New dress code [Archive] - The DIS Discussion Forums

raidermatt

08-11-2005, 03:07 PM

I'm guessing the "Party for the Senses" is some kind of special deal. I agree that code sounds rigoshdarndiculous for WDW, but I'd like to hear more about what it is first.

As for the rules in general...

I understand not allowing these:
...torn clothing, swimsuits or swimsuit coverups... tank tops

The rest, however...
flip flops...hats... and t-shirts.
... is taking things a little too seriously, given the overall environment. Flip flops are no longer viewed as slum shoes by many and hats and t-shirts covers way too much ground for the restaurants in question, again, given the overall environment.

I agree with Pete, seems to be a lot about nothing. Are that many people really showing up in torn shorts and wife beaters at the California Grill? Or string bikinis at Jiko?

From a practical pov, is Disney really going to turn away a family who has one member wearing flip flops with their sun dress, or a clean Mickey Mouse t-shirt with their Dockers shorts?

My guess is they just want to post the code to ensure that most people dress reasonably, and they have no intention of turning anyone away unless its a "grevious" offense.

Me personally? The only things on that list I'd even consider wearing to those restaurants are the flip flops and a t-shirt, but that's just me. And I have no desire to have Disney start telling anybody else they can't wear something just because I wouldn't wear it there. In fact, if the ladies want to start wearing bikinis to the restaurants, I enthusiastically support their decision. ;)

FrozenTundra

08-11-2005, 03:25 PM

Party for the Senses is a dining experience held on Saturday evenings during the F&W. It starts with reserve seating for the 5:30 Eat to the Beat concert followed by an evening of appetizer size portions of gourmet delights & various wines. Starts at 6:30, ends at 9:00 with I believe special viewing area for Illuminations. It's held in the old Millenium Village building. Price is $95.00 pp.

Peter Pirate

08-11-2005, 03:26 PM

I'll support the bikini's too, Matt... ...Damn, I picked the wrong day to give up being a perv. :teeth:

I agree with not allowing the torn and the wretched, but a $40.00 Mickey T-Shirt that you bought at WDW earlier that day? And shorts? Who in Florida wants to wear anthing else during the six months of summer???

Pirate

raidermatt

08-11-2005, 03:39 PM

Nice, Pete. Any Airplane reference is a good one.

Scoop, "interesting concept". If it really involves any tangible changes to make that happen, I think its a mistake. But if its just a case of people feeling that a restaurant is more of an "experience" because it has a posted dress code, even if not strictly enforced, then ok, I guess. They deserve to be separated from their money.

cdtommie

08-11-2005, 04:16 PM

Tundra, what's 'Party For the Senses'? They said no shorts? This is ridiculous.

As for the code, it seems senseless to me. They are filling these places to capacity as it is what is the incentive? If I'm on vacation and I'm at the Park in a Disney T-shirt, shorts and tennis shoes why are they expecting me to go back to my room and change?

Peter, when we booked PFTS they said nothing about no shorts (I'm wearing shorts like I have the past four years)...it's the same "business casual" rule that applies to the restaurants mentioned. We also booked the Spirited Ball and were told "business casual".

FrozenTundra

08-11-2005, 04:48 PM

Hmmmm.... wonder why we were told what we were told then. I know I didn't misunderstand her because I wrote it all down and even joked with her that now my DW will want to buy a new party dress for the event.

Well, we'd rather go over-dressed then under-dressed so it looks like she's still getting the dress.

cdtommie

08-11-2005, 05:01 PM

It could possibly be one C/M's interpretation of business casual. No shorts would inconsistent with the "better" restaurant dress code.

raidermatt

08-11-2005, 05:17 PM

Not to further complicate things, but "business casual" rarely means shorts are ok.

"Resort casual" is usually more in line with what was posted at the beginning of the thread.

Guess that's why they listed specific no-no's.

cdtommie

08-11-2005, 05:46 PM

The real definition of business casual would eliminate any type of shorts from these restaurants. I don't think this is Disney's intention. I could understand this logic in northern states but not in the heat of Florida.

mitros

08-11-2005, 05:58 PM

OK, The mouseplanet article states that the restaurants are defining "business casual" as dress shorts, pants, jean pants, collared shirts, blouses and sweaters. So, I guess the only determination of "business casual" that counts is the one that Disney wants. Now, wheather they are going to enforce it, well, time will tell.

raidermatt

08-11-2005, 06:26 PM

People are on vacation at a theme park resort in frequently oppresive heat and humidity. The majority of them either don't want to deal with anything above regular casual dress, or at the least understand that some around them won't want to deal with it.

After all, if someone is going to go to Jiko, pay $50 for a bottle of wine and $30 for each entree, then they should be able to expect a less casual situation...
Its already a less casual situation, its just that someone might have to see somebody else in less than "business casual" attire.

Again, just posting the dress code will likely raise the level of dress among the guests at these restaurants.

Enforcing it as posted, however, would be a mistake. This is far different situation than NYC.

Besides, nobody is stopping anybody from getting dressed up for these restaurants. Many people do get dressed up, and very few people come in looking like slobs. Its the forcing of the issue to the point of banning all t-shirts, flip flops, etc, that would be the mistake.

Peter Pirate

08-11-2005, 06:37 PM

Good post Matt...Gee, we've been agreeing quite a lot lately!

I can't understand the whole "dressed is best" idea...I always thought it was what's inside that = class...After all, to look at me you might THINK I was a Key's derilict, but those who know me KNOW it's true...meaning sometimes looks aren't deceiving (point???)...But while it's true that I may be a stumbling Key's rumdrinker with my Jimmy Buffett T, Key West flip flops and face that see's a razor once a week whether I need it or not, the fact is I have the $ to go to these restaurants, I have the pallete to appreciate but I don't have the tie or shoes to please some...Besides if they say I can't wear shorts I might just decide to not wear them and that'll really get folks talkin'.

Now, just how incoherrent was that? Top it friends!
:rotfl2:

FrozenTundra

08-11-2005, 06:53 PM

An Atlantic City casino - The Tropicana - opened an indoor area called "The Quarter". It is casual-to-upscale dining,botique & specialty shops, strolling area that gives to feeling of being outdoors in Havana.

They have imposed a business casual dress code for Fri-Sat nights only. They are the first casino to have a dress code for public areas other then their signature restaurants. So far public opinion has been split but the other casinos are hoping it will be successfull because they want to do the same thing, but were afraid to be the first to try.

raidermatt

08-11-2005, 07:34 PM

Not sure if it will work or not, but I definitely thing it has a better chance of working in AC or Vegas. More adult-oriented locale, more people looking to impress.

I'm not saying its inappropriate to do this ANYWHERE, just that they need to be careful if they want to move in this direction at WDW.

To Pete's point, even if he did find the rum stores this afternoon, WDW is a more casual atmosphere than most places, though the disposable income is certainly still there. Force people to start packing clothes that they wouldn't have wanted to bring in the first place, or to take an extra hour to go back to their rooms before or after dinner, and I think you're asking for trouble. Meaning they will (A) simply pass on the restaurant, and (B) feel that things have become a little more restrictive in general.

Yes, the required "dressy" atmosphere works in most cities, but then you look at places like Hawaii, and only the highest end restaurants don't allow shorts. I'm thinking WDW is more akin to HI than NYC or SF when it comes to atmosphere.

You don't suppose that the attempt to make the "experience less casual" has anything to do with attempting to increase margins? Or do we really think this is in response to a flood of guest complaints about bums like me and Pete?

Peter Pirate

08-11-2005, 07:53 PM

I'll bet they are looking at specifying their demographic even further (as you said, Matt). I'm sure they're thinking if they can fill the joints with the 'real' classy folks they'll be able to increase the bill with less notice. Even though I can afford these things I'm not the typical 'big spender' and I'll bet they're courting this avenue...Flirting with disaster is more like it.

renknt

08-12-2005, 02:53 AM

I wonder if I could get in wearing my Kilt? it sure cooler than a pair of pants

and dressier (no pun) than shorts.

raidermatt

08-12-2005, 03:00 AM

Just curious... how do you figure less than 2%? That's 8 dining options (including V&A's), and there aren't more than 400 on-property options are there?

Regardless, in all honesty I've only eaten at one of those 8 myself (CG). But we have eaten at a few that are in that same realm a few times, like Shula's, Bistro de Paris, and Fulton's. We go to WDW less often, but usually for two weeks, or there abouts. We'll generally eat at maybe 2 or 3 of those per trip, and were thinking of maybe Jiko or Narcoossees for the next time.

We really don't mind the dress code as posted, provided tank tops means the generic tank tops worn by men, as opposed to the dressier tank tops worn by women. When we eat at those places, we usually do it on a golf day, or water park day, or something like that, when we are coming back to the room anyway.

But by the same token, we do occasionally see somebody in walking shorts and a t-shirt, and I think its absurd to even think of turning someone wearing that away from these restaurants, with the exception of V&A's. But I'm not that worried about it, because I'm pretty sure these restaurants already had these dress codes (I know Shula's and Fulton's did, and Bistro has a "no tank tops" policy), and this is just some kind of "reminder". I would honestly be shocked if its a true change in policy.

pouncingpluto

08-12-2005, 08:51 AM

Could this be a way of making them less welcoming to children and more welcoming to adult couples and other parties of adults?

As a young couple without children who enjoy getting dressed up for a romantic evening while on vacation, we welcome the change... I think WDW needs a few quieter, more upscale options... they certainly have the decor and the food in place... this is the last step.

There are *so* many casual, family-friendly, fun places to eat at WDW that I just don't think it's hurting anyone to have a few places that cater to a different demographic.

crusader

08-12-2005, 09:17 AM

A few wouldn't be 7. This is a stupid outdated concept. It discriminates against just about every female who lives in today's style of flipflops and tanks. Next thing you know they'll ban braids.

Keep this nonsense on the cruise lines and in one or two restaurants on property at a certain time if need be - but whomever is in charge of this seriously needs to have their occupation reassessed.

They've segregated the family unit - nobody's daughters can join them for dinner at the better resort dining choices anymore.

Peter Pirate

08-12-2005, 09:40 AM

Hi crusader! Long time no...Whatever...

Great post. If applied to the letter our 16 year old daughter will never be eating with us.

As for your comments pouncing, I understand where you're coming from but this is WDW. This isn't Manhatten or San Francisco, this isn't Beverly Hills...It's a resort and I do not wish to be shuffled off to some family friendly restaraunt because I'm dining with kids. I enjoy fine dining, as does my wife and both of our children. WDW is for everyone and shouldn't be exclusionary to anyone...
pirate:

crusader

08-12-2005, 10:12 AM

Absolutely.

What gets me is where this "genius" came up with the idea that Manhattan had a better dress code? Having just visited two days ago, I can assure you, the women are sporting skirts, double layer tanks, mardi gras beads and flipflops.

Even more importantly is that our kids don't like to be dictated to when it comes to fashion or protocol. (the over 21 club especially) They're who Disney needs to look at in terms of the that future dining patron. Discriminate now and they'll boycott forever.

Hey my son stopped cutting his hair this summer and having looked around, I'm noticing that neither is anybody else's teenage kid. Heck some of them aren't even showering. I guess they're next to be denied access to Flying Fish. No 60's hair allowed on premises!

pouncingpluto

08-12-2005, 10:32 AM

I say 7 is just a few in the context of a resort as large as WDW with so many dining options.

Sorry, I just don't have a lot of sympathy for teenagers who want to dress casually all the time. Just because it's the "style" doesn't mean it's appropriate in nice restaurants.

pouncingpluto

08-12-2005, 10:39 AM

When you were teenagers, didn't you have nicer clothes for special occasions or church or a nice evening out, in addition to your clothes that followed whatever fads were of the moment?

crusader

08-12-2005, 10:55 AM

My 20 something yr old daughter who just wore a long cotton skirt and sleeveless shell top to a multi 7 figure upscale wedding at a 5+ Southern Cal Beach community resort which dictated a cocktail attire dress code, was more in fashion and fresh looking than any of us stiffs and so were the majority of young prominent women in her age group there.

They'll wear what they want, how they want and where they want and they won't care about some outdated rule being enforced by some old fart with the archaic prejudiced idea of what a standard should be having little or no regard to today's fashion industry.

If old hollywood can get hip what the heck is Disney's problem?

Equidae

08-12-2005, 10:57 AM

Long haired hippies need not apply, eh?

I for one think it's a great idea that they are having a dress code of sorts. I've been eating at some of these locations and I while I have always dressed nice, others don't and it really takes away from the ambience (ahem, theme) of the place. And a cotton skirt and sleavless blouse is fine, I think. That fits in with no swimsuits, jeans, etc.

WDW is a family place, but they also market themselves to adults and couples (just look at the wedding department -- many of the weddings are adults only. Not exactly kid friendly there!). Also, some of the food in the more upscale resturaunts just isn't for children. I don't see too many kids truly enjoying the dining at Jiko's, for instance (is there a kids menu? I can't remember). There are so many options for kids and families, it isn't a bad thing to reach out to the older crowd. Disney is for everyone, old and young alike, and diversity in dining options should reflect that. No, this isn't a place like New York City or what have you, but what is really so bad about it? These resturaunts are almost always full so I don't think a boycot will happen (come on, really? Disney survived many boycots over things far more important than dress code). Yes, there are many kids that won't follow the rules, but that is their loss for being stubborn. It sucks, but life is about jumping though hoops (how many of us work someplace where we follow some sort of dress code? Teenagers work at McDonalds in a uniform, it isn't the end of the world). Heck, pick up a fashion magazine. What we wear is dictated to you by someone else. But I digress.

Plus, I think the whole point is that people aren't coming from the pool or sweaty from the parks. Who wants to enjoy an expesive meal and have to smell someone at the next table? It's just common courtesy.

DancingBear

08-12-2005, 11:05 AM

It may not be 2%, but there are probably a couple hundred dining options in WDW, and obviously Jiko has a much lower capacity and turnover rate than, say, Boma, or a counter-service place in MK, so we're not talking about a lot of places.

Also, we're not talking about requiring a coat and tie.

And I expect that actual practice will mitigate any negative effects. Disney isn't in the business of throwing out well-behaving families because the 15-year old girl is wearing flip-flops. Other than Palo, the dress code on the cruise is now clearly "suggested dress", and not enforced.

I'm sure many of the guests in these places feel like Equidae, so this will enhance their experience. Also, sometimes folks actually like a little guidance, and you might get your kid to wear jeans and an polo shirt instead of whatever.

crusader

08-12-2005, 11:14 AM

Well, there are all sorts of things about humans that detract from the ambience at restaurants. Do you really think a pair of sneakers over flipflops makes a difference to your experience when you're seated next to an obnoxious idiot?

Or what about all the social prejudice out there? Isn't this dress code just another form of that? Why stop at a spaghetti strap tank? Let's consider everyone's ambience and include - No alcoholics; No tattoos; No leather; No body piercing; No mental illness; and especially No ugly or scary looking people who don't fit our personal standard of what would constitute a deterrant to that stuck up fine dining experience we all savor at a theme park.

Equidae

08-12-2005, 11:27 AM

You know Crusade, if you take such offence to the policy (which, as pointed out, isn't that big a change. We are still talking about clothes you can buy on sale at WalMart), then maybe you shouldn't be dining at these locations. Just a thought. I wouldn't want your family to be split up or anything. Please go to WDW and have a great time with your family. That's what its all about anyway. Those of us that understand the concept of appropriate dress will dine at these resturaunts and we will have a great time too. It's a win/win, right?

Dressing well doesn't mask a jerk. There are always jerks. But at least these jerks understand about dressing for the occasion. It isn't social prejudice on the resturaunt's part if they are just asking for some deceny and only ask that you wear nice clothes (again, something available at WalMart or Target).

Peter Pirate

08-12-2005, 11:31 AM

Aahhheemmm...I have a problem with V&A's standard...I am very consistent and do not feel jackets should be required at any WDW restaurant...I do not complain about V&A's much as their style and the prospect of a 12 hour meal doesn't thrill me...And even with the diferent standard V&A's is only one locale and it is the only true gourmet restauant on property as well as the highest rated, so ocaasionally exceptions can be made...But FF for example, at the crossroads of The Studios and Epcot, they will not do well with anything less than a park attire requirement.

Jiko, Artist Point...Aren't we supposed to lost in Africa or the great Northwest at these establishments. Do we think many folks 'dress' for dinner whilst on safari?
pirate:

crusader

08-12-2005, 11:35 AM

Scoop I think you can take the "several" group which applies to NYC and proportionately compare it to Disney. I suspect you'll find the magnificent 7 to far outnumber the big apple in this regard.

Now consider these restaurants aren't even of the same caliber - why the heck are we trying to compare them for? Are you saying the price tag is going up - the menu is being revamped and world renowned chefs are being flown in and interviewed as we speak at WDW? Last time I checked the majority of restaurants were rated upper-mediocre in quality/price not 5 star.

And no, I don't have a problem with V & A. It's always been that way. If Disney were to design and open a similar restaurant and have two or three on property to accomodate guests who like that sort of thing - fine.

But to mandate that at places I frequent wearing a t-shirt and jeans with no problem in the past now requires I wear certain attire because I detracted from somebody's ambience? - that's complete b:s. They should leave - not me.

cdtommie

08-12-2005, 11:48 AM

[QUOTE=thedscoop]"Nobody seems to have much problem with the V&A requirements. These new ones don't even approach those in reality. But, they do ensure that guests who enjoy a slightly less casual evening have a few additional options.

Actually, I do. I have no plans to pack a jacket and tie to go to Disney, ever. If they allowed a sportshirt and slacks we probably would have been to V&A's several times already. There is a very nice french restaurant near us that requires a jacket...we only go there once or twice a year. We would go a lot more often with a reasonable dress code.

YepsenCP

08-12-2005, 12:21 PM

I rather like the dress code idea. No reason that just because you're on vaca or at WDW you should not dress appropriately for a nice dinner. Stay classy Walt Disney...

crusader

08-12-2005, 12:29 PM

Is it really totally unfair to ask guests to go put on a nicer pair of shorts and collared golf shirt for a restaurant that holds itself out as a fine dining experience and, in doing so, attracts many guests looking for that type of experience?

Not if the experience is truly "fine dining". That implies service. If you want me to wear a collar, provide the service. Don't simply take the sit down resort restaurants with psuedo-better fare offerings - the majority of which don't rate above a B- or C+ in most travel books - and decide a pair of sneakers makes a difference over a pair of flipflops.

Maybe this is a sublimal attempt to convince the guest that "dress shorts" somehow make the food and service better at a restaurant without actually changing a darn thing except increasing the price. (which is the only reason I can even fathom for this stupidity)

crusader

08-12-2005, 01:02 PM

If the majority of these restaurants were actually providing a true fine dining experience then I'd revisit the issue. They're not. All the ratings are doing is stating the obvious - that the quality of the food and service don't measure up.

And think about it. Disney isn't mandating business casual here for a reason. There's no fine dining involved. Short of a shoes and shirt policy, I see no sound argument as to how flipflops and collarless shirts would adversely affect a guests experience more than sneakers and a hawaiian shirt.

FrozenTundra

08-12-2005, 01:03 PM

Couple of thoughts.

First, a steak house like Yatchsman attracts a much different clientele then the Ponderosa out on International Drive. I would imagine a family that is used to dining in a restaurant that sells a ribeye for $42.00 is used too and accepts dress codes without giving it a minutes thought. It's common sense or at least common knowledge that you wear different clothing to a fine dining restaurant then you would to a stuff-yo-gut buffet.

Second, since when did teenage girls start ruling the world ? They will wear whatever it is their parents let them get away with wearing - which is one reason I scratch my head a lot and wonder what a father is thinking when his DD leaves the house each day. Mom,Dad.... if she tries to wear Pecos Bill dining cloths to Yatchsman, don't be afraid to tell her to change her cloths. When she starts paying for the meals herself, then she can be the boss.

Third, dining at a place Yatchsman should also be a learning experience for kids. I guess I'm old-fashioned but kids need to know there is a difference between Yatchsman and Chef Mickey. Kids need to learn the social graces that will be required of them as adults and knowing how to dress properly for a special occassions is one of those life lessons.

That said, IMO Disney will not turn anyone away because of how they are dressed. Disney probably has seen a trend of people dressing down for restaurants like Yatchsman and the signage is a gentle reminder of what they'd like it to be.

Peter Pirate

08-12-2005, 01:30 PM

I disagree with my friend crusader and side with my friend scoop on the issue of quality...Many of the WDW chef's are know throughout the world and the quality at most of these that we're talking about is very high.

Yepsen, I think you just inferred that I'm classes and that isn't appreciated.

Who's the aribitor of what's acceptable dress...Well, of course it'll be the restaurant ultimately, but I see no reason to eliminate shorts, jeans or flip flops (since they are the fashion rage)...I can be swayed on T's but my earlier point about the recently purchased $40.00 Disney T stands...Does Disney really want to exclude this guest? pirate:

DisneyKidds

08-12-2005, 01:35 PM

As a young couple without children who enjoy getting dressed up for a romantic evening while on vacation, we welcome the change... I think WDW needs a few quieter, more upscale options... they certainly have the decor and the food in place... this is the last step.
Ah......what do DINKs like you know ;). (only kidding.....only kidding)

The only thing I'd disagree with in this whole dress code thread, if it were true, which I'm sure it is not, is 'no shorts'. In the tropical heat and humidity of the central Florida swampland this would be absurd. All the rest is probably just a restatement of what was already in place, but largely unenforced. Will they enforce it more now? Who knows........but it probably won't make much of any difference to very many people.

Scoop....one note on your NYC observations, and how they might correlate to WDW. Yes, there are very many restaurants in NYC that cater to a business clientelle. That is far different from the countless other establishments that cater to the majority. I think that vast majority of people in NYC is more akin to the crowd you'll find occupying 99% of the seats at WDW eating establishments. Oh, and FWIW, when we went out for luch today the ratio of females in tank tops and short skirts to anyone in a sportcoat or suit jacket was 95 to 1......or maybe 100 to 0........well, I actually didn't see any sportcoats or suit jackets.......but maybe all those tank tops had something to do with that.......but I digress.

Really, there is a business/convention contingent at WDW, but hardly a large enough one to fill the establishments we are talking about. So going to a true upscale dress code will never make sense for WDW. Other than V&A you will never see anything more restrictive than 'smart resort casual', and that leaves a lot of room for interpretation.

No matter what dress codes Disney institutes I will never, NEVER, pack anything longer than a pair of Bermuda shorts for a summertime vacation.

DancingBear

08-12-2005, 01:41 PM

Or what about all the social prejudice out there? Isn't this dress code just another form of that?

Nope. You telling me there are folks who can afford to eat at Cali Grill that don't have clothes that meet these minimal requirements? Or maybe the prices at Cali Grill themselves are an example of social prejudice?

DancingBear

08-12-2005, 01:45 PM

They should leave - not me.

Right. Because it is entirely reasonable for you to inflict your standards on others, but entirely unreasonable for any standards (even minimal ones) to be imposed upon you.

Peter Pirate

08-12-2005, 01:51 PM

Well DB, although I can meet the minimal standards of nice shorts, polo shirt and nice tennis shoes for the majority of these standards I could not pass muster at V&A's...My wallet could get in but my shabby *** clothes will keep me at the rum bar with scoop & gcurling...
pirate:

DisneyKidds

08-12-2005, 01:55 PM

Believe it or not, there is a small but still significant type of guest that brings dress up clothes to WDW for that "one special evening". Also, many of the patrons at Disney's signature category restaurants are locals out for a dressed-up evening.
Oh, I believe it and I agree. That being said, there will never be enough of them to fill the restaurants we are talking about from the original post. So for the types of places listed in the original post I just don't see it happening.

Does WDW need another Empress Room type experience once again to go along with V&A? Sure, I can see them adding another dining experience like this, but it won't be at one of the existing restaurants as configured. Maybe they take one, close it and remodel and give another place to have that quiet expensive meal. I have no problem with that.

DancingBear

08-12-2005, 01:57 PM

Not if the experience is truly "fine dining". That implies service. If you want me to wear a collar, provide the service. Don't simply take the sit down resort restaurants with psuedo-better fare offerings - the majority of which don't rate above a B- or C+ in most travel books - and decide a pair of sneakers makes a difference over a pair of flipflops.

Three Disney restaurants have been named among the top 5 restaurants in Orlando according to the most recent edition of the Zagat Survey of Best American Restaurants. The three Disney restaurants awarded this culinary distinction are Victoria & Albert's at Disney's Grand Floridian Resort & Spa, the California Grill atop Disney's Contemporary Resort, and The Flying Fish Café at Disney's BoardWalk Resort.

http://disneyworld.disney.go.com/dwm/info/pressRelease/detail?name=WhatsNewPRDetailPage

Peter Pirate

08-12-2005, 02:15 PM

Well, this has been an enjoyable discussion, quite unlike the old days despite the familiar names!

I'm off to WDW now, where I'll be dining at The California Grill at 9:00 this evening...In my speedo and half shirt...Hope nobody minds.
pirate:

FrozenTundra

08-12-2005, 02:18 PM

Just be sure to shave your naval first.

crusader

08-12-2005, 02:20 PM

Yeah my standards are the end all. Comeon! Context please, counselor if nothing else!!!!

If this code has been in effect all along and simply relaxed to allow t-shirts, tanks etc. then why bring it up now?

Frozen Tundra's point is pretty valid - an expensive dinner only resort restaurant will for the most part automatically have patrons wearing their better casual clothing It shouldn't matter if someone is let in with some "illegal" attire that doesn't look any worse than the rest of the clientele otherwise.

Oh and you're right Mr. Pirate. I should have elaborated. It's not that the quality is bad, it's that the ratings take into account all factors compared to the prices being charged. Disney is inflated in pricing on many menu items yet doesn't always provide the upscale service we would receive in a similar priced dining setting and this hurts them overall.

Nope. You telling me there are folks who can afford to eat at Cali Grill that don't have clothes that meet these minimal requirements? Or maybe the prices at Cali Grill themselves are an example of social prejudice? .

I'm saying you can't convince me a flip flop looks worse than a worn sneaker. For women, it's a pretty big part of today's summer fashion footwear. How is making her put on a certain type of shoe not discriminatory? It's really a ratio of 90 to 10 here in terms of who'd be wearing this particular item so it's hard to argue that you're not targeting them for the most part in this example. Tank tops can also be equally weighted against women who love to wear them with a skirt and show off their feet in a pair of flip flops.

So Joe Blo gets in with his sneaks he cuts the grass with and a pair of magnum PI shorts and a hawaiian shirt with a bikini babe on it, but Suzy has to wear a sandal with a slight heel and a church lady blouse with her skirt. That's not discriminatory?

raidermatt

08-12-2005, 02:29 PM

I've never understood the idea that having somebody at the next table who isn't dressed as nice as you somehow detracts from your "experience". If they are well-groomed, clean, and well-behaved, and somehow that means you can't have a romantic meal with your spouse, well, all I can say is that's a shame.

Beyond that, I can't buy into the discriminatory thing either, though I agree in concept that if there is any kind of material change going on here, its a bad idea.

500 options? Ok, so we're counting churro carts and I really don't think a churro is a viable alternative to a sit-down dinner. As good as the Nestle Tollhouse Chocolate Chip Cookie Ice Cream Sandwiches are, even I can't approve of having that for dinner.

So let's be realistic and just included sit-down and counter service, and that's why the 2% isn't a practical number to use. And if we want to really be accurate, we're only talking about sit-down dining options, and now this really is becoming a significant percentage.

Again, this isn't likely to affect me personally in anyway, because I've never gone to any of the restaurants on that list, or any other comparable place on property, in less than walking shorts, non-flip flop sandals, and a collared shirt (usually an Aloha shirt, btw, frequently quite loud). So this isn't coming from any personal aversion to meeting that kind of dress code.

Its just that WDW is not the place for it. Its a bad, and yes, exclusionary move to expand it. The people who want to dress up are going and dressing up anyway. Those who might want to wear flip flops or a clean t-shirt will now likely not go, and also feel like this isn't quite the type of resort they thought it was.

And again, on the subject of t-shirts and tank tops, I think some need to take a quick trip to the ladies' department at Macy's, Nordstrom, or another upscale department store and see what falls into this category.

Kids need to learn the social graces that will be required of them as adults and knowing how to dress properly for a special occassions is one of those life lessons.

Having dinner at the hotel restaurant in WDW isn't all that special an occasion. We're talking about families that are on vacation and probably spent most of their day in a theme park in hot and humid conditions. For most, this isn't the type of "special occasion" to which you are referring. Besides, having a dress code like the one listed isn't going to accomplish anything in this area anyway. If the parents aren't teaching their kids the proper way to behave in restaurants, its folly to think this will actually change that. That rampaging 3-year old will now just be doing it in their sneakers instead of flip flops.

You aren't going to significantly change the culture at WDW or its restaurants just by posting this rather minimal, but still more restrictive dress code. I'm sure Disney knows that. If they don't, then they really are clueless.

raidermatt

08-12-2005, 02:33 PM

So Joe Blo gets in with his sneaks he cuts the grass with and a pair of magnum PI shorts and a hawaiian shirt with a bikini babe on it, but Suzy has to wear a sandal with a slight heel and a church lady blouse with her skirt. That's not discriminatory?

Well said, though I'm still not sure discriminatory is the right word. Regardless, the example highlights the absurdity in thinking this policy is actually going to make your experience "finer", and that it will actually materially change what people are wearing to these restaurants.

DancingBear

08-12-2005, 03:02 PM

In practice, no 16 yo girl wearing a fashionable tank top or flip-flops going to CA Grill with her well-groomed and well-behaved family is going to be denied service at any of these places.

Disney is using a very common practice of having a stated dress code to create some marginal upgrading of the atmosphere in these particular restaurants. Whether you personally understand it or not, the experience of others in the restaurants are affected, at least somewhat, by your dressing choices.

There is nothing wrong with Disney adopting a minimally more stringent dress code to attempt to make the atmosphere more pleasant for these other guests.

You can always pick apart any dress code at the margins. An office dress code might say no denim, but of course my secretary might have a denim skirt that in fact is much nicer than my worn out khakis. That's where reasonable enforcement of the code comes in. But at least there is some guideline for folks.

I'm sure at least part of the motivation is to stem the downward trend, which is something not limited to Disney. Many restaurants are facing this issue, because they have at least some guests who are negatively affected by the dressing habits of others.

Probably it also gives Disney an excuse to selectively enforce and point to an "objective standard" to turn away folks who might actually be objectionable more for their behavior. It's easier to say "I'm sorry, but we don't allow flip-flops here" than "I'm sorry, but we don't approve of your cursing at the top of your lungs at your children who are swinging from the chandeliers."

DancingBear

08-12-2005, 03:05 PM

- an expensive dinner only resort restaurant will for the most part automatically have patrons wearing their better casual clothing

I think the "problem" is that while this assumption may have been true at some point in the past, it is becoming less and less valid.

FrozenTundra

08-12-2005, 04:01 PM

Having dinner at the hotel restaurant in WDW isn't all that special an occasion. We're talking about families that are on vacation and probably spent most of their day in a theme park in hot and humid conditions. For most, this isn't the type of "special occasion" to which you are referring. Besides, having a dress code like the one listed isn't going to accomplish anything in this area anyway. If the parents aren't teaching their kids the proper way to behave in restaurants, its folly to think this will actually change that. That rampaging 3-year old will now just be doing it in their sneakers instead of flip flops.

I disagree. After spending days and nights in theme parks eating churos, turkey legs & sliders, wearing tee shirts & swim trunks, a night out in an upscale restaurant is a special occassion. IMO the fact that it's in WDW makes it more special. When DS & DD start to whine because that can't wear the same cloths they've had on for a week, Mom and Dad need to explain why it is proper to dress appropriately.

FrozenTundra

08-12-2005, 04:05 PM

As good as the Nestle Tollhouse Chocolate Chip Cookie Ice Cream Sandwiches are, even I can't approve of having that for dinner.

You can if you pay $18.95 for it and have a glass of chardonnay with it.

raidermatt

08-12-2005, 06:34 PM

After spending days and nights in theme parks eating churos, turkey legs & sliders, wearing tee shirts & swim trunks, a night out in an upscale restaurant is a special occassion.

For some, sure. For many its not. At least not a "dress-up" special occasion.

DB, the problem with selective enforcement is that invariably, somebody being turned away for a t-shirt will spot somebody in a t-shirt not turned away. Now, you are open to accusations of discrimination, even if that wasn't the intent. Not to mention the "fun" position the CM has been put into.

Whether you personally understand it or not, the experience of others in the restaurants are affected, at least somewhat, by your dressing choices.

I misstated. I understand it perfectly. I was semi-politely pointing out how shallow that kind of thinking is, but since you called me on it, there it is. There are places where it makes good business sense to cater to this kind of thinking, and if that's what a business chooses to do, that's their right. It's just that WDW isn't one of those places.

And again, if those who are truly concerned about the borderline offenders really think this is going to fix that, I'm afraid they're going to have to go right on having their experience negatively affected. Turning away swimsuits and such has always been an option, and from comments posted on other threads, its always happened. Disney simply isn't going to turn away somebody who is otherwise well-groomed but wearing a Mickey Mouse t-shirt or flip flops.

You can if you pay $18.95 for it and have a glass of chardonnay with it.
Well, if somehow this really is a material change in policy on Disney's part, I'm afraid you might be much closer to the intent than many would like to believe.

crusader

08-12-2005, 07:19 PM

Well, I pretty much agree with Matt 100% here. Very well said.

This especially:

DB, the problem with selective enforcement is that invariably, somebody being turned away for a t-shirt will spot somebody in a t-shirt not turned away. Now, you are open to accusations of discrimination, even if that wasn't the intent. Not to mention the "fun" position the CM has been put into.

Which is an excellent point. This information is now in the public domain which means the policy management will be monitored online. So where does Disney intend to draw the line here?

Can somebody clarify for me if this has always been the policy and it's just now being made an issue?

When DS & DD start to whine because that can't wear the same cloths they've had on for a week, Mom and Dad need to explain why it is proper to dress appropriately

That's all well and good for an adolescent on down.

But what about that whole demographic of young working class adults soon to become the next generation of family who will strongly buck this system if imposed on them now? They'll go elsewhere with a pretty determined conviction. Is this really the message Disney wants to deliver?

mitros

08-12-2005, 07:51 PM

Ain't it great having a debate w/o the debate board? Debate board, we don't need no stinking debate board! :teeth:

FrozenTundra

08-12-2005, 09:06 PM

My point Crusader is that parents can't let a whole generation go uninformed about the proper protocol that is expected at fine dining locations or other social graces we all take for granted.

IMO there is signage out now at Yatchsman and other locations because parents have been too lax.

----" But what about that whole demographic of young working class adults soon to become the next generation of family who will strongly buck this system if imposed on them now? They'll go elsewhere with a pretty determined conviction. Is this really the message Disney wants to deliver?"----
Confusing first sentence, let me see if I understand it correctly: The kids aren't adults yet, but when they are -and then have kids - they won't subject their kids to the standards their parents forced on them ? Sorry, but that logic has been used for generations and applies to every aspect of raising a child & in most cases these new parents realize their parents weren't so dumb after all. You do need to brush your teeth. Peas really are good for you. And sometimes you need to put on your Sunday best to go out to dinner.

We all know that Disney is never going to turn away some young guy or gal for not dressing appropriately. But someday they may be terribly embarrassed when they are turned away from a restaurant that doesn't just recommend a certain attiare, they demand it.

raidermatt

08-12-2005, 09:18 PM

Sorry, but that logic has been used for generations and applies to every aspect of raising a child & in most cases these new parents realize their parents weren't so dumb after all.

Apparently, one of those exceptions is how folks dress for dinner. Otherwise, we wouldn't even need to be having this discussion, because we'd all still be wearing suits and dresses to dinner, and for that matter, to the parks.

Again, to most, WDW presents a more casual atmosphere than even the average places outside WDW. Its just not a good idea for WDW to try to buck that trend. I'm not saying thousands will rebel and never visit again because they couldn't wear flip flops. But if one's standards are such that flip flops are acceptable in all but the most formal occasions, which is becoming very much so the case now, then those folks are going to feel a little more restricted and a little less welcome in general.

Its just not worth doing this just because some aren't comfortable with these new social standards. And please remember I'm not talking about the whole speedo direct from the pool thing. I'd hardly say that has become the social norm in sit-down dining at casual locales, whereas flip flops and/or clean t-shirts have.

FrozenTundra

08-12-2005, 09:44 PM

pouncingpluto

08-12-2005, 09:55 PM

Believe it or not, there is a small but still significant type of guest that brings dress up clothes to WDW for that "one special evening".

Honestly, I thought that was the norm, rather than a small group. I do usually bring one dress for a night out, the favorite destination being California Grill. But honestly, pretty much anything I wear out to dinner any night to a non-counter service restaurant would fit that dress code... and not just minimally. And I'm not "old"... I'm a 27-year-old woman who considers myself relatively fashionable. Flip flops are not fashion... they're a fad. And they're comfortable... and I wear them to the grocery store... and walking the dog... and to the pool. But not out to a nice restaurant.

I consider my office to have a very casual dress code... too casual to even be considered business casual. And it is about what is being asked by these restaurants. No flip flops. No tshirts. No big deal.

raidermatt

08-12-2005, 10:22 PM

I don't know Matt. It sounds like you're in favor of letting WDW become a free for all. Disney shouldn't impose any rules or standards. People should be allowed to dress as they please, swim where they want, park where they want.

Wow. That was quite a leap you took. I'll just repost this:

And please remember I'm not talking about the whole speedo direct from the pool thing. I'd hardly say that has become the social norm in sit-down dining at casual locales, whereas flip flops and/or clean t-shirts have.

So, no, I'm not in favor of a free-for-all.

Flip flops are not fashion... they're a fad. And they're comfortable... and I wear them to the grocery store... and walking the dog... and to the pool. But not out to a nice restaurant.

And nobody is saying you should do otherwise. Virtually all fashion, however, is a fad to a certain extent. Many dresses deemed perfectly acceptable today would not even get you in the door at various times in the past.

As for comparing it to the office, that's a mistake as well. Entirely different situations with entirely different considerations. An employee is more likely to accept those restrictions in the office than to accept them as a guest at WDW. As Disney is in the business of attracting guests, restrictions and exclusions must be VERY carefully considered, especially if they are moving in the more restrictive/exclusive direction.

And I mean, really, if its no big deal, are you REALLY going to give it anything more than a passing thought if you see an otherwise well-groomed and well dressed girl with flip flops at another table, or walking by? Do you REALLY want to send that person away because of that? More to the point, is it REALLY in Disney's best interest to send that girl, and her family/friends, away?

bretsytwo

08-13-2005, 04:29 AM

I heard about this thread and HAD to reregister to say that I 100% completely agree with Pirate and Crusader. Get my seat in car1 dustedoff, i'm going for a ride.

Disney should require socially acceptable wear, nothing more.

Scoop, as usual, is [edited by moderator].

crusader

08-13-2005, 09:31 AM

My point Crusader is that parents can't let a whole generation go uninformed about the proper protocol that is expected at fine dining locations or other social graces we all take for granted.

This is the problem. A nice quiet sit down restaurant which doesn't have a buffet or sports bar at the deluxe disney resorts does not constitute "fine dining".

It's like saying, my HDTV is better than yours simply because I paid more for it. You pay a premium for a great steak at yachtsman that you can obtain elsewhere only because you're at Disney and you're onsite - you're certainly not getting a 3:1 ratio of servers to patrons per table to help you digest that $45.00 filet.

Disney knows this. That's why they aren't imposing even a business casual attire here.

V & A is fine dining. The Rainbow Room in NYC is fine dining. Flying Fish isn't.

Therefore .............................

Disney should require socially acceptable wear, nothing more.

Exactly.

Confusing first sentence, let me see if I understand it correctly: The kids aren't adults yet, but when they are -and then have kids - they won't subject their kids to the standards their parents forced on them ?

No. You've missed the demographic entirely. They're already 21 - 35 now. They're at disney and they want to have dinner at Jiko's. The women put on their skirts or whatever, and their straps and thier expensive thong flips looking pretty darn put together for a night out. They show up and read a sign which basically excludes their entire wardrobe from entering this eating establishment.

What do think happens next?

I say, they reply "screw you" and go elsewhere and never give the place a second chance.

They're who Disney needs to be thinking about here. They're next in line to patronize this enterprise and position themselves well within our society.

tjkraz

08-13-2005, 01:38 PM

IMHO, the bottom line is that WDW guests as a whole will determine the success or failure of this move. If dining traffic stays as-is or increases, it will stick. If dining traffic declines, the rules will change again.

It's not even worth trying to evaluate and/or predict acceptable social standards....society will do that.

Villain Dude

08-13-2005, 08:05 PM

It's about time they started this ... (IMHO).

-Dude

DancingBear

08-14-2005, 10:08 AM

They're already 21 - 35 now. They're at disney and they want to have dinner at Jiko's. The women put on their skirts or whatever, and their straps and thier expensive thong flips looking pretty darn put together for a night out. They show up and read a sign which basically excludes their entire wardrobe from entering this eating establishment.

What do think happens next?

I say, they reply "screw you" and go elsewhere and never give the place a second chance.

And I say they get seated without comment and have a wonderful meal.

Your hypothetical gal cared enough to put herself together for a night out. If she even notices the sign, she's unlikely to go storming off; she may be motivated to ask the hostess if she needs to change, and be told there's no problem.

This is just about sending a signal to all that this group of restaurants is shooting for something a little bit nicer, and sending a signal to the guests who have complained that Disney recognizes their concerns.

FrozenTundra

08-14-2005, 01:27 PM

This is just about sending a signal to all that this group of restaurants is shooting for something a little bit nicer, and sending a signal to the guests who have complained that Disney recognizes their concerns.

Exactly.

On a side note, this is the first thread in a long time that I can recall where "birds of a feather" aren't "sticking together" . It's actually very refreshing to see - actually,read.

Even have Bret2.1 moving into his prefered Car.

manning

08-14-2005, 07:36 PM

bretsytwo

08-14-2005, 09:34 PM

Forgive me ahead of time--I know this will be a rambling and disjointed post.

This is a bad policy that flies in the face of what Disney World is supposed to be and what Disney is supposed to stand for.

It's a seperate issue from prices. Prices (should) coralate to what you are paying for. A 50 dolalr room or park ticket should contain the same value as a 500 dolalr room or park ticket.

This is not Disney offering a service, it's Disney placing a demand on their guests. All the guests get is the knowledge that during their dinner they won't be bothered by using the same restroom as some guy in a mickey tee.

Things can bother people at dinner. Noise, smell, what have you. If sandals are one of these I don't know what to say for you.

This is central Florida. Sandals, T shirts, and shorts are part of the natural wardrobe. I'm not advocating bikinis or speedos. The only times those are allowed in public are in water areas where as clothing they are functional.

The inappropriateness for any non water setting, Disney or not, means that they are appropriatly outlawed from resaurants and theme parks (technically they aren't allowed)

The sexuality of such certainly ruins the family environment.

But we are talking about Disney World, where every guest is equal. When you walk in the parks or into restaurants you do so as an equal with executives that could utilize the resort every day of their life and not feel the wallet pich one bit, and with the families of five that saved up for ten years pinching every penny so that they could have a once in a lifetime experience. Business suit or Tee shirt everyone is equal and everyone gets the same treatment.

That feeling of equality is what this policy kills.

Just by having the standards that you must dress yourself more than the casual person means that people will start questioning themselves. Is this GOOD enough for Disney? What if they don't like what I am wearing? Maybe I'm not good enough for this restaurant. Maybe I shouldn't go at all. Do I even belong?

For disney not only should you always belong, you should always be welcome. Not sure you are welcome so long as you adhere to rules placed above normal society.

Personally I crawl around property. I eat at some of these nice places on a whim. During the off season you can walk into places like the California Grill. I've done it. The thought that a family could be going through the parks, hear about the fireworks from the grill, and call to make priority seating arrangements only to hear that they aren't allowd to sit there because their nice clothes are back home an hour away in tampa, and their sandals, team mickey shorts, and winnie the pooh t-shirt isn't up to the standards placed upon Disney's guests...is apalling.

No matter if you choose to dress up or dress down for dinner all that matters is your behavior and if your check clears. A 50/50 poly blend of free Disney advertising that cost someone 15 bucks to buy shouldn't impact anyones dinner or how they are treated as a guest.

Once you hit Disney property your social status should never hit your mind. This policy has the risk of making guests feel unwelcome and uncomfortable. That seems to be the exact opposite of what Disney should be doing.

Moobooks

08-14-2005, 10:33 PM

The only shoes I own are Merrills (they're sneakers).
The only pants I own are jeans.
I'm not a kid, but a middle-aged guy who is his own boss and runs a successful company.
I'm not about to buy wardrobe I don't own to eat in their restaurants, and they just lost a regular customer.

mitros

08-14-2005, 10:41 PM

Personally, after walking around the parks a good part of the day, we prefer to go back to the room, clean up, re-dress in some cloths that are not soaked with sweet and grime, and go back out to eat. Since all of the restaurants with this new code are at resorts anyway, you have to leave the parks to get to them. We don't particularly care to wallow in our own filth while enjoying ourselves in a "nice" restaurant....but that's us!

Moobooks: I'm sure Disney will be very upset that they lost you as a customer :rolleyes: :charac2: Sorry, that was mean. :guilty:

DancingBear

08-15-2005, 08:34 AM

DancingBear

08-15-2005, 09:04 AM

airlarry!

08-15-2005, 09:55 AM

Let's inject some common sense into this discussion.

A policy to enforce walking shorts and polo shirts is appropriate for resort-only dining...where other reasonable options are provided.

Asking that patrons refrain from wearing t-shirts, sandals, and exercise shorts (which I wear frequently to the parks) at a RESORT's signature restaurant is not elitist...instead it attempts to create a mood or an atmosphere.

I don't believe I've seen any picket lines in front of any of Disney's golf courses just because they require collared (unless you're Duval or Tiger) shirts to play and eat. It's tradition. So don't say that this is necessarily a new policy, because people have been succumbing to golf course wear for years, be it ties and knickers or walking shorts/slacks and polos, without permanent mental anguish.

Now, I'll join in Boo's opinion if they start messing with the public areas of the parks. There, the issue is convenience.

DancingBear

08-15-2005, 02:28 PM

Regarding the "class conscious" element of this discussion, I was thinking back to when a dinner at one of these places was really a stretch for us, and it occurred to me that, in fact, it was in those times that we were, if anything, more likely to treat such a dinner as a special event and get a bit dressed up for it.

Based on what I often see in restaurants, it's not the "working class" folks who dress down for such meals, but the "well-off" folks who (1) eat in such places on a regular basis, and (2) are somewhat more likely to have a "screw you, I'll wear what I want to wear (or I'll take my business somewhere else)" attitude.

tjkraz

08-15-2005, 02:55 PM

Good point, DancingBear. But I'm left to wonder what impact the MYW dining has had...particularly with the "free" packages offered in the late summer. That kinda throws the financial element out the window. When dining is free, suddenly a meal a Jiko or Yachtsman isn't such a special event--it's just another meal to which the guest is entitled.

bretsytwo

08-15-2005, 04:55 PM

First, sandals and most shorts are allowed.
Call, I've done it several times. They will tell you no sandals and no t shirts. Enforcement is another issue, but not really viable to this discussion.

Not true. It's intended to "kill the feeling of equality" between Cali Grill and the Concourse Steakhouse, not the equality among Guests.

I don't care what it is intended to do, I'm stating what it DOES do.

You want to kill the feeling of equality between two restaurants? Make the level of the restaurants...not the patrons...different.

Not that I think anyone would foolishly believe those two restaurants are equal just because they both might feature guys in Buffett shirts.

Second, Disney is placing this demand on its guests because OTHER guests ARE bothered. Why do those guests not deserve to be heard by Disney? Why does the lowest common denominator rule?
Yes and baron has wanted things like limits on 30K guests into the park to improve his stay.

Neither policy supports this:

Give the MOST guests the BEST time they can have.

Take a look at this thread and notice the following. Half the people are pissed. Half of the remaining don't mind the rule, but also aren't bothered by the sandaled masses during their meals.

Looks like what pleases the most guests is the old way, and it smells to me that this is pleasing the most pompous guests so that they continue purchasing $150 bottles of wine on Disney property. Don't worry, you can escape those casual people here....

There, the issue is convenience.
Larry try being one of those guests that skimps on a hotel so that they can eat fancy every night, and then figure out what time you'd have to leave the magic kingdom, grab a bus, ride to the all stars, chance, grab another bus to wherever dinner is, all while making sure you give yourself enough time to not be late.

Then tell me about conveniance.

It sure takes away from guests trying to get the most out of their Disney experience.

Asking that patrons refrain from wearing t-shirts, sandals, and exercise shorts (which I wear frequently to the parks) at a RESORT's signature restaurant is not elitist...instead it attempts to create a mood or an atmosphere.
It is NOT the job of the guest to create the atmosphere, it is Disney's job to PROVIDE it.

They don't make you talk or dress like a pirate in the pirates queue, but no one complains that it takes away from the caribbean pirates atmosphere.

A fancy restaurant is not made fancy by what their paying guests are wearing.

...there is nothing in this policy that violates Disney tradition. The Club always has. Golf courses have. V&A does. And those are very strict policies
Golf in itself, as do cruises, have a natural tradition of their own. Build someplace called the "prom dinner" and you can make people dress formal or whatever. Put in a chain restaurant at DTD that has a dress policy at every other restaurant, fine.

but Disney was always a place where you could dine casually under crystal chandelliers.

And im not talking about any 1989 tradition at Eisners Grand Floridian.

In this case, Disney wants to eliminate beach wear and workout clothes from its signature category restaurants. Not sandals. Not walking shorts. Not require collared shirts. Just create, in a very limited number of places, a situation where a couple or family on a special evening won't end up next to a couple just out of the pool or weight room.

OK, has anybody called??????

I've done this 5 or 6 times in the last month. They tell you no sandals, they tell you no t shirts, they tell you collared shirts. they tell you no sandals, they tell you khaki shorts.

CALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And as was already stated, swim wear outside of water places is never publicly acceptable, and was never allowed anyway. As far as workouts go, STENCH is an entirely different manner. Sweat shirts and running pants that are clean shouldn't bother a soul.

Regarding the "class conscious" element of this discussion, I was thinking back to when a dinner at one of these places was really a stretch for us, and it occurred to me that, in fact, it was in those times that we were, if anything, more likely to treat such a dinner as a special event and get a bit dressed up for it.

I'm not sure this has a point at all except to say what your personal preference is and why it's ok for you. Fine. Lot's of people dress up. Lots of people want to look nicer than usual. No one is banning that. It shouldn't be FORCED.

bretsytwo

08-15-2005, 05:01 PM

oh and scoop, please send me a picture of your planned wardrobe for when we meet. I'll tell you if it's good enough for me.

I'm trying to create an atmosphere of class whenever anyone sees boo. Not by being classy myself, but by forcing others to.

bretsytwo

08-15-2005, 07:14 PM

who was argue khaki shorts or closed toed shoes?

when you call they tell you collared shirts. Was he lying to you? No, but you pressed for specifics, and they aren't about to kick you out or keep you from coming. It's intimidation.

They say to you, are you aware such and such has a dress code? And you say no...what is it, and they rattle off the list.

Now yeah, if you press them about the fact that you are wearing a dressy shirt, and 44 thousand dollar sandals they'll let you sit.

Call back and ask if your universal T-shirt, jean shorts, and nice but open toed sandals will be acceptable since you plan on going straight from universal to wherever you dine.

By the way, for the big Curling/Boo/Pirate/Scoop soiree, I'll probably be wearing sand brown walking shorts, my Destination Gracie's Girl golf shirt, and the aforementioned Clarks.

Put a bag over your head and it's a go. I've seen your picture.

manning

08-15-2005, 10:41 PM

I like to dine casually (shorts/blue jeans etc.) and business casually. And I like to dine refreshed and among those refreshed. Not with those in from a hot day in the park. There are some who can turn off your appetite.

Let's have choice.

mt2

08-15-2005, 10:44 PM

[QUOTE=bretsytwo]

Yes and baron has wanted things like limits on 30K guests into the park to improve his stay.

This would be great! ;)

Maybe WDW has noticed that the casual diner is a bit too casual. I have seen some young women (and a few older that are acting like they are younger) wear nice shorts that are too short in both directions. I have also seen young men (again with the older) wear short that are nice but too big.

In both cases you see cracks! I don't want to see this for any reason. Is this extreme? Maybe but it is at the parks.

Maybe they want to reel it back in a bit. Wear shorts but don't show cheeks and cracks.

I know this doesn't really apply but when I was in Honduras last October we got in and were hungry by the time we made it through customs. We stopped at Schlostsky's from a quick bite. We wore khaki shorts and Polos with tennis shoes. We were under dressed! Everyone was dressed up. The ladies and young girls were in dresses and skirts. The men were in dress slacks, button up shirts and dress shoes. It is expected to dress this way when you leave the house no matter where you go. My DH's grandmother loves this country because, "You can go to the mall in pants. You don't even have to comb your hair if you don't want to. Noone would know the difference."

Just a thought.

crusader

08-16-2005, 12:31 AM

And I say they get seated without comment and have a wonderful meal.

What are we back in the 70's where the doorman decides if you're worthy of a pass? If they get in, everybody should. Otherwise, the Company just wrongly afforded one person rights over another based entirely on bias and subjectivity. That's the biggest problem with the qualifiers on this dumb policy .

Short of no swimwear, and shirt and shoes being required there's nothing more they should be imposing on the guests.

A policy to enforce walking shorts and polo shirts is appropriate for resort-only dining...where other reasonable options are provided.

That's not the whole policy. You can wear jeans and sneakers but your t-shirt and thong flips require you to be escorted from the Flying Fish to the ESPN club. It's not business casual and it's not remotely reasonable. It's splitting hairs to the point of irrational stupidity. People are questioning the width of a strap on a sleeveless top to determine what the definition of a tank is? This is moronic.

Uncleromulus

08-16-2005, 06:40 AM

I doubt anyone will want to know what I REALLY think about all this--.

SO--my $35.00 brand spanking new Disney T' which says "'IT all started with a Mouse" is totally unacceptable, while my Wal-Mart $8.. polo with a collar--is just peachy. Have I got that right??
Now what's the difference?? Lets' see-the writing, of course. But who wants to see THAT sort of writing on a shirt at WDW?? Disgusting and most inappropriate. Who could eat alongside a clod dressed like that??
And there's that doggone collar--now THAT is important. Changes everything!!! Of course, without the collar it looks mighty like a T'--but that's just me.

I see a new CM job opportunity here--"upscale" restaurant dress code enforcement officer. With appropriate training on how to properly drag patrons out who aren't correctly dressed. And about those who are in the restauant acting "out", drunk, etc etc. Who cares?? They LOOK good, and that's where it's at.

airlarry!

08-16-2005, 07:52 AM

Exactly.

Its not about the money, its about the look.

And what's ironic is how the T-Shirt Shock Troopers will eventually eat each other.

"T-shirts and tennis are fine!"

"No, T-shirts and flip flops must be the standard, or I start punching people!"

"No way, you pretentious putz, Muscle sleeves and sandals are my right as a vacationer--this is Disney World!"

"You arrogant fop, I want to go in my bathing suit. It looks just like shorts! Get out of the way, Mr. CM, or I'll have be wearing your name tag on my ****!"

Dinner is served. Please wipe your mouth with a paper cloth as you feast on each other's hypocrisy. :) I'll be in the back room enjoying a little peace and quiet.

Oh yeah, remind me to cancel that invite to Boo for Osprey Ridge. When I'm putting, I don't need the distraction of Disney security removing him for ripping off his shirt in protest on the 8th hole.

manning

08-16-2005, 01:46 PM

Rights....some are talking about their rights. The only right here is the right of the establishment to set standards and refuse service, if they want, to those who don't meet their standards.

We aren't talking Constitution here.

peter11435

08-16-2005, 02:03 PM

Just by having the standards that you must dress yourself more than the casual person means that people will start questioning themselves.

Wow, what kind of world do we live in. Do you honestly think that needing to dress up for dinner is something that should be avoided because it makes people "question themselves."

It not about what you are wearing, the fact is that one should know when you should and should not wear certain items. The feeling of not fitting in shouldn’t be an issue. One should KNOW that flip flops are NOT acceptable attire for a restaurant like the California Grill. If someone honestly thinks they are acceptable attire then maybe they don't belong in the restaurant. Not because they are not dressed properly but because they have no sense of manners, etiquette, and accepted social behavior.

Peter Pirate

08-16-2005, 03:13 PM

I disagree peter, I live in the Key's are our sense of acceptable is different than yours perhaps but is borune of necessity in living in the heat. Flip flops, shorts and T's are acceptable in the Key's at every restaurant I know of...I haven't tried Shula's in Key West yet but soon we'll see about them as well. Orlando swelters in the summer and some folks find flip flops cooler, they are a hot fashion trend and are they any worse than tennis shoes?

As for T's, I go back to my original statement echoed by Uncleromulous that say's it's unfathomable that a WDW restaurant wouldn't let a family in wearing expensive Mickey Mouse T's...

I agree that some standards should be looked at. I guess I can agree that tanks for men are suspect, although I've personally wore a muscle tank to FF and AP and never received a second look from anyone. Peoples clothes should be clean and cared for, but I disagree with making a distiction between walking shorts and athletic shorts, for example. If they're nice and clean, they are OK.

As far as the "questioning themselves" comment, I think folks on vacation at WDW should never have to worry if they're 'dessed' enough for dinner. Come as you are has always worked well I think.

peter11435

08-16-2005, 03:31 PM

bretsytwo

08-16-2005, 04:18 PM

"Wow, what kind of world do we live in. Do you honestly think that needing to dress up for dinner is something that should be avoided because it makes people "question themselves.'"

I point this out because I think it's the slipping in the entire arguement.

I'm not talking about restaurants in NYC, or in crossroads, or anywhere like the "world we live in" I'm talking about Disney World. An entirely different world then the one we live in.

Yes any restaurant has the right to refuse servicve, and certainly Disney on the whole is the same. If someone were to argue "they have no right to do this" I would argue against them.

This is nothing more than a discussion on SHOULD Disney be doing this.

For most restaurants the answer is "hey if they want to" and in many cases it probably helps keeping riff raff like me out.

But Disney isn't supposed to have riff raff. Everyone is a guest. Everyone is a VIP, and VIP's in the real world don't get turned down from the nicest places in T shirts. Mr. Eisner can wear an ABC T in any restaurant in this country and waiters would be fighting to serve him. (of course for those who have dabbled in his autobiography or disney wars knows that as a child he was always forced to wear a tie to dinner).

And the thing is I've heard many guests and even members of my own family say they could never stay at the Floridian or the Poly because is makes them feel uncomfortable, like they don't belong.

And I think to myself, that's too bad, because Disney welcomes everyone. If you can afford a room in the poly they don't do a backup check to see if you might have a pickup you'll be parking in the parking lot. They allow you to walk through their lobbies on the way to the pool in smacking flip flops and neon colored swimming trunks with a towel over your shoulder.

And I think to myself that's good. I think to myself that Disney is showing these people that even with their casual lifestyle they deserve good things--and Disney is happy to provide them.

And the only difference between that and the restaurants is that food is involved, and without water clothing that reveals too much skin is innappropriate for a family atmosphere...and if you see me shirtless you'll lose your appetite quickly. That's it.

But I expect Disney to be the same welcoming company that calls everyone guests in their theme parks, resorts, and restaurants. Clearly this doesn't do that.

Instead you have people like Peter saying that maybe in fact someone who would dare to wear sandals doesn't belong on the balcony of the grill watching Illuminations, the electrical water pageant, and wishes from 15 glorious floors up. They have proven themselves not good enough for that sort of magic.

And I think to myself, maybe not in the real world, but that would break my heart in Disney World...

Moobooks

08-16-2005, 04:45 PM

If sneakers and jeans are allowed, then calling it "business casual" is just plain wrong.
I don't know of anywhere in the country where business casual includes sneakers and jeans.

airlarry!

08-16-2005, 04:49 PM

Hmmm....is it too late to delete my posts?

bretsytwo

08-16-2005, 04:59 PM

well scoop, I'll answer them for you!

1. and 2. I draw the line at socially acceptable and I realize that it sounds vague, so I'll go further. Swim wear is designed for swim wear and so if it shows too much skin, say more than your average evening dress (and I have no idea what it is, in all my years I've yet to see any woman wear anything that shows too much skin) Swim wear is acceptable in water, and any wear is acceptable in private, but I go by standard acceptable wear shown on the streets.

Of course the premise of a modest swimsuit and a wrap cover are shown as extremes, but I'll say this, let's throw a chaquita banana hat on her head, and a goofy hat on her husbands, I don't care as a top. As a bottom, I didn't see anything that may stop the bathing suit from directly showing too much leg or going up and outlining her butt like underwear, so it'd be against the rules, but assuming your wrap does that then my only quesiton is this:

Does she have the available funds to pay for dinner?

If it's not disgusting, and it isn't inappropriate for the family, then it shouldn't be turned down.

3.Socially acceptable, aka, the old standard. Don't come in with bikinis so that my 12 year old son gets a sex education at Jikos, and don't come in with a speedo cause I wouldn't want Kidds drooling in his food.

4. (and the rest) I don't want VandA's to have a special policy.

DisneyKidds

08-16-2005, 05:05 PM

calling it "business casual" is just plain wrong.
Don't they call is "resort casual"?

renknt

08-16-2005, 05:07 PM

8 pages on "can a resturant set dress standards"

I guess some people will bicker about any thing. Does this reall detract from your WDW experince?

and Peter Pirate "the Keys" are more laid back than anywhere in the world not a fair comparison

DisneyKidds

08-16-2005, 05:09 PM

Hey, stop being the peanut gallery here and go accept my trade offer.

crusader

08-16-2005, 05:10 PM

Does this mean that we should adopt no standard? the most agreed upon standard? some other approach?

It should be left alone with a basic shoes/shirt requirement extended only to bikinis/speedos if need be.

Inventing ludicrous standard is a bad idea which I hope the company regrets.

Peter Pirate

08-16-2005, 05:11 PM

scoop, the line has to be drawn somewhere or nudity would be allowed at the pools...hmmmm. Well, anyway, bret's comment about what's socially acceptable is very close to what I'd say. I see it as Disney acceptable (and yes they really can make that whatever they choose) but the feeling of everyone being more or less equal does exist at WDW. Certainly some folks feel nervous about a stay at the GF and some folks feel All Stars is beneath them, but on the whole the entire resort is quite equal. Further the Resort has many different entertainment, athletic and dining options which could conceivably mean many different modes of dress in order to be 'properly attired'. Does Disney really wish to open the pandora's box on this?

I would say nice, clean clothes would be a good dress code...But of course someone would still have to define "nice". pirate:

All Aboard

08-16-2005, 05:46 PM

My wallet could get in but my shabby *** clothes will keep me at the rum bar with scoop & gcurling... Sorry pal, if you expect to show up in a tank top with your Mickelsons hanging out, you need to amend your plan.

Uh, Peter...have you forgotten...GC has declared Friday Night Formal night at the Volcano BarShorts and Polos are permitted. T-shirts (with sleeves) that contain no references to liberal politics are permitted, as well.

...He's apparently only buying drinks for guys (and I suppose girls) in flappers and the like... And you "suppose" girls? What does that mean? That's it, no rumrunners for you.

Peter Pirate

08-16-2005, 05:57 PM

You guys are killin' me...So can I still wear my "I'm with Richard head" T-shirt or not? pirate:

bretsytwo

08-16-2005, 06:00 PM

the tihng is scoop, in your post you allude to sexuality and the family atmosphere...

and I agree completely, THAT is what a clothing policy needs to protect.

Simply making someone go from jean shorts to khacki shorts, or from a Mickey shirt to a polo shirt does nothing for that policy.

also, just like in the parks, no offensive material on the shirt.

I was advised that my "Dick Trickle" T shirt was not appropriate for Yachtsman, and I agreed...

mitros

08-16-2005, 08:50 PM

Gee, maybe I shouldn't have started this thread, maybe I should have left well enough alone, maybe I would have prevented a lot of dissention amongst the ranks if I did not start it...........NAH! :goodvibes

All Aboard

08-16-2005, 09:03 PM

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y256/gcurling/mickelson_150x200.jpgJust say no.

DancingBear

08-16-2005, 09:35 PM

Go #99!!

DisneyKidds

08-17-2005, 12:12 PM

Mr. Ursine........[snip] edited for reasons beyond my control [snip] I hope you consider continuing to post your views on other sites despite the reactions your viewpoints might ellicit.

Is that better, captain?

mitros

08-17-2005, 12:48 PM

Hey Pete, if Richard is with you, there's no reason why you can't wear the shirt! Just remind Mr. Head to bring along his drivers license in case they try to throw you out, then you can prove your shirt is legal...... :earsboy:

DisneyKidds

08-17-2005, 03:35 PM

Just trying to express my opinion while appeasing the gods, Scoop.

cristen

08-17-2005, 03:50 PM

Scoop,

it was joke, settle down. You act as if you never have put me down. Sheesh.

And don't worry, the insults about you are still flying over there too.

Peter Pirate

08-17-2005, 04:17 PM

and don't worry, the insults about you are still flying over there. Boy scoop, you've really hit the big time! :rolleyes:
pirate:

Sarangel

08-17-2005, 06:10 PM

You guys are all old hands, you know that you need to play nice. Also, we've gotten way off topic here. If we can't stay on topic, I'll close the thread.

Sarangel

airlarry!

08-17-2005, 06:41 PM

Muscle shirts and gym shorts Bad.

Polos and khaki walking shorts good.

Peter Pirate

08-17-2005, 07:57 PM

Muscle shirts and gym shorts = good
Polo's and khaki walking shorts= better
Unecessary dress codes = bad
pirate:

Uncleromulus

08-18-2005, 06:23 AM

Shorts and Disney t's-good
Swimwear-bad.
Unnecessary (and as we see,very confusing and largely unenforced) dress codes--bad

crusader

08-18-2005, 07:25 AM

I don't think simply having a shirt and shoes (and presumably some other basic clothing) equates to the WDW atmosphere.

Since when?

The implication of an establishment requiring us to “put on a shirt and a pair of shoes” is a basic well understood universal premise in our country.

You're trying to reduce this to something it's not.

Within the public domain, there are standard terms to define a certain dress code we get as the general public..... "business casual" "formal" "semi-formal" and "casual" pretty much covers the entire caliber of choice.

What Disney did, was try to create a new dress code somewhere between casual and business casual which basically regulates the guest on a high school level.

You're also seemingly trying to justify a solution to no serious problem here. If this were a real fashion epidemic at these restaurants, we'd have known about it long before now. I think there's an entirely different reason for this management decision.

DancingBear

08-18-2005, 08:11 AM

I think there's an entirely different reason for this management decision.

Pray tell, what could that be?

DancingBear

08-18-2005, 08:14 AM

Peter Pirate

08-18-2005, 10:44 AM

Big problem scoop...With all of this talk we are forgetting that Artist Point and Jiko are having problems under the current policy staying busy.

Whenever the Pirate clan makes a last minute trip, as was last weekend we can NEVER get in last minute at say CG or 'Ohana but can ALWAYS get in at Jiko or AP...Does Disney want to risk making these two extremely good restaurants even less popular? Or is it your contention that the 'well dressed crowd' will step to the plate and fill these establishments if the riff raff is kept at bay?
pirate:

DancingBear

08-18-2005, 11:22 AM

Or is it your contention that the 'well dressed crowd' will step to the plate and fill these establishments if the riff raff is kept at bay?

I dunno, but I assume the marketing decision has been made to create the concept of "signature" restaurants, and the hope is that the message will get out that these are nice restaurants that should be thought of in the same vein with CA Grill and such.

Whether folks can figure out how to get to Artist Point from their convention at Coronado Springs, or to Jiko from the Contemporary is another matter.

But, honestly, do you think the policy will hurt business? The issue is quite contentious over here on the Debate, uhhh, I mean, News and Rumors Board, but the posters on the Disney Restaurants Board are overwhelmingly supportive of the policy.

Peter Pirate

08-18-2005, 11:43 AM

How sure are you of Jiko's financial success? Because I eat there a lot and there is seldom any waiting and always more than a few empty tables. Don't get me wrong I like it this way rather than the zoo that takes place at the FF podium every night ... and forget CG - I'm friends with the Sous Chef and know the Chef and can't even get in without a reservation! Hmmm...Maybe I'm not that good of friend.:confused3
pirate:

Peter Pirate

08-18-2005, 12:17 PM

It's not "no one is going" scoop, it's just seldom over crowded...So perhaps you're analysis is correct and I do trust your sources, which is why I asked.
pirate:

raidermatt

08-18-2005, 01:21 PM

This was about two years ago, but when we finished our meal at Boma, several of us were standing outside the waiting area, in the space between Jiko and Boma. The Boma lobby had been crowded when we arrived, and was still crowded as we were leaving. There were several CMs from Jiko out in that area trying to get guests to come over to Jiko, pointing out that there was no wait and "plenty of room".

Certainly this gave the impression, whether intended or not, that the place was in need of some customers.

What does that prove? Nada, since its just a single point in time experience. Still, since we like to share our personal experiences, I thought this one appropriate given the turn the conversation has taken.

Certainly restaurants like Jiko have higher margins than restaurants like Boma, so they don't need to be as crowded. And Scoop's point about location is a good one. Jiko is just not in a good location to attract a lot of non-AKL guests.

But I'm not sure how raising the bar on the dress code is going to help a restaurant like Jiko, especially in its location, in terms of increasing the number of guests. That change alone (if in fact it is a real change at all) isn't going to get people to hop on a bus from another resort and go to another stop so they can get on another bus and go to the AKL. Perhaps guests leaving the AK park might want to try it (as we did with Boma) but that is now even less likely with the new dress code.

Same idea with the FF, as Scoop pointed out. Its on the Boardwalk and within walking distance from MGM and Epcot. They really should allow for the spontaneous guest decision.

Pray tell, what could that be?

Once again, the most likely possibilities:

1- They are posting the code with no intent to enforce it any differently than they already did. However, by posting it, they think they will at least marginally raise the level of dress in the restaurants. This would decrease the already small number of complaints they receive, and....

2- Allow for prices to increase, thereby increasing margins (a stated goal of the company). If, as has been stated, the purpose of this is to "enhance the experience" for the guests, you can't tell me that it is not beyond Disney to increase the price for this enhanced experience. We hear this all the time around here. "You get what you pay for and that's how the world works". Certainly Disney has adopted this philosophy when it comes to its resorts, so if raising the dress code really does enhance the experience, how can anyone claim they wouldn't eventually charge a little more for that enhancment?

The more strict the enforcement, the more enhanced the experience.

raidermatt

08-18-2005, 01:32 PM

Bret, regarding the anti-Disney class conciousness which you think this policy creates, which is worse:

--a few signature restaurants in the resorts that anybody can attend in blue jeans, sneakers and a polo shirt

or

--a private club within a theme park with a jacket requirement?

Given the relative level of promotion, and also relative visibility, the restaurants. They are in every guidebook, on maps, lists, etc. Club 33 at DL, to which I assume you are referring, is not heavily promoted, and most guests do not even know it exists, never mind actually tell you where the door is.

That said, it probably shouldn't be there either. But if it wasn't a mistake, it was because of the way it was kept out of the view of the "regular" guests. If it was a mistake, then moves like this one are taking the mistake to the next level.

DancingBear

08-18-2005, 03:06 PM

Once again, the most likely possibilities:

1- They are posting the code with no intent to enforce it any differently than they already did. However, by posting it, they think they will at least marginally raise the level of dress in the restaurants. This would decrease the already small number of complaints they receive, and....

2- Allow for prices to increase, thereby increasing margins (a stated goal of the company). If, as has been stated, the purpose of this is to "enhance the experience" for the guests, you can't tell me that it is not beyond Disney to increase the price for this enhanced experience. We hear this all the time around here. "You get what you pay for and that's how the world works". Certainly Disney has adopted this philosophy when it comes to its resorts, so if raising the dress code really does enhance the experience, how can anyone claim they wouldn't eventually charge a little more for that enhancment?

I believe 1, hard to believe anyone at Disney would think 2 could follow, except in a very marginal sort of way. I'd say the idea is that when the conventioneers are looking for a place to go on the expense account, or when a couple (including the locals, as the Professor points out) is looking for a special meal out, they might latch onto (or be directed by Disney) the "signature restaurant" as a destination.

Uncleromulus

08-18-2005, 03:39 PM

--and for which "signature" restaurant they can already "dress up" if they wish. The only issue here is making everyone dress up, like it or not. I'm asking now--has anyone here NOT gone to a place like Jiko because everyone and their cousin wasn't dressed up?? Did that keep you away??? Did it matter that much??
I must confess-I never decided not to eat at a restaurant just because everyone might not be dressed in business casual. Wouldn't even occur to me. Wouldn't matter. If I felt like dressing up for dinner, I would. If I didn't, I'd appreciate NOT having to.
If and when they start tossing "theme park dressed" families out of WDW restaurants in favor of business casual conventioneers, it'll be a sad day.

mitros

08-18-2005, 04:20 PM

To whom it may concern: {covered myself on that one, didn't I?} I said it before, and I will say it again, dress as you please, just don't come to a nice restaurant smelling like you had been working out at the gym all morning. If I am paying $40 for a meal, I would prefer the fragrance of Berbere braised lamb shank, Lemon-cumin marinated Ahi tuna, and Kalamata olive flatbread, and NOT your fragrance of BO. :faint: {You know who you are ;) } :rotfl:

Note to Sarangel: It's a joke, you know.

bretsytwo

08-18-2005, 04:26 PM

Bret, regarding the anti-Disney class conciousness which you think this policy creates, which is worse:

--a few signature restaurants in the resorts that anybody can attend in blue jeans, sneakers and a polo shirt

or

--a private club within a theme park with a jacket requirement?

a PRIVATE club that's also pretty well hidden and secret, and normal guests don't even know exists.

Thats far better than knowing you could go somewhere if only you were good enough.

If Disney wants to build some obscure club to sit around steaming in towels and eating shellfish, fine by me so long as it brings in money and doesn't take away anything.

We aren't talking about that. We are talking about restaurants advertised in your hotel, that you walk by and longlingly gaze into, that are on the stinking vacation planning video.

DancingBear

08-18-2005, 05:23 PM

"Betty Sue, stop gazing longlingly at that there Jeeko, and get your Daisy Duke's over here into Boma's. Them there citified snobs don't want us in there. Next year, we're taking our Texas Tea money to Uneeversal!"

raidermatt

08-18-2005, 08:07 PM

I believe 1, hard to believe anyone at Disney would think 2 could follow, except in a very marginal sort of way. I'd say the idea is that when the conventioneers are looking for a place to go on the expense account, or when a couple (including the locals, as the Professor points out) is looking for a special meal out, they might latch onto (or be directed by Disney) the "signature restaurant" as a destination.

Look, the dress code either makes a difference or it doesn't. As Uncle R said, one can dress nice if one wants anyway. The question is, does it matter to these conventioneers and couples what everybody else is wearing. Or more to the point, does it matter to them if a small percentage are wearing t-shirts and/or flip flops.

If having this dress code does in fact "enhance the experience", or "create a fine dining destination", then it creates value in the eyes of at least some, and extra value means extra price.

If it really doesn't add any value in anyone's eyes, than why do it? And if it does, why think that Disney won't charge for it?

raidermatt

08-18-2005, 08:13 PM

Scoop, there's a couple of problems with your position.

1- Choices are being removed from some.

2- What's being added to those who want this is that certain guests will be kept away from them, or at least forced to adhere to the standards imposed on them by others. This isn't a simple let everybody have what they want. Its a case where the wants of some impose on the wants of others. Some say in both directions, but regardless, its not the simple choice you lay out.

Yes, this happens all the time, and yes, Disney is free to impose whatever standards it wants. But this isn't what the place was supposed to be about, and there are very valid business reasons for keeping it that way.

On Bistro, they have at least had some kind of dress code going back to '02 which was "no tank tops". I think if limited to that, its fairly reasonable given its location. But given my choice, I wouldn't impose any dress code on it other that whatever is acceptable in the park. So obviously if it goes to a code that is more strict, I would disagree with it even more.

bretsytwo

08-18-2005, 09:38 PM

So, when you suggest that person's choices are being taken away, you are right--the persons that want to go to a traditional "dressed up" restaurant for the evening. Those are the ones whose choices at Disney are limited to one single place.
SPIN

Dradle dradle dradle...

First of all, nothing was taken away. They didn't have it in the 1st place.

Second of all the "choice" you are referring to is that NOT to see other people in T-shirts.

That's silly. Disney is a place for everyone. These guests want to go to a place that isn't welcome to everyone. You still have the personal option to dress up or down.

But I'm not suprised, it's like your insidious comment that everything should shut down directly after illuminations so that all of those pesky guests can clear out so you can have your quiet walk at 9:30 instead of later.

Come on man, give the most guests the best Disney experience you can give them. It's that simple.

If you want to go to a Disney park or a restaurant and not be bothered by the masses, visit California Adventure.

DancingBear

08-18-2005, 09:43 PM

that's dreidel, dreidel, dreidel

DancingBear

08-18-2005, 09:49 PM

Look, the dress code either makes a difference or it doesn't. As Uncle R said, one can dress nice if one wants anyway. The question is, does it matter to these conventioneers and couples what everybody else is wearing. Or more to the point, does it matter to them if a small percentage are wearing t-shirts and/or flip flops.

Ask all those folks on the Restaurant board who said "it's about time" and such. Or pop in on the cruise board when they're discussing the dress code at Palo's (or even in the dining rooms).

If having this dress code does in fact "enhance the experience", or "create a fine dining destination", then it creates value in the eyes of at least some, and extra value means extra price.

If it really doesn't add any value in anyone's eyes, than why do it? And if it does, why think that Disney won't charge for it?

First, I've said all along this only has a marginal effect. Second, I think Disney may think they will make more money, ultimately, from the whole "signature restaurant" marketing scheme (including the dress code), by attracting more folks who are "making an evening" of their meal, and will by the wine and such and thereby increase their tabs. It's not about the dress code per se, but about creating a destination restaurant experience.

airlarry!

08-18-2005, 10:19 PM

Hundreds of posts...and people are still saying polos and khaki shorts is considered "dressing up"--in what universe is wearing a colored short sleeve $9.99 shirt from landsend.com with walking shorts on sale from old navy considered dressing up or business casual?

In fact, show me the job that lets this kind of clothes be considered even Dress Down Friday and I'll eat my keyboard.

Yes, I have been inundated with thousands of email messages from a certain CM--who incidently is convincing me to some degree--but it really hurts the credibility of this discussion when certain people call this new policy "dressing up", donchathink?

(Then again, I am a southerner. We wore coats and ties to football games like a bunch of morons. Maybe the rest of the world is right and I should be going to church in a speedo and my nike sandals--or maybe to a wedding reception in biker shorts and sleeveless t-shirts).

raidermatt

08-18-2005, 11:20 PM

Larry, don't you start getting hung up on semantics too. There's enough of that already.

In the context of this thread, "dressing-up" means the elevated code posted. Its a little easier to say that than it is to layout the whole dang code everytime. Sheesh. Cajuns.

And yes, bretsytwo is right on with his comments above. WDW cannot be all things to all people. There's a reason that "fine dining experiences" that include elevated dress codes were largely non-existent on Disney property. There's LOTS of things that don't exist on Disney property that LOTS of people like to do. Even so, fine dining is welcome at WDW, and it works just fine without the elevated dress codes.

And you guys need to stop this stuff about all those supporters on the Restaurant board. First, whenever the opinions of Dis'ers has been brought up as evidence against something Disney has done, those opinions have been dismissed as the prattlings of internet fanboys and fangirls.

Second, I don't read many stories about people having their experience ruined by the guy with a Mickey Mouse t-shirt on. Its the guy with the ratty clothes or the people straight from the pool, which nobody is arguing shouldn't be banned. Or its the girl with the jeans cut too low, the skirt cut too high, or the smelly guy, NONE of which is banned by this policy, even if it is enforced to the letter.

Frankly, I'd say height-restricted rides, Jellyrolls, and Pleasure Island are much more violative of Walt's goal of allowing the family to experience these times together.
Yeah, and when I argued against the move to more height-restricted rides, you argued with me (and others) for pages, so you know where I stand on that.

It's not about the dress code per se, but about creating a destination restaurant experience.
Oh, but it IS about the dress code. Are you telling me that prior to this latest code change, California Grill was not a destination restaurant experience (DRE)? Of course you're not. The difference in dress codes has so little to do with making the place a "DRE" that I can't see how you argue that its necessary with a straight face. Its going to contribute almost nothing to that goal, yet it will cause some guests TRUE inconvenience (not the inconvenience of seeing Mickey Mouse tshirt), and make others feel less welcome in general. Not huge numbers of course, but its still not worth it.

bretsytwo

08-19-2005, 01:20 AM

Call it spin if you'd like but check around the Disney boards here and most other places and you'll find that most of the regular everyday Disney guests commenting on this think its a good idea. Are they too part of the spin conspiracy?
Spin was not in reference to someones particular stance that Disney should do this. People can reasonably disagree. Spin was in reference to your specific post about it "taking options away" when it clearly wasn't.

And You can consider that a compliment because I think you are way to smart to believe the dumb things you type. For example the above, you already knew what my answer was going to be, but you spun my spin accusation into me attacking everyone with the viewpoint. It's OK, though, you are a lawyer, you've had too many years of being evil to change now, and I expect as much.

Perhaps I'll reconsider the smart thing if you continue on at this pace.

that's dreidel, dreidel, dreidel

You say tomato, and I spell it wrong.

or maybe to a wedding reception in biker shorts and sleeveless t-shirts).
I believe this is the standard in Massachusetts.

I think it would be great to be able to get a bite to eat or quick drink after the Illuminations kiss goodnight, just as you can after the MK one.
And what about a ride or 3 on Maelstrom?

Frankly, I'd say height-restricted rides, Jellyrolls, and Pleasure Island are much more violative of Walt's goal of allowing the family to experience these times together.

I agree so far as jellyrolls and PI. Height Restricted rides are a safety or a show issue. Some attractions have restrictions simply because it's not safe, or they are unable to cater to some people. None of them are because some guy in a collared shirt wants to be able to ride a ride somewhere without any kids or people in wheelchairs.

So in summary. Slightly less casual is a-o-Disney-kay at:

1. The golf courses
2. Victoria & Alberts
3. La Nouba
4. Bistro de Paris (ugh, I'm beginning to sense a french theme here...)

But, not Jiko or Artist's Point.

That seems pretty arbitrary to me.
Seriously, and I mean seriously, did I miss something?

I've railed, and I believe I've been supported by matt that V+A as well as Bistro SHOULDN'T have policies.

As for golf and nouba they aren't arbitrary for me (though I've gone in nouba in a t shirt and didn't know it had dress standards).

As I stated, it's a golf tradition, like a uniform for the sport, like a hat in baseball, it's what golf IS. It's golf ettiquette, or cruise ettiquette that came FAR before Disney and therefore Disney is respecting their traditions. Not that I would mind golfing in casual wear, but I can accept Disney doing such a thing.

So far as Nouba, I assume they have dress codes at all of their other places. I don't think they should have to lower their standards just because they are at Disney. Cirque is a company all it's own and can do what they want.

So far as Disney using their property for places like Cirque, or McDonalds, or Rainforest Cafe, that's another story. Disney distributing others restaurants and entertainment? Lord...

And there has been a lot of pages on this.

So far as I can tell MOST people have been completely consistent on their stance, and instead of arguing the points of what Disney should be doing and why, we've had pages of pages of trying to prove people inconsistent.

It ain't gonna change, and scoop for one should know that with me.

raidermatt

08-19-2005, 03:29 AM

Please, at least give a couple specific examples in support of this statement.

No. You can do your own research.

As btwo so clearly stated, the stances on this stuff have been pretty consistent, yet the arguments continue to look for inconsistencies rather than address the action itself. Heck, I even got caught up in it myself by pointing out Scoop's inconsistency with height restricted rides.

So, I'll say it once again. The codes as posted are not in the best interests of WDW. Neither is the code at Bistro, or the code at V&A's. The fewer of them there are, the less of an issue it is, which is why none of us were saying anything when it was essentially just V&A's. That didn't mean it was ok.

I'll even take it a step further than btwo and say the collared shirt requirement probably doesn't belong at the golf courses either. Yeah, its tradition and all that, but really, it wouldn't hurt to allow clean t-shirts. Like the restaurants, most golfers paying the kind of money the Disney courses charge would wear the collared shirts anyway. It really wouldn't hurt anything, just as it didn't hurt the restaurants.

Uncleromulus

08-19-2005, 06:00 AM

Not at all sure exactly "why" Disney is doing this--unless they have been bombarded with complaints??? Perhaps a CM monitoring this thread (and the one on the restaurant board) could tell us??
Am still waiting to hear a "first person" report of someone (hopefully a family headed to or from a theme park) who is denied entrance to a "signature" restaurant based on how they are dressed. And I don't mean in swim wear fresh from the pool. I mean typical theme park casual--shorts and that awful Mickey T'.
Word will spread rather quickly, I should think, and then we'll soon see if WDW gains or loses from the policy.
As I suggested--if "signature" WDW restaurants want to cater to locals and conventioneers at the expense of families, then that's bad. Could be there are enough of that sort to keep business humming--or maybe not.
BY the by--in spite of Bistro's alleged dress code, several recent visitors there report (on the restaurant board) that diners a'plenty are still admitted in theme park casual.
As for me--am going to Narcoosee, Jiko, and the Blue Zoo in Oct--and will be dresed in theme park casual. Stay tuned!!!

DancingBear

08-19-2005, 07:48 AM

You say tomato, and I spell it wrong.

That's "tomatoe" according to our former Vice President.

DancingBear

08-19-2005, 07:55 AM

--if "signature" WDW restaurants want to cater to locals and conventioneers at the expense of families, then that's bad.

I don't really see how the policy is "at the expense of families" any more than any other guests, but, anyway, why should it be wrong for Disney to have a few restaurants want to attract locals and conventioneers?

Club 33 shows that it wasn't current Disney management that created exclusionary practices--and the practices at Club 33 are a lot more "exclusionary" than asking people to wear Larry's Land End shirt and shorts.

WDW is a huge resort destination for families, conventioneers, honeymooners, retired couples, etc. Maybe it can't be everything to all people (i.e., no casino), but it certainly has room to offer a few restaurant destinations for folks that don't want to look at Remus' brother's hairy back in his LSU tank top (sorry Larry).

Uncleromulus

08-19-2005, 08:04 AM

So it's a fashion show more than a meal--
OK-I get it now.

All Aboard

08-19-2005, 09:51 AM

Matt,
But this isn't what the place was supposed to be about,Clearly, applying a policy to a small number of establishments doesn't make the place all about this.

But, let's turn back the clock to the 1970's when there were just a handfull of dining options in the resorts. Six, if I am counting correctly. At one of those six, Top of the World at the Contemporary, which offered dining options for adults and children, there was this requirement (and I am quoting from Walt Disney World News Volume 9, No. 8, August 1979, page 6) - "Gentlemen are asked to wear coats."

So, the current restaurant in the exact same location now has more relaxed dress standards. And, a smaller percentage of resort dining offerings today require anything greater than casual.

I'm not sure what all the fuss is about.

DancingBear

08-19-2005, 10:12 AM

So it's a fashion show more than a meal--
OK-I get it now.

Yes. Please give us a twirl as the hostess leads you to your table (assuming you make it past the gatekeepers).

Peter Pirate

08-19-2005, 10:36 AM

Not to be dense (hahaha), but again is business casual meaning NO SHORTS? Because that one issue is HUGE for Florida...At WDW...In the Summer....While on Vacation...!!!!!!

pirate:

DancingBear

08-19-2005, 10:51 AM

Accounts of the code say "dress shorts" okay. Basically, they're trying to keep out running shorts and swim trunks.

Beachangel

08-19-2005, 10:57 AM

Uncleromulus

08-19-2005, 01:29 PM

Dancingbear:
Maybe this isn't such a bad idea after all. The "would-be" diners are first led around the restaurant, with the then dining patrons voting on whether or not to let them in. Entertainment along with the meal. Hard to beat that.
And of course being well dressed means that anyone getting drunk, acting out, or with kids running around the restaurant playing "tag" is exempt from rebuke or complaint. The well-dressed never act that way--even when they do.
gcurling:
Interesting about that "gentlemen are asked to wear coats" item. I was just down to Williamsburg Va. and also spent two days in Charlottesville. Stayed at the Boars Head Inn, and before we went, I called the Mill Room (their 4-diamond restaurant) and inquired about--gasp--any dress code.
"Jackets are suggested for gentlemen" I was told.
My response--"It's 97 degrees. I don't want to wear a jacket. Can I get in with chinos and a polo shirt??"
"That will be acceptable" was the response.
Acceptable indeed. Got there, found less than 10% of the male diners in jackets, and two elderly women eating in sweat-pants..
So much for the jacket request. They said it, but clearly didn't mean it.
By the way--had two excellent meals there.
What's this got to do with the current post? Not much I guess, but it's dress code material so I thought I'd tell it :)

crusader

08-19-2005, 02:07 PM

Nice post Uncleromulus. Just goes to demonstrate how far we've evolved as a society.

So, the current restaurant in the exact same location now has more relaxed dress standards. And, a smaller percentage of resort dining offerings today require anything greater than casual.

Those dress standards only relaxed after the dinner show "Broadway at the Top" ceased. I've got info from 1989 and 1991, stating it was mandatory that "jackets were required for gentlemen" only at this particular venue because of the type of show being performed.

Interestingly though, there was no other dress code mentioned at that time - including Bistro de Paris and Chefs de France.

So - to bring this discussion forward, I'd argue that Disney World evolved and expanded a decade beyond the 1979 era - to incorporate 200 dining choices of all respects to thier guests by 1991 and only added one other jacket requirement restaurant with no other mandate for attire.

DancingBear

08-19-2005, 02:32 PM

So - to bring this discussion forward, I'd argue that Disney World evolved and expanded a decade beyond the 1979 era - to incorporate 200 dining choices of all respects to thier guests by 1991 and only added one other jacket requirement restaurant with no other mandate for attire.

So what does that mean? Perhaps back in 1991 folks didn't have to be told not to wear their cutoffs and wife-beaters to the "nicer" restaurants. Hell, in 1991 I still wore a suit and tie to work every day.

And I don't really follow the distinction about connecting the jackets to the Broadway revue. The jacket requirement was part of creating a certain ambience among the guests, not to impress the stage performers. The CA Grill obviously has a different ambience and didn't require jackets. Now Disney has created some minimal dress code "requirements" to help create a certain ambience. What's the distinction?

DancingBear

08-19-2005, 02:37 PM

As for me--am going to Narcoosee, Jiko, and the Blue Zoo in Oct--and will be dresed in theme park casual. Stay tuned!!!

So, if I understand you, you are aware of the policy, presumably you own a polo shirt, which is equally as comfortable as a t-shirt (particularly in October), and yet you intend purposefully not to comply with the policy? Why, exactly? To prove that the rules don't apply to you? To stick it to those stuffy fellow guests who find their enjoyment of their meal negatively affected by your t-shirted presence?

Jason71

08-19-2005, 02:37 PM

I realize everyone thinks of WDW as a country unto itself, but in the context of greater Orlando, the new dress code is hardly big news.

I work in a "9 to 5" office building with hundreds of others; despite the "tropical heat and humidity of the central Florida swampland," I've never seen anyone wearing shorts or a T-shirt. (Granted, it's not as dressy as up north--no suits, hardly any ties--but it's not a Jimmy Buffet concert, either.) I'm pretty laid back guy, but I still throw on a pair of khakhis and a shirt with a collar for a first date, and I'd be a little unnerved if she wore a pair of neon flip-flops. The stereotype of how Floridians dress just isn't necessarily true.

The Blue Martini, the hottest bar in town at Mall of Millenia, prohibits athletic shoes, sandals, and shorts (maybe T-shirts, too, not sure)--heck, even the Mall itself had a dress code when it opened, tho I hear they've grown lax in enforcement. Many downtown clubs do the same. The Sheraton near I-Drive has even stricter policies than WDW for its "nice" restaurant, and I imagine the same is true of the other convention center area hotels. I believe Emerils and some of the Universal hotel restaurants are also stricter (and there are a lot fewer casual alternatives on Unviersal property).

Orlando is growing from tacky tourist trap into a real city. Visitors and residents are looking for something more than cheeseburgers and boat drinks. I think Scoop is right, WDW realizes this and wants to cash in like everyone else. And I see nothing wrong with having that option available to those who want it.

DancingBear

08-19-2005, 02:43 PM

And of course being well dressed means that anyone getting drunk, acting out, or with kids running around the restaurant playing "tag" is exempt from rebuke or complaint.

Obviously, compliance with a dress code does not exempt one from compliance with any other requirements of civility.

Peter Pirate

08-19-2005, 02:53 PM

When a man enters midlife and fails to comprehend the diagnostics of inversion should fellow man and marine animals alike be subject to the whims of the madman dictator or free to eat their french salad dressing on toast?
pirate:

Uncleromulus

08-19-2005, 03:07 PM

Dancingbear:
Glad to hear you say so. Was getting the feeling that being well dressed was being tied in to being well behaved. There has to be some reason for all the interest in dressing up, and I was beginning to think that might be it---
Anyway--Theme park casual is how I ALWAYS dress at WDW restaurants, ever since we've been going in 1975. That's several HUNDRED dinners, and almost all of 'em at places like Jiko, California Grill, Flying Fish, etc etc. Unless and until there is an ENFORCED dress code, that's how I'll continue to dress.
When (and or, if) they decide to keep folks like me out (and we begin to hear about it on the restaurant boards), then it's decision time. Are Narcoosee's , JIko, and the Blue Zoo worth getting dressed up for? That's the decision WDW will require folks to make, and it will be interesting to see what happens!!!

crusader

08-19-2005, 03:07 PM

So what does that mean? Perhaps back in 1991 folks didn't have to be told not to wear their cutoffs and wife-beaters to the "nicer" restaurants. Hell, in 1991 I still wore a suit and tie to work every day.

It means there was no policy and for 25 years there didn't need to be one. Despite every fashion trend - tube tops, daisy dukes, the grunge look, spandex, low riders, flip flops, shelf bra tanks, leather and lace, etc..........etc..............etc.......

It wasn't broken. It doesn't need to be fixed and that's not why they're looking to incorporate this now.

And I don't really follow the distinction about connecting the jackets to the Broadway revue. The jacket requirement was part of creating a certain ambience among the guests, not to impress the stage performers.

The ambience being theatre and broadway and lounge acts which back in the 80's typically held that dress code for the evening. It's extinct today.

DancingBear

08-19-2005, 03:57 PM

It means there was no policy and for 25 years there didn't need to be one. Despite every fashion trend - tube tops, daisy dukes, the grunge look, spandex, low riders, flip flops, shelf bra tanks, leather and lace, etc..........etc..............etc.......

It wasn't broken. It doesn't need to be fixed and that's not why they're looking to incorporate this now.

Again, perhaps the reason there was no written policy is that folks just knew not to wear their tube tops and daisy dukes to the nicer restaurants. There has certainly been a decline (or, if you prefer, a relaxation) of dress standards generally over that time period. Again, back in 1991, business casual Fridays were just coming into vogue, which rapidly evolved into full-time business casual in most offices now.

Dealing with the decline/relaxation in dress standards is an issue in the restaurant industry in general. Some customers care, so restauratuers are having to confront the issue. Disney is not exempt from those trends, or those concerns.

Jonothan

08-19-2005, 04:50 PM

I'm not sure if anyone else has mentioned it, but The Gulf Coast Room on the 2nd floor of the Contemporary had a "jackets required" dress code for gentlemen. Likewise did the Pompano Grill at the Lake Buena Vista golf club and the Empress Room on the Empress Lilly.

Of course, all of these restaurants are no more, but the dress code was present before Victoria and Albert's and for restaurants other than dinner shows.

DancingBear

08-19-2005, 05:04 PM

Even if nothing else gets resolved....

Resolved? When do we ever get anything resolved?

Uncleromulus

08-19-2005, 05:11 PM

Scoop:
The Chef's table at V&A. A place where I really would prefer NOT to wear a jacket, but I like so much I comply with a genuine rule that IS enforced.
As an aside, I no longer wear a suit nor does Mrs. U wear a dress,. Now when we eat at V&A I wear a wash' n' wear blue sportcoat and tan slacks. Mrs. U wears a pantssuit. Much easier to pack and a LOT more comfortable.

Anyhow-- as I said--it's how I always dress for dinner at WDW and until there is an ENFORCED policy, it's how I'll continue to dress. I'm still not sure we have a RULE, or in spite of all the wording, still just a "suggested" way of dressing. If a rule, they'll enforce it and I won't get in. If a suggestion, up to me whether or not to take it (or as you say-ignore it) and I'll get in.
Suggest we monitor the restaurant boards for reports of what folks ARE wearing and who is refused admittance. When they start turning folks away, then they DO have a policy/rule and then decisions must be made.

Uncleromulus

08-19-2005, 05:13 PM

Jonathan:
True enough. And none of them are around any more.

DancingBear

08-19-2005, 05:23 PM

Anyhow-- as I said--it's how I always dress for dinner at WDW and until there is an ENFORCED policy, it's how I'll continue to dress. I'm still not sure we have a RULE, or in spite of all the wording, still just a "suggested" way of dressing. If a rule, they'll enforce it and I won't get in. If a suggestion, up to me whether or not to take it (or as you say-ignore it) and I'll get in.

How about we consider it a "request"--not a firm rule, but something more than a "suggestion."

eeyore0062

08-20-2005, 02:42 PM

I can't understand the flip flop... what constitutes a flip flop? The plastic variety mostly seen to go to and from the pool, or the decorated type that actually look very nice with a sundress? That is just begging for interpretation descrepancies.

I also have a problem with the "shorts", as many women wear nice dressy shorts, and shouldn't have to wear long pants, capris or dresses to be considered well dressed, same with men. Bermuda shorts on men look very nice with a casual shirt or a t shirt with a collared shirt over it.

That being said, many people seem to be more concerned about what is appropriate dress, as oftentimes we hear people ask if what they have on is OK for PI, or Fulton's, etc. But, gone are the days that everyone "dresses" for dinner out on vacation. Basically, for me as long as no "pits", bellies or excuse my lack of couth, "butt cracks" are showing on men and they have on shoes and as long as no bellies, ****s or butts are showing on women and they have on shoes and nobody stinks, I don't care what the person next to me at a restaurant is wearing-- regardless of the restaurant. I am there to enjoy my food and the company of the person I am with.

DancingBear

08-20-2005, 05:07 PM

I also have a problem with the "shorts", as many women wear nice dressy shorts, and shouldn't have to wear long pants, capris or dresses to be considered well dressed, same with men. Bermuda shorts on men look very nice with a casual shirt or a t shirt with a collared shirt over it.

Shorts are permitted.

eeyore0062

08-20-2005, 11:56 PM

Thank goodness... I think I had read the part where the weren't at one of the food and wine festival events. That is A BIT harsh!

raidermatt

08-22-2005, 09:15 PM

I was just gonna let this thing die, but I finally went over to the restaurant board to read about all of the people supporting the policy.

I found the thread several pages back, and in the end, I found 26 posters supporting the code, 17 against the code. (That's posters... one person posting 10 times still counts as one) I did not post on the thread and therefore didn't count myself.

That's about 60-40, which isn't quite the overwhelming wave of support I expected based on what was said earlier in this thread.

Look further and 6 of those 26 supporters said that of course what they were talking about, like "nice" flip flops, or "clean" or "nice" t-shirts were ok. So while they SAY they support the code, they are more supporting the idea of a code that meets with their own tastes, not the code as stated.

Another person didn't technically express an opinion, but asked a question about attire that is banned by the letter of the code. I didn't count that as "against" the code, but very easily could have.

One of the people for the code justified using examples of clothing that isn't even banned.

At least 5 other supporters used swimwear as examples of why they supported the code. Something nobody is arguing with.

Two supporters specifically said it wasn't appropriate to have the code in theme park restaurants, which it apparently is (Bistro).

A couple of posters were either non-committal or posted their support initially, but after discussion with Captain Pirate, admitted that the code either went too far, or that they didn't really care if others wore their $40 Mickey Mouse t-shirt.

Resolved? When do we ever get anything resolved?

Good point. What have we resolved here?

1- I do not utilize my time in a productive manner.

2- 43 responses is hardly a meaningful sample size, but even so, it appears Dis'ers are pretty evenly split on the code as posted.

DancingBear

08-23-2005, 09:10 AM

I don't care if anyone wears their $40 Mickey T-shirt either, or if they are girls in fashionable flip-flops with nice outfits, etc. And, really, neither does Disney. As I said waaaaaayyyyyy back, any dress code can be attacked on the margins; the key is in reasonable enforcement. That doesn't mean you should "throw the baby out with the bathwater" and not have the code.

raidermatt

08-23-2005, 11:54 AM

Very few have indicated there should be no code whatsoever. I don't remember anyone supporting swimwear, coverups, or torn clothing in these restaurants. If that's really what they want to ban, keep it at that and simply enforce it as posted. In fact, many have indicated these things were banned all along. I'm not sure if that's true, but again, nobody is really arguing they should be allowed.

Much easier than throwing in t-shirts and flip flops, then asking CMs to make a judgement about what is an "acceptable" t-shirt or sandal.

Unless of course Disney really is banning the clean $40 Mickey T.

DancingBear

08-23-2005, 02:00 PM

I think they're trading off administrative convenience for stating a "higher" standard. Again, IMO, this is more about sending out the general message that these restaurants are "a cut above" than about the details of the code. Sure it would be somewhat easier for CMs not to distinguish between AirLarry's LSU t-shirt and a Liz Claiborne t-top, but "allowing" all t-shirts wouldn't accomplish the objective.

dan-tot

08-23-2005, 05:40 PM

I think they are doing this so that they can raise their food prices.

Dan-tot

airlarry!

08-23-2005, 10:25 PM

Sure it would be somewhat easier for CMs not to distinguish between AirLarry's LSU t-shirt...
As usual, PUDBDO, you did not read the fine print:

Seven of the resort's spiffiest restaurants have upgraded to a “business casual” requirement. The restaurants involved are:

Jiko (Animal Kingdom Lodge)
Flying Fish (BoardWalk)
California Grill (Contemporary)
Citricos and Narcoossee's (Grand Floridian)
Artist Point (Wilderness Lodge)
Yachtsman Steakhouse (Yacht Club)
The restaurants are defining “business casual” as dress shorts, pants, jean pants, collared shirts, blouses and sweaters. Hats, swimsuits, swimsuit coveralls, tank tops, T-shirts, torn clothing and flip-flops are not permitted, unless they are licensed apparel emblazoned with the school colors and/or logo of any NCAA college football or college baseball national championship programs from Louisiana.

Uncleromulus

08-24-2005, 06:02 AM

SO they ARE "banning" the DISNEY T---at these "spiffy" restaurants.
Since T's and polo shirts pretty much cover the same area of the body, then it's the COLLAR that counts for everything. Can't be just "writing" cause I have a # of polos with writing and logos on them. But they do have a collar, which makes everything OK.

DancingBear

08-24-2005, 07:25 AM

Yes, Uncle, just as has been true on golf courses forever, and in most business casual offices now, a collared shirt is considered more "dressed up" than a t-shirt. That's really not a radical concept.

Uncleromulus

08-24-2005, 08:24 AM

Just trying to pin down the real issue, is all.
And as I thought all along--is IS the collar.
Except for the feet, of course. Another matter entirely.
Raidermatt:
Thanks for the actual breakdown of the restaurant boards post!!

Uncleromulus

08-27-2005, 07:15 AM

Would note that over on the restaurants board, reports suggest that folks in T's and flips, sandals, etc etc still being allowed in the "signature "restaurants. No sign yet of any enforcement of the "code".

Peter Pirate

08-27-2005, 08:15 AM

Just to confuse things, when I made my reservations for Flying Fish yesterday I was told the dress code is "business/resort casual" ???
pirate:

Uncleromulus

08-27-2005, 09:11 AM

They could hardly make it more confusing--but then they do seem to try!!

Just have the ESPN Club as an alternate, in case you're hauled from the Fish for "mal" (mis??) dressing. It is a "signature" restaurant, as you know----

raidermatt

08-29-2005, 03:43 PM

On a related note, I have designated myself a "signature" guest.

Sarangel

08-29-2005, 08:12 PM

On a related note, I have designated myself a "signature" guest.Does that mean you can't wear flip-flops, tank tops or shorts?
:rotfl: :teeth:

Uncleromulus

08-30-2005, 05:48 AM

Since signature guest is taken, I designate myself as a "spiffy" guest.

DancingBear

08-30-2005, 03:34 PM

Does that mean you can't wear flip-flops, tank tops or shorts?
:rotfl: :teeth:

No, I think it means Matt will only respond to internet postings by appropriately-attired persons.

sora fan 101

09-05-2005, 05:56 PM

:jumping1: :charac4: :disrocks: :jumping2: :thewave: This thread had gone on for a long time.........I mean c'mon people we had the moderator come out!!! :dancer: :maleficen :maleficen

cteddiesgirl

09-05-2005, 06:21 PM

Personally, I would never go to one of these restaurants wearing swimwear or ripped clothing (I'd never really wear them around the parks either). But I do consider a nice t-shirt and nice shorts with nice tennis shoes to be decent. If a family is willing to spend the money at these places, they should be able to wear clothes that are decent, nice and clean to be appropriate. It seems as if they are saying they don't need certain people's money. And it seems that they are trying to be snobish.

Personally, whenever I go on vacation somewhere, I always try to bring at least one set of semi-dressy/casual clothes for occasions like this. But not everyone can afford to buy clothes to eat in a restaurant they may never eat in again and otherwise have no use to wear again.

sora fan 101

09-05-2005, 07:32 PM

::MickeyMo ::MinnieMo Disny World should be a dicent place
Did Walt Disny wan't this to happen?

DVCconvert

09-05-2005, 08:17 PM

Disny World should be a dicent place

In English please...what is "dicent"????? :confused3

jiminy14

09-06-2005, 01:32 AM

My family recently had dinner at Jiko and I can confirm that the "dress code" was not enforced at all. While we wore resort casual attire, (sundresses and sandals for myself and DDs and khakis and a button-up shirt for my DH) many guests were wearing t-shirts, shorts, flip-flops and even baseball caps. My DDs were quite upset with me as I insisted that they would not be allowed in the restaurant wearing flip-flops and then they saw many other guests wearing them. There were a couple of other diners dressed like us but the majority were wearing very casual clothing.

aalan

09-08-2005, 12:39 AM

...i guess i have to get in my two cents.

its reality that the majority of people are not interested in "dressing up" anymore, to the point where khaki pants and button down shirts are considered a pain in the you know what.

i personally think that this is kind of sad.

dont get me wrong: during the summer, i'm a shorts, t-shirts and teva-wearing fool. but there are those places and occasions that require, at least a LITTLE bit of effort in dressing up.

i believe that management just wants people to TRY harder, leave the running shorts, the tank tops, the inappropriate wear in the hotel room. few people are putting the EFFORT into wearing decent clothes. management is tired of it, and perhaps even some guests have complained as well. when you can easily drop over a $100 (or more) a couple for a meal in the mentioned restaurants, whats so wrong with a minor dress code? the requests are reasonable, its not like suit and tie is required everywhere.

i know wdw is a family resort, but its become a very large vacation destination with many different activities for all interests. the suggested code affects a small percentage of the dining choices.

and trust me, NO ONE will be turned away, unless they really are a mess.

on a trip back in the early seventies, my family took a break from the mk (only park there at the time), went back to hotel on 192, and we changed from our park wear into decent, resort casual wear: nothing fancy, just shorts, decent shirts, and we had a suprise dinner at a restaurant in the poly. its still one of my nicer memories of my early trips to wdw. we went back to the park after dinner, and stayed until 2:00 a.m., which was great but thats another story... :earsboy: