PDA

View Full Version : An honest to God rumor that even Scoop may like!!!


DVC-Landbaron
09-13-2002, 10:34 PM
OK folks! It don’t happen often, so I want EVERYONE to take notice!! The LandBaron is about to post an honest to God rumor!!! (drum roll please)

RUMOR:

The Institute is being dismantled!! And in it’s place is going to be a new resort, unnamed sources, very close to this reporter, said late this evening on the promise of anonymity. Here are all the salient facts!!

Price range - I haven’t got a clue!!

How big - I haven’t got a clue!!

Transportation - I haven’t got a clue!!

Theme - NEW YORK hotel!!

Reliability - I REALLY haven’t got a clue!!

That’s the story. If it’s true it really SUCKS!!!!

Any thoughts?

Luv2Roam
09-13-2002, 10:55 PM
:confused:
DH & I rode the riverboat ride from DTD to POR and back several times. The CM's mentioned this quite often -- every trip I think.
We don't really recall all the details now, but DH thought that at the Disney Institute it was mentioned only one building was going to be left back, except for those treetop villas nearby.
And across from DTD (Marketplace) the buildings will be razed and replaced with new top of the line (DVC?) condos.
We didn't pay that much attention to be honest, since we have never been to the DI and are not DVC members.
We were also told more upscale stores would be on that side of the new villas. Almost sounded like a little self contained resort area all on it's own.
I also noticed the boat CM usually didn't mention ME's name in a friendly, chirpy tone. (Almost like he spat it out sometimes. ;) ) Who could blame him? ;)
Is this along the lines of what you heard? I figured this was all pretty common knowledge.

Tik Tok
09-13-2002, 10:55 PM
Another Hotel?? Aren't there enough for right now at WDW - do they really think they can fill yet another one? How about giving us some new reasons to come, like new attractions or something, before adding yet another hotel.

You know, sometimes I wonder if those in charge of WDW remember just why it is they can fill all those fancy hotels located in the middle of the state of Florida??? :confused:

HorizonsFan
09-13-2002, 11:00 PM
Which part of the Instititute are you talking about? Everything I've heard says that the existing condos across the lake from DTD will be DVC units...

DVC-Landbaron
09-13-2002, 11:10 PM
Dave,

Just like anything else about this rumor, other than the theme:

I haven't got a clue!!

Seems this reporter was sooooo upset about the theme that he forgot to ask anything else (although there is a good chance the source didn't know anything more)!!

I'll let you know the next time I talk to my daugh... source!!

Lesley
09-13-2002, 11:37 PM
The rumor doesn't seem to match much with what we already know is happening at the site of the Institute.....the preparation for construction of the new DVC resort, which will reportedly be called the Saratoga Springs resort.

Now, I wouldn't doubt that they'd build a non-DVC portion of the resort (like they did with the BWV/BWI) But New York seems a rather bad pairing with what's already planned....

Curious where your "source" picked up this info....cm's, guests, management, other??????

Werner Weiss
09-13-2002, 11:38 PM
It's essentially true, but allow me to clarify a few points.

It's somewhat old news. At the beginning of this year, Disney announced that the old townhouses at The Disney Institute would be replaced by four buildings with a total of 192 Disney Vacation Club units. At the time, they didn't announce a theme or a name.

But Disney announced that the new DVC resort would use facilities from the former Disney Institute. This core complex, which opened in 1996, includes the Spa & Fitness Center, Seasons Dining Room, Cinema, Performanence Center, and Amphitheater. This part of the Disney Institute is not being dismantled. In fact, all indications are that this complex will be the "town center" of the new DVC resort, as Conch Flats is the town center of OKW.

These core Disney Institute buildings were designed by noted architect Thomas Beeby, dean of the Yale School of Architecture from 1986 to 1991. They have a classic, small town look, reflecting that the Disney Institute was based on the Chautauqua Institution in New York state.

Because a major architect designed this complex, the buildings won't get a new style or theme. After all, architecture is Art, at least when a famed architect is involved. I'm sure a few buildings will be used differently, but the architecture won't change. Thus, the theme of the new DVC resort is dictated by this complex. The good news is that the style involves idealized interpretations of classic small town America buildings, suggesting schools, farms, and civic buildings. It's peaceful and comfortable -- and it should be a very nice theme for a DVC resort.

Please note that the New York theme is an upstate New York theme, not a New York City theme.

There's been a subsequent press report confirming the Chautauqua / upstate New York theme.

Over on the DIS DVC board, the word is that the DVC resort now has a name. The unconfirmed name is the Saratoga Springs Resort & Spa -- or someting along those lines. (There have been several variations.) Saratoga Springs is a town in New York state. I've never been there, but looking at http://www.saratoga.org/ , it seems like an attractive place. And it town's name sounds good.

I'll be interested to hear whether Disney Vacation Development brought in Thomas Beeby to design the new DVC buildings.

Lesley
09-14-2002, 12:33 AM
Thanks for the clarification, Werner. I hadn't yet seen it all written out so clearly.....makes sense when you put it all together.

(Though, being from PA...I'm wondering why upstate NY is supposed to appeal to me....lol....I live in small town America already!)

DVC-Landbaron
09-14-2002, 12:46 AM
(Though, being from PA...I'm wondering why upstate NY is supposed to appeal to me....lol....I live in small town America already!)THAT - is what got me sooooo upset!! With all the wonders of the world to chose from and we get - - THIS!!!

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!! :mad:

Werner Weiss
09-14-2002, 01:13 AM
It's now in the Orlando Sentinel! See Disney unveils time-share plans (http://www.orlandosentinal.com/business/tourism/orl-bizdisney14091402sep14.story?coll=orl%2Dbusiness%2 Dheadlines), dated September 14, 2002.
I've quoted three paragraphs and added comments:
For example, the pool area at the resort will be designed without the usual Disneyesque water slides -- focusing instead on a natural spring look with bubbles foaming up among rocks.
Interesting! Over on the DVC board, the subject of "there's no slide at OKW" keeps coming up. This usually leads to a debate about whether the lack of a slide makes OKW a substandard DVC resort, and whether OKW owners who don't want a slide are cheapskates who don't want to pay for a slide or the lifeguards that a slide requires. The Saratoga Springs Resort Spa won't have a slide either.
The resort will include 184 new units and about 300 remodeled apartment-style rooms in older buildings that were part of the Disney Institute..
Interesting! Until now, it seemed that the old residential buildings at the Villas at the Disney Institute would be torn down a replaced by new, high quality, well-themed DVC buildings with all the DVC amenities, such as large luxury bathrooms. But now they're planning to recycle old buildings too. With a mish-mash of different floor plans and views, that should make for an interesting DVC point chart.
The campus-style buildings that contain the older rooms may also be enhanced to reflect the upstate New York theme, said Mariska Elia, a spokeswoman for Disney's time-share operation, called Vacation Club..
They "may also be enhanced" -- not "they will be enhanced?" Let's hope that Disney does something with those bland, old 1970s buildings to make them worthy of the DVC designation.

Lesley
09-14-2002, 01:26 AM
Well, my friend, Main St. USA is based on small town America too....so I'll reserve judgement until I see how its done. I can walk 2 blocks here and see an intersection that is in some ways similar to Main St. ...older ornate buildings, etc....we have a coffee house and antiques shops, a B&B and a bank....our optometrist's office has antique optometry equipment on display. Its quite quaint. It has atmosphere. And the KKK :rolleyes: :mad: :( Obviously in other ways its not the same at all!

Could be they're once again taking the easy way out...knowing that the location next to DTD will be a draw for some and the theme can be less than spectacular. But then again perhaps this could be something good. And we do have to consider the aesthetic blend that would be optimal for the location. And I don't think a "Persian" theme would work here ("Asian" maybe.......water, neon, a volcano in the background...okay, that's cheesy...I apologize!) (and yes, I realize those resorts belong on Seven Seas Lagoon...;) )

As always, my feelings are mixed on this one (I have either a curse or talent for seeing things from many angles at once...hence my difficulty at times in posting to this forum) ....my original comment was made in mild amusement and nothing else....

BTW, Werner....I've been hoping beyond hope that the treehouses will be renovated and made into DVC too. I've dreamed of staying in one for years! When I got married I said we'd take my parents and our kids with us in 10 years and stay in one of the treehouses. Its been 10 years and as it happens, we're staying at the BWV instead!

hopemax
09-14-2002, 01:41 AM
THAT - is what got me sooooo upset!! With all the wonders of the world to chose from and we get - - THIS!!!

Now DVC, I don't think that's very fair. How would you like it if I said, "Monorails are mundane transportation, I could have used it every day for 6 years if I wanted to. Disney is right not to add more monorails." Or "Can't they come up with anything better to model a hotel around than a Western National Park Lodge?" If they would have listened to me, everyone else would have missed out on the best themed hotel on property.

I've never been anywhere near upstate New York so theme wise it sounds appealing to me (depending on execution). We've all been exposed to different things. And remember one of the foundations Walt built his park on was to celebrate America. I would hate to see Disney ignore America just because it would be like home to a portion of WDW's visitors. The exception would be building a Florida resort in Florida, but New York isn't Florida....

OnWithTheShow
09-14-2002, 02:28 AM
Here is what I know:

Disney's Saratoga Springs Resort and Spa a 184 unit Disney Vacation Club Resort opening in Spring 2004.

Lesley
09-14-2002, 02:59 AM
Hope, they do have a Florida themed resort in Florida....Old Key West. Any comments Mr. Landbaron? Especially considering that I don't think you call yourself the DVC Landbaron without a reason.....:D

Mai Ku Tiki
09-14-2002, 07:46 AM
:) Hi All!

Check out the DVC board for links to articles in the Orlando Sentinel (with pic) and an Albany, NY newspaper for the latest DVC resort: Saratoga Springs!!!:Pinkbounc

TiggerFreak
09-14-2002, 10:23 AM
Thee has been much speculation and rumors regarding the pool area at Saratoga Springs Resort. These rumors revolve around creating a pool with features to rival Stormalong Bay. Speculation has it that this would be available for "Pool Hoping" to DVC members staying onsite with points at sister DVC resorts. The rumor goes futher saying that this would end all DVC pool hopping to ANY resort other than this new pool area, including sister DVC resorts. Example: staying at OKW you could use any pool at OKW and "Pool Hop" to Saratoga Springs, and thats it.

Maybe this would keep everybody happy. If they implemented some strategy to keep the much touted local pool crashers out of the resort pools, then the cash guests would not have to deal with ANY outsiders using their pools. DVC members would get a disirable pool to call exclusively their own, not open to outsiders. Personally I could live with a such a plan.

Werner Weiss
09-14-2002, 11:05 AM
Originally posted by TiggerFreak
These rumors revolve around creating a pool with features to rival Stormalong Bay. Speculation has it that this would be available for "Pool Hopping" to DVC members staying onsite with points at sister DVC resorts
The Orlando Sentinel article makes it a point to spell out that "the pool area at the resort will be designed without the usual Disneyesque water slides -- focusing instead on a natural spring look with bubbles foaming up among rocks." In other words, it won't be a mini-waterpark in the tradition of Stormalong Bay.

I think the original rumor was just wishful thinking. Keep in mind that at a timeshare resort, the owners are responsible for all the operating costs. That means the owners of the Sarasota Springs Resort Spa will pay for the cost of operating the pool. So you really can't have a pool that costs a fortune to operate.

Stormalong Bay is another matter because it was built for a resort hotel complex with very expensive room rates. The fabulous pool area helps justify the room rates, and, in turn, the room rates generate the revenue to operate Stormalong Bay. But imagine what it must cost for all the lifeguards, cleaning, water quality processing, liability insurance and mechanical maintenace, given the size and scope of Stormalong Bay.

I'm sure the new pool at the Sarasota Springs Resort Spa will be wonderful -- even if there's no slide. It seems it will be more along the lines of the feature pool at OKW, although with bubbles. By the way, the main pool at Marriott's Cypress Harbour in Orlando has bubbles. The bubbles are fun; they don't require lifeguards; and I would imagine there's not the liabilty insurance issue that you have with a slide.

doubletrouble_vb
09-14-2002, 11:14 AM
Is there a slide at Wilderness Lodge? Because this pool sounds sort of like that one.

And...as a native New Yorker who grewup in a small old beach town in western Suffolk County...I'll be glad to see and stay at a resort modelled after a quaint town in upstate New York. I might even get an add-on there if the initial buy in deal is good.

However...what's missing in Disney is an urban setting...Disney should take a look at the Paris Hotel or New York New York in Las Vegas for their next effort! A hotel (or DVC) could satisfy everybody! Put the lush las vegas style pool in the back and small 5th gate on the roof...in place of the casino put in another indoor theatre for traveling broadway shows.

hmmm....i was joking but now im afraid disney will read this...

hallie
09-14-2002, 12:17 PM
I think it sounds like a great idea! If it does happen I'd stay at it.

Bob O
09-14-2002, 04:32 PM
I would much perfer that wdw spend the money improving their parks rather than another resort when their hotel occupancy is way down, they have to stop building on a new one and close others. They may misplaced priorties is this rumor is true!!

Werner Weiss
09-14-2002, 05:05 PM
Originally posted by Bob O
I would much perfer that wdw spend the money improving their parks rather than another resort when their hotel occupancy is way down, they have to stop building on a new one and close others. They may misplaced priorties is this rumor is true!!
Keep in mind that the Disney Vacation Club (DVC) timeshare product is a different than regular hotel lodging. DVC is a strong business for Disney. In fact, it's possible that the current Beach Club Villas DVC resort may sell out up to a year before the Saratoga Springs Resort & Spa opens. Regular hotel occupancy is down, but DVC remains strong.

Also, the Saratoga Springs Resort & Spa promises to be particularly profitable for Disney because it reuses a fair amount of infrstaructure and facilities of the defunct Disney Institute.

Bob O... Are you suggesting that Disney should get out of the timeshare (DVC) business?

DisneyKidds
09-14-2002, 05:40 PM
Bob O - as WW pointed out, DVC (actually DVD) is a seperate animal. If they were to forgo building this DVC resort it doesn't mean that there would be money to spend on the parks. Two seperate bank accounts, if you will, with the DVD money never to be put toward any park. Actually, the fact that DI is being developed into a DVC resort probably provides some money for theme park (or other) improvements. I would imagine that DVD is probably paying somethng to get the existing DI assets.

manning
09-14-2002, 06:28 PM
From the Orlando Sentinel article

"Prices to purchase one week in the new section of Saratoga will range from $12,000 to $150,000 for rooms and suites that sleep up to 12 guests each. "


From the Albany NY Times article

"Tourists would rent the same units and be able to come back the same time each year as part of the Disney Vacation Club."


Does this mean that points aren't involved in this project? You are buying weeks?

hopemax
09-14-2002, 06:49 PM
Frankly, I wonder about Disney and DVC, but it's not something I know a lot about and maybe it's worth some discussion.

I can comprehend why Disney is thinks timeshares are a good idea now. Every time one is sold, they get a lot of cash up front going into the financial statements. And as gets pointed out many times, Wall Street expects next years numbers to be better than the year before. Right now, Disney seems to get around that by keeping the cash supply flowing by opening new properties. But they can't keep attracting new members forever, it's going to reach a plateau sometime, just like attendance. And one thing that is working against Disney is that families share their timeshares. So unlike attendance, where mom and dad and 2 kids, can turn into Grandma, Grandpa, 2 sets of parents with 3 kids each or 4 people morphs into 12, Grandma and Grandpa just share their timeshare with everyone. Attendance potential grows by 11, DVC grows by 0.

Eventually that major cash flow is going to stop. Disney will be pulling in some money in maintence fees, but not nearly in the chunks that the initial purchase brings in. How is Disney going to replace that cash flow? I kinda wonder if Disney will find itself in a situation like our current social security system. As 2042 approaches there are going to be a lot fewer buyers (cash flow in) but lots of Grandparents bringing the whole family every year and expecting a well-maintained, wonderfully staffed resort(cash flow out). I can just hear the MBA's screaming, "We've got all these people staying at these expensive-to-run resorts and all the money we're getting is a dinky maintence fee!" I know that one of the consumer's problems with timeshares is what happens when the "expiration date" approaches. Would Disney's timeshares fall into disrepair like other timeshares? The answer in 1992 was, "No! Disney has a reputation to maintain, customers to please, etc." But with everything that's been happening in the parks lately (attraction closures without replacements, carousels needing to be rebuilt, level of service, etc.) I'm not feeling to confident that DVC will fair any differently. But in 2035, Eisner will most definitely be gone, so hey, I wonder if the thought was just, 'It will be someone else's problem."

And another thing, I read some stuff over on Brian Bennett's site and one of the messages that he has, included an explanation that one of the reasons that Disney got into timeshares was that it was a nice way to get money to improve infrastructure at WDW.


But you've hit on the reason Disney can offer this vacation plan. They are getting cash money up front which they will "invest" in park upgrades and resorts and so forth, and therefore don't have to get the money from a bank.


Can anyone comment on the truth of that. In the 90's was Disney's strategy to use DVC money to enhance the entire property?

Lesley
09-14-2002, 06:51 PM
Its possible the writers of the articles are ignorant of the way DVC works.....or I guess its possible that they'd sell set weeks. If that's the case, sorry, we won't be interested at all......

I do wonder which it will be....selling set accomodations for set weeks would solve that points chart problem that was mentioned before, but it could open up a whole Pandora's box of other issues.

Bob O
09-14-2002, 11:18 PM
Werner weiss-I thought that it was going to be a wdw hotel and not a DVC property.
But like everything else they must make sure they dont overbuild like they have with hotel capacity.
Hopemax-I have seen no evidence that DVC money has been used to upgrade the parks recently, if the money went anywhere it went to paying off lawsuits/contract buyouts and too abc.
Disneykidds-It may be separate bank accounts but it is all part of the companies bottom line so in this wolrd of synergy its all related.

PKS44
09-15-2002, 12:13 AM
maintenance fees are just that, they are not income...they are the cost of maintaining a place...as for why Disney (call them DVD or DVC give them another bank account, it is still Disney)would want to maintain them is clear in knowing how the system works...when owners have points that they do not use, Disney gets those points and then can use that property...this can happen when an owner of say Saratoga Springs uses points for a nonDVC hotel at Disney, or non Disney hotel all over the world or in timeshare exchange, or on the cruise, etc...Disney has to rent out those units thru CRO- that will be very hard to do if the place is unappealing, unkempt, no good,etc...also Disney always holds on to about 4% of these properties anyway, so they have at least that much interest in maintaining them...

As to the hubbub about ending all other pool hopping it just seems silly and pointless...allowing poolhopping costs next to nothing...IF they do find a way to eliminate the true poachers (locals or non resort guests using pools) then such a system could still allow resort guests AND DVC members to continue using the pools as the rules indicate they can right now...

Hopemax- is on to something with the overbuilding...we certainly see this pattern to Disney behavior over and over-they find something is successful then they over do it, beat it to death, expand beyond their core values of high quality, top level service- (Disney stores, WWTBAM, incomplete new parks,Character Meet/Greets, hotels) The one thing going for timeshares now is the ever expanding leisure set (those with $$$ and the desire to spend it on leisure activities-Boomers in their 50's and soon 60's etc...) BUT the good news is that Disney actually does seem to be showing some restraint as they were also planning a "golf resort" DVC at Eagle Pines that seems to have been put on hold..interesting that these two more recent offerings are MORE ADULT DVC developments(away from the parks-golf, spa, etc.) indicating a desire to appeal to a different market segment than prior new DVC offerings (OKW excluded)...one has to wonder what their theme park plans are given the shifting demographics they face ( the Echo Boom that drove their recent success is moving on--the next real peak/boom in "kid" population (5-11 year olds) will have to come from the teens and early twenty somethings of today..so that would be at least 10 years away- (let's hope they don't have kids too early!)

Paul

Werner Weiss
09-15-2002, 01:03 AM
Originally posted by PKS44
maintenance fees are just that, they are not income...they are the cost of maintaining a place
DVC maintenance fees include a percentage as a "management fee." That's another term for profit -- guaranteed bottom line profit for Disney year after year, even in lean years.

That's one reason that lodging companies such as Marriott, Starwood, Hilton, Four Seasons, Wyndham, and Hyatt are all jumping on the timeshare bandwagon. Such companies often rely on management fees at managed hotels owned by other investors. When business is down, the managment fees are down. When the investor switches management to a different lodging brand, the management fees end. But with timeshares, the lodging companies make ever increasing profits, year after year, as maintenance fees creep up.

Also, timeshares are a good way to bring back guests year after year. Over the past year, the Hawaiian islands experienced a drop-off in tourism. But the island of Kauai, with the largest percentage of timeshares of any of the islands, had the least drop-off. Bringing back guests year after year is good business for Disney too.
Originally posted by hopemax
I can comprehend why Disney is thinks timeshares are a good idea now. Every time one is sold, they get a lot of cash up front going into the financial statements.
Yep, hopemax makes a good point. A timeshare conventional developer tries to sell $300,000 condos for $1 million (in the form of 50 weeks @ $20K each). For many timeshare developers the cost of land is a significant expense, along the lines of $2 miilion or more per acre at desirable sites. But at WDW, Disney can build timeshare resorts on land acquired in the 1960s for a few hundred dollars per acre. Also, many timeshare developers face considerable marketing expense, often paying potential customers over $100 (or providing travel premiums worth much more) just to listen to the sales pitch, but Disney is able market directly to their core customers at WDW.

Timeshare developers lose money when their projects go too long without selling out. The developer carries the cost of the capiutal and the marketing expense, without generating enough sales. But the on-site DVC resorts at WDW have a history of selling well and selling out quickly.
Originally posted by hopemax
Would Disney's timeshares fall into disrepair like other timeshares? The answer in 1992 was, "No! Disney has a reputation to maintain, customers to please, etc." But with everything that's been happening in the parks lately (attraction closures without replacements, carousels needing to be rebuilt, level of service, etc.) I'm not feeling to confident that DVC will fair any differently.
The timeshare resorts that have problems are the badly run operations that use high-pressure sales techniques to sell timeshares to people who can't afford them. The annual maintenance fees are artificially low -- insufficient to properly build reserve funds -- and the owners of the weeks end up not paying, especially if they regret their purchase and don't use their weeks. The week may revert to the developer or the HOA, but that doesn't bring maintenace money. Fortunately, this is not how DVC is run. There's no reason for Disney not to maintain the quality of the DVC resorts. Unlike the parks or the regular hotels, no MBA can make a case that cutting expenses will increase profits for Disney. Any unused funds in the budget stay in the resort's account; they don't flow onto Disney's balance sheet.

PKS44
09-15-2002, 09:44 AM
Originally posted by Werner Weiss
DVC maintenance fees include a percentage as a "management fee." That's another term for profit -- guaranteed bottom line profit for Disney year after year, even in lean years.


I don't think this is really accurate. The management fee is the money it takes to pay the people to administer over the place...it is not pure profit as suggested...If it takes $X for maids, and $Y for front desk and $Z for transportaion and $K for landscaping, etc., etc.. you still have to add $M (management fee) for somebody to hire and fire those people, do the paperwork etc...it is not profit, it is salary to the administrators of the place... the maintenance fees are capped so that they are not allowed to go up more than a certain amount and some years recently they have even gone down...that could not happen if they were just a profit center (especially with Ei$ner and Pre$$ler) ...I think the implication here that "management fees" are just a profit generator for Disney is incorrect. Dean on the DVC boards is the expert in this area, so I would defer to him, but the way the maintenance fees are required to be deteremined seems to prevent the sort of profiteering implied here...DVC is profitable for the other reasons Werner mentioned, cheap land, a unit costing only so much being sold for multiples more than it cost to build and the guarantee that the maintanence of that property is somebody else's expense for the next 40 years- they don't have to set aside their own money for maintenance...all of these things on top of getting folks onto the property every year are why Disney likes DVC...

Paul

Werner Weiss
09-15-2002, 02:53 PM
Originally posted by PKS44
I don't think this is really accurate. The management fee is the money it takes to pay the people to administer over the place.
Read one of the DVC annual budget documents.

"The money it takes to pay the people to administer over the place" is covered in the Administration and Front Desk cost component. ("Cost of front desk operations and resort management, including operating supplies and equipment rental. Also includes costs for operational and administrative support from WDW Resorts.") [I added the bold emphasis.]

Disney Vacation Club Management Corporation (DVCMC) takes a management fee of about 2.2% of the annual budget, and DVCMC is a subsidiary of The Walt Disney Company (TWDC).

Here's a key phrase about how DVCMC allocates costs: "In connection therewith, substantially all operating expenses have been allocated to the Association from DVCMC and certain operating expenses expenses may be rendered by or incurred through other Disney entities." In other words, DVCMC makes sure that all costs are paid by out of other parts of the budget, not out of the 2.2% that DVCMC keeps.

I don't begrudge Disney the 2.2%. By the way, 2.2% may not sound like much, but in service and retail industries, 2.2% is actually pretty good net income, given the amount of gross revenue that's involved.

There is no reason why any of us should expect that The Walt Disney Company (or Marriott or any other lodging company) to be responsible for year-after-year timeshare resort management without making any profit.

Another Voice
09-15-2002, 04:49 PM
"The management fee is the money it takes to pay the people to administer over the place...it is not pure profit as suggested..."

Hmmm.....

Anyone want to hazard a guess as to how much money Disney Vacation Development Inc. has to pay The Walt Disney Company in rights fee for the word "Disney"?

You'd be surprised what fun and interesting "expenses" can get hidden before the 2.2% amount is factored in.



P.S. - Why would anyone in their right mind travel all the way to central Florida just to be reminded of the Catskills?

DVC-Landbaron
09-15-2002, 06:00 PM
P.S. - Why would anyone in their right mind travel all the way to central Florida just to be reminded of the Catskills?My point EXACTLY!!!!






(Hey, Scoop!!! This time I said it first!!!:tongue: Must be something about great minds thinking alike!!)

space42
09-15-2002, 06:17 PM
P.S. - Why would anyone in their right mind travel all the way to central Florida just to be reminded of the Catskills?

You know.. I thought the same thing about Old Key West. Why would someone want to see an Old Key West resort when the real Old Key West is in the same state?

You never know...

TiggerFreak
09-15-2002, 07:27 PM
Why would anyone want to go the the Wilderness Lodge when they could go to any number of National Park Lodges? :confused:

Lesley
09-15-2002, 11:06 PM
And why go to the Beach Club when the real New England seaside is nearby?

Really, folks, this is just the point I was making. You could say it about any of the resorts and many parts of the parks. I find it odd that the Landbaron has chosen not to explain why OKW is any different than this New York idea. Hey, Mr. Baron! You know I usually agree with you....but I don't understand your stance on this one.... You want more exotic themes? Yet, AKL is not good enough? What exactly do you expect? (Granted that's a tough question to answer.....I don't really know exactly what I expect either)

I don't know that I'm particularly impressed with the idea....but that's neither here nor there. At least its not an idea that makes me cringe just considering it (like Pop Century and Dino Rama) I like the location and will probably go take a look when its finished.

PKS44
09-15-2002, 11:46 PM
I will wait to see what they come up with- though my initial response is "eh." sounds kinda like the Grand Upstate New Yorkian to me...I would have liked to have seen them take that location near Downtown Disney and let the Imagineers do their take on Miami's South Beach- Disney Deco---but that would have meant re-doing or forgetting the DI tie-in, so I see why they went the way they did...I hope they can surprise me with a great show, but I doubt it....I also would like to see a Greek Island themed resort...but given the current state of things I know we will likely never see either... in my lifetime.

Paul

DVC-Landbaron
09-15-2002, 11:48 PM
And why go to the Beach Club when the real New England seaside is nearby?I couldn’t agree more!! I think the themes that Ei$ner has initiated are ordinary, pedestrian, and SAFE. With the exception of AKL they are all western hemisphere and for the most part American. That certainly doesn’t make them bad, by any means. But ALL of them!!?? Every stinking one of them!?!?! Couldn’t we have slipped in a Spanish something or other? A Scottish castle? How about a Black Forest looking thing? Prussian anyone? Thai? Igloos!!!!??? I don’t care, but something - exotic! Something from - somewhere else! Something NOT from - HERE!!!! Not all of them. Not all the time. Fine put in a Boardwalk. Then Beach. Then a Persian!! How’s that? Then you can build a New Orleans place. And then a Mediterranean one!! Doesn’t this bother anyone else?

Now!! That doesn’t mean that what they built isn't wonderful!! I LOVE Wilderness! But I think I would have LOVED a Venetian WAAAAAAAAYYYY more than a Caribbean or even a Key West!! Don’t you?

There was such promise. And instead of exploring all the possibilities, he played it safe and ordinary! How disappointing!!

So when a new one is announced, I always have my hopes up that this one will be the Poly (part II) only better!!! Ahh! It is never to be. We have someone at the head with rather limited vision. We should have figured that out when he traded the Asian for the Floridian. But, heck!! I’m a hard learner. That's why he can still disappoint me.
I find it odd that the Landbaron has chosen not to explain why OKW is any different than this New York idea.Personally I’d rather have had a much more exotic theme than Old Key West. And again, that’s not to say it isn’t nice. Heck, it’s gorgeous!! I LOVE it!! But that doesn’t mean the next one has to be more of the same, western hemisphere, familiar, comfortable, SAFE type theme. Does it? Or maybe the one before was SAFE and Old Key West would have been the perfect place to experiment with that Greek Island type resort!! Pretty cool, eh? I would have forgone the Key West theme in order to see a nicely done Tibetan Hidden City!!! Wouldn’t you?
You want more exotic themes? Yet, AKL is not good enough? What exactly do you expect? (Granted that's a tough question to answer.....I don't really know exactly what I expect either)You answered your own question. I don’t know either, but it really wasn’t it. Although the more I go there, the better I like it!! I just wish it wouldn’t remind me so much of Wilderness!!! Am I the only one that sees tremendous similarities!?!?
At least its not an idea that makes me cringe just considering it (like Pop Century and Dino Rama) I like the location and will probably go take a look when its finished.LESLEY!!!!! Do you hear what you are saying!!! That is very, very close to a Pirate type response!! You are telling me that so long as it’s not the worst idea in the world, one that would make you cringe, it’s OK for Disney to do!!! And that’s because lately they’ve been doing such HORRIBLE stuff that anything that doesn’t sink to that level is acceptable!! It doesn’t have to WOW!!! or exceed expectations any more. Heck!!! It doesn’t even have to be particularly good!! Just so it isn’t BAD, it’s OK!!! Thank God, it’s not APPALLING!!!!! Is that the way you look at Disney now? I don’t.

Werner Weiss
09-16-2002, 01:15 AM
I think a key point is the American-themed resorts at have been built at WDW over the past 15 years don't just take you to an East Coast beach or some other US location. They take you back in time. That's why the Boardwalk and the Yacht & Beach Clubs and OKW and the Wilderness Lodge "work" for me. We're not talking about oceanfront Holiday Inns here; we're talking about grand resorts or quaint neighborhoods of a bygone era whose real counterparts are, for the most part, long gone.

I expect nothing less from the Saratoga Springs Resort & Spa. Keep in mind that we already know what the "town center" and spa area look like because it's the former core area of the Disney Institute. (You can even see one of the Disney Institute buildings in the background of the artist's rendering.)

I'm concerned about the announcement that the Saratoga Springs Resort & Spa will include 300 refurbished units -- not about the resort's theme. I assume these are the old 1-bedroom bungalow units -- there were 316 of them at the Villas at Disney Institute. Those units are 25-30 years old, and today they have bland, unthemed, 1970s architecture. I just hope these units will be brought up to DVC standards and can somehow be made to fit into the theme of the Saratoga Springs Resort & Spa properly.

Lesley
09-16-2002, 02:10 AM
Maybe they'll be taking us back in time to 1970's upstate NY :rolleyes:

And, yes, I am thinking "Thank God this idea isn't appalling" Yes, I guess that's all I expect of Disney these days. Sad isn't it? There was a time when I could expect better....and certainly many of your ideas sound really cool (ya know, we have yet to stay at the YC/BC because I don't find the theme that immersive or interesting....though we'll try it next Oct. mainly to use SAB...) Anyway....I have no idea where I'm going with this. My favorite thing about OKW is that it will save us some points. I love the real Key West....been there once and would love to return. OKW....I go there when I want to save points or put a few more square feet between me and my guests....yes, its lovely, but I agree something else would have been much more compelling.

I think if I got upset over every announcement, every stupid move Disney is making, etc....well, I'd be ready to stop returning. And, I can't let myself hate the place if only for my dh and kids, who love it so much! Heck, there are things I love too. There are other places I'd like to go but the other three quarters of my family....well....lets just say my 2yo came up to me this evening and said sadly "I want to go Disney....go home....Disney....see Mickey...and Minnie"

yes, I'd love to see the creative folks given a much freer hand....being a creative type myself, I just love seeing big dreams made into reality. ANd we're no longer seeing big dreams being created. The dreams are still there....but they're being told," sorry, we don't do that, too expensive. Now, we need to get more folks into this 20 sq feet....figure out a way to bring them there...and , oh, your budget is half of whatever you think you need to do it"

Not too long ago, there were new experiences to be had at WDW that I was literally yearning to try for myself (AKL is one.....I really do love the place.....it is perhaps, the next best thing to the Polynesian....but the Polynesian is, well, wow....something about those torches at night....ahhhhhhh) No I don't feel that way about this new announcement...and I am very glad it doesn't look like it'll be another eyesore like PC or DinoRama. I really do long to be able to feel the kind of excitement about something at WDW as I have in the past....but for now, I can keep myself busy rooting out all the old things that I've missed....bits of the past magic than can be savored. No, I don't hold much hope for the future.

so anyway....maybe I'm coming in just short of "woohoo! its not hideous" but geesh.....trying to toss me to the rose colored glasses crowd? Not quite. I guess I just forgot you're very hard on ideas that don't meet the standard... even though you may end up liking the result!

:D

Sorry to be so depressing.....Its very discouraging to be hoping to hold onto the legacy of a man who died 6 years before I was born!

Uncleromulus
09-16-2002, 06:01 AM
Werner:
So the pool will be something like the main pool at OKW, but with bubbles.
The absolute cutting edge in pool design!!

About coming to OKW when the real OKW is nearby, etc--
I worked in downtown Baltimore for almost 30 years. A real cesspool if ever there was one. Yet each Spring and Summer, I saw thousands of obviously out-of- town tourists swarming about. And I always thought--have these people lost their minds?? If they want to see a big city, why not SF, NY, New Orleans--heck--even DC!!
So I guess staying at the OKW resort (or the WL, or the new Saratoga Springs) isn't so unusual, even if the "real thing" is accessable.

plutospup
09-16-2002, 07:48 AM
...Maybe you would prefer an urban type location...with tall buildings...and maybe an (elevated)train that circles the property? Hmmm...with that train extending to DTD, maybe TTC, and the other parks...I can dream can't I?
As for the "Catskills" theme...maybe a standup Buddy Hackett in the corner telling corny jokes?

d-r
09-16-2002, 08:16 AM
About the pools-

The institute has the only pool on property deep enough to allow for diving (afaik), and I'm willing to bet the farm that this will be "fixed" with the new dvc.

DisneyKidds
09-16-2002, 09:56 AM
I'm concerned about the announcement that the Saratoga Springs Resort & Spa will include 300 refurbished units -- not about the resort's theme. I assume these are the old 1-bedroom bungalow units -- there were 316 of them at the Villas at Disney Institute. Those units are 25-30 years old, and today they have bland, unthemed, 1970s architecture. I just hope these units will be brought up to DVC standards and can somehow be made to fit into the theme of the Saratoga Springs Resort & Spa properly.

The use of these old units does seem like it could be something to be concerned about. Will they be up to the DVC standard? When you are investing in 40+ years of a 'new' resort you are counting on that resort holding it's high standard for that period of time. Given that some of these buildings are 30 years old, will there be maintenance and upkeep issues as they become 70 years old?

Being from the Hudson Valley, upstate NY as a theme doesn't thrill me. Oh well, so be it - so long as it is done right. I can see using the town center buildings that were designed with that theme back in the 90's. I thought the original idea was to build DVC units to go with and compliment these existing structures. Taking the cheap way out and using the old Villas units could be a problem.

You know what, it could be an even bigger problem than anyone realizes (just conjecture here, no AV like cryptic hidden message ;)) and I'm surprised a certain someone hasn't gone off on this idea yet. You see, if this new DVC resort is done on the cheap (through use of existing structures) and incorporates old buildings that might not be up to the standard of the other DVC resorts - well, we have a DVC caste system in the making. The dumbing down of DVC. I can see it now. Want to stay in a 30 year old unit? OK, that will be 8 points in the offseason. Then management figures out, 'hey, we can sell a minimum contract of 75 points and people can still get a week + out of it'. Then they figure, 'hey, if the average DVC sucker is willing to use 8 points for a craqppy old unit at SSR&S, we can jack up the minimum points per night for the really good DVC resorts.' Before you know it, the increase in points per night for DVC has doubled the rate of point inflation for a cross section of timeshares. SSR&S will be the CBR of DVC. DVC will finally have the full Ei$ner stamp and legacy................

mjstaceyuofm
09-16-2002, 12:24 PM
'hey, if the average DVC sucker is willing to use 8 points for a crappy old unit at SSR&S, we can jack up the minimum points per night for the really good DVC resorts.'fortunately for DVC members this can never happen. There are a set number of points per resort per year and DVC can't raise that annual total (unless they add more rooms at that resort). They can shift points around, i.e. making the adventure season cost more points, but have to take away points from some other season. But why am I telling you folks this - you know this already, right?

Another Voice
09-16-2002, 12:29 PM
Well Mr. DisneyKids, you stole my cryptic message for the day. There’s really nothing more I can add, other than to look for new “affordable options in DVC ownership” in the next year or so. You gotta keep the cash flow coming.

What’s really funny about all of this is that the Disney Village was built back in the 1970’s as a vacation home/time share development. Changes in the market caused Disney to reconsider after the construction began. In fact, the four Grand Villas were actually the model homes for the hosing tract section that never was started. Seems like all ideas come around full circle.

On the theme, I’d feel better if I thought the Catskills was chosen because the designers or the guests were really excited about it. But I have a feeling it was picked mostly because it was felt that it was the easiest to get approved by a certain aging career-challenged executive with a history of shoving recreations of his 5th Avenue fantasy childhood on every project whether it’s appropriate or not.

DisneyKidds
09-16-2002, 01:45 PM
Sorry to step on your toes AV ;).

As for those 'affordable options', I really don't have a problem with them being offered so long as they don't de-value people's existing ownerships. Bottom line is that in the future I will still need my 300+ points to join the good Baron in the joy/pain that is a summer trip once my kids are school-age, even if they are selling 75 point memberships for $6,000.

mjstacey - thanks for the reminder on the points per year, zero sum DVC resort point game. Of course, the way they reshuffle the points doesn't have to make sense to anyone other than those who count the profits :crazy:.

DVC-Landbaron
09-16-2002, 05:20 PM
This is a bit dated, I’m afraid. But I’ll catch up with the thread in due time. For now let me say: Most troubling AV!! Most troubling indeed!! :(


Anyway, in answer to themes for resorts:

I think a key point is the American-themed resorts at have been built at WDW over the past 15 years don't just take you to an East Coast beach or some other US location. They take you back in time. Time periods do make it a bit better, but I always ask why that couldn't be employed with the more exotic themes anyway. Take for instance that Greek Island theme that was mentioned earlier. OK, put it in Aristotle's time. Ahhhhh! There you go!! Now you've got something!!!! Or perhaps a medieval castle type or Mediterranean something in the 1600's. Instead we get everything from this continent and from no "time" more than a hundred years ago. Pretty limiting, when you think about it!!!

They have the capability to really dazzle us. All of the world and all of history to choose from. Talk about really put us in a different time and place!!! WOW!! If anyone could, Disney could!! Yet they opt for, in my opinion, rather mundane fare. You have this blank piece of land and you are about to create!!! Remember, you are Disney!!! You can build whatever you like!! And also keep in mind that the philosophy calls for erecting a movie set, carefully detailed and meticulously themed throughout!! PERFECT! The sky is literally the limit!! So do they take us to the sky? Do they dazzle us? Well, yes and no!! What they give us is very nice!! Very nice indeed!! Can't argue with that. But it really could be sooooo much more.

It's like having a blank canvass and unlimited art supplies and talent that oozes through every pore of your body. And you take those canvasses, art supplies and sheer talent and create the best damn charcoal rendering of fruit anyone has ever seen!!! WOW!!! Yeah! You WOWed them alright!!! Congratulations!!

So, it's on to the next. And again you create... well.... Another charcoal still life of fruit!! In fact, ten to fifteen years down the road we discover, that's all you do is fruit!! In charcoal!! Different fruit to be sure, apples, oranges, bananas and even a kumquat!! All beautiful works of art. Anyone would LOVE to be an owner of a "Disney original charcoal fruit picture"!! But let's face it, they are ALL fruit!! Done in relatively the same charcoal manner. No portraits. No landscapes. No impressionist. No avant-garde modern nonsense! Just fruit!! No oil paintings, no sketching, no pastels, no sculptures. Just charcoal fruit. Again, very nicely done fruit! Very captivating. But very much the same.

They got away from it a bit when they built Wilderness. And again with AKL. But to me those two are VERY similar. So we have ALL these fruit pictures in charcoal and two fruit paintings done in oil.

It's a matter of choice. And basically I'm not one to quibble about choice. Until I see a trend. And choices being made deliberately EXCLUDING other motifs. So I ask why. And to be honest, I can't think of one good reason!! Except perhaps lack of vision. Maybe someone can clue me in, cause I'm at a loss to explain it.

I know this is highly subjective, and I can't really argue with what's been built (except for the All-Stars and Pop Century of course. In the art analogy they'd be the Elvis on Velvet!). They're ALL very nice. They are even exciting, for what they are. I just see all the lost potential and lament.

raidermatt
09-16-2002, 06:23 PM
Baron, I think you're right on about safe, but its not quite as simple as just taking the easy way out, though that's certainly a part of it.

I think it makes some sense that Disney looks for resort themes that instill comfort in its guests. That's one of the big appeals for many guests. That feeling of safety and comfort one gets from Disney. Resorts that take us back in time to different eras and locations in our country are inherently comfortable.

Medieval castles and such are not automatically so comfortable, if done with any kind of realism. Dungeons and beheadings are probably not what a lot of Disney guests want to be reminded of when they check into their resort.

Now, that said, just as the parks invoke that comfort with castles, jungles and outer space, the resorts could as well. It would just take a little more creativity and imagination (well, maybe a lot more), as well as an understanding of how much realism guests really want, and how much realism they are willing to sacrifice for comfort.

Disney should be able to achieve such goals. Disney, however, has become rather risk averse with respect to parks/resorts, and does not seem to have an idea of what its guests really want. Those two factors make it easier (and probably wiser) to stick with themes that make their guests comfortable before they even see the place, rather than themes they could more easily screw up.

So, yeah, it probably comes down to doing whats safe, but safety and comfort are actually part of what they should be trying to achieve. (As opposed to Vegas, which needs more glitz, daring, and exoticism (is that a word?)) Its just that Disney doesn't know how, or doesn't have the stones, to try to create safety and comfort from something that doesn't inherently ooze it...

HB2K
09-17-2002, 11:34 AM
and now even secretly root for Belicheck's team...you got some taste scoop!

raidermatt
09-17-2002, 04:22 PM
"Grrrrrrrrrrr", Raidermatt growls his disapproval as flashbacks of snowblind officials dance in his head.

Realizing, however, that what's done is truly done, and that the new year may yet bring a chance for playoff revenge, he only let's out a muted "Tuck this", and bides his time.....

larry_poppins
09-17-2002, 05:56 PM
As a DVC member I feel I have to put in my 2 cents. Saratoga feels pretty lackluster to me.
However, look at what it is replacing. Disney Institute and the WDW Villas were essentially themeless and nondescript apartment living. With the exception of the treehouse villas could anyone really be excited about staying there?

Saratoga Springs will be pretty to look at and have an upscale feel to it. Not much but an improvement over the boring 70's villas. OKW is pretty and upscale too. I like many others enjoy staying at OKW and I assume there will be members who will enjoy Saratoga once Disney educates us about the theme and the backstory.

I do think that WDW is in for a shock because I can not imagine that Saratoga will sale at the same fast clip that BWV, WLV, and BCV sold. These three have location as selling point. As pleasant as Saratoga will be the only thing separating it from a Marriott property will be the Disney transportation system. Non Disney vacation clubs have a draw that DVC doesn't have: namely locations outside of WDW, Vero and HH. Why committ to 40 years at WDW since WDW is no longer pushing the envelope on theme park design and innovation. Disney may find that without a substantial discount on tickets for new DVC members their ready pool of customers may be shrinking.

DVC-Landbaron
09-17-2002, 06:37 PM
Scoop, you’re going to do it again. OK!! You asked for it. Let’s see now, where to begin? I know, how about an accurate count of the Disney OWNED and BUILT resorts!! Now, what did you say again? Why, here it is: After all, the other resorts, namely, the Disneyland Hotel, the Disney Inn, and Fort WildernessThe very first one out of the box and you got it WRONG! Check the history.
you mean the 1920 Catskills is a worse theme than a Widerness campground or purposely unthemed but really nice Inn?Not worse at all, my good Scoop!! But certainly no better! Especially taken collectively. If this were the first resort ever built I’d be jumping for joy!!! What a wonderful idea!!! And even the next (pick one, Boardwalk, Floridian, Beach, Yacht, Old Key West, Caribbean, Port Orleans, Dixie, etc.) I’d still say it was wonderful!!! But after all this time and all those above named, relatively the same resorts, I expect something a little different!! Don’t you? Or is this another example of how we should settle for what Disney "gives" us?Pre-Eisner, the only Disney resort that any other regime ever built with a "non-Western" hemisphere theme was the Poly.What a doozie of a statement!!! SCOOP!!! There were only three and one of those was a campgrounds!! So of the “Hotel” Style, HALF(!!!) were “exotic”! And the other half, whether you like the style or not, was extremely captivating!!! The crowds, at that particular moment in time, LOVED it!! Why can’t you keep that concept in your head? We’ve been round and round on this several times. (The same with the Golf Resort concept, and yet you tried to bring it into these discussions again. Talk about clouding an issue!!)

And even if I grant you that there were four, that would leave one quarter “exotic” and one quarter mind blowing ‘futuristic’. So where are the one quarter to one half ‘exotic’ resorts today? Hmmmm. There aren’t any!!!!Regardless, the quality of a new resort certainly should not rise and fall on its "theme". Alot of Vegas' best resorts have "exotic" themes, but some of the great ones also have less exotic (ex: New York, New York).Good grieve!!! What in all the world does any of this paragraph have to do with Disney!?!?!
When I mentioned the Saratoga Springs rumor to Betsy she was thrilled. Great! On a personal level, I’m THRILLED for you beyond belief!! But objectively - IT STINKS!!!
Now, if they just theme it 2002 Catskills, then you are absolutely right. But, this idea that Disney is not being "exotic" enough just doesn't hold water with me.And this from the guy who spent pages dissing Fort Wilderness because it was Daniel Boone, Davy Crockett style instead of an Amazon rainforest!!!! Go figure!!




Mr. Matt (riding shotgun) Its just that Disney doesn't know how, or doesn't have the stones, to try to create safety and comfort from something that doesn't inherently ooze it...Right on the mark!!!

Bstanley
09-18-2002, 09:27 AM
The position: If it was built before this regime it is good (or at least had an excuse for stinking) or if it was built during this regime it is bad (or at least had an excuse for being good)

Scoop,

Not to be rude dear fellow, but the monochromatic nature of the 'loyal opposition' has been quite clear for some time.

It is why I've scaled back debating - the juice just ain't worth the squeeze.

DVC-Landbaron
09-18-2002, 05:19 PM
Scoop, you are right. I did misspeak. It is certainly NOT objectively. It is my considered opinion only. (but to tell you the truth I don't know how anyone could disagree!! Not taste wise, but in seeing, and acknowledging, that those mentioned are all relatively the same!!)

Now! We can get to the good stuff. I remember well the conversation we had concerning the campgrounds. YOU were the one that didn't like the theme and ergo, didn't care for the campgrounds (or at least thought they were not themed "properly"). Am I mistaken?

I, on the other hand, normally would not consider quibbling about theme. I think it all boils down to taste. Some may not like the Poly and others may LOVE it. I really don't see how that fits in with the current conversation. When I do look at theme choices it becomes personal. To each his/her own. I find each resort (yes even the moderates, Mr. Kidds) to be themed rather nicely. Some more than others, but hey, you gotta justify the price differential somehow, don't you?

Anyway, theme is theme and Disney does it very well. I get a genuine kick out of just about every resort on the property. And if we study them individually I think we can agree that they are very well done and for the most part, to some varying degree, Disney through and through. I certainly hope this takes care of the 'current' regime vs. the 'old' regime (ps, Scoop. I LOVE the water parks, too. Current regime!). I LIKE all the resorts built to date (notable exceptions I think we all know ;) )!! I even LOVE some of them.

HOWEVER!! I contend that there is trend growing inside the design of WDW that is disturbing. VERY disturbing. When examined COLLECTIVELY we can't help but notice that the region and time are all very similar. Again, two notable exceptions, AKL and Wilderness (although if you get right down to it, Wilderness isn't that far off the mark either!!)

Now, let's wrap this thing up and come full circle. I assert that the Campgrounds are wonderfully themed!! They are rich in detail, story, scope and everything else that makes it Disney. You disagreed. You wanted something more... ah... what would be the right word... well... EXOTIC comes to mind. I thought it was just fine.

In this thread I complained that the New York theme wasn't exotic enough and again you disagreed!! (picking up a pattern here?) But there is a world of difference in my complaint about the current COLLECTIVE state of the resorts and your complaint of one, single, solitary campgrounds!!

IF they ever chose to do another campgrounds, say at the south end of the property, and they themed it similarly to Fort Wilderness, I'd be screaming from the rooftops!!! I'd be right there with you, buddy, complaining to high heaven that Disney let us all down!! What they gave us, instead of a Daniel Boone frontier, was Buffalo Bill's western town!! Very nice. A little different, but not near enough!!! What happened to the African safari!! The Amazon or Indian or Asian Jungle!! Or even the Australian outback!! Come on guys!! Let's start THINKING!!!!

And if this New York theme had been the first of it's kind, I wouldn't be writing a word about it!! LOVE IT! Bring it on!!! Can't wait to try it out!!! Hope the points are the same as OKW!!!

But it isn't the first. Or the second. Or the third. Or the fourth. Or EVEN the fifth!!! It's just the most recent of a long line of 'similar' themes. What's next? San Francisco at the turn of the century? Right before the Earthquake? Not a bad idea, in and of itself (if I do say so myself :cool: )!! But a really rotten idea considering all the others that came before. How about a little stretch from 100 years ago, this continent? Let's move to Europe for just one resort. Or maybe --- well ---- ANYWHERE else!!! Don’t you get that, Scoop!!!??? Can’t you see the difference?






(SPECIAL NOTE: Not one quote! And you don't know how tempting it was to quote the good Mr. Stanley!!)

Horace Horsecollar
09-18-2002, 08:15 PM
Originally posted by Another Voice
There’s really nothing more I can add, other than to look for new “affordable options in DVC ownership” in the next year or so.
Over on the DVC board, I wrote a long note with facts, speculation and predictions. Please click here (http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=265334) to take a look. (It's the 14th reply; I also have an earlier reply in that thread.)

Another Voice
09-18-2002, 11:23 PM
Something just struck me funny. So many people defend the All Stars and Pop Century as if providing "affordable" motels room was a great noble cause of Disney. In reality it was nothing more than Disney trying go after a market segment in an attempt to generate more revenue.

Yet some of these people seem to have a problem with the same thinking could be applied to DVC.

DVC-Landbaron
09-18-2002, 11:32 PM
Yet some of these people seem to have a problem with the same thinking could be applied to DVC.
Oh! I see it, my lord!! I've seen it for a while. But I'm afraid I'm rather stuck!! I bought with the understanding that Disney was... well... DISNEY!! I had the original rose-colored-glasses!! And when they finally fell off.....

"the horror. - the horror." *






*Obscure movie reference.

raidermatt
09-19-2002, 02:55 AM
Yet some of these people seem to have a problem with the same thinking could be applied to DVC.

Not me. Go back awhile and I might argue the point, but I've learned my lesson.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me...

WebmasterCricket
09-19-2002, 10:15 AM
Take for instance that Greek Island theme......

I haven't finished reading this entire thread (shame on me) but if you have visited the Chautauqua Institute (which is what DI was supposed to be themed after?), you may realize that some of it, if not many of the public areas are very Greek or otherwise themed. Disney never got the theming right the first time through. I visited the DI 4 or so years ago and I couldn't understand how they thought it was based on the CI at all (other than the edu-tainment programs). It's not even close! Plain Jane lackluster architecture is the precise opposite of what the CI was (still is) trying to accomplish. There are no 2 houses exactly alike. In fact, they are drastically different.

Visit the website and view the 360 cameras (at the top):

http://www.chautauqua-inst.org/

You may be surprised at how wrong they got it.

I'm afraid that people will think that Disney defines the architecture of the theme and not the other way around.

Here are a few static images for the lazy :) (if they work)

Greek "Hall of Philosophy"
http://www.chautauqua-inst.org/Panorama%20Site/Images/Hall-2.jpg
...again...
http://www.chautauqua-inst.org/wallpaper2_640x480.jpg
http://www.ciweb.org/Photos/first%20daily%20house.jpg
http://www.ciweb.org/Photos/stuff/red%20bridge.jpg
http://www.ciweb.org/Photos/new/New%20Folder/st.%20elmo.jpg
http://www.ciweb.org/Photos/bus%20station.jpgOk, they got the bus stops right :rolleyes:
http://www.ciweb.org/Photos/amtheneum3.jpg

DisneyKidds
09-19-2002, 11:24 AM
Who let the Baron out of his daytime cage?

Anyway, theme is theme and Disney does it very well. I get a genuine kick out of just about every resort on the property. And if we study them individually I think we can agree that they are very well done and for the most part, to some varying degree, Disney through and through.

:crazy:

Didn't we arg.., um, discuss, for pages upon pages the fact that you thought the moderates were, in fact, NOT DISNEY AT ALL? Now they are 'Disney through and through'? Not Disney, Disney to some degree. One argument one day, one argument the next. Whatever am I going to do with you :p :( :eek: :rolleyes: :mad: :confused:.

As to this......

Something just struck me funny. So many people defend the All Stars and Pop Century as if providing "affordable" motels room was a great noble cause of Disney. In reality it was nothing more than Disney trying go after a market segment in an attempt to generate more revenue. Yet some of these people seem to have a problem with the same thinking could be applied to DVC.

...I will go on record. I have no problem with Disney making hotels that cater to a different market segment, so long as they are done 'Disney' and are a good Show. I have stated previously that the AS/PC don't meet this criteria. I have also stated that I have no problem with the 'affordable DVC options', so long as they don't de-value existing memberships.

Werner Weiss
09-19-2002, 10:18 PM
I just posted a couple of pictures over on the Disney Vacation Club board that probably belong in this thread too.

I was looking at the publicity drawing of the new feature pool at the DVC Saratoga Springs Resort & Spa. I noticed some buildings in the background that looked very familiar. So I found a publicity photo of the old Disney Institute. Sure enough, I saw the same buildings.

http://wernerweiss.com/dis-images/di-old.jpg

The picture above shows the Townhouses at the Villas at Disney Institute. The Disney Institute main complex is behind the Townhouses. That's where the Disney Institute had its spa, check-in lobby, dining room, and classrooms.

http://wernerweiss.com/dis-images/di-new.jpg

The picture above shows that the pool and new buildings of the Saratoga Springs Resort & Spa will replace the old Townhouses. Notice the same buildings in the background. (I've labeled them with letters and arrows so that you can't miss them.) I think it's safe to say that that's where the new DVC resort will have its spa, check-in lobby, restuarant, community hall, shops, and any other "town center" facilities.

There have been complaints in this thread that the theme of the new DVC resort is too close to home, and that DVD missed the opportunity to use an exciting, exotic theme. But the theme of the new DVC resort wasn't set this year. It was set in the mid-1990s when the esteemed architect, Thomas Beeby, designed the Disney Institute main complex.

Unlike the old Townhouses and other residential buildings at the Villas at Disney Institute, the new Saratoga Springs Resort & Spa, with its upstate New York theme, should blend nicely with Mr Beeby's design.

DVC-Landbaron
09-19-2002, 11:20 PM
Who let the Baron out of his daytime cage?Time off for good behavior. Good behavior and unusually keen insight into all things Disney. The Citizens of Chicago decided that you people needed some controlling.... So..... :crazy:
Didn't we arg.., um, discuss, for pages upon pages the fact that you thought the moderates were, in fact, NOT DISNEY AT ALL?Why is it that it must be all or nothing with you? Black or white? Why is it that you allow nothing in the middle? No shades of gray?

My stance on the moderates has never changed since the very first day I stayed there. They are VERY nice!! To a certain extent they are Disney!! In fact I’ll even go further, so there is absolutely no mistaking my meaning this time. The All-Stars are NOT Disney at all!! Pop Century, well.... :( :mad: :(

The Moderates have many aspects of Disney within them. But not enough! The differences are subtle, but can be accounted for in the price differential. You want to see true Disney, look to whatever suits your taste in the Deluxe range (except the Floridian!) and then knock the price roughly in half. Ahhhh! There you have a “DISNEY” resort as it was meant to be! The moderates come close. VERY close. Close enough, for the purposes of our discussion regarding design, to be INCLUDED in the group of “Disney” resorts as opposed to ignored.

Am I clear now?

DisneyKidds
09-20-2002, 10:42 AM
Why is it that it must be all or nothing with you? Black or white? Why is it that you allow nothing in the middle? No shades of gray?

Funny thing is, this is what I ask myself about you every time I read your driv... posts ;).

Why, oh, why do you want to go back into this moderate thing?

My stance on the moderates has never changed since the very first day I stayed there. They are VERY nice!! To a certain extent they are Disney!!

Hate to dredge up the past (ok, no I don't), but I had to share a few quotes from a certain someone we know. Can you guess who........?

In relation to allowing the moderates to be built.........

Of course they miss a beat! THEY ARE NOT DISNEY!!!

This one stands on it's own..........

I point to Port Orleans and say, “Well it’s nice. And they came so close. But it ain’t no Disney joint!”

In response to the contention that the 'mods' are a true 'Disney' experience..............

No not quite!! Why don’t you get it! THE STANDARD IS THE STANDARD!!!!! I can’t say it any louder!!

As you always say, if it doesn't meet the standard, it ain't Disney - or do you feel otherwise now? or do the 'mods' now meet the standard? THE STANDARD IS THE STANDARD!!!!! Hard to get more black and white than that ;).

In response to the question of whether the 'mods' were 'Disney'.........

they almost (ALMOST, mind you) make it!! But not quite!!

Seems just a little different from................

Disney through and through.

.......even if just 'to some extent'. So which is it my friend? Or should I ask which is it today? ;) :crazy:

Feel free to point out what I'm sure you will say are misquotes, or quotes taken out of context. However, the court record speaks for itself :p.

DisneyKidds
09-20-2002, 01:01 PM
Scoop - thank you counsellor :smooth:. If only I were presenting the evidence to an impartial jury. Furthermore, a jury of the good Baron's car 3 peers will never convict. Now if I could have the venue moved the neighborhood car 1 travels in (maybe even car 2) I think we could put him away ;).

raidermatt
09-20-2002, 01:01 PM
Bring it on.... ;)

DK, if I may...

There's two ways to discuss all things Disney.

1- Only compare Disney to Disney. Forget what anybody else does, forget figuring out whether Disney is better than this, or better than that. Decide on what your view of the Disney standard is, and compare everything to that.

2- Take everything else into consideration. What is the competition doing? Is Disney's new attraction better than Universal's? Would you rather stay at the Poly or the Hilton?

The difference between these two explains how somebody can be very critical of Disney, yet still make WDW their destination. Our friend Baron is the textbook example of someone who would give very different statements, depending on from which viewpoint he was looking. And certainly there are many others, including myself, who would do the same. To his credit, Baron typically tries to avoid even speaking to view point number 2, probably to avoid situations like this, where he is accused of double-speak.

What you have done in your cross-examination is compare quotes taken from a discussion using viewpoint number 1, and compared them to quotes clearly made when using viewpoint number 2.

Hence, the alleged contradiction. Yet its not a contradiction at all.

The Moderates ARE very nice. They DO have some Disney touches. Those are pertinent facts. But if the question is a yes or no, "Are they Disney?", the answer is no.

No contradiction.

DVCs that used the same "pay for Magic" philosophy would have the same issues...

DisneyKidds
09-20-2002, 01:28 PM
So Matt wants to be a public defender, eh? Mislead the jury, cast false aspersions, misdirect, call for speculation...... seems you would make a good one ;).

I object, your honor! Redirect!

What you have done in your cross-examination is compare quotes taken from a discussion using viewpoint number 1, and compared them to quotes clearly made when using viewpoint number 2.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, this is simply not the case. The aforementioned positions by the defendant had nothing to do with what the competition was doing. The defense so stipulates in identifying exhibits one through four as being from viewpoint number 1. In fact, all were taken from a discussion regarding the tangible difference between Disney resorts, and only Disney resorts. Of course, the conversation found it's way into weather or not the 'moderate' resorts were 'Disney'. The Baron was clear on his position that, while some aspects may be nice, through and through the 'moderates' were not Disney, they were no Disney joint at all. But here is where the defense position falls apart. The discussion in which the alleged contradiction occurred, and the entire context of the statements in dispute, had nothing to do with the competition either. The comments had to do with Disney's choice of themeing and ability to carry off good theme in the Disney resorts.

The Moderates ARE very nice. They DO have some Disney touches. Those are pertinent facts. But if the question is a yes or no, "Are they Disney?", the answer is no.

yet we are still faced with this statement by the defendant...............

if we study them individually I think we can agree that they are very well done and for the most part, to some varying degree, Disney through and through.

Not Disney, yet Disney through and through (I remind the jury to not be swayed by the layers of qualification the defendant applies to his statement - they do not change th fact that he said they are Disney through and through).

No contradiction.

I guess that is for the jury to decide ;).

BTW, I also prefer to stay out of the 'what the competition is doing' aspects as well. If Disney is responding to the same market conditions as competitors I may comment, but in general I don't go much to the cometition and don't get involved in the 'this is better' rhetoric.

While I can certainly understand this (and have come to do it much more myself lately)............

The difference between these two explains how somebody can be very critical of Disney, yet still make WDW their destination.

............it can hardly be the basis for the defense against these charges.

Boy, is the Baron either going to be mad or have fun when they let him out of his cage :p.

Lesley
09-20-2002, 02:08 PM
Y'all know that Landbaron is just going to say he "mis-typed" and that he meant something else.....

This is where I lose it with you guys (and gals too!)....all the goofy "meta" discussion of who meant what when they said whatever.

Matt, you did a great job of making sense of it all.....but it seems that DK, scoop and co. just want to catch Landbaron in a contradiction. As if that's so difficult.....:rolleyes:

raidermatt
09-20-2002, 02:19 PM
Very well put, Lesley. DK finds himself in an un-winable case, and so, as any good lawyer would do, he changes the arguement to one of semantics, or presumed contradictions.

Quite clever really.;)

But, unlike the justice system, the jury that is the DIS membership can see through such tactics, and knows a DVC shanty when it sees it..;)





(Alright, I know shanty was a "slight" exageration, but it sounded so good...)

DisneyKidds
09-20-2002, 02:49 PM
Ahhh...justice is blind, the Baron defense team is not - you can see, and you see red. The lynch mob is out of control ;).

DK finds himself in an un-winable case, and so, as any good lawyer would do, he changes the arguement to one of semantics, or presumed contradictions.

'Objection! Relevance! Approach, your honor' .........

........the defense is clearly trying to cloud the testimony with irrelevant and inflammatory statements.........

'Objection sustained'.

You see, I am not in any un-winable argument. If it please the court, I have been a mostly casual observer in this thread........until the Baron 'engaged' me with a (comment) about the 'moderates', and then committed the alleged contradiction, which was completely unrelated to any arguments made by myself in this thread. I have no reason to change any arguments or to direct the testimony away from any argument.

the jury that is the DIS membership can see through such tactics

Unfortunately, I was not part of the jury selction process :(.

airlarry!
09-20-2002, 03:18 PM
You know, the reasons ya'll allegedly caught him in this 'double speak' are:

1. Everything Matt said...

2. Baron doesn't work for Disney's PR department

3. and last, but not least, he IMHO is wrong when he thinks that CBR and PO are not up to the Disney standards. But he is wrong in the specifics of his standard, or in other words the application of his standard to the facts. But he has always told us that...it is the standard that is uncontrovertible not the individual example.

It is better to be wrong, in my opinion, as to the application of Walt's Disney standard to an individual component of WDW, then it is to ignore the standard, as many here do when talking about this subject.

Really, Sir DK, we're not sheep. We just know Lord Baron is right. ;) Let's keep the criticism over LB's comments on moderates in perspective--we're talking about why he thinks a resort just misses the Walt Standard. LB isn't sitting here a year after defending all things Ei$ner and claiming that he knew all along that Ei$ner was bad. That would be worthy of cross-examination, my friend, not this little argument over whether or not LB know thinks the Mods meet the Walt standard.

DisneyKidds
09-20-2002, 03:37 PM
At the risk of opening the freezer with a blatant car reference, you car 3 folks sure do rally ;).

Boy, the good lord Baron is going to LOVE how he has been the topic of discussion in his absence (but he doth bring it uponith himself :p).
The reasons ya'll (allegedly) caught him in this 'double speak'
LB now thinks the Mods meet the Walt standard.
At least the jury is listening, now if we can make them hear :).
then it is to ignore the standard, as many here do when talking about this subject.
Now, your airness, I am not totally familiar with your writing style - so please confirm that this is accusatory innuendo ;).

Go ask you sheph... the Baron. I, as much as anyone on this board, have taken a recent active interest in getting to know the standard. I am putting in the time, and the length of the shots that Baron and I take on some threads bears witness to that. He and I may interpret fact, action and circumstance differently, but one can hardly say I ignore anything.

[Note - good tactic Mr. Larry. Take me from the offensive and put me on the defensive. Crafty counsel abounds ;) - but it won't work :p]
IMHO is wrong when he thinks that CBR and PO are not up to the Disney standards.
Go get him, tiger. I would love to see some car 3 infighting :crazy:.
Really, Sir DK, we're not sheep.
Scoop and I may be on the same prosecution team, but go get him for the comments regarding the herd ;). Used to be the folks who weren't in car 3 were the blind faithful following the brand, incapable of free thought. Now it is the others who need to follow something.......... we got em on the run Scoop ;) :) :jester: :crazy:.

airlarry!
09-20-2002, 03:48 PM
And another thing..... ;) ;) ;)

How does one down the theme of Fort Wilderness but give props to the theme of the rumored DVC resort? Or, worse, think the alleged themes of the All-stars or, God forbid, the Poop Century motif are more 'Disney' than FW?

airlarry!
09-20-2002, 04:01 PM
Sir DK, the first rule of Scoopness is to get the sources correct. ;) Else the court reporter shall banish you to the coffee room amid peals of laughter from your colleagues.

My friends, I never actually said: LB now thinks the Mods meet the Walt standard

What I said was...whether or not LB know thinks the Mods meet the Walt standard. (misspelling --sic-- included)

Sir DK, am I forced to cross-check all of your quotes of our friend, Lord Baron? ;) ;)

As for infighting, some of us have been on here so long we talk in code. ;) Not necessarily a good thing, but it doesn't mean we all agree. I know how Baron feels about Mods. He's made his case clear. I know how he feels about the Golf Resort. He's made that one clear too. No need to rehash these, right? But if those two things are the only two things he might be wrong about ;) then that's a pretty good record, doncha think?

Besides, everyone knows Monsieur AV is the only one around here who is always right.

DVC-Landbaron
09-20-2002, 06:15 PM
If O.J. was the trail of last century can LandBaron be the trail of THIS century?!?!? :bounce:

Down to business!!!

A trial!?!? In absentia? I thought I had the right to face my accusers? You’d think they’d wait for a reply from the witness in question. Oh well. I supposed I shouldn’t be surprised. I have to expect such tactics!! :(



OK!! So!!! On with the “trial”....

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury. One word. And one word only will end this nonsense!

CONTEXT!!!

Do you understand the term, Mr. Kidds? Now, I’m gonna use small words and type real slow so you can understand. What were we talking about when I made this statement? Of course they miss a beat! THEY ARE NOT DISNEY!!! or even this one: I point to Port Orleans and say, “Well it’s nice. And they came so close. But it ain’t no Disney joint!” Well? Come on. It’s not that hard. Give it a try.

What? A little louder, please. YES!!!! That’s right!! We were talking about STAYING THERE!!! Being a guest!! You remember, actually renting one of the rooms and sleeping in it and living out of it for several days at a time. The entire EXPERIENCE!! Yeah! That’s right!!! (I can just “feel” you “getting it” now.) The “DISNEY” experience. Which, very sadly, falls very short in the moderates. In that CONTEXT!!! they are unquestionably, in my very humble opinion (and the opinion of every thinking Disney fan) NOT Disney. (am I typing slow enough for you to follow this? Am I using words you can easily understand?) Good!! Then we’ll proceed!!

Now lets talk about the recent thread. The one where I said: I, on the other hand, normally would not consider quibbling about theme. I think it all boils down to taste. Some may not like the Poly and others may LOVE it. I really don't see how that fits in with the current conversation. When I do look at theme choices it becomes personal. To each his/her own. I find each resort (yes even the moderates, Mr. Kidds) to be themed rather nicely. Some more than others, but hey, you gotta justify the price differential somehow, don't you?

Anyway, theme is theme and Disney does it very well. I get a genuine kick out of just about every resort on the property. And if we study them individually I think we can agree that they are very well done and for the most part, to some varying degree, Disney through and through. I certainly hope this takes care of the 'current' regime vs. the 'old' regime (ps, Scoop. I LOVE the water parks, too. Current regime!). I LIKE all the resorts built to date (notable exceptions I think we all know )!! I even LOVE some of them.

OK!! So, the question begs, “what CONTEXT!!! are these paragraphs referring to”? Is it staying there. Is it sleeping over night? Is it whether these places have restaurant facilities? Is it a queen sized bed vs. double beds? Is it, in any way shape or form, talking about the Disney EXPERIENCE? No. No, it’s not. And you know it.

So, in what CONTEXT!!! was it said? That’s right. Architecture. Theme. Period!!


I thank one and all for the wonderful words!! But this really just boils down to (All Together now!!)....

CONTEXT!!!

Your witness!!


ps: Scoop! You said: Baaaaaahhhhhhhh.........Is that your considered legal opinion? Or is it your normal courtroom manner?! :jester:

DVC-Landbaron
09-20-2002, 09:58 PM
One more thing. Through all this nonsense two wonderful quotes come shining through. And both are attributed to Sir Larry! How does one down the theme of Fort Wilderness but give props to the theme of the rumored DVC resort? Or, worse, think the alleged themes of the All-stars or, God forbid, the Poop Century motif are more 'Disney' than FW?Something I’ve wanted to know for quite some time. For some reason or another Scoop chooses to stand on the sidelines and cheer others rather than get down and dirty himself. Hmmmm. Maybe he thinks he’s above it all. Or perhaps he’s finally figured out that he has an indefensible position. Heck, if I’d been defending Ei$ner for the last two years, I’d go into hiding too!!!

The second gem, of course is:Besides, everyone knows Monsieur AV is the only one around here who is always right.Ditto!!

HorizonsFan
09-20-2002, 10:19 PM
LandBaron:
I intentionally stayed out of the whole trial thing, but after your last couple of posts, I have to ask...
How do you seperate the theme of a resort from the experience of staying there? IMO, the theme coupled with the staff are the biggest part of providing an experience. If the theme is Disney "through and through", and they're staffed with Disney CM's, what is it that keeps those folks staying in the moderates from having a bona fide Disney experience?

DVC-Landbaron
09-20-2002, 11:10 PM
IMO, the theme coupled with the staff are the biggest part of providing an experience. IMO, that is but an aspect of it. Theme puts you into a place. Or perhaps a time, but mainly it’s associated with a place. I suppose the best themes do both (Dixie Landings comes to mind). And the staff is wonderful all the time.

However, are there differences in staff levels between the Deluxes and the Mods? Is there a difference in room size? Is there a difference in restaurant choices? Is there a difference in recreational choices? Is there a difference in pools? Is there a difference in philosophy between landscaping (and views) between the two? Did they take pains to hide the parking lot and fulfill their mandate to insure that the outside world not enter the themed “set”? Transportation choices? Distance to the bus stop, restaurant and shopping from the furthest room? Depth of theme is another subjective albeit, very important distinction for me at least. Layout is another distinction that really doesn’t enter into “theme”. And it’s a lot of little things. Did you ever notice that all the deluxes have doors that open automatically. The Mods (at least to the best of my recollection) do not!!

Mostly, Mr. Fans it all those little things that I couldn’t possible put my finger on, but can “feel” and “sense” all the same. Much as one can “feel” the difference between something Disney and something that tries, very, very hard to be Disney. Say like IOA!! Both are WONDERFULLY themed. And yet... there’s just that feeling... that little something... that tells you that one of them, just ain’t Disney!!! Maybe an Imagineer can point it out. Maybe AV can shed some light. But I can do nothing but point out the “feeling” that we have all experienced, but few can explain!!

All these things have nothing, whatsoever to do with the architecture or theme "concept". And that’s what I was talking about in this thread. Theme concept!! Should we build ANOTHER north American fairly modern resort, or should we finally do the Venetian!!?? Or the Asian??? Or the Persian??? Or the Lunar Experience!!??

Understand? :)

HorizonsFan
09-20-2002, 11:42 PM
I undestand what you're saying, but I'm not sure I agree completely. Once again, we're back to "the show is in the eye of the beholder". What's lacking for the Landbaron may not even register for Joe Sixpack. His "Disney experience" is not your "Disney experience". His "Disney standards" are not your "Disney standards". It's a personal thing and no amount of "Walt would have done it better!" is going to convince him that he's not having a "Disney experience" that's up to "Disney standards".
I still wonder if your expectations are a bit unrealistic...
Take a look at the quote in your signature. It reads, "Give the people everything you can give them" not "Give the people everything you can dream up".
Is it possible that the moderates and values exist to give the people (all the people, not just those that can afford a Venitian or Asian) everything they can give them (without going in the hole in the process)?
As always, this is just my opinion. I'm no lawyer and you're not on trial as far as I'm concerned...

DVC-Landbaron
09-21-2002, 12:23 AM
I understand what you're saying, but I'm not sure I agree completely.I hardly find that surprising!! Do you!?!? ;)

Once again, we're back to "the show is in the eye of the beholder".Well, not quite.
What's lacking for the Landbaron may not even register for Joe Sixpack. His "Disney experience" is not your "Disney experience".Very, very true!! I completely - 100% - agree with you!! And if that "experience" works for you, God bless!!

His "Disney standards" are not your "Disney standards".WRONG!!! The standards are the standards!!! I didn’t make them up! Disney did, when they first created Disneyland and WDW (up to and including EPCOT)! I merely point out the differences, in all three areas. Quality, quantity and price!! This is something that is NOT subjective. Although a real bitc... Ah... Although really hard to do, it is indeed - quantifiable!! Did Disney feel, through it’s philosophical ideals that ‘hiding’ a parking lot was important? Not is it important to you, but was it important to Disney! I’ve never argued that you have to agree with every aspect of the philosophical concept!! Heck, even I don’t!! I just point out the difference. And the Standard is the standards!! It is NOT subjective!! It is not based on individual preferences. It is what it is!! Or at least it WAS what it WAS!!
I still wonder if your expectations are a bit unrealistic...Very unrealistic!! In fact there has only been one company that lived up to and exceeded my expectations. And that company is no more!! How sad! :(
Take a look at the quote in your signature. It reads, "Give the people everything you can give them" not "Give the people everything you can dream up".OK!! Fair enough. Do you really think, for one little heartbeat, that this company is giving us everything they can give us? Forget about the dreaming part! (Ei$ner pretty much put an end to that this week, didn’t he?)
Is it possible that the moderates and values exist to give the people (all the people, not just those that can afford a Venetian or Asian) everything they can give them (without going in the hole in the process)?Ok two answers for this one!! First: YES!!! Very possible! But I don’t believe for a moment that they would go into a hole. And more importantly they prostituted the standards to do so!! A compromise you may say. Bit some things can’t be compromised. And the standard (or their philosophy, if you will) is one of those things. I contend that this “compromise” started them on the road that ultimately led to Pop Century and that horrible wand over EPCOT! And finally to the obliteration of WDI! Very slippery that slope is. Very slippery indeed!

And second: Come on Dave!!! It doesn’t give ALL the people anything!! Believe it or not there are people in America that can’t afford the All-Stars!! Just so we’re clear, you’re not advocating communism here! Are you? No! I didn’t think so! So there are still “haves” and “have nots” It’s just a matter of where you draw the line!! That’s all! But the line is still there!

As always, this is just my opinion. I'm no lawyer and you're not on trial as far as I'm concerned...Thank you!! That’s why it’s fun to discuss things with you!! :bounce:

DisneyKidds
09-21-2002, 08:25 AM
I will take the time to digest the current Horizons/Baron discussion a little later. Just a few quck thoughts now.....

Sir Larry - yours was the only sentence I may not have used in it's entirety ;). Couldn't help myself. It is a pretty powerful statement. Even us good guy DIS lawyers have to use what we can :p.. In the CONTEXT of my comments it is not only powerful, but appropriate. I simply wanted to point out that the jury was listening. The fact that one could even consider the concept of Baron believing the 'mods' meet the standard is significant as far as making my case is concerned ;).

Good Baron - As HorizonsFan is pointing out, 'Disney through and through' is a pretty strong statement. Too strong, in fact - and you are way too eloquent a speaker to have inadvertantly used it (remember that Freud guy ;)). So I have to say, if the glove does not fit, I can not acquit. Sorry, but the context glove just don't fit, my friend :p.

BRERALEX
09-21-2002, 09:59 AM
they prostituted the standards to do so!!

i keep telling you guys he's a pimp and you dont wanna listen. maybe the wand over spaceship earth is his pimp stick.

DisneyKidds
09-21-2002, 12:06 PM
Thank you!! That’s why it’s fun to discuss things with you!!

:( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :(

Oh, well. I was going to actually get into some substance because I am not the only one around here who can see forward, toward the horizon ;), while some can only see back :p.

I simply wanted to clarify a Baron position. I didn't realize that it would be the second coming of Johnny Cochran vs. Marcia Earle (is that how their names were spelled?). The 'trial' just ended up being a diversion. Seemed harmless and rather tongue in cheek(notice all the fluffy language and smilies?). However, if no one is having fun...............

'Nuff said.

DVC-Landbaron
09-21-2002, 01:13 PM
I wrote that line to Dave the same as I would write it to you, but again in a different context. I haven’t talked to Dave in quite a while, although more than a year ago we used to go round and round. That was my little way to encourage him, I suppose. It had NOTHING to do with you!

Now at the end of a post to you I would have written: “Thank you!! That’s why it’s fun to discuss things with you!! You make me think while creating quite a diversion!!!” Don’t put hidden meanings into things that don’t have them. If I wanted to tell you to knock it off, I would send you a PM or tell you outright on the board!! Ask Dave! We had a GREAT misunderstanding once. :)

Oh, well. I was going to actually get into some substanceThat would be a pleasant change!! ;)

I simply wanted to clarify a Baron positionNo. Not really. You wanted to play a semantic game with me. You wanted to see if you could possibly twist my remarks, out of context, into something other than I clearly meant.
The 'trial' just ended up being a diversion.Yes!!! I like these type of things!! I really do! And I’m very comfortable with my philosophy and consistency regarding Disney that the only thing these diversions do is make my stance a little clearer. And for that opportunity I thank you. ;)
However, if no one is having fun...............I am!! Scoop was! :cool:

'Nuff said.Too bad. It was just starting to get good!!

DisneyKidds
09-21-2002, 11:27 PM
Sheesh, Baron - being short on time earlier I was only trying to make you squirm a bit in the interim. Mission accomplished, but I could hardly let you go so easily ;). I'm back now.

Note, however, that the way you presented your pleasure of discussing items with Mr. HF - in the context of the discussion (you are big on context lately, no?) - was that it was so because HF did not put you on trial. Does that not imply that it is not fun to speak to those who do put you on trial? I really can't blame you, though. Trials can be, well, trying. If not for a tainted jury you'd be looking at solitary :p.

Now for that substance (and I'll ignore your lame attempt at humor - that 'for a change' bit - for I believe the lenght of your posts endorses the substance of the opposition) ............

Well, before that.......

No. Not really. You wanted to play a semantic game with me. You wanted to see if you could possibly twist my remarks, out of context, into something other than I clearly meant.

No. Not really. Yes, I was looking to have a little fun with you. However, I do believe that there is some level of contradiction, opportunity, and double standard in some of your positions/posts. But hey, we can all be guilty sometimes ;).

Now, what to discuss? Lets try this, as it is somewhat representative of 'Baronizing' the truth...........

WRONG!!! The standards are the standards!!! I didn’t make them up! Disney did, when they first created Disneyland and WDW

How many times have I heard you say this............ ok, too many to count :crazy:. I'm not sure how the heck an objective set of standards is defined any longer. Used to be Safety, Courtesy, Show, Efficiency - or so you had been known to say (I can go look up the posts if you like). Then, in subsequent discussions, these were changed to the Traditions (could that be because you realized the 'mods' met these items and you couldn't let the 'mods' meet the Standards?). Disney 'touch' and 'feel' were thrown in somewhere - and who knows where we are now? Maybe at 'quality, quantity, and price'? I don't really know :crazy:. I submit you like it that way - nebulous, undefineable Standards. It makes it all the more easy for you to fall back to your one and only Standard (actually two) - the Poly and the Contemporary. The body of evidence shows that if it is not equal in your eyes to these hotels, it is just not Disney. I believe this is a rediculous position. However, you even acknowledge that living up to it is an impossibility.

Or at least it WAS what it WAS!! Very unrealistic!! In fact there has only been one company that lived up to and exceeded my expectations. And that company is no more!!

Forget Ei$ner. Nobody had a chance to make anything 'Disney' after Roy died. How sad, and thoroughly wrong.

Ok, on to something else........

Very, very true!! I completely - 100% - agree with you!! And if that "experience" works for you, God bless!!

Come on Baron, admit it. You really wanted to finish this sentence.... 'God bless you, you ignorant fool'. But, as you already know, I feel you are wrong. Just because that one and only company that WAS is no longer, and subsequent 'companies' have not been exactly the same, it does not mean the 'Disney' experience is dead.

And something else...........

I'm with HF on the theming and CM issue regarding the hotel 'experience'. However, I will stipulate that the themeing, attention to detail, and CM's are the core, and that other things do matter. But to you there can be no variation from your Standard if something is to be 'Disney'.

However, are there differences in staff levels between the Deluxes and the Mods? Is there a difference in room size? Is there a difference in restaurant choices? Is there a difference in recreational choices? Is there a difference in pools? Is there a difference in philosophy between landscaping (and views) between the two? Did they take pains to hide the parking lot and fulfill their mandate to insure that the outside world not enter the themed “set”? Transportation choices? Distance to the bus stop, restaurant and shopping from the furthest room? Depth of theme is another subjective albeit, very important distinction for me at least. Layout is another distinction that really doesn’t enter into “theme”. And it’s a lot of little things.

Ok - a lot to tackle here. But, bottom line is that you subjectively determined that the 'mod' experience is not 'Disney' because each of the above items is not up to what you percieve the Standard to be - a Standard which you, yourself are a bit deluded on :jester: :p. Please Baron, can you tell me that nary a parking space can be seen from any room at the Contemporary or the Poly?

Simply because there is a 'difference' does not make the 'experience' non 'Disney'. Not if you truely look at an objective standard. However, if you walk into a room at a 'mod' and say 'hey, this room is smaller than the room at the Poly', then walk around with your arms folded and a scowl on you face, there is no way you can objectively look at the 'experience' at that 'mod'.

As for some of the other things you pick on.........

Restaurants - granted, CBR needed a sit down (and is getting one now), but restaurant choices at many of the 'mods' are as good or better than your CR/Poly Standard. The themeing and integration of a number of 'mods' restaurants outdo the CR.

Pools - sorry, other than your magical, muffled, underwater music there is not much difference between most of the pools (SAB aside). Of course, any difference to a............ :p. Same can be said for layout and distances.

Staff, lanscaping, views..... where are the differences?

Depth of theme - it is as deep at POR Riverside as anywhere else.

You see a lot of little things - but that is only what you see, what you choose to see, what you are not looking at objectively. Based on that you declare 'not Disney'.

But then you say it is 'Disney' "through and through"............. :p

Whew! The diversion is yours for the taking :).

DVC-Landbaron
09-22-2002, 02:22 AM
I do believe that there is some level of contradiction, opportunity, and double standard in some of your positions/posts. But hey, we can all be guilty sometimes.No! You may be guilty of it. And I may ‘inadvertently’ be guilty of it. But if pointed out, I will gladly ‘fess up and correct the situation. You see, I made a conscience decision to take a hard line waaayyyy baaaaack in my first conversations with Peter Pirate and the long lost DisDuck! Those two were soooooo forgiving that I felt it imperative to hearken back to the “Walt” era, which included much of the Walker/Miller administration. At first, I will admit, I felt my way around the issues. Much of it was nothing more than a ‘feeling’. But after writing about this subject for over two years, you get to know it a bit and solidification of concepts become second nature. Those vague feelings which at the beginning were nothing more than the little hairs on the back of your neck started to take on much more tangible forms. And after a while I discovered I actually knew what I was talking about!!! And could, for the most part, convey those thoughts through this medium (although still a bit wordy!).

Now, I worked out my ‘feelings’ for the moderates about a year and a half ago. If you wanted to see some contradictions look at some of those posts!! But through conversations, a bit of soul searching and a whole bunch of logical thought on the subject, after a time my ‘feelings’ worked itself into the ill titled “LandBaron’s Caste Systems of Resorts”. And the philosophical tenet of that concept has not changed since day one!!! And for you to claim there is a change is absolutely ridiculous just because I misplace a verb or defend the moderates in an entirely different CONTEXT! My “feelings” have not changed. And I do not change positions for the sake of an argument! That would be silly! You see, I’m fairly arrogant as well as wordy. Why change anything when I know I am right!! I couldn’t be more right if I tried!! (thought about a ‘wink’ but thought this was better) :cool:

Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying you have to agree with me. I’m just saying that after due consideration and much thought on the subject, I am VERY comfortable that my opinion is the ONLY correct one! If nothing else I stand by my convictions and I am rather tenacious. (Hmmmm. We are in trouble. I meant this to be a one or two sentence reply and I got this. And it’s only the first quote!! Oh-Oh! A double quote! Scoop! Don’t get confused!!)
WRONG!!! The standards are the standards!!! I didn’t make them up! Disney did, when they first created Disneyland and WDW How many times have I heard you say thisMillions. And you’ll get millions more. Why? Because very deep down, that is what I believe! And for the life of me I really can’t see how anyone could disagree.

OK. Now the next bit is rather confusing. And you really have to remember that you were learning all sorts of new things when we had these discussions. Don’t forget that I had been at this game two years before you. I had a deep understanding of what some of the buzz words were. And it is possible that you may have misinterpreted something that I wrote and kind of mixed up the terms a bit. (It’s not only possible, it’s a fact! I know I corrected you once. And by the next paragraph I can see I have to do it again!!)
I'm not sure how the heck an objective set of standards is defined any longer. Used to be Safety, Courtesy, Show, Efficiency - or so you had been known to say (I can go look up the posts if you like). Then, in subsequent discussions, these were changed to the Traditions (could that be because you realized the 'mods' met these items and you couldn't let the 'mods' meet the Standards?). Disney 'touch' and 'feel' were thrown in somewhere - and who knows where we are now? Maybe at 'quality, quantity, and price'? I don't really know . I submit you like it that way - nebulous, undefineable Standards.Whew!! What a mouthful! Do you really believe this nonsense when you type it or are you just looking for a reaction? ;)

Anyway, it’s correcting time. PLEASE LISTEN!

Traditions is the training program for CMs. After you hang around these boards and RADP for a while you understand that one of the most salient concepts taught within this program is the order in which CMs should deal with everyday events that go on in the theme parks and resorts. A hierarchy of problem solving skills I suppose you could call it. Now once you understand the simplicity of this concept, you can see how it is taken right out of Walt’s philosophy on doing things. You can see how this order of things set his company apart from all other companies. The order is:

1- Safety
2- Courtesy
3- SHOW
4- Efficiency

Now that is not, by any means, the entire philosophy. It is merely an aspect of it. An important aspect, I will grant you, but an aspect nonetheless. And what makes this concept unique? Why do these four things set Disney apart from any other company? It is the ORDER in which they are written!! Virtually every other company on the globe has the same four concepts. But only Disney puts efficiency last!! After all the others! Wait! I should say the Disney of old put efficiency after SHOW. The current morons switched it a while back. Now SHOW is last on the list. Not officially of course. Just in practice!! Don’t believe me? Go hang out at the Magic Kingdom and watch the exciting painting exhibition and tell me how that fits into the SHOW!!! (Good Grieve!! It’s getting worse, second quote and I’m in the middle of page two already!!)
It makes it all the more easy for you to fall back to your one and only Standard (actually two) - the Poly and the Contemporary.For resorts there are no others. Unless you really dig into their plans for the Asian, Persian and Venetian. And I do know a bit about them but not a lot. Maybe we should ask “the man who would be my king” Jim Hill for a series about them. Then maybe you’d understand the “STANDARD”!
The body of evidence shows that if it is not equal in your eyes to these hotels, it is just not Disney.FINALLY!! You said something that makes sense. But you really need to take the subjectivity out of it. It isn’t my eyes. Or your eyes. Or anyone’s eyes. If they were equal, there’d be no price difference! Don’t you get that!!!
Forget Ei$ner. Nobody had a chance to make anything 'Disney' after Roy died. How sad, and thoroughly wrong.My goodness!! You’re wrong again!! How many times in one post can a guy be wrong!!!?? ;)

Ei$ner had the chance and he flubbed it! Walker and Miller had the chance and gave us EPCOT!! Not bad, eh? And that was certainly after Roy died!!!
Come on Baron, admit it. You really wanted to finish this sentence.... 'God bless you, you ignorant fool'. Not even close. Even I don’t live by the nonsense I preach. No one could and still spend three weeks in Disney every other year. No! You need to ignore an awful lot of disappointments. You have to overlook many Ei$nerisms. And if you do it right it can be wonderful!! I do it all the time!! SO, GOD BLESS ME TOO!!!!

But, as you already know, I feel you are wrong. Just because that one and only company that WAS is no longer, and subsequent 'companies' have not been exactly the same, it does not mean the 'Disney' experience is dead.The Disney Experience that is still present in WDW has nothing to do with this current company. That is what I still enjoy. But they’re making it harder and harder all the time. But the company that provided that experience, that “spark”, that I fell in love with is indeed dead! All things being equal, I certainly wouldn’t fall for this company. I wouldn’t seek out a message board for a company that gives us Dino-Rama and Pop Century and calls them Magic!! Would you?

But to you there can be no variation from your Standard if something is to be 'Disney'. Another WRONG statement!! There can be variation!! In fact that is exactly what this thread is calling for. VARIATION. Not departure or aberration. Not a dumbing-down of the standard! Do you see the difference?
But, bottom line is that you subjectively determined that the 'mod' experience is not 'Disney' because each of the above items is not up to what you perceive the Standard to be - a Standard which you, yourself are a bit deluded onNOT ME!!! I had nothing to do with it!! Again WRONG!! I didn’t decree that they were less!! I just agreed with Disney!! THEY ARE LESS!! It’s a fact!! And Disney says it. I just agree!! It says so in the price! Don’t you get that?

Now, you went on to take point by point random examples I put out there. A list of things that not only was NOT all inclusive but was meant to be merely representative of the diminished quality within the ‘experience’! And I certainly don’t have to quantify it. The price difference says it all!! IT IS LESS!!! Anyway you cut it, IT IS LESS!!

There’s only one particular I will address because I think you need to know it:
Please Baron, can you tell me that nary a parking space can be seen from any room at the Contemporary or the Poly?When they were first built I could tell you that!! You bet!! It was one of those WOW moments for me when I was told about it! And most of the CMs at the time knew about it. The Concept (Standard, Philosophy, Disney Touch, call it what you will) of the Disneyland berm was carried over to the resorts! NO OUTSIDE WORLD!!! And that meant parking lots too!

I believe that puts the ball in your court!! :bounce:

afinnerty
09-23-2002, 08:53 AM
Thought I'd clue you in to the possible reason for why "Chautauqua" and upstate New York. Chautauqua's were quite common at the turn of the last century - they were all over the northeast and midwest in particular. The "Mother Chautauqua" (as it is called by those who love her) in upstate New York was started (I believe) as a Methodist camp meeting spot. It is now a totally enclosed victorian style town that sits right on the Chautauqua Lake (Chautauqua by the by means a bag tied in the middle). In the summer it is filled with visitors from all over who come to relax and soak up the atmosphere which includes its own orchestra, opera and theater companies, many top name performers and speakers (think artsy like Harry Chapin, Cherish the Ladies, and funky like the Pointer Sisters and Kenny G, and political like President Clinton and Ralph Nader). There are also religious services and speakers as well as a school of the arts and lots of kids programs. This was a movement that spread throughout the country in the late 1800 early 1900 hundreds. I know there are still smaller Chautauqua's in Pennsylvania, Colorado and Illinois and there are probably others too. I think Disney originally chose this theme because the Institute was supposed to offer classes similar to those that Chautauqua offers today (in arts, literature, cookiing, tai chi - get the idea?) If you want more info on the Chautauqua Institution in NY visit www.ciweb.org

PS Chautauqua Institution is no cheap place to visit - guess that's another thing it has in common with Disney!

Amy in PA
who worked at Chautauqua in the summers so she could attend concerts and lectures for free!!!!

DisneyKidds
09-23-2002, 10:56 AM
Thanks for the clarification Amy. I didn't know much of anything about 'Chautauquas'. At least people can start thinking of this in terms of 'would I want to visit a resort based on the Chautauqua movement', as opposed to 'why would I want to visit a resort based on upstate New York'. That may not change the way anyone feels, but at least it considers all the relevant factors and doesn't let people think that the resort is going to be based on upstate New York.

DisneyKidds
09-23-2002, 12:16 PM
And I may ‘inadvertently’ be guilty of it.
You don't do anything inadvertantly ;), as you pointed out you have been............
writing about this subject for over two years, you get to know it a bit and solidification of concepts become second nature
And after a while I discovered I actually knew what I was talking about!!!
No comment :crazy:.
although still a bit wordy

What was that about six pages and saying hello? ;) (Unfortunately, for you and I alike, my posts don't seem to be too much shorter sometimes :crazy: ). At least it is fun and interesting to read :). Correct ? - well, look up to the preceeding quote and comment (or lack thereof :p).

Lets try a triple quote :jester:.
WRONG!!! The standards are the standards!!! I didn’t make them up! Disney did, when they first created Disneyland and WDWHow many times have I heard you say thisMillions. And you’ll get millions more. Why? Because very deep down, that is what I believe! And for the life of me I really can’t see how anyone could disagree.
OK, so you say 'it' a million times. You say the 'Standards' are objective and quantifiable. However, you never state what 'it' is, what the 'Standards' are. I don't see the 'Standards' as that objective or quantifiable. Aspects of what represents the 'Standards' maybe, but a 'Standards' checklist to which we can say yes or no? If it were that simple the 'debate' aspect of this board would be woefully silent. It appears to me that they really represent a melding of the Traditions (S,C,S,E), the Philosophy (Give the people everything you can), the Master Plan (a point in time collection of parks, resorts and facilities), Disney 'Touch' and 'Feel', and the Magic (both created and received, and the essence of the combination of all the other ingredients). I guess when we talk about whether any particular component of WDW meets the 'Standard', we really need to evaluate it on all the piece parts. FWIW, I think the 'mods' follow the Traditions, have a place within the Philosophy, cannot be evaluted against a 30 year old Master Plan, have the requisite 'Touch' and 'Feel', and produce Magic when the recipe is complete. Yes, the dish you get is different than that which is being consumed at the Poly - but that is variety, and variety is something you say you embrace. In a half hearted attempt to relate this to the subject of the thread, there is no reason that the new DVC resort can't be 'Disney'. Maybe you would have preferred something more exotic, but that is personal preference. It is hard to make blanket criticism of the company because they don't satisfy your personal preference.
Whew!! What a mouthful! Do you really believe this nonsense when you type it or are you just looking for a reaction?
Lock, stock and barrel :crazy: - the reaction is just an unpleas.........I mean pleasant byproduct ;).
Even I don’t live by the nonsense I preach.
Thank God for that!!!.
There can be variation!! In fact that is exactly what this thread is calling for. VARIATION. Not departure or aberration. Not a dumbing-down of the standard! Do you see the difference?
As I see what you are saying (but I am probably wrong again ;), maybe I'm even setting a new record :rolleyes: ), there can be variation in theme. However, there cannot be variation in room size, layout, view..........etc., etc.

You guessed it, I don't agree. I think WDW is a better place for having more than just cookie cutter resorts with a different theme. I don't see this as a dumbing down of any of the ingredients that contribute to the 'Standard'.
When they were first built I could tell you that!! You bet!! It was one of those WOW moments for me when I was told about it! And most of the CMs at the time knew about it. The Concept (Standard, Philosophy, Disney Touch, call it what you will) of the Disneyland berm was carried over to the resorts! NO OUTSIDE WORLD!!! And that meant parking lots too!
All I can say to this is...............
Do you really believe this nonsense when you type it
When you were 'told' about it? Talk about the blind ;). Just look out most windows in the Contemporary, and a few at the Poly (where it seems to me I've been in a lot or on a road where I could see a Poly row house - maybe the people in those rooms just couldn't see me ;)).

Next................

raidermatt
09-23-2002, 01:50 PM
It's called impeachment, boys and girls...and some East Bay dude just gawt it.

Scoopy, Scoopy, Scoopy....

Yes, Scoop, its true, some of my opinions have changed over the last year or so, and yes, I am more aligned with the Baron.

Why?

A year or so ago, I was an uninformed Disney fan. Nothing wrong with being an uninformed Disney fan, mind you. But when I started posting my opinions on philosophy and direction, I was truly ignorant about Disney's history and Walt's true philosophies.

I was taking a very defensive approach about a company that had produced many cherished products, in particular animated films and theme parks.

Yes, I listened to the comments from Baron, AV, the Head, and others, but for me to allow info to have an influence on me, it either has to come from a trusted source, or I have to see it for myself. No offense to the previously mentioned posters, but I didn't know them from a hole in the ground.

So, I listened (and argued), and I read. I read articles, books, and opinions. I did what works for me when analyzing situations, which is to remove emotion from the equation, and look at what has truly been happening from an objective point of view.

As I did that, I found more and more of the "car 3'ers" statements validated.

Then the car definitions were clarified, really taking the "but Disney is still Magical" point out of the discussion, and focusing instead on direction.

THEN, I began to see things that had changed just over the last year that signaled trouble. Cuts in hours in the face of falling attendance, continued attraction closings with no announced replacement, DR, etc.

Virtually everything I read validated the car 3 point of view, as well as my own readings and observations.

Now, my wife will tell you I'm a proud, often stubborn man, and she's right. But if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I have no problem admitting as much, as long as the proof is there. And in this case, the proof is clearly there.

So I find it more productive to deal with this reality, and offer solutions. That's a philosophy I try to adhere to in my life, and I see no reason not to follow it with Disney.

I can stick to my guns as well as anybody, but I know better than to do it when I'm out of ammo...

DisneyKidds
09-23-2002, 02:45 PM
Mr. Raiders Fan.............

I can assure you you are not the only one to have your thinking evolve. You are not alone in having your car allegiance change, especially under the definitions as stipulated by the Head. I'll let Scoop answer for himself, but under the Head's definition I'm not sure there can be many people in car one. So we are left with two other options, the difference between the two, in large part, being a matter of degrees. Some people move easier to either extreme, some maintain a balance somewhere in the middle.

Things like doing away with hours, EE, E night, rides, etc. are things that anyone in cars two or three can agree are negatives. We may hem and haw over the justicfication and whether one exists, and whether such justifications are acceptable within the 'Standard'. I think most can even agree that something like D-R might not have been the best Disney could have done - but some can still see some merits. These are all things that are now, are real, are concrete. Things we can see, experience, and debate to varying degrees.

Then there is another line of thinking that moves a bit away from the degrees of seperation. Things like the LandBaron caste system of resorts. These take the car three thinking to a higher (or lower, depending on your position) level. Plush conspiracies, the belief that Disney's current, and sole, motivation is to give people less for more money, would fit here as well, IMHO.

So, yes, all relevant info should be considered. Opinions should be educated. We can all educate ourselves a little more, no matter how educated we are on the subject of Disney. Opinions should evolve. But is it possibel that things can be over-thought?

So, you are an evolved thinker - good for you. You are not the only one. I do have a question though - I guess it is a vehicle recall and reassessment to see where you stand. Do you buy into the resort caste system? Do you believe that Disney spends all it's time solely trying to seperate us from our money?

Where do you now stand?

Anybody else want to state their pledge of allegiance to vehicle now that more time and events have passed.

I'll go. I believe that Disney has lost their focus. Disney has made mistakes. Disney has not given the best they have been capable of. Some of it is justified, some of it is not. Disney is seeing the results of those mistakes, or realizing that the mistakes begat the recent operational difficulties. Disney is looking at making changes. Correction will be a slow process. With all that, I firmly sit in car two, as defined by the Head. I don't believe in the caste system. I don't believe in wholesale Plush Conspiracy. Maybe not believing in the more sinister underpinning of those things is the primary difference between cars two and three.

raidermatt
09-23-2002, 02:48 PM
Ah, yes, I do understand that the chances of a true "Walt's philosophy proponent" taking over the reigns at Disney are slim and none, and slim just left town...

I'll be happy with a company that just understands what its rather large number of loyal customers want, and then truly tries to deliver it.

I'm fine with the marketing folks scheming and planning on how to profit from Disney's valuable properties. But let's also get some people who will CREATE more of these valuable properties so they can be exploited... Attract and retain the best animators, the best "Imagineers", and give them the resources necessary to create wonderful films and attractions that are the heart and soul of the company, and are responsible for every red cent ever earned.

I'm fine with making efficient use of resources within the parks, provided the answer isn't just to eliminate the resources to save short term money. If Hunchback isn't drawing like it should for the expense, fine, kill it. But CREATE something that will draw, and at least throw us a scrap of info on it before announcing the cancellation.

And for the love of all that is capitalism, STAY FOCUSED ON THE LONG TERM!!!!! NEVER make cuts that you know are going to hurt you next year (or 5 years from now), just so you can make a quarterly number.

Take responsibility for your mistakes (even if only privately) and prove you have LEARNED FROM THEM!

When scaling back a park results in disappointing results, don't go out and scale back the next one even more.

I could go on, but you get the point.

I'm not asking for a "Walt Jr.". I'm just asking for some business savvy leadership who understand how to let others do their job. Who understand what drives Disney's success, and who are committed to maintaining that success. They don't have to be dreamers like Walt, but they have to understand that its the dreamers that made Disney what it was, and its the dreamers who can create what we the public will gladly pay for.

I understand whoever is leading this company has to keep an eye on fiscal responsibility. However, I firmly believe that people still want quality and fantasy from Disney, and will still pay for it. To not provide that quality and fantasy is the mose irresponsible fiscal policy of all.

I just want somebody who understands that.

airlarry!
09-23-2002, 10:24 PM
I'm not asking for a "Walt Jr.". I'm just asking for some business savvy leadership who understand how to let others do their job

Monsieur Matt:

Right on, bro.

Don't ever settle.

You have every right to ask for "Walt Jr" as you call it. As it pertains to this thread, this means asking that the person(s) who does the design and retrofit of the Disney Institute follow The Standard.

The standard is not dead, as DK would have us believe, nor was it a smoke screen, like Scoop seems to think.

As an eternal optimist (I have to be--why else would I choose Car 3?) ;) I believe there is a spark left, some embers still smoldering within the company that believe that Disney's legacy can also be its future.

Don't. Ever. Settle.

DisneyKidds
09-23-2002, 10:46 PM
It is not dead, as DK would have us believe

Now Larry, I have to ask, are you smoking whatever was lit by that spark, or am I communicating that badly? :crazy: Or perhaps you have me confused with LB :eek:.

I have never said the 'Standards' are dead. That is a Baron line. You know, THE STANDARDS ARE THE STANDARDS, and Disney doesn't follow them anymore. I simply ask for clarification of what the good Baron believes those Standards to be - because I believe that they are alive. Yeah, perhaps on life support, those embers you are talking about, but still there. Forgotten, but not gone.

As an eternal optimist (I have to be--why else would I choose Car 3?)

Doesn't the amount of Disney optimism grow exponentially as the number of the car lowers? The differentiator between cars two and three under the Head definition is that the car three folks have less optimism that Disney will turn things around anytime soon.

DVC-Landbaron
09-23-2002, 11:11 PM
However, you never state what 'it' is, what the 'Standards' are. I don't see the 'Standards' as that objective or quantifiable.Look to what was built before. It isn’t that hard. But I can’t make you see what you refuse to look at. So ends it.

I do not have a definitive list, complete with sample tiles, color swatches and shop drawings. I can only point you in the direction for you to examine it yourself. I say that the “Mods” are less. Many others here agree the “Mods” are less. And I think you even agreed (a couple threads ago) that the “Mods” are less. But all that isn’t really important. What counts is what Disney says. And they say it with the prices charged. They say the “Mods” are less!! So if “less” floats your boat!! Have a ball!! And.... God Bless!!!

Maybe you would have preferred something more exotic, but that is personal preference. It is hard to make blanket criticism of the company because they don't satisfy your personal preference.My God!! Do you really read my stuff? THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT I ACCUSED SCOOP OF DOING!!! And I went to great pains explaining that it is only after 15 years and many, many, many “same” resorts that I finally complained! I think it may be time for you to re-read this thread from the beginning. PLEASE!! And then perhaps you won’t confuse my motives and/or opinions!!

As I see what you are saying (but I am probably wrong again , maybe I'm even setting a new record ), there can be variation in theme. However, there cannot be variation in room size, layout, view..........etc., etc. HOORAY!!!! Finally a semblance of logic from your keyboard!!!

And I know you don’t agree. And I in turn don’t agree. And I know you don’t agree. And I in turn don’t agree. And I know you don’t agree. And I in turn don’t agree. And I know you don’t agree. And I in turn don’t agree. And I know you don’t agree. And I in turn don’t agree. And I know you don’t agree. And I in turn don’t agree. And I know you don’t agree. And I in turn don’t agree. And you don’t agree and I and you and I and you ....

When you were 'told' about it? Talk about the blind . Just look out most windows in the Contemporary, and a few at the Poly (where it seems to me I've been in a lot or on a road where I could see a Poly row house - maybe the people in those rooms just couldn't see me ).WOW!! What a hard sell kind of guy. Now of course you can see a parking lot from the 14th floor of the Contemporary. But you really have to strain. I was basically referring to the Poly. And I’m sure those rooms you see were from the expansion. (OH!! Didn’t know about that, eh?) But I KNOW that the Poly had no rooms that could see the parking lot. Why? Because being a young married guy, with hardly enough money to stay at the Poly in the first place I asked. Heck!! I demanded the lowest of low room that they had. When asked if I preferred Lagoon view, Pool view or Garden view, I specifically asked for parking lot view. And was told, by more than one CM that no such room existed. That garden view was the lowest you could go. And that the place was built so that the parking would NOT be seen from any room! It WOWed me then. Just one of those “touches” I’m always on about. Something they certainly didn’t have to do but did anyway, because the could. Over the years, they could still do it, but choose not to. Why? They forgot the Standard!!!

I have never said the 'Standards' are dead. That is a Baron line. You know, THE STANDARDS ARE THE STANDARDS, and Disney doesn't follow them anymore. No. That was Scoop. (Aren’t you following this at all? PM me and I’ll explain it to you. You’ll be caught up in no time!!)

I simply ask for clarification of what the good Baron believes those Standards to be - because I believe that they are alive. Yeah, perhaps on life support, those embers you are talking about, but still there. Forgotten, but not gone.My goodness, Mr. Kidds!! Does it really matter if it’s in a coma (on life support) or dead! Fine!! How about this:

I AGREE WITH MR. KIDDS!!!

It is on life support!! And they are forgotten!!

See, now we agree!!

The ball need not go over the net again, since in the end - We Agree!!! :bounce:

DisneyKidds
09-23-2002, 11:49 PM
Thanks ever so much for dismissing class, professor Baron :rolleyes:. Now I can go take a useful elective.
Look to what was built before. It isn’t that hard. But I can’t make you see what you refuse to look at. So ends it.
Not everything has to be what was built before. It isn’t that hard. But I can’t make you see what you refuse to look at. So ends it.

Either way, it ends.
THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT I ACCUSED SCOOP OF DOING!!! And I went to great pains explaining that it is only after 15 years and many, many, many “same” resorts that I finally complained!
Fair enough. I guess two wrongs do make a right ;).
No. That was Scoop. (Aren’t you following this at all?)
No. Seems to me that Scoop is saying the 'Standards' as you see them never really existed. That is far different from them having been the be all, end all once, but no longer being considered to any degree. In the end, it doesn't really matter, does it?
See, now we agree!!
On that patronizing note, over and out :wave:.

DVC-Landbaron
09-24-2002, 12:02 AM
I’m sorry. A little defending here of my good friend Walt. Reckless aspersion are being cast without foundation or a reasonable connection to theme parks and/or resorts. So if it comes out a little strong... well... I meant it!!

In fact, the more I read (and I probably read more Disney info, books, etc. than anyone around here save possibly AV),Scoop, your arrogance is unbounded! But I do notice that you pay homage at every opportunity to the “Sage from the West”. I wonder why?

the more I'm convinced that this whole Walt Disney Philosophy is, in many ways, simply a well-maintained trojan horse.What kind of cryptic nonsense is this?

Yes, Walt Disney gave the audience a great show. Unfortunately, some of the things he did in achieving this result leave me with a very bittersweet taste in my mouth to the point that I sometimes wonder to myself whether it might not simply have been better that he never tried...More innuendo and reckless aspersions, without citing anything tangible at all! Either say it outright or keep it to yourself. You don’t have the talent, insight or credibility to “whisper” as AV does!

Seeing Walt testify before the McCarthy committee doesn't say squat about his ability to entertain his guests. But, I wonder whether the analysis must stop there.What in the hell does this have to do with WDW or Disneyland? Next you’ll bring up donuts and bourbon, and leave it hanging out there as though it makes a point!!

Come Scoop! Say it or forget it. But please save us from your enigmatic and obscure messages! :(

DVC-Landbaron
09-24-2002, 12:15 AM
Thanks ever so much for dismissing class, professor Baron Now I can go take a useful elective. Your welcome. I suggest that your elective be WDW or EPCOT. Both built without Walt and BOTH hold true to the philosophy. Once you understand what went into those endeavors you may be able to gain a little insight into what the SHOW and that ever elusive ‘Standard” really is.

Not everything has to be what was built before. It isn’t that hard. But I can’t make you see what you refuse to look at. So ends it.Not very good, Mr. Kidds and also wrong. But I’m tired of the subject, and I suspect you are too.

On that patronizing note, over and outDidn’t mean to be patronizing. I meant to be agreeable. And in essence we do agree. You say that it lies on death’s door step, I say the Grim Reaper has already collected what is his. A fine line. And one that I was willing to meet on. You don’t want to find common ground?

DisneyKidds
09-24-2002, 08:08 AM
Once you understand what went into those endeavors you may be able to gain a little insight into what the SHOW and that ever elusive ‘Standard” really is.
Thanks for the suggestion, oh enlightened one :rolleyes:. Hmmmm..... the 'Standard', objective and quantifiable, yet elusive at the same time. Quite the conundrum ;).
You say that it lies on death’s door step, I say the Grim Reaper has already collected what is his. A fine line.
Yes, a fine line. The fine line between cars two and three. So close, and yet so far. You go hang around your funeral, I'll help nurse our sick 'Standard' back to health ;).
And one that I was willing to meet on. You don’t want to find common ground?
Sure, why not, lets take some common ground. See you in another discussion, just don't suck me back into 'moderate talk', 'philosophy talk', 'standard talk'.........heck, whatever will we talk about? I'm sure well find something to disag....... discuss ;).

SnackyStacky
09-24-2002, 11:33 AM
I've been keeping a tight lip on this conversation but have been watching it.

Yes, a fine line. The fine line between cars two and three.

I can't speak for Baron, but I have to ask a question, or possibly offer a suggestion. Cars two and three seem to make no mention as to WHY the magic can go back in car 2, or WHY it can't for the car 3 people. In my own humble opinion, it all stems from Eisner. My butt won't move from car three until he moves his butt over and out. The day he is replaced is the day that I test drive car 2.

On my last trip, the first week of September, I took notice of something. The ONLY place that I saw Walt's name (his first name, not his last name) were: the resort's name, Walt Disney's Magic Kingdom, and on media that came from Walt Disney Pictures, Records, and Productions (ie the Broadway productions of Beauty & the Beast, The Lion King, and Aida). Take a look around. Notice that it's Disney Transport, Disney's [insert resort name here], Disney's Animal Kingdom, the Disney-MGM Studios. That last one is a REAL kicker since the Disney film company is WALT Disney Pictures. Shouldn't it be the WALT Disney-MGM Studios? My point in all of this is that it seems to me that they forget that Walt Disney was someone. He started a company that was about quality. It was not about making some fiscal report look good. I never thought I'd say it but Walt was wrong. It was NOT started by a mouse. It was started by a man. It was started by WALT, and the company that bears his last name sure seems to have a hard time remembering that.

I'm not in the least saying that he didn't fail. Because he did. Time and time again. And there were times that he was broke, and that his company was broke. The REASON they were broke was because he was investing in quality which in the end produced results.

THAT to me is what the show is, and what the standard is. Trying to define, or express the standard based on one specific product like a ride, a show, or a hotel property is like the supreme court trying to define what pornography is. It won't be able to be done. Because you might be able to see some magic at any given resort. You might see it in some of the attractions that have been built since Walt's death. You will find magic all over the place. And unless I'm much mistaken, Baron freely admits that you do. You have to look beyond ALL of that, and look at the man. The standard is declaring bankruptcy umpteen times, and continuing to pursue your dreams. If Walt Disney had followed the footsteps that Eisner et al are treading right now, we wouldn't be debating this because his company NEVER would have gone anywhere. When he hit hard financial times, he CONTINUED and perserved. Eisner looks for ways to cut corners and save a few pennies.

And that's my few pennies on the standard issue. As for the upcoming Chatauqua themed resort, I believe that ANYTHING can be done magically by the Disney company. CAN be.....it's just a question of how it's executed. WALT Disney (not Disney®) could have themed a resort after a bag of garbage and made people say "WOW! This is amazing!" :crazy:

raidermatt
09-24-2002, 01:26 PM
Scoop, I purposely ignored your innuendo because its not relevant to the standards set at Disneyland and WDW, so why bother debating validity? Walt had his issues. So did Bing Crosby and Thomas Jefferson. Bing had a heckuva voice, and Tom was a great leader. But just like their other issues don't diminish their accomplishments, neither do Walt's issues diminish the parks, nor do they have any impact on how the parks (and films) should be run.

Not everything has to be what was built before.
NOBODY said it did. But, it does have to be built to the same standard. Part of that standard is innovation. As it applies to theme, doing so many similar themes falls short of that standard.

Bstanley
09-24-2002, 02:18 PM
There you go again Scoop, getting all colorful on us.

DisneyKidds
09-24-2002, 02:23 PM
Lets get quote happy...............
Not everything has to be what was built before. NOBODY said it did.
but I was told.........
Not everything has to be what was built before.Not very good, Mr. Kidds and also wrong
all related to..........
Look to what was built before.
You see, some do believe that providing a safe, courteous, incredibly themed (Show), value-priced (efficient) resort experience that is full of Disney 'touch' and provides bountiful Magic (that combination that I believe to be the 'Standard' that should be taken away from those things that were built before) is not enough if a standard room size, building layout, menu of activities, set of transportation, etc. is not held to. It is Standard with a capital 'S', vs. standard with a lower case 's'. The Standards are uniquely Disney - the thing that makes Disney so special. The standards are universal. I have been in larger hotel rooms, with better proximity/transportation to the resort focal point, that had more in the way of activities, yet these resort experiences are nothing near what Disney provides. That is because of the unique Disney Standard which isn't dependent upon room size, etc.

Lest I be accused of taking any of this out of CONTEXT........
there can be variation in theme. However, there cannot be variation in room size, layout, view..........etc.HOORAY!!!! Finally a semblance of logic from your keyboard!!!
I have clearly been told that other than variety of theme, everything should be built EXACTLY like it was before. I believe that to be rediculous.

Aaaarrrggggghhhh....... what did Baron say about 'every time I try to get out'. I hate that big *sucking* sound :crazy:.

raidermatt
09-24-2002, 03:05 PM
Do you mean the Disneyland standard or WDW?
I'm surprised you used this example. The standard is the same. The only limiting factor in Anaheim was space.

Dumbo standard or Matterhorn?
Both. My understanding is both were quite innovative and well done for their time.

Disneyland Hotel or Polynesian Resort
I don't believe Disney built the DL Hotel, though they later acquired it. Walt did not have the money to build a resort, so that wasn't the focus at the time.

Because once a single, yes only a single, exception is made to a Standard, then it no longer remains as a Standard.
If limited resources force you to compromise what you wanted to do, that means you should continue compromising when you no longer have to?

In other words, CASH.
So are you saying the current Disney WANTS to live up to a higher standard, but lacks the resources?


The key you are missing Scoop is that the standard brings in CASH. Yes, it takes effort, and yes it takes investment. But it is immensely profitable. Compromising it because you are looking for the path of least resistence is a financial mistake. Justifying taking that path by pointing to cases where it was taken out of necessity is a huge mistake.

raidermatt
09-24-2002, 03:18 PM
DK, do you REALLY think that Baron meant that everything has to be EXACTLY like what was built before it? He says over and over that it has to be to the same standard, and he defines his standard. He doesn't ask for a Poly clone, but instead something DIFFERENT, which the Poly and Contemporary were when they were built. That uniqueness is a part of the standard as he defines it.

You may disagree that the "different" theme is necessary, but you know darn well he didn't mean every new resort has to be exactly like the last. We've all read enough of his comments to know he meant "like" to mean in meeting the standard only. And on that basis, AGAIN, there is no contradiction. Disagreement maybe, but no contradiction.

...quit trying to fit every peg into the same hole every time because every peg should be unique enough that it never fits into another hole.

Scoop, is it really your view that the new DVC resort is so unique that it doesn't at all fit into the other holes that are the other resorts? Using your peg analogy, wouldn't an Asian resort, for example, be a better satisfaction of your unique requirement?

Perhaps there are other reasons for not building an Asian, or Arctic, or whatever themed resort, but a lack of uniqueness is not one of them.

DisneyKidds
09-24-2002, 03:36 PM
For arguments sake (and only for arguments sake), lets assume that the GF, the 'moderate' and 'value' hotels, MGM Studios, and Animal Kingdom all fall short of the 'one hard Standard'. Lets assume they never should have been built. What would WDW look like then? Competitive and market factors would have kept any regime from building very many things that would have qualified under the 'one hard Standard'. So what would WDW look like. Maybe half a dozen hotels total, all at about $200 a night. Maybe, just maybe a third park. Sure, the rides in those parks might have been done better (maybe they wouldn't have as they should be better recently in the existing parks but aren't). Even if the smaller size of this 'one hard Standard' meeting World would have allowed for more capital improvements over time in what did exist, I submit that the World overall would not be a better place than it is today. I believe that allowing some variation in hard standards, while adhereing to more conceptual Standards, has allowed the World to be a better place. That doesn't mean that what exists today should not, could not be better. That doesn't erase the mistakes. That doesn't forgive the departure from quality in many instances. However, those things can be fixed. Adherence to a hard and fast Disneyland or 1971 WDW standard would provide little room for much and would be very limiting, to the detriment of the Company and the WDW experience.

So, would the World be a better place, would you be happier, if WDW consisted of a half dozen hotels like the CR/Poly (only differently themed) with a set price of $200 (a fair, 1971 inflated Poly rate) a night and three parks to visit? Would the general public think so? Could half of what exists today be there if the 'one hard Standard' was maintained?

Sorry if this is too 'flying pigs' for some, but what do you think?

DisneyKidds
09-24-2002, 03:52 PM
Originally posted by raidermatt
[B]DK, do you REALLY think that Baron meant that everything has to be EXACTLY like what was built before it? He says over and over that it has to be to the same standard, and he defines his standard.

Au contraire. If the room is smaller, if it has one less sit down restaurant, if it has one less recreational activity, if it costs less. IT IS LESS, and IT DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARD, and it IS NOT DISNEY, according to the Baron. The standard, outside of theme, is EXACTLY what was built before it. Heck, it can't even be more than what was built before it as he believes the GF is not 'Disney'. He makes all that very clear.

He doesn't ask for a Poly clone, but instead something DIFFERENT, which the Poly and Contemporary were when they were built. That uniqueness is a part of the standard as he defines it.

No, he doesn't want a Poly clone in theme, and I agree, different themes are required. However, he does want a Poly clone in every other respect. If one iota of anything is less, even a square foot in the room, the Standard is out the window according to Baron. He makes that very clear. I submit that something like Dixie Landings was different and innovative when it was built. However, because the room is smaller and you can see the parking lot, sorry, mistake, hear Walt turn in the grave, wake time for the Standards and the Disney experience.

You may disagree that the "different" theme is necessary, but you know darn well he didn't mean every new resort has to be exactly like the last.

Again, I agree with difference of theme. But I believe that Baron does say that other than these differences in theme, any Disney resort hotel cannot depart form what the Poly was in almost every other respect.

We've all read enough of his comments to know he meant "like" to mean in meeting the standard only.

But that standard is 'what was built before'. And not just in uniqueness of themeing, level of customer service, and overall uniqueness of experience, it clearly includes the same numbers, layout and logistics. It is this part I just cannot agree with.

raidermatt
09-24-2002, 04:35 PM
Scoop, I'm running out of ways to explain this, but I'll try it again...

I am not comparing Space, for example, literally to Space Mountain in order to judge its standard. You are right. That would be short-changing the future.

However, I will compare it in the sense that it should be innovative, and should be a "show". When Space Mountain opened, was there anything like it? That's a fair question to apply to an attraction of the scope of Space.

Again, its not a literal comparison.

DK, the resorts are supposed to be an example of "The Show". A lot of individual factors make up that Show. Some of those factors could vary to a certain extent. For instance, if a new resort has rooms 1 sq. ft smaller than the other, it would not automatically preclude it from living up to the standard. But when the room is significantly smaller, AND the view is of a parking lot, AND there are exterior corridors, etc, etc, etc.... How can it be called of the same quality?

I differ from our friend Baron in that I don't see amenities like a full service restaurant and health club as really being part of the show. To me, those are a matter of taste and preference. Some folks just don't want to eat at fancy restaurants, so there's nothing wrong with providing them with a resort that doesn't have one. BUT, the Show should remain intact.

With regard to your flying pigs question...

Is WDW a better place with MGM and AK than it would be without? My answer is yes. But that's like asking if I prefer MGM to Six Flags. The answer is yes, but for the purposes of our discussions, its irrelevant.

You are asking us to abandon any comparisons of any kind to any standard, and just compare it to nothing. To a swamp.

That's a pretty easy comparison, and I'll grant that what's currently there is better than nothing. But that's not much of a standard, is it? If I were employing somebody to build a house for me, I certainly wouldn't be using that standard to judge whether the builder did a good job...

BRERALEX
09-24-2002, 06:32 PM
dont forget the automatic doors too.

hey so like ten years from now can we use POP Cennnnnt, POP centtttuuu....POP you know what (cant say it or type it) as the standard?

DVC-Landbaron
09-24-2002, 06:46 PM
A couple of quick points first.

Scoop. You’re talking nonsense. And I think you know it. You want to paint anyone who values Walt’s ideals as an old, out-of-touch curmudgeon and that simply isn’t the case. Unless, of course, you want to label AV the same way! But You’ll probably spilt a hair fine enough to give him some wiggle room while trying to dismiss me. Oh well!

Mr. Kidds! Another scenario for you. Suppose...

You take the finest hotel in all the world. Five star +. Sooooo exquisite most can only watch it on some rich and famous TV show. Now take that Hotel and move it into the same zip code as the Poly. Build a monorail stop and theme it however you like. Is it Disney?

Now take a motel six. Move it into the Disney Florida real estate holdings and Theme it up real good! Is that a Disney resort?

Just those two questions. Nothing more. Maybe we can make some headway. Thanks :)



OK. Minor points over with!! Now to the rest of the post!!!!!

Matt! You are the best!!! You said it all!! And so well too!! There is only one slight correction I have make.

I differ from our friend Baron in that I don't see amenities like a full service restaurant and health club as really being part of the show.Really, neither do I. However, in conjunction with ALL amenities lacking AND all those other things that you mentioned in your most eloquent post, it slowly becomes a “LESS” experience. Before you know it all those things that play a part of making a Disney resort... ah... well... Disney, have disappeared or at least RADICALLY diminished. And anyway you slice it that means ‘LESS”. So it isn’t a matter of admitting it is LESS. We all pretty much agree on that, even Mr. Kidds. It’s a matter of where the line should be drawn! Mr. Kidds draws that line somewhere in-between the “Mods” and the All-Stars. I draw it at just under the Poly (and Disney must concur, ergo the price differential)!!

It’s like the Winston Churchill story. He was talking to a very prominent woman at a dinner party (probably a Lady or perhaps a Baroness ;) something or other) and he asked if the lady, in a hypothetical situation (as he was known to do), would sleep with someone for millions of pounds (I don’t recall the exact amount, but it was an offer that no one could resist). She thought about it seriously for a moment and said she probably would. He then asked if she would consider it for ten pounds. She said, “Sir!! What kind of a woman do you think I am!!” He smiled and said, “Madam. We have already established what kind of woman you are. Now, we are merely negotiating price!”

Once the Standard was compromised, we established that they are “LESS” and now we are merely negotiating on where to draw the line.

airlarry!
09-24-2002, 09:07 PM
What's funny, Sir Baron, is that you are being accused of being subjective, when your standard is basically the *most* objective thing in this discussion.

Where I (and Matt, I think) tend to favor the moderates as being in the standard...it is admittedly because I have never stayed at the Poly or Contemp. I've only visited them. So not having anything to compare to would make me think that DxL fits the standard.

But I am here on record admitting to my slight bias. And I think even you would agree now that the mods are on that 'slippery slope' and are not necessarily gonged off the standard.

But EVERYONE should see the Poop Century (there's your word, Breralex) for what they are. A vain attempt at taking money from people (including me, cause you can see from my signature that I've stayed at the values) and keeping them off of the surrounding strip mall motels. Having discount motels is not bad. Its not even wrong, IMHO. Where it is wrong is when the consumer knows that the product he is getting is not as good as the product others are getting on the resort.

I could handle Walt saying...for these prices you can have a monorail, and for these prices you can have a water taxi. When I'm at the moderates, I don't notice that I'm not at the Poly.

When I'm at the All-stars, there is a definite feeling of a dressed up Int'l Drive motel. I can't put my finger on it, but its there.

I'm not a DVC member. But I would be upset (and I'm sure they won't do this, right) if they took the Disney Institute, and basically sold timeshares for the same place. I would imagine that is not what they are doing, but I would be upset just the same. I want the DVD company to develop each DVC resort with the same care that went into the original resorts.

DisneyKidds
09-24-2002, 11:33 PM
That's a pretty easy comparison, and I'll grant that what's currently there is better than nothing. But that's not much of a standard, is it? If I were employing somebody to build a house for me, I certainly wouldn't be using that standard to judge whether the builder did a good job...

Matt, Matt, Matt........lets not get carried away and take a rediculous example to the extreme. Nowhere did I say abandon all standards and compare everything to a swamp :rolleyes:. I am saying to hypotheticaly hold things up to the ultimate standard, and if it can't be built to that standard don't build it. Do it right or don't do it at all. Right in this example being the Baron Poly Standard for hotels. So, it is no all or nothing proposition. It is no comparison to a swamp. The question becomes, is WDW better off with the current variety of hotels, or would the World be a better place with a smaller handful of hotels that vary in theme but are otherwise the same?

I still maintain that the World is better off with a mix of 'deluxe' and 'moderates'. I don't think exterior corridors are a bad thing. The Show that is put on at POR-Riverside requires them. Deluxe or moderate, the size of the room probably doesn't impact the quality of most people's experience to any significant degree. Sure, you can say it isn't this AND it isn't this AND it isn't this. However, that doesn't have to be a bad thing.

Baron..........you can negotiate with the pimps and prostitutes all you want. Bottom line is, that while they are a different experience, the 'moderates' are no less a Disney experience than the 'deluxe'. For you, ok, it is less of an experience. You, me, and Disney can agree that they are "less" of a room. However, it is not less of an experience. For the majority, it simply is not. Thank God for the woefully ignorant majority, because if we all felt the way you did the World would be a terribly depressing place.

As for your supposition (and coaxing me down the proverbial garden path), the answer would be no, and no. You can't just move something in and throw some themeing around it. That is the downfall of the AS. A true Disney resort needs to be built from the ground up. The layout, architecture, themeing, lanscaping, the intricate detail, the backstory - all that is what makes the Disney resort experience. You could build it to incorporate the most oppulent hotel rooms, or the most basic hotel rooms, so long as these things that truely differentiate a Disney resort from the others are there. I submit that those things don't have to include interior hallways and 409 sq. ft.

Yor Airness, lets look at this......
What's funny, Sir Baron, is that you are being accused of being subjective, when your standard is basically the *most* objective thing in this discussion.
Look closely. As you so accurately point out, the standard you are talking about is HIS standard, the standard HE has chosen. That, in and of itself, makes it subjective. Who is he to decree? Yes, the thing he points to as the Standard was created first, and created by Walt (well, actually it wasn't - he was in the ground by then), but where is it written that that is all anything can be if it is to be Disney? Oh, right, that 35 year old Master Plan :rolleyes:. And to clarify, as far as resorts are concerned, that standard is the Poly. The theme can be different, but the standard includes interior hallways, exactly 409 sq. ft. Exactly 3 restaurants of the same general variety, exactly the same choice in views, exactly the same proximity to parks, exactly the same recreational choices, etc., etc........right down to the exact same automatic sliding doors, exact pile of carpet, and exact ashtray. Mind you, it has to ALL be the same, for if one thing is different we have deviated from the standard and prostituted ourselves. Deviation to any degree is abandonment of the standard and 'not Dsiney'. Do you agree with that? Do most people?

You do make me cringe with this........
When I'm at the All-stars, there is a definite feeling of a dressed up Int'l Drive motel. I can't put my finger on it, but its there.
.........because Baron is probably drooling all over himself typing he is so excited by it :crazy:. What is he typing, you ask? Well, this......

'Larry, take how you feel about the AS and THAT is how I feel about the moderates'. EVERYONE should see the moderates for what they are. A vain attempt at taking money from people. Can't you see that? I don't know how anyone can't see that.'

He may even throw in a 'nuff said, which is what i'd like to say now - but I can't wriggle free :jester:.

DVC-Landbaron
09-25-2002, 12:38 AM
The question becomes, is WDW better off with the current variety of hotels, or would the World be a better place with a smaller handful of hotels that vary in theme but are otherwise the same?I know this is a Matt question, and far be it from me to steal his thunder (he does such a wonderful job on his own) but I just couldn’t pass up such a juicy tidbit!

Mr. Kidds. Why would you assume that the place would naturally be “smaller” with a mere “handful” of resorts? If we assume that they never veered off the philosophy (your supposition, not mine), in ALL of the business ventures then we can also assume that they would have the money to do whatever they wanted in the theme areas of the business. They would NOT have had GO.COM, ABC, the Disney Stores and DCA (among others) dragging them under the water. Instead they’d have a healthy and vibrant theme park business that was making enough cash to do truly WONDERFUL things. Magnificent, Majestic and Magical!! Surely you can that!!!

And In answer to your question - YES!!! YES!!! A THOUSAND TIMES YES!!! WDW would be MUCH better off if the Standard had not been abandoned!

I still maintain that the World is better off with a mix of 'deluxe' and 'moderates'.Why do you stop there? DISNEY also built the All-Stars!! Are they not part of the NEW standard!?!? Are we better off with them?
I don't think exterior corridors are a bad thing.Great!! That’s fine!! And when you write up the standards for Mr. Kidds World, we can expect exterior corridors in your resort. But they are NOT a part of the Disney Standard!! They belong to a Motel 6 concept!
The Show that is put on at POR-Riverside requires them.Again, that’s fine. And I even agree!! And what a “PLUS” that would be! Both interior AND exterior corridors! WOW!! Talk about exceeding expectations!!
Sure, you can say it isn't this AND it isn't this AND it isn't this. However, that doesn't have to be a bad thing.Hmmm. Where have I heard this argument before? Now, don’t tell me.... let me think a minute... ah... I know... It’s the same argument that the All-Stars lovers use!!
Baron..........you can negotiate with the pimps and prostitutes all you want.Mr. Kidds, you are amazing!!! It is the very first time in my life that I have ever heard Sir Winston Churchill referred to as a pimp!! Hmmm. Or would it be a “John” in this particular case? ;)

Bottom line is, that while they are a different experience, the 'moderates' are no less a Disney experience than the 'deluxe'.For you. But that really doesn’t matter does it? Just as it doesn’t matter that an All-Stars defender says the same thing. It doesn’t matter one whit. It is LESS than the Standard. And that’s all that matters. Objectively. Philosophically. In the BIG PICTURE! However, I will grant you that on a personal level it works for you. Great!! Enjoy!! Just as those THOUSANDS of All-Stars lovers enjoy their decorations and call them Disney!!

For you, ok, it is less of an experience. You, me, and Disney can agree that they are "less" of a room. However, it is not less of an experience. For the majority, it simply is not. Thank God for the woefully ignorant majority, because if we all felt the way you did the World would be a terribly depressing place.I think if you look real close the majority stay in the economies!! Am I mistaken? In that case it would seem to me that the voting public has decreed that the All-Stars is the new Disney Standard!! Now isn’t that sick!!

As for your supposition (and coaxing me down the proverbial garden path)Me!!?? (he says as innocent as a new born babe.) Perish the thought!!
You can't just move something in and throw some theming around it. That is the downfall of the AS. Ah! FOUL!!! I said theming not decorations!!!

But that is EXACTLY what they did when they built the Floridian and the “Mods”. They took a very UN-Disney concept and themed it Disney style! ANd fooled a great many people. Too bad! :(
Look closely. As you so accurately point out, the standard you are talking about is HIS standard, the standard HE has chosen.NO SIR!! “My” standard has nothing to do with it! I hold Disney to the standard that built Disneyland, WDW and EPCOT!!

YOU, however, pick and choose from this current regime just what YOU like and what YOU don’t like! The same “Standard” that built the “Mods” also built the All-Stars!! I hold them equally in contempt! You accept one and reject the other! I see no sense in that.

And to clarify, as far as resorts are concerned, that standard is the Poly. The theme can be different, but the standard includes interior hallways, exactly 409 sq. ft. Exactly 3 restaurants of the same general variety, exactly the same choice in views, exactly the same proximity to parks, exactly the same recreational choices, etc., etc........right down to the exact same automatic sliding doors, exact pile of carpet, and exact ashtray. Mind you, it has to ALL be the same, for if one thing is different we have deviated from the standard and prostituted ourselves.Now, what was that phrase... I think it was the start of some nonsensical post... oh!! Here it is! Matt, Matt, Matt........lets not get carried away and take a rediculous example to the extreme. DITTO!
He may even throw in a 'nuff said, which is what i'd like to say now - but I can't wriggle freeYep!! You’re right!!

‘nuff said!! :cool:





PS: Sir Larry!! Check your PM once in a while!! It’s been days!!

airlarry!
09-25-2002, 05:58 AM
Sorry LB. I'm on it. ;)

M. DK:

I see the problem. You will always look at any critique of additions or retrofits (like the Saratoga) by the Baron with a biased eye if you think that standard is his creation. When I say 'his standard', I mean the one he has explained to us. I don't believe for a second that the Baron created the standard.

And I'm know you don't either. But the subtle point I'm making is that the standard *is* something that can be delineated, and it was done with Walt's hand. The Poly is a direct descendant of Walt's creation. Although he was focusing on his Kissimmee Utopia, he did have a hand in planning the park and its master plan. So when you look at the design (not theming or architecture) of the Poly as it fits into the resort, you are looking into the mind of Walt unfettered by a small piece of property surrounded by strip malls in southern California.

Does that clear it up a bit for you?

DisneyKidds
09-25-2002, 09:37 AM
BaronLarry, BarryLaron, Labbyarron :crazy: - yes, you are one person for the purpose of this response ;).

Houston, we have a problem. A communication problem that is. Let me see if I can clarify.

When I say that the Standard that Baron refers to is HIS Standard I don't mean that he created it. He points to something that is tangible and was the lovechild of good old Walt. Yes, the Poly was not created by the Baron. What I am trying (rather unsuccessfully) to say is that it is the good Baron who decided that THAT (that tangible resort created in 1971 as a result of Walts thinking) should be the sole guiding Standard forever more and that any deviation from that tangible Standard is strictly 'non Disney'. He has subjectively decided that the objective set of specs and experience that is the Poly should be THE Standard. With me? I know you don't agree, but do you at least understand what I am saying?

Again I ask, who is Baron to decide this and make a decree upon the land as to what can and can't be Disney, what can and can't be a bona fide Disney experience? As we have discussed before when entertaining those flying pigs, I believe that Walt would have been capable of coming up with a lot of new things, for a very many reasons, which very well could have, would have, included a hotel with exterior corridors - and made it completely and utterly Disney. Heck, he would have found a way to do it with a motel 6 if he put his mind to it. However, just like Baron, I am nobody to decide what is or is not Disney - we just call it like we see it when looking at what Disney aspects various things in the World do and don't share.

How am I any different from Baron you might ask? After all, I decree that the line between Disney and non stands between the 'moderates' and the 'values'. But why do I say that? Is it because they are not the same, not the Poly, not anything else? No. Here is where Scoops thinking comes in. I evaluate the AS on it's own merit (or demerit) in relation to other Disney resort experiences, not strictly compared to another resort. I compare the AS to the Standard that I see represented in the Poly (and yes, this is just as subjective as anything the Baron has put forth). Is there Show, with incredible depth of detail in every aspect of themeing and landscaping? Is there the intricate Disney touch - the sights, sounds and smells that transport you to a time and place? Is there a backstory that puts you someplace outside of a swamp in central Florida? You see, the Poly has all that, Dixie Landings has all that, do the AS? I don't believe so, so I feel that the AS fall short. We each draw our line somewhere else. While I can see what is there and what is not compared to the Poly, I try to evaluate it all. The Baron discounts everything that is there, that is Disney, because of the things that are not the same as the Poly. It's a forest throught the trees thing, and Baron has decided that the forest is not worth looking at.

The only thing we can conclude from any of this is that it is all completely subjective. Yes, what Baron refers to as the Standard is directly decended from Walt, other hotels are not. However, that doesn't have to mean that anything new needs to be built like that which was built in 1971, so long as the underlying Magic, the Show, the detail, the service, etc. are there. I guess a glimpse of the parking lot completely washes all that away.

What works for one, doesn't work for the other, and apparently, never the twain shall meet.

Baron...............

If we assume that they never veered off the philosophy (your supposition, not mine), in ALL of the business ventures then we can also assume that they would have the money to do whatever they wanted in the theme areas of the business. They would NOT have had GO.COM, ABC, the Disney Stores and DCA (among others) dragging them under the water. Instead they’d have a healthy and vibrant theme park business that was making enough cash to do truly WONDERFUL things. Magnificent, Majestic and Magical!! Surely you can that!!!
What was that you asked about believing this stuff when you write it? Lets take your logic back to a time before Disneyland, or a time before the animated feature, or before Walt even decided he liked animation or cartoons. Your thinking would have Walt living as a paper boy in Marceline for the rest of his life. Walt started down a path. The first stepping stone was cartoon ads, which led to animated shorts, which led to animated features, which led to Disneyland, which led to WDW, which...........oops, according to you it would have stopped there. What a rediculous premise. Quite the assumption to think that Walts company never would have evolved past theme parks if the Standard were held. Look at the evidence, you know an awful lot about Walt. Walts propensity to move into new things, find better ways to do existing things, simply bears this out as false and rediculous. Hopefully better decisions would have been made as to which directions the company went, which acquisitions were made, but surely there would have been growth extending beyond the theme parks. No Disney Stores? You seem to forget that there was a time way back in the early days when Mickey Mouse merchandising is the ONLY thing that saved the company from bankruptcy. Oh, but I guess that was an anomoly, a one time desperate move to save the company, something Walt discontinued when the financial crisis passed. NOT!!!! That merchandising helped to make Mickey Mouse and Disney what they were. Walt was the forefather of all Disney merchandising. Lay the plush criticisms on him - HE STARTED IT!!!
Both interior AND exterior corridors!
Dixie Landings has them. Interior corridors connect the check in areas and the restaurants and shops. Same at Coronado Springs. However, back bayou homes or stately Southern mansions can't be connected by interior corridors - so I guess the concept wasn't worth doing :rolleyes:.
Great!! Enjoy!! Just as those THOUSANDS of All-Stars lovers enjoy their decorations and call them Disney!!
Wow, not only are you a cheap SOB, you are an arrogant one as well - but you already fessed up to that a few pages back :eek: :crazy: ;). (Note to moderators - this is not name calling, just good natured ribbing amongst friends ;))

If those who love the AS and find them to be true Disney through and through can base their position on the same arguments I make (you know, all that insignificant stuff about depth of theme, lanscape, design, time and place, backstory, etc., etc.) then I am willing to listen. I haven't seen anyone do it yet.
They took a very UN-Disney concept
And again, anything that is not a rethemed version of the Poly is an UN-Disney concept :rolleyes:. You are right, Walt left no room for, and never had an idea for, a new concept :rolleyes:. And the concept of a Dixie Landings is UN-Disney because.......... you say so :confused: it wasn't in the Master Plan :rolleyes:..........:p. Ahh, it must be good to be the king ;).
The same “Standard” that built the “Mods” also built the All-Stars!!
I don't agree. Of course, the only standard you see in either of these is the fleece the public standard :rolleyes:.

A question Baron. Other than themeing, what differences can there be in a Disney resort that don't equate to prostitution? Can't be room size, can't be view, can't be............. apparently a lot of things, but what can it be?

raidermatt
09-25-2002, 12:50 PM
Matt, Matt, Matt........lets not get carried away and take a rediculous example to the extreme. Nowhere did I say abandon all standards and compare everything to a swamp

Well, you asked if WDW was better with MGM, AK, Mods and Values, or if it would have been better if they were never built. Since you didn't offer any alternative describing what would have been built in their place, I can only assume you mean your question literally. WDW as it stands now, or WDW without the indicated additions.

Without those additions, that land is indeed, a swamp (or a bog, lake, rain forest, whatever).

Admittedly, its a ridiculous question.... But YOU asked it.;)

Do it right or don't do it at all.

NOW you're on to something... Of course, anyone who really lives by this statement will always choose to do it right instead of doing nothing, provided they have the means.

The question becomes, is WDW better off with the current variety of hotels, or would the World be a better place with a smaller handful of hotels that vary in theme but are otherwise the same?
As Baron pointed out, it wouldn't necessarily have to be a smaller number of hotels. Who knows what WDW would have looked like if things had been done "right" over the last 15 years.

I don't think exterior corridors are a bad thing.
Picture a true Caribbean resort getaway. A villa "by the sea" as it were. Does your vision have a balcony/deck, or does it have a row of doors with peep holes? When you want to watch the sunset from your room, does it mean pulling back curtains and having your view interupted by people walking by, or does it involve having a seat outside with a drink in your hand?

Maybe you're right that Walt would have found a way to make exterior corridors work. But Mike didn't.

Deluxe or moderate, the size of the room probably doesn't impact the quality of most people's experience to any significant degree.
Very few individual factors impact the majority of folks experience to a great degree. That can be taken all the way down to Mickey butter and towel animals. But when you add up all of the takeaways, like room size AND a view of the parking lot AND no balcony, etc, and then find no real adds, its not going to be the same experience for the vast majority of people. Disney is fully aware that this is what they are doing, reducing their own standard, so they charge less.

If THEY know they are not meeting the standard, I can't figure out why anyone would dispute it???

Or are you merely justifying the lowering of the standard because it makes money? (Even then, is it really profitable in the long-term, given the deterioration to the brand?)


DK, you seem to be hung up on this issue of everything having to be the SAME. It doesn't. I know, you have a quote from Baron that says it does have to be the same. But, once again, that means the SAME STANDARD. Part of that standard would involve not shrinking the room size merely in an attempt to make more money. Also, part of that standard is being new and innovative. So they will not be exactly the same.

But yes, if you are going to decrease room size, why are you doing it? Because it makes for a better show? If your building an Alcatraz resort, ok, but otherwise, no. No balconies/decks? Again, if its Alcatraz, ok, but otherwise no.

A view of the parking lot? For a resort themed like a shopping mall, ok, but otherwise, no.

A much longer trek to the transportation? For a resort themed like LAX, ok, but otherwise, no.

I'm sure that for each of these factors you can find individuals who don't feel they compromise the show. But taken cumulatively, with nothing else that "makes up the difference", there's just no way to say its the same.

True, the mods are closer to the standard than the values, but as good old Winston pointed out, that's just a discussion of price.

DisneyKidds
09-25-2002, 02:21 PM
One clarification for the man in black and silver and I am punching out of the 'moderate' hotel discussions. If you want to continue to go around on general Standards, what they are, who determines - I'll spar a bit more. However, on hotels I am done. I mean it this time. I really do :crazy:.

Well, you asked if WDW was better with MGM, AK, Mods and Values, or if it would have been better if they were never built. Since you didn't offer any alternative describing what would have been built in their place, I can only assume you mean your question literally. WDW as it stands now, or WDW without the indicated additions. Admittedly, its a ridiculous question.... But YOU asked it.

Look at the entire discussion/question. I asked if WDW would be better off with the current collection of a dozen varying hotels and 4 theme parks, as heavily criticized as they are, OR half a dozen hotels and three parks that meet the Standard as pegged by Baron. So no, I didn't ask for what we have now vs. a swamp. Care to answer the real question?

As to what would have/could have been built under the Standard, how many $200 a night hotels do you think Disney could fill? More than they have now? I don't think so. So I do believe that a ceiling on how much 'deluxe' lodging they could sell would exist. Without the option to build other types of lodging that provide a Disney experience, the portfolio of hotels would remain smaller than what we have today. Likewise with the parks - given resources there is only so much they can spend. Look at it as taking the AK money and plowing it back into MK, Epcot and MGM. If the company can't build four parks that meet the Standard, I think three is optimistic. Sure, we never know what would have happened, all we can do is take our best guess.

DVC-Landbaron
09-25-2002, 05:12 PM
He points to something that is tangible and was the lovechild of good old Walt.You have the most annoying habit of making the word "Walt" sound dirty and something to shunned. Do you disagree with the standards he set?

You see, maybe that is the problem. I keep calling the standards objective. And to us they are. But when they were first employed they were not! They were Walt's "subjective" view of the way things should be in "his" theme parks and later in "his" resorts! So maybe you have a problem with the standards themselves. Or with Walt. Could that be the underlying theme here?

What I am trying (rather unsuccessfully) to say is that it is the good Baron who decided that THAT (that tangible resort created in 1971 as a result of Walt's thinking) should be the sole guiding Standard forever more and that any deviation from that tangible Standard is strictly 'non Disney'. Can you think of a better benchmark than the one that Walt created? And besides, like I'm trying (rather unsuccessfully) to say is I didn't decide anything. Disney did when they first ventured into the theme park arena. They set the standard. It just so happens that this standard fit very nicely in the way I think things should be run too. And that is why I became enamored with the company. Because of the standard of quality that Walt set way back in 1955. So it is only natural that it is this standard by which all subsequent ventures should be judged if it is to remain something "Disney". And you do it too. Don't believe me? Read on!

He has subjectively decided that the objective set of specs and experience that is the Poly should be THE Standard.Again, there is very little subjective about it. It is what it is! It is - what Walt said it is. That doesn't mean that you have to agree with it. NO!! You can disagree all you like. But it doesn’t change the fact that it IS the Disney standard! And I really believe that you can plus it all you like. But no one should screw with it in a negative manner (LESS) or they run the very dangerous risk of diminishing that standard. Oops!! They already have!!

I know you don't agree, but do you at least understand what I am saying?I've understood since the very first time I saw it in print! And what's more, once I held the same view!! I know the arguments by rote. And I also KNOW it is wrong!

Again I ask, who is Baron to decide this and make a decree upon the land as to what can and can't be Disney, what can and can't be a bona fide Disney experience?Ah! The "who do you think you are" argument. OK! And the Baron counters with the "I'm rubber, you're glue" defense. So, who does Mr. Kidds thinks he is that he should decide that the All-Stars do not give that "bona fide Disney experience" to someone else?

I believe that Walt would have been capable of coming up with a lot of new things, for a very many reasons, which very well could have, would have, included a hotel with exterior corridors - and made it completely and utterly Disney.You very well may be right, Mr. Kidds. But as with so many things around Disney lately, Ei$ner, unfortunately, was clearly not up to the task. But then again Walt knew what he was doing. Ei$ner is just inept!!

How am I any different from Baron you might ask?Many times!! In fact, just two quotes ago I think I alluded to the same question, didn't I?

No. Here is where Scoops thinking comes in.Oh-oh!! Hang onto your hats people, it's gonna be a rough ride!!

I evaluate the AS on it's own merit (or demerit) in relation to other Disney resort experiences, not strictly compared to another resort.Tell me again how that is different from what I do? I take the experience I had when I stayed at the Poly and compare that experience with what I had in the Caribbean. AND IT IS LESS!!! Not a lot less. But less. How is what you do different? Where is your base line? What is your criteria? How do you discount, ignore or justify the "LESS" we all agreed on? Is it all in the price? Is it a trade off? Cash for "experience"?

Or is it that you just happen to like it, so you're gonna defend it, type thing? And I understand if that is the case! There are many things in Disney which I personally like that I truly believe would have Walt spinning if he knew about them. But at the same time, purely objectively, and with only a modicum of logic, I can readily see how those "personal preferences" are UN-Disney. Or at least not up to Standards! Why do you have such a hard time doing the same?

Your thinking would have Walt living as a paper boy in Marceline for the rest of his life. Walt started down a path. The first stepping stone was cartoon ads, which led to animated shorts, which led to animated features, which led to Disneyland, which led to WDW, which...........oops, according to you it would have stopped there.No! If he had lived we would have had a full blown EPCOT!! The question is NOT what would Walt have done in his future? That type of thinking will get you no where. Who knows where Walt would have gone? And really, who cares? The right question to ask is: How can we at least maintain and further the Standards (those annoying little plusses) that we have set when we do build something new?

Unfortunately, the current administration does the opposite. Their philosophy seems to be a "how much can we get away with" and "where's mine?" They take the Poly and dumb it down to the "Mods". Not satisfied with that they dumb it down once again and we wind up with the All-Stars. Still in a "how low can we go?" mode, they dumb it down further and we get Pop Century! Do you think they'll do it again in five years? If (God forbid) Ei$ner's still here, I certainly wouldn't put it past them!!

And I guess you didn't fully comprehend that last bit in the quote you cited. You know:

"... to do truly WONDERFUL things. Magnificent, Majestic and Magical!!"

Maybe the alliteration got in the way. Those are all the 'pluses' that were supposed to happen instead of all the dumbing down that actually did happen (and we're not just talking resorts here). The exceeding expectations rather that settling for what we agreed is "LESS". I really don't know how that doesn't upset you. On a logical or intellectual level at least. I can see you liking them as a guilty pleasure (psssst! So do I!!) but rationally they are "LESS". Period!

No Disney Stores? You seem to forget that there was a time way back in the early days when Mickey Mouse merchandising is the ONLY thing that saved the company from bankruptcy. Oh, but I guess that was an anomoly, a one time desperate move to save the company, something Walt discontinued when the financial crisis passed. NOT!!!!Ahhh! You've touched on another sore spot of mine. But I won't get into it here. We'll save it for another thread. But I will tell you that it is philosophically based and almost as dear to my heart as the caste system!!!

However, back bayou homes or stately Southern mansions can't be connected by interior corridorsWhy?

And the concept of a Dixie Landings is UN-Disney because .......... you say so
The "concept" for a Dixie Landings is marvelous!! But it needed to done right. And although it comes the closest (no accident that this resort is always your lead example) it is still less! How truly wonderful it would have been if it were totally up to standards!! I think it may have rivaled the Poly!! Ahhh! To dream!!!

A question Baron. Other than themeing, what differences can there be in a Disney resort that don't equate to prostitution? Can't be room size, can't be view, can't be............. apparently a lot of things, but what can it beView goes with theme. I can't understand how you don't see that!! As for the rest, well, we've been over that. And it has been agreed to that it is "LESS". Why do we need to cover the same ground again. Aren't these posts long enough!!?? :crazy:

Ahh, it must be good to be the king .Nope! Only a Baron. But I do have aspirations.... :cool:

Your serve.

raidermatt
09-25-2002, 08:33 PM
Scoop, that's why there are so many references to room size, balconies, views, distance to and type of transportation, etc. They take the subjectiveness out.

When a resort falls short in virtually all of those areas, it simply falls short.

I suppose you can argue that those things are not required for a Disney experience, (as DK is), but you can't really argue that the comparisons are subjective.

Like it or not, benchmarks are everywhere. In some cases, maybe its not fair to compare the quality of something or someone to their predecessors, but resorts are not one of those cases.

DVC-Landbaron
09-25-2002, 10:13 PM
Well Scoop, you’re back. And I understand that you think you may have had a EUREKA!! moment, but I think we need to clarify a bit. And I hope that Matt is wrong about his understanding of your judgment on the resorts (heck! all things Disney, I suppose). Because if he is right then we really can’t discuss things any further because you judge EVERYTHING subjectively. No objective criteria at all! If it works for you it MUST be Disney. And on a personal level I understand this thinking 100%!! But we really can’t talk about too much then before it turns into a “yeah, it is! - no, it isn’t” type thing. You’ve taken ALL the objectivity out of the equation and made it personal. I hope that isn’t the case, but it would explain an awful lot of your posts!! ;)

So, a couple questions, an observation or two and one explanation.

Now, I said: I take the experience I had when I stayed at the Poly and compare that experience with what I had in the CaribbeanNow this was a sentence that I was writing to Mr. Kidds when talking about the criteria I use when judging whether something is Disney. But it was never meant to stand alone or be the Baron Doctrine of Objective Standards!! So a bit of background and explanation is required.

When I first experienced the Poly I was BLOWN AWAY!!! And for several years (many years come to think about it) I stayed there and was never disappointed. Things changed. Additions were built. Restaurants came and went. Even the torches started disappearing. And still, over all, I was very, very happy with the resort. With one minor exception. The price kept going up faster than my promotions could handle. And after a while I was simply priced out! But my rose colored glasses were firmly affixed and just in the nick of time (talk about naive!!) Disney “gave” me (probably because they felt sorry for people in my economic group) the Caribbean Beach!! HIP-HIP-HOORAY!! How lucky I was that fatherly Disney was taking care of me!!!

But a funny thing happened to me upon arrival. I noticed it was LESS! I couldn't help it!! It was!! It was a cold, hard fact! A fact that kind of slapped you in the face! Hmmm. I thought. This place is very, very nice, but it sure is LESS. No boats for my kids to rent. No table service restaurant, which we do like to do from time to time. No inside corridors. No quiet balconies. No elevators. No automatic doors. No immersive theme (I happened to get a corner room facing, you guessed it, the parking lot!!)!!! And that, my dear Scoop, was when I started thinking that the Poly was better. Ergo the comparison.
This is the exact opposite of what I do. Oh sure, on some subconcious level I might do some kind of comparison, but I just don't "compare" experiences.I am confused. Do you mean that you do MORE than compare experiences or that you simply don’t do it at all!!
And not once did I compare either immediate experience. In other words, whether I felt WL was a great Show had nothing to do with whether I thought DxL was a great Show and vice versa.Well, this one really threw me. The first question is why? Why did you divide up your time if not for a comparison? And the second one is how could you help yourself? After all was said and done, (we’ll start subjectively) which one did you like better? Where would you stay if those two were the only openings that Disney had and you were forced to choose? What if someone gave you a vacation or you won one and the choice was between those two resorts? Which would you pick? What did you base your decision on? And finally did you notice major differences from one to the other that were either positive or negative? Scoop, in my very humble opinion, you’ve got to have some immediate answers to these questions or you’re simply not human!! Or totally non-thinking!!
For me this is the only way it can work because, and this is crucially important, one's view of a resort is not just of how the Show was executed but also memories which may have occurred at that resort.SCOOP! Please tell me you misstated something here. Otherwise your entire stance is based on subjectivity only!! And we have to end the conversation! At least Mr. Kidds pretends to be objective!! ;)

Now, the rest of your post seems a little disjointed and may very well back up your subjectivity on the subject. I hope not. I thought you, of all people, could excise the subjectivity from the equation and look at it as though it were a legal brief. Cold, OBJECTIVE logic. Nothing more. I know that is very hard to do and no one does it perfectly. But I really do try. Don’t you!?

DisneyKidds
09-25-2002, 11:45 PM
You have the most annoying habit of making the word "Walt" sound dirty and something to shunned.
Unintentional I assure you - but it it annoys you..........hmmmm, maybe I can do it inten...... nah, only kidding ;).
So maybe you have a problem with the standards themselves. Or with Walt. Could that be the underlying theme here?
Nope. Not at all.
Can you think of a better benchmark than the one that Walt created?
Nope. Not at all.

So, what the heck do I keep arguing about you ask? Well, my problem is that this Standard, this benchmark, is a snapshot of a point in time. But a photo in an album. However, Walt's album ended too early. Had he lived on, this photo album would have been full of so many other photos. You know what? Those photos would likely have been very different. Different themes, different experiences - different benchmarks and an evolving, expanding Standard. I truely believe that - to my very core. Disney can be so much more than you will let it. Walt would have let it be more. You see, you evaluate everything on a static benchmark. However, the world, the World, is a dynamic place. Walt was a dynamic person. Your view of the Standard makes me think of the Tower of Terror. You come into the lobby of the Hollywood Tower Hotel and everything is eerily like it was the day the lightning struck. The clocks stopped. Nothing moved, the dust gathering. Yes, yes, yes - the Standard that existed when Walt died was a great one, but dust has settled uopn it. Unlike at the Hollywood Tower Hotel, time has moved on. I believe that even Walt would have moved on.
You can disagree all you like. But it doesn’t change the fact that it IS the Disney standard!
WAS the Disney Standard. I believe that even Walt would have changed the Standard as time progressed. Not that I like the Standard that Ei$ner has set - not at all. Walt would have done better. However, even the Ei$ner standard that we see in Dixie Landings kept the essence of what was the Walt Disney Standard, IMHO.
Ah! The "who do you think you are" argument. OK! And the Baron counters with the "I'm rubber, you're glue" defense. So, who does Mr. Kidds thinks he is that he should decide that the All-Stars do not give that "bona fide Disney experience" to someone else?
Tsk, Tsk, Mr. Baron. Conveniently fail to acknowledge that I readily admitted just a few posts earlier that I am nobody to make decrees either - just to make me look bad :(. Bad show Mr. Baron :p.
But as with so many things around Disney lately, Ei$ner, unfortunately, was clearly not up to the task.
Hey, lookie here, more common ground :). While I do believe he has done some good during his tenure (the early part), I agree that he is not up to the task.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I evaluate the AS on it's own merit (or demerit) in relation to other Disney resort experiences, not strictly compared to another resort.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tell me again how that is different from what I do?
Hmmm.....I had to really think abou this, but here goes. When I stay at a new resort I let the experience come at me. I let myself become immersed. I don't think about what I could be experiencing somewhere else. The canvas is blank. Sure, in the end I can look back and see that this might be different than that, some aspect here might be less than some aspect there. Maybe one aspect here is more than one aspect there. However, that doesn't cloud my reception of the experience at the time. Carpe diem I say, sieze the day and live in the moment. You know what - there is a ton of Magic in all those things you discount as non-Disney. I know you know that. I know you like it. But you always have that reservation, that something to hold you back. You just can't let go of certain things that really don't negate the Disney experience. Somehow I get this picture of you walking around the CBR with a clipboard, checking off things to determine is the CBR matches up to the Poly, but you miss so much if you do that. I'm probably wrong yet again, but there it is. Perhaps that is what Scoop was trying to convey.
Ahhh! You've touched on another sore spot of mine. But I won't get into it here. We'll save it for another thread. But I will tell you that it is philosophically based and almost as dear to my heart as the caste system!!!
Look for a new thread coming to a discussion board near you. We need to move on to some new discussions and this seems to hold promise ;).

Baron, you asked Scoop a very interesting question. If I had to choose between the WL (you can substitute Poly or GF if you like) or POR-Riverside, which would it be? Well, it would be the WL. It would be the WL because as a hotel POR is "less". POR doesn't have interior hallways. The level of amenities is "less". The room is a little smaller. The hotel just isn't as much.

How the heck am I helping myself you must be wondering? :crazy:

Well, lets look closely at may preference for the WL. You see, I can be a snob. I have travelled a lot. I have spent a lot of time in hotels on business as well as pleasure. I happen to prefer a more upscale hotel. However, those things that I prefer about the WL have absolutely nothing to do with Disney. They are not a unique Disney Standard. Countless hotels across the planet offer the same upscale level of accomodation. Clearly all those hotels are not 'Disney'. Why is that? Well, it is because what makes Disney 'Disney' is not dependent upon all those things that make me prefer the WL over POR. That which makes Disney 'Disney' is just as present at POR as it is at the WL. Some people might prefer POR over the WL because they like a more casual feel to their hotel - they might be a little uncomfortable in a more upscale hotel. I know people who feel that way. So they like POR for the very things that make me prefer the WL. However, we both get the real deal Disney experience that is not dependent upon those non Disney criteria that we feel differently about. Kind of like separating the wheat from the chaff. Make any sense? Perhaps that is how I can see and agree that the 'moderates' are less of a hotel, but not less of a Disney experience.

Your thoughts, sire?

raidermatt
09-26-2002, 03:19 PM
Scoop- That's all well and good, but how do you decide which resort to go to next time, if you don't compare the experience? You're going to WDW, and you have a choice of Wilderness Lodge, Port Orleans, or the All-Stars, and better yet, all at the same price (hypothetical of course). How do you decide at which one to stay, without comparing your experiences? A random dart toss, or some sort of rotation?

If so, touche, you have me on that one. I just wonder how many people ignore past experiences when deciding which place to return to?


DK-

Those photos would likely have been very different. Different themes, different experiences - different benchmarks and an evolving, expanding Standard.
Sure, but what indication do you have that he would have lowered his standard so significantly, unless it was out of dire financial need? He did live 65 years or so, and lowering his standard didn't seem to be a common practice for him. Yes, he was always looking for something new, but he carried his standard with him throughout. And through perserverance, it worked. Beyond what anyone would have thought he could have done. Why, oh why, after only compromising his standards when he was dragged kicking in protest, would he have changed course later in life? And more importantly, why would that have been the right choice?

His idea of new and exciting wasn't to lower the quality of his films and charge a lower admission price. (Yes, he did the compilations, but only because he needed to in order to fund his more ambitious projects. When the need disappeared, so did the compilations...). Instead, he went into theme parks. Did he then dumb down a park to get at a different market? No, he wanted to build EPCOT (his Epcot).

So yes, things would have been very different, but not in the way you imply they would.

hopemax
09-26-2002, 03:24 PM
That's all well and good, but how do you decide which resort to go to next time, if you don't compare the experience? You're going to WDW, and you have a choice of Wilderness Lodge, Port Orleans, or the All-Stars, and better yet, all at the same price (hypothetical of course). How do you decide at which one to stay, without comparing your experiences? A random dart toss, or some sort of rotation?

I want to know what Scoop would say to a co-worker who over the water cooler says, "Hey, you've been to WDW, we're going next summer and we're wondering where we should stay All-Stars or the Polynesian (and using Mr. Matt's hypothetical) we can get them at the same price?

Would Scoop really tell the co-worker to go with the All-Stars?

DisneyKidds
09-26-2002, 03:42 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those photos would likely have been very different. Different themes, different experiences - different benchmarks and an evolving, expanding Standard.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sure, but what indication do you have that he would have lowered his standard so significantly, unless it was out of dire financial need? He did live 65 years or so, and lowering his standard didn't seem to be a common practice for him.

All I have is speculation, conjecture and hypothesis - all any of us have ;).

'Lowered his standards so significantly'? Well, he wouldn't have stooped to the AS as we have them, if that is what you are referring to. However, I don't see the 'moderates' as that significant a lowering. As I pointed out, many of the things that some say defile the Disney hotel experience, I don't see as pure 'Disney' traits. The pure 'Disney' stuff - the theme, the depth of detail, the experience, is still there, IMHO. Walt would have made these even better. Maybe he'd only give you the smaller room and exterior corridors to lament, but kept all the other niceties you require for an experience to be Disney - like no parking lot view. I really don't know.

Walt wasn't in a habit of lowering his Standards, but he certainly did know how to set new ones. Are you saying he couldn't have built a 'moderate' hotel worthy of an un-dumbed Walt Standard? IMHO, he could have, would have, done it for hotels, theme parks, who knows what. Keep in mind that Walt was gone before the WDW project became a reality. He didn't have a chance to evolve the theme park/resort standards. Granted, he didn't 'lessen' anything from Disneyland in his WDW plans as WDW represented a chance to correct the mistakes of Disneyland. However, you can't point to a Disneyland standard for hotels- it didn't include them. I also believe that WDW has grown beyond anything even Walt dreamed of and would have provided him a canvas to do so much more than what the Master Plan provided for. Do I have proof? No, but none of that seems a stretch to me. Does it really seem so far fetched to you?

SnackyStacky
09-26-2002, 04:26 PM
Your thinking would have Walt living as a paper boy in Marceline for the rest of his life. Walt started down a path. The first stepping stone was cartoon ads, which led to animated shorts, which led to animated features, which led to Disneyland, which led to WDW, which...........oops, according to you it would have stopped there. What a rediculous premise.

Another one of my small interjections.

It would not have stopped there, but if you look at each one of those progressions after the cartoon ads, they were innovations. He changed the face of animation forever. He changed, or actually, created, the THEME park concept. (Not amusement park, but theme park). There was nothing innovative about Disney's acquisition of go.com, or ABC or any one of their other aquisitions. They were strictly business/money-making ventures because nothing changed as a result of those decisions. Well, nothing POSITIVE came of those decisions.

I believe that even Walt would have changed the Standard as time progressed.

A standard is a standard. That doesn't change. The products, the immediate RESULT of that standard will change, but the standard cannot. Webster's defines standard as "something set up and established by authority as a rule for the measure of quantity, weight, extent, value, or quality". Which would mean if the standard changed, it would have to change for a desire for BETTER quality. I don't think that anyone can say that the moderates are BETTER or EQUAL to the Polynesian. Even the Disney company can't say that because of the difference in price!

hopemax
09-26-2002, 04:33 PM
I know DVC has the Walt's Quotes book, someone else may too.

Go to the one where Walt talks about how his strategy and how it has changed "not a whit." I'd type it in myself, but the book is at my Dad's.

raidermatt
09-26-2002, 04:41 PM
Does it really seem so far fetched to you?

Barring a true financial necessity, yes, it does. He didn't dumb down anything else unless he had to, so again, I see nothing to indicate he would have altered this basic philosophy with respect to resorts.

If we saw him dumbing down something else to get at a different market segment, then ok, we could make a case he would do the same with resorts.

But that just wasn't his way. When he wanted something new, he didn't lessen something he previously did and put a lower price on it. Instead, he did something else, carrying his standard with him.

So, you are probably right when you say WDW would have fewer resorts if Walt had continued to run it (or if it had continued to be run with his philosophy). It would probably have fewer theme parks as well. But it would have something else. Something we probably haven't even thought of. And it would have been built using the same standard...

But I digress.... if Walt's philosophy were applied to resorts, we would not have moderates. Yes, if he were going to continue to build resorts, he would have innovated with them. They WOULD have been different. Maybe in size, scope, layout, theme, operationally, whatever. But he would never purposely make anything about them less, so that he could charge a different price point.

And THAT, is what the moderates are. An attempt to dumb down certain features to make a price differentiation. The old Disney way dicates that you quit making resorts and move on to something else before you would do this.

DVC-Landbaron
09-26-2002, 05:09 PM
So, what the heck do I keep arguing about you ask?You don’t know how many times!!!

Well, my problem is that this Standard, this benchmark, is a snapshot of a point in time.
Oh! I see! I think you may be unclear on the concept of STANDARD. And it’s probably my fault. I should have never used that word, and hopefully the rest of this post will show you why I did. Yes, there are some standards that we must adhere to, but overall it is the unique Disney philosophy, which guides those standards. You are right. We must never fall into a mode of thinking that just because Walt did something, it is the only way to go. No, we must be ever vigilant to new concepts, ideas, methods and technology if we are to be leaders in the field and not merely followers.

Had he lived on, this photo album would have been full of so many other photos. You know what? Those photos would likely have been very different. Different themes, different experiences - different benchmarks and an evolving, expanding Standard.Expanding – YES!! Shrinking – NO!!! And again, perhaps the wrong word. Yes, the standards are the standards. But a standard is only something tangible that one can use as a measure. What we are talking about goes deeper than a certain criteria, scope, square footage, specifications or… well… Standards. It goes to the heart of the philosophy. Which, after all, dictates what those standards are.

Now, given those standards, in conjunction with the underlying philosophy, we can ascertain the direction a certain project should go. Let’s get away from resorts for a moment and take on animation. I think it might be a simpler concept to follow.

OK! You’re the head of the animation department for Walt Disney Studios. You are well versed in all the ‘standards’ that Walt & crew set down on how to make a cartoon. Your storyboards are the best in the business. You utilize the multi-plane process so well the audience thinks they are IN the film and not merely watching it. All the tricks of the trade are used to the best of your ability and you are quite content that your productions are Academy Award contenders!!

But time marches on. And with that passage of time comes new technology. Computers. WHOA!!! That certainly isn’t within the Standards!! Now what do we do!!?? Here’s where your thinking about the word Standard gets in the way. Nowhere is there any mention of a computer in the Standards!! But that concept is covered!! Look to the philosophy!! The philosophy calls for, NO, it DEMANDS that you employ the newest technology, to the best of your abilities, mindful at all times that QUALITY should be enhanced and never diminished!! So you examine the process and see if and how it might fit in with your philosophy. The goal, as always, is to “better” the product or the SHOW.

Innovations can also come that are not necessarily associated with technology. Cheaper ways can be found to produce something. In the late fifties, early sixties innovative techniques were employed to produce TV cartoons. Fast efficient and revolutionary. Instead of the Standard number of frames per second, these TV whizzes did only three frames!!! WOW!! What a savings!! So being the animation guru that you are, do you use this technique? Do you employ it and point to that fact that EVERYONE else is doing it, so it must be OK? NO!! Of course not! You have to apply that technique to the Standard AND the philosophy!! Does it enhance the SHOW? Does it add anything? Does quality remain the same but efficiency increases? Or is it just another attempt to increase profits at the expense of the SHOW?

Now let’s go back to the resorts. What motivation was there to build the “Mods”? Was it to increase the SHOW? Was it just soooo special that it begged to be built? Did the concept ‘improve” in any way, shape or form the Standard?

No. Sadly no. The motivation was strictly dollars and cents. Ei$ner & crew saw they could radically raise prices in their STANDARD hotels so they did it. Now this left a huge market segment with no where to stay (hmmm. Sounds like the LandBaron’s plight). So they lowered their Standards (totally ignoring their philosophy) to capture that market. It worked so well that they decided to do it again. Lower standards = All-Stars. Question: So, where does this fit in with the philosophy? Answer: It doesn’t!!!

Now you remember that part (and only part) of this philosophy calls for SHOW to come before efficiency at all times. To me (and the rest of the reasonable world) they sacrificed SHOW (standards) for efficiency (profits).

WAS the Disney Standard. I believe that even Walt would have changed the Standard as time progressed.I agree!! I never disagreed. It’s the direction I have a problem with. He most certainly would have had the Standard evolve. Always up. NEVER down. Because the philosophy cannot change!! And that is (or should have been) the guiding force!!

However, even the Ei$ner standard that we see in Dixie Landings kept the essence of what was the Walt Disney StandardI disagree. Or more to the point I should say that I agree that the Essence was kept, but that isn’t quite enough!! And I point to the 3-frame concept. The writing was the same. The jokes were the same. Mickey Mouse was the same. The color was the same. The story was the same. The music was the same. Everything that made a Disney cartoon was the same!! In other words they kept the ‘essence’ of everything a Walt Disney Standard cartoon should be. So we saved a few bucks in the filming. Big deal!! Besides, everyone else is doing it. And the public, by and large, will accept anything we shove down their throats because, well after all, WE’RE DISNEY!!! Is that the ‘essence’ you’re talking about? Cause it ain’t mine.

However, those things that I prefer about the WL have absolutely nothing to do with Disney. They are not a unique Disney Standard.No one said they were unique to Disney. But they were incorporated into the standard and became intrinsically tied to it. It was all part of the ‘Disney” package. Or experience. That’s why I used the word Standards rather than philosophy. Simply because the “hotel” stuff was the base line. It was a given. The bare minimum that one could expect from Disney. In order to become a resort Disney had to provide a bed. And early on they decided that a double bed was not good enough for the “experience”. So they made them queen size (you know, always UP, never DOWN). And someone decided that a certain square foot room was the Disney experience. And that indoor corridors would be used. And that themed and unique pools would be built. And that valet service would be included. And that a table service restaurant would be available. And that elevators would be included. And that… and that… and that…

This was the bare bones minimum experience!! In other words you strip away the entire theme and you still have quite a resort on your hands. Now, we hand this minimum STANDARD, this nuts and bolts hotel portion over to the Imagineers and say, theme it!! And then they work their Disney MAGIC!!!

What happens when you strip away the theme form the Mods? Hmmm. Not so hot, is it? Not bad certainly, but nowhere near the Standards set for a Disney resort. In other words for you, it all comes down to theme (and in fairness CMs. But they are a constant throughout the property). If the theme strikes your fancy, nothing else matters. I don’t agree. And I point to my good friend Mr. Kidds for back up. Remember when he said: Baron, you asked Scoop a very interesting question. If I had to choose between the WL (you can substitute Poly or GF if you like) or POR-Riverside, which would it be? Well, it would be the WL. It would be the WL because as a hotel POR is "less". POR doesn't have interior hallways. The level of amenities is "less". The room is a little smaller. The hotel just isn't as much. ‘nuff said!! ;)

DisneyKidds
09-26-2002, 11:03 PM
And I point to my good friend Mr. Kidds for back up. Remember when he said:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baron, you asked Scoop a very interesting question. If I had to choose between the WL (you can substitute Poly or GF if you like) or POR-Riverside, which would it be? Well, it would be the WL. It would be the WL because as a hotel POR is "less". POR doesn't have interior hallways. The level of amenities is "less". The room is a little smaller. The hotel just isn't as much.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

‘nuff said!!


Well!! To be quoted out of context!! What a joy!!

Just a few comments, as I vowed I was no longer going to discuss hotels, but some of this is related to general standards.

First off, standards change all the time. At one point the Model T was the standard in automobiles, but it certainly isn't today.

Is POR equal to the Poly as a hotel? No. Is it equal as a Disney experience? Sure. A different experience agreed, but still a Disney one. You won't get the POR experience at any other hotel.

They WOULD have been different. Maybe in size, scope, layout, theme, operationally, whatever.

But isn't that exactly what the 'mods' are? I don't agree that the only difference can be 'up' or 'more' as you say. People freak at the idea of a fairly priced $200 a night Disney hotel. Walt would have only gone up? He would have added 'more' and had them be $300. No, all he could have done was churn out more of the same $200 hotel. That's great. They are wonderful. However, it hardly adds an innovative element to the resort portfolio. You see, the 'mods' were innovative. The level of Show, detail, experience, service, etc. found in them had never been found in that hotel category before.

Shrinking, dumb-down, 'less' - you look at it the wrong way. Lets say Walt started his business life as a pizza man. He had the best pizza joint in town. He served the biggest, bestest pizza. 'You've tried all the rest, now try the best' was his line, he invented it. He took pizza to a whole new level. He only served a large, 16 inch, 8 slice pie. Well, boy did pizza take off after his innovations. Then he saw something. One family couldn't finish that large, 16 inch, 8 slice pie. One family didn't feel comfortable eating that much pizza. One family couldn't afford that large, 16 inch, 8 slice pie. So guess what - Walt made a smaller pizza. He offered a 12 inch, 6 slice pie. Sure it was 'less' pizza. It used less dough. It couldn't hold as many toppings. Yes, it even cost less. However, it was still the same wonderfully hot, cheesy, greasy, crisp crust pizza.

I have to go get something to eat now :wave:

raidermatt
09-27-2002, 01:35 AM
A small pizza will be of the same quality if held to the same standard.

With the moderates, inferior ingredients have been used in order to charge a lower price. Sure, the dough and pepperoni is just as good, but the tomato sauce and cheese are of a lower quality.

The moderates, in some cases, offer good themeing. In other cases, its questionable. Its certainly is no better than the Poly/Cont. They are no more innovative, and the service, while still Disney, is not BETTER.

However certain portions were made less for pricing reasons, and ONLY for pricing reasons.

Walt just plain DID NOT DO THIS!

Its really that simple...

hopemax
09-27-2002, 02:31 AM
Another concern would be are all toppings available on both sizes. It wouldn't be applying the same standard if you had 15 toppings to choose from if you ordered a large pizza, but the smaller pizza you could only choose from sausage, pepperoni or extra cheese.

DisneyKidds
09-27-2002, 08:11 AM
Originally posted by raidermatt
The moderates, in some cases, offer good themeing. In other cases, its questionable. Its certainly is no better than the Poly/Cont. They are no more innovative, and the service, while still Disney, is not BETTER.

However certain portions were made less for pricing reasons, and ONLY for pricing reasons.

Walt just plain DID NOT DO THIS!

Its really that simple...

Nowhere have I said that the 'mods' are BETTER than the Poly. I don't agree that they have to be BETTER. The themeing and experience are different, but just as good. Is that not good enough? I know your answer - so don't bother typing it. Does everything have to be BETTER than the thing before? Different, yes. Just as good an experience, yes. But better in every way? No. Can it even be LESS in certain ways? Again, yes - so long as the experience is maintained, which I feel it is at many of the 'mods'. Walt would have only made them even better.

As for the pricing reasons, so long as the experience is maintained I think finding a way to make a Disney experience that is priced less, and is therefore more affordable and available to more people, is a good thing for WDW and the WDW visiting public. I'd be very curious to know what the margins are for operations on the Poly and POR. It always seems that the argument comes back to 'Disney made it less to make a buck' and therefore abandoned the philosophy, or the combination of the standards and the philosophy, or whatever :crazy:. Did they? I forget which occupant of car 3 made the argument, but it has been said by some that the 'mods' cost no less to build and operate than the 'deluxe'. If that were the case, the margins would be higher on the 'deluxe' than on the 'mods'. Even if the 'mods' make it up in volume, is the bottom line for POR really any higher than for the Poly? Tha sure would speak volumes about the price gouging, make a buck motivation for the 'mods'.

As for what Walt didn't do, sure - he didn't compromise quality to make a buck. Although the 'mod' experience is wonderfully Disney, are there ways that the hotels could have been done a little better, things that could have been done differently in the 'mods' that would have satisfied the Standard you long for, yet provided for a lower priced resort? Sure. Could Walt have accomplished that? You bet your bippy. Would he have? I have no doubt.

It really is that simple.

As for toppings on that pizza, if opening up the World while maintaining the Disney experience means I can only choose from 10, as opposed to 15, toppings I say churn out those small pizzas. Just as with merchandising, which is ok when SUBTLE, resort differences are okay fine. Of course you ask where the line is drawn? How few topping selections can you get to? Well, it gets back to that experience. When you can no longer walk around a place like POR and FEEL like you ARE walking the quiet lanes of the old south, or are meandering the back bayous, you have gone too far.

You can keep your slippery slope comments too, because if nobody ever tested a slope you would get a scant few new and wonderful things. I shudder to think of all the wonderful places I would not have skied had I not tested a few slopes, even a few hairy ones that most people would say you just shouldn't go near. You have to know when to dial it back, but you also have to push limits in life - if not, is it really worth living? Is WDW really any different?

raidermatt
09-27-2002, 01:11 PM
The themeing and experience are different, but just as good. Is that not good enough?

Please explain how allowing the a view of the parking lot maintains the theme as well as hiding the parking lot from view.

Or perhaps the parking lot IS a part of the Dixie, or Caribbean themes?

Does everything have to be BETTER than the thing before? Different, yes. Just as good an experience, yes. But better in every way? No.
I never said it had to be better in every way. I'm willing to take a "give and take" approach and say that MAYBE you can make portions of the experience less, PROVIDED you make them more in other areas (besides price). But, as you admit, the Mods are equal in some areas, less in others.

It is simply impossible to maintain an overall experience when you decrease portions, and don't improve on the others, or add something else.

If your going to take things away, like room size, balconies, transportation convenience, etc, WHAT ARE YOU ADDING TO MAKE UP FOR THESE TAKEAWAYS? How are you maintaining the experience? For the majority of people, taking these things away makes for a lessor experience. If it didn't, Disney would not charge less.

The moderates are not priced lower because they cost less to make. Pricing is based on demand. If the experience was viewed as equal, demand would be equal, and Disney would happily charge the same price as the deluxes.

The guests know the experience is less, which is why they will not pay as much.

Disney knew the experience would be less, which is why they know they can't charge the same price for Mods and Deluxes.

Regardless of whether you think any of the Mods shortcomings are a part of the experience, the market dictates that they are.


As for toppings on that pizza, if opening up the World while maintaining the Disney experience...
Again, if the experience were maintained, I'd be right there with you.

plutospup
09-27-2002, 02:07 PM
For the sake of continuos quality improvement "standards" must be fluid/everchanging. Theory being that improving upon or raising the standards will improve the overall show. Those standards, must apply to all entities...resorts, parks, consumers, etc. In Disney's quest for continuos quality improvement, however, have they raised or lowered the standards?

DisneyKidds
09-27-2002, 02:49 PM
My favorite definition of 'experience', as per Websters......

"something personally encountered, undergone, or lived through"

You see, 'expeience' is not dependant upon a checklist of things as they compare to something else. Perhaps some go to a 'moderate' and, after living through the experience, all they can say is 'boy, the room was too small and that darn parking lot was so ugly'. Personally, I have never come away from the 'mods' with those thoughts. What I encounter is pure Magic, plain and simple. Yes, personally - just as in the definition. Who said the proof is in the pudding? Well, everyone likes a different flavor of pudding. Some like all flavors. The AS aren't pudding. BTW - you are not dealing with an inexperienced pudding eater. There are only a couple Disney resorts we have not stayed at. Why the heck I spend so much time discussing the 'mods' I don't know - we don't even use them any more :confused:.

The moderates are not priced lower because they cost less to make. Pricing is based on demand. If the experience was viewed as equal, demand would be equal, and Disney would happily charge the same price as the deluxes.

:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

So, the 'mods' have the same financial structure as the 'deluxe' (construction cost, operating cost, etc.) but are priced lower because the demand is not as strong as for the 'deluxe'? That would imply that the 'mods' perform worse financially than the 'deluxe'. So, in your estimation, why did they build them? This makes no sense. You are saying they could have built more 'deluxe' resorts at the same price and gotten full deluxe price for them? You really believe that they spent the same money on a 'lesser' hotel to artificially create demand for another? You and the Baron are nuts :crazy: - or maybe you just need to explain how, on Gods green earth, that could make sense.

If your argument was that Disney intentionally threw out all standards and built a 'lesser' hotel because it was cheaper to build and they could realize a higher margin on it - well, that would make sense. But to say that the 'mods' don't cost less, that the reason the price is lower has nothing to do with a standard pricing model that would have you evaluate cost and desired margin in determining price - I just can't fathom that. Your argument should be that by way of spending less money they eroded the experience - and based on the cheaper construction and operating cost, along with eroded experience, they charge less. BTW - just a few short years ago when the 'moderates' were as sold out as any other Disney resorts, wouldn't the price have been higher under your price by demand theory?

I am done talking about hotels vs. Standards and whether they are 'Disney' (where have I heard that before?), but I would like to explore this rather unique business model you believe is employed at the 'mods'. Maybe I have it all wrong and I am not hearing what you are saying correctly, so please correct me if that is the case.

raidermatt
09-27-2002, 03:54 PM
So, the 'mods' have the same financial structure as the 'deluxe' (construction cost, operating cost, etc.) but are priced lower because the demand is not as strong as for the 'deluxe'? That would imply that the 'mods' perform worse financially than the 'deluxe'.
First, I'm not really sure construction costs are the same. Interior hallways and exterior decks and balconies might be more expensive. Certainly when you don't go to the extra effort to hide things like parking lots, you save some money. Less elaborate pools save money. And when you look at the all of the moderates, on average, their exterior architecture is not as elaborate as the deluxes. I assume more detailed architecture carries a cost.

Operating costs? Maybe the same. If they staff everything (including the front desk) to the same ratios. I have no idea if they do, so for the purposes of this discussion, I'll assume they do.

However, one of the things they did with moderates was make the rooms smaller, so they take up less space. So you can fit more in the same area. Also, substitution exterior walkways for interior hallways and balconies saves space.

So you can charge less and make it up through volume. Certainly that was the goal (as it is with the values).

They kept their costs down because they knew they would not be charging as much for these rooms, because guests wouldn't pay as much.


But to say that the 'mods' don't cost less, that the reason the price is lower has nothing to do with a standard pricing model that would have you evaluate cost and desired margin in determining price - I just can't fathom that.
I never said they don't cost less. You did.

The corners they cut on the experience save money, allowing them to charge less, yet still make money.

Its the same reason why Motel 6 can be as successful as Hilton. They provide a lessor experience for less money.

With Disney, its the same concept as the Values, which you agree with. Yet for some reason, you think the reasoning was different for the Moderates?

You are saying they could have built more 'deluxe' resorts at the same price and gotten full deluxe price for them?

No, I'm not. They wanted to tap a new market segment, those who were willing to pay less for a lessor experience. They probably felt that was a greater financial opportunity than to try to gain more of the deluxe segment.

BTW - just a few short years ago when the 'moderates' were as sold out as any other Disney resorts, wouldn't the price have been higher under your price by demand theory?
While I would love to take credit for the Supply/Demand/Price theory, I'm afraid I can't...

I'm sure the actual prices Disney charged (after discounts) was higher then.



DK, YOU may not care one bit about a balcony, or whether you had a view of the parking lot, or how big your room is, but many others do, and it contributes to their experience.

Why do you think they call them moderates? If they have an equal experience to the deluxes, why would Disney charge less? Out of the goodness of their hearts? Why not just call them deluxes and charge the same, since the experience is equal.

The cost of the resort really is irrelevant once they open the doors. Yes, they have to take in a certain amount to make a profit, but they cannot dictate that price based on their cost. The public dictates the price through their demand.

Look at it another way, if the experience is the same, as you say, and Disney is charging less for the mods than the deluxes, WHY AREN'T MORE PEOPLE STAYING AT THE MODS? Why are they choosing to pay more to stay at a deluxe that offers the same experience? Some people maybe slow, but they catch on. They will spend their money on what has greater value. If the experience is the same, then the mods are the greater value.

Yet, now, when overall demand is suffering, Disney chooses to shut down a 2000+ room moderate, not a deluxe.

raidermatt
09-27-2002, 03:59 PM
DK, I just want to clarify one point. I am not disputing what YOUR experience is/was at a moderate.

But if all we do is compare our personal experience, it just becomes a case of what I like vs. what you like.

When I say the experience is less, it doesn't mean every person thinks its less. It means that on average, more guests see it as less than see it as being the same.

And since we are discussing how a large company makes its decsions, we have to focus on how large numbers of customers feel. Not just what you and I feel.

DVC-Landbaron
09-27-2002, 05:17 PM
Mr. Kidds. Usually if someone ignores a point I make I let it go. After all, if we don’t ignore some of the other person’s post we’d go on “quoting” for forever. Instead of the normal (for us at least) 10,000 words we’d be topping 40 to 50,000 words!! And that’s too long even for me!! :crazy:

HOWEVER!!

Yeah. You just knew there had to be a “however”. Anyway, However, there was a particular argument that I used which I happened to think was simply splendid (if I do say so myself)!!! So, in the hope of eliciting a response of some sort or another, here it is - AGAIN!!


However, those things that I prefer about the WL have absolutely nothing to do with Disney. They are not a unique Disney Standard.

No one said they were unique to Disney. But they were incorporated into the standard and became intrinsically tied to it. It was all part of the ‘Disney” package. Or experience. That’s why I used the word Standards rather than philosophy. Simply because the “hotel” stuff was the base line. It was a given. The bare minimum that one could expect from Disney. In order to become a resort Disney had to provide a bed. And early on they decided that a double bed was not good enough for the “experience”. So they made them queen size (you know, always UP, never DOWN). And someone decided that a certain square foot room was the Disney experience. And that indoor corridors would be used. And that themed and unique pools would be built. And that valet service would be included. And that a table service restaurant would be available. And that elevators would be included. And that… and that… and that…

This was the bare bones minimum experience!! In other words you strip away the entire theme and you still have quite a resort on your hands. Now, we hand this minimum STANDARD, this nuts and bolts hotel portion over to the Imagineers and say, theme it!! And then they work their Disney MAGIC!!!

What happens when you strip away the theme form the Mods? Hmmm. Not so hot, is it? Not bad certainly, but nowhere near the Standards set for a Disney resort. In other words for you, it all comes down to theme (and in fairness CMs. But they are a constant throughout the property). If the theme strikes your fancy, nothing else matters. I don’t agree. And I point to my good friend Mr. Kidds for back up. Remember when he said:
Baron, you asked Scoop a very interesting question. If I had to choose between the WL (you can substitute Poly or GF if you like) or POR-Riverside, which would it be? Well, it would be the WL. It would be the WL because as a hotel POR is "less". POR doesn't have interior hallways. The level of amenities is "less". The room is a little smaller. The hotel just isn't as much. Now I put that last quote in just to show how much we really agree on. I did not mean to be cute (although it is ;)) and I didn’t mean to get under your skin (although I did it seems). I really wanted to show you how much of that ‘base-line’ hotel experience goes into the overall Disney experience.

Am I perhaps a little clearer now?

DVC-Landbaron
09-27-2002, 08:46 PM
Scoop,

Sorry this is so late, but I did forget about it for a while. Anyway I wrote this on the day you posted but then my kid's homework got in the way and before you know it Mr. Kidds needs straightening out :) and well... Here it is:I can be (and in my opinion am) one of the most objective thinkers around here when it comes to Disney and its many business aspects.I don’t think so Scoop. Unless I’ve read everything you’ve written totally wrong. You, yourself admit that you CHOOSE not to. And that you REFUSE to take a vacation that way! Well, then how in the heck can you be objective about anything Disney!?!?!?!

Remember what you said: Unfortunately though, that would mean that, while vacationing at WDW, I would have to look at everything through an analytical and objective eye. And I am sure as heck not going to spend my vacation time attempting to objectively compare different resort experiences, ride experiences, or dining experiences.So that would preclude any reasonable debate, I suppose. And here I thought you were just nuts!! ;) :crazy:

And then there’s this: The primary difference is that, while doing this, you still take copious enough mental notes to compare that visit to a previous visit. Frankly, I don't pay that much attention while I'm there.Well, not only don’t you care to think about, even after your home, but you don’t even notice much when you’re there. I see. :rolleyes:

OK Scoop. If you’re still with me, one last bit. I dug a little further and came up with this. And I admit that what follows is a tad ridiculous, but honestly, I don’t think it misses the mark by much!Our first trip to WDW was a stay in the Herbie/Love Bug building at ASM. It was our first trip and therefore had magical memories attached to it...

Thus, if I compared my experience at ASM with Betsy and I's first trip with my stay next week at the Polynesian, by myself for three nights at a GF seminar, then the Polynesian will lose that comparison every time.So, if we are to believe you, and I personally see no reason not to as it explains the rather capricious nature of some of your arguments, then we can further that logic by saying that “IF” you had had a streak of unbelievable BAD luck while staying at the Floridian (or name a Deluxe of choice) you would forever (or at least for a good long while) associate that BAD experience to that resort. But “IF” on the other hand while staying at the local Motel 6 something absolutely magical happens throughout the weekend then you’d also associate that WONDERFUL WEEKEND with room 1026 of the Motel 6 chain. Is that it?

And so (bear with me a moment) after you return home and I say that the Floridian is the best resort I’ve ever seen in my life, you might have a tendency to formulate a post that disagrees. In fact you might even go so far as to say that compared with your local Motel 6, where magic happens, the Floridian is a pit!!

You’re right Scoop. Most of our discussions have been pointless. I’ve been trying to look at things logically (and for the most part successfully, I hope). You’ve been talking emotionally! And there's nothing wrong with that!! The Pirate does it all the time! It's just not where I'm coming from!

DisneyKidds
09-28-2002, 01:14 AM
Matt - Thanks for clarifying.
The corners they cut on the experience save money, allowing them to charge less, yet still make money.
This makes sense and I agree. They cut the expenses associated with building the 'mods' so that they could charge less. Why did they want to do this? Answer 1) could be that they simply wanted to gain market share by tapping into a different income level consumer, or take advantage of consumers who might have been able to afford the deluxes but actually found more value in the Disney experience they got for the lesser price, cut corners and all. Answer 2) could be that by opening another group of hotels at a lower price the Disney experience was available to more people. Good for the people, and good for Disney because it accomplished goal 1). Granted, probably more 1) than 2), but it still works for the company and the consumer.
If they have an equal experience to the deluxes, why would Disney charge less? Out of the goodness of their hearts? Why not just call them deluxes and charge the same, since the experience is equal.
Why, they would charge less because your room is smaller, and you don't have a balcony, and because the resort occupied less land since parking was in closer proximity to the buildings, AND..., AND...all those things that made the hotel cheaper to build, just as you pointed out.

In the end, the only thing that is absolute is the fact that all this is extremely subjective. I'm glad it is - it makes these discussion so much more fun ;).

Lets look at something you touched on. The idea of people spending their money on what has greater value. If the experience is the same, then the mods are the greater value. You know what - I do know people, other than Scoop, who do choose the 'mods' over the 'deluxe', not because they can't afford the 'deluxe', but because they find the 'mods' to be a better value. After evaluating price and experience they find the 'mods' to be a better value. You ask why they call them the moderates. It is because they are a moderate room, not a moderate experience, and many people realize that.

I'm curious. Does anyone have info on occupancy rates at the various Disney hotels?

Baron - I didn't mean to ignore you, I just didn't know how to spell phoooey ;) (and I still don't know if that is the right spelling :crazy: ). Actually, all kidding aside, it is an interesting point. However, I believe that view is all a matter of time, place, perspective, and opinion. You may argue that the time and place you first visited a Disney resort gives you a better perspective, and therefore your opinion is more valid, but that is all part of the subjectivity of the thing. No, I can't argue that it was originally decided to incorporate all that is in the Poly into the first Disney hotels. That is a simple matter of fact. However, it is still my opinion that that didn't preclude things from being done differently in the future. Oh, and guess what - if you strip away the themeing from the Poly it ain't all that special either. Yes, it might be a full service hotel, but not one I'd ever visit. You see, it is the themeing, and only the themeing that truely makes the Disney resorts unique - that makes them Disney.

As for that quote taken out of context, it will take a lot more than that to get under my skin ;). Regarding that quote, it is important to look at what followed it - the reasons that, in my personal opinion, POR is 'less' of a hotel, not less of an experience. I'll say it again - I'm a snob. I like full service hotels. Now that isn't because of anything Disney did or did not do in any particular hotel. I've stayed in more hotels than I can count, all different kinds with all different levels of service, and I've come to prefer the amenities of a full service hotel. Guess what - there are other people who find themselves more comfortable not being in a full service hotel. In their opinion, the 'mods' would be the better hotel. So, it is differing preferences and opinions on what layout and level of service makes a hotel better. However, whichever type of hotel people settle on, it is capable of being a Disney experience when you add that which is unique to Disney - the themeing.

I certainly hope that that is all for my personal opinions on all this hotel stuff. Why do I have this sinking feeling that there will be at least one thing in there that you'll have to quote......... which means I guess I'll see you soon ;).

DVC-Landbaron
09-28-2002, 01:32 PM
Well Mr. Kidds, true to form you confused me right out of the box!! However, I believe that view is all a matter of time, place, perspective, and opinion. You may argue that the time and place you first visited a Disney resort gives you a better perspective, and therefore your opinion is more valid, but that is all part of the subjectivity of the thing.What does that mean!?!?! I was talking about specific standards that were the bare-bones minimum required within a Disney resort. What does "time" have to do with it? What does “place” have to do with it? What does a first experience have to do with it? And what in the world can possible be subjective about any of the things I was talking about?!?!? A room either has a queen sized bed or it doesn’t! It really is that simple. And the Disney standard, for a Disney resort, called for (demanded) a queen sized bed!

Now, you may argue that this was simply opulence. That the Disney standard, in your opinion, is wrong. That no one requires more than a double bed. But there can be no arguing that this was the standard!! It was!!! And when they “reduced” that standard they ignored their philosophy, which put queen sized beds in the joint in the first place!! Don’t you see that!?!?!
Guess what - there are other people who find themselves more comfortable not being in a full service hotel. In their opinion, the 'mods' would be the better hotel. So, it is differing preferences and opinions on what layout and level of service makes a hotel better. However, whichever type of hotel people settle on, it is capable of being a Disney experience when you add that which is unique to Disney - the themeing.Guess what. There are people who find themselves comfortable in a neighborhood carnival and NOT in a theme park. They PREFER a 6 Flags roller coaster extravaganza to a Disney themed experience. So, should Disney build it’s next park with them in mind. To hell with theme and give them as many loops and 360 corkscrews as possible? Don’t you get it? There are many that would have preferred that Walt had NOT used that real crystal chandelier and dropped the price of his burger by a nickel instead. Should he have built a theme park for them? No!! Of course not!! That is NOT the Disney PHILOSOPHY!!!

Oh, and guess what - if you strip away the themeing from the Poly it ain't all that special either. Yes, it might be a full service hotel, but not one I'd ever visit. You see, it is the themeing, and only the themeing that truely makes the Disney resorts unique - that makes them Disney.Well, I know that!!! Of course it’s the theme!! What I’m saying is that stripping away that theme, you still have a nice resort, better than average, which if located in Chicago, St. Louis or Anywhere USA would still be pretty nice. What don’t you like about the bare-bones aspect of it?




PS: it’s phooey - not phoooey :cool:

Bob O
09-28-2002, 02:27 PM
Ditto's to DVC!!!!
From experience of staying several times at the Poly i have found the resort to have the best ambience of any disney resort and too compare it to any of the moderates is laughable to say the least!!! When the Poly was built the most important thing was to start with very high standards and too exceed them while now they are content to build hotels of Motel 6 size and say they are disney special because they put up a big disney character or sports object out in front of the hotel. Just because they are on disney property doesnt mean they are special at all and i would rather have the land wasted on the value resorts empty and saved for future development than put up something tacky!!

Peter Pirate
09-28-2002, 03:20 PM
More pure subjectivity from Landbaron and Bob O. Bob I appreciate that YOU feel the Poly is the hands down winner for ambiance and I would have agreed until AKL was built. The Poly is now a distant second...And my opinion is just as valid.

Now, as for the mod's, PO is truly themed well. Do you know they even have artificially made pond scum covering the ponds to resemble bayou water? Further, from the landscaping to the dry river beds the theming at the Rancho's section of Coronodo is superb...I won't say better than the Poly but certainly on a par.

The reason these hotels are cheaper is mainly the level of services offered from one to the other. The mod's don't cow-tow. There is no turn-down service, no concierge level and no 4 star restaurant but these things do not affect the theme or the Disney feel.

Mr. Kidds also made some other very correct ponts within this realm. The mods reach an audience that needed to be reached. I mean people who cannot quite afford a deluxe AS WELL as people who just don't feel comfortable in those surroundings (affordability aside). There is no accounting for personal tastes and comfort levels and while some of you may equate deluxe with Disney it certainly isn't really that way. Many, many people get the 'vacation of a lifetime' at a mod and even at the AS I'll bet. And while a good percentage of these people may not have had the benefit of staying at a deluxe I'm absolutely positive that there are some that have and still prefer the non-deluxe Resorts.

In this analysis once agan I agree completely with Mr. Kidds while Landbarn and his friends continue to twist the words to meet their POV...

BTW, I'm still waiting to see a written copy of those Disney Standards...:rolleyes:
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

DVC-Landbaron
09-28-2002, 04:51 PM
Aye! Matie!! So we meet again. Just couldn’t control yourself, could you? Well, welcome, my old friend. And prepare yourself!! For hardly anything you said to or about me in this post has any validity whatsoever!!

More pure subjectivity from Landbaron and Bob O. Now, I will grant you that Bob got a little carried away with subjectivity. But where’s mine? Where is this “pure subjectivity” in my arguments? Go on! I’ve said quite a few words within this thread. Show me, my ‘subjectivity”.

You see, I really feel that I’m one of the few that is really trying to discuss this stuff WITHOUT subjectivity (Matt is as well). It is Mr. Kidds, Scoop and now yourself that keeps bringing it back into the conversation!!

Bob I appreciate that YOU feel the Poly is the hands down winner for ambiance and I would have agreed until AKL was built. The Poly is now a distant second...And my opinion is just as valid.You see!! There you go again! Personal taste. Can we leave that at the door for a while and discuss this subject - “OBJECTIVELY”?
Do you know they even have artificially made pond scum covering the ponds to resemble bayou water?SEE!! This I why I LOVE this guy!! Right in the middle of a fairly serious post he slips this in. I’ll bet hardly anyone else knew he had his tongue in his cheek for this line! I nearly fell out of the chair!! Thanks my main Pirate!! :bounce:
The reason these hotels are cheaper is mainly the level of services offered from one to the other.EXACTLY my point!!! Thanks again Peter.
The mod's don't cow-tow. There is no turn-down service, no concierge level and no 4 star restaurant but these things do not affect the theme or the Disney feel.Again, thank you. Not exactly the examples I would have used, but it points to the overall decimation of those beloved Standards we always discuss around here!! (Hey, so far, your the best guy I got on my team!!) ;)
Mr. Kidds also made some other very correct points within this realm. The mods reach an audience that needed to be reached. I mean people who cannot quite afford a deluxe...And once again, why can’t they afford the Deluxes anymore? Hmmm? Anyone? Anyone? (Ferris?) That’s right. Because they raised the rates to an obscene level, that’s why!!!
Many, many people get the 'vacation of a lifetime' at a mod and even at the AS I'll bet.Hey Mr. Kidds!!! He may be right!! Perhaps we have to “justify” the All-Stars as well!! You know, it’s kind of the same argument, isn’t it?
In this analysis once again I agree completely with Mr. Kidds while Landbarn and his friends continue to twist the words to meet their POVLandbarn!!! Land”BARN”???? Hmmm. I’ll attribute this to a typo!

And (surprise, surprise) I disagree.

BTW, I'm still waiting to see a written copy of those Disney Standards... Just look to the Poly and/or the Contemporary. They are written all over them. Strip away the theme and even you should be able to see them!! ;)

DisneyKidds
09-29-2002, 09:54 AM
Well Mr. Kidds, true to form you confused me right out of the box!!
Hmmm........happenstance, or strate.....no, no - you are confused enough on your own ;).

quote:
However, I believe that view is all a matter of time, place, perspective, and opinion.What does that mean!?!?!
It's elementary, Watson. The time is 1972. The place is the Polynesian Resort. These are the relevant facts regarding the first visit of the man who would be Baron. Those facts tell you all you need to know about the perspective of that man who would be Baron. That perspective is set as that is all he knows of a Disney resort. Granted, it is all that anyone knows of a Disney resort at the time because that is all there is. However, all the future opinions of that man who would be Baron regarding Disney resorts will now be colored by that perspective. With me? Time, place, perspective, opinion. Each one dependant on the one before. I wouldn't stoo....resor...., well, I wouldn't quote myself ;) had you not responded - but I think it is a rather pertinent concept.

So, that is what it means, but how does it fator into our musings. Well, you simply cannot accept something different (other than theme) in a Disney resort because you are too opinionated (now that isn't a bad opinionated - when I want it to be bad I'll combine it with cheap and arrogant ;)) regarding Disney resorts. After all, a true Disney resort, in your opinion, can't be more than the Poly (remember, the GF isn't a Disney joint in the World according to Gar....Baron), and it can't be less than the Poly. That opinion is a result of YOUR pespective on Disney resorts. That perspective a result of YOUR first visit to the Poly in 1972.

It really is rather simple and helps to show the subjective nature of your choice of standard (which particular time and place represents Disney) and your opinion, even though the Poly you are pointing to is well defined and objective. I hope that didn't confuse you ;).

Now that we have the confusion cleared up, lets look at other possible opinions and perspectives, each of which is just as subjective as another, including yours. Lets take another chap whose first visit may have been to the GF, with subsequent visits to the Poly and Contemporary. Now this persons perspective on Disney resorts is that the GF is the one, the ultimate Disney experience. All his opinions flow forth from that perspective. Now this fellow might feel that the Poly and Cont aren't Disney because they fall short of the GF. Of course that would be incorrect. However, if this man could see past those hotel aspects (amenities and such) that are not the defining element in a Disney experience, he would see the GF, Poly and Cont as different, but all just as Disney.

Another lad might have first visited the CBR, with subsequent trips to just about every other Disney resort. Such a visitor might have an initial perspective that the CBR is it, is what Disney is all about. Of course that would be wrong because Disney is so many different things. He will come to learn that. When this guy goes to the other resorts he may have an better ability to see more different things for what they are. After all, he can see the things that might be 'more' at a 'deluxe', but he doesn't automatically dismiss the 'mods' because his perspective is different - not quite as limited, if you will. He can look at those things that are the defining element in a Disney experience and see them in both, and not have his opinion clouded by a limited perspective that would have him checking off things from a list that might not be present in the CBR

We could go on. There are a million different combinations of perspective and opinion. I know, I know - someone who firts visited the AS........(yes, you are that predictable ;)). I'll agree, some opinions migh be more defensible than others. I keep referring to the defining elements of a Disney experience. That would be depth of theme, transport to time and place, etc. Of course, that is my set of definign elemnts and not yours. Which is better? Well, that is a matter of opinion....................

That is NOT the Disney PHILOSOPHY!!!
........of 1971.

BTW - phoooey. Extra 'o' added for emphasis ;). I could have said phoooooooooooooooooooooey :p.

Hi, Mr. Pirate :wave:. Welcome to port :)
BTW, I'm still waiting to see a written copy of those Disney Standards...
....to which Baron says (for the millionthtime)......
Just look to the Poly and/or the Contemporary. They are written all over them.
Doesn't he realize this doesn't answer the question ;).

DVC-Landbaron
09-29-2002, 11:31 AM
However, all the future opinions of that man who would be Baron regarding Disney resorts will now be colored by that perspective. I will not deny that this is possible. Which is why I want to go to such great lengths to define the basic, bare-bones minimum of a Disney resort. I want to strip away personal taste (theme) and history and just ask if the standard established when the WDW was built in the first place was maintained. Not if it should be maintained. That is an entirely different question. And one that we will get into once we
we established that the basics were trashed. But for right now, I only want to know if the Standards were maintained. A pretty simple question and one that I had thought we had reached a consensus. We pretty much agreed that the “Mods” were “LESS”. Am I mistaken?
After all, a true Disney resort, in your opinion, can't be more than the Poly (remember, the GF isn't a Disney joint in the World according to Gar....Baron)Oh! No! It can be more!! It can be much, much more!!! But it can’t be the Floridian! You see, the goal was wrong. Once again Ei$ner didn’t set out to enhance the experience. No! He set out to create a 5 star hotel. And I’m sorry, Mr. Kidds, but no matter which way you slice it a 5 star resort is NOT Disney!! (as an aside they didn’t make it anyway!!)

A better resort than the Poly? HEY!! Bring it on!! I LOVE the concept! But having your goal be a rating in a book!! Nah!! [SUBJECTIVE OPINION] And it shows!! The next time you walk through the Floridian look around. It oozes 5 star. It does NOT ooze Disney! And a lot of people confuse the two!! [/SUBJECTIVE OPINION]

We could go on. There are a million different combinations of perspective and opinion. I know, I know - someone who firts visited the AS........(yes, you are that predictable ). I'll agree, some opinions migh be more defensible than others. I keep referring to the defining elements of a Disney experience. That would be depth of theme, transport to time and place, etc. Of course, that is my set of definign elemnts and not yours. Which is better? Well, that is a matter of opinionNO!!! It is not a matter of opinion! Not when we talk about the Standards! I’ll concede a point if it will get us moving forward. I’ll grant that the “theme” of any resort you want to talk about IS Disney. OK? Does that do it for you? Even the All-Stars! It’ll make it much easier to talk about. So, from here on in, for these discussions only, Disney magic (theme) just oozes from every pore of every resort on the property!! OK??!! See, that gets the “opinion” and “taste” out of the equation.

Now we can move forward. I hope we don’t have to take item by item, but I’m willing to go that route if you care to. But I don’t want to muddy the waters any more than we have to, so I’ll give only one example for this post.

Beds.

Does a Disney resort “require” a queen sized bed? Or will any old size do? The way I read your argument, as long as you have a good theme going, any sized mattress tossed in the corner of a room will suffice. I disagree!! I think that the originators of the Standard really believed that comfort was VERY important to the Disney experience. And while a double bed was certainly acceptable, the writers of the Standards (read Walt & crew) thought that wouldn’t do. It HAD to be more in order to be Disney! So they decided that a queen sized bed would become the STANDARD for a Disney resort! Are you following me? Do you know where this is going?

So, forget about all the rhetoric that went on before. Just answer the bed question. Because that’s been my underlying point through all this. Standards for the Disney experience. Theme, of course, is the most important. But you really have to have some minimum standards applied to the nuts and bolts of a hotel stay in order to qualify for the “Disney Experience” classification.

Your turn!!

Peter Pirate
09-29-2002, 11:54 AM
Landbaron hits the nail on the head! Disney Resort Standards are directly related to bed size :rolleyes: ...Oh man, that "does size really matter?" thing just won't go away... :o
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

EUROPA
09-29-2002, 01:42 PM
Now that we have the confusion cleared up, lets look at other possible opinions and perspectives, each of which is just as subjective as another, including yours. Lets take another chap whose first visit may have been to the GF, with subsequent visits to the Poly and Contemporary. Now this persons perspective on Disney resorts is that the GF is the one, the ultimate Disney experience. All his opinions flow forth from that perspective. Now this fellow might feel that the Poly and Cont aren't Disney because they fall short of the GF.



..so lets say this persons first stay is at one of the Downtown Disney Resorts. (Yes we all know here that they are not reallly Disney resorts but your average visitor does not.) Does the BestWestern LBV become the Disney Standard then??

PKS44
09-29-2002, 01:55 PM
There is a story about Walt that illustrates what the STANDARD is all about...perhaps one of you experts can cite the source of this story...There was a stagecoach in Disneyland and it had a handstrap on it that was made of naugahide or something other than leather...Walt told them that the handstrap should be leather...someone countered "but no one is going to notice that, sir." To which Walt replied, "I will notice it." That attention to quality and detail is what used to set this company apart from its competition...not price-never was about competing for the cheaper customer..they can't.

Paul

DVC-Landbaron
09-29-2002, 02:19 PM
PKS44!! What a WONDERFUL post. I’m going to add it to my arsenal of Walt stories!!! It is EXACTLY to the point! And it goes right to the heart of the PHILOSOPHY!!

SCOOP, PETER, MR. KIDDS!!!! Now do you “GET IT”???!!!

It's these little stories that define the Standard, guys (Peter, you wanted it written, here it is!!). I can't possibly make you see that, if you refuse to though. I know it interferes with your defense of the Mods, but it's there nonetheless. So you can ignore it, twist it, hide from it and write about "theme" and tell me my perspective is locked in another dimension. But I KNOW, by this story, the train story, the chandelier story and all the rest of them I've recited over the years, that I AM RIGHT!! I am in sync with Walt's thinking which IS the philosophy that formed the Standard. Ei$ner doesn’t have a clue and quite frankly, by your recent posts guys, I don’t believe you do either!

DisneyKidds
09-29-2002, 10:02 PM
so lets say this persons first stay is at one of the Downtown Disney Resorts. Does the BestWestern LBV become the Disney Standard then??
No. In what I feel is the standard there has to be depth of theme, the feeling that you are in another time, at another place, etc. Dowtown Disney hotels don't have those essential Disney elements.
SCOOP, PETER, MR. KIDDS!!!! Now do you “GET IT”???!!!
I hear what you are saying. I understand what you are saying. I get what you are saying..........I just don't agree (surprise, surprise).

Queen beds, 409 square feet, interior corridors..............blah, blah blah ;). You know what? I bet I could have a Disney resort experience even if thay made me sleep in...........well, umm, ahhh..........oh, a tent, outside :p.

OK, lets look at that without tongue in cheek. Fact of the matter is that there are many different Disney experiences. What say we leave it at this. I was watching the Disney vacation planning video from 2000 with my daughter last night. There was the typical section on resorts. They described the 'value' resorts. They described the 'moderates'. Then they got to the 'deluxe', and heaped on the accolades. Heck, they are VERY nice. In the end they tagged the 'deluxe' as the "classic Disney resort experience". So I'll agree that the 'mods' are "less". Not the "classic". The 'mods' are not what were originally designed when WDW opened. However, they are another Disney experience, just as Magical as any other.
just ask if the standard established when the WDW was built in the first place was maintained.
Assuming the standard is that which can be found in the Poly (room, layout, amenities, services, theme, and all), I give you the answer you want - no :eek:. But that doesn't make them non-Disney. (He giveth, and he taketh away ;)) So, as you suggest, with that answer in hand perhaps we should turn the attention to this........
Not if it should be maintained. That is an entirely different question. And one that we will get into once we established that the basics [as found in the Poly] were trashed.
But I have a feeling I know where we will end up.................. ;)

DVC-Landbaron
09-30-2002, 12:36 AM
A little out of order but I want to get away from “the post that never ends” (it just goes on and on, my friend)!!
Queen beds, 409 square feet, interior corridors..............blah, blah blah. You know what? I bet I could have a Disney resort experience even if thay made me sleep in...........well, umm, ahhh..........oh, a tent, outsideIf that tent was situated in Fort Wilderness, you bet you’d have a Disney experience!!! But I thought we were talking resorts. And from your answer I see that our basic thought processes on the subject are indeed mutually exclusive. It seems you cannot, no matter how I moan, beg or plead, excise the subjective personal experience from the question at hand. And I simply can’t (and really shouldn’t) argue with something that personal. If it works for you, GREAT!! I understand and feel your joy! I didn’t want you to take it as a personal attack when I attacked the (your) Mods. SO we’ll leave it at that. If you should want to talk about it in a cold, logical and OBJECTIVE way in the future, drop me a line. I’d be glad to go another ten pages, but I really have to insist that we leave the subjectivity at the door and talk about the Philosophy and standards with as little personal prejudiced as possible. OK?

Fact of the matter is that there are many different Disney experiences.Yes! Sadly today there are. But that was only made possible by the Ei$ner Caste System of Resorts!! HEY!! That brings us full circle doesn’t it? :crazy:

However, they are another Disney experience, just as Magical as any other.Nope!! Sorry! Wrong!! Not “JUST” anything. THEY ARE LESS!!!! I think we agree to disagree! :cool:

But that doesn't make them non-Disney. (He giveth, and he taketh away)Ah! Now there’s the rub! He (WALT) giveth. But who doth taketh away? That’s right Ei$ner!! And if we had someone in there who truly “got it” he would not have TAKETH anything!! He would have kept on building upon the foundation that Walt laid. Nothing “LESS” would do!!

I hear what you are saying. I understand what you are saying. I get what you are saying..........I just don't agree (surprise, surprise).OK. Since I’m getting nowhere fast talking about resorts, let’s see if we can make a little headway with the story itself.

Now, you say you disagree. Fair enough. With what? That the story is true? That Walt was an Idiot for noticing that real leather was not being used? Or perhaps you disagree that this should be applied to either the Standard or the philosophy?

See!! Pretty short, eh?!!!

:bounce:

DisneyKidds
09-30-2002, 09:52 AM
If that tent was situated in Fort Wilderness, you bet you’d have a Disney experience!!! But I thought we were talking resorts.

First off, it is Disney's Fort Wilderness RESORT and Campground. Furthermore, the cabins don't have queen beds, or interior corridors, or, or..... Second, how come a campground, which was not intended to be an experience equivalent to the Poly, can be a 'Disney' experience, yet a 'moderate' cannot? You see, no one intended them to be the same experience, but that doesn't mean they can't be a Disney experience.

Now, some people will like some experiences more than others, and that is a personal thing, but you can't just declare the experiences you approve of 'Disney' and discard the rest. Methinks that all you approve of in a Disney experience is that which was in the Master Plan (or a rethemed version of the same) - I guess that would explain why Ft. Wilderness counts ;). I can see why you do that because that is all the objective evidence you have that has Walts fingerprints on it. I get that. However, if you can't move past the idea of anything that wasn't in the Mater Plan, or a differently themed version of something from the Master Plan, being a Disney experience then we really are at odds - and that is ok. We can go a few more pages at why we should be at odds on that.

That is the crux of our difference of opinion on this subject. You can cry subjective/objective/personal experience all you want, but it all comes down to this. I agree that the 'mods' are "less" in some ways. I agree that the 'mods' don't compare in all aspect to the Poly. I agree that, if everything were held to your 1971 Poly standard for resorts, very few of the Disney resorts that exists today would exist today. I agree that, if the Poly is the Standard, the 'mods' don't meet that standard. However, all that doesn't prevent something from being a Disney experience. Case in point is Ft. Wilderness. It is 'less' than the Poly in some ways. It doesn't match up, item for item, to the 1971 Poly standard. All the things you can say about the 'mods' you can say about Ft. Wilderness. Yet, Ft. Wilderness is a Disney experience. Just as Ft. Wilderness is a Disney experience different from the Poly, so are the 'mods'. There realy isn't anything subjective about that. We will just have to agree to disagree on that.

Please, don't try and make this personal by stating that you are sorry you attacked MY 'mods'. As I said before, we really don't use them any longer since we are DVC members. I have no personal or vested interest in defending the 'mods'. It seems more like you feel I have attacked YOUR Poly by comparing the experience to a 'mod'. If that has you all sensitive I apologize to you ;).
Now, you say you disagree. Fair enough. With what? That the story is true? That Walt was an Idiot for noticing that real leather was not being used? Or perhaps you disagree that this should be applied to either the Standard or the philosophy?
I don't disagree with the story, or the philosophy embodied in the story. I guess I disagree that it has relevance to this discussion. I suppose if Walt saw a second coach purchased for DL with a leather strap that was smaller than the first coach he put in DL, or it had one leather strap instead of two, and he had them send it back for a larger one with two straps - then we'd have a story on point ;).

We are at odds because the 'mods' are a smaller coach with only one leather strap. So, lets turn the discussion to whether or not a smaller coach with one leather strap has a place in WDW. Can a Disney experience exist in a resort that departs from the Poly formula? All your arguments clearly point to that answer being a resounding NO!! ;).

I do believe that Walt would have made the 'mods' even better than they are. If they had 50 more square feet, queen beds, the parking lot was hidden............. could they be Disney? What would it take, or should that question never have been considered - do they not have a place?

Stop. Left turn signal on. Traffic clear? Proceed if you wish and think that the ensuing journey could be either entertaining or fruitful - and remember the joy is in the ride, not necessarily the destination. :)

'Made up my mind, to make a new start, I'm going to............'

Well, we sure won't be going to California on this board, and I do bet we'll end up with an aching in our head at least, but I'm game if you are...................

SnackyStacky
09-30-2002, 10:54 AM
Thus saith DisneyKidds:I've stayed in more hotels than I can count, all different kinds with all different levels of service, and I've come to prefer the amenities of a full service hotel. Guess what - there are other people who find themselves more comfortable not being in a full service hotel. In their opinion, the 'mods' would be the better hotel. So, it is differing preferences and opinions on what layout and level of service makes a hotel better. However, whichever type of hotel people settle on, it is capable of being a Disney experience when you add that which is unique to Disney - the themeing.

And thus saith Baron:I will not deny that this is possible. Which is why I want to go to such great lengths to define the basic, bare-bones minimum of a Disney resort. I want to strip away personal taste (theme) and history and just ask if the standard established when the WDW was built in the first place was maintained. Not if it should be maintained. That is an entirely different question. And one that we will get into once we
we established that the basics were trashed.

I think the TRUE crux of your arguments is that DisneyKidds is saying that the moderates are a Disney® experience. Baron is saying that the Polynesian is a Walt Disney experience. There is a not-so-fine line drawn between a Disney® experience, and a Walt Disney experience. Your disagreement stems from was it a good thing for Eisner to do that. Was it okay for Eisner and his crew to give people an experience that was less than Walt would have, and did want? I would have to say no becase all of these parks weren't Walt's BUSINESS. They were his dreams, his art, his craft, and his own blood, sweat, and tears realized into a place where everybody could share those dreams. He wasn't in it to turn a profit. He was in it for the sheer love of it.

I used this analogy once before in a different way, but I'll try it again. Focus on parks for a moment. Instead of the Polynesian, think of the Magic Kingdom. So we have the Magic Kingdom. And then there was Epcot. It was built by Walt's design, but I don't think that ANYBODY can say that Epcot is ANYTHING like the Magic Kingdom. It is a different park. The rides aren't the same, the THEME isn't the same, there's different buildings that come in MANY different shapes and sizes, but alas, it's Walt Disney. Do you see where I'm going with this? That disproves your theory, DisneyKidds, that it has to be EXACTLY the same to live up to the standard. Both are Walt Disney by design, and they couldn't be any more different.

Continuing, we get the Disney-MGM Studios. There's plenty of magic there, but upon opening, there are not so plentiful rides. Two rides to be exact. The park is dubbed a half-day park. Then, seven years later, ANOTHER park pops up. The Animal Kingdom. And now, there's ANOTHER park to visit for the other half of your Disney-MGM Studios day. They build these parks that are substantially less than the Magic Kingdom and Epcot, as well as building up admission. So now, if you want a park hopper pass, you have to pay exorbitant prices for the privelege of being able to use all 4 parks, even though all 4 parks are NOT equal. There is a Disney experience to be had in each one of those parks, but the 3rd and 4th parks are less. Don't believe me? Count the number of shows and attractions in each park.

The Disney way would have been to keep working on the THIRD park. Don't spend the money to build a 4th park. Use the money for that 4th park to make the 3rd park a complete experience, a full experience. Not less. Give them lots of rides, and shows, and magic until comes out of their ears. And then, wait many more years to build that 4th gate. And follow the same procedure. Lots of time, and careful planning to ensure that it comes out to the same standard as the Magic Kingdom. Not a Magic Kingdom clone with a different theme, but to follow the Magic Kingdom standards.

Now take that and apply it to the resorts. It fits perfectly. Because Eisner and company were in such a rush to get hotels opened (to turn a profit), you would experience that Disney magic, but it would be less.

I digress. Since you both agree that the moderates and all following hotels are less, SHOULD they have been built? DisneyKidds, it seems to me that you think that they should have been built. If I'm correct in that assumption, why? If I'm not, correct me, and tell me why. I am legitimately curious. I'm not trying to bait you.

As I said, it is not okay for the moderates and value hotels to be on property. The Disney-MGM Studios and Animal Kingdom should not have been built either. I think that a 3rd gate would be up by now if they hadn't done any of those things, but I think that that park would have blown away anything and EVERYTHING they've done up until now. There would also be more hotels. Not upwards of twenty, but maybe 10. If that. And they would all be equal to the calibre of the Polynesian. And they would be able to charge rates like the moderates go for now because they wouldn't have to make up for thousands of unfilled hotel rooms. Not to be a broken record, but the theme parks were Walt's dreams and visions realized. Eisner cheapened that. As an artist, to cheapen somebody else's work is the lowest of the low, and the nastiest of the nasty.

That's my $.25. It started out as $.02, but well, you saw what happened!

DisneyKidds
09-30-2002, 12:12 PM
Snacky, Snacky, Snacky....................

You write this stuff just so Baron will proclaim you as shotgun rider of the day, don't you? Come on, you must. He does pick a new one quite often and I'm sure your post will have him drooling ;).

I will stay away from the Disney vs. the Walt Disney experience question as it seems all will be best served if we move on to the second question you present, and I have been asking as well. Should the 'mods' have been built, do they have a place, and would WDW be better of with 3 parks and a handful of hotels, as opposed to what we have today. OK - so it is a few questions ;). Before we embark on that journey, a couple of notes.

First, Epcot was NOTHING like Walt envisioned. You can say that those who designed it stayed truer to his philosophy of quality volume, but other than that it is not Walts design. I have a few new books on the way from Barnes and Noble - so if I come to learn otherwise I will provide the obligatory mea culpa.

Second, I don't know that the theme park analogy can automatically be applied to resorts. The MK can never be as objective a standard for parks as the Poly is for resorts (as the Baron has presented), quality volume aside. All resorts have to share some similarities. Parks necessarily don't. Furthermore, take the Walts design aspect out of your analogy and you have this...
I don't think that ANYBODY can say that Epcot is ANYTHING like the Magic Kingdom. It is a different park. The rides aren't the same, the THEME isn't the same, there's different buildings that come in MANY different shapes and sizes, but alas, it's Disney.
Substitute Dixie Landings for Epcot and Poly for MK (and change park to resort, etc.) and the whole thing is right on when applied to resorts ;).

Third, the only apparent knock presented on MGM and AK is the quality volume aspect. Other than this, these parks are BETTER than Epcot, IMHO. I suppose we will be talking a lot more about that :crazy:.

So, on we go. Should the 'mods' have been built? Sure. Lets look at that Walt Disney experience, what it is he wanted to create, what all that blood, sweat, and tears was shed for. Yes he believed in quality. No, he didn't believe in compromise (unless forced). Those are some very admirable things, and to stick to them no matter what shows great resolve. That is why he was such a great man. However, I submit that that is not what he was truely all about. That was but a means to an end. This is your most significant quote..........
realized into a place where everybody could share those dreams. He wasn't in it to turn a profit. He was in it for the sheer love of it.
Love of what? Love of quality? No. Love of quantity? No. Love of anything tangible? No. The 'it' we are referring to is the lofty concept of creating a Magical place, better than anything that existed in his time, that families could go together and share his dream of bringing families closer together, giving them an experience that would enrich their lives and make them stronger as a result, his version of the American dream. That is something to love, that is something to create. That is the experience, all the other stuff is implementation.

So I honestly believe that Walt would have created something equivalent to the moderates. Why? Because he simply would have seen a need. A need to help a child whose parents couldn't afford the Poly, a need to create something that more families could enjoy, a need to make his real dream, his real love, available to more people. I have said it countless time, Walt would have done the 'mods' a little better. He would have found a way to get queen beds in and hide the parking lot if he found those methods of implementation still proved the best way to convey his real dream. Could he have extended this to something equivalent to the 'value' resorts? If anyone could have it would have been Walt.

So you might say that "there are plenty of people who can't afford even the 'values' ", to which I say that if Walt was at the head of a Company as large and successful, and profitable as Disney has been, he would have been a benefactor to many and found a way to extend his dream beyond anything we might imagine. Didn't Walt once open DL just for a certain group for nothing - I forget the details, maybe someone remembers the specifics or maybe I can dig them out if need be. Of course, that assumes he didn't just completely tire of the whole theme park/resort schtick and drop it all and move on to something else.

As for the parks it is hard to say what Walt would have done. Perhaps we would only have three parks, the third even grander than Epcot. However, bigger is not always better. The park issue gets even more subjective than the resort issue. We like the manageable size and intimate feel of MGM and AK. The wonderfully themed, full day parks are truely incredible. AK more so than MGM for our family. Sure, some things cold be better, but that doesn't discount these as a Disney experience.

As always, I'm sure I've created more questions than answers, so chew on that for a while Mr. Snacky................

HorizonsFan
09-30-2002, 02:04 PM
talk about it in a cold, logical and OBJECTIVE way
I think this is the major problem I have with your argument.
To talk about Disney resorts in a cold, logical and objective way is to remove the purpose for which they were intended. Disney resorts are designed to evoke a personal, emotional response.
To say that a moderate is not "Disney" because of some objective criteria, when it clearly evokes the response (experience) for which it was created is a contradiction. It's an entire package.
Once again, I will maintain that the mechanism is only a part of the entire experience. (I think this is the point Scoop was trying to make) We, as the audience supply the other part. I am guilty of going to live theatrical performances and spending a great deal of time analyzing how the mechanism works. In the course of my analysis, I tend to miss the emotional part of the show that the majority of the audience gets. As a result, I don't enjoy going to the theatre very much anymore. I have trouble willingly suspending my disbelief. I think Disney resorts are much the same. One has to allow themselves to be immersed. The Show is not a one-way proposition; it takes an actor AND an audience.
If one pays too much attention to the "man behind the curtain", one has to be prepared to lose some magic...
(I know what's coming now; LB will probably tell me that Disney should have made the curtain larger at the Mods so he COULDN'T see behind it. Sigh... Will this debate never end? :) )

DisneyKidds
09-30-2002, 02:17 PM
Good points HF :).
Sigh... Will this debate never end?
Who are you kidding? This is like that campy horror movie you just can't help but watch. You keep telling yourself you aren't going to watch anymore, yet you are drawn to it. You want the truth? You can't handle the truth - which is that you don't want it to end ;).

SnackyStacky
09-30-2002, 04:08 PM
I will stay away from the Disney vs. the Walt Disney experience question as it seems all will be best served if we move on to the second question you present, and I have been asking as well.

You really can’t ignore this because it’s the kind of thing that will reflect in ANY discussion that is had regarding ANYTHING like this. You and Baron are both speaking English, but talking in totally different languages. I think (I hope I’m not shoving words into someone’s mouth) that Baron is saying that you very well may find a Disney® experience, but not a Walt Disney experience. That seems to me to have been the debate all along and to which any further debate will return. I posed the question I did to move the debate on because neither one of you will change the others’ mind, but I think no matter which question is asked or which debate is posed, it will return to this.

First, Epcot was NOTHING like Walt envisioned. You can say that those who designed it stayed truer to his philosophy of quality volume, but other than that it is not Walts design. I have a few new books on the way from Barnes and Noble - so if I come to learn otherwise I will provide the obligatory mea culpa.

No need to admit mea culpa. You’re right. Walt’s vision was for an actual city, or so I’ve come to understand it. But in the wake of his death, the people that he left behind had worked with Walt and did the best that they could. Walt had left his handprint on each one of those WED Enterprise workers. (When did they become the Imagineers? Was it before or after Epcot?) So although it wasn’t Walt’s design, in a way it is because he had personally worked with the people who did design it.

Second, I don't know that the theme park analogy can automatically be applied to resorts. The MK can never be as objective a standard for parks as the Poly is for resorts (as the Baron has presented), quality volume aside. All resorts have to share some similarities. Parks necessarily don't.

Ah see, but necessarily, they do. If you’re building a theme park, the heart of that park is rides. If it were anything else, it might be a botanical gardens, or your run of the mill city park that can be visited anywhere in the country. The foundation of a theme park is a ride, and the foundation of a resort is a hotel room. You can expand beyond that however you want. And that expansion is the difference between Disney, and Six Flags, and Disney and the Holiday Inn.

Substitute Dixie Landings for Epcot and Poly for MK (and change park to resort, etc.) and the whole thing is right on when applied to resorts ;).

It’s ALMOST right on. Because Walt did have a hand in Epcot. It was not his design, as we have agreed upon, but he had a hand in it. He touched that. The whole idea although executed differently, was his. Walt didn’t have ANYTHING to do with Dixie Landingsin any way, shape, or form.

Third, the only apparent knock presented on MGM and AK is the quality volume aspect. Other than this, these parks are BETTER than Epcot, IMHO. I suppose we will be talking a lot more about that :crazy:.

First, I didn’t knock Animal Kingdom or MGM. Knocking them would be saying something like “Animal Kingdom is a horrible park.” I never said that. Leave YOUR opinion out for a second. Forget what you think and feel about those parks. Look at exactly what is THERE. Because it is less. We’re not talking about themeing here either. (COMPLETELY off topic, but isn’t it interesting how Word sees themeing as a misspelling? Am I spelling it wrong, or is that word something that Disney has created?) Strip away ALL of the themeing, and look at the rides and shows. MGM and Animal Kingdom come up with substantially less than do the Magic Kingdom or Epcot. AND, as you admit, the same problem is present within the moderates. They are less. Put the themeing back, and as I FREELY admitted, there is a Disney experience to be had, but it is LESS. That sounds familiar. It sounds like something you said about the moderates!

Love of what? Love of quality? No.

Hold it right there, friend. See the story about the reigns on the stagecoach and do dare TRY to reiterate that sentence with a straight face.

Love of quantity? No. Love of anything tangible? No. The 'it' we are referring to is the lofty concept of creating a Magical place, better than anything that existed in his time, that families could go together and share his dream of bringing families closer together, giving them an experience that would enrich their lives and make them stronger as a result, his version of the American dream. That is something to love, that is something to create. That is the experience, all the other stuff is implementation.

Nope. The ‘it’ we are referring to is art. The art of creating not only a theme park, but a vacation destination. Because Walt Disney was first, and foremost an artist. The love of his art is what I am referring to. And he crafted his art carefully.

So I honestly believe that Walt would have created something equivalent to the moderates. Why? Because he simply would have seen a need. A need to help a child whose parents couldn't afford the Poly, a need to create something that more families could enjoy, a need to make his real dream, his real love, available to more people.

Aha….herein lies a problem. The “afford” problem. Imagine for a moment that Disney didn’t have enough hotel rooms to equal ½ of all of the hotel rooms in New York City. Imagine also that someone who was focused on what Walt was focused on is holding the reins. POOF go the discount codes. POOF go the exorbitant room rates. In comes a hotel rate that is relatively comparable to what you can find off-property. Not as cheap, but comparable. Why? The only reason any hotel offers a discount is because they have rooms to fill. Unfilled rooms = lost profit. How do they make up for continual lost profit? Jack up the rates! Why else? If you’re Disney, it’s because Eisner says “We can do it, cause we’re Disney! We can charge these rates, and people will pay them!” And look. They do.

So you might say that "there are plenty of people who can't afford even the 'values' ",

Nope, I wouldn’t because $77 for a WALT Disney hotel would be a steal. An AMAZING steal! $77 for a Disney® hotel (specifically the All-Stars) is a rip-off by Walt’s own philosophy and standards. Plain and simple. How? Because currently there are off-property rooms that offer MORE than the All-Stars do, and cost less. That is totally the opposite of what Walt wanted. Would you be able to find a room at Disney World for off-property rates? No. They’d be more. The difference wouldn’t be exorbitant, but you would GET more for those extra dollars you were paying. And see that’s where I think the problem is with this ENTIRE discussion. You look only at what you’ve seen. I can’t say that I have seen anything of the original, 1971 Disney World. But I’ve read about it, seen it in pictures, and I love it. And it bothers me to think what it could have been had they stuck to Walt’s philosophy.

Of course, that assumes he didn't just completely tire of the whole theme park/resort schtick and drop it all and move on to something else.

Which I don’t doubt would have happened. But when he moved from movies to theme parks, he found the right people to take care of his movies. HE picked them. And he still oversaw them. Walt didn’t PICK Eisner. I seriously believe that he is rolling in his grave (or freezer, or whatever ;) ) over Eisner.

As for the parks it is hard to say what Walt would have done. Perhaps we would only have three parks, the third even grander than Epcot. However, bigger is not always better. The park issue gets even more subjective than the resort issue. We like the manageable size and intimate feel of MGM and AK. The wonderfully themed, full day parks are truely incredible. AK more so than MGM for our family. Sure, some things cold be better, but that doesn't discount these as a Disney experience.

STOP already with “I like” and “we like”s!!! It doesn’t matter. I LOVE Animal Kingdom too! I wasn’t saying that it shouldn’t exist because I think it’s a bad place. The fact remains that MGM and Animal Kingdom are both LESS. Fewer rides, attractions and shows=less. I’m saying that both MGM and Animal Kingdom shouldn’t exist because they should have taken the money (what is it? I’m going to guesstimate $600 million dollars for both) and built one COMPLETE park. Complete with both the themeing AND the rides, shows, and attractions. There lies the tie-in to the resorts. You admit that the moderates are less, but that there is a Disney experience to be had there. I contend the same thing about the parks, but once again, it’s disappointing when I think of what they COULD have been.

As always, I'm sure I've created more questions than answers, so chew on that for a while Mr. Snacky........

Answer my question without using expressions like “I like”, “I don’t like”, “I think” or “IMHO”. Based on what is in the park, backed with Walt’s philosophy should the moderates have been built? I know that you answered it, but answer it again without the expressions listed above.

I wait for your response.

DVC-Landbaron
09-30-2002, 05:38 PM
Just a couple of things. I really don’t have much to add because the wonderful and articulate Mr. Stacky has said it all. But, I can’t just sit by and let him do all the work. Especially when a good double team action can really bury Mr. Kidds!!! ;) So a like I said, a couple of thoughts.

Substitute Dixie Landings for Epcot and Poly for MK (and change park to resort, etc.) and the whole thing is right on when applied to resortsThat doesn’t work, Mr. Kidds. We have already agreed that Dixie Landings, while probably the best of the mods and very well done, is still LESS! EPCOT is not less of anything! Different!! Very, very different, but certainly not less!!

You see, Mr. Stacky is right. As right as right can be. I found it very hard to explain how things can be ‘different’ yet still be maintained within the Standards. I guess that’s because I’m on a par with Ei$ner. Not very creative!! He couldn’t do it with the “Mods” and neither could I!! You keep saying that Walt would have made it work. And for all I know, you may right. My gut says the same thing (after all, he made the Campgrounds work!!;)). But we aren’t talking about what could have been. We’re talking about what is. And the Mods are LESS. But, the example of the parks is perfect. And it shows the difference in philosophy.

EPCOT. Soooooo very different in feel, texture, theme, concept and everything else imaginable than the Magic Kingdom – YET(!) it is still Disney!! Undeniably Disney! A Disney – redefined – but still deeply entrenched in the wonderful, singular philosophy that Walt gave us! A two day park, right from the opening bell!!

Now let’s look at the Studios. Very nice. A slight variation of the Magic Kingdom and EPCOT. But really not very different. Nothing groundbreaking like EPCOT, that’s for sure. A VERY, VERY large EPCOT pavilion (it is, after all, the way it get started, you know). Nicely done. Well themed. But a stand-alone park? Especially when it opened? NO!!! Not even close! Instead it was… well… what would be a good word to use(?)… I know… it was – “LESS”!!! And for the same amount of money!! The only difference between the parks and the resorts is that Ei$ner didn’t outrageously raise the ticket price for the MK and EPCOT to delineate the difference!! Can you still have a good time in the studios? SURE!! Can it still be a “Disney experience”? SURE!! Can we all have a different subjective outlook about the place? SURE!! But overall and very objectively it is – LESS!!

Ditto for the resorts!!

Third, the only apparent knock presented on MGM and AK is the quality volume aspect. Other than this, these parks are BETTER than Epcot, IMHO. OH MY GOD!!! Why is it that you can’t remain OBJECTIVE!!! “IMHO”!!! My goodness how I hate that!! “BETTER than Epcot”. How? Where is the innovation? Where is the re-definition of theme park experience? Where is the grandeur? Where is the scale? Why all the subjectivity!!??!!

Now, EPCOT may not be your cup of tea, (IMHO) but I think everyone pretty much agrees that it was an extremely risky undertaking that was overwhelmingly groundbreaking! Where is that element in the Studios? And sadder, I think everyone agrees that it could have been there in AK, but alas, they stopped short once again!
I have said it countless time, Walt would have done the 'mods' a little better. He would have found a way to get queen beds in and hide the parking lot if he found those methods of implementation still proved the best way to convey his real dream. Could he have extended this to something equivalent to the 'value' resorts? If anyone could have it would have been Walt.Arrrrrrggggggghhhhhhh!!!!! SO WHAT!!!??? In case you haven’t noticed, he’s a little bit dead! And also for the “countless times”, Ei$ner wasn’t up to the task!!! So what we got was SUB-standard!! AND THAT’S NOT ACCEPTABLE!!!! And therefore should NOT have been built!!!

OK!! That’s all for now, Mr. Kidds. Except to say that EVERYTHING Mr. Stacky said about cost is absolutely true. It was one of the subjects I hadn’t addressed yet because I didn’t want to muddy the waters, but perhaps it serves to clarify the issue rather than cloud it. It’s all related anyway. Especially the way you think about a Disney resort and the business end of it. Remember, when there was a “smaller” and “homier” WDW, resorts were 99% booked, two years out, with NO discounts at all!!! (other than the Club Card, which were given away and anyone could get!) And NO advertising either!!

Dave,
To talk about Disney resorts in a cold, logical and objective way is to remove the purpose for which they were intended. Disney resorts are designed to evoke a personal, emotional response.Agreed!! But to compare the various flavors we have to have a base line. Some measure by which a Disney resort can be judged, without regard for theme and/or personal taste. Now, I don’t claim that it’s easy to do, but without such an attempt all of our conversation falls into a “Oh yes it is!! - Oh no it isn’t!!” type argument. And I’d rather avoid that if at all possible!!
Once again, I will maintain that the mechanism is only a part of the entire experience.Oh, I absolutely agree!! But we’re not talking about the ‘entire’ experience. We are talking nuts and bolts only. We are dissecting the experience. And I’m conceding (for this argument only) that theme and to a point “design” is a constant!! But what if that “mechanism” is sub-standard to begin with? What if the foundation is not up to par? That is what this whole discussion has been about!!
I know what's coming now; LB will probably tell me that Disney should have made the curtain larger at the Mods so he COULDN'T see behind it.You said it perfectly. There is nothing to add!! :bounce:

Captain Crook
09-30-2002, 05:39 PM
SnackyLandbaron, You guys keep telling us (mostly Mr. Kidds) to leave the "I like" and "we like" from the arguments but if we do that then we're arguing on your assumptions only... which we don't believe are correct and LB keeps giving us his "gut feelings".

First the Walt/strap story...All this proves is that Walt was a fanatical egotistical nut. Nobody ever dared disagree with Walt (and hope to keep their job). Talk about surrounding yourself with "yes men". The difference here is that Walt was a genius and people within that realm would take his crap in order to be around him. Eisner is no genius and no artist.

Walt had virtually nothing to do with our Epcot except for coining the name. End of story. He had just as much to do with the MGM-Disney Studios due to his being in the movie biz as he had to do with Epcot.

Now you go on to say that AK & MGM are "less". To who? Well, to you obviously but how can you state that as fact? Because it has less attractions? Fine. Then MK is just a joke too, because in comparison to DL (# of attractions) MK just falls way short...Yet you guys feel the MK is magical, don't you? Very strange twist don't cha think?

Back to the hotel debate, Snacky how is it you know what Walt would have wanted in a hotel experience? As Scoop would say you guys are giving the dead guy way to much credit with no foundation whatsoever. Walt would have hated our MK (he wouldn't build a clone), Walt would have hated Epcot (he wanted a real city- he was done with theme parks) & Walt never would have approved any of the rest of WDW...Unless he needed the money (hey, a lot like Mike). If Walt had survived I suspect DL would have been a real quality destination throughout (he would never have let it flounder) but after that who knows what direction the theme park business would have travelled.

Walt didn't have a hotel standard and neither did the company. They were going where no one had gone before. Some of it worked and some of it hasn't but Walt was invoved in none of it.

The moderates are Disney through and through. They give the complete Disney experieince with less hotel experience (for less money) and I see that as a positive thing...
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

DVC-Landbaron
09-30-2002, 06:10 PM
Talk about surrounding yourself with "yes men". The difference here is that Walt was a genius and people within that realm would take his crap in order to be around him. Eisner is no genius and no artist.Peter, you’re right!! Kind of that subtle difference between “Walt’s” Poly and Ei$ner’s Mods! A little difference, but really all the difference in the world!!

Walt had virtually nothing to do with our Epcot except for coining the name. End of story. Well, not quite! You really have to read that post from Mr. Stacky more carefully AND you need to brush up on your Walker/Miller era a bit! EPCOT was very much a “Walt” park. And if you knew your Disney history as well as you claim to, you’d know that!!

He had just as much to do with the MGM-Disney Studios due to his being in the movie biz as he had to do with Epcot.That’s just plain ridiculous!!! :crazy:

Then MK is just a joke too, because in comparison to DL (# of attractions) MK just falls way short...It is today, that’s for sure. Especially after it has been Ei$ner-ized!!

But, maybe you’re right!! We need to look at this closer!! MY GOD!! The Studios and AK may very well be even worse than I thought!!!! Thanks for pointing that out, my favorite Pirate!! ;)
Walt didn't have a hotel standard and neither did the company.You couldn’t be more wrong.

And now, from the guy who berated some of us for getting too ‘subjective’: The moderates are Disney through and through. They give the complete Disney experience with less hotel experience (for less money) and I see that as a positive thing...You know. I’ve read this passage at least twenty times now and I can’t find one single phrase that isn’t subjective!! Way to go Peter!!! That’s taking the high ground all right!!!! :jester:

Captain Crook
09-30-2002, 07:08 PM
An ending comment that is obviously opinion is certainly better than 16 pages of fact based on your personal interpruatation...

There's nothing wrong with my Disney history my dear Landbaron, and you know it. Walt never had one gleaming moment of thought toward making Epcot a theme park. It was going to be the city of tomorrow. A living & working community...And you know that, too.

I don't see your 'Eisner's mod's vs. Walt's Poly' at all. Are you still saying Walt's Poly is superior to Eisner's Animal Kingdom Lodge? Bawhahahahahaha. With the Mod's Eisner did exactly what Walt always strived to do at the orginal DL...In fact he maybe gave more. He gave families on a smaller budget a place to go, feel safe & feel completely and utterly immersed in the surroundings that they most likely feel most comfortable in. Hey, I love the nice Disney hotels but you know I'd feel very out of place at a Ritz Carlton...I'm very happy there are other options. Don't you think these people who aren't comfortable with the 'high life' deserve Disney too? Or do they only deserve "less Disney?"

The Disney Company under Walt had a hotel standard? Please tell me what it is...Or do I need to look at the Poly again? :rolleyes:

Further, you suggest I need to brush up on my Miller/
Walkr era history? Oh yes, the duo so inept that they had to bring Eisner in as the savior!!! I know you've somehow convinced yourself that these clowns were somehow better than Eisner, but what did they do that wasn't already scripted by Walt(in form or in history) and bounced off Roy? And they still screwed the pooch. Actually LB, I think you need to read more of the non-sanctioned Walt chronicals to see the light a little more clearly...

:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

HorizonsFan
09-30-2002, 07:52 PM
But we’re not talking about the ‘entire’ experience. We are talking nuts and bolts only. We are dissecting the experience.
One can't dissect the experience if one doesn't start with the entire experience. Biology students wouldn't learn much about frogs if they only dissected the lower half!
The Disney resorts are designed to evoke a response. A subjective, emotional response. To only examine the mechanism without the response is looking at half the picture. Would you take your car to mechanic who, upon only looking at the engine pronounced it fixed? No, you would expect him to start it up and find out if it runs.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating...
A resort that has Disney theming, Disney CM's and creates a Disney experience for its guests is worthy of being at WDW, whether you can see the parking lot or not.

SnackyStacky
09-30-2002, 08:55 PM
There's nothing wrong with my Disney history my dear Landbaron, and you know it. Walt never had one gleaming moment of thought toward making Epcot a theme park. It was going to be the city of tomorrow. A living & working community...And you know that, too.

One problem. Walt died. In the end, it doesn’t matter whether or not Walt had influence on Epcot (I’m not conceding that you’re right…I’m just moving on to the heart of my point in bringing Epcot into the discussion). The point is that Epcot is something that is on par with the Magic Kingdom. To which you say:

Now you go on to say that AK & MGM are "less". To who? Well, to you obviously but how can you state that as fact? Because it has less attractions? Fine. Then MK is just a joke too, because in comparison to DL (# of attractions) MK just falls way short...Yet you guys feel the MK is magical, don't you? Very strange twist don't cha think?

I don’t know the figures of attraction counts at the parks, but okay. I’ll assume you’re right. Disney World has 43 square miles of space upon which to put those attractions. Disneyland doesn’t have that. You can’t look at a current attraction/attraction count because things have become so morphed that it’s pointless to try and compare the two. If you want an accurate point of reference, count up the attractions that Disneyland had in 1955, and count up the attractions that the Magic Kingdom had in 1971. There’s a more accurate count. And just to reiterate:

I LOVE Animal Kingdom too!

I will fully admit that the Animal Kingdom is a Disney experience. I said that. Twice. But what it could have been. What it could have been we’ll never know because they decided it needed to built and opened in 1998. Instead of waiting, they decided to build the park piece by piece after opening. Or, in the case of the MGM Studios, racing to open before a cross-town rival, and having just two attractions when you open.

I don't see your 'Eisner's mod's vs. Walt's Poly' at all. Are you still saying Walt's Poly is superior to Eisner's Animal Kingdom Lodge? Bawhahahahahaha. With the Mod's Eisner did exactly what Walt always strived to do at the orginal DL...In fact he maybe gave more. He gave families on a smaller budget a place to go, feel safe & feel completely and utterly immersed in the surroundings that they most likely feel most comfortable in.

You’ve completely ignored a huge bulk of what I previously stated. If they hadn’t opened so many hotels, they wouldn’t have tons of rooms to fill – rooms that CAN’T be filled, and in order to compensate for those unfilled rooms, they wouldn’t have had to jack up the rates. And that’s fact. Not fact with personal interpretation, but fact. And if you need more proof of that, look at Pop Century. Oh wait, you can’t. Because it hasn’t opened yet because – I’ll say it again – Eisner bit off more than he could chew and built a new resort with rooms that can’t be filled; can’t be filled to the point that the opening had to be postponed how long?

Hey, I love the nice Disney hotels but you know I'd feel very out of place at a Ritz Carlton...I'm very happy there are other options. Don't you think these people who aren't comfortable with the 'high life' deserve Disney too? Or do they only deserve "less Disney?"

Ritz-Carlton: You need a blazer to walk in the lobby. Disney hotels: walk around in shorts and a T-Shirt. When did the Disney hotels come on par with the Ritz-Carlton? (in terms other than price) The only time that these hotels became upscale was when there were other hotel “classes” added that shoved the Polynesian into a catergory called “deluxe”.

DVC-Landbaron
09-30-2002, 09:39 PM
Ritz-Carlton: You need a blazer to walk in the lobby. Disney hotels: walk around in shorts and a T-Shirt. When did the Disney hotels come on par with the Ritz-Carlton? (in terms other than price) The only time that these hotels became upscale was when there were other hotel “classes” added that shoved the Polynesian into a catergory called “deluxe”.The LandBaron rises and cheers wildly!!! :bounce:

BRAVO!!! WELL SAID!!!

Captain Crook
09-30-2002, 09:48 PM
Mr. SS, I never said the Ritz was comparable to Disney deluxes, I made a personal analogy that while I like nice hotels I would feel very uncomfortable at the Ritz level, despite the fact that my wallet could handle the occasional Ritz price-tag, the analogy was that while Disney deluxes offer a great deal to their particular niche there are still many, many people who PREFER not only the lower price tag of a motel-like resort but appreciate the lack of certain amenities that could perhaps be discomforting to some (i.e bellmen, valets, fancy lobby's, etc.).

As for the DL vs. Mk issue, this is huge in respect that often MGM & AK are criticized for not living up to the standard of MK, yet the MK has (if I'm not mistaken) some 40% fewer attractions than DL. MGM, Epcot, AK & DCA can't be considered as we're discussing the original standard, right? If AK fails to meet the test of the MK, then how can the MK's failure to meet the test of DL be excluded?

Where did the "I love Animal Kingdom too" quote come from? Just curious.

On to your point about too many rooms. I didn't respond because I don't see how this relates to whether the mods are 'totally Disney' or not, which is my argument. I see the problem Disney has with too many rooms but it seems like just the times. I mean they were full a couple of years ago & it wouldn't seem prudent to not fill the need. Who could predict the myriad of events that caused Disney's attendance decline, not denying Disney's own significant role in the problem with its less than stirling management decisions...Maybe Mr. Kidds Or Mr. Horizon's Fan will want to respond to this further...
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

DVC-Landbaron
09-30-2002, 10:28 PM
Dave,

An interesting point. And one that I can sure play with. HOWEVER, I could not play that game with Mr. Kidds or Scoop!! For them the Mods are the be all and end all. The definitive Disney experience. On a par, or dare we say, even better than some of the other resorts, INCLUDING the originals. Or at least it appeared that way to me.

And today that very well may be the case. I know that they have let the Contemporary atrophy beyond what I would call reasonable. Perhaps many feel the same way about the Poly. So in order to take that subjectivity out of the question, in order to eliminate personal taste, we had to dissect it a bit. I wanted to try and explain to them what a Disney experience was when the Vacation Kingdom was first conceived. And how that ‘experience’ has degenerated over the years. Again, you may disagree with what they thought was important, but that isn’t the point. So:
A resort that has Disney theming, Disney CM's and creates a Disney experience for its guests is worthy of being at WDW, whether you can see the parking lot or not.This sentence alone convinces me that you need a bit of education about the ‘good-old-days’. This was one heck of an important aspect to the whole ‘theme’ concept. They built a berm around Disneyland for this express purpose. Now, YOU may not consider it important, but it is one of the founding principles of the Disney philosophy!!

I clearly remember a time when even glimpsing a backstage area was STRICTLY FORBIDDEN!!! Not so today. And so I try to relate how wonderful an experience that type of thinking was. To NEVER see a tradesman, even in the hotels, during the day. To NEVER see a construction site from even the road. To NEVER see the parking lot (OK, the tower of the Contemporary would be a bit of a stretch, but I think you get the point)!! To NEVER even see plywood hiding a construction area (they were very careful to theme even the construction site). I just want them to understand what it was like. They may choose to ignore it. Or hold to concepts, like Ei$ner, that efficiency SHOULD come before SHOW. Or that it just isn’t important, let the vacuums roar!!! I really don’t care. I just want them to KNOW that there was a difference!!

But what I get is that the Mods are “the same” as the Poly!! Or that the Floridian is the Standard!! Or worse, “does it really matter if you can see the parking lot if it costs a few bucks less?” That, perhaps, is the worst one of all. Cause it shows just how far the SHOW has fallen. Cost for magic. Or, pay more and get more magic. As if it were a commodity. Since when is this a Disney concept!?!?

The Disney resorts are designed to evoke a response. A subjective, emotional response. To only examine the mechanism without the response is looking at half the picture.Dave, I couldn’t agree more. But let me ask you a question. What would you say to a room that is on an equal with the absolute worst motel you can imagine. Cheap beds. A bathroom you can hardly turn around in. No TV. Anyway, you get my point. Now dazzle up the rest of the hotel with Disney “Stuff”. Decorate or theme the heck out of it. Is that acceptable? I mean, does it ALL come down to theme?

That’s what I’m trying to get at. Theme is theme. And there’s no denying that Disney does theme GREAT!! So let’s stipulate to it. It’s a given. Where does that leave us? Ah! With some bare-bones minimum STANDARDS to which we can judge the differences.

And I’ll put it to you the same way as I put it to Mr. Kidds. The year is 1968. You are the Imagineer that is charged with writing the scope and/or specs for what will become the Poly. OK, young hot-shot!! Show us your stuff!! The page is blank and YOU get to fill it. What are you going to do? How big SHOULD a Disney room be and is it important to the Show or the experience? What size bed and is it important to the Show or the experience? How many dressers and is it important to the Show or the experience? How many drawers and is it important to the Show or the experience? Color TV (1968 remember) and is it important to the Show or the experience? Outside corridors and is it important to the Show or the experience? What about rental rates and is it important to the Show or the experience? SHOULD you see a parking lot and is it important to the Show or the experience? Do we do a turn down service and is it important to the Show or the experience? What about check in, how do we handle it and is it important to the Show or the experience? Should there be a restaurant and is it important to the Show or the experience? What about a food court and is it important to the Show or the experience? Should there be suites and is it important to the Show or the experience? What about the pools and is it important to the Show or the experience? Should there be a lobby and is it important to the Show or the experience? What about elevators and is it important to the Show or the experience? Transportation and is it important to the Show or the experience? How about a free daily paper and is it important to the Show or the experience? Disney soap and is it important to the Show or the experience? Room service and is it important to the Show or the experience?

In other words - Just what in the world DEFINES a Disney Resort Experience, other than theme!??

I think that these are questions Ei$ner DIDN’T ask, but should have. He seems to have worried about theme only. And in the end he even threw that out the window (All-Stars anyone?).

DVC-Landbaron
09-30-2002, 10:37 PM
Scoop,

I knew you were at WDW so I took my time with this. I wanted it to be fresh and at the top of the thread when you returned!! I hope the delay hasn’t caused you any emotional stress!! ;)
...First, Baron, when I referred to the "objectivity" of myself and Disney business I refer to all those macro and micro threads as well as the service and goods oriented threads.But I question how accurate that analysis really is. After all, you claim to be very UN-observant when visiting WDW and you totally disregard comparisons and/or evaluations, thus refusing to contrast different aspects of the SHOW even from the perspective of your living room well after the trip has been made. After all, as you are so fond of pointing out, that’s what I do. While I’m there I HAVE A BALL!! But upon reflection, a week or so after the trip, I start to evaluate, measure and appraise all things in that special World of Disney. And that cold, objective and, for the most part, logical analysis leads me to certain obvious conclusions. Conclusions which I reached several years ago, utilizing this process, regarding Ei$ner and his disregard for the “Walt” philosophy, that are finally proving absolutely correct!! When I started this “deliberate contemplation” I was a voice in the wilderness. Today, if I’m not careful, I run the risk of losing my driver’s seat in good old car #3!! But you, as stated in previous posts, don’t do that “analytical thing”. No contrast and compare on the Scoop vacation!! So how can you be objective when it comes to anything regarding WDW? Or did I read your posts wrong?

You see, my WDW "history" is recent enough that I'm not beholden (prejudiced by?) any previous regime experiences.Oh, I don’t think so. Why is it that I can be “beholden (prejudiced by?)” my first experience and you can’t be? The answer, of course, is that you are!! You are “beholden (prejudiced by?)” the Ei$ner regime. What is commonly referred to around here as Disney®. And there’s nothing wrong with that. In fact the very next paragraph of yours states it explicitly!!
but in the end, EVERYONE always looks at the past in a more selective focus than the present. I mean its human nature.You’re right. EVERYONE!! Including you! It’s just that your past is a little more recent than mine. But you still have it! Remember Mr. And Mrs. Scoop in the All-Stars!! If that’s not emotional, rosy-ness then nothing is!!

However, this does leave you lacking. No matter how you slice it, you don’t have the perspective, or the experience, to truly KNOW. The best you can do is “deliberately contemplate” what it must have been like in the beginning of WDW. But as stated earlier, you don’t even do that!! So, from what perspective are you coming from? Are you the one that tells me that Wings has “just as much” magic as the Beatles, only in a different way? Or that the excitement level of a Wings concert is “the same” as a Beatles concert? It sounds that way to me.

Humans have been given a gift which allows us to much more readily remember the good experiences than the bad. Sure, that gift ends up causing some of that rose-coloredness but it is a wonderful gift anyway. Very wonderful.Yep! That’s why it takes real diligence and very “deliberate contemplation” to truly discriminate between fact and “the-good-old-days” syndrome. Which is why I try to stick to philosophical issues. And I try to leave personal prejudice and rosy experiences out of the equation. It’s hard and I don’t succeed every time, but Ei$ner is such an easy target that it really doesn’t take that much discipline!! ;)
And as for the second point, I'll just have to raise my hands in agreement when you say I'm looking at my WDW vacation experiences emotionally rather than logically. To borrow a very fitting phrase from my good friend Mr. Kidds: ‘nuff said!!
On vacation, it's all about me and the Scoop clan. Selfish? Maybe if I was talking about charity work. But, not on vacation. And, again, you've admitted as much the same. When you take your July sojourns, you too are overcome by the Dust.Absolutely!! But I really can’t understand how this precludes any reflective thought process a month down the road after you’ve dusted off the DUST! That analytical eye can certainly be turned on once the Visa is paid off and the snow is falling on your Tennessee Street! Can’t it? :rolleyes:

Of course that would mean you’d have to leave your personal and emotional experiences behind you and look at things a little more objectively. Something you’d rather not do, I’m sure, especially in this particular instance. You’d rather argue from an ‘experience’ perspective and respond emotionally. And I understand. There is very little I can counter with except, “Well, it works for you so, God Bless!!” But if we take the subjectivity away… Alas! A game you won’t play!! :(

HorizonsFan
09-30-2002, 11:05 PM
And I’ll put it to you the same way as I put it to Mr. Kidds. The year is 1968. You are the Imagineer that is charged with writing the scope and/or specs for what will become the Poly. OK, young hot-shot!! Show us your stuff!! The page is blank and YOU get to fill it. What are you going to do? How big SHOULD a Disney room be and is it important to the Show or the experience? What size bed and is it important to the Show or the experience?... (edited to save some HDD space!) ... How about a free daily paper and is it important to the Show or the experience? Disney soap and is it important to the Show or the experience? Room service and is it important to the Show or the experience?
All of these things contribute to the Show and the experience. I still assert that all of these things need not be present for the Show and the experience to happen, and happen well, and be "Disney through and through".
There are balcony seats in most theatres that cost less than orchestra. Why is that? Because people can spend less money and see the same show. They're happy, the people in the orchestra seats are happy and the producers are happy. Why is that wrong?
Because of my mom's illness, we had to reschedule our trip at the last minute and split our stay last summer.
For the first three nights of my trip, I had a Boardwalk view. It was amazing.
For the last seven nights of my trip, I had a Mansion room at POR. It was amazing.
I had an equally Disney experience at both resorts. I was in the orchestra for three nights and in the balcony for the rest of the stay, but the Show never waivered. (And I'm being as objective as I can possibly be while totally immersed in Disney magic!)

DVC-Landbaron
09-30-2002, 11:37 PM
God!! I like talking to you Mr. Fans!! It’s different! And that’s no slam on the others, I just like fresh ideas once in a while. Lord knows the opposition probably gets tired of me and welcomes SS (I like that better than Mr. Stacky) or Sir Raider! Anyway, of course, you’re wrong!! ;) And here’s why!!

All of these things contribute to the Show and the experience. I still assert that all of these things need not be present for the Show and the experience to happen, and happen well, and be "Disney through and through".RIGHT!! I’m with you!! BUT!!! How many need to go before we can safely say that it is no longer Disney? One? Two? Ten? Are they equally important? Do they become trade off items? And why would any of them have to go in the first place? Just consider this while you read on.
There are balcony seats in most theatres that cost less than orchestra. Why is that? Because people can spend less money and see the same show. They're happy, the people in the orchestra seats are happy and the producers are happy. Why is that wrong?Not at all! That is why I NEVER had a problem with Disney charging more money within the same resort. You had three distinct classes right off the bat. Lagoon view (orchestra seats), Pool view (mezzanine, I suppose) and garden view (balcony seats). Notice that there was NOT a parking lot view!! This theater was built WITHOUT a second balcony!! And you even had a certain number of box seats (suites). But they were ALL for the same show!! The same costumes, make-up, lighting, direction, script, acting, stars, music, musicians, choreographer, dancers, staging, sets, etc. THE SAME SHOW!!!

Where I think we part company is the definition of that show BECAUSE of the elements in paragraph one! The script is the same. The Music Man has the EXACT words and music for Broadway as it is for the local dinner theater. But the production is quite different! Could it be that the Poly is Broadway, primarily due to the stated items and the Mods are Dinner theater? Or at least off-Broadway? And that leaves the All-Stars as your local amateur production, with Pop Century as your local high school producton! Isn’t THAT more close to the mark?

DisneyKidds
10-01-2002, 09:52 AM
Whew! A busy night. :crazy: In order I guess - you first Snacky.

You present quite the oxymoron ;). You take some things way too far, while not going far enough on others. Let’s discuss.....

First where you go too far.
Strip away ALL of the themeing, and look at the rides and shows. MGM and Animal Kingdom come up with substantially less than do the Magic Kingdom or Epcot.
This is the biggest problem with the LarryBaronSnackStack line of thought. You go way too far in dissecting something that can't be dissected. Or, if you find a way to dissect it you study the wrong anatomy. You simply can't do this. That is what HF is pointing out. A Disney theme park experience is not about just the rides. Anyone can do rides, even great ones. It is just as much the park that those rides are contained in that makes Disney 'Disney'. What makes YOU think that rides are the core defining element of a THEME park, especially a Disney THEME park? You talk like we are just supposed to accept that. The pot and the kettle have to come out of the cupboard as your assumption is just as subjective as anything else around here :eek:. Agreed, the rides themselves, the mechanisms are not subjective - they are cold steel. However, the decision that the rides represent the core standard for the theme parks is very subjective. It is the same problem with the resort discussion. At least the DKPeterCrookFan camp is not afraid to use words like 'I'. You leave the word out and assume something is a given (YOUR opinion) that is not a given at all.

Try this out. Sit back from the screen. Take a deep breath. OK, another. Close your eyes and say these words. THEME PARK. Say it again, THEME PARK. A few more times - THEME PARK, THEME PARK, THEME PARK. OK, now tell me, what makes a THEME park a THEME park? Yes, it is THEME!!! Rides fit into a theme park, but it is THEME that differentiates it from an amusement park. So this statement........
If you’re building a theme park, the heart of that park is rides.
..........is completely wrong. Walt invented the THEME park for the very distinct purpose of being different than an amusement park. Sure, he wanted to put new, better, innovative, quality rides and shows into that THEME park, but it is THEME that is central, not rides.

Now where you don't go far enough.
The ‘it’ we are referring to is art. The art of creating not only a theme park, but a vacation destination. Because Walt Disney was first, and foremost an artist. The love of his art is what I am referring to. And he crafted his art carefully.
OK, let’s agree that he loved art. He was an art appreciator. He did craft that art carefully. Fine. So you are saying that he created theme park art for the sake of art? He created artful theme parks so he would have something to look at? He created them for others to appreciate, like a picture on a wall? No. Take it a bit further. It doesn't even have to be conceptual thought. Walt said it himself - he created DL because he wanted to create a place that families could enjoy together. A place that was better than anything that existed at the time. That was his driving force in the theme park - not art itself. Sure, he made the parks artful, art was key in the implementation. However, they were about more than simply expressing his love for art.

As for you and Baron harping on cost/price, you are wrong. Go back just a few years and the 'mods' were just as full as any other hotel, without any additional discounts. Sure, now there are too many hotels rooms, partly due to overbuilding (a lot), and partly due to market conditions (a little). However, that sure wasn't the case 10 years ago. Furthermore, an excess of inventory today has nothing to do with the subject at hand – the resort experience. As far as price, we can go around on that again, but I don't believe the prices are as exorbitant as you would have people believe. Are you implying that the Poly should be $77? Let me know so I can determine just how deluded you really are ;) :crazy:.

As for answering your question without the word 'I', consider this. Do you honestly believe, because you don't type the letter, that every single thing you have written is nothing more than what you think, your opinion :confused: :rolleyes:. Don't fool yourself my friend ;). Saying white is white is fact, black is black is fact. However saying that rides are the core defining element of a Disney park is not fact. Saying that the Poly specs represent the core defining element of a Disney resort is not fact. These are ‘I think’ and ‘I believe’ opinions. Yes, you may point to something you believe provides the basis for said opinion, but that doesn’t make it so. Just because you don’t use the phrases ‘I think’ and ‘I believe’ doesn’t change what they are. So go back and read my answer. I state what I think – and that is all any of us are doing. That doesn’t represent subjective judgment like you are alluding to. As a matter of fact, I readily acknowledge when I make a subjective ‘I like’ statement.

OK, more than a page and I have only responded to one post. Get comfortable folks!! ;)

OK, on to Barn……………

Especially when a good double team action can really bury Mr. Kidds!!!
Bring it on pal/s. My ship has come in over the horizon. The Pirate :cool:, Captain ;), and HF :smooth: have shown up for the smack down tag team match ;).
EPCOT is not less of anything! Different!! Very, very different, but certainly not less!!
Do we need to join in with Snacky and issue subjective opinion alerts? Sure, it is as big as MK, sure it has as many rides………..well, no it doesn’t. It is innovative (but so is AK). But other than that………I won’t go subjective, but let’s just say Epcot is more to some and less to others – and we can say that objectively. After all, Epcot doesn’t have nearly the number of rides for kids as does the MK. One could say that, if the MK is the standard, parks should be measured up to the ratio of kids to adult rides and that ratio should be maintained. Nothing subjective about that – at least not any more subjective than your definition of standard. So, despite the fact that Epcot is objectively “less” in at least one way (and trust me – we could find more), I can accept Epcot as pure, unadulterated Disney. I can see it all, and evaluate accordingly, not clouded by what I have so made myself believe to be indisputable fact, things which are not necessarily facts at all.
A two day park, right from the opening bell!!
Combine this with your queen beds and 409 sq. ft. room and it becomes more and more apparent that the Pirate was not far off when he concluded that size is perhaps the most important factor in ‘Disney’ :rolleyes:.

Now for the LB self created oxymoron, which is not really an oxymoron at all and is subconsciously how the Baron really feels…………….
Can it still be a “Disney experience”? SURE!! Can we all have a different subjective outlook about the place? SURE!! But overall and very objectively it is – LESS!!
For arguments sake let’s agree that MGM is less. Objectively it is less in some ways, but it is also more in others. After all, we can go back further than the MK and DL to truly define the Walt Standard. He endeavored to create a place that the whole family could enjoy together. That is very much realized in DL and the MK. It really is not, to anywhere near the same degree, in Epcot. That Standard is more apparent in MGM. However, the key in this quote is that you readily admit that something can be ‘less’ and still be a ‘Disney experience’ (and it is no coincidence that Baron didn’t use the trademark thingie ;)).
Ditto for the resorts!!
OH MY GOD!!! Why is it that you can’t remain OBJECTIVE!!! “IMHO”!!!
Note to Baron – read comments to Snacky above ;).

As for AK better than Epcot…. Well, objectively (or at least as objective as you are) the theme is better, more all encompassing, more ‘time and place’. It is an innovative take on a combination theme park/zoo (what was that someone said about overwhelmingly groundbreaking?) While it may be smaller and have less rides/shows/attractions, it has a better mix of rides/shows/attractions for the whole family to enjoy together – the whole reason Walt got into the theme park business in the first place. I could go on, but where AK is less, it makes up for it by being more in other ways. After all, a few people have said it is ok for something to be ‘less’ in some ways so long ‘more’ is given in others. AK certainly has grandeur. If you don’t agree with that at least agree that grandeur is in the eye of the beholder. AK doesn’t have scale, but I have said before – bigger is not always better.
In case you haven’t noticed, he’s a little bit dead!
So the clock stops and the World freezes and everything that is created that is not a rethemed version of what existed at time of death is off limits?
But we’re not talking about the ‘entire’ experience.
Well, that is sure where we started, and where we should be, but you are subjectively choosing which pieces of the dissected frog we can do a post mortem on :rolleyes:.

OK – what’s next?

SNACKY SUBJECTIVE ALERT, SNACKY SUBJECTIVE ALERT, SNACKY SUBJECTIVE ALERT.
The point is that Epcot is something that is on par with the Magic Kingdom.
In some ways yes, in other ways no. On the whole……., oh wait, we can’t look at it on the whole – we need to look at the objective nuts and bolts ;).
If they hadn’t opened so many hotels, they wouldn’t have tons of rooms to fill – rooms that CAN’T be filled, and in order to compensate for those unfilled rooms, they wouldn’t have had to jack up the rates. And that’s fact.
Fact :confused: Even if it were fact today, it wasn’t ten years ago. Furthermore, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the experience. Wait, YOUR experience is ruined because YOU decree, I mean think, that the resorts are ‘exorbitantly priced’ :rolleyes:.

Pirate…………
Maybe Mr. Kidds Or Mr. Horizon's Fan will want to respond to this further.
Hard to say more than you did. However, I did touch on it a bit ;).

Baron………………if this is how you are going to play, I am out :rolleyes:.
For them the Mods are the be all and end all. The definitive Disney experience.
But what I get is that the Mods are “the same” as the Poly!! Or that the Floridian is the Standard!!

I never said any of these things :rolleyes:. There is no be all, end all. There is a defining element, but not a definitive experience. YOU want to make it that way. Nothing is the ‘same’, everything is different. ‘Less’, ‘more’, ’same’, ‘different’, :crazy: they are all Disney. I throw out some hypotheticals to point out how someone could come to a mistaken conclusion (ie. GF) and you come back with this cra……garbage :rolleyes:.
Again, you may disagree with what they thought was important
No, perhaps disagree with the single set of those few things YOU chose as what they thought was important, while ignoring all the rest.
This sentence alone convinces me that you need a bit of education about the ‘good-old-days’.
Whatever would we do if we didn’t have the good-old-Baron to educate us? :crazy:

Wait……………now I see it!! Eureka!!! 12, not 10 dresser drawers and HDTV – that is what Disney should be today :rolleyes:.
However, this does leave you lacking. No matter how you slice it, you don’t have the perspective, or the experience, to truly KNOW. The best you can do is “deliberately contemplate” what it must have been like in the beginning of WDW.
And out cometh the true nature of the beast. The Disney superiority complex. The ‘I know and you don’t’ line of discussion and debate. Sheesh – I’d much rather stick to ‘I like/I don’t like’ stuff. At least it provides for interesting banter. You leave us without any real option for discussion :(.
Are you the one that tells me that Wings has “just as much” magic as the Beatles, only in a different way? Or that the excitement level of a Wings concert is “the same” as a Beatles concert?
Well, if you dissect it enough and look at how the cords are struck, and how the vocal cords reverberate, sure – it has just as much magic. Wait, can we not do that with music like we do with parks and resorts :confused: Furthermore, the added excitement of the Beatles concert had a whole lot less to do with the music itself than it did with the hysteria the music created. That hysteria can never be recreated, but quality music can still be produced.

At once, Baron is the man of fact and philosophy. Well, philosophy, by definition, is learning exclusive of technical precepts and practical arts, the analysis of the grounds of and concepts expressing fundamental beliefs, the theory underlying or regarding a sphere of activity or thought. Pretty subjective, huh? Fact has very little place in philosophy. Philosophy is very much interpretation and belief. Given that the sphere of activity you analyze ended 30+ years ago, you can keep your good old days. The world is a dynamic place my friend.

Nuf…………Nah, you can keep the line :wave:.

DisneyKidds
10-01-2002, 10:02 AM
Originally posted by HorizonsFan
All of these things contribute to the Show and the experience. I still assert that all of these things need not be present for the Show and the experience to happen, and happen well, and be "Disney through and through".
There are balcony seats in most theatres that cost less than orchestra. Why is that? Because people can spend less money and see the same show. They're happy, the people in the orchestra seats are happy and the producers are happy. Why is that wrong?
Because of my mom's illness, we had to reschedule our trip at the last minute and split our stay last summer.
For the first three nights of my trip, I had a Boardwalk view. It was amazing.
For the last seven nights of my trip, I had a Mansion room at POR. It was amazing.
I had an equally Disney experience at both resorts. I was in the orchestra for three nights and in the balcony for the rest of the stay, but the Show never waivered. (And I'm being as objective as I can possibly be while totally immersed in Disney magic!)

I'll pull a Baron..................

GREAT POST!!!!! :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:
Nuff said!!!!!!!!!

DVC-Landbaron
10-01-2002, 04:33 PM
Originally posted by DisneyKidds
I'll pull a Baron..................

GREAT POST!!!!! :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:
Nuff said!!!!!!!!! Yep! 'nuff is 'nuff!