Originally Posted By ArchtMig OK, I'm going to admit something here, jonvn and Hans. I was trolling through my iTunes music library and reacquainted myself with some of my favorite tracks from the DCA official park CD. And I must say that there was, indeed, a certain "classy" vibe about some parts of DCA and the GCH/Downtown Disney development that is always re-invoked in me when I listen to the "Bakery Theme", "Seasons of the Vine" theme, and even the "Soarin'" and "Beauty and the Bees" themes. Yes, DCA was at first intended to be much different than Disneyland. To have a totally different vibe. In certain limited areas, this was accomplished pretty well. Those aspects certainly did/do have a sense of class. I attribute that directly to Eisner and Pressler. I admit that I can't watch Seasons of the Vine, or walk through the GCH, or listen to the Soarin' theme - and not be filled with certain good feelings. But that doesn't erase the dismay I have with DCA as a whole. It's a very delicate balancing act, making a well thought out Disney theme park. All the various ingredients need to go into the mix, and if there isn't enough of some of the key ingredients, or if some of the ones that were thrown in are bad, it makes the whole thing unpalatable. Too bad the cooks that produced DCA were really only good at skewing the mix towards one particular flavor, and did such a poor job with all the rest of the ingredients. Funny thing about the DCA soundtrack CD: Some of the tracks were "inspired" by DCA, but not actually found in any of the attractions. Like the "Bakery Theme" that I like so much. I guess it's just another small example of the overall discordant thinking that was behind so many of the decisions that resulted in this park. Yes, I understand what you are saying when you lament what was originally the focus of DCA and is being superseded by the new cartoon inspired developments. But the GCH will still be there, and so will Soarin', and maybe, hopefully, even Seasons of the Vine. Downtown Disney will still be there, and ours is so much classier than Orlando's. If they can just fix the parts that are so darn bad, like the main entrance and the sun court area, and all of Paradise Pier, and the wide open treeless concrete vistas, and really "plus" the Hollywood section, which is so weak if compared to similar aspects of Disney/MGM, say. I really want to someday love the original minor things that worked at DCA without having to feel so compromised about the rest of the place. I hope those changes will come as proposed.
Originally Posted By bean "If they can just fix the parts that are so darn bad, like the main entrance and the sun court area, and all of Paradise Pier, and the wide open treeless concrete vistas, and really "plus" the Hollywood section, which is so weak if compared to similar aspects of Disney/MGM, say." This is one thing i am looking forward to see how it turns out. From day one i have felt that the park was lacking a sense of comfort and intimicy. The only park that i have no problem with is Epcot but the MK and MGM park in WDW both felt like they needed something. They just had to Too many wide open spaces and static feel. DAK was the exception with its lush landscape. what made it worse for DCA is that it was next to Disneyland. Its wide open walkways and distant views from one side of the park gaave it a cold static feeling. The new plans to give the parade route a more narrow feel with lush landscaping and plenty of trees will really create a much more warm feeling. The area from the entrance all the way down to the entrance of CarsLand will look o much diferent with the added landscaping. The addition of trees and small planters along the parade route next to the tidel pools of the warf will also add much needed barriers to sitelines and much needed shade for the hot summers.
Originally Posted By danyoung >Yes, DCA was at first intended to be much different than Disneyland. To have a totally different vibe. In certain limited areas, this was accomplished pretty well. Those aspects certainly did/do have a sense of class. I attribute that directly to Eisner and Pressler.< This is the same Eisner who thought that people would want to come to Orlando to go to classes and learn gardening or cooking. I've never been on the "Eisner is all evil all the time" bandwagon, but his upper crust sensabilities were certainly out of sync with the park-going public. But I do enjoy that DCA cd, and especially the bakery song - very nice little sax ditty. I never got to experience a lot of the very early DCA offerings, but the cd stands on its own with music that does indeed create a warm and rich vibe. Too bad the reality of DCA didn't match the music.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Too bad the cooks that produced DCA were really only good at skewing the mix towards one particular flavor, and did such a poor job with all the rest of the ingredients." Yes, it was a poor mix of things. The basic idea was very good, but it was executed in a weak manner. Instead of building upon a good idea and making it better, they instead just started putting in things that muddled the original idea instead of enhancing it, and on their own, were not really very strong efforts either. "like the main entrance and the sun court area" Not much there but to walk through. I did like the wave fountain and the hub cap, but it should have been placed in paradise pier at the entrance to a beach themed dark ride of some sort, not as the central piece to the main entrance. As it stands, it is actually a very nice piece of sculpture. "all of Paradise Pier," I don't like those sorts of rides, but I see them as theming. Unfortunately they are theming an area with nothing else in it, so most people see them as the end destination of the area. Most places are themed with facades on buildings. In this area, it was themed with these rides. The real problem with the Pier is that the theming was only partially done. In other areas, such as the wharf, the theming was very well executed. In the pier, they needed to do a bit more, and include a reason for the area to be there other than going on these types of rides. Furthre, the Orange ride completely blocks the view of the water, and detracts from motion because the ride itself is inside this large globe. What should have been put there, and would have actually been charming, would be a large carousel. When they built this section of the park, they were going on about how they used this 3D modeling technique so they could walk through it. What a fricking waste of money. "really "plus" the Hollywood section, which is so weak if compared to similar aspects of Disney/MGM" I think they tried to combine the facade idea of MGM with the entrance idea of MGM. And so what you end up with is a bunch of buildings that look ok, but just don't really have any purpose. There IS a lot of detail in the hollywood section of DCA, and I spent time here, as well as in the wharf and really appreciated it. The trees and such, I don't mind. that grows in and can be fixed, as can the power lines which aren't really visible in most areas, but just need trees to grow in. The main thing with DCA when it opened was that it had areas that were interesting in idea, bad in execution. Sections of the park with nice theming but no attractions. It had a classy, upper end feel to it that made it seem different than Disneyland, something that was complementary to it and something that would make me want to spend extra cash to visit it separately. What these guys are doing now is making Disneyland South. I'm really going to have a hard time justifying going to a second park that is simply more of the same, and I think the people doing these changes now are just as poor and weak as the original designers, only in a different direction. It is very frustrating. It seems they can't figure out anything anymore. They had a nice idea, and trashed it. Now they are taking the stuff they trashed it with and amping it up by a lot of money. That is not what needed to be done, and I don't know if it will do them any better. They just don't seem to get it anymore. They just INSIST on having cartoons everywhere, and they can't even see that the most popular stuff in DCA has NO cartoon association at all. Their best things don't have characters in them for either cartoon or film. The ones that do? They are generally cheezy and lower quality. Yet they persist in this direction. It's very disheartening for the future. Go to Tomorrowland in the Magic Kingdom. You'll see what it will all become, as that land is almost totally transformed now into this vision of cartoons everywhere. It's absolutely terrible.
Originally Posted By jonvn "This is the same Eisner who thought that people would want to come to Orlando to go to classes and learn gardening or cooking" This is actually a nice and classy thing that is a quality offering. That people would deride it speaks more of them than about Eisner. These sorts of things are offered at resorts around the world, they are fun, and people enjoy them. Disney really did not push them very hard, and the Disney Institute was run VERY BADLY. I know, we tried using it. "His upper crust sensabilities " Not everyone aspires to be trailer trash. But perhaps that's who disney wants to appeal to. Instead of spending money on their baseball hat collection, they'll spend it at their parks. Money is money, I suppose, but it was nice when the places made an effort to appeal to something better in their customers rather than just towards the most base and common of offerings.
Originally Posted By danyoung >This [Disney Institute] is actually a nice and classy thing that is a quality offering.< Well, it was - it's totally shut down now. And you're right - its demise was an indication that the people who go to WDW for their vacation are not the people who do Institute types of things. I really enjoyed reading about the concept of this place when it was first introduced, and would have enjoyed many of its offerings. But my thought was always that I wish it had been built in a different place. In other words, when I go to Orlando, I'm going to WDW, to the parks, and not to the Institute. >Disney really did not push them very hard...< Au contraire - Disney did a very comprehensive full court press on the Institute. It was in TV commercials, it was strongly pushed in promo dvds, and you could find information about it everywhere in the parks. Everyone knew all about the Institute - they just didn't care to go. ME: >His upper crust sensabilities,,,M jon: >Not everyone aspires to be trailer trash.< There's really a long way between the two, jon. I'm in no way trailer trash, but I'm also a long way from a blueblood. It was pretty evident in Eisner's later years that he lost touch with the common folk, and was pushing his agenda of higher class entertainment onto the masses. He and others in management thought an amusement park made up primarily of fine dining and shopping locations was just what the people wanted. They were mistaken.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Disney did a very comprehensive full court press on the Institute." Most people would never had heard of it. They didn't know it was there, or what it offered. When you went there, it was run like a boot camp. "I'm in no way trailer trash, but I'm also a long way from a blueblood" I'm sorry, but if you're going to complain about a nice thing because it is too nice for the likes of you, then that's not really a thing to be proud of. To suggest that a cooking class is "blueblood" is also pretty ridiculous. Raise your consciousness. There are more things in this world than crappy pins and plastic souvenir beer steins. "pushing his agenda of higher class entertainment onto the masses." Yes, that's simply terrible. I don't think you realize how low rent this sort of thing sounds. "He and others in management thought an amusement park made up primarily of fine dining and shopping locations was just what the people wanted. They were mistaken." I suppose they better tear down World Showcase then.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt “Yes, DCA was at first intended to be much different than Disneyland. To have a totally different vibe. In certain limited areas, this was accomplished pretty well. Those aspects certainly did/do have a sense of class. I attribute that directly to Eisner and Pressler. I admit that I can't watch Seasons of the Vine, or walk through the GCH, or listen to the Soarin' theme - and not be filled with certain good feelings. But that doesn't erase the dismay I have with DCA as a whole.†I think this is what most people here, including me, have been saying since the place opened. It isn’t the best thing that Disney has done, but it’s far from as awful as a lot of people here make it out to be. In my opinion the park wasn’t weak because of what was there when it opened; it was weak because of what was not there. Now they’ve gone in and taken out many of the things that were good and replaced them with nonsense or simply left things closed. The new stuff in the pipeline looks promising, but little of it supports or reinforces the overall theme of California. This is very disappointing trend that I see happening in all of Disney’s parks now. “It's a very delicate balancing act, making a well thought out Disney theme park. All the various ingredients need to go into the mix, and if there isn't enough of some of the key ingredients, or if some of the ones that were thrown in are bad, it makes the whole thing unpalatable.†And I suppose that this is where it boils down to a matter of personal taste. I think that DSP is just plain terrible on any standard. Yet, I’ve discovered that there are people that like the place, or can at least tolerate it. Who can’t really argue with that? People like what they like. “If they can just fix the parts that are so darn bad, like the main entrance and the sun court area, and all of Paradise Pier, and the wide open treeless concrete vistas, and really "plus" the Hollywood section, which is so weak if compared to similar aspects of Disney/MGM, say. I really want to someday love the original minor things that worked at DCA without having to feel so compromised about the rest of the place. I hope those changes will come as proposed.†It’s true that not everything in the upcoming enhancements will be a bunch of synergistic crap. The new entrance you mention looks very atmospheric and might rival some of the elaborately themed areas at other Disney theme parks.
Originally Posted By danyoung >vMost people would never had heard of it.< Jon, you don't have a clue what most people saw or didn't see. I can tell you from my perspective as a broadcast professional with many years experience that the ad campaign was far reaching and extensive. Whether people responded to it is another matter, but the info was out there. >I'm sorry, but if you're going to complain about a nice thing because it is too nice for the likes of you, then that's not really a thing to be proud of.< I can be appreciative of the finer things without having to totally embrace them. Many people love the Grand Floridian. For me, it's too stuffy, too blueblood, for me to be truly comfortable. That does not make me white trash - just not quite up there with the rich and snooty. >Raise your consciousness. There are more things in this world than crappy pins and plastic souvenir beer steins.< Again, your ridiculous hyperbole is wasted here. Just because someone doesn't cotton to the idea of a Chatauqua type institute doesn't mean that they're of the crappy pin and beer stein crowd. In the right circumstance, I'd really enjoy taking many of the classes that the Institute had to offer. But not whem I'm in Florida doing a Disney World vacation. >I don't think you realize how low rent this sort of thing sounds.< Do any reading at all about Walt Disney and you'll find that he was very much a man of the people, a man of simple tastes. He tried to put out high quality entertainment that could be enjoyed by the masses, not the smaller percentage of the upper crust. I see nothing wrong with this philosophy, and I see Eisner's latter day attempts as being totally counter to Walt's ideals.
Originally Posted By bean i have never cared for the orange stinger but i do not understand what you mean by "Furthre, the Orange ride completely blocks the view of the water, and detracts from motion because the ride itself is inside this large globe. What should have been put there, and would have actually been charming, would be a large carousel. " How does it block the view of the water and the motion of the attraction is very visible from all angles of the bay. You could even hear the screams of crazy teenagers as that thing spins. I am just glad that at the moment its on the chopping block
Originally Posted By bean just realized that last few posts. Jovn, you really like to argue don't you. not only here but in every site i have seen you in. best thing is to just agree with you so that the threads con't stray to far. sometimes its best to humor people that thing they know it all.
Originally Posted By danyoung I agree with you, bean, but it's just so hard to see someone like jon continue to bully people over the years. I'll run hot and cold on taking him on directly. I've never won, not because I can't out-think and out-logic him, but because he continues to come back with the same tired arguments for which there is just no answer. I'm expecting another post any minute now, to which I may or may not respond. I guess I'm just hoping that some day we can come to a meeting of the minds.
Originally Posted By mstaft "It debuted as a pretty good product, but it has since been broken." jonvn, I think DCA debuted as a half-baked project with some excellent parts. And now it is being changed, some more the better, so not so much. At opening, the Backlot was an undeveloped concreteland, and Paradise Pier was a cheap attempt at filling in the attraction count. And don't get me started on the entrance! On the other hand, Eureka was great, Seasons of the Vine was classy, Soarin' terrific (even if the queue is mediocre, and the Grizzly Peak area wonderful in themeing- even if the raft ride was average. Disney got scared - and reverted to what they thought was profitable. But the public couldn't be fooled: carnival rides, clones from WDW, and the general mall feeling of DCA do not make a great park.
Originally Posted By Bob Paris ">vMost people would never had heard of it.< Jon, you don't have a clue what most people saw or didn't see." Which is kind of ironic because everytime somebody else makes a blanket statement about what the majority do or don't like, Elder Statesman(read:Grumpy Old *******)jonvn is THE FIRST ONE to remind all and sundry that they don't know what the majority thinks either. Obviously we should all come to him now to find out what the vast masses think and know.
Originally Posted By danyoung >Disney got scared - and reverted to what they thought was profitable.< Y'see, I really don't think they got scared at all. I've done quite a bit of reading on the subject, from people who were in positions to know what was going on. And it's my opinion that the folks in control of DCA really really thought that they had a terrific product. They thought that what would set DCA apart was the upscale dining and shopping. And as long as there were some rides with minimal Disney theming, it would be a huge success. There's plenty of evidence to show that they thought DCA would sell out every day, and that DL would become something of a consolation prize to those who couldn't get in to the new park. Heck, they opened DCA with absolutely NO annual passes, thinking that they wouldn't need them - full ticket buyers would fill the park right from opening. I recall reading stories shortly after DCA opened, where these park creators were quoted as saying that the crowds weren't coming to DCA because the people just don't seem to understand it yet, and that they just needed to do a better job at educating the public on how to enjoy the new park. But the public wasn't fooled - they knew exactly what they wanted, and what to expect out of a new Disney park. And DCA wasn't it.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "But the public wasn't fooled - they knew exactly what they wanted, and what to expect out of a new Disney park." So how do you explain the park's performance today? You know that it has had a significant increase in attendance since 2001 with only one major E ticket addition since opening. Clearly there were other factors affecting the park's initial performance beyond just that it "sucked".
Originally Posted By jonvn "Jon, you don't have a clue what most people saw or didn't see." But, of course, you do. The reason I say this is because I know a bit about this stuff more than the average person, and I barely heard of it myself. If it's not something that I really hear a lot of, and I'm on a few of these boards, then the average person is simply not going to know a whole lot more. "I can tell you from my perspective as a broadcast professional with many years experience that the ad campaign was far reaching and extensive" Maybe it did have ads, I don't recall seeing them, and don't recall anyone talking about such things. The ads were not effective, and did not penetrate into the public's conciousness. People simply did not know this stuff existed. "I can be appreciative of the finer things without having to totally embrace them." Not based on what you already said. You stated that you thought that what was offered was too high and mighty for the likes of average people. Yeah. And how do you "appreciate" something without "embracing" it? That has no meaning. Simply put, you want disney to offer you some crappy thrill ride and sell you some tacky little metal pin so you can put it on a lanyard, or some such. Other people might like something a little different. "Just because someone doesn't cotton to the idea of a Chatauqua type institute doesn't mean that they're of the crappy pin and beer stein crowd." YOU are the one that said it was "blue blood." Too high falutin'. So, tell me, do you buy jewlery from QVC, too? "I'd really enjoy taking many of the classes that the Institute had to offer. But not whem I'm in Florida doing a Disney World vacation. " And of course, Disney should only offer the things that you personally would enjoy, right? "Do any reading at all about Walt Disney " I'll have to do that one day. Maybe the 20 or so books or whatever the number is now I've already read isn't quite enough. Yes, he was a man of the people, living in Holmby Hills... "not the smaller percentage of the upper crust." Because a cooking class is certainly upper crust. Why most folks only need to learn how to read the packages on frozen burritos, right? That's good enough for us average folk. You must really have self-esteem issues. "I see Eisner's latter day attempts as being totally counter to Walt's ideals." Then you probably don't really understand what Walt Disney was about. He was about building and adding and making things for people to enjoy. He made stuff that was upper class. Do you think Disneyland was just some dumpy cheap thing he tossed together? No. Compared to the other things available at the time, it was about as high end as you got. His animation was as high end as there was. And he charged for it. It wasn't the average low income person going to his parks back then on a daily basis. You had to PAY to go into his parks, unlike other parks of the era. Don't ascribe to Walt Disney the low class ideals that you seem to think he should have had. He was there to raise the bar. Constantly, in everything he did. Not lower it. Not make the place only for those with low sloping foreheads. That is what set his stuff apart. He didn't the world's leaders to show up at his park because it was common. It was special, appealed to people of all types and all incomes. He built private clubs in his parks, too, for his upper echelon corporate buddies. Really, don't try to make Walt Disney out to be something you want him to be because it suits you. Everyone seems to do this. He wasn't a god, he was a human being.
