Originally Posted By danyoung >One is. Because they can do little else.< It takes 2 to tango. And you are definitely tangoing, jonvn. >Yeah, Danny, I was thinking the same thing and that's why I waded out of the discussion. ...< I was actually gonna say that they sounded kinda like me & TDLFAN when we get into it. But that's not quite right, cuz me & TDLFAN know when to let it go.
Originally Posted By jonvn "It takes 2 to tango." Perhaps, but I'm not throwing out comments about "self-loathing." In any case, we can get back to the topic.... as was said, the Soap Opera Bistro was a really cool idea, for those people who were fans of those shows. We went in there one time, it was nice, and there were people in there eating. We did not eat in there. Mostly, we're not fans of the shows, but if we were, it'd be pretty fun. Now there is no way we're going into what is there now. IT's for the 4 and under set.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 Instead of Soap Operas, I think they should have gone with something that had a little more mass appeal - like movies. I think more people would have been interested in eating on the Death Star set, or in the Land of Oz, than in eating on Soap Opera sets. While there is a large fan base for Soap Operas, I don't think that really includes most members of the familys that are coming to DCA. Movies would have had a wider appeal.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss <<While there is a large fan base for Soap Operas, I don't think that really includes most members of the familys that are coming to DCA.>> I never had the opportunity to dine at SOB, but I don't think it's far away in concept from the very successful 50's PrimeTime Diner at Disney/MGM. Really, does eating in a 50's style kitchen with wait staff that act like a nagging relative sound appealing? So... I think Disney just abondoned too many of DCA's early ideas before they really had a chance to get a foothold, since I hear enough people here who opinions I respect say that many of those offerings were actually quite good.
Originally Posted By jonvn Yes, I think that is right. They abandoned it too early. There are tens of millions of soap opera fans out there, and I would guess that the demographic for them is quite similar to the demographic of families. What happened in this area is that they opened 4 food outlets (that I can think of) in a very small location. ANd they closed all but the hot dog stand down. Too many places to eat. But now, they closed almost all of them, and now there are not enough. Nothing in the area to eat over there except the hot dog place. The soap opera place should have stayed, and the other closed food venue next to the theater should have been converted to the kiddie show. It was far less unique and fun. Oh well....
Originally Posted By dshyates I loathe Soap Operas. But I don't see why a niche restaurant like SOB can't find a home in a theme park district about entertainment. Eat, drink and have a Disney day. I didn't care for DCA when it opened. It did have its strong points and it glaring, flaming, screaming flaws, but I never considered SOB to be one of them. I didn't go in. We ate elsewhere and thanked wolfgangs staff for the good food and mediocre service. We did enjoy the meal and the view of PP at dusk. If Walt got a home run with DL, and Roy and team got another with WDW '71. Then Barry B. got walked to first with DCA. He didn't strike out, but now he's on first waiting for someone else to come in and git-r-done. I hear this guys got a billion dollar bat.
Originally Posted By jonvn Really, people need to be happy there is a theme park there, period. If there was not one built at the time it was built, there'd be no billion dollar fix up now. They built what they could when they could. As far as I was concerned, when it was built, it was fine. It had some issues, but had a nice ideal behind it, but needed to be built out. Some misses and bad execution. Now they are going to be able to fix stuff up. Like I thought they would all along. Hopefully it will be fixed up to be actually better, and not cartoon happy kiddie land. The original ideas behind the park were for a more adult and relaxed atmosphere, a different tone than DL. More of an epcot world showcase kind of feel. That's pretty obvious. Lots of places to eat, film attractions, some nicely themed areas. The problems were that there were too many food outlets, they were too pricey, the attractions were all film based or pier rides, and some areas were built with basically nothing in them. So they didn't do the best job, but a job they did actually do did get done, so that now they are actually committed to moving forward with improving the place. That's great.
Originally Posted By BlueOhanaTerror >>>But I do find it amusing that because I disagree with some, and their constant refrain of DCA sucks, that I'm filled with self-loathing. Says quite a bit about them, really. When people pop up with stuff like that, it's what is really on THEIR mind, more than anything.<<< Yeah. You're not much good at pop psychology, either. It's not because you "disagree" with some, Jon - You've not really disagreed much with me to be a bother. But you DO pick on others that are probably younger and less careful with their postings than you are, and not terribly considerate of their enthusiasm or wild-eyed wonder and idealism - traits you long ago abandoned, despite your vaunted yearning for a Tomorrowland that still dares to be bold. The disparity in what you claim to embrace, and how you insult and squash younger dreamers, says an awful lot. And self-loathing may be overstating the situation, but it's in the ballpark.
Originally Posted By Park Hopper >>One quick point, though, as to the idea of something themed to earthquakes, I just don't ever see Disney taking that kind of chance (maybe using an earthquake effect as part of one, and even that's doubtful)<< What about Big Thunder's final lift hill?
Originally Posted By jonvn Well, that's like a movie sort of thing. Earthquakes in this state are really kind of not funny. I always thought the earthquake attraction at Universal was a bit in bad taste. Would you really want a ride with the subject matter something that's killed lots of people? I don't think Disney would do that.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<Of course it was a cool idea. We actually went in to eat there, but the menu or prices were not something we were interested in. That they ripped it out for a kiddie show is very unfortunate.>> I only got to dine in there twice. Once right after park opening and once about a month before they shut down. The menu had changed, but both times the food was quite good. The fact they ripped it out for a kiddie show that could have gone in a freakin temporary tent or empty cheap to build soundstage type building is sad. It also speaks to the kneejerk reactions of TDA execs at the time (destroying the Eureka floats instead of simply storing them out in one of Disney's huge warehouses in Ontario). That restaurant cost millions to design, build and decorate. If it wasn't working at the time (and little was in 2001-02), they could have just shuttered it temporarily. The concept was great. And you didn't have to be a fan of General Hospital to have a good time. It was all soap schtick. Worse, it's the same kind of tacky, pop culture dining experience that Prime Time Cafe and Sci-Fi Drive Inn are at Disney-MGM Studios and I don't know how often I've heard folks say that's what DCA needed. I feel like going, 'Uhm guys, they already had it and ripped it out!''
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<I never had the opportunity to dine at SOB, but I don't think it's far away in concept from the very successful 50's PrimeTime Diner at Disney/MGM. Really, does eating in a 50's style kitchen with wait staff that act like a nagging relative sound appealing?>> Russ, I hadn't read your post when I wrote 309, but yeah, this is exactly what I was talking about. And instead of an obnoxious 'aunt' making you eat your green beans or sending a 54-year-old into the corner for a timeout, at Soap Opera Bistro, you had a nurse come over and act like she was having an affair with you ... or a police detective that was actually the criminal mastermind ... soap hijinks all done tongue-in-cheek. <<So... I think Disney just abondoned too many of DCA's early ideas before they really had a chance to get a foothold, since I hear enough people here who opinions I respect say that many of those offerings were actually quite good.>> They were. In most ways, DCA was better at opening than it is now. Some things add to the park like ToT (which was always going to be added) ... or Aladdin (with the original cast) and even Bug's Land is cute for a kiddie area. But, overall, DCA 2001 was better than DCA 2007.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<The original ideas behind the park were for a more adult and relaxed atmosphere, a different tone than DL. More of an epcot world showcase kind of feel. That's pretty obvious. Lots of places to eat, film attractions, some nicely themed areas. The problems were that there were too many food outlets, they were too pricey, the attractions were all film based or pier rides, and some areas were built with basically nothing in them. >> Bingo! Those two graphs sum up DCA's true opening problems ... not a California theme ... or a boardwalk area ... or even the lack of a berm. But instead of working off the strengths, the execs just went into 'save my job' mode ... funny. The only significant exec from that era still at DL is Food and Beverage head honcho Mary Niven, and her area is one of the weakest parts of both parks right now IMHO.
Originally Posted By BlueOhanaTerror >>>But, overall, DCA 2001 was better than DCA 2007.<<< The truth of that statement is both striking and sad.
Originally Posted By jonvn I really don't think it takes a whole lot of a crystal ball to see these things either. Just a balanced view, and someone willing to see the place for what it was, not a "it all sucks" idea. The place had a great idea, but was really damaged by a corporate management mentality that really is pretty souless. I blame some of this for the online jerks who could do nothing but bash the place, and could not see anything but bad. There was a lot of good idea going when it opened. We've really lost out. But then, what do I know. I'm just here to destroy the dreams of young children everywhere.
Originally Posted By Sweeper I seem to recall there were quite a few people who complained that there was no DISNEY in DCA when it opened. So that is being addressed. The other complaint, there wasn't much to do (rides), so that is being addressed. The lack of theme in some areas is something Disney fans notice, WDI notices, but the general public may not but I'm sure it colors their perception of the park at some level. So that is being addressed. I remember walking into the preview tent for DCA so excited and then once I left the tent I was trying to convince myself it was going to be good because I wanted it to be. The concept art didn't even impress me. I wasn't really wowed by anything. And then the park opened...it was nice. It still is nice. But it isn't WOW! So I'm hoping the Billion dollar investment makes it a WOW! experience. Otherwise there is Screamin' and Soarin' and TOT and back to Disneyland. As much as I want highly themed environments, I want rides more. I'm not going to sit and stare at the scenery for hours. Adding capacity is about adding rides. And I will take Uncle John at his word, "We won't be designing anymore mediocre rides." NOW I want to know what he thinks is mediocre?
Originally Posted By jonvn "I seem to recall there were quite a few people who complained that there was no DISNEY in DCA when it opened." But there was. And the thing is, who were these people that were complaining? I wasn't. And why not? Because what is disney, anyway? Just a bunch of cartoon characters? Is that it? That's what is required? I don't think so. Who knows what Lasseter's idea of "mediocre" is. I think an endless stream of the same sort of ride is mediocre.
Originally Posted By BlueOhanaTerror >>>The place had a great idea, but was really damaged by a corporate management mentality that really is pretty souless. I blame some of this for the online jerks who could do nothing but bash the place, and could not see anything but bad.<<< Repeatedly, you've dismissed the online critics of DCA as inconsequential in both opinion and number. How now can such an inconsequential group be ALSO in ANY WAY to blame for the mangled mess that is DCA, or its poor attendance?
Originally Posted By jonvn "Repeatedly..." Repeatedly, you have made insulting, childish and personal comments, which calls into question your ability to discuss any of this rationally. You simply don't like my opinion, so I am destroying the dreams of children, and am filled with self-loathing. Of course. In the meantime, I prefer to discuss this stuff with people who actually have an ounce of sense in their heads. Let me know when you qualify.
