DCA version 2.0 - Will It Be Enough?

[Moonliner]

The world is grey.

Some will love it, some will hate it, most will enjoy it for a few hours and not give it much thought past that.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Moonliner

The world is grey.

Some will love it, some will hate it, most will enjoy it for a few hours and not give it much thought past that.

Yeah, but there is an objective view of it too in terms of attendance and revenue.

I think it's going to be a success. Yes, many shortcomings remain, however Walt knew as well as anyone that good show can make up for many shortcomings. While the stupid theme concept makes success more difficult and is something to overcome, it was never the real root of the problem. The real root of the problem has always been execution and quality. And this redo is shaping up to deliver that in spades. As long as they have really followed through and created an environment that FEELS like a quality Disney experience, then any quibbles about overall theme or re-cycled technology become moot.

However, I am concerned about the wisdom of making the centerpiece of the transformation a strip of black asphalt with no trees and short buildings. Because DCA totally needed MORE ways to walk around in blazing sun.

[RStar]

Why is a theme park based on California being in California a problem? Because locals who live in California are board with it because they live here? Because visiters to California can step outside of the park and see the real California?

I was born and raised in California, as was my mom. I studied the history of California because it is so interesting. It's a very unusual place. I love California, so I enjoyed DCA, but not as much as I would have had it not been done on the cheep.

When I first visited Hollywood as an adult in the 80's, I was shocked. It was not what I had in mind. Then I went to USH, and found it a lot more fun (Hollywood is in a lot better shape now, BYW). So, is there really that much wrong with people visiting the state and seeing a stylized or fantasy version as well? Would I go to Paris and visit a theme park based on France? I could see it. Disney Sea is by the sea. Aulani is a Hawaiian resort based on Hawaii (ok, it's not a theme park, but it is a Disney property in Hawaii based on Hawaii).

The fact that Walt had a connection to LA & Hollywood is a reasonable usage of the idea. And my complaint from 2001 was that DCA, unlike other Disney parks, did not transport you to another time and place. At least now it's another time. And the lack of the Disney touch (Like disney characters) sorely lacking when it opened has also been adressed, as well as more things for smaller kids to do.

One measure of "if it is enough" (besides ticket sales, which will be skewed by curiosity about Carsland for the first year or two) will be the lack of complaints. In my opinion, yes I think they will be down to the level that Disneyland gets (I'll call that the standard, or norm), therefore "enough" to be considered successful. And I think it will stand up to the same hours and admission costs as DL, thus stand on it's own.

The other measure will be "can it stand the test of time". Will it still be here in 10 or 20 years? Or will it be razed to be replaced by a whole new idea? That I cannot say for sure, but I bet the Disney company is expecting to amortize the $1.1 billion over at least that long withought starting over again.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by RStar

When I first visited Hollywood as an adult in the 80's, I was shocked. It was not what I had in mind. Then I went to USH, and found it a lot more fun (Hollywood is in a lot better shape now, BYW).

That's not really a fair analogy. "Hollywood" isn't Hollywood, "Hollywood" IS Universal Studios (or the studios in Burbank, or Vasquez Rocks, or countless other areas around SoCal that are not in the 90028 zip code). The actual city of Hollywood at it's BEST is a symbolic tourist trap. By visiting Universal you visited a legitimate, authentic experience of Hollywood not replicable anywhere else in the world (yes, the theme park is replicated, and surpassed, in Florida, but they will NEVER have the true Hollywood history that's up on that hill).

No one visits the Golden Gate Bridge then shows up at DCA and says, "Geez, why did I waste my time THERE?!"

By visiting Hollywood Pictures Backlot you are visiting a pale imitation of something real and historical that's accessible with little to no extra effort. By visiting Redwood Creek you are visiting an underwhelming imitation of spectacular nature that's entirely accessible with little to no extra effort.

No, it's not impossible to achieve a Disney-worthy feat of fantasy and "transport you to another time and place" within the confines of the California-in-California theme. But by inviting comparison to truly wonderful REAL places that are practically visible by peeking your head over the lack-of-berm, Disney started with one foot in a crater. To pull that off, the result has to be at least as amazing, if not more amazing, than the real deal. Even at Disney's best that's a tall order. And where DCA has succeeded (ToT, World of Color, Little Mermaid....um....) it's with stuff that has gotten away from that theme, avoiding the uphill battle against expectations.

[RStar]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

That's not really a fair analogy. "Hollywood" isn't Hollywood, "Hollywood" IS Universal Studios (or the studios in Burbank, or Vasquez Rocks, or countless other areas around SoCal that are not in the 90028 zip code). The actual city of Hollywood at it's BEST is a symbolic tourist trap. By visiting Universal you visited a legitimate, authentic experience of Hollywood not replicable anywhere else in the world (yes, the theme park is replicated, and surpassed, in Florida, but they will NEVER have the true Hollywood history that's up on that hill).

That's very true GD, but do visiters realize that? I have heard dissapointment from visiters from out of state or out of the country. But you are right, that was a bad analogy. The Hollywood that people know is what they see on their screens, which comes from the studios, not the city it's self. That's not to say there aren't parts of the city that are important landmarks, but those are little more than tourist attractions now. And seeing replicas of landmarks like the Golden Gate is never a replacement for seeing the real thing. I don't think anyone expected it to be. It's the ambiance or character of the place that people can enjoy. For instance, now you will be able to enjoy feeling what it would be like to go back to Los Angeles in the 1920's.

And I agree, ISM, that the annoying puns and cartoonish look of parts of the park made a mochery of the state. I'm glad it's being removed for the most part.

The point is, will it be enough? I think if they hadn't fixed it's flaws, the park would have been closed as a seperate gate, or razed completly with in 5 years. Now it has a chance, and I feel it will continue to improve, to stay as a stand alone park. Will the California theme stay? Only time will tell.