Originally Posted By dshyates I was coming back to go ahead and do some back peddling and apologize to jon. After reading my post, I realized that ones take on it has to do with ones politics. To some now republican is a dirty word, and I didn't intend it like that. Or that jon is dillusional like the guys driving right now. Just that his debate style reminds me of the guys sent out to defend the president. And I should say, that I do believe that DCAs "surge" will be a lot more successful than George's. And just like DCA a complete pull out would make success very difficult.
Originally Posted By dshyates I really shouldn't have drawn the comparison to Iraq in any way. What's going on in Iraq is deadly serious. We are discussing the artistc and financial success of an entertainment venue. BIG difference. I'll go stand in the corner now.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << We are discussing the artistc and financial success of an entertainment venue. >> So, I guess your position is that you would have preferred for Disney to have spent big bucks on DCA at the outset. In hindsight, the consequences of doing that probably would have ended the Walt Disney Company as we know it. DLR suffered enough during the post 9/11 tourism slowdown -- can you imagine what things would have been like if they had a park that was twice as expensive to operate and no guests coming through the gates? It's no secret that Disney was very close to being sold off during the post 9/11 slump. An overly expensive DCA probably would have been enough to get the stock price low enough for the corporate raiders to step in. Then Disney would have ended up being just another entertainment company that gets flipped on Wall Street every couple of years -- just like Universal, Paramount, Time Warner, etc.
Originally Posted By dshyates To be quite honest I could have taken smaller with higher quality. Spend the same amount, take what they spent on brand damaging carnival rides and build one home run or simply spend it on something prettier than stucco.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Not going as planned, yet all is well." I'm not saying that so much, either, as I don't know how well it is. I said "I think Disney probably feels that DCA is doing just OK." I think that is my wording. "Just that his debate style reminds me of the guys sent out to defend the president" Oh lord, you need to read world events...but don't worry about it.
Originally Posted By dshyates I believe they don't think it's going ok at all. While not a failure, it is a serious problem. One serious enough to warrent a major influx of cash and possibly a rebranding of the park. I am amused when people keep comparing it to MGM to prove the park is OK. (which I don't recall you doing jon). They do realize that at this very moment MGM is not only being completely retooled into different lands(Pixar Plaza, Lucas Land, etc.) But being rebranded to Disney's Hollywood Studios Theme Park. And while MGM is definitly in need, I believe DCA needs it worse. More so now than when it opened. They are both a mess now.
Originally Posted By jonvn "I believe they don't think it's going ok at all. While not a failure, it is a serious problem. One serious enough to warrent a major influx of cash and possibly a rebranding of the park." I've heard they are not rebranding the park. There is rumor of it, but it's not going to happen. "I am amused when people keep comparing it to MGM to prove the park is OK. (which I don't recall you doing jon)" I kind of did, actually. In that MGM has been completely done over since it was originally built, and it was built insufficiently for its needs. MGM was a complete let down for us when we visited. We spent very little time there. But the thing is that corporations, when faced with what you are talking about, that it is NOT doing OK, are not going to toss another billion at something. It has to first prove its worth, and that additional money put into a project is going to yield more money out. So, while it is possibly underperforming, it's also probably showing a great deal of promise and that has to be due to its level of performance. If it wasn't doing ok, if they didn't think the place had much chance of success, they would not be spending money on it. They'd close it down and turn it into some sort of shopping district or another hotel or maybe a water park. None of those things are happening.
Originally Posted By dshyates "So, while it is possibly underperforming, it's also probably showing a great deal of promise and that has to be due to its level of performance. If it wasn't doing ok, if they didn't think the place had much chance of success, they would not be spending money on it. They'd close it down and turn it into some sort of shopping district or another hotel or maybe a water park." I think even if were failing miserably they would have little choice but to fix it. They aren't going to return it to a parking lot. And developing it into hotels would cost even more than flattening. That ain't gonna happen. This is a battle they can't lose. And a MASSIVE outlay on cash seems like a determinated effort, not a fluffing. I am interested in seeing what of the original concrete structures are left in the end. As they have already killed and replaced everything not nailed down. Eureka!, Steps in Pooh, Three bags Full. Like it was their fault.
Originally Posted By jonvn "I think even if were failing miserably they would have little choice but to fix it" There is lots of choice. They could do like I said, expand the hotels, make a water park, some other thing like that. If it truly were doing that badly, it would be the thing a corporation does. "They aren't going to return it to a parking lot. " No, probably not. Which is why I've always said that people should be happy that anything was built at all, because now, they have to nuture it and make it grow. If not DCA, then some other thing there. Any of it better than a parking lot. People forget quickly how much better it is now than it was before. I have never understood the nostalgia for 100 acres of smelly asphalt. "I am interested in seeing what of the original concrete structures are left in the end." My guess is it will largely retain the overall look of what it has now, more detailed, more attractions. I don't really see them tearing a whole lot of stuff down. For example, the pier area is going nowhere, but it would get spruced up. The wharf area will go nowhwere, but maybe get an attraction to go into the spot. Some things may go. Like Route 66 which is hard to even perceive as a separate area, and have another area expanded into it like SF. Some things may be added, like maybe a Silicon Valley area (something I'm surprised they didn't have in the first place). Some areas will be the same with just new facade work. Some places may not be touched at all. WE'll see if they even do the entire construction project. Remember the Disney Decade? That kind of petered out. Turned out to mostly be a few new hotels in Florida.
Originally Posted By danyoung >In hindsight, the consequences of doing that probably would have ended the Walt Disney Company as we know it.< That may or may not be true, but if it is true it really has no bearing on this discussion - it's merely a happy side result of Disney's poor planning.
Originally Posted By dshyates From what I heard and hope, the entry plaza, Route 66, and the remaining farm area are complete yesterland material. A victorian retooling of Paradise Pier, which I am very much looking forward to. I don't think they'll do much to most of HPB right off the bat. The Wharf, Condor Flats, and Grizzly Peak don't need anything at this time. But I do believe they will start with expanding SF into Route 66 area, the Entry Plaza, which I hear will be expanded to eat up the farm. And Carland. And I do believe that the increased traffic that the resort has seen overall really helped in getting the money to do this. Now the goal is to further increase guest visits with a focus on repeat visitors. Evening out guest traffic patterns around the resort, and increase guest satisfaction with DCA.
Originally Posted By jonvn If they get rid of the farm, what's the point of all the bug stuff? Then again, what's the point of monsters in hollywood.... The thing is with the hours, is that the park will likely ALWAYS be closing earlier than Disneyland. If they closed them both at the same time, everyone would be flooding out the gates of both parks at the same moment. By keeping DCA closed at least one or two hours differnetly than the main park, you really make it easier to deal with the crowds.
Originally Posted By danyoung >They could do like I said, expand the hotels, make a water park, some other thing like that. If it truly were doing that badly, it would be the thing a corporation does.< If this were any other corporation, I might agree with you. But this is Disney - for them to admit this level of failure is simply unprecedented. They narrowly avoided that with Euro Disney - I just can't see them closing the doors on DCA unless is were doing far worse than it actually is doing.
Originally Posted By jonvn To save face, they could do it in small phases. Rip out a section to add a hotel. Make a grand announcement. Continue to do so bit by bit. All of a sudden, the place is little more than a hotel district with a big water park. Maybe the only thing left would be the pier area. The lake would have been converted to a water source for the park, and the rest, hotels, shopping, and small amusements that would cater to people leaving Disneyland, or otherwise in the area. Don't think Disney wouldn't do it, either. They pulled the plug on GO.COM. That was a big deal. If something isn't working out, you don't keep an albatross around your neck. You get rid of it.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Look what happened to DisneyQuest, also. <I am amused when people keep comparing it to MGM to prove the park is OK.> Not to prove it was OK, to point out that the model of "build light, add more later" worked well for them with MGM (it got BETTER attendance than projected), so they decided to go that route with DCA. Of course, in doing that they overlooked the facts that it was a 2nd gate rather than a 3rd, and the DLR demographic is different from WDW's.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt “I believe they don't think it's going ok at all. While not a failure, it is a serious problem. One serious enough to warrent a major influx of cash and possibly a rebranding of the park.†If things were so dire, then where would the money come from to reinvest? They can’t just pull it out of thin air. Moreover, why would a multi-billion dollar corporation like Disney dump those resources into an enterprise that was having so-called “serious†problems? There are many less expensive ways to turn a business around than spending ridiculous sums of money like that. Companies spend cash on things that they believe are going to bring substantial returns on their investment with minimal risk. In my opinion, the park is doing fine, and management believes that there is potential for greater returns if they expand and retool the place.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss <<In my opinion, the park is doing fine, and management believes that there is potential for greater returns if they expand and retool the place.>> I would say okay as opposed to fine. IMO DCA did meet some of Disney expectations, but not all. It's the weaker parameters they are attempting to address.
Originally Posted By dshyates To me dire and serious are 2 different things. I belive for the most part the park is running in the black, with the exceptions of times like in the evening during the slow season. That is why they are closing early. That is far from dire, but I do believe that to Disney it is serious. And the park is far from the cash cow that it has the potential to be. I'm pretty sure thier intent is to turn it into a park that will knock your socks off, like a Disney Park should. Eye candy for everyone.
