Originally Posted By nerdboyrockstar >> >> I came on here and read posts dating back to its 2001 opening and it wasn't pretty.<< And pray-tell how did you do this? << I don't understand your question..
Originally Posted By ChiMike How did you read posts from February of 2001 when they aren't available?
Originally Posted By nerdboyrockstar << How did you read posts from February of 2001 when they aren't available? >> I know months ago I read some posts.. I think it was 1 huge thread that dated from 2001 to now and people were still posting about reactions to DCA, its attendance and so forth. It was really interesting.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 ^<< A great analysis Doug.>> I'll second that. You nailed it head on. From Eisner being an East Coast bred elitist (who, BTW, always wanted to force his ideas onto Parks and Resorts from a Boardwalk Amusement Area that he tried to throw in at least 4 parks before DCA to the Disney Institute at WDW etc ...) ... to Paul Pressler making detailed, wonderfully unique shops but having no clue that you need quality attractions to get people to wander into them. And even Barry ... good, old, arrogant, academic Barry who somewhere still believes that the guests 'don't get DCA.' Oh Barry, they get it ... they've gotten it from 2/01 ... that's the whole problem.
Originally Posted By BlueOhanaTerror ^^^Fortunately, Barry finally "got it" too... in the seat of his pants.
Originally Posted By cheesybaby Dug - I don't disagree with you but I would suggest that your analysis of Eisner's disdain for his audience might be overstated, if only a little. Although I enjoy DCA both in 2006 and in 2001, your points about DCA's flaws are accurate, but I wouldn't attribute them completely to Eisner's snobbery - MGM isn't the greatest Disney park, but it doesn't suffer so much from the same problems, and I find AK to be beautiful and spectacular. If Eisner so underappreciated his audience it seems that these two parks would have suffered much more from DCA's problems than they do. As I said, I enjoy DCA, but I can acknowledge and agree with most of your criticisms. Although Eisner is partly responsible, I hold Braverman and his team much more responsible than Eisner. Your comments about Pressler I completely agree with. I actually like the theme of DCA, but I admit the execution was botched. I blame DCA's problems on a very primal philosophical disconnect which your analysis of Pressler nails 100%: First and foremost, from day one, Disneyland is/was a SHOW. Period. I do not find DCA to be a show in any way, shape or form. WDI can say "but DCA isn't Disneyland and isn't supposed to be Disneyland - you can't use that criteria" but that is crap. I haven't been to any non-U.S. Disney parks, but every domestic Disney park IMO is a SHOW. You walk in the gate and you know what the story is. There are long shots, medium shots, and close-ups, there are weenies where anticipation is created and expectations are set up and then fulfilled, and all the rest. DCA is not a show. And the worst part is that it doesn't feel as if DCA was built by people who were merely bad showmen, it feels as if DCA was built by people who didn't know that they were supposed to be putting on a show at all.
Originally Posted By danyoung Excellent points, cheesybaby, especially there at the end. I get tired of people talking about how Eisner or Braverman or whoever just didn't care. I think they cared very much, but they were completely out of step with the product that they were trying to create. If you don't even acknowledge all of the critical design elements that made DL a success, how can you redesign and create an original park using those design elements that you don't even understand? Seems they've found out by now that there was something missing, although probably very few of them know what it is. Fortunately we've got Lasseter involved now, who most definitely understands what it takes to put on a show in a park format.
Originally Posted By liveforvacations I thought your analysis was great too Doug! It really provides insight as to how DCA came to be what it is and why DCA is not the park it has the potential to be. I also like how it did not bash DCA as so many are fond of doing. In fact, it almost made you feel sympathy for DCA. I know how ridiculous that sounds but that is the feeling I had after reading Doug's analysis. Anyways I think this is a great topic and I have enjoyed reading everyone's thoughts on it!
