Debate: Tangible resort Differences

[space42]

So at the “mods” you pay less for a smaller room, and a shorter slide, and less sit down food options, no health club, less boat transportation, no monorail, etc. However, the bigger room, the extra restaurant, the longer slide, the health club, the marina, the monorail station, etc. all cost money. The resorts that have them should cost more.

Interesting...

How does this apply to Ft. Wilderness? Perhaps it cannot be "classed" like the rest of the resorts?

(the following is just bassed off of my experience)

Smaller room? nope, i've got quite a bit of space at my camp site.. more space than at any of the hotel rooms i've stayed in (or could afford for that matter)

Shorter Slide? Well, two pools. Used to have a beach that you could swim at. Used to have a water park too (granted for extra admission, but it was a perk having it so close)

Less sit down food options? Well you have Trails End and Crockets Tavern. You have a dinner show (Hoop Dee Doo Review) that many people come to Ft. Wilderness for. Also the campfire with Chip and Dale (they even show Disney movies on an outdoor movie screen) But even better, I can bbq my own food

No health club? No, but a varity of walking and jogging trails. I can even bring my bike! Cannoe and paddleboat rentals. Horseback riding. etc

Less boat transportataion? Nope, I get the same boat transportation as Wilderness Lodge, Poly, Contemporary, and Floridian. Plus all of those resorts are just a boat ride away

No Monorail? Nope, but I have direct access to the MK via boat. If I wanted to take the Monorail, I could take a boat to the Contemporary and catch the Monorail from there (that would be time consuming, but sometimes you just have to take the Monorail )

Also a full Marina. Water mouse rentals, pontoon boat rentals, etc.

Ft. Wilderness is a really great example of that old Disney "value" still alive and well in 2002. Now, how can they possibly give you this much value at only ~$30 per night??? I suppose that the cabin rentals offset the operating cost? Even those are a fairly good value concidering they have full kitchens, living rooms, sleep an entire family, etc.

So, I wonder.. is it possible to have a full, deluxe, Disney experience at a value price? I'd have to say yeah based on my experience with FW. I'd like to see Disney get back to that level of "value" again and not dumb down the Disney experience for those who cannot afford the deluxe prices (I'm talking more AS and PS here)

Anyway.. as you might guess, Ft. Wilderness is my absolute favorite Disney "resort". Its value is one of the reasons I can go to WDW so often.

 

[DisneyKidds]

Ft. Wilderness is just another flavor - but it is hard to class it with the 'resorts' that actually provide lodging (notwithstanding the cabins).

Room is apples to oranges. Marina and boat transportation are a plus. Other than that, everything you mention can be said about most any resort.

No offense to the campers, but I wouldn't consider staying at FW a full 'resort' experience. Ok - maybe the cabins, but are they 'resort' quality rooms? Even if you have available resort amenities, sleeping in a tent doesn't scream 'resort' to me - but we aren't the camping type. If you have a winnibago, by the time you figure in that cost your per night lodging shoots up.

Different strokes, different flavors, different experiences. All 'Disney', all value if you ask me .

 

[space42]

No offense to the campers, but I wouldn't consider staying at FW a full 'resort' experience. Ok - maybe the cabins, but are they 'resort' quality rooms?

I agree, its not for everyone. I do however, suggest that you look at some pictures of the resort if you have never been there.
Here is a great link with pics.
http://home.hiwaay.net/~jlspence/photogal.htm

I'd say the cabins are nicer than many of the resort rooms. But again, the theme might not be apealing to everyone.

For *me* , I think it is MORE of a resort experience than most of the MODS and deffinitly more of a "Disney Experience" than I would get at AS / PS.

My main point was the quality of the experience was not dumbed down even though it is a termendous value.

 

[DisneyKidds]

My main point was the quality of the experience was not dumbed down even though it is a termendous value.

And a good point it is . I believe the same can be said of the moderates - nothing dumbed down there. Is Ft. W really MORE of a 'resort' experience, or just a very DIFFERENT one? AS - well, lets just stay away from those.

We took the nature trail from WL to Ft. W last time down. It was a nice walk. I liked Ft. W to visit, do the pony rides, walk around a bit. DW is not the outdoor type and didn't think much. Even in different families you get different opinions .

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

I find that I have a hard time conveying my thoughts and opinions in this format. I guess I’m going to have to try to explain things better or at least a little fuller and not worry about being brief! After all –

A long post is a happy post!!

I submit that mere resort hopping is not enough for anyone to get the 'experience' the resort is capable of providing. It is hard to even get an accurate 'feel'.

And I submit that staying overnight in ONE place is not enough!! You need to spread those wings and “taste” the full flavor of ALL the resorts. That’s one of the reasons I stay for three weeks at a crack. On my last trip we missed only two resorts. CSR and, you guessed it, the All-Stars.

Lets see how this grabs you. I was there in 1972 - but not old enough to form an opinion. I visited subsequently during your golden years, but with the perspective of a child. So no, I can't comment on what your Disney was like in what you claim as the golden era.

’Nuff said!! (sorry! I couldn’t pass it up!! )

Chew on this though - the very early 90's were just as golden. Feel free to debunk that, I'm sure you will do your best.

I don’t have to do my best and the ‘debunking’ is a natural. It simply isn’t true. It is a FALSE statement!! The changes were not AS apparent, but the philosophy had radically changed!! And that change led to many more plushes being overtly pushed and prices rising through the roof, to cite just two blatant examples. I’m sure if we all put our heads together we can come up with many, many more!!

Disney was 'Disney'. Eisner was not yet Ei$ner.

Sorry! Disney was no longer “Walt’s” Disney. And Eisner was Ei$ner from day one!! The guy didn’t just suddenly become inept! He was inept right from the start. It just takes a while for ineptitude of his level to utterly destroy the company that Walt built. In his case around eighteen years!!

He had the right people around him and was adding lots of wonderful things.

Which is why it took eighteen years!! By himself… well… just look at how he has done by himself!! Pitiful!!

That, my friend, was a Disney very easy to fall in love with. However, when falling in love with that Disney there was so much more to love than there was in 1972, and not so little to narrow your focus. You see, you had all the wonderful stuff from not only 1972, but every year right up to 1990. Yes, that included another park (which I know feelings are mixed on), and "mods" (there go those mixed feelings again)

Now, here is where I can see your point. There was a whole bunch MORE than in 1972. I agree. And some of it was simply wonderful. But like I posed to that rascally Pirate in our first debate on the subject, “Does size matter?”

I contend that it does. It matters as far as clouding the issue. Dazzling with size instead of substance. And you agree, whether you’d like to admit it or not. Just look at your qualifiers in the above passage. Remember:

Yes, that included another park (which I know feelings are mixed on), and "mods" (there go those mixed feelings again)

Gee! I don’t remember many ‘mixed feelings’ when Disneyland was introduced. And I certainly don’t remember any ‘mixed feelings’ when WDW opened. And I don’t even remember any ‘mixed feelings’ when EPCOT Center debuted!! Yet, today, we need qualifiers. Something seems to be amiss here! In the words of the poets, “Something is rotten in the state of Disney!!”

And it’s been getting steadily (VERY STEADILY) worse! Until we reach bottom. You know, Pop Century!! Dino-rama!! Aladdin!! Kind of a “How low can you go” type thing!! Doesn’t that trouble you?

Ok - here is where I am going. You wish I could have experienced your golden Disney for a day and I would 'get it' as far as you are concerned. So I say - I wish you could have experienced the Disney of 1990 without your preconceived notions from 1972. If only you could have done that I think you would 'get it' as far as I am concerned.

Whew! WOW!! (and) OH BOY!! That certainly is a concept! (Hmmm. I need an analogy. Hmmmm. (I’ll have you know that a good twenty passed between the time I typed that last sentence and the next!!) AH-HA!! I got one!!)

Once upon a time…. You are at a concert. With your friend who is a good ten years younger (assuming you’re an old coot in his mid to late forties). It is about twenty minutes before Paul is to walk onto the stage. As the concert is about to begin you start to tell your friend about the “golden age” of his early music career. The absolute hysteria surrounding the Band. The concerts that were $7.00 a ticket. The way that only three short years later they literally changed the face and the very sound of music. The anticipation of the newest and greatest record coming from them. The hair. The mustaches. The “drugs”. Neru jackets!! The whole scene!!

And your friend nods enthusiastically and says, “I know exactly what you’re talking about!! It was the same thing in the mid-seventies when Wings gave a concert in this city!! It was absolutely mind-blowing!!!”

You look at your friend it amazement!! Didn’t he hear a word I was saying, you ask yourself? Did I do that lousy a job in trying to convey the grandeur and splendor of the moment?

So, you try again. And again you get the same response. OK!! Once again, but this time with bolder print and many more exclamation points!!!!!!!!!! Surely he would ‘get it’ now!!!!!!!!

And he finally looks at you and says, “I wish you could have experienced Wings of the 1970’s without your preconceived notions of the Beatles. If only you could have done that I think you would 'get it' as far as I am concerned.”

What can I possibly do to counter that one!!! This guy thinks that “Back to the Egg” is actually a better album than Sgt. Pepper!!

…. The End … (of the analogy!)

Today I do agree that it is Disney (trademark thingie). But I never have said this....

Don’t you see it’s all a matter of degree!?!? There are people who visited Disney for the very first time this year. And they went home and a couple weeks later, while innocently surfing the web, stumbles onto this site. He sees that sentence you wrote and shakes his head. He yells off to his wife in the other room, “Hey honey!! There’s some loser on this DIS site that thinks Disney isn’t as good as it could be or used to be!!! Can you believe it!?!?!” And his wife shouts back, “Write him back and tell him about our magnificent trip this summer, in the All-Stars!!!”

And for them that’s wonderful. God bless them!! I am glad for them. I hope they always can enjoy the place. I mean, after all, I still do. But just try to convince them it was better in 1990. Go on, try. It ain’t easy pal! It ain’t easy. It all boils down to perspective. Subject knowledge. And history.

No one can take away your perspective. All I can ask is that you widen your view a bit. And it seems as though you are getting a good education in the ‘subject matter’. (Pay close attention to AV in this regard and you can’t go wrong. There are some other names on other sites that can be equally educational. I’m sure you’ll discover them along the way.) And you are even catching up on the history. But I can’t make you see what you don’t want to see. I can’t make you feel what you don’t want to feel.

You might remember I asked you if WDW was the same today as it was in 1972. Your reply:

So you have my answer - that would be no. However, change 'today' to '1991' and I would say that WDW was better than 1972.

I guess that my answer would be: Fair enough! I disagree, but if that’s what you think…

But you don’t leave well enough alone. You continue:

I guess I live in the past just as much as you. However, my past included more than your past, IMHO.

HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY SAY THAT!! My past goes further back than yours!! I remember and lived through the “Beatles” when you point of reference started with Wings!! I lived and breathed Disney, as a young adult, from 1972!! And I was a very frequent visitor through the present day, WHICH INCLUDED YOUR ERA!!!

I don’t mean to pull rank on you, but give me a little credit for my first hand experience! PLEASE!!

However, there is so much more that I fell in love with that you did not that allows me to weather the storm a bit better and not be moved to car 3.

I should think you’d move faster than the rest of us for that coveted third car. After all, there is so much more at stake!! Or could it be that the line, even when you fell, was so blurry that it’s hard, even today, to tell what is truly Disney and what is clearly not?

You see, I have storm windows and a storm door to help me weather the storm. You just have your double hungs and single wooden door.

Hmmmm. My point exactly!! This paragraph, with very few changes, could have been written by me!! Except at the end of the paragraph I would be asking WHY we need to “batten down the hatches”? WHY any of us have to worry that our children won’t get the thrill out of the place that we enjoyed? And WHEN did this slide to mediocrity begin?

Ok - let me understand. CR and Poly are boilerplate, but doing the same thing is not acceptable - you want innovation.

Now you’ve got it!! Stay with that thought!! It’s the Disney way. Part of that philosophy I’m always on about!! (I’m so proud of you!!!!)

I give you innovation in the resort 'experience' in the mods (all those things you agreed with me about before you "'nuff saided" the negatives ) and you say it isn't 'Disney' because it is not the same 'experience' as the CR and Poly.

YES!!! By George!! He’s got it!!! Absolutely!!

There can’t be any negatives!! Only enhancements (or call them innovations if you like) to the basic “boilerplate”!! You have to “innovate” the experience!! You cannot “dumb-down” the experience and call it an innovation just because it’s different!! Different does not necessarily mean innovative. The All-Stars are different. Are they innovative? Are they “Disney”?

The only thing they ‘innovated’ was the boost they gave the bottom line. AT THE EXPENSE OF THE EXPERIENCE!!! They raised the prices and added all those negative that we agreed are negatives!! So where are the enhancements? Where is the innovation? Where is the “Disney” in that!!

So, if you want innovation you have to be willing to accept a new 'experience'. Are you willing to do that?

Again. Very much so. Show me the innovations (i.e. enhancements). But don’t show me “less” at more expensive prices and call that innovative!!

You so narrowly define what is 'Disney' that it becomes very hard to talk. You find 'it's NOT very Disney' so it is end of story. You seem unwilling to open up to something outside the boilerplate being 'Disney'. Where do we go from there?

Experience wise? Show-wise? Up!! NEVER down! Remember, we’re supposed to have our expectations exceeded. Not lowered!!

One of our attorneys recently made the mistake of relying on boilerplate in some state contracts. He didn't adequately review those contracts. Well, my group did and guess what - there were changes to that boilerplate he blindly relied on.

Then he was an idiot!!

As for 'especially not the price'.....well, you haven't shown that the price is any farther off the value quotient than I have shown it is on.

YES I HAVE!!! I have shown that it has more than doubled the rate of inflation!! You don’t think that’s fair. Ball’s in your court! Show me how it isn’t fair. Show me where my calculations went astray! I’ll wait here until you’re done!

The boomerang is headed in your direction

The very reason they call it a boomerang!

… Right back at you….



PS: I haven’t had time yet to see all of today’s posts. I only skimmed them. But I can see at a glance that you and I are headed for trouble!!!!!

Is Ft. W really MORE of a 'resort' experience, or just a very DIFFERENT one?

We will talk about this later!! I promise you!!!!

 

[YoHo]

DisneyKidds or anyone else, I think we need to know the resort rate of inflation. Not that Disney should stick to inflation rates for deciding their room costs, but if it is in fact significantly different, then that is fundimentally important to these discussions, because it could potentially prove that Poly is the same value it was in the 70s.





Now for a Little Humor:



Teenager: Hey Dad!

Grumpy oldish Father: Yeah?

Teen: I heard Paul McCartney was in a band before Wings!

Grumpy Father: falls into Laz E Boy audible joint cracking, cloud of dust rises
Siddown Son and let me tell you about the G-D D--n Beatles.

//Billy Crystal Stand up.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

YoHo!!!

Teenager: Hey Dad!

Grumpy oldish Father: Yeah?

Teen: I heard Paul McCartney was in a band before Wings!

Grumpy Father: falls into Laz E Boy audible joint cracking, cloud of dust rises
Siddown Son and let me tell you about the G-D D--n Beatles.

//Billy Crystal Stand up.

Mr. Kidds to a tee!!!!

 

[raidermatt]

Paul McCartney was in a band with Mr. T?

 

[DisneyKidds]

Mr. Kidds to a tee!!!!

Baron - I should refuse to speak to you after this one. Maybe I won't. Trust me - a good twenty minutes went by......

All the respect I have paid to your musical taste. All the albums I have from before I was born. You have the NERVE, THE NERVE to utter something so rediculous . No offense - well, hell - yes offense - your mind appears smaller and smaller to me with every post .

Why should it surprise me though. You actually are helping to make my point (and I do have one ). You (yes you Baron) can't fully appreciate the quality of the music that Paul put out with Wings because all you do is sit there and say - 'Boy, this is nothin' - you should listen to the G-D D--N Beatles!'

I, on the other hand, not having seen the Beatles, can listen to BOTH the Beatles and Wings and appreciate BOTH. Sure, music today owes it's very existence to the Beatles. Sure, the Beatles were 'better' than Wings. But would the music world have been better off if Paul went tone deaf and abandoned music after the last Beatles album? You love them yeah, yeah, yeah - the Beatles were great, that doesn't mean that there was never a quality album put out by anyone other than the Beatles. There is your analogy right back at you.

Now I am going to really go decide if I will ever speak to you again.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

I’m still trudging through all that garbage you laid on the brilliant writer and new found friend, SnackyStacky. To tell you the truth it’s hard to get through. My eyes keep tearing up due to bouts of laughter that I haven’t gone through in years!!! If laughter is the best medicine, I’m gonna live to be 150 at least!!!! THANKS!!!

As to your latest:

But would the music world have been better off if Paul went tone deaf and abandoned music after the last Beatles album?

Two songs -
Silly Little Love Song
Someone’s Knockin’ at my Door

So.....

‘Nuff said!!!

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

I will maintain my disposal of the AS/PC. To me, I see no Show at these.

Hmmm. One wonders if there could be some middle ground? Someplace between the place where there is ‘no Show” and the place where the Show is full? I just wonder.... Hmmmm....

two and three story buildings with balconies galore, people hanging all about, beads and breasts flying about

Please!!! You keep painting pictures like this and I’m liable to agree with you for the imagery alone!!!!!

Sometimes it is nice not to have to wait for an elevator.

Now that’s a hell of an argument!!! Congratulations!!! This one had me tearing up!!!!

Now a couple of them together:

Yes, it is there, but I guess that is part of why you pay a premium.

The ride on the slide may be shorter, but that is what the extra bucks a night buy you. Sorry.

So at the “mods” you pay less for a smaller room, and a shorter slide, and less sit down food options, no health club, less boat transportation, no monorail, etc. However, the bigger room, the extra restaurant, the longer slide, the health club, the marina, the monorail station, etc. all cost money. The resorts that have them should cost more.

So!! It does all come down to money!! Now where have I heard that before!!??

However, while all those things add different elements to the ‘experience’, there are elements that the “mods” have that are unique and provide a whole other aspect to the ‘experience’

Such as?

I can only see the same movie so many times before I need a break.

Ahhhh! What a perfect analogy! Now certainly you’re not saying that staying at Poly and the Contemporary is like watching the same movie? Are you? No! Can’t be! The same caliber of movie perhaps! Say like Casablanca and Star Wars. Well produced, big budget Hollywood studio films. Great cast. Great acting. Great story. Great cinematography. Great lighting. Great music. And so on....

And maybe we could call the typical high school health film or Army training film the All-Stars! Well filmed. Fair cinematography. Nice lighting. Poor sound. No story. Boring. Not well acted. Canned music. And so on....

And I’ll even give you those high brow, snobbish foreign films can represent the Floridian. OK?

Now that leaves the mods. I was wondering. Have you ever seen a film that tried real hard to be good. But fell short in almost every category. Not much short in each. But just enough to... set it apart. There is a story, well maybe, but you really have to think about it. The scenes were lit. But not as brilliantly. The acting was... fair at best. The cinematography was... not bad but... well... not so awe inspiring. The music sounded like the eighth grade band. The writing was so bad it was actually funny at times. And you could see the strings when special effects were used. A perfect example would be an Ed Woods film!!! YES!! PERFECT!!

So the Foreign film is the Floridian
The Star Wars, Godfather, Gone With the Wind, Casablanca, etc. are the Deluxes
The poor high school documentaries are the All-Stars

And

The Moderates are Ed Woods Films!!!! You know!! Plan 9 from Outer Space!!!

Hey!!! Don’t feel bad!! In thirty years or so, they will become cult classics!!!

 

[DisneyKidds]

Whats wrong with that? I'd like to know. So, here we go - again.......

........always looking for the worst and refusing to see the other good stuff, huh Baron?

Like you couldn't find a few bad songs in all that Beatles history.

Now before you give your patented "there never was any worst 'back then'" - well sure there was. Maybe you didn't see it, but someone then, like you today, was banging their head against a wall .

 

[Bstanley]

Herr Baron,

One comment - I think you meant that prices are twice as high today than they were in 1973 - not that it "more than doubled the rate of inflation", doubling the rate of inflation would put the equivalent price today in the thousands...

The only hard info I have been able to find on WDW hotel prices from 1973 was value season (Nov.):

Polynesian (Lagoon View) - $46
Contemporary (Tower) - $48

Using an Inflation rate calculator from the web to calculate 2002 prices yields:

Polynesian (Lagoon View) - $186
Contemporary (Tower) - $194

Or looking at it in reverse the value season price today:

Polynesian (Lagoon View) - $365
Contemporary (Tower) - $325

Would correspond to a 1973 price of:

Polynesian (Lagoon View) - $90
Contemporary (Tower) - $80

One question I've always had - what discounts were available in 1973? Today it is fairly easy to get a 40% discount on a room by keeping an eye on the codes available ( I use Mousesavers ). If there were no discounts back then it's not as bad as the above example indicates.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

One comment - I think you meant that prices are twice as high today than they were in 1973 - not that it "more than doubled the rate of inflation", doubling the rate of inflation would put the equivalent price today in the thousands...

I stand (actually sit) corrected!!! You are right of course.

One question I've always had - what discounts were available in 1973?

We really need a Disney historian, but I believe that the company used to offer NO discounts!! They didn’t need to. And I also believe that it was one rate year round, but I’m not sure about that. They had a 95% (or so) booking rate, two years out!! They didn’t need to discount squat!!!

One more note. The "lagoon view" was THEE most expensive room on the entire grounds!!

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

If there were no discounts back then it's not as bad as the above example indicates.

Not as bad? For who? I don't understand. Please explain. (I'm good with words, or at least I use a lot of them. I am NOT good with numbers!)

 

[DisneyKidds]

Mr. B - you getting close to proving that the current prices aren't that far off the value quotient of 1972. Baron throws around things like 'double the rate of inflation'. Others say that in 19XX is was $XX so today it would be $xx - all figures that fit their particular argument. You see, anyone can use flawed numbers and misapplied logic to make the figures say what they want.

How does it go - figures don't lie, but liars sure do figure.

I want the honest, non agenda, wholly applicable and valid numbers. Yoho has it right - we need more specific data.

The inflation rate calculator on the web is useless for this analysis. It uses the general CPI. Great if you want a general sense of a cross section of industries and goods. However, we are talking about a specific industry here - lodging. An industry who's inflation has been known to outpace the general CPI. With the general CPI you are close to $200 a night. I can currently get every hotel but the GF for less than that. It wouldn't take much of an increase in the lodging rate of inflation to bring those figures you calculated way up.

Baron states......

I have shown that it has more than doubled the rate of inflation!!

Poppycock. All he has given is heresay, conjecture and bad math.

If I can find the time I will put my hand on the inflation index for lodging - but don't hold your breath, I have my hands full with Mr. Double the Rate of Inflation.

 

[DisneyKidds]

Take this for what it is worth - I have a bunch more work to do, but not tonight.

From 1995 thru 2001. Producer Price Index, Lodging, Resort Hotels, Average annual increase of 5.33%

From 1995 thru 2001. Consumer Price Index, All Urban Consumers, Average annual increase of 2.58%

What does this tell us? I'm not entirely sure. It does suggest that industry specific inflation for lodging has easily outpaced the rate of inflation reflected in the CPI.

Interesting how the above annual increase is.....double. Double the rate of inflation for hotels. Could it be? How do you like them apples Mr. Baron. Roll that up in your Zig Zags and smoke it while you wear your Nehru jacket listening to Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds .

Now I am not an economist so there is room for interpretation, but it seems a good bet that industry specific inflation indicies for lodging applied to the CR/Poly rates of 1972 would yield a number quite a bit higher than that arrived at using the general CPI, which is not applicable to the analysis.

 

[DisneyKidds]

OK - I hope this doesn't end up as long as I anticipate it will be.........

And I submit that staying overnight in ONE place is not enough!! You need to spread those wings and “taste” the full flavor of ALL the resorts.

Exactly - you need to stay multiple nights, in multiple places, over a period of time. Three weeks of fly-bys aren't going to get it done. How can you taste the full flavor if you never stay there, ride the whole ride, experience the experience start to finish. You like a good analogy - try this one. That would be like walking around Splash Mountain, looking at the drop from afar, glancing at the smiling pictures at the annoying booth at the end, but never actually riding the ride - and saying that you know what it is like. REDICULOUS!!!!

As for the rest of that particular post of yours up to your analogy, I have another tag line you might like and may want to use to shorten some of your posts - BTDT (short for Been There, Done That) .

As to that analogy, it is a bit flawed. You see, the simpleton in your analogy who didn't hear what you were saying, who thought Wings was the best and brightest Paul put forward, he probably never even listened to the Beatles. Not the case here. Just like I own Beatles albums - so have I seen or learned about very much of what WDW was in 1972. I have listened to the albums if you will. I have gone on the rides of 1972. I've eaten MHB. I've been in the MK until 2 am without an E-night. However, I have been able to evaluate and appreciate that at the same time as so many other wonderful 'Disney' things that were added in the interim. I can evaluate with an open mind. Just as I am very much a music appreciator - music of all kinds and times, I like to think I am a WDW appreciator - entertainment of all kinds and times. You shun Wings because it follwed and wasn't the Beatles. You shun WDW developments of the 80's and early 90's because it followed and wasn't 1972. Where is the open mind, where is the appreciation of fine entertainment?

But just try to convince them it was better in 1990. Go on, try. It ain’t easy pal! It ain’t easy. It all boils down to perspective. Subject knowledge. And history.

Not so difficult. It is fairly easy to point out what is not available today that was in 1990. You talk, and talk, and talk, and............but where have you said, 'Here, this is what was available in 1972, or 1984, or.....that was no more in 1990. Here is the reflection of the changed philosophy, here is the shortfall.' Well, bring it on. Convince me. I have an open mind - but I need more than double talk to sway my opinion. I listen very closely to the things that people have concern over around here. I haven't heard you lament over many things that had disappeared prior to 1990 - except the value pricing you are convinced no longer exists.

All I can ask is that you widen your view a bit.

Do I need to widen or narrow my view to see things the way you do?

HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY SAY THAT!! My past goes further back than yours!!

Of course it does - I didn't say it didn't. My past is shorter, but gives me a wider frame of reference as there was so much more available when I was indoctrinated. While you linear experience is greater, your frame of reference seems narrower and seems to stop at 1984. Everything after that seems discounted. That is how I meant that my past included more. More rides, shows, entertainment, Show, etc that was/is 'Disney'. You have a smaller subset of that which you consider 'Disney', and a large grouping of 'almost but not quite Disney' - simply due to the fact that it wasn't there in 1972, or 1984, or whenever. Am I wrong for considering all the things 'Disney' that I do since I wasn't there in 1972 as a young adult? Perhaps. Are you wrong for writing so many things off as 'not quite Disney' just because you expect them to be just like......? Perhaps. So convince me. Convince me of something that existed in 1990 that didn't meet the philosophy, standards, traditions, etc. I have tried to convince you on the other end to no avail. You say I am not listening when you have tried to convince me - but I need evidence, not heresay and 'I say so'. Come on, give it to me. I have shown the ability to adjust my thinking and position in the face of compelling evidence. Can you honestly say you have done the same? Think long and hard on that one.

Or could it be that the line, even when you fell, was so blurry that it’s hard, even today, to tell what is truly Disney and what is clearly not?

I continue the challenge - tighten up those lines for me. Don't just say that underlying philosophy had started to change, don't just say dis, dat or da other ting - show me. Pretend I live in Missouri.

Except at the end of the paragraph I would be asking WHY we need to “batten down the hatches”?

Ok - maybe the storm windows were a bad analogy and it played into your hands (DRAT!!!). I was going for additions and improvements to my house. Things that made it better. Lets say they were a fireplace and a sunroom to keep me cozy. Wonderful additions to my house that you refused to consider. So the last ten have been tough, but not only can I hang in my bedroom or kitchen, I can go sit by the fireplace or read a book in the sunroom because I saw fit to accept those wonderful additions to enjoy while you didn't. Ok - end of bad analogy .

There can’t be any negatives!! Only enhancements (or call them innovations if you like) to the basic “boilerplate”!! You have to “innovate” the experience!! You cannot “dumb-down” the experience and call it an innovation just because it’s different!! Different does not necessarily mean innovative. The All-Stars are different. Are they innovative? Are they “Disney”?

Who is not listening now? I only use the word 'negatives' as that is how you view them. Go back and look at them - I don't consider them truely 'negatives'. Changes, something another resort has that one doesn't, something different - and that is ok. With that I officially give up on trying to point out the innovation and good of the moderates - lest I am reduced to repeating myself over and over. I would hate to do that . My cards are on the table. Call.

Then he was an idiot!!

I equate writing off resorts ten years ago, not having watched the Show start to finish, simply comparing the surface view to two original hotels, with not reading the boilerplate . Now I'm not saying anyone has done that.............

Tag, you're it

ps. If Walt could 'Disneyfy' a friggin campground he sure as heck could have done it with a mid level resort .

pss - Baron, check your PM.

 

[1HourAway]

First time poster here.

I have to say it has been an interesting read. So much so that I will throw my two cents into the mix.

I have my original ticket stub from my first park visit from 1972. The 'junior' rate with the Magic Kingdom Club discount was $6.75. Mind you that price included tax, unlike today's ticket prices. So we can reasonably assume the full price for adult admission was around $8.00 -$10.00. (Sorry - that I don't have true figures). So if a "deluxe" resort was priced at $46 - $48 a night, it would roughly cost 4 to 5 times the cost of park admission.

Ticket prices today are $49 + tax (there abouts) and the price for a "deluxe" resort is roughly 4 to 5 times the cost of daily admission to the parks. (Of course, I know someone will quote a higher price, but who actually pays the rack rate at Disney?)

I don't know about price indexes and inflation rates. But looking at the cost of yesterday verses today. The prices seem to be relative.

I do know that a family of 7 in 1972 could not afford to stay at CR or Poly at $46 a night. Cost being the factor.

As for Mr. Baron - your analogy of the Riverview Tunnel of Love ride, the stinky, rat infested ride for .50, as compared to the "new" Disney experience rides for .90 ("just a few cents more") is not an accurate assesment. A .90 ride is nearly twice as expensive as a .50 ride. Disney rides were cleaner, no visible rats, no smell, but you were paying nearly twice as much for the experience.

Just MHO.

 

[DisneyKidds]

Welcome aboard 1HourAway .

I was one hour away from giving up on getting the good Baron to see anything. However, could it be someone with experience dating back to the Baron's golden era has come to debunk the captain of the Bunko Squad? I like your first post . Hope to see more.

Hmmm.... 1972, MKC Admission discount. Could it be that there was a MKC discount on the hotels as well? Would seem logical if MKC existed.