Just a comment on the disclaimer posts:
1. Just because a provision is in a contract, that does not mean it is enforceable! Parties to contracts often put provisions in -- especially where one party has all the negotiating power (here, Disney) and the other party has none (here, the guest) -- that a court simply will not uphold if the provision is challenged.
2. Even if the disclaimer is enforceable, that does not in any way mean that relying on it is a smart move -- either legally or reputationally.
Some years back, one of the cruise lines exercised its contractual right to change the cruise itinerary. But, they did not just eliminate a port stop. When people arrived at the NJ port for their cruise to Bermuda, they were told that due to a hurricane the ship was being rerouted to Canada. Now, some may say well, it was a hurricane -- an act of God, what could the cruise line do?
However, passengers were not happy to hear at the port that their swim suits would be useless and they would need sweaters for autumn weather in Canada. Many people said they would have cancelled had they been told of the substituted cruise itinerary.
Instead, despite the hurricane, they apparently were told not to worry and that the cruise would leave on time. (Never mind it was going North rather than South.) Cruise boards erupted much like here. Many people cited the language in the contract about the cruise line's right to alter the itinerary without notice. Others said the cruise line should have provided a rescheduling option rather than wait until people had used 1/2 their air tickets to fly to the port only to learn at the port about the significant change to their trip.
My view was that if I booked a trip to Bermuda, a trip to Canada would not constitute substantial performance of the contract. Apparently, the attorney general of New Jersey agreed. The attorney general took on the case for the aggrieved passengers and sued the cruise line. I never heard the outcome, but I assume a settlement of some sort was negotiated.
So, in that case a business decision to rely on the disclaimer was dumb (i) because the cruise company got sued by the state of NJ and (ii) the reputational fall-out was enormous.
Enforcing a contract isn't always the wisest choice by the party with the greater bargaining power. In the situation of the Pop people being moved to All Stars, although the "substituted product" is not as dramatically different as a Bermuda trip being changed to Canada, many posters seem to feel that the difference is nearly that significant.
It is hard for me to believe that Disney has made a sound business decision by suggesting that aggrieved Pop guests change to the All Stars, when SSR and OKW seem to have lots of availability. Of course, some guests won't care that much. I've stayed at both Pop and ASSp and liked them both. But, for those who do care, it seems to me something a bit nicer is in order. I suppose Disney agrees because they are moving one of the posters to SSR!
And, it's not a question of Disney's exercising its rights under the contract. It is a case of reputational risk and damage to the public perception of Disney and its generally highly regarded customer service.
Just my 2 cents!
If you are interested in trying a TS, I definitely recommend the Turf Club 
