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 KanakiKid AgentLaRue: "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." I guess that's me, who you refer to. My point was that Disney managed to "crack" the snotty-Parisian and American-hating European market when DLP opened. What I've read was that DLP had always had decent attendance, it was rather the overbuilding of hotels that sank DLP's finances. Visitors enjoyed themselves with the themeing, attractions, etc. Disney's been doing business in Anahiem for 46 years and should have understood what SoCal folks would fork over $43 to see. If DL's attendance nose dived like WDW did this year, then you could rightly blamed it on the economy. The scuttlebutt seems to say that DL's numbers are down a bit compared to 2000, but DCA just didn't generate the expected attendance. Since DL has drawn a majority of it's visitors from locals and with the economy tight, I would think that families would have cancelled their WDW, Disney Cruise, trip to Hawaii and spent a 3 day mini vacation at the brand, spanking new DLR. They would save a pile of money. With DCA as a carrot, that would be an even bigger incentive. It really doesn't seem to be the case. Keep in mind, none of the other local parks didn't really have much new to draw visitors this year, so with a tight economy there's not much to draw more visitors. That also applys to DL. But with a whole new park. . .
Originally Posted By jonvn "My point was that Disney managed to "crack" the snotty-Parisian and American-hating European market when DLP opened." Your point is wrong. When DLP opened, it had a good first year, barely. After that attendance took major downturns. It did not always have "decent attendance," and if you read that, I'd like to know where you got it from. The truth is that visitors were not going in the numbers expected, were not buying the souvenirs, were not staying in the hotels, and were not staying very long in the park. "Disney's been doing business in Anahiem for 46 years and should have understood what SoCal folks would fork over $43 to see." So Disney is supposed to be clairivoyant, of course. As a matter of course, all entertainment offerings are sent out with hope but you never know how the public will react. By your logic, a film studio that makes movies that has been in business for 75 years should know what the public wants in movies, and should never make a film that does not do well. That is obviously not the case, and neither is it the case that they should just be able to KNOW what is going to be right or not. What they did was made their best effort, and are seeing what the public's reaction is. Unlike a movie, where once it's done, it's pretty much done, a theme park can take in customer feedback and change over time. This is what they are doing, and have always done. To expect them to somehow be able to do a perfect job is unrealistic. "Since DL has drawn a majority of it's visitors from locals and with the economy tight, I would think that families would have cancelled their WDW, Disney Cruise, trip to Hawaii and spent a 3 day mini vacation at the brand, spanking new DLR." Well, you thought wrong. This was never even a goal of the resort. The goal was to have people who are already coming to the place stay an extra day. That was the goal. Not that they cancel other vacations just to show up for DCA. Anyone who would cancel a trip to Hawaii to go to a theme park in Anaheim instead probably is in an extremely small minority. Again, this is just totally unrealistic and does not bear on the reality of the situation. Maybe you should just stick with the personal attacks. They don't require any actual facts, something that you are in short supply of.
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 Darkbeer So you don't like the term "Eisner's California Adventure". Well, I feel the writer was trying to make a point. Walt Disney personally built (with a lot of help from associates and lenders) Disneyland, presentally, Disney is just a brand name, just like Kraft, Six Flags, etc... So Disneyland was designed and built by Walt Disney himself, and the writer was trying to make a point with the difference of that park to the new park built across the way. And this article was not written with the "in the know" Disney fan in mind, but the general reader/public. In an earlier post, Jonvn states that the current "Eisner-led" Disney made their best effort building DCA. Walt Disney basically spent every dime he had, plus borrowed quite a bit more to build his dream. And like the movie "Fields of Dreams", he felt if he built the park of his dreams that was designed for the entire family, the folks would come see it. It paid off, and still makes money today.... On the other hand, it seems like the current "executives" decided to build a AWESOME hotel and a great shopping mall (GCH and DD), but cut the budget to DCA multiple times (based on the original plans, what was presented at the "preview center" and what was actually built. This disappointed many folks, and is why DCA is having problems. Reading many boards, including here at LP, where people rated different parks, seemed like almost everyone rated DL as the best park on the west coast, but DCA was rated approximently the same as the other major parks in Southern California. I hope that DCA gets better, sounds like BLAST is a great improvement to Steps in Time, but it still seems like the current group of executives still are cutting costs (Why wasn't the pre-show built here in California for WWTBAM-PI, while offered at WDW??), but it will take more than one new major ride (TZ-TOT) and a group of kiddie rides to be the equal of the park across the track. And it looks like Disney has admitted it, due to many reasons, the ecomony, the not-100%-positive response to DCA, etc, they understood that most AP's that purchased a two-park pass would decide that the additional cost was not worth getting the two-park pass, and were planning to renew with the purchase of the DL-only pass. Thus the decision to offer the two-park only AP's at the price of the same price or $10 more than the DL only price. So, is it the message, or the deliver of the message?????
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 jonvn "So you don't like the term "Eisner's California Adventure". Well, I feel the writer was trying to make a point. " I'm sure he was but the point was ridiculous. As I mentioned in a previous post, if you're going to call it that, and it is called that out of derision, why not call everything else done under Eisner's lead "Eisner's whatever." Eisner's TDS. Eisner's Lion King. And so on. "presentally, Disney is just a brand name, just like Kraft, Six Flags, etc... So Disneyland was designed and built by Walt Disney himself, and the writer was trying to make a point with the difference of that park to the new park built across the way." Disney was a brand name long before Walt Disney died. He recognized it himself. I really don't know what you or anyone else could possibly expect. I think that people need to take a less parochial view of the park across the way. No, Walt Disney didn't build it. You know why? BECAUSE HE'S DEAD. HE'S BEEN DEAD FOR 35 YEARS. He didn't build the parks in Florida, he didn't build the parks in Tokyo, he didn't build the parks in Europe. He didn't even know any of them were going to happen. Sure, he knew SOMETHING was going to be done in Florida, but what got built looks very little like what he was thinking of doing. So what's the point of trying to mention this? It's like trying to bring up the point that if you stand out in the rain, you're going to get wet. "In an earlier post, Jonvn states that the current "Eisner-led" Disney made their best effort building DCA. " Did I? I don't recall. Some people seem to enjoy putting words in my mouth, so I'm not sure I did or not. However, let's say you are making an attempt at accuracy here, and if I did, I probably was saying that they made their best effort that was based on the situation at the time. In an absolute sense, for example if they had infinite time and money, then this probably not the best effort. But they didn't have infinite time and money. They had to build a park that fit within cost parameters and function as a section of a new resort complex. "Walt Disney basically spent every dime he had, plus borrowed quite a bit more to build his dream." Yeah, well he had his name on the place. Eisner does not own the place. It is NOT his job to spend every last cent he has to build a new theme park. It is not his place to bankrupt the company in order to make one small segment of one division bigger. What on earth is expected here? That everything Disney does be shut down financially so that they can build one ancillary theme park in Anaheim? This is NOT 1955, and the company is far more dispersed and larger than it was then. It's just totally unrealistic, and would never happen. "And like the movie "Fields of Dreams", he felt if he built the park of his dreams that was designed for the entire family, the folks would come see it. It paid off, and still makes money today...." This is simply and completely wrong. Disneyland was the single most heavily advertised product of the 20th century. He had a weekly TV show and a kids show. He had tv specials, he had movies stars of the time covering the opening and promoted the place for years afterwards. All these things were done on the ABC network, who bought into the park with a one third ownership of it. And at the time of all these TV shows and promotions, there were only usually three TV stations in any area. It was as if one third of all stations on the dial were showing these ads. With this constant barrage of commericial exploitation of his park, he was able to generate a major desire to see the place, all across the country. If he had built the place and told no one about it, no one would have shown up. How could they? They would not have known to. Where this idea of "build it they will come" occurs from, I have no idea. But you might as well put it out of your mind because it's patently false. He didn't just build the place. He built it and advertised the living daylights out of it. "Reading many boards, including here at LP, where people rated different parks, seemed like almost everyone rated DL as the best park on the west coast, but DCA was rated approximently the same as the other major parks in Southern California." What I read here is that DL was number one, and a majority said that DCA was number two. Obviously it could not also be number one. Also, obviously, you can't have everyone all liking the same things. Some people will like it more than others. But the point of people being on this web site is because they like Disneyland in particular. It's no big suprise that another park would be ranked at different levels by different people. Even so, it appears that DCA was strong at second in many people's opinion. "it will take more than one new major ride (TZ-TOT) and a group of kiddie rides to be the equal of the park across the track." It was not built to be the equal of the park across the track. That was never the intention. It was never intended to do the business of the first park. It was built as an ancillary (go look it up) park to turn the theme park as it was into a resort, where people would stay for longer periods of time. Perhaps that is not what you personally wanted for them to build, but somehow I don't think they were all that keenly interested in your personal desires. Mine either. They built what they did for their own purposes. "it seems like the current "executives" decided to build a AWESOME hotel and a great shopping mall (GCH and DD), but cut the budget to DCA multiple times " Exactly where did they cut this budget? As it is, they went OVER budget, by about 30% or more. What you're probably talking about is that they didn't want to go even further over budget. You see, when you build things, you se out how much you can spend and you try to keep to that as much as possible. The reason you have budgets in the first place is because you have to control how your cash is allocated. If you don't do that, you end up going broke. Don't believe me? Take a look at what happened to EDL. Spent everything they could on it. Went broke. Additionally, you might want to consider that building a hotel is a different sort of thing than building a theme park. The theme park by its very nature is supposed to change and grow over the years. The hotel, once you build it, is static. They're not going to be adding new stuff to the lobby. They're not going to be remodeling all the rooms. Once it is in place, it is in place for decades. Sure, they might add additional rooms, but they're not going to do anything radically different with them than what is already there. The alternative to building a nice hotel would be to build a less nice one, and have that be it for a long time. I don't suppose that would be desired, would it. You also have to understand why the hotel was important here. As I mentioned, they were trying to turn the place into a resort where you can stay an extra day at, as opposed to a theme park where you just went for a few hours along your trip. To do that, you need nice hotels. Disney has several nice hotels at their Florida property. And it is easily seen how they contribute to the entire experience of going to WDW. "the not-100%-positive response to DCA, etc" They are not going to get a 100% positive response to DCA. Nothing gets a 100% positive response. So that's not much of a lesson for them. "Thus the decision to offer the two-park only AP's at the price of the same price or $10 more than the DL only price." Well, since the premise is not right, the conclusion is wrong. For one, this is how the passes operate in Florida. For another, you have no idea what people who bought APs thought. The price is low, yeah, because people are out of work right now. The economy as you correctly mention has been bad since March. March is what the government admits to, anyway. Blaming Disney for not doing as well as it otherwise would in a drastic economic slowdown is also unrealistic. "So, is it the message, or the delivery of the message????? " The message that person wrote was ridiculous, and filled with left handed compliments, faint praise, and cheap shots. It was a hatchet job and I don't see it as anything more than that.
Originally Posted By lookcloser15 "Eisner's TDS" Actually that would be incorrect. Disney didn't put up the money for TDS, Oriental Land Co. did.
Originally Posted By disneywatcher >> It's easier to find fault with the messenger than with the message in times like that. << And this becomes almost like a parody when someone, in a reply to a posting about how common it is to want to tar-and-feather the messenger, retorts that -- among the things in that post he disagrees with -- the post's sender (me) hasn't correctly differentiated the messenger from the message [>> "The messenger in this case is the Weekly Standard." <<]. In debates or arguments, I've noticed instances where one side or the other will more frequently -- if not almost entirely -- display a shoot-the-messenger response. When it's coming from those who are taking a position I agree with, I become very nervous (sort of like discovering the boat I'm in has a leak). When it's coming from those I disagree with, I become reassured --- reassured as to why I've drawn certain conclusions to begin with and nodded yes or no to certain points during a debate. As to the DisCo. in particular, it would be very revealing to know how much of the tar-and-feather mindset can be found amongst the influential people of that company. When a lot of this attitude exists within a business or organization, there's probably going to be a constant circling of the wagons when problems crop up. In such an atmosphere, mistakes and bad judgement, when they occur, will be tougher (if not outright impossible) to correct. If this scenario does apply to the DisCo., it's almost a miracle that Michael Eisner didn't proclaim on Good Morning America, "DCA is a wonderful, inspiring place that I wish Walt could've seen!" and Thomas Skaggs didn't tell Newsweek, "I love our new American park---the crowds and profits its generating are music to my ears!"
Originally Posted By jonvn "And this becomes almost like a parody when someone," Since that someone is me, I guess I should respond. Will this do any good? It's not a parody. It's a simply reply. The reason this was said was because this is not the messenger. This is a person creating this message. It was his opinions and his article. No one is tar and feathering him as a messenger. It's his message that is being discussed. And his message is wrong. Whether that wants to be dealt with or not, and it seems to not be, that's what it is. Now, it's easy to classify this as a shoot the messenger thing, I suppose. But then, there were a lot of other comments that have been conviently forgotten in order to set up this sort of argument. "Shoot the messenger" I guess is the new catch phrase, so that anyone who disagrees with a pointlessly negative diatribe can now be said to be doing that. It's a weak argument, and it is not a "debate." It is simply a method of deflection and an avoidance of the issues of a discussion. What I see here is that someone posts a negative rant about Disney that says bad things about Eisner, and the amen chorus shouts "yay." Any attempt to say anything about it is dismissed as "shoot the messenger" or some other typical thing that the bashers engage in. Previous versions were "You don't understand Disney magic," or "you're not a true Disney fan." Now it's "You're shooting the messenger." Why is this? Because the people making these sorts of comments don't have any facts or validity to back up their comments other than their personal opinion. Since they can't convince others that they have the one true opinion, then obviously people who hold different opinions are simply or defective, or are "shooting the messenger." It is ironic that there are now complaints of shooting the messenger, when they themselves are discussing people who post, and what they are saying rather than any facts or statements involved. That is exactly shooting the messenger.
Originally Posted By Dabob <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.> Actually, the Weekly Standard is both right-wing AND elitist. Try to catch the editor, William Kristol, on one of the Sunday morning talking head shows, for a quick personification. Think William F. Buckley without the weird eyebrow-and-tongue thing. When I read that article, the first thing I thought was "consider the source." I'd be surprised if the Weekly Standard thought ANYTHING from 2001 was nearly as good as ANYTHING from 1955. And certainly some of the "family values" crowd feels particularly "betrayed" by the modern Disney Co. for things like having an R-rated Touchstone division, offering benefits to their gay employees' families, etc. Remember the ill-fated Southern Baptist boycott?
Originally Posted By KanakiKid "Actually, the Weekly Standard is both right-wing AND elitist." That may very well be true. On the other hand, the WS's really is not after the same Washington Beltway audience. It appears they go after more mid-America audience. I still believe that Disney won't attract intellectuals in large numbers, so no great loss. However, if they start loosing the great American family then they've lost their core audience. By the way, Kristol's elitist attitude comes more from his position than the firm he runs. Think of other top exects including Uncle Mikey. ;-)
Originally Posted By disneywatcher As I said before, when in a debate, it's revealing to observe how much tar-and-feather emotions -- tied up with rationalization and resentment -- one side inspires in the other. This aspect of human nature is certainly no surprise when imagining, for example, the scenario of a person telling his or her co-worker, "I've just heard that the boss thinks your work is lousy," or, "I noticed you making another error the other day." Upon hearing this, many people, defensive about their ego being tarnished, will at that moment be more interested in casting doubt on the credibility or veracity of the boss or co-worker than anything else. As to this never-ending debate between DCA boosters and skeptics, I will acknowledge that if the DisCo's CEO and CFO -- via published reports and/or messages here at LP.com -- were to say, "DCA is a truly wonderful park that I wish Walt could have seen, and, by the way, it's also doing amazingly well financially," some of us DCA skeptics would undoubtedly cluck our tongues. A few of us would definitely say, "Oh jeez, more corporate spin from the bigwigs." As a person who's not a big fan of DCA, such comments from both DisCo. insiders and Disney-fan outsiders wouldn't be, based on my preferences and assumptions, too reassuring. If some of the DCA cynics then said, "And I bet those executives' comments were misinterpreted, taken out of context or mis-transcribed by the reporter, or mis-read by the reader or mis-heard by the TV viewer," I would -- as I mentioned before -- find that to be even less reassuring, and consequently feel like a person who's just discovered a few leaks in the boat he's sitting in.
Originally Posted By jonvn "As I said before, when in a debate, it's revealing to observe how much tar-and-feather emotions " And as _I_ said before, this has nothing to do with what this article has to say or not say. The simple fact is that there is no debate here on what was said in this article. This is now just comments on posters. Additionally, this commentary was repeated after it was responded to once already, as if the constant repetition of the same bad ideas somehow gives them validity. It doesn't. But what this does indicate is that there is no ability here to argue on issues or facts. And since these statments were repeated, I guess I'll just repeat what I said, as well: No one is tarring and feathering anyone. However, if you do write an article that is filled with empty slams, then it's going to be called on. What's going on here is that those who disagree with the bashers are once again being put in some sort of dismissive role, as if they're opinion is invalid because it's "tied up with rationalization and resentment." This is simply not the case at all. The fact is that people are bashing this park who simply do not have facts at their disposal. What this indicates is that there is a basic lack of understanding as to what these people are speaking of.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 "It's his message that is being discussed. And his message is wrong." Hold on there jonvn, the article in question is nothing more than one person's opinion of DCA -- and an opinion can never be right or wrong. He didn't like the place -- and he has every right in the world to express that opinion, just as much as you have every right to express yours. But you can't really say whether yours is right and his is wrong without facts -- and hard facts are pretty difficult to come by in this case. (Unless of course you happen to have some inside knowledge I'm not aware of.)
Originally Posted By plpeters70 "The fact is that people are bashing this park who simply do not have facts at their disposal,..." How is that any different from people praising the place without facts at their disposal. Your basically saying that it's only ok to say good things, but not bad things without facts to back up your statements. It's like I said above, there are no facts - it's all just opinion, so it's all just as valid.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Hold on there jonvn, the article in question is nothing more than one person's opinion of DCA -- and an opinion can never be right or wrong." At least you are trying to discuss the actual content of the article here. I am very glad for that. First off, he's wrong about the name. It's not "Eisner's California Adventure" any more than it's "Eisner's Euro Theme Park." This is just a cheap slam at the place. One of many. Minor little details that a simple checking of facts would correct aside, let's take a look at some of the comments: 1) ("Soaring over California" presents a few minutes of splendid views, but without any narrative, the film might as well have been shot over Morocco). A cheap shot. The film is obviously about California, as it shows things like the Golden Gate Bridge. 2) The food court is housed in a complex that looks like a decrepit Cannery Row. It's called theming. In the paragraphs above this, he talks about how the areas are themed. Now the theming is decrepit cannery row. Which, of course, is also not true. It's obviously clean and not falling apart. So for one park, the theming is good, the other, it's bad. Inconsistent and illogical. 3) At night the illuminated Paradise Pier isn't as pretty as Long Beach's now demolished Pike was forty years ago. The Pike was a sewer. I don't know what this guy was seeing 40 years ago, but it was a dangerous and seedy place that was filthy. Does he think it closed down because it was such a wonderful experience? It closed because the only people left going there were drug addicts and crazies. 4) Trash floats in the lagoons. Litter lies uncollected on the walkways. Has even a basher said this is true? The place is immaculate. Did this guy even visit the place? Basically, this guy just made up a bunch of junk to say about DCA. It's not as if he's complaining about the stuff on its merits, he's having to make up or exaggerate everything because if he did try to complain about problems, they'd be so pathetically miniscule and whiny, he'd come off as a geek. This is what he says about DTD: ""Downtown Disney," a pedestrian street offering tens of thousands of square feet for hawking Donald Duck key chains, Snow White costumes, and Mickey Mouse T-shirts." That's right. That's the only thing sold in DTD. Ignore all the other stuff that's there because it doesn't fit the convenient nature of his bashing. Basically, he's lying. So that's why his message is wrong. It is a series of gross distortions of facts in order to come to his most likely pre-judged "conclusion." And the fact that when this was called on by myself, and even a couple of others, what is the response? Why, we're filled with rationalization and resentment. Of course. Well, there is nothing to rationalize, but I do resent the lies and half-truths that people who bash this place have to resort to because there really isn't all that wrong with it and they need something to give cause for their endless complaints. This guy is just another one. Making stuff up that's simply not true just to be able to make up a negative slant. His scholarship is faulty, his premise is invalid, and his conclusion was evidently formed before the evidence was gathered. In short, considering that the author of this article is in academia, he should be ashamed of himself.
Originally Posted By jonvn "How is that any different from people praising the place without facts at their disposal. " When you talk about the history of the park, its offerings, or whether or not it is a success or not, any of those sorts of things to back up your complaints beyond "I don't like it," then you are trying to allude to some sort of authority for your opinons. It's one thing to simply say "I don't like it." It's another to try and say something like "And Walt Disney would not like it," or "It has no theme" or any of the other typical things that are completely baseless said about this park. "Your basically saying that it's only ok to say good things, but not bad things without facts to back up your statements." If someone can come up with some solid facts about bad things, then fine. But that is not what seems to happen.
Originally Posted By cheesybaby <<2) The food court is housed in a complex that looks like a decrepit Cannery Row. It's called theming. In the paragraphs above this, he talks about how the areas are themed. Now the theming is decrepit cannery row. Which, of course, is also not true. It's obviously clean and not falling apart. So for one park, the theming is good, the other, it's bad. Inconsistent and illogical.>> This caught my eye as well. It reminds me of how Mouseplanet trashed the Pacific Wharf area detailing before DCA opened, but then gushed all over themselves praising the aging of the Miracosta hotel at TDS. Hello, both projects are detailed and aged to look authentic, and both projects are executed wonderfully. It's weird how people point at one and say "See?! It's so cheap!" then point at the other, which is exactly the same thing, and proclaim "See?! Now this is detailing so incredible Eisner would never pay for it!" Amazing.
Originally Posted By disneywatcher In terms of how everyone responds to articles, comments and reports on DCA, be they from the Weekly Standard, the DisCo., the public, etc. (and this is important to figure out, because of how it may or may not apply to various people -- especially the higher-ups -- working at the DisCo.) I recall reading a few postings at LP.com some time ago from a person who really ranted about how much he **disliked** DCA, and apparently had -- under a different LP handle -- created so many problems for LP.com, that Doobie announced the person had been previously banned from the boards and would be disallowed under his/her new sign-in name too (the conflict was addressed on this board, so it wasn't a private matter). I remember thinking, Oh jeez, that person and I may **agree** on the topic of DCA, but...{{{ shudder }}}. (There's the phrase, with friends like that, who needs....) I guess a variation of this would be the minor flap that occurred earlier this year when Disney spokesman Ray Gomez was asked questions about DCA by a KCBS-TV employee, with the spokesman -- so indignant or resentful that he was described as replying with expletives -- understandably having the opposite biases of the anti-DCA LP-board writer described above. I'll just say that I cringe whenever those who like OR don't like DCA respond to the topic in certain ways. But I admit to having an accompanying reaction of either relief or embarrassment based on whether the yea-or-nay response in question reflects well or poorly on the group that praises DCA, or the one that criticizes it (and, yes, there's a third bunch that's right down the middle). As to DisCo. bigwigs, I wonder what they thought of their spokesman's shoot-the-messenger tussle with KCBS when the station's newsroom was seeking confirmation of rather unflattering information on DCA -- I think in regards to low attendance or guest surveys -- not long after the park's premiere?
