Originally Posted By SpokkerJones ""They do this to all their parks" -jonvn No, nonvn, actually they don't." Did he ever cite any examples?
Originally Posted By Mr X He could have. His main point was that all the parks undergo changes and refurbishments and additions from time to time, and that much is certainly true. MGM scrambled in the opening years to add to a park that wasn't nearly full enough at opening. Half of Epcot has been practically gutted and re-sewn back together in an attempt to remain relevant. Certainly Disneyland has undergone major changes and renovations over the years. From taking care of Tomorrowland in the early days to, well, trying to take care of Tomorrowland later on, and revamping Fantasyland and stuff like that. It is simply the *scale* of the attempt at rectifying the DCA debacle that Jon refused to cop to.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Maybe jonvn and mousermerf were the same person?> Most definitely not. <Dabob2, then are you also of the opinion that the 1.2 Billion dollar DCA makeover project of 2009-12 is something that Disney does to all of their parks? Do you feel that the makeover project is not exceptional in any meaningful way, and in no way means that Pressler's version of DCA was unsuccesful? > DCA when it opened was (and still is) a mixed bag. Not a great park, but neither was it the "hell hole" or "ghetto" that some literally described it as being, with a straight face. It actually was a better and more complete park than MGM was when it opened (with a grand total of seven attractions). In its first dozen years that park more than doubled its attraction count, and though I've never seen figures, probably more than doubled its initial outlay also, adding (among other things) Star Tours, Muppets 4D (and the accompanying area), TOT (and its accompanying area), the Honey I Shrunk area, Rock-n-Roller Coaster, Fantasmic, Voyage of LM, various shows, etc. Disney does always make additions to its parks, and when you look at what they did to MGM especially, the additions to DCA in its first dozen years are not so radical. The only thing actually unprecedented (a much overused word here) is re-doing the entrance, but that's because DCA's entrance was its weakest area, whereas MGM's entrance was probably its strongest, especially on opening day (the rest being mostly boring sound studio facades). Of course, MGM was a third park, not a second, and because of that - and because WDW visitors had already gotten used to the 5-7 day stay paradigm and bought week-long hopper tickets anyway, and thus if they found it to be a half-day park (as I certainly did), they could just hop back to MK or EPCOT to finish their day - and because it opened pre-internet... MGM basically got much more of a pass than DCA did from the hyper-critical local SoCal market. Disney miscalculated building too closely to the MGM model for a second gate for an entirely different demographic. <Checks calendar. Nope, still 2011. Huh.> LOL! I've said some version of the above many times. We've all offered our opinions, countless times. Some really liked the place, some thought it was some blight on humanity, some (like me) thought it had its high points and its low. We're not going to agree, and that's what makes the world go round. Maybe time to look forward?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Maybe time to look forward?<< I think so. I hereby use the powers vested in me by absolutely no one on Earth to declare that both sides in the Great DCA Debates are hereby totally vindicated in whatever views they had of the park back when it first opened, and now we can proceed to look at 2011 and beyond. There. That should fix everything. ; )
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "Doctor, heal thyself." That DCA 2.0 is an unprecedented move by Disney to resurrect a theme park that top executives have admitted was a fix is fact. This is what Bob Iger said after announcing the makeover, "The scope & scale of the DCA revival plan is unprecedented. We're talking about complete redos of certain sections of this theme park. In 10 years time, you won't even be able to recognize the place." He also said, "We're still working to assure the second gate is successful, in the spirit of candor, we have been challenged." It is not opinion, speculation or anything else but fact.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "MGM scrambled in the opening years to add to a park that wasn't nearly full enough at opening." It's still not a full day park and Disney doesn't quite care. They did as much as DCA did in order to improve the park during its early years. "Half of Epcot has been practically gutted and re-sewn back together in an attempt to remain relevant." It was 17 years from opening day to the day Test Track opened, which sort of sparked the whole, "We need thrill rides lol even though Epcot is still pulling in 10 million visitors per year. Children can't go five minutes without a thrill ride!" "Certainly Disneyland has undergone major changes and renovations over the years." In 1959 Walt Disney added three E-Tickets, he didn't re-theme Main Street for goodness sake. Fantasyland was re-themed 28 years after the park opened. There is simply no comparison between DCA 2.0 and anything that has happened at any Disney theme park in the world. However, I'm still waiting for Disney Studios Paris' billion euro makeover.
Originally Posted By Mr X So the first example *did* do as much as DCA, as you say, but still not enough. The second example also occured, it just took a while. And the third example was a long time coming, but note that it didn't include Main Street. BUT, there's simply no comparison. er, k... <---backs away slowly from topic
Originally Posted By Manfried Is there any truth to the rumor that they were going to rename it Disney's Magic Mountain? (Yes, my tongue is planted in my cheek.)
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <Is there any truth to the rumor that they were going to rename it Disney's Magic Mountain? (Yes, my tongue is planted in my cheek.)> right! 'cause if it's good enough for Six Flags!
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <That DCA 2.0 is an unprecedented move by Disney to resurrect a theme park that top executives have admitted was a fix is fact.> No, it's an opinion. What Iger said is known as "corporate hype to make the coming changes sound exciting." I remember when Universal opened the Mummy coaster, the hype was that it was going to be "unprecedented in themeing on any roller coaster ever!" And in your very next post... <They did as much as DCA did in order to improve the park during its early years.> Yes. Yes they did. And they happened first. So by definition the DCA improvements are not unprecedented. The "lesson" Disney corporate learned from MGM is that you could open an incomplete park and get away with it. What they never seemed to get is that it was a THIRD park in a resort that already had two fully fleshed out parks, water parks, and a demographic that was already staying a week. Even so, they opened DCA the way they did, WDSP the way they did (I haven't seen the place, but davewasbaloo and others I trust say that it was REALLY skimpy when it opened), and now even HKDL as a pretty incomplete FIRST (!) gate. They didn't pay for TDS, of course. So since MGM, the "build small, add more later" thing has been their model, with the possible exception of DAK - and even there, though it looks great, it opened light on attractions and a lot of people still regard it as a half-day park, though a lot of that depends on how much you enjoy zoos and looking at animals (I like the park very much myself, but I enjoy animals, and so attractions like the gorilla trail, tiger trail, and bird show work for me, though I know people who don't like zoos can be bored stiff there). So not only is DCA not unprecedented, they've continued to open parks with that same basic model for the last 22 years. It's pretty much the new paradigm for them, in fact.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>...both sides in the Great DCA Debates are hereby totally vindicated in whatever views they had of the park back when it first opened, and now we can proceed to look at 2011 and beyond.<< May this also apply to qualified opinions formed after the place first opened? Pretty please?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>May this also apply to qualified opinions formed after the place first opened? Pretty please?<< Absolutely. Vindication for all! Everyone gets to pump a fist in the air and cry out "Yeah!!! I was RIGHT, suckers!!! I TOLD you so!!!!" regardless. Qualified, unqualified, conspiracy theorists, apologists, bashers, you-name-it. Total amnesty in the spirit of looking forward to a great big beautiful tomorrow! Come on, everyone, big group picture. Squeeze in!
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<And who'd have thunk that Crapshoot would still be creating threads about DCA in 2011. Whatever happened to that millennium bug too?>> I am just finishing up an APA style paper for one of my Project Management courses that compares the level of theming and detail of a few like DL attractions to similar DCA attractions. The premise is that it was that disparity between the two parks' level of theming that was the major reason for DCA to draw low attendance figures. So I sat outside the exits at various attractions of both parks, same time frames and counted riders. I was even brave enough to ask simple questions regarding preceptions of story through theming, density of theming and emotional connection due to theming. I was never hassled by park CM's, but I kept it on the downlow. So yes, my reintroduction to the history of DCA is what generated this topic. And heck, it was a lot of fun even if not necessarly a provable hypothesis. Next topic will be: How is it that the original Disneyland Parking Lot was more profitable in its day, than DCA has ever been?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Absolutely. Vindication for all! Everyone gets to pump a fist in the air and cry out "Yeah!!! I was RIGHT, suckers!!! I TOLD you so!!!!" regardless. > Several of us even predicted THAT back in 2001. And 2002. And 2003. And 2004...
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "And in your very next post... <They did as much as DCA did in order to improve the park during its early years.> Yes. Yes they did. And they happened first. So by definition the DCA improvements are not unprecedented. " Yes, DCA added attractions in its early years, but that would or should have happened anyway whether DCA was doing well or not. Disneyland was the most popular theme park in the world in its heyday, and Walt Disney was adding attractions left and right.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "No, it's an opinion. What Iger said is known as "corporate hype to make the coming changes sound exciting."" Corporations are known for hype, but they usually don't say they are investing in a park because they are being challenged to make it a success. The implication that DCA sucks was a rare moment of candor.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Of course, he didn't say that. What he essentially said was "we didn't get the desired numbers" and of course that's true. And in the other post you just make my point again. DCa's additions are not unprecedented. If anything the "start small, add more later" has become the new normal for Disney-financed parks, and it started with MGM, not DCA.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Especially since, with EuroDisney, they started big and highly elaborate in terms of detail and still lost a fortune. That EuroDisney experience was one huge factor in keeping DCA more modest at opening.
