedented. Now can we move on to a discussion that means anything?*** By all means, start a new topic. That's how you move on to other stuff. It's neat. Try it. If I see it, I'll try and respond if it's a fun or interesting topic. ***Why does it matter?*** It doesn't, really. This is a discussion board, we discuss stuff. ***On a list of trivia questions it would end up at the very bottom of the list*** Welcome to LaughingPlace. The entire PLACE is a series of trivia questions for most folks. We like it. We comment. That's what it is.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost I know that..but this has been beaten into the ground. All it has amounted to is "it's precedented or unprecedented with the same arguments repeated over and over and over again. There are a lot of points that could be made about how you fix something that big and make it relevant as opposed to "it hasn't been done before, yes it has, no, it hasn't, yes, it has, NO it hasn't. If it happened before or not has absolutely no relevance what does have relevance is what are they going to do to it to make a difference.
Originally Posted By Mr X Well, sure. The "relevance" is what will the future hold (that's pretty obvious), but that doesn't mean there's no reason to discuss past and present. As to the future, I predict the entire effort will be another colossal flop. And we'll be having another discussion 10 years from NOW about whether or not DCA 3.0 will improve on the other versions. Assuming DisCo doesn't go bankrupt in the process.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Not just no, but hell no*** I think it would've been fine. At least as successful as DCA, if not more (like Doug said, can't get much worse!). I sincerely doubt the fact that an aging Universal Studios down the road that almost nobody goes to anymore would've made much difference one way or the other.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost >>>At least as successful as DCA<<< Isn't this whole thread about how DCA wasn't successful? How DCA compared to Disney/MGM? Universal Hollywood isn't doing the big numbers, (I assume that's true, I have no way of knowing), because it is something that the locals do not have an interest in as a recreational investment. They live in Hollywood or surrounding areas. It has the same stigma to locals as DCA had and that is "been there, done that, with an added, I live that everyday. Those of us on the East Coast don't get to see that everyday, so we literally fall all over ourselves to get an inside glimpse of how it is done. Which may even have been the reason for DCA to begin with. Disneyland had its cult following and Disney felt that they needed something to pull people in, maybe make it an international destination like WDW had become. But it didn't work and that is why I think Disney/MGM wouldn't have worked in California either. I don't think I need to tell you that the West Coast and the East coast are worlds apart.
