Paul Pressler Announces to Update Disney's California Adventure

[MasterGracey]

It makes far more financial sense to build a park on the cheap, and expand and fix the problems over time, than to spend everything you have at once. Imagine if they spent 3 billion dollars to build the DCA depicted in the concept art, and only after it opened realize that the theme wasn't working and that people weren't interested. After spending 3 billion to open the park, there wouldn't be any money to fix it.

By building a cheap park like DCA, they can go back and work on what needs to be fixed/replaced, all the while the areas of the park that work still draw in visitors and revenue.

Disney parks are always a work in progress.

Yeah, it really makes a lot of sense to build cheap and then lose loads of money in operational and upkeep costs even though nobody is really coming. Having to offer ticket discounting in order to get people in the gates isn't something Disney should have to turn to - but they've had to with DCA. On paper the on-the-cheap model might have sounded good, but you honestly can't believe that the results of the on-the-cheap parks has been successful. DCA, Walt Disney Studios Paris, and Hong Kong Disneyland all prove you wrong.

If Disney had given the DCA project the proper amount of funding and given it some true attractions instead of lightly overlayed off-the-shelf rides, then people wouldn't have ignored the park.

The theme of the park wasn't what was broken. It was the budget. The California theme is immensely rich in possibilities, and the park truly could have been a work of art if it hadn't been for Eisner's micro-managing, Pressler's shopping-mall centric mindset, and such a pathetic and inadequate budget.

Disneyland back in 1955 wasn't exactly the attraction-filled marvel inside a veritable forest that it is today. The pictures from back then look barren and reveal really cheap and ugly areas. I think that DCA can achieve something close to Disneyland today if they keep it on the right path for the next few decades. I mean Fantasyland was pretty much re-built from scratch without Walt at all. And Critter Country (pre-Pooh) was a really nice area so Disney has shown that they can still design nice areas without Walt's personal supervision.

I think it's unfair (but perfectly understandable) that DCA is being compared to Disneyland. Personally, I never would've built anything that close to Disneyland simply because of that reason, anything that's built there will automatically be compared to a park that had 50 years to perfect itself. There's not a park in the world that could live up to that kind of expectation, including DisneySea. But the clowns in the previous regime DID build it and it's clear that we have to deal with it now.

DCA is a beautiful park and it can only get better with Tony Baxter, John L. and tons of cash being thrown at it. It will never reach the level of Disneyland because, quite simply, Disneyland is the only park that Walt himself is so much a part of and will always be. But it has the potential to become a force in itself. I am still very wary of Iger and until he really impresses me for years with his vision and/or common sense I'll still be skeptical, but we have every indication that DCA will finally achieve what it set out to do in 2001 and become a park worthy of being next to Disneyland.

When DCA was being built, Disney had over 40 years of theme park building experience. When Disneyland was built, Disney had zero years experience in building theme parks.

Using the excuse that Disneyland wasn't the greatest park when it opened is incredibly weak. DCA had no excuse - it should have been a great park from the start and become even greater over time.

Instead, it opened as an incredibly weak park, and hasn't really improved much since. And the fact that Disney has had to have extensive meetings on re-Imagineering the park and rumors of a $1 billion makeover pricetag alone proves that DCA wasn't executed properly to begin with. Everybody knows it and I wish people would stop making excuses for the park.

[The Disneylander]

Whilst Disney parks can be a work-in-progress when first opened, DCA was not a work-in-progress. It was closer to no-work-at-all.

[lazyboy97O]

Yeah, it really makes a lot of sense to build cheap and then lose loads of money in operational and upkeep costs even though nobody is really coming.

If Disney had given the DCA project the proper amount of funding and given it some true attractions instead of lightly overlayed off-the-shelf rides, then people wouldn't have ignored the park.

The theme of the park wasn't what was broken. It was the budget. The California theme is immensely rich in possibilities, and the park truly could have been a work of art if it hadn't been for Eisner's micro-managing, Pressler's shopping-mall centric mindset, and such a pathetic and inadequate budget.

I am sure the once profitable Euro Disney SCA would also disagree with the build a small park and add philosophy.

[MasterGracey]

I am sure the once profitable Euro Disney SCA would also disagree with the build a small park and add philosophy.

Indeed.

[MrLiver]

Yeah, it really makes a lot of sense to build cheap and then lose loads of money in operational and upkeep costs even though nobody is really coming.

Maybe it doesn't make sense to you, but it does make sense to Disney, and to Disney's investors. That's why they do it.

It makes a lot less sense to spend an endless amount of money on a park that can't make a profit, and then also lose loads of money in operational and upkeep costs, with no money to fix the problem.

On paper the on-the-cheap model might have sounded good, but you honestly can't believe that the results of the on-the-cheap parks has been successful.

If course they have. Look at DCA. Attendance is still climbing, and even now with more improvements and additions folks seem eager to go back and visit the park.

Are you really so negative to suggest that DCA will never be successful? That park has made giant leaps from the park that opened in 2001, and every time all the fans come out to see what's new.

So tell me exactly which Disney park has not been successful and has been forced to close due to lack of revenue and attendance? Anyone?

If Disney had given the DCA project the proper amount of funding and given it some true attractions instead of lightly overlayed off-the-shelf rides, then people wouldn't have ignored the park.

It's in the top 10 Amusement Parks in the United States. The failure of DCA is a myth perpetuated by foaming Disney fans who have no idea what's really going on. Just a bunch of complainers who continually bemoan the park as a failure, and continue to visit every week.

I am sure the once profitable Euro Disney SCA would also disagree with the build a small park and add philosophy.

EuroDisney was in financial trouble since Day 1. The fact that they spent billions upon billions of dollars to open a full fledge park has crippled that property for years now. What was DLP's last major addition? Space Mountain in 1995?

The Studios Park had to be built to comply with a contractual agreement that Disney made with the French. Obviously if that stipulation was not part of their deal, Disney would not have spent money on a new park, when that money could have been better used to keep that park afloat.

After the financial trouble of EuroDisney, and a park that was almost forced to close and be sold off, Eisner vowed that they would never spend so much opening a park.

And unless you want to see the Walt Disney Company go bankrupt just like EuroDisney, I think you would agree that it has been a wise decision.

[Disneyland RR Guy]

Hmm can we say uncle john watch this video and take notes

[Disneyland RR Guy]

"We'll have rides and attractions and entertainment offerngs..."

More like we'll have ride, and attracion and shops, and shops...and more shops.

Hmm can we say oops

[pianoman13]

No more California theme please.

yes we'll just call it "movie and forest and peir adventure"

[pianoman13]

Hmm can we say uncle john watch this video and take notes

hmm why no "uncle Tony" or "uncle Bob"

[shadow]

I don't feel ripped off her se, but to me, DCA will always be a legacy of the corrupt and small minds of Michael Eisner and his puppet Paul Pressler.

Is DCA a park I enjoy? Not really, but it's nice to have a place to take my 'lull' for the day when Disneyland is packed to the Gills...it's nice to wander around with a lot fewer people. No, I don't call that entertainment, I call it relaxation - kinda like 'warm down' from a nice long run.

In my opinion, I don't think Imagineering was given a fair shake on doing that park, honestly. I tend to want to believe that Eisner and Pressler gave Imagineering free reign to come up with the initial design, and then told (as always) that the 'budget' would not allow for that. Then they were given a 'theme park ride catalog' and told they had a budget of less than 25% of what they originally built for - all so the Devil and his Patsy could get their over-bloated and very much undeserved bonuses.

I am glad both those clowns are gone. While true, Eisner did some wonderful things back in the early 80's for the park, but every thought and action since then has been soley for personal aggrandizement, without regard to the employees, the company as a whole or any of it's guests.

May he one day take over hell. (I'm convinced that deal has closed and it'll have realy expensive hot water, totally burnt churros and turkey legs that are dang near close be being jerky on a bone)

Do I feel jipped? No - but remember, they can always make it better in segments...Rome was not built in a day, but it's foundation was a half-baked, low budget theme park, complete with a Ceasar-headed roller-coaster!!

[EPCOT]

It makes far more financial sense to build a park on the cheap, and expand and fix the problems over time, than to spend everything you have at once

By building a cheap park like DCA, they can go back and work on what needs to be fixed/replaced, all the whilethe areas of the park that work still draw in visitors and revenue.

Maybe it doesn't make sense to you, but it does make sense to Disney, and to Disney's investors. That's why they do it.

Yeah, 'cos Disneysea and EPCOT were built on the cheap. And they only really worked after complete overhauls costing more than their original budget..............

[DisneyIPresume]

I'm sorry. This computer doesn't have a sound card in it. Is that Indiana Jones and the City of Goos, or Indiana Jones and the City of Gods?

I couldn't really tell...

[lazyboy97O]

EuroDisney was in financial trouble since Day 1. The fact that they spent billions upon billions of dollars to open a full fledge park has crippled that property for years now. What was DLP's last major addition? Space Mountain in 1995?

The Studios Park had to be built to comply with a contractual agreement that Disney made with the French. Obviously if that stipulation was not part of their deal, Disney would not have spent money on a new park, when that money could have been better used to keep that park afloat.

After the financial trouble of EuroDisney, and a park that was almost forced to close and be sold off, Eisner vowed that they would never spend so much opening a park.

And unless you want to see the Walt Disney Company go bankrupt just like EuroDisney, I think you would agree that it has been a wise decision.

You are the only person I have ever seen blame the park for the financial shortcomings of Euro Disney. It was absolutely assinine to build so many hotels just outside Paris, especially when it is so easy to get to by train.

Eisner obviously forgot to tell the OLC and Walt Disney Attractions Japan about his brilliant park building concept. Or was that just a plot to get the OLC to spend even more later on fixing their expansion project?

[sunrider]

when i was at dca in july..i saw lines all over the place, eespecially for screamin and TOT,grizzly run was packed ,and even the monsters inc ride had a small wait..the only part of the park that i heard crickets chirping was the theatre houseing golden dreams...toy story mania is a good starting point,along with the new themeing,all we can do is watch and hope..

[DLR29]

No more California theme please.

Well, think about what has been added since the park opened. Absolutely NO California themed attractions.

-Flik's Fun Fair
-ToT (slightly with Hollywood)
-Monster's Inc: Mike & Sulley to the Rescue
-Turtle Talk w/ Crush
-Toy Story Mania
-Aladdin: the Musical
-High School Musical Pep Rally
-Block Party Bash
-Disney's Electrical Parade

What have they taken out?
-Eureka parade
-Lucky Dragon Fortune Cookie Factory
-Superstar Limo
-Games of the Boardwalk

All of those were intended to show how great California is and looked what happened. I don't think DCA is going in the CA theme direction