Originally Posted By davewasbaloo >>>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.<<< We're good, I have been sharpening my foil all night though! A Salem Witch trial ride could be good, and we could have meet and greet - the hottie that wouldn't have sex with the minister type. But seriously, as interesting as the US is, California is very special, and I would argue that you could create a park based on England, or France, or Japan, but California can be equally as interesting if we look at the popular culture and historical aspects of it.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo >>>Now, it works well in EPCOT and DAK because it's a much broader canvass to work from. Not so for a single state.<<< Sorry X, this suggests that your knowledge of either Africa or California is quite limited. I grew up in one, and have visited the other a few times. California has far more options than an African theme IMHO.
Originally Posted By Mr X lol. Honestly, I don't even think a park based on a country is the greatest idea...although a well designed Disney's America could be pretty cool.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Sorry X, this suggests that your knowledge of either Africa or California is quite limited. I grew up in one, and have visited the other a few times. California has far more options than an African theme IMHO*** Not when you include the wildlife. And in any case, it isn't a *park* about Africa, but rather a section of a park (and, once again, a section about California in Disney's America would be dandy).
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo >>>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.<<< Perfect example of why I preferred DCA v1 to the toon carnival being created. The winery was fantastic, and something that we could do with kids, whereas going to Napa wineries with little ones is a little harder.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Funny, there is a park in France called Pou de Fou which recreates the differrent times of French history. It is amazing, and shows me DCA could have been. To be honest, in the 70's I thought Knott's Berry Farm did a fantastic job with California history and was our second favorite park. that was before Cedar Fair ruined the place of course.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Funny, there is a park in France called Pou de Fou*** You're right. That *is* funny! lol.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo I have to be honest, I really am not liking the direction of travel of WDC. It is clearly all about toons and synergy, focus on the kids, forget about learning anything while you have fun. Seems to be the antithesis of what the plaque in DL set out as the vision. to me it is depressing, even more so that this seems to be what people want. How far society has fallen.
Originally Posted By Mr X Can't say I disagree with ya. DisneySea was the last of the great efforts, and even THAT park is getting the synergy treatment at this point which is WAY depressing.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo I will be interested to see what Europa Park is like later this year. On trip advisor many people think it is better than DLP (though in the 70's and 80's I knew people who thought Magic Mountain was better than DL). But even WilliamK99 rates it higher. They have some major shows and dark rides, and dining, as well as the coasters. All set in the different countries of Europe. I am wondering if this will be an alternative for us in future. Problem is, most web sites are either Disney obsessed or thrill ride obsessed. Whereas I am a theme fan. But as we have seen with restaurants and Vagas casinos, Knott's Berry Farm and even Disney, people don't care about the little details.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost Just a question here...I don't get the concern about toons. Wasn't DL primarily a park that concentrated on Toons? Peter Pan, Snow White, Mr. Toad, Alice in Wonderland, Cinderella, Mickey, Goofy and others? That is a large part of what made DL the success that it was. Why is it a crime now to include Toons in the process? In fact, it was pretty much all Toons, Disney Live Action Adventures or TV connections. Why isn't that just as relevant today as it was then? Judging by the response of people when the mere whisper of one of the Toons being shut down sends shivers of despair over multitudes of fans I'd have to say it is alive and well. Does anyone have a catalog of movies locked away in their heads and can identify instantly all the movies made by, let say, Warner Bros.? Bet almost all can remember the list of cartoon characters they created though. How many cannot instantly identify with Bugs Bunny, Yosemite Sam, Elmer Fudd, Daffy Duck, Tweety Bird, Sylvester and Foghorn (I say, Foghorn) Leghorn, son? Toons are what begin our childhood memories that we carry with us through life. Why would we want to eliminate them or think that they would be out of place in a, designed for fun, Theme Park? I don't understand the need for high brow sophistication in a fun park. I go there to find my inner child, not carry along the baggage I live with everyday.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo well, the toons in the parks were pretty much relegated to Fantasyland until the late 80's early 90's. In fact, the plan for Mickey and Minnie were to only be in the park for the opening in 1955 and were borrowed from the ice capades. There are a number of us where the parks were about creating a sense of place and time. The dedication read "To all who come to this happy place - welcome. Disneyland is your land. Here age relives fond memories of the past and here youth may savor the challenge and promise of the future. Disneyland is dedicated to the ideals, the dreams, and the hard facts that have created America... with the hope that it will be a source of joy and inspiration to all the world. Thank you." This is the Disney park experience I came to know, love and obsess about. The meaning of the Disney park seems to have been perverted into "Dreams, Wishes, Magic, Meet and Greets and Fast PAsses" Where are the inspirations and hard facts in that? And it wasn't just the 50's. In 1982 it continued at Epcot with "To all who come to this place of joy, hope and friendship—welcome. EPCOT is inspired by Walt Disney's creative vision. Here, human achievements are celebrated through imagination, wonders of enterprise and concepts of a future that promises new and exciting benefits for all. May EPCOT Center entertain, inform and inspire and above all, may it instill a new sense of belief and pride in man's ability to shape a world that offers hope to people everywhere in the world." Even in the 90's it continued with "Welcome to a kingdom of animals... real, ancient and imagined: a kingdom ruled by lions, dinosaurs and dragons; a kingdom of balance, harmony and survival; a kingdom we enter to share in the wonder, gaze at the beauty, thrill at the drama, and learn." Notice the themes and consistancy in these dedications? No where does it talk about toons, are say they are a focal point. But Disney and the DOMs have perverted the vision, they do not understand the intent, and instead of strengthing, WDC just rehash. Where is the inspiration? Where is the learning? People do not travel 1000's of miles and spend $1000's of dollars to pose with teenagers they would snub in the mall and to stuff burgers and churros do they? Seems modern Disney would assert that is the case.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Wasn't DL primarily a park that concentrated on Toons?*** No. Fantasyland was the part of the park that originally concentrated on toons. The other lands were for live action, realistic stuff.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo FWIW, I have always preferred the loony toons to the fab five, and I do not think I am alone. But the Loony Toons did little for 6 flags. As for the inner child stick? hmmm, if I remember right Walt once said: "Your dead if you aim only for kids. Adults are only kids grown up, anyway." "Whenever I go on a ride, I'm always thinking of what's wrong with the thing and how it can be improved." "Adults are interested if you don't play down to the little 2 or 3 year olds or talk down. I don't believe in talking down to children. I don't believe in talking down to any certain segment. I like to kind of just talk in a general way to the audience. Children are always reaching." "We believed in our idea - a family park where parents and children could have fun- together." These things have been forgotten. Look at Toystory Playland, or the recent developments frankly in most of the parks since Eisner left.
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<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.>> And remember that for the original $1.4 Billion, Disney constructed the world's largest parking structure, moved a street around, moved high tension wires, purchased and renovated what is now Paradise Pier Hotel, constructed a 700+ room luxury resort hotel, constructed an extensive shopping, dining & entertainment district, added several massive ticket kiosks and still had a couple of bucks left over for DCA. Today's $1.4 billion makeover for the park is substantial.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >>"What is fact is that the DCA 2.0 makeover is unprecedented" <<Nope.<< <Black 'n white much...?> Nice try. But the "nope" was to his assertion that this is "unprecedented." His opinion is yes, my opinion is no, and in that case binary makes sense. But since there is such a difference in opinion, it's not "fact." And the rest of your post points out what is changing, as mine pointed out what remained the same. And the changes to DCA are no more radical than the changes to MGM in its first dozen years. Also the changes to DL in its first dozen years, for that matter. Not only the very radical re-do of TL, but just compare FrL 1955 with the conestoga wagons and stagecoaches (GONE!!! GASP!) with nature's wonderland, a second big ship, TSI, etc. The basic structure remained the same, there was an expansion area, and some of the original stuff was altered and improved. Now yeah, yeah, MGM got better attendance than expected and DCA got worse. But that had to do with the demographics of the two resorts, not their relative quality. ANYONE going to WDW in 1989 was going to use their 5-7 day hoppers to see MGM, because it was essentially already paid for. And virtually everyone visiting WDW had a hopper. Compare that to SoCal, which had only known the day-pass (or AP) model - not everyone had to go to DCA, and not everyone wanted to. If WDW parks had operated on the single-day model (and guests weren't already staying a week), no way MGM would have gotten the numbers it did. So this "b-but... MGM got better numbers, and that's why they built" is a distinction without a difference. The fact is, they invested more than the initial outlay over the next dozen years, and so what is happening to DCA is not unprecedented, despite the need for some of you to declare it so to vindicate your view of the place. (WD): <while DCA has changed in design, theme, execution and tone. Calif theme is stll there (somewhat),> It will be arguably stronger in 2012 than it was in 2001 (and certainly stronger than, say 2006). Buena Vista street, the Cathay Circle, the Pan Pacific entrance and the red cars are all specifically CA references. CarsLand has a very CA/Route 66 feel. <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! > I think you're making way too much of this. Large sections of the park will look very much as they always have, others will look basically the same but spruced up, and the additions are strengthening the original theme. DHS, on the other hand, opened as an attempt at the "real working studio" and THAT disappeared long ago. That's a redefinition of the very soul of the park, and THAT's a bigger change than DCA's 2001 version of California vs. DCA's 2012 version of California. In my opinion, of course. Which may not match yours, which is okay with me. The only thing I object to is others insisting that other opinions are not okay here. <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. > The claim (my claim anyway) is that it is the NEW "business as usual," and it started with MGM, not DCA. Since 1989, all of the secondary (and even the primary in the case of HKDL) parks that Disney financed have been on this "build small, add more later" model first seen in MGM, with the partial exception of DAK.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Nice try. But the "nope" was to his assertion that this is "unprecedented." > Sorry - should have said the "nope" was to his assertion that it was unprecedented was "fact."
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>I have to be honest, I really am not liking the direction of travel of WDC. It is clearly all about toons and synergy, focus on the kids, forget about learning anything while you have fun.<< Funny, you seemed to describe Iger's basis of business perfectly. He wants to market and synergize and cross-promote and brand everything. He doesn't care much about substance, as long as there are people who will pay for it. Slap the Disney moniker on it (no longer "Disney's", of course) and it's set to go. Instead of creating new content, he just wants to squeeze the stuff they already have for all it's worth. It's an okay short-term strategy, but a terrible one for the long-term. Sadly, we passed the short/long threshold a while ago, and he still hasn't caught on. >>..."I don't believe in talking down to any certain segment. I like to kind of just talk in a general way to the audience."...<< That's one of the things that Walt did really well that all of the followers had some trouble with. He didn't make movies for any certain demographic. He made them for himself. If he likes it, there will be other people out there who like it. In the time since then, we've come up with this bizzare idea of market segments and all these different sorts of people that we need to target. I think one of the best examples of this is the Soap Opera Bistro at DCA. Eisner wanted it, because he thought it would appeal to his wife, since she likes soaps. While it was well executed (from what I hear, since I never experienced it), it was just too much of a niche thing to be globally successful. Instead of finding an idea that the designers were really interested in, they had to work with one that would appeal to 'those people over there'. It's a lot harder to design well for someone else than it is to come up with something for yourself. Walt managed to have a very good middle of the road taste that appealed to a wide audience. In the time since then, those types of people never managed to work their way into that position. The folks there did a decent enough job making things (films, parks, TV shows, etc) that would appeal to groups of people, but not much that has an appeal that's as all encompassing.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>ANYONE going to WDW in 1989 was going to use their 5-7 day hoppers to see MGM, because it was essentially already paid for. And virtually everyone visiting WDW had a hopper.<< I don't think that most guests stayed 5-7 days in 1989. There were still only 3 parks, and one was only worth a single day. MK and Epcot had enough to fill up several days, but only for certain people. I would be surprised if the 'average' trip was 2 days at MK, 2 days at Epcot, and one at MGM. That just seems like a lot longer of a trip than was needed by most at that time. And I don't think they had Park Hoppers back then. I'm not sure when they were added, but I have a ticket from MGM's first year that has spaces on it for each day. In those spaces, there's a date stamp with the name of the park right next to it, on the same stamp. I don't really remember that trip well, so I can't say if we hopped, but given how the tickets are marked, I would be surprised if it was allowed then.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 They had hoppers in the early 80's when I first went to EPCOT, so they were well established by the time MGM opened. And WDW has been pushing the long stay since it opened with ONE park. I'm pretty sure by 1989 it was up to a 5-day average, with many people staying longer. Lots of folks here go to DLR and stay that long. Also, remember most WDW visitors are not locals and are flying in from elsewhere - for most of them, it is very much a vacation, and most people take the whole week from work, as it's just easier.
