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

[Bob O]

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

 

[Peter Pirate]

More pure subjectivity from Landbaron and Bob O. Bob I appreciate that YOU feel the Poly is the hands down winner for ambiance and I would have agreed until AKL was built. The Poly is now a distant second...And my opinion is just as valid.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

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

More pure subjectivity from Landbaron and Bob O.

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

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

Bob I appreciate that YOU feel the Poly is the hands down winner for ambiance and I would have agreed until AKL was built. The Poly is now a distant second...And my opinion is just as valid.

You see!! There you go again! Personal taste. Can we leave that at the door for a while and discuss this subject - “OBJECTIVELY”?

Do you know they even have artificially made pond scum covering the ponds to resemble bayou water?

SEE!! This I why I LOVE this guy!! Right in the middle of a fairly serious post he slips this in. I’ll bet hardly anyone else knew he had his tongue in his cheek for this line! I nearly fell out of the chair!! Thanks my main Pirate!!

The reason these hotels are cheaper is mainly the level of services offered from one to the other.

EXACTLY my point!!! Thanks again Peter.

The mod's don't cow-tow. There is no turn-down service, no concierge level and no 4 star restaurant but these things do not affect the theme or the Disney feel.

Again, thank you. Not exactly the examples I would have used, but it points to the overall decimation of those beloved Standards we always discuss around here!! (Hey, so far, your the best guy I got on my team!!)

Mr. Kidds also made some other very correct points within this realm. The mods reach an audience that needed to be reached. I mean people who cannot quite afford a deluxe...

And once again, why can’t they afford the Deluxes anymore? Hmmm? Anyone? Anyone? (Ferris?) That’s right. Because they raised the rates to an obscene level, that’s why!!!

Many, many people get the 'vacation of a lifetime' at a mod and even at the AS I'll bet.

Hey Mr. Kidds!!! He may be right!! Perhaps we have to “justify” the All-Stars as well!! You know, it’s kind of the same argument, isn’t it?

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

Landbarn!!! Land”BARN”???? Hmmm. I’ll attribute this to a typo!

And (surprise, surprise) I disagree.

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

Just look to the Poly and/or the Contemporary. They are written all over them. Strip away the theme and even you should be able to see them!!

 

[DisneyKidds]

Well Mr. Kidds, true to form you confused me right out of the box!!

Hmmm........happenstance, or strate.....no, no - you are confused enough on your own .

quote:
However, I believe that view is all a matter of time, place, perspective, and opinion.

What does that mean!?!?!

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is NOT the Disney PHILOSOPHY!!!

........of 1971.

BTW - phoooey. Extra 'o' added for emphasis . I could have said phoooooooooooooooooooooey .

Hi, Mr. Pirate . Welcome to port

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

....to which Baron says (for the millionthtime)......

Just look to the Poly and/or the Contemporary. They are written all over them.

Doesn't he realize this doesn't answer the question .

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

However, all the future opinions of that man who would be Baron regarding Disney resorts will now be colored by that perspective.

I will not deny that this is possible. Which is why I want to go to such great lengths to define the basic, bare-bones minimum of a Disney resort. I want to strip away personal taste (theme) and history and just ask if the standard established when the WDW was built in the first place was maintained. Not if it should be maintained. That is an entirely different question. And one that we will get into once we
we established that the basics were trashed. But for right now, I only want to know if the Standards were maintained. A pretty simple question and one that I had thought we had reached a consensus. We pretty much agreed that the “Mods” were “LESS”. Am I mistaken?

After all, a true Disney resort, in your opinion, can't be more than the Poly (remember, the GF isn't a Disney joint in the World according to Gar....Baron)

Oh! No! It can be more!! It can be much, much more!!! But it can’t be the Floridian! You see, the goal was wrong. Once again Ei$ner didn’t set out to enhance the experience. No! He set out to create a 5 star hotel. And I’m sorry, Mr. Kidds, but no matter which way you slice it a 5 star resort is NOT Disney!! (as an aside they didn’t make it anyway!!)

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

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

NO!!! It is not a matter of opinion! Not when we talk about the Standards! I’ll concede a point if it will get us moving forward. I’ll grant that the “theme” of any resort you want to talk about IS Disney. OK? Does that do it for you? Even the All-Stars! It’ll make it much easier to talk about. So, from here on in, for these discussions only, Disney magic (theme) just oozes from every pore of every resort on the property!! OK??!! See, that gets the “opinion” and “taste” out of the equation.

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

Beds.

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

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

Your turn!!

 

[Peter Pirate]

Landbaron hits the nail on the head! Disney Resort Standards are directly related to bed size ...Oh man, that "does size really matter?" thing just won't go away...

 

[EUROPA]

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

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

 

[PKS44]

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

Paul

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

PKS44!! What a WONDERFUL post. I’m going to add it to my arsenal of Walt stories!!! It is EXACTLY to the point! And it goes right to the heart of the PHILOSOPHY!!

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

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

 

[DisneyKidds]

so lets say this persons first stay is at one of the Downtown Disney Resorts. Does the BestWestern LBV become the Disney Standard then??

No. In what I feel is the standard there has to be depth of theme, the feeling that you are in another time, at another place, etc. Dowtown Disney hotels don't have those essential Disney elements.

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

I hear what you are saying. I understand what you are saying. I get what you are saying..........I just don't agree (surprise, surprise).

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

OK, lets look at that without tongue in cheek. Fact of the matter is that there are many different Disney experiences. What say we leave it at this. I was watching the Disney vacation planning video from 2000 with my daughter last night. There was the typical section on resorts. They described the 'value' resorts. They described the 'moderates'. Then they got to the 'deluxe', and heaped on the accolades. Heck, they are VERY nice. In the end they tagged the 'deluxe' as the "classic Disney resort experience". So I'll agree that the 'mods' are "less". Not the "classic". The 'mods' are not what were originally designed when WDW opened. However, they are another Disney experience, just as Magical as any other.

just ask if the standard established when the WDW was built in the first place was maintained.

Assuming the standard is that which can be found in the Poly (room, layout, amenities, services, theme, and all), I give you the answer you want - no . But that doesn't make them non-Disney. (He giveth, and he taketh away ) So, as you suggest, with that answer in hand perhaps we should turn the attention to this........

Not if it should be maintained. That is an entirely different question. And one that we will get into once we established that the basics [as found in the Poly] were trashed.

But I have a feeling I know where we will end up..................

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

A little out of order but I want to get away from “the post that never ends” (it just goes on and on, my friend)!!

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

If that tent was situated in Fort Wilderness, you bet you’d have a Disney experience!!! But I thought we were talking resorts. And from your answer I see that our basic thought processes on the subject are indeed mutually exclusive. It seems you cannot, no matter how I moan, beg or plead, excise the subjective personal experience from the question at hand. And I simply can’t (and really shouldn’t) argue with something that personal. If it works for you, GREAT!! I understand and feel your joy! I didn’t want you to take it as a personal attack when I attacked the (your) Mods. SO we’ll leave it at that. If you should want to talk about it in a cold, logical and OBJECTIVE way in the future, drop me a line. I’d be glad to go another ten pages, but I really have to insist that we leave the subjectivity at the door and talk about the Philosophy and standards with as little personal prejudiced as possible. OK?

Fact of the matter is that there are many different Disney experiences.

Yes! Sadly today there are. But that was only made possible by the Ei$ner Caste System of Resorts!! HEY!! That brings us full circle doesn’t it?

However, they are another Disney experience, just as Magical as any other.

Nope!! Sorry! Wrong!! Not “JUST” anything. THEY ARE LESS!!!! I think we agree to disagree!

But that doesn't make them non-Disney. (He giveth, and he taketh away)

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

I hear what you are saying. I understand what you are saying. I get what you are saying..........I just don't agree (surprise, surprise).

OK. Since I’m getting nowhere fast talking about resorts, let’s see if we can make a little headway with the story itself.

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

See!! Pretty short, eh?!!!

 

[DisneyKidds]

If that tent was situated in Fort Wilderness, you bet you’d have a Disney experience!!! But I thought we were talking resorts.

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

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

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

Please, don't try and make this personal by stating that you are sorry you attacked MY 'mods'. As I said before, we really don't use them any longer since we are DVC members. I have no personal or vested interest in defending the 'mods'. It seems more like you feel I have attacked YOUR Poly by comparing the experience to a 'mod'. If that has you all sensitive I apologize to you .

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

I don't disagree with the story, or the philosophy embodied in the story. I guess I disagree that it has relevance to this discussion. I suppose if Walt saw a second coach purchased for DL with a leather strap that was smaller than the first coach he put in DL, or it had one leather strap instead of two, and he had them send it back for a larger one with two straps - then we'd have a story on point .

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

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

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

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

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

 

[SnackyStacky]

Thus saith DisneyKidds:

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

And thus saith Baron:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[DisneyKidds]

Snacky, Snacky, Snacky....................

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

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

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

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

I don't think that ANYBODY can say that Epcot is ANYTHING like the Magic Kingdom. It is a different park. The rides aren't the same, the THEME isn't the same, there's different buildings that come in MANY different shapes and sizes, but alas, it's Disney.

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

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

So, on we go. Should the 'mods' have been built? Sure. Lets look at that Walt Disney experience, what it is he wanted to create, what all that blood, sweat, and tears was shed for. Yes he believed in quality. No, he didn't believe in compromise (unless forced). Those are some very admirable things, and to stick to them no matter what shows great resolve. That is why he was such a great man. However, I submit that that is not what he was truely all about. That was but a means to an end. This is your most significant quote..........

realized into a place where everybody could share those dreams. He wasn't in it to turn a profit. He was in it for the sheer love of it.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[HorizonsFan]

talk about it in a cold, logical and OBJECTIVE way

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

 

[DisneyKidds]

Good points HF .

Sigh... Will this debate never end?

Who are you kidding? This is like that campy horror movie you just can't help but watch. You keep telling yourself you aren't going to watch anymore, yet you are drawn to it. You want the truth? You can't handle the truth - which is that you don't want it to end .

 

[SnackyStacky]

I will stay away from the Disney vs. the Walt Disney experience question as it seems all will be best served if we move on to the second question you present, and I have been asking as well.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Love of what? Love of quality? No.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I wait for your response.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

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

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

That doesn’t work, Mr. Kidds. We have already agreed that Dixie Landings, while probably the best of the mods and very well done, is still LESS! EPCOT is not less of anything! Different!! Very, very different, but certainly not less!!

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

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

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

Ditto for the resorts!!

Third, the only apparent knock presented on MGM and AK is the quality volume aspect. Other than this, these parks are BETTER than Epcot, IMHO.

OH MY GOD!!! Why is it that you can’t remain OBJECTIVE!!! “IMHO”!!! My goodness how I hate that!! “BETTER than Epcot”. How? Where is the innovation? Where is the re-definition of theme park experience? Where is the grandeur? Where is the scale? Why all the subjectivity!!??!!

Now, EPCOT may not be your cup of tea, (IMHO) but I think everyone pretty much agrees that it was an extremely risky undertaking that was overwhelmingly groundbreaking! Where is that element in the Studios? And sadder, I think everyone agrees that it could have been there in AK, but alas, they stopped short once again!

I have said it countless time, Walt would have done the 'mods' a little better. He would have found a way to get queen beds in and hide the parking lot if he found those methods of implementation still proved the best way to convey his real dream. Could he have extended this to something equivalent to the 'value' resorts? If anyone could have it would have been Walt.

Arrrrrrggggggghhhhhhh!!!!! SO WHAT!!!??? In case you haven’t noticed, he’s a little bit dead! And also for the “countless times”, Ei$ner wasn’t up to the task!!! So what we got was SUB-standard!! AND THAT’S NOT ACCEPTABLE!!!! And therefore should NOT have been built!!!

OK!! That’s all for now, Mr. Kidds. Except to say that EVERYTHING Mr. Stacky said about cost is absolutely true. It was one of the subjects I hadn’t addressed yet because I didn’t want to muddy the waters, but perhaps it serves to clarify the issue rather than cloud it. It’s all related anyway. Especially the way you think about a Disney resort and the business end of it. Remember, when there was a “smaller” and “homier” WDW, resorts were 99% booked, two years out, with NO discounts at all!!! (other than the Club Card, which were given away and anyone could get!) And NO advertising either!!

Dave,

To talk about Disney resorts in a cold, logical and objective way is to remove the purpose for which they were intended. Disney resorts are designed to evoke a personal, emotional response.

Agreed!! But to compare the various flavors we have to have a base line. Some measure by which a Disney resort can be judged, without regard for theme and/or personal taste. Now, I don’t claim that it’s easy to do, but without such an attempt all of our conversation falls into a “Oh yes it is!! - Oh no it isn’t!!” type argument. And I’d rather avoid that if at all possible!!

Once again, I will maintain that the mechanism is only a part of the entire experience.

Oh, I absolutely agree!! But we’re not talking about the ‘entire’ experience. We are talking nuts and bolts only. We are dissecting the experience. And I’m conceding (for this argument only) that theme and to a point “design” is a constant!! But what if that “mechanism” is sub-standard to begin with? What if the foundation is not up to par? That is what this whole discussion has been about!!

I know what's coming now; LB will probably tell me that Disney should have made the curtain larger at the Mods so he COULDN'T see behind it.

You said it perfectly. There is nothing to add!!

 

[Captain Crook]

SnackyLandbaron, You guys keep telling us (mostly Mr. Kidds) to leave the "I like" and "we like" from the arguments but if we do that then we're arguing on your assumptions only... which we don't believe are correct and LB keeps giving us his "gut feelings".

First the Walt/strap story...All this proves is that Walt was a fanatical egotistical nut. Nobody ever dared disagree with Walt (and hope to keep their job). Talk about surrounding yourself with "yes men". The difference here is that Walt was a genius and people within that realm would take his crap in order to be around him. Eisner is no genius and no artist.

Walt had virtually nothing to do with our Epcot except for coining the name. End of story. He had just as much to do with the MGM-Disney Studios due to his being in the movie biz as he had to do with Epcot.

Now you go on to say that AK & MGM are "less". To who? Well, to you obviously but how can you state that as fact? Because it has less attractions? Fine. Then MK is just a joke too, because in comparison to DL (# of attractions) MK just falls way short...Yet you guys feel the MK is magical, don't you? Very strange twist don't cha think?

Back to the hotel debate, Snacky how is it you know what Walt would have wanted in a hotel experience? As Scoop would say you guys are giving the dead guy way to much credit with no foundation whatsoever. Walt would have hated our MK (he wouldn't build a clone), Walt would have hated Epcot (he wanted a real city- he was done with theme parks) & Walt never would have approved any of the rest of WDW...Unless he needed the money (hey, a lot like Mike). If Walt had survived I suspect DL would have been a real quality destination throughout (he would never have let it flounder) but after that who knows what direction the theme park business would have travelled.

Walt didn't have a hotel standard and neither did the company. They were going where no one had gone before. Some of it worked and some of it hasn't but Walt was invoved in none of it.

The moderates are Disney through and through. They give the complete Disney experieince with less hotel experience (for less money) and I see that as a positive thing...

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Talk about surrounding yourself with "yes men". The difference here is that Walt was a genius and people within that realm would take his crap in order to be around him. Eisner is no genius and no artist.

Peter, you’re right!! Kind of that subtle difference between “Walt’s” Poly and Ei$ner’s Mods! A little difference, but really all the difference in the world!!

Walt had virtually nothing to do with our Epcot except for coining the name. End of story.

Well, not quite! You really have to read that post from Mr. Stacky more carefully AND you need to brush up on your Walker/Miller era a bit! EPCOT was very much a “Walt” park. And if you knew your Disney history as well as you claim to, you’d know that!!

He had just as much to do with the MGM-Disney Studios due to his being in the movie biz as he had to do with Epcot.

That’s just plain ridiculous!!!

Then MK is just a joke too, because in comparison to DL (# of attractions) MK just falls way short...

It is today, that’s for sure. Especially after it has been Ei$ner-ized!!

But, maybe you’re right!! We need to look at this closer!! MY GOD!! The Studios and AK may very well be even worse than I thought!!!! Thanks for pointing that out, my favorite Pirate!!

Walt didn't have a hotel standard and neither did the company.

You couldn’t be more wrong.

And now, from the guy who berated some of us for getting too ‘subjective’:

The moderates are Disney through and through. They give the complete Disney experience with less hotel experience (for less money) and I see that as a positive thing...

You know. I’ve read this passage at least twenty times now and I can’t find one single phrase that isn’t subjective!! Way to go Peter!!! That’s taking the high ground all right!!!!