An honest to God rumor that even Scoop may like!!!

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

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

Aaaarrrggggghhhh....... what did Baron say about 'every time I try to get out'. I hate that big *sucking* sound :crazy:.
 
Do you mean the Disneyland standard or WDW?
I'm surprised you used this example. The standard is the same. The only limiting factor in Anaheim was space.

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

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

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

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


The key you are missing Scoop is that the standard brings in CASH. Yes, it takes effort, and yes it takes investment. But it is immensely profitable. Compromising it because you are looking for the path of least resistence is a financial mistake. Justifying taking that path by pointing to cases where it was taken out of necessity is a huge mistake.
 
DK, do you REALLY think that Baron meant that everything has to be EXACTLY like what was built before it? He says over and over that it has to be to the same standard, and he defines his standard. He doesn't ask for a Poly clone, but instead something DIFFERENT, which the Poly and Contemporary were when they were built. That uniqueness is a part of the standard as he defines it.

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

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

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

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


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

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

Sorry if this is too 'flying pigs' for some, but what do you think?
 
Originally posted by raidermatt
DK, do you REALLY think that Baron meant that everything has to be EXACTLY like what was built before it? He says over and over that it has to be to the same standard, and he defines his standard.


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

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

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

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

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

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

But that standard is 'what was built before'. And not just in uniqueness of themeing, level of customer service, and overall uniqueness of experience, it clearly includes the same numbers, layout and logistics. It is this part I just cannot agree with.
 
Scoop, I'm running out of ways to explain this, but I'll try it again...

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

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

Again, its not a literal comparison.

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

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

With regard to your flying pigs question...

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

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

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


dont forget the automatic doors too.

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

Once the Standard was compromised, we established that they are “LESS” and now we are merely negotiating on where to draw the line.
 
What's funny, Sir Baron, is that you are being accused of being subjective, when your standard is basically the *most* objective thing in this discussion.

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not a DVC member. But I would be upset (and I'm sure they won't do this, right) if they took the Disney Institute, and basically sold timeshares for the same place. I would imagine that is not what they are doing, but I would be upset just the same. I want the DVD company to develop each DVC resort with the same care that went into the original resorts.
 
That's a pretty easy comparison, and I'll grant that what's currently there is better than nothing. But that's not much of a standard, is it? If I were employing somebody to build a house for me, I certainly wouldn't be using that standard to judge whether the builder did a good job...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He may even throw in a 'nuff said, which is what i'd like to say now - but I can't wriggle free :jester:.
 
The question becomes, is WDW better off with the current variety of hotels, or would the World be a better place with a smaller handful of hotels that vary in theme but are otherwise the same?
I know this is a Matt question, and far be it from me to steal his thunder (he does such a wonderful job on his own) but I just couldn’t pass up such a juicy tidbit!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘nuff said!! :cool:





PS: Sir Larry!! Check your PM once in a while!! It’s been days!!
 
Sorry LB. I'm on it. ;)

M. DK:

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

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

Does that clear it up a bit for you?
 
BaronLarry, BarryLaron, Labbyarron :crazy: - yes, you are one person for the purpose of this response ;).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A question Baron. Other than themeing, what differences can there be in a Disney resort that don't equate to prostitution? Can't be room size, can't be view, can't be............. apparently a lot of things, but what can it be?
 
Matt, Matt, Matt........lets not get carried away and take a rediculous example to the extreme. Nowhere did I say abandon all standards and compare everything to a swamp

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

True, the mods are closer to the standard than the values, but as good old Winston pointed out, that's just a discussion of price.
 
One clarification for the man in black and silver and I am punching out of the 'moderate' hotel discussions. If you want to continue to go around on general Standards, what they are, who determines - I'll spar a bit more. However, on hotels I am done. I mean it this time. I really do :crazy:.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your serve.
 
Scoop, that's why there are so many references to room size, balconies, views, distance to and type of transportation, etc. They take the subjectiveness out.

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

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

Like it or not, benchmarks are everywhere. In some cases, maybe its not fair to compare the quality of something or someone to their predecessors, but resorts are not one of those cases.
 
Well Scoop, you’re back. And I understand that you think you may have had a EUREKA!! moment, but I think we need to clarify a bit. And I hope that Matt is wrong about his understanding of your judgment on the resorts (heck! all things Disney, I suppose). Because if he is right then we really can’t discuss things any further because you judge EVERYTHING subjectively. No objective criteria at all! If it works for you it MUST be Disney. And on a personal level I understand this thinking 100%!! But we really can’t talk about too much then before it turns into a “yeah, it is! - no, it isn’t” type thing. You’ve taken ALL the objectivity out of the equation and made it personal. I hope that isn’t the case, but it would explain an awful lot of your posts!! ;)

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

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

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

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

Now, the rest of your post seems a little disjointed and may very well back up your subjectivity on the subject. I hope not. I thought you, of all people, could excise the subjectivity from the equation and look at it as though it were a legal brief. Cold, OBJECTIVE logic. Nothing more. I know that is very hard to do and no one does it perfectly. But I really do try. Don’t you!?
 
You have the most annoying habit of making the word "Walt" sound dirty and something to shunned.
Unintentional I assure you - but it it annoys you..........hmmmm, maybe I can do it inten...... nah, only kidding ;).
So maybe you have a problem with the standards themselves. Or with Walt. Could that be the underlying theme here?
Nope. Not at all.
Can you think of a better benchmark than the one that Walt created?
Nope. Not at all.

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

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

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

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

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

Your thoughts, sire?
 

GET A DISNEY VACATION QUOTE

Dreams Unlimited Travel is committed to providing you with the very best vacation planning experience possible. Our Vacation Planners are experts and will share their honest advice to help you have a magical vacation.

Let us help you with your next Disney Vacation!





Latest posts

Top