Originally Posted By Darkbeer A very good summary of DCA is in "The Unofficial Guide to Disneyland 2006" by Bob Sehlinger. I think it is the best guide book that features Disneyland. I am going to quote the introduction of Part Five of the book... >>A Brave New Park The Walt Disney Company's newest American theme park, Disney's California Adventure, held its grand opening on February 8, 2001. Already known as "DCA" among Disneyphiles, the park is a bouquet of contradictions conceived in Fantasyland, starved in utero by corporate Disney, and born into a hostile environment of Disneyland loyalists who believe they've been handed a second-rate theme park. The park is new but full of old technology. Its parts are stunningly beautiful, yet come together awkwardly, failing to compose a handsome whole. And perhaps most lamentable of all, the California theme is impotent by virtue of being all-encompassing. The history of the park is another of those convoluted tales found only in Robert Ludlum novels and corporate Disney. Southern California Disney fans began clamoring for a second theme park shortly after Epcot opened at Walt Disney World in 1982. Although there was some element of support within the Walt Disney Company, the Disney loyal had to content themselves with rumors and half-promises for two decades while they watched new Disney parks go up in Tokyo, Paris and Florida. For years, Disney teasingly floated the "Westcot" concept, a California version of Epcot that was always just about to break ground. Whether a matter of procrastination or simply pursuing better opportunities elsewhere, the Walt Disney Company sat on the sidelines while the sleepy community of Anaheim became a sprawling city and property values skyrocketed. By the time Disney emerged from its Westcot fantasy and began to get serious about a second California park, the price tag - not to mention the complexity of integrating such a development into a mature city - was mind-boggling. Westcot had been billed as a $2- to $3-billion, 100-plus-acre project, so that was what the Disney faithful were expecting when Disney's California Adventure was announced. What they got was a park that cost $1.4 billion (slashed from an original budget of about $2.1 billion), built on 55 acres including a sizable carve-out for the Grand Californian Hotel. It's quite a small park by modern theme-park standards, but $1.4 billion, when lavished on 55 acres, ought to buy a pretty good park.<< Let me jump in and make a comment about the $1.4 billion price, that was the amount for the ENTIRE transition to a Resort, including the Grand Californian Hotel and the Downtown Disney project, including all the costs related to modifying the Disneyland Hotel to make room for the shopping center. Let me quote from the Marketwatch.com from November 2002 >>Walt Disney Co. is betting small insects and a big building will help its troubled California Adventure theme park find a following nearly two years after it opened at a cost of $650 million. California Adventure, the adjacent Grand Californian hotel and the Downtown Disney shopping district cost a total $1.4 billion. The park itself cost an estimated $650 million. By contrast, the new DisneySea park in Tokyo -- paid for by licensees -- went for roughly $3 billion.<< So really, only $650 million was spent on DCA itself...
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Let me continue from the Part Five introduction from "The Unofficial Guide to Disneyland 2006" by Bob Sehlinger. >>Then there's the park's theme. Although flexible, California Adventure comes off like a default setting, lacking in imagination, weak in concept, and without intrinsic appeal, especially when you stop to consider that two-thirds of Disneyland guests come from Southern California. As further grist for the mill, there's precious little new technology at work in Disney's newest theme park. Of the headliner attractions, only one, Soarin' over California, a simulator ride, breaks new ground. All the rest are recycled, albeit popular, attractions from the Animal Kingdom and Disney-MGM Studios. When you move to the smaller-statured second half of the attraction batting order, it gets worse. Most of these attractions are little more than off-the-shelf midway rides spruced up with a Disney story line and facade. From a competitive perspective, Disney's California Adventure is an underwhelming shot at Disney's three Southern California competitors. The Hollywood section of DCA takes a hopeful poke at Universal Studios Hollywood, while Paradise Pier offers midway rides a la Six Flags Magic Mountain. Finally, the whole California theme has for years been the eminent domain of Knott's Berry Farm. In short, there is not much originality in DCA, only Disney's now-redundant mantra that "whatever they can do, we can do better." However, while the Disneyholics churn up cyberspace debating DCA's theme and lamenting what might have been, the rest of us will have some fun getting acquainted with the latest Disney theme park. Our guess is that the park will transcend its bland theme and establish an identity of its own. In any event, the operative word in the new park's name is "Disney," not "California" or "Adventure." Even if the park was called Disney's Slag Heap, the faithful would turn out en masse. Even so, Disney is working hard to placate their core market. The year 2004, however, was the year the faithful had been waiting for. In the spring of 2004, DCA unveiled its own version of the Twilight Zone Tower of Terror, the most incredible attraction Disney has yet to produce. For the Disneyland anniversary celebration in 2005, Block Party Bash, a parade/street show hybrid, and a new dark ride, Monsters, Inc.: Mike and Sulley to the Rescue were introduced.<< So we have a good summary of the last 5 years, that is read by MANY folks, as the Unofficial Guide is very popular series, that has sold over 4 million copies worldwide.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Haven't heard much from you about the good news about Lasseter taking oversight of Imagineering, DB. Are you optimistic about Lasseter turning around Imagineering?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<However, while the Disneyholics churn up cyberspace debating DCA's theme and lamenting what might have been, the rest of us will have some fun getting acquainted with the latest Disney theme park. Our guess is that the park will transcend its bland theme and establish an identity of its own.>> It seems like Sehlinger thinks the park is certainly worth visiting. Considering how negative he can be, that is actually a pretty good review.
Originally Posted By leemac Wow, a negative DCA post by Darkbeer. I don't think I have ever seen one of those....
Originally Posted By Darkbeer >>Haven't heard much from you about the good news about Lasseter taking oversight of Imagineering, DB. Are you optimistic about Lasseter turning around Imagineering?<< I think it is too early to tell, but yes, I am optimistic about the possible changes.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Woot - I really hope we can meet over a beer in a new, vibrant and exciting DCA one day, Darkbeer.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "So really, only $650 million was spent on DCA itself..." Shucks, if that figure is true, then it just goes to show us that when prodded hard enough Imagineering really can literally create something out of nothing on a shoestring. To think that Tommorowland '98 cost $100 million - and most of the infastructure was already in place! Darkbeer, just curious, but what is it about Disney and DCA that motivates you to take such a negative stance towards the company? I mean, were you wronged by Disney in the past or something?
Originally Posted By BrigmanMT 2 Maybe he once had to pay full price for DCA? That would be enough to set me off. How is his post negative anyways? It just seems like a review of the first 6 months on Laughing Place after the park opened. The writer even uses the old dollar figure instead of the number presented by Roy Disney.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Gee, isn't the 5th anniversary coming up... Want a different view, lets read the introduction to the DCA section in Disney's guide book, Birnbaum's Disneyland Resort; Expert Advice from the Inside Source, 2006 edition. >>Fame, fortune and fun in the sun have lured adventurous spirits to California for centuries. But now visitors have a whole new way to enjoy the glories of the Golden State: through Disney's eyes. In February 2001, the company officially unveiled Disney's California Adventure theme park, the largest addition to the Disneyland Resort since Disneyland Park itself opened in 1955 (and premiering with just about as much anticipation and hoopla). California Adventure sits snugly in the heart of the Disneyland Resort, sharing an entrance esplanade with Disneyland and neighboring Downtown Disney and the three Disney Hotels. But once you set foot inside the park, you're in a world all its own - a kaleidoscope view of California. Unlike Disneyland, where each land's theming is kept separate from the next, the lines here are blurred. Districts blend into each other, and no matter where you stand inside the park, you're sure to see (or hear whoops and hollers coming from) one of the park's towering Golden State's sierra-inspired Grizzly Peak mountain, or Paradise Pier's gleaming roller coaster, California Screamin'. With a working vineyard and winery, educational micro-factories, upscale restaurants, and scream-inducing thrill rides, the 55-acre theme park is clearly geared toward grown-ups. But there's bound to be something here for everyone to enjoy. California, here we come.<<
Originally Posted By mj9401 I must be one of the very few who actually like DCA. >>>Darkbeer, just curious, but what is it about Disney and DCA that motivates you to take such a negative stance towards the company? I mean, were you wronged by Disney in the past or something?<<< I have to agree, as much I love seeing your photo updates and reading about your knowledge on Disney, don't you get sick of finding the negative in all things DCA, Darkbeer??
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "Maybe he once had to pay full price for DCA? That would be enough to set me off." Oh brother.
Originally Posted By disneywatcher >> Although flexible, California Adventure comes off like a default setting, lacking in imagination, weak in concept, and without intrinsic appeal << And other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?
Originally Posted By disneywatcher >> A very good summary of DCA is in "The Unofficial Guide to Disneyland 2006" by Bob Sehlinger. << This is why the Birnbaum book's "work in progress" phrase regarding DCA is, by contrast, very kind and generous.
Originally Posted By disneywatcher >> I must be one of the very few who actually like DCA. << Unfortunately, some of the "few" included creative geniuses Michael Eisner and Barry Braverman.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer At least Roy Disney is back working with the board, and was a major behind the scenes player in regards to the Pixar merger, in fact, he is good friends with both Steve Jobs and John Lassiter. And did you know that Roy Disney called DCA an enormous failure! Here is what Roy Disney and Stanley Gold said in a SEC filing from February, 2004. >>DISNEY'S CALIFORNIA ADVENTURE AND DISNEY STUDIOS PARIS With a strategy put together by the schemers to transform single-park sites into multi-day destination resorts (and a price tag of well over $1 Billion) Disney's California Adventure was destined to failure before ground was broken. Frightened by the economics of EuroDisney and misinterpreting the reasons for its failure, the "numbers guys" assigned an investment cap to DCA's construction. Rather than innovating and designing the Park from the bottom-up based upon what the consumer would expect for the price of admission, DCA was designed from the top-down based on what the spreadsheets said was required to hit a return figure that has never materialized. The continued suppression of innovation - fixing the off the shelf rides - is likely as the schemers desperately try to avoid any financial write-offs at this time. DCA has failed and will never come close to generating the financial return the planners forecast. Why? Consumers are not willing to pay the same admission price for a smaller and subjectively less-special park. The excessive discounting in the last twelve months clearly supports that the consumer knows what DCA is worth. If only the schemers had listened in the first place. By contrast, Oriental Land Company financed and opened the innovative and luxurious Tokyo DisneySea during the same period. Its' marvelsquickly became a major draw even in a flat Japanese economy. Anaheim should have been so lucky. The insistence on avoiding reality in Anaheim led to Disney Studios Paris - another "second gate" failure akin to DCA. Conceived on an even smaller creative scale and, it too, heavily relied on recycled product. In both instances, planners mistakenly assumed that Disney name alone would move the product regardless of the quality of its content. We fear Hong Kong Disneyland will be similarly doomed to mediocrity. Although the schemers negotiated a very favorable deal from the local government, there will not be many rides at the new Park on opening day, and those that do open will be recycled attractions from Anaheim and Orlando. The "half-park" scheme remains in effect despite two enormous failures.<< So it is good to hear the strong rumors of major changes and a name change for DCA
Originally Posted By disneywatcher ^ Wow and yikes! That's the first time I've ever seen such specific and tough comments about DCA from anyone closely associated with the DisCo.
Originally Posted By avromark You know though from a tourists perspective: "I'm in California to see a park about California" has a weak sell feature to it. One of the problems with DCA is lack of name recognition. Where I am, most people can name every park (including water parks) in Disneyworld, they know of Disneyland, but DCA aside from references in The Simpsons, etc is unheard of. Only the more ardent fans amongst us can say quite what's in DCA. Disney's Adventure to me sounds better then DCA. Disney's California Adventure is cumbersome. One of my friends when I mentioned DCA, thought I was refering to the adventure i'd have in Disneyland. But you have to be fair, DCA is only in Kindergarten right now. Some people as old as DL are grandparents. Another problem with DCA is "not enough Imagineering pixie dust", to me it "feels" like it has "boardroom and marketing study" written all over it. It isn't immersive enough. It takes me to the far away land of the state I am visitting... Animal Kingdom takes me to Asia and Africa, Disneyland has taken me to Mars. Now at least DCA will take me to Monstroplous (did I mention I wish LP had a spell checker?). Comparing "Immersive" to "Marketing baby" In POTC I am transported to a burning town. I feel like i'm there. In Big Thunder, even the safety announcement is themed. Superstar Limo sounded like a huge dated advertisement. I don't see anything to negative in the Unofficial Guide synopsis. In fact I see a "just wait and see what will happen" vibe in it. It's like a fine wine. Take it slow, savour the taste and you'll see there's more to it then fermented grape fruit. Today people seem to expect too much, and fail to create part of the magic themselves. Cynics will not enjoy as much as Believers. People today seem to be much faster to give a failing grade, or to voice their concerns, then they hear other opinions, and it mounts into a huge snowball. Don't you just love the connected world we live in today?
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< the "numbers guys" assigned an investment cap to DCA's construction. Rather than innovating and designing the Park from the bottom-up based upon what the consumer would expect for the price of admission, DCA was designed from the top-down based on what the spreadsheets said was required to hit a return figure that has never materialized. >>> Amazing. Isn't it funny how it ended up looking exactly like this had happened, including last-minute adjustments to the budget that explain how the quality level is disjoint and can very dramatically between elements right next to each other?
Originally Posted By YourPalEd I remember when i first heard that universal had built a quake ride for their tram tour. I thought it was the most ridiculous thing i had ever heard. Having been through several unfunny quakes, which i did not find extremely entertaining, at least for the moment of the quake, i didn't see the humor in it. Now, i've been on the tram tour with my year round $49 passes. I've experienced the earthquake while eating my dodger dog and pretzel with cheese, and bottle of diet soda, at least 15 times. I love the earthquake. I love the earthquake scene even more than kong and the big fish. Even more than the real tv sets, with the desperate women streets. The crashed war of the world's plane is okay, but it would have been nice to see it actually crash in the movie, instead of just the aftermath. For effect or no for effect. I guess the computer animating artisans, havent been able to do plane crashes well yet. Just like water is still fake, not to mention jar jar. I still do not understand why a comic wasn't choosen to play jar jar instead of a stiff actor who just looks desperate not to do anything wrong, like he's afraid he might lose his cushy acting job at the drop of a whim. Well, hi diddly dee...
