Originally Posted By WorldDisney Agree with JIM (and I sooooo hate agreeing with JIM), but why do people do this time and time again? Yes, DL had visual intrusions early on, it was the 50's, first theme park opened, there was still a lot of ebb and flow in the design. Its like comparing the Atari 2600 with the Xbox and showing how Atari had some of the slight disadvantages Xbox has today. The point is you learn from your mistakes and go FORWARD, not repeat them when you get too cheap and lazy too which all it was about mostly with DCA. They built this park in the 2000's with 8 other parks to build from...they simply didnt care.
Originally Posted By CuriouserConstance "Or better yet CC, you could have formed a letter writing campaign to the Disney head office in Burbank." lol I may still do that. Just to let them know I've seen what they're capable of, and that I've got my eye on them.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "Are you guys for real here? Or are you just poking my eyes out?" For me it's a little bit of both. "Certainly not with a brand new park in 2001, that you're designing from the ground up." Yes, but like you said, DCA was new. Vegetation wasn't mature and many areas of the park simply weren't fully developed yet. Even without the upcoming additions it's clear that the park's decade old landscaping is beginning to fill in and some (but not all) of those ugly sight lines that were prevalent at opening have all but disappeared because of it. It's quite noticeable at the entrance where the hotels south of the park are no longer visible. Of course growth and development, an inevitability for any Disney park, will further improve the views around DCA's perimeter.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "The point is you learn from your mistakes and go FORWARD, not repeat them when you get too cheap and lazy too which all it was about mostly with DCA." Tell that to the team responsible for Tomorrowland '98. DCA looks like EPCOT in comparison.
Originally Posted By WorldDisney Trust me, they were just as bad. That entire era, '96 to '03 was just one horrible decision after the next. DCA sadly was just the pinnacle to it all.
Originally Posted By WorldDisney Well it definitely covers that period and certainly the worse theme park ever built by Disney bar none (sorry Davewasbaloo...but yeah it bites ). But WDS was built because they had to honor a contract and build on that spot by a certain date or they would lose it and its obvious their hearts werent into it. They hands were tied in terms of building something there. With DCA, they had 40+ years to do whatever they want on their own time and influence...and this is what we got.
Originally Posted By WorldDisney How is this not balanced exactly? I agreed with you, WDS is definitly worse, SO bad its still the only Disney theme park left I have not even bothered to see yet. DCA I happily go to just as long as I dont have to pay full price for it . I was only saying unlike DCA, WDSP was built out of neccessity and to honor a contract...and it truly shows .
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <Agree with JIM (and I sooooo hate agreeing with JIM),> For real? What's wrong with agreeing with me? I make some great, logical points. <Yes, but like you said, DCA was new. Vegetation wasn't mature and many areas of the park simply weren't fully developed yet.> I guess for my money, when Disney builds a new park, they don't get to have the 'this will grow in' honeymoon phase. It's Disney's own fault, they developed the 'This is what makes Disney Theme Parks great' list. And when they don't adhere to them, we're (I guess literally) supposed to look the other way. <Tell that to the team responsible for Tomorrowland '98. DCA looks like EPCOT in comparison.> I agree, Hans. Tomorrowland '98 was horrible. But before that, Disney/MGM Studios was poorly designed too. And don't get me started on the travesty of building the Dolphin & Swan hotels so that it impacts the horizon line of EPCOT Center's World Showcase -- blasphemy!
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <With DCA, they had 40+ years to do whatever they want on their own time and influence...and this is what we got. > Yeah, that's how I feel too, WorldDisney. Let's grab a couple of beers and hang out. I think I'm falling for you.
Originally Posted By WorldDisney <<For real? What's wrong with agreeing with me? I make some great, logical points.>> Great, logical points huh? I known you here for 10 years now JIM...so far I've counted four. But I WILL have those beers with you as long as you're buying. ;D
Originally Posted By WorldDisney <<I guess for my money, when Disney builds a new park, they don't get to have the 'this will grow in' honeymoon phase. It's Disney's own fault, they developed the 'This is what makes Disney Theme Parks great' list. And when they don't adhere to them, we're (I guess literally) supposed to look the other way.>> Yeah exactly!! (Okay this counts as five ) Its their own faults. And if it was ONLY DCA, like a small blip or something, then I could get over it. But every park from MGM on has been like this. And I know when MGM was sucessful, it kind of told them they could pull this off. But from DAK to HKDL, all they had was falling attendance and horrible word of mouth with all the others where they have to infused hundreds of millions they didnt plan on (DCA a cool billion). And yet they keep building them this way...I dont get it? And at least DAK was a beautiful,original, immersive park! It just had no rides. The rest simply SUCKED!!! And HKDL is the worst in this regard. At least the others were second gate or even 4th gate parks. This park was suppose to carry an entire market on its own with 12 rides in it...what were they thinking?
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <Great, logical points huh? I known you here for 10 years now JIM...so far I've counted four. > How dare you.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 < And I know when MGM was sucessful, it kind of told them they could pull this off. > Yes, exactly. I've said this for a long time. The MGM "build small and just get the thing open, then add more later" model was obviously what they were thinking with DCA. They built it a bit more complete than MGM '89, but not enough. This was a major miscalculation for two major reasons: 1). DCA was a second gate, not a third, and 2). The WDW demo was used to staying a week and park-hopping on 4-7 day hoppers already. So if MGM was a half-day, they'd just hop back to MK or EPCOT and not worry about it. The super-critical SoCal demo was totally different, not used to hopping, and used to having the best park in the world in their backyard for 45 years already. <And yet they keep building them this way...I dont get it?> Because - essentially - they keep pulling it off. MGM was a hit because of course all the people already staying a week wanted to check out the new park, even if only for a half day. DCA, for all its faults, did change the paradigm in Anaheim, did increase out of town stays, and is getting more popular as they add more. WDSP is the least successful, but as noted they pretty much had to build it when they did, and now they've got something they can grow into. DAK filled a niche (animal-based park) that WDW didn't have and may succeed (I've never seen stats on this) from keeping WDW visitors from taking a day to see BGT or SeaWorld, keeping their bodies (and wallets) at WDW for that day instead. If the "open small, add more later" model didn't work for them financially, they wouldn't keep doing it. WE might not like it, and prefer "more, more, MORE!" but it must be working for them.
Originally Posted By believe IMO, it's a bad time to remove this (or any) attractions at DCA. You are losing an attraction count with no promise of a replacement. Why are people happy with this when DCA still doesn't have enough attractions.? They said they are removing it strictly for visual purposes - balony! - I'm sure cost cutting was the major factor to remove it, and the "visual" excuse just made it easy to approve.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "It's Disney's own fault, they developed the 'This is what makes Disney Theme Parks great' list. And when they don't adhere to them, we're (I guess literally) supposed to look the other way." People believe in Disney's sales pitch even though, as the evidence shows, it doesn't always live up to the hype. As for the argument that they should have learned from their mistakes, I wonder then what lessons did they learn from Disneyland's Tomorrowland when building the one in Florida? <a href="http://progresscityusa.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/tomorrowland_1972_allears_net.jpg" target="_blank">http://progresscityusa.com/wp-..._net.jpg</a> Clearly it was not quite ready for prime time when it opened in 1971.
Originally Posted By socalkdg Every park at WDW has visual intrusions and they had 47 sq miles to work with. AK you can see the Epcot resort area while riding Expedition Everest Epcot you can see the Swan and Dolphin. Easily the biggest mistake ever as it ruins views from the World Showcase. MK you can see the Contemporary Hotel DHS you can see Epcot hotels from TOT. DL still has visual intrusions. Ride the monorail, see Harbor Blvd. Bottom line is Maliboomer and MFW have many of the same views that every other Disney Park does. It wasn't just a DCA problem.
Originally Posted By CuriouserConstance "People believe in Disney's sales pitch even though, as the evidence shows, it doesn't always live up to the hype" This reminds me of something I read the other day, it was awhile back and Warner Bros was doing a test screening on their upcoming animated movie that was coming out, audience reaction to it was totally flat, they did another test screening on a new group of people, except this time at the beginning of the movie rather than put the Warner Bros logo up there, they put Disney's up, and the crowd went wild for the movie.
