Originally Posted By Dabob2 And other people have plenty of supporting facts and anecdotal material to support the opinion that it was not a failure. All of which has been presented here dozens of times. Me, I say (once again) that either position is fine as an opinion. It's when people say it's "fact" that it doesn't work.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones California has tons of wonderful things to see. I'd go see them instead of visiting a theme park based on modern California. Now a park based on California's rich history, maybe that would work. We've lost a lot of things in this state over the years and period recreations of certain historical places sounds more interesting to me than more Pixar rides. One of the most interesting things about DCA 2.0 are the Pacific Electric Red Cars. It's a nice tribute to what once was. But then you get Epcot-style criticisms that "it's boring!" and the kids need more hyper-stimulation to stay awake.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "Me, I say (once again) that either position is fine as an opinion. It's when people say it's "fact" that it doesn't work." Whether or not it was a success or not is opinion. What is fact is that the park struggled in many areas. What is fact is that the DCA 2.0 makeover is unprecedented. What is fact is that this was billed as a full-day park that would be using Disneyland as a waiting area for those who couldn't get in. The opposite happened, actually.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***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*** Wow, if so that sure *was* cynical. But there actually is a basis for the cynicism, sad to say. I can tell you that I've heard from more than a few people over the years that they have no need to visit any foreign countries because "I seen em at Epcot already". Sad, but true. So I can get why the management would believe the rubes, er, the American guests would go even further. Turns out that attempt was a mini-golden gate bridge too far. Anyway, good comments everyone. As for K2M and his comments about DisneySea, well, I'd just say that "ports of call", which is the true theme of DisneySea and mirrors "lands" next door, is an almost limitless fount of ideas much like a worlds fair or a magic kingdom, so I don't agree that California stacks up and I can't say that any of the arguments have particularly convinced me. If *nothing* else, California is "small" enough for anyone to explore themselves if they wanted to. That's a limiting concept and that's why it kinda stinks as a theme park theme (sure, if you throw hollywood that changes the game, but then they should've just built a studios park and went with it, the concept is proven at least). p.s. Dave, sorry if my "Disney's Massachusetts Adventure" comments came off badly. I wrote it late last night and looking again in the morning it seems kinda harsh. Sorry.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I don't agree that California stacks up and I can't say that any of the arguments have particularly convinced me.<< Well then you're thinking too literally about it -- or that each attraction must literally recreate some real life location of California. Comments about "well, a person could go visit the real California instead" are the same as saying that people should avoid Disneyland because there is a real New Orleans and a real Matterhorn and real red rock deserts to see. Of COURSE there are -- but they work as a theme park theme just the same. Given all the natural and historical and fantasy elements I described, it's really every bit as limitless as "ports of call". Just requires imagination, creativity and mountains of cash -- sort of like DisneySea got. (Crazy, isn't it? I've invested 10 years arguing this point and I still post and think, every stinking time -- THIS'll get him to see it my way. I'm the eternal optimist!) ; )
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Well then you're thinking too literally about it -- or that each attraction must literally recreate some real life location of California.*** That's part of the problem though, isn't it? They've already run out of ideas that actually fit, so now half the place is Pixarland and has next to nothing to do with California (Bugs, Toys, and Cars), plus Little Mermaid which, again, makes no sense. Because with a theme like "California", stuff really DOES have to come from there or else it doesn't make sense. Just like World Showcase or Harambe, you've selected a location as your theme and you're pretty much stuck with it. Now, it works well in EPCOT and DAK because it's a much broader canvass to work from. Not so for a single state. ***Comments about "well, a person could go visit the real California instead" are the same as saying that people should avoid Disneyland because there is a real New Orleans and a real Matterhorn and real red rock deserts to see*** Exactly. Disneyland does include those things but they are exotic and far-flung. Again, the state of California is relatively small and can be explored just fine right outside the gates of DCA if one felt like it. You can't go to ONE place and find New Orleans, AND the Matterhorn, AND a turn of the century street, AND a cruise through a jungle, AND a taste of the future and the old west, except for at Disneyland. Same for ports of call that offer fantasy destinations as well as real ones as well as different times and places like past and future. Realistically speaking, DisneySea is just a Magic Kingdom 2.0 and that concept is decidedly brilliant and limitless to begin with. As long as you theme it well and separate out the themed areas, anything goes. California simply does not offer such a canvass to work from. ***Given all the natural and historical and fantasy elements I described, it's really every bit as limitless as "ports of call".*** I don't agree. ***Just requires imagination, creativity and mountains of cash -- sort of like DisneySea got*** Well, that doesn't hurt of course. And, I think even as DCA they could've done much better than they did (and are doing). But even if they managed to reach for the sky with the project, they'd hit that limiting ceiling that is the fact that we're talking about one single state.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Crazy, isn't it? I've invested 10 years arguing this point and I still post and think, every stinking time -- THIS'll get him to see it my way. I'm the eternal optimist! ; )*** Crazy indeed. Better go back to WorldEvents and try and convince Beau that liberalism is the way to go. You'll have better luck with that.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost >>>If *nothing* else, California is "small" enough for anyone to explore themselves if they wanted to. That's a limiting concept and that's why it kinda stinks as a theme park theme (sure, if you throw hollywood that changes the game, but then they should've just built a studios park and went with it, the concept is proven at least).<<< Wow...that is way more literal then I ever thought about. When I saw Disney's California Adventure all I thought was...It's an adventure and it's located in California. Never once did it occur to me that the park represented things to be found, generally, in California. Come here and you won't need to see anything else? If that was the concept it was far more far fetched then even I thought it was. Soarin' over California was the only attraction that I could see that represented California reality and I thought that was just coincidental. Tiny little Golden Gate Bridge, just a symbol of California, never saw a connection more intense then that in any of my thought processes. I guess that is what I get for only spending about one day in the park. To me it was no more representative of California then to think that visiting Ben & Jerry's factory tells the story of Vermont.
Originally Posted By WorldDisney <<"What is fact is that the DCA 2.0 makeover is unprecedented">> Agree! DCA 1.0 sucked hard and they know it. 2.0 cant come soon enough and 1.0 a memory.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Except that MGM also invested more than its initial cost in improvements. And did it first. Therefore, not unprecedented.
Originally Posted By WorldDisney <<Except that MGM also invested more than its initial cost in improvements. And did it first. Therefore, not unprecedented.>> But that park is the same park at opening...while DCA has changed in design, theme, execution and tone. Calif theme is stll there (somewhat), but nothing close to the same park at opening which that $1.5 billion has helped change as well. Again, we are not just talkin additional new rides and 'improvements' like DHS here, but a completely differnt revamp and direction this park has taken in a few short years! DCA 1.0 theme and tone has been replaced long ago!
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "Except that MGM also invested more than its initial cost in improvements. And did it first. Therefore, not unprecedented." Very impressive. Disney-MGM cost $500 million and was constructed in the late 80s. When a park is built on the cheap like that, it isn't hard to exceed initial costs when expansion time comes around. Tower of Terror alone cost $140 million. For a comparison, Epcot cost $1.4 billion and was constructed in the late 70s and early 80s. Unlike MGM, DCA is seeing its entrance rebuilt and lands re-themed. It is so beyond what the park was original conceived to be that it will be unrecognizable in many ways. And even if one buys into this idea that MGM was renovated as extensively as DCA is today, the original claim was that Disney does this for all of its parks and that DCA 2.0 is business as usual.
Originally Posted By WorldDisney <<Wow...that is way more literal then I ever thought about. When I saw Disney's California Adventure all I thought was...It's an adventure and it's located in California. Never once did it occur to me that the park represented things to be found, generally, in California. Come here and you won't need to see anything else? If that was the concept it was far more far fetched then even I thought it was. Soarin' over California was the only attraction that I could see that represented California reality and I thought that was just coincidental. Tiny little Golden Gate Bridge, just a symbol of California, never saw a connection more intense then that in any of my thought processes. I guess that is what I get for only spending about one day in the park.>> This!
Originally Posted By WorldDisney <<Unlike MGM, DCA is seeing its entrance rebuilt and lands re-themed. It is so beyond what the park was original conceived to be that it will be unrecognizable in many ways.>> Exactly!
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>"What is fact is that the DCA 2.0 makeover is unprecedented" Nope.<< Black 'n white much...? >>Except that MGM also invested more than its initial cost in improvements. And did it first. Therefore, not unprecedented.<< Nobody here is saying that making additions and changes to a Disney theme park is unprecedented. What is most certainly unprecedented is the reason and the scale of this particular makeover. Comparisons to Disney-MGM and other theme parks are simply insupportable. When Disney-MGM opened, it was underscaled and immensely popular. Crowds overran the place. Within a matter of weeks, areas (like the Backlot) were opened up, entertainment was bumped up, and immediate plans were made to add capacity. When DCA opened, it was a full sized park and was an immediate bust. In no time at all cast members were privately referring to it as "DOA." Within weeks shops were opening late, entertainment was being cancelled, and plans were being made to shut selected venues. Within the first year alone two major restaurants (Soap Opera Bistro and Hollywood & Dine) were permanently shuttered. Two major vendors (Mondavi and Wolfgang Puck) took major financial hits to get out. On DCA's first birthday, the first "big" expansion was announced. And one after another, any number of "magic bullets" were announced, built, and presented to a disinterested public. Not a bugs land, Twilight Zone Tower of Terror, Playhouse Disney Live, Who Wants to Be a Millionaire: Play It!, or Monsters Inc: Mike and Sully to the Rescue could get those turnstiles clicking. More shops closed. More food venues shuffled off into Yesterland. (MalibuRita's and Lucky Fortune Cookery literally gathered dust.) The park's signature parade was sent away at the end of the first season, never to return. New promotions (Rockin' the Bay, X Games Xperience) also failed. The Electrical Parade (which had supposedly "glowed away" forever) was resurrected, to no avail. And then came the Disney characters. Previously relegated to "vacationing" at DCA, suddenly Mickey was farming in the Golden State, Donald was painting Grizzly Peak, Minnie was aviatrixing in Condor Flats, Flik and Atta were doing the Charleston in The Ugly Bug Ball, and Chip 'n Dale were making mischief in the previously oh-so-serious Ahwanee Camp Circle. Still, no dice. So... came the day they finally threw in the towel and announced they were taking the UNprecedented step of remaking virtually a whole theme park in one concentrated effort. Entrance and Sunshine Plaza GONE. Replaced by Buena Vista Street. Hollywood Pictures Backlot rethemed into Hollywoodland, a literal street in Hollywood (and extension, essentially, of Buena Vista Street). Bountiful Valley Farm GONE. Replaced by a single attraction (Mater's Junkyard Jamboree) for Carsland. Paradise Pier rethemed and built out with the dark ride it should have had from day one. And, of course, minus one big, big MaliBoomer. Route 66 GONE. It just sorta vanished bit by bit, starting with the extinction of Dinosaur Jack, eviction of Calafia (of the park's "signature" Golden Dreams attraction, for pete's sake) and culminating in the wholesale destruction of Pizza Oom Mow Mow, Burger Invasion, Mulholland Madness, and the Orange Stinger. (Sure, they're all still there-- but not in anything resembling their original state.) Pacific Wharf restaurants shuffled and the whole thing about to become an entryway to Carsland. (But other than that, it's exactly the same!) San Francisco GONE. (Of course, it really wasn't there to begin with, so... no loss.) Grizzly Peak area... LEFT ALONE. And no surprise, as it was the only really well themed area with a great signature attraction. Condor Flats... awaiting verdict. Many enticing images of the makeover for this area were produced, but for now the home of Soarin' Over California has dodged the bullet. Oh, and just by the way, they even tore down the massive letters that spelled out "C-A-L-I-F-O-R-N-I-A" out front. But hey-- that's just like what they did at Disney-MGM, isn't it? Renamed it Disney's Hollywood Studios and replaced a street of fake houses with a motor stunt show. It's... exactly the same. Except Disney-MGM was a victim of its own success. It didn't, you know, FAIL. Well, that's my opinion, and I'm stickin' to it.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones DlandDug's comprehensive comparison nails it. Disney-MGM was different from DCA in that it was creatively bankrupt but a huge success. The dynamics of Walt Disney World assure that outcome. DCA was creatively bankrupt but attendance was relatively low. They tried adding new rides and special events to drum up attendance. These were only marginally successful. New management then made the decision to overhaul the park for the better.
Originally Posted By DlandDug Forgot one: Golden Vine Winery. Started out with two wine tasting counters, a fine dining restaurant, a deli with display kitchen, gift shop, and attraction (Seasons of the Vine). Left from opening day... One wine tasting counter, and a fine dining location. Deli GONE. Gift shop GONE. Attraction GONE. One wine tasting counter is now used to distribute picnics, the deli and gift shop have been conflated into a lower end dining location, and the attraction is now the preview center devoted to the massive changes that are being made to the rest of DCA. (But other than that, it's EXACTLY the same!)
