Can we go to instant replay for a ruling here

[larworth]

I'll admit this did come from the latest Hill article. I'd just ask we ignore the rest of the management diatribe for a moment and focus on this one piece. Do we throw a flag on this one or not?

He states that Disney is installing a fairly standard amusement park upcharge ride in Downtown Disney as a way to boost attendance (an S&S powered slingshot ride). It was unclear if there would be any attempt at theming, ala Alladin, at all (none assumed).

Now, it may not make any sense to install an "imagineered" style ride here, and it isn't technically in one of their parks. However, it would still be strongly associated with the Disney name, and I hate the thought that instead of tossing the catalog in the trash the DCA boys ended up mailing it to WDW.

This type of activity is exactly one of the reasons I've come to know the license plates on many of the other cars in the carpool. So I ask, would this be acceptable at a place like DD if it were true?

[DVC-Landbaron]

I'll admit this did come from the latest Hill article.
No reason to make excuses. His articles, whether true or not, make marvelous topics of conversation!So I ask, would this acceptable at a place like DD if it were true?See. To me this is an absolute no-brainer. It is certainly NOT acceptable. And I tend to believe that this is typical of their philosophy lately. That's why I'm in car three. If they do choose to "Do It Right", then car #2 could be getting a new passenger in the back seat. I'd even take the middle (with the hump)!

I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Scoop. I had the above written out and ready to post, but you beat me in. And I just can't let this go.I'm pretty indifferent about what they do at Downtown Disney. While we usually stop by there once during each vacation, I don't really consider it part of the show.Here is where we part company. EVERYTHING that Disney does, especially in WDW, is part of the SHOW. I also do not frequent Downtown Disney. But I strongly feel that if they do something, it has to be done right! And an unthemed ride is simply… well… I guess… Un-Disney!!! Much to the detriment of the SHOW!

And it really doesn't matter whether I visit it or not. Or whether I like it or not. It's either Disney or it isn't.

[JeffJewell]

Downtown Disney was never intended to convey the magic ...that's the key. If you think it's okay that Disney has no interest in Magic-ing certain chunks of its empire, then unthemed rides are fine.

If you think it's okay for Disney to go buy carnival rides and then try to tell you "carnival" is therefore the theme (or to buy a gravity training simulator then tell you "gravity training simulator" is the theme. Same beans), then I don't see why they couldn't go buy a thrill ride, set in up unthemed, and call it "thrill ride" theming. That path is already well-travelled.

I don't think it's okay for any part of Disney to be second or third rate; to have the same rides as Six Flags. I think it's appalling that Disney's management now sets its sights no higher than that. I think Disney will pay dearly for this trend with the loss of guests over the next decade or so.

Jeff

[gary]

Personally, I do find some Magic in Downtown Disney, but it's different from the parks. But the water, the lights, the themed stores and restaurants, and Pleasure Island, give it a distinct feel different from other shopping/nightclub places. And I think that a slingshot ride would seriously detract from that feel. Dscoop mentioned the Boardwalk, and it made me recall my feelings first seeing these kind of rides at "real" boarwalks. These types of "extra-cost" prefab set-up-anywhere rides (slingshots, bungee-trampolines, rock climbing walls) detract even from the atmosphere of a real boardwalk (think Santa Cruz, CA, or Wildwood, NJ). So I don't think that they're suitable in any location - certainly not the parks, and not the Boardwalk (which is supposed to be like an old-time Jersey boardwalk, not a modern Santa Cruz), and not Downtown.

But... Devil's Advocate says Downtown Disney is the home of Disney's "extra-cost" attractions - Cirque de Soliel, DisneyQuest, etc. So if it makes sense to put such an attraction anywhere, it makes sense here, right?

NO! Cirque, Quest, and the others all have a distinct, quality feel. These OTS POS attractions do not fit, and should not be associated with Disney. Even in my Devil's Advocate mode, I can't see it. I generally bend to "consumer demand" all that reason will allow, but you've got to draw the line somewhere. If Disney wants 6-flags parks, they should build them and operate them under something other than the Disney name. Maybe they should just buy 6 Flags, if they've got ants in their pants for this sort of thing... but Disneyland, Disney World, and the other Disney properties should positively shine with Disney Magic.

Gary

[Barb]

A slingshot type ride at Downtown Disney? You've got to be kidding!

[All Aboard]

I'm torn right down the middle on this one. In all the trips I've made to WDW since DD was at its current size, I've visited it once. Right or wrong, I don't consider it part of Walt Disney World. I know it's not up to me to make that distinction, but it's more of a perception thing. It's isolated on one side of the property, so close to the Crossroads, the SunTrust Bank, the Plaza hotels. To me, it's a Disney owned off-site area. I know that's not reality, but it's perception.

Given that, part of me doesn't really care what goes on there - as long as it is profitable :) and of nice quality. But, part of me agrees with the Landbaron "Disney standards or nothing at all" theory.

Like others, I'd hate to see this at the Boardwalk (a place I very much consider part of WDW.)

[DVC-Landbaron]

Scoop, my man, you've done it again. Apples and oranges, and even a few mangos for good measure. The Hotel area, admittedly on Disney property, is not, has never been, nor ever will be, part of "Disney". There is no pretense. It is separate. They are built on Disney property, but Disney has no affiliation with them whatsoever. Period! (And if the truth be told, I'm sure they'd like to kick them out and develop the land themselves!) Downtown Disney (with the possible exception of Pleasure Island) has never been themed--even during the Disney Village days.SCOOP!!! How can one guy be so wrong almost every time out of the box!! Market Place was meticulously themed. Not so much with a certain 'world' area (i.e. Asia, Polynesian, etc.) but in a grand concept of quaint shops, all architecturally flowing together, in an overall ideal of 'different' yet easily familiar. Huts rather than shops. A rather unique place. A true village. Get it?Basically, I think its just a visually stimulating outdoor bazaar. Like the magnificent mile, beale street, times square, and several others.Ahhhh yes. Sadly that is what it has become. Another dumbing down exercise. Or maybe just simply not caring enough. And besides the annoying spotlightsI guess we can agree on this! I hate them too. Guess a good summary is that just because something is on property owned by Disney does not mean it is automatically part of the show.Apples! Oranges! Bananas! Kumquats!! Get 'em while they last!!!

Scoop. Just because something is on the Disney property doesn't automatically make it Disney! Crossroads used to be, technically, on Disney property. Do you really think Goodings or TGI Friday's is Disney? Those hotels you mentioned are not Disney
(important point coming up…)
(… get ready…)
(… here it is!!)
Nor are they intended to be!!!

Same as the Swan and the Dolphin. No one could ever say they are Disney!!!

But if Disney puts up an unthemed ride in the middle of their Downtown Disney… Well, it just ain't fittn', is all!!!
she even offered to transfer me to Mr. So and So how is head of MK. I declined…Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! SCOOP!!! How could you!!! What a shot!! What an opportunity missed!!! You could have discussed those rotten hours or Timekeeper or …. Oh! The pain!!!!

Next time transfer him to my phone (Private Message to follow with home and work phone numbers!!)
Different Downtown Disney Definition...
BTW, I always appreciate nice alliteration and that was nice alliteration!! ;)

[JeffJewell]

Downtown Disney... has never been themed I agree with that, but I think it's a bad direction for Disney. You said it yourself, it's not Disney, it's an "outdoor bazaar. Like... several others." I don't think we should be thrilled with a Disney who now gives us experiences that are like "several others" through out the US. Why go to Disney when you can get the same thing elsewhere?

just because something is on property owned by Disney does not mean it is automatically part of the show I believe that mindset is partly responsible for a show that is becoming more and more like "several others." Entering Disney World is no longer entering a different world if batches of property are arbitrarily deemed non-show. They originally bought all that property so guests would never have to see "the real world," and I believe that was a good strategy for offering more than the competition for the vacation dollar. I think it's bad that the real world is intruding, and I think Disney has a less compelling business advantage as a result.

Again, I think becoming more and more like others is a business plan that Disney will regret. What do you think about that? Does it not stand to reason that future attendance is going to suffer at the hands of competing parks because Disney's decisions are blurring the distinctions that once separated Disney from those parks?

I think I understand what you are saying about DD (well, except for the "unless I was staying at the Disney Villas, it would not bother me" comment; that almost sounds like "if I don't have to look at it, whatever is cool with me"); I'm not trying to argue against your point "it was never themed." I'm trying to figure out why you feel that point satisfies you in this case, when to me it only supports decisions that are not in Disney's best interests.

Why is it okay for Disney to offer re-runs, when their business was built on being the one copied?

Jeff

[hopemax]

On one side of the country the city of Anaheim and Disney are working together to "beautify" the area around Disneyland and limit visual intrusions. Ordinances for signage, height restrictions, lanscaping. etc.

On the other side of the country rumors of a slingshot. It's one thing to ask that Downdown Disney to be themed as much as the resorts and parks. It's another thing to disregard any level of "standards" just because it's on the fringe.

Since I believe Anaheim's actions are appropriate and very welcome and I would love to see other areas take on this type of thing, and since I think the sling shot rides are just plain ugly and intrusive, I can't be anything but upset and disappointed that this idea could even be placed on the table for discussion.

[DVC-Landbaron]

Now that's consonance!!

Anyway! On with the SHOW!!!

I think we have to define it once again, because you and I (and JeffJewel it seems) are worlds apart. By your definintion, the SHOW is only important or relivant or even in existence where you (thedscoop) appreciate it. Ergo the reference to staying in the Villas. And the following: You include Downtown Disney (but not the nearby hotels or bank or plaza) within Your Show. I do not. My show is narrower. I do not include Downtown Disney or, for that matter, Wide World of Sports, within the Show my vacation consists of. Otherwise, as long as they do not intrude on what the scoops define as the Show, then I just hope others can enjoySo if (for argument's sake) you really didn't like MK (in fact avoided it), it would make no difference to you whether or not any of it was themed? They could rip out Small World and slap in some cheap carnival games in its place. Or perhaps tear down Jungle Cruise and put up an eighty mile an hour, wooden, but rather pedestrian, roller coaster. And Liberty Tree Inn would be converted to a full serve McDonald's complete with golden arches. All this is OK with you because you don't consider it part of YOUR show. I'm asking, for Scoop, all is right with the world? Am I right? Cause if I'm not right, I'd like you to explain the difference.

One more thing: However, if I hear that Bongos will be closing at 8...well, I'll get my Estefan fix back in the real world.....My point exactly. And I'm very consistent in my position. And from the looks of it, you agree!! It doesn't belong in Disney in the first place!!!!!!!

[DVC-Landbaron]

Only one new thing to add: And, you know, I think Disney Village was an attempt to correct part of that.Where'd you get that???!!! The Village was there ages before Downtown Disney, or any of the other things you mentioned, were even thought of!! The Village was there since 1971 (or '72 at least). It was quaint. Peaceful. A change of pace. And it was all Disney, through and through!!

[gary]

Okay, enough silly games!

When Disney hands you a Downtown Disney pamphlet (when Disney deals dudes and dames downtown disney descriptions?), it describes the West Side, Marketplace, and Pleasure Island. It does not describe what's built on the remainder of its property. I sincerely believe, for most of us, that pamphlet describes what we think of as "Downtown Disney".

Gary

P.S. Sorry about the title - I really don't like to spend too much time on this stuff.

[Planogirl]

I happen to like the Marketplace at Downtown Disney. It's my place to shop and shopping is part of my Disney experience. I like the style of the Marketplace and I have gone there and enjoyed it for years.

That said, I don't really care what they place on the West End. It just looks like a mish mash of items that Disney needed to place SOMEWHERE. I agree that there is no theming there. Could the Marketplace be left alone? Could it perhaps be left as a true marketplace and not turned into a carnival? I shudder at the thought of turning it into a carnival and doubt that I would bother to go any more if this happened.

Just my two cents as a Disney shopper. And Disney shoppers probably constitute the majority of regular visitors to the Marketplace.

Or maybe I'll just have to call and complain and get my obligatory phone calls returned. But only phone calls please! ;)

[DC7800]

Downtown Disney - the original Marketplace in pariticular (I still refer to it as the "village") - is one of my very favorite places in the "world". To me, it holds just as much magic as the theme park attractions (MORE than some, but I don't want to open that can of worms here...). Pleasure Island is fine, and while I like the West Side, I could do without so many non-Disney elements. In vacation planning, we treat DD just like a theme park (the "fifth" park), except we go more often, because it doesn't count as a day on our passes. I have even gone so far as considering a Christmas trip to WDW just for the Village..., uh Marketplace (and Wilderness Lodge), visiting no theme parks!

Originally posted by JeffJewell
I think it's a bad direction for Disney it's not Disney, it's an "outdoor bazaar. Like... several others." I don't think we should be thrilled with a Disney who now gives us experiences that are like "several others" through out the US. Why go to Disney when you can get the same thing elsewhere?

I believe that mindset is partly responsible for a show that is becoming more and more like "several others." Entering Disney World is no longer entering a different world if batches of property are arbitrarily deemed non-show. They originally bought all that property so guests would never have to see "the real world," and I believe that was a good strategy for offering more than the competition for the vacation dollar. I think it's bad that the real world is intruding, and I think Disney has a less compelling business advantage as a result.

I'll agree wholeheartedly that the "real-world" is intruding too much into WDW (McDonald's being the worst offender). In the long-term, why indeed should I go to Disney for an experience I can get back home (Rainforest Cafe, Planet Hollywood, Exxon, McDonald's, and so on). However, The Disney Marketplace as a whole is an experience you cannot get anywhere except WDW and now (and only partially) in Anaheim. A strip-mall (CrossRoads) is a different story, but the Marketplace is hardly a strip mall.

That said, I hope the Slingshot rumors are false. I do like the idea of a big "icon" attraction to identify Downtown Disney, but this is hardly what I had in mind!

[JeffJewell]

I don't consider them magical but I also don't consider them repulsive. thedscoop, would you consider DD and WWS more magical if they had more cohesive, immersive, classically Disney theming?

I ask because, even though I enjoy DD (I'm more than happy to spend a bit of time in most malls--I recommend checking out the FAO Schwartz in Ceasar's Palace Las Vegas, by the way), I consider it an example of Disney's recent trend to exert too little Imagineering muscle on the theming of rides/areas/lands/whatever. I see that trend as the heart of "losing the Magic," and it is major a reason why I'm in Car #3 (does it vaguely disturb anyone else that the world's most famous Car #3 recently smashed into a wall and killed its occupant?).

If one of the reasons you don't care for DD/WWS is the lower standards of theming, and you consider this statement:Their outer fringe geographic placement in the overall WDW design allows me to ignore them ...is it possible that the main difference between Car #3 and Car #1 is how much of Disney the riders are willing to ignore when determining whether or not Magic is being maintained?

Jeff

[JeffJewell]

more than "how much" I am willing to ignore is probably "what" I am willing to ignore. "How much" implies a sliding scale and for the parks and resorts What I meant, in that terminology, is just how many "whats" a person is willing to overlook. Even though WWS is not one of our regular stops, and is, as you point out, quite ignorable, I still consider it a part of Disney, and I still feel that it's not a "Disney quality" sports complex (as you allude, determining whether or not a sports complex is Disney _appropriate_ is another conversation entirely). A couple folks in this thread have mentioned a similar selective myopia: some don't see the Magic of DD, or West End specifically, or WWS, yada yada yada, but they let it slide because it doesn't affect them (perhaps they're just not interested in sports, perhaps they share my feeling that the sports complex is pretty similar to sports complexes in other locales where Magic was never a consideration).

I guess my point is, even if I personally don't like or don't want to go to DD, WWS, AK, whatever, there would be conditions under which I'd have to admit the foundation of Magic exists. Even though I don't care about WWS, I feel it was built on a shakier Magical foundation than, say, Wilderness Lodge. Because I see a lot of what I consider shaky Magical foundations recently, I worry about the solidity of the stucture as a whole. The more "whats" within Disney World that are ignored to maintain the Magic, the worse off the company is going to be.

Odds are the Jewells could care less about pool hopping, but go over to the DVC board and its a major source of contention. Does that mean we are enlightened and the Jewell's are not? Nope. No more than saying the Jewell's are enlightened because they object to Disney's decision to put in dinorama I try to avoid terms like "enlightened" on the basis that it sounds superior and confrontational, and there're already too many people who think I'm just here to pick fights and act superior.

Even though you correctly gauge my current interest in pool hopping, I'm gonna call kumquats and kiwis on you, here. Believe me, I'd suddenly take an _enormous_ interest in the WDW pool system if they started buying above-grounders from Wal-Mart. From what I've seen so far, the pools they've put in recently all seem to have a high level of detail and theme elements; the things I consider the foundations of Magic. So I don't b**** about the pools. I'm cranky about DinoRama only because every shred of evidence we have so far suggests that the additions will be minimally detailled/themed rides purchased from a mass producer, which I feel is a bad business decision for an alledgedly creative company like Disney. We'll have to wait until next year sometime to see whether I personally enjoy any of the aspects of DinoRama, but even so, until that time, I doubt I'll be shy about questioning the business-savvy of the attractions' origins.

If I can say this without sounding superior or confrontational, I'd suggest that I'm trying to look at this from a business perspective, considering trends and directions, whereas some folks are looking at it from a more personal enjoyment basis. I don't personally like Tower of Terror that much, but you won't hear a peep out of me about it simply because I feel the ride displays an overwhelming level of detail in the theming. Although I probably won't always succeed, I always try to take my personal likes and dislikes out of these discussions, and concentrate on what characteristics are the most likely to create an environment conducive to everyone's individual interpretation of the Magic.the lights are beautiful but IMHO not Disney. They are the Osbourne's lights. See, I take a different tack. The lights aren't Disney, but (as we've each pointed out in other threads) Disney has always partnered with others on attractions, to some level or other. Even though Disney may not have instigated the lights, I think they are presented with care and attention to detail, and create a completely immersive environment. Perhaps not "Disney" in some sense, but again, I'll not bark about it because I see a Magical foundation.Jeff, the underlying issue for me (as applied to the original issue of this thread) is whether a rumored addition or subtraction affects each person's SUBJECTIVE definition of Magic That's cool. The underlying issue for me is whether a rumored addition or subtraction is carried out in a way that's likely to generate that subjective feeling of Magic in the most possible guests. I don't ever intend my comments to interfere with anyone else's subjective view, only to point out when I think it's likely a different policy would have resulted in a larger mass of positive subjective views.
should something we consider unmagical intrude on our magic, then I will gladly step into your car You'll always be welcome. If I have anything to say about it, we'll even slow down a bit for you. I hope I've better delineated my reasons for speaking up so much, and I hope it's clear I never intend to interfere with anyone else's Magic.

To sum up with a line vaguely on-topic, I'm against a SlingShot in DD because I feel DD is an integral part of the Walt Disney _World_, and that the parts of WDW should have a certain Magic that you can't get anywhere else. The SlingShot is simply not that type of Magic.

Jeff

[DVC-Landbaron]

First of all I want to say that every single word JeffJewell has written was in my heart if not my head. He has, once again, hit the proverbial nail on the head. I try to shy away from a 'ditto' type thing, but I really feel I have to make an exception this time.

Jeff: Thanks for articulating, so well, what I have been feeling for quite some time now.

(to be read with an English accent) And now, for something completely different!!No one definition of magic or the show. I wish I had the wisdom to draft a statement with which we could all agree---but, Planogirl loves the marketplace, I don't. So, for Planogirl the world seems to be just fine at marketplace. Conversely, I love blizzard beach and fantasia gardens, she may not, but I'm sure another poster does.....It all just defies a single definition.....
A very interesting paragraph. But also very indicative that we are still not on the same subject. Read it again. You'll find there's a lot of talk about likes and dislikes. Individual opinions. And you invoke the often elusive term of 'magic'. But you make it way too subjective. We are NOT talking about personal taste. We are NOT talking about subjective 'magical' moments. We are talking about standards!! Disney either has them, or they don't!! Any it goes to everything they do. In this case WDW.

And the example you use is perfect. I, personally, don't like to shop. If I want something (which I often do) I find the item as quickly as possible, buy it, and get out, again, as quickly as possible. My lovely wife, on the other hand, isn't satisfied until she, at the very least, touches every single item in the store!! So our take on 'magic' within the Marketplace is vastly different.

Now maybe it's because I remember the good old days (before Ei$ner had his way), and you didn't experience it. But I clearly remember NOT wanting to spend much time at Marketplace. It was a long, tiresome and tedious day. Yet, every time I went there, I was pleasantly surprised. It was different, somehow, than a normal trip to the shopping mall. There was pleasant scenery. Shops were 'out-of-the-ordinary'. Restaurants were uniquely Disney yet, understated in an odd way. Oh-oh!! Time for a story!!

Preface - My wife had never been to Disney before, in her entire life (a form of child abuse if you ask me!! ;) ). I was eagerly anticipating her first experience with Dinsey. She also couldn't wait, as I had talked it up ever since I met her.

My first trip was in 1972. Approximately every other year (actually a little more) I went to Disney. In 1972 I visited Marketplace. YUCK!! For a seventeen year old… well… let's just say I was a little young to fully appreciate the subtleties of a Disney shopping experience! I never visited the hotel strip leading to Crossroads and knew very little about it. I never returned until…

The year - 1979
The occasion - Honeymoon
The Place - Just outside WDW.

We took a small cruise first and then booked three days in a Best Western (to see some Orlando sights) and then five days in Disney (the Poly). The hotel we stayed at was right at the edge of Disney Property. I don't recall exactly where (and it has since been leveled), maybe someone else will know, but it had a feel as though it was near Crossroads somewhere. Anyway, we had visited Cypress Gardens in the morning and by afternoon, fighting 100+ degree temperatures, we had our first fight. It didn't last long. A little air conditioning and the setting sun found us a loving couple again.

We decided to go for a walk. We walked in the street for several blocks as there was no sidewalk. The grass on the side of the road was sparse and brown. Suddenly, a clear delineation in landscaping was readily apparent. And a sidewalk appeared, with very stylish, low lights along the path. We passed some hotels, noting the names at the time (now long forgotten) and remarked how nice they kept their property. It was getting a little late and the sprinklers came on. Further we walked.

We happened upon a small group of buildings. Towards the center there was a restaurant. We stopped for bite. The Hostess was one of the smiling-est people you'd have the pleasure of meeting. She ushered us to a quite table for two and gave us menus. Instantly someone else appeared filling our water glasses. At about the same time a waiter arrived to see if we would like some drinks. Very nice.

We studied the menu a bit and as I looked around I noticed the overall feel of the place. The architecture, the design and well, the ambiance. Very well done. I also noticed that I was about a foot away from what looked like a tree. Not some little potted plant, but a big, honking, out in the backyard, tree! What a concept for design, I thought. I wondered what it was made of, it looked so real. I touched it. Hmmm. It even felt real. I reached a bit and felt a leaf. Still feeling real. "Well, what the heck!" I thought. And I pulled on the leaf. It felt real, because it was real!! Inside a restaurant. A full grown tree. All of a sudden all the little clues came rushing to me. I turned to my wife and blurted out, 'WE'RE IN DISNEY!!!" I was disappointed. I did not want her first taste of Disney to be like this!! I wanted her to see the Ploy first, look across the lagoon to the castle. Not this! But as it turned out it couldn't be more perfect. For in a quick couple second she came to appreciate the subtitles of the Disney experience and how that can translate into a magical experience. You don't need a giant Mickey hand, in primary colors, to know you are in Disney. The Disney 'touch', experience, magic, pixie dust (call it what you will) is enough. Anyway…

I explained about the Marketplace and that I had forgotten about it. We came into it on an angle so we missed the signage. She asked how I could be sure. I said it's the Disney 'touch' (what I used to call it). I pointed out the theming (although I didn't call it that at the time). I showed her how everything fit together so nicely. How detailed everything was, even down to the print on the menu. Those wonderful, friendly, smiling people who were taking care of us so well. The nametags everyone was wearing. And the topper was the tree. Who would have a full grown, big, live tree in a restaurant that had a ceiling!! No one!! Except Disney, that is!!

END OF STORY

I still don't like shopping. I still don't like the Marketplace (even more now that the Disney 'touch' is missing). But I can appreciate the effort that Disney put into the original plan. How different it was from the Best Western, Cypress Gardens and even a luxury cruise ship. They had standards that did not waiver. Some things were better (or more elegant) on the ship, some were not. But Disney was consistent in the application of their product. It proudly carried that famous Disney "Touch"!! Ahhhh! The good old days!

Sorry about the story. I hope it makes sense!!!


:crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

[larworth]

I started this thread wondering if this would just be a 5 yard illegal procedure penalty or a more flagrant violation. I haven’t heard anything that makes me think this would not be an infraction at all.

Running a resort as diverse as WDW does present some complex quality considerations. I think it is fair to apply different standards to different parts of the puzzle. What should be Disney unique and what should just be Disney high quality? The parks definitely get held to the platinum standard, with gold and silver acceptable in other areas.

I can accept DD falling closer to this later category. However, in my mind Disney should not be associated with such a “tin” level effort. And heaven forbid it be in such a core area as attractions.

No overrule here, the penalty would stand. While itself not a major violation, recent behavior might need to be taken into consideration here (Paradise Pier, Dino-rama?) and the more major piling on penalty assessed.

BTW: Jeff I too was going to comment on how much I enjoyed your last post, but whatever that DVC guy says go for me.

[DisDuck]

Scoop just so that you don't feel alone. I am on your side of the discussion. My memories of the Village differ from DVC. I first saw it in 1975 and found it nice but small with not much to do. The best thing was the sand area in front of the stage where there were show/music going on, occasionally. I, however, did not find it Magical just a nice version of a strip mall. Something like a village center which I can find at home. As I continued to return over the years, I bypassed DV except when my wife wanted to shop (just a little as few stores present).

Fast forward to the mid-90's and Downtown Disney. Liked it better than DV. More to see, watch and do. Loved the Lego sculptures. Got introduced to Rainforest Cafe and then to the West End and Pleasure Island. Now I have a place to go for more than a few hours to relax, shop, eat.

[DVC-Landbaron]

Dis, my main man! You know we'll never see eye to eye on some of these things, so for now, let's agree to disagree. But I do have to make one comment.

LOVE THAT YOUR DUCK IS BACK!!!!

You look so dashing in tails!!! ;)

[mrgoofy]

I can end this debate right now. They simply cannot legally build a slingshot ride at DTD because there is one at an amusement park on US-192 just south of Celebration, and the company that builds these rides gives the user a guarantee that none will be built within so many miles (not sure exactly how many, but WDW falls within that limit). Six Flags Magic Mtn. wanted to build one, but the company said no because another park already had one within the area specified in the guarantee.

I know the mouse gets whatever he wants in Florida, but this is a fight with a manufacturer not the state, so I will go to sleep tonite sure in the fact that no slingshot will be built soon at WDW.

[MickeyMoose15]

I hate it when Disney tries to find a cheap way to try to get people to come to there theme parks and think it is going to work. I thought they were better and more imaginative then the amusement parks.

[JeffJewell]

I've truly enjoyed this civil discussion between Jewell and I Ditto (and thanks for the nice words in the PM). Let's see if this horse'll take just a little more beating.Or asking the same question--- Whether some proposed addition or subtraction meets or satisfies the "Disney standard" You're correct; that question is completely subjective. You can't tell which details will the be ones to spark that Magic in someone, and each will probably make someone's "must-see" list.

All the more reason to jam-pack Disney World, every inch of Disney World, with as many wonderful and unique details as imagination allows. Just from a purely business perspective; with the intention of maintaining your two best assets: your customer loyalty and industry-leading reputation.
...FAIL to satisfy what I consider Disney's standard...[snip]
NONE of the above are up to Disney standards IMHO. Actually, here in Car #3, several people will agree with you on several of those points. I personally think the convention center and garden wings at the Contemporary are abominations, commited in the name of squeezing out every possible dollar (judging from your comment, I'd say you at least partially agree with me). I also agree with you that the Tower itself could use an interior re-theming. By the way be careful; talk like that there'll getcha kicked right out of Car #1.

I'm pretty much a one trick pony: my evil agenda is to convince everyone at least remotely fond of Disney to yap back at the company when Magical standards, however subjective that measure may be, start to slip, and particularly so if the direct cause was budget cutting/groping for the last dollar; I think that's a shameful, and ultimately harmful to the business, trend for Disney. If I seem to poke at Car #1 folks sometimes, it's because they're at least remotely fond of Disney, and I think that deep down, they really do have concerns worth yapping about.

Jeff

PS - How many of us, from any car, would honestly be surprised with a SlingShot-class attraction at DD? I think the fact that the rumor was so plausible should in itself be somewhat bothersome.

[DVC-Landbaron]

Well, since you asked, its because thedscoop really, really believes that everyone has different standardsAgreed. Some are satisfied with 'just good enough' other are not. … and this is because everyone has different tastes, different opinions, different gray areas....Again, agreed. Each to their own personal tastes, opinions and gray areas. When they decorate their own home they get to set the standard. Baron. I believe in my heart of hearts that your standard for Disney may well be different from my standard, and gc's different from mine, and captains different from gc, and guide's different from ducks and jeff's different from rentk and so on and so on and so on and on and on.....Again, agreed!! But we don't get a say in it. Disney sets the standards. No one else. Just Disney. They chose the height of the bar way back in 1955. Actually Walt set it for himself when they first started making cartoons. It is a standard of excellence. Of pushing the envelope. Of making extravagant things affordable for middle class people. Of 'Exceeding Expectations'!! Of... well, just look around at how he did things, 'in the day'. Not everything, of course, was a hit. There were some mistakes made. Mission to Mars - SUCKED! And I'm sure everyone can come up with their own failure list. You did with the Contemporary wings (but I'd really like to know when they were built. Could it be after 1984?) But by and large there was a standard they tried to maintain. They had a bar they set for themselves that they forced themselves to hurdle, every time at bat (how's that for a mixed metaphor!!)

It's not my standard. It's not your standard. It's Disney's standard. And sadly, the have slowly, almost imperceptibly, lowered that standard in recent years. Until they have convinced a great deal of people that, "It's always been that way'. It has not!! My Disney standard cannot be defined without including, among other things, the Broadway properties, DCL, and Celebration.I don't know how to put this nicely. Hmmm. I'll try to be diplomatic. -- WRONG!!!!!

Seems I failed diplomacy ;). It has nothing whatsoever to do with any of the things you mentioned. By associating their name with anything their standards MUST be applied. Does that mean that they'll hit a home run every time? NO!! Of course not. But the failure should not be a direct result of 'lowered' standards. If they put on a Broadway Production, I don't need to see the reviews. I know that 'Disney' quality will simply ooze from it!! Their high standards will insure that they will do their damnedest to hurdle the bar that they themselves set, so many years ago.

And it goes for everything they do!! Everything!! EVERYTHING!!! The Disney Store HAS to be a different, unique, one-of-a-kind, 'magical' shopping experience!! If it isn't, don't do it!! If you want to build a town it has to be a different, unique, one-of-a-kind, 'magical' living experience!! If it isn't, don't do it!! If they want to build a timeshare it has to be a different, unique, one-of-a-kind, 'magical' vacation experience!! If it isn't, don't do it!! That's why I bought the vacation Club sight unseen. It was Disney! That was good enough for me.

How sad that given that choice today I would have to carefully examine, scrutinize and thoroughly study just what they were going to do with it. I'd have to be very, very careful because while most (Yes!! I said most) things they do still carry that mark of quality. But many things, especially recently, don't. And I find that very sad and very disturbing! but, I don't think you really give a flying flip about Celebration, Broadway, or maybe even DCL....You see. You keep saying that and it really doesn't matter. That was the point of the little Marketplace story. I don't like shopping. No one could create enough magic to make me like shopping. It is a pointless exercise. It cannot be done. Yet! Yet, I can appreciate and understand the 'magic' they were trying to create when designing the place. They 'quality' was there, even though it didn't move me. It was undeniable. It was NOT a few brightly painted, cardboard cut outs, in primary colors, done on the cheap. Or worse yet, rather ordinary retail vendors, bunched together, under a 'Disney' umbrella.

So in a way you're right, I don't really care about Celebration. I don't plan on living there. I could easily ignore it. And with Disney being so big, it's hard to pay a great deal of attention to everything they do. But in the bigger sense, you couldn't be more wrong. I don't care about DCA either. For me at least, a visit there is years and years in the future. So again, personally, I could easily ignore it. Put the old blinders on and just pay attention to what I like to do. But I don't. While I don't seek out these things (who has the time!!??) I care a great deal about them.

You see, all these things are indicative of their corporate philosophy and what they really care about. And lately, it seems to me, that they care more about money than they do about quality. And that's all the SHOW really is. Quality. So, how then can Disney either have it or not?!? Answer: IMHO, it is completely impossible for everyone to look at each Disney product, entity, whatever, and agree whether that meets a single objective standard.To a point I agree. But the question I ask myself is, "Does this meet (or even better 'exceed') the level of quality that I would expect to see from Disney?"

So I ask you. Does a ride such as this thread suggests meet or exceed the quality (of design, concept and… well… SHOW) that you've come to expect from Disney? To me it falls way short of the mark. They're not even close. And it doesn't matter where it's going, all that matters is that Disney is doing it!!

One last thing. JeffJewell once again says it all. He writes: I'm pretty much a one trick pony: my evil agenda is to convince everyone at least remotely fond of Disney to yap back at the company when Magical standards, however subjective that measure may be, start to slip, and particularly so if the direct cause was budget cutting/groping for the last dollar; I think that's a shameful, and ultimately harmful to the business, trend for Disney.Me too!!! :bounce:

[All Aboard]

You did with the Contemporary wings (but I'd really like to know when they were built. Could it be after 1984?)

Baron, we had this discussion at the Dolphin. Recall, my family stayed in one of the wings in 1979.

"Does this meet (or even better 'exceed') the level of quality that I would expect to see from Disney?"

There you go, defining Disney quality in terms of your own expectations. It's inescapable and impossible not to.

[DVC-Landbaron]

Gcurling writes:
There you go, defining Disney quality in terms of your own expectations. It's inescapable and impossible not to.On the surface it would seem so. So we need to dig a little below the surface to see where the truth lies.

And thedscoop writes:
DVCLB, I see your point. And do not disagree just to disagree. Rather, I just strongly believe that the "Disney Standard" cannot be the same bright line rule to all...Ahhhh! But it can be!! Perhaps not applied to all individuals, but the standards that you recognize (and we're not that far apart) should be the rule by which you measure everything they do. That 'same bright rule' can (and I argue strongly that it should) be applied evenly throughout your own personal take on what the magic is. If it's no good in the MK because of obviously poor concept, according to your personal view, it's no good anywhere!!

I'll grant you both that the term 'magic' and the standards it represents is subjective and there may be some out there that would quibble as to what those standards should be, but I don't think that's what our debate is about at all!! If we do get into that type of disagreement, it should be over such minor minutia (because by our very "Disney-nut" nature we are very close to either side of the line) that the general population would really want us all locked up if they casually overheard the talk. ;)


No!! We are NOT talking about that! We are talking about standards upon which we're pretty much in agreement. Case in point: So, for me, a themeless MK would probably ruin it all. Now, larworth, I agree if they placed any type of "unthemed" thing like this at any of the parks, or even the Boardwalk, I would find this very disturbing. Don't get me wrong. An unthemed slingshot would be bad anywhere. If it was up to me, I'd tear down Wide World of Sports and Downtown Disney altogether.... Finally, remember my first statements: If this type of thing were done on the boardwalk or the mercantile area of fort wilderness or even on the island formerly known as Discovery, well Objection! Now to me all those statements, plus all your previous posts, seem to indicate that we're pretty much on the same page as far as standards go. Where we disagree is where they should be applied. I think it is absolutely imperative that those standards be applied wherever the Disney name is displayed!!

For some reason or another you don't think so. You make excuses for Disney instead of trying to hold them to the standards, which we pretty much agree on, that they have set for themselves!! The following is what I cannot, for the life of me, understand: They even provide a buffer from the true horror and common enemy called I Drive. So, if Disney decides to add a slingshot ride to the area...it does not bother me. Oh, I don't think its a good idea. But it really has no effect on us. I'm pretty indifferent about what they do at Downtown Disney. While we usually stop by there once during each vacation, I don't really consider it part of the show. So, even if Hill were correct that this was going in, and even if it went in unthemed (which would really surprise me for it to have not even minimal theming), I'd just shrug because IMHO Downtown Disney was never intended to convey the magic of the parks or even the boardwalk or fort wilderness downtown area. And besides the annoying spotlights, its far enough away from my definition of the real "show" for me to say "Hey, whatever" Guess a good summary is that just because something is on property owned by Disney does not mean it is automatically part of the show. That's like me saying I don't care, in the overall scheme of things, about their Broadway plays. Uneducated. Yes. Not enough time or resources to fully investigate. Absolutely. But make no mistake, I care greatly!!! I sure as hell ain't 'indifferent'!!

But it even gets worse. You sort of personalize it in a way that totally confounds me: But, unless I was staying at the Disney Villas, it would not bother me. ...if it somehow does, or even if it was a THEMED slingshot, as long as it is not placed within what I define as the show, then hey, let the kids swirl in the air. I do not include Downtown Disney or, for that matter, Wide World of Sports, within the Show my vacation consists of. Both DD and WWS are to me real world intrusions into my Show. Their outer fringe geographic placement in the overall WDW design allows me to ignore them while still enjoying the portion of Disney property on which I think the magic resides--that is the parks and resorts. I really don't know how, on some level, that doesn't infuriate you. Just the existence of DD really pis… well… makes me mad! ;) DD and WWS are nice places. Better than nearly all comparable outdoor malls or sports complexes. But, on the other hand, I know some people, especially some local friends, really prefer DD over Church Street Center.... But that doesn't make them Disney! We can all think of a lot of things that we like better than Church Street Center. Many are in Las Vegas. But that don't make them Disney!!! However, if I hear that Bongos will be closing at 8...well, I'll get my Estefan fix back in the real world..... I agree!! You are 100% right!! It doesn't belong in Disney at all!

[larworth]

I'm not sure that makes the question go away.

When Disney sets out to do a project don't they try to guess what the subjective reaction of the audience will be. I'm sure the people that did JIYI didn't escape judgment just by telling Mike that the project was really great...in their subjective opinion. And it sure doesn't seem to make sense to sit back and wait the 3-5 years before everyone has had a chance to sample the new product, before we try to grade it.

I will grant that what we find enjoyable can be quite subjective. The same thing might be said about what we believe is an acceptable effort. However, I think this is much easier to calibrate against. Is Disney in the unthemed thrill ride business. Surely, this isn't that subjective a call.

The contention seems to be where Disney no longer has to act like Disney. DVC says there are no exceptions. Do it the best or don't do it. I am willing to allow some exceptions as something becomes more distant from the core (not talking geographically here). I don't think every aspect of running a resort has to be the best, but attractions and entertainment should not be one of the exceptions.

[JeffJewell]

Likewise, there may be slingshots everywhere, but imagineering could make only one "Disneyified" version! ...but would Imagineering be given the opportunity to make the Disneyfied version, or would we get precisely the same structure as the Pavilion at Myrtle Beach?

I'd be first in line for an enclosed SlingShot surrounded by an IMAX screen placing you inside Fantasia 2000, flying and bouncing around with the whales. I'd be the first in line for the B&M hypercoaster, Monstro, built on and around Pleasure Island, with its drops into the whale, its vertical LIM launch out the beast's blowhole, with whatever fantastic details they come up with. This paragraph brought to you by the cartoon whaling industy, apparently.

But with some of the lapses I've subjectively detected, and even if we consider the lapses you've subjectively detected, I'm afraid that Imagineering will not get the chance to Disneyfy the SlingShot (or whatever. I'm trying to big picture, here, not suggesting the 'Shot is a done deal, or even likely, at this point). I'm afraid Disney's "profitability through budget cutting" business plans end up supplying us experiences that satisfy relatively fewer subjective defintions of Magic.

The Contemporary garden wings, Downtown Disney, Wide World of Sports, these are all aspects of WDW that seem to fall below the Magic radar for an alarming number of folks, even some of the occupants of Car #1; who theoretically gained entry to that car in the first place by believing that all aspects of Disney _were_ still on that radar. I personally don't think it's coincidental that all of those aspects were designed and implemented with purely financial goals in mind (cross-promotion with ABC Sports, renting shop space to outside vendors/selling more plush, squeezing more rooms onto Deluxe properties), rather than the principle goal of providing the guests a first-rate experience.

I agree the "first-rate guest experience" is a moving target. I'm hoping that others will agree with me that Disney's business decisions appear to favor "cost savings" over "guest experience" to an unhealthy degree, with the result that the moving, subjective target is being hit less and less.

Jeff

[Another Voice]

Those that want true excellence strive for it in all of their activities. Disney was known as an organization that obsessed over details that no one would notice because the pride of the creators would not allow substandard work no matter how slight or unseen. They knew that the “big picture” is made up of thousands of individual points and each point contributes to the whole. If one element is slighted, then the whole work is diminished.

It is only the lazy, the untalented, the uncaring, the greedy that willingly accept the mediocre to be presented under their name.

[DVC-Landbaron]

You asked for no knee-jerk reactions. Fair enough. Besides, while reading your post I nearly broke my knee on the desk, as it was jerking so much!! ;)

I think you have indeed finally defined the question in very succinct terms. You write:If Disney can create a really nice but not magical experience because of whatever reason--should Disney still do it?I think I have to finally throw in with AV. He said once that the very term 'magic' is inherently the wrong word to use. He elaborated a bit (help me out AV) but the crux of the matter came down to it being to subjective. To personal. And finally I see what he was talking about.

I think a better term would be 'Disney Standards'. That way you don't have to personally experience the 'magic' to appreciate it. You would know that familiar 'Disney Standards' would be inherent in the endeavor whether it had personal appeal to you or not. It also can help define relative costs as an aspect of those standards. It would address the cost of the experience no matter how personally 'magical'. I've always said that there is nothing magical about the Pirates if it would cost you $100.00 a ride to see it! I really think that this is as important an issue as 'if they should do it at all'.

Maybe a little further explanation is needed. Say that you catch the tail end of a commercial. Nothing more than the name of the film and that it is produced by Disney. Not Touchstone or any of their other companies, but just Disney. There are certain assumptions that you can make from just that. If you happen to like other Disney films, chances are you'll enjoy the new one. You KNOW that you can bring the kids as it is guaranteed to be family fare. You KNOW your teenagers will roll their eyes at the suggestion, but secretly like it. You KNOW that grandma will be giving the tape as a Christmas present next year.

Now say that you catch the tail end of another commercial. Again just the name of the movie but this time it is produced by the Playboy Company. Can we still make some assumptions based on this information? Yes, we certainly can. ;) What if the company was Penthouse? The same kind of sleaze, just more of it.

A while back we talked about mission statements for Disney. I don't think it would be quite a mission statement, but recently, within this very thread, AV perfectly and succinctly defined 'Disney". He said:Those that want true excellence strive for it in all of their activities. Disney was known as an organization that obsessed over details that no one would notice because the pride of the creators would not allow substandard work no matter how slight or unseen. They knew that the "big picture" is made up of thousands of individual points and each point contributes to the whole. If one element is slighted, then the whole work is diminished.I really thought that after this, refined, concise and to-the-point statement that no further discussion was needed. Read it carefully. Every word rings true. For Disney to be 'Disney' they must adhere to that concept in every enterprise they undertake. It is what 'Disney' is all about. It makes no difference whether or not it is our own personal cup-of-tea. Whether we find it, on some personal level, 'magical'. After all, we all have subjective tastes that can differ vastly. What matters is that this firm concept be applied equally, across the board, in everything that Disney does.

On a personal level you can ignore whatever you like. You can strap on blinders and not see Downtown Disney. Heck, I do every time I go there. I come back filled with pixie dust. But at the same time I realize that all that personal 'magic' does not mask the fact that Disney is no longer living up to the standards that they once held so dear. Not in every case of course. But it's getting more and more lately. It's even creeping (some might say galloping) into the theme park aspect. Case in point: DCA!

I can no longer count on discovering I'm in 'Disney' by the surroundings, whether to my personal tastes or not (my MarketPlace story). I can no longer assume that because it is Disney the product will naturally exceed my expectations (as was the case when I bought DVC sight unseen). I can no longer associate their product with absolute, unmitigated excellence. They've become 'iffy' at best. And I, for one, find that terribly disappointing. How sad. :(

Two other issues. First: And more importantly they do not have to. Nobody should be discredited because their definition of Disney magic is not synonymous with an exhaustive critique of all things Disney.OH MY GOD!!!! Is this the same guy that got all over me for not seeing Lion King on Broadway or visiting Celebration often enough??!! Care to explain, my good Scoop? ;)

And: Is not positive feedback also helpful to a manager in prioritizing and planning? I look forward to your thoughts!Ahhh, Mr. Scoop! The flip answer, of course, is if they ever do something right, I'll be the first in line!!

But in reality, I do compliment. And compliment often!! I make it a habit to visit Guest Relations many times when I'm there. I formally complain about 'big picture' things (the hat, hours, ride closing). I rarely complain about little things (rude CMs, mechanical breakdowns, etc.). And most importantly I never accept anything for my complaint (and they do try to pacify you with 'free' stuff!).

Addionally, I have sent complimentary letters as well. When my son had several brain seizures and strokes and had to rushed to the hospital, Disney personal were exemplary!! They held onto those high standards that AV talked about and I wholeheartedly seconded. I wrote many letters, one to Ei$ner, which he personally answered. Yes, positive feedback is just as important. And when they do something right, I'm first in line. The "one trick pony" is actually a two trick attack to a one trick problem. The problem is holding Disney to their own standards. The attack is to complain LOUDLY and compliment, very often!!!

[JeffJewell]

For me, the WDW experience is the parks and resorts. That's it. I don't think any good can come from trying to convince you that your definition of WDW is not a universal definition, but one thought springs to mind. In threads where we've discussed whether "Disney" is going downhill, you are always diligent about pointing out that we must take into consideration the quality of the Cruise Line and the Broadway shows, even if they're not our cup of tea; yet when we talk about "WDW," you seem willing to overlook or ignore certain areas that are clearly a part of WDW, even though they might not be a part of your personal trip to WDW. Why the different criteria for inclusion in the two discussions?I say that maybe DD or WWS are not "magical" but then again maybe their existence as good solid enjoyable areas is better than nothing at all....in particular when they serve IMHO a different audience than the parks or resort vacationeers and quite likely different purpose than the parks or resorts I can't agree, I'd much rather see them do less but do it well, do it with what Baron took to calling Disney Standards (much better than my unweildy "details and theming so as to create the best possible environment for the perception of Magic"). Even if certain parts are serving a different audience (I disagree with you on that, too, but again, I see no value in that discussion), Disney Standards would clearly differentiate DD as something on a different level from CityWalk or Church Street Station. Without Disney Standards, they are three largely equivalent choices.

You mention a doubt that Disney can always do that financially, but I think that's a little deceptive. Disney is still spending lots of money lots of places, the concern is caused by precisely what they're bringing home from the shopping sprees, and why they spend in some areas while cutting certain others.I do not factor the parts of Disney which I do not experience into my choice of Car. I must again point out that this statement is 180 degrees in opposition to your arguments about the quality of DCL and Broadway and how they must be taken into consideration when ruminating on Disney's quality as a company. It seems your ground rules on including a data point change depending on whether or not that data point fits your argument.

And with that, I think I'm outta here. It seemed for a while that the conversation was going somewhere, but I now realize it isn't. Like the locked threads, your ground rules still change to suit each post, and the basic argument "thedscoop loves Disney" is still the only one you seem to care to make, even though not a single person has ever questioned that point.I respectfully refuse any attempts to disqualify my choice because its scope is too narrow Disqualify is an interesting choice of words. I was trying to point out that your experience of WDW is largely equivalent to the experience that suggested Car #3 to most of us in that car. You insist I'm wrong. Whatever.Why do the self-described "one trick ponies" or any other non-Car #1 passenger not also encourage Disney management with positive feedback when they do something right (Baron, AKL?) in addition to critiquing management when they make a mistake? You seem to be again ignoring existing evidence. I have a history of pointing out precisely the things I thought were done right; recent posts have included thumbs up for the Disney Standards inherent in Tower of Terror, certain parts of AK (unfortunately, the parts I thought were the best were mostly the parts where AK is like a zoo with Disney Standards. Now I understand it's NAHTAZU at all, so what the hell do I know) and the Osborne lights.

During our trip in March, we were stopped outside MK for one of the guest surveys. Ninety percent of our answers were highest possible rating, we mentioned a couple things that bothered us specifically on this trip (the new managment at the Tiki birds added animatronics for Zazu and Iago, and the associated new spotlights have an awful tendency to shine directly in your eyes if you're over six feet tall (it bothered Bill and I, but not Susie and Suzy)--we didn't have that problem with the spots for the four original stars), and I mentioned a couple long-held pet peeves.

In other words, I do, in fact, give the positive feedback as well as the negative. What sparks interest in writing is those folks who experience WDW as does Car #3, but decide to sit behind the rose colored (and partially blacked out, apparently) windshield of Car #1.

You assume much, and incorrectly, about the occupants of Car #3.

Jeff