DEBATE: When does the "Disney Experience" cease to exist?

[montessori]

I still can't do the quote thing right!

quote: You seem to be tilting a little toward the 'evil side' but we don't hold that against anyone.
I'm still wondering about that.

I have to say that even Pop Century advocates would be hardpressed to say that the resort is done in "good taste." Subjective as it may be. People might say it's wild and whimsical, big and bold, fun and fanciful...but they can't say that it's done in good taste. There are certain connotations to the term "good taste", by anyone's standards, and there's no way Pop Century can be defined as such. Semantics maybe...but true.

Basically, we agree on most points. We don't think Pop Century is attractive, the Cm's are still wonderful, and the bus system needs improvement.

Landbaron...I have seen Pop Century, do I really have to see the All-Star resorts?

 

[Another Voice]

“…arrogant, condescending, hoity-toity, rigid and mostly old school…”

I hear someone calling me to join this discussion….

Let’s start with “And of course anyone who dares to support Pop, Dino-Rama or DCA will not be found posting here (although these people do exist in the real world).”

But isn’t it true that the public itself – that supposed unarrogant, uncondescending, non-hoity, unrigid and new school clamoring, low-pomposity majority - already spoken. Pop Century was so unpopular in pre-opening bookings that the project was shelved long before the current difficulties (rumors have it people would wait-list for the All Stars instead of taking a confirmed room at PC). Dino-Rama has done nothing to solve Animal Kingdom’s attendance and length of stay issues (and according to rumors, is now losing money on its carnival games). And California Adventure – let’s just say it’s very nice to have sixty unpopulated, wide-open acres smack in the heart of Orange County for the first time since Walt opened up that other park (the one that actually managed to attract a crowd).

Perhaps, Captain sir, the vast admission-paying public isn’t as enthralled with all the “open-minded” wonders as others are. Perhaps it’s time we reassess who is the “populist” who has the public’s interest in mind.

There’s a reason some of old fuddle-duddies cling to the “old school” evilness of the past: because those standards worked. People liked those projects. People paid money to see them. For all the excuses of new market segments, living in the real world, and getting with modern times – there has been a stunning lack of success. If the public was mobbing Animal Kingdom and proclaiming its new wonders as a triumph over the old and stale Magic Kingdom then I could see your point about us ancient windbags with our outdated ideals. But as it currently stands – by what criteria do you call us as being the unrealistic ones?

It’s not that we “could care less if it's successful because it's an affront to 'good taste'” – we believe the things we do because ‘good taste’ is the best way to achieve success.


P.S. – as a minion of the evil side, let me add my welcome to Montessori and ohanafamily.

 

[ohanafamily]

WOW, we are a passionate group...

Thank you, and I really apreciate the warm (if not yet heated) welcome.

Further, Evil is a word I reserve for Scar; arguably the most evil of the Disney Villians..Killing your brother and telling Simba that Simba did it.

I would never apply it to anyone as passionate about All Things Disney as the posters on this forum.

I might also apply the word Evil to the persons, whoever they are, who seem to be making a concerted effort to destroy The Land That Walt Built. These are also the people who might put a mouse trap in front on MK!

BTW, I must correct myself, I loved the game Mousetrap as a kid, and I liked the ride at C&H Dynorama that emmulates it. That is all I remember of the DynoRama, and I guess it too is in poor taste considdering that a mouse runs the place...

 

[montessori]

I didn't know that area was called Dino-rama. But I liked that ride too!

 

[ohanafamily]

It is actually Chester & Hester's Dynorama (or something close to that) and I will have to look up the name of the ride.

 

[ohanafamily]

montessori

My previous post went out before I finished it; you might find it interesting back on page 3.

(Aside
Also, is this Gold Sponsor thing worth it?)

 

[RRBB]

Originally posted by ohanafamily
It is actually Chester & Hester's Dynorama (or something close to that) and I will have to look up the name of the ride.

I think the ride you're refering to is Primeval Whirl. I just have to say, as much as it seems out of place and non-Disney to me, I still really like that ride.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

OK, I too will risk getting involved with this thread.

Good!! The more the merrier!!

I don’t know how much you really know about the current head mouse (head “rat” may be a better term though), but a lot of your item #4 is... well... ah... I don’t know how to put it nicely... Well, it’s WRONG!!!

I understand that he came from an Animators Background, which is his passion, and explains why there have been so many animated films produced in the last several years.

Not even close!! Perhaps others can fill in the picture better than I, but he was certainly no animation buff!! There was a person named Jeffrey Katzenburg who was in charge of animation when Ei$ner took over. It was he that turned the animation division around. Later Ei$ner got rid of him unceremoniously (and it turned out to be a very expensive blunder from both the courts and from the loss of his guidance and talent. He later went on to be the driving force behind the movie Shrek!).

I also understand that he has been under a lot of pressure (by a Mr. Gold, and Roy Disney-The Nephew) to turn a profit.

Well, everyone wants Disney to turn a profit. The question is how they go about it. Do they put out a product for which most people would willing pay big bucks? Or do they put out a cheap product, pandering to the lowest common denominator, ignoring what brought them to the dance in the first place? That is what these discussions are all about!!

I can see him telling his department heads to find ways to save money. I would hope he would not have the arrogance to say that “The Guests won’t care if we put off maintenance”.

Yes!! One would hope. But, one would be wrong!!!

Hmmm. The rest of your item #4 seems to be pretty much in line with the way I think about those subjects!! In other words... VERY WELL WRITTEN!!! BRAVO!!!

6) My wife and I go to WDW a couple of times a year (DVC) and the place will always be magical to us; they will have to go far to destroy My pixie-dusted-rose-colored-Mickey Mouse-glasses.

Same as me!! But I think they are farther down that road than many think. Again, while I’m there - I LOVE IT!!! But when I really get to studying the question, I can’t help but reach the conclusion that Disney is sinking!! Slowly, but very, very surely!!

7) I like Chester&Hester Dyno-rama

On a subjective, gut-level feeling, I understand. As I always say, we all have our guilty pleasures. But looking at it from a philosophical point of view, trying to excise as much subjectivity out of the equation as possible, do you really think Dino-Rama is “Disney”? Does it fit in with the “Walt” concept of theme parks? Does it fit in with what the company’s philosophy is? I don’t think so at all. In fact, I think that it is the PERFECT example of what I would consider to be “Anti-Walt”. Or 180 degrees opposite of the Disney philosophy. And if, looking at from this point of view, you still feel it’s “Disney”, then we may be in for a ten pager!! And a very interesting conversation, to say the least! I can hardly wait!!!!!

9) While on the subject of the Monorail, a CM told that each section of track costs over 2 Million Dollars. It will be cost prohibitive to ever build another leg, let alone a new line.

I really have problems with that figure. We’ve discussed this before, but I can’t remember what the actual cost was. However, I’d like to point out the recent acquisition of FOX. What did that cost again? And how much monorail track could that have bought instead? The point is the parks are being used to finance a very poorly run company. Much to the detriment of the parks. Now, the entire company is poorly run. But Walt breathed so much life into his parks (via his philosophy) that it has taken this long for Ei$ner to decimate them. But that can’t keep up forever. More cuts, less capital expenditure and more deferred maintenance is a recipe for disaster. And that’s the road we’re on (don’t you just love a good mixed metaphor! )

 

[OnWithTheShow]

On the Dino-rama topic...

After much thought and meditation, including several hours sitting and observing people in Dino-rama I have decided that I actually like this "mini-land". The rides are both fun and the games are few and very non intrusive. The theming of the area is super (there are parking spaces painted on the ground). However there are a few things that I think could have been done better. The land does nothing to address the shade problem of AK, in fact Dino-rama is one of the most open areas of the park. I can't stand the fact that you can see primevel whirl from the entrance to Dinoland, Asia, and the parking lot. This in my opinion is unacceptable. The theming could be better on Primevel Whirl, however if you take the time to notice the subtle mockery of the scientific community and their field trips over at the dino institute it increases the humor of the ride. (Try to think about Dr. Seeker saying the same stuff he does on Dinosaur but on Primevel Whirl and see what I mean it fits perfectly! "Definitely not our dino!").

 

[ohanafamily]

There was a person named Jeffrey Katzenburg

See what I get for not paying close enough attention to the PBS documentaries?

Or do they put out a cheap product, pandering to the lowest common denominator, ignoring what brought them to the dance in the first place? That is what these discussions are all about!!

I still can hope that somebody still cares, maybe a few CMs still do…

Hmmm. The rest of your item #4 seems to be pretty much in line with the way I think about those subjects!! In other words... VERY WELL WRITTEN!!! BRAVO!!!

I appreciate it, Thanks!

I can’t help but reach the conclusion that Disney is sinking!! Slowly, but very, very surely!!

It seems you are right, but the matter is beyond my control, so I choose to hope you are premature and it will turn around.

do you really think Dino-Rama is “Disney”?..... then we may be in for a ten pager!! And a very interesting conversation, to say the least! I can hardly wait!!!!!

OK, it is kind of not edutainment (remember that word?) but there are some Disney points to it. I also agree that it is a little too visible. (and I welcome 10 pagers)

The point is the parks are being used to finance a very poorly run company. Much to the detriment of the parks. Now, the entire company is poorly run. But Walt breathed so much life into his parks (via his philosophy) that it has taken this long for Ei$ner to decimate them. But that can’t keep up forever. More cuts, less capital expenditure and more deferred maintenance is a recipe for disaster. And that’s the road we’re on

Is it really that bad?

BTW, I have a few addresses for your list, should I PM them to you

 

[montessori]

I have to say that I liked the "twirl" ride, I only went on it once and I laughed the whole time, it seemed to catch me by surprise! But, I do not like the look of that whole Dino-Rama area. It really isn't Disney-esque, especially in the middle of Animal Kingdom. It just doesn't fit.
It's like that Aladdin ride in the middle of Adventureland. It simply doesn't belong.

 

[ohanafamily]

I agree, it is fun, but a little "out-of-place" and "overly visible"

 

[DisneyKidds]

Whew! Miss a night and look what happens . Welcome aboard ohanafamily . For you and montessori - a little explanation about this happy, somewhat insane crew - and the theme of good vs. evil . Don't be alarmed by reference of 'turning to the evil side' - nothing sinister there.

You see, some time ago people started carpooling over here. Look to the top of this particular board and you will see 'Carpools Defined'. A fun and interesting idea that helped to loosely group people by how they felt about the current condition of Disney. As time went on, these definitions seemed to polarize people. You have certain folk who feel that Disney is still Disney, the bright shiny silver spoon it always was. Then you have those who feel that Disney, despite a few mistakes and a little misguidance, is still Disney, although that bright shiny spoon has some spots of tarnish. Another group of folks believes that Disney is no longer Disney, with an ever so faint glimmer of hope for return, and the spoon is now an ugly black utensile - but one worthy of eating off of. Lastly there are those that feel Disney is gone and beyond repair and the spoon exists no longer. (As you hang around here you will see we like to use analogies ).

Somewhare in this whole mess a Star Wars thing happened. A Luke vs. Darth Vader thing. Those believing that Disney is still Disney hanging with Luke, and those who feel that Disney is no longer Disney hanging on the 'dark side' with the 'evil' Vader. It won't take long for you to figure out what color spoon most around here are eating with. If you find yourself agreeing with some who are using an ugly, black, completely tarnished spoon, others may feel you have strayed toward the 'evil' 'dark side'. You see - this 'evil' is all rather innocent.

Baron, oh Baron...........

Why must you always get carried away . Regarding Disney's ability to fashion a nicely themed, non-garish resort, you are completely wrong. You state that generally Disney has taken to producing garish resorts. That is a load of bull . The good Captain reminds you of AKL and you say you can recognize that one as good, but generally they are garish. How about the Wilderness Lodge - nothing garish there. How about Coronado Springs - nothing garish there. You see, the only resorst that can fit your garish descriptions would be Pop and the All Stars. So from that you deduct that, in general, all Ei$ner resort additions are garish? OK, so Pop and some of the AS are the more recent additions to the resort portfolio - but to make the blanket statement you make is just rediculous . Apparently your brain is as tarnished as that spoon you are gobbling up Disney Magic with .

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Ah! Mr. Kidds, you did it again!! You’re getting as bad as the Pirate!! You inferred:

Regarding Disney's ability to fashion a nicely themed, non-garish resort, you are completely wrong. You state that generally Disney has taken to producing garish resorts.

Now, I’d like to now where you got such an outlandish idea!!?? It is true that I used the Poly and the Contemporary as examples, but I used others as well. Remember:

Of course I didn’t forget AK! Nor did I ignore some of the other splendid things they occasionally do. But it does seem to me that they have gotten a bit gaudy lately (that HAT and wand are just two examples).

The whole thing started off with a thought from Planogirl, way back on page one, when she said:

One thing that always struck me was how truly simple the original Disney resorts were. They were comfortable and attractive and unpretentious. They had a reasonable amount of theming, many nice little Disney touches and a quiet atmosphere. A person could go to the parks and go wild for the day and then relax back at their resort.

It got me to thinking about Disney themes in general. Specifically Aladdin and the whole Tomorrowland theme. And that led to the BAH and the Wand. Which in turn led to a feeling I have in Port Orleans that it’s somehow a little too... I don’t know the right word... Plastic perhaps? Maybe a little too bright and jolly? I don’t know, just a little... ah... too much, I suppose. All subjective and only one thought about the resorts. But I kept the concept to myself until the eminent and esteemed Mr. Head said:

I feel that during Eisner's leadership, Disney forgot what Disney World was supposed to be. I also feel that during the same period, Disney eschewed more and more the tools of detail and storytelling and show, across all of their products.

I replied with

I think this very thought is always in the back of my mind when I look at the ‘newer’ offerings from Disney.

I did NOT single out resorts and I thought I was being rather all inclusive. It’s been a major complaint of mine for quite some time. Primary colors and huge ICONS!! But at times it more subtle. But just as annoying!! And certainly NOT just the resorts!! In fact, the resorts are pretty nice, with the obvious exceptions, of course!!

 

[ohanafamily]

DisneyKidds

Question, who's the Wookie?

 

[DisneyKidds]

Ohana, the wookie is..................... nah, wouldn't want to offend anyone

Baron - fair enough, that your gaudy nature of recent offerings opinion is based on Disney as a whole, and not just resorts - not that I agree (surprise, surprise!!)

First off, I do agree with you on things like the wand, and I particularly dislike the MGM hat. I don't have big problems with the redone Tomorrowland (which was never a favorite land of ours) where what they achieved was not by accident. You may not like it, but the result was intended, not the product of being cheap and gaudy. Likewise with Aladdin (I assume you mean the ride in the MK). You may not like the placement, but the attraction itself doesn't say cheap and gaudy to me. Alas, that is all very subjective.

As for your comment on POR, and the Head's comment about eschewing detail, storytelling, and show - I have an example that kind of goes counter to both. Not that it isn't true to an extent in some things, but let's look at POR.

The POR atmosphere was created by design. I'm sure they wanted to play up the brighter aspects of the Mardi Gras experience, and not the back alleys of N'Orleans during the celebration - which I think we would all agree would not be very 'Disney'. The layout and design is a bit more conceptual than some of the other Disney resorts. You have to look at what the walks and buildings are intended to represent, rather than trying to see them as a recreation. For this reason, POR (French Qtr) is one of my least favorite 'moderate' resorts.

I ask you to consider this (likely little known fact). The framed photographs in the guest rooms at POR are real life photographs provided by the CM's that work there (or at least they used to be - not sure if it changed). Talk about a unique Disney 'touch'. An incredible way to make these resorts homey and comfortable. So simple, yet such an incredible detail - and very unpretentious. So, this is just one example (while some may not get the conceptual aspect of POR-FQ), that helps to show that POR very much keeps the traditions of the original resorts that Planogirl longs for. It also shows that POR may not be as plastic as you believe it is. It also shows that Disney did not eschew storytelling and detail in this resort.

I submit that more example like this exist in WDW than any of us will ever really know. Especially if all we do is sample the resorts, and see them through eyes that are closed to these wonderful details . Examples like this very simple one are what make Disney 'Disney' - and they are there, even in recent offerings.

 

[Walt's Frozen Head]

It also shows that POR may not be as plastic as you believe it is. It also shows that Disney did not eschew storytelling and detail in this resort.

Eh, I don't know.

I think we're hitting a discussion problem that just comes with the medium. In order to make points, there's a lot of reductionism going on. And while the reduced result might accurately represent one's answer to a particular question, that result is highly suspicious when applied elsewhere.

I think that POR is "less Disney" than, say, the Polynesian. That doesn't equate to "completely bereft of story-telling and detail," just that I don't believe POR scores as highly on all the varied aspects of the story-telling and detail measures as does the Polynesian.

Although POR does make some points on those scales (and I agree with the one you mention), the overall "theming" seems aimed somewhat lower than in the past (and of course, no sane reviewer could deem POR "plastic" had they driven past Pop Century on the way in).

Finally, I'm fairly certain the phrase "more and more" was reasonably confluent with "eschew." I'd intended to portray a trend towards less, not an abrupt cessation.

-WFH

PS: I realize that some will read this post and be tempted to explain the price difference between POR and the Polynesian or Pop Century. Personally, I see the very creation of the Moderates and the Values as milestones along Disney's trail o' eschewment. The moderate and value resorts are _examples_ of putting less Disney into the product, not reasons to forgive putting less Disney into the product.

 

[DisneyKidds]

Finally, I'm fairly certain the phrase "more and more" was reasonably confluent with "eschew." I'd intended to portray a trend towards less, not an abrupt cessation.

Point well taken . I have even agreed with LB that a resort such as POR is "less" than the Poly. We don't need to rehash whether that is good, bad, or indifferent.

I guess I still feel that the attention to detail and quality still exists. At POR it may exist in an environment that is designed to be "less' in some ways. However, I don't feel (subjectively) that that "less" involves the attention to detail or experience, which is perhaps the biggest part about what Disney World was supposed to be.

Maybe it is like a trip to New York City. You could stay on Park Avenue in the 30's, or you could stay on Park Avenue in the 130's. Both are New York through and through, but they are very different experiences. Each of those experiences is rich in detail, but they are very different details. Many would view one as "less", but it all depends on how you look at it .

 

[colleen costello]

I have read your posts with great interest. Also interesting are your comments regarding price -- that, with appropriate adjustments, things are not really any more expensive than they were back in 1971.

So why does it seem like they are?

One of the biggest problems I have with the resort today -- parks, hotels, etc -- is that everything is so darned expensive. EVERYTHING -- from poolside drinks to snacks for the kids, sunscreen, souvenirs -- OUCH! I love the place, but I am constantly thinking "Gosh, I am being ripped off so badly..." and that really BUGS me. On vacation we expect things to be somewhat expensive... but did that tiny bottle of Solarcaine I bought at the Poly when Erin got sunburned cheeks REALLY need to cost $6?

When I was a kid, back in the 70's, we'd spend two weeks at Ft.Wilderness every summer and it was a pretty inexpensive vacation. We swam in the lake (not allowed now... darned bacteria) every afternoon and hunted every night, with flashlights, for armadilloes. We ate at Trail's End and did the campfire marshmallow gala. In short, we had a ball. And my parents SWEAR it wasn't so expensive. Heck, I think the marshmallows might have been FREE back then.

I am just trying to say that your discussions about reasonable costs seem to have merit. There is a point where families just cave in and say "We can't go -- it's just too expensive when you add it all up." And isn't that sad! I have never been wealthy enough to NOT consider the cost of things -- and it seems that the cost of the "magic" has gotten mighty high.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

colleen costello,

I’m not really sure who you were referring to when you said the following:

I have read your posts with great interest. Also interesting are your comments regarding price -- that, with appropriate adjustments, things are not really any more expensive than they were back in 1971.

I would seem it was NOT me, as nothing could be further from the truth!!

Prices for the resorts at least (the original two) started life in 1971 around $32.00 a night. I don’t remember the exact figure but in 2002 prices that equals roughly the Moderates. Now, some would argue that specials and deals and other hokus pokus would account for the difference. And you turn up with a bunch of anecdotal evidence that this guy could swear that last year his friend’s brother-in-law knew this other guy who’s sister just got back from Disney and she got a deal that was LESS than the All-Stars in the middle of July!! But what we are comparing is rack rate to rack rate. Back in the old days there was no need for “specials”, “incentives” or code number “deals” of any sort. The rate was the rate and that was it!!!

So, how do you figure that the cost, adjusted, is the same?