Originally Posted By Dabob2 <So, with a theme as broad as "California" you can see that it isn't so much the theme, it's what you do with it. Like several of us said all along.> (raises hand). Exactly!
Originally Posted By WorldDisney Just as long as the bulldozers are there, I'm happy! MGM wasnt great either, but as someone pointed out, it was the 3rd park of a massive resort. It was also an immediate hit on its first day out too. DCA never was of course. But I'm hearing since WOC debut, the park was getting around 25,000 guest, at least first weekend. Thats actually amazing for this park. And WOC and Glow Fest are keeping people in and it doesnt feel like a complete ghost town after 9 pm. Again, another feat! Lets see if it stays this way all summer.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <MGM wasnt great either, but as someone pointed out, it was the 3rd park of a massive resort. It was also an immediate hit on its first day out too. DCA never was of course.> That was me, and I think that the distinction between second park and third park was Disney's primary miscalculation with DCA. MGM was a hit right away not because it was a great park (it wasn't and I would say still isn't, though it has its high points) but because the paradigm of people staying a full week and buying hoppers was already established. If you had a multi-day hopper, which essentially everyone did, you'd check out MGM, and when you ran out of things to do, just hop back to EPCOT or MK. Its success was the biggest thing I'm guessing that made Disney think they could open DCA on a too-similar model. Get the place open, open light (albeit not AS light), add more stuff later and fix some of the more blah areas later also. It did succeed in getting out of towners to extend their stays, its primary mission, and of course the GCH, DTD, and the improvements in the immediate nabe would never have happened without it. But they hugely miscalculated how it would be received as a second park, especially in the internet age, and to the hyper-critical SoCal market, including us folks who can tell you all the names that little shop to the left of the castle entrance has had over the years, and which years it had which name (as opposed to WDW vacationers from Iowa who get to WDW once every 3 years, just go to have a good time, and do have a good time, even if the third park didn't open as nicely as it might have).
Originally Posted By WorldDisney Yeah, I agree with most of that and most of us was saying this in 2001 and 2002 when DCA opened, which was a HUGE mistake! Disney thought just open another park, throw 'Disney' on the marquee and the place will be packed like MGM. What was odd though, UNLIKE WDW, they didnt have park hoppers for average guest and cancelld APs. So, they built a half day park with the same planning of MGM, but they took away the easy access to actually see it and forced most people to pay a full price ticket that did NOT deserve a full price ticket to even see. On top of that, the park sucked for many, ESPECIALLY when its a 2 minute walk away from the most famous theme park on the planet. 9 years and a billion dollars later, shocking they have to redo so much of the park to get people in lol. If they at LEAST rolled out the park a little better, and yeah, made it GOOD from the beginning, they wouldnt be in this mess today. But they are trying to right the wrongs of the former regieme, so we have to give them credit for that and its looking great so far .
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "While Disney-MGM was a very small park at opening, it was as lavishly detailed as any park that came before." Not once you passed Hollywood Blvd it wasn't, which arguably wasn't any more lavishly detailed than Condor Flats, Grizzly Recreation Area, or Pacific Wharf.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "If they at LEAST rolled out the park a little better, and yeah, made it GOOD from the beginning, they wouldnt be in this mess today." This is true, however something tells me that DCA's fate was pretty much sealed from its inception. The barren sections of PP where TSMM is now and the dull Sunshine Plaza, for example, in comparison with the more detailed section of the park, always indicated (at least to me) that eventually that those areas would change and evolve. It was always assumed that the park would expand into the remaining section of the parking lot, so no big surprise there.
Originally Posted By WorldDisney Oh yeah, and I remember the DCA wars of 2001-2003, I am a proud vetern ;D. As much as SO many of us criticized and complained about the park, rightly so, since about 90% of my personal complaints about the place are all now being looked after and changed with DCA 2.0, one thing that was always made clear, we didnt want the park to fail!! There was never an issue. We WANTED it to suceed! Not necessarily as it was on opening day mind you, but yes, that it will get better, MUCH better and that people will have a real interest to see it, not just because its next door to DL and they have a few hours to kill before their Space Mountain FPs time is up. So yeah many of us are simply happy the park is FINALLY on track to a REAL Disney park and people are starting to check it out for its OWN merits. Most of us just wanted a theme park we will happily pay full price for like DL and it looks like in a few years we may just get it.
Originally Posted By WorldDisney "If they at LEAST rolled out the park a little better, and yeah, made it GOOD from the beginning, they wouldnt be in this mess today." <<This is true, however something tells me that DCA's fate was pretty much sealed from its inception. The barren sections of PP where TSMM is now and the dull Sunshine Plaza, for example, in comparison with the more detailed section of the park, always indicated (at least to me) that eventually that those areas would change and evolve. It was always assumed that the park would expand into the remaining section of the parking lot, so no big surprise there.>> I agreee with expanding the parking lot obviously. That was always going to happen. But sadly I have to disagree with you about changing PP and Sunshine Plaza Hans....at least if the people who BUILT it were still in charge. If it was still Michael Eisner and Paul Pressler running things, I have a VERY strong feeling what they thought what they built in that park was 'good enough', hence why it was there to begin with. Sunshine Plaza was meant to stand the test of time as MS was. And why build such a crappy entrance unless you thought it was worth putting in from the beginning? And I said this a hundred times, but what MAINLY hurt DCA was PP and the entrance, not just because they were the worst areas of the park, but because they were only two areas you can see of them from the outside. People can simply look in, see those two areas and tell themselves it looked too much like KBF, at Disney prices and didnt bother. Why on earth would anyone make the WORST sections of the park visible for everyone to see unless they didnt think they were all that bad to begin with? I'm sorry, I dont villify Eisner and Pressler like others do here, but I'm guessing they were pretty damn happy with what they had and old fashioned stubborness/egos told them that it will only take time for the public to get what they are trying to do. I dont think that park would have the changes today as it does now. Yes, EXPAND or even touch up the areas like what they did with HPB, but certainly not even close to the wholesale changes they are making in the park today. Hell one imagineer said DCA was failing to connect with people because apparently people didnt 'get it'. I remember because Dark Beer use to post that every 4 months lol. Its THAT kind of stubborness that told me they actually thought DCA 1.0 was fine, just a few more rides, some better shows and some additional theming and people will begin to 'get it'. Uh, nope! Once the regieme change happen and new people could admit to themselves the park simply sucked and they werent the same egos who built it in the first place, it was pretty easy to demolish the tackier areas like PP, Route 66 and Sunshine Plaze and bring it up to real Disney standards.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <This is true, however something tells me that DCA's fate was pretty much sealed from its inception. The barren sections of PP where TSMM is now and the dull Sunshine Plaza, for example, in comparison with the more detailed section of the park, always indicated (at least to me) that eventually that those areas would change and evolve. It was always assumed that the park would expand into the remaining section of the parking lot, so no big surprise there.> I think you're right, Hans. I was never crazy about PP as a concept, and even with the changes I'd still prefer something else, but the changes show that it CAN be a worthy area. And the sunshine plaza always said "temporary" to me too, kind of like the original TL, although obviously you wouldn't find anyone responsible for it trashing it. What's funny is that I predicted many years ago that when the park expanded and adapted, the bashers would be saying "see, this proves I was right;" the gushers would be saying "see, this proves I was right;" and the "mixed-bag" guys like me and Hans would be saying "see, this proves I was right." See? I was right.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "But sadly I have to disagree with you about changing PP and Sunshine Plaza Hans....at least if the people who BUILT it were still in charge. If it was still Michael Eisner and Paul Pressler running things, I have a VERY strong feeling what they thought what they built in that park was 'good enough', hence why it was there to begin with." Oh I don't disagree. All I'm saying is that ultimately those areas were going to change - maybe not as drastically, but they were going to change because that's what Disney parks do. The space that TSMM was built in, for example, was clearly a designated spot for expansion from the start. Back when those arguments were being slung back and forth I said that the critics were jumping the gun and eventually the park would change, just give it time. I could have never predicted that it would be on such a spectacular scale and timetable, but it didn't take an Einstein to figure out that things would be fleshed out eventually.
Originally Posted By WorldDisney <<What's funny is that I predicted many years ago that when the park expanded and adapted, the bashers would be saying "see, this proves I was right;" the gushers would be saying "see, this proves I was right;" and the "mixed-bag" guys like me and Hans would be saying "see, this proves I was right.">> Welcome to human nature Dabob lol. Yeah everyone predicted that dude. But this just something debate on an internet, it doesnt matter at the end of the day. For *me* and I'm guessing many I just wanted a park I would happily pay full price for. I certainly didnt feel that way the first and only time I DID and I simply wanted it to be a day when I could feel that. And in a few years time, I finally can feel that way. Thats ALL that really matters at the end of the day. I dont care HOW they improved the park, simply that they did. Meanwhile, I spent time in TDS where I wouldve happily payed MORE to see that park on opening day. This is the way Disney use to do it. Hopefully with the massive amount of money they are spending with DCA, HKDL and WDS (remember DCA is faaaar from their only troubled park ) maybe the next one way be closer to those standards. Or if not, simply a PLANNED phase two within 1-2 years of the park opening to have people come back faster, something else these parks didnt get.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "See? I was right." Funny. And like WD says, in the end it doesn't really matter much, especially since none of us real really knows exactly what circumstances led us to where we are today in the development of DCA.
Originally Posted By WorldDisney <<Oh I don't disagree. All I'm saying is that ultimately those areas were going to change - maybe not as drastically, but they were going to change because that's what Disney parks do. The space that TSMM was built in, for example, was clearly a designated spot for expansion from the start. Back when those arguments were being slung back and forth I said that the critics were jumping the gun and eventually the park would change, just give it time. I could have never predicted that it would be on such a spectacular scale and timetable, but it didn't take an Einstein to figure out that things would be fleshed out eventually.>> Sure, I agree with that too Hans but I have to pull a DW here and say if the original TPTB were still in charge, we would probably still have the same crappy execution and creative direction of DCA 1.0, just simply expanded on. And for me, THAT wouldnt have been any better IMO. Sure, more to do and I'm GUESSSING better rides, but still the same mentality with the same half-a$$ theming, lack of story telling etc the park introduced us to. Again, it wasnt JUST the fact the park was small with a lack of things to do. It was the entire direction it took that bothered most of us. So yes, bigger later, of course. No one is arguing that. But bigger and better? That I'm wasnt so sure on if you left it to the geniuses who built the first crappy version. Now, could be completely wrong. Maybe after they saw the massive dud the park was, maybe in time they wouldve went a completely different way like they are doing now. But I have little faith to believe that. What people keep forgetting here is that DCA is being changed on every level possible: physically, thematically and tone. It has completely changed gears in terms of what kind of park it is. Some dont like it and others are happy about it, but the fact is DCA 2.0 is a very different park. And the change happened all at once basically. Thats just AMAZING to me. There is a reason why we separate it by 1.0 and 2.0 because people recognize that the DCA we are getting now is just massively different than we one were introduced to...within one decade. I just think if it was Eisner still in charge, it wouldnt be DCA 2.0 we are getting, but simply DCA 1.1...and yeah I imagine it would still suck like DCA 1.0 . But I could be wrong...I'm just grateful we didnt have to find out ;D.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Welcome to human nature Dabob lol. Yeah everyone predicted that dude.> Actually, no. There were plenty of people who were predicting that their opposite numbers would be eating crow and admitting their error and bowing down gratefully to the others' "I told you so." Interesting fantasy some people had to have, but I knew that was never gonna happen.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <What people keep forgetting here is that DCA is being changed on every level possible: physically, thematically and tone. > Many people simply disagree that the change is all that radical. Yes, there are plenty of improvements, but the theme remains the same (and is in fact being underscored - remember the many who confidently predicted that by 2010 the CA theme would be a thing of the past?) , and large parts of the park are not being touched, at least for now (GRR/RCCT area, Condor Flats, HPB except for the red cars, PW, the winery area, Bugs Land/ITTBAB, and even the major structures of PP except for Maliboomer are staying (though getting nice cosmetic makeovers). It's a mostly wonderful expansion/adaptation, but it's more a re-imagining and building on existing "bones" than "being changed on every level possible," which sounds pretty hyperbolic to me, dude.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Because it never happens ever, in any context anywhere.> Once in a while. See Barton, Joe.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>So for me DCA at its best surpassed MGM at its best, and they both had too much blah.<< While we are dealing with nothing more than opinions here, I completely disagree. Disney-MGM (which I visited a month after it opened) was way too small, but it was absolutely beautiful. The public response was immediate-- they wanted more. Is that true of DCA? Too small, sure. But beautiful? And did people want more? Or did they want their money back? >>"While Disney-MGM was a very small park at opening, it was as lavishly detailed as any park that came before." Not once you passed Hollywood Blvd it wasn't, which arguably wasn't any more lavishly detailed than Condor Flats, Grizzly Recreation Area, or Pacific Wharf.<< Again, I disagree. Past Hollywood Boulevard you had Echo Park Lake, with a charming assemblage of buildings and a couple of great "California Crazies." The only real jarring note was the "billboard" entrance to the Indy stunt show. Even the backlot buildings were meticulously detailed inside and out, right down to truckloads of Hollywood specific props and set dressing. The Studio Courtyard was also well detailed, in a streamlined deco that evoked the Disney Studio. Yes, there were soundstages on that side of the park. But they were real-- not excuses to dump a bunch of barns with facades into the rest of the park. The proof, of course, is in the fact that none of these buildings have been significantly altered over the years. Indeed, some areas (the backlot and working studio streets) have been opened to the public. And there has been no reason to alter them. Just add... more. >>The barren sections of PP where TSMM is now and the dull Sunshine Plaza... always indicated (at least to me) that eventually that those areas would change and evolve. It was always assumed that the park would expand into the remaining section of the parking lot, so no big surprise there.<< It's an interesting theory, certainly, but one without precedent. There have been empty spaces, and even a few "placeholders" here and there in Disney parks. But the whole entrance as a cheap "placeholder"...? Major portions of a "finished" land? I don't buy it for a minute.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <>>So for me DCA at its best surpassed MGM at its best, and they both had too much blah.<< While we are dealing with nothing more than opinions here, I completely disagree. Disney-MGM (which I visited a month after it opened) was way too small, but it was absolutely beautiful.> Really? Oh, okay. To each his own. < The public response was immediate-- they wanted more. Is that true of DCA? Too small, sure. But beautiful? And did people want more? Or did they want their money back?> Some sections of DCA were beautiful. More, IMO, than MGM. And too many sections of both were blah. BTW, I DID want my money back after my first trip to MGM. But that's because I paid full price one-day ticket; something I suspect less than 1% of visitors did. If visitors were already used to buying hoppers and considering them good value for MK and EPCOT, then they were even better value now that you got MK and EPCOT and the few interesting things in MGM. So of course no one wanted their money back. Completely different paradigm in Anaheim, which of course was Disney's miscalculation.
