The Spirited Seventh Heaven ...

[asianway]

Disneyland California, as opposed to the other Disneylands that exist. I know it gets under the skin of the Disneyland crowds, but lets face it, it's not the only Disneyland there is, so I use it as a distinction.



Obviously it does. It pulled me in from GA. But, it hardly maintains the status that WDW does in terms of a vacation destination. Far more fly from the mountains and west to see WDW than fly from the east to see DLC.



Um...that's just false. Though, I'll happily admit it's not what it was when Pleasure Island had a thriving nightlife.

That being said, DLC also dies early. With the exception of a few venues, it closes down and gets very quiet. That's part of what I liked, frankly.



No, it's not. You can't have it one way and another. It's a largely locals park, designed for and targeted to locals.



Right. My point. It's not seen as a destination, rather a side note of a larger destination. That's not a bad thing, it's just a vast contrast to WDW where it IS the destination.



So, 7% of the visitors were foreign coming for one reason for the most part, and that is to see Disney. And that assumes we use your numbers.

NYC's numbers, likewise, are inaccurate for this discussion, as it's not simply a theme park resort destination. Neither is the greater LA area, which, as I noted, skewed your observation.



Can you elaborate? TAFI numbers don't follow this...



Again expound...



I have a lot of trouble believing this conclusion. But, it's up to you to prove it, as it's your assertion.



How have they done so?



And that's what Goofierthanmost was saying.



So, Jikos isn't "anything but anything"? Bah, that's just nonsense you spouted. The dining at WDW vastly surpasses what is available at DLC. Hands down they own that.



This I agree, they used to stay open far later on a normal basis. That being said, they do spectacular shows (fantasmic, fireworks, parades) every day. DLC does not. There are whole seasons where you won't see fireworks outside of a few nights a week, at best...



I don't see it as combative. We are just talking Disney...

You lost me at DLC...

 

[wogwog]

I unfortunately know that was a big bang theory reference because the commercials won't let me un know it. People think because I'm pretty geeky that I like that show but honestly I feel like it's despicable and revolves around an adult with serious mental problems.

No, can't be mental, his mother had him tested.

 

[doctornick]

But - unlike WDW, DLR offers options geared toward adults as well. WDW used to do this. They don't anymore. As a result, DLR attracts adults with discretionary income as well who enjoy visiting the place.

I generally agree with your point, but don't think this is correct. WDW markets heavily towards families with young children and certainly has geared new development to such folks. But the idea that WDW doesn't have stuff for adults (even without children) seems silly to me. Yes, Pleasure Island closed, but otherwise most everything you could do in the mid-90's as an adult at WDW can still be done. There's still golf and fine dining and shopping and watercraft. The number of bars are fewer, but they still exist at DTD and the Boardwalk. We hear plenty of complaints of how WS at Epcot is nowadays a big drinking/shopping fest, which I don't think is directly towards the toddler set.

I think it is more fair to say that WDW is "stale" in terms of offerings for adults, since there is minimal that has been recently added geared to that set. But there's still plenty for adults to do if they wish (and for people new to visiting WDW, the staleness wouldn't come into play). I'm failing to see what DLR offers to adults that is in excess to what WDW offers.

 

[PirateFrank]

I remember in particular a Magic Kingdom Park visit several years ago, there was an "Aladdin" in Adventureland who simply looked like a chubby 29 year old Italian guy from Jersey dressed up as Aladdin. I wanted to buy the dude another cheesesteak and tell him to go take a break.

This made me think of the Jasmine problem that WDW has had for years....(and I fully expect the women here to light me up for this comment, but so be it).

My daughter is just arcing out of the princess phase -- however for the past 5 years, I've sat through more princess character meals and meet & greets than I care to ever admit in public....(warning - creepy 42-old moment) Sometimes though -- A guy can't complain, there was this one Ariel back in '08, woooohah!... ....I digress....

Anyway, WDW always seemed to have serious issues finding a suitable Jasmine that wasn't in desperate need of a few trips to Jenny Craig -- so much so, that my daughter who was a full on believer up until this point, turned to me and said "Daddy, that's not Jasmine. That's a fat girl dressed up as Jasmine" Thanks WDW. I bring my daughter to experience fantasy and you swiftly destroy it with crappy casting!

Now -- I'm not going to sit here and harp on someone's weight -- I'd be a black-calling kettle. But I'm all in favor of "appropriate casting". If the casting is poor enough where the children who do still believe, are losing their innocence by the mere appearance of a poorly casted character -- it's absolutely horrendous show. It's unforgivable. I believe it's still a fireable offense for a character CM at WDW to break character, no? How is it any different when their very appearance does the job anyway?

 

[CDavid]

I just meant it will show that the amount of money spent to develop the SLS can be better spent.

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2583/1

That article is perhaps biased, but it is true that the SLS is the most expensive way possible of solving a problem (like buying a $200,000 Bentley just to drive to church every Sunday). We need a launcher heavier than the one SpaceX is building, but it will be many years and many billions for SLS to get there. In my opinion, Ares I should have been completed with that money; It would have been flying in the next couple years (as opposed to 2021 for a manned SLS - maybe) and NASA would again have its own way to space. At this point, however, we don't want to have to start all over yet again - for the third time - developing a new rocket which won't fly for years.

 

[bhg469]

I generally agree with your point, but don't think this is correct. WDW markets heavily towards families with young children and certainly has geared new development to such folks. But the idea that WDW doesn't have stuff for adults (even without children) seems silly to me. Yes, Pleasure Island closed, but otherwise most everything you could do in the mid-90's as an adult at WDW can still be done. There's still golf and fine dining and shopping and watercraft. The number of bars are fewer, but they still exist at DTD and the Boardwalk. We hear plenty of complaints of how WS at Epcot is nowadays a big drinking/shopping fest, which I don't think is directly towards the toddler set.

I think it is more fair to say that WDW is "stale" in terms of offerings for adults, since there is minimal that has been recently added geared to that set. But there's still plenty for adults to do if they wish (and for people new to visiting WDW, the staleness wouldn't come into play). I'm failing to see what DLR offers to adults that is in excess to what WDW offers.

To be honest, if all they did was remove pi, they would still be taking a huge chunk of adult entertainment that was just for adults. Fine dining is very subjective in wdw but one could argue that only applies to maybe 4-5 places.

As far as epcot and world showcase... it is not geared towards adults anymore at all. In fact, with the frozen debacle, it's getting worse.

 

[EPCOTCenterLover]

First off, what is DLC? I named CA and AZ because I named two states for WDW. Obviously both resorts pull from far more than two states each.

There are no nighttime experiences for adults left at WDW, except upcharge events during Food and Wine. The place dies at 9pm most of the year.

Also, the idea that DLR is a locals park is thoroughly false. While it attracts far more locals than WDW (as WDW has next to no locals to draw from), it is also an international tourist destination, and is one piece of a tourist Mecca known as Los Angeles. I can't find comparable numbers for LA (other than 42.2 million tourists overall in 2013) but out of over 57 million visitors to Orlando in 2012, only 4.1 million were from outside the US. That's about 7%. The international component of Disney theme park visitation in the US is overblown significantly. NYC, in contrast, had over a third of its visitors last year from overseas. THAT'S an international destination. WDW and by extension, DLR, pale in comparison

People also overestimate WDW's multi day appeal at this point. Most fans think of it as something everyone must do for more than one day - judging by the attendance estimates, this is false. A huge group of WDW's visitors buy one day one park tickets to the MK, and never hit the other parks. To fans this is sacrilege, but to most people, MK = WDW. The rest is filler, some don't even know Disney owns it.

WDW doesn't want couples, and they have made that abundantly clear. DLR still does, local or not, and they get them. WDW used to have a lot more couples without children, back when they had something to offer them. I'd wager you still see a lot of couples at WDW during Food and Wine. But the rest of the year? Why bother? I know we don't. Most signature dining is anything but anymore, and there's no nightlife. Unless there's evening EMH or its a peak period with late MK hours, it's an early night each night. Because kids. This is a relatively new development in WDW's history.

I'm not trying to be combative, but the original point that DLR is aimed at adults who want to be children is baseless, and smacks of someone who's never been (hopefully that's not true). DLR does a decent job of catering to multiple demographics, and WDW would be wise to do so as well. It's money on the table that TDO just leaves there.

I have a friend who went to Epcot but insisted they weren't "doing Disney" on their trip. To many people WDW=MK.

 

[bhg469]

I have a friend who went to Epcot but insisted they weren't "dong Disney" on their trip. To many people WDW=MK.

This is exactly why they don't have to try anymore.

 

[doctornick]

To be honest, if all they did was remove pi, they would still be taking a huge chunk of adult entertainment that was just for adults. Fine dining is very subjective in wdw but one could argue that only applies to maybe 4-5 places.

I think the argument at hand was that DLR was more geared towards adults than WDW. Even removing PI, how is that true? It's not like DLR ever had (or has) a PI area -- there are some bars/restaurants in DTD, but that's true at WDW as well. DLR doesn't have some massively different number of signature restaurants or entertainment options aimed only at adults.

Regardless, I don't see why activities have to be solely geared towards adults. WDW isn't Hedonism. As long as there are activities that are appropriate for adults, it can still be a vacation destination for adults without kids. And my point remains that if WDW was appropriate for childless adults in the 90's, it's appropriate for that now -- losing some night clubs at PI doesn't make the place now inaccessible to adults.

Again, the marketing and new offerings have typically been geared towards families with young children. But the offerings for adults, even if not publicized much, are still there as they have always been. I ask the question: what could you do at WDW as an adult in the "glory days" that you cannot do now? (Yes, PI, but people have said that WDW was better for adults in the 70's/80's before PI was built, so what about then?)

 

[lazyboy97o]

I have a friend who went to Epcot but insisted they weren't "dong Disney" on their trip. To many people WDW=MK.

What is worse is that this is a large chunk of those who self identify as Disney fans.

 

[Lee]

I honestly cannot believe Parsons won over Louie CK, or Ricky Gervais... I only care because I was actually moved by Gervais's, Derek more so than any show I've ever watched.

Totally agree.
Parsons winning over Gervsis was just...wrong.

And, hey...I loved Breaking Bad. Cranston was amazing for the whole run.
But to give him another Emmy over McConaughey in True Detective?!?!?
I'm starting to wonder if the voters even watched all the shows...

 

[bhg469]

Totally agree.
Parsons winning over Gervsis was just...wrong.

And, hey...I loved Breaking Bad. Cranston was amazing for the whole run.
But to give him another Emmy over McConaughey in True Detective?!?!?
I'm starting to wonder if the voters even watched all the shows...

Yes, Cranston seems to be a great guy and he is obviously a terrific actor. I just don't think that it was necessarily his best performance this past year.

 

[Cesar R M]

Totally agree.
Parsons winning over Gervsis was just...wrong.

And, hey...I loved Breaking Bad. Cranston was amazing for the whole run.
But to give him another Emmy over McConaughey in True Detective?!?!?
I'm starting to wonder if the voters even watched all the shows...

seems very similar to what is happening with the Oscars.
I remember some leaked comments from many 'critics'.
Moaning they had to put the animation movie to review it. But they just set it for their kids. They ended pretty much ignoring the movie they were supposed to review, then pretty much 99% of the time.. they just voted for anything with the "disney" or "pixar" brand.

 

[englanddg]

Not to step in this argument because I like and respect both of you…

DLR is the common reference to Disneyland resort.

DLC refers to downloadable content especially in the Internet parlance, referring to mostly video games. As in "when do I get my Disneyland DLC for grand theft auto?"

That being said it's 10 after three and a morning, I'm insanely tired, and should not be texting and driving…

Touche.

Actually, a Disneyland plug in for GTA would be pretty cool, when you think about it. I'd love to carjack on Autopia...

"Hey, kid, get out of the car!" <speeds away>

 

[Goofyernmost]

I think the argument at hand was that DLR was more geared towards adults than WDW. Even removing PI, how is that true? It's not like DLR ever had (or has) a PI area -- there are some bars/restaurants in DTD, but that's true at WDW as well. DLR doesn't have some massively different number of signature restaurants or entertainment options aimed only at adults.

Regardless, I don't see why activities have to be solely geared towards adults. WDW isn't Hedonism. As long as there are activities that are appropriate for adults, it can still be a vacation destination for adults without kids. And my point remains that if WDW was appropriate for childless adults in the 90's, it's appropriate for that now -- losing some night clubs at PI doesn't make the place now inaccessible to adults.

Again, the marketing and new offerings have typically been geared towards families with young children. But the offerings for adults, even if not publicized much, are still there as they have always been. I ask the question: what could you do at WDW as an adult in the "glory days" that you cannot do now? (Yes, PI, but people have said that WDW was better for adults in the 70's/80's before PI was built, so what about then?)

I am obviously not going to be able to explain my thoughts on adult directed vs. child directed because everyone is hung up on how many places there are to get drunk to define that. If I took that stance it would be the opposite of what I said. Perhaps, what I am referring to is the "adult" cult following that DLR has had for a number of years now. It is the idea that there are way more people that spend unbelievable amounts of time at DL then at WDW not necessarily in an alcohol induced drunken haze, (other methods of becoming high, I am not ruling out).

Of course, there are bucket loads of kids at DLR, but, it is not a "required" mindset that WDW has turned into. Although there are a lot of repeat guests at WDW, it is nothing, ratio wise, to DLR. Therefore they market differently, and for good reason. However, what do I know, I'm obviously pretty "stupid".

 

[englanddg]

There is only one other park with the name Disneyland, and almost nobody ever refers to it as just "Disneyland," if they are even aware that the name is only Disneyland. It drives people nuts because you've made up a name for a problem that does not exist.

Disneyland Parc = France
Tokyo Disneyland = Tokyo
Shanghai Disneyland Park = Shanghai
Hong Kong Disneyland Park = Hong Kong

Hrm...they all feature one common thread. The name...Disneyland.

As far as using DLR...

Hong Kong DIsneyland Resort = Hong Kong
Shanghai Disney Resort = Shanghai
Tokyo DIsney Resort = Tokyo
Disneyland Resort Paris = France

The simple fact that there is at least ONE other location that uses the term Disneyland as a registered trademark (and there are more, as illustrated) begs for differentiation for clarity when discussing the subject. Regardless of what is popular or not.

It is Disneyland California. It's the original, it's the best, and I certainly wouldn't say it's not the one and only "Disneyland" in the eyes and minds of fans. But, it is not the only Disneyland.

There is, currently, only one WDW and only one Magic Kingdom, however, so the clarification in acronym need not exist.

 

[Cesar R M]

Touche.

Isn't the second Disney park in California named "Disney Californian Adventure" aka "DCA"?

why use DLC?
It will get more confused with DCL (disney cruise line) than with downloadable content imho.

 

[englanddg]

Isn't the second Disney park in California named "Disney Californian Adventure" aka "DCA"?

why use DLC?
It will get more confused with DCL (disney cruise line) than with downloadable content imho.

There is only one Disney California Adventure.

There is more than one "Disneyland".

So, as illustrated, when I say DLC, I am referring specifically to the Disneyland park in California. Not the Disneyland Resort as a whole, and not DCA. That specific park.

 

[Cesar R M]

There is only one Disney California Adventure.

There is more than one "Disneyland".

But they all have already well used short names.

like DLP for disney land Paris.
DSEA for disney sea at Japan.

etc..etc..

Almost seems like the people in here are confusing things too much.

 

[englanddg]

But they all have already well used short names.

like DLP for disney land Paris.
DSEA for disney sea at Japan.

etc..etc..

Almost seems like the people in here are confusing things too much.

No. It's an acronym I've used for a long time, and debated before. It's one that I use naturally, and acknowledge that others find issue with it (I already have repeatedly in the prior posts).

If we wish to debate what the common vernacular / acronym usage should be for the next 3 pages, be my guest, but I, for one, find it a rather tired discussion. I have my reasons for using it, and none of it has anything to do with the discussion that was at hand.