Pop Century: Yea or Nay?

[SnackyStacky]

Originally posted by Captain Crook
Sorry Snacky...It's the second time I've been accused of issuing a "loaded question" in this thread, yet I've found the discussion overall to be quite good.

Look, I'm not trying to change Mr. Voice's (or anyone else's) opinion anymore than he's trying to change mine and I actually find it credible that Mr. Voice was able to verbalize a statement for which I could consider valid. Does this mean that I should abandon the way I look at Pop and what is transpiring?

I don't think anyone is trying to change anybody else's mind. It's just that the nature of your question is very much loaded. The question was:

So my question is, was Disney wrong in its offering or do the good reviews and high occupancy make it justified?

Wrong is a very subjective word. If you believe that it wasn't a bad move, AND want a true discussion, you have to analyze WHY it wasn't a bad move to build it in the first place.

Sorry - but "because people like it!" doesn't fly with me as an argument, either. It's what I like to call a generic argument. You can slide that right into any discussion. Not to mention the fact that if we're discussing whether or not it should have been built, "because people like it" automatically assumes that it should have, in fact, been built.

Not to mention:

Aside from a few (very predictable) malcontents here on the DIS telling us how auful Pop is (without actually staying there), most people seem to genuinely like it.

Starting ANY kind of discussion with THAT qualification? Tell me that's not in any way loaded. OR - at that very least, where it could easily be interpreted as loaded.

I'm only trying to have some interesting discussion and honestly not trying to be a know it all, yet that's obviously the way I'm coming off...So for that I'll try to be more careful.

I don't see you coming off as a know-it-all; I see you coming off as not really able to see past people "liking it" and further delving into the philosophy behind the Disney name. The same way that you see us "malcontents" as only "very predictable" - you seem only to see the Disney name and coo with delight at whatever product they give you.

This isn't to say Disney is always right, but it seems to me that Pop IS proving them right in this case much like DCA proved them wrong in that (brand loyalty) decision.

So - the fact that people only have the All Stars and Pop Century to choose from have no weight in this discussion? Sorry - but trying to compare Pop Century to DCA doesn't sit well with me. First of all - one is a theme park, and the other is a resort. Second of all, Disney World exists in such a different setting than Disneyland. They're really incomparable as far as I'm concerned.

Theme aside it is kind of amazing how, for the most part, all properties within a class are similar. It is almost as if Disney feels they need to have the class of hotels clearly distinguished to justify the price differences.

That's EXACTLY my point. The theme was totally cast aside as part of the seperation - the caste system if you will. The budget folks don't get a theme. It's like one of the amenities at a deluxe resort that was thrown to the wind. And the theme is what made Disney....well.....Disney! (And just so we're clear, I'm talking about theme in relation to a transporting experience - not a few decorations)

I do not think that Disney skimped on effort or cost when putting together POP. They ... designed that hotel based upon a pre-determined blueprint for ... And that blueprint is the All Stars.

Sure! And I think the effort put into the All Stars is worth its weight in solid crap. And Pop? Got even less effort. They didn't need to design anything. They just replaced movie, sports, and music icon decorations with popular culture decorations. Everything else was all done.

 

[Captain Crook]

Let's try this. I'm just going forget the fact that you've portrayed me as the 'villiage idiot' and speak to the issue.

Pop was criticized for a long time (prior to opening) as being an unimaginative work that was doomed to failure because of the lack of adherence to typical and historical Disney standards. Note: I fully understand the theory behind the objections. Further, I can at least see the objectionists POV when they comment that all Disney income classes should be treated to the same care in 'storytelling' if not amenities...This obviously is not the case with Pop as there is no "story" to speak of.

BUT...All Stars proved that success lies NOT ONLY in giving the people everything you can, as Walt believed but also in giving the people what they want, as Eisner obviously believed (especially if it was cheaper). We can argue that this statement alone is already straying from the original blueprint and is starting the slippery slope...Again I get it.

BUT...People actually liked All Stars. Sure a % of folks (like me) will utilize he Values primarily for the cost issue, but still this works because Disney is still so overtly represented at these resorts it doesn't seem like them 'giving less' as much as my simply choosing which I prefer. Note: I realize that this use of personal anecdotal opinon violates your view of the big picture...

Pop came and offended classical senses. It didn't tell a story per se, it's purly historical and kitchy historical at that. It's different than the predecessors for specific reasons. It's catering to people who (1) can't afford more (2) Choose to spend less (3) are not comfortable with deluxe 'trappings' and (4) folks who simply are impressed more by Neiman than Monet. I understand this but you seem to wish to ignore what is being embraced by people simply because you don't find the standards suitable.

My question then becomes who is the arbitor of the standard? It could be argued that Walt's ideals should be held true and this is the most compelling argument...Of course it ignores all of the socio/economic changes in America since Walt's death, but sill the mans dreams should live on. Aside from that I'm not willing to let other Disney historians, affecianados or simple 'lovers' be the judge for me. It simply has to be the result and the result of Pop is positive so why is this resort so polar?

 

[Another Voice]

"It simply has to be the result and the result of Pop is positive so why is this resort so polar?"

'Candle in the Wind' by Elton John is the biggest selling record EVER. Titanic is the top grossing movie of ALL TIME. A football game outdrew man landing on the MOON to become the highest rated show on American television.

Never confuse "popular" with "timeless quality".

Disney always stood for striving, for creating, for imagination, for building the impossible because they could do it. They used to be confident that they could capture the public's interest and that the public would respond.

No one can look at Pop Century and honestly say they see the same joy of creation in a hundred foot WHAZZUP sign as there is in a single frame of Beauty and the Beast. Markets, income brackets and all the other excuse we hear have no bearing on the sheer creativity that's put into a project.

It costs nothing to come up with a good idea.

But it does take effort. In the race for our pocket books, today's DISNEY® has no time for that. They have no time for thought, for respect - for real magic.

The good stuff, the stuff that drove all of here in the first place, is being driving out by the easy stuff.

 

[Captain Crook]

Mr. Voice, does it seem to you, as well, that we are always circling with each other?

I'm not confusing popular with timeless and I think from all of our discussions you know that...In fact, that's a constant chorus of mine...The problem is what Disney always stood for and what they've been standing for the past 20 years. These are admittedly two different things. It seems I'm discussing what works in the face of the current Disney while you are referring to the ideals the whole thing was built on. Fair enough?

It costs nothing to come up with a good idea.

I agree, but here is my point. Who decides what the "good idea" is? Me? You? Jim Hill? Eisner? No, I think it's the people. If people actually like the idea of Pop I submit it isn't wrong in the face of current Disney and while it doesn't hold true to the classic ideals in format its end does (i.e. people ARE enjoying a Disney product, forming memories and making traditions).

In this vein let me say that Pop and the theming at Pop would never make my personal top 100 list. For the Pirate, er Crook family they could certainly have done better, but I saw a boatload of people during my two stays who thought the Pop experience was the emmis. Now who am I to refute that?

 

[crusader]

Never confuse "popular" with "timeless quality".

Fair enough, but you have to admit, popular can be timeless absent the quality.

Who decides what the "good idea" is?

Good question. For Disney, it evolves within the organization so it is ultimately the company itself who makes this decision. The audience has the ability to affect popularity but has no control over the implementation or distinguishment of good or quality during the idea phase. All they can do is respond favorably or unfavorably but as we've seen time and again even the highest quality can fail to sell.

One thing I've repeated is that within today's culture, something only has to be "good enough" to succeed. I'll contend that the majority of decision-making behind our entertainment venues, continually applies that premise. There is an urgency to get a product quickly to market in order to launch the revenue stream vital to recapturing costs.

In the case of the AllStars, my belief is that management used gargantuan icons as a marketing tool to emphasize the sheer magnitude of the place and look really great in an overhead shot. People like the resort because the rooms are a scale above the chains, and the food court; pools and timely bussing are considered to be a bonus given the price.

But the biggest draw continues to be the on-site experience. It doesn't seem to matter how far away a guest happens to be staying from the parks, you still get a tremendous feeling the moment you enter the property. That's timeless.

 

[SnackyStacky]

Originally posted by Captain Crook
Let's try this. I'm just going forget the fact that you've portrayed me as the 'villiage idiot' and speak to the issue.

It certainly was not my aim to portray you as the village idiot. Seems it should be pretty difficult to be offended by my comments when you were making remarks like these:

Aside from a few (very predictable) malcontents here on the DIS telling us how auful Pop is (without actually staying there),

Furthermore - the "without staying there" part is what's really bothering me about what you're trying to say. It's like we're discussing "I like it! I think it's great!" or "I don't like it! It's ugly!". It's a matter of "I don't like how this is going to affect the company in the long run." Do you see that? I really feel like we're having two COMPLETELY different discussions.

Pop was criticized for a long time (prior to opening) as being an unimaginative work that was doomed to failure because of the lack of adherence to typical and historical Disney standards. Note: I fully understand the theory behind the objections. Further, I can at least see the objectionists POV when they comment that all Disney income classes should be treated to the same care in 'storytelling' if not amenities...This obviously is not the case with Pop as there is no "story" to speak of.

The only thing I see in that statement that I care about is: This obviously is not the case with Pop as there is no "story" to speak of. That's the meat of the argument!

BUT...All Stars proved that success lies NOT ONLY in giving the people everything you can, as Walt believed but also in giving the people what they want, as Eisner obviously believed (especially if it was cheaper). We can argue that this statement alone is already straying from the original blueprint and is starting the slippery slope...Again I get it.

Walt did give the people what they wanted. BUT! He forecasted what they wanted. He knew what the masses wanted before the masses knew that they wanted it.

BUT...People actually liked All Stars. Sure a % of folks (like me) will utilize he Values primarily for the cost issue, but still this works because Disney is still so overtly represented at these resorts it doesn't seem like them 'giving less' as much as my simply choosing which I prefer. Note: I realize that this use of personal anecdotal opinon violates your view of the big picture...

SEE?! There it is again! You can't use personal anecdotes here. I don't know you. I will assume that you're a seasoned veteran, and know the history of the company. And that's fine. But there are people out there who DON'T know the history - and who think that Pop is representative of the true Disney experience. That's simply not good for the brand. It dillutes it, and lowers expectations. It lets the company slack.

Pop came and offended classical senses. It didn't tell a story per se, it's purly historical and kitchy historical at that. It's different than the predecessors for specific reasons. It's catering to people who (1) can't afford more (2) Choose to spend less (3) are not comfortable with deluxe 'trappings' and (4) folks who simply are impressed more by Neiman than Monet.

It can be done. Well - it could have. By artists that decided that the company no longer stood for what it once did. They could have fulfilled those three things in something that is far more representative of the Disney name than the schlock that is Pop.

I understand this but you seem to wish to ignore what is being embraced by people simply because you don't find the standards suitable.

So what? WHO CARES! I think it's just fine and dandy that they like it. I don't think they're stupid, or any less of a Disney fan than I am. What I AM saying is that if they keep turning out substandard products, eventually Disney will be nothing more than Six Flags. Yeah - we have a resort at our local Six Flags that rivals a deluxe - amenities wise, and a budget - cost wise.

My question then becomes who is the arbitor of the standard? It could be argued that Walt's ideals should be held true and this is the most compelling argument...Of course it ignores all of the socio/economic changes in America since Walt's death, but sill the mans dreams should live on.

I REALLY am not understanding this. It has been conceded by MANY that Walt definitely had plans to include budget accomodations. What I'm arguing is that it would have been done much better than Pop Century - AND the All Stars for that matter!

Aside from that I'm not willing to let other Disney historians, affecianados or simple 'lovers' be the judge for me. It simply has to be the result and the result of Pop is positive so why is this resort so polar?

I don't think anyone is asking you to change your mind about it. You're being asked to put your personal opinions ASIDE, and look at it from a standpoint of "What is building something that is less going to do to the standards?" See my above comments reagarding the few predictable malcontents.

 

[Another Voice]

"Eventually, if a dominant critical mass of guests enjoy something, that something has to be considered a success in my book. Not THAT many people's opinions can be ignored."

By which you going to admit that Shrek was better than all of Disney's animated films for a decade combined just because of the box office take?

We're waiting…

Really, just jump in here…

Yea, I thought so.



I became interested in Disney because of what they made. In my mind, "Disney" is a philosophy, a belief, a standard, a goal. To me it means thinking hard, working harder, and then still not being satisfied and striving for even more. Disney means that imagination is the most important human trait, that one should try because it's simply the right thing to do.

Sure, not even can achieve those goals – but does that mean it that way of thinking should be abandoned?

That's what a lot of people are arguing that we should approach Pop Century. No one is saying that the place is good, imaginative, innovative, or even that much thought was put into it. Instead we get defenses that the place is a good place to save money, that people "like" it and Mr. Scoop's ever popular crap-in-the-past-justifies-crap-in-the-present stance.

Sorry, but the world is already filled with enough CheezWhiz, boy bands, and home renovation reality shows. I don't care for anymore mediocre products. I don't care who they're made by, who they're made for, or how much money they're going to make.

I enjoyed Disney because they at least tried to do more. When they did, they were rewarded to a far greater degree than whatever profit they'll squeak out of Pop Century. But today's company refuses to see that (or to acknowledge that fact). So instead of trying and risking the occasional failure, we get pure, safe, clean garbage.


P.S. And yes, Mr. Scoop, even Computer Who Wore Tennis Shoes was a product of "trying". At a time when Hollywood was turning out nothing but adult films in the vein of Dog Day Afternoon and The Towering Inferno, some people thought there still might be families that wanted to go to the movies. Considering that Disney was the only studio to survive intact from the decade and the fact that it's real, real hard to get a studio to make an 'R' rated movie these days – what does that say about where the dominant mass really was?

 

[crusader]

In my mind, "Disney" is a philosophy, a belief, a standard, a goal.

This is probably our biggest disconnect. In my mind "Walt Disney" had a belief, a standard, a goal which he used to launch his companies.

Once he passed, only a fragment of that remains in what he left behind. Whomever runs this organization post Walt will bring their own beliefs/standards/goals etc... with them. They can choose to adopt and implement the philosophy of the founder but really fail to succeed at this 100% because they aren't and will never be the founder.

 

[Captain Crook]

"It certainly was not my aim to portray you as the village idiot. Seems it should be pretty difficult to be offended by my comments when you were making remarks like these:"

Another cheap shot Snacky? You seem to be pretty good at that, but it's too bad you don't have a grasp on discussion unless it falls into your narrow parameters. I'd suggest you just ignore me and just continue talking with like minded folks...

Oh, with regard to the "malcontent" quote...It was a joke. You notice Mr. Voice, for whom the comment was jokingly directed, never even responded as he knows I WAS KIDDING. Further, I never used comments such as "I liked it" or "I really think it's great" as a basis of any discussion...I did, however, point out that I've noticed on various Disney boards and while visitng Pop that there were MANY people who felt that way. See Scoops explanation.

That's the meat of the argument.

Pot calling kettle, pot calling kettle...So you get to decide what the meat is? I agree that from your perspective this is the "meat" but from mine it's the fact that the Resort, against seemingly insurmountable odds, seems to be a big success. Is this that hard to understand? Two or more sides of an issue?

Enough.

Mr. Voice, I don't think I'll admit Shrek was BETTER simply because of the box office figures but I (grudgingly) have to admit that it was obviously an entertaining and well done flick even though I didn't get it, even in the least. So it seems as though you could admit that Pop, while far less unimaginative than it could have been, does provide 'Disney Magic' to a group of people who are obviously unlike yourself...

Crusader, I think you hit the nail...

 

[SnackyStacky]

Originally posted by Captain Crook
Another cheap shot Snacky? You seem to be pretty good at that, but it's too bad you don't have a grasp on discussion unless it falls into your narrow parameters. I'd suggest you just ignore me and just continue talking with like minded folks...

WHOAH! No cheap shot. I didn't know it was a joke, and I really found it odd that you'd even think I was calling you (or portraying you as an idiot). This ENTIRE statement is completely out of left field.

Pot calling kettle, pot calling kettle...So you get to decide what the meat is? I agree that from your perspective this is the "meat" but from mine it's the fact that the Resort, against seemingly insurmountable odds, seems to be a big success. Is this that hard to understand? Two or more sides of an issue?

Fine. I'll concede that it's success in that people like it. In fact - I thought I said as much! But I don't think that that makes it a success in the long run. If that's where you want me to leave it, I will. It seems that I'm not welcome to my opinion - let alone to attempt to support my opinion.

If you don't want me discussing on this thread, then I'm out!

 

[Phoebesaturn]

They've developed a mix of resorts for a mix of audiences. Whether you or I like Cheez Whiz or not, there is an audience that does

There is apparently a huge audience for McDonalds hamburgers too. Imagine the audience for a better burger at the same price and you got a smile and a thank you along with it.

Seems like a rather silly point to argue for what people will settle with and still be happy. The Disney we all know and love....wanted you to be surprised, delighted and have your expectations blown out of the water.


If your keep settleing for Cheese Whiz what are you likely to settle for in the future ?

 

[Tinkerbellz]

It is resorts like the All Stars and Pop that make it possible for people like my family to enjoy WDW. Our family loves Disney and find it hard to stay for a short period of time. The value resorts make a longer stay possible for us.

2001 All Star Sports--We happen to be sports fans...so we loved it.

2004 DH wants to try POP. Our ressies are for Thanksgiving. This time we are staying 6 days.

We, as I'm sure all of you do, work hard to scrimp and save in order to take our family to enjoy the magic.

Our intent for a room is just that. A roof, beds to sleep in, and a clean bathroom. We like the convenience of staying on-site. I don't need to blow my savings on staying at a fancy hotel, and I'm certainly not going to judge someone for doing so...their requirements for vacation are different from mine...it doesn't make their decision wrong just different.

Difference is the spice of life.

So let's agree to be different.

 

[All Aboard]

Scoop, I completely agree with you on this matter. Success in entertainment (and at WDW, resort hotels are part of the entertainment) is measured in how well the consumers who try the offering respond to it. Financial success is very easy to define.

There's a reason folks aren't raving about the Days Inn on US 192. But, most of what I hear from people who have stayed at Pop is positive. We thoroughly enjoyed our stays at the All Stars, we miss staying there. Do we enjoy staying at the Polynesian more? Yes. But, that doesn't mean we didn't enjoy the All Stars, nor thought they didn't offer great value, nor thought they weren't fun-filled places that really seem to be an extension of the theme parks.

If the discussion is about "what could have been" then that's a different subject. But, if it is simply, "is Pop Century a hit with its audience" then I think the answer is "yes."

 

[All Aboard]

The Disney we all know and love....wanted you to be surprised, delighted and have your expectations blown out of the water.

Do you know for sure that the families staying at the All Stars and Pop Century aren't experiencing these feelings?

 

[Phoebesaturn]

Originally posted by gcurling
Do you know for sure that the families staying at the All Stars and Pop Century aren't experiencing these feelings?

NO not from Today's Disney...15 years ago...I would have said yes. Like I said when you start to settle for Cheese Whiz....


If you must...think of Pixar as being the Disney of yesterday....When you prepare to go see a Pixar movie...aren't you expecting a great movie? When are you going to start expecting less and less from them? Maybe if Pixar put out a movie and only charged half-price?

 

[cristen]

I think it comes down to choice. The people who are choosing to stay at a value resort, for whatever reason, do not have much of a choice. It's all the same hotel with a different piece of fiberglass on it.

Now what if the imagineers were told, you have X amount of money to spend on a value resort, I want it to be completely different from what we have ever seen at a value. Don't you think we would get something much better? Now if people who choose to go value had that resort or AS, which do you think they would stay in?

Why do they all have to be the same building? Why does AK and the WL have to be the same building? Why can't there be some variety? I would welcome the addition of a value resort, if they had some form of imagination with them. AV said the resorts are expensive to build, does anyone know how much these resorts cost?

 

[airlarry!]

Scoopy, don't be disingenous. You said:

Eventually, if a dominant critical mass of guests enjoy something, that something has to be considered a success in my book. Not THAT many people's opinions can be ignored.

not just

Pop Century must be considered a "success" (not the best resort, not even the second best resort...but a successful resort) because the vast majority of guests report that they have enjoyed their experience and are very interested in staying there again.

Scoop, clearly you meant more than a financial success...otherweise you would have cited numbers, figures, dollars etc. You said when a dominant critical mass of guests enjoy something, it must be a success--creatively, magically, Disney-like etc.

That is just not true. No matter how many people buy CheezWiz, it is still CheezWiz.


And one more thing, I understand Greg's point about the All-stars (b/c I too have stayed there twice and enjoyed my stay)...but Greg isn't it more because it is on-site, is reasonably priced, has lots of cool Disney stuff around it, has a nice pool, and has bus transportation to the parks that you can depend on?

Right?

The question is not whether the Disney company should bomb the All Stars and the Poop into oblivion without replacement, or whether that price point of a hotel should ever have been built.

The question is whether the AS and the Poop are worthy additions to the property. Instead of spending $5 billion on FoxFamily, couldn't they have come up with anything better than AS and the Poop?

Someone said that the area near AK won't support a deluxe area like the MK.

Go see what they did at Tokyo DisneySeas. Look at what Disney did at Epcot.

If the company had spent creatively and imaginatively on DisneySeas (instead of throwing $5 billion at FoxFamily perhaps?), then maybe they would have added a destination gate to the park that could support another monorail complex of luxury hotels supported by hotels at a lower price point with bus connection to the monorail.

Instead, we got giant fiberglass and lame pools.

 

[DancingBear]

Originally posted by Phoebesaturn
If you must...think of Pixar as being the Disney of yesterday....When you prepare to go see a Pixar movie...aren't you expecting a great movie? When are you going to start expecting less and less from them? Maybe if Pixar put out a movie and only charged half-price?

Precisely. Who goes to Pop Century expecting the same experience as the Poly?

 

[DancingBear]

Originally posted by Another Voice
I enjoyed Disney because they at least tried to do more. When they did, they were rewarded to a far greater degree than whatever profit they'll squeak out of Pop Century. But today's company refuses to see that (or to acknowledge that fact). So instead of trying and risking the occasional failure, we get pure, safe, clean garbage.

P.S. And yes, Mr. Scoop, even Computer Who Wore Tennis Shoes was a product of "trying". At a time when Hollywood was turning out nothing but adult films in the vein of Dog Day Afternoon and The Towering Inferno, some people thought there still might be families that wanted to go to the movies. Considering that Disney was the only studio to survive intact from the decade and the fact that it's real, real hard to get a studio to make an 'R' rated movie these days – what does that say about where the dominant mass really was?

I think with this example you are arguing against yourself, A-V. Sounds to me like when Disney made "The Computer Who Wore Tennis Shoes" that they were realizing that there was an underserved market which would pay money to see the "pure, safe, clean garbage" which that movie was. Seems analogous to me to the current Disney producing Pop Century.

And, BTW, how hard is it to get a PG-13 movie made these days?

 

[All Aboard]

but Greg isn't it more because it is on-site, is reasonably priced, has lots of cool Disney stuff around it, has a nice pool, and has bus transportation to the parks that you can depend on?

Yes, that's a lot of it. And, I think that should be enough to make a value resort be deemed a success. I think I'm getting a ton for my $49 a night when I stay there. Much more than I'm getting at other comparably priced hotels outside of WDW. Now, many folks on this board hate that kind of rationalization. But, honestly, that's what economics is all about - choice. A well-run WDW should be providing accomodation options that fit a reasonably wide spectrum of budgets that (at each level) provide guests with an experience that both a) provides significant value and b) provides a memorable experience. Shoot me, but I think the Value resorts at WDW provide both.

Another thought. Many of you travel to WDW once a year or less. So, you don't even consider the All Stars or Pop as your vacation choice. The All Stars (I know because I've spoken with so many guests in the check-in lines for my 21 stays there) are filled with Florida residents making weekend journeys to WDW. They are looking for a well-priced on-site option, and are provided one. Without question, these same frequent visitors were staying off-site in the days before the Values. A family travelling to WDW 5 times a year (honestly, how they can stand to only go that FEW times I'll never know) weren't ponying up vacation money to stay at the Poly. Because it's not a vacation for us, it's a weekend getaway.

I think there is a distinct difference in how I consider the merits of a resort hotel v. the merits of a theme park or theme park attraction. Every guest travelling to AK has been offered Dinorama as the only addition to the park since '99. That's a negative. No one but the guests staying at the Values are impacted by their existence. In my 5 years on this board, I've neve read a compelling argument to the contrary (other than being able to see Pop from CBR - which is a problem.) And, if those guests find it valuable, entertaining and special - aren't we teetering on elitist ground by trying to tell them they don't know how bad it really is?