Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>It's ridiculous to assume people who are rather easygoing about DCA -- much less who rather like it -- when they're not even dependent on DisCo executives for their monthly salary and jobs will somehow become more demanding or nitpicky about the park if they suddenly became a DisCo employee and had to deal with a boss or assortment of managers who, in comparison, absolutely, totally loved DCA or clearly favored team players.<< Again, you have no clue how I am in my job as opposed to how I am as a customer. That's what you're not getting. When I worked at Great America many moons ago, I did everything in my power to make sure the food unit I was in charge of was kept clean, efficient and offered friendly customer service. During slow periods of the day, I made sure everyone stayed busy cleaning up and paying attention to details like smudges on the windows, etc. I wanted to exceed expectations of the guests and my managers. At the same time, as a customer, I am more forgiving when people don't meet the same standards I was going for. I don't make myself crazy demanding to speak to the manager of a local fast food place because their staff isn't as efficient or friendly as my staff was, unless it's really outrageous circumstances. If a restaurant is busy, I'm going to overlook, to one degree or another, some mistakes. To assume I'm a "go with the flow" sort of person in my work life, as oppossed to when I'm visiting a theme park as a guest, is to be sorely mistaken. You're making sweeping generalizations, for whatever reason, about people. But you seem to have some psychological need to do so, in spite of every effort to illustrate why it's bothersome. You're the one making ridiculous assumptions about people, and you know the old saying about assume.
Originally Posted By disneywatcher >> First of all, that's a non-sequitur with my paragraph before it. << The Dino-Rama versus Paradise Pier has to be seen in the context of your comment: >>>>> DLR didn't have either the space or, yes, the budget to create another EPCOT. So they went with the MGM model. That worked as a THIRD gate.... <<<<< I sensed you've been making excuses for schlocky Paradise Pier, making it sound as though its mediocrity couldn't be avoided because the DisCo took the "third gate" approach or wasn't as generous towards DCA as they were with Epcot. Yes, more dollars were put into Orlando's second park compared with Anaheim's, but my point is that doesn't explain why someone like Eisner (or probably Braverman too) thought his idea of recreating an old-time seaside fun park was good.
Originally Posted By disneywatcher >> I wanted to exceed expectations of the guests and my managers. << But if your boss, said, hey, you're spending too much time serving the customers and your department's budget is bloated, and I refuse to believe that paper plates are worse than fine porcelain, you certainly would behave differently.
Originally Posted By disneywatcher >> "Blind dolts," for example, is condescending - (and it's how you seem to regard people who like DCA, even a little bit) << Now you're making assumptions about the reason I used "blind dolts." I merely wanted to give an over-the-top example of a description that truly would test the objectivity of someone as to whether he was bothered more by the message or the messanger.
Originally Posted By disneywatcher >> But the point is...? << If an employee isn't even as service-conscious as you were to begin with (let's call him "Barry B."), and at the same time he or she faces a boss who certainly is not service-oriented (call him "Michael E."), then guess what? The employee probably won't behave the same way that a very service-conscious worker will (let's call him "Marty S."), even more so if that employee also has a boss who demands excellence in the restaurant he is responsible for (call him "Walt D.").
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I'm getting dizzy. Hey, have you heard that the new Monsters Inc. ride opens in January?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >> First of all, that's a non-sequitur with my paragraph before it. << <The Dino-Rama versus Paradise Pier has to be seen in the context of your comment:> >>>>> DLR didn't have either the space or, yes, the budget to create another EPCOT. So they went with the MGM model. That worked as a THIRD gate.... <<<<< <I sensed you've been making excuses for schlocky Paradise Pier, making it sound as though its mediocrity couldn't be avoided because the DisCo took the "third gate" approach or wasn't as generous towards DCA as they were with Epcot.> You sensed wrong. You should respond to what's written, not what you infer. At that point I don't even think I'd brought up Dino-rama, plus I was referring to DCA as a whole, not just PP, and said it was clearly based on the MGM model rather than the EPCOT model (and that Disney hoped that would work). <Yes, more dollars were put into Orlando's second park compared with Anaheim's, but my point is that doesn't explain why someone like Eisner (or probably Braverman too) thought his idea of recreating an old-time seaside fun park was good.> How many times do I have to say that I basically agree with the concept that creativity is more important than dollars, or that I'm not crazy about PP and would certainly have chosen another theme had I been in charge? Certain things just don't seem to sink in with you. >> "Blind dolts," for example, is condescending - (and it's how you seem to regard people who like DCA, even a little bit) << <Now you're making assumptions about the reason I used "blind dolts." I merely wanted to give an over-the-top example of a description that truly would test the objectivity of someone as to whether he was bothered more by the message or the messanger.> Trust me, and I know you don't want to hear this, but it's the messenger. There were one or two people on these boards when DCA opened who liked it a lot and who basically took the attitude that anyone who didn't like it was an idiot. THAT was condescending too. It's the attitude, and the fact that you haven't had anything new to add since 2001, that gets wearisome. And 2oony, #141 was perfect - exactly what I'd have said if I had your skill (or had ever worked in a theme park!).
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Getting back on topic, I think Monsters looks pretty cool! I'd have liked to see some more mouth movement too, but I guess there's not much of that (if any) in Peter Pan, Mr. Toad, etc. And they're great. A ride like this is mostly about the atmosphere and the vibe it creates. Riding is always WAY better than even the best videos, anyway, so I'm really looking forward to riding this puppy.
Originally Posted By disneywatcher >> You sensed wrong. << That's the way I read this comment of yours: >>>>> DAK's Dino-land makes PP look like New Orleans Square. <<<<< Now I realize that Dino-Rama is junk galore, but particularly because it's in a comparatively small area of Animal Kingdom, and because at least one aspect of it seems *slightly* more Disneyesque... <a href="http://allearsnet.com/tp/ak/akdrama1.jpg" target="_blank">http://allearsnet.com/tp/ak/ak drama1.jpg</a> than this... <a href="http://www.laughingplace.com/files/AttGuide/ATTA-DCA-PP-TRITON/01.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.laughingplace.com/f iles/AttGuide/ATTA-DCA-PP-TRITON/01.jpg</a> ...I can't help but feel that, as bad as Dino-Rama is, it still is quite a stretch to claim it therefore makes Paradise Pier look like New Orleans Square. I know if I felt the need to make excuses for Dino-Rama, I'd want to say that Paradise Pier, in turn, made Dino-Rama look like Disneyland's Fantasyland. >> Certain things just don't seem to sink in with you. << That's because people still want to bring up the issue of tight budgets and technical limitations (a lack of enough land, for example) when theorizing why DCA is DCA: >>>>> DLR didn't have either the space or, yes, the budget to create another EPCOT. So they went with the MGM model. That worked as a THIRD gate.... <<<<<
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan So what you're saying is, the creative tastes of the DisCo execs who came up with the concept of DCA at the Aspen conference had far more to do with how DCA became DCA than simply money, money, money. Got it.
Originally Posted By disneywatcher >> Got it. << I hope so. But then in upcoming weeks or months, someone will post variations of this: DCA is the way it is mainly because Anaheim doesn't have the land mass and tourism of Orlando. DCA is the way it is mainly because Anaheim doesn't have the consumer base of Tokyo. DCA isn't better mainly because the planners and executives didn't want to be, or couldn't be, big spenders.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >> You sensed wrong. << <That's the way I read this comment of yours: >>>>> DAK's Dino-land makes PP look like New Orleans Square. <<<<< Now I realize that Dino-Rama is junk galore, but particularly because it's in a comparatively small area of Animal Kingdom, and because at least one aspect of it seems *slightly* more Disneyesque... ...I can't help but feel that, as bad as Dino-Rama is, it still is quite a stretch to claim it therefore makes Paradise Pier look like New Orleans Square.> It was a bit of hyperbole to be sure, but just as surely, PP IS better done than Dino-rama. The latter actually REMOVED the lush look the rest of its park has, and intentionally made it look like a parking lot (!) - even drawing faded parking space lines. PP, though I'm no big fan, at least went to the trouble of constructing a good looking boardwalk (rather than the asphalt look of dino-rama), planting beach grass in the dunes around Screamin', etc. Also, though I'd have done the placement differently, at least there is the lagoon which serves as a reflecting pool, and the attractions themselves are placed so as to create something of a coherent whole, and look particularly good at night. Dino-rama has no such coherence and is just a mess. Also, PP at least contains some excellent attractions; Dino-rama can't even say that. <I know if I felt the need to make excuses for Dino-Rama, I'd want to say that Paradise Pier, in turn, made Dino-Rama look like Disneyland's Fantasyland.> Except that it doesn't. PP, much as I don't like the theme and would have chosen something else, is at least a reasonably well done execution of that theme. Dino-rama can't even say that. >> Certain things just don't seem to sink in with you. << <That's because people still want to bring up the issue of tight budgets and technical limitations (a lack of enough land, for example) when theorizing why DCA is DCA: >>>>> DLR didn't have either the space or, yes, the budget to create another EPCOT. So they went with the MGM model. That worked as a THIRD gate.... <<<<< In other words, if someone doesn't agree with you entirely, you feel it's somehow your obligation to bring up your pet points for the millionth time, lest an opinion other than your own be allowed to contaminate the cyber-ether unanswered by your infinite wisdom. Whatever. However, when you offer absolutely nothing new in 5 years and instead just blather on and on with the same pet points and phrases, AND couple that with the annoying habit of assuming you know all about a person based on how they like or don't like a particular theme park (!) - well, as 2oony said, you don't seem to understand why that's bothersome.
Originally Posted By disneywatcher >> is at least a reasonably well done execution of that theme. << For a Disney park I think it's anything but a reasonably well-done execution. For a Six Flags park, yes, for a Disney park, no. Again, you have a softer spot in your heart for it than I do. >> However, when you offer absolutely nothing new in 5 years << And 5 years later people like you still are raising the issue of dollars and logistics when debating why DCA is DCA: >>>>> DLR didn't have either the space or, yes, the budget to create another EPCOT. So they went with the MGM model. <<<<<
Originally Posted By ChurroMonster Paraide Pier is, to me, the LEAST problematic part of DCA. It's the oart that most people GET and appreciate for what it's trying to do. Retro amusement seaside piers? okay. Get it. It's the obscure desert airstrip vibe of Condor Flats that raises eyebrows. And the ugly Sun Court. Hollywood Pictues Backlot??? No coherent them whatsoever. San Fransisco is bathroomland? There should be daily gay protests. No, the Pier, though simple, people get and appreciate. It's the rest of the park that needs an identity.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >> is at least a reasonably well done execution of that theme. << <For a Disney park I think it's anything but a reasonably well-done execution. For a Six Flags park, yes, for a Disney park, no.> If that's the theme you chose - seaside amusement pier - and once AGAIN, that's not the theme I'd have chosen - it's pretty well done, as churromonster says. Dino-rama can't even say that, which was my point of comparison. >> However, when you offer absolutely nothing new in 5 years << <And 5 years later people like you still are raising the issue of dollars and logistics when debating why DCA is DCA: >>>>> DLR didn't have either the space or, yes, the budget to create another EPCOT. So they went with the MGM model. <<<<< I've said countless times that creativity IS more important than dollars. But pretending that dollars and space considerations count for next to nothing is ridiculous. Could the DCA team have done a better job with the space and dollars they had? Of course. But with the space and dollars they had, was an EPCOT-like project even feasible to begin with? Of course not. And hey - even if someone says flat out: "I think DCA's main problem was lack of budget..." it would probably kill you, but you really don't HAVE to chime in - especially if it's going to be with the same pet phrases we've all heard a million times. Definitely not if you're going to attempt to analyze someone based on their opinions on a theme park.
Originally Posted By woody "And hey - even if someone says flat out: "I think DCA's main problem was lack of budget..." it would probably kill you, but you really don't HAVE to chime in - especially if it's going to be with the same pet phrases we've all heard a million times. Definitely not if you're going to attempt to analyze someone based on their opinions on a theme park." You definitely escape analysis. End of story. Can we get back to topic?
