Dear Eisner

[DVC-Landbaron]

Scoop, you seem to have a harder time with the truth in this tread than usual. Most of the time we can surely expect a twist from you somewhere along the line, every several posts or so, but in this thread it seems to be every single post!! First you accuse me of omitting “something”. And now you’re rewriting the history of the thread to suit your needs.

Where shall we start?

Well, lets start with the omissions:

So, whether it was intentional or not, you certainly omitted a whole bunch of my statements on this issue for the sake of trying to make a point.

Just before this scintillating sentence you quoted yourself SIX (6) times!! Good Lord, man!! Did you really expect me to include all six quotes!?!? Do I have to include every word you write, in every post within the thread, in order to avoid being accused of “omitting” something? How outrageous is that?!

Why not just admit you tried a sly, cheap shot, in innuendo style, and leave it at that! You tried to infer that I purposely omitted something and I pointed out (in bold print) that I did not! What can possible be served by citing yourself 6 times, without any relevance at all to what I posted!? Are you that insecure? Is the internet “point” and fame really that important to you? You tried to slip it in, and I called you. Leave it alone!!

Such is apparently the case here, because, quicker than you can take your finger off the Control Tab button...you've decided that this thread needs a changed subject

No! Again you’re rewriting history. I was trying to get back on track. You are the only one hung up on the garden wing. Quite frankly I was tired of your hijacking my conversation with Crusader, Mr. Kidds and Mr. 2000. We were talking about the Caste System. YOU are the one who changed the subject. I was trying to get it back.

Anyways. Please don't act as if you decide where this discussion goes and doesn't go.

Oh no!! Of course not!! That power is reserved for the almighty Scoop! I’m soooooo sorry, Mr. Scoop! I won’t let it happen again!! Whatever YOU want to talk about must be what everyone wants to talk about!! I should have known better!

Get off it Scoop! If nothing else I’ve earned some modicum of respect by longevity alone. Remember, I’ve been here since the beginning. You are still a relative upstart!! Don’t tell me what I can talk about and what I can’t talk about!!

Just because you don't want to answer the question I keep asking, doesn't mean that it isn't worthy of discussion in this thread.

Is there a place, within the Disney Philosophy, for the Garden Wings?

Now that’s funny!! Too funny!!! LOL and all that laughing stuff!! I could have sworn I just asked you a similar question in my last post! Why wasn’t it answered?

Oh! That’s right! I forgot! You used your response to quote yourself 6 times, tell me I can’t change my own topic back to where it once was and bring up those nasty Garden Wings (which apparently no one else wants to talk about)!!

Keep plugging along, Scoop old man!! If nothing else you’re amusing!

 

[SnackyStacky]

It's been a heck of a long time since ALL of the big guys have had a debate, that it's really silenced me!

BUT, I do have a few thoughts to share, and I hope my intrusion isn't unwelcome.

Is there a place, within the Disney Philosophy, for the All-Stars or Pop Century, as they are today?

No, no, no, and no. I HAD to get that off my chest!!!

Is there a place, within the Disney Philosophy, for the Garden Wings?

If so, where, how, why?

My opinion on this is a whole bunch of maybe.

Before I explain further, I would take a moment to say that I personally hate those Garden Wings. I will NOT stay there at current prices, because it's too much money for not enough wow.

Anyway.... I think they could very easily fit into the philosophy, but it would depend on the way the company was moving. If it was moving in the direction that a few people alluded to earlier (I don't remember who....I think it might have been airlarry!...) whereby they were building different level accomodations, and would charge less within the same resort. I could see them fitting into the philosophy. I WOULD pay current moderate level prices to stay in the wings.

HOWEVER, if they were built, full well knowing that all new resorts were going to be built and would be delineated as moderate and economy, then no. There is no place in the Disney philosophy for them.

Sorry for the interruption!

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Mr. Stacky:

DITTO!!

Hey Scoop! I think I just answered your question. Now how about giving mine a whirl!!??

 

[Mr D]

Excuse while I make an off the wall comment about some good points I do see at WDW particularly Blizzard Beach that I purchased an annual pass for, just BB/Disney Quest no other part of WDW is in my itiniary for my 4 week stay here in Orlando.
My son and I have been going there for the last couple of days that were warmer except for sat and sunday which were DQ days.

BB is very comfortable, absolutely no ECVs, or strollers bumping into me, no nasty foreigners shoving my kid around and absolutely NO gift shops that I need to navigate diagonally through after my ride
The CMs are great, as we exited yesterday afternoon at the main entrance gate the CM was asking my son (he is 9) if he thought the Summit plummet actually launched people into the air, her demeanor was peaceful condescending and very motherly. We laughed together as my son thought it really did, she didn't have to even say goodbye or anything but she did and more.

Personally if I was CEO I would build several smaller parks the size of BB, have a limited amount of guests allowed period, and make it more personal. In a way BB reminded me of DL, small and friendly even though its just a water park...I bet the accountants have discussed reasons why they possibly see BB or TL (which I have never been to) as "minmal guest profiting" because by their very nature its hard to have gift shops all around that the guests have to navigate through like a maze.

Perhaps thats what should be the next project....after Eisner leaves...build the best Disney themed waterpark in the world...on par in quality to Tokyo DisneySea.






I just love jumping in the middle of a thread and posting something totally different

 

[DC7800]

Originally posted by thedscoop
I have still not heard a single argument that the garden wings were needed for "Show" reasons rather than capacity or financial reasons

Without the garden wings the Contemporary would be nothing but a hotel tower. The "show" found at the resort is not isolated to the A-Frame structure - rather, look at the property as a whole. Consider, perhaps, how Disney builds - or rather used to build - it's theme parks. Tommorrowland doesn't consist of just the Space Mountain structure; there's more to Frontierland than just the building and landscaping which contain Splash Mountain. Deprived of the architectural context in which they are presented, neither could possibly convey a feeling of the frontier or the future. Remove the Contemporary's wings and you undermine the story.

Further, the wing experience is identical to the tower with few exceptions: basically the view, monorail, lack of a full balcony, and Grand Canyon Concourse. The monorail is part of the "story" to be certain, but hardly the most important factor, and the mere prescence - or absence - of the monorail does not dictate whethor a hotel building is Contemporary (futuristic) or not (if it did, the Polynesian and GF would be just as comfortable in Tommorrowland). Maybe deluxe resorts should have balconies, but it's not central to the theme here. You can get a similar "atrium" experience over at the old Howard Johnson's in Hotel Plaza; this doesn't mean that hotel has a theme at all. Finally, the actual rooms in the wings are identical to those in the tower. Only when you open the curtains in the morning do you notice a difference, and there is something to be said both for an upper floor view of the Magic Kingdom and a ground floor view across the courtyard at the Contemporary Tower itself.

To be fair to the Contemporary, you have to remember that it is about a 35 year old design. In the 1970's the resort provided a fitting backdrop to the Magic Kingdom - as intended. The "story" and theme were (obviously) more apparent back then. As noted previously (I think it was AV), the place started out suggesting the future; that it looks almost "typical" today is yet more evidence the design was a success. Though it remains a wonderful WDW resort with a definite story to present, something of an exterior facelift for the entire Contemporary property is long overdue.

You just cannot judge the Contemporary bv viewing the wings in isolation.

 

[Mr D]

Well it would have been neat to watch the "room changing" thats for the newbies here was the origional design that the rooms were modular and could be "swapped" out for a style or theme change, however the plan did not work, everything settled into place, got jammed and the modules could not be removed.

 

[airlarry!]

You know, Scoop, you give out as much as you receive. Personally, I don't mind it, because that's what we've been doing for years here, debating every nuance of every rumor and every bit of news. But, just as frustrated as you seem to be with AV, I am frustrated that you use your considerable powers for the dark side.

I have seen many lawyers in cross-examination use a small flaw (they argue it is the 'fatal flaw') to undo an entirely valid hypothesis.

That's okay for the courtroom, but here in Disney's world, is it really that relevant to tear down this great examination we have made about Baron's beloved caste system argument, with the ridiculous supposition that the 'addition' (even though you must now concede that they really never were additions) of the Garden Wings is an example from yesteryear of the same thought that gives us the Poop Century motels. Please do not say that is not your intent--what else could we infer from your questions?

Your main thrust has shifted, but now the question you have asked is "Does the GW fit Disney show and philosophy?"

Holy subjective, Batman! Some will say yes, and some will say no. If AV and Baron agree that they don't (just play along here), does that give you ammunition to make a slippery slope argument in favor of the Poop Century motels as a continuation of Walt's rich tradition of settling for money making enterprises instead of creating unique entertainment?

I think not.

The GWs may not be the perfect example of Disney show--although how two hotels that look like miniature add-ons to the big A-frame do not, I really can't tell--but the bigger picture is that stupid convention center that is added (I don't even know who did it...but it looks terrible next to the shiny white of the A-frame), and the tacky motels that we only stay in to save money, and the resorts without magical transportation, and a monorail line out to Epcot without resorts on it, all are just dumb decisions and are a lot more worthy of condescending debate than the GWs.

Just my humble opinion.

 

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by DVC-Landbaron
Hey Scoop! I think I just answered your question. Now how about giving mine a whirl!!??

Well, actually, you didn't answer it ... you merely agreed with someone who did.

Point to scoop.

But carry on ....

 

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by Mr D
Excuse while I make an off the wall comment about some good points I do see at WDW particularly Blizzard Beach that I purchased an annual pass for, just BB/Disney Quest no other part of WDW is in my itiniary for my 4 week stay here in Orlando.
My son and I have been going there for the last couple of days that were warmer except for sat and sunday which were DQ days.

I thought you were making it a point to not visit Disney at all on your trip. Didn't you say that somewhere? You do know that even if you go to just Blizzard Beach and Disney Quest that the money goes back to the company, right?



But ... we digress ...

 

[DisneyKidds]

As noted previously (I think it was AV), the place started out suggesting the future; that it looks almost "typical" today is yet more evidence the design was a success.

Nope.............I've been thinking about this comment some since AV made it, and I was going to leave well enough alone, but since you restate it I have to say I'm not buying this observation as testiment to the CR GWs design success. IF the GWs represented something new, different, and futuristic back in 1972, only to go on and become common as viewed today, I would agree. But I don't think that is the case, and I also think the Tower disproves the idea.

As AV said, back in the day the concept of a central tower hotel with flanking lower rise units was rather common. As AV said, the GWs were part of the plan from before the CR was built, plans that made use of that common idea of flanking units. Yes, the GWs used the cold concrete look the tower had. Yes, the GW used some similar lines. However, I submit that the GWs themselves were nothing special back in 1972. They were reflective of a common approach to hotel construction of the time. The reason they seem common today isn't because they have grown into that 1972 vision of the future. They seem common today because they were common back then, they have always been common. The GWs, other than being part of a larger resort with a theme carried through, have never been anything but common........................and that is my problem with them.

As I said, the Tower is a striking contrast. While a tower concept may have been common in 1972, an A frame with a monorail running through it certainly wasn't. That was different, that was new, that was way futuristic. And you know what, the CR Tower doesn't seem common today. It is still a unique piece of architecture. THAT is a testament to design success.....................not the GWs.

Remove the Contemporary's wings and you undermine the story.

Sorry DC..............I just don't agree. How would one's Tower/CR experience be diminished if the GWs didn't exist?

Further, the wing experience is identical to the tower with few exceptions: basically the view, monorail, lack of a full balcony, and Grand Canyon Concourse.

Once again, I very much disagree. Those "few exceptions" you casually dismiss are what makes a stay at the CR special, they are what makes the CR unique. Following your logic the CR could consist of nothing more than Garden Wings and it would be just as special. That is ludicrous. I assume you have stayed in the Garden Wings. Perhaps your experience was different than ours. While we enjoyed the location of the CR, our stay in the GW was just so-so. I'd never recommend staying in the Garden Wings as they just aren't very special. The Tower is a different story.

Maybe if I spend a couple nights there (rather than just visiting friends staying there), the Show of the wings will become apparent to me. I'll try and give it a shot in May and report back.

If you've never done it then maybe you should. I doubt you'd do it a second time.

 

[Another Voice]

"I don't have a problem with Walt's philosophy not being adhered to in this case based upon the practical benefits they provide."

At last the heart of the matter.

Disney is a brand name that means "quality" - but it no longer a style.

That's very sad. You are no longer looking for a unique, imaginative experiences. Instead you're looking for something 1) cheap and 2) to distract the toddlers.

Because of marketing and past associations, you see Disney as providing that to you. Much like people look to Evian for "best" in bottled water.

Most of the discussion in the massive thread has nothing to do whether something is right or not. It's whether today's brand has meaning. The "Pop is the same trend as the Garden Wing" thoughtline is simply an attempt to spread the Disney® brand to the current offerings. It’s just like the saying "made with the same recipe brought by Grandmother from the Old Country" on the industrially produced food items churned out by the millions.

It's a way to give the new stuff the same warm-and-fuzzies the old, legitimate products had. No one likes to believe they're getting second-rate merchandise.

As I've said before, the real Disney is dead. In its place we've got Disney®. Resorts don't need to do anything now, they just have to carry the right name and have the right association with past glories. Disney® doesn't make new movies, just sequels and spin-offs of pervious ones. The characters don't have to shown as appealing, just placed on enough merchandise so they are perceived as "popular".

This Brand Imagine Justification Game™ is amusing, but ultimately pointless. You hate the Garden Wings, but see in them a reason why not to hate today's offering. That's fine. I see today's creation as the exact opposite of the forces that made Disney successful in the first place and have watched as The Company has imploded.

 

[DisneyKidds]

You hate the Garden Wings, but see in them a reason why not to hate today's offering.

Sorry AV, you are reading between the lines way too much........................or perhaps you aren't reading at all . That hasn't been anyones point. You keep trying to make that people's point.

Disney® doesn't make new movies

Yes, Disney has put out sequels and spin-offs. However, to allow those to lead you to make statements like this shows that you really aren't looking objectively or with an open mind at the other things that Disney is putting forward. We finally saw Brother Bear this past weekend. If you can't recognize that this film had not only quality animation, but incredible story and depth then you are way too jaded to ever productively discuss Disney in any meaningful fashion. The depth of the original story in Brother Bear eclipses the likes of Lion King and Litlle Mermaid.

 

[SnackyStacky]

Originally posted by DisneyKidds
If you can't recognize that this film had not only quality animation, but incredible story and depth then you are way too jaded to ever productively discuss Disney in any meaningful fashion. The depth of the original story in Brother Bear eclipses the likes of Lion King and Litlle Mermaid.

Methinks I feel the winds of change for this thread.

Just had to jump in and say that I really enjoyed Brother Bear, and the quality is definitely up there. BUT, two things immediately come to mind for me:

1.) Yes, Brother Bear represents quality, but as of Monday, the Florida feature animation department is gone. Personally, I think that says a whole lot about the company's stance on traditional, in-house animation. You don't just shut down a studio that's turned out quality products.

2.) I don't remember specifically why I thought this way, I'd have to see the movie again, but I just didn't see in this the same quality that was there with the Little Mermaid and Lion King, at least story wise. I THINK it had something to do with the ending. It felt kind of like "We've got to wrap this up....it's taking too long!" I'm not at all knocking it, nor am I saying that it's bad. In fact, I'm very excited for it to come out on DVD, but I still don't see that same spark that I saw in the movies released between the Little Mermaid and the Lion King.

 

[Another Voice]

"Because it's much more important to me that a trip to Disney World make Owen happy that it strictly adhere to a "philosophy"."

You're looking at the world through the veiwpoint as a consumer of Disney products.

I'm looking at the world as Disney the business would (or at should).

You're position as absolutely valid - do what's best for your situation. A two year old will be just a happy at Pop as at the Contemporary - or just as happy in your living room as at the Magic Kingdom. Every visitor and consumer has their own particular requirements, needs and desires.

But Disney's problem are different. Their requirement is to the meet the needs of enough people well enough to maintain the business. You look out for you need - but Disney needs to figure out what others need.

For a long time Disney had an amazingly successful ability to do just that. They not only met the needs and expectations of a lot of people, but they far exceed those expectations. Old Disney has an understanding of its customers and could anticipate their wishes.

The issue I have is that today's company seems to have lost that understanding. They see their customer's only desires as being "cheap" and "Disney® Magic™". And that's the kind of products they are making - those items that can be sold for less (like WalMart merchandise), made for less (like the cheapquels) that overemphasize traditional Disney icons over the quality of the products themselves (like plastering Disney characters on cereal boxes). This may result in some short term gains - but I believe it will lead to long term ruin.

So back to the hotels - sure they are lots of people looking for a good deal to be "part of the magic". The lo end resorts fit that requirement. But I see that those resorts contradict all the aspects that made WDW "magical" to being with and will quickly erode those aspects that made Disney unique.

 

[Another Voice]

"Animal Kingdom's is being increasingly visited."

Because it's a convinent second tier attraction that's close to the places people came to Orlando to see. Plop AK out in Tampa and it would draw less than Busch does.\

Mr. Scoop really what you're arguing is that Disney has built Anaheim on its property in Orlando - the cheap low cost motels, the second tier attractions, the recreation (like mini golf) and t-shirt shops that surround Disneyland. It's just at WDW it's kept out of sight better.

I guess the evil wasn't that the blight surrounding Disneyland was that it wasn't owned by Disney. Eisner took all that buffer land which Walt bought and is using it to recreate the same exact urban tourist slum area (with fresher paint) which Disney tried to get away from.

Once again, the triumuph of money over quality.


P.S. - Yes, from experience, a two-year old has much more fun at home than at the Magic Kingdom.

 

[hopemax]

Scoop,

If All-Stars were priced the same as the Deluxes, or even the moderates do you think they would have the same high return rate?

The reason why I'm asking is that a part of the reason DCA's numbers are where they are is because DL is right outside and available for the SAME PRICE. Like you said, some things can't be wrapped up so tidily.

Or is it your position that people are returning to the All-Stars because of the theme/decoration and not the price?

A better example, perhaps, would be the opening of the Animal Kingdom Lodge, with its many similarities to WL. Only in that case there were so many discounts being offered that one would have to wonder if people were rejecting it for the reasons discussed more times than we can count, and I'm REALLY hope we don't have to go through them here again.

 

[DisneyKidds]

Originally posted by Another Voice
"Animal Kingdom's is being increasingly visited."

Because it's a convinent second tier attraction that's close to the places people came to Orlando to see. Plop AK out in Tampa and it would draw less than Busch does.\

Mr. Scoop really what you're arguing is that Disney has built Anaheim on its property in Orlando - the cheap low cost motels, the second tier attractions, the recreation (like mini golf) and t-shirt shops that surround Disneyland. It's just at WDW it's kept out of sight better.

I guess the evil wasn't that the blight surrounding Disneyland was that it wasn't owned by Disney. Eisner took all that buffer land which Walt bought and is using it to recreate the same exact urban tourist slum area (with fresher paint) which Disney tried to get away from.

Once again, the triumuph of money over quality.


P.S. - Yes, from experience, a two-year old has much more fun at home than at the Magic Kingdom.

AV, did you get into the Pirate's private stash of Captain Morgan?

 

[DisneyKidds]

Or is it your position that people are returning to the All-Stars because of the theme/decoration and not the price?

As LB often points out, a combination of theme (in this case decoration) AND price it what made/makes resorts successful (however successful you think they are). So it seems it would be ok to have price be an important contributing factor.

The thing is............there are lots of people who do like the values, and not just because of the price. For those not so hung up on the history and philosophy we throw around here in our (for the most part) isolated "been to the original resorts and know the difference" eWorld, the Disney resorts they spend their time in are just wonderful and a vast improvement over the Motel 6's on I Drive. All our arrogant, elitist "but this is what a Disney resort/experience is and you ain't getting it" debate doesn't mean squat to them.

 

[crusader]

Mr. Baron -

Thank you for that reply to my post (several pages back).

I guess it comes down to where you draw the line.

Absolutely. That was my first consideration. Drawing the line is critical to this discussion on every single level. I merely touched upon one aspect when mentioning the guests.

I contend that economics (of the public) has very, very little to do with that decision.

I disagree. Those stats I gave you show what a particular 1970 demographic looked like to the planners of that day. Naturally once an idea presents itself, the next step is to gain a visual layout. However, it is equally important to determine who that average joe is that's checking in.

So it is imperative to size him or her up before we can draw the line on who gets to stay onsite.

But given where you wish to place the significance of census in this discussion and in consideration of this next statement…………

I also maintain that market share, revenues and potential profits has very little to do with the question at hand. Again, only a quick look to insure some degree of profitability. Therefore, the only remaining and highly relevant question is one of quality, concept and Disney standards (or philosophy, if you prefer).

I’ll politely place joe on the back burner for now. But I must warn you, joe’s style and habits are of extreme importance, particularly the one gcurling touched upon which basically demonstrates an acute ability to size up a resort in terms of its' offerings and apply a strict cost/benefit measurement stick with respect to accomodations, which could adversely affect capacity at greater pricing levels.

So, we'll have to digress at some point in order to bring our concept to reality.

With that in mind, where do we begin?

 

[Mr D]

Its true I said I was boycotting the parks but to me the water park is exempt because it does not have the "trappings" of the theme parks, no guest shops holding you in a maze to exit all the while dodging families and telling your kids to "don't look, its too expensive, I'm not buying that for you", not having the mobs of parents at the meet and greets, no geriatrics pretending they are at Daytona in their ECVs, and currently NON-existing lines, no FASTPASS worries (like getting across the park in time to use it, or finding something to do while waiting), I get to lie down and sleep, can't do that in any other park as far as I know. Besides I bought an AP for the water park and DQ only, out of four weeks I may be there way more than a dozen times, thats pretty inexpensive on my part compared to the purchase of a PAP which is somewhere around $500.

In essense Blizzard Beach offers quality at an exceptional value with no cheap frills that may entice me to part with my money, heck my money is in a locker!, no plush, no churro carts every 25 feet (yes they do sell them but up near the entrance) so my stand on it stays, I seriously doubt I'll spend any additional funds to go see M:S or Philharmagic like a park hopper, I'll wait till my next vacation when Everest is open, even if thats two years from now.