PDA

View Full Version : DCA - Why did they build it??????



Pages : [1] 2 3

baileykat
10-15-2001, 09:33 AM
:confused:

Okay...I have not personally been to DCA...but have heard NOTHING good about it...after reading the DIG today...it seems Disney has heard nothing good about it either...what's the old saying...don't mess with a good thing....What was wrong with DL by itself...was it failing...did no one want to go anymore...was Disney so greedy they had to try to milk more money out of people by digging up the parking lot and building another half rate park...I think it just cheapens the whole Walt dream...I find it hard to believe that Walt , while building DL, invisioned scraping the parking lot and building something of DCA's caliber...if I'm out of line please let me know...I just don't understand!!!!!!!!!!!!

cstephens
10-15-2001, 10:09 AM
Originally posted by baileykat
Okay...I have not personally been to DCA...but have heard NOTHING good about it

If you've heard absolutely nothing good about it, then I would assume that you've not been reading very many sources. There are all kinds of good things posted about DCA, both on these boards and others.


was Disney so greedy they had to try to milk more money out of people by digging up the parking lot and building another half rate park...I think it just cheapens the whole Walt dream...I find it hard to believe that Walt , while building DL, invisioned scraping the parking lot and building something of DCA's caliber

Let me make sure I got this straight - you're saying all this purely from reading what other people have said, right, not from any personal experience yourself? So you're really just echoing others' opinions, not any real opinion you have formed yourself?

Ghoulish Delight
10-15-2001, 10:14 AM
Disneyland was failing. Attendance was dropping at an alarming rate. Of course, this was partially Disney's own fault as the success of Disney World sparked the unbelievable theme park craze in Orlando, drawing many people away from DL. However, theme park attendance nationwide has been kind of bad recently, so it can't all be blamed on Florida.

I'm not as pesimistic as most on this board. There is much at DCA that I enjoy. Admittedly, I have never thought it worthy of the $43 entry fee. I think they'd have done better to make it like $25 instead. It is, afterall, less than half the size of DL and yet they're charging the same price. At $25, they'd be able to draw more people. But to do that now would be admitting defeat, so it ain't gonna happen.

Remember, also, that we are the most critical of Disney goers. I'd like to see the tourist persepective of DCA. What do the real out of towners, the ones who go to DL once every few years at most, think of DCA? I'd bet, besides the price, they are not as critical of it. I could be wrong, of course.

hbquikcomjamesl
10-15-2001, 10:24 AM
Why did they build DCA??

Why did they build Epcot as we know it (i.e., a permanent World's Fair)? It's not even remotely what Walt had envisioned for the name (that vision didn't get realized until they built the City of Celebration, FL). Why did they build Disney-MGM? Why Animal Kingdom? Why Typhoon Lagoon, River Country, or Blizzard Beach? Why build Tokyo Disneyland, or Tokyo DisneySea? Why Disneyland Paris, or any of the other EuroDisney projects?

They built it because they felt it would be entertaining enough, and different enough from anything they've done before, that it would bring in revenue. It's fallen a bit short of expectations, but that's because neither Disney management, nor the vocal anti-DCA critics, can quite get it through their heads that it was an untried concept, with bugs to be worked out, and it's still in the "mud-bank ride" stage.

There have already been improvements made. The Millionaire show was added. "Waste of Time" and the Wolfgang Puck restaurant (that, if it belonged on Disney property at all, should have been put in DTD, or in the GC Hotel) are history, hopefully each to be replaced with something better, and better suited to an in-park location. Management is starting to realize that the whole Golden Vine area, while a fairly valid concept, takes up twice too much space.

In short, DCA is still a work in progress. Please visit it at least once before passing judgement on it.

tinkfreak
10-15-2001, 11:12 AM
I do understand why they built DCA, I'm just not sure it was the right thing to do. Sure, it looks good on paper... What they should have done was expand DL. Instead of scrapping old attractions and leaving their sad remains behind for all to see, they should have enhanced them. Maybe open a new land, and for God's sake, keep DL looking beautiful! A fresh coat of paint here and there goes a long way.

As for a tourists view of DCA? As a CM I can tell you that when asked they say things like "It was OK" or (most often) "We have young kids so we didn't think it was a good idea to even go there yet. Maybe in a couple of years" or my personal favorite, "We ran out of things to do".

There are good things about DCA. You really can't judge it until you've been there yourself, but on it's own...I can't imagine spending an entire day there without knowing that you could hop over to DL.:)

Nigel2
10-15-2001, 11:16 AM
Could it have just been folowing suit? Almost all of its local cometition has added another park in, but they were all waterparks. If they wanted to do something new it had to be another park, but they cheaped out a little so it hurt them alot.

Ghoulish Delight
10-15-2001, 11:32 AM
What they should have done was expand DL.

Possibly, but I think the focus has been, justifiably, on the long term. With a third park in the works, Disney's long term goal is to turn Anaheim into Orlando, The Sequel. And I say more power to them. Mistakes were made at DCA, but honestly, from what I remember form my visit 18 years ago (holy moly that's a long time), Epcot was not bowl-me-over fabulous either. But look at the area now. And they didn't even have the benefit of mindless locals like us lining up to give them money. ;)

When I look at the "Disneyland Resort" today, I am really impressed with DTD. I remember seeing it for the very first time and thinking, "Wow, they've really turned this little, formerly useless area of Anaheim into a destination." I've done a lot of traveling, and from that perspective, I could envision a vacation where (assuming I had sufficient money) I could fully enjoy staying at one of the local hotels, whether it be DLH, or TGC, or even one of the smaller places on Harbor, and spending lots of time and money having food, seeing shows, palying video games, etc. at DTD. I congratulate them on what they did there.

Hopefully, with support from fans, and preferably a little attention to the kind of feedback they're getting from this current venture, if and when the third park comes into being it will put the area over the top and turn it into the successful destination they are hoping for. THEN they can start dumping serious money back into DL. It's a long time to wait, but I think timing is critical in builing up the Anaheim resort, and spending a lot of money in DL now would cause some crucial delays.

But then again, I studied computers, not business. So what the heckdo I know?

Nigel2
10-15-2001, 11:38 AM
Speaking of DTD I would like to see them get a specitaly show like La Nouba there, but space and the average guest would basically cancell that idea.

innerSpaceman
10-15-2001, 12:04 PM
I can see why they have wanted so long to add another "gate" and attempt to make Anaheim more like Orlando (i.e., tourist cash cow), but I will never understand why DCA. How can years of development fail to reveal the obvious, self-imposed, severe limitation of the theme? More importantly, how can they have hoped to get away with Imagineering on a Six Flags scale rather than on a Disneyland scale when building right next to Disneyland itself. Comparisons were inevitable due to location, and clearly DCA is not up to it - not even as a park in its infant, 'mud-bank' stage. After all, DisneySea is an infant park, but it clearly got the E-level Imagineering effort that any park next door to Disneyland must achieve if it's not going to be considered a pathetic imposter.

I recall a similar situation years back when MGM opened at WDW. There was precious little to do; it was a half-day park saddled with full price admission. Over the years, more and more stuff was added and the value became better. But right from the get-go, the Imagineering was excellent - the detail and design work and creativity and entertainment effort were there from the start. Can anyone say the same for DCA? Sure, it's got a few hight points, but could you really say it's overall Imagineering quality was on a level usually associated with Disney? I think not.

By the way, I've been to DCA with many a non-Disney fanatic and no one I know likes the place. The public seems to have spoken in general - it's not just critical fans who've panned the new park, it's a certified turkey. Money talks. The public walks - right across to good old, reliable Disneyland.

Ralph Wiggum
10-15-2001, 02:27 PM
Cause despite what people say (many who have never been there) a lot of people like and or love the park(me included).

MickeyD
10-15-2001, 02:49 PM
You should check it out bailykat, and decide for yourself. There are people who like it. (I'm one of them.) However, don't pay $43.00 to go. Wait for the next discount.

baileykat
10-15-2001, 03:35 PM
WOW!...I should have expected all the response to my venting.
I will be the first to admit that I should NOT form such an opinion having never "actually" stepped a foot on DCA property. But you have to admit that there is more bad press than good press...Now I am a certifiable theme park fanatic! I love coasters, theme park atmosphere, rides that turn your stomach! From previous quotes, I feel like DCA is a Disney/Six Flags hodge-podge. I guess that I'm just a die hard from the good ole days of Disney. There is such a wholesomeness about DL. It's a place that truly takes your breath away everytime you walk thru the gate. A place that truly made you forget that outside the gate was a frantic world full of freeways & smog. DL was always a fantasy place where you truly felt like you were walking in Walt's steps everytime you strolled down Main Street. A place where your day was not measured by how fast the coaster was, but by actually seeing your favorite character come to life in a way that only Disney could do....A place where you couldn't wait to get to at 8:00am and sadly left at midnight...A place where the fireworks bring a tear to your eye...and truly make you feel like a kid again...I'll be at DL in Dec...haven't decided if I will make the trek to the other side of the "fence"..,but I do appologize to any I offended who like DCA...perhaps I should just give it a chance.....

Ghoulish Delight
10-15-2001, 03:48 PM
I would never compare DCA to Six Flags. The only reason SF is brought up in DCA converstaions is in the sense that people feel the theming is lacking at DCA. However, it ain't lacking like SF is lacking. That's giving DCA far too little credit. It may be a half-hearted effort from Disney, but half of Disney theming is still 50 times Six Flags theming.

As for being a serious coaster park, not even. Yes, Maliboomer is great, I love it. But is not the kind of thrilling, innovative ride found at parks like Magic Mountain. California Screamingm the coaster, is fun, but not thrilling. I will vouch for Grizzly Rapids as the best rapids ride I've been on, though it seems the best element has been removed. mousepad.mouseplanet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2636 (http://mousepad.mouseplanet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2636)

But honestly, if it's the theming and feel of Disney that you like, get a discount and head to DCA. Putting aside comparisons to Disneyland and Disney Sea and taken on its own, it is a fun time. I especially like the theming in the Hollywood Pictures area. That is by far the best themed area. Just avoid Superstar Limo like the plague. Don't pay full price though. Are you sensing a theme? I like the place and won't pay full price. There is no question on that one.

Cadaverous Pallor
10-15-2001, 04:23 PM
So far as I know, here's why they built it. (BTW I don't know dates very well so if I get things the wrong way 'round please say so.)

Ages ago, when Disney was still going up and there seemed no end in sight (1991), they were building Disneyland Paris with stars in their eyes. They had so much cash to throw about and everything seemed to come up roses. So they started planning a west coast travel "destination". They knew that people traveled to Southern CA, stayed in a local hotel, and visited Disneyland, SFMM, and Universal. They wanted visitors to stay with Disney and spend their money with them. But they realized that in order to get it as sweet as it was in Florida, they'd need a) a new hotel, b) places to eat/shop/browse, and c) at least one other theme park. They started plans for "Westcot", basically a clone for the west coast, but costing lots and lots of money.

Then Disneyland Paris tanked. No one at Disney expected this. Soon after, other parts of Disney started doing poorly - after the Lion King, no other animated film was making more money than the last. So they realized that Westcot just couldn't be as nice as they had planned.

There's a lot more to this, things I have no clue about, but that's the general lowdown. They decided to use attractions that cost less - proven designs they could easily purchase instead of Imagineer. Only a few things there are truly new - Screamin', Soarin', and Grizzly are the only new designs (no, I DON'T count SuperStar Limo! ;) ). They thought it would be enough to get people in for three years.

The last part blows my mind.

My 2 cents

SimpTwister
10-15-2001, 04:45 PM
Originally posted by Cadaverous Pallor
Only a few things there are truly new - Screamin', Soarin', and Grizzly are the only new designs (no, I DON'T count SuperStar Limo! ;) ). They thought it would be enough to get people in for three years.


Soarin' is an original, one-of-a-kind ride (though I believe it was actually developed by Iwerks rather than WDI).

I have argued before that Screamin' and GRR are not off the shelf rides, because each is a custom design.

I stand by that statement, but Screamin' is still a fairly basic roller coaster and GRR is a somewhat enhanced river rapids ride. Nearly every major theme park in the world has rides that, while not identical, are similar enough to Disney's versions to render Screamin' and GRR Not That Special.

Dreamstaker
10-15-2001, 05:35 PM
Originally posted by Cadaverous Pallor
Ages ago, when Disney was still going up and there seemed no end in sight (1991), they were building Disneyland Paris with stars in their eyes. They had so much cash to throw about and everything seemed to come up roses. So they started planning a west coast travel "destination".
There's a lot more to this

A big stall was Anahiem Home Owners not wanting to part with their homes, and the negotiating to buy the Strawberry Field on the other side.

Disneyland has wanted to expand for a long time.

innerSpaceman
10-15-2001, 05:39 PM
And I've got news for you - Soarin' ain't that special either. Granted, I love it and it's hands-down my fave attraction at DCA, but it's just the next step up the ladder from Back to the Future at Universal. Good as it is, it's just a motion simulator and a movie, folks. It may the best of it's kind in the world, and for that I give DCA much credit, but these attractions that basically have you stare at a movie screen (Star Tours, Body Wars, what have you) are such a cop-out as compared to creating a true 3-D environment (Indy, Pirates, Mansion, etc.). I love Soarin', but it's a movie and thus not that special. Screamin? Good coaster, but so what? Grizzly Rapids? - yes a good raft ride. Where is the uniqueness? Where is the special touch, not to be found anywhere else, that is the Disney imprimateur? Not at DCA to be sure.

zapppop
10-15-2001, 08:40 PM
The whole idea of building DCA, Downtown Disney and the Grand Californian Hotel was to give the DLR more to offer to it's guests so they'll visit more frequently and stay longer.

However, when you build a theme park you can't be cheap.

Cheap fixes are what made DCA flop and now cheap fixes are what they're relying on to save it.

Eventually, they'll either merge it with Disneyland or sell 2 park passes only, no more single park passports ( whether they're 1 day or annual ).

Personally, I like a few things about DCA but not much. I get bored and go back into Disneyland after a while.

Disneylove
10-15-2001, 10:03 PM
That DL's first day was known as "Black Sunday" and attractions weren't working and the streets weren't solid (high-heeled ladies getting stuck in the soft asphalt), that the drinking fountains didn't work, and that it only offered a handful of attractions.

Granted, Disney has more money today, but theme parks' cost has risen as well. I have several things to say:

First - DCA was never meant to be another DL (for those who say "there isn't enough to do with kids"). It is meant to complement DL, and maybe cater to the older kids (who haven't "rediscovered" the magic of Dumbo the flying elephant yet) and adults. If they wanted another DL, it would simply be cannibalization to create a copy. It does try to have some things for the younger set who will get dragged along with their parents (Redwood Adventure trail, animation gallery, jumpin' jellyfish, etc.). But just like EPCOT, sometimes kids will just have to compromise for a little while...

Second - we are spoiled with the current product of DL. We are comparing DCA to the original which, IMHO, will ALWAYS be "the original" and possess that Disney "magic" even above and beyond any of the parks that followed it (and I'm a HUGE WDW fan). There is just something extra special about Walt's original baby and there's nothing that will take that away, nor anything that will ever come close to that. We just have to accept that and not expect that of all the rest.

Third - patience. We have to be patient -- there's only so much planning you can do in theory, some things just have to be tested out and then re-evaluated. Certain items might have tested well in the planning stages but didn't make it in execution. Give them some time to continue molding the park into what it's really designed to be - a true complement to DL. Keep in mind that size is an issue as well -- Disney doesn't have the luxury of owning acres and acres around the existing parks which poses a certain obstacle in development.

I personally love them both for different reasons. They are both Disney's children and even though they might drive us crazy sometimes, we have to just appreciate them for what they bring us - a few moments of escape and magic. Give DCA a chance to grow up and mature before you consider it a lost cause...

Just my $0.67 (I think I talked more than $0.02 worth!).:)

stevefulton
10-15-2001, 10:38 PM
It's very simple.
There are people in this world, mostly people who run huge corporations, that believe they have some sort of "destiny of greatness" attached to them. Instead of realizing how lucky they are, their egos go to their heads. They start really believing that everything they touch will turn to gold. They grow to hate regular people like you and I. They start thinking we are stupid, and that we will take anything they give us. They have a disdain for the artisan, and the craftsman, because both of those type of people actually CREATE things. They cannot create anything more than fancy memos and PowerPoint Presentations that will wow others of their kind. They could not live without artisans and craftsmen, but they hate having to rely on them. When they finally get the power, they thumb their noses at those who CREATE, and attmept to do it themselves. Everything they touch is gold. How could they fail? Then, when they do fail, and fail miserably, they blame it on others. They blame it on the artisans and craftmen, who they never listened to in the first place. They blame it on the public, who are stupid because they cannot see the "greatness" of their creation. They blame everyone except themselves. They create more memos, and more PowerPoint Presentations. They explain it all away. The fickle public. The economy. The war. Anything but the true answer.

DCA is simply a crappy excuse for a park. Ill conceived, Ill planned, designed into a corner. It was the brainchild of people who got too much power too fast, and convinced others that their "golden touch" was real, and the people that "matter" (to them) drank down every word. The problem is the people who they hold disdain for: the ones who actually have to make a concious decison to pay $43 for 4 medicore rides and some sub-par shows/films, and a whole lot of filler, those people were not convinced.

Why was it built? To vacuum your wallet. However, you were too smart this time, and looks like many others are too. People are not as stupid as they thought. Good for you, and good for them.

merlinjones
10-15-2001, 11:04 PM
stevefulton, you are spot-on!!!

ghoulish delight: >>Disneyland was failing. Attendance was dropping at an alarming rate. <<

This is an absurd rewrite of history. Disneyland was at the time and continues to be the number two amusement park draw in the USA - - a spectacularly profitable venture! The MSEP farewell year was their best attendance EVER!

But simple profit is not enough anymore. Disney wants 20% growth annually and there was no way for Disneyland to acheive this without expansion of demographics and spending patterns, hence the resort concept (a good one in theory).

The problem came when the execs decided to give the creatives the heave-ho and cynically build a profit conscious bottom line park thinking no one would notice - - while pitching it to a confusing demographic (wealthy out of state tourists who dislike Disney parks - - ie: their wives.). Oops!

coronamouseman
10-15-2001, 11:18 PM
Well, there isn't much point in detailing the Disney concept of a "destination resort" much further than to say that their obvious strategy with Anaheim, Paris and Tokyo is to make those complexes just like WDW where you stay at Disney hotels, you buy multi-day passes to Disney parks, travel using Disney transportation and eat all your meals in Disney restaurants.
Wow - if they could only buy a soon-to-be-bankrupt airline and have you fly a Disney plane too (they already have boats!)

Yes, all the Disney fans in California are ticked because instead of an expensive and creatively imagineered park with new attractions we got a revival of the Long Beach Pike (which Walt Disney himself was known to detest!). However, remember that many new parks start out slowly and then add significant attractions which ultimately make them compelling to guests.
Univeral Studios in Hollywood and Florida, Disney Studios and Disney Animal Kingdom are such examples of parks which start slowly with only a few major attractions but then consistently add new ones on as they mature.

Unfortunately for Disney, they broke the mold a bit with DisneySea and Disneyland Paris by opening parks which were very much "full-featured" from the get-go themselves and then we all saw Universal's Islands of Adventure open the same way.
So now the world expects a somewhat "mature" park out of the gate. DCA falls down pretty hard when compared to the parks mentioned here because it contains neither a lot of sophisticated attractions nor a variety of new and compelling technologies.

So give DCA time - once they build the Tower of Terror and a Rock and Roller Coaster, then folks will be perfectly happy to shell out $43 or $45 per visit. And once Disney gets a third park over in the strawberry patch on Harbor Blvd. using all of the new technology designed for DisneySea, there will be plenty of folks around the country who will want to come to DLR for a week's vacation at a Disney hotel with 3 theme parks, DTD and even baseball or hockey (Disney-run teams no less).

cstephens
10-16-2001, 07:04 AM
Originally posted by stevefulton
It's very simple.
There are people in this world, mostly people who run huge corporations, that believe they have some sort of "destiny of greatness" attached to them. Instead of realizing how lucky they are, their egos go to their heads. They start really believing that everything they touch will turn to gold. They grow to hate regular people like you and I. They start thinking we are stupid, and that we will take anything they give us.

You're speaking from experience, yes? Sounds like you're projecting to me.


DCA is simply a crappy excuse for a park. Ill conceived, Ill planned, designed into a corner.

Some of us actually like DCA and have a good time there.


Why was it built? To vacuum your wallet. However, you were too smart this time, and looks like many others are too. People are not as stupid as they thought. Good for you, and good for them.

Gee, I thought maybe it was built because they thought some people might enjoy going there. I know I do. I know others who do. But apparently, if we like DCA, we're apparently stupid. That's nice and judgemental. It can't possibly just be a matter of opinion and personal preference, can it?

merlinjones
10-16-2001, 07:14 AM
Originally posted by stevefulton
>>It's very simple. There are people in this world, mostly people who run huge corporations, that believe they have some sort of "destiny of
greatness" attached to them. Instead of realizing how lucky they are, their egos go to their heads. They start really believing that everything they touch will turn to gold. They grow to hate regular
people like you and I. They start thinking we are stupid, and that we will take anything they give us.<<

cstephens responded
>>You're speaking from experience, yes? Sounds like you're projecting to me. <<

stevefulton's post absolutely reflects my experience with corporate culture and The Walt Disney Company in particular. The anger, defensiveness, arrogance and hatred expressed by executives of that company could give you a bleeding ulcer (as it did me over fifteen years of dealing with them).

hbquikcomjamesl
10-16-2001, 08:06 AM
But there's more to it.

In the first place, aside from being rather expensive, the original "Westcot" concept also created a huge NIMBYist backlash. Local homeowners, most of whom had moved in long after DL had opened, most of whom hadn't even been born when DL opened, many of whom had probably chosen the are specifically to be close to DL, were suddenly against any expansion, or anything that would increase local traffic. Fighting the NIMBYs took a good chunk of the Westcot budget.

Then, as was already mentioned, DLParis had an unbelievably slow start. (Perhaps they should have put it in the south of France instead of near Paris: I hear [from my French barber, no less] that the Parisian cultural snobbery doesn't extend to all of France.) DCA was intended to be a less-expensive, less-ambitious, and less-space-consuming replacement for the Westcot concept.

While there's certainly a good bit of bean-counter arrogance figuring into DCA's troubles (why else would they put an off-the-shelf Wild Mouse into a Disney park, and why else would they put a Wolfgang Puck gourmet restaurant inside the park, instead of in one of the hotels, and why else would they let the Mondavi people have twice the space they really needed in a park where space is at a premium, and most of all, why would they charge full price for a park that's in its infancy?), most of the trouble is simply that people on all sides are expecting too much from a park that's still in its infancy. Guests are expecting everything to be perfect from day one, because TDS appears to have been so blessed, and management is expecting everybody and his dog to flock to the park at full price, whether there's enough content to justify it or not.