Originally Posted By Dabob2 >>...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.> Yes, exactly. MGM's attendance was not the dispute. >>...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.> Actually you did imply something. I had earlier said that "some people liked it." You responded with "sure did" and then proceeded to document attendance, as though attendance equals likes. I attended and didn't like that much. I know I can't be alone. But if you're staying a week at WDW and have a hopper, which most people did, of course you're going to ATTEND. Whether you liked it or not is a separate question. <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 fine. But the leap from "good attendance" (which no one disputes) to "they must have liked it" doesn't follow. <The above is NOT the subject of dispute. It is the idea that D-MGM set some sort of paradigm.> It did. And it did precisely BECAUSE it was more successful than they figured on. They then figured they could get away with that model in Anaheim, despite the fact that DCA was a). a second park, rather than a third, and b). DLR has a wildly different demographic than WDW. It was a major miscalculation. DAK was larger physically but also opened with a modest number of attractions (which is why I called it a partial exception). TDS was not financed by Disney. WDSP and HKDL are clearly "open small, build more later." DCA is the second link in that chain, not the first.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "He DID answer your question about in 2001 (in addition to 1989)..." No he didn't.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "5 years from now, we'll still be having this debate." It's been going for 10 years now. I'd bet that it'll go for at least another 10 if not longer.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt As long as Doug and Dabob2 are around we can be certain that we've got another decade of bickering to go.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>"He DID answer your question about in 2001 (in addition to 1989)..." No he didn't.<< Sorry that I wasn't clear. What I said back in post #248 was: >> >>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.<< No one can "know" the answer to the question, but I believe that D-MGM, opened as it was in 1989 in place of DCA in 2001 would probably have been better received, but not necessarily well received. Is that clear enough...?
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>As long as Doug and Dabob2 are around we can be certain that we've got another decade of bickering to go. << I just have to keep reminding myself that engaging in a debate with certain posters here is like entering into a land war in Asia...!
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>No, it won't. Only 5 more. That's it.<< In five years we'll be arguing the advisability of opening a toy shop under a bridge.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >><The above is NOT the subject of dispute. It is the idea that D-MGM set some sort of paradigm.> It did.<< So that's just the, uh, facts of the matter? Debate over? Case closed? Etc. etc?
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "Is that clear enough...?" Yes. What you're saying is that you don't think it would have done as well as it did when it opened at WDW and I agree. Where I disagree is that I don't think it would have performed at well as DCA did.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan My longstanding belief is that had DCA opened at a slightly lower gate price compared to Disneyland, it would have been enough to temper expectations a bit and ward off at least some measure of the "DCA sucks" diatribes. But when you're paying the exact same price as Disneyland, naturally people will make value comparisons, and by that measure, DCA was not on equal footing. Fewer attractions for the same price. But they didn't ask me. ; )
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost ^^^^I certainly hope that they learned from that mistake. Do they have your phone number? Have them put it on speed dial.
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<Donuts! You forgot the donuts!!!>> That's Texas Donuts if you please.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I just have to keep reminding myself that engaging in a debate with certain posters here is like entering into a land war in Asia...!> My Mongol hordes are invincible, thank you very much. <So that's just the, uh, facts of the matter? Debate over? Case closed? Etc. etc?> One would hope that one doesn't have to insert "IMO" next to EVERY sentence. <Oh. And I forgot, "That's so simplistic!"> Not when I can explain why it's so.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Yes. What you're saying is that you don't think it would have done as well as it did when it opened at WDW and I agree. Where I disagree is that I don't think it would have performed at well as DCA did.> Yeah, me too. When I saw it in '89 it seemed a really pale imitation of USH, but then most WDW visitors have probably never seen USH. Most DL visitors probably have. MGM '89 in Anaheim would have been trashed big time, I think.
Originally Posted By pwrof3 The Disney Anaheim Resort area can never be the force that the Florida Resort is simply because of construction limitations. Maybe if Disney bought the entire city of Anaheim and levelled it, then something could happen. I have lived in Southern CA all of my life and used to visit Disneyland once a year when I was growing up. Now with the "resort" I still don't see much to do if a family from out of state stayed for a week. They'd be better off going to Florida.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "Now with the "resort" I still don't see much to do if a family from out of state stayed for a week." There are enough diversions within 50-100 miles of DLR for it to be the "hub" of a Southern California vacation. The region makes up for what DLR lacks, and California is a lot more interesting place to visit than Central Florida, that's for sure.
