1. Nothing for kids: That kinda goes with not enough attractions. (see 2)

2. Not enough attractions: WDW has a lot fewer attractions per park, comparred to what DL has. Of course we're going to expect more. Especially since DL had waited 45 years for it's 2nd park! NO, DLR is NOT LUCKY. Didn't DL open with a larger Square footage for guest access? Sure a couple attractions went outside the berm (Pirates, HM). But, not until Toontown opened did they really go outside the original boundary. Why couldn't DCA have done the same thing?

3. Movie attractions: I never considered this an issue. BUT it does depend upon how it is presented. Soarin' is unquestionably the biggest step forward. The Animation building is terrific too, but the entire attraction is not a movie. I'm not going to do an inventory of all the film attractions here. But suffice it to say presentation and variety is a key.

4. DCA too many shops and restaurants. WHY THE HECK are you comparing EPCOT to DCA. EPCOT had the various countries that could support at least a couple restaurants each (Not to mention the separate pavillions in the front section. Stores, same thing. DCA Certainly doesn't have anywhere near that variety of things to play off of.

5. The Few Attractions are Underwhelming: I wouldn't necessarily count GRR or CalScreamin' as E-Tickets. You certainly miss that whole debate. These are all missing the magic that IS DL. A Coaster disguised as a Coaster? :confused: And the heavy metal music on the attraction sure doesn't fit the theme this area is TRYING to pull off. If this is Disney's best idea for a section in a THEME park, Imagineering needs ALL the help they can get!
GRR, good grief . Where is the imagination that brought the world's 1st tubular rollercoaster (which by the way WASN'T even disguised as a rollercoaster) oh big deal that the rafts go 'round and go down a couple drops - like I said the magic to make these E- Tickets isn't there.

6. Off theShelf Carnival Rides: Man, do you ever miss the BIG point here. The Carnival Rides are disguised as CARNIVAL RIDES. This is one of the most idiotic imagineering ideas EVER. When a good portion of the Park is themed like an amusement area is degrades the entire experience to an amusement park, instead of a theme park. They could have easily themed this to an underwater area, or a different time period. It is REALLY MISSING that DISNEY touch.

7. The food factories: I never considered these attactions, they are more like the candy place on Main Street. This wouldn't be an issue if DCA wasn't short on attractions like HM or Pirates.

8. Retreads: Yeah, not that big of an issue, I would expect some reruns, BUT as long as they don't deteriorate the experience like they dumbed down Pooh from TDL to WDW and again from WDW to TDL. AND also make sure you have some experiences that you don't have at other parks (Soarin' , for example helps distinguish DCA)

9. DCA 1/2 the park: Why with they MGM, again? Most guest to WDW are more "captive" than at DL. Also, park hoppers are certainly a good percentage of the WDW resort. So you don't feel cheated when you "finish" Disney-MGM, you just go to another park. Plus that was a 3rd park, not just a 2nd.

10. CA Theme Too Limiting: Eh. This was not really an issue with me either, Hollywood area gives you just about card blanche. A big problem was Paradise Pier, though (too many problems - that definitely deserves it's own thread). That and blocking in the most creative area of the park (Condor Flats, GRR area -the area- not necessarily the ride)

Oh, you do miss the entire why didn't DCA open with some sort of decent berm and "Main Street/Hub" style. Or that it doesn't take you to the VARIETY of PLACES and TIMES the DL does (turn of the century 1900, old west, fantasy, adventure, tomorrow) DCA just doesn't do it, and THAT is a MAJOR PROBLEM with DCA.

Oh, and why NOW do they insist on placing the non CA linked Monsters Inc. Lilo and Stitch (Hawaii), and soon Nemo (Australia) in DCA? It does Corrupt their theme.

DCA - Disney's Corrupted Amusements

The point that no one has brought up, is that, "Didn't Disney learn from their mistakes?!". So, Epcot, and DAK had the problems, shouldn't that have told them something. :mad: :rolleyes: :fez:

When I read this article, I was disappointed in the explainations. One rebuttal that could be used is, "But, what about Disney Tokyo Sea?" If DCA was built like that, I don't think there would be as many problems.

Remember when Disney stopped selling annual passes because they thought there would be so many people coming there wouldn't be any room for APs? Clearly Disney thought they were building a winner. Then the retreat to making APs available but not to both parks without additional cost. Then the final retreat to the allowing park hopping.

I'm waiting for less blackout days to become available at DCA for the less expensive AP programs.

DCA could have been better than the product delivered. No excuses for that. Look at Tokyo Sea, they did it right.

Originally posted by StarTours
One rebuttal that could be used is, "But, what about Disney Tokyo Sea?" If DCA was built like that, I don't think there would be as many problems.

...

DCA could have been better than the product delivered. No excuses for that. Look at Tokyo Sea, they did it right.

But didn't another company foot quite a bit of the bill for the construction of Tokyo DisneySeas?

I know this goes without saying, but I encourage you all to email David with your comments and thoughts as well (he does not reguarly read MousePad).

Originally posted by cstephens
But didn't another company foot quite a bit of the bill for the construction of Tokyo DisneySeas?
Oh, like the Walt Disney Co. is strapped for cash ? :rolleyes:

Tokyo Disney Seas cost allot of money to build and the result is, it's making allot of money.
Sounds like a fair trade wouldn't you say ?

and as Monorail Man said, they should've learned from their past mistakes.


(insert fez)
:fez:

Originally posted by zapppop
Oh, like the Walt Disney Co. is strapped for cash ? :rolleyes:

Tokyo Disney Seas cost allot of money to build and the result is, it's making allot of money.
Sounds like a fair trade wouldn't you say ?

and as Monorail Man said, they should've learned from their past mistakes.

They may not be strapped for cash, but this company is notoriously tight with their money. From theme park upgrades and maintenance to paying its administrative staff at the studio.

I believe Oriental Land Company picked up the tab for TDS. That's why the purse strings weren't as tight as for DCA or Paris' WDS.... OLC knew that to make money, you've got to spend money. Bless their hearts. :D

Sheila

Originally posted by zapppop
Oh, like the Walt Disney Co. is strapped for cash ? :rolleyes:

The answer to that question is irrelevant to the point brought up by the person who made the comment to which I responded. What Disney could have spent on this or that is a separate discussion, which has already been engaged in billions of times and will probably come up a billion more times. The comment I addressed was completely equating DCA and Tokyo DisneySeas, and they cannot be completely equated because Disney didn't pay the same price for both. Why does TDS have this or that but DCA doesn't? Because Disney didn't pay for it. TDS has it because someone else did. If Disney had completely paid for Tokyo DisneySeas, then I too would be wondering why they felt it was a good business decision to spend that much money there but not here, but that's not what they did.

I'm also not of the opinion that spending endless amounts of money is always a guarantee of quality or success, but that's also a separate discussion.

The fact that OLC and Disney did not spend the same amounts, I believe EVERYONE can agree upon. Let's take it a step further. OLC spent $$$ to get a quality Disney product (they used Imagineers and let them do what they do best). Disney spent less in the States and got DCA.

Now lets see the results. Tokyo Sea kicks butt by being a success and making families happy. DCA costs less, creates a blackhole that is costing Disney money and disillusioning Disney fans. Sponsors have bailed out and Disney is doing the best it can to stop the bleeding.

Take another look at, concept and execution. I want to go to Tokyo Sea. It looks great and appears to be well themed and I want to see what Imagineers can do nowadays with a large budget. The commute is prohibitive, but some day I dream. How's that for an illness? An American wants to go to Japan to see a Disney park? OLC has got my attention.

DCA, I go to because I can and it's less crowded. Who wants to travel from out of state (or outside of So. Cal?) much less from out of the country to see DCA?

IF dollars (or yen :D) was truly the issue, why not go smaller or go fewer to get the same quality and theming as Tokyo Sea??? That would make some of the arguments by David K. more valid. By focusing on quality and fewer attractions, if mistakes were made, like they were, recovery could be made simpler. Instead we have a poopy island in the middle of the lake and Superstar Limo. Now Disney is spending millions to fix things up and some of those 'fixes' may not work. sigh.

Let me know when Disney has spent what Tokyo Sea cost the first time around. Who knows, with the drain on revenues and the fixes being made, it may already have cost as much?

If OLC is so happy about WDI's work, why are they going to an outside company for their third park?

If DCA is a black hole, why are the numbers up from last year?

Fab

Wait, I am confused, the first year, I think almost everyone would agree that Disney got less attendance than expected... how much, who knows, the number mentioned was 7 million, the number reported, just 5 million... now are those the exact numbers... who knows?, but I do know that Disney made MAJOR changes in the admission media from opening day, which was VERY restrictive in multi-day tickets and other discounts, to MAJOR discounts just a few months later in 2001.

Then, based on the Amusement Business numbers in 2002, DCA had a DROP in attendance of about 6%

http://mousepad.mouseplanet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14179&highlight=Amusement+Business

And now, there are mentions of a slight increase (Tom Skaggs - CFO of Disney) claimed that the entire DLR was "up slightly" in the 2nd Quarter, but what does that mean... First year, disappointing, second year, less than the first, and now "up sligthly"....

Originally posted by FabDisBabe
If OLC is so happy about WDI's work, why are they going to an outside company for their third park?

If DCA is a black hole, why are the numbers up from last year?

Fab

I did some footwork and found that DCA's numbers have declined in 2002 from 2001. If there is an increase in 2003, is it because of the Bugs Life attraction?

Now, I couldn't find any info on OLC and the third park. If the reference is to Hong Kong Disneyland, it's a joint venture between the Chinese Government and Disney. The OLC isn't involved there as far as I can see.

If given a choice, where would a guest go? Disneyland or DCA? From the numbers and reports from Tokyo Disney, I think a guest would be hard pressed to make a choice between Tokyo Disneyland or Tokyo Disney Sea.

Has anyone heard of a Disney Sea guest demanding a refund and admission to Tokyo Disneyland?

Nope, not Hong Kong. Japan. Oriental Land Company. They announced that the same day they announced Tower.

Fab

Regardless of the 2001 2002 attendance increase/decrease question or the whole TDS/DCA debate, this article missed some of the major problems with DCA and glossed over several other points.