Originally Posted By trekkeruss <<Artistically the success of the New Fantasyland is beyond debate. However as far as getting people through the gates, it did less then nothing.>> Reallly, who was thinking about Disney as a brand in the early 80's? Even EPCOT wasn't a huge success out-of-the-box.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros TDL was (and still is) a HUGE success in the early 80's. But that was more OLC than Disney, as Disney thought it would be a failure. So I guess they really weren't thinking about protecting the company after all.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss TDL is off the radar for 99.9% of Americans. Its success is not a point regarding DL and Disney in the early 80's.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros All I was thinking was that somebody was concerned about the Disney brand then. Even if the 00.1% that thought about it all worked at Disney, they were glad that there was such a success in Tokyo, as it meant that there would be some more money coming in, during a time when the parks generated a huge portion of the company's revanue.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>That is exactly what I mean. Artistically the success of the New Fantasyland is beyond debate. However as far as getting people through the gates, it did less then nothing.<< Perhaps FLands biggest failure was that even though it was visually improved, the attractions themselves remained the same. But then, how do you "kick up a notch" attractions like Storybook Land or the Merry Go Round? Maybe the dark rides could have been improved, or consolidated: a ride that takes you through the different Disney classics, and that would last many minutes, like Pirates? At one point you could be driving through Mr. Toads England, maybe later swalloed by an animatronic Monstro and later fly above London in formation with Peter and the Darling kids?
Originally Posted By FerretAfros The dark rides were improved during the FL redo. They were all made a little longer, and given more scenes. They added Snow White to her ride, and completely added Pinnochio. There was a lot of work done on Peter Pan to bring it up to the most modern technology (the fiber optic starfield room would have never been in anyone's wildest dreams in the 50's). Mr Toad was just generically updated (including the real working fountain). Alice, although openeing a little after the rest of the land, got more modern effects, and a more cohesive story line. It also added the final scene in the mad tea party, as the ride has simple ended with the outside part before. There was plenty for people to get excited about.
Originally Posted By RogRabbit >>Maybe the dark rides could have been improved, or consolidated: a ride that takes you through the different Disney classics, and that would last many minutes, like Pirates?<< Why must everything be like Pirates? Granted it's a wonderful ride and sure DCA definately needs a ride like it, but not all rides have to be. What makes Disneyland great is the combination of short Fantasyland C- tickets and Pirate type E-tickets. Just my opinion.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>Why must everything be like Pirates?<< It doesn't. I actually like FL fine the way it is. It just won't be on anyone's "must see" list.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>The dark rides were improved during the FL redo.<< But they remained fundamentally the same rides. Some improvements here and there. I agree that Peter Pan was significantly improved, which probably explains why its never a walk on even to this day (Last March during a Monday night downpour it has a line).
Originally Posted By Park Hopper >>Reallly, who was thinking about Disney as a brand in the early 80's? Even EPCOT wasn't a huge success out-of-the-box.<< Okay you lost me, Trekkerus. I was merely saying that the TV ads and billboards advertsising the New Fantasyland of 1983 were not successful in bringing in guests. I don't know how branding comes into it.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss Disney has done a great job in selling the Disney brand when Eisner came onboard. They've done such a great job that they have even managed to take quality down a notch and still get people to visit WDW in record numbers. That's how branding comes into it. DL and Disney of that era was an underperformer. I didn't even know about the FL re-do until after the fact. Is it any wonder it didn't do anything for attendance?
Originally Posted By Park Hopper I’m still not getting you. Eisner started branding in 1984. Disneyland has had bad attendance years since -- 1990 and 1993 spring to mind almost immediately. So branding isn’t proof against bad attendance. 1n 1980 Disneyland enjoyed a very healthy attendance year due to its 25th anniversary. You’re going to have to explain to me what you mean by an under performer. In what way was Disneyland an under performer?
Originally Posted By 9oldmen >>But then, how do you "kick up a notch" attractions like Storybook Land or the Merry Go Round? << For the redo in 1983 and '84(when the second phase, the "Alice" dark ride reopened), the Carrousel was moved north about 50 feet (a little more than it's own diameter) and was surrounded by, I think, new planters, a new queue area, and of course, the Sword in the Stone was added. The carrousel now sits where the Mad Tea Party was once located. The park was pretty dead in '84, but drops in tourism tend to happen in cities hosting the Olympics. We'll see if Hong Kong Disneyland is affected by the 2008 games in China.
Originally Posted By believe >>>The park was pretty dead in '84, but drops in tourism tend to happen in cities hosting the Olympics. We'll see if Hong Kong Disneyland is affected by the 2008 games in China.<<<< I'll vouch for "dead in 84". Speaking by personal experience, DL ramped up in late 83 for the Olympics. They expected record crowds. Nothing really new was in 84. They had the lame Donald Duck parade and a decent Flights of Fantasy and MSEP. Anyways, it was pretty slow (my hours kept getting cut) until the day AFTER the Olympics ended (August?). By then, it was too late. I remember because I had suggested to a supervisor that we should let the news know that it was slow - she basically said that that wouldn't be a good idea because our stockholders wouldn't like it. (this was from a mid level DL manager - no one from corporate. Basically, everyone in Southern Calif thought that traffic and everything would be crazy - but it turned out to be the opposite - everyone must have left town. because there was no freeway traffic and DL was slower. Hong Kong is a few thousand miles away from Beijing Olympics. Maybe people will flee Beijing to Hong Kong...
Originally Posted By FerretAfros But they are doing some of the equestiran-type events in Hong Kong. I think they are doing stuff at Happy Valley (I think that's the name of the race track), so there will be a few more people there during that time, but I don't see it being a huge issue.
Originally Posted By wonderingalice ^^How weird is that?? Like L.A. is hosting the Olympics, but let's do Gymnastics in N.Y. *L*
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Here is more photos, this time from Thursday, July 27th. These were taken from 3:40 to 4:20 PM at Disneyland, and then from 4:20 Pm to 6:10 PM at DCA. At Disneyland, it is somewhat busy, decent sized lines and crowds. At DCA, a clear lack of lines, Monster's Inc. had less than a 10 minute wait, ToT was 20 minutes, Screamin's was a 5 minute wait, etc.... Just look at the photos... <a href="http://darkbeer.smugmug.com/gallery/1713283/3/84462290" target="_blank">http://darkbeer.smugmug.com/ga llery/1713283/3/84462290</a>
Originally Posted By FerretAfros What was the wait for Soarin'? I think I missed that one. It's usually pretty long, but the crowds make me think it could be less than 45 minutes. And what about GRR? If it was hot, I would expect that line to be pretty long.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer ^I didn't walk by Soarin', so don't know. I think the GRR wait was about 20 minutes, walked by it around 6:10 PM while heading to dinner with Lisa.
