Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "And based on what the Disney senior staff said in 2001" Darkbeer!! For crying out loud, this is 2007!! Sheesh, man.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer But Trekkeruss said "ALWAYS..." not just in 2007 in post #675... Just the same as when "Churro Monster" said that DCA couldn't be called a failure in any sort of way....
Originally Posted By ChurroMonster DCA can not be called a failure becuase it doesn't draw as many as people as Disneyland. Even the lofty 2001 predictions called for HALF the annual attendance of Disneyland.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer ^Once again, and not bothering with all the quotes... MANY folks have called DCA a failure, including members of the Walt Disney Company Board of Directors. You personally might not like the term, but to many, DCA has and is still a failure in the fact it has failed to live up to the expectations that were set prior to the park opening, Plain and Simple.
Originally Posted By dshyates Regardless, of DL 8pm or later close time, I still think a 6pm close time smacks of low numbers and infrastructure overload issues during the value season are not a likely reason of said 6pm close. They are closing the park just as the lucritive dinner rush starts. For a park so dedicated to food and shopping that is telling to those who will listen.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "MANY folks have called DCA a failure, including members of the Walt Disney Company Board of Directors." You mean Eisner's detractors, Roy and Stan?
Originally Posted By jonvn "MANY folks have called DCA a failure" Then many people are wrong. Who are these many people? The board of directors (former at the time) were trying to unseat management for selfish reasons when they said it. So, who else?
Originally Posted By jonvn "based on what the Disney senior staff said in 2001" A) How do you know what Disney senior staff said? B) That was six years ago now. C) What exactly do you know of current performance? Expectations vs. outcome? D) What are your sources? OK? Enough of this nonsense. People are still repeating junk from over half a decade ago. I'm very happy that there are at least a few people here now who seem able to recognize this sort of thing for what it is now. Back in 2001, I felt like a lone wolf. Nearly everyone was on board with this crazy talk. Thankfully most of that has settled down, and a good number of people seem to be able to follow things reasonably and realistically.
Originally Posted By danyoung jon, just to throw a monkey wrench into the works, why do you have such a hard time with what was said 6 years ago? People said what they said - a lot of it has been documented in the press, and some of it was heard personally by posters on this thread. It seems the entire discussion is surrounding expectations back then vs. performance today. Seems to me the comments made by Disney before the opening of DCA are extremely pertinent to the discussion. But you keep dismissing them as "that was 6 years ago!" So what? They said what they said.
Originally Posted By berol What happened 6 years ago has little to do with figuring out DCA's current footing. But then darkbeer clarified that he wasn't talking about that.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <MGM was never intended to open light and then build it out. It just happened that way.> Even if you throw in what MGM opened in its first year, it was still a pretty light park. Arguably, it STILL is.
Originally Posted By jonvn "do you have such a hard time with what was said 6 years ago?" I don't, it simply has little to do with what is going on now. "a lot of it has been documented in the press, and some of it was heard personally by posters on this thread" I haven't seen much documented in the press at all. "Seems the entire discussion is surrounding expectations back then vs. performance today" WEll, I don't see it as that. I see it as some people keep bringing up the idea that it did not do as expected when it opened, and they keep hammering on that. How it is doing now, versus how it is expected to be doing now is something else. Also, having the place be "packed" all the time was simply unrealistic, if the meaning is taken how they actually meant for it to mean. The numbers don't work out. Basically, we don't know these things, yet people are arguing as if they do. They don't. It's tiresome to hear the same things endlessly repeated.
Originally Posted By 2001DLFan <<jonvn: "Isn't this kinda like serving a multi-course meal of saltines, a filet mignon steak, and popsicles for dessert, and when the complaints roll in you say that I guess multi-course meals aren't viable?" No, because the thing that was being said was AFTER the billion or so is spent, and people still don't go to the park, what does that mean? And after spending what would amount to at that time to be $1.8 billion, and the public didn't care for it, that'd be about all she wrote. It would kill the idea of a multi-park destination in Anaheim.>> I really think it depends on what is done with the $1.2 billion. If the “investment†is wasted on halfhearted concepts, that doesn’t necessarily mean that a multi park resort is not feasible, but rather that people just won’t buy crap just because it has the Disney name on it. Lets just hope that the investment is applied to a successful concept that satisfies the Disney aficionado enough to make DCA a success.
Originally Posted By 2001DLFan <<jonvn: "MANY folks have called DCA a failure" Then many people are wrong. Who are these many people? The board of directors (former at the time) were trying to unseat management for selfish reasons when they said it. So, who else?>>> Do you REALLY consider the efforts to remove Eisner a selfish act? Where do you think Disney would be right now if Roy and Stanley hadn’t been successful in their efforts?
Originally Posted By bean "Darkbeer Sun 8/26/2007 9:24p But it does show it is clearly underperforming as compared to Disneyland " This statement is ridiculous. Of course DCA does less business than Disneyland. Disneyland is 80+ acres and has triple the attractions and several night shows. It is also the signature park. Still the hours do not dictate that DCA is failing.
Originally Posted By bean "MANY folks have called DCA a failure, including members of the Walt Disney Company Board of Directors." When has the board called DCa a failure? keep believing that. The CEo said the park was a challenge. That does not mean it was a failure. I am tired of this argument and i am a fool to keep reading information from someone that loves to quote stories and attendance numbers from uninformed writers that have little knowledge of what is rally happening behind the doors of Burbank. Maybe instead we need more pictures of napkins on the floor and peeling paint so that we could re-arrange are schedules and take care of it immediately
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << Do you REALLY consider the efforts to remove Eisner a selfish act? >> Roy Disney wouldn't have ever begun his campaign against Eisner if his personal investments hadn't gone so sour. He was in a position where he would be forced to liquidate his Disney shares to pay off bad investments, and his primary motivation was to get the Disney stock price moving in an upward direction. Roy Disney's investment company, Shamrock Holdings, made some really stinky investment decisions that put his family shares in the Disney company in real jeopardy. I doubt you would have seen him make so much noise if Disney stock had been doing well enough to mask his losses in everything else.
Originally Posted By 2001DLFan <<Sport Goofy: “ Do you REALLY consider the efforts to remove Eisner a selfish act?†Roy Disney wouldn't have ever begun his campaign against Eisner if his personal investments hadn't gone so sour. He was in a position where he would be forced to liquidate his Disney shares to pay off bad investments, and his primary motivation was to get the Disney stock price moving in an upward direction. Roy Disney's investment company, Shamrock Holdings, made some really stinky investment decisions that put his family shares in the Disney company in real jeopardy. I doubt you would have seen him make so much noise if Disney stock had been doing well enough to mask his losses in everything else.>> Everybody in any way involved with Disney, be it in the stock market, employee, fan or visitor would have motivated by selfishness at that time. I certainly was. My stocks had taken a huge hit because of Eisner. And my enjoyment of the parks had suffered due to the cost cutting and short sightedness in their management. I have no doubt that he would have proceeded even if he hadn’t had a financial reason as his name was also involved. So, if you want to base his motives on selfishness, you’ll have to apply it to most everyone else who supported him in his efforts to oust Eisner. Be that as it may, you failed to address the rest of my question: “Where do you think Disney (the company) would be right now if Roy and Stanley hadn’t been successful in their efforts?â€
Originally Posted By 2001DLFan <<bean: 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." your so far off. In no way is the park considered a serious problem. You actually think that if that was the thinking the expansion would be spread out over ten years? Since before DCA was opened there was always plans on a large second and third phase expansion. I will be honest, it did not include some major comsetic changes to the park in some areas but this new budget will mostly be spent on attraction and not costmetic overlays. While DCA may not be considered a SERIOUS problem (especially after Disney Studios Paris), it does have issues that need to be fixed. As for the expansion timetable, that is partially dictated by the time and scheduling required to complete the various elements. Some expansion plans for DCA were actually initiated well before they were intended. Concept for Tower of Terror was begun before the park opened due in part to some of the comments coming out of the internet. The ability of information about DCA to be disseminated so quickly, with construction pictures, rumors and actual information of attractions brought out a lot of feedback (some of which was negative), which reached mainstream media. When the park opened and proved that many of the fears were true, it just added to the negative feelings people had developed. Of course, not everyone was dissatisfied and many did really like the park. Unfortunately, just as with the Light Magic parade at Disneyland, when there isn’t significant support from the public, something has to be done. Fortunately for DCA, it didn’t meet the fate of LM. As for this DCA enhancement, a good deal of the initial budget WILL be used for cosmetic changes, at least for the first few years. The fountain show will probably be the biggest major entertainment element until they begin the Carland area (still a rumor). The cosmetic changes apparently are focused on a redo of the main entrance, themeing of the various “lands†and probably some sort of transportation additions.
