Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "I know that..but this has been beaten into the ground" The issue of whether or not Disneyland will be busy on a certain day has been run into the ground. Perhaps you should consider running those folks out of town.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost Really, if I didn't want to see it I just wouldn't click onto the thread but it is starting to be a challenge to keep track of how many times the same thing can be said. So I tune in, but I will try not to participate any further and get sucked into the topic. My fault there.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 < But other than that, the early history of the two parks is exactly alike!> I never said their history was exactly alike. Please don't put words in my mouth. The rest of your post was a recap of how MGM drew lots of visitors. No one disputes that. However, it did so because you had the vast majority of WDW attendees already staying a week and getting 5-7 day park hopper passes. Going to MGM was essentially "free." OF COURSE people already hunkered down for a week at WDW went to the new park. I know I did. I didn't much like it, though. (Which makes your implication that all those millions who visited did like it suspect). I was one of those millions who visited the park early on and thought "eh. It's 2:00 and I've seen it all. Guess I'll go back to EPCOT." I understand that you liked it. That's great. I (and my companions) liked the best bits of it, but not much overall. >>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.> Oh, I think it could have done worse. And would have. In 1989 or 2001. USH doesn't draw tremendously well, and that really IS a working studio with an interesting history, plus a number of what we call E-ticket rides. Imagine the pale imitation of a "real studio" that was D/MGM opening in USH's backyard. It would have been a joke. The online community would have trashed it harder than you can imagine. I believe the reaction would have been something like "Give me a break. The 'backlot' is a joke compared to Universal. The 'how we do it' technical shows are too similar and no better than Universal's, and there's one (ONE!) ride, which is okay, but nothing to write home about." I can't see any reason why SoCal visitors OR locals would have gone to an Anaheim MGM in big numbers when the "real thing" was 35 miles away. USF was always more theme park than real studio, so you had faux competing with faux. And with 2 fully realized parks already on property, it's easier just to go to the WDW version, especially for those tons of visitors who use WDW's internal transportation. MGM only did as well as it did because of the captive WDW audience, and the already-established park-hopper paradigm. <I do believe, quite sincerely, that DCA demonstrably failed, > And others of us believe, quite sincerely, that that is simplistic. It failed to draw what they wanted, but succeeded in changing the paradigm in Anaheim (which MGM would NOT have done, almost certainly). Artistically it failed in some areas, succeeded in others.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Goofyernmost, you're correct that this entire thread has been pretty much repeated numerous times since 2001. It'll be repeated again, I'd bet on it. There really is not anything new to say about DCA. But not unlike baseball fans endlessly debating who is the greatest hitter of all time and other stats, the subject of DCA remains controversial. It presents an endless amount of what if's, second guessing, and if only's. And each of us is sure (ranging from "pretty sure" to "I'm right, like it or lump it") that we've got it right, if only everyone else would concede the point and see our logic. 5 years from now, we'll still be having this debate.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>All it has amounted to is "it's precedented or unprecedented with the same arguments repeated over and over and over again.<< The only thing that keeps discussions like this alive are new arguments that are advanced, The latest new one: DCA is just Disney-MGM writ newer and larger. Some here feel it's a valid argument, others not so much. And so it goes.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 No kidding, 2oony. I refer you to Dug in post 9: "Do we hafta...?" (i.e. do we hafta rehash all this)... Then me in post 20: "It's kind of interesting to talk about the coming additions, how best to see WOC, good places to eat in DCA, what might replace Aladdin, etc. etc. Rehashing the same never-agreed-upon points from 5, 10, or (Lord help us) 15 1/2 years ago? Not so much." So both of us saying that rehashing all this is not useful, or even interesting. Then - both of us, along with others - doing exactly that. My name is Dabob2 and I'm a DCArgumentaholic.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>I never said their history was exactly alike. Please don't put words in my mouth.<< You are quite correct that you never said the words, "their history was exactly alike." (Nor did I say you had.) So, rather than put words in your mouth, here's what you actually have said... Post #43: >>...when you look at what they did to MGM especially, the additions to DCA in its first dozen years are not so radical... Disney miscalculated building too closely to the MGM model...<< Post #51: >>The "lesson" Disney corporate learned from MGM is that you could open an incomplete park and get away with it... they opened DCA the way they did... since MGM, the "build small, add more later" thing has been their model.<< Post #59: >>If anything the "start small, add more later" has become the new normal for Disney-financed parks, and it started with MGM...<< Post #63: >>They knew what their experience was with MGM... they knew they'd be expanding at DCA as well.<< Post #136: >>...the changes to DCA are no more radical than the changes to MGM in its first dozen years... it is the NEW "business as usual," and it started with MGM, not DCA. Since 1989, all of the secondary (and even the primary in the case of HKDL) parks that Disney financed have been on this "build small, add more later" model first seen in MGM...<< Post #160: >>The reason I picked a dozen years for MGM is because it's an even number that roughly corresponds to DCA's first dozen.<< Post #231: >>My other point was that the mediocrity did not begin with DCA, but with MGM... MGM started the new trend, and that's how they do things now.<<
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>DCArgumentaholic<< LOL! Welcome, Dabob. There's coffee and donuts after the meeting, but the coffee smells kind of burnt.* *Anyone who recognizes that little early DCA reference might also be a DCArgumentaholic.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <The latest new one: DCA is just Disney-MGM writ newer and larger. > It would help if you didn't misstate the argument. And so it goes indeed.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>...MGM drew lots of visitors. No one disputes that. However, it did so because you had the vast majority of WDW attendees already staying a week and getting 5-7 day park hopper passes.<< And this is a fact, or an opinion? 'Cause it's been presented as a fact all through this thread, even though most of us understand it is an opinion. (One I disagree with, for what it's worth.) >>I didn't much like it, though. (Which makes your implication that all those millions who visited did like it suspect).<< Really? I mean... think about it. >>I was one of those millions who visited the park early on and thought "eh.<< I was one of those millions who visited the park early on and thought "wow!" Different folks... different opinions. (But I certainly wouldn't go so far as to say that my "wow" makes the idea that visitors didn't like Disney-MGM suspect.)
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Re: 267 - and I stand by every one of those statements. There are definite and unmistakable similarities. The history of ANY two parks could never be the same, but the similarities are there for those willing to see. MGM set the precedent for "build small, build more later" that ALL Disney-financed parks, with the partial exception of DAK, have followed. If you are the second link in that chain, as DCA is, you did not set the precedent.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >><The latest new one: DCA is just Disney-MGM writ newer and larger. > It would help if you didn't misstate the argument.<< I invite perusal of post 267. >><I do believe, quite sincerely, that DCA demonstrably failed, > And others of us believe, quite sincerely, that that is simplistic.<< And it would be, if that was the sum total of the discussion. As it isn't, well, it isn't.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>...the coffee smells kind of burnt.* *Anyone who recognizes that little early DCA reference might also be a DCArgumentaholic.<< The Coffee Roasters at Bakersfield Bakery are NOT on trial here! I mean... Bakersfield Bakery was a total failure! The reek of roasting coffee was THE REASON that DCA failed! This assault on guest's olfactory senses is now being corrected in an UN-precedented manner! The preceding is all unassailable FACT.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>MGM set the precedent for "build small, build more later" that ALL Disney-financed parks, with the partial exception of DAK, have followed.<< And many of us here disagree with this. I wouldn't go so far as to typify it as "simplistic" or deride it for being presented as a "fact," however.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >>...MGM drew lots of visitors. No one disputes that. However, it did so because you had the vast majority of WDW attendees already staying a week and getting 5-7 day park hopper passes.<< <And this is a fact, or an opinion? 'Cause it's been presented as a fact all through this thread, even though most of us understand it is an opinion. (One I disagree with, for what it's worth.)> Really? Unlike DLR, the vast majority of WDW visitors are NOT locals. They are coming and staying, either on property or nearby. They are away from home on a vacation. And though I don't have the figures, I can't imagine (can you?) that the vast majority in 1989 didn't buy park hopper tickets. You did get a bit of a price break, so why in the world would anyone on vacation at WDW buy a series of one-day park tickets? Doesn't make sense. >>I didn't much like it, though. (Which makes your implication that all those millions who visited did like it suspect).<< <Really? I mean... think about it.> Yes, really. Because all those millions with park hoppers visited doesn't translate to "they liked it as well as DlDug did." Really. >>I was one of those millions who visited the park early on and thought "eh.<< <I was one of those millions who visited the park early on and thought "wow!"> And you have no more backing for this extrapolation than I do. Except that over the years here I think that more people have offered the opinion that MGM was "eh" rather than "wow." But even that's a small sample size - we're just offering our own views here. <Different folks... different opinions.> It would be nice if you'd learn that. <(But I certainly wouldn't go so far as to say that my "wow" makes the idea that visitors didn't like Disney-MGM suspect.)> What is suspect is your ASSUMPTION that those other millions shared your reaction. In other words, you implied that because it drew millions, most of those millions must have been wowed. Since I was one who was not wowed, I think that's a suspect assumption. I don't assume all the millions shared MY reaction either, but I know a goodly number must have, as many have said so here. The Alvin Squeakuel won its opening weekend. Do you think most of those people were wowed? Big numbers don't necessarily translate to that - as your post assumed.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 And others of us believe, quite sincerely, that that is simplistic.<< <And it would be, if that was the sum total of the discussion. As it isn't, well, it isn't.. Would that it wasn't. But you always seem to fall back on "DCA failed." Which is simplistic. <<It would help if you didn't misstate the argument.<< <I invite perusal of post 267.> So do I. You misstated the argument. >>MGM set the precedent for "build small, build more later" that ALL Disney-financed parks, with the partial exception of DAK, have followed.<< <And many of us here disagree with this.> MGM didn't build small and build more later? And it wasn't the first Disney park to open like that? Wasn't EPCOT. Unless you're saying it was DL, which I doubt, I don't think you have a leg to stand on here. <I wouldn't go so far as to typify it as "simplistic" or deride it for being presented as a "fact," however> Good.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>...all those millions with park hoppers visited doesn't translate to "they liked it as well as DlDug did." Really.<< Ah. I misunderstood. I thought this was about the number of guests who attended D-MGM in it's opening year, but it's really about MY reaction. Noted. >>...you implied that because it drew millions, most of those millions must have been wowed.<< No, I implied nothing, but rather provided documentation (newspaper articles of the time) to support the factual statement that Disney-MGM, unlike DCA, was well attended through its first year. Only when the implication that there was something "suspect" about this was raised did I offer the opinion that I was "wowed." Which I was. That's all.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>MGM didn't build small and build more later? And it wasn't the first Disney park to open like that?<< Sigh. I need to get to work. The above is NOT the subject of dispute. It is the idea that D-MGM set some sort of paradigm. Since the 1989 opening of D-MGM, parks have not been opened "smaller. DAK was larger. Disney Sea was larger. DCA was larger. ALL Disney theme parks add and change things. None of this is a matter of dispute. The discussion at hand is whether what is happening at DCA right now (not five years ago, not ten years ago, not in the mind of the designers of D-MGM in 1989) is "business as usual, or "unprecedented" (to use a succinct term). That's all. Really.
