Originally Posted By jonvn The word failing and failure in a business sense means a specific thing that darkbeer, and others, have not been using properly.
Originally Posted By dshyates My biggest beef has nothing to do with financial success. Not my problem. It is the artistic failings of the park. And I should explain what I mean when I say I was insulted by the park. I have heard the excuse that the new team that developed DCA simply didn't understand the Disney tradition of quality and excellence. From what I understand they knew of it and scoffed at it and treated it with complete disdain. Even going as far as calling the older, more experienced imagineers "dinosaurs". They were the hip and trendy hot shots. They not only dissed the old breed of imagineers, but the demographic as a whole. Thinking themselves so much hipper and trendier than Dave in WV. Surely anything these wunderkids produced would thrill the pants off the unsophiticated masses. This kind of arrogance is palpable in the park. And then there is simply a great deal if ineptitude to go around. I'm sure the retail unit did their best on HPB backlot when told they would be building a theme park district. But it is a thematic mess. It is neither a replica of hollywood or a movie set and has only a loosely cohesive theme of hollywood. Each "store front" is different. It looks like a mall. Not a street. Arrogance and ineptitude a beautiful combination.
Originally Posted By jonvn "It is the artistic failings of the park." That falls entirely under opinion. And a lot of what you seem to see there and be "insulted" by I don't see, or agree with you on. This does not invalidate your opinion, but that does not make it the truth of the matter. It simply makes it your opinion, and it is worthwhile and valid and interesting as that. You have to simply realize that your viewpoint is strictly that, and you're not going to be able to convince people your opinion is the right one to have, when they can form their own perfectly well.
Originally Posted By Mr X **"WHY, if I may ask, do you defend this half-assed attempt by Disney to build the cheapest place they could manage and still expect people to show up?" Oh come on, I think the Studio park in Paris is much more of a half-assed attempt. Give it that, at least.** That's fair, Jon. I should have said "cheapest place they could manage TO DATE". ;p
Originally Posted By Mr X >>Oh for goodness sakes, don't worry about what you say to me. I make the nicest people in the world absolutely crazy with anger. It's my gift.<< LMAO. Jon, I think your self-deprecating humor of late has been hilarious, and (I hope) well received. You and I both have a habit of speaking in blunt, dry terms which gets us in trouble with others sometimes even when we don't mean to offend...it's interesting that you and I both have been banned from LP, but then reinstated.
Originally Posted By Mr X >>I have heard the excuse that the new team that developed DCA simply didn't understand the Disney tradition of quality and excellence.<< Completely untrue. In fact, with DCA and DisneySea being built pretty much simultaneously...a LOT of the same folks worked on both projects. I've chatted with some of them, and they were ranting and raving about budget slashing left and right on DCA, and poor leadership, while at the same time DisneySea was unfolding in just the way they'd imagined (they enjoyed working on the project much more, seemed to me). Which leads me to believe that at least SOME of DCA's shortcomings could be attributed to imagineer resentment (strange thing to say, but it's hard to do your best work when you're unhappy).
Originally Posted By dshyates Here's what I heard went down. With most of the imagineers busy with that high dollar Japanese project, DCA was for the most part put together with a Pressler picked design team from the retail division. Being overseen by Barry. Presslers guys constantly dissed the old guard and thus the old guys refused to help or guide the new guys. Who would have been to cool to listen anyway. And as the final design phase came to a close Steve Davidson was brought in to tweak the Pier and the Sun Plaza. The budget from the get go was low because Pressler promised cheap and successful. He left Disney to work at the Gap, you know. Well he got cheap. Successful is still up in the air.
Originally Posted By dshyates And I should mention that DCA isn't the only Disney property I find insulting. WDW's All Star Resorts. Just because some of us can't afford the deluxes doesn't mean we must love tacky on a giant scale. And all the value resorts are that way. Just give me a building just like the all stars decorated on a palm tree motif, same amenities, food court, etc. and a lagoon style pool. Call it Disney's Key Largo Resort.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss <<Here's what I heard went down. With most of the imagineers busy with that high dollar Japanese project, DCA was for the most part put together with a Pressler picked design team from the retail division. Being overseen by Barry. Presslers guys constantly dissed the old guard and thus the old guys refused to help or guide the new guys.>> Ifd you ask me, that sounds exactly like what I said: new guys who didn't understand what Disney stands for.
Originally Posted By dshyates "Ifd you ask me, that sounds exactly like what I said: new guys who didn't understand what Disney stands for." Had the best example of it right next door. Had the old guard trying at first to help them understand. Yet they were too cool for school. they had open disdain for Disney tradition. Knew everything. Didn't need any help from the old dinosaurs. Well they got some schoolin', but it wasn't in theme park design. The question is did they learn anything.
Originally Posted By jonvn I don't know where you get this from, but it sounds like sour grapes on a very petty corporate level.
Originally Posted By bean "I have heard the excuse that the new team that developed DCA simply didn't understand the Disney tradition of quality and excellence. From what I understand they knew of it and scoffed at it and treated it with complete disdain. Even going as far as calling the older, more experienced imagineers "dinosaurs". They were the hip and trendy hot shots. They not only dissed the old breed of imagineers, but the demographic as a whole. " This is more heresay than truth. there was some friction between older imagineers and the newer generation. That is not new it had happened before. When the new tomorrowland was being designed and specifically "Alien Encounter" for Disneyland (yes it was deisgned for Disneyland not WDW) There was friction between the older generation and the newer generation. Older imagineers felt the aproach being taking was not the wholesome family oriented idea that Walt had created for the park. Newer imagineeers and managment felt that it was time to move on and notice the change in taste from the younger generation. The same basically happened with DCA. Between a set budget for the park and the idea that it needed to compliment disneyland and not compete with it different aproach was taken. it was a time when other theme parks and amusement parks were realizing the one demographic that was being ignored, the teen group. Management felt they needed to pull away from the same mold used with other recent disney parks. Sadly the idea was not fully realized and certain areas did not fully blend the new concept with the old. Areas like Grizzley peak Condor flats and to a certain extent Hollywood backlot seemed to work. Other areas like the pier, which has a good concept was not fully realized like envisioned. Added details were not included and it was noticable. As for your comment on Hollywood picture Backlot, i have to disagree. Even major newspapers and hollywood papers praised that area for being one of the most realistically detailed areas that really represented the city of Hollywood. Every building facade was praised as some of the best reproductions outside a real movie studio.
Originally Posted By 2001DLFan <<Hans Reinhardt: "Do you have any better ways of determining potential success?" Only Disney knows for sure, and the company has its own measures to gauge the success or failure of the place. We do not know, so why argue either way. At this point, all we can do is look at several obvious external factors and draw reasoned conclusions. Unfortunately, I only see a handful of people doing that here. Again, I do not believe that Disney management would willingly spend $1 billion of the company's cash flow on something that was not almost certain to bring return a significant return on that investment. This news alone contradicts any claim that the park is an outright financial failure.>> Again, I never claimed that DCA was an outright financial failure. As for Disney’s willingness to invest, they didn’t invest a worthwhile amount for the park in the initial budget ($600-800 million) in the first place. Would that then indicate their concern over the chances of success of the park? Or could it have been that they were so focused on the financial aspects of the overall resort project that they just didn’t concern themselves with the possibility that such a limited budget might result in a park that didn’t fulfill their expectations?
Originally Posted By 2001DLFan <<jonvn: "I recall hearing some a rumor of a concept along those lines" I don't recall hearing that rumor, and since they didn't do it, I don't see what relevance it has. Now, there was actually not a rumor, but a plan to shut down EDL. A friend of mine at the time who worked at the studio actually was making preperations to go to Paris to help remove all Disney artifacts from the site and shut the place down. Well, in essence, what you heard was also a rumor, and “since they didn't do it, I don't see what relevance it hasâ€. <<"If DCA had been built on it’s own, " A pointless example, because it wasn't, and was not intended to operate as a park on its own. So this also has no relevance.>> So, a park can be built with less quality and be expected to survive because of it’s proximity to a successful park? Tokyo DisneySea could have survived on it’s own. Islands of Adventure could have survived on it’s own. Your shrugging off valid points as irrelevant is meaningless. <<"It wasn’t a huge theme park, more of a botanical garden and bird sanctuary." No. It was a theme park, they put in various rides, tried themed areas, and all sorts of entertainment. It's themed area was called Old St. Louis, and had various games, bumper cars, a fun house and a monorail ride. The back side of the park had a log flume ride and a small boat ride, as well as an ampitheater. The place started out as a small visitors center for the brewery. It grew to be a theme park, but it could not compete, and it failed. It went away. This is what it means to have a business fail.>> Busch Gardens WAS a botanical garden and bird sanctuary that added attractions and broadened into a theme park. But their whole existence was NOT dependant on the theme park, which is why they were willing to close it when their brewery (their REAL business) needed the real estate. And that brewery did NOT fail and is still going strong. <<"since the ongoing thinking keeps DCA under it’s existing scope – a ticketed second gate – that will carry some of the existing baggage with it. " You're not getting a rather important concept: It IS a second gate. It's not a primary destination park, was not meant to be one, and you're judging it on criteria that has absolutely no meaning because it is inappropriate to what the park is. >> Certainly it is a second gate. But if the majority of the essence of the current park will remain after the upcoming fix, what is going to be the draw for the future? Over the past five years, Disney has added some major elements to try and turn around visitor’s perception of the park. But they have had little real impact. And, outside of the Carsland (still a rumor at this point), what they are intending to add with the $1.2 billion doesn’t sound all that impressive either. If Tower of Terror didn’t make a significant improvement, how would re-themeing elements of the park do it?
Originally Posted By trekkeruss <<what they are intending to add with the $1.2 billion doesn’t sound all that impressive either.>> Instead of writing a very long post, you could have just said, "DCA sux and always will."
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "I don't know where you get this from, but it sounds like sour grapes on a very petty corporate level." Exactly what I was thinking.
Originally Posted By jonvn "what you heard was also a rumor" Since the person I knew was actively preparing to do exactly what I said he was, it was not a rumor. This was a direct source of information. "So, a park can be built with less quality and be expected to survive because of it’s proximity to a successful park?" You should not judge a park based on criteria it was never meant to fufill. This seems to me like a rather obvious concept. "Your shrugging off valid points as irrelevant is meaningless. " Your points aren't valid. They're actually rather ridiculous. And they are not even accurate. Islands of Adventure barely even makes any money if it does at all. "But their whole existence was NOT dependant on the theme park, which is why they were willing to close it when their brewery (their REAL business) needed the real estate. And that brewery did NOT fail and is still going strong." The theme park was not making money. They wanted to increase the size of the brewery. It closed. It failed. I am quite familiar with the place. "But if the majority of the essence of the current park will remain after the upcoming fix, what is going to be the draw for the future?" As a second gate to the Anaheim property. As it is now. Reinvestment will hopefully bring more visitors to stay even longer. Get as angry as you want, but it seems to be preventing you from understanding what anyone else is saying. Your viewpoint of DCA SUCKS as the central idea around which you pin everything else is short sighted and parochial. Perhaps you should try and understand what various people have been saying on this topic here. On the other hand, some people seem unable to get past the very simplistic viewpoint you want to hold onto for dear life. You don't like what they are going to spend 1.2 billion on? OH well. Maybe you should try and figure out what you actually do enjoy in life and get involved with that. Obviously nothing is going to please you regarding DCA. You have it in your head it's evil, and that's all there is to it. Not a particularly interesting viewpoint.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Exactly what I was thinking." I think that entire story was very silly and unrealistic. It sounds like bad vaudeville drama, as does a lot of the things said. Again, what Bean said sounds a whole lot more realistic. And a whole lot less exciting as a story. Just people doing their jobs who have average everyday boring conflict.
Originally Posted By dshyates Jon you really must be a republican. You sound like tha administration's take on Iraq. "Not going as planned, yet all is well." My guess is DCA and our Iraq invasion are going about the same. But you just keep on keepin on.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss <<My guess is DCA and our Iraq invasion are going about the same>> You're implying the DCA will eventually fail even after they put a $1 billion dollars into it, which sounds more ridiculous than anything Jon has said.
