Originally Posted By lookcloser15 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. ...just the people who for one reason or another seem to be happy with what Eisner & Co. created cry foul. Certain posters automatically call it a "hatchet job" and "unfair" and what have you. I highly doubt if some magazine printed a positive article on DCA that we who dislike it would call it a "puff piece" or "paid infomercial" (unless it was in a Disney owned vehicle....imagine that!) I imagine the people who like the park don't like things that tell the public that DCA isn't good; they want it to succeed as it is. They probably don't like references to anemic attendance, discounted tickets, unhappy guests, negative word-of-mouth, etc. It gives the place a bad name (or a worse name than it already has gained). I can totally empathize with sentiments of wanting something to succeed in spite of indications that it may not be that well liked by the public. It's easier to find fault with the messenger than with the message in times like that.
Originally Posted By AgentLaRue "...just the people who for one reason or another seem to be happy with what Eisner & Co. created cry foul." If you read this entire thread, you will find posts from people who dislike DCA who found the article lacking. Regardless of which side you fall on, this isn't exactly Pulitzer material. "I highly doubt if some magazine printed a positive article on DCA that we who dislike it would call it a "puff piece" or "paid infomercial" (unless it was in a Disney owned vehicle....imagine that!)" Maybe not "puff piece" or "paid infommercial", but I wouldn't rule out criticism using other verbiage.
Originally Posted By JohnS2 This article struck me as some sort of vendetta. It reminded me of restaurant or movie reviews where the reviewer is not content with an unbiased report on what he/she experienced. They have to go farther - like the movie reviewer who concludes his report by saying that the toilets were plugged in the theater and the popcorn was stale. The garbage comment really struck me as stretching, especially given the reports I have read elsewhere here and even our staunchest DCA naysayer defended the park on its cleanliness. Something smells about this article, but I'm not sure what the author's motivations were for such a scathing review.
Originally Posted By jonvn ""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? " Actually, TDS has generated some critical comments. Park is too big, not enough to do for the size, and not enough thrilling attractions. So they're working on fixing that. Just like they're working on fixing the things in DCA.
Originally Posted By Jim in Pasadena CA I can see the chief attraction now: "Soarin' over Placentia." Or "Body Wars II: Soarin' over Placenta" is that gross enough?
Originally Posted By disneywatcher >> 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. << I'm sort of familiar with the type you're referring to. I believe such people have a tendency to wag their finger at capitalism, to prefer (blindly) the underdogs to the winners of society, to cringe at so-called middle-class values. It's funny, because when I saw the background of the writer, I admit to thinking (OK, somewhat snobbily), oh-gawd, he's from a college in the deep South, not some place like Harvard or Stanford. But it suddenly occurs to me that a lot of the most predictable Disney-is-so-bourgeois commentary has come from Ivory-Tower academicians working at the so-called prestige schools. In a similar vein, along with the small circulation of the magazine where the writer's essay was printed, it deserves noting -- after doing some web scrutiny of it -- that the publication's philosophy appears to be closer to that of the Wall Street journal and Saturday Evening Post than, by contrast, Mother Jones and Rolling Stone. I'm not sure if all of the Weekly Standard's contributors gravitate towards the Mom-and-apple-pie spin of the former (and traditionally associated with "Disney") or the more counterculture spin of the latter (and perhaps closer to rebellious-teen-attracting Six Flags parks?), but it seems likely that the writer from Tennessee wanted his article to run in a publication he can somewhat relate to.
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<And why should we excuse DLP's early financial troubles and use DLP as a comparative criticism of DCA?>> DLP was a new untested market. Early financial problems were to be expected. However, DCA has a 45+ year market history to pull from. But it is as if that market was never tested before the chosen theme was implemented.
Originally Posted By jonvn "DLP was a new untested market." DCA is a new untested market as well. It does not have a 45+ year history to pull from. Prior to the expansion, DL was a theme park only. This new expansion makes it something wholly different. Again, it's easy to point out the flaws. This guy is just another in a 75 year long line who has decided to take a shot at them. It doesn't take a lot to be able to do it.
Originally Posted By disneywatcher >> plpeters70: Why is it that whenever there's a bad review everyone always jumps down the writer's throat and cries foal... << On occasion, I think all of us, to varying degrees, want to tar-and-feather the messanger of any number of statements that we disagree with or find to be disheartening. As to the topic of DCA in particular, both boosters and skeptics have to admit to -- honesty, now -- feeling this way every so often. Okay, we as adults may be better than in those earlier years when we hated our parents for telling us our rooms were pigsties, or our teachers for telling us we didn't do well on the exam or term paper. But, come on, years later we find ourselves resenting it when our spouse/boyfriend/girlfriend tells us the dinner we cooked was disappointing, or that we're spending way too much time watching sports on TV, or buying too much at the mall, or always forgetting to mow the lawn. Certainly we're not thrilled when our boss or co-worker tells us we've goofed ("Your work on developing DCA was flawed!"), or that we had better do a better job next time. And we're going to have mixed emotions, to say the least, if we give an Xmas or birthday gift to someone and, when the present is opened, see more of a frown than a smile on that person's face, especially if we think we've given him or her something great --- and some people would love to give as a gift a few hours at DCA, while others would want to give something else. The dynamics above certainly won't be suspended just because we're dealing with and discussing "Disney," or "DCA," or "theme parks," even more so if we treat the topics at LP.com way too personally and the message boards as sort of a much-too-important hobby of ours. >> Kanakikid: It's been observed that Uncle Mikey when asked by "Good Morning America" what he considered the best parks Disney... << In regards to how we (who are outsiders, after all, along with the writer from the Weekly Standard) deal with DCA, all I know is that two major **insiders** of the DisCo., CEO Michael Eisner and CFO Tom Skaggs, have recently pointed to Disney parks built before AND after DCA, while avoiding any mention of DCA itself. Eisner has apparently happily singled out Disney parks other than DCA when dealing with the more creative attributes of such DisCo. properties, and Skaggs has indirectly mentioned a Disney park built **after** DCA when dealing with the operations that he sees as financially reassuring to the company.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Okay, we as adults may be better than in those earlier years when we hated our parents for telling us our rooms were pigsties" Oh brother... This has nothing to do with "the messenger." He's not the messenger, he's the buy making the message. He wrote it. The messenger in this case is the Weekly Standard. "Eisner has apparently happily singled out Disney parks other than DCA when dealing with the more creative attributes of such DisCo. properties" Honestly, trying to see portents and signs in a single interview like this is kind of odd. Aside from the fact that some people say he actually did mention the park in an interview, it seems that unless they say exactly the right thing about the right subjects at the right time, then it's all bad. This lack of mention along with the article kind of shows me that some people are willing to seize on anything they can to show how bad things are, no matter how insignificant. This article by this guy is just another. It really is just another in a long line of hatchet jobs. Most articles about Disney are. They are big, powerful, and omnipresent. Eisner makes a lot of money. Any time you have that, you have a lot of wannabes taking their shot.
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<DCA is a new untested market as well. It does not have a 45+ year history to pull from. Prior to the expansion, DL was a theme park only. This new expansion makes it something wholly different.>> OH come on jon, how do you figure that? There is absolutely no comparison between DLP being an untested market and Southern California with it's robust theme park history. DCA should be a welcomed addition for the local population. And increasing it's market share of tourists in a similar manner as Orlando should not a mystery to the experts either. It comes down to a lackluster effort on many fronts by the Disney Co. and not a misguess on "if" there would be a favorable market for another themepark, especially a Disney Themepark.
Originally Posted By jonvn "OH come on jon, how do you figure that? " I figure that because now things are different. It's a resort now unlike how it was before. Yes, the original park has been there so long, but the added stuff really was a gamble. Would people go for it? It's not a sure fire given. It's not like what was in Orlando. Orlando was built as a resort destination from day one. Disneyland really wasn't. Each of these are different cases, and given how the expansion was done, it looks like they figured they could do something very similar to Orlando here in Anaheim (here for me is 400 miles away, btw). Has it worked out? Well, time will tell, but there seems to be a lot of opposition to it from some quarters.
Originally Posted By lookcloser15 "On occasion, I think all of us, to varying degrees, want to tar-and-feather the messanger of any number of statements that we disagree with or find to be disheartening. " Absolutely. It's easier to say an individual has a grudge or is doing a hatchet job (without, may I point out, any facts to support that argument) than accept it as ones opinion, which in this case, is all it is.
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<Has it worked out? Well, time will tell, but there seems to be a lot of opposition to it from some quarters.>> But through the use of scientific statistical analysis, which is generally very accurate, Disney would have understood the financial risks of a resort in Anaheim. Down Town has been very successful in bringing the local base in for movies and dining. But the theme park hasn't succeeded in bringing those same folks for multiple visits. I just don't feel that they paid for the research to show what would best work in that space. Arrogance was put before intellegence on that decision, in my opinion.
Originally Posted By AgentLaRue "DLP was a new untested market. Early financial problems were to be expected. However, DCA has a 45+ year market history to pull from. But it is as if that market was never tested before the chosen theme was implemented." This works both ways. Paris had no Disney park as an alternative for the consumers dollars. DCA, on the other hand, faced drawing people from the monolith of theme parks across the way. DL can easily prevent, as opposed to create, attendance at DCA, because of its offerings and history. I'm not saying the two parks (DLP and DCA) are the same, which wasn't my point. The person who drew the comparison was comparing the current financial situation of DLP to DCA in its first year, when a better comparison would be to DLP's first year.
Originally Posted By jonvn "But through the use of scientific statistical analysis, which is generally very accurate, Disney would have understood the financial risks of a resort in Anaheim. Down Town has been very successful in bringing the local base in for movies and dining. " Then they would have understood the risks of DLP, as well. What is true of one is true of another. "But the theme park hasn't succeeded in bringing those same folks for multiple visits." Most people don't go and go and go. They do other things. When it comes round next year, then you can see the repeat business stuff come in. It does sound like that a good number of people here have gone multiple times, however. "...the current financial situation of DLP to DCA in its first year, when a better comparison would be to DLP's first year." Well then you'd be comparing like things together, and getting a reasonable statistic out of it. That isn't any good unless it will make DCA look bad, you see. "Absolutely. It's easier to say an individual has a grudge or is doing a hatchet job (without, may I point out, any facts to support that argument)" Fact: He calls it Eisner's California Adventure. Cheap shot. Hatchet job.
Originally Posted By woody >>He calls it Eisner's California Adventure. Well, isn't it? It's the Eisner Administration. Walt is still dead.
Originally Posted By jonvn Hello Woody. If it's Eisner's California Adventure, then it is Eisner's DLP, Eisner's TDS, and Eisner's everything else. Call it all the same thing if you want to call it that.
Originally Posted By woody I suppose its okay to call it as I see it? I'll refrain right now. At least give the author credit for not trashing Disneyland. "And Disneyland was beautiful. The paint was always fresh, the walks and streets spotless." As I remember, Disney was always the company people love to hate by the cultural elite. It took them 50 years to appreciate Disneyland. Give them some more time with DCA.
Originally Posted By jonvn "I suppose its okay to call it as I see it?" Call it anything you want. I'm simply saying be fair and balanced. If it's ECA, then it's E everything else. And everything else is a lot of stuff.
