but I was told.........NOBODY said it did.Not everything has to be what was built before.
all related to..........Not very good, Mr. Kidds and also wrongNot everything has to be 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.Look to what was built before.
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.HOORAY!!!! Finally a semblance of logic from your keyboard!!!there can be variation in theme. However, there cannot be variation in room size, layout, view..........etc.
I'm surprised you used this example. The standard is the same. The only limiting factor in Anaheim was space.Do you mean the Disneyland standard or WDW?
Both. My understanding is both were quite innovative and well done for their time.Dumbo standard or Matterhorn?
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.Disneyland Hotel or Polynesian Resort
If limited resources force you to compromise what you wanted to do, that means you should continue compromising when you no longer have to?Because once a single, yes only a single, exception is made to a Standard, then it no longer remains as a Standard.
So are you saying the current Disney WANTS to live up to a higher standard, but lacks the resources?In other words, CASH.
...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.
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.
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.
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 isnt a matter of admitting it is LESS. We all pretty much agree on that, even Mr. Kidds. Its 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)!!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.
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...
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 . 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?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.
.........because Baron is probably drooling all over himself typing he is so excited by it . What is he typing, you ask? Well, 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.
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 couldnt pass up such a juicy tidbit!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?
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 still maintain that the World is better off with a mix of 'deluxe' and 'moderates'.
Great!! Thats 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!I don't think exterior corridors are a bad thing.
Again, thats fine. And I even agree!! And what a PLUS that would be! Both interior AND exterior corridors! WOW!! Talk about exceeding expectations!!The Show that is put on at POR-Riverside requires them.
Hmmm. Where have I heard this argument before? Now, dont tell me.... let me think a minute... ah... I know... Its the same argument that the All-Stars lovers use!!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.
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?Baron..........you can negotiate with the pimps and prostitutes all you want.
For you. But that really doesnt matter does it? Just as it doesnt matter that an All-Stars defender says the same thing. It doesnt matter one whit. It is LESS than the Standard. And thats 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!!Bottom line is, that while they are a different experience, the 'moderates' are no less a Disney experience than the 'deluxe'.
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 isnt that sick!!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.
Me!!?? (he says as innocent as a new born babe.) Perish the thought!!As for your supposition (and coaxing me down the proverbial garden path)
Ah! FOUL!!! I said theming not decorations!!!You can't just move something in and throw some theming around it. That is the downfall of the AS.
NO SIR!! My standard has nothing to do with it! I hold Disney to the standard that built Disneyland, WDW and EPCOT!!Look closely. As you so accurately point out, the standard you are talking about is HIS standard, the standard HE has chosen.
Now, what was that phrase... I think it was the start of some nonsensical post... oh!! Here it is!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.
DITTO!Matt, Matt, Matt........lets not get carried away and take a rediculous example to the extreme.
Yep!! Youre right!!He may even throw in a 'nuff said, which is what i'd like to say now - but I can't wriggle free
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!!!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 theyd 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!!!
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 .Both interior AND exterior corridors!
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 . (Note to moderators - this is not name calling, just good natured ribbing amongst friends )Great!! Enjoy!! Just as those THOUSANDS of All-Stars lovers enjoy their decorations and call them Disney!!
And again, anything that is not a rethemed version of the Poly is an UN-Disney concept . You are right, Walt left no room for, and never had an idea for, a new concept . And the concept of a Dixie Landings is UN-Disney because.......... you say so it wasn't in the Master Plan ........... Ahh, it must be good to be the king .They took a very UN-Disney concept
I don't agree. Of course, the only standard you see in either of these is the fleece the public standard .The same Standard that built the Mods also built the All-Stars!!
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
Do it right or don't do it at all.
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.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?
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?I don't think exterior corridors are a bad thing.
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.Deluxe or moderate, the size of the room probably doesn't impact the quality of most people's experience to any significant degree.
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.
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?He points to something that is tangible and was the lovechild of good old Walt.
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!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'.
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 doesnt 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!!He has subjectively decided that the objective set of specs and experience that is the Poly should be THE Standard.
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!I know you don't agree, but do you at least understand what I am saying?
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?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?
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!!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.
Many times!! In fact, just two quotes ago I think I alluded to the same question, didn't I?How am I any different from Baron you might ask?
Oh-oh!! Hang onto your hats people, it's gonna be a rough ride!!No. Here is where Scoops thinking comes in.
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"?I evaluate the AS on it's own merit (or demerit) in relation to other Disney resort experiences, not strictly compared to another resort.
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?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.
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!!!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!!!!
Why?However, back bayou homes or stately Southern mansions can't be connected by interior corridors
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!!!And the concept of a Dixie Landings is UN-Disney because .......... you say so
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!!??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
Nope! Only a Baron. But I do have aspirations....Ahh, it must be good to be the king .
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.I take the experience I had when I stayed at the Poly and compare that experience with what I had in the Caribbean
I am confused. Do you mean that you do MORE than compare experiences or that you simply dont do it at all!!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.
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, (well 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, youve got to have some immediate answers to these questions or youre simply not human!! Or totally non-thinking!!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.
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!!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.
Unintentional I assure you - but it it annoys you..........hmmmm, maybe I can do it inten...... nah, only kidding .You have the most annoying habit of making the word "Walt" sound dirty and something to shunned.
Nope. Not at all.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?
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.You can disagree all you like. But it doesnt change the fact that it IS the Disney standard!
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 .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?
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.But as with so many things around Disney lately, Ei$ner, unfortunately, was clearly not up to the task.
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.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?
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 .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!!!