Originally Posted By DlandDug >>I disagree. In these three years we'll have a new land, a re-worked entrance, and some additions to existing lands.<< >>The motivation doesn't matter to me on this level...<< I understand.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Good. Then we'll have our own opinions and understand that they are quite separate from facts.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "I don't know that we "mourn" things here. so much as question why we should simply accept what is presented." You might want to read post #142 Doug.
Originally Posted By DlandDug Maybe I shouldn't have used the collective "we" on that one. There are, I will agree, specific things to mourn...
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "Good. Then we'll have our own opinions and understand that they are quite separate from facts." We are seeing this in politics a lot these days, where opinions masquerade as facts. It is a "fact" that the president is a Muslim. It is a "fact" that the health care bill will result in death panels, and things of that nature. Interestingly enough, reporters and anchors are afraid to call people out on these things for fear of not being objective. Not only can someone spread their belief that the president is a Muslim, it is respected as a subjective opinion. We are too quick to say, "Well that's just their opinion." when there are such things as consensus and facts. Sometimes it's not a subjective opinion at all, but a deceptive lie. Theme parks are not as important, but a similar issue exists.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Not at all. I'm the first to call people on bogus "opinions" like "it's my opinion that Obama is a Muslim"'and do so often on WE. This is not that. "the Matterhorn opened in 1959"'is a fact. "What's happening to DCA is unprecedented"' is an opinion. It involves value judgments and comparisons to other events, and therefore cannot be a simple fact. In my opinion, DcA's trajectory is not at all dissimilar to MGM's, and the parks that have followed it. It's the new way Disney does their parks now. You may disagree and that's fine. But don't pretend that one opinion is "fact"'and one isn't.
Originally Posted By mstaft In contrast to DCA, DL's expansion was due to its success not its failure. That alone makes DCA 2.0 unprecedented, IMHO.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt I think it could also be said that some things that changed and/or evolved at DL in its first decade (Tomorrowland '67 for example) were a direct result of certain "failures" at that park. The huge investment in the Matterhorn/Submarine attractions was a direct response to competition from Pacific Ocean Park. Yes, DL was a hit, but it had its share of growing pains during its early development.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Of course. Every park is unique, so if you parse anything fine enough, every development could be called "unprecedented." It's all opinion.
Originally Posted By WorldDisney <<In contrast to DCA, DL's expansion was due to its success not its failure. That alone makes DCA 2.0 unprecedented, IMHO.>> Agreed! And the fact it went from the proud anti-DL 1.0 in 2001 to a lighter version of DL 2.0 in less than one decade proves that. Park is nothing like it was at opening and for a reason...it sucked and didnt take with most fans and so the whole original concept of DCA has been torpedoed! But as long as its better, few people will care or remember. We wanted a REAL Disney park and we are fnally gettng one or as close to one consdern what they had to work with and the money they got to make it happen! DCA 1.0 was a disaster of a park and looks like they learned their lesson with it so my beef is over.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 It's not that radically different. It's being improved, sure. But IMO, MGM's huge additions, plus its transformation from "real working studio just like Universal!" into "okay, okay, it's a theme park" was a far more radical (in the sense of "fundamental") transformation. And it was first, so by definition, DCA's transformation can't be unprecedented. Nor was it or will it be the last. It's the model subsequent Disney-financed parks are also following. If they considered it such a failure, why did they open subsequent parks along the same model? Because, whether we like it or not, that's the way they do things now.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Most kids freak out about characters way more than anything else. Nothing makes them happier than giving Goofy a high five or hugging Mickey*** Little X doesn't care about the characters all that much, I guess she's different from "most kids" as she much prefers the attractions (particularly Space Mountain and Splash). She has fun with the characters, but it's far from her favorite thing at Disneyland.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***plus its transformation from "real working studio just like Universal!" into "okay, okay, it's a theme park" was a far more radical*** Oh, I dunno. The *real studio* thing always seemed forced to me, compared to Universal where it sprang forth organically (a park built around a studio, rather than a park created to *be* a studio). I was glad when they dropped it.
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<Yes, DL was a hit, but it had its share of growing pains during its early development.>> While some may or may not appreciate this one fact, but Disneyland Park's original "bones" remain intact to this day. POTC, Mansion and Indy SEAMLESSLY punched through the original berm. Toonytown and Splash are the two examples that are visibly noticable. To me that speaks highly of how perfectly the original park layout was executed.
Originally Posted By WorldDisney <<It's not that radically different. It's being improved, sure. But IMO, MGM's huge additions, plus its transformation from "real working studio just like Universal!" into "okay, okay, it's a theme park" was a far more radical (in the sense of "fundamental") transformation. And it was first, so by definition, DCA's transformation can't be unprecedented. Nor was it or will it be the last. It's the model subsequent Disney-financed parks are also following. If they considered it such a failure, why did they open subsequent parks along the same model? Because, whether we like it or not, that's the way they do things now.>> Agree to disagree! DHS is still the same park from openn other then the studio element which was lame. But it didnt change its basic concept, or time periods or complete areas/lands like DCA is doing. No one decided to push a Walt Disney angle in DHS just to make people interested in the thing a few years later. And unlke DCA, they planned those additions from the start beause it WAS small and they knew it. DCA was n-e-v-e-r suppose to have this kind of additions and out of despration bascally. Because it sucked and realized the park would never suceed in its original concept so they overhauled the thng...thank god!! But good point about the parks after DCA, b-u-t those parks were approved around the time DCA was and from the same manegment/team who are all now gone or fired. And surprise they alllll SUCKED too! AND Shanghai Disneyland will be the first new park with new management behind it and unlike those losers, this park will be bigger and more innovative from the start. Sounds more of the DLP model then the HKDL model! So again they clearly learned their lesson and tryin to aviod fixing up another turkey in a few years like DCA, HKDL and WDSP now. And i couldnt be happier!
Originally Posted By WorldDisney <<The *real studio* thing always seemed forced to me, compared to Universal where it sprang forth organically (a park built around a studito, rather than a park created to *be* a studio). I was glad when they dropped it.>> Definitely agree! And u will get PM soon Mr. X!
Originally Posted By CuriouserConstance "I don't know that we "mourn" things here. so much as question why we should simply accept what is presented." You should accept what is presented because it's reality. If the reality is unacceptable to you, then that should be your cue to move on to find something you like better. I mean, if your favorite restaurant decided to change menu's and serve another type of food, would it suck? Yeah, it would. Would it plague you for years and years to come and haunt you in your sleep? Probably not. You'd probably try other restaurants till you found a new favorite. I don't understand the obsession that is felt with the parks. I mean okay, I love going to DL, and it's really fun for me and my family. But for the most part, I'm okay with what the parks are like today. And when I'm not, if it comes to that, I'm going to move on.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 Enjoying reading this thread. It's like a blast from the past. All that's missing is Jonvn and Darkbeer and quotes about 'DCA, the heroin monkey perched o DL's shoulders' That said, while I get where Dabob is coming from on the opinion vs. fact debate over the word 'unprecedented' and whether DCA is any different from Disney-MGM or even DL in its infancy, I won't give my opinion or criticize anyone else's ... but I will tell you if you speak to virtually anyone involved in the project or Imagineers and any execs at TWDC or analysts that follow the industry, they'll offer the 'opinion' that it indeed is unprecedented! ;-)
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "It's not that radically different. It's being improved, sure. But IMO, MGM's huge additions, plus its transformation from "real working studio just like Universal!" into "okay, okay, it's a theme park" was a far more radical (in the sense of "fundamental") transformation." Not only that they changed the name of the place.
Originally Posted By WorldDisney ^^Most peple feel it is! Not a shock consderng all the quick fixes never worked. DCA was a hot mess! And the DCA of 2012 wouldve n-e-v-e-r happened if DCA of 2001 didnt suck so badly or drew the bad response it did. And companies dont throw an unplanned $1+ billion if the thing wasnt broken to begin with.
