PDA

View Full Version : DCA-bashers



Pages : [1] 2

hbquikcomjamesl
08-28-2002, 09:43 AM
Having read Al's column on the (currently not available, but who knows?) 1-day hoppers, and was struck by the parallels between his (and others') constant deprecation of DCA, and his (and others') ability to put a negative spin even on the improvements, and the attempts by the Far Right to end intercity rail passenger service.

Consider: The foes of intercity passenger trains are constantly branding Amtrak a waste of federal money, even though the subsidies it ASKS for are tiny, compared to those received by airlines and highways, and constantly demanding that Amtrak operate at a profit or be dissolved, when the reality is that rail passenger service, with the exception of some irregularly-scheduled "land-cruises" operated by companies like American Orient Express, has NEVER been a source of profit (back when the railroads ran it themselves, they did it as a way to drum up FREIGHT business). Yet if Amtrak ever did turn the virtually-impossible trick of making a profit running passenger trains, those same people would be demanding immediate privatization, on the grounds that the Government shouldn't be making money by taking business away from the private sector.

Likewise, Al's column, puts a negative spin even on the improvements to DCA. When the 1-day hoppers were first offered, was he sportsmanlike? Did he say that eventually, DCA would be worth a full-price 1-day admission? No! Was he semi-sporting, saying it was "about time" a 1-day hopper was offered? No! Was he moderately unsporting, giving Disney management a big "I told ya so!"? No! He compared the additional amount for a 1-day hopper to the cost of a premium showing of a new Disney film (i.e., with a stage show &c.), and cited the existence of it as one more reason to stay away from DCA!

The DCA-bashers are really starting to get rather tiresome. They also remind me of Ralph Nader: Consider Unsave at Any Speed, Nader's famous backhanded slap at the Corvair. It is a little-known fact that General Motors corrected the safety defects in the Corvair long before Nader's book went to press. Did Nader revise the book to acknowledge this? No! He went to press with it as-is, catapulting himself to fame and fortune as a consumer advocate, when he was really just an angry, publicity-hungry man, and dealing the domestic economy car a blow from which it will probably never recover. Likewise, in the 2000 Presidential Election, did he withdraw, and urge his followers to support Gore, whom most of the people who voted for him would have certainly preferred to Shrub? No! He stayed in the election, siphoning off just enough of the vote to hand the election to Shrub!

When I went to the Passholder soft-open at DCA, what I saw was a good start, with a few obvious mistakes and an awful lot of potential. I saw echoes of the Westcot concept, a "Reader's Digest Condensed" version of Disney-MGM at WDW, and an homage to the old-style amusement piers and beaches, with the sleaziness excised. When the Electrical Parade was brought to DCA, I didn't find the fact that it still wasn't "inside the berm," or that its 1996 departure no longer meant a permanent end, or that it was a "quick fix" for an ailing park to be nearly as important as the fact that it had been SAVED FROM THE SCRAPPER'S TORCH, and that something I had written letters to Disney management lobbying for, namely that they not do anything with The Parade they can't undo, came to pass. Sure, the whole Pinocchio unit got scrapped anyway, and sure, it's not QUITE the same as it was in 1996, when many Parade CMs had begun to recognize certain regular guests, but even those first two nights, it was still every bit as good as it was at WDW-MK back in November, 2000, and it's improved since then, coming very close to its former glory.

Considering what DCA had to go through in order to get built at all, it's a wonder it turned out as good as it did on opening day. The original Westcot concept first got the green light back before Disney-MGM was built, much less AK. In fact, I don't think WDW's two main water parks, or its DTD had even been built yet. And as soon as Disney decided to turn the old parking lot into a theme park, it promptly found itself beset by as many NIMBYs as the El Toro Airport project. People who moved into their homes in the full knowledge that they would be living near a theme park, some of whom had gone out of their way to live near Disneyland, were suddenly waging an all-out war to keep Westcot from being built. And by the time Disney was finally clear to break ground on a new theme park, most of the FutureWorld concepts that would have fit on the property had already been implemented in Tomorrowland, the Disney-MGM Studio and Animal Kingdom theme parks had already opened in WDW, and many of the things Disney had originally planned for Westcot had had to be scaled down in order to pacify the NIMBYs. Also, by that time, the whole "wooden coaster" nostalgia craze had evolved into nostalgia for the old-style amusement parks Walt had used as examples of what NOT to do, when he turned the amusement world upside down in 1955. And like most nostalgia, it completely ignored the dark side, like the fact that the old-style amusement parks tended to be (and those that still exist still tend to be) seedy, smarmy operations run by the lowest form of slimeballs and scuzz-buckets.So the Westcot concept was turned into a California-centric concept, one that was constrained as much by the local NIMBYs as by lack of land and lack of vision on the part of management, and yet had to incorporate elements from 3 huge WDW theme parks that had no such constraints, as well as enough unique ones to make it more than just a copy of something else.

Considering the constraints, I think it turned out rather well. Sure, there are lots of things that didn't work out as intended, and lots of things that were left inadequately implemented because management (or the sponsor, in the case of the Mission Tortilla Fiasco) didn't want to spend the money, and lots of room for improvement, but I've already seen quite a bit of that improvement already happen.

There's an old story about a very rich man, traveling by rail, back in the days before airlines. He was rich enough to have only the finest accommodations aboard the train. After a gourmet dinner in the dining car, the waiter asked what he wanted for dessert.
___"Tutti frutti ice cream."
___The waiter checked with the kitchen. There was none on board. "Sorry sir, we have chocolate, vanilla, or strawberry, but no tutti frutti."
___"But I always have tutti frutti. My secretary wired ahead to make sure there would be tutti fruitti on board for me, and she was told it would be taken care of."
___"Sorry sir, but there was some sort of mix-up."
___"I want my tutti-fruitti, and I want it now, or I'm going to file a grievance with the railroad!"
___Things escalated, and the conductor was eventually called in. He finally agreed that at the very next station, he'd wire ahead, and have some tutti-fruitti put on board later that evening. The rich passenger was escorted, gently but firmly, back to his accommodation.
___Eleven o'clock that evening, as the train pulled out of a station, the waiter, chef, steward, and conductor formed a procession to the man's stateroom, carrying a crystal dish full of tutti-fruitti. "And there's plenty more where that came from, sir," added the steward, as he presented it to the man.
___The man looked up from his newspaper, glared at his desert, and threw it across the room, screaming, "I'd rather have my grievance!"

How many DCA bashers are simply too angry to recognize when they get what they ask for? How many have already decided that they'd rather have their grievances?

Ghoulish Delight
08-28-2002, 10:40 AM
Originally posted by hbquikcomjamesl
Likewise, in the 2000 Presidential Election, did he withdraw, and urge his followers to support Gore, whom most of the people who voted for him would have certainly preferred to Shrub? No! He stayed in the election, siphoning off just enough of the vote to hand the election to Shrub!
Okay, a slight derail to start. That's a TERRIBLE analogy and completely unfair. This country is mired in a stagnant, ineffectual 2 party system. This argument is used to attempt to prevent multiple parties with multiple platforms from running. While my personal beliefs align most closely to one of the two big parties, I would NEVER ask third/fourth/fith/etc. party canidates not to run because "they take votes away." That's a load of crock. What about the thousands and thousands of democrats who didn't vote? What about the thousands of people who truly felt that Nader was the better choice? What about the thousands of votes Gore lost all by himself by being an utter moron in the public debate forum? I think THEY are far more "at fault" than one man who wants to democratically be part of this country's decission making.

As for your topic, I have two angles on it. One is on your assesment of the park. One is on your assesment of Al. First, regarding Al (and this has been addressed countless times on this and other boards). My main response...if it makes you so mad, don't read. I personally find that the factual information that is in his reports is hard to beat. You can say what you want about his opinions, but he has shown time and again that he knows what he's talking about when it comes to the direction the company is going and the decissions it is making. As for his opinions, I definitely disagree with a good portion of his opinion, but hey, so what? It's his opinion, he's allowed to state it. I enjoy seeing the cynical side sometime. I let Al pay devil's advocate, and take much of what he says with a grain of salt. But if you can't look past it, fine. No one is forcing you to listen.

As for the state of the park, I have to agree with Al's overall assessment. Sure, with a few manouvers here and there, it COULD be a better park. But, to be perfectly honest, I have little faith that anyone in charge right now has the foresight to see more than 2 days in advance and MAKE those proper startegic manouvers. And, more importantly, they DEFINITELY don't have the foresight to spend the money to make it a successful park.

The more I think about it, the more baffling the decission making is. No one seems to understand the concept of "you get what you pay for." I came to the conclusion that if they had just sprung for 3 things, just 3 simple things, DCA would be successful today. Those three things 1) Put Rockin' Roller coaster in. A perfect fit for the theme and feel of the park. Already designed, just plop it in. 2) Spring for the FULL version of Tower of Terror. Sure, DCA is getting ToT, but, by all accounts, sans the most impressive part, the 5th dimmension. That is what sells the ride, but instead we're getting Freefall with a few dioramas. Whoopee. 3) Shell out the bucks for 1 completely new and original ride concept. Not that I have any ideas (if I did, I'd be an imagineer :cool: ). But an attraction that is not a copy of another ride, that is not a minor twist on an old ride format (i.e. GRR), and is not a cheap, off the shelf carnival ride.

If those three things were there opening day (or if any 2 of the three openeing day, and one later like ToT), DCA would be packed to the brim today. But the company right now is in a state where no one has the ganas to shell out some bucks, take a risk, and reap the reward. Low risk=low return, investing 101.

And there is absolutely no evidence to this point that they plan on investing in the park, or that they have any concept of what will bring people in. Look at the strategies. The music series. It brought a few more people throught the gate (mostly APers already) for a couple days. It did nothing to change anyone's opinion of the park as a whole. Once the music series is done, the original level of apathy will return. The ABC weekend. By some measures, wildly successful. I haven't seen the park that crowded since preview days. But what now? Again, mostly APers in there. They gave away tickets to CMs and their family and friends. And while it again increased the gate numbers, the people who came, came for the stars, not the park. They are going to go home and tell them how they got a picture of Drew Carey from 200 yards away, not how they bounced up and down on a jelly fish.

Now, don't get me wrong. I enjoy myself at DCA. But I still think it is severly lacking. And until Disney does something that looks like the result of top notch imagineering and investment, and not budget minded quick fix bandaids, I don't hold much hope. And, as a stock holder, I have added incentive for wanting them to quit being idiots about this. Disney is losing their shirt and no one at the top seems to understand how to stop the bleeding.

innerSpaceman
08-28-2002, 10:42 AM
With all due respect to your well written manifesto, I would much rather have a decent 2nd-gate park, or a decent Tomorrowland, or a well-maintained Disneyland rather than have my grievance.

But since we've got the worst theme park in the Disney family (not the worst theme park, mind you, just the worst Disney theme park), a "new" Tomorrowland that has reduced the once thriving area to a wasteland, an alarming ratio of attractions disappearing vs. attractions created - - then grievances are pretty much all I am left with.

I will again state for the record that I continue to have a most wonderful time at Disneyland and, yes, at DCA as well. But Disneyland is in the worst shape it's been during my (rather long) lifetime and the park across the way is the worst piece of tripe that Disney's every dared to call a theme park. These are legitimate things to complain about, and since there appear to be so many people who feel the same way and continue to complain, I think folks should just get over it. The sun will rise in the east, the sky is blue, prostitution and homosexuality exist, and people WILL complain about DCA and the state of Disneyland. Just deal.

merlinjones
08-28-2002, 11:46 AM
Well, I have said nothing but happy things about the repainting of Small World and I wish it could be the same with the miserably conceived and executed Tomorrowland and DCA (not to mention the short sighted practices of the now nearly completely dysfunctional management structure of the Walt Disney Company), but I value honesty and integrity too much to ignore what I see.

So I'll continue to vent grievances and constructive criticisms and attempt to humiliate the perpetrators until more happy things happen (like Small World)! I sure hope Al (and others) continue to do the same!

We deserve the best product we can get from the name Walt Disney. He would have wanted it that way. It's what we were conditioned to expect from the brand.

The passive-agressive incrementalist rebranding of Disney has been management's central mistake... and the public has clearly made its judgement.

The New Disney is the New Coke. No one asked them to change it. We want Disney Classic back... now!

MMFan
08-28-2002, 11:55 AM
Originally posted by hbquikcomjamesl
and the attempts by the Far Right to end intercity rail passenger service.

Who think the way lots of southern cal folks think, considering how many of them resist the idea of rapid transit and happily voted against allowing any more subways to be built in LA.



The DCA-bashers are really starting to get rather tiresome. They also remind me of Ralph Nader: Consider Unsave at Any Speed, Nader's famous backhanded slap at the Corvair.

Speaking of which, I think the clique of trial lawyers (who are big fans of Nader and politicians like another "Al" ---- Al Gore) in this country are far, far more tiresome. Always bleating about how everyone should sue, sue, sue. They've created so many ridiculous nuisances for the WDC, although the corporate fools who allowed the disaster with Columbia's anchor to occur didn't help matters.



Considering what DCA had to go through in order to get built at all, it's a wonder it turned out as good as it did on opening day.

It's more of a wonder to me that it turned out so second rate.

Cooie
08-28-2002, 12:02 PM
It's a wonder to me why this topic of discussion keeps coming up. I'm welcome to have my opinion on the things I dislike about DCA just as much as someone else is welcome to have their opinion about why DCA is fantastic. I don't see why we all have to agree.

TerryTiger
08-28-2002, 12:26 PM
Originally posted by Ghoulish Delight
The more I think about it, the more baffling the decission making is. No one seems to understand the concept of "you get what you pay for." I came to the conclusion that if they had just sprung for 3 things, just 3 simple things, DCA would be successful today. Those three things 1) Put Rockin' Roller coaster in. A perfect fit for the theme and feel of the park. Already designed, just plop it in. 2) Spring for the FULL version of Tower of Terror. Sure, DCA is getting ToT, but, by all accounts, sans the most impressive part, the 5th dimmension. That is what sells the ride, but instead we're getting Freefall with a few dioramas. Whoopee. 3) Shell out the bucks for 1 completely new and original ride concept. Not that I have any ideas (if I did, I'd be an imagineer :cool: ). But an attraction that is not a copy of another ride, that is not a minor twist on an old ride format (i.e. GRR), and is not a cheap, off the shelf carnival ride.

If those three things were there opening day (or if any 2 of the three openeing day, and one later like ToT), DCA would be packed to the brim today. But the company right now is in a state where no one has the ganas to shell out some bucks, take a risk, and reap the reward. Low risk=low return, investing 101.

DCA did open with 2 of the 3 things you mentioned. #1, California Screamin' is a better roller coaster than RnR ever hopes to be. RnR is fun and a well-themed dark ride, but building 2 roller coasters in DCA initially would have been a mistake. Disney does NOT need to try to compete with Magic Mountain or Cedar Fair. I'll give you #2 but await judgement until the ride opens.
#3? Well, I think Soarin' Over California qualifies as a completely new and original ride concept. It is NOT a copy or twist on an old ride concept or a cheap, off-the-shelf carnival ride.

I couldn't let those points go uncontested. Yes, DCA can be improved. Is it the worst Theme Park Disney has ever created? Not by a long shot. Both Disney/MGM Studios and Animal Kingdom were inferior parks upon opening. They are both good parks now (and getting better) as DCA will. The new Studio park at Disneyland Paris gets the worst Disney park created honor.

merlinjones
08-28-2002, 12:30 PM
>>Yes, DCA can be improved. Is it the worst Theme Park Disney has ever created? Not by a long shot. Both Disney/MGM Studios and Animal Kingdom were inferior parks upon opening. <<

I disagree. Unlike DCA, Disney/MGM was always beautifully designed and laid out, with attractive and compelling and photogenic vistas (even for a small park).

GeminiAngel
08-28-2002, 12:38 PM
why can't they just scrap it ,and put in something very cool like disney sea. and make it another land of disneyland???:confused:

Ghoulish Delight
08-28-2002, 12:41 PM
Originally posted by TerryTiger

DCA did open with 2 of the 3 things you mentioned. #1, California Screamin' is a better roller coaster than RnR ever hopes to be. RnR is fun and a well-themed dark ride, but building 2 roller coasters in DCA initially would have been a mistake. What do you call Mullhulland Madness? That's a second coaster. I do like that ride, but something with a more complete theme, such as RnR, would have been much more compelling. As for comparisons with CS, I have not ridden RnR, so I can't comment.


#3? Well, I think Soarin' Over California qualifies as a completely new and original ride concept. It is NOT a copy or twist on an old ride concept or a cheap, off-the-shelf carnival ride. You know, I like the ride, but has no one noticed that it's just a motion simulator? Does anyone remember what the big advance of Star Tours was? It was the first simulator in which the screen was part of the ride vehicle, rather than the ride vehicle being placed in front of the screen. Soarin' is a step backwards. Oooh, your feet dangle, what an inovation. I must seriously be missing something, because other than a slight change of vehicle style, it seems like just another sim ride to me. I don't consider GRR a whole new concept just because it's got a spin. It's still a river rapids ride. So I don't consider this a whole new ride, just becaue you dangle.

Rides like Indy. Rides like test track. Rides like ToT. Those were new, original ideas in their time. Indy was the last one that DLR got. We desparately need another.

hbquikcomjamesl
08-28-2002, 12:58 PM
Who think the way lots of southern cal folks think, considering how many of them resist the idea of rapid transit and happily voted against allowing any more subways to be built in LA.
Funny thing, that. When the Blue Line was being built, the naysayers were constantly harping about how it was a boondoggle, and how nobody would ride it, and how the Red Line would be even worse, and that nothing would convince Southern California residents to leave their cars, and that MetroRail would be plagued by constant crime and vandalism, and how the passenger load would be so light that it would be cheaper to pay people to drive the freeways.

Now, over a decade after the Blue Line opened, the MTA recently completed a project of expanding the platforms of every single Blue Line station, so that they can accommodate 3-car trains, instead of just single cars and 2-car trains, because the cars were packed. And looking back on the Los Angeles Riots, the Blue Line, even though it passes through some of the worst neighborhoods in the whole county, was one of the safest places to be in the whole county. And the public art decorating most MetroRail stations has remained remarkably free of vandalism.

Yes, the voters were foolish enough to put a halt to the East L.A. Extension planned for the Red Line, and to stop the Wilshire branch at Wilshire and Western, rather than continuing it to Hancock Park, Beverly Hills, and Westwood, but those plans are merely shelved, and can be revived when the voters get sufficiently tired of breathing automobile exhaust, and even in its present stunted form, the Red Line is heavily traveled at all hours of the day and night.

Traci
08-28-2002, 01:12 PM
Wow, you guys have some great, strong, & passionate opinions :eek:.

For my little .02, I'll just add that DCA is no Disneyland, but it sure is a great place to run over to when DL is crowded. he he :D

Seriously though, DCA could use some help, and as others have stated, AK was also a meager park until a few years later, so just give Disney some time, and try not to start "placing the blame" on what they've done wrong, instead lets' all be excited to see what the future holds for this park.

Thanks for reading. :D

innerSpaceman
08-28-2002, 02:25 PM
Originally posted by TerryTiger
The new Studio park at Disneyland Paris gets the worst Disney park created honor.
Yes, I will capitulate: The Studio Park in Paris is the winner and new champion of the worst Disney theme park prize (congratulations, Studio Park!).

I should have said that DCA opened as the worst Disney theme park in the world. That dubious honor has been transferred to the next park to open. Kinda leaves you breathless for what park they're gonna do next, doesn't it? :crying:

hbquikcomjamesl
08-28-2002, 02:27 PM
Well said, Traci. I agree completely with everything you said.

And everybody, please understand that I find plenty of fault with DCA, but for the most part, I don't find any fault with the CONCEPTS, but rather with the EXECUTION. Golden Dreams would have been better if the planned animatronics had been included. Parts of Screamin' need to be beefed up to take the strain of constant use. "Waste of Time" was exactly that. "Superstar Lemon" has a few clever in-jokes, but they're hardly an adequate basis for a dark ride. The "Mission Tortilla Fiasco" probably suffers mainly from the sponsor out-cheapening even the money people responsible for the aforementioned lack of animatronics in GD. And the primary madness of "Mulholland Mistake" was in thinking anything so utterly off-the-shelf and mundane as a stock "wild mouse" had a valid place in a Disney theme park. But the CONCEPT of combining, in essence, a "Westcot Califonria Showcase" with elements of WDW's MGM and AK parks, and a sanitized homage to places like "The Pike" seems fundamentally sound to me.

Will DCA ever become a primary tourist destination? Probably not. Then again, how many tourists go to WDW just to go into AK or one of the water parks? Probably no more than the number of regular customers served by the barber shop I understand is open for business on WDW-MK Main Street.

At least one individual has referred to Golden Dreams as "politically correct" and "revisionist." I say that recognizing that those not fortunate enough to have been born white, of Northern European ancestry, and into an Anglican or mainstream Protestant faith have been (and continue to be) the target of bigotry even in California, and being sensitive to the plight of those subjected to such bigotry is hardly the same as being "politically correct," unless that sensitivity is an assumed attitude, rather than coming from the heart. Remember, in Nazi Germany, you had to at least act like an anti-Semetic <censored>-head to be politically correct, and in parts of the South, until very recently, you had to be a white-supremacist in order to be politically correct. And as to "revisionist," revisionism is about supressing embarrassing facts about one's history. Holocaust-deniers are a type of revisionist. When Golden Dreams deals with embarrassing truths from our history, it CONFRONTS them. And by and large, it gives ALL of us AT LEAST as much to be proud of, as to be embarrassed about.

As to Soarin being a step backwards in simulator technology, I don't see it that way at all. I wasn't aware that there were any full-motion simulator-type attractions in theme parks prior to Star Tours, and I certainly wasn't aware of any that used what appears to be an Omnimax film to completely envelop guests in the show, while removing nearly all obstacles. Sure, it has some limitations. If you're seated to the extreme left or right, the view is somewhat distorted. But I've never heard of a simulator system that manages to give one quite as complete a sensation of being in a hang-glider or an ultralight aircraft.

TheMur
08-28-2002, 02:44 PM
Ah - Isn't it fun to watch people disagree!

There will never be anything close to consensus on DCA.

There are certainly short-comings but it is still nicer than many other parks. I live in Nor Cal and I would rather spend full fare at DCA (though not necessary - I have an AP) than go to Paramounts Great America.

In many ways, DCA does look great; but I do think it needed one more e-ticket attraction. While I would rather spend my time at DL, my kids LOVE DCA. I think that as they grow up and more and more is added to the park, they will have very strong emotions about it just like many of us do about DL.

Regarding ToT, I think that budget may be some consideration but I wonder if the design is somewhat restricted by space. ToT at MGM is huge!. The footprint of that attraction is enourmous. It is a bit of an optical illusion based upon its placement at the park and how you enter the attraction. At DCA, that is a bigger problem. They are building it surrounded by the park as well as the immediate area of motels etc. In many ways the scale may have posed a problem. Just a thought.

The Mur

Frees
08-28-2002, 02:48 PM
Hiya hbquikcomjamesl,
I've been reading over your posts here and I'm starting to think that it's not DCA bashers that you're really upset about...
So, in an effort to help you vent your frustration, I've found a couple of links to other discussion boards that specifically concern trains and public transit!
Now, I don't know too much about the subject of trains or public transit, so these links might not be what you're looking for, or you may already post there with some degree of frequency, but I'm just making an effort.

http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/ http://www.cawilsonco.com/public/links.htm

As to the subject of DCA bashing, I've resigned myself to the notion that there are always going to be two very disctinct and vocal camps on this site; those who think DCA was a good effort on part of Disney that just needs to grow into it's potential, and those who think it represents everything that's wrong with Disney management today and that it should be knocked down or at least drastically re-themed.

I personally side with the latter camp (all you middle-of-the-roaders out there, I'm not implying you don't exist, it's just the two camps I've mentioned are the most vocal). I do think there are a few nice points to DCA, but I also think it was an intentionally half-hearted effort on the part of the company, and that is indicative of the current problems with Disney management.

Anyway, sick or not of DCA bashers, you'll have to admit that some of the best, most heated discussions that take place on this site, do so because of how people feel about that park, and that's what keeps things interesting around here.

So, in the name of keeping things lively: DCA sucks :D

hbquikcomjamesl
08-28-2002, 02:58 PM
Regarding ToT, I think that budget may be some consideration but I wonder if the design is somewhat restricted by space.
I suspect space constraints are exactly the problem, just as they are exactly why DCA could never hope to include more than a "Reader's Digest Condensed" version of The Great Movie Ride or Ellen's Energy Adventure. Consider, if you will, that if our Space Mountain were in the same position (relative to the rest of Tomorrowland) as Florida's, we'd have more space for other attractions, but SM would be blocking Harbor Blvd, and probably extending a ways beyond it. And while I never managed to get within a hundred feet of Florida's ToT, for lack of time, back in November of 2000, I expect I'll probably ride the thing this November.

Personally, I'd like very much to see a "mini GMR" built. Indeed, while I was standing in the SSL queue at the passholder soft-open, that's what I was expecting. My disappointment was somewhat blunted by the fact that I was getting so many of the in-jokes, and so many of them appealed directly to my sense of humor, but I would have rather had GMR. And I suspect that our ToT is going to be the best ToT that can be accomplished in the available space.

Iceman
08-28-2002, 03:05 PM
At least this thread has managed to maintain civility and respect between those of differing views. So often these DCA threads degenerate into name-calling and baseless accusations (on both sides). Keep the intelligent banter going!

hbquikcomjamesl
08-28-2002, 03:11 PM
Hiya, "Frees"

Actually, I'm opposed to all forms of extremism, whether left, right, libertarian, or populist. And yes, I am a strong supporter of all forms of rail transportation: railroads are inherently greener than any other form of mechanized transportation, while at the same time being a proven technology that's been around for close to two centuries.

As to DCA, well, YES, I believe its flaws represent everything wrong with current Disney management, but at the same time, I believe those flaws are flaws of execution, and that DCA's basic concept is a sound one, and representative of everything that's right with Disney.

I doubt that even if Walt were to rise from the dead, and take over control, bulldozing DCA would be an option. So when we criticize it, can we at least do so in a manner that's both constructive and realistic? "Bulldoze the entire park" is not. "Gut SSL and Hollywood & Dine, and combine and extend the buildings to accommodate a condensed GMR" is. "Ship the entirety of PP off to some real waterfront" is not. "Tear out 'Mulholland Mistake' and half of the wine bar to accommodate an expanded Bay Area with a cable car attraction or two" is.

Ghoulish Delight
08-28-2002, 03:35 PM
Okay, a bunch of stuff to respond to.

Re: Golden Dreams: I can never quite put my finger on the best way to describe why I hate it so. I think my problem biggest problem is that is managed to come across as "To be built, California maimed, killed, and otherwise tortured people. But it's okay, because we have Whoopie Goldberg!" Okay, not quite that extreme, but to me, they tried WAY to hard to force the gritty version of history in and came out with a film full of very jaring transitions between near attrocities and "look how great California is." I know the history, and I'm certainly not one to deny it (I'm Jewish, for crying out loud), but I came out of that film wondering whether I should love California or hate it.

Re: Soarin': I'm not saying there's NOTHING new. Like I said, it's a slight improvement. But as for general concept, as for a "style of ride," it's still motion simulator ride with minor improvements. I just don't see it as a huge leap forward. New in execution, but not concept.

Re: ToT: They have the room. DCA opened with ~30 acres. There is enough land to nearly double that. As for budget, that is not a real world constraint. That is a constraint imposed by the Disney suits who have decided to make a budget park. This is Disney. If they want to spend money, they can.

I think what this has boiled down to is that no one really believes DCA CAN'T be successful, even with the current theme. But what the more cynical groups see is no evidence of any moves towards successfully turning it around. Sure, we all see how it could be improved. Someone mind cluing Pressler, Harris, and Eisner in?

I happen to agree that the California theme was a poor choice. Yes, it can be worked with, and hopefully will. But Disney's America would have been a more robust theme.

MMFan
08-28-2002, 05:04 PM
Originally posted by hbquikcomjamesl
Yes, the voters were foolish enough to put a halt to the East L.A. Extension planned for the Red Line, and to stop the Wilshire branch at Wilshire and Western, rather than continuing it to Hancock Park, Beverly Hills, and Westwood, but those plans are merely shelved, and can be revived when the voters get sufficiently tired of breathing automobile exhaust, and even in its present stunted form, the Red Line is heavily traveled at all hours of the day and night.
Voter surveys showed support for the anti-subway iniative cut across all ethnic groups and neighborhoods, which surprised me. Now the MTA is back to square one with plans that don't go much beyond street clogging buses. Just for the record, I'm a supporter of modern transit systems and think that extending the subway west to the 405 & Westwood would have been ideal. The vote against county funding for such a project means that by the time the Red Line is extended, hell will have frozen over. I've always wondered what public transit would be like today if something similar to DL's monorail had been built throughout the southland a long time ago.

But we supporters of rail transit in Socal are sort of like fans of DCA, at least if market conditions and statistics continue to show most people voting with their wallets in favor of cars instead of transit, and DL instead of DCA, or WDW instead of DLR.

I used to get very annoyed when some of the major urban planners at USC and UCLA would roll out data and arguments about why building fixed rail transit in socal didn't make sense, which they still do, Red Line or not, Blue Line or not. But now I'm less resentful about it and admit they do have a point and some hard facts to back their position. Grrrr.

To be honest, even many of us who are idealistic about subways and trains in LA still end up using our cars with greater happiness than we care to admit, just as I bet lots of those who like DCA, and argue in favor of it (and I'm not referring to you, but those who think DCA is the perfect park), wouldn't give it more than 2 seconds of consideration if it were standing all alone, 200 miles away from DL, and were identical to DCA but instead named Busch Gardens California adventure.

TheMur
08-28-2002, 05:07 PM
I would like them to go the Disney's America route. It seems the easiest to work with as all of the existing areas could be adapted and the theme would not be nearly as restrictive.

I think the one thing that would really make the park "feel" like a disney park is a great dark attraction like PotC or HM. This type of Disney magic is sorely missing from the park!

The Mur

innerSpaceman
08-28-2002, 07:59 PM
Originally posted by MMFan
I bet lots of those who like DCA, and argue in favor of it . . . wouldn't give it more than 2 seconds of consideration if it were standing all alone, 200 miles away from DL, and were identical to DCA but instead named Busch Gardens California adventure.
Boy, does that ever bear repeating!

I don't think I am alone amongst APers in thinking that DCA is enjoyable as a 'freebie,' 'extra land' type place. We have fun there while we're visiting Disneyland, but if DCA were even as close by as, say, Knott's Berry Farm, we would never see the inside of the place (even for free).

Would DCA be able to compete on its own if it were just another L.A. area theme park, such as Knotts or Six Flags or Universal?

Iceman
08-28-2002, 08:13 PM
That has brought DCA into a whole new light for me. If DCA was another company's theme park, even a hop skip and jump away from DL, I would have visited it once and that would be all. Yes, a nice place to spend a day but I wouldn't feel compelled to return.

This may come as a shock to some on this board, as I have been one of the more vocal DCA supporters. Luckily I have frequently admitted my Disney bias which hopefully excuses at least some of my double-standardness!

Frees
08-28-2002, 09:20 PM
Hiya, "Frees"

That's "Mr. Frees", if you're nasty.

Actually, I'm opposed to all forms of extremism, whether left, right, libertarian, or populist. And yes, I am a strong supporter of all forms of rail transportation: railroads are inherently greener than any other form of mechanized transportation, while at the same time being a proven technology that's been around for close to two centuries.

I couldn't agree with you more on the train issue. Apart from being one of the most economical means of transit for commuters, a much cleaner form of transportation(environmentally speaking), and a classic piece of American heritage, train boxcars can be simply chock-full of lovable hobos, escpecially if you're out looking around places like Hesperia and Apple Valley.

However, I think you do very wrong to dismiss the opinions of people who feel DCA should be re-themed as extremist. Bulldozing is just a fun way of saying that the park needs a whole new approach and concept. There are aspects of the park that I feel should be retained in this process. My first thoughts are Grizzly River Rapids, Soarin', and the Animation Pavilion.

My primary objection to the theming of DCA is that it represents a generic view of california, devoid of the magic that makes Disneyland across the way so special. Instead of a Hollywood backlot, I would expect to see a 'Magic of Disney' view of Hollywood, where the Animation Pavilion represents just one facet of the companies artistic heritage, and attractions devoted to their classic shows throughout the years fill up the rest, not the token ABC themed Bistro and the abhorent superstar limo.

As to DCA, well, YES, I believe its flaws represent everything wrong with current Disney management, but at the same time, I believe those flaws are flaws of execution, and that DCA's basic concept is a sound one, and representative of everything that's right with Disney.

As for myself, I see both the concept and execution of DCA as one and the same. I think DCA was designed, concepted and executed cheaply, and it was done so, not out of oversight, but out of a desire to save as much money as could be saved and with the attitude that the public does not know better, or does not deserve better. Now, I'm not advocating pointless spending, don't get me wrong, but Walt Disney understood that to make money, you've gotta spend money. Disney is re-learning this lesson over DCA these days.

I doubt that even if Walt were to rise from the dead, and take over control, bulldozing DCA would be an option. So when we criticize it, can we at least do so in a manner that's both constructive and realistic? "Bulldoze the entire park" is not. "Gut SSL and Hollywood & Dine, and combine and extend the buildings to accommodate a condensed GMR" is. "Ship the entirety of PP off to some real waterfront" is not. "Tear out 'Mulholland Mistake' and half of the wine bar to accommodate an expanded Bay Area with a cable car attraction or two" is.

I think that if Walt were to rise from the grave, he'd take one long look at DCA, one long look at Eisner, another long look at DCA, then pick up Eisner and throw him down the into the second Death Star's reactor shaft, thus saving Luke's life and redeeming himself.

Seriously though, I think Walt would be livid about DCA if he were to come back. I don't neccessarily know that he'd get behind the wheel of a bulldozer and take care of the problem personally, but I'm certain that some rebuilding would be taking place very, very soon.