Originally Posted By trekkeruss I could cite Soarin' as an example. Here is an attraction that has been very well received. But many criticize the austere queue. So while the attraction itself is very popular, overall it gets dragged down by the story (or lack of one) surrounding it, which in turn affects our perception of DCA. Does that indicate that those in charge didn't know what a quality attraction is... or did they just not have the $$$ to give it the full Disney treatment?
Originally Posted By planodisney soarin isnt dragged down by anything for me, and i would imagine the majority of general park guests. It is just 1 of my favorite Disney attractions anywhere, and i dont disect my experience further than that. Sure, it could be improved on, but so could 80% of Disney attractions.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss <<soarin isnt dragged down by anything for me>> I don't doubt that it's your favorite attraction; I too think it's outstanding. But Soarin' DOES get dragged down by it's surroundings, because if it's one of only a couple of attractions in DCA that's worth riding, the general park guest ends up questioning whether it's worth going into the DCA at all.
Originally Posted By planodisney I dont think they question going into DCA because Soarin doesnt have an immersive queue. I think they question it because of a lack of attractions, and parts of the park like Route 66. Soarin is one of the main reasons people DO enter the park!!!
Originally Posted By karlg It does tell a lot that they are too embarrased by DCA to time the opening of a new attraction with the 5th anniversary. The one think I can agree with planodisney on is that it is good the same people that built DCA did not spend $2B on it. Heck, what would they do, put in twice as many spinners? Disney Imagineering has really lost its way when it comes to building new attractions. They don't seem to know how spend and when they do build something it costs 3X as much as it should. They have had a lot of flops including the big spending Mission to Space and the few "hits" have been smaller efforts like Buzz Lightyear (started as a makeover at WDW that proved popular enough to replicate elsewhere). They also don't seem to be taking much advantage of new computer technology that could give them interactive and varying experiences. It seems that the last 10 years of turmoil has left Disney without the leadership and vision for building great new attractions. I don't have big hopes for Monster's Inc., but hopefully it will at least be an enjoyable attraction.
Originally Posted By disneywatcher >> I can't say whether those responsible for DCA could differenciate between quality and mediocrity. It's reasonable to believe they could, but weren't able to, given the meager budget that was involved. << I'd buy that were it not for a variety of things I've read and seen since before 2001. I'm referring to the clumsy weekend conference in Colorado where DCA was born, to comments made by Barry Braverman, to the mindset of people like Michael Eisner, to even the reaction of various people in Disney fandom -- both pro and con towards DCA -- who I have no doubt have been a reflection of the yay or nay reactions among DisCo executives and employees behind closed doors.
Originally Posted By planodisney i think it is, hopefullt without offending anyone, downright stupid to believe that imagineers werent effected by the budget for DCA. I realise that some of you fancy yourselfs as closet imagineers, but you arent. TDS and Expedition Everest, as well as parts of DCA, prove that they have some magic left when given an ample budget. Karlg, why would anyone have BIG hopes for a simple dark ride? I think your entire outlook is completely unrealistic. It is going to SAVE DCA, but it will prpbably, from the way it is sounding, be a realy good little dark ride.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss We can also point to across the Pacific, and look at TDSea. Very few argue that it's not a stunning park. Imaginering was given a blue-sky budget, and they delivered the goods. No, you can't say that Imagineering has lost their way.
Originally Posted By bean your right trekkeruss but then that park is in another sort of trouble. A big one. To the extent that its losing attendance instead of gaining it and new expensive attracions are being added faster then OLC wanted to after spending so much to begin with. Good thing is that TDS has a unique infrastructure as its one of the most elaborate and unique disney parks.
Originally Posted By disneywatcher Again, the importance of dollars is diminished when planners, including Imagineers like Barry Braverman or creative hacks like Michael Eisner, judge second-rate ideas and plans to be perfectly fine, if not wonderful. In other words, it wasn't a lack of enough money that made some people at the DisCo proclaim: "Building a park themed to California sounds marvelous!!!" Or: "I love the idea of re-creating old-time seaside amusement parks!!" Or: "DCA is good enough! It's hard to believe some people in the press or various critics complain that we've not spent enough money on it!" (This is a variation of a comment I recall being made by Michael Eisner right before DCA opened in 2001)
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "It does tell a lot that they are too embarrased by DCA to time the opening of a new attraction with the 5th anniversary." I didn't get that it (management) is embarrassed. I understood the PR strategy to mean that an attempt is being made to avoid giving the local media to make an unnecessary fuss about the park's troubled start.
Originally Posted By arstogas ^^^That sounds more rational, yes. Why invite more opportunity to open old wounds? >>>I knew from a start that DCA was going to blow. Granted I kept an open mind and even now I appreciate the park for what it is.<<< Yeah... took a friend to DLR yesterday - spent about 3.5 hours in DCA and we did almost everything worth doing... My friend had never been to either of the Disney West Coast Parks, and his comment was that it didn't feel like Disney, and "this feels cheap...there's no detail." Tower was a walk on... SCREAMIN' was a five minute wait. We went across the esplanade, and DL was jam-packed, though we played it smart and didn't have long waits for just about anything - a nice by-product of having almost every attraction operational in the park. What a great vibe DL had last night. Really nice. I will give DCA this though - I liked their Christmas tree quite a bit. Tower is officially boring now.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 FWIW, I don't believe DL itself had much of a to-do for its 5th anniversary - not till its 10th.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer But Disney did do a big event for Disney's Animal Kingdom's fifth anniversary... <a href="http://www.laughingplace.com/News-ID10016250.asp" target="_blank">http://www.laughingplace.com/N ews-ID10016250.asp</a>
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt WDW has a big to-do for at the drop of a hat. It's kind of silly, actually. With the 50th going on all over the resort (the world, actually) what point would be served in having an anniversary on top of another one?
Originally Posted By trekkeruss I think I will derail the thread yet again and ask: Why is ToT so popular at WDW, but never seemed to make an impact at DCA, even from day one?
Originally Posted By Elderp That conversation has been done but my conclusion is that at WDW it was new, here it is just a clone.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss I may have been done, but i didn't read it. How does it being a clone make it less enjoyable? Especially since many if not most visitors have never been on the origiinal attraction?
