Originally Posted By Jim in Pasadena CA <The first tiem I saw it, I commented on it's high production values - something unique for Disney definately.> I'm late to the party here, but I disagree with this comment. Disney Theme Park films have always featured high-production values. Even the old CircleVision films of Disneyland were good in that era -- the next-generation CircleVision at EPCOT [Oh Cananda!, Impressions of France]-- even EPCOT movies like 'Symbiosis,' 'The Seas' pre-show film [it rained...and rained...and rained], 'Norway' pre-show, the old 'Universe of Energy' pre-show with that unique screen presentation, and more recent offerings like 'Seasons of the Vine' [which is a one of the best], and 'Golden Dreams' If you look back on it, the production value for these Disney produced films in the theme parks has always been consistently high-quality and really really good.
Originally Posted By x-TDL-character This is weird. According to my screen, the last poster to this topic, number 60, should be Jim in Pasadena. Instead it's Tangaroa, and when I clicked out it showed that I hadn't read the topic at all. I think the Force is at work again. This message will never be allowed to remain intact, just as OrlandoBoi is sure to come out of his stupor soon and realize that he's been saying the opposite of what he really thinks all this time! ; P Watch out...I sense a disturbance in the Force, the whole LP forum might go down this time! ; )
Originally Posted By tangaroa *tap *tap* Is this thing on? TDL is right. There's definately something up with this topic. It's telling me there's 61 unread messages. How can someone post to a topic without reading it? Weird. Ooooo laker game is on
Originally Posted By tangaroa >I'm late to the party here, but I >disagree with this comment. Disney >Theme Park films have always featured >high-production values. You're right Jim, I misspoke. "Unique for Disney" should probably read "Unique to Disney"
Originally Posted By TomSawyer I'm just glad one of the most vocal of DCA critics went to the park with an open mind and realized what so many of us already know about the place - there is Disney magic there.
Originally Posted By Futurist >>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.....<< Thanks Orlandoboi! You answered my question, buddy!
Originally Posted By TomSawyer He also listed the rides he really enjoyed, Futurist - don't forget to read those.
Originally Posted By Futurist >>I'm just glad one of the most vocal of DCA critics went to the park with an open mind and realized what so many of us already know about the place - there is Disney magic there.<< When you compare it to Knott's Berry Farm, Universal Studios, Magic Mountain, Sea World, and others .... yes, I agree with you. But in my .00000002 cents opinion, up against the myriad of past Disney parks starting from Disneyland (1955), Walt Disney World (1971), EPCOT (1982), Tokyo Disneyland (1983), Disney/MGM Studios (1989), Disneyland Paris (1992) .... it doesn't cut it.
Originally Posted By Futurist Bye-the-way, Orlandoboi my bud, I'm glad you enjoyed your time at DCA. When I first went on March 5th last year (never will forget the date) I enjoyed myself, and on the second and third time ... having gone with some very fun people ... I too enjoyed my time at DCA, which is a totally different than my analysis from my themed entertainment career/art background. Having a good time and posting those feelings and thoughts ..... And giving a detail-for-detail analysis are two different things. I'm enjoying a few posts between us, but since your topic's intentions were purely to express the good time you had, and not have it turn into a full scale debate, I'm going to try to keep my posts to a minimum ... until someone else develops another topic where the continued debate will be more appropriate. Again ... glad you enjoyed it.
Originally Posted By Futurist One more thing. Regarding Circle-Vision.... keep in mind that the last circle-vision film to be produced was done in pieces between 1980 and 1983. Then presented, courtesy PSA Airlines in 1984. The last time Circle-Vision was updated. Alot has changed in technology since then, but Disney has YET to bring that theater up to today's standards. Your friend was probably comparing circle-vision to today's standards. Golden Dreams was shot in crystal clear 65mm film. With film stocks today .. the grain is so superior it makes Golden Dreams' production values stand higher than your average 35mm or 16mm systems. After seeing Star Wars Ep. II in DLP Digital ..... then a 35mm scope print, the next best thing for Disney to do, is a Circle-Vision experience using digital projectors. Low light/high speed film graininess is eliminated. Not to mention an incredibly sharp steady picture in regular light. Then lambasting Circle-Vision (brought up to current industry standards) will be a little more difficult. You'll have to admit, flat screen presentations are one thing ... watching something in 360 surround is another!! There's nothing out of date with the concept. It's the specific systems employed.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Yes, the Colorado Avalanche tied up it's Western Conference Sries with a goal in overtime.... And the LAKERS are leading by a point late in the first half..... And this post is trying to open up the next group of messages due to the pointed being off
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Lakers are now up by three And we should be able to see the 70's series of messages
Originally Posted By jonvn "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. " A) That's not true, so B) It's not proof of anything. "Does that make them evil non-Disney naysayers? No, it reflects their experience of the many years of growth in a very fluid industry." What they tell their superiors or coworkers is one thing. What gets put out for public consumption by the customer base is another. "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." The reality is that attendance is growing over last year, people tend to enjoy the park, and that ALL Disney parks change over time. So basically, nothing new there at all. "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." Yes. I'm quite sick of that, myself. "ANYWAY Brad posted that he enjoyed his trip and was changing his opinion of the park and it should have been left at that." This is a discussion board. People post things to discuss them. If you don't want to discuss them, then why be here? "I don't believe Disney *has* to manufacture interest in a park like DCA." Well, yes it does. It has to manufacture interest in everything, including Disneyland and WDW. That is why they advertise them. "I'm just glad one of the most vocal of DCA critics went to the park with an open mind and realized what so many of us already know about the place - there is Disney magic there." Yes, that's 100% right. I think it's a wonderful thing. There is now something enjoyable available to this person which he had been previously shut out from. The whole point of these parks from the customer point of view is to be entertained and to enjoy yourself. It's not to count attractions or to find flaws, but to take in what you can and have fun. This very basic idea seems to get lost somehow in these discussions.
Originally Posted By tangaroa >The reality is that attendance is >growing over last year That's not reality at all. You're just saying that to validate your OWN opinion. You don't have any clue what the attendance numbers are. >Yes. I'm quite sick of that, myself. Funny cause I see you as the biggest offender. Crapshoot posted a comment that is pretty indisputable and you countered with a false claim that doesn't even address what he said. >This is a discussion board. People post >things to discuss them. If you don't >want to discuss them, then why be here? Oh I do want to discuss. But standing there saying "well see we were right all along" with every positive comment that's said about DCA doesn't constitute discussion. >Well, yes it does. It has to >manufacture interest in everything, >including Disneyland and WDW. That is >why they advertise them. Just like wolfgang puck has to create interest in every restaurant he opens. Maybe if Puck had actually took the time to create interest in his restaurant it actually would have worked out. Sure that was the problem all along.
Originally Posted By x-TDL-character >>>Could they have spent more? Of course. But is it sufficient for now? Yes, it is. Decidedly so.<<< It's comments like this one that make it difficult to have a discussion with you, Jon. Decidedly so in who's opinion? That's hardly a fact. The park has been received hot and cold by the press, lambasted online, and disappointingly attended even according to the companies own admission. So how is that sufficient? Never mind decidedly so!
Originally Posted By jonvn "That's not reality at all. You're just saying that to validate your OWN opinion." That's true. I should have said "According to some individuals online..." But the fact is that the park had over five million people visit, so it's not a non-draw like it was said. My own opinion ended with the fact that Disney parks all change, which was pointed out as some horrible thing that DCA is going to have to endure. "Funny cause I see you as the biggest offender." Funny, because nearly every post of yours contains some sort of personal attack towards me. Perhaps you ought to take a close look in the mirror sometime, bud. "Oh I do want to discuss." No, you simply want to bash and insult anyone who does not agree with you. Much like this post of yours. It is simply a series of personal comments that are directed at me. I kind of expect them at this point, as many people have little to say but negative things, either about DCA or other people, but as I said, it's still annoying, and it shows a weakness in the ability to discuss intelligently. "Maybe if Puck had actually took the time to create interest in his restaurant it actually would have worked out. Sure that was the problem all along." Do you even follow what is being said to you? You said Disney did not have to manufacture interest in a theme park. I replied that they had to do that, and in fact they do that by advertising even DL and WDW. So, in response, here comes this non-sequitor that shows nothing. And you know, if Puck did do a lot of advertising, he'd get more business. I don't know if it is the kind of business he wants to do, but that is how things work. "Decidedly so in who's opinion?" My opinion. Since I was posting a long series of statements regarding my opinions on the park, I would have thought this pretty obvious. "The park has been received hot and cold by the press..." Most all of the early reviews were very positive. I have seen some articles that ape a certain web site come up, and they quite often even go so far as to quote the operator of that web site. When that happens, the review is null and void, far as I'm concerned. "lambasted online" By people who are out to do it damage. Like some web sites. There are also posters online who lambast the place who never even went there. These opinions are worthless. "disappointingly attended even according to the companies own admission." Where exactly did they admit this? "So how is that sufficient? Never mind decidedly so!" Because based on what I said, it's a start, not a finish. I can't imagine that you actually read what I wrote. But thanks for reciting again for us the litany. If it weren't for folks saying these same things over and over and over again, I'd dare say we'd all forget them in only 10 or 20 years.
Originally Posted By x-TDL-character >>>It's comments like this one that make it difficult to have a discussion with you, Jon.<<< Glad I said that in the first place so I wouldn't have to repeat myself. >>>There are also posters online who lambast the place who never even went there. These opinions are worthless.<<< I'll thank you not to call my opinions worthless. >>>I can't imagine that you actually read what I wrote.<<< And I'll thank you not to insult my intelligence. >>>"disappointingly attended even according to the companies own admission." Where exactly did they admit this?<<< I'm just not gonna bother anymore. You are to difficult to have a conversation with. When you stubbornly stick to points that have been proven otherwise time and again on this site and elsewhere it's no longer a discussion that is any fun for me to participate in.
Originally Posted By jonvn "I'll thank you not to call my opinions worthless." If you've not been there, and you are trying to tell me how bad a place it is, then I'm sorry, but that's worthless. If someone is going to review a movie, for example, if they have not seen it, then any review they give is worthless as well. "And I'll thank you not to insult my intelligence." I don't intend to, however, your comments imply that you did not read what was written. "I'm just not gonna bother anymore." Don't have an answer to the question? Didn't think so. Easy out for you, then. The reason you may find me difficult to have a conversation with is that I don't mistake rhetoric for fact and call people on it when they do. You made a statement, saying that Disney admitted that DCA was disappointly attended, and I asked where this can be shown. That's all. What's so very hard about that? "you stubbornly stick to points that have been proven otherwise time and again" When and where? You have proven absolutely nothing. Maybe you should go to DCA sometime. You might like it, but if not, your opinion would at least be based on something. Not that you'd ever like it, of course.
Originally Posted By Futurist Hey, my 'Orlandoboi' buddy ... did you think your topic was going to get this interesting?
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<"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. " A) That's not true, so B) It's not proof of anything.>> It is true and you even said it was. Changing "Edgy" entertainment for Disneyland family style is one example, adult restaurants turned into character venues and rumors of Goofy being added to the Limo ride proves that the market would not bare a non-Disneyesque Disney park. Enough said.
