Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By Jim in Pasadena CA Well, you see jonvn, that's the $64,000 Question, now isn't it?
Originally Posted By jonvn $64,000? How cheap! Doesn't anyone know they have to spend money to make money?
Originally Posted By gadzuux I agree that the article is surprisingly flawed in its facts. But that alone doesn't negate the "point" that the author is trying to make. It seems that a pattern has developed here. Whenever something from a high profile publication such as the weekly standard or LA times is published wih anything negative to say, the same posters come out and discredit it. What this tells me is that this "contingent" will not sit still for a critical look at disney in general, or DCA in particular. It's always written off as a hatchet job, or the writer is full of beans, or is coming from a hidden agenda. Why can't people take these articles at face value? Because it doesn't align with their personal beliefs. It's easy to nitpick over the obvious inaccuracies within his article, and I wish they weren't there, because it does undermine his credibility somewhat. But the root of what he says is valid. Specifically, that the underlying messages of DL, and the spirit and intent of the park as it was created, are not present in DCA. What IS present in DCA is a desire to extract as much revenue as possible for as little expense as possible. There is little thought given to stirring emotions or celebrating our culture's more noble achievements. There is no unifying "wholeness" to DCA as there is in DL. DL offers a unifying whole that is made up of separate elements; the park "ties together" in a way that DCA does not. Now I'm not flying off the handle here and suggesting the whole park be bulldozed - just that the author's criticisms are valid and justified, and that DCA must take its lumps when compared to DL. Bottlenecks, color schemes, landscaping - all of that is minutiae when taking a step back and looking at the big picture - the park's "raison d'tre" ( fr sp?) - it's reason for being. The reason is simple - to increase the revenue spent per guest. DL obviously paid "some" attention to that - I agree, it's a business, and must remain financially viable to continue to exist. But unlike a thread on the DL General board which suggests that DL is really the world's biggest shopping center, I'd like to think that the underlying motivation for DL's creation was something greater - a new kind of art form, created by a filmmaker/storyteller, that would allow the guest to immerse themselves more completely in the story and environment. This is an honorable motive, and the revenue derived was a fuel to power the creative engine, not the other way around - to create an engine to produce revenue. An important difference. So maybe the writer of the article has a valid point, and we should cut the guy some slack on his inaccuracies.
Originally Posted By jonvn "It's always written off as a hatchet job, or the writer is full of beans, or is coming from a hidden agenda." That's because they usually are hatchet jobs. And there are a lot of them. There is a history of the press writing pretty scathing things about Disney. They are a big and easy target. "Why can't people take these articles at face value?" I do. I take it at face value, reject what it has to say, and form an opinion as to the value of its content. Because someone got something published someplace, I should just say "Oh, OK" and that be it? "But the root of what he says is valid." Well, you see, that's your opinion. I think the root of what he sayw was an attempt to dump on Disney. "Eisner's California Adventure." When you use inflammatory rhetoric like that, then you just don't get accorded the same level of credibility you would have otherwise. I don't think the points he was making were all that valid or justified. Perhaps there was some validity to them, in that Disney is now a corporation, and not the outgrowth of the desires of one person, but what's to be expected? That they somehow dig up Walt's ashes, rehydrate him as if he were Taster's Choice Coffee Crystals, and ask him what they should do next? "But unlike a thread on the DL General board which suggests that DL is really the world's biggest shopping center, I'd like to think that the underlying motivation for DL's creation was something greater - a new kind of art form, created by a filmmaker/storyteller, that would allow the guest to immerse themselves more completely in the story and environment. " It's a shopping center. That's how it's viewed, and that's how it functions. Now if Walt Disney had intended something else when he built it, that's another thing. He may have wanted to do a certain thing, but to get to that certain thing, he had to confront certain realities, and money is the reality. Additionally, from just an artistic view alone, in order to set up his themed areas, you need to have something to put behind the facades. If you want a real interactive environment, you need to create shops and such to give reason to these environments. The thing about the shopping centers was not the idea of anyone who posts here. It was brought up in a TV documentary about theming, specifically how Las Vegas applied theming to their hotels. It was the show that mentioned how Disney parks are little more than nicely landscaped shopping centers with rides to attract the customers. This has been going on since day one of the Disney theme parks. SO, no. I don't think he has a very good point. He doesn't have anything but a chip on his shoulder and a solid lack of understanding of what he is talking about. It did look like he skimmed some of the more typical complaints found here. The reason people are harsh about innaccuracies in articles like this is that they are supposedly knowledgeable of the area that they speak of. When they demonstrate that they aren't, it raises the question as to why anything they say ought to be considered.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >>Disney parks are little more than nicely landscaped shopping centers with rides to attract the customers. This has been going on since day one of the Disney theme parks.<< Sorry to veer wildly off topic, perhaps this would be best located on the other thread, but is it YOUR contention jon, that Walt intended to build a revenue engine; a shopping center? The attractions were merely devices to lure the "marks" who would then pony up cash so that his house was bigger, the pile in his carpets deeper, the holes in his swiss cheese smaller? I don't think so. I think he was motivated, not by money, but by the challenge of building a park that he would enjoy going to. Yep, I buy into the marketing story of him sitting and watching his daughters and wondering "what if". It wasn't about enriching his company or his family so much as it was about creating a new and different kind of park, and as the next logical extension to furthering his storytelling - what he had devoted his life to. But you may see it differently. Honestly, I think my version is a bit more romantic, yours is a bit more cynical, but I could be wrong.
Originally Posted By jonvn "but is it YOUR contention jon, that Walt intended to build a revenue engine; a shopping center?" No. I'm saying that this is how they function, and how the parks end up being designed. I never said that this was about "marks," or that there is actually anything inherently bad about this. Nor do I say that Walt Disney was not trying to do exactly what he said he was trying to do. The shops and restaurants function as a mall type atmosphere. They just do. This is what has been copied by Vegas in order to generate themes for their hotels. I don't think I'm being cynical, as I don't think I was talking about motivation. What I am saying, though, is that the parks operate the same now as they did all along. I think the people running the place want to create a pleasant and fun atmosphere for the public, and do so. But what they have created is really a very large open air shopping district which has rides as an attractive feature. Most of the park IS retail. Count the stores and restaurants up (include ODV) and compare to an attraction count. It is what it is.
Originally Posted By AgentLaRue "Whenever something from a high profile publication such as the weekly standard..." I agree Gadzuux that the author should be entitled to his opinion, but I'm not sure I'm ready to elevate the weekly standard to a high profile publication. As for the substance, well, I didn't find much. If your going to criticize the new park, more than hollow rhetoric should support those views. People critical of DCA have made more compelling arguments on these boards. If an author wants to avoid the "hatchet job" label, he should do more homework and give a better supported opinion. I did find it curious, however, that the author is a director of music studies. A critique of the parks musical offerings may have been more in line with his qualifications. I can't believe this guy didn't rail on Steps in Time, but maybe he missed it.
Originally Posted By disneywatcher >> The quote should be: "Disneyland is your land." << Well, the writer -- employed at some obscure college in Tennessee -- did say "we feel less like guests than rubes," and so I guess he ended up becoming exactly that when, as a rube, he thought the plaque read "youth," not "your." >>>>> Weekly Standard: "...Eisner's California Adventure shares none of these qualities." <<<<< I wonder how many of the unflattering critiques published since February have crossed Michael Eisner's desk? The Weekly Standard is a small-circulation magazine, just as is the publication that ran a very tough review -- also debated here -- several months ago written by the father who wished he had taken his son to a Dodgers game instead of DCA. High-visibility Time magazine did print an article on DCA without the number of jabs found in the publications mentioned above (for Time it was: "California Adventure may leave some hard-core Disneyland fans feeling like the fairy dust is spread a little thin"). But it's one of the few sources of commentary on the park that I recall not being more along the lines of a piece in Via (the AAA's travel magazine) or Business Week, in which the jeers aimed at DCA were a bit more condescending. Even without the published reviews or columns, I wonder if Eisner wants to put some distance between himself and DCA, not because of the park's creative shortcomings but mainly because of its level of attendance and sales volume. If that's what is determining his behavior, it wouldn't be surprising since many people are far more affected by whether something is popular with the public and at the cash register than any other criteria. No matter where a project's strength or weakness lies, there's the saying: Success has many parents, while failure is but an orphan. So if DCA were booming with (mostly full-ticket-price) visitors and retail sales (as is reportedly happening at DisneySea in Tokyo), I bet Eisner would have shrugged off anything he's read about DCA in the press -- including the Weekly standard -- and proclaimed himself to be the park's father on national TV last Wednesday morning, even if DCA were identical in every other way to what it currently is --- a regional-class affair.
Originally Posted By Jim in Pasadena CA There have always been pieces written like this -- even about Disneyand, or WDW's Magic Kingdom, and how the modern American Disney Theme Park is the root of all evil. In my opinion, they're usually written by people who are too cool for the whole thing. With a bit of an elitist attitude thrown in. College sophomores like to write these kinds of essays. Their perspective seems to be "Oh look at all those poor misguided souls, walking around blindly in a made-up Disney world -- falling for this folly like moths to the light" It's the same folk who complain about the evil enterprise that is the shopping mall -- and how malls are responsible for killing off small-town merchants in America. You know, the Mom-and-Pop Stationery Store vs. Office Depot arguments. (yawn). Or how places like CityWalk and DownTown Disney are just gross, cookie cutter profit centers. And yet, at the same time, they lament that Americans are fractured, and don't spend enough time together in public places. Hey, it's fun to bash what people enjoy -- plain and simple. Movie Critics, Theater Critics, Book Critics, Sports writers, and now, Theme Park Critics. It's funny to me that people are just now noticing this perceived lack of quality, lack of theme-ing, lack of magic in Disney's California Adventure. You know when the magic stopped? 35 years ago when Walt died. Since then, the Theme Parks built after Disneyland, have all been in a slow coast toward...ordinary. WDW's Magic Kingdom -- Lots of big stuff. Big castle. Big walkways. But overall, it's a second-class version of Disneyland. Built, not by artists and set designers, but by architects. And built with a budget in mind. EPCOT Center -- Interesting. Different. Beautiful. Big. Not quite the EPCOT concept. Leaves many guests cold. "It's just a bunch of restaurants and shops" Tokyo Disneyland -- another clone. This time, they cloned WDW's Magic Kingdom. So it's another generation of a copy. Loses something in the translation. Disney-MGM Studios, Animal Kingdom, Disneyland Paris, Tokyo DisneySeas, and then Disney's California Adventure. Those who are looking at DCA and are constantly carping on 'Lack of Magic' and 'On the cheap' and 'Weird layout' and 'Lack of Rides' -- my question to you is -- "Where have you been for the past 25 years?"
Originally Posted By plpeters70 Why is it that whenever there's a bad review everyone always jumps down the writer's throat and cries foal -- yet everyone's always ready to accept a good review as a sign that DCA must be fabulous. Seems to me that it all depends on your point of view -- if you like the place, you'll agree with the good reviews, if you hate the place you agree with the bad reviews. Either way, it doesn't really matter what we think - the only thing Disney's going to care about is whether or not DCA turns a profit and brings more people to the Resort.
Originally Posted By Jim in Pasadena CA plpeters70 -- my point it that writers have been hammering on Disney Theme Parks since day one. They're fun to hate. Like people who claim 'Oh, I don't watch television -- there's simply nothing that I like' Yeah, right. For me personally, I could give a rip what someone writes about DCA -- good or bad. It doesn't influence me any more than a movie reviews. It's just that this guy acts like he just came up with the concept of "Disney Theme Parks not measuring up to the original Disneyland" He's right. They don't. But it's been that way since Walt Disney World's Magic Kingdom opened in 1971. Where's he been for the past 30 years?
Originally Posted By AgentLaRue "Seems to me that it all depends on your point of view -- if you like the place, you'll agree with the good reviews, if you hate the place you agree with the bad reviews." Maybe for some, if they simply reject everything people say because it does not conform to their own beliefs. I've read several articles that were not favorable to DCA that made some very interesting points. This is not one of them. DCA doesn't live up to DL? Wow, what a break-through piece of journalism. Now, author, might you say why you think that, beyond gross generalities? And Jim makes a great point about all parks since DL (caveat: I haven't visited to overseas parks, so don't chastise me by comparisons to foreign parks). For a guy in Tennessee, you'd think he'd have been able to provide some context for a review of DCA by looking at the parks built in Florida. Instead, he just put it all on Eisner. Convenient, but not compelling.
Originally Posted By WrongWay Did Time really do a piece about DCA lacking pixie dust? How could that be, when it is just MY opinion that the place has no magic? People can talk all they want about there being this great vary of opinions as to what is Disney Magical. However, the turth is out there, and people will see it. DCA is just not magical.
Originally Posted By Zero the Ghost Dog "However, the turth is out there, and people will see it. DCA is just not magical." Geez, hello, it all depends on what YOU THINK! "DCA is just not magical" is not the "turth" in everyone's eyes.
Originally Posted By KanakiKid disneywatcher: "Even without the published reviews or columns, I wonder if Eisner wants to put some distance between himself and DCA, not because of the park's creative shortcomings but mainly because of its level of attendance and sales volume." It's been observed that Uncle Mikey when asked by "Good Morning America" what he considered the best parks Disney has recently made he mentioned many, but didn't mention the park that he, himself had a major hand in creating. Interesting. JIP: "You know when the magic stopped? 35 years ago when Walt died. Since then, the Theme Parks built after Disneyland, have all been in a slow coast toward...ordinary." I haven't heard the same criticisms about TDS. In fact, reviews by publications and visitors indicate that it's both a critical and a financial success. To a lesser extent the same holds for DLP. Dispite the bad initial financing, which some allude to over building of hotels, DLP seems to have be very popular with some of the toughest audiences around--snotty Parisans and other American-hating Europeans. Perhaps they enjoy the gauche American park that confirms their prejudices. However, the shareholders of DLP are laughing they way to the bank. DCA should be so lucky. It looks like the overseas Disney parks stuck to the old tried and true Disney formula and are doing a minimun of "good", while US parks are taking a drubbing by deviating from their legacy. "There have always been pieces written like this -- even about Disneyand, or WDW's Magic Kingdom, and how the modern American Disney Theme Park is the root of all evil." Yes, there's always been a small, but visible anti-Disney elite that like to trash "low brow" culture, but Walt always did things his way and usually the cultural elites eventually came around to his view. What is so telling about the publication in question (Weekly Standard) is that it is NOT an elitist publication, if fact, it's rather a right-wing, family values venture that might ordinarily favor Disney values. If Disney has lost the mid-America, family values crowd, then Disney really has lost their core audience in the strvings to squeeze every last $ out of their parks and other profit centers. The complaint against DCA that it's geared toward shopping and dining comes from the observation that the shops and restaurants have more detailing than the attractions themselves. Compare "Soarin's" themeing with "Taste Pilot Grill" and "Fly 'n Buy" and you'll see Disney took more care and effort in the latter two profit generating locations than in the attraction, which doesn't generate a nickle, but consumes beau coup $$. That fact shows Disney's real focus. "Where have you been for the past 25 years?" Living our lives. It's really been in the last 5 years AI (After Indy) that things have really started to go down hill in a big way in the parks. Many observers have noted that Eisner has really tried to shore up the non-performing divisions of the Disney empire with the reliable profits from the amusement parks, while scrimping on their upkeep and expansion. Can anyone defend ABC's decision to aire WWTBAM 3 or 4 times a week? That's a clear example of "milking" a hot property until people are bored with it. Also not how well ABC did in the Nov. sweeps-- 4th place behind FOX!
Originally Posted By AgentLaRue "I haven't heard the same criticisms about TDS. In fact, reviews by publications and visitors indicate that it's both a critical and a financial success." It better be for that amount of money. Is it a surprise that a $3 billion park is better than a $1 million? I wish they'd build the equivalent in the U.S. Do us all a favor and find a sponsor willing to invest $3 billion and give Disney a share of the revenues. "However, the shareholders of DLP are laughing they way to the bank. DCA should be so lucky." DCA's shareholders are so lucky, because they're the same. And why should we excuse DLP's early financial troubles and use DLP as a comparative criticism of DCA? Give DCA the same amount of slack you cut DLP. "Compare Soarin's" themeing with "Taste Pilot Grill" and "Fly 'n Buy" and you'll see Disney took more care and effort in the latter two profit generating locations than in the attraction, which doesn't generate a nickle, but consumes beau coup $$." Soarin' doesn't generate a nickel? It puts people in the park in the first place, just like all attractions at DCA, DL and any other theme park. And without the attraction, none of the merchandise at Fly'N'Buy will sell. Of course attractions generate income. That's why they build them. And what is so great with Fly'N'Buys theming compared to Soarin? It's a shack that sells Soarin' stuff. If someone wants to criticize Disney for eliminating detail and theming for the sake of profit, I'd suggest using the Disney Store retrofitting as an example. That one seems to fit fairly well.
Originally Posted By AgentLaRue "a $1 million" Now that would really have generated complaints if Disney built a million dollar park. Two spinners and a bucket of water for the kids to splash in. It should, obviously, have been $1 billion.
Originally Posted By JohnS2 >>if Disney built a million dollar park Don't give them ideas." I can see the chief attraction now: "Soarin' over Placentia."
