Originally Posted By DlandDug >>...businesses don't reinvest billions in something that has been deemed a complete failure.<< No, they don't (usually). But in this case we are all dealing with a billion dollar do-over.
Originally Posted By DlandDug Also, they're not "reinvesting." This is all new money. The original money was all flushed away. Or hauled away in a cloud of plaster dust and shattered concrete...
Originally Posted By WorldDisney Only read the last 10 posts, sorry, but its no way in hell they were going to let the park close. Wouldve been the biggest red face for the company since someone decided to make Lindsay Lohan a star. HKDL is still struggling as well, what did they decide to do...pour money into it! WDSP was also hurting for people. What they do, pour more money into it! All these parks suck tremedously at opening and they had poor attendance because of it, but no way is Disney going to let them fail completely either! And besides, the only problem with DCA and why few showed up was they built the place too cheap and it lacked any real magic next to DL, that was it! It wasnt because there were too many parks in the area or people just wanted more time at DL, it just the place itself wasnt worth the money since people wasnt there more than a few hours because people knew it was pretty crappy, too many movies and carnival rides, lacked family rides, no real magic, dull theme and just felt like every theme park in SoCal. Well, now they are fixing that problem and shocker, people are showing up! I know the original morons who built this thing thought the name Disney alone and being a few yards from DL would get people in the place, but they were clearly wrong. Now they are doing EVERYTHING they shouldve done from the beginning--immersive areas, fantasy themes, family attractions, night time shows, ALL that was missing in DCA 1.0. Really, it isnt rocket science, they just needed it to make it more Disney and less KBF! The thing is they ALWAYS knew what to do, they were simply too cheap to do it and had people who obviously didnt know much about building a Disney theme park in charge with too much ego and tell themselves 'the guest didnt get it'. No we got it alright--you gave us a nice big heap of crap! But if 10 million people showed up the first year, we would probably have that same crappy lackluster park today, just with a few nicer rides and nicer shows here and there...fortunately 10 million people didnt show up . And since the park was draining the coffers, putting all the pressue on DL, etc, they decided to bite the bullet, finally, and turn it into a REAL Disney park! They did that from the beginning, they wouldnt have needed to spend twice the amount to fix it in less than 10 years they are doing now. And yeah they got in new people who knows EXACTLY how to hit those buttons like Lassiter. I dont know if DCA will ever be considered equal to DL, but its definitely in the right direction now at least IMO. DCA 1.0 was an embarrasement save for a few areas and rides. But DCA 2.0 FEELS like a different park now. Mostly for the better IMO even if I dont agree with all of it. So will it 'save' it, for some DCA will NEVER be a good park and will always feel like a cheap lackluster park no matter how much they pump in! But I think for most people out there, yeah, it will save it and more importantly they will actually go more .
Originally Posted By Dabob2 They also spent more than the initial outlay adding to MGM in its first dozen years, and people did come to that one (mostly because they were already on vacation for a week and had hoppers, so why not?). This is the new basic model for Disney-financed parks, whether we wish it were so or not.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>This is the new basic model for Disney-financed parks, whether we wish it were so or not.<< Show me the areas of Disney-MGM that were demolished and/or rethemed. At Disney-MGM they began opening up and adding areas, in response to the immense popularity of the place. At DCA they began closing things down, hastily added new attractions, and finally ended up doing a massive remodeling project. There's no valid comparison.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>Show me the areas of Disney-MGM that were demolished and/or rethemed.<< I believe they did some demo work to make the connection between Sunset Blvd and Hollywood Blvd. They had to move (translation: completely rebuild) the BATB theater, and I think there was another building or two that was taken out in the process. They also removed large portions of the backlot tram tour to make way for Lights! Motors! Action! in 2004...but that's about it. It's also residual effects of expanding the park. The big difference between the DCA/WDSP model and the MGM/HKDL model is quality. The latter two didn't have much, but what they did have was well done and well recieved. The former didn't have much, it wasn't done well, and came off cheaply to guests. While all have required significant investment to improve the offerings, only two have also needed significant investment to convince people to pay to get in the doors, and on additional PR, and a serious rethinking of what's going on there.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>I believe they did some demo work to make the connection between Sunset Blvd and Hollywood Blvd.<< They moved the "Theater of the Stars" to open up the way to add Sunset Boulevard. That was it. No actual demolition. The replacement of Residential Street (part of the tram tour) with Lights! Motors! Action! took place long after the "first dozen years" time frame cited as the model for the parks that followed.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >>This is the new basic model for Disney-financed parks, whether we wish it were so or not.<< <Show me the areas of Disney-MGM that were demolished and/or rethemed. At Disney-MGM they began opening up and adding areas, in response to the immense popularity of the place.> Try the entire park. When it opened, they made a big thing of it being a "real working studio." It was never much of one, but that was the overarching theme. Somewhere along the way they gave up that ghost, and went with "okay, okay, it's just a park with a movies theme." They changed the theme of the entire park, though they (and probably you) won't admit it. Again, each park has unique circumstances. But the basic "open light, add more later" paradigm - WITH VARIATIONS UNIQUE TO EACH PARK - is how Disney has done it with the majority of parks they've financed since MGM opened.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt This is an endless debate. Some of you will be talking about this until Jesus comes, which in my mind means forever.
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<This is the new basic model for Disney-financed parks, whether we wish it were so or not.>> That may have been the Eisner / Pressler model, but what most here are failing to take into account is that the uppermost levels of management has changed. So to simply claim that the "new" model for themeparks is to build cheap and come in behind with real money later maybe valid for one team but not necessarily so for the next team. We simply do not know how the new team will handle new park projects. Shanghai will be their first case, but it is clear to say that the current team learned from past mistakes of the previous admistration' HKDL. Never discount the power of "lessons learned". " While the area earmarked for Disney -- in the Pudong district of Shanghai -- has yet to be defined and is still to be negotiated over the next few months, according to the Shanghai government, it is expected to be much larger than the space allocated in Hong Kong. The price tag has been reported to be one of the largest-ever foreign investments in China, in the neighborhood of $4 billion. "China is one of the most dynamic, exciting and important countries in the world, and this approval marks a very significant milestone for the Walt Disney Company," Disney president Robert A. Iger said in a statement." <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2009/11/04/news/international/disney_china.fortune" target="_blank">http://money.cnn.com/2009/11/0....fortune</a>
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <So to simply claim that the "new" model for themeparks is to build cheap and come in behind with real money later maybe valid for one team but not necessarily so for the next team.> Well, it was their basic model 1989-2005, anyway. That represented a change, and could change again. My point is that DCA was neither the first nor last example of that model.
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<My point is that DCA was neither the first nor last example of that model.>> And my point is to give the new team a chance.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>When it [Disney-MGM] opened, they made a big thing of it being a "real working studio." It was never much of one, but that was the overarching theme.<< Not true at all. The point was that Disney-MGM was somehow more than just a studio. There was rather a great deal of emphasis on the name "Disney-MGM Studios Them Park." As in: not Universal Studios, a studio with a few theme park elements grafted on. That the working studio never really took off is well known. But do note that the response was not to demolish the sound stages and remake the area. And certainly not within the first ten years. >>Well, it was their basic model 1989-2005, anyway.<< Balderdash. Here's the list. Now explain to me how each of these was an example of "build cheap and come in behind with real money later:" 1989 Disney’s Hollywood Studios 1992 Disneyland Paris 1998 Disney’s Animal Kingdom 2001 Disney California Adventure 2001 Tokyo DisneySea 2002 Walt Disney Studios Park 2005 Hong Kong Disneyland If anyone wanted to make a valid case for "build cheap and come in behind with real money later," they'd have to start in 2002, when there was, indeed, a whole new management team in place.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan It was built so cheaply that they didn't even bother to add the last 'e' in Theme. This saved so much money that years later, in DCA, most of the Gs were dropped and replaced by apostrophes.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>It was built so cheaply that they didn't even bother to add the last 'e' in Theme. This saved so much money that years later, in DCA, most of the Gs were dropped and replaced by apostrophes.<< And they saved TWICE as much when they dropped the " 's " from Disney California Adventure!
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt >>Well, it was their basic model 1989-2005, anyway.<< "Balderdash." Did you really type "balderdash" Doug, or has your computer been hacked by Miss Jane Hathaway?
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<And they saved TWICE as much when they dropped the " 's " from Disney California Adventure!>> They couldn't figure out how to levitate the epiphany above the S on the Esplanade. So they dropped both the DISNEY and the ephphany-s from the entryway. And for a brief moment, sitting in front of the entrance, was the word CAca until some of our neighbors from Mexico riding the monorail became appalled at what they saw.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <Show me the areas of Disney-MGM that were demolished and/or rethemed. At Disney-MGM they began opening up and adding areas, in response to the immense popularity of the place.> I was there leading up to, and for the opening of Disney-MGM Studios Theme Park. To say it was 'immensely popular' is perhaps inaccurate. 'Popular' to me, suggests that it was well liked. People certainly did show up to the new park, but many people were none too pleased with the overall, half-day experience. Guest relations got slammed with complaints from guests who quickly realized that there was no 'there' there. And while the sound stages are still standing, they certainly don't need to be.
