Originally Posted By arstogas >>>Actually, as I recall, the dust specks are the inevitable result of running large-format film through the projector which builds up lots of static electricity. I don't know if they've figured out how to reduce the side-effect since they only have two choices: filter the air or scrape off the dust.<< No...there's a machine that Disney has routinely used, but it's expensive... a "wet gate" sort of system, that runs the film through a wet cleaning process. It's not a cheap machine, they needed two of them, and they were cut from the SOARIN' budget. Kind of like how WDI begged for infrastructure in the lagoon, and Timur Galen cut that, too. If it had been in place, LUMINARIA could have spent more of its money on innovative show concepts, and less on plumbing. Oh, how I miss the great, unwritten potential of the parking lot...
Originally Posted By mrdduck I kind of agree with the author. I think that DCA is a fun place with great entertainment. We have the AP to both parks and my 11 year old son prefers going to DCA. Do I think there's room for improvment...of course! I could even think of ways of improving, DL, WDW, Epcot, MGM, etc, etc. Does it compare to the other parks, yes and no. First of all no park in the world compares to DL. Lets get a grip on reality for a minute here. IF anyone was to build DL today it would have to chage twice the admission price to make money. But I think it compares to Epcot and MGM. In fact if I was able to pick which of these other parks I could have in it's place (good topic for new post!)I would probably pick.....Epcot, but its a close one. However, I would pick DCA over MGM and Animalworld. Let's face it, nothing can top the SD Zoo parks in that category anyway. As far as the other parks, I never been there but I here there much like DL, except for TDS. Well folks, I would'ent want another DL type clone there and from what I read about TDS, I am not sure I would prefer it.
Originally Posted By Nobody I hate to get off topic, but in post 22, Jonvn said: "Nobody's opinion is just right." These are the kind of quotes that I live for. ;-)
Originally Posted By Santa Monica "Oh, I love it, too--don't get me wrong. It's a classic, and though it looks like crap, it's still a blast to ride. You get that "what's that creaking noise...that can't be good" vibe that even the Sun Wheel can't provide! " Sure you can! That sand or whatever it is that you hear sprinkling down from inside the wheel. What's that noise? Are we gonna die??? And thanks for the picture. Oh yeah!!! The Sun Wheel IS a TON 'prettier' than the Wonder Wheel. Is it prettier than the ferris wheel on Santa Monica Pier? Oh how I miss that Timur fellow...
Originally Posted By Santa Monica "But, does this make it an "E-ticket", nope, not in my book. The issue I have with this ride is that there is no narration, not even a bit. As a "tourist" or even a California resident, I would like to have learned (at least a little bit more) about where all these images were located. " Narration doesn't always help. I think the narration of Superstar Limo makes it too weird and dull. Narration on soarin' would destroy the mood.
Originally Posted By dlport >>I'm sorry, but I just don't agree with this guy! I just have the feeling that this guy doesn't know nor understand Disney at all!<< Just because you don't agree with the author does not mean that the author "doesn't know or understand Disney at all". Defining a critical component of "understanding Disney" as agreeing with you is an interesting standard.
Originally Posted By sir_cliff A very interesting discussion with good points on both sides. A lot of my views have already been presented, but I figured I'd chime in with my two cents. I found Greg's choice of praise for the new park rather interesting. In commending Paradise Pier his points were basically that they're basic fun rides that people enjoy at what have traditionally been considered lower rungs on the theme/amusement park ladder, and that they're also a good idea because the area's lack of ambition means that relatively cheap and easy attractions won't look out of place here as they do in other Disney parks. An interesting comment on exactly where Disney parks are heading! As other's have said, I think it's a mistake for Disney to go head-to-head with Knotts and Magic Mountain in the off-the-shelf amusement park ride stakes. For a start, people who really want those sorts of attractions will go to Magic Mountain and Knotts where there is a greater variety of these attractions and greater thrills. If these are the rides you want, why pay $43 for a relatively small sample of these kinds of attractions with a little theming? Another factor is that I think a big part of Disney's appeal is the entire spectacle of the parks. You really to step into an entirely different world where everything from the themeing, live entertainment and amazingly immersive attractions is of the highest standard. People pay big money to go to Disney to have fun, yes, but a big part of that fun is the wonder of a place that is so far removed from the real world and that basically is the best venue of its kind in the world. DCA, unfortunately, doesn't seem to even seek to provide this level of wonder. Not only have the eliminated the idea of blocking out surrounding buildings and power lines, but even within the park the ambition just doesn't seem to be there. Take for example the merging of Paradise Pier with the Bay Area. Basically you come across an unthemed grey wall that is the side of the theater and then around a big grey building with a mural wrapped around it. Where's the fantasy in that? It's like they don't even care that guests are constantly being reminded that they're in a theme park. Perhaps because the park is in California and the theme is California it's impossible for anything to be unthemed. Who knows! The theme is a BIG problem too, and one I don't think they'll ever really overcome. It still blows my mind that no red flags went up when they commited to build a park about California in California as a companion to a park that gets the majority of its visitors from California. I understand the idea of the second park was to encourage visitors from further abroad, but their research must have shown them that at least to begin with the park would need strong local interest. It's also not a very broad theme, and thus we get additions like the Bugs Life area that have nothing to do with Califonia at all. Finally, if this park is meant to be viewed as merely complementary to what's already in Disneyland (or basically a new 'land' as Greg put it) that's all good and well. This works fine if you have an annual pass or whatever which allows you to park hop. The problem is that they are charging equal admission for this 'new land' as they are for Disneyland itself. If it were meant to be simply considered as some kind of addition to what's already there presumably the pricing would reflect this. As it doesn't, I'm a little unsure that this argument holds up as it doesn't look like that was what Disney was setting DCA up to be. When it first opened they made it particularly difficult to park hop. All in all, people's opinions are just that. I personally think Disney has a long way to go before DCA becomes as successful as any of the other Disney parks (and AK seems to have been a much bigger success whatever you think of it). What they're doing at the moment should help, but there's a long was to go IMHO...
Originally Posted By Mvee The article presents a good point of view and is a welcome balance to what I have read about the park. But while the park may in fact be a very fun place to send a day, I do not think anyone can say it has been a commercial or critical success. Arguably this is the first park to strike out on both counts. One thing to remember is that building a park next to Disneyland is very different than building one at WDW. Honestly, the Magic Kingdom at WDW is short on rides and lacks the quality of Disneyland. EPCOT is not always great fun. MGM is only now getting to be a full day park and Animal Kingdom is only half built. But the average guest judges them more as a whole than individual elements. With a multiday pass they are truly just different "lands" in one Monster Park that takes a week to see. When the average guest comes home they talk about the trip to WDW, not EPCOT, not Animal Kingdom. The whole experience is what the average user judges. But Disneyland and its guest are very different. And while I like the observation that it should be viewed as just another land of Disneyland, it is not presented or priced that way. The point I think this article misses is that much of the criticism for DCA comes from the feeling of a missed opportunity. Disney had the opportunity to do something special across from the most special of all Disney parks. I agree that an EPCOT or Disney America next to Disneyland would have been failures. We can thank Eisner for not rushing to those easy choices. Why? Because they would not have been special enough. And perhaps the problem is that nothing, at least in the short term, could be special enough to sit face to face with the original Disneyland. But let me ask this question… If Disney had build a mirror of Tokyo’s DisneySea across from Disneyland would it be the commercial and critical success DCA is clearly not?
Originally Posted By tangaroa >No...there's a machine that Disney has >routinely used, but it's expensive... >a "wet gate" sort of system, that runs >the film through a wet cleaning >process. It's not a cheap machine, they >needed two of them, and they were cut >from the SOARIN' budget. Didn't Disney invent the wet gate system?
Originally Posted By gmaletic Good post (#68). A DisneySea where California Adventure is today would almost certainly be a critical success. Whether it would be a commercial success is harder to figure out. I'm not totally up on the latest figures, but my understanding is that DisneySea cost roughly three times as much to build. Would the U.S. public reward Disney to the extent that the greater park could be as profitable as the less expensive one? Obviously we all hope so, but I think the answer is unclear. Initially, Eisner was obviously quite open to building outrageous resorts with incredible budgets: witness Disneyland Paris. But Disneyland Paris was nearly a colossal failure, and has shown only that it can survive rather than succeed. So would the U.S. public respond in kind to a new "super park?" In Japan, Disney & the Oriental Land Company are betting they will. Obviously they're not as sure over here. I'm guessing some of the uncertainty results from whether or not the "Disneyland Resort" takes off. As long as Disneyland remains a day trip, my guess is the investment will stay low. If Disneyland turns into a real resort a la Disney World, we may see more money pour in.
Originally Posted By Mvee Good observations. They key question may have been does a "Disneyland Resort" need a super park like DisneySeas to succeed? In hindsight a DisneySea in Anaheim would have created a "Disneyland Resort" over night—but at a higher cost and greater risk. I will trust the Disney accountants that to spend 2/3 more on a 2nd gate in CA was a risk that could have hurt the company more than a poor performing DCA. Even if DisneySea was designed to be built at two sites at the same time to reduce cost I am not sure OLC would have welcomed a mirror park in California and we would hearing complaints that it was not original enough. But that is not the only way to build a "Disneyland Resort" The rush to develop a third gate in CA indicates Eisner feels that quantity --three gates plus a shopping area—is the less risky path than a costly superpark. And after taking risks and loosing in Paris and Virginia, can we blame him? In another 10 –20 years he may prove to be right. In the short term all we can do is wait for DCA and the third gate to mature and grow.
Originally Posted By arstogas >>>If Disney had build a mirror of Tokyo’s DisneySea across from Disneyland would it be the commercial and critical success DCA is clearly not?<<< Slam dunk. How many tourists are EVER going to taste of Japan's Disney attractions? But I wouldn't WANT them to put it in that space, simply because there isn't enough room unless they spill out across West Street... and you'd be pressed for room to grow. As to whether the park, costing 3 times as much as DCA (probably more like twice, for several reasons, but still...) would return its worth... sure. DCA and Disneyland's ACTUAL breakeven costs (operating costs versus guest revenue) are pretty low, and even with abysmal crowds, DCA isn't killing the Mouse. If Disneyland is bringing in around 10,000 people in a day, they're past breakeven. DCA's lackluster performance IS currently killing the prospect for "plenty" - for perpetuating the float that kept other parts of the company swimming... That's over for now. It's killing reinvestment, it's killing all the things that a company flush with cash success can indulge in. If a "DisneySeas" quality/type of park were attracting capacity crowds, yeah, it would pay for itself, and it would even help Disneyland. Then they'd be in the enviable position (and so would we) of ramping up plans for that third park. What's sad is that even with the lack of crowds, Disney's modest investment here isn't killing them... They've been on this pattern since opening DAK, and it'll be "add a little at a time" until the crowds are there. I'm writing a lot here to make a simple conclusion, and that is, that the philosophy of giving the customer MORE than his/her money's worth is GONE, and that was SUCH a hallmark of Disney's success for so long... just makes me sad.
Originally Posted By arstogas Oh, I don't know if Disney invented the wetgate system... I think you're right in that they did... it was specifically a necessity given the high repeat element of their film systems. But these days, they are kind of a staple of the industry -- in the multiplexes, some single prints are threaded through projectors that screen in more than one screening theater, so the potential for lint is huge... you've got film travelling through air for maybe fifty or eighty feet or more, and so there are companies that MAKE these wetgate cleaners. The most current figure I had on these were about $150 -200,000 apiece.
Originally Posted By arstogas Gosh, three in a row again. My perpetual apologies. >>>But Disneyland Paris was nearly a colossal failure, and has shown only that it can survive rather than succeed.<<< This is, respectfully, not true. How many times have we had to address this one very popular (due, again, to the media's insistence on sensationalistic doom-casting) misconception. Attendance was NEVER a huge problem at Disneyland Paris. Projections were largely met most of the first year and first few years, in fact. The colder months were not as good, but they were also not traumatically bad. In FACT, Disney's own internal projections for attendance the first year were EXCEEDED. Where DLP (then EuroDisney) went south was in the disproportionate investment, right off the bat, in EXPENSIVE HOTELS. They built what, six? Right away? Two thirds of the original investment in Paris was put into Hotels. Quickly now, cause I want to go to bed: 1) They built in Paris rather than Spain for two major reasons: sweetheart deal with French Gov't, AND the centrality to the rest of Western Europe... a very dense population within a two hours flight and a six hours' drive. 2) Europeans, for the same reason, came for the day and went HOME. Or stayed with relatives, or stayed at little cheapo places outside of Marne l'Vallee. Nobody had questioned whether their vacation habits would differ so much from Americans/Japanese and those hotels were PRICEY. 3) Initial investment was so hefty in the hotels, and then you had to keep them STAFFED... so many more cast members and upkeep for all the facilities, etc. ALL FOR ROOMS THAT RARELY EXCEEDED 40 or 50 percent occupancy. Do the math. Spend 2 billion dollars on hotels, then let them sit so empty that the only real revenue you realize is happening inside the SINGLE theme park you operate. And that park cost in the neighborhood of a billion itself, upkeep is high, and you're not getting HUGE crowds, you're just getting moderate crowds. Not enough to float the bleeding from the hotels. Here's what turned the tide back to profitability, in no particular order (I'm too tired to look up the actual chronology) 1) Bailout and Reorganization 2) New Pricing structure 3) George Bush (the first one) does Michael Eisner a favor, and tricks Francois Mitterand into meeting at Disneyland Paris, when he (Mit) had been avoiding being associated with the situation so as not to get in the middle of a cultural and political mess. George is dining with Francois at Disneyland, Mickey Mouse shows up, and George says "Smile Francois!" just as a photographer takes their picture, which is then plastered on every French newspaper in the country. Mitterand is seen as "sort of" endorsing the park, the culture war is lost, and French people who'd been arguing against going finally drop their pretentiousness, take a shower, and visit the park. Well, they visited the park, anyway. 4) That Festival Disney thing was added, (though I believe this was pretty early on) and they started agressively booking conventions and expanding convention space at the hotels. This started filling those rooms again. 5) I believe they lowered prices substantively in the colder months. The guests actually started changing their patterns of avoiding in colder, rainier months. 6) They've been in the black for about a couple of years now, and the Studios will keep more people there overnight. If they don't go off and build more hotels, they should be humming along nicely soon. Attendance at Disneyland Paris, EuroDisney, whatever you want to call it, was an attendance success from day one, torpedoed by its location and 2 billion dollars worth of empty hotels. It is now the MOST visited attraction in Europe, more than the Eiffel Tower, more than The Tower of London, more than Notre Dame, more than the Vatican. I'd hardly call that "surviving".
Originally Posted By jonvn "Where DLP (then EuroDisney) went south was in the disproportionate investment, right off the bat, in EXPENSIVE HOTELS." This is a gross oversimplification and is not really true. This has been discussed many times here. I think this has been the official Disney line as to what their troubles were, because it's easy to digest. The truth is that they totally fouled up many aspects of building and operation of the park. I really don't want to go into it yet again. Additionally, while first year attendance was just about what they hoped it would be, the next year saw much lower attendance. Attendance was not a success from day one. It barely made first year projections (or was off by 1 million, depending on what you read) and the next year was even lower. It is, actually, barely surviving. It may be getting a lot of visitors, but it certainly is not making a lot of money. This is due chiefly to their very high debt that they still must service. It doesn't matter if they get everyone on the planet to visit ten times over if they have to pay practically every penny back out in bills. As to large investments, one of the reasons that DCA, and AK were funded to a smaller degree than other parks was because of the utter disaster that EDL ended up being financially. You just don't spend spend spend, and they learned that in Paris. You have to spend an appropriate amount that you can hope to recoup from park operations. If you want to read about the construction and the bail out of the park, there is a book out on it that you can get through Amazon. It has about two thirds of the story, but enough to fill in a lot of the blanks.
Originally Posted By jmbostick GMALETIC asks: "Would the U.S. public reward Disney to the extent that the greater park could be as profitable as the less expensive one?" I'm no economist, but I know what packs 'em in the parks: RIDES, RIDES, RIDES and REAL attractions and shows. Splash Mountain, Fantasmic, Indy, even Star Tours (for the first 5 years) demanded my presence at the park to experience the wonder of a new Disney creation and their continued quality under repeat viewing kept me coming back for more. DCA is mortally flawed because by the time TDA is good and ready to bestow another less-than-E-Ticket ride on the park (a scaled-back "Tower of mild unease," anyone?) everyone here will be sick of all the film and sim attractions. From what I've read, TDL/TDS has more than you can see in a day and the majority of it is good to excellent. That's how you bring 'em back. Remember the tidbit from LP's other article on the NFFC preview? 5,000 people in line at disney seas? The last ride to approach that was Indy and Paul Pressler would have canned that project upon ascension if it hadn't been so far along.
Originally Posted By fredb On Disney's "America" park, living here in Virginia, Disney's handling of the whole event was a disaster from day One. They give the locals the impression that the only reason they were building here was that they got the land cheap, and did not HAVE to build here. So, when the local groups pushed back, and Disney said they're not building, I am not sure if Disney though the Local goverments would come to their aid, and they didn't, it all started to folded up. I won't go into Disney's poor planing, with the location, the Civil War battlefield, no hotels in that area, no large roads, That it was in the middle of Nowhere, how the local groups, and the Press was handled.
Originally Posted By arstogas >>>"Where DLP (then EuroDisney) went south was in the disproportionate investment, right off the bat, in EXPENSIVE HOTELS." This is a gross oversimplification and is not really true. This has been discussed many times here. I think this has been the official Disney line as to what their troubles were, because it's easy to digest. <<< Actually, it's a condensation of the big issues, and it IS pretty much the big picture. I don't remember any official using the hotels to make excuses for poor returns of revenue (I'm sure someone probably addressed it, maybe even Eisner). But when you spend over 2/3 of your investment in infrastructure and hotels, and that full hump ends up being a drain, rather than a revenue generator, you can't really point to poor attendance as the culprit. They are separate issues. Disney's initial projections for the first year were healthy, though (as usual) conservative. By that token, I'm sure they would have liked more people there, but first year attendance did in fact, exceed company projections. I do remember tracking that first year. Now your OTHER point, on servicing huge debt, this is a REALLY valid point. The reorganization and the initial financing situation has always been a big drag. With all the interest, compounded, and a big money loser, it was just a huge albatross. But if you want evidence that attendance was not the problem (and I do seem to remember second year attendance dropping, yes) then look at the significant issue of Disney holding ON to the park. The attendance patterns showed the park itself could make money. It was a good long term investment. Nobody wanted to buy the hotels, though there WERE suitors for the park, but Dis wouldn't sell. WHY? Because people were coming. But all that debt, and complicating it is the whole European issue... I can almost buy into your tenet that the park is surviving, but not because of attendance. DCA would be THRILLED to have the attendance they're enjoying now... It's just a shame the COST for this whole enterprise is still the albatross that it is. Long term, after a second park is in place, as those hotels enjoy a higher occupancy rate, as they continue to shift operating costs down, Disney's own projections (and I agree) are that this park will be a nice cash cow for the company. And I think signs are already there indicating this. There are similar investment situations within the USA, where one aspect of a development is sweet, but is dragged down by the other elements' poor performance. It's not glamorous, it's just business, and sometimes due to a terrible oversight in judgment.
Originally Posted By arstogas >>>And now there's a WalMart there. That's SO much better.<<< AND some kind of cheap water park, right? The whole Disney's America thing was an ambush on the Mouse... it was pretty ugly and unfair, frankly. Disney's aim, certainly, was to make money, but you had some rich fox-hunters pairing up with some historians willing to literally fudge with historical data, in order to make Disney look like an apathetic squatter... Eisner admits he handled this one badly. But it's really sad, considering the trashy way that things have developed there. You know it would have been prettier in the hands of artists.
