Am I the only one who is tired of Al Lutz's editorializing peppered in with his "news?" I'm speaking specifically about his pathological hatred of DCA. Any time he reports on the park, you'll see words like "disaster," "horrible," "flawed" blah, blah, blah. Words like these are OPINIONS filled with hyperbole and not journalistic facts. More to the point, he seems to go out of his way to find ANY piece of negative news about DCA and turn it into a big deal (actually, he does that for the whole company, but I'm sticking to DCA here).

Here's how I see it:

1) There's nothing "inherently flawed" about the theme of DCA. California is a huge, amazing place. As varied and as any place in the WORLD (yes, world). Deserts, beaches, multicultural cities, forests, wharfs, mountains, it goes on and on. There's nothing inherently bad about building a park about such a place. Did they do enough with it? Probably not (where's the desert?). But that does NOT mean that it's a flawed concept. Please Al, get over this one thing. It really makes me cranky and shows you're not thinking this through.

2) DCA doesn't have enough to do for the money. Agreed. But they're working on it, and have made plenty of allowances to the public to show that they understand that (all those "special offers" you disparage and mock). If you had a time machine to visit Disneyland on opening day, you'd easily say there wasn't enough to do by modern standards (once you got over the coolness of being there, of course). "But wait" you whine, "It didn't cost $45 to get in." Adjust for inflation, account for the fact that you had to pay EACH TIME you rode an attraction, then get back to me on that, okay?

3) I see people HAVING A REALLY GOOD TIME at DCA every time I visit. Every fricking time. People LOVE Soarin', GRR, Screamin, etc. Kids have FUN at Paradise Pier. And I won't even mention the look of wonder and amazement in the Animation building. I believe Al exaggerates the number and relevance of "complaints" that come in to guest relations. Americans are a whiny bunch. People complain on days when Disneyland is running with all rides open, minimum lines, and full service in all shops - so why should DCA be any different?

4) Yes, Pressler and company need to just start spending the money. Especially on refurbishments. We GET IT. Is that dead horse your beating starting to stink yet, Al?

I could go on, but I think you guys get my point. I sometimes wonder if Al isn't reminiscing about some idealized childhood version of Disneyland and can't stand that it's all different now. I dunno. I mean, the guy has lamented over the loss of a "perfectly good parking lot." A PARKING LOT? Oy.

So, until such a time that Al tones it down, I'm suggesting that MousePlanet changes the name of his column to "Negative Stuff about the DisneyLand Resort."

J.

I agree with you completely, wholeheartedly, fully! :D

I still think that Al just likes the attention he gets by being so inexplicably negative. I am partially to blame, as I give him the attention he so desperately craves! Maybe I need to stop that...

While I definitely do not share Al's continual pessimism, I am oocasionally glad he's there. He definitely does not represent the majority opinion, but if we ever want to see improvement in the parks, people like him need to exist. It is a fact of life that extremists, while in the minority, get the attention because they yell the loudest. And while it does tend to be annoying for middle-of-the-roaders and optimists, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. So I just read Al's stuff with a grain of salt, laugh off his continual sarcasm and pessimism, and try to think happy thoughts knowing that some of his griping (as proven in the past) will result in positive change.

His column is a message, and he uses it to vent his frustration over the state of the parks and get a point across in hopes of ingniting sparks of change. He really does love the parks (well, at least Disneyland) despite the ammount of bad mouthing he does. If you don't believe this, show up at the hub at noon on any Sunday. With rare exception, there he is. And no, he doesn't have a pad of paper jotting notes or a magnifying glass looking for peeling paint. He's at the one theme park he enjoys to be at the most. He is just trying, in his own abbrasive way, to light a fire under people's butts to make it an even better place.

ST, I have moved your thread to the more appropriate forum.

If you have not yet noticed, Al's columns are his editorials. He does not write straight news. As such, he is entitled to his own opinions. It is easy to read his columns at a superficial level and criticize him for being pessimistic, but if you read his columns over the months and read them carefully, he is not saying anything that is particularly disagreeable.

One thing I have noticed about Al's thoughts on DCA is that it's not so much that he "hates" the park, as he did not think the park was worth the original ticket price of $42. All along, he has been stating adamantly that DCA makes a great second park IF you can get in for a greatly discounted price. Since for many people admission to DCA is now free, I believe Al says that it's definitely worth a visit now.

The one simple flaw that Al saw in the California theme is based on statistics: Far more locals visit Disneyland than non-locals. He always questioned whether local Californians would be interested in visiting a park about California. The situation may not be the same if the Anaheim resort enjoyed the same non-local/local mix of Orlando (which is primarily non-local).

DCA does not have enough to do -- this is fine, but the marketing machine should never have tried to charge the same price, or imply that this was a full-day park. Adrienne Vincent-Phoenix's concludes in her article, "Walt Disney Studios Paris: A Review (http://www.mouseplanet.com/paris/020320AVP.htm)", about the new Paris Studios park: "Disney is selling the new park as an enhancement to a Disneyland Paris trip. As such, the park is exactly as marketed: a park that is a nice change of pace and something new." This has always been an argument about the marketing misstep for DCA. Your argument about the $42 opening-day admission isn't quite as strong, in my opinion, because the comparison should be made between the admission price for DL and DCA today, not DCA vs. DL 50 years ago.

I'll freely admit Al is on a crusade to try to continue to remind Disney that it needs to spend money. However, this is an ONGOING issue and one that will not go away. If he were to just write about it once, do you think that will make the problem go away? If my mother told me once to clean my room, would I have? She reminded me everyday, and she was still (for the most part) unsuccessful.

I also see nothing wrong with wanting to get back the same level of high quality you were accustomed to. Al is one of the few people who refuses to give up, and for that you see fit to bash him. If you do not like what he writes (or it's too unpleasant for your palate), do not read him. That is your choice.

Yes - he is negative. However, I think his recent article on the single day admission was right on the mark. The main point he made is that Disney is charging more money for less entertainment and attractions. It seems every year a few rides get closed down forever and replaced with nothing followed by an increase in admission. If this trend continues, we will have nothing but a spinner ride and hundreds of shops for the bargain price of $100 soon.:rolleyes:

I actually enjoyed his delivery -- humor and sarcasm.

While I appreciate that Al's editorials are just that, my concern is that he presents himself as the "Voice of Authority" on all insider issues.

One of the things that exacerbates this is the very title of his colum: "The Disneyland Information Guide." Well, that sound like something that should be filled with facts, not opinions. David's "Mouse Tales" has a much better title as it more accurately reflects the nature of his column.

Seriously - you guys need to change the name of his column if it IS just an editorial. Calling it an "information guide" is misleading.

Originally posted by lani


The one simple flaw that Al saw in the California theme is based on statistics: Far more locals visit Disneyland than non-locals. He always questioned whether local Californians would be interested in visiting a park about California. The situation may not be the same if the Anaheim resort enjoyed the same non-local/local mix of Orlando (which is primarily non-local).




Again, this shows what I believe to be a lack of thinking through. Walt Disney World makes a LOT of money because it attracts non-locals. Non-locals stay at hotel rooms, eat at resort restaurants, etc, etc. Someone driving in from Redondo Beach doesn't do any of those things. For years, management has seen Disneyland as the "lesser" of the two locations. What's wrong with changing that?

The "statistics" that Al bases his claim of a flaw on are meaningless, because they are statistics that Disney wants to change. Disney WANTS to increase travel business into the resort. That's why they built DCA, Downtown Disney, The Grand Californian, and are calling the place A RESORT!!!

Giving out-of-state travelers a park that gives them a "taste" of this amazing state we live in is a wonderful idea. To call the park flawed because it doesn't attract locals is a perfect example of "I want this place to be for ME! ME! ME!"

J.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, however, his pesimistic views as some of you may see them, tend to be very factual. Don't we deserve what we pay for? Walt would never have let the parks turn into what they are today. I think too, that Al's articles get attention and hopefully it helps the higher ups move faster to fix or change things. We all deserve an outlet, we are all entitled...especially when you are passionate about something, and if some people don't like it then you just shouldn't read it.


Leslie

But is it flawed if it is a concept that simultaneously excludes locals and fails to interest out-of-staters?

What is distressing (though that is really too strong of a word, is that 15 months after it opened, most people I talk to (only 400 miles away) still do not know there even is a new park, or if they do are not clear on what it is and think it is part of Disneyland Park.

Disney has done a terrible job getting the word out to the casual and infrequent Disney fans that they were hoping would be the bread and butter of the park.


(Just did an informal, unscientific poll of people who sit around me at work. 9 have been to Disneyland in the last decade, 3 could tell me the name of the new park, 2 knew that the new park is a separate admission, distinct entity from Disneyland. None of them knew about Downtown Disney. If the goal is to attract non-local "resort vacationers" they should start doing a better job letting people know that Disneyland is now a resort.)

Originally posted by Alex Stroup
But is it flawed if it is a concept that simultaneously excludes locals and fails to interest out-of-staters?



I completely agree, but that is a failure of MARKETING, not a failure of concept. And I personally know for a fact that steps are being taken to rectify this. The out-of-region marketing for DCA and the DLR in general is about to make a big change.

It is the very concept of a California-themed park that Al seems to often rail against. As if the idea of basing a park on California is somehow "flawed." Re-read his columns, his says it over and over. This is what bothers me.

I, for one, am glad that Al does his articles, without Al, you would end up reading things like the "Talking Points Memo" (The price increase)... I mean, read the memo without Al's comments, talking about SPIN....

You need YIN and YANG....

Originally posted by SweenyTodd
Am I the only one who is tired of Al Lutz's editorializing peppered in with his "news?" Words like these are OPINIONS filled with hyperbole and not journalistic facts.
Al states right up front on the top of each DIG update:
As I continue to visit the park, I try and post updates to the D-I-G here on this page. This will be the spot for any advance information, rumors and gossip I can gather, a bit of editorializing on my part, and all sorts of other tidbits and news items that dont quite fit anywhere else on the site.
He never claims that he's going to be giving "just the facts". If you want the facts, read the OC Register. There's nothing wrong with giving opinions, especially when he doesn't claim to be stating anything else.

1) There's nothing "inherently flawed" about the theme of DCA. California is a huge, amazing place. As varied and as any place in the WORLD (yes, world). Deserts, beaches, multicultural cities, forests, wharfs, mountains, it goes on and on. There's nothing inherently bad about building a park about such a place. Did they do enough with it? Probably not (where's the desert?). But that does NOT mean that it's a flawed concept.
I totally agree with you here. I like the idea of the theme park based on California. It's too bad that Disney couldn't have done more with it. Theme: good. Execution: bad.

2)"But wait" you whine, "It didn't cost $45 to get in." Adjust for inflation, account for the fact that you had to pay EACH TIME you rode an attraction, then get back to me on that, okay?
It was a different time, with different expectations and different technology. Disney didn't have a Six Flags or a Universal or much of a Knott's to compete with. Besides, not everyone goes to Disneyland to ride rides. Right now, Disneyland is a much better deal than DCA. It's very obvious, especially since the parks are sitting a stone's throw away from each other. The worst thing is that Disney is capable of opening a great park from day one but simply did not wish to do so in this case.

Again, this shows what I believe to be a lack of thinking through. Walt Disney World makes a LOT of money because it attracts non-locals. Non-locals stay at hotel rooms, eat at resort restaurants, etc, etc. Someone driving in from Redondo Beach doesn't do any of those things. For years, management has seen Disneyland as the "lesser" of the two locations. What's wrong with changing that?
There's nothing wrong with changing it. But why couldn't we get an "EPCOT-quality" park here in California?

While I do have my disappointments in the way Al has chosen to change his writing, I will say that it's not for anyone to tell him or MousePlanet what he should and should not call his column. It was originally called the DIG because it did have lots of Disneyland information. Now that that information has been incorporated into the main website as a whole, he has presumably kept the moniker because he has established it as a recognizable name.

For newbies, I suppose it could be misleading if they're reading it not knowing that it's not meant or even couched as a hard news column. It's very much about rumours and musings. But then, it's really up to each person to understand what they're reading and to know how much credence to give any information received from any particular source.

And, as for the oft-repeated "DCA doesn't offer enough to keep someone busy for a full day" sentiment, it would be nice for people to keep in mind that it's a matter of opinion, not fact. Much, much, much too often, I've seen that statement made as unequivocable, God-given, non-disputable fact, and anyone who doesn't see that is either stupid, blind, ignorant or any other insulting adjective.

There are people, myself included, who think that DCA is worth the price of a regular-priced full-day ticket, and while I make no claims about the number of people who believe that, I never understand why it's necessary to be dismissive of and rude to them.




/cs

Originally posted by SweenyTodd
Walt Disney World makes a LOT of money because it attracts non-locals . . . Giving out-of-state travelers a park that gives them a "taste" of this amazing state we live in is a wonderful idea. To call the park flawed because it doesn't attract locals is a perfect example of "I want this place to be for ME! ME! ME!"
Funny that I don't see any Florida-themed parks at Disney World. Far from it - they, too, have a California-themed park in the Disney-MGM Studios, which is entirely Hollywood-themed. That way, they don't shoot themselves in the foot - a park that will attract tourists, but won't turn away the locals with a park themed to that very locality where the locals already live. In this sense, I wholeheartedly agree with Al's assessment of a California-themed park within California to be a ridiculous choice. Disney may wish to alter the ratio of locals-to-OutOfTowners who visit Anaheim, but wishing it so is quite different from what's reality. In any event, it's not this theme or that which attracts people from thousands of miles away to spend their hard-earned vacation time and money - it's a worthwhile attraction that earns its right to be a destination by virtue of its actual quality.

But returning to the main point here, I - for one - adore Al for his sarcastic and biting comments on the state of Disney parks. I understand that pessimism may not be to everone's taste, but the negative outlook is 90% of all journalism and editorialism. It's all good and fine to report and comment on good stuff in the world, but then all you've got is reporting - and there is a place for that. Good news is great and often useful. But change in the world is accomplished from reporting the bad news.

Now, I don't want to rain on anybody's parade, especially not the folks who enjoy the Disney resort or who, through youth or relocation or any other reason, are just coming to enjoy the Disney parks in recent times. But as an avid observer and customer of Disney parks for the past 33 years, I can state categorically (ok, my opinion here) that the quality of the U.S. Disney parks has moved in only one direction over the past decade - and that's downhill, sometimes alarmingly downhill.

Al's obvious opinions about the idea of California Adventure aside, his watchdog reports on shoddy maintenance, diminished value in attractions and entertainment vs. price increases, poor policies, and customer dissatisfaction are all legitimate concerns that I am interested in reading about. I'm glad Al's there to write about this stuff, cause it's exactly these things that are keeping me out of the parks more and more, and thus less able to witness with my own eyes. But just because I can't bear to watch doesn't mean I don't wanna know. Keep up the good work, Al.

Originally posted by SweenyTodd
It is the very concept of a California-themed park that Al seems to often rail against. As if the idea of basing a park on California is somehow "flawed." Re-read his columns, his says it over and over. This is what bothers me.I can understand Disney's desire to keep visitors on property in Orlando because the alternatives for many visitors are to go to other amusement parks.

On the other hand, I do question Disney's decision to create a California-themed park in California... "Don't bother going down the road to Hollywood, here is a cleaner version! Oh, forget seeing the real redwoods or Golden Gate Bridge. Ours is just as good" seems to come off as cheap to me somehow. Somewhere, some corporate suit person may have said, "What is our primary competition for non-locals who visit Disneyland? The rest of the state. Let's build a park that mimics the rest of the state so the guests don't go anywhere else on their California vacation." Really, I get no mileage from looking at the mini-bridge in DCA after driving down 400 miles from San Francisco.

Originally posted by SweenyTodd


I completely agree, but that is a failure of MARKETING, not a failure of concept. And I personally know for a fact that steps are being taken to rectify this. The out-of-region marketing for DCA and the DLR in general is about to make a big change.

It is the very concept of a California-themed park that Al seems to often rail against. As if the idea of basing a park on California is somehow "flawed." Re-read his columns, his says it over and over. This is what bothers me.

Ah, but now you are just down to opinion and yours differs from Al's. Al think it is fundamentally flawed, you just think it hasn't been completely executed yet.

Personally, I find it fundamentally flawed, but that is because it doesn't match how I want to see the world, but I am willing to admit that many people do things differently than myself.

If I live in California, I don't want to go to a park that attempts to abridge and recap my home to me. If I live out of state, I don't want to travel to California to see a simulacrum of the place I am visiting. To me it is the same as saying "come to Disneyland and visit our 1/1000th scale model of the park; conveniently located in the parking lot."

There has been much written on the postmodernist core of the Disney-aesthetic. To me, making a replica of California, putting it inside California itself, and then hoping that people come from around the world to visit the replica while hoping they don't spend any time with the reality is a bit too postmodern for even me.

Well, I guess we're all stating opinions here, just like Al does in his column. My opinion is that Al's approach is doomed to failure. He's not a "squeaky wheel" as someone else said, he's a buzzing mosquito.

His overly pessimistic, negative attitude clouds everything he writes. His personal attacks can do nothing but put the Disney decision-makers on the defensive, which is not the way to bring about positive change. The funny part is that I share some of his dissatisfaction, but his way of going about it completely turns me off. True or not, to me he comes across like a whiny teenager.

I went car shopping last weekend. I'm trying to decide between an Acura and a Lexus. When I told the Lexus guy this, he went on and on about what a great product Acura has, the features of the car, their great service, etc.--not what you'd expect! He then went on to tell me the even better features of the Lexus. Rather than putting me on the defensive, his approach built trust and showed me that he knew his business.

I also went with a friend to a high-end home theater store last week. The salesman asked what kind of setup he has now, and when my buddy answered (some very respectable mid-line stuff), the salesman rolled his eyes and huffed, then proceeded to explain why it was all crap. Do you think either one of us is going to spend a cent in that store?

If Al really wants to change things for the better (which is an assumption others have made but I'm not sure of), then I think he should tone down the sarcasm and the complaining. Once he puts his energies into constructive ideas for the future, then I might start to respect his opinion. He might even get the attention of Disney higher-ups who will realize that he's not just out grandstanding and whining, but he actually has something positive to contribute. Until then, he will be ignored just like you would a mosquito.

Okay, can anyone really say, with a straight face, that Al's columns (especially his latest) only contain "a bit of editorializing on [his] part"?

Al is a writer with a point of view and a column. If you don't like Al's point of view or don't like reading different POVs, then don't read his column. Just as I wouldn't read Anarchy Magazine if I wasn't interested in anarchism.

What's so difficult about that? Why the numerous threads?

He's not going to change for you or me. He has a voice that is listened to at Disney. I'm sure that, like most smart companies, they know the importance of the critic because, ultimately, the critic helps a company see its weak points so they can respond with change. Whether or not they'd admit it, Al certainly does this for Disney.






BTW, just so there's no misguided thoughts, I do not read Anarchy Magazine. It was used as a example.

I'm bored of these " why is Al so negative threads ".

If you dont' like Al's columns, stop reading them or get over it.

Originally posted by Not Afraid
What's so difficult about that? Why the numerous threads?Same reason people see fit to publically criticize Britney Spears?? :D

Originally posted by zapppop
I'm bored of these " why is Al so negative threads ".

If you dont' like Al's columns, stop reading them or get over it.

You could always just stop reading these threads...




/cs

Originally posted by lani
Same reason people see fit to publically criticize Britney Spears?? :D It's worse than that even. At least with Britney, everyone has an excuse to be annoyed because everyone at some point while walking down the street or watching TV will inadvertantly be forced to hear her "sing" (okay, I'm being over harsh, but you get the point). It's impossible to avoid hearing Britney. On the other hand, it's not only possible, but incredibly easy to avoid reading Al's column. Here's how....don't read it! Don't click on the link! If you don't like reading it, don't read it.

I used to think Al was kind of overly abusive to DCA, but over time, I began to understand his point-of-view.

While DCA itself looks wonderful and it feels spacious (probably because it's not as crowded), the actual rides are just skeletons of rides in Disneyland or WDW. "Grizzly Rapids" offers nothing like "Splash Mountain" offers but the drop. You just go up dry and go down wet. Nothing to look at and no story. "Mulholland madness" should have been indoors like Space Mountain or Aerosmith's "Rockin' Rollercoaster" in Florida, but instead it's just a cheap outside ride that looks like stuff you'd see at a state fair. They make no attempt to make it feel even remotely as if you are on Mulholland Drive. Now I will admit that "California Screamin'" is the perfect classic Roller Coaster, but still, one can go down the road and ride KNOTT'S "Ghost Rider". Don't even get me started on those cheap excuse "film rides". They fool the public into thinking they got something big-time when they really just show a film and bump your seat around. They take the money they should have spent on a good ride or at least painting the place and throw it into executive bonuses instead. If Walt Disney himself was re-incarnated as someone else, hired by Imagineering, and suggested ambitious projects like "Haunted Mansion" or "Pirates" today, they'd conveniently lay the "troublemaker" off. If Pressler wanted to make a Pirates ride now, he'd just sit guests in a stationary rowboat, slap 3d glasses on them, and roll a film in front of them of ships and pirates going by.

The sad thing is DCA did really cost a lot of money. Money they could have spent on Disneyland to make it the flagship park again. Instead it has an empty ROCKET RODS track, a desolate Submarine Lagoon, no WEDWAY peoplemover, no skybuckets, and the huge "Festival of Fools" area used for corporate parties (w/ live music that ruins the once-serene setting of the "indian chief'" telling stories on the "Rivers of America").

Meanwhile, DCA is a failure. If it wasn't, then:

Why do they constantly cut back its hours and close it earlier than Disneyland?

Why did they suddenly let us upgrade to a 2-park pass for only $10?

Why did they have a "kids get in free" & "adults for child's price" promotion and only for DCA... not Disneyland?

Because they have to practically give this thing away to make people feel like they are getting their money's worth.

Can DCA be a success? You bet it can. But they are going to have to pump it full of life. They will need something like "Tower of Terror" (although I hear it will be a dumbed down version), "Aerosmith's Rockin' Roller Coaster", or some sort of "Monster's INC. door chase" and they need it fast or DCA is gonna suck the life-force out of the fine reputation of quality entertainment that once was associated with this area.

If Pressler wanted to make a Pirates ride now, he'd just sit guests in a stationary rowboat, slap 3d glasses on them, and roll a film in front of them of ships and pirates going by.

While I think this is a really funny comment, I believe it is true. I also belive the comment about if Walt was a imagineer today he would be nothing but a frustrated employee that would go out and start a new park.

Keep up the good work Al. You can be very abrasive and sarcastic, but you mostly speak the truth.

Wake up Eisner:mad: