Originally Posted By Mr X ***>>>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.*** Yes, it WOULD be like saying that if you'd actually invented a park on the level of DisneySea. But you haven't. You simply throw out some rather boring sounding ideas and insist that they would certainly be a hit. On that level, I could do the very same thing and insist that a park about Massachusetts, for example, would be a great hit thanks to the lovely beaches of Cape Cod (okay, well that one WAS done lol) and famous historical sites that would make for nice "c" ticket rides, and Salem Witch Town U.S.A., and a nice thrill ride through the Berkshires. CERTAINLY, that would be a hit. Because I said so. And if you don't think so, you might as well say that DisneySea wouldn't be a hit either!
Originally Posted By Mr X Oh, and a Cheers bar... Gotta have a Cheers bar in the Boston section of Disney's Massachusetts Adventure!
Originally Posted By DlandDug Count me among those who have no real problem with the California theme, while acknowledging it is somewhat limiting and, frankly, lazy. I have a nagging feeling that there was a cynical desire to somehow convince tourists that there was no need to leave the Disneyland Resort, because all of California was right there. It was cynically conceived and poorly executed. And that poor execution is, in my opinion, the real cause of DCA's original failure. If Disney's designers were in top form, they could create a compelling, exciting, attractive and popular theme park built around the Wonderful World of Croutons. (No prize for the first person to recognize that reference!) DCA 1.0 was an odd combination of existing features, attractions developed for Disney's America, and original features that ranged from the sublime (Soarin') to the ridiculous (Super Star Limo). Theming was light in most areas, and nonexistent in others. The best themed area, the Grizzly Peak Recreation Area, stuck out like a sore thumb, as it served to remind people just how well Disney could theme when it was done right. The entrance area was possibly the worst offender, as it was a hodgepodge of various (mostly) good ideas that never quite jelled. There was no sense of place among the tile murals, detailed facades, weedy planters, and shimmering "icons." But... I do not agree that the problem is the theme. I do believe that the will to make things right is already paying dividends, and that by 2012 DCA will be a vastly different, vastly superior park.
Originally Posted By Mickeymouseclub Aren't you describing Universal? I think they have a Cheers bar.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Okay, but Mr. X, you can surely imagine if DisneySea was a much scaled back version rather than what was actually built at opening. Fewer rides, less theming, some of the more expensive stuff left off in "phase 1". Imagine that place is still nice, but not GREAT. In that case, would it be the theme, or the execution that was the problem? No one will convince me that a state that has such a long, rich history including the Barbary Coast, the endless creativity of the movie business, natural features ranging from sea to Sierras to deserts, the influence of Mexican culture, Chinese culture and more, the great '06 quake, cable cars, southern California beach culture and more couldn't provide ample inspiration for a park that would equal DisneySea. Reality, fantasy, hype, imagination, hard facts and a unique cross-section of deserts, beaches, forests, mountains, ocean. Certainly with all of that as inspiration, while I'm no theme park designer, I'd have come up with something other than Mulholland Madness. Who knows what other cool ideas were shelved because mgmt wanted to keep costs low? But the theme ain't the problem.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>The entrance area was possibly the worst offender, as it was a hodgepodge << Boy howdy. The new entrance will make that more clear than ever. The Red Car rolling along, more kinetic movement, interesting architecture, and a better central "starting point" for a visit to the park. It will do what the old entrance did not: Be welcoming and create a sense of a specific time and place, the visual cues that help create a more immersive park.
Originally Posted By Mickeymouseclub Remember when Las Vegas wanted to aggressively attract families and they took on the Disney concept at Vegas and failed miserably. I think that is what Disney hoped to accomplish with the California theme. The out of state tourists would just see California by staying at DL/DCA and the Grand Hotel. Kind of like Epcot offers a taste of European Countries and the Boardwalk Resorts cover the Eastern Seaboard. So the locals hated this representation of their state. I often wonder if foreigners complain as much about their Country's representation at Epcot. DCA was an attempt by Disney to keep those tourist dollars and keep them at Disney property. They assumed they had the locals money already.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo >>> I often wonder if foreigners complain as much about their Country's representation at Epcot.<<< well I have German friends who are not too keen on their representation at Epcot, and the UK pavillion falls a little short by our reckoning (yet I know people who like the rose and Crown as one of their fav places in WDW). But my British wife adored DCA in 2002, in 2008, not as much. And as a homesick (ish) Californian I adored DCA.
Originally Posted By Mickeymouseclub I agree with you Dave. I thought DCA and the Grand were enjoyable for many reasons. I think Disney made some mistakes by listening to the locals and failing to advertise in the rest of the country. In the Midwest we still see only Disneyworld vacation advertising on television and newspapers and magazines and online offerings. I am going to guess most of the great discounted offerings in Europe are enticements to go to WDW also.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>I often wonder if foreigners complain as much about their Country's representation at Epcot<< I've heard many Brits bitterly complain about the UK pavilion. My favorite: "What do they think England is? Just a bunch of little shops and a pub???"
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo >>> I am going to guess most of the great discounted offerings in Europe are enticements to go to WDW also.<<< currently there is an add campaign in Europe to advertise DLP and WDW. The one that really makes me upset is when people question why do we go to DLP instead of the original, you know, the one in Florida? Grrrrrrrrr. I respond with "I would love to be able to go to the original more often, but the cost of going to California and the time required is not as convenient, as for Florida, not high on the priorities, I prefer DLP". Lol.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <The current scheme, to essentially reimagine the park, is unprecedented. Disney-MGM is still recognizably the same park, same theme it always was. > I can't agree with either half of this. They're adding to the park, and except for the entrance... GRR area will be unchanged, essentially, from opening day. Ditto for Condor Flats. Ditto for the wharf. Ditto for the winery area. Bugsland was an early addition, and ditto there. HPB got TOT (itself an early addition) and will get the redcars running through it, but the "bones" are largely unchanged, despite internal changes in the SSL and SOB spaces. The Pier added TSMM, is adding Mermaid and getting cosmetic changes, which is all to the good. But it's still a seaside pier. And CarsLand, of course, is an addition. This sort of growth is not unprecedented (nor, importantly, was this model not duplicated later). MGM's additions in its first decade also cost more, almost certainly, than the initial layout. And I disagree that it's essentially the same as in 1989 either. The one thing MGM had going for it when it opened was coherence. That's largely gone now. The place feels like neither fish nor fowl, and although the attraction lineup is better than before, the feel is not. DCA is, if anything, strengthening the CA theme with the new additions. But there seems to be this really strange need for some not simply to disagree but to demand fealty to their position. Simplistic stuff like "DCA was a failure, full stop," or "DCA sucked and if you see it as a mixed bag or anything short of full suckitude, you're an idiot." Those are themselves, of course, different positions. So why can one not have yet a different position? Newsflash - some of us do and will continue to, no matter how much it seems to bother some. And rehashing 2001 again and again and again won't change that. The response of "apparently" to the question "Must we?" is essentially saying "apparently we must continue to pound away at this until you succumb and submit to the 'correct' position," rather than simply agreeing to disagree and looking forward rather than backward - again and again and again. In other words, I realize that not everyone is going to agree with my opinions, and that's fine. There seems to be this strange need among some in the "DCA sucks" or "DCA failed" crowd that everyone agree with that... and if someone dares not to, they'll rehash it again and again and again. Enough already.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Ah, but dabob2, I still need World Disney to come in and threaten to rip out my throat because I liked DCA when it opened.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan <--- busily cranking out reflective "I HAVE BEEN VINDICATED" buttons.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>But there seems to be this really strange need for some not simply to disagree but to demand fealty to their position.<< There sure is!
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo I thought that was a constant issue on most boards, not just relating to the issue of DCA?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >>But there seems to be this really strange need for some not simply to disagree but to demand fealty to their position.<< <There sure is!> Indeed. But it's not coming from the folks who say things like "I realize that not everyone is going to agree with my opinions, and that's fine." It's coming from those with simplistic black-and-white full stop statements.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>It's coming from those with simplistic black-and-white full stop statements.<< You mean, like this? >>DCA when it opened was (and still is) a mixed bag.<< Shoulda quit at post #20. At least I held off until post #64. (>>The DCA that opened to the public in 2001 failed...<<) Of course, when I make a definitive statement, it's "full stop," unlike others here with firmly held opinions!
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Almost anything in life is a mixed bag, Dug. It's those pesky shades of gray and the fact that almost nothing outside of binary code is binary. Saying something as complex as a theme park is a mixed bag is not exactly going out there on a limb. You could even call it wishy-washy if you wanted. But you can't with a straight face say it's untrue.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Almost anything in life is a mixed bag...<< The point being? This is all opinion. My opinion is that DCA c.2001 was a failure. And I have ample supporting facts and anecdotal material to support that opinion.
