A question regarding the growth of WDW

[DVC-Landbaron]

A quick look gave me this post from AV:

Walt Disney didn’t have any input into the design of the Disneyland Hotel. It was done really as a favor by his friend Jack Wrather (he did the ‘Lone Ranger’ TV show among other things). Walt had run out of money but knew he needed a hotel – Anaheim in 1955 made Orlando in 1971 look like downtown Manhattan. The hotel was owned and operated by Wrather until the early nineties. By all accounts, Walt hated it’s look and the look of all the other motels and the property.

Now I know it's not documented, just some other moron on the internet, but his stuff was usually RIGHT ON THE MONEY!!

So, unless you have something different, I'm going with this for now!

Have a nice day, I'm out for now!!!

[MassJester]

Originally Posted by DVC-Landbaron

What we can infer from what he did do is that he wanted to carry the THEME of the parks to guests staying the night!

This next bit is purely subjective but I think it is something right in his wheelhouse! Don't you agree?

Well, you give much more credit for success in the effort that was the Contemporary Resort than I do--It's a pleasant place to stay, but as far as carrying theme of the park over, I think it is a mismatched mess of story elements that is not at all (and never was) up to the level of Disney's better works (and the Garden Wings could have doubled as a Holiday Inn Express).

Perhaps that is all he was insistent upon--that they be pleasant and interesting places to stay?

[YoHo]

The Garden Wings were added later.

AND, the contemporary (architecturally) theme certainly matched with the original Tomorrowland as was intended.

[DVC-Landbaron]

GARDEN WINGS?? Has somebody been reading old posts. He sounds like Chad!!!

[YoHo]

Hey, no swearing you know the terms of service.

[DRDISNEYMD]

Originally Posted by DVC-Landbaron

I really havent been involved in the conversation that YoHo, DRDISNEYMD and pilfer have been engaged in. But I do read everything. And this caught my eye.

~Yes, of course! Normally, I would be thrilled! But, I had to rush unexpectedly with no time to edit and refine a few points, thus catching your eye!

Now let me see if I have this straight. Were using this analogy for Disney and how they have a recent propensity for building half-day parks, right? And you couldnt furnish your house completely because  WHY? You couldnt afford?

~I need shoes! It's a basic necessity, surely you understand! This is my first home, and I dont have any furniture, yet. If you agree with pilferk , youre basically suggesting, I should not build a home until I buy a full house of furniture & décor -- as in, put the cart before the horse.

You couldnt think of what else to put in there? You kept searching for that Louis the 14th end table but just cant find it yet? What reason is it unfurnished? Why didnt you get some art?

~Hey, I need handbags, too! Plus, Im so tired of living at home. Im working around the clock and only get four hours of sleep a day. I just built a new home, so I quickly purchased a bed & couch. I will add custom window treatments; select art, tapestry and color for the bare walls; decorative rugs; and all of the furniture. I also need a full assortment of cooking apparatus, stone ware, silverware, and crystal. I have an interior decorator who will help me acquire pieces & sort through yards of fabric.

~But, I can only decorate one room at a time, spanning over several weeks or months. I see it as an opportunity to adapt and adequately define my space(s). By your logic, I should not attempt to *build* my home and move in until I have purchased all furnishings and decor for the house, before I begin construction.

Now. Do you really think that Disney couldnt afford it? Do you really think that the idea factory ran dry and they just didnt know what else to put in there? Do you think theyre waiting for someone to invent the next state-of-the-art ride mechanism and then they will install it?

~I will agree that Disney may have been curt on creativity. But, the majority of complaints/ issues are cosmetic and can be quickly remedied by applying Walts concept of plussing; in addition to, impeccable maintenance of the parks and resorts. The difficult stuff like the gate(s), infrastructure, permanent fixtures have been establish, all that is needed is more attractions and features, anyone can do that!

Sorry. None of those make sense to me. Does it to you? Or is there another reason other than being downright cheap and greedy.

Look at my signature. Walt always used to say, Give the people everything you can give them.

Ever since Ei$ner the company line seems to be, Give the people only what we can get away with  and nothing more!!

~Rome was not built in a day. No, Eisner was in line with most of Disneys philosophy. He only had so much time and so much money. He accomplished a lot; he gave us boats & gates!

~What about Fantasyland??? When I first saw the plans for Beasts castle, I was blown away. Then later, I discovered it was just a forced perspective to give the viewer an optical illusion of a grandiose structure. Really?!? It looks like a dollhouse plopped on top of a prison wall! j/k For the record, Disney made up for it with BoG and the entire Storybook Village, but still.

~Seriously, would Walt have done this?

Originally Posted by DVC-Landbaron

OK. I finally finished your post.


NO!!!!! That is exactly opposite of what YoHo said! He said:

~I'm glad you got through it unscathed. Okay, I give up, please enlighten me. It is my understanding that the majority of Disneys revenue and profit comes from media. Example: $6.1 Billion overall total from ESPN which is worth 40 billion.

Originally Posted by YoHo

I'm not sure, maybe you've mentioned this before, but did you ever go to the original DCA? I have and let me tell you, it was more magical as a parking lot.

I'm not sure fixed is the right word and enhanced is a better one, not because I agree with you though. In fact the opposite, the place is so bad that the 1billion spent wasn't enough to fix it. it only enhances it.

Of course on the other hand, from a purely financial standpoint, it is most assuredly fixed. Prior to this year, DCA had NOBODY entering it except the occasional APer looking for a rest and short food line. Now its actually doing huge attendance. If that isn't fixed then I don't know what is. .

@ the "magical parking lot!" That's so mean. ~I have never been to Disneyland. I love the WDW bubble; one day I will make it over to the West coast for a few days. Okay, I'm in agreement! You've are right to declare DCA as fixed purely from a financial standpoint!

Fair enough, I was born after Walt died. I didn't grow up watching the Mickey Mouse Club and wearing a coon skin cap either, we all have our biases.
I want DTD destrioyed and Pleasure Island returned to the glory it was when I went to WDW at 21.

My first strong attachment to Disney was "Wonderful World of Disney" on Sunday night. Specifically I remember Michael Eisner walking on the beach on Discovery Island discussing Swiss Family Robinson as the Contemporary resort came into view (I'd been to WDW before this and been to Disney movies, but I was just a toddler, this was the first attachment) So I GET having an attachment to Eisner's Disney.

BUT, the fact that that is what my memories are SHOULD NOT excuse me from knowing the history of this company and being able to step back and take the whole thing in from the beginning and do some critical thinking.

I like Eisner, because he was in charge when I learned about Disney is a perfectly valid thing to say, but it is NOT sufficient in a discussion about the history and operating philosophy of a man and a company that was a household name, famous world wide decades before you were born. There is and was so much going on here that should be addressed if we're going to discuss what was done right or wrong.

Eisner's walking on Discovery Island and piquing my interest doesn't excuse the many many many mistakes he made. It doesn't make up for Roy E.'s family squabbles. It doesn't make any of it all right.

~Take heed of your own advice, go back and read post number 1! The Baron was very clear about the topic for this discussion; its not entirely about history and philosophy. Nor is it your place to define and regulate how this discussion should flow and evolve, so please refrain by keeping your DIS police baton safely at your side. With that said, I totally agree with some of your posts. Thats part of why Im here, Im intrigued with the history of Disney and enjoy reading all of the different perspectives. I have nothing but respect for each and every one! It is very important that we acknowledge and recognize all of the contributions to WDW appropriately. Its not about right or wrong, its about perspective, please recognize that if we all shared the same opinion, there would be no discussion. Lets embrace the art of debate for what it is!!!

Originally Posted by pilferk

See, that's a bad analogy. A house is someplace YOU, personally, are going to dwell for years and years. The only person you're really inconveniencing is you, if you wait to furnish it. And, without furniture, it still is a fully functioning house (you have plumbing, windows, walls, electrical service, etc). It's just not as comfortable.

This is more akin to building an apartment building. You put up some walls. But you leave out doors, plumbing, electricity, fixtures, windows, carpet/flooring...basically, you've assembled something you can roughly call an apartment building.

And you start renting out units, with promises that you will, eventually, someday expand. And you know it will be an inconvenience to your tenants when you do...but them's the brakes. Oh, and you're charging the EXACT SAME rent that you charge in your luxury highrises a couple blocks away.

So, yeah....I don't think that's such a great move.

~Again, by your logic, I cant begin construction on my apartment complex, until I have secured a tenant to lease every single unit, *beforehand*. And, then my tenants will not be allowed to move in their apartments until they have completely furnished them! I think I've got it.

I'm not sure I see your point in that. It's all true. But it doesn't change the lack of substance in both Pop and AoA. But this goes back to the "decorated" vs "themed" discussion.

Which opened with no substance. And needed to be "fixed". I think that's been adequately demonstrated, actually.
A "platform for growth, innovation and expansion" sounds like marketing speak for "unfinished", to me. And not in the "forever unfinished' Walt-ism, either.

~I just wanted to emphasize how fickle some construction projects are and some of the variables that can negatively impact a project from getting completed. Thats exactly what that statement means, forever unfinished. The space is already prepped and zoned to be plussed, the groundwork for creating the impossible is ready!

I, too, was at AK the first year. I, too, had fun. But then, we've covered how AK is, maybe, "my kind" of park..but it doesn't seem to pull the masses in, in huge numbers. You can check the annual attendance figures to see that. And listen to the conversations here, and in other "tour" type forums, that all peg AK as a half day park, at most.

Again, I think we need to talk about separation. You can go to an unfinished park and have fun. I'm sure there are people who enjoyed DCA even in it's initial "broken" state, for example.

That doesn't make it right when you open a park (DHS) with precisely 2 working attractions and charge full gate price for it. Just because you will find people who will pay that price doesn't mean it doesn't harm your brand, ultimately, to charge it.

Whether patrons could find a way to "have fun" isn't really relevant. I know it seems like it should be, but....not when we're just talking about substance vs brand.

~I dont agree that Disney's brand was harmed by DHS & AK. Both parks have experienced consistent, steady growth in attendance every year. Patrons having fun vacations, has every bit of relevance! Disney is selling memories & magical experiences at the parks.

~Again, you really keep dancing around substance and what it consists of. I think in many instances substance is subjective. Ill use Magical Express for example. I love this service; I exit the plane and walk right on a motor coach, check in at the resort, visit a park, DTD and/or dinner. When I return to my room, my luggage is there waiting for me! For some guests substance just means clean and safe parks; or good dining experiences; the deluxe resorts; or the rides and fastpass; or park transportation; or all of the above (and more).

But..that's not the way Disney is charging you. It IS exactly the way they want you to think of it. That's their marketing and "guest conditioning" kicking in (and I don't mean that as a dig..I'm right there with you dolling out my money to them).

The fact is: They are 4 different, separate, gates. You do not buy discounted tickets/add ons to enjoy AK or DHS. They are part of the "base ticket" experience. They should provide equivalent experiences, in terms of substance and quality.

I expect less of DisneyQuest and the Waterparks. Those ARE add ons.

~I understand the pricing structure. I know they are four separate gates. There is nothing wrong with this. My experiences are not diminished just because they happened to be at DHS or AK. I dont compartmentalize my memories and experiences based on the park. I dont ride ToT and then think, that was fun but since DHS opened back in 1989 with only two rides, it will never be as fun as it should to be.

3 theme parks that were broken and/or unfinished and DCL, yes.

And I'm not saying Iger is the savior, either. But I look at the SUBSTANCE of what he created (vs a large quantity of much less substance), and I'm a little more hopeful. Not a lot, but a little.

~Iger is a media mogul, no doubt. But theme parks and resorts were neglected for too long, until their recent knee jerk reaction to Harry Potter!

They have fared better, actually.

Eisner, once they had completely botched the stores, sold them to another company: The Childrens Place. They almost bankrupted themselves by buying, and then trying to run, them.

Disney bought them back under Iger. They've undertaken a complete (and pretty interesting) re-do of the stores, both in terms of appearance AND in terms of the merch they carry. It's still not the boutique level experience that they started with, but it's coming closer. Last set of numbers I saw, in the most recent annual report, shows their numbers improving quite a bit. I don't think they're profitable, yet (they're still paying off the capital expense of the redos), but they're getting closer than they have been since the early years.

~Thanks for the update! That's great news, it gives me a little more hope for WDW!

I would suggest you were likely in the minority. Maybe it was your upbringing or region or age..I don't know. But I can promise you that Disney has been largely in the public consciousness since the 50's (at least). They DID fade a bit in the late 70's...largely after Walts death..but not THAT far.

See, and that's the misconception. I'm not worked up over the existence of the values. I'm not too keen on the execution of the values. They're a budget motel with enormous decorations on the grounds. Yes, they serve a purpose...they're just not all that much differentiation between those, and, say, the Nickelodeon hotel. Except, of course, proximity to WDW.

Again, part of this goes back to the other discussion: decorated vs themed, and other (more substantive) ways that Disney could stratify their hotel offerings. I don't want to rehash here.

~Well, the values existed long before the Nick hotel and imitation is the sincerest form of flattery!< j/k> I will agree that Disney did not have to go the way of motels for the values and moderates. But, the public responded in a huge way! The values are extremely popular. Whenever I check in for ME, the deluxe line is always empty and for buses that share more than half of the bus is for value and mod guests! You dont like them, but many people love them. Why is your preference more important than theirs???

In terms of Disney, consumers wanted better access to the back catalog, and more substantive offerings in both California and Florida. Now...that wasn't ALL they wanted, but it was a big part of it. At least, that's what consumers were asking for in Disney's market research when they brought Eisner on. Roy talked about exactly that when installing Eisner as CEO.

There are a number of ways a brand can become stronger and successful without actually providing as much substance as previously. I don't think you could START a company and do it...you have to first build the brand to mean something.

Bose is a good example, though. They originally built their brand on quality sound equipment...really high end, hi-fi equipment. They originally continued that, while also "shrinking" the footprint.

Then, a new executive team came in, in 1979. They completely changed direction. Lower quality components, lower quality products, slapping their name on related items, licensing/buying existing tech (where before they did their own R&D), generally reducing the substance of their products.

And they ramped up the marketing machine, to an extreme level. And they raised prices to reflect the strength of their brand (pricing them at premium high end). The brand continued and has actually grown stronger.

The products? Not so much. They're overpriced, and you're paying for the name. They're not TERRIBLE...because that would actually cause harm to their brand. But they're not of the same relatively quality they were back in the 60's and 70's.

The business hasn't suffered.

It's a privately held company, which is a bit different than Disney. But it is an example of a brand able to live off their brand, strengthen it, and not actually improve or maintain the substance of their products.

~In your opinion, how did Disney continue to strengthen their brand and build fierce loyalty with inferior products that lack substance?

It depends on what Disney was selling. You only remember the marketing aimed at your folks (like WDW marketing is aimed at families with young children). I have comic books from the 1970's littered with Disney marketing...and it's aimed squarely at kids of that generation. Wonderful World of Disney was, at times, a 30 minute commercial block aimed squarely at kids. The Mickey Mouse Club was a daily commercial for the Disney brand, it's merchandise, and it's movies. It was out there. Some of it was cleverly disguised...but it was there.

~Subliminal messaging!

Originally Posted by pilferk

Anyway...with that, I'm "out" til Tuesday.

Family time weekend!

Don't miss me too much while I'm gone!

Originally Posted by akadada

Same here! Off for a couple days unless my plans don't come together.

Love this discussion, hope I don't miss too much.

I appreciate the welcoming and hazing now that I get it.

Cheers

~Have a great weekend! It's going to take the whole weekend for me to get caught up on this thread!!!

Originally Posted by YoHo

The Garden Wings were added later.

AND, the contemporary (architecturally) theme certainly matched with the original Tomorrowland as was intended.

~I get it now, & I agree. However, I have come across several reviews from guests who were initially not aware of the wing rooms, it was somewhat off-putting to discover at check in, they weren't in the tower and had to go out back.

[MassJester]

Originally Posted by YoHo

The Garden Wings were added later.

AND, the contemporary (architecturally) theme certainly matched with the original Tomorrowland as was intended.

If we're just talking architecture--then the GF and WL are perfect. I thought the deal went deeper then that.

[YoHo]

Originally Posted by DRDISNEYMD

~Take heed of your own advice, go back and read post number 1! The Baron was very clear about the topic for this discussion; its not entirely about history and philosophy. Nor is it your place to define and regulate how this discussion should flow and evolve, so please refrain by keeping your DIS police baton safely at your side. With that said, I totally agree with some of your posts. Thats part of why Im here, Im intrigued with the history of Disney and enjoy reading all of the different perspectives. I have nothing but respect for each and every one! It is very important that we acknowledge and recognize all of the contributions to WDW appropriately. Its not about right or wrong, its about perspective, please recognize that if we all shared the same opinion, there would be no discussion. Lets embrace the art of debate for what it is!!!

All perspective and opinions are welcome, but I think you'll agree than when talking about a company founded in 1923, it's not so effective to start the discussion with what happened in 1983.

[YoHo]

Originally Posted by MassJester

If we're just talking architecture--then the GF and WL are perfect. I thought the deal went deeper then that.

We aren't just talking about architecture, but Architecture defines a lot more of what the Contemporary is than it does those other resorts.

Also, even if we are just talking about architecture, the Grand Floridian is horrible.

If you've ever seen the real hotel Del, you can never look at the GF and see it as anything but an oversized bloated attempt to copy it.

[MassJester]

Originally Posted by YoHo

We aren't just talking about architecture, but Architecture defines a lot more of what the Contemporary is than it does those other resorts.

Hey, I'll give you the Poly--it's great. Architecture, food, entertainment, decorations, retail -- all consistently themed. Of course, it's more tangentially connected to the MK than it might be, I think it's a great example of bringing to story to life in the hotel. Kudos to Walt, or whomever was actually responsible.

But not the Contemporary. Nice architecture--and its proximity to Tomorrowland really set the stage for as good a result as the Poly. But then it sputtered.

Love the 90 foot mural--I really do. Nothing "tomorrow land" about that though. Take a look back at the food and retail offerings that there were open originally--not even close to on story.

I suppose the koolaid is there for those who like the taste, but that hotel (love it as I do--and I do) doesn't measure up to potential.

[DRDISNEYMD]

~Original post.

Originally Posted by DVC-Landbaron

I grabbed this from another thread and thought I’d start a new one in order to get a feel for the opinions on this board after being gone for so long. Please let me know how you feel about things.

Thanks.

So the question is, did that “Disney Decade” really exist? And no matter what you think about that, you have to admit that a whole heck of a lot of change took place then. Peter contends that:


Are you pleased with what it has become? Do you think the resources of the company, personnel, land, capital, etc. was used the wisest way possible, or was it squandered in money grabbing, short-sighted, anti-Disney “things”? Probably a mixed bag for most. But I am curious about the current thinking of this board. So post away!!!

Originally Posted by YoHo

Disney Dining was better in the 90s before it was Disney Dining.


I have a hard time with this thread topic, not because I'm waffling on my hatred of Eisner, but because, in the end, I had a lot of good times with the Walt Disney Company headed by Michael Eisner and so the question of whether I'd prefer the Disney from pre-disney decade is hard.

I give a qualified YES, I would prefer that Disney, but I give the full throated yes to the alternate history version: "I'd prefer the Disney that would have come from a Disney that grew under a Ron Miller + Someone leadership team."

Would that we could wind the clock back to the 1970s and repair the rift between Roy E. and Card and Ron Miller. Because as always, it was ultimately Disney family squabbles that brought on the Barbarians and that chucklehead Eisner.


And if we're very specifically talking about WDW, then the above goes double. There are a lot of things that I love about WDW that came in the 90s, but not one of them excels they way everything built before 1990 does (Or did, Epcot's been pillaged like Vandals sacking Rome.)

Originally Posted by YoHo

All perspective and opinions are welcome, but I think you'll agree than when talking about a company founded in 1923, it's not so effective to start the discussion with what happened in 1983.

~I don't know, what to make of this post. It doesn't seem like all opinions are that welcome. "It bothers" you that I make comments that stem from 1983! While, by the same token, you're first post & comments stem from 1990! You've got me beat by seven years! So what am I supposed to think??? Anyway, I just wanted to comment on your overt fallacy. Enjoy your weekend!

[DVC-Landbaron]

WOW!! DRDISNEYMD You are all over the map. And it could be, and I’m not sure, but it could very well be that you have the most convoluted logic I’ve ever seen!!! OR it may be that you are really lousy at picking analogies!! Or you may just be giving us a hard time! But I must admit. You intrigue me. So…

I need shoes! It's a basic necessity, surely you understand! This is my first home, and I don’t have any furniture, yet. If you agree with pilferk , you’re basically suggesting, I should not build a home until I buy a full house of furniture & décor -- as in, put the cart before the horse.

Just one question. Is it your house or are you renting it out? Since you cannot answer me immediately, I will have to answer you both ways.

IF IT IS YOUR HOUSE:
Do whatever you like!! It’s your house!! You can sleep on the floor and sit in the closet. I don’t care. No one does. Build it piecemeal. I did. I bought a house and several years later I tore off the roof and put in a second floor. Several years after that I put in an addition off the kitchen. Last, just within the past five years we remodeled the basement into a Florida room (themed, not decorated!!!). It was the only way we could afford it. It’s a really big house now. When we first bought it, money was a lot tighter. A house, like we have today was simply out of reach. Had to do it piecemeal.

Come to think of it, when we were first married we rented an apartment. We bought a beautiful bedroom set but could afford little else. For several months we used lawn chairs in the living room and a card table in the kitchen! It took a year to buy all the furniture we needed. Keep going… I’ll get to the point eventually. OH! LOOK! Here it is!!!!

IF YOU ARE RENTING IT OUT:
Did you stipulate that the house was furnished? I suppose you did since the furnishings are somehow your responsibility. How do you think your tenant will like the new place when he finds only a bed and a couch? Do you think he’ll be angry? Do you think he’ll feel cheated? Do you think he’ll be happy with your explanation that in time it will come? Do you think he’ll get on a renters message board and complain about how shabby management is treating him?

Summation:
Now! Follow this please!! The first instance you are doing the best you can do and the ONLY person in the world that is affected is YOU. And YOU can do whatever you like.

In the second scenario you are charging rent for a FURNISHED house!! You can build the house anyway you like. And it might take years to pull in all the furnishings that are required. So what? It doesn’t matter! You are affecting no one but your empty pocketbook, because you aren’t collecting rent!

BUT!! If you charged full rent for just a bed and a couch, well… You are CHEATING your tenant!! And that’s what we’re talking about. Disney could build all the theme parks they like. And they can take years to put on the finishing touches. But when those gates open for the first time and they demand a full ticket price to get in, then it better be furnished with something more than a bed and a couch!!

That has got to make sense to you, doesn’t it? SO… Either concede the point or think of a better, less convoluted analogy and/or argument.

~Rome was not built in a day.

WDW was. In it’s entirety! Sure they plussed it afterwards and add new things, but it was a Day and a Half park, at least, when it first opened.

EPCOT was. In it’s entirety! Sure they plussed it afterwards and add new things, but it was a 2 Day park, at least, when it first opened.

Do you see the difference now?

[DVC-Landbaron]

But not the Contemporary. Nice architecture--and its proximity to Tomorrowland really set the stage for as good a result as the Poly. But then it sputtered.

I don’t know how old you are. It could be that you personally experienced WDW back in ’71 or ’72, but the way you talk about it, I doubt it. But I did. And I can tell you first hand that the place reeked of Contemporary-ness!! No one had seen it’s like – EVER! It was a perfect blend for Tomorrowland – a point to which you have already stipulated. And it was more than that the closer you got to it. And you got to it by riding a monorail through the building!! Again, nothing like that!! You (and every other Disney fan on this board, myself included) are so jaded today that you take the monorail for granted. Just a few short years before the opening of the Contemporary the monorail was an “E” ticket ride at Disneyland!! That’s how “Contemporary” it was back in 1971. The monorail being incorporated into the building was almost enough to make it “The Contemporary”! But there was more…

The “A” frame construction was very new. The concrete look also was something very different for the time and even a little (though not much) futuristic. I certainly had never seen anything like it before, and I am not from some small town in the middle of nowhere! Most modern buildings were of the steel and glass variety. This was different. Together with the monorail track running through it, from a distance it almost felt Sci-Fi like. Something you’d see in a movie, but wasn’t real.

And once inside, you had the Grand Canyon Concourse! Sooooooo much space. So open! So spacious! So many sleek lines!! You see, it had NOTHING in it at the time. Well, hardly anything in it. And that was WAY modern!! Or “contemporary” if you will. There was one little restaurant called the Grand Canyon Terrace Café (I think it was café), some little shops lining the outer walls and NOTHING else in the middle, save that huge mural!! Again, for that time, VERY modern! Very new! Very different from anything of the day! Very, very Contemporary!

And on the 15th floor you had “The Top of the World”. A very elegant and very contemporary nightclub (Yes! Nightclubs were very contemporary at the time, my young friend!) Complete with fairly high-end ‘contemporary’ entertainment of the day!

Now I will grant you that there is an inherent problem with being contemporary. It means that 13 years from now, your present day very ‘contemporary’ thing is nothing more than a 13 year old, out of date ‘old’ thing. And something else currently defines ‘contemporary’.




It needed (and today DESPERATELY needs) updating. It needed a little TLC in the theme department. Hey, when did Ei$ner & crew come into the picture? Yeah! About 13 years (or so) after the Contemporary (which defined ‘modern’ for it’s time) was built! Maybe he should have done something to make it more ‘contemporary’? Instead he turned the Grand Canyon Concourse into a departmentalized shopping mall! Selling the very same things that every other store on the property was selling! And on the other end he put in yet another character buffet!! Yeah! We can never have too many of those!! And he ripped out the Contemporary lounge and put in an extremely overpriced restaurant.

Way to go team Disney!! You let the magic fade until someone the age of MassJester could NEVER have the emotional response that The Contemporary had on all of us when it was first built in 1971! They really ought to be ashamed of themselves!

Take a look back at the food and retail offerings that there were open originally--not even close to on story.

Where? Can you provide a link? Thanks.

Hey, I'll give you the Poly--it's great. Architecture, food, entertainment, decorations, retail -- all consistently themed. Of course, it's more tangentially connected to the MK than it might be, I think it's a great example of bringing to story to life in the hotel. Kudos to Walt, or whomever was actually responsible.

“Kudos to Walt, or whomever was actually responsible”!!!! Really!! Do you despise Walt that much? We all know that he didn’t actually drive the nails into the wood and he didn’t use his T-square to lay it all out, but COME ON!! Throw him a bone, will ya!!

Which reminds me. Did you get a chance to look at the other ones that were planned for WDW. Pretty good stuff, eh? (If you say yes I promise not to give Walt any credit for it at all!)

[hulliechrisp]

Originally Posted by DVC-Landbaron

And you would be missing the opportunity of a lifetime! NO ONE appreciates Disney like I do! I could show you things that you never knew existed. I could guide you through so that you’d never wait more than ten minutes in a line even in the most crowded times (Except Christmas!! Even I can’t get around the place being that crowded!!) And I could tell you stories about why things were done as they were done, and how they did what they did, and so on, etc. I can take you to little nooks and crannies with tales of why and wherefores, and the stories behind them. I could show you the PERFECT spot to see the fireworks or the parade or even Illuminations!

And the guided tour would be done with pixie dusted eyes and smiles on everybody’s faces!! And why is that? Because NO ONE enjoys Disney like I do!!

So when is the Baron's next tour taking place??? I want to reserve a spot!

[MassJester]

Originally Posted by DVC-Landbaron

Where? Can you provide a link? Thanks.

I can.

http://waltdatedworld.bravepages.com/id224.htm