Originally Posted By crapshoot <<If anything the "start small, add more later" has become the new normal for Disney-financed parks, and it started with MGM, not DCA.>> When DCA opened in 2001, management thought they had built the perfect park and expansions would occur later outside the bermless. Instead, they have had to chase their tail for the last ten years. My only complaint about the Pressler factor was that the arrogance management portrayed, was what forced them to take three steps backwards.
Originally Posted By Mr X Agreed, Crapshoot. Remember all the arrogant corporate hyping going on? How DCA was *certain* to be such a smash hit that it would be at capacity on a daily basis and disappointed guests would have to settle for Disneyland? And it's not as though they believed their own spin, either, at least not according to the people I talked to who had just built the place (Imagineers who were then working on their dream project, DisneySea, and had NOTHING good to say about DCA!).
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Don't believe the Disney hype. They may have thought they built a better park than they did, but they knew it wasn't perfect. They knew TOT was going in at some point, they knew they'd eventually be building out into the parking lot, etc. They knew what their experience was with MGM, and though they opened DCA more complete than MGM 1989, they knew they'd be expanding at DCA as well. But we're back to 2001 again. Must we?
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>But we're back to 2001 again. Must we?<< Apparently. Additions to Disney theme parks are, indeed, a given. These had been, previous to 2001, in response to public demand. Disneyland, the Magic Kingdom, Epcot, Disney-MGM, etc, etc. were greeted with large crowds who essentially demanded more of what they were experiencing. Plussing and additions were created to meet that demand. DCA was greeted with a tepid response, and the almost immediate fixes were not in response to demand, but rather to create demand. It was the case that numerous statements were made that indicated an expectation that was not met. There were also clear indications that expansion was not anticipated nearly as early as it began. The current scheme, to essentially reimagine the park, is unprecedented. Disney-MGM is still recognizably the same park, same theme it always was. Epcot's Future World changed incrementally, with World Showcase changes occurring at a glacial pace. After 55 years, Disneyland has seen growth and change, but at no period a wholesale change on anything approaching the level of what is happening at DCA in less than three years. And certainly, the amount of money being poured into this overhaul has no precedent in any other Disney theme park. The DCA that opened to the public in 2001 failed, and every effort is being made to turn it around. Recent steps (Midway Mania, World of Color, entry changes) have been steps in the right direction. (And now for that vindication for all! Pump those fists in the air and cry out "Yeah!!! I was RIGHT, suckers!!! I TOLD you so!!!!")
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 First, I miss Jon ... I really do. And we certainly didn't agree on everything. And when I hear people talking about arrogance from the leaders of TWDC and P&R, I do laugh a bit (or more). You'll be hardpressed to find folks who are more arrogant and sure of themselves as Bob Iger and Jay Rasulo (can't say about Tom Staggs as I have heard mixed things, but do believe he at least likes the parks). I don't see any change in direction at the top from Eisner's days in many ways ... DCA was a problem and it would be idiotic to think if he were still CEO that changes wouldn't have been made either. At least DL (and DCA) don't have the stale, neglected vibe that WDW has had for years. And while I am not a huge fan of George K (he is about as honorable as the typical exec), I do believe he does want to get the basics right in Anaheim and that is something I won't say about the TDO folks.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost I'll be honest here...I don't know much about DCA. I had heard about it, had heard that it wasn't doing well and didn't give it much thought. Then in 05 I paid a visit to both DL and DCA. I remember thinking...I know what is wrong with this picture. They misread their audience by miles. Riding on the successes of WDW, I think they thought they could theme an outhouse and people would flock to it. Euro-Disney was not so much a misread as a classic European rejection of anything that they considered Western World. They eventually decided that it was kinda fun there and started to go. No, what the execs forgot was the level of perceived sophistication possessed by Californians, in general. They could embrace DL because it was historic, traveled by Walt himself. DL was a place to be seen and to, literally, worship. A shrine, a cult and on top of that it was fun. DCA was seen by most in the area as "poor mans" park. I immediately noticed that except for a few splatterings of Mickey here and there it was just any other amusement park. Almost a traveling show. It still is and even more so now since they decided to take down the covering on the swings and just admit that they had a carnival and not a theme park. Even if they had named it something different like DL II or something. The vast majority of visitors at either park are residents of California. The California adventure is all around them. What thrill could Disney put up that compares to the constant threat of a major Earthquake that might level parts of the state at any moment. Call it arrogance, if you like. I call it lack of research and ability to really see what they were building here. An inexcusable lack of vision and intelligence in what they were offering. The exact opposite of Walt's dream. DCA is a place where parents take their kids and sit on a bench eating peanuts and watching them have a good time. It was a teen park and, unfortunately because of it's squeaky clean Disney image, was a place they didn't have any desire to go and if they did, it was the parents that had to pay, and there wasn't much there for them to do, so they didn't want to go either. It was a loser on the drawing board...like developing a screen door for a submarine. A new idea but without any demand. I walked around there for quite a while and with the exception of Soarin saw absolutely nothing that I felt a need to see or experience. (Soarin was new then to WDW and I hadn't seen it and it was a walk on in DCA) I saw a lot of bits and pieces of WDW's Epcot, Hollywood Studies and DAK but it was almost like WDW blew up and pieces landed randomly in the DL parking lot. Unless they bulldozed it back to a parking lot and started over, I doubt that any amount of money will fix it.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***I saw a lot of bits and pieces of WDW's Epcot, Hollywood Studies and DAK but it was almost like WDW blew up and pieces landed randomly in the DL parking lot*** rotflmao! ***Unless they bulldozed it back to a parking lot and started over, I doubt that any amount of money will fix it*** Many disagree with me, but frankly I think the issue they STILL haven't addressed is the theme. California. Yuck. We've got at this point five magic kingdoms, a "world's fair" with a futuristic side, two movie studios, an ocean themed park, an animal park, and a park dedicated to California. Which of the above is the most limiting? Aside from the two studios, (which, let's face it, is Disney encroaching on Universal's turf and they'll probably never surpass), the weakest park by far has always been DCA. And that's because the theme is just so darned limiting compared to the other efforts. I truly believe they should've gone with "Disney's America" right off the bat, and taken some stuff from that ill fated project to begin with. Whether they could cut and paste it together at this point is doubtful (and would absolutely admit failure, so it's never gonna happen), but that's what they should've done from the beginning. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it!
Originally Posted By Mr X ***California. Yuck.*** For the record, and before everyone breaks out the pitchforks, I LOVE California. Adore it. Longed to live there in my youth. Love to visit in my adulthood. It's a wonderful state. But, at the end of the day, it IS just a state. I wouldn't be interested in Disney's Texas Adventure or Disney's New York Adventure either.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo >>> Total amnesty in the spirit of looking forward to a great big beautiful tomorrow!<<< I better go then. I liked the concept of what DCA was trying 10 years ago, and I hate the tooning of the park.
Originally Posted By Mr X Dave, would you not think a "Disney's America" concept would've worked better? At least you agree that what they ended up with sucked, do you not? Toons are, I agree, overly done and WAY inappropriate as a catch all for DisCo these days (even in my beloved DisneySea, which was blissfully sparse for toons back in the opening days save for small, tastefully done pockets such as the stunning Mermaid Lagoon).
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo No, I don't X. I do not think California can be compared to any state in the Union. It is the most diverse and has a very rich history. while the eastern seaboard has an interesting history, or the south, they do not have the environmental or except in NYC's case, the demographic diversity. IMHO the theme has never been the problem, it is what what they did with it. Had the park included a fully fledged dark ride of the state's history of PotC quality, a turn of the century San Francisco, an 18th century San Diego, a fur trapper camp and gold mine of the mid 19th, a 1930's Hollywood etc. The park would have been a huge hit, I am pretty sure. A sit com diner instead of a Soap Opera one, an attraction with the factories, water craft on the lake, cable cars etc. and for a thrill ride, a high speed chase in the Streets of San Francisco, A full berm with Grizzly Peak at the back of the park to mask the real world. This would have been a huge hit. Have you ever looked at the detailed schematics of Disney's America? DCA was not hugely different except for the lack of the industrial revolution/Civil War area (which they still could have done in California too). There is a very rich vein to tap into the Golden State. and I would rather have Circle of Hands than the Little Mermaid, the Pier is just lipstick on a pig and I have no interest in TSMM. The makeover of the entrance and hollywood is still California, and Carsland could exist without the tooning of it and would be just as popular iMHO. And we miss the farm, we really do, as many of the crops grown there, Sarah had never seen outside of a grocery store given the climate of the UK, but I bet many Orange County visitors don't see all those crops every day.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo I would much rather have the parade from the opening year than Little Mermaid. I would rather visit Le Visionarium than ride Buzz, and I have little interest in the additions at TDS since ToT. But I know I am in the minority, and am looking for new places to visit that are family friendly.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***I do not think California can be compared to any state in the Union*** Meh. Even if it's arguably the "best" state, it's still just a state. And that is way small potatoes as far as the scope of all the other Disney parks, which is my main point. You can disagree, but I think they dropped the ball from day one. Disney's America might have worked, but Disney's California had disaster written all over it from day one.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Had the park included a fully fledged dark ride of the state's history of PotC quality, a turn of the century San Francisco, an 18th century San Diego, a fur trapper camp and gold mine of the mid 19th, a 1930's Hollywood etc. The park would have been a huge hit, I am pretty sure. A sit com diner instead of a Soap Opera one, an attraction with the factories, water craft on the lake, cable cars etc. and for a thrill ride, a high speed chase in the Streets of San Francisco, A full berm with Grizzly Peak at the back of the park to mask the real world. This would have been a huge hit*** Well, your assumptions of what makes for a "huge hit" aside, nothing you wrote here sounds particularly compelling to me. sorry.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo I do disagree. California has the economy that is bigger than most nations around the world, and was it's own country for a time. Most people who live in it don't appreciate it's greatness, and most who do not are either jealous or ignorant of it. I am serious, the richness of California is amazing and the theme is not the problem, just the execution. Or put it another way, look at TDS. Before it was built, if the concept was pitched, most people would have probably thought it would be another Sea world.
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<Many disagree with me, but frankly I think the issue they STILL haven't addressed is the theme.>> I go one layer deeper than the theme of the park and that's the bones of the park. Until they deal with the limitless and unimmersive sightlines, the park will always have a preception problem. Cars Land should help, but there are internal sightlines that ruin the all important immersive effect that Disney was always slick at creating.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo >>>Well, your assumptions of what makes for a "huge hit" aside, nothing you wrote here sounds particularly compelling to me.<<< That's like saying TDS is a few rides scattered around a body of water. The ride count is not impressive, but the detail is. FWIW, I think the Little Mermaid area of the park was a mistake too, nothing compelling for me there either.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>... I think they thought they could theme an outhouse and people would flock to it.<< Worse, there was a perception that they could simply stick the word "Disney" on an outhouse and people would flock to it.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I had a friend was a big baseball player back in high school He could throw that speedball by you Make you look like a fool boy Saw him the other night at this roadside bar I was walking in, he was walking out We went back inside sat down had a few drinks but all he kept talking about was Glory days well they'll pass you by Glory days in the wink of a young girl's eye Glory days, glory days
