Spirited News, Observations & Thoughts IV

[Goofyernmost]

Who wants to go to a park about California when you live in California? If you're visiting Cali, you want to go and see the Golden Gate Bridge, not spend $90 to see a replica of it.

It was a horrific concept from the get-go. They should've completely abandoned it when they re-imagined the park.

I'd go so far as to say that it was a concept that didn't work, but, you speak as if you can just jump in a cab and cover any part of California in a day. OK, kids today we are going to go to Disneyland and then rent a car and pack a light lunch and head on up to see the Golden Gate Bridge. Then after dinner we can drive back to Anaheim and tomorrow morning we can go to Disneyland again. The park was called Disney's California Adventure. It didn't really have anything to do with seeing California in actuality. It should have worked and it would have worked but locals decided to hate it because it wasn't Disneyland Part II like they were expecting and there just were not enough out of towners to support DCA. They might wander over there, I know I did, but, I didn't travel across country to go to DCA. I went there to visit Disneyland.

Now with Carsland, there is a highly publicized positive reason to visit DCA as well as Disneyland. Problem is for me...I've already made my pilgrimage cross country and have no plans to return. I have to settle for a Carsland You Tube experience.

 

[Funmeister]

I agree that the theme of "California" is probably one of the last themes I would personally would prefer to see developed.

With that said...

I am not sure if this has been brought up (nor do I have time to go through 1,000 pages...this thread is moving at light speed) but a partial reason the "California" theme was decided on was not for locals but an attempt to make Disneyland Resort more of a destination for visiting tourists like WDW.

 

[Goofyernmost]

I agree that the theme of "California" is probably one of the last themes I would personally would prefer to see developed.

With that said...

I am not sure if this has been brought up (nor do I have time to go through 1,000 pages...this thread is moving at light speed) but a partial reason the "California" theme was decided on was not for locals but an attempt to make Disneyland Resort more of a destination for visiting tourists like WDW.

I sure do have to agree with that. Their major misread in that is not having the sense to realize that if Disneyland itself isn't a big enough draw for tourists why would a park that no one knew anything about be a draw. They forgot that little detail. Besides the east-coasters had WDW which was far more impressive then just DCA. Very bad read on the possible demand in this case.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Trying to replace existing California was the horrible idea. Celebrating the romance, history and culture of California is not. There is plenty of substance there to choose from, and even then Disney has not, instead opting to plaster characters on everything. But because it is ornamented, not detailed, it is loved.

 

[Ignohippo]

I'd go so far as to say that it was a concept that didn't work, but, you speak as if you can just jump in a cab and cover any part of California in a day. OK, kids today we are going to go to Disneyland and then rent a car and pack a light lunch and head on up to see the Golden Gate Bridge. Then after dinner we can drive back to Anaheim and tomorrow morning we can go to Disneyland again. The park was called Disney's California Adventure. It didn't really have anything to do with seeing California in actuality. It should have worked and it would have worked but locals decided to hate it because it wasn't Disneyland Part II like they were expecting and there just were not enough out of towners to support DCA. They might wander over there, I know I did, but, I didn't travel across country to go to DCA. I went there to visit Disneyland.

Now with Carsland, there is a highly publicized positive reason to visit DCA as well as Disneyland. Problem is for me...I've already made my pilgrimage cross country and have no plans to return. I have to settle for a Carsland You Tube experience.

No, I never stated "you could just hop in a car and visit all of California." Obviously.

I live in Florida. I enjoy EPCOT for all of the multi-cultural faux goodness that it is. But, as a Floridian, I don't want to visit an amusement park about Florida. I live here. I see it every day. I would have no interest.

And if I go to Italy, I don't want to go to Rome and then spend $90 to get in a theme park that has fake facsimiles of Venice, the Colisseum, the Vatican, etc. I'll make the time and go see them for realz. If I can't see the real thing, I don't want to see some cheap Disney-fied knock-offs.

 

[PirateFrank]

I hope that doesn't happen. It could and history does have a habit of repeating itself. Just want to make a correction about the Jobs story of how he returned to Apple. They didn't beg him to come back. What happened was Apple's Board would fire and replace its CEO every six months or so because each quarter's results would keep getting worse than expected. Then they put in Gil Amelio. Amelio figured out that the Mac needed an updated OS desperately. Up until that point, OS development went through a cycle of fits and starts and, because of this, there were no OS update they could ready for release in a reasonable amount of time that they could release that would stand up against the latest version of Windows at that time. Amelio understood two things: (1) that Windows advancements have made Mac's OS uncompetitive and obsolete, and (2) that the only way this could be "fixed" within a reasonable amount of time was to license or buy an advanced OS developed by another company.

During this time, Jobs wasn't having much luck with his new company called NEXT. NEXT had developed an advanced Mac-like computer of the same name that ran an OS developed in-house by NEXT. The problem was that the NEXT computer was extremely expensive and did not sell well because of its price. Jobs then decided NEXT would become a software company and stopped selling the computer, selling the OS as its sole product. Coincidentally, the NEXT OS ran on the same CPU the Mac used, so compatibility was not an issue. Amelio was interested in licensing the NEXT OS for the Mac, so he opened a dialog. Those talks turned into talks about buying out the company NEXT all together. Amelio wanted Jobs to work for the combined company because he thought Jobs would be valuable as an advisor to him. He also needed him to oversee the project to merge the two operating systems.

Six months later, after the merger, earnings reports came in. The numbers did not look good and the Board fired Amelio. The company had no CEO and the Board began searching for a new CEO, never once even considering Jobs for the job. But something strange, cultish happened during this time period when the company literally had no CEO in charge.

The employees at Apple had a cultish respect for Jobs that they took anything he said like gospel. Without a CEO, employees started to approach Jobs for "advice". Whatever advise Jobs gave them, they did, as if the advice were instructions or orders. Before long, the "advice" Jobs gave out actually began to run the company. He was now the defacto CEO.

Soon, the Board would learn that Jobs was actually running the company. Before they could take disciplinary against Jobs, the quarterly earnings reports came in. For the first time in years, the company's earnings were up. The Board decided against taking disciplinary action against Jobs and instead made him "Interim CEO" and they continued their search for permanent CEO.

Each quarter thereafter, earnings would go up significantly over the previous quarter. After a good amount of time, they decided to call off their search for a permanent CEO and they FINALLY decided to get rid of the "Interim" part of his title and made him CEO!

Fascinating story! Thanks for this!

 

[Goofyernmost]

No, I never stated "you could just hop in a car and visit all of California." Obviously.

I live in Florida. I enjoy EPCOT for all of the multi-cultural faux goodness that it is. But, as a Floridian, I don't want to visit an amusement park about Florida. I live here. I see it every day. I would have no interest.

And if I go to Italy, I don't want to go to Rome and then spend $90 to get in a theme park that has fake facsimiles of Venice, the Colisseum, the Vatican, etc. I'll make the time and go see them for realz. If I can't see the real thing, I don't want to see some cheap Disney-fied knock-offs.

Yes, I know that you didn't say that directly, but you stated is as if going to Anaheim just gave you easy access to the rest of California. Besides they only thing that I saw in DCA (the old one) that was a cheap Disney-fied knock-off was the entrance that had the mini Golden Gate other wise there was nothing to speak of. That was never the intent of DCA to begin with. It was an amusement park themed to be like it was in California and never meant to be copy of the state of California. BTW, Venice and Rome are a long way apart as well. However the Vatican and the Colosseum can be found in the city of Rome.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Yes, I know that you didn't say that directly, but you stated is as if going to Anaheim just gave you easy access to the rest of California. Besides they only thing that I saw in DCA (the old one) that was a cheap Disney-fied knock-off was the entrance that had the mini Golden Gate other wise there was nothing to speak of. That was never the intent of DCA to begin with. It was an amusement park themed to be like it was in California and never meant to be copy of the state of California. BTW, Venice and Rome are a long way apart as well. However the Vatican and the Colosseum can be found in the city of Rome.

It was very much intended to be a contemporary vision of California, a copy.

And as a sovereign state, the Vatican is surrounded by Rome, not in it.

 

[Funmeister]

Trying to replace existing California was the horrible idea. Celebrating the romance, history and culture of California is not. There is plenty of substance there to choose from, and even then Disney has not, instead opting to plaster characters on everything. But because it is ornamented, not detailed, it is loved.

I do not think they were necessarily trying to "replace" California as much as trying to compliment California. They wanted to give an experience that took guests on adventures that the Golden State has to offer. The problem was/is that you can go snow skiing, surfing and mountain climbing all in the same day...without going to DCA.

They should have focused on a theme that would take locals and AP'ers to far away lands and experiences instead of what they got. IMHO I still think the park overall needs a cohesive theme. Everything in the park can be justified having a tie with California but some of it could be a stretch. When considering the makeover I think they should have re-visited Disney's America. Each section of the park could easily been slightly re-themed to a region of our nation.

 

[Ignohippo]

I agree that the theme of "California" is probably one of the last themes I would personally would prefer to see developed.

With that said...

I am not sure if this has been brought up (nor do I have time to go through 1,000 pages...this thread is moving at light speed) but a partial reason the "California" theme was decided on was not for locals but an attempt to make Disneyland Resort more of a destination for visiting tourists like WDW.

Actually, it TWDCo's runaway egotistical attempt to keep tourists on Disney property and not stray to visit the rest of the state.

Funny thing, had they just built something original and creative, like WestCOT or DisneySEA, they probably could've succeeded.

 

[Ignohippo]

Trying to replace existing California was the horrible idea. Celebrating the romance, history and culture of California is not. There is plenty of substance there to choose from, and even then Disney has not, instead opting to plaster characters on everything. But because it is ornamented, not detailed, it is loved.

Unfortunately, you can visit millions of places in California that celebrate the romance, history and culture of California without spending $90 to do so - and you'll see the real things, not replicas.

And the characters aren't the problem, either. It's the complete lack of creativity and originality.

Seriously, is there anything possibly less imaginative than creating a park about things that already exist and are within a few hundred miles? As imagineers, you could do the research for that, in what? About a week (at most)?!

 

[lazyboy97o]

When considering the makeover I think they should have re-visited Disney's America. Each section of the park could easily been slightly re-themed to a region of our nation.

Al Lutz made that same suggestion 2002, and much of the original park was derived from Disney's America.

Unfortunately, you can visit millions of places in California that celebrate the romance, history and culture of California without spending $90 to do so - and you'll see the real things, not replicas.

And the characters aren't the problem, either. It's the complete lack of creativity and originality.

Seriously, is there anything possibly less imaginative than creating a park about things that already exist and are within a few hundred miles? You could do the research for that, in what? About a week?

None of them do it using a theme park which has its own unique opportunities for creating experiences.

 

[Nubs70]

Another observation, the amount of people tethered to electronic devices. The moment the cauldron lit, bandwidth access dropped to zero. An entire gaggle of our southern hemispheric friends start yacking away on Skype to friends back home. My connection drops and cannot reconnect for the rest of the night. If MM+ is to roll out in full next month, serious increases in bandwidth need to be installed next week.

 

[truecoat]

This thread has officially jumped the shark. Can someone please put this one out of it's misery?

 

[vagabondarts]

I'm just speculating here but there were probably back room political reasons for theming it to California for tax breaks or perceived benefits to the state leadership at the time to give them more acceptance for expansion.
Yay? Nay?

 

[Clever Name]

This thread has officially jumped the shark. Can someone please put this one out of it's misery?

In these magical threads horses never expire.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I'm just speculating here but there were probably back room political reasons for theming it to California for tax breaks or perceived benefits to the state leadership at the time to give them more acceptance for expansion.
Yay? Nay?

No, they had only tricked Anaheim into giving them their desired concessions by announcing two second gates but saying only one would be realized, WestCOT Center in Anaheim or Port Disney in Long Beach. What they needed was a project that would be cheaper than the already announced WestCOT. They ended up reusing a lot of ideas developed for the Disney's America project.

 

[vagabondarts]

No, they had only tricked Anaheim into giving them their desired concessions by announcing two second gates but saying only one would be realized, WestCOT Center in Anaheim or Port Disney in Long Beach. What they needed was a project that would be cheaper than the already announced WestCOT. They ended up reusing a lot of ideas developed for the Disney's America project.

Ah ok. It also seems like they were trying to make something that was like knotts in the old days to have their own version (continuing the Eisner strategy of building competing park types in Florida).
Don't know how true that is, I still haven't been to DCA and probably won't for a bit.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Ah ok. It also seems like they were trying to make something that was like knotts in the old days to have their own version (continuing the Eisner strategy of building competing park types in Florida).
Don't know how true that is, I still haven't been to DCA and probably won't for a bit.

When it opened, the park was very much focused on contemporary California, not so much on the history.

 

[skippyrules104]

I never called him a .

I called him unprofessional. Feel free to scroll back in the tread to quote me properly.

Beyond that, I really don't care about you nor your husband.

My friend Kenny asked me to take a quick photo, since I was there... Not that it's any of your business.

Kenny is also my friend, and I'm aware of how his photo came to be taken by you. I wasn't even in the park when this occurred so I would hardly call this stalking. Ricky told me that you were next to him taking pictures.