Originally Posted By jonvn There is something to what you say, but I don't think it is quite the same. What I saw is that they had things like Three Bags Full, and that was replaced by stuff like Chip 'n' Dale. That's a simpler kind of entertainment, it is less sophisticated. I saw stuff like Wolfgang Puck get replaced by a character restaurant. That's also a simpler sort of thing. The food the deli was offering was really very interesting and not typical, but was replaced by an italian joint. These are movements towards less sophisticated offerings. I'm not trying to be insulting, but that is what these things end up as. There is nothing wrong with these types of entertainment. I like both, but not everyone can appreciate some things. I see a lot of posts online from people who don't seem to understand that not everything has to be the same because it has the name Disney on it. On another thread, someone was excited about how Disney was making DCA more like Disneyland, which I think shows a lack of understanding as to the offerings of DCA and its intent. I don't mean to say that just because you don't like DCA you don't have sophisticated tastes. You may just have different tastes. That's fine, too. But if you're going to compare things as they were to how they were changed, I think you have to admit that they really dumbed down things quite a bit. They did not do this because people liked the more sophisticated offerings. In terms of theming, I think that DCA has a much more detailed and in depth level of theming than DL does, in places. I can see it for myself. So when I see someone go about saying something like "The park has no themes" or similar statements, I have to figure that this person does not understand what the theming is or how it is being presented to them. Because the park, and each section in it, does have theming. I do understand what you are saying, and I hope this goes towards and explanation as to why I made those types of statements.
Originally Posted By Futurist Thanks Orlandoboi. My question though is, just how much TRUE entertainment value (and repeatable value) did your friends (including yourself) find in most of DCA's offerings. This core group of LPers have already spoken. But what about all the non heavy Disney afficianados that make a pretty large demograph ... SIGNIFICANTLY larger than us? Now, granted, your friends said (including yourself) said they enjoyed certain aspects of DCA, but you didn't mention what they thought of specific Attractions like the Sun Wheel, Mullhouland Madness, Orange Stinger, Golden Zephyr, the bread, wine, tortilla, and farm exhibits (all listed as headliner Attractions) plus the midway games which cost extra. (Another thing listed on the map as a *headliner* Attraction? Pretty amazing Disney rakes up some 25 to 30 Attractions ... well, just how many of them can you call an *Attraction*? So, it almost sounds like the laid back atmosphere, wider walkways, and a few other secondary features was good enough for your friends. It almost sounds like Attractions were insignificant. Exactly what the money crunching Disney execs LOVE to hear! So what did your friends have to say about the Attractions themselves? When they looked at the map, and see some 25 Attractions, what did they have to say about listed *Attractions* like Bountiful Farm, Boudin, Mission Tortilla, Midway Games, etc.?
Originally Posted By dennis-in-ct But hey left having FUN ... and knowing that the park will need time to develop and WILL ....
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Jeez, if Disney can build a park that people enjoy and that they really want to come back to, what's the point of analyzing the attraction mix to the point of distraction? Not everyone is obsessed with the number of rides. Some go because DCA is an enjoyable place with a wonderful atmosphere, and some will go back because they really enjoyed the laid back atmosphere and wide open vistas that are lacking in DL. And it sounds like that is what OrlandoBoi discovered - that there is more to a Disney theme park than the number of attractions it offers. Much more.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 jon, thanks for explaining your point of view. I do agree with you that a lot of the shows and food options being offered now at DCA are less "unique" than they were before, but I think that what we all tend to forget is that DCA is a theme park, not an art museum. In order for it to be successful it has to appeal to the most people as possible, and I think Disney realized that DCA in it's original form just didn't appeal to a broad enough audience. While I'm not sure that just adding character shows and changing dining options is the best course of action, it's what Disney has decided they need to do in order to bring in more people to DCA. If you want my personal opinion, I still believe that what people really want from a Disney theme park are the types of experiences that can only be found at a Disney theme park, and I don't think DCA has enough of these to be successful yet. I really don't think that people would be complaining as much about poor Jonny and Susie not having enough to do if there were only a few more family style E-tickets at DCA. I still believe that adding a few Disney-style e-tickets (with animatronics, etc) is the only way that DCA will ever be appreciated by the main stream audience. The park has atmosphere, places to eat, and plenty of A,B,C, and D's -- now all it needs is a few more E's to really get the crowds interested in coming.
Originally Posted By disneywatcher >> It's ALL about money now. << I find it ironic that money is again raised as a primary reason DCA turned out the way it did, certainly when the first posting in this thread of messages pertains to the observations and experiences of a visitor -- Orlandoboi -- to DCA who originally was quite underwhelmed with many, if not most, aspects of the park. Take the perceptions he had from his recent visit, ratchet them up a few notches, and you'll probably end up with the sincere viewpoints of leading executives, particularly Barry Braverman, within the DisCo. Simply put, regardless of how much DCA cost to build, I bet some of the top people at Disney rate their new park as quite nice, as even very impressive. More than ever before, I think DCA is an example of the quality of decisionmaking and wisdom of key people within the DisCo. To assume the outcome of their project in Anaheim was necessarily the result of dollars and budget is as overly simplistic as concluding that the controversy tearing apart a major religious organization -- which has been very much in the news recently -- was purely because of dollars, not horrible decisionmaking (and if anything, ridiculously bad decisions made by leaders within that institution have cost their group far more money, and wrecked the integrity of them and their church in the process). It all comes down to people, people, people, and not just money, money, money. Even Orlandoboi's attitude towards DCA appears to have been greatly influenced by the park employees he encountered there (and, unfortunately, the ones he encountered at Disneyland), along with the friend who accompanied him. Take the social dynamics created by the people around any one individual (at a theme park, at a store, at the workplace, etc.) and the impact that has on the perceptions -- or the judgement and skill (of executives and employees in a business) -- of that person can be far more profound than anything related to money, the bottom-line and budgets. Finally, there's the phenomenon of crowds (or lack of such) affecting a person's impression of how good (or poor) something is. When applied to parties, for example, some think the enjoyment level is higher when lots of people are crammed into a room, others think just the opposite. The same applies to the inside of theme parks, theaters, restaurants, stores, museums, etc.
Originally Posted By OrlandoBoi Futurist-hey bud,you're talking to the converted here. I must add at this point that I respect jonvn for his consistent stance regarding DCA. He has NEVER been on of the "blind gusher" brigade that simply praises ANYTHING Disney pumps out. From the beginning he has stated that DCA is not perfect, that it could have done with a few more attractions and indeed one or two more large scale "Pirates" like boat attractions and that he DOES appreciate the effort that went into detailling the park. I mut say that I share his opinion now. At the same time, I am not going to stand(sit?)here and say that DCA is God's gift to theme park fans. There are still some things about this place that need attention(similarly with DL across the way). However, I told MANY friends before I left on this vacation(which I am still enjoying-I am in SF at the moment)that this trip was a RELAXING vacation(compared to my theme park commando odyssey of last year). I stated that I did not plan to hit every single attraction at DL this time but rather was going there to relax in the parks-to enjoy theming, architecture, ambience and mood. DCA offered me that. I must also say that I did something that some other DCA supporters(sorry, I really don't know how else to phrase that)have stated. I saw MANY people leaving DCA with BROAD smiles on their faces, looking as if they had had an enjoyable day. In DCA I also saw families and couples having a ball. I think a large part of that has to do with the laid back and uncrowded atmosphere there as well. As to whether or not I enjoyed the roster of attractions there I can tell you that I did not go on the majority of the rides you listed. They either did not really interest me or I knew I would have felt uncomfortable squeezing into the ride vehicles. I would however like to list what I DID enjoy(the attractions asterisked are things I did not do on my last visit in September). Golden Dreams * Soarin' Screamin' It's Tough to Be a Bug The Animation Building "One Man's Dream" Blast * Muppetvision Chance to Shine Grizzly Rapids Redwood Creek Challenge Trail * Mulholland Madness * The Maliboomer Tortilla Exhibit * Electrical Parade I must say that Golden Dreams was superb. The Whoopi effect was BEAUTIFUL and my companion(who told me that he was tired of the cheezy World's Fair type films like Circlevision at DL)LOVED it. He and I agreed it was a touching and very effective depiction of the California story and was HEADS AND SHOULDERS above the abovementioned types of films that have previously been shown in Disney parks. Futurist, I have to also say that there are several attractions in Fantasyland that I have never tried and will never probably try. The Carousel, tea cups and Dumbo are very child oriented attractions that I will probably never set foot in. Likewise the star jets(or whatever they are called)in Tomorrowland and the Aladdin story attraction in Adventureland are things I have no interest in experiencing. I DO understand the criticism's and disappointment of those who swing more negatively towards DCA....hell-I used to be one of them. What I want people to understand is that I relaxed in DCA this time. I saw it in a different light. I saw the look on my good friend's face as we entered the animation building and he stood there for ten minutes in wonder watching the changing screens in the main foyer area. I heard him say, "Now THIS is something Disneyland needs!" I saw him in the room with the mirror, gazing in sheer DELIGHT at the jewels in the "stone" ; ) walls, watching the mirror flicker into life. As we entered the beast's library his joy was CONTAGIOUS as he craned his neck to stare at the rows of books and we watched the entire sequence of the rose on the mantle above the fireplace. Now THAT is Disney magic. Further it is a BEAUTIFUL example of effective pre show and then transition to a main attraction and then even MORE in the form of Ursula's room. From what I have seen, the Animation Building is one of THE BEST things Disney has ever done. I don't know what else to say. DCA was just highly enjoyable to me this time around. I spent some wonderful hours there with some of my best friends and we had fun.
Originally Posted By damon63 >And it sounds like that is what OrlandoBoi discovered - that there is more to a Disney theme park than the number of attractions it offers. Much more.< Absolutely. I've said this time and time again.
Originally Posted By damon63 >I do agree with you that a lot of the shows and food options being offered now at DCA are less "unique" than they were before, but I think that what we all tend to forget is that DCA is a theme park, not an art museum. In order for it to be successful it has to appeal to the most people as possible, and I think Disney realized that DCA in it's original form just didn't appeal to a broad enough audience.< I strongly disagree. They never let the park find it's audience in the first place. Instead of "educating" thier customers they seem to be pandering to them and as a result the integrity of the park has been slightly comprimised.
Originally Posted By tangaroa >I strongly disagree. They never let the >park find it's audience in the first >place. Instead of "educating" thier >customers they seem to be pandering to >them and as a result the integrity of >the park has been slightly comprimised. They don't exist to educate people. They exists to provide entertainment. IF people are telling them they aren't being entertained by DCA, they can't stand there and say "well that's your problem". They need to make money, and they do that by providing what people want. People want another Disneyland so that is what they will get. >I must say that Golden Dreams was >superb. The Whoopi effect was BEAUTIFUL >and my companion(who told me that he >was tired of the cheezy World's Fair >type films like Circlevision at DL) >LOVED it. What CircleVision type films in Disneyland? There aren't any. The closest thing I can think of is HISTA. I really like Golden Dreams too. It's a very well done movie. The first tiem I saw it, I commented on it's high production values - something unique for Disney definately. But I haven't seen Golden Dreams in awhile. I have no real desire to sit thru it again. As much as I like it, it's hard to justify the 30-40 minutes of time it takes up. Two or three times and you're done with it. That's a big problem for DCA. Lack of repeatability. Plus Golden Dreams has to compete with Muppets and Bugs which both have 3d gimmicks. Most people don't come to a theme park to be educated - so they don't want to sit thru a regular boring old movie. I like Golden Dreams, and it definately is one of the better film based attractions to DCA - but realistically I don't think it's pulling it's weight at DCA. It operates with reduced hours and even closed completely for the SuperSoap weekends without much uproar.
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<I see a lot of posts online from people who don't seem to understand that not everything has to be the same because it has the name Disney on it. On another thread, someone was excited about how Disney was making DCA more like Disneyland, which I think shows a lack of understanding as to the offerings of DCA and its intent.>> Of course, the proof being that the Southern California market wouldn't support a non-Disneyesque Disney park in Anaheim is the fault of the guests and not the original planners. Say what ever you want about the ilke of the Imagineers, but many knew and clearly emphasised to their superiors the many pitfalls of such an undertaking as DCA. Does that make them evil non-Disney naysayers? No, it reflects their experience of the many years of growth in a very fluid industry. Meaning: Are there bad creative decisions in such a project that will have a negative impact on attendance, no matter what budget criteria given? Of course there are. But it takes experience, wisdom and forward thinking to reduce or eliminate those creative decisions that will impact the park's success. This park will undertake dramatic changes over the next several years in order to bring it to the level of excellance that it deserves. That's all. Ten years from now, I predict that the landscape will have undergone amazing changes from the way it looks now. That's the reality of DCA.
Originally Posted By OrlandoBoi Tangaroa-my friend was referring to the actual Circlevision production that existed in TL. He made amusing comments about the different shades of film on the various screens, the film being slightly out of sync and ruining the illusion and the cheezy 70's songs and music that made it seem more like a travelogue. Why is Golden Dreams lambasted any more than the outdated and boring films in World Showcase, that have been there for over twenty years? At least the fibre optics and Whoopi effect is BEAUTIFUL.
Originally Posted By tangaroa >But the flip side is that those who do >enjoy DCA, and think it's a fine Disney >theme park, are somehow misinformed, >naive, or haven't yet visited Tokyo >DisneySeas -- so we just don't know any >better. I wouldn't ever think that - and I apologize if I came off sounding like I did. And I do know there are people out there who think that - but I don't agree with them either. On the rant side of things - I am getting SO sick of people here who have basically given up discussing or debating and only post to assure THEMSELVES that they have a correct opinion. Their opinions are the only right opinions to them, and the only way they can validate that wrong reasoning is by pointing out how wrong or evil the opposing sides opinion is. And yes - I am seeing this from both sides. But what can you do? Oh yeah - you can stop reading these boards. OrlandoBoi posted ... wait brad why ARE OrlandoBoi.. I thought you lived in Australia? ANYWAY Brad posted that he enjoyed his trip and was changing his opinion of the park and it should have been left at that. It shouldn't have been used as a rallying point for those who like DCA - and it shouldn't have been used as a forum to bring up criticism of the ideology behind the park. It's plainly obvious that this topic was meant for insane ranting about how screwed up this forum as become and nothing more. So to those who felt validated by his comments - and those who felt threatened by them: grow up. (No offense to Brad of course - sorry you got caught in the middle of my rage).
Originally Posted By damon63 >They don't exist to educate people. They exists to provide entertainment.< I think that anyone who has a product to sell, especially a new one, understands that they must educate their customers as to what they have to offer and as to why they should be buying their product. I think that you'll agree that Disney did a miserable job of creating interest in the new park. >IF people are telling them they aren't being entertained by DCA, they can't stand there and say "well that's your problem".< You're exaggerating my point. I'm not suggesting that that's what they should do, only that they do a better job of explaining what DCA is supposed to be about. A lot of people weren't entertained because they never made it to the place in the first place. Why? Because Disney never told them what was there. >They need to make money, and they do that by providing what people want.< The fact that they need to make money is why they should have done a better job of letting people know what DCA was all about.
Originally Posted By damon63 >This park will undertake dramatic changes over the next several years in order to bring it to the level of excellance that it deserves. That's all. Ten years from now, I predict that the landscape will have undergone amazing changes from the way it looks now. That's the reality of DCA.< Anyone could predict that. All Disney parks go through those sorts of changes. Why would DCA be any different?
Originally Posted By OrlandoBoi And tangaroa-I want you guys to know that I am still VERY much aware of the problems inherent in DCA. I personally feel that the execution of the theme is a major problem. As I have stated, DCA needs some LARGE SCALE investments for a long time to come to make it a truly outstanding Disney park. I guess my change of mind comes from the realization that the park EXISTS. I can either continue to bitch about it or I can acknowledge what is ACTUALLY there. Some of what IS there is GREAT and truly surprised me in the level of detail that I had not seen before.
Originally Posted By tangaroa >Tangaroa-my friend was referring to the >actual Circlevision production that >existed in TL. Oh dear. >He made amusing comments about the >different shades of film on the various >screens, the film being slightly out of >sync and ruining the illusion and the >cheezy 70's songs and music that made >it seem more like a travelogue. I don't know if I agree with the comparison, seeing how the circlevision films WERE made in the 60s and 70s and were designed to look and feel like a travelogue. I mean back in the day I felt the same way about the CircleVision films that I do today about Golden Dreams. Times change and so does the technology. Comparing CircleVision and Golden Dreams based on their look and feel makes about as much sense as comparing Titanic and Gone With the Wind. >Why is Golden Dreams lambasted any more >than the outdated and boring films in >World Showcase, that have been there >for over twenty years? I don't think golden Dreams is lambasted that much. There's not a real active hatred toward it like SuperStar Limo. I think just being a movie attraction guests tend to ignore it and pass it over for more of the traditional rides. I think people take the same attitude toward the World Showcase movies (although you'd have to ask the people over on the WDW board). Most people just forget their even there until Disney announced they are closing it. Golden Dreams does have a lot working against it though. It's the only film attraction in either park that doesn't have any gimmicks to it. No 3D - No flight simulation - nada. It doesn't have a lot of signage around the attraction, and most people don't even know or understand WHAT it is until they're listening to the announcement given by the CM after standing in line for 10 minutes. Plus it's really long too for a Disney attraction. They cut the Tiki Room from 18 to 15 minutes because they were losing attention. Golden Dreams by comparison is 23 minutes long. And because they don't actually post showtimes at the attraction (like they do for the Tiki Room) it could make for a long wait. Could you imagine waiting 20 minutes to sit down in a theater for a 23 minutes show? That's 40 minutes just for Golden Dreams. As much as I like it, I don't think it's worth the time. One great thing about Golden Dreams that would just be WRONG not to mention (being the music buff I am) is the wonderful theme song for the attraction. [No I'm not talking about Just One Dream which I thought was overly sappy but the actual theme song for the movie]. I love standing in teh esplanade between the two parks at 2am, and having this stirring piece of music play. It's very magical. mmmm I wonder if I have an mp3 somewhere.
Originally Posted By tangaroa >I think that anyone who has a product >to sell, especially a new one, >understands that they must educate >their customers as to what they have to >offer and as to why they should be >buying their product. I think that >you'll agree that Disney did a >miserable job of creating interest in >the new park. I don't believe Disney *has* to manufacture interest in a park like DCA. The people going to Disneyland saw it being built for 3 years. I'd assume that people shopping DL as a vacation option would have been aware that a new park was available to them. In other words: I still don't think that marketing is a good excuse for the poor reaction. There were enough bodies at the resort over the last year to give DCA the 6 million it needed to reach it's 50% figure. >You're exaggerating my point. I'm not >suggesting that that's what they should >do, only that they do a better job of >explaining what DCA is supposed to be >about. A lot of people weren't >entertained because they never made it >to the place in the first place. Why? >Because Disney never told them what was >there. But we're not talking about those people. We're talking about the people who went there, and told Disney they didn't like it because it wasn't "Disney" enough. That doesn't have to do with marketing or generating interest. I doubt even Disney would be reckless enough to change the focus of a park based on the opinions of people who haven't even visted the place. >The fact that they need to make money >is why they should have done a better >job of letting people know what DCA was >all about. Honestly I think they did a good enough job. When DCA first opened, people would comment to me about what an adult feel it had. I think the hip and edgy comtemorary feel of DCA was conveyed very well by Disney. I just don't think that's what people wanted. People expected Disneyland Part 2. They lined up with their kids and strollers in tow and found a very adult oriented hip and edgy laid back feel to DCA that they weren't expecting and didn't like - and more importantly their KIDS didn't like. There isn't enough adult oriented entertainment to change the demographic of the resort the way they attempted to do. They wanted to draw more adults and ignored the millions of strollers that were already there. So yeah: it's not about generating interest as much as it's about keeping people happy once they get into the park. The adults weren't coming, and the stroller set that WAS coming didn't like it. Why continue to promote the idea of the hip and edgy theme park if the people you are targeting aren't showing up? In the end Disney decided to give up on the opinions of those who weren't coming to the park, and focus on those who were.
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<Anyone could predict that. All Disney parks go through those sorts of changes. Why would DCA be any different?>> I guess that I understated the level of changes that I expect. Basicly, my opinion is that whole districts will be virtually, if not completely, changed out for other themed areas. But, only time will tell. <<I think that you'll agree that Disney did a miserable job of creating interest in the new park.>> That may be true in reigons outside of Southern California, but within this market there proved such a large disparity of the percentage of local guests attending DL versus DCA that hasn't really ever changed. Let me ask it this way: Do you all feel that creating a "Here and Now" theme park of California in California was the best use of the space? Don't forget, we are talking core planning. Not lands, walkways, restaurants or attractions. Only the basic premise of "what" this park is about. Because above all else, that is what sells to the public.
Originally Posted By tangaroa >I can either continue to bitch about it >or I can acknowledge what is ACTUALLY >there. Some of what IS there is GREAT >and truly surprised me in the level of >detail that I had not seen before. I completely understand where you are coming from. I've had some really good days in DCA too. BUT (yeah sorry I gotta do it) I've had the luxury of going into DCA for free and having the option to hop back to Disneyland any time I wanted to. DCA can be a lot of fun - but I still don't think it's worth the price they charge. But I'm sure they will fix that soon enough.
