Do the funky chicken? [Archive] - The DIS Discussion Forums

Lesley

02-05-2002, 03:14 PM

OMG...I'm sorry...I didn't think about my South of the Border comment as it would appear to those not familiar with I-95 (which would probably be most everyone who isn't from the eastern US north of FL). I definitely did not mean it the way you originally thought...I was most definitely referring to the dayglo tourist trap in SC.

As far as kids liking Pop Century....well, my kids like all the WDW resorts....and I'm not sure that most kids will "get" the whole concept behind PC. And as much as I take my kids' likes into consideration when choosing a resort to stay at.....I'm paying the bill and I get the final say (and I give my kids' wants more consideration than most parents!) Also....Walt Disney has been quoted as saying that his parks were to be places where parents and kids could have fun together....that they wouldn't be "just for kids"...I think this philosophy was to be the idea for the resorts also.

And Safari Steve...I'm surprised at your comment....but I like it! Odd is certainly a good word to describe it...especially when you need to be diplomatic.

Oh, and the huge icons on the building that holds "do the funky chicken" are bowling pins....??????????? I didn't know bowling was indicative of a particular era in history......

Planogirl

02-05-2002, 05:50 PM

Hmmmm... Bowling and doing the funky chicken at the same time certainly brings up some weird images for me. ;)

I agree with you Lesley. My son also likes all of the resorts even though he does have preferences. (Surprisingly his favorites do NOT include the Allstars!) I do take into consideration where he would like to stay but price and my own preferences certainly come into play too.

Rugby Rules

02-08-2002, 03:36 PM

To me Bowling+Doing the Funky Chicken = Beer

redpants

02-08-2002, 08:45 PM

I drove past this today to check it out, and there are actually yo-yo's on the ends of the FUNKY CHICKEN building. The bowling pins are connected to the neighboring, yet DIFFERENTLY themed building!

Lesley

02-09-2002, 12:36 AM

Sorry about the mix up....
but I'd say all the buildings are pretty "differently" themed...lol

And honestly I can imagine someone doing the funky chicken while bowling more than I can imagine someone playing with a yo yo and doing the funky chicken!

Odd....yes....odd is definitely the word.

gmboy95

02-09-2002, 10:23 AM

Oh I can not wait....I am going to break out my white leisure suit, throw on my "Frankie say Relax" T-shirt, and immediately begin to do the "funky chicken" when I check in.....However, I will only address cast members as "dude", and I promise to like ya know, use the word "like" in every sentence like ya know. Hey please wake me up before I go-go!!

Bob O

02-09-2002, 12:56 PM

Im glad i havent seen the Pop century resorts. But what do you expect when things are done on the cheap. And disney should focus more on adult tastes rather than kids!!!!! They can focus more on kids when the kids start paying the bills IMHO.

Safari Steve

02-09-2002, 07:27 PM

The infrastructure includes a small utilidor, which was not cheap by a longshot, and I think that the goal is still to focus on kids and adults together, that whole "family togetherness and fun" deal. On paper, this one seemed like it would be a decent example of that.
ie: Large icons and bright colors to appeal to the kids, nostalgic references to appeal to the adults, and possibly a catylist for bonding when the kids say, "Dad, what's the funky chicken?" or "Did you have a hula hoop like that one, mom?". The interior decor features pictures of CMs and their families from various decades during the 20th century, which really was major in terms of the development of pop culture.

Not an entirely bad idea.

plutospup

02-09-2002, 09:41 PM

Add the Funky Chicken, Bowling, and a little "Bobby Vinton" and it sounds like a 1950's local NE Pennsylvania wedding!

Planogirl

02-10-2002, 01:19 AM

If I want nostalgia, I'll visit Route 66 which isn't too far away from us and look at the original stuff. And I personally don't have a clue how to do the Funky Chicken or how to hula hoop. Maybe some the resort CM's could give lessons? Now that conjures up some interesting visions! :D

Safari Steve

02-10-2002, 11:54 AM

Existing places meant to conjure up Nostalgia: Wilderness Lodge, Grand Floridian, Boardwalk, Port Orleans, Old Key West, Main St USA, Frontierland, Fantasyland, Camp MinnieMickey, Disney/MGM Studios (Hollywood Blvd, Sunset Blvd, Echo Lake, GMR, Prime Time Cafe, Sci-Fi Dine in). This is not a new concept, which makes the case in question quite unusual.

Planogirl

02-10-2002, 12:40 PM

Good point Safari Steve. I guess that I should have said campy nostalgia but then again, some of the places you mentioned may seem campy to others. OK, I MUST visit Pop Century after it opens!

KirstenB

02-14-2002, 09:11 AM

We just returned a few days ago (hadn't been to WDW in over a year). I had read all the posting of folks who hated the look of Pop Century, but kinda forgot about it. One day, out of nowhere, this gaudy sight hit us. At first I thought it was an offsite ticky tacky tourist attraction. I chose to forget about it til now. OMG, it was Pop Century!!! The funky chicken reference just helped it click in my head. Lesley, I think your South of the Border analogy was dead on!!! I wish Pop Century would just disappear!

Lesley

02-14-2002, 09:42 AM

That's exactly how it happened to us.....we were going "Ew...what's that?" then I realized it was Pop Century. Then I stared in horror as we drove through CBR and could still see it...bad show, very bad show. If you ever stay at CBR request a room facing away from this eyesore!

An okay idea gone horribly wrong.....

donald@home

02-15-2002, 11:20 AM

There is a BIG difference between recreating detailed environments that capture the romance and adventure from distant times and places with the use of architecture themed to a specific time and place, building materials, landscaping, costumes, background music, interior decorating, props, etc., and screaming DO THE FUNKY CHICKEN from the top of a cookie cutter motel decorated with huge icons. I, like others, have seen these horrendous buildings (at least a couple of them) and this IS a new concept: a new BAD concept. It will be interesting to see what happens to this resort.

MikePezz

02-15-2002, 11:56 AM

Disney should lease the land to the military. It could be used for target practice and other "manuevers". :)

OnWithTheShow

02-15-2002, 01:21 PM

I kind of like the theme of pop century and certainly agree that the need for more value resorts is very important. I want as many people as possible to be able to afford to experience the magic of WDW. As far as sighlines into the resort go I am sure that once construction is complete that many of them will be covered by the landscaping which has yet to be installed.

Brian430

02-15-2002, 01:42 PM

At some point Disney needs to ask itself how many of these land-wasting eyesoars they want to construct before it starts to devalue the rest of the WDW property. I understand that Pop Century is visible from Carribean Beach resort. If true, I for one, will no longer stay at CB.

And what effect will Pop Century have on the congestion of WDW? They've already managed to convert the quaint lake-side shopping district of Disney Village into the Mall of America. What will happen when 20,000 guests are suddenly plopped nearby? How many more fume-spewing busses will soon be clogging their over-stressed roadways?

Contrary to what most people think, Disney does not have a lot of land left to develop on. Ever since they allocated 9,000 acres (one-third of their property) to build their own subdivision (Celebration) Disney only has a total of 9,000 acres to build on (the remaining 9,000 acres fall under land conservation). And after 25 resorts, four theme parks, three water parks, a campground, two night-time districts, five golf courses and a sporting complex they simply have reached their limit in my opinion.

So when I see WDW constructing these boraxic Motel 6's, which chew up incredible amounts of land, (and place more burdens on their over-stressed transporations system) it absolutely bumbs me out. I understand the concept of appealing to all income levels – but at what cost to their overall property?

Back in the mid-80s Disney set out to be a premier hotelier – and they achieved that goal. Today, they seem hell bent on becoming vacation slum lords with little concern about the long-term impact it will have on their guests' vacation experience, or the value of their land.

Pity.

DVC-Landbaron

02-15-2002, 02:17 PM

Today, they seem hell bent on becoming vacation slum lords with little concern about the long-term impact it will have on their guests' vacation experience, or the value of their land.Very well said!!! Especially the "vacation slum lords" bit! Wonderful!!

Captain Crook

02-15-2002, 03:04 PM

...vacation slum lords...
What are you a journalist? With the catchy phrases that don't really mean anything and all. I knew you'd like it Landbaron, I knew it instantly. "Vacation slum lord"...As if anybody visits WDW because they have to...:rolleyes: (these comments were intended humorously).

This discussion shows the level of innanity in our Disney discussions. Unlike the threads on animation where reality can be qualified & proven and results quantified and reviewed this discussion is only about perception and personal taste. Many of you claim to hate Pop due to its crass theming but deep down you're mad at Disney for other things (Eisner, loss of EE, hour reductions, Eisner, attraction cutbacks, off the shelf rides, Eisner) and wouldn't admit to this being a good idea even if it were the Taj Mahal.

Disney needs to build more affordable rooms (AS does great business to prove it). Just because you don't like the style and immature or pointless theming doesn't mean there aren't lots of people who will, after all this is America - home of the pointless & inane (I give you Oprah & Brittany as proof). Further, what affect will it have on you and your vacation plans? I can tell you that the crowded busses at AS, the cheerleaders in the hall or whatever else have never affected my vacation at AKL or even the S/D for that matter. I see Pop as we drive by, my wife & I cringe at the scheme, my kids hoot & holler at the sight of crazy things they've never seen before, but thats the extent that this Resort will affect me (as I drive by). I'll not be staying there, most likely, but I absolutely do not begrudge someone who chooses to, be it due to the lower prices or the theming, it makes no difference to me.

As for being seen from CBR, rest assured the landscape buffer will address this. We all should know by now that landscaping is an area Disney knows how to do well & is still doing.

Regarding land, Disney has plenty of developable land left - enough so that my life will be through before they're tapped out (and I've got a good 2 or 3 years left!). As a matter of fact, I've heard they've even added to their land holdings in the area recently (can anyone confirm this?).

So, Pop Century, love it? No. Hate it? Certainly not. It's just one of those things...
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

All Aboard

02-15-2002, 03:10 PM

Actually, value resorts are pretty darn efficient uses of land. Compare the density of Pop Century with it's neighbor to the north, CBR.

Ugly or not, when we get into discussions about devaluing the experience for others, that's where hop off. "My stays at the Grand Floridian Concierge just aren't the same since they built the gauche All Star motels and just anybody can stay on-site."

Next thread please.

Another Voice

02-15-2002, 03:55 PM

Inexpensive is not the same thing as cheap. And even cheap is not the same thing as tawdry.

There is nothing wrong with the “budget” hotel concept, but that’s not an excuse to ditch effort, imagination, and common sense. The concept behind Disney is that it is ALL supposed to be good; not that everything’s okay as long as I can drive past it really fast and that it’s not visible from my luxury resort.

DVC-Landbaron

02-15-2002, 04:15 PM

And the car pool comes out in force!!!! ;)

I knew you'd like it Landbaron, I knew it instantly. "Vacation slum lord" Do I know how to reel in a Captain or what?Unlike the threads on animation where reality can be qualified & proven and results quantified and reviewed this discussion is only about perception and personal taste.So! We can quantify the experience that an animated feature gives us, but not a resort?!?! I'm sorry Captain, but I don't see the difference. I try to see where you draw the line, but it appears to me that you keep moving the thing! Many of you claim to hate Pop due to its crass theming but deep down you're mad at Disney for other things (Eisner, loss of EE, hour reductions, Eisner, attraction cutbacks, off the shelf rides, Eisner) and wouldn't admit to this being a good idea even if it were the Taj Mahal.Well!! So now you're clairvoyant!! You may want to think that about the others in this thread, but seriously Captain, do you really believe this of me? Do you think I discount everything Disney offers just because I think Ei$ner is inept? If it were themed, as opposed to decorated I would not squawk at all. Even if I didn't particularly like the theme, I'd not utter a peep. If it at least tried to be a "Disney Experience" I would rave about the apparent turnaround in the corporate philosophy. Sadly though, it is cheaply (and some may even say gaudily) decorated, and further illustrates the decline of Walt's philosophy. Hmmm, unless I'm greatly mistaken, it is the same as the film thread. What'd think? An isolated example delineating the dilution of theme and clearly pointing out the diametrically opposed visions of Walt and Ei$ner. America - home of the pointless & inane Agreed!! But NOT IN DISNEY!!!! In Disney there is no "pointless & inane". Just quality. Disney quality!!
Further, what affect will it have on you and your vacation plans?By further diluting the brand, theme and purpose of WDW. To me just knowing it's there makes me sad. :(

Captain Crook

02-15-2002, 04:16 PM

Do I know how to hook a Landbaron, or what???:D
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

airlarry!

02-15-2002, 09:57 PM

Mon Capitain:

Egads, mon, have you seen them or their concept? They are horrid! I drove past them while being built last year and was amazed at how tacky they were.

I am no GF snob, as some have called those who prefer that beautiful hotel. I've never even been there. I've stayed at the Mods and the Values, but that doesn't mean I'm a schleppy slob who will take a dollop of decoration in exchange for sub $57 room rates. I have pride in my vacation, please.

The question in my mind is what was the motivation behind building these. I am beginning to think that there are some Burbank buffoons who are in an actual game of Motel tiddlywinks...betting that they can out-cheap themselves with every new hotel constructed on the property, safe in the knowledge that we Disney fans will stay there not matter how ugly just because of the price and because it is on-site. Gawd, I hope that they are not right. I hope these are never finished in their present plans and that I am never tempted with some postcard in the mail offering a 'Disney Magical Value Vacation' for only $39 a night. Because then I may eat the words in my second paragraph and actually stay there like some 18th century harlot. :(

I want Disney to add rooms not for the sake of adding more guests or getting more dollars from I-192. I want them to add value rooms to give those with lesser means a chance to stay on-site and experience the magic...with less amenities, of course, but with a well-planned and well-executed theme that transports them away from Motel 6.

Captain Crook

02-16-2002, 07:54 AM

We stay at WDW some 20-25 nights per year & drive by Pop every time. Don't get me wrong, it does nothing for me, but I'm betting many people will like it and the garrish exterior of a hotel I'm not staying at bothers be little...I just think it wrong to sit on high and criticize everything 'just because', which is going on way to often around here, IMO...

As to the motivation for building them, well, it's the profit motive of course, and they're betting there will be a demand for this type of accomodation or they wouldn't have built them. As Disney has had pretty good success with their hotel division, I'll defer. Further, I prefer to defer my final judgement on the overall environment until the thing is actually completed. Landscaping can soften a lot of hard edges...
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

Brian430

02-18-2002, 10:58 AM

For those of you responding to my "vacation ghetto" post, I think you may be missing the real point.

My main problem with Disney, first and foremost, is that they have sold off their long-term ability to expand at the same quality level they have in the past: At 9,000 acres, Celebration chews up half of WDW's useable land.

What that means to the rest of us is that all future developments are being positioned closer and closer together.

By all means, build an epic-sized Motel 6 with a giant Woody hat on top of it if you want to. I don't care

What I do care about is that Disney still has a 27,000-acre mentality when in reality they only have 9,000 acres of space to develop on. The result is that now the gigantic Motel 6 is right next to the Carribean Beach Resort. Call me a snob all you want, but if I'm paying $150 a night I don't want the unsightliness, traffic and cacaphony of a $80-a-night prefabricated housing project right next door.

For example, I was no happier when WDW built the NASCAR track in the parking lot of the Magic Kingdom. If I ever did have enough money to stay at the Polynesian, (no, I'm not a Grand Floridian snob. Nice try.) I would now have to listen Jeff-Gordon-wanna-bees rip around that sad little track. Why such an obnoxious location? Room: wherelse were they going to plop it down?

Look at Animal Kingdom: The same price range (if not more) than Wilderness Lodge. WL is nestled deep in the woods of WDW (because they had the space at the time it was built). AKL, however, is on the outskirts of their property where some rooms look out on a Days Inn - how authentic. Why? They're running out of land to develop these projects like they have done in the past.

You know what would have been more daring than selling a third of their land to build a Del-Web-style community? Having the patience, foresight and confidence to dig out another lake the size of the Seven Seas Lagoon and build attractions and hotels along its shore.

Before Celebration, WDW had more than enough land to do that. They didn't have the guts. The easier short-term answer was to sell-off that land and let third-parties develop it, which is exactly what they did with Celebration. It's a major leasing deal, nothing more.

One of you called any criticism of Pop Century inane because it's a thinly veiled attack against Eisner's short-term vision. You're right, I think Eisner is focused on short-term answers to long-term problems. But there is no misdirected animosity here; my animosity is quite blatent. If Celebration didn't exist, WDW could have continued to develop new projects while taking advantage of their once-greatest asset – space.

Planogirl

02-19-2002, 12:32 AM

Besides what exactly is wrong with an ATTRACTIVE budget resort? Everyone goes on and on about the Disney "magic" but I'm having problems equating giant bowling pins and doing the funky chicken with Disney magic. I realize that this is just one person's opinion but I would love an affordable, nicely-themed budget hotel. I don't ask for a lot from these places because of their lower prices but "K.I.S.S" is sometimes a nice philosophy IMO.

The result is that now the gigantic Motel 6 is right next to the Carribean Beach Resort

Are you sure that you meant to insult Motel 6 like this? ;)

space42

02-19-2002, 07:41 AM

Are you sure that you meant to insult Motel 6 like this?

At this point, I think I'd rather have a Motel 6! At least they are not purple with "Do the Funky chicken" on the side of them! ;-)

DVC-Landbaron

02-19-2002, 09:25 AM

The LandBaron rises from his seat. Applauds wildly, cheering:

BRAVO!!! WELL SAID, Brian430!!! BRAVO!!!

airlarry!

02-19-2002, 10:44 AM

Mais mon capitain:

Brian430 and I are not 'sitting on high' and knocking Micktel 6 'just because.'

I for one tried to point out that I am not a so-called GF 'snob', nor do I find anything distasteful about what many consider to be the most beautiful of all the resorts.

All I am saying is that Ei$ner figured out what Walt probably knew but ignored: that the general public *will* sacrifice quality in exchange for a lower price. I always felt that Disney was above this philosphy, however. Sure Walt could have gotten away with gold-colored paint on his carousel. But *he* would have known it was fake.

In fact, the arguments for the Micktel 6 by CBR are 'just because' arguments: i.e. that Ei$ner is building these schleppy hotels 'just because' he knows that there are people just like me who will put up with their garishness in exchange for a cheaper price and the convenience and magic of staying on-site.

But I ask you, is that right? Is it Ei$ner's job to figure out how low of a threshold the public has for exchanging magic for profit?

Or put another way...is this the best that Disney could come up with? If these additions are not the best they could do, then why do it?

Another Voice

02-19-2002, 10:51 AM

The “Conservation Area” really isn’t there any more. In the original master plan, it took up around a third of the total property and consisted mostly of the southern part of the property (now the Celebration area) and the western boundary of the property. The “conservation” designation was just in Disney’s plan, it had no legal standing.

That was until Disney started to kill an alarming number of animals and to destroy large tracts of wetlands outside of the “conservation area”. In a deal with the federal and state governments, Disney agreed to offset the habit loss by purchasing other wetlands in the state. The largest chunk is about 50,000 acres well north of the property and is the offset for the Animal Kingdom development. In fact, the Animal Kingdom and the lodge pretty much ripped the guts out of the “conservation area” (Irony, thy name is profit). It’s also interesting to note that Disney has received the largest fines every levied against a corporation for violating the endangered species act – even larger than logging companies.

The Celebration area is a slightly different matter and deals with taxes, politics and ego. Basically, the southern area is in a different county from the rest of the property and Disney has used that chunk of land as a tax dodge (under law, the entire property is taxed as a cattle ranch – you can even see the cows they have to keep if you know where to look). The Reedy Creek Improvement District gives Disney amazing advantages, but there are some loopholes for the local governments and they are always looking for a way to challenge and overturn the entire arrangement. Disney Management figured that any development south of highway was going to trigger a fight between the counties, and fight between the counties & Disney (the details are rather lengthy). In the end, Disney decided it was better to cede the property at the county boarder and try to make money using non-tourist means to protect the rest. Celebration hasn’t panned out any where near what Disney wanted and so, like so many other things, they’ve more or less walked away from an expansion plans. What’s there is there and that’s all that will pretty much happen.

And the location of the hotels and such on property is really driven by infrastructure needs. Putting everything next to each other reduces the length of roads, sewer lines, power lines, bus routes, etc. – and that saves money. Nothing is really worth doing well if it can be cheap. A large amount of land also has to be used for flood control. The property is still basically a swamp and moving water through the property is a tremendous engineering feat. There are other ways of handling the flow, but large catch basins are much cheaper than the alternatives.

The controlling factor at WDW is not the availability of land – it’s money.

Well almost everything. As was proven by Pop Century, even money can’t buy taste.

Lesley

02-19-2002, 11:11 AM

Many of you claim to hate Pop due to its crass theming but deep down you're mad at Disney for other things (Eisner, loss of EE, hour reductions, Eisner, attraction cutbacks, off the shelf rides, Eisner) and wouldn't admit to this being a good idea even if it were the Taj Mahal.

That's insulting!

No, I don't really like any of the above things but that's another thread (several, I guess...don't even get me started on Dino-rama)....and I don't think I'm alone in that respect. But I'm also not alone in being ready and willing to applaud when something is done right. At WDW less and less is being done right these days....but there are little rays of hope here and there. The VWL are spectacular, I love RnRC and AK is my favorite park....all things done within the last 5 years. Before I started visting these boards I had no real opinion of Eisner. Its not about Eisner at all....its about a huge ugly motel taking up space where there could be something worthwhile...even if it were just a huge NOT-UGLY motel, if that's what WDW needs.

The place has already brought down the quality of the WDW experience simply by being visible, particularly from CBR. I don't know what kind of landscaping could hide it...but I sure as heck hope they find something!

KaterBell

02-19-2002, 11:39 AM

Oh boy - with all of these comments about PC, I absolutely have to make a drive by in June just to see what everyone's talking about.

I don't see the problem with "affordable" hotels on Disney Property - This will make 4 of the "Value" hotels on site now -- Just about catching up with the #s of the other types of resorts on site, Moderate, Deluxe or HAFH... Just as long as Disney keeps it balanced, then I find no reason to be upset - Sure, we have the fundage to stay at the GF now, but who knows what'll happen in the next few years with the economy the way it is... This way I'll know that I can always stay SOMEWHERE on property... My (future) children won't know the difference - they'll be on Disney Property. Yahoo for them. :) I just don't want to see every possibly developable acre on property get turned into some type of attraction.

All Aboard

02-19-2002, 12:30 PM

So I said I was out of this thread, my can't I just stick to my convictions?

Seems we are arguing multiple things here.

1) Pop Century is
a) ugly
b) not ugly

2) Value resorts:
a) are a reduction of quality that is inconsistent with what "I" think Disney is.
b) are fine with me, fills a nice need for many.

Others go to the next level and believe:
3) The presence reduces my overall experience at WDW for whatever reason.

For clarification of my points:

1. Pop Century is ugly, the All Stars are not.
2. I am thankful for the presence of Value resorts.
3. I didn't call you a snob. And, yes, you are saying this.

Peter Pirate

02-19-2002, 12:31 PM

Lesley, I wasn't trying to be insulting...Well, not to you anyway. Now, Landbaron, thats another matter!;) Anyway, I apologize for the insensitive remarks that I've made...And the upcoming ones, as well...

With regard to Pop, you all seem to be appointing yourself the judge of 'good taste' and while I agree with airlarry that there will be a number of people staying at Pop simply to save money, I disagree that there will not be loads of people that will find this place 'fun'. Remember bowling, Nascar & WWF are very big in this country.;)

AV, thanks fort the update on the land issue. I was sure they weren't in danger of running out of buildable property anytime soon. But could you please lead me towards information on those huge environmental fines you mentioned. I don't believe that is correct, but if so I want to know about it...

As to WDW's landscaping abilities, this should be evident in all that they've done. AKL does have a couple of screening issues but the foilage is in place and will shortly grow in. I don't know the degree of 'hiding' necessary between CBR & PC, but I'm sure it's coming.

Lastly, airlarry, IMO Eisner figured out what Walt knew & wasn't alive long enough to institute. I don't for one minute think Walt's (considered) altruistic values were, in fact altruistic. Walt was pioneering, developing what had never before been developed, doing what had never before been done & taking great risks with what was mostly his families personal fortune (good for us that he did). Current Disney doesn't, won't or most likely can't do the same. I'm not saying Eisner is the best thing since sliced bread, but Disney is still going today, all these years after Walt's death. Maybe things are wobbling a little, maybe it's just a cyclical thing, but to intimate that the building of Pop Century in any way signals how Disney is non-responsive to guests needs in incredulous, IMO...:confused:
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

YoHo

02-19-2002, 01:10 PM

More Pages of this and we still haven't gotten any farther then we did a year ago. Heck, at least the board is busy again. :)

I found it interesting that a large protion of the people I talked to on the Cruise that had been at the world stayed at the Deluxe hotels, a few at the moderates, many at the Swan Dolphin, nobody admitted to being at All-Stars.

I doubt that means anything, but I thought it interesting.

JeffJewell

02-19-2002, 01:23 PM

are a reduction of quality that is inconsistent with what "I" think Disney isYour quote marks indicate that you feel that an expectation of quality from Disney is a personal problem on my part. And at this point, I realize that pretty much sums up the collected opinion on this board.

I first make the excuse that it's not my fault: I came to expect high quality from Disney based on the fact that that was what Disney produced for decades. Even if I didn't personally care for a particular product, the care, attention to detail, and immersive storylines inherent to Disney's products were clearly head and shoulders above that of the competition.

It's Disney's own history that makes Disney's present so disappointing, and their foreseeable future so heartbreaking.

Disney captured me by making animated movies and theme parks that were simply better than everything else available. They don't make those things, anymore. It is not their intention to even try to make those things, anymore.

Jeff

Another Voice

02-19-2002, 01:36 PM

Walt’s interests were first and foremost for the project. Money was only useful for what it let Walt create. He was willing to spend, and he was willing to charge. Yes, Walt did put a lot of his personal money into Disneyland. ’20,000 Leagues Under the Sea’ was the most expensive movie that had ever been made up until that point. Disneyland was considered an expensive ticket for its day. He’s even quoted as saying that he knew it was expensive, but that quality costs and people would be willing to accept that. Walt was interested in making a good film, a good park and a good attraction. He knew that if the quality was there, the returns were likely to follow.

Today, the exact opposite is the corporate rule. The product is second to the financial returns. Pop Century was not built because it was a good idea. It was not built because it would give Magic ® to the masses. It wasn’t built because it was truly needed. It was built only to separate people from their cash with the least possible effort. The place is a cheap way of turning the brand equity of the Disney name into more stock options for Burbank.

The defense of Pop Century seems to be a certain class of people should sacrifice their vacation to save a buck (as long as they can get WWF on the TV in their hotel room). What an aspiration for The Company to shoot for – “we’re just good enough for the price”. The better challenge would have been to provide a unique and quality experience for the same cost. That is a worthy goal, one that the company under Eisner won’t take on.

As for the fines, the three big cases concern the destruction of wetlands using bulldozers (they simply buried the animals alive, including endangered tortoises), the poisoning and shooting of birds on the now closed Discovery Island (there were criminal charges filed in these case as well), and the improper storage of hazardous chemicals which spilled into federally protected wetlands (trailers in the middle of swamp don’t hold corrosives all that well). There are several other cases which I can dig up when the time is available. Let’s just say that a lot of the “environmentally” stuff you see around property isn’t done because the company wants to do it.

Lastly on the landscaping abilities at WDW; I remember a while ago standing near the China pavilion with some WED people watching construction cranes in the distance. They were talking about what to do with the Bird and Fish projects that were under construction and how to best approach Corporate. They wanted a fix, a visual barrier of some sort. There was talk of trees, there was talk of giant backdrop, there was talk of another building (better themed to World Showcase). And there was a lot of talk about how they were certain that Corporate would understand that this kind of visual intrusion simply wasn’t done – Michael would definitely approve their budget request.

As far I know, they’re still talking.

All Aboard

02-19-2002, 02:08 PM

JJ, that was a collective "I" not pointed at you. In fact, I don't think I realized you had a post in this thread. But true, we've all gone 'round and 'round on our definition of quality.

Many believe that anything short of deluxe is no-go for WDW. I believe that value (done right - which I believe the All Stars are) fits perfectly within "my" definition of Disney quality.

I am as much an "I" as you are an "I".

YoHo, hmmm an expensive Disney Cruise, everybody on board stays at Deluxes... I don't get it either.

All Aboard

02-19-2002, 02:21 PM

AV, with all due respect, I think you're off base.
certain class of people should sacrifice their vacation to save a buckWhen I stay at the All Stars I'm sacrificing NOTHING. To the contrary, I get to have an extremely enjoyable stay at a resort in Walt Disney World. Thus eliminating the sacrificing act of having to stay in some dirty, disgusting joint on US 192 (and not really save much money in comparison to boot.)

I'll never sway the opinions of anyone on this board that doesn't care for them. Clearly, I'll never budge the folks that have a disdain for them. So, I won't bore you with all of the reasons why they are so much more "Disney" and so much higher in quality than the Motel 6's (or any other chain motel for that matter) that people so frequently compare them to. I bet I could come up with at least 100 reasons.

I'm beating my head against a wall, I know it. Perhaps it's because it seems that the folks who criticize the Value resorts seem to also be criticizing the people that stay in them. Equating "bad taste" and "class of people."

airlarry!

02-19-2002, 02:52 PM

Gcurling:

Hmm...I thought the argument was leaning away from the "Value Resorts De-value MY Disney vacation" to "Value Resorts should be value in price only...not in quality!"

At least that was the point I was making. Whether I personally care for the theme and decoration of All-star or not is not the point...the point is whether or not Disney could have done a better job of it.

Now when it comes to the PC resort...sigh...I am still waiting for the first person to come up and defend the concept. I've seen it, I've read about it from its inception, and I just can't figure it out. It seems in poor taste. It doesn't have that "Adventure" that LandBaron IMHO succintly stated is what we should all expect from a Disney resort. It doesn't have the connectivity to the parks that AKL or Carribean or Dixie Landings/PO have (AK, Adventureland, and Splash Mountain in shorthand).

In fact, it seems like Burbank was so happy that the great unwashed masses (which I repeat, includes myself a veteran of two tours with All-Star Music) would fill up the AS resorts, that they congratulated themselves, and then set themselves on the worthy goal of getting away with even less of Disney Magic/Adventure/Quality in the PC phase.

Come on, does anybody really believe that the Motelineers really used 100% of their creative juices and hit a home run (and any other mixed metaphor I can think of) with this one? Hey suits in Burbank...is the design and implementation of the PC concept (and even the AS concept) really the best you could do for that price? I just don't believe it. In five minutes, I bet I could think up 10 different hotel concepts that would be better suited to Disney, and I'm not even an architect or engineer. Just a Disney fan. I don't think the people who designed these hotels were fans.

JeffJewell

02-19-2002, 03:58 PM

I am as much an "I" as you are an "I"....I was referencing the section:2) Value resorts:
a) are a reduction of quality that is inconsistent with what "I" think Disney is.
b) are fine with me, fills a nice need for many. ...and familiarity with your previous posts on the topic had me assuming you would answer "b," not "a." The answer you gave in the original post, "I am thankful for the presence of Value resorts," also seems to confirm that you do not consider yourself an "I" in the situation as described.I'm beating my head against a wall, I know it.The walls around here must be taking unprecedented damage, because that's precisely why I'm closing up shop.. Perhaps it's because it seems that the folks who criticize the Value resorts seem to also be criticizing the people that stay in them. Equating "bad taste" and "class of people."I could say something similar about equating "appreciation of quality" and "snob."

To me, the bottom line in all this is as follows: If you grew to appreciate Disney based their heritage of high quality, then the Disney you know is dead. If you grew to appreciate Disney based on the fact that the All-Stars have a bigger saxophone icon than does the HIFS, then Disney's business plan will provide ample future opportunities to appreciate such marginal Magics. It may be frustrating to have a couple fringe dwellers on the 'net say things that make you feel criticized, but at least Disney is still making products for you.

The Value resorts (and cloned rides and off the shelf rides and direct-to-video sequels) hurt me not because I'm forced to think about the unwashed heathen wallowing therein, but because each instance represents Disney choosing to turn their back on the type of quality products that made the company in the first place.

Back when I started on the boards, I hoped to get people energized about demanding more from Disney; that Disney live up to the company's unparalleled reputation. I was afraid, you see, that if Disney didn't get feedback that the lower quality was affecting satisfaction, they might decide to forego quality altogether, as a business plan.

Greg, as to the question in your PM, no, absolutely not, I did not feel as though you were targetting me personally with the "I" bit. And once again, looking over my own post, there's actually more in _my_ post than yours that could come across as being an "attack" when none was intended. I'm not skipping out because of "personal attacks"... I'm skipping out because the game's over. Quality is no longer budgetted for at Disney. The business plan is set: cheaper is better, and if we accidentally end up with a decent story, well, that probably won't hurt sales any.

I originally came here to try and muster voices that would cry out to Disney to reaffirm its commitment to its high quality tradition. There are now two truths in evidence regarding my intent: A) it ain't gonna happen while Eisner's in charge, and B) it seems I'm one of about five people who actually care about the difference.

So what's the point?

Jeff

airlarry!

02-19-2002, 04:07 PM

JJ:

I'll bet you a Disney Dollar that there are more than five on this board alone.

:smooth:

YoHo

02-19-2002, 04:15 PM

Hey gcurling, no more expensive then any other cruise.

All Aboard

02-19-2002, 04:34 PM

I'm sorry. Seems I've done more damage than good here.

For what it's worth, if anybody is in the minority opinion in this thread, it's me. If I could name 5 people on the Rumors boards that are fans of the All Stars I'd be suprised. Quite the opposite.

I grew up on WDW as well. I don't view AS as being done "on the cheap." Everyone can shake their heads in disbelief. I view them as affordable, value resorts that were plussed quite a bit. And that's what makes them so much better than non-Disney resorts.

Why have dalmation spotted shrubbery? Why have flickering gas lamps in Jazz? Why have authentic road signs and street material in broadway? Why have the dancing waters at Herbie? Why have the entire baseball field laid out for the pool at Home Run? Why have Mickey summoning the water at Fantasia pool? Why design the food court to look like box offices? Why include the magic popcorn box lights? Why have any of this? If you want to make it cheap, just make it like Days Inn. Make it a plain old hotel with nothing unique, nothing special, nothing memorable. Nothing to want to take photos with, nothing to have the kids flocking to. The Contemporary Garden Wings serve that purpose perfectly.

With that, I quit this thread. I promise.

Lesley

02-19-2002, 04:46 PM

Just for the record....I didn't state that mere existance of value resorts lowers the quality of experience at WDW in general. Perhaps my phrasing was confusing. I meant that the existance of a gigantic eyesore urging me to "do the funky chicken" that is visible from other places lowers the quality of experience. I'll admit I'd have a similar problem with the All-Stars if the were highly visible from..hmmm, lets say CS. And I don't even think the AS are ugly! Not to my taste maybe...but not offensive just by their existance.

As far as value resorts...when there were WDW resort guest perks like EE they could be effected by the sheer #'s of guests the value resorts bring in. But that is not an issue with the resorts being "value" its an issue with the size of the resorts. I know there will come a day when I'm thrilled that I can get a room for under $100 on property...its really not a "value" vs. "deluxe" or even "moderate" thing. And I still think they could do much better with actually providing themeing in a value resort....but then that goes into the whole quality/motivation thing that is covered by others much more thoroughly and convincingly than I can manage. (As AV and JJ just did...sorry if I'm missing anyone else!)

DVC-Landbaron

02-19-2002, 04:56 PM

For the most part I've been sitting on the sidelines (doing a bit of cheerleading) but staying out of the main conversation on this one. For two reasons. First I need a break from the boards. It is very consuming at times. And second, anyone who's been here any length of time knows where I stand on the issues and Mr. Voice (can we refer to him as Sir Voice?) and Mr. Larry (is that the proper form for his name?) have done a remarkable job of saying EXACTLY what I want to say. And they do it with way less quotes and way less words than I do. But, because I'm sitting on the sidelines I've noticed, as Greg alluded to, that the two opposing camps are talking around the issue, circling, yet never quite zeroing in on it. I believe he used the phrase "arguing multiple things". So…

Let me try to ignore some of the rhetoric and instead choose a few things that may narrow the focus a bit.

Gcurling says:
When I stay at the All Stars I'm sacrificing NOTHING.I think this is as good a starting point as any. "NOTHING" compared to what? Compared to staying outside WDW in a motel six? Compared to the Poly? Compared to a tent in a KOA in Winter Garden? I think it is very important to quantify the comparison. And again it boils down to what "Disney Standards" really are. It is this "theme" (pardon the pun) that runs through the core of all the great threads on this board.

And for the answer I think we have to turn to Walt. After all, he invented the "standard" It is his philosophy I'm always on about. So let's turn to AV for a moment. He says: Walt's interests were first and foremost for the project. Money was only useful for what it let Walt create. He was willing to spend, and he was willing to charge.

AND

Disneyland was considered an expensive ticket for its day. He's even quoted as saying that he knew it was expensive, but that quality costs and people would be willing to accept that. Walt was interested in making a good film, a good park and a good attraction. He knew that if the quality was there, the returns were likely to follow.
The very principle that Disneyland was founded!!! The essence of the "Walt Philosophy"!! Go on. Re-read it again! It kinda makes you smile, doesn't it? For me its reminiscent of that Disney I knew when QUALITY was the watchword. And while expensive, not so far out of reach that only the "snobs" could afford it. Cost didn't matter. Profits didn't matter. Creativity mattered. And above all - (drum roll please) - QUALITY!!!

Airlarry said the same but also points out how opposite Ei$ner's philosophy is: All I am saying is that Ei$ner figured out what Walt probably knew but ignored: that the general public *will* sacrifice quality in exchange for a lower price. I always felt that Disney was above this philosophy, however. Sure Walt could have gotten away with gold-colored paint on his carousel. But *he* would have known it was fake.Ahhhh! Feel the tears welling up? He says: "I always felt that Disney was above this philosophy". So did I Larry. So did I. But in today's philosophy, as you stated so well, we are dead wrong!!

So… I'll try one more time. Again Sir Gcurling gets the nod from my quote machine (sorry Captain, you just gotta try harder ;)): I'll never sway the opinions of anyone on this board that doesn't care for them. Clearly, I'll never budge the folks that have a disdain for them. You are right, Greg. I have a disdain for them. In fact, I HATE them. But not for the reasons many would think. I've heard it said that we hate them because they are cheap. Because they are gaudy. Because they use primary colors. Because they have huge icons. Because they traded decorations for theme. Because we are snobs.

All are true. Yet none are true. Looked at individually they are all part of the reason, yet none, even collectively, tell even half of the story. And it's such a simple story. Summed up in one word. Philosophy! Or if you like more words "Disney Standards". Simple. And all those 'becauses' up there speak to the central issue of where to draw the line. What is and what is not acceptable. For Disney. Not for Universal. Not for Knotts Berry Farm. Not for Marriott. And not for Motel 6. And even not for personal use for anyone on this board. We're not talking how you decorate a kids birthday party or your Mickey Mouse bathroom. We're talking about what Standards to apply to WDW.

I think this concept is pivotal to the argument. Instead we talk about likes and dislikes. Snobs and money. When we should be talking about the central theme of the Walt philosophy and how far in the dust PC has left that philosophy. Which is why the very existence, even if I never set eyes on them, makes me kinda sad. :(

Well, well, well! Having written all of the above, I was about to post it when one final checked with the thread revealed that JJ had checked in. I originally came here to try and muster voices that would cry out to Disney to reaffirm its commitment to its high quality tradition. There are now two truths in evidence regarding my intent: A) it ain't gonna happen while Eisner's in charge, and B) it seems I'm one of about five people who actually care about the difference.
BROTHER I FEEL YOUR PAIN!!! Two or three years ago, in the middle of Main Street, decrying the shorter hours, I turned to my wife and said that I was going to check out some Disney web sites. Surely other fans could see the same terrible slip in quality as I have seen. We would rally the troops (bugle charge, played under) and stop the insanity!!!

Hmmm. Instead I spend most of my free time arguing minutia (with a Pirate more often than not). Things, that I find glaringly apparent and can't for the life of me figure out how everyone can't agree, on a Disney site where I am clearly outnumbered! Not quite what I had in mind either!! Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh well! Time to check the other threads!!! :crazy:

airlarry!

02-19-2002, 05:19 PM

Excellent post, Sir Baron, excellent.

What I have always been curious about in our previous postings under the AS threads from days of yore is exactly where you stood on that issue.

In other words, I don't mind 'Value' resorts in that I don't mind disney offering a place to stay that is economical to the pocket book as long as they don't sacrifice quality. Yes, I know, I can see you squirming again in your seat asking me what level of service below the Poly/GF would be considered *not* to be a sacrifice in quality.

Roll with me for a minute.

Can't you have Disney service without all of the amenities? Can't a Disney hotel have a food court instead of Boma? Can't a Disney hotel have bus service instead of water taxi or Monorail and still be considered Disney quality? Can't a Disney hotel have 3000 rooms out toward the interstate instead of 300 rooms overlooking the Boardwalk but still be considered Disney quality? Can't the rooms be only 260 sq feet with one sink instead of 360 feet and a double sink and still be Disney quality?

I say yes. IF they have the CMs there still treat every guest as #1. If their design and decor are themed to take the guest away and immerse them in Disney Magic. If their pools all are at least like CBR/PO etc. (the AS pools are really not anything special -- that was my only complaint about AS at the time after staying at CBR and DxL).

When you and I say that we are Disney snobs, aren't we talking about the quality of the experience and of the service and of the ability of the hotel to let us escape from the mundane (and I argue, connect back to the parks) not necessarily the fact that the Poly is priced at $250 a night?

Tell me if I am wrong.

JeffJewell

02-19-2002, 07:30 PM

Seems I've done more damage than good hereWell, if by "damage" you mean you keep inspiring me to post, you might be on to something... and now you've gone and done it again.people on the Rumors boards that are fans of the All Stars You and I are talking a little bit apples and oranges here: I maintain that being a "fan" of something can have nothing whatsoever to do with the quality of that something. I'll always lump Pop Century with the All-Stars because they were guided by the same principles, you'll likely always have an affinity for the All-Stars, whereas the Pop Century (whatever happened to the name "Decades"? I liked that a lot better than Pop Century) seem to leave you cold, thus far. I think we're both legitimate minorities in this case... you actually seem to _like_ the All-Stars, and I say they are evil for even existing.affordable, value resorts that were plussed quite a bitThat's the crux of it: what you just described simply does not add up to a Disney resort, in the Disney tradition of creating Magic, as practiced from the 1920's through, well, sometime in the 80's, I guess. If it makes you feel any better, that "lump" with the values in it also contains all the moderates, OKW, and AKL. None of those qualify as a Walt Disney World resort. And WL & VWL and some the Boardwalk area stuff only _barely_ qualify (I say this despite the fact that I'm a huge fan of the Wilderness Lodge and normal-sized fan of the Dolphin)...If you want to make it cheap, just make it like Days Inn. I hate that defense. Honestly, is that a worthwhile definition of "Disney quality:" "still better than a Days Inn?" I agree with you that that is the standard Disney applied, here, I just disagree that we should accept it.

Jeff

Another Voice

02-19-2002, 07:32 PM

Since we seem to offering up good, concise summaries of our positions, here I go –

I have nothing against “Value” resorts at WDW. In fact, I think they should have been there from the very beginning and Disney’s finally catching up about 25 years too late. There certainly isn’t anything wrong with the people staying in them; in fact it’s exactly the opposite. The most obnoxious people (and the saddest story) I’ve ever seen at WDW have happened at the Grand Floridian.

In fact, I don’t consider the “amenities” offered at the deluxe hotels all that special. Maybe because I travel too much, maybe I’m too familiar with WDW – but the resorts don’t offer all that much compared in “hotel stuff” that hundreds of other hotels don’t offer. I’ve eaten in plenty of hotel restaurants that are better or more unique. There are many, many hotels with larger and better rooms. Even Vegas resorts offer more detailing and decor than WDW resorts.

But they lack the one thing that keeps people going back to WDW – an experience that can’t be had any where else. There is something about Disney’s ability, when they put their minds to it, to make walking into a hotel feel like you’re walking into a movie. It’s the “realized ideal” found in Dixie Landings, Yacht & Beach, AK Lodge, and even the Contemporary (“the future come to life right here in 1975!”) that works. In a lot of ways, even the All Stars have a touch of that (although the original “movie set” concept would have worked far better). The feeling is found in every decision about design, service, attitude and performance throughout every aspect of the resort. And it can’t be bought; it has to be consciously created.

It’s not a matter of sit-down restaurants, the size of the toiletry kit or free valet parking. It’s a matter of imagination and creative effort. And that’s what wrong with Pop Century. Instead of trying to get as much “bang for the buck” out of the hotel, Disney is trying to get as many bucks for as little pop they want to produce. Instead of creating an imaginative “theme” that would give the place a story line and emotional underpinning, Disney has come up with a “décor” that can be manufactured by the lowest bidder. The other resorts show a sense of purpose and sense that they were created by artists. The Polynesian is the product of an artist drawing up his ideal island retreat; The Pop Century is the solution to some MBA’s return on investment spreadsheet.

And Mr. Jewell – sure there aren’t a lot of voices out here in the wilderness, but that doesn’t matter. An idea lives even if it is held by just one person.

DVC-Landbaron

02-19-2002, 08:16 PM

... But I think you'll thank me in the end!! ;)

airlarry!,

I had every intention of answering your post, point by point. Yours was the last post I read before turning my computer at work and heading home. On the drive home I was considering how I would answer it. It’s a thirty-minute drive and it consumed almost the whole trip. To say it would have been my longest post to date would have been quite an understatement.

Luckily for every member of the DIS Sir Voice beat me to it! So to answer your very pointed and extremely relevant questions, re-read AV’s post. I agree with every single solitary word of it. Especially the bit about a movie set. And the Grand Floridian remark, which I touched upon once but was afraid to expand for fear of getting muddled in a concept that is, well, a little hard to explain.

It’s all about quality. “Disney” quality. And sometimes that includes price and sometimes cost doesn’t enter into it at all. Confusing?! You bet!! And even harder to explain. But AV did a great job. Please reread it. And if you can fully understand this post, you have got an inkling of that elusive philosophy I always talk about. And you will be one giant step ahead of Ei$ner!!!!

And Mr. Jewell – sure there aren’t a lot of voices out here in the wilderness, but that doesn’t matter. An idea lives even if it is held by just one person.WOW!!!! What a couple of sentences!!! AV, I have this script idea……

raidermatt

02-19-2002, 08:28 PM

AV, I think you've summed things up quite well. In fact, combined with his Airness, I can't really add much. But I'll at least summarize, so I feel like I contributed something...

1- Value resorts that carry a less expensive price are fine. They don't have to be 5-star by AAA standards. They DO need to provide a Disney type experience, one that makes it clear the guest is in a Disney resort. Maybe there isn't an upscale restaurant, or a spa, or whatever, but there is Magic.

2- The All-Stars may qualify, but it appears PC misses the mark by a mile. From reading the comments of those who have stayed at the All Stars, and seen PC, I would agree with this. However, I'll reserve a final judgement until I actually see PC (May/June), and there are some actual trip reports. I really am having a hard time understanding how the Funky Chicken could ever qualify as Disney Magic though.

Planogirl

02-19-2002, 08:43 PM

I hear a bit of discouragement in a few of these posts. I see that some of you feel like "voices crying in the wilderness". I understand very well how you feel. I have seen a gradual change at WDW that is so apparent to me that I am constantly puzzled as to why so few people on these boards seem to notice. The WDW I appreciate seems to be gradually slipping away and it appears that hardly anyone minds. I see it in resorts (but not AKL, I disagree with that one), parks, movies, Disney stores, etc.

Then I remind myself that this is a community of fans. Fans who are much more forgiving than the average traveller and at the same time much more knowledgeable too. Joe Traveler out there will take his family to WDW and enjoy it for what it is just like he would enjoy Six Flags. These standards we bandy about mean very little to good old Joe IMO. Only the prices would probably give this poor soul a moment's unease but it's normal and good to take the kids to WDW after all so Joe will probably bite the bullet and accept this as the price of doing business. Budget hotels certainly do help!

As for the Disney fan who appreciates the Allstars, I see nothing wrong with that. A lot of devoted Disney fans stay offsite too. This all comes back to taste again. I just recognize that with the gradual change from the original monorail hotels, to the moderates, to the Allstars and now to PC, that a disquieting trend is taking place. If the PC Resort succeeds, what will be the next step? That's the most troubling aspect to all of this for me.

In other words, where does it all end? :confused:

Safari Steve

02-19-2002, 08:50 PM

As far as the differences between the different levels of the resorts, I think that most of them (spas, intricate pools, suites...) make a bigger difference if you're spending more of your time at the hotel than elsewhere. The main thing that is common at all WDW resorts (Premium, moderate, and value) is excellent guest service. Aside from the monorail, what is the main difference between staying at ASMo and staying at the Contempo Garden wing? (I've stayed at both, and the only thing I noticed was price). I think the most on-target thing I've ever heard a guest say about their hotel (as far as many people are concerned) is "It's a bed." (this after I commented that they were in a really nice hotel). Do I think that there is no difference between the premiums and the values? No... that's not what I mean to say. What I mean is that regardless of what the outside of the building looks like, regardless of how much you're paying, if you're staying at WDW, you will have a clean room, you will get a free paper in the morning, and the cast will treat you wonderfully. That's what I look for first, the theme (while VERY IMPORTANT) is just gravy.

airlarry!

02-19-2002, 08:58 PM

At the risk of describing what seems to be an Official Meeting of the Mutual Backslappers Club...

I would have liked to see that post, Sir Baron, if it would've actually beaten some of your doozies. ;) But if your answer to my question is AV's post, then we wear the same jersey. I am 100% in agreement with AV's evaluation.

And here's the reason...

If the PC Resort succeeds, what will be the next step? That's the most troubling aspect to all of this for me.

What is the end of that slippery slope?

Just as an aside, does anybody who stayed a while back remember that each resort used to have its own 'newspaper' themed to the resort. I remember the one we got for DxL, it looked like an old Miss Riverboat Rag, which talked about the amenities and I think had all the special things going on for that week. Some suit in boorbank decided it would be cheaper to do a WDW-wide paper instead. Yippee. Saved a few shiny coppers for what?

BTW: Does it urk anyone else that we may be branded as Anti-Disney or elitist for demanding quality? NOT PRICE. I've never demanded price-snobbery. I just want Disney Magic (tm). And I am just foolish enough to think that a Marty Sklar or a Walt or a Tony Baxter if given the reins over AS would have taken it two levels above what we got. Not that I am bashing it, in fact, I've defended AS many times, but now with hindsight I wonder if it was the red flashing light I never saw that should have tipped me off to what was going on in the company's mindset.

Peter Pirate

02-19-2002, 09:31 PM

While the backslapping & howdy-do's are fine & I'm very happy this discussion didn't degenerate, neither did it bring anything new to the table or from my perspective any better understading of the feelings from 'the other side'...

So much of what Disney is is a state of mind. Walt knew it and he fostered it. Eisner has fostered it for a generation of self-indulgent consumers, which is the way of the world but unfortuneately, not the way of the Disney we'd like to see. It'd be nice to have our cake and eat it too. It'd be nice for Disney to consider quality above all else and it'd be nice for them to do the right thing rather than just the profitable thing. But as I can't see that ever happening in this lifetime, I choose to continue to enjoy WDW while it still creates the magic I've always known. Perhaps this magic won't continue, perhaps they'll kill Walts goose and I'll look at Disney with the same nostalgia many of you already see. Lucky for me I still see hope & I still enjoy WDW...

I think I hear the Captain calling. Good night folks...Happy daysD
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool: :

Another Voice

02-20-2002, 12:06 AM

“Disney is a state of mind.”

Very true Captain, sir. It’s a state of mind not only on the consumer’s part, but also on The Company’s part.

The laws of economics were not suddenly replaced in 1990. The same forces that drive success or failure today are the same ones that drove the company in the past. Perhaps in a different form, but the pressures are still the same. Sure, Michael Eisner has to contend with Wall Street and stock prices, but Walt & Roy had to please the board of Bank of America in San Francisco who could (and sometimes did) shut off Disney’s cash with a power well beyond that of any talking head on CNBC.

Walt’s ability was to create beyond the vision of others around him. No one would sit for an hour long cartoon; Walt produced ‘Snow White’. Television was going to kill Hollywood; Walt used it to promote his products. Any amusement parks without games and a Ferris wheel was bound to be a flop; Walt gave the public a castle and wonder. You have to build the Florida project on the beach because that’s the only reason people go to Florida; Walt gave them another destination.

These days in place of that vision we’re offered McMagic®. A corporate, mass produced commodity designed to firmly sit within the safe boundaries of conventional wisdom. A fine-tuned generic product with maximum financial statistics and with just a large enough brand sticker to separate it from all the other similar products in the market. Creation is replaced by exploitation.

I too still see hope. People, by their nature, want to create good works. The limitations of resources, greed and talent may limit their ability to produce it, but every once in a while someone manages to complete the challenge. Good works need to be identified and encouraged. Bad works need to discouraged. But most importantly bad works should never, never, never be tolerated.

Not to pick on you Ms. Planogirl, but I must disagree with your comment that “these standards we bandy about mean very little to good old Joe…” They mean a tremendous deal to him and his family. They might not realize it consciously, they probably wouldn’t be able to articulate it, but they do feel them. Everyone likes having their expectations exceeded. And perhaps that’s the simplest explanation for the unease over Pop Century. People feel that their expectations will not be exceeded.

The place looks like the physical representation of the phrase “you get what you pay for”.

OnWithTheShow

02-20-2002, 12:16 AM

I'm a fan of the All-Stars and Pop Century. Although Pop Century has some of its buildings completed it is far from "show ready".

Tigger-fan

02-20-2002, 07:40 AM

When we were there in January we noticed this monstrosity on our way out of CBR to MGM. We were all just sitting and staring at it and could not figure it out. The cheap looking bowling pins just dont cut for a Disney resort. (Sorry but our honest opinion). We stay at picture perfect CBR.. note I say picture perfect because it is anywhere you look. What kind of aweful pictures are you going to get at PC. Who was in charge of the theming of this wretched place. And to our HORROR we could see it from CBR ughhhhhhhh. My gosh if this is the future of Disney I would rather stay at a Ho-Jo's than that place. :confused:

KirstenB

02-20-2002, 08:25 AM

Okay, after some serious navel-gazing, I'm finally figured out why Pop Century bothers me so much. If you're going to build a budget hotel, fine, do it, and keep it simple. Don't try to get guests to buy into it's "theming". It's like driving down a street of modest homes, where most of them are well-kept and landscaped. Then you reach the one where the owner decides he likes the color scheme on the original Lifesavers candy. He's painted that same modest house in this glaring color scheme. If I don't live on the street, and have no emotional or financial interest in the house, I might just laugh it off.

However, if I were going to buy or rent a house on the street, it would not be that house. There's nothing wrong with budget---I just get mad when someone tries to sell me a budget product and tries to convince me it's "magical". There's inherent magic in a budget hotel that allows a family (I grew up with 5 brothers and sisters, and feel well-acquainted with budget!) to go on vacation, where they previously could not. On the other hand if you're going to charge folks 200-400 a night, there better be some serious theming "magic".

daannzzz

02-20-2002, 10:42 AM

Why is it such a big difference between the AS and PC resort? Are the rooms smaller at the PC? Will the food court carry less. Will the quality of the bedding be lower? No. I think the quality will be the same , it is the chosen decoration that is offensive. I visited the CBR on my last trip and saw how close PC was and was agahst at the views. The colors and decor are to far out there. So ... maybe some people will enjoy it. Is it costing Disney less than the AS? But who is making the decisions on all this stuff? Dinorama? DCA? It almost seem that Disney is intending on creating everything value engineered and bighting the bullet for a decade whilst all the complaints come in. Then In 2010 the customers will have lived with and accept this new budget Disney. OR is it that the persons in charge and imagineers don't know how to use the money they are givine these days. I agre that I certainly have ideas for a budget resort that would be fun and nice. What is their excuse?

larworth

02-20-2002, 03:11 PM

We sure don’t need any more examples of declining standards, but I think I need a little refresher course here. When we are dealing with sliding resort price points it gets a little more confusing for me.

I think we all agree that great service and cleanliness are mandatory for any Disney branded operation. It also seems we are willing to allow for some variety in hotel amenities, so people only pay for that bundle that most closely meets their vacation needs. So, does the issue really come down to a minimum level of theming?

Disney charges a premium for their experience. Some is needed to cover the added cost of providing it, and some might justifiably go into their pocket if done really well. If Disney had the same return on investment goal at all price points than we have a couple of scenarios that need some policy clarification.

A. Group of customer that won’t pay any theming premium

B. Group that will pay a small premium, which can only support a small theming component

I think part of the suspicion is that Disney is taking advantage of the brand by putting in minimal theming, while trying to garner a nice premium to fatten up results short-term. But let’s assume we were running the company what do we do for these two groups. Are we saying this is what off-site is for and we totally ignore this business because to try to service it will only drag down the brand?

It also seems that with the higher room density, there should be a scenario where the premium they take in per square foot is the same as the deluxe resorts, and this could justify heavy theming. In other words, why can’t a heavily themed value resort be a viable business case? If they make the same return as the moderates than no incentive to drive people up the ladder.

Scoop

You’ve got me a little confused about car membershipNow, we have hit an admittedly dry spell here in the states....I will say that there has been some crappy decisions latelyGee, these are the same comments the guys in my car are making??

Yes, Disney has been thru many cycles in the past. Management could always about-face at any time. However, while bad decisions have haunted them in the past the underlying Disney culture was still very strong. This time it seems many of the changes may be chipping away at this foundation. I’m afraid by the time someone wants to take the car out of the garage it won’t run anywhere near like it use to.

JeffJewell

02-20-2002, 03:49 PM

Scoop

You’ve got me a little confused about car membership Tread lightly, my brother. Chad's more than willing to throw down if he thinks you're trying to disqualify his car selection. ;)Are we saying this is what off-site is for and we totally ignore this business because to try to service it will only drag down the brand? I believe that's precisely what we _should_ say.

The Ferrari brand does not offer cars at price points to compete with the Yugo brand. It's not their business, not part of their philosophy, and would ultimately damage the "Ferrari = high performance" equation they worked so hard to develop.

There's nothing wrong with making money, but I believe it is a mistake to sacrifice the core ideals of your business in order to make that money.

They want minimal theming at less-than-Disney pricing? Let them eat Six Flags.

Jeff

KirstenB

02-20-2002, 04:02 PM

Let them eat Six Flags----good one Jeff, love it!!!

DVC-Landbaron

02-20-2002, 04:04 PM

First to my good friend, Peter Crook! You say: It'd be nice for Disney to consider quality above all else and it'd be nice for them to do the right thing rather than just the profitable thing.Why are they mutually exclusive? Walt didn't think so. And he proved it! But as I can't see that ever happening in this lifetimeMe too. And isn't that a sad? It is to me.I choose to continue to enjoy WDW while it still creates the magic I've always known.I also choose to enjoy WDW. But Captain (Peter), it is not, "the magic I've always known". And you know it. You admit it. You can see hope. You can see a lot of residual magic. But it's not the same. You have said so yourself. Remember? It'd be nice for Disney to consider quality above all else and it'd be nice for them to do the right thing rather than just the profitable thing.Have I misunderstood? Or are we on the same page on most of these issues. Actually, the only difference I see is that you see hope and I do not. Not as long as Ei$ner is at the helm at least. That's really not so much of a difference as I see it.

Now, Mr. Scoop!

Disney was at the magical top of the mountain when Walt was around... then Uncle Walt passed and we got some seriously crappy Herbie/Witch Mountain flicks, some crappy Garden Wings, and some other junk in Tomorrowland... then Ron and Card were deposed and we saw a renaissance of animation and park attractionsWOW!! That's a heck of a paragraph! It covers thirty years in one sentence!! Let's take a closer look at it. Disney was at the magical top of the mountain when Walt was aroundOK!! The first part and we find that we are in lockstep!! Here's to hoping it will continue!! then Uncle Walt passed and we got some seriously crappy Herbie/Witch Mountain flicksWell!! We're still together, but the overall tone has changed somewhat. But I can't argue with the substance of the phrase. Next: some crappy Garden Wings, and some other junk in TomorrowlandHOLD THE PHONE!!! TIME OUT!!! Illegal procedure!! Or in lawyer jargon - Your Honor!! I OBJECT!!!

Now I will grant you that the Garden wings are a bit drab. And they never (even in Walt's time) knew what to do with the Tomorrowland concept. But counselor! You neglected some key evidence in your summation of that critical time in the company's history. By mentioning the ONLY two negatives you can possibly think of (parks related) and conveniently ignoring all the WONDERFUL magic that the company did create in that same time period, you are coming close to prejudicing the jury!!! As much as I hate lists I feel I have to mention some of the good.
1- WDW in total!!
2- EPCOT!!!

Enough said? I think that's a pretty good batting average. then Ron and Card were deposed and we saw a renaissance of animation and park attractionsBack together again. But the story doesn't end there. and I can't believe any of us can look at WDW and say the potential is goneWell believe it. I say it! Loud and clear! Under Ei$ner the potential IS lost. just imagine what a decent capital outlay could turn AK into...just imagine what some well thought out updating could do to Future World and Tommorrowland...just imagine the possibilities...just imagine....On what do you base this? On the turn around of the Disney Stores? On the elimination of Beastly Kingdom? On DCA? On the closing of the Moderates? On the shorter hours? On the ride elimination? On the elimination of EE? On Dinorama? On which sterling move do you base this flight of fancy? Or is that all it is. A flight of fancy. If you do not believe that it could happen under Eisner then remember, he too will one day pass from this mortal plain...(not soon enough for some of you ).Well, you got that one right!!! ;)

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

OK! After writing the above, I checked the thread to see if anything was new. And lo and behold Mr. Scoop chimed in with this little ditty: I hardly buy the idea that, if subjected to the same microscope as Disney is today via vastly increased access and coverage, that the Disney of the 1970s would be touted as that with a firm foundation...c'mon...the company was almost bankrupted in the late 1970s with much of the creative pushed aside...Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

My goodness Scoop! When are you going to stop spreading this propaganda!!?? (he said tongue firmly in cheek) ;)

Disney was NOT near bankruptcy!!! In fact their separate parts were much sought after commodities that made them ripe for the picking. A state of dormancy with creativity pushed aside?!? Debatable. Was EPCOT devoid of creativity? Was the building of that park something that a company in a dormant state would do? In both imagination and scope?

And yes! Please! Start a new thread about comparing the present company with the one from the seventies! I would LOVE to tackle that one!!!! ;)

DVC-Landbaron

02-20-2002, 04:09 PM

Sorry about the two in a row, but....

OH JEFF!!! Perfect!! Simply perfect!!

The Ferrari brand does not offer cars at price points to compete with the Yugo brand. It's not their business, not part of their philosophy, and would ultimately damage the "Ferrari = high performance" equation they worked so hard to develop.

Captain, Scoop!!! Do you get it now??

airlarry!

02-20-2002, 04:43 PM

Jeff J:

I get the feeling that at JJ World, there would be no CBR nor DxL nor CSR. (No AS is a no-brainer).

I just don't go that far. I don't see a problem with a resort that costs less but still delivers the same, admittedly subjective, magic. AV said it best...when you walk around DxL, you are transported to Ol' Man Island and there's a hint of Splash Mountain as you walk around. I don't get that from AS or, egads no, from the PC concept.

All Aboard

02-20-2002, 04:51 PM

Well since Landbaron gave the JJ quote an "atta-boy", I have to squeeze a thought in on the Ferrari analogy. Since you didn't just focus on quality, but also price.

Ferrari prices out the vast majority of people in this country. Is that the strategy you suggest Disney take? Eliminate Joe Lunchpail from the WDW Resort equation?

So often I read in threads of this type about how folks "scrimp and save" to be able to afford a WDW vacation. Why is it that some folks EXPECT families to have to do this? Certainly, if the moderate and value resorts were eliminated, many many families WOULD have to do this. In the end, likely spending more money than is really prudent (for them) on a vacation. Is that what we want? Shouldn't the Disney experience be available to as many people as possible?

It's been suggested that Disney has created a caste system with its resorts. I offer that the real caste system (haves and have-nots) would exist if there were only one classification of Disney Resort (expensive).

Disney is too broad of a company to appeal to just the upper echelon of incomes. I don't believe that was ever the intent. It can't be Ferrari, that's not what it's all about. I'm glad it isn't. A strategy of "if you can't afford $200 a night for a room, stay outside" really stinks and I'm glad someone thought it wise to take another path.

raidermatt

02-20-2002, 05:24 PM

gcurling pretty much beat me to it on this one.

Ferrari prices out the vast majority of people in this country. Is that the strategy you suggest Disney take? Eliminate Joe Lunchpail from the WDW Resort equation?l

Of course, the answer is no.

Certainly, if the moderate and value resorts were eliminated, many many families WOULD have to do this (scrimp ans save.)

Actually, many do scrimp and save just to stay in the Values and Moderates. Take those options away and those people are priced out of the World, and the ones were were merely being fiscally responsible will have to scrimp and save to get into the Deluxes. Eventually, supply and demand ALWAYS take over, and Deluxe prices will rise, making the situation even more difficult.

I offer that the real caste system (haves and have-nots) would exist if there were only one classification of Disney Resort (expensive).

Exactly. Without values and moderates, more people will have to stay outside of the World because they simply cannot afford to stay inside, as opposed to the majority who are simply making a choice in today's environment.

A strategy of "if you can't afford $200 a night for a room, stay outside" really stinks and I'm glad someone thought it wise to take another path.

I agree. I just wish they would take the path that doesn't point to the funky chicken...

Planogirl

02-20-2002, 05:55 PM

I have to think about this...

Not to pick on you Ms. Planogirl, but I must disagree with your comment that “these standards we bandy about mean very little to good old Joe…” They mean a tremendous deal to him and his family. They might not realize it consciously, they probably wouldn’t be able to articulate it, but they do feel them. Everyone likes having their expectations exceeded. And perhaps that’s the simplest explanation for the unease over Pop Century. People feel that their expectations will not be exceeded.

I think often of a coworker of mine who decided to take his kids to WDW. He wasn't really interested in going himself but he felt like he SHOULD take his family. He asked me why he should stay in one of "those expensive Disney hotels". He wondered if a Holiday Inn or something comparable wouldn't be good enough. Why was it so much better to stay onsite? Why indeed.

I can't claim that the amenities are necessarily better. The location is certainly better but is that enough to justify the extra expense? Not to everyone. If not, then the only other difference I can think of is the Disney magic. So what is the Disney magic? And does everyone get it?

I took my mother to WDW a few years ago. She didn't "get it" and let me know in no uncertain terms. :rolleyes: I have relatives and friends who have been and have no real interest in returning. They certainly don't "get it".

So how do I describe this magic especially lately? And how do I describe it at a place such as PC? This is my dilemna and why I choose to believe that the average traveler doesn't really care about this at least not at first. The average traveler who has never been to WDW probably cares mostly about cleanliness, safety, convenience and PRICE. Does he REALLY care about the Disney magic? :confused:

YoHo

02-20-2002, 06:59 PM

Can I just pipe in on the Ferrari thing?

Ferrari is one of the last if not the only major performance car company that IS NOT owned by a larger car company.
Ford owns Volvo, Jaguar, Astin Martin and Land rover.
Crysler own Lamborgini.

Why?
Because it makes good buisness sense to cater to the entire market.
The Performance Car analogy breaks down when you realize that these car companies are doing exactly what you claim they aren't

The trick is as someone else pointed out expectations.

A Ford Escort CAN exceed expectations. It is in Ford's Best Interests to do so. Just as it is in Disney's Best Interests to exceed their guests. All Stars and By all means Pop century do NOT exceed my expectations. I would bet that they don't exceed anyone's expectations by much. Which isn't to say that no one likes them or to dismiss those that do like them.

they did not exceed expectations and Exceeding Expectations is what Disney Used to do best.

Brian430

02-20-2002, 07:29 PM

Actually, the Ferrari analogy is spot on. And not because I think Disney should price people out of WDW. But because understanding and living up to a brand's mission is what great brands do, and why over-anxious, shortsighted brands ultimately fail.

Companies cannot be all things to all people. They select their niche and position themselves accordingly. And like it or not, Disney has spent the last several years marketing itself as an upscale hotelier (regardless of the price tag for the room).

This isn’t an issue of being an elitist pushing for only $300-a-night hotel rooms. I haven’t heard one person argue for the elimination of the moderates. The concern I hear being voiced is over how low Disney is willing to go down the quality food chain. Critics of PC seem concerned about a crass, tacky mega-budgetel being plopped next to a nicely themed (and fairly priced) moderate resort, which was once surrounded by berms and forests.

The CBR view is now changed to a 40-foot bowling pin and a 2-ton yo-yo that look like they we’re stolen from a Paul Bunyon all-you-can-eat buffet.

I'm sure there’s a certain percentage of the population who wouldn't mind sleeping in the parking lot of the Magic Kingdom ala the Dead Heads. If they could charge for it, should Disney do it? If they don't, are they locking out the "down-trodden who deserve a vacation as much as a Grand Floridian guest?" Would I be a
snob for objecting to it?

Disney could also make money with a bungee-jumping platform in the Seven Seas Lagoon. They could turn Discovery Island into a putt-putt course and go-kart track. Should they do it?

Plain and simple, PC does water down a quality standard that Disney has spent millions trying to achieve – and that guests now understandably expect. I didn’t impose high standards on Disney and its hotels. They marketed themselves as such.

Forget about the eye soar that CBR guests have to endure. What about the additional burden on WDW's already over-taxed transportation system? What about another 20,000 guests within striking distance of Downtown Disney? DTD is a retail development that’s already at its limit from a parking and foot-traffic standpoint. How will they accommodate so many additional guests without further *******izing what was once a peaceful lakeside shopping village?

Which brings me to overall land use – which, in my mind, is the most important topic of all.

I know there are debates about how much land WDW has, but the figures I quote come from Eisner's book which says Disney has 9,000 acres to build on. And many of the problems we’re all debating seem stem from the fact that WDW still has a 27,000-acre view of their property. Maybe they can continue to develop forever, but only at the expense of the open and relaxed atmosphere WDW once had.

Would Pop Century be so objectionable if they had positioned it away from the rest of the "World" like the All-Stars?

The problem is WDW no longer has the room to properly space out their projects. So they will continue to build new developments on top of each other. And the end result is your African-themed hotel is now next to a highway; and your Polynesian-themed resort now has a blaring race car track in the parking lot; and your Caribbean-themed resort will now sit smack dab next to yet another 5,000-room budget motel.

I, for one, think Universal Orlando is well produced, but I don’t enjoy spending much time there because it’s far too urban for my taste. I don’t go to WDW simply for the rides, I go for the overall atmosphere and experience. You would think a company like Disney, which has been more interested in producing world-class resorts than world-class rides, would understand this point of view. I like the feeling of having my hotels and the theme parks nestled deep in the pine forests, like WDW once did. But slowly WDW is feeling more like a small city than an enchanted forest.

Personally, I think by converting half the "resort" into a residential district (read Celebration), WDW has sold off it's long-term ability to grow at what it does best.

I think it’s ironic because Walt purchased 27,000 acres to insulate his resort from crass, tacky commercial operations encroaching on the fantasy he was trying to create.

Now, the poor taste and over development are coming from the inside – from Disney itself: McDonald’s franchises; stock car driving franchises that seem more suitable for the Wisconsin Dells; mall-style restaurants and store franchises now all lease WDW land. It’s a mall mentality where Walt’s land is open to the highest bidder regardless of how well the development fits into the Disney culture/experience (or at least my own perception and expectation of it).

In the end, not only will the WDW landscape and experience change, but I also think the Imagineers will one day feel as hemmed in Florida as Walt did in California.

And as a DVC member, I’m starting to wonder what my "home away from home" will look like in 10 years. My fear is that it’ll be a lot more crowded, and not with imagination.

DVC-Landbaron

02-20-2002, 10:44 PM

WOW!! Another guy that knows how to shove a noun next to a verb!!!

And he's right on the money!!

Nice post Brian430!!! :bounce:

Lesley

02-20-2002, 11:00 PM

And here I thought I was going to get flamed! LOL

Ah, I wish I had the time and energy to get really involved on this board...what fun!

JeffJewell

02-20-2002, 11:13 PM

airlarry!...I don't see a problem with a resort that costs less but still delivers the same, admittedly subjective, magic. Ah. Well that's the tricky part, isn't it?

Subjectivity makes it so hard to discuss some of these things meaningfully. The gang has occasionally gotten into threads where we all define what "Disney Magic" means to us... then all aitch-ee-double-hockey-sticks breaks out as we all ruthlessly defend our own stances.

Through this painful process, I've settled on just a few things that are my requirement for a "Disney resort." The one that currently disqualifies most resorts on Disney property has to do with why it's called Disney World. It was a vacation world absolutely removed from the real world... that's why the thousands of acres. A perceived failure of Disneyland was that the real world ending up intruding too much. So I believe that to be a true Disney World resort, you must not have to re-enter the real world until the vacation is over.

If every day of your vacation starts with riding the bus, you're still in the real world. I believe that allowing buses to be the exclusive Disney transportation for a resort both turned a back on one of the foundations of the Magic, and eliminated a product feature that was uniquely Disney.

If alternative transportation was provided from all resorts to at least one park, and all the parks and Downtown Disney were connected by monorail, then I'd only have a problem with the values, for precisely the thematic reason you describe.

Greg...Shouldn't the Disney experience be available to as many people as possible? ...sure, in precisely the same way that a Ferrari "should" also be available to as many people as possible. But the reality is putting that much into a product costs more, pricing some portion of the population out of the market. And besides, even with the values, there are plenty of people who can't afford to go to Disney. Your argument could just as validly defend Disney assembling army bunks under the Boardwalk and bussing in the homeless. Maybe a noble idea, in some sense, but not much of a business strategy.I offer that the real caste system (haves and have-nots) would exist if there were only one classification of Disney Resort (expensive). Two things: as mentioned, the haves and have-nots issue exists, just the same... the line just happens to be drawn a little further towards the fat part of the bell curve. And I (at least as far as I'm willing to try to argue on the DIS, at any rate) am not against a less expensive resort that still meets the standard.A strategy of "if you can't afford $200 a night for a room, stay outside" really stinks
If you really think that's an accurate summary of what I'm saying, it's agree-to-disagree time.

Jeff

PS: Oops, I go off to see a show in the middle of posting, and come back to find I'm largely superfluous. Nice post, Brian430.

Peter Pirate

02-21-2002, 08:07 AM

If you really think thats an accurate summary of what I'm saying...
Well Jeff, for what it's worth, that's what I see when I read you explanation, as well...

You may think there's a caste system at WDW now, but to expect or call for an exclusivity system flies in the very face of what Walt wanted to accomplish. To exclude 60-70% off the population in the name of creativity or escapism? I don't know what WDW you guys visit but my WDW provides me with all the escape I've ever had...Oh sure, I noticed the roof & sign of a neighboring hotel at AKL, but it was well off in the distance, landscaping HAS been installed that will mature-out the view & you know what? I don't find the need to stare at a Days Inn sign and lament the loss of Disney magic.

Brian, I too wouldn't mind visiting JJ world or Landbaron world or AV world, but those places never existed except to these folks maybe and never will. Our own personal perceptions make or break our enjoyment of WDW and Landbaron harkens to a time when things were all roses...Of course there was no internet to discuss all of the faults and it was a new experience without todays expectations. How many here would be happy to go back to the days of just the MK with two or three deluxe hotels, operated as you remember them at the expense of all that we have today? Not me. I like Epcot, MGM & AK. I like the AKL, BC/YC, CSR, WL & (yes guys) even the S/D. I love the water parks & the golf courses. Of course most of this wouldn't exist were it not for the courting of the little guy, the proverbial joe schmo and thats what continues today. They must pay the piper, or the bills as it were, or suffer the consequences. A business must grow or die & Disney grew. I for one have loved it all.

The future is admittedly a jumble, but then it always has been. Disney has been so cyclical that it shouldn't worry us. The pendulum will swing back. Scoop outlined the Walt days very admirably. He was brilliant and succeded. But it was a struggle frought with many unwise business decisions that could have just as easily banckrupted the company for good. Walt was a creative genius with a great businessman for a brother and a lot of luck on his side. To expect modern day Disney to buck demographic trends too much is not reasonable. As much as I'd like BK now or Bald mt. now it just isn't going to happen until the spreadsheet says it must happen. Until the surveys say it must happen, until it is clear to Disney management that it is both economically sound and fiscally responsible, it will not happen.

Sorry that PC strikes such a bad chord with you all. I don't like it, don't think about it & have discussed it way too much on this thread. I say this because I won't stay there and it dosen't bother me to see it as I drive by, quite the contrary it is quite humorous in a sick & demented sort of way...
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

JeffJewell

02-21-2002, 08:56 AM

but to expect or call for an exclusivity system flies in the very face of what Walt wanted to accomplish ...what Walt wanted to accomplish was to create entertainment of the highest possible quality. Disney did accomplish that at one time, then decided they could make more money by deleting the quality.

I want the quality back. I understand that quality sometimes costs more and I'm willing to pay that. If you don't want to pay extra for quality, that's fine, you don't have to.

What's the percentage of US citizens that actually get to go to WDW in a year? In their lifetime? What're those percentages out of the world population? The value resorts allow a margin-of-error sized increase in those percentages, and you try to take the moral high ground as the defender of the down-trodden everywhere? What a crock.

Hey Chad, this is why the Jewells won't be at the May shindig. I try to talk about concrete aspects of a product, and the response is what an elitist snob I am for having the gall to miss what Disney used to supply. Why the hell would I want to come let people take those shots at me from close range?

I apologize for the weakness displayed in my addiction to both WDW and posting. It feels as though I'm realizing that the only way to quit them is cold turkey; like most addicts who one day realize they've been wasting their lives and money shooting junk that just doesn't make them feel good, anymore.

Jeff

JeffJewell

02-21-2002, 09:48 AM

...I have no personal problem with anyone, including Tom and Greg, whose posts have most gotten my dander up recently. It's the thought that we'll get down there and instead of talking about whether or not the quality has slipped, there'll be talk about what a snob I am; how evil I am for hating WDW until I get around to mowing down value resort vacationers with high caliber weapons.

When the All-Stars opened, I took a lot of the "snob" crap when I complained that they were built with the primary focus being low-cost rather than high-quality, and suggested that if we accepted this process as the Disney standard, we were likely to get even less in the future.

Somehow, I've avoided saying "told ya so" now that Pop Century has managed to offend an even wider spectrum of WDW guests by taking the concept to its next level.

I can agree to disagree with people who stay at the Values... hell, they're already built, it's not like boycotting them will suddenly imbue them with the missing Magic. Go, stay, have a spiffy vacation. Other people's vacations play no part in my assessment of WDW.

There's a difference between desiring high-quality products and desiring to exclude human beings from an experience. I'll do everything I can to reasonably discuss whether producing low-quality products was a good business plan. But reducing my legitimate complaint to a character flaw is just going to piss me off.

Jeff

PS: Having "good taste" does not make a person inherently good, having "bad taste" does not make a person inherently bad. I have horrible taste in clothes, because they just aren't important to me. Should some maven of haute couture sniff at my decrepit jeans, that means we value things different, it doesn't mean I'm an inferior human being. Even if I've ever said "everyone who stays at the All-Stars has bad taste," (which I don't believe I ever did) that's an expression that people value things differently, not a comment on the underlying nature of each individual involved.

Lesley

02-21-2002, 10:13 AM

I say this because I won't stay there and it dosen't bother me to see it as I drive by, quite the contrary it is quite humorous in a sick & demented sort of way...

AH! But this is my point! Disney entertainment is not of the "sick and demented" variety.....there is plenty of that out there in the world...I even enjoy some of it....but it does not belong as part of the WDW experience. If we extrapolate the possibilities in this direction....will Disney buy "South Park" and start showing it late at night on Toon Disney? Will they put the Opie and Anthony show on Radio Disney? Is it really turning into 'anything for a buck!' ?

I originally made the comment about PC being akin to South of the Border. You know what? I like driving by South of the Border on our way to WDW...its something fun to look at (in a sick & demented way) and makes me realize what a beautiful place I'm heading to. If PC were off-property I'd have no problem with it....I'd still never stay there...but it would be "that really wild hotel out there near Kissimmee" or whatever.

Where does the line finally get drawn? And who is going to draw it?

Personally I'd love to get together with the car 3 crowd (and everyone else as long as it doesn't turn into a battle royale! Oh geez, I'm imagining the old Miller Light commercials..."less filling" "tastes great" LOL) Anyone going to be around WDW at Thanksgiving?

All Aboard

02-21-2002, 10:24 AM

If you really think that's an accurate summary of what I'm saying, it's agree-to-disagree time. Perhaps not you, but a World without moderates and values with the application of supply and demand does (says) just what I am describing. And I think that's a very bad business decision.

Your argument could just as validly defend Disney assembling army bunks under the Boardwalk and bussing in the homeless. Maybe a noble idea, in some sense, but not much of a business strategy.Agreed, but having a resort pricing strategy of high price only is not much of a business strategy either. Maybe for a niche player like Ferrari, but not for a player the size of Disney.

Ford owns Volvo, Jaguar, Astin Martin and Land rover. Yes! Excellent point YoHo. And Disney owns the Grand Floridian, Caribbean Beach and All Star Sports. Strong strategy, in my opinion.

...I have no personal problem with anyone, including Tom and Greg, whose posts have most gotten my dander up recently. It's the thought that we'll get down there and instead of talking about whether or not the quality has slipped, there'll be talk about what a snob I am; how evil I am for hating WDW until I get around to mowing down value resort vacationers with high caliber weaponsTrust me, you won't get any of that from me. There's a HUGE difference between posting on a message board and a personal conversation. I'd bet that most people who read this thread that aren't "regulars" must think that you and I hate each other. How much futher from the truth can that be?

And I can't tell you how much I would enjoy having you as a part of the meet. I have a suggestion (and hopefully Landbaron reads this) ask DVC how the meet went that had him opposite the two folks you referenced in the above paragraph. Just the three of us. The driver of car 3 v the drivers of cars 1 & 2. Ask him how much fun it was, ask him how productive and entertaining our conversation was. Ask him how little any of us wanted to end it after a full three hours of conversation.

airlarry!

02-21-2002, 11:28 AM

Jeff J:

I would love to get to the meet. Maybe just maybe, if I can work out somethings.

But, just because I don't agree with you on whether or not there should be a three-tiered pricing system for resort accomodations, does not mean I will jump all over you there. ;) In other words, let us make 'Disney Snob' another amusing appellation for those of us who desire *only* the best in something...in another thread I consider myself a Disney Snob when it comes to Feature Animation.

In fact, after reading your last post on the transporation issue, I bet there is room for you right here on the connection between car #2 and car #3...

If your argument is that building resorts which ONLY have transporation to parks via bus offends your Disney ideal, heck, I agree with that!

Why can't we have:

a. monorail primary hotels (big bucks, lavish services by country mice standards, etc)

b. Park proximity hotels with water (like Beach Club and WL) taxis. Get the AKL a water taxi to AK, with monorail service from AK to the hub or to Epcot. Done!

c. Moderates and Value would have some kind of unique transportation back and forth to a nearby park...I imagine the All-stars with buses that look like safari vehicles heading to the AK (gets folks going there and adds to the theme.) Just an idea, but you get the drift...

Don't think they can do or will do this? Check out Marc Borrelli's pix of the unique Disney transporation at the new hotels at Disney Seas over at www.laughingplace.com\

It all goes back to my point that Value Resorts = good idea. Ei$ner's implementation = bad idea.

DVC-Landbaron

02-21-2002, 11:50 AM

Agreed, but having a resort pricing strategy of high price only is not much of a business strategy either. Maybe for a niche player like Ferrari, but not for a player the size of Disney.You see, that's where I disagree. You think in terms of "High Price", when you should be thinking in terms of "Disney Price". I know this is an elusive concept, but it is very important. Consider what the "sage from the west" our own AV said a couple pages back:In fact, I don't consider the "amenities" offered at the deluxe hotels all that special. Maybe because I travel too much, maybe I'm too familiar with WDW - but the resorts don't offer all that much compared in "hotel stuff" that hundreds of other hotels don't offer. I've eaten in plenty of hotel restaurants that are better or more unique. There are many, many hotels with larger and better rooms. Even Vegas resorts offer more detailing and decor than WDW resorts.I totally agree!! Disney resorts started life as being unique. Both in concept and in price. They were not created in competition with similarly priced hotels throughout the country. Yes, there were things that Disney resorts did that mirrored the industry, but it was more or less accidental. They had beds in the rooms. They had full service restaurants. They had swimming pools. And I know we've been round and round on this, but they had slightly (ever so slightly) higher prices than the moderates!!! (Hey! It costs for 'Disney Standards!)

When Ei$ner & crew took over, they did away with the "Disney Standard" for resorts and replaced it with the "Industry Standard". A very sad day indeed!! (Although I have to admit at the time they even sucked me into the hype. I liked the idea.) And the final nail in the coffin was not the construction of the Caribbean Resort. It was the concept, in both amenities and cost, of the Grand Floridian. You see, we get muddled in diatribes regarding the lower end because they make an easy target. A fifty foot bowling pin is hard for even the Captain to miss ;)!! But the higher end should really be included in the discussions because they have equally (if not more so) diluted the concept of the "Disney Standard".

Take the car analogy. Maybe a Ferrari is shooting a little high for illustrative purposes only. Maybe a Lincoln or Cadillac would be a better model. Disney never even tried to do the Five Star type resort. What they had was unique. Now you wouldn't expect a Cadillac to lower it's standards to that of a gremlin. On the other hand they never aspired to be more than they were and go head to head against the Ferrari. They have found their niche and their price range. And that corner of the market is not driven by cost, or marketing to the lowest common denominator. It is driven by they standards they have set for themselves!

Ford owns Volvo, Jaguar, Astin Martin and Land rover.YES!! Exactly!! But they do not carry the FORD brand! That is the difference! If Disney wants to set up some other company to build high or low end resorts, then by all means let them do it! BUT NOT WITH THE DISNEY BRAND ON IT!!! It's like their movies. Disney=Disney Standards. Touchstone=anything else! And it is impossible for them to do that on WDW property! I have a suggestion (and hopefully Landbaron reads this)I read everything!! ;)Ask him how much fun it was, ask him how productive and entertaining our conversation was. Ask him how little any of us wanted to end it after a full three hours of conversation.It was the worst three hours of my life!!! Just the thought of those two pompous people, prattling on and on… :crazy:

No! Only kidding. In fact it was most enjoyable. One of the better times I've ever had. The time literally flew by. I am really looking forward to doing it again this July with whoever wants to attend. But this time we have to allow more time! Maybe an entire evening or something. A dinner perhaps. With spouses.

Jeff, I urge you to go. It's funny to watch the Captain talk with his tongue firmly implanted in his cheek! And if you can't make it for theirs, how about July? They crowds are bad then, but you do get later hours and that makes up for it. OH! No! Wait! I just slipped back into 1996! Sorry!

Peter Pirate

02-21-2002, 12:01 PM

Trust me, you won't get any of that from me.
Gee Greg, Kid of left me out to dry didn't you? Do I really seem like the Bill O'Reilly, in your face type person to you??? - LOL! Just kidding...

Not to beat a dead drum, which is better than the more well known but not PC statement generally thought of (notice how I threw 'PC' in there, too?...Just to muddle up an already muddled post).

On our first meet Greg, Baron & I barely threw any punches at all. If 'shorty', I mean Baron hadn't thrown that drink in my face and called me 'Eisner lover' we probably wouldn't have been asked to leave the Dophin in the first place!...

Seriously, though we don't get too in depth as we're mostly just being friends & face to face is a lot more civil...Unless Baron calls me 'Pressler boy' again...Oh, then it'll get ugly!
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

raidermatt

02-21-2002, 01:08 PM

I think at this point, my only additional comment is concerning some "taking the moral highground" in spite of it being a bad business decision. What we are saying (or at least what I am saying), is that its a GOOD business decision because it allows Disney to tap a large population of guests who would not be paying them for accomodations otherwise.

True, the question becomes where to draw the line, and in my opinion, the All Stars is it. If PC offers the same amenities and service as AS, then I guess technically it does not cross the line. I'm just not convinced the bowling pin motif is going to sell.

Jeff, I understand your point about the busses, and I guess its all a matter of perspective. The busses don't make me think of the outside world, but maybe that's because I live in the 'burbs (barely), rarely see a bus, and pretty much only ride them when at WDW. We do have BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) in the general area, and it looks very similar to the Monorail, just not as sleek. So the monorail doesn't quite have the same novelty. That doesn't mean I wouldn't like to see other forms of transportation expanded, only that the current format does not remind me there is an outside world.

Brian430

02-21-2002, 01:12 PM

Peter, who is suggesting 60 to 70 percent of the population should be excluded? Have 70 percent of the population been unable to visit Mickey Mouse until the value resorts sprung up?

Until lately, Disney has done a good job in expanding its on-site resort locations without cheapening the overall experience. I think the moderates not only made WDW more accessible, but they did it in a very classy and Disney-like way. And you’ll notice the moderates never sparked this kind of backlash. I think PO, DL and CBR are some of their best resorts. Dixie Landings, in my opinion, is the best-landscaped hotel at WDW. (Although I think Coronado Springs comes off like a major land-clearing project than a well designed resort: Weak theming, minimal landscaping the first roadside location for a moderate. To tell you the truth, I’d like to see CS razed as much as Pop Century. It’s part of the quicker-cheaper development approach we’re all lamenting.)

Yes, there should be a premium charged for staying on property – it’s a benefit, a luxury. And sometimes not everyone can afford luxuries. If you’re at a point in your life where you can’t afford to pay that premium, then stay off site or delay your trip for a year. I have.

And who is suggesting we go back to a day of two or three deluxe hotels? All anyone is suggestion is WDW grow at a standard they’ve set and followed for years. Wilderness Lodge and Dixie Landings are good examples of that.

You mentioned Disney has to cater to all income ranges in order to offer all of the recreational activities they do. But the water parks, golf courses and other recreational offerings existed long before the value resorts, and they existed quite profitably.

Finally, as you say, it’s true that "businesses have to grow." But growth doesn’t have to be disfiguring. And turning a profit shouldn’t come at any cost.

JeffJewell

02-21-2002, 01:16 PM

Greg...a World without moderates and values with the application of supply and demand does (says) just what I am describing. And I think that's a very bad business decision. ...I agree with you that fewer people are both willing and able to afford the highest quality of anything, I just don't see that as a reason to declare that quality is therefore equivalent to snob appeal, and something to be despised. I also disagree that sticking to the philosophy that put your company head and shoulders above the competition is a bad business move. On the contrary, I think changing your business philosophy such that you are more similar to your competitors in content and price point is actually the bad decision."Ford owns Volvo, Jaguar, Astin Martin and Land rover."
Yes! Excellent point YoHo. And Disney owns the Grand Floridian, Caribbean Beach and All Star Sports. Strong strategy, in my opinion. This touches on something I've always thought someone would bring up on the boards, but no one ever really has. Although Ford owns those brands, you don't see Ford whiting-out "Jaguar" and selling both the XJ series and the Escort series under the same brand name. There is undeniable value in having a brand that is synonymous with high quality.

The contrast is that Ford chooses to go out and buy the "quality" brands and sell them under the original brand names, whereas to a great extent, Disney has chosen to go out and buy lower quality items and paste their once-meaningful brand name on them.

The Downtown Disney resorts are on property, too, but I don't feel that I have much of a leg to stand on in complaining about them, because there wasn't such a flagrant attempt to cash in on the tradition of the Disney name. If I must be an unrepentant snob, I'm at least going to be a consistent and principled unrepentant snob.I'd bet that most people who read this thread that aren't "regulars" must think that you and I hate each other. And I'll bet even some of the regulars are starting to wonder, at this point... ;)

airlarry!...It all goes back to my point that Value Resorts = good idea. Ei$ner's implementation = bad idea. In this particular time and space, I'm going to agree with you completely on this. I like all your ideas except the one where you seem to imply that a suitable paint job might make a bus Magical. Think high-capacity WEDway, and you're more in my neighborhood.

Landbaron...they did away with the "Disney Standard" for resorts and replaced it with the "Industry Standard". I like that turn of phrase to describe what I've been refering to as "becoming less Magical and more like their competitors."But they do not carry the FORD brand! Dammit, I _really_ have to start reading all the posts in a thread before I reply to the first new one I read...And if you can't make it for theirs, how about July? Well, it's not a can/can't thing (I've not yet got around to actually cancelling the room reservation), it's a want to or not thing. Despite the amount of posting I've done recently, I'm mostly in Car 4 at this point... the October/November trip is a family thing that just happens to be going to WDW, as far as I'm concerned. If I've sounded more abrasive recently in my assessment of Disney's management, it's likely just the bitterness of dealing with the fact that my heart has finally given up on them (once my stupid head catches up, you all won't have to slog through all these offenses to brevity and clarity, anymore). The only reason we'd be going down in May is to attend the meet, and when it started looking like the meet was going to end up unsettling and disappointing to me, as well...

Jeff

All Aboard

02-21-2002, 01:37 PM

it started looking like the meet was going to end up unsettling and disappointing to me, as wellI'm not sure what I can do to assure you that this will not be the case. Clearly, it's up to you at this point.

Also, while it may seem like it, I'm not calling you a snob. I can't stand places like the Sun Inn on US 192. It seems like a disgusting, dirty place I'd never dream of sleeping. I don't think I'm a snob. But, I'd bet there are lots of people that stay there who would say I am. You've stayed at the All Stars before, and I believe you said you'd have no real aversion to staying there again in a pinch. HOW can you be a snob if that's the case?

What I do believe is that personal preference is the prevailing driver in this thread. Just today we've seen Landbaron call for the dozers to rip down the Grand Florida for crying out loud!! And Bryan is calling for the destruction of my favorite moderate - Coronado Springs. By the way, the theme of the Ranchos is excellent. Much more appealing that CBR, in my opinion. If I had to name my least favorite resort, it would be the Contemporary. Sure the monorail goes through it. And (if you can afford certain rooms) you get a great view of the Magic Kingdom. Outiside of that, it doesn't do much for me. AKL & WL are FAR more appealing to me. Yet, those two have been targeted as being "short of Disney Quality" by some in this thread.

Given this vast array of opinions and tastes, it's safe to say nobody will completely agree with anybody here.

JeffJewell

02-21-2002, 02:00 PM

Chad...could anyone else ever pull off the creative genius with the financial smoke & mirrors at the same time ...to me, what Walt proved was that there was, indeed, a market for the very best. He proved that putting as much as you can into a product would pay off big in the long run, even if you have some rough times with the pointy-head guys (oops, I'm certain I must have meant pointy-pencil guys, there. Take that, Curling. ;) ) along the way.

Fantasia was not a popular success at the time, but hasn't it pulled it's weight in the long run? Not even Walt was able to please all the people all of the time, but I feel that his way of doing things, his dedication to making a product that was simply and clearly better than everything else available (even if he didn't hit the popularity mark every single time), is the smart way to do things, long-term. Business decisions have ramifications beyond this quarter, and I fear that the last decade of business decisions have weakened the Disney brand, and that the full effect of that weakening is yet to be felt.

raidermatt...True, the question becomes where to draw the line, and in my opinion, the All Stars is it ...cool, we agree except for where the line gets drawn. I still wish I coule get more folks to see what I mean when I say that both Value resorts were created with the same cost-efficiency first focus... leaving the quantifiable difference between AS and PC to be mostly personal preference. I do try to allow others to have their own preferences, if I'm backed into a corner about it...its a GOOD business decision because it allows Disney to tap a large population of guests who would not be paying them for accomodations We could dance around this one for quite awhile. In the interest of brevity (HA!), let me suggest that, capitalists or no, sometimes it's _not_ the best business plan to simply make as much money as you can.rarely see a bus The sight of them isn't my real problem. I know I'm just begging for everyone on the boards to post their own interpretation of Disney busses as La-Z-Boys on rocket rails, but my experience includes too many trips with strollers and wheelchairs, carted onto too many standing room only busses, and a 2-hour plus Poly-to-DxL via DD trip after Kona Cafe, one night. The busses have sucked a significant amount Magic out of my vacations.

Jeff

DVC-Landbaron

02-21-2002, 02:04 PM

What I do believe is that personal preference is the prevailing driver in this thread. I completely disagree!! Preference has absolutely NOTHING to do with it. (At least in my case!) I evidently haven't been clear enough once again. :(

Time to try again! :bounce: Just today we've seen Landbaron call for the dozers to rip down the Grand Florida for crying out loud!! To go along with: If I had to name my least favorite resort, it would be the Contemporary.I agree!! But the Standard was applied! And that's the difference. Is it a failed attempt at that standard? Perhaps. Does it match my personal tastes. Absolutely not! But the "Walt" philosophy was applied.

Conversely, this philosophy was not applied to the Floridian. Don't get me wrong. I like it. It's kinda cool in it's own way. But it's not "Disney". It's Disney trying to compete with the swankiest four and five star hotels around. And that's NOT the Disney type resort that was conceived many, many years ago. It is the perverted concept of Ei$ner, vying for the big buck crowd. As is his distorted "Disney" decorated PC just a blantant attempt to grab yet another segment of the market. There's nothing "Disney" about them, except by accident and location. They are "Ei$nerized" through and through.

JeffJewell

02-21-2002, 02:19 PM

HOW can you be a snob if that's the case? ...imagine _my_ surprise, at it all.AKL & WL are FAR more appealing to me. Yet, those two have been targeted as being "short of Disney Quality" by some in this thread. I strongly suspect I'm a lone whacko on that one.

Just to further confuse everyone, the Wilderness Lodge is simply my favorite WDW resort... and I still say that it falls short of the Disney standard that the company had trained me to expect. I believe in acknowledging personal preferences, then working to keep them out of the debate, to the extent it's possible.

I'll almost ditto the 'Baron's ditto on the Contemporary. Personally, the Contemporary will always be the flagship WDW resort simply because of the effect it had on a six-year-old me in 1972. It's sad that there hasn't been regular updating, and the Garden Wings and Convention Center are a downright shame. But when it was built, it met (hell, it _defined_) the standard. Hard to blame a guy who died in the sixties for the fact that his "hotel of the future" seems kinda dated, 30-odd years after the fact.

Jeff

raidermatt

02-21-2002, 02:22 PM

I still wish I could get more folks to see what I mean when I say that both Value resorts were created with the same cost-efficiency first focus...

Since I haven't stayed at the AS, and probably never will, you are far more qualified than I to judge its standards. I guess I am more behind the concept, and focusing on the positive comment from many who have stayed there. (By the way, its not that I wouldn't stay at AS, lord knows I've stayed a few roach motels in my day...)

capitalists or no, sometimes it's _not_ the best business plan to simply make as much money as you can.

I absolutely agree. I think it just gets back to whether we think AS/PC degrade the Disney brand. With AS, I give a qualified no. With PC, I will reserve judgement, but its certainly not looking good. Even if the amenities and service are at least equal to AS, the outside appearance itself maybe enough to do some damage.

The sight of them isn't my real problem...but my experience includes too many trips with strollers and wheelchairs, carted onto too many standing room only busses, and a 2-hour plus Poly-to-DxL via DD trip after Kona Cafe, one night.

I didn't mean to imply the sight of a bus was a problem to you. I only meant that I don't see that many of them at home, so I don't immediately tie them to the outside world (not that you do...).

Admittedly, my experience with the WDW bus system has been limited to a 9 day trip to CBR in 9/00. We didn't make any resort-to-resort trips, which probably explains in part why I didn't have a problem. Also, we tend to start our day a little later than the bulk of the crowd, and then we either leave a park well before closing, or we stay until they kick us out (almost). So we miss most of the crowds. So while I share your desire for improved transportation, it just hasn't taken away much Magic for me. But your reasons are definitely valid for you, and I would probably have the same issues given your experience.

All Aboard

02-21-2002, 02:35 PM

Landbaron, I'll agree with Pirate, your contempt for Eisner may be just an eentsie weentsie driver in this conversation. I'm not sure there's anybody else who feels that the Grand Floridian is not "Disney" quality.

So, is it safe to say that the only "Disney" hotels in your opinion are the Contemporary and Polynesian? If so, I struggle to understand what makes the Contemporary "Disney" and not the other deluxes. Save for the fact that the two listed were "originals". [Oh how I fear a Landbaron post about the Asian and Venetian coming.]

If "putting you in a place and time" is the standard. Then how doesn't the WL, AKL, BC/YC & Boardwalk not do this? I never stayed at a Florida resort at the turn of the century (lat one that is), so I'm not sure if the Grand Floridian recreates that experience well or not?

You're a DVC member. Where do you stay? OKW? Is that "Disney?" I think so. Having been to the real thing bunches of times, OKW does a good job of recreating the "best" parts of the Key West experience to me.

Just what makes a "Disney" resort "Disney?" Merely being part of the original plans isn't a good enough answer. And, I still don't get why you don't think GF fits the bill. It's done on a Grand scale (npi). It takes you to a place and time. It doesn't scrimp on lavishness. It's not ugly. It has wow-factor. It's special, it's Magical. (I'm trying to come up with all the reasons folks have bashed the moderates and values here.)

JeffJewell

02-21-2002, 03:01 PM

I'm not sure there's anybody else who feels that the Grand Floridian is not "Disney" quality. ...I think the 'Baron's point was not that the GF falls _short_ of Disney quality, rather that its target market represented a different demographic than the historical Disney market. I think he's saying that it was another example of fiddling with the formula because someone (oh, no... I'm not putting _my_ foot in your Eisner-basher bear trap) smelled some money somewhere that Disney wasn't making.

There's something to his stance, in that the GF failed to garner the five star rating they were looking for. I personally don't see that the GF de-values the brand, or serves to lower the public's expectations from Disney, so I'm okay with it.

DVC, I feel bad about it, but you're on your own, on this one. The GF left me pretty flat (just not my thematic cup of tea), but I can't fault them for taking the cheap, sub-Disney way out, in this case.

Jeff

PS: Not you, Greg, but I've seen some of the same folks defend the Values on the basis of Disney reaching a previously untapped market, and in other threads hope for the copyright extension so Mickey won't start showing up in pornos. Right off the bat, I've got to say that some of you must have made the acquaintance of some particularly peculiar masturbators, if you've detected a huge market for "Spankin' the Mickey." But beyond that, if there _is_ such a market, would you similarly support Disney doing what it can to expand into _that_ untapped market, too? Or is "finding an untapped market" a good thing only if you're included in that market?

Peter Pirate

02-21-2002, 03:28 PM

Someone (some folks) earlier mentioned the new Vegas hotels & the theming & wonders they've done lately vs. the Disney offerings. While not wanting to go into the Vegas vs. WDW debate, I will say that Vegas offers developers huge opportunities to make these ridiculously expensive, ornate & surprisingly real reproductions of places (real or imagined) as Resorts. I am all for this and in a shaded response to the earlier posed question, it is my belief that Disney should jump into Vegas at the first opportunity with a glitzy Disney hotel, gaming & all that goes with it. The future is there. Hell, perhaps they can move out of the city and open an adjoining 'Mickey's Bordello'. The upside merchandise tie-ins are great...Dealer Mickey, Showgirls Minne & Daisy...Not to mention the ability to market Shows & spectaculars and an even bigger way to part the guest from his money than they have experienced in the past! Gambling money could then be routed to help the poorer sister (DL, WDW & ABC)...
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

All Aboard

02-21-2002, 03:45 PM

Well, you managed to make me laugh and bring some much needed humor to the board. Doubt it will survive the moderator filter, though.

Anyhow, even though the analogy is clever and funny, it's off base. And I'm sure you know that. The "market" in our case is "people travelling to Central Florida to spend some time at theme parks." What Disney wants to capture is the lion's share of their dollars spent on things Disney offers. Disney offers resorts, and has since day 1. By offering value resorts, Disney tapped the "I'll go to your theme park, but I have to spend my nights elsewhere cuz I can't afford your hotels." That's a legitimate parallel market to tap. Just as is offering a wide variety of restaraunts to allow all the guests dining needs to met on-site. It makes all the sense in the world to me.

I'm still not sure I understand the down-side risk of including value resorts at WDW (not just value, but THE value resorts they've built.) Other than irritating the diehard fringe (and I'm convinced that's what Disney views most of us as). The All Stars and Pop Century haven't become the "new standard" for WDW. Since All Star Sports and Music opened, the Boardwalk, Coronado Springs, AKL, WL Villas and Beach Club Villas have all opened. Even if I didn't like the All Stars, I don't think I'd see them as a disturbing trend.

raidermatt

02-21-2002, 04:22 PM

But beyond that, if there _is_ such a market, would you similarly support Disney doing what it can to expand into _that_ untapped market, too? Or is "finding an untapped market" a good thing only if you're included in that market?

First, let me say that your comments prior to this quote had me lol. I hope you don't mind, but I'm stealing your idea and will have the domain name registered by tonight...

But, to answer your question, whether I'm in the untapped market is irrelavent. I'm not in the AS/PC market, and I must add, neither am I in the StM market. Should Disney market to all those who would buy the "unprotected" Mickey products? Of course not, but you bring up a good point. For all of the talk about Disney sacrificing quality for the sake of market expansion, the reality is that the target market has not changed all that much. Its still families, its just now expanded to some that are a little lower on the economic ladder, and with the GF, to those who are further up that ladder. In the big picture, that's not much of a change, considering some of the other markets you mentioned.

AS does not represent a profits at all costs philosophy. Its merely a subtle broadening of focus.

YoHo

02-21-2002, 04:25 PM

Just A comment on grand Floridian. I can see Landbaron's point. It isn't the Themeing itself (oh, I know he wanted the Asian and Venitian or what have you that so captured his imagination, but we don't always get what we want)
Its what Disney Tried to do. They tried to create a 5 star resort and that is NOT what Disney was all about. Ironically, I don't think this failed due to flaws in the resort so much as there were no customers for the resort they wanted.

DVC-Landbaron

02-21-2002, 04:32 PM

Sorry Scoop. You gotta wait till I get home. I already had this ready to go!!!

Greg: I'm not sure there's anybody else who feels that the Grand Floridian is not "Disney" quality.I don't mean to quibble, but I said that the Floridain was not built using the Disney "Standard". Not without Disney "quality". The two are not mutually exclusive, they are definitely not the same!! And you are right. I think I will be alone on this one for a while at least. It is a very hard concept to explain. It's much easier to bash a 40 foot guitar or a purple (I believe the color is) motel 6.

All I'm saying is that they deviated quite a bit from the standard that they set for themselves when they built the Floridian. And it helped dilute the standard we all came to know. Not make it worse or better but instead blurred what we should expect from Disney. Before that Resort went up, everyone paid the same for the same Disney Experience, be it futuristic or South Seas. And that should have included the "Florida" experience as well. But they chose to do away with that concept and said to their guests, If you pay more, we will give you more. I personally don't see the difference between this concept and charging for a fastpass.

Later they did the same with a Caribbean experience. In essence they said, If you pay less, we'll give you less. In other words, "less" Disney experience. And I was naive to think that there was only one Walt Standard. Well. I guess there was before Ei$ner got involved and sniffed out those other markets. Which may very well be the "business' move, but that is for a different thread. Here we are talking philosophy.

(as an aside, I'm about to lose JJ, who I think may have agreed on some of the less esoteric themes of my argument.) :( So, is it safe to say that the only "Disney" hotels in your opinion are the Contemporary and Polynesian?Not at all!! Although they did set the standard. The resort concept that was not based on industry standards and industry pricing. They were not amenity driven. And most importantly they didn't reflect, copy or conform to what a hotel in New York may do or charge.

You are forcing me to think, in concrete terms, something that has been nothing more than a gut feeling for some time now. Time for a quote while I ponder the next paragraph. Oh how I fear a Landbaron post about the Asian and Venetian coming.This has nothing to do with the central issue, but I had to slip it in somewhere!!! OH! How I wish they would have done them!!!! :crazy: OK! Back to business!!If "putting you in a place and time" is the standard. Then how doesn't the WL, AKL, BC/YC & Boardwalk not do this?They all do!! And to me, that's all that matters. Sorry JJ, but it doesn't have to have a monorail. However, it MUST offer some sort of "alternative" transportation. It must 'feel' Disney. It must not 'cater' to a certain economic class. Price also enters into the equation somewhat. It only has to be what it is. A complete Disney experience. With one, evenly applied (as much as possible) Disney Standard. There are not two Magic Kingdoms, with two Pirate rides. One that applies the Disney standards we all know and love and one that uses cardboard cutouts for the economy set. And there certainly isn't a solid gold one for the money set, where you can converse with an AA pirate as you ride. NO!! How absurd!! So what's the difference? The All Stars and Pop Century haven't become the "new standard" for WDW.No! Of course not. It's not a new standard at all! It destroyed the standard and replaced it with "you get what you pay for based on current industry trends and prices". Want more Disney? Pay more. Want less Disney? Pay less. There is no more Disney Standard when it comes to the resorts at all!!!!

Thank you YoHo!!! I was afraid I would explain it so poorly that no one would see it!!! :bounce:

All Aboard

02-21-2002, 04:51 PM

Before that Resort went up, everyone paid the same for the same Disney Experience, be it futuristic or South Seas. With all due respect (as you say right before you slam someone :) ) you've got to be kidding, right!?

That's the "Disney Standard" - a uniform pricing model???

With a grand total of 2 (count 'em, two) hotels, it pretty easy to price them the same. But wait, they weren't really priced the same, now where they? Doesn't the Contemporary have (and always did have) suites and deluxe rooms up there somewhere within the monolith? Haven't the rooms right on the water always been more expensive at the Poly than the ones facing the parking lot? So, within the resort you could (if you chose) decide to buy a somewhat better or somewhat worse Disney Experience at a somewhat different Disney Price.

I guess when the Golf Resort opened a couple of years later (same for the Village offerings) and were priced differently (each offering an experience far different from either Contemp or Poly), that didn't bother you? That wasn't a variation from the Disney Standard?

So, am I to believe that from 1973 - 1989 the good folks at Disney didn't build anymore resorts because they thought they might have to charge a different price? [I'm borrowing Pirate's tounge and his cheek (since I'm not very good at that sort of thing - despite what Safari Steve says.)]

Another Voice

02-21-2002, 04:56 PM

Ah. Mr. Pirate. If you think Mickey’s casino is so far fetched wait until you see the plans for ABC daytime soaps to go topless in two years (and I’m not joking).

Disney “magic” is not simply a recreation of the past. It is not mountains of details and it’s not lots of money thrown to architecture and design. Disney “magic” is not being a perfect recreation down to the number of rivet holes in the Eiffel Tower or bragging about where the furniture is imported from. That kind of decor is Vegas. It’s very uncreative and most often comes off as nothing but garish.

Disney “magic” is when you say to yourself, “I didn’t think a place like this could really exist”. Doesn’t matter the time, doesn’t matter the expense. The Contemporary had it back in 1971, Hotel Mira Costa at DisneySea has it today. Dixie Landings has it too. The “magic” is not in how the place looks – it’s in how the place makes you feel.

The country is filled with hundreds of hotels that are more elegant, more luxurious, and have better service than the resorts at WDW. But few are designed with the filmmaker’s ability to produce an emotional response. The best WDW resorts are designed, intentionally, using the same techniques used to design movie sets. That is what is supposed to be the difference between a Disney resort and a Motel 6.

And that’s how they should be judged, in my opinion. I don’t care how much they cost. I don’t care who stays in them. I don’t care if I take a bus or a moped. I only care if the place makes me stop and experience something new.

And this whole “Walt pried the fillings from Lillian’s mouth and sold off Ward Kimble’s kidneys to keep the studio away from the mobs of angry creditors” thread here. What utter bunk. Post war Hollywood, all the way through the 1980’s, was not filled with stable businesses because the movie industry is not a stable industry. Watch one of those documentaries on AMC about the history of 20th Century Fox, Paramount, MGM, Columbia, RKO, etc. – all those places that weren’t run by Madman Disney. They all went under, Disney didn’t. Only Disney remained independent and that was able to so because of all those “risky schemes” he insisted on: re-release of quality movies, television, foreign markets and Disneyland.

The entire thought that “Disney can’t do it right because times have changed” is in the same vein as Robert Iger’s comment that the good animated movies in the past were “nothing but an aberration” and can’t be repeated. It’s the typical excuse given by lazy people who no longer even want to put in the effort. If people don’t want to make good work, they need to get out of the business and make room for the people who do have the talent and the drive.

DVC-Landbaron

02-21-2002, 05:14 PM

Out of all those wonderful words in that finely crafted post, clearly depicting the 'feel', ambiance, theme, time and place criteria and all those other esoteric, profound and mystical things that go into a Disney experience (or standard) you choose to show that there was a ten dollar difference between a garden view and a lagoon view at the Contemporary!!! Ahhhhhhhhhh!!!! I'm just not getting through, am I.

Price is only a consideration in that Disney gave you solid gold carrousel, for less than you would expect. It gave you a Disney experience for less than "industry standard". It was certainly higher than the local carnival or amusement park. But nowhere near what the ratio or an accounts books would have had it! Don't let the price thing get in the way. It is the standard that is important. Cost (or price) is a consideration, but only a minor one in the grand scheme of things.

If it's that important, re-read the post and leave the price thing out. Everything else is still just as valid.

PS: I thought you never took your tongue out of your cheek!!!

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

Oh-oh!! Just checked and AV has posted. The country is filled with hundreds of hotels that are more elegant, more luxurious, and have better service than the resorts at WDW. But few are designed with the filmmaker's ability to produce an emotional response. The best WDW resorts are designed, intentionally, using the same techniques used to design movie sets. That is what is supposed to be the difference between a Disney resort and a Motel 6. Thanks for putting my feelings into words!!!!

Peter Pirate

02-21-2002, 05:26 PM

That my tounge does tend to fill my cheeck on occasion, but apparantely you take me for a fool...That's ok, I take me for one too, but I do have serious consideration that Disney should look at the Vegas Market for a Resort/Casino/Theatre. Make Vegas magic? Aww, who cares if Vegas is magic, I'll bet Disney can still be magic even when taking your money at a casino - They may even be able to court the upper eschelon & forget the dweebies & cheapskates altogether...

As for ABC going topless, well it's about damn time! TV titilate's, exploits & sensationlizes just about everything. I think a couple of ****s are probably all that seperates ABC and the #1 rating (are those ****s Eisner & Iger or the other?? Well, you decide).:D

Disney magic is when you say to yourself "I didn't think a place like this could really exist."
You don't think many people feel that way about Mandalay Bay or Venitian or Bellagio???

And all of the qualities that should fill what a Disney Resort that you mention get my thumgs up. Disney could do that in Vegas, Disney can do that in any number of different realms (CSR, AKL or even AS). As I keep repeating, who made us the judge of what others find magical?

Your last paragraph...Well, I disagree but I have to go & the reply could takeawhile. Suffice to say, Scoop & I are on the same page here and if he wants the mantle, it's his...Otherwise I'll be back!
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

YoHo

02-21-2002, 05:27 PM

If people don’t want to make good work, they need to get out of the business and make room for the people who do have the talent and the drive.

This is fundimental. this means more then anything else said in this thread. Possibly on this board in a long time.

It looks like Disney no longer has the Desire to do what it does. Everything that comes out of them is tainted by this.

whether or no Disney should be building Value resorts is a minor issue.
The fact that Disney as a whole from the managment level lacks the drive to create quality Taints everything they do.

Its a corporate thing not an individule thing.

YoHo

02-21-2002, 05:34 PM

So when the Disney Cruise Stops in Nassau you get the chance to take a good long look at the Atlantis hotel and Casino.

Now for those of you without cable and the travel channel, Atlantis is the largest casino in the Caribbean and a rival to anything in Vega. This place is amayzing although given time I could come up with a million things about it that don't match up with what disney could do.

Large number of cruise passengers, especially the older ones made a beeline for Atlantis to throw their money away.
Frankly, I think its in Disney's best interest to continue with its more subtle extortion. :p

raidermatt

02-21-2002, 05:58 PM

However, it MUST offer some sort of "alternative" transportation.

Says who? (rhetorical question...)

The Disney experience is defined by the guest, not by Disney. As every guest is different, it follows that resorts can have different qualities. To use the above example, a guest who insists on driving his car everywhere, regardless of what kind of transportation is offered, really dosn't give a mouse's patoot where the monorail or ferries stop.

Some people love the feeling Disney movies have given them, and the feeling they get in the parks. Moreover, they want the convenience of staying on site, and they want Disney service. Maybe they aren't looking to get lost in their resort, or maybe having a 40 foot Dalmation outside captures their imagination so much that they do get lost. As long as Disney still gives me what I want, be it at the BW, GF, or CBR, my experience has not been injured one iota, and I cannot make a good business case for Disney to ignore the other guy.

Now, there are going to be some who stay at AS and say "what's the big deal? Its just a Motel 6 with some color". But there are those who stay at the BW, Contemp, etc, and say "what's the big deal? Its just a Holiday Inn/Hyatt/etc. with some landscaping/architecture." Both of these groups are groups that Disney should by and large ignore when it comes to their resorts. "Magic" is Disney's core product, and that should not be compromised under the Disney name. But catering that Magic to the individual is a wise decision.

Peter Pirate

02-21-2002, 06:02 PM

Wonderful post raidermatt!
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

DVC-Landbaron

02-21-2002, 06:15 PM

Says who? (rhetorical question...) Me, of course!!! ;)

The Disney experience is defined by the guest, not by Disney. And here is where we part company! It is most definitely defined by Disney! Not the guest! The guest can choose to accept what Disney offers or reject it, but the concept is dictated by Disney. I know that all of us (yes, all of us) accept it. And I know many people who reject it outright. Too crowded. Too commercial. Too expensive. Too… Well, you get the picture. But the picture is provided by Disney. If it were truly guest defined, we’d all have ‘magical’ experiences at Six Flaggs.

To use the above example, a guest who insists on driving his car everywhere, regardless of what kind of transportation is offered, really dosn't give a mouse's patoot where the monorail or ferries stop. WRONG!!! Or I am truly an anomaly. I drive everywhere I can when in Disney. The transportation options are still very important to me. I can’t explain it. It has no direct effect on my experience. But just knowing that the launches are traveling to and from the Poly makes my heart glad. When I see them, I smile. Maybe it’s the ambience. Maybe it’s memories. But it is VERY important to me.

Now, there are going to be some who stay at AS and say "what's the big deal? Its just a Motel 6 with some color". But there are those who stay at the BW, Contemp, etc, and say "what's the big deal? Its just a Holiday Inn/Hyatt/etc. with some landscaping/architectureExactly!! Which is why it is soooo very important to let Disney set the standard and the guest can buy into it or not! The way things are now, the tail is definitely wagging the dog!!

But catering that Magic to the individual is a wise decision.I disagree. But that is a business discussion and I have been talking philosophy.

raidermatt

02-21-2002, 07:08 PM

Pirate- Thank you for the most insightful comment of the thread!;)

Baron-

It is most definitely defined by Disney! Not the guest! The guest can choose to accept what Disney offers or reject it, but the concept is dictated by Disney.

This is only valid to a certain point. Yes, Disney offers the overall concept of Magic. And if most or all of it is lost on the guest, so be it. But nobody is the same, and there are different aspects to the Magic that appeal to each of us. Just taking MK/DL as an example, that's why some of us are captivated by Peter Pan, others by Space Mountain, others by Dumbo, or Spectro, or MSEP, or Main Street, or any combination of those things and many others. There are very few who find EVERYTHING in DL/MK to be a magical experience (I guess we are the lucky ones!). The same is true of a resort.

WRONG!!! Or I am truly an anomaly. I drive everywhere I can when in Disney. The transportation options are still very important to me.

In all honesty, I would guess you are an anomaly in this case (there are worse things to be;)) . I understand the idea that just because we don't use something doesn't mean we would say "no" when asked if we want it on a survey. However, I just don't think there are very many who lose Magic because of things that have little/no direct effect on them. Besides, AS being on the grounds does not stop the launches or the Monorail. They are still there and available for those of us who care.

quote:

But catering that Magic to the individual is a wise decision.

I disagree. But that is a business discussion and I have been talking
philosophy.

From my perspective, its a philosophy that results in good business.

JeffJewell

02-21-2002, 07:20 PM

Greg...Even if I didn't like the All Stars, I don't think I'd see them as a disturbing trend. ...I just don't give the current decision-makers as much credit as you're willing to. And, I believe the financial success of the only-occasionally-Disney-oriented iconic theming of the All-Stars did lead logically (in some sick mind) to the anything-from-the-last-100-years-oriented iconic theming of the Pop Century.
'Scoop...From the research I've read, the financial problems of the mid to late 70s was the result of the practices from the 60sI'll not go much further down this road... for a variety of reasons... but my overall impression of the time was that Ron and Card's near paralyzation, likely due to feeling Walt's shadow over them, when it came to pursuing certain methods of building the business, caused the business to languish in most areas. Everyone mentions Walt's "never miss an angle" quote, and we argue over how to tell the difference between an angle and a cut corner: I think Walker and Miller missed a lot of angles, because of this same confusion.there was no big payoff in the end. Just a business model which, after its charismatic leader passed, could not longer sustain itselfThe big payoff was the loyalty of the customers over what would become generations... again, I see the problem at the time being creative constipation throughout the company. I'd like to go ahead and throw the agree-to-disagree flag, on this one, I think.I believe that the pillars may again need to be reworked. Can the current regime realize this like it did in the early 80s? HopefullyI think the resurgence of block-buster feature animation was the foundation upon which the late 80's/early 90's success was built. The current regime fired those guys.
'Baron...Sorry JJ, but it doesn't have to have a monorail. However, it MUST offer some sort of "alternative" transportation. This thread has comes an awful long way from the post where I actually said the WL (and the remaining Boardwalk area resorts that didn't clearly qualify) _does_ qualify, although just barely. I also consider "some" alternative transportation a minimum, and one method to one park is about as minimal as you can get, thus, WL "barely" qualifies.
Another Voice...Disney “magic” is when you say to yourself, “I didn’t think a place like this could really exist”. Heavens, I wish I'd said that.

Jeff

DVC-Landbaron

02-21-2002, 07:50 PM

Just taking MK/DL as an example, that's why some of us are captivated by Peter Pan, others by Space Mountain, others by Dumbo, or Spectro, or MSEP, or Main Street, or any combination of those things and many others. There are very few who find EVERYTHING in DL/MK to be a magical experience (I guess we are the lucky ones!). The same is true of a resort.Very true!!! Some are very magical (almost universally accepted). Some are… well… very subjective. And others are universally failed attempts. Gallant attempts, but failed (hey not everyone can be a winner). But (until the recent glut of rotten concepts) Disney Standards were oozing from every attraction. They didn’t dumb down the experience and open a ‘cheaper” park to let in the huddled masses.

Now you may personally be captivated by the magic(?) exhibited by AS, but I think you’ll admit that it is somewhat less an experience than is offered at the Poly. And to me that ain’t right!! But hey! I think I’m going to hang on this alone!! It won’t be the first time. However, I just don't think there are very many who lose Magic because of things that have little/no direct effect on them. Besides, AS being on the grounds does not stop the launches or the Monorail.Yes AS being on the grounds certainly does have the potential to do just that. It blurs the concept. It substantially lowers the bar. It helps create a “good enough” attitude as opposed to an “exceeding expectations” thought process. Quite simply it obliterates the Standard. And most importantly it redefines Walt’s philosophy. Something I really didn’t think needed redefining. Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe we should have tinkered with it, but somehow it just feels wrong to me.

It leads to spinning rides (good enough). Midway games (good enough). No EE (good enough). No monorail to “deluxe” resorts (good enough). Sequels to the classics (good enough). The new Disney Stores (good enough). Shorter summer hours (good enough). And last but not least – Good old – PC (just barely good enough).

Each time they seem to lower the bar, move the line, what ever you may want to call it. Until they actually get people believing that a fifty foot bowling pin is a unique Disney experience. Hmmm. In comparison AS isn’t so bad after all.

HEY!! Maybe that was the intent!! :bounce: From my perspective, its a philosophy that results in good business.Again, I disagree. Apparently so did Walt! ;)

DVC-Landbaron

02-21-2002, 07:58 PM

... causes two in a row posts!!!

Scoop!!!

I have an answer for you about Walt's terrible mismanagement of the Disney Corporation!!

Ready? Here it is!!!

Ditto relevant parts of AV and JJ's post.

Thanks guys!!

:bounce:

Peter Pirate

02-21-2002, 08:57 PM

Landbaron, there you go again...Until they actually get people believing that a fifty foot bowling pin is a unique Disney experience.
Praytell, where else do you see 50 ft. bowling pins? Seems unique to me...

And again, what makes you (us) the arbitor of good taste and the guardians of Walt's wishes?

Disney is the Company that is symbolized by a talking mouse; Disney, a Company and a man, who were always self serving and egocentric before any talk of altruism was ever bandied about (certainly he wasn't viewed as a saint while he was living). Disney who gave us that ultimate classic attraction Jungle Cruise that is the epitome of 'cheesy' - Don't get me wrong it's mouse cheese & I visit JC every single trip, but face it, it is hokey now and has been hokey since my very first visit. But you're telling me that a Resort can't possibly contain any Disney magic because it was developed by someone you feel has no taste? Because it doesn't contain all of the amenities of a deluxe, forget the fact that perhaps many of the people taking advantage of a budget hotel wouldn't know how / or would prefer not to deal with deluxe formalities. I have never stayed at a Ritz-Carlton & know I wouldn't be very comfortable doing so. A Marriot works fine for me. A few years ago a Holiday Inn worked fine for me, before that a Days Inn. There is no crime in different structures being offered under the same umbrella. There will always be certain similarities such as the CM's themselves, transportation (like it or not) and mere locality, to name a few. At AKL I look out the window and see Animals, Disney Magic at its best but for $200 less per night I can bet there are many families that see AS as truly magical, as well. That's why the S/D are truly magical for me. They have always given me great rates, deluxe service, right smack dab in the middle of all things Disney. Not a Disey hotel? Preach it to the chior. It's a Disney Hotel to my family and many, many more.

See, I don't get it. If people visit AS & PC and go home raving about their WDW vacation then it's magic whether it fits your definition or not.
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

airlarry!

02-21-2002, 09:45 PM

--brief aside to quickly respond---Oh, Scoop, you do make good points in your last post. My only answer? Not even Walt perfected perfection....he did put his trousers on one leg at a time, don't fight the hypothet counselor, yada yada yada.

And as for Fort Wilderness and River Country, I remember when they were built, or right after, and reading Boys Life articles about how the imagineers wanted to build a swimmin' hole and a campground for all those people who have never experienced that. I grew up around places like this, but how many people in Chicago have?--back to post.

I have been 'counting the noses.' I'll paraphrase Justice Stevens when I point out the winner, IMHO. "I can't define good Disney theming, but I know it when I see it."

AV's nose wins.

1. 'Screevers of the highest degree' brought us The Contemp, DxL, Poly etc...because they all have a story to tell us, and they all transport us into that painting.

AS does not. And Peter/Captain/Scoop, please admit that for the price of this hotel, the Disney artists should have designed a hotel with a story. You don't want the latest Six Flags ride to be plopped in the middle of the Lagoon, right? You want it themed with a story and a backstory. Rides get boring after a while, but Attractions are classic and cool. Hotels are boring, but DxL is cool. There is something about Disney’s ability, when they put their minds to it, to make walking into a hotel feel like you’re walking into a movie. It’s the “realized ideal” found in Dixie Landings, Yacht & Beach, AK Lodge, and even the Contemporary (“the future come to life right here in 1975!”) that works.

2. Let's not define Disney just by amenities or service. AV has convinced me of that. The amenities should be part of the story. But still, AV, Jeff & I are right that Disney is cheating when they rely on these plain white buses. That's the easy way out.

3. I finally, finally, finally, see Baron's point about the GF. It's one of those flip flop arguments. On the one hand, GF doesn't fit the theme of the WDW resort...there's no attraction anywhere that it correlates to.

On the other hand, Sir Baron, it does have a story. And a backstory. And a theme, all beautifully carried out. And it does take you away into a beautiful painting.

But on the other hand, Sir Baron, you are correct, it was built not for the story, it was built to get that Holy Grail of a 5 star diamond or whatever it is from Michelin. And that's not what Walt would do. He would try to build the best for customer satisfaction, not for some publication's satisfaction. Please insert one of your famous Walt quotes here that is appropro.

I just think that your point may be quibbling a bit. The GF is beautiful, it has a theme, it has a story, it is well done and well maintained...and its too late to get them to tie it into the parks--which I still say was a major mess-up by you-know-who.

4. What other hotels flunk/pass? The AV-Baron test, the BAVometer, definitely flunk the Dolphin and the Swan. Not only is there no theme, they were built just for the sake of creating alleged architectural art, and interfere with the EPCOT theming. Doublewhammy!

I think the BAVometer lights up when it passes by the All-Star and the PC too. What movie is this from, Stuart Little Goes to Woodstock? Honey I Shrunk the Musicians? Field of Big, Gigantic, and Humongous Dreams?

Personally, I think The BAVometer hums a bit when it floats by the WL and safaris past the AKL. I'm positive it is quiet by the Poly and Contemp (what is with the people that don't understand the original themed concept of the Contemp?). Talk about it amonst yourselves.

JeffJewell

02-21-2002, 10:01 PM

how do these extremely mundane creatures of a regime long gone escape your derision and spite ...we've posted often about the difference between painting off-the-shelf sideshow stuff when you're trying desperately to open your new park without capital, and doing the same thing as SOP when you're making multi-billion dollar acquisitions; there're also some cases of things that were genuinely cool in the early seventies that have bafflingly lost their appeal in the intervening decades; the Golf Resort was a deliberately unthemed WDW resort, and was not a particularly successful one (a lesson to be learned?); and, honestly, I believe I have mentioned a distaste for the arcade/t-shirt store, before.What do you stand in Fort Wilderness and say... I've spent time in RV parks throughout this great land of ours (really. You can read about it, if you want: http://www.jjewell.com/j98NAT1.html Warning: I'm not exactly Mr Rogers here on the boards, but I get downright potty-mouthed on a few of the Tour updates), and let me tell you that Fort Wilderness is a really nice RV park. Anyone concerned that not enough of the unwashed masses can stay on-site at Disney would be a big FW fan, I'd think.why has no other entrepenuer or company picked up the ball which some claim Disney has fumbledWe've had this discussion before, too. There are other companies making it in different fields by having higher quality than everyone else. Pixar and Lucasfilm are the two that typically get mentioned quickest. Oriental Land Company seems to have found an audience.

Why has no one picked up the high quality amusement park ball? Because no individual who cares is a position to do anything about it, and it's not enough of a cash cow for some big company to hand over a check to someone who does care. Just as some (many? most?) customers don't mind reductions in quality, if it costs a bit less, some (many? most?) executives don't mind reductions in quality, if it increases margins a bit more.

Jeff

DVC-Landbaron

02-21-2002, 10:03 PM

How’s that title for showing my age!!!!

Praytell, where else do you see 50 ft. bowling pins? Seems unique to me...Cap… Peter!!! I actually laughed out loud! Congratulations!! It is, by far, the most outrageous sentence within this thread!!
And again, what makes you (us) the arbitor of good taste and the guardians of Walt's wishes? I’m not. Walt was. Do you really think he would have built PC?

But you're telling me that a Resort can't possibly contain any Disney magic because it was developed by someone you feel has no taste? Taste has nothing to do with it (for the millionth time!!) Taste is nothing. The Disney Standard is everything!! Please Peter!! Start reading some of the posts!! JJ, AV, Sir Larry and I have said the same thing (in our own styles) over and over and over and over….. For the last time. It is a matter of philosophy. NOT a matter of taste!!!!

Because it doesn't contain all of the amenities of a deluxe, forget the fact that perhaps many of the people taking advantage of a budget hotel wouldn't know how / or would prefer not to deal with deluxe formalities.Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!! “Peter, Peter, Peter”, he said, half pleading, shaking his head in disbelief. PLEASE READ THE POSTS!!!! I specifically said that amenities don’t matter at all. And I think I pointed to AV’s section where he referred to movies. (but in all honesty I don’t remember. And I’m too tired and lazy to search through the thread to find it. Look it up. And read some of the posts along the way. Maybe you’ll accidentally catch the meaning.) ;)

At AKL I look out the window and see Animals, Disney Magic at its best but for $200 less per night I can bet there are many families that see AS as truly magical,What’s this!?!?! Price equaling magic?!?!? I thought they were mutually exclusive!?!? At least that’s what I inferred when I was bashed for attempting the same parallel a while back. Hmmm. I wonder who took me to task. Hmmm. Now don’t tell me. I’m thinking. OH! I’ve got it!! It was the Captain!!!

Chad my friend, this isn't easy and please don't take it personally:What do you stand in Fort Wilderness and say...

"I didn't think a place like this could really exist! (what highly immersive llamas we have here)" This little bit truly shows how little you understand the SHOW or Walt’s philosophy. You’re damn right I did!! Way back in 1972 I did!! And at the tender, young and very cynical age of 17. And last year when I spent two weeks there I said it again! It is one of the places within WDW that the greedy hand of Ei$ner hasn’t touched! It is very, very, very, very (this could go on a while), very, very, very, very up to Disney Standards! You bet it is!!!! Try it sometime. You might learn something!

Or did you stand at the doors of the Disney Golf Resort and say..."my gosh, this place just magically takes me far away to, Venice no...er..asia...actually....umm....it takes me away to a stinkin' GOLF RESORT" If that's the case, here's a tip...save the cash...go to destin!Again, you have no idea what you are talking about!!!! Have you ever been there? Do you realize what the concept was in the first place? Or do you just assume that because it was cheaper it was a ‘moderate’ in design? Check out both the Golf Resort and Fort Wilderness and we’ll discuss it. Until then please don’t talk about something you don’t understand. It makes your other arguments sound equally as foolish!
Query: If whatt you describe as what once existed really could exist today...don't you think its a little odd that NOBODY, NADA, NO Company at all has done it for the last 25 years?Naw. Not odd at all. It’s a golden goose. And history tells us that most people kill them. It takes a real special kind of guy not to. One that doesn’t really care about personal wealth and only uses money for his next dream! A guy like Walt!!!

Planogirl

02-21-2002, 10:43 PM

May I interrupt this galloping thread with a question?

To those of you who have been to Disneyland, how does the Disneyland Hotel stack up to these standards? The hotel seems kind of mild-mannered in pictures at least. But since Walt had full input into this hotel, I was wondering what it was like.

Now, please don't pause on my account. :)

Another Voice

02-21-2002, 10:50 PM

“…why has no other entrepreneur or company picked up the ball…”

Actually, the entire country has picked up the ball. Ever been to a “themed” shopping mall? How about those great “theme restaurants” (Rainforest, Planet Hollywood, others)? Ever pick up a copy of a home improvement magazine with the article about how to turn your living room into “an African safari wonderland”? The whole world is “themed” now, there’s no need for anyone to find another 43 square miles to build a themed resort when you can become the next themed hotel in Vegas and let someone else worry about the infrastructure. Sorry, but slapping fiberglass yo-yos on the side of a tilt wall concrete slab really isn’t innovative or magical these days.

Unless of course you believe that Disney’s Bowling Pins are “magical” while Putt Putt Golf’s Really Big Guy Holding a Golf Club isn’t. Must be the brand name. I think we have the real issue here. If Pop Century had been built on the other side of I-4 we would not hear single voice from the front car talk about it and “magic”, “lodging for the masses” or “people will enjoy it” in a positive way. Marriott’s Pop Century would have been derided with the same contempt and scorn these same people heap on hotels already there.

As for the Golf Resort – it was built intentionally as a “normal” hotel. Back in days before The Company became BUY PLUSH OR WE’LL KILL THIS PUPPY about its business, it was assumed that some people might not want a Disney experience. Maybe people just wanted a nice hotel. And it is possible to play a round of golf without once wanting to search for hidden mickeys. Most people, in fact, would consider this normal behavior.

Lastly, “what makes you (us) the arbiter of good taste and the guardians of Walt's wishes?” The answer, sir, is my pocketbook.

P.S. – Walt Disney didn’t have any input into the design of the Disneyland Hotel. It was done really as a favor by his friend Jack Wrather (he did the ‘Lone Ranger’ TV show among other things). Walt had run out of money but knew he needed a hotel – Anaheim in 1955 made Orlando in 1971 look like downtown Manhattan. The hotel was owned and operated by Wrather until the early nineties. By all accounts, Walt hated it’s look and the look of all the other motels and the property.

Peter Pirate

02-22-2002, 07:23 AM

I have a very busy day today so there can be no posting from me (ok, I hear the sighs of relief).:o But I will bow out of this thread by saying to my worthy foes, I totally understand your inability to see my POV. The circular nature of the argument makes focusing on one thing impossible & the readmittance of the same material in different perspective gets frustrating, to say the least. I know these things because I feel exactly the same way. Much as you all see common threads among your argumetnts, I understand scoop & raidermatt perfectly. I know my arguments seem repetitive & uninformed (alas, a doofus to most) but I choose not to move on to another area until one is complete & on this thread none are complete. I am often blamed for not reading threads and I have to say I claim the same.

Philosophy vs. taste? Oh landbaron please explain how these paths do not cross? The Disney Philosophy would guide the basic direction of any project...As in saying 'all Resorts must be themed in a manner to entertain, enlighten or amaze the guest'...Fair enough? PC is certainly trying to enertain. The fact that you don't find it entertaining makes it a taste issue. You basically disagree with the imagineers view for this project...That my friend, is subjectivity, & taste most certainly is the at the crux of your argument, unless you assume that a corporate mandate would be so specific to as directly dictate that 50 foot bowling pins should never be used:D .

Our analogies of accepted, yet poor or unthemed areas are right on the money but the response is no more than "oh yeah?" You cannot explain away accepted mediocrities as 'because they were Walt's' and then criticize another because it is Eisner's (and I know I'm injecting here). That is too transparant & totally illogical.

Thats it for me. I'm off to Miami for exciting high school tennis (nerve wracking for Dad's, eh larworth?) I'll hope to see this resolved by tomorrow! - Oh yeah, he's a funny guy!:D :D :D
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

airlarry!

02-22-2002, 07:31 AM

I know Peter won't see this, but his point about disagreeing with the imagineers on the PC project would be a great one.

The fact that you don't find it entertaining makes it a taste issue. You basically disagree with the imagineers view for this project...

'Course, that would be if the imagineers actually participated in this project. AV, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this designed and implemented by the Hotelleers, not the Imagineers. Different division within the company, if I remember right.

Nice try, though.

d-r

02-22-2002, 07:35 AM

...but this is just tangential, and I don't want to get into the bigger argument. I just had a couple of thoughts about the Grand Floridian. The GF is not my favorite hotel, and my wife and I have said to each other that we won't stay there again unless we have a child that really wants to. Not that it isn't a fine hotel, but because we would rather stay somewhere else around the lagoon (Polly/cont/wl) so that is what we would do instead of staying there.

Having said that, I think about the GF fitting in around the lagoon like this. When wdw first opened, there was polly, cont., and ft. wilderness. (An aside here. They had different price points and different experiences. I think that one could argue that ft. wilderness was the original value resort, but I don't care to. Actually, I think that it was geared to appeal to a different segment of vacationers - those who brought their rv to tool around Florida for a while, vs. those who wanted to stay in hotels. Similarly, the golf resort was opened to appeal to those who wanted a Florida vacation to play a few rounds of golf and maybe take in a theme park). But back to my point, which is why I think GF fits in around the lagoon. When it opened, the polly fit with adventureland, the contemporary with tomorrowland. It was made so that you could only see these resorts from that land, where they "Fit" with the theme. Ft. Wilderness, and then alter what seems to me as the "Wilderness Area" with the WL and WLV (which I see as the descendant of the "Wilderness Junction" idea) were frontierland. Personally, I think there is a lot of magic in ft. wilderness, you just have to get the whole Disney-Davie Crocket - frontierland thing. Now, what areas of MK does that leave? Main Street and Fantasyland. I'm not sure how the Venetian or Grecian or Asian would have fit in with those, but if you thing about it, Main Street is a nostalgic look back to the old days of an idealistic and romanticized vision of the victorian age. To me, if you take two parts Main Street, and throw in one part fantasy, what you get out of it is the Grand Floridian. GF fits with both main street and fantashyland (tea parties and princesses and other frufeenes). YMMV of course.

So I think that the GF does fit in with the lagoon and the links to MK, even if it isn't my personal favorite of the resorts around the lagoon. I've stayed there, and I've stayed at all stars, and personally I'd rather stay at another resort than either. But look around these boards or listen to people when you visit wdw, there are lots of people who have their own personal favorites and that is the only place they want to stay (and many of them are either GF or All Stars, for that matter. Other people only want to stay in Epcot area. Other's think that DxL is the only place to stay. Others always at s/d. etc. etc.). All for different reasons (and money isn't the only one). That is OK with me, I know what my favorites are. They are wl, which some people would never stay at because of the transportation or because it doesn't fit their midwestern sensibilitiies of "Florida," the Polly, which some people would never stay at because it looks to campy or 70's, contemporary, which some people would never stay at because it is just a concrete building without a theme, and boardwalk, which some people would never stay at because it is in the epcot area and so not a traditional wdw resort, and it is too loud and has neon and is for vacation club. For every resort at WDW you will find people who will tell you why it is the best, and other people who will tell ou that it is an abomination that they would never stay at. Magic is where you find it, and one man's junk is another man's genie lamp. It is all a matter of personal taste and perspective (and I'll admit, the PC thing violates mine, but so what. Someone will think it is great).

Actually, that is more than I wanted to say, and I'm not trying to argue about any of it. Please drive through.

DR

JeffJewell

02-22-2002, 09:03 AM

Philosophy vs. taste? Oh landbaron please explain how these paths do not cross? ...one has to do with the approach of the creators when creating, the other has to do with the prejudices of those experiencing the creation. The two have relatively little to do with each other.

The All-Stars and Pop Century were built from the same budget-first, iconic theming plan. The only discernable difference lies in the decision of what icons to hang on the buildings. I am opposed to both resorts on the basis of the philosophy, Greg likes AS and does not like PC on the basis of liking and not liking what's on the buildings. Both are valid points of view, we're talking about two completely different aspects of the resorts: whether we think it's a good business direction versus whether we think it's good to stay there.

It's very possible to separate philosophy from taste: I like the approach they used when creating Tower of Terror, but I don't actually care for the ride experience, that much. On the other hand, I hate the approach they used when building Rock 'n' Roller Coaster, but I love riding it.You cannot explain away accepted mediocrities as 'because they were Walt's' and then criticize another because it is Eisner's (and I know I'm injecting here). That is too transparant & totally illogical. I'm tempted to quote from my post where I addressed this precise question from 'Scoop, but I certainly don't want to imply that you're not reading the thread...

First of all, Disney's resources in 1966 and in 2000 were two vastly different beasts. Talk about an illogical comparison. Secondly, blame Walt if you want, but he was too cremated to have fixed any of the stop-gaps he had to resort to when opening WDW. Finally, I find it a waste of time to ***** and moan about the relatively few thirty year old dead guy mistakes, whereas I feel complaining to _current_ management about _current_ business philosophies that are leading to a full plate of mistakes could possibly change something for the better. Or at least I felt that until recently.

No, not even Walt wasn't entirely happy with everything he put into Disney World. The difference is, it was in his philosophy to go back and improve on things, even though he didn't get the chance, in this case. Eisner's philosophy, as applauded by Peter Pirate, is to let those mistakes linger for decades, then use the worst examples from Disney's past as the measuring stick for Disney's future.

Jeff

All Aboard

02-22-2002, 09:17 AM

I think you all can either thank me or darn me for making this place hop again!

Landbaron, I think the Golf Resort really breaks down your argument. Seems the only reason you believe it to qualify under the "Disney Standard" is because it's been there since your "glory days of WDW".

It's location is no better than the Wilderness Lodge. Neither are it's transportation options. But since WL was built during the Eisner regime, you don't think it's Disney Standard. I just don't see it any other way. Even if WL is a bad example. I can't possibly fathom how someone (despite how many times I re-read your posts) can call the Disney Inn "Magical" and the GF "not Magical."

I'd like to know how the original guests of the Golf Resort got to the Magic Kingdom. Did they walk over to the Poly and hop the monorail? Did they take a bus? Seems a very important element in your definition.

Peter Pirate

02-22-2002, 09:21 AM

Jeff, I understand precisely the difference between philosophy and taste but landbaron claims philosophy and explains with taste. Even your definition gives creedence to this. If the philosophy is to 'create a resort that must be themed in a manner to entertain, enlighten and amaze' we can all understand & agree, right. Then to say PC is garrsh & themed poorly because of a 50 ft. bowling pin is taste - If there is no specific reference in the philosphical guidelines (& there wouldn't be), it is then up to management to determine what plan meets the criteria of being entertaining, enlightening or amazing. They choose Pop. You may not like it but it is a taste differencial. What do you say to the people who would never stay at the Poly because it's a crass, ideosyncratic, plastic view of what the real Polyenesia is? They're right you know. Even if, like me, you happen to like the resort...Is it taste or philosophy?
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

KirstenB

02-22-2002, 09:42 AM

I don't view AS and Pop Century in the same light. Although the are both examples of the "icon" mode, as I understand it, at least AS has some Disney related theming, ie, Woody from Toy Story. I haven't been to AS, so please jump in if I'm wrong.

Pop Century doesn't appear to tie in with Disney at all. I don't think of Disney when I see bowling pins, or funky chicken imperatives. If there's no Disney tie in, why not just let it be a budget hotel? If one feels compelled to build giant icons, do some big Mickey hands and ears, and paint the place white, black and red.

Unlike other properties that don't have a Disney theme, ie Swan/Dolphin, the only niche that PC seems to fit is budget.

JeffJewell

02-22-2002, 10:46 AM

'create a resort that must be themed in a manner to entertain, enlighten and amaze' ...that's not the philosophy I'm talking about. I described the mindset in question as the "budget-first, iconic theming plan," which I think is a bad philosophy with which to build a Disney resort. The Swan and Dolphin, although their theming has nothing to do with Disney and is not particularly preferred by some, were not built with that philosophy, and as a result do not appear to be Motel 6's with giant statues stapled to them.Then to say PC is garrsh & themed poorly because of a 50 ft. bowling pin is taste Right... that's the kind of taste based determination I attributed to Greg. I don't believe I personally have ever complained that the PC is garish, because there's no use trying to debate personal taste. I _have_ complained that it was built to be the cheap way out (just like the All-Stars), but that's based on the business philosophy... which, although we've not made much headway on it, I believe can be discussed and debated outside of the question of whether or not we like a hotel (and by the way, I think you misunderstood the 'Baron's bowling pin point [or are purposely using it incorrectly for your own nefarious ends], but I see KirstenB has already reiterated it).You may not like it but it is a taste differencialYou are simply wrong in describing my dislike of PC as a taste differential... I was on the boards complaining about the Pop Century before it was even built, on the basis of the low-ball budget alone. Yes, at the time, people like yourself avoided addressing my point by saying "you can't judge it until you see it." In other words, you dismiss the complaint up front, prefering to delay until you can make a taste judgement on it, then dismiss the complaint again after the fact _because_ you say it's a taste judgement. How duplicitous.What do you say to the people who would never stay at the Poly because it's a crass, ideosyncratic, plastic view of what the real Polyenesia is? Why would I say anything to them? They've made a judgement that the Poly's not for them, no skin off of my teeth.Even if, like me, you happen to like the resort...Is it taste or philosophy? The question of taste is referenced when saying I like the Poly better than the Contemporary and the All-Stars better than the Pop Century. The question of philosophy is referenced when noticing that the Poly and the Contemporary were built to standards higher than that of TraveLodge, and the All Stars and Pop Century were not. Regardless of which one in each pair appeals to or offends your eye.

Jeff

raidermatt

02-22-2002, 10:51 AM

Scoop- Sometimes, I think there is some validity to the whole "Left Coast is whacko" theory. Sometimes I look around and just say :confused: ;)

To ditto or not to ditto...

Alright, my turn for a few parting (?) words.

I'm too lazy this morning to find quotes, so I'll just make some comments on what was posted since I bailed out yesterday.

Somebody (LB?) said the Golf Inn was ok because it was a different concept. My response=what? If the Disney standard is to make a totally imersive experience, then it either is or it isn't. This inn carries the Disney brand, and therefore, by the LB+ definition, must be immersive AND have at least one alternative form of transportation. If this was built because it was thought some people might want a less than normal Disney experience, than how is this any different than what Eisner and Co are being accused of for buliding AS? (hint- Its not.)

Some people don't want to be whisked away to a replication of some bygone era. To them, its not the real thing and therefore cheesy. Staying amongst giant Dalmations and Woodys (can I say that?) from cartoons, however, is something they want to do. They don't see it as cheesy because its not a cheesy attempt at something real. I'm not saying I agree with them, but who am I (or any of us) to say they are wrong?

Disneyland Hotel- More selective application of standards. Walt didn't have the money? So he allowed his friend to slap the Disney name on something he was not proud of? Well, if that's true, Walt made a business decision, not a philosophical one based on the Disney standard. We're not just talking a pre-Eisner decision, were talking Walt HIMSELF! Or maybe it was his evil twin? (Like in those old Knight Rider episodes).

Disneyland itself- Walt opened that park before it was ready. Why? Business decision. Stuff was breaking down left and right. I was watching the Disney Treasures Disneyland USA DVD and was struck by how immature the landscaping was. Why weren't mature trees planted? Business decision. Furthermore, why weren't all of the animated shorts (Mickey, Donald, etc) produced with the same painstaking effort that went into the animated features? Business decision. There is nothing wrong with making a business decision. Everyone has to do it. Current Disney may have more resources, but they still have financial targets Wall Street expects them to meet. They cannot ignore this anymore than Walt could ignore business matters that weighed on him.

Alright, one quote. Scoop said:

Had the creators of FW made a campground immersively themed as a backcountry Amazon river camp or an African hunting camp...yeah, that would seem to might your immersion philosophy...

This was worth repeating. If its just a nice campground, and not an immersive experience in some far-off fantasy world, then how is that different than a nice Motel 6? (I'm not saying AS is a nice Motel 6, only pointing out the selectiveness of the argument)

JeffJewell

02-22-2002, 11:17 AM

but those wings seem to represent the exact business philiosphy that you are complaining off. the PC issue we're discussing is not a new issue I've agreed with both of those statements (or reasonable facsimiles thereof) on numerous occasions.maybe more prevalent these days for someAbsolutely that's the real issue. Walt wasn't able to precisely follow his own philosophy to the letter every single time, true. But to use those examples as a defense for today's Disney throwing away that philosophy entirely (particularly in the absence of the capital crunch that caused many of the anomolies in the first place)... I mean, that raises throwing the baby out with the bath water to a new level.

Everybody keeps mentioning the Golf Resort/Disney Inn as an example of early Disney acting like recent Disney, but by an awful lot of measures, the Golf Resort/Disney Inn was a failure. How is it logical to defend today's lack of theming based on a similar example from the past that failed?

"Hey, we've always made mistakes like this, so we've just declared it a Disney tradition!"

Jeff

DVC-Landbaron

02-22-2002, 11:22 AM

Well, well, well! Once again the LandBaron has not been clear. I thought it was just Peter skimming over my posts, but more people are questioning the admittedly elusive concept. For example, Gcurling says:Landbaron, I think the Golf Resort really breaks down your argument. Seems the only reason you believe it to qualify under the "Disney Standard" is because it's been there since your "glory days of WDW".Absolutely not!! It falls under the standard because of the concept!! It was conceived, created and constructed within the philosophy. It was built with the idea in mind that some people would enjoy a 'golf' vacation, not a 'theme park' vacation. It was a retreat from the sometimes hectic amusement park crowd. It sat on the edge of the only two golf courses at the time. Tucked away in an isolated corner of WDW. It's 'theme' at the time (all but gone today) was a huge pro shop. I think it did a wonderful job of fulfilling it's mission statement.

Now we come to taste. Did the general population buy into it? Do I like the theme? Did the place fit into my personal taste? Sadly, no! I didn't care for it all. I didn't play golf at the time so the Pro Shop thing was kinda lost on me. I was a theme park enthusiast so the 'tucked away corner of the world' didn't fit into what I wanted on my WDW vacation. And by and large the general population agreed. It was a failed experiment. But a gallant try! Ergo, it fit within the Standard and the philosophy!! Now do you get it?But since WL was built during the Eisner regime, you don't think it's Disney Standard. I really want to know what lead you to that belief!! I don't think I ever inferred that WL isn't within Disney Standards. The price is too high, but it clearly falls within the standards!! One of the few things the Ei$ner regime has done right!! Remember I'm the guy that said that you necessarily need a monorail to fit the standard. In fact, now that I think about it, no one particular item could ever be a make or break for the standard. It all has to measured in context. And clearly WL is up to the measuring stick! I can't possibly fathom how someone (despite how many times I re-read your posts) can call the Disney Inn "Magical" and the GF "not Magical." OK. I'm gonna try this again. So far the only one that seems to grasp my concept is YoHo.

Listen carefully!!

I NEVER SAID THAT GF ISN'T MAGICAL! I SAID THAT GF DEVIATED FROM THE STANDARD!!

Sorry for shouting, but it is an important, if subtle, point. I personally think that GF is wonderful!!! My family kids me all the time for my "snobbish" attitude because I want to stay there someday. They do not!! I like the design and the ambience. But the construction of the place helped blur the line of the 'Standard'! The aim was too high. It was the first time that a goal was not to present quality, but to COMPETE with other hotels. And I find that disturbing. Just as disturbing, and maybe even more, as I find the economies. Again the goal was not to exceed expectations, but instead to capture a segment of the market for as many bucks as possible!! I really don't understand how everyone doesn't find that disquieting in the least and very un-Disney!

Peter, If the philosophy is to 'create a resort that must be themed in a manner to entertain, enlighten and amaze' we can all understand & agree, right.Not right!! So until we can agree on the basic premise the rest of the post doesn't apply!

I don't mean to dismiss it. My posts don't really apply to you either because we have a very different base line that we work from. I've spent a couple days trying to explain what this philosophy is and JJ and especial AV have said it much better than I could. Please, Peter. Go back and read those posts. Particularly the one that AV wrote concerning the movie set tie in.

Peter, JeffJewell gave the following example:
It's very possible to separate philosophy from taste: I like the approach they used when creating Tower of Terror, but I don't actually care for the ride experience, that much. On the other hand, I hate the approach they used when building Rock 'n' Roller Coaster, but I love riding it.Perfect example!! Wonderful. And I have the exact same feelings!

Peter. Is that somewhat clearer?

Another Voice

02-22-2002, 11:45 AM

After spending far too much time on this thread I’ve have come to the simple conclusion there are two sets of people here.

There are the ones the like the “classic” Disney as typified by early WDW, and the ones that like the “hyper” Disney era that opened later.

There are those see the past in context and who judge today’s actions against memories. There are see that past only in hindsight and find it lacks today’s sensibilities.

There are those that remember a time before hidden mickeys, the name with an apostrophy, pins and Pooh plush carts. There are others that are bored beyond a stupor by concrete A-frame towers, quiet places in the trees, and attractions that travel at less than 10 mph.

There are those want to see Walt, and those want to see Disney® .

JeffJewell

02-22-2002, 11:52 AM

"But since WL was built during the Eisner regime, you don't think it's Disney Standard."
I really want to know what lead you to that belief!! ...I believe that's probably mostly my fault.

Early in the thread, I said AKL did not live up to "Disney resort" standards, and that WL barely did. Later in the thread, Greg referred to people questioning the status of WL and AKL, and rather than spend much time clarifying something that seemed kinda insignificant, I made a joke about it, which seems to have implied that I was saying WL did _not_ meet the standard. That was a misstatement on my part. I do not think _anyone_ here actually holds the belief the WL simply does not meet the standard.

So that's how the faux "WL isn't Disney" thing happened. And I've been just awful about poaching posts aimed at the 'Baron recently... so I can understand that some things I've said might have gotten munged up with the 'Baron's arguments.

As far as you all know, I'm hanging my head in chagrin about this misunderstanding...

Jeff

raidermatt

02-22-2002, 12:28 PM

Jeff- Shame on you for your dishonest ways! "Dishonor on YOU, Dishonor on your COW..." ;)

AV- I'm actually ok with parts of your breakdown, though certainly not your implications. Quiet places in the trees? Attractions that go less than 10 mph? LOVE 'EM! And they are still there.

Speaking for myself, I'm really not bothered by a Pooh plush cart. I don't have to buy if I don't want to, but I do enjoy shopping at Disney, including in the parks. So shoot me.

I believe I actually keep the past in context quite well. Walt was a great man, and I am thankful for his wonderful creations. And when I go to WDW or DL, it does not bother me one bit that there are people who get enjoyment out of different things than I do. Even thought the AS, and, 'gulp', PC go up, nothing has changed at the resorts I wish to stay.

This notion that every Disney resort must have everything the Poly and Contemp had is just poppycock. There were only two resorts! To say that all future resorts must have everything both of these have is simply shortsighted, for it would also follow that any improvements should be nixed.

It might be different if there weren't so many Deluxes, with so many different options. However, those of us who consider some or all of the Deluxes to be the true definition of Disney Magic have plenty of choices. If someone else has a different definition, more power to them.

YoHo

02-22-2002, 01:13 PM

Just to bop Back to Planogirl's question that AV answered admirably.

Personally, to my tastes, I'd rather stay at the worst room at the Disneyland hotel facing the parking garage and local housing then any room and Pop Century and I'm tempted to say All Stars, but gcurling has convinced me they may have value.

It is a lovely resort and the Rebuild that has occured that improved the rooms and put in an excellent pool have done wonders to it.

The Hotel buildings are drab, but I love it none the less.

Scoop, I just want to say that I can agree with Landbaron on Fort Wilderness. If you think KOA and Jellystone compare, then you must see something I don't. That being said, you've made some cool suggestions, I like the Amazon theme.

Read what AV had to say. It sounds like the Golf Resort was intentionally built OUTSIDE the magic.

DVC-Landbaron

02-22-2002, 01:33 PM

If you think KOA and Jellystone compare, then you must see something I don't. That being said, you've made some cool suggestions, I like the Amazon theme.Scoop, I used this quote because I didn't want to take the time to look up the original. And I agree with both you and YoHo that an Amazon theme would have been WAY COOL!!! But, I think we're talking about taste again, instead of standards! By this remark I know I have not made my point at all. By the mere mention of this you show me we're still talking apples and oranges. If we use that as a guide then I would say that all the recent resorts suck!! Why? They are ALL American (or at least western hemisphere) themes! Nothing exotic. No Venetian. No Persian. No Mediterranean. No Asian. No Bavarian. All good old USA!! (or very close neighbor!) My choices would have been…

Do you see where that leaves us? Arguing taste instead of standards. Style over substance. The point is they went with an American theme. A Davy Crockett and Daniel Boone type thing. Maybe an Amazon adventure would have been more to your liking, but that's personal taste. And it definitely has nothing whatsoever to do with the care and diligence that went into the concept!! Well within the "Standards"!!

Another Voice

02-22-2002, 02:27 PM

Mr. Matt – I’m sorry but you’re being far too diplomatic for the tone in this thread. You must try to have a firmer opinion here.

Another way of looking at the split is that WDW used to be more “resort” and less “Disney”. Today, the place is very much about being as “Disney” as possible and less concerned about being a regular resort. The Golf Resort was never meant to be Disney in today’s sense of Disney®.

The “classic” Disney approach was to take a familiar experience and apply filmmaking techniques to it. An amusement park ride became a movie in three dimensions. Hotel décor was given a “movie set” sense of purpose and story flow. Even the boring old Golf Resort was (very intentionally) given a very dramatic, sweeping drive-up between the fairways so that it felt like a very secluded private club (the kind you only see in movies). This approach also saw the resorts in isolation – each was a self-contained entity (as far as themeing and the “experience”). There was less of a sense of how the resort tied into the rest of WDW.

This approach doesn’t have anything to do with the money. I find the Yacht and Beach Clubs to be very nice hotels and beautiful buildings. But they lack that classic Disney dramatic touch and fall rather flat for me. They’re nice, but I’ve seen plenty of “nice” hotels. It’s also interesting to note that the hotels were built by a traditional architect without and input from Disney creative. On the other hand, the views at Dixie Landings were all carefully laid out and plotted with a filmmaker’s eye, not an architect’s. The buildings and interiors are not as nice as Y&B, but I think the experience of the place is more interesting and more classically Disney.

Today’s Disney® is less about the having that kind of experience and more about having a brand experience. The décor on the outside of Pop Century is not there because someone had a great idea one day about a wonderful new hotel. The décor is there to establish a definite brand identity for the place, and to re-enforce the Disney Brand identity. A lot of companies have been very successful at it (think how much you pay for a pair of Nikes) and Disney is following business trends. Disney® is selling Disney and people want to buy.

The new resorts are more closely tied to WDW as a whole since the experience people want is the total of WDW, not just of one resort. The resort becomes a smaller part of the equation and therefore has to be “toned down” a bit in its approach. No resort pool can compete with Blizzard Beach, and no resort themeing can compete with the parks. The resorts are a supporting part and take a supporting role.

I think both approaches have their merits and their problems. Certainly people can rightly appreciate either one.

Okay, one problem is that it’s very easy for the “in-your-face” to overshadow the “subtle” elements. Yes, Main Street is still there just as it was in 1955 and 1971 – but you have to push aside the photographers chasing after your pocketbook to see it (they always give me a rather wistful regret that light sabers aren’t real which takes me a while to get over).

YoHo

02-22-2002, 02:38 PM

AV just reminded me of the number one problem I had with the Disney Cruise. Every Time a character was out for pictures their was a professional Photographer there to take that picture. Now they Were great CMS. they would take their picture and then take a Picture with your camera, but never the less, they were always there. Very annoying.

d-r

02-22-2002, 04:00 PM

So I get a out of a meeting and have a couple of minutes before I meet my wife, and I thought that I would check in and see how this was going.

I open up the browser, type in disboards, and scroll down the list looking for the link, and click on, of course "Debate Board." The page opens, and I'm excited to see all these new threads that I haven't read! But boy do they have some really weird subjects. OH, then I figure it out - I usuallly read the "RUMORS AND NEWS" board!!

I think it would be so over the top hilarious if sarangel moved this thread - all 11 pages of it - to the debate board. I wonder how the regulars there would react to getting all of this in one shot? I think it would be hella cool.

DR

YoHo

02-22-2002, 04:21 PM

They used to try that. It never worked out. Louis and Sara can't stop us any more. :jester:

Actually, we've picked up a couple of Debate board regulars in the last 6 months. I think they got bored with the political debate.

DVC-Landbaron

02-22-2002, 04:25 PM

Thank you again AV for crawling into my head putting in writing what I am 'feeling'. (There isn't a portal somewhere in LA that lets you get into my brain and then drops you on the Jersey Turnpike, is there?) Anyway… Okay, one problem is that it's very easy for the "in-your-face" to overshadow the "subtle" elements. Yes, Main Street is still there just as it was in 1955 and 1971 - but you have to push aside the photographers chasing after your pocketbook to see it (they always give me a rather wistful regret that light sabers aren't real which takes me a while to get over). Boy oh boy!! You got that one right. That is EXACTLY my concern. It is why the plush shops bother me. Why the 'Decorations' bother me. And everything else I'm always on about bothers me. The subtlety, cleverness and elegance is indeed lost. Maybe you just had to experience it to appreciate it. When I think about I realize that is what I miss most.

raidermatt

02-22-2002, 04:35 PM

AV- Diplomacy shiplomacy...:D

Really, though, I have to say I agree with much of what you said, and more to the point, with the way you presented it. I'm not saying that if every resort were like the Poly and Contempo in everyway, that would be inherently wrong. I can see how some would prefer that. I just don't see going the current route bringing down the median level of Magic, and the current route has its merits, both from a Magic perspective, and a business perspective.

At first, the idea of the photographers bothered me as well. While I like to shop for things I am interested in, I don't want things sold to me. But when we had a group of 10 people, with at least 5 cameras, and the photographer took a group photo of us with each camera, how could I complain? Everybody gets a photo with their own camera, we actually get through quicker because we don't have to switch off to take the pictures, and each photo has the whole group in it. I've never had this happen anywhere else. And when we had no interest in stopping for a photo, I have to say that the Disney photographers are not pushy at all. Sure it would be nice in those cases to not even have them there. But because they are there, I have a wonderful group photo of friends and family that I probably wouldn't have had, (at least for free) and might never get the chance to have again.

I'm sure there are other examples that I might not have a different side for, I'm just saying that its just not all black and white. I've mostly held back on Dino-rama because I haven't seen it in person. But I am defintitely apprehensive...

d-r- On the debate board, this would have two camps. One would insist that the problems with the resorts are all the fault of the wicked Clinton administration, and that only tax cuts will solve the problem. The other would counter with Iran-Contra and that George W. Bush's Axis of Evil comments are responsible for Iraq deciding against a World Showcase pavilion. (At least that's how every other debate ends)

Baron- If we accept different standards with restaurants (and PLEASE do not try to tell me that Pecos Bill's is up to the same Disney standard as Cinderella's Royal Table), why can we not accept it with resorts? Surely you must see Pecos Bill's and Cosmic Ray's as you tour the Kingdom. They clearly have a lessor standard in service, themeing, food quality, presentation, you name it. But some prefer this type of dining, or simply cannot afford more.

DVC-Landbaron

02-22-2002, 05:01 PM

And it hurts!!!!!!

They clearly have a lessor standard in service, themeing, food quality, presentation, you name it. But some prefer this type of dining, or simply cannot afford more. OK! Fair enough. Only one problem with that scenario as I see it. They are NOT different!! Oh sure they have different menus. They have different methods of preparation (chef vs. cook) and presentation (table service vs. self serve). But, and I'm kind of surprised you mentioned it, there is no difference in theme!! Each is themed to what it is supposed to 'feel' like. And that is important!! And I would assume the 'food quality' is the same for their particular venues. And even more important; they both give you a Disney Dining Experience. I suppose its like comparing Dumbo to Pirates! They are what they are, within the context of the Philosophy. (After re-reading this drivel I have to say - Please bear with me. I'm trying to articulate feelings here and that usually takes me two or three posts!! :crazy: Keep asking questions. It'll come!!)

Anyway, I see a HUGE difference. I really think it's like trying to compare apples and oranges. Now! If you'd like to discuss Pecos Bill's as opposed to a McDonald's in Disney!! Well, get ready for at least four more pages!!! ;)

raidermatt

02-22-2002, 05:28 PM

Raidermatt forces LandBaron to THINK!!!

No fair. You can't start throwing rational thought into this discussion now. What if we all did that?

I certainly understand what you mean by sometimes having trouble articulating Disney-motions (emoitions, Disney style). But I still have to say I didn't read anything yet to make be re-think my position. (Actually, I can't re-think if I didn't think in the first place, can I?) (I think I'll start using MORE parenthesis in my posts. It seems to be thowing some of you for a loop!)

But, and I'm kind of surprised you mentioned it, there is no difference in theme!! Each is themed to what it is supposed to 'feel' like.

SSSSCCCCRRRRRREEEEEAAAAACCCCCHHHHH!!!!! (Raidermatt comes to a screaching halt, unable to believe he has actually read this comment from Landbaron.)

Ok, Cinderella's Table is themed to be like what we imagine Cinderella's dining room to be like, should we be ever so lucky enough to be her invited guest. We are referred to as m'Lord, and m'Lady (take your pick). Tapestries, stained glass, high backed chairs, and a bill for it all. Cosmic Ray's? Uhhh. Is this supposed to be a futristic eatery? What planet am I on? One that has solved that cosmic mystery of how to serve food in a recycled cardboard container? At least they have blackbirds and love bugs on this planet, so I will not feel homesick. Or perhaps this is Earth circa 2050? Too bad we still haven't figured out that Catsup packets should come in larger packets because NOBODY uses just one of those puny things. Granted, Cinderella's Table may not be authentic Medival dining, but at least I can go along with it. But if Cosmic Ray's is the eatery of the future, in the same vain as Cinderella's is the eatery of fantastical castles, YIKES!

DC7800

02-22-2002, 06:04 PM

Originally posted by thedscoop
... I'll agree about the tower but those wings seem to represent the exact business philiosphy that you are complaining off. Put it up because you need the rooms and then worry about its theme...and this is why I at least try to get the baseline argeement that the PC issue we're discussing is not a new issue--maybe more prevalent these days for some--but this issue has affected Disney all the way back to the building of the garden wings (and arguably the Disney Inn)

Contemp Garden Wings presented by Days Inn and sponsored by Comfort Inn International=best evidence that bad decison like PC are not only within the realm of Michael Eisner...

Sorry to pick on thedscoop since, geographically speaking, we're practically neighbors, but I have to take up for the Contemporary Garden Wings. There is simply no comparison between those CR wings and Pop Century; not in theming, nor execution, and certainly not in underlying philosophy. Further, if the PC issue can truly be traced back to the Garden Wings construction, that takes us back to WDW's 1971 origins. Does anyone really believe that the watered-down, half-hearted Disney magic present in Pop Century was also part of the original plans for WDW?

The Contemporary - including the Garden Wings - are at least as well themed as the Boardwalk, or Yacht & Beach. In 1971, as the resort fit in with Tomorrowland, the theming was even stronger. But, like it's MK counterpart, the future has the nasty habit of catching up to the Contemporary, and there hasn't quite been enough updating to project the property into the future as far as it was in '71. Still, with a contemporary (present to near-future) theme, the result is still very effective. Even the atmosphere-heavy Polynesian shows its age in some aspects; that doesn't mean it has lost an ounce of pixie dust, however.

The Contemporary theming - identical in both tower and garden - is also far more subtle than the Wilderness Lodge or some other properties, but just as immersive. That's hardly a bad thing. Sure, Disney could add stronger "decorations", perhaps 50-foot Astro Orbiter style spaceship icons, and paint the concrete surface some bright color (wouldn't purple look good? :) ). This would indeed proclaim the future more boldly at the CR, but personally, I prefer the more obscure design!

As for PC and the All-Stars, I have mixed feelings. I'm grateful for their presence, for otherwise there would have been several years we would been forced to stay off-property (and All-Stars does - obviously - have more pixie-dust than Hampton Inn). However, I'll also agree that their prescence can diminish the "Disney magical" experience, much like the new under $30,000 offerings from Jaguar and Mercedes threaten to do for their distinguished reputations. Both are good cars, and the All-Stars are good resorts. Neither can be described as great, and neither really gives us the true Mercedes or Disney experience we really wanted. Again, each example above will benefit short-term sales, yet all will eventually be detrimental to long-term brand reputation and, in the end, profits.

Another Voice

02-22-2002, 07:05 PM

Mr. Matt, I’m actually in agreement with you too about the fact that every resort should not be the Poly and Contemp. Not everyone wants that level of hotel, or at least wants to pay for it. I even have to admit that my favorite resort to stay at was the Golf Resort/Disney Inn exactly because it was the least “themed” resort on property. Traveling on business, even to WDW, one begins to crave “normalcy” and this place was as close as one could get. Still, I think when Disney goes after the “theme” hotel project they should do it right. Disney missed an excellent opportunity by taking the easy way out for Pop Century. A true “Disney experience” at budget prices would have been nice to see.

My comment about the photographers was really just an example of a concern. In an effort to promote “the brand” it becomes very easy to forget about “the show”. Way back there was a big meeting about “what to do with Disneyland”. There was a big effort to promote the park using special events – the County Fair, the 1950’s theme, the Circus (this one even made it to EPCOT if people remember the elephant act in the middle of CommuniCore). The park was strung will all kinds of special entertainment and booths and bunting and decoration – all on top of the existing park. As plans were being made to expand this program, a well known designer stood up absolutely furious. He yelled out a phrase that I wanted to have inscribed over the entrance the Team Disney Building: “People go to Disneyland to see Disneyland!”

In the effort to sell pins, Pooh plush, photographs, refillable mugs and all the rest – Disney is forgetting to sell the parks. That’s why people go to WDW in the first place. Having inexpensive motel rooms isn’t going to do any good if there’s nothing there that people want to see. And Disney found this out well before Sept. 11 when it first delayed the opening of Pop Century. Any way, I feel that’s probably another topic.

And in a year that’s already made me feel old, please remember that in 1971 the Contemporary was at the very cutting edge of themeing – it really was the most futuristic building anyone had ever put together (watch that old clip where David Brinkley talks about the opening of WDW). Clean lines, unornamented white concrete really was “neat” at the time. That was until the real world caught up and everyone found themselves locked in cubicle fields in suburban sprawl tilt wall buildings.

There have been many plans over the years to update the place; all of them have been shot down. The last refurbishment was really tacked onto the construction of the convention center and was all they could get away with under the budget they had. There was even an impressive 50’s retro look, but because the place makes so much money off conventions anything really “wild” is killed. Basic thought is that bland is an easier sell to moderate-rate conventions.

And lastly, Mr. Matt, the gratuitous use of parentheses (which I’m really very fond of) is part of my style. Baron’s got his quotes, Pirate has his split personality, and I’ve got my asides. We all have our own niche.

DVC-Landbaron

02-23-2002, 12:06 AM

SSSSCCCCRRRRRREEEEEAAAAACCCCCHHHHH!!!!! (Raidermatt comes to a screeching halt, unable to believe he has actually read this comment from Landbaron.) Ladies and Gentlemen!! That’s style!! How can you not like reading a post like this!?!? :bounce:

Anyway… Down to business! Reread my post. I specifically compared Cinderella’s to Pecos Bill’s! I never, ever mentioned Cosmic Ray. In fact I steered clear of it because it is themed… well… ah… “differently”. And I personally don’t know how to categorize it. Yet you avoid Bill’s and concentrate on Cosmic Ray. But my comparison still holds between Cindy’s and Bill’s. At least to me it does!!

But hold on raidermatt!! The LandBaron may be on the threshold of a new thought. I may even consider reassessing my position somewhat!! (See!! Even I can learn new tricks!!) Something you have said, in conjunction with AV’s post. So, a question for you. And my new way of thinking depends on your answer!! (How’s that for drama?!?!)

How is Pecos Bill’s vs. Cindy’s different than Pirates vs. Dumbo? In the context of that ever-elusive standard I’m always talking about, of course.

You see, I contend that there is no difference.

airlarry!

02-23-2002, 09:49 AM

I hope I am not injecting too much of the original topic in here..but ;)

I've been looking at the second installment of Marc's excellent tour of the MiraCosta resort at TDS.

Maybe you like AS, maybe you don't.

But, I would like to see the number of people who would have chosen instead the Mira Costa resort...at the AS prices.

Crazy? Doesn't make business sense?

If the resorts were designed with experience in mind, in other words, every Disney resort will give their guest the same level, the same kind of experience, but the pricing points would differ on the:
a. extent of in-resort amenities
b. extent of in-WDW transportation options (but hopefully all themed to take you away),

then wouldn't the Hoteleers have done their job? The caste system would be the perfect one...some people go to WDW and don't have the money to hit every sit-down restaurant. They eat from the fast-food places. Some don't have the money to stay at the GF. But they want to stay at a place that is similar in quality. They just don't need all the snobby stuff to go with it. ;) ;)

WDW does not scrimp in the parks, setting the guests against each other with some internal cast esystem. So why do that in the resorts? But, JJ that doesn't mean you don't build the AS. You just build them as nice as the Poly, without all the fancy schmancy do-dads that drive up the cost. Make 'em bigger, make 'em without sit down restaurants, make 'em without beautiful lounges or beaches or rental places.

Wow:
http://www.laughingplace.com/News-PID505470-505481.asp
http://www.laughingplace.com/ShowPic.asp?Filename=http://www.laughingplace.com/lp/MiraCosta02/big/P12-4.jpg&Caption=...Outside+it's+DisneySea...&ID=505470

All Aboard

02-23-2002, 01:06 PM

airlarry, noble concept, but...

It's a fairly simple formula. Net annual profit (revenue less expenses) divided by capital cost = return on investment.

Can you build a Mira Costa, tend to the architecture and landscaping and charge $77 a night? What kind of return do you get?

In order to get the required return on a $77 a night hotel, you are limited in how much you can spend to build the place AND by how much you shell out in ongoing expenses. That's why you have smaller rooms, more rooms in each building, less expensive structures, more care-free landscaping, fewer CM's, etc.

The economics have to work.

Clearly, I realize that AS is "less" in every possible way than GF. However, that doesn't change my opinion that they are perfectly suited to WDW. I won't list the reasons why again.

Another Voice

02-24-2002, 11:43 AM

“Can you build a Mira Costa, tend to the architecture and landscaping and charge $77 a night? What kind of return do you get?”

The question what kind of return do you need for it to make sense as a hotel, and what kind of return do you need to make sense for Disney.

Pop Century doesn’t look the way it does because of the margins dictated by being a budget hotel. It looks the way it does because of ABC Family, ABC in general, Go.com, ‘Pearl Harbor’, The Secret Lab, store remodeling, and all those other projects your money goes to instead of to landscaping, cast members and such.

airlarry!

02-24-2002, 12:25 PM

Sigh.

If everything special and magical were quantified according to returns, I wonder if things like original sugar cane trains would have been restored, or secret gardens in Britain built, or, list your own little no-money makers that add to the world.

I understand your point, GC, I just see the entire WDW resort as one big gate, where resorts are like the restaurants and attractions fit to each persons budget but still with the same level of service and magic.

I think I understand Baron's point about the golf resort. It could have been intended to be part of the whole, not an individual part that had to have 'returns.' AS and PC are individual parts that must produce, instead of being 'attractions' that enable the budget conscious to enjoy staying On-Stage.

JeffJewell

02-25-2002, 07:08 AM

We have reached a baseline. Thank you. It causes me to respect the consistency of your opinion even more....take some credit for yourself, on this one. It has been the interaction with you and some others here that has forced me to galvanize my thoughts and focus my points on this topic.As you also know, I am not a big animation fan. So between early 1983 and May 1999, I have no WDW memories...and truth be told I have few memories from 1983 of WDW. So, my WDW journey began in 1999. We should all be required by law or board policy to make such confessions... which would then be collected in some sort of DIS reference manual.

Some of my earliest memories are of Disney animation, and their static counterparts Disney comic books (and, as long as we're likely going to mention "quality" in here somewhere, let me tell you that the consistency and quality of Carl Barks' work on Donald Duck comics could almost make Walt Disney look like something of a hack, in comparison). Although the end of 1971 was verboten (in those days, you didn't pull the kids out of school to go to Florida. At least, my family didn't), we helped celebrate Walt Disney World's inaugural year with a visit during the summer of 1972. Yearly trips to WDW (I probably still have a shoe box full of Eastern wings, somewhere) were a family tradition up until about 1984 (including E.P.C.O.T. Center's Grand Opening). College, then my first "real" job and apartment commanded my attention for some years, then a trip to a training class in Orlando offered the chance to reacquaint myself with WDW. Suzy, also a lifelong Disney fan, and I have been making two or three trips a year, for several years, now (the variably tentative May trip would keep us at that rate for this year. I don't mean to jerk you guys around, but I'm still all waffly about it. I can just see myself the evening of May 9th, bags in the trunk, still trying to decide whether to start the car or not).

So, Chad, in other words, you and I have nearly inverse experiences with Disney and WDW, certain to create vastly different expectations. I suppose it's not too surprising that the one thing we can most easily agree on is my admirable consistency of opinion. ;)
that's probably a "taste" issue rather than "standards issue"....I think I see what you mean, in that our expectations of Disney could be called our "taste" in Disney. I'd like to suggest, though, that it was a difference in Disney's standards during the periods when we were forming our respective expectations/tastes, that led to such a dramatic chasm between them.

Jeff

All Aboard

02-25-2002, 09:44 AM

Since it's board policy, I guess I must comply:

I've been to WDW roughly 65 times. 31 of those trips have been during 1999-current and have included my daughter (who turned 4 in January). Her first trip was right after her 1st birthday in January, 1999.

My first trip was in the summer of 1977 at age 12. We then took a summer trip each year through high school. I went to college at FSU from 1983-1987 (about 4 hours away from WDW), so I made the trip down quite a bit (about 4-5 times a year).

For the first 2 years after undergrad, I continued to go a couple of times a year. Then from 1990 - 1994 (grad school and "serious career development" ha! :) ) I only made three trips.

From mid-1994 until January of 1999, I did not go to WDW at all.

Now, we go up about a dozen times a year. It's a 7 hour round trip drive. We mostly do long 3 or 4 day weekends, but do an 8 night trip once a year in January and a 5 night trip in September.

I guess I've seen WDW at all stages of development (except the first 5 years.) My perspective has changed considerably with the birth of our daughter.

DVC-Landbaron

02-25-2002, 10:41 AM

Baron--I'm just totally confused by you. Immersive, no immersive, North American good, North American bad...I will always respect your passion even though I am utterly confused by its visionI blame my writing style, the enormity of the subject and my inability to articulate the 'feelings' which direct my Disney 'vision'.

I feel I'm one of the few that does not vacillate on the issues. In fact, sometime I think I may have too distinct a line between the 'right and wrong' of Disney. I am also trying to accept the new way of Disney and not be so hard-line when it comes to giant, primary colored icons and the selling of plush toys everywhere you turn.

So Scoop. I don't understand your question. Where did I lead you to believe that I don't want Disney to immerse you in everything they offer? As far as North America theme, I consider it a taste issue (same as Fort Wilderness). No, I'm not pleased that everything that Disney has done (with the exception of AK) is themed from the western hemisphere. I would have preferred a more exotic direction. But this is just personal taste. Which is why I don't let it interfere with my assessment of whether or not such a concept is up to the Disney 'standard'. Taste shouldn't matter. Standards should.

Anything else you find confusing?

PS: I think the 'confessions' is a wonderful idea. But it should be it's own thread. Not something that starts of page 12 of a thread that's too long already!!!

YoHo

02-25-2002, 11:46 AM

I agree with the BAron that it should be its own thread, but I know how these things work. So, I'll add my info here and cut n' Paste if appropriate.

I'm a Young'un around here. I don't quite recall my first trip to WDW or DL, but they both occured sometime between my Birth in 1975 and my Sister's in 1980. Stayed offsite that first time and stayed offsite again in 1986. My First onsite stay was in 1989 when we stayed at the Poly. I fell in love with the resort then. My mom went to a medical convention at the Contemp in 1990, so we stayed there and also got to see Dis/MGM.

My next trip was June of 1996 I went with 3 other good friends and Disney freaks. I was introduced to Food and fun and many of the great resturants this trip. We stayed at Old Key West, so I also got a full on taste of the Bus service that trip and learned to appreciate the Poly even more.

I went again in 1999 this time with 4 other friends including my now wife. We stayed at the Poly and loved every minute of it.
Went again in Jan of 2000 for a long weekend with my now wife to check out the millenium celebration. We stayed at the Contemp which we liked, but not as much as I had in 1990.

I round out my Disney Expireance with a week long trip to Anaheim at the Disneyland Hotel December of 2000 and my very recent honeymoon which was a 4-day Cruise on the Wonder.

dragonflymanor

02-25-2002, 12:21 PM

Hello all,

After reading almost this entire post (okay, so I skipped a few days...) I think I have come to the conclusion that the Great Rift Valley that exists on DIS is between the following two camps:

DVC-Landbaron's Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda: The tribal elders here look at the current state of Disney and compare it to what it might have been were it not for (choose 1: No Walt, Ei$ner, Pre$$ler, All of the above).

This tribe is in constant conflich with, the "HavaTaLoveIt" tribe. They don't look at the past and compare. They show up, have a great time and then state: "The Magic is as Strong as Ever".

Both are true (how's that for doing a Jeff Probst and sitting on the fence). One could look back and see the CouldaWouldaShoulda's are right. At the same time, if you show up and experience the Magic and that's all that matters, then the HavaTaLoveit's are right.

DragonflyManor leans more to the CouldaWouldaShoulda mostly due to the following facts:

1) DCA. Not at all the best imagineering example.
2) DisneySea. The Best Imagineering example.
3) The fact that Disney management believes that OLC was foolish for building DisneySea leads me to believe that they have decided to abandon the leadership position in themed entertainment.

I still transition to a HavaTaLoveIt while at WDW, when I return I drift back into the Coulda's.

Disney's abandonment of the lead shall be my gain.

Now for the personal stuff:

First trip to WDW was around 1975. Didn't go again until 1999 on business. Kinda was annoyed at the "perfection", but then at that time I was really into outdoor sports like adventure racing where pain, filth, and exhaustion are considered to be part of the fun. Took my daughter and my fiancee in 2000 for a week. Changed my life. I finally found the thing that I was searching for: a way to combine my music, art, and technology. You see, performed in Classical Piano competitions for 8 years while growing up, even getting selected as one of the 4 best Juniors in North Carolina. I have always been an artist, but abandoned all that for the paycheck of a Computer Science career that never quite gave me the satisfaction I wanted.

My wife and I went to WDW on our honeymoon in Jan 2001 and we all went for vacation in July 2001. Now we are paying the bills for 3 trips in 2 years and a wedding on top of that. However, I also started Dragonfly Manor which is comprised of three areas: Design Studios (pays the bills doing website and graphic design), Entertainment (where I get to have fun), and Productions (we are working on two screenplays at the moment). This all keeps me quite busy and I end up working until 2:30 or 3am most nights (getting 3-4 hours of sleep is a learned skill).

Hmmm, perhaps I said too much.......

YoHo

02-25-2002, 12:29 PM

This forum is acting screwy Must bump this.

JeffJewell

02-25-2002, 01:01 PM

I have always been an artist, but abandoned all that for the paycheck of a Computer Science career that never quite gave me the satisfaction I wanted. ...we should start a club.

Jeff

YoHo

02-25-2002, 01:22 PM

My computer career is entirely for the money....
Of course these days there ain't so much money as there was.

I'm thinking professional Disney guest.

raidermatt

02-25-2002, 02:15 PM

Crankscreachrattlegrindspit------KACHUNK

That was the sound of Raidermatt firing up the old noodle after a weekend of non-Rumors board discussion.

I specifically compared Cinderella’s to Pecos Bill’s! I never, ever mentioned Cosmic Ray. In fact I steered clear of it because it is themed… well… ah… “differently”. And I personally don’t know how to categorize it.

Well, regardless of how Cosmic Ray's is categorized, I don't think we can say it's immersive. I didn't realize you were differentiating between Pecos and Cosmic, but I can go with that.

How is Pecos Bill’s vs. Cindy’s different than Pirates vs. Dumbo? In the context of that ever-elusive standard I’m always talking about, of course.

You see, I contend that there is no difference.

Pecos Bill's is a nicely themed fast food restaurant. There is some detail, and definitely an old west feeling. It has fast food prices, and fast food service. Cinderella's is a nicely themed "sit-down" restaurant. There is more detail than at Pecos, and more attentive service. Your point about them both being Disney quality is a good one. But they are most certainly different categories of restaurants, and the level of immersiveness varies between them. Why? Not every guest wants Cinderella's at every meal. Sometimes, they just want fast food. With Pecos, it is an option, Disney style.

I see this as a good analogy for the Resorts. Per AV's example, sometimes, for whatever reason, guests may not want the full Disney resort treatment. Maybe it's the price, maybe its what they are comfortable with, whatever. They still want to be sure they are in WDW, but they maybe uncomfortable with the lady in a Hula skirt in the lobby who is asking if they want to try Poi. So the concept of a value resort fits just as well as a value restaurant.

Rides/Attractions carry a somewhat different dynamic, because of the way they are packaged and presented. As you point out, Dumbo and Pirates offer different levels of immersiveness, yet they both meet the Disney standard. While there certainly are some people who prefer Dumbo, most will grant that Pirates offers the more immersive escape and certainly has a greater attention to detail. But, just like Value/Deluxe resorts, both have a place within Disney.

AV- I'm basically in agreement with the logic of your post. If the focus is on budget hotels instead of the parks themselves, that's a problem. But I'm just not convinced that's where THE focus is. How the current projects are completed will have a lot to do with my opinion over the next couple of years. (Bug Town & ToT, and other changes/additions at DCA, Pooh at DL, M:S & JIYI at Epcot, Mickey's Philharmonic at MK, etc)

Didn't mean my comment about parenthesis to come off as a knock on your writing style. I sometimes think I use parenthesis a bit much, and lose the point I was trying to make, and my comment was just an acknowledgement of that. Please, remain in your niche and parenthesise away!

JeffJewell

02-25-2002, 03:09 PM

...which is now known as Cosmic Ray's, was at one time the largest food service establishment under one roof in the Western Hemisphere. There is also the fact that what was considered "futuristic" in 1971 (stark, clean lines; lotsa concrete, metal, and glass) seems rather bland, perhaps even sterile, in 2002.

The Terrace/Ray's conversion was mostly the addition of neon, if memory serves.

That's one of the reasons I was curious about everyone's Disney background. I can understand the point that, three decades out, projects like the Contemporary and Cosmic Ray's don't seemed particularly themed or Magical, at all.

They were something else in 1972, though, let me tell you what.

I can't force anyone to retroactively see the generation-old Magic in what are now inarguably relatively plain facilities. But just because you can't see something right now, doesn't mean it was never there.

Jeff

Peter Pirate

02-25-2002, 03:57 PM

Very good point JeffJust because you can't see something right now, doesn't mean it was never there.

And, just because you don't see something there right now doesn't mean that you won't in the future, either...Right? It works both ways...Rides we see as adults today don't seem classic to us, but I'll tell you right now that as I look back at my life at WDW, the experiences I've had with my daughters will make rides special in our eys and probably in the eyes of many, to make them future classics. For me and my oldest daughter Test Track will fit that bill. I won't bore you with the family details but it will be a ride long remembered for very specific reasons...
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

DVC-Landbaron

02-25-2002, 03:59 PM

The Tomorrowland Terrace... ...which is now known as Cosmic Ray'sOH MY GOD!!! Is that Cosmic Ray??? I swear I thought he was talking about the place in EPCOT!!! See!! I STILL call it Tomorrowland Terrace (home of Michael Iceberg!) to my kids (who now know it by that name)! If I had known, a history lesson would have taken place! I hate what they have done to it. And I hate that no imagination whatsoever has gone into that place in thirty years! Anyway, enough ranting… Well, regardless of how Cosmic Ray's is categorized, I don't think we can say it's immersive.No it's not!! Pretty sad these people let it fall from the grand concept is was and into this shameful state!! Pretty sad indeed! Pecos Bill's is a nicely themed fast food restaurant. There is some detail, and definitely an old west feeling. It has fast food prices, and fast food service. Cinderella's is a nicely themed "sit-down" restaurant. There is more detail than at Pecos,I was right with you until that last little bit. You know, "more detail". I really don't think so. More elegant perhaps, but that's what the theme calls for. But more detail? I really do disagree. And I invoke my new standards (really it was my old one its just that I never was able to put it into words before). The MOVIE FEEL standard. Cause AV is 100% correct. It's the feeling that you're walking into the set of a movie. Pecos Bill's is a western set. Cinderella's is a fantasy period piece. The same!!

I've always said that an "A" ticket ride and an "E" ticket ride were virtually the same. Yes, we all like "E" tickets better than "A". But the concept was the same, universally. (Boy the arguments that caused!!) But now I can put that concept, that feeling if you will, into words. And I've always said that amenities for the resorts shouldn't matter either. I mistakenly thought transportation should be included, but upon further reflection it is but a small piece of the "Disney Standard" picture. I even said amenities shouldn't matter in this very thread. But I had nothing more tangible than a feeling to back that up. Your point about them both being Disney quality is a good one.Thanks. Bear with me for a moment. I do have a point and maybe you'll even agree with it. But they are most certainly different categories of restaurants, and the level of immersiveness varies between them. Why? Not every guest wants Cinderella's at every meal. Sometimes, they just want fast food. With Pecos, it is an option, Disney style.I agree with 90% of that paragraph and yet feel I have to dismiss the entire thing because of one very important point. And you may think that I'm just playing with semantics, but I think that this is the very essence of the subject.

You said immersiveness. That the immersiveness was different. On that I strongly disagree. Yes, the differences are too apparent to name. Elegant vs. wild west. Table service vs. self serve. Fine dining vs. fast food. On and on, the differences mount. But in order to live up to the Disney Standard, the immersive level MUST remain an equal (or as near as possible). So what are the differences? Ahhhh! It finally came to me. Amenities!! Yes! The things that don't enter into a Disney quality or standard or philosophy or whatever else you want to call it argument!

So, I thank you for bring the question to the forefront of my thought. You forced me to think about it in a new way. And AV capped it all with his old time subtle movie set thing. He, of course, hit the nail on the head. I always knew what I liked about it, but could never put a name on it. It was the 'feel' you had when you drove up to the Golf Resort and stepped into the lobby that made it Disney!!! Add a couple of Disney CMs and it is suddenly unimportant how you get to the MK! The resort automatically falls within the philosophy the same way Dumbo and Peco Bill's falls into it.

And that's the problem, as I see it, with the current direction of Disney lately. And of course that includes the resorts. Which is why WL makes my list and the GF just barely makes it. That's why Dixie Landings and even Port Orleans (to a certain extent) makes my list, but some of the others….

Subjective. You bet! But then again feelings always are. So is great art or literature. I like to think of it in terms of someone getting it or not getting it. Clearly almost everyone on these boards get it! They may not know how to voice it (I sure didn't), but they know it. Conversely it is also apparent that Ei$ner doesn't get it. And he never did. Otherwise we wouldn't see Disney® running rampant.

Is this making more sense now, or have I confused the issue even further?

airlarry!

02-25-2002, 04:57 PM

Is everyone else having fun reading the various posts regarding the resorts? I am...in fact, I am starting to understand the different views. I would love to see each one of these analyzed by the two/three sides.

Baron, my understanding now is that you consider the development of the resorts to be part of the On-Stage Show. The Golf Resort was the movie set for the big fancy country club resort not everyone has been to, away from the Disney Magic. The Polynesian was that ideal of an Adventureland retreat on some fantastic island out in the Pacific. The Contemp was the 'future' that we didn't quite see embodied in Tomorrowland.

So, the mistakes have been made where the planners fell away from that 'vision' of extending the RESORT idea all the way to the parks. So Dixie Landings and PO fit, Fort Wilderness fits (if you throw in the River Country aspect, built around the same time), but the others are questionable?

I agree now. It is not the concept of price, per se, but the level of SHOW. Pop Century, by this analysis, does not fit. It does not fit in with the Four Parks at all. It is not part of the show.

Anyone care to give us the full treatment of the other resorts? I always saw the Grand Floridian as being part of it, especially since they have changed it to the whole Mary Poppins, sort of English retreat thing.

JeffJewell

02-25-2002, 05:00 PM

It works both ways...Rides we see as adults today don't seem classic to us, but I'll tell you right now that as I look back at my life at WDW, the experiences I've had with my daughters will make rides special in our eys ...I don't think it's the same thing, at all.

If you went to the Tomorrowland Terrace in 1971, you got an image of the fast food of the future; both the scale and the decor were like nothing else at the time. This was true whether you were five or forty when you saw it.

Reality caught up with Cosmic Ray's. Business discovered "economies of HUGE scale," and the once futuristic design elements now appear to about as futuristic as an Edsel. Go to Cosmic Ray's now, whether you're five or forty, you get an image reminiscent of a school lunchroom.

As far as the last part of your sentence, there are an awful lot of places that Peter and his daughters can experience together and make lifetime memories. That's family magic, not Disney Magic; people make those kinds of memories in all theme parks. And state parks, city parks, and the living room, for that matter. Disney Magic is not the only thing in the world that can delight a child.

You appear willing to give Disney credit for your daughters loving to spend time with you.

Jeff

All Aboard

02-25-2002, 05:12 PM

That's family magic, not Disney Magic; people make those kinds of memories in all theme parks. And state parks, city parks, and the living room, for that matter. Disney Magic is not the only thing in the world that can delight a child.BUT!... there's no place that delights my child like WDW does. Not even close.

DVC-Landbaron

02-25-2002, 05:13 PM

I agree now. It is not the concept of price, per se, but the level of SHOW.YES!!!! YES!!!

I couldn't put it into words for the longest time. I felt it, but could not articulate it. And you size it up in one simple sentence!!!

Thank you!! :bounce:

Peter Pirate

02-25-2002, 05:37 PM

OK...It's my turn to struggle for sanity, I guess. I reach what I think is a fairly agreeable place and what I get in return is that my daughters and I would share the sme experiences anywhere, not just WDW!

Well then, what makes the classic anything?... It's how people feel about something over a period of time with all of the memories, fun & delight they've shared enjoying these attractions. Why is POC classic? Because of the ride mechanism? Because of the story? Or because of the detail? Sure these things play a part. But the biggest element is father time. This attraction has stood the test of time & drawn legions and generations of followers to sing its praise. If you can't see that this will happen to attractions of today with future generations then we really have nothing to discuss. It seems totally obvious to me that many of the ride classics of tomorrow will not receive that respect, adoration & piety until the torches of time have annoited them.

My daughters don't love me anymore at WDW than they do at Parrot Jungle, the beach, or my living room & to be sure they'll have memories of things that happen at Parrot Jungle, the beach & our living room as well as WDW, but the magic afforded by WDW allows for so many magic moments in such short periods of time the fun factor cannot be overlooked.
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

JeffJewell

02-25-2002, 06:12 PM

I reach what I think is a fairly agreeable place and what I get in return is that my daughters and I would share the sme experiences anywhere ...actually, what I said was that you and your daughters had it within your capacity to have "experiences" that would be "long remembered for very specific reasons" even outside of WDW.

If that's not an "agreeable place" to be, then I'm sorry... in all kinds of ways.

Jeff

raidermatt

02-25-2002, 07:58 PM

It is not the concept of price, per se, but the level of SHOW.

Baron/Larry - I do believe I understand. A couple of points though:

1- I still don't see Peco Bill's as having the same level of show as Cinderella's. Standing in line for a CM sitting at an electronic cash register, so I can move forward to a counter where I see into the food prep area, and then making sure I exit so as to not collide with other guests is just not the same level of show as Cinderella's (for me). I know, Cinderella's is not an authentic reprodcution of a fantasy kingdom, but its closer (at least in my eyes) than Pecos Bill's is to the old west. Again, its not that I have a problem with Pecos, because I don't, its just that I recognize the difference on all levels. You may call these things amenities, and therefore unimportant, but to me LOOKING like a movie set and FEELING like a movie set are different. Pecos looks, and to a certain extent feels like a movie set, but I maintain the Cinderella's does a much better job on the feeling side.

2- I guess if you don't believe there is a difference in show between Pecos and Cinderella's, or between Pirates and Dumbo, then I can understand how you would not accept a difference in show among resorts. But I honestly do see that difference, and I'm ok with putting up a resort that recognizes that difference, because its what some want.

3- While I recognize the difference in show among restaurants and resorts, and accept it, its only because Disney still offers me the choice as to which level I want. I don't have to stay at AS, and I don't have to eat at Pecos.

I think we are getting pretty close to the agree to disagree stage. But at least we seem pretty close to putting our finger on exactly what we are disagreeing on, and that is the level of show.

If I could pose a question, it might help me confirm whether or not I truly "get" your point. If, in your opinion, the value resorts did offer that level of show you want to see, but offered fewer amenities, and therefore charged a lower price, would you be ok with it? For instance, lets say ASMovies, in your opinion, made you feel like it was that movie set you are looking for. Maybe it only had fast food, but it was of Pecos Bill caliber. There's not a spa, or exercise room, etc. COULD that fit in with your vision of what WDW should be?

I also echo what Peter means (at least what I think he means). Certainly I don't need Disney to create family memories. But that holds no matter who is running Disney, and how they are doing it. The question is, what vacation destinations help facilitate those memories more than others. WDW and DLresort come up at the top of my list.

Another Voice

02-25-2002, 08:57 PM

“LOOKING like a movie set and FEELING like a movie set are different”

That’s pretty much spot on. To me that’s really closely aligned with the SUCCESS of the show or not. Pulling off the “magic” (I hate that term but it’s good shorthand) isn’t all that easy. Not every restaurant or attraction or resort necessarily succeeds. I also think a particular “show” might work for some people and might not work for others. Much like there are movies that people really like and people who really dislike that same movie.

To answer your question, Mr. Matt, “If, in your opinion, the value resorts did offer that level of show you want to see, but offered fewer amenities, and therefore charged a lower price, would you be ok with it?” – that’s been pretty much my point all along. As a show, Dixie Landing is much more successful than the Grand Floridian. Money doesn’t matter as much as imagination and effort.

And that’s my problem with Pop Century. There’s no show there; it’s not a Disney resort in the “classic Disney” sense. To me, Disney is a style and an approach to development. Something like Pop Century is Disney® - a branded product that lacks that old time sensibility. It’s Disney in the same sense those breakfast cereals are Disney, it’s nothing but marketing. Yes, people will enjoy staying there. Yes, it’s nice that people can afford to stay there. Yes, it’s nice people will enjoy the “magic” of staying on property. But – the place is lacking that “one step more” element that Disney used to be so good at.

DVC-Landbaron

02-25-2002, 11:32 PM

If, in your opinion, the value resorts did offer that level of show you want to see, but offered fewer amenities, and therefore charged a lower price, would you be ok with it? For instance, lets say ASMovies, in your opinion, made you feel like it was that movie set you are looking for. Maybe it only had fast food, but it was of Pecos Bill caliber. There's not a spa, or exercise room, etc. COULD that fit in with your vision of what WDW should be?I’m sorry, but I had to quote the entire paragraph. You see, it’s so nicely put. And it’s right on the money. It’s perfect. And it would fit in just fine. Just as well as the Golf Resort or those cute little huts known as the Shopping Village. Fast food, but done as well as fast food could possibly be done.

I guess I see your point about Pecos Bill’s, but at the same time I cut them a little slack. I mean, how else are you going to do fast food? And remember, I’m not looking for authentic. And I’m not looking for just the look. I’m looking for feel. And I really don’t know how you can dress up fast food much better. Any of the fast food joints in MK. They’re all fairly good, I’d say (with the exception of Cosmic Ray and that thing between Main Street and Tomorrowland). I especially like the Columbia House. It just has a feel to it. I still can’t explain it, but it works!!

Anyway, if they had done just a little of that for the economies I’d be happy. Instead of a GIANT primary colored reel of film, how about something reminiscent of a sound stage? A back lot kind of thing. You know, unpainted walls, half decorated sets, etc. Or something along those lines. That would have been PERFECT being situated by the Studios!!! But they chose to decorate it instead. Or maybe it wasn’t a choice. Maybe they really think that they did their job. In other words maybe they really don’t know the difference!!!

3- While I recognize the difference in show among restaurants and resorts, and accept it, its only because Disney still offers me the choice as to which level I want. I don't have to stay at AS, and I don't have to eat at Pecos.Well, here we differ once again. You see, they are not offering you Pecos Bill’s. They are offing you Cosmic Ray, which we ALL agree pretty much stinks!! If they did offer up a well themed out experience I wouldn’t mind at all.

And you are right. I don’t have to go there. And again, if they were an anomaly I’d probably still complain a little, but let’s face it, one bummer in all that wonderful magic ain’t too bad a batting average. But it isn’t an anomaly. It isn’t just one disappointment out of a thousand. IT IS A TREND!!! Heck!! Even that doesn’t explain it!! It’s more than a trend; it’s a 180-degree turn in policy! In their founding philosophy! And it is that philosophy (Walt’s vision) that I fell in love with. And that is why I am bothered by it, even if I never cast eyes on it. Just knowing it’s there shows me how really far from Walt’s vision we have come. And as evidenced by Pop Century, it’s getting worse!!!!!!

Another Voice

02-26-2002, 10:59 AM

But aren’t these details the tangible examples of what we’re trying to talk about. To me, it’s illuminating to talk about a specific production, using specific features and specific elements that do and do not work. It’s certainly better than the “I find it magically, so shut up” argument that too many discussions end up in.

No one here is arguing that everything at WDW is rotten. And no one is arguing (with the exception of Pirate perhaps) that everything at WDW is absolutely perfect. Everyone judges each new project based on their perception of “Disney standards” – a highly nebulous and debatable benchmark. Those standards can and do change over time, but there is always a base line that people think of when they hear “Disney”.

There is a reason that Disney is popular – and that reason didn’t just show up one day with the brand fairy. Disney today would not be what it is without decades of work. Work that went back long before even the Baron and I were born, Mr. Scoop. Perhaps it is worthwhile to look at the reason for that success, see if it still holds true today, and then if today’s products have those qualities.

The Poly was a big hit in 1971 and remains so today. That can be judged by occupancy and by the room rates and by all the postings you see around here. But no one has warm fuzzy memories of the Howard Johnson’s that opened in the Hotel Plaza in 1971. And that hotel served the EXACT functions that the Pop Century place is supposed to – value priced rooms, a strong brand to convey quality, and close to all the “magic” of WDW. They even had express bus service directly to the TTC, something that Pop Century may not get.

Perhaps it’s just worth the effort to figure out why one hotel survived and the other limps along through owner after owner. Perhaps that way we can avoid the same mistakes and ensure the future projects are successful. Just makes smart business sense, doesn’t it?

Some people seem to believe that Disney is anything labeled with a “Disney” sticker. It’s not. No one cares about brand image, people in the end care about the product. Calling things Disney’s California Adventure or Disney’s Atlantis sure didn’t ensure their success. Insisting that people love something for its brand is the quickest way to ruin a company I can think of.

DVC-Landbaron

02-26-2002, 12:20 PM

Scoop:

I really have to throw in with AV (surprise, surprise!). If it weren't for his particular example of the Golf Resort I would still be thinking in terms of price and amenities. I would still 'feel' the same way, but not know why. But now I can verbalize my feelings. They are now more tangible.

And surprisingly, my position has changed as a result. I now look at the resorts individually, not by class. Very important. Just because a resort is in the moderate or economy class does not make it a non-Disney experience. As evidenced by Dixie Landings. Again it was AV's specific example that made me take a really hard look at the place. And I found that my blanket pigeonholing was mistaken (this old dog learned a new trick!). While I still maintain that Ei$ner deliberately instituted a caste system and threw out Disney Standards and replaced them with Industry Standards, I now understand what the root cause was. It was not price and it was not amenities. Quite simply it was Walt's Disney vs. Disney ®!! They forgot, or chose to ignore, what a Disney experience should be.

Still don't believe me? Take a look at Adventureland today. Just what is it supposed to be? And please don't get me wrong. I'm not deriding Aladdin. Remember, I'm one of the few that accepted and even thanked Ei$ner for the extra. What I am blasting is the terrible clash of themes within that area. Kind of makes it look like a decorated amusement park instead of giving the guest that 'movie set' feel.

YoHo

02-26-2002, 12:22 PM

Landbaron, I would like to point out the Pirate's Caribbean/Spanish Fort look has never and will never Match with the look of the Tikiroom/Swiss Family robinson. they simply do not match at all. and while I haven't seen the current adventureland yet, I've seen DL's which has Jasmines reading area which blends in nicely. So :p

Oh and SPeaking of DL. If I recall correctly, DL has exacly 1 UNo Eins Fast food resturant like Pecos Bills. It is Pinochios in Fantasyland. every single other resturant with the exception of blue bayoo is more Cafeteria style. There are also a few food stands, but they tend to serve nicer fair. in fact Pecos Bills and Tomorrowland Terrace are both what I would call an offense to the SHOW of Disneyland's eateries. I would never use them as a good example.

(AV and others, please correct me if I overstate. It was the impression I got that Disneyland has vastly Superior "Fast" food compared to MK.)

dragonflymanor

02-26-2002, 12:29 PM

DVC, I totally agree with you on Adventureland. The attempt to tie in Alladin (which they should have done 10 years ago), I think is misplaced. Though they were attempting to create Agraba, to place a desert location across the “street” from the Jungle Cruise and the Treehouse just blows it. It has become the “decorated” area.

Now for the Pirate in us all…

If you turn your back on Jungle Cruise and Treehouse, and position yourself so you don’t see the Tiki Room, then there’s that ole’ Disney Magic!

However, I’m not a Pirate (nor do I play one on T.V.) and I can’t help but see the jumble of conflicting stories. (maybe if Agraba were supposed to be on the banks of the Nile???)

Now, compare and contrast Adventureland with the Splash Mountain/Big Thunder areas. I think while Splash doesn’t quite fit with the desert motif of Big Thunder, the two do play well beside each other for some strange reason. It’s probably the earthiness of the two attractions. Dirt and Dirt go together, I guess.

A.V. I would also agree with you, the history of Disney is part of what makes one hotel great (it’s a Disney hotel) and one just another place to lay your head that happens to be next door to the park. It’s that overused management-o-the-day word “Synergy”. It’s the tie we have to our childhood where each afternoon lasted a year and summers would never end. That came from the films, the television shows, the tight control Walt had of the Disney brand that wouldn’t allow him to make a “serious” film though he wanted to (by “serious” I mean something not appropriate for the whole family). Those memories are what puts some in the frame of mind to accept a Motel 6 with a fancy paint job to be a “true Disney experience”, while others still look at the Motel 6 and hang their heads wondering where it all went wrong.

Watch Zorro on Vault Disney – same set, same costume (heck, same basic story) each and every episode. Does it make it cheap to produce? Yep. Does it make it Disney? Not because of it, but in spite of it. The Disney gift is to take something ordinary and make it something that hits just the right amount of sappy sentimentality, humor, and adventure in many people.

I think that’s what’s lacking in places that “have it” and places that don’t. The places that “have it” have the right blend of elements (color, style, story) to allow us to dream. Those that don’t end up as just another decorated place.

What’s funny in all this is that there are really very few places to eat at WDW that really meet the “Disney Experience” and they all end up being the sit-down places. I can’t get immersed in my Western town themed environment while looking at my Cheesburger and Fries with a Diet Coke and packs of Ketchup. However, I can get into at Pioneer Hall.

So, discussing Pecos Bill’s or Cosmic Ray’s should really come down to the following question:

“When you sit down at ________, do you feel that you can really pretend to be in another place and another time, or do you feel like you are just at another neat looking restaurant”

BTW, I think Rainforest Café has it….

YoHo

02-26-2002, 12:57 PM

DScoop, why oh why do you keep seemingly to ignore what Jeffjewel and others have pointed out?
in 1971, the Contemporary Garden wings were unique, they WERE Deluxe. they were everything you say they were not. HECK, they were exciting to me in 1990. The only Sin there is that no change has been made and that is firmly at the feet of Eisner and no one else.

The Disney Inn was purposly Designed as that to appeal to those that did not want a themed resort. In fact the Contemporary Garden wings and the Disney Inn were done very well WHEN THEY WERE BUILT.

I just don't understand why you keep bringing this up when you're argument has been deflected so well. :)

DVC-Landbaron

02-26-2002, 01:04 PM

… and agree to disagree!! ;)

If you turn your back on Jungle Cruise and Treehouse, and position yourself so you don't see the Tiki Room, then there's that ole' Disney Magic!WHOA!!! That's way too much effort! I'll leave that kind of 'selective' magic to my good friend the Pirate!! ;)

Scoop!! You had me rolling on the floor!! I mean it. You've found three or four examples of what you consider failures and you mention them every chance you get!! (as an aside I strongly disagree with you on all counts!! I don't know how else to say it!!)

Anyway, thanks for the input YoHo and I agree wholeheartedly and was tempted to write pretty much the same thing (but with way more quote!!)

But, Scoop my friend, I think it may be time to agree to disagree instead, cause it's certainly apparent that I'm spinning my wheels trying to get you to buy into something that you never really experienced. All I ask is that you reread some of AV's posts. His take on the Movie Set feel hits the mark much closer than my old 'exotic, swept away' inept way of describing it.

YoHo

02-26-2002, 01:09 PM

Ah but what did you think of my POTC and DL Fast food comments? :bounce:

space42

02-26-2002, 01:19 PM

Scoop, I just don't understand your comments on Ft. Wilderness. Maybe because I have stayed there more times than any other WDW resort I am biased.
However, I get a very special "Movie Set" "magical" feel when I enter Ft. Wilderness. When you walk near Pioneer Hall it feels like an extension of Frontierland. It is also very photogenic. I feel that this resort is an extension of the parks more so than just about any of the other WDW resorts. Also, concidering that this is one of the lower priced resorts on WDW property (~$30 per night to camp) I feel that is a prety amazing thing!

So, why could they not accomplish this with Pop Century? I'm sure when it opens that people will stay there (because of price mostly I bet.. or because the all stars are booked).

DVC-Landbaron

02-26-2002, 01:19 PM

Ah but what did you think of my POTC and DL Fast food comments?

I have to take your word for it. I have nothing to base it on. I've been to Disneyland only once. In 1968. I imagine that there have been quite a few changes in the interim!!

As for Pirates, I think it 'blends' quite nicely. It's kind of tucked into a corner and is almost set up as a separate land. The same way Frontierland 'blends' into Liberty Square, which 'blends into the Haunted Mansion.

But I will grant you that I just may be used to it. I've been looking at for thirty years!!!

YoHo

02-26-2002, 01:32 PM

I think that the Golf resort was intentionally NOT a movie set. it was for those people that didn't want the movie set. It was a failure in the sense that it was NOT what people wanted.

I can understand that you and others may not like the Contemp Garden Wings, but that does not a cannot change what they were in 1971. In 1971 they were Unique and different and a Theme. They even matched tomorrowland. you can't argue against that. it is a fact.

YoHo

02-26-2002, 01:40 PM

Just another thought
Contemporary's design is now passe'. You may not have liked it in 1971 many probably didn't, but there are tons of new designs, new ideas, new art that I think is stupid/Ugly/useless. that is none the less inovative and emersive. I think it goes back to tastes Vs. effort Disney put in.

Disney put a lot of effort into the Contemporary and it shows to those whose tastes run with its design. to those that simply don't like it, it actually doesn't matter how much effort Disney put in.

YoHo

02-26-2002, 01:46 PM

The Garden wings are Externally miniature Versions of the tower. Interiors are about the same as any Lodge house at the polynesian except without the rataan furniture (I think they have some spartan simple lined stuff. )

As I've said. the Design has not whethered well.

DVC-Landbaron

02-26-2002, 01:59 PM

Until then please don't deride me as the uninformed one when I'm not the Car #3 driver spending a month at WDW....OUCH!!!

Scoop! I didn't mean to deride you. I really meant it. I figured that since you didn't experience the 'feeling' when it had some coherent theme, you just didn't see it. And I can understand that. I don't know how many times we've discussed the 'garden wings' with almost all the old timers chiming in that it did in fact hit the mark. AT THE TIME!! Same with the Golf Resort as AV so clearly states: The "classic" Disney approach was to take a familiar experience and apply filmmaking techniques to it. An amusement park ride became a movie in three dimensions. Hotel décor was given a "movie set" sense of purpose and story flow. Even the boring old Golf Resort was (very intentionally) given a very dramatic, sweeping drive-up between the fairways so that it felt like a very secluded private club (the kind you only see in movies). Why can't you grasp that? I thought maybe it was because you didn't see it for yourself. So, no deriding intended. Honest!!

JeffJewell

02-26-2002, 02:13 PM

Amazingly, some posters around here want to slam someone as uninformed or unenlightened because they try to be unbiased and consistent. ...not that this was necessarily directed at me, but in some cases it seems as though "some posters" (Mmm... euphemism-y...) react to the suggestion that there might still be some obstructive bias with an "I've been slimed" stance.

The roadblock I currently detect has to do with the Cosmic Ray/Contemporary/Fort Wilderness stuff.

First off, I'm not certain where the value is in going after those products of dead regimes. It doesn't seem like anyone's suggesting we petition Eisner to make updates, the examples seem more designed to defend some current decisions that are under attack, rather than address the current less-than-Magical state of the examples, themselves. I would suggest that's a bias.

Also, I still think a legitimate point was lost between Peter and myself that a "futuristic" theme has, by definition, a limited lifespan. It's not than we've grown older and those themes only capture children, it's that the theme itself actually expired along the way. I don't argue with those who say "Contemporary=unthemed," because that's pretty much what it looks like, now. I simply try to point out that "futuristic" circa 1970 does, in fact, correlate to "dated," to today's sensibilities. That point, I felt, got reduced to "you found less Magic in Contemporary over time, so you can't say you won't find more Magic in Dino-Rama over time," which pulls the conversation back to "what we like, must therefore be Magic." I'm still trying to base things on what went into the project, not upon whether it's my particular cup of tea.

I honestly believe that the effort was made (particularly when you consider the company's resources at that time compared to now), back in the day, to make the Tomorrowland Terrace, Contemporary, and Fort Wilderness vibrant, Magical parts of WDW. I'm willing to agree with anyone who says they can't see that effort, at the moment: it's no longer apparent. But I believe the original project met the standard.

The reason I keep poking my nose back in this thread is that I think it's a bad thing to expect less from today based on the fact that yesterday didn't always age gracefully.

Jeff

PS: Much as it pains me to say it ;), thedscoop is right: I've never defended the Garden Wings, only the original tower. I think the Garden Wings were a transparent grab for more money, and that the Contemporary grounds suffered aesthetically for their addition. And besides, the theme had already started getting gray, at that point (I'm pretty sure Card and Ron were wearing the hats with the propellors on them when the Garden Wings were built).

raidermatt

02-26-2002, 03:41 PM

..it's a bad thing to expect less from today based on the fact that yesterday didn't always age gracefully.

I agree. Without trying to find examples that we can all agree on, we should be able to come to common understanding that no regime was perfect. Therefore, each made mistakes. There maybe a difference in the quantity, cause, reason, scope, handling, etc of those mistakes, but they are there. But a past mistake does not justify a current one.

The disagreement, in my opinion, is really more about what is a mistake.

I'll post a more detailed "Disney-park background" in the other thread, but briefly, my WDW experience consists of one 9 day trip in 9/2000. My baseline is really my DL trips through the 70's and 80's. So the viewpoints of the "old-timers" are valuable to me in understanding how things have changed at WDW, but I certainly have a concept of what "Magic" and "Show" are. If the fact that I disagree with an old-timer on those definitions makes the old-timer discount my opinion, so be it. (note- I don't really think this is happening, but it does sound that way on occasion.)

Another Voice

02-26-2002, 07:04 PM

“Old timer” Okay kids, now you’re starting to hurt.

A cease fire proposal – let’s bulldoze over the Pop Century resort. Then let’s take the fifty foot Yo-Yo’s, ‘Do the funky chicken’ signs, and mauve paint and put them on the Garden Wings at the Contemporary and sell the place to Motel 6.

That should have something to please everyone.

YoHo

02-26-2002, 07:27 PM

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

raidermatt

02-26-2002, 08:13 PM

“Old timer” Okay kids, now you’re starting to hurt.

No offense intended. I was just showing respect for my elders. In keeping with the Disney® theme, perhaps we should instead say re-purposed guests? ;)

A cease fire proposal – let’s bulldoze over the Pop Century resort. Then let’s take the fifty foot Yo-Yo’s, ‘Do the funky chicken’ signs, and mauve paint and put them on the Garden Wings at the Contemporary and sell the place to Motel 6.

Now THAT'S what I call a show!:D

airlarry!

02-27-2002, 03:06 PM

MEMO

TO: All Oppo Personnel
From: The Detective
Re: Primary Colors II

The "Funky Chicken" thread seems to be winding down. This note is to congratulate all of you for your efforts in continuing the postings. Your assignments are important parts of our Project. Through careful sifting of the coded responses given to the 'thread', we are getting ever more closer to discovering the true identity of the one known simply as "AV."

Reminder. Do not post this memo ANYWHERE. No one should suspect that the various 'threads' and posters on this bulletin board are mere subterfuges for the true nature of our work here. I have enclosed examples of our recent discovery for your gratification.

A cease fire proposal Possible military service? We are hacking into DOD at the moment to run a profile.
let’s bulldoze over the Pop Century resortI remember a while ago standing near the China pavilion with some WED people watching construction cranes in the distance. They were talking about what to do with the Bird and Fish projects that were under construction and how to best approach Corporate. Construction experience? New Jersey angle, perhaps? Note to Jeanine, are we still in contact with Bruno from Reno?
Yes, boss.

That should have something to please everyone. Biggest clue yet. Contrast DOD hack with search of all present or former California public officials.
In fact, I don’t consider the “amenities” offered at the deluxe hotels all that special. Maybe because I travel too much, maybe I’m too familiar with WDW We are now adding Rick Steves and Roger Ebert as possible subjects. Will cross-reference any previous comments regarding Atlantis & Tarzan with www.suntimes.com/ebert for possible clues.