A question regarding the growth of WDW

[SpacePlace]

Originally Posted by meowmarie

Oh gosh it's funny you say this because DH and I were having a convo recently about how (we thought) Pixar does such a great job of coming up with pretty original and non-formulaic ideas. For years the animated movies were about the girl in trouble, a central villain that may or may not have a sidekick, and the love interest that ultimately saves her (or she saves him if you go past 1990) and they live happily ever after. Then someone pointed out to me how many Pixar films are about the central character getting lost and their journey to get home. Is this the Pixar forumla?

Thanks for the very thoughtful and respectful reply. That's interesting you guys were just talking about this. As far as a Pixar formula, I think a lot of Pixar stories can be modeled around the central (or major) character(s) being a talking (or in some way being animated/alive with human comprehension/expressions) animal(s)/machine(s)/toy(s)/monster(s)/virtual characters(s) that gets taken out of its comfortable, normal environment by choice or force and has to grow through the challenges and adversity of being this "fish-out-of-water cause I don't exactly fit in or I accidentally got lost along the way." IMHO, I think this applies to Toy Story, Bug's Life, Toy Story 2, Monster's Inc., Finding Nemo, Cars, Ratatouille, WALL-E, Up (main character was at least human but then they were able to squeeze those talking dogs in there), and Toy Story 3. Incredibles was a Brad Bird invention.

Here's a good way to sum it up, when I saw Toy Story 18 years ago I was like 'wow, toys that are alive and how funny, small things to us are big to them and uh-oh they are out of their environment, have to get Buzz and get home. Wow, along the way his priorities and goals changed.' And then I saw Wreck it Ralph last year and I was like 'wow, video games that are alive and how funny, small things to us are big to them and uh-oh they are out of their environment, have to get the medal and get home. Wow, along the way his priorities and goals changed.'

These are still fun stories and they tell them better than anyone else (I had to hold back tears in Wreck it Ralph) but I just want to see more movies coming out of Pixar with more diversity. Brave was a great break from what seems like the never ending boy's club movie parade. Brave is by far my DD's favorite movie.

And I could be totally wrong and Pixar could be coming out with a fresh wave of movies in the coming years with new stories and characters like we've never seen before but based on what Lasseter recently said about The Good Dinosaur, I don't think so -- "It’s a very funny story about a certain way of life that a young dinosaur has trouble fitting into and he ends up going on this quest." - Lasseter

I'm sure this funny little dinosaur will learn a lot along the way!

Thanks again for the good discussion. And I just want to say that DISBOARD is the best place to go and talk to others respectfully about their views on Disney!

[bom_noite]

Originally Posted by DVC-Landbaron

Exactly!! If I didn't make mention of the fact that it never came to trial, I apologize. It was indeed an out of court settlement brought about because it was a lost cause in the courts and everyone knew it!

But my point was that the "convention center" was supposed to be located, I believe, SOUTH of I-4. And NOT within the sight lines of EPCOT. And that would have happened, as per contract if Ei$ner hadn't arrogantly gotten involved! He screwed it up so bad that now, right behind that forced perspective Eiffel Tower we have those hideous eyesores!! And to make it doubly bad he picked the designer! If he wanted to stick a knife in Epcot he couldn't have done a better job. Certainly not a fatal blow, but a severe wound nonetheless.

That may have been a great place for not only a Convention Center, but, also the WW of Sports Complex. But, not sure Tishman would have been happy with that. I really never understood the entire Celebration idea! A ton of good land GONE for an amount that would not feed Eisner's dog's for the week!

The only thing I can imagine: Creating the Infrastructure on that property. Water, Sewage, Power etc.

So, back to one of your original points: Have they squandered land? Yeah - I think they have - big time!

I read where one of Iger's first agenda items (when he took over) was a 3 day sit-down with WDW Management on their goals, and, more importantly: A long-term land use plan.

They then sold off some of the Western property to the Orange Timeshare and started in on contracts on the new Development (name escapes me) north of Port Orleans. You can't grow more land - that is for certain!

Their decision on the site for the new "Kennel" across from Port Orleans never made sense to me?

The decision making over the years seems extremely arbitrary. Maybe that is why Iger forced the meeting. But, what do I know?

[bom_noite]

Originally Posted by DVC-Landbaron

If he wanted to stick a knife in Epcot he couldn't have done a better job. Certainly not a fatal blow, but a severe wound nonetheless.

Question: Did the creation of the YC/BC/BW make any positive difference - in your Opinion. Visa vi: Soften the blow?

[DVC-Landbaron]

OK! To continue with bom_noite most eloquent post…

But in the mean time (the time I had to take to write my response), bom_noite made several other statements. All of which lead me to believe that he is much more on my page than I earlier thought!! SO... Since I already had this ready to go, I'll post it anyway, because others may not agree and if nothing else it may cause some people to think. Just because it has a Disney trademark doesn't automatically make it 'magic'.

No new restaurants / hotels at WDW were built!

Yes. I agree. While most other areas of the company were undergoing tremendous change and revitalization before Ei$ner & crew took over, WDW was sadly lacking. Card Walker mainly, but I also blame Ron Miller and the Idiot Nephew. Either of them could have stepped forward and started a little forward thinking for both DL and especially WDW. Unfortunately, no one did. But in balance they did have to deal with the single largest private construction venture ever undertaken in this country to date. And I guess that can be a little daunting.

Epcot was built - thanks so little! I am not a Epcot hater - has anyone ever duplicated it, would they? Probably no -there is a reason! My son just left working at Epcot as a College Program member. His thought: It is a huge restaurant, bar and duty free that they charge $90 to visit!

WOW! A scathing indictment indeed! And today, as of this moment, I would tend to agree with you. But not back when it was conceived. And certainly not back when it was first opened!!

You don’t say if you visited E.P.C.O.T. before it became Epcot Center. Before the 3 minute spinner became the norm. Before that giant wand blighted that wonderful geosphere. Before EVERY eatery was farmed out to vendors. Before Innovations became a video game haven. But I was there when it opened, way back in ’81. And I can tell you it was WONDERFUL! And not only in what was there, but in the potential for the future!

Did you know, for instance, since we’re talking about ‘potential’, that another pavilion was planned for E.P.C.O.T.? Several were on the drawing boards. But one in particular was truly fascinating. It was going to be HUGE. All within a single (maybe more in the future) gigantic pavilion. It was going to tell the story of Hollywood. Of the movies.

Unfortunately, the guy in charge at the time never understood E.P.C.O.T. He never quite grasped the concept. Come to think of it he really didn’t understand “Disney”, or the way Walt created his special brand of magic. So he took this wonderful, jammed packed, Hollywood concept out of E.P.C.O.T. and created a quickly thrown together ‘rip-off’ of Universal Studios!! He filled it out with fluff and sold it as a third gate!!

When E.P.C.O.T. first opened you needed more than one day to see it all. When MGM opened you were done with the place by a little after lunch!! Congratulations Ei$ner!! You successfully created the first ½ day park! And at the same time you ripped the potential out of E.P.C.O.T.

Capitalized the property. Not giving us resorts, but, themed resorts that are wonderful!

Are they wonderful? Are they really ‘wonderful’? I know it’s pretty subjective, but I kind of take issue with the ‘wonderful’ bit.

First, I have to thank you for being the first one to even mention what I wanted to talk about in this thread. The growth of WDW and if that growth was in keeping with what we should expect from Disney. As mentioned above during that “Disney Decade” he chopped the ba... Ah… Let’s say… he stopped the potential of E.P.C.O.T and turned it into a haven for cheap amusement park spinners, rip-off outsourced restaurants and empty, dark shuttered buildings that once housed brilliant Disney concepts and ideas. He invented the concept of a half-day park. And he built hotels, which brings us to your last quote and my disagreement with the term ‘wonderful’.

Now I will concede that every ‘deluxe’ resort on the property is nice in and of itself. Taken alone each of these hotels are very nice and some are even ‘wonderful’. I have pause here to make the distinction between Deluxe, Moderate and “Value”. I don’t think many, maybe yourself included, would classify Pop Century or any of that ilk as “wonderful”!

So, the question is twofold then and only in consideration of the deluxe resorts. Is it a “Disney” resort and is it well designed in the overall concept of WDW? For argument’s sake let stipulate that they are “Disney” in that they are themed. I personally think it takes a lot more to be a true Disney resort, but we’ll let that go for a moment. Where does that leave us? The question of GRAND concept comes to mind.

So let’s name them. We have the two original resorts and the campgrounds. Many might be surprised to see me mention the campgrounds in the same sentence with the Poly and Contemporary. You shouldn’t be. Fort Wilderness was and to some extent still is a “Deluxe” campground. If nothing else it simply reeked of “Disney” way back in 1972!! And Ei$ner’s hand didn’t not stain them.

And we have “The Disney Decade” hotels. Boardwalk, Beach and Yacht Club, Grand Floridian, Wilderness Lodge, Animal Kingdom Lodge and for this exercise, just because it totally stacks the deck, we’ll include the moderates, Port Orleans (Riverside and French Quarter), Coronado Springs and The Caribbean Beach. WOW! 10 resorts!! And just because I can’t help it let’s included the two DVC Resorts, Old Key West and Saratoga Springs. And that makes 12.

Look at the list. Are they, in total, the best they can be? In the overall concept of WDW are they individually the best choice that could have been? I don’t think so. I see two problems right off the bat. Every single one of them, with the exception of AKL is a northern hemisphere, western hemisphere location. And even worse, four out the twelve are from Ei$ner’s stomping ground of the east side of the good old USA. Where is the exotic? Where is the foreign and unfamiliar Disney magic? Where is that experience you could only get in Disney? Why do we need a third of these structures copied from the east coast of America?

Now I will grant you that it is very hard to make this argument when you take these resorts individually. Boardwalk is WONDERFUL. Beach and Yacht Club are WONDERFUL. But do we really need the both of them? Wouldn’t a wonderfully themed Mediterranean or Persian have been a cut above? How about a Venetian instead of a Caribbean or Saratoga? Or what about a movie themed resort next to The Studios? Exotic is the only saving grace for AKL. And we are sorely missing ‘exotic’ from the rest of them.

But AKL bring up another ugly problem I have with Ei$ner style resorts. It is the issue of cookie cutter resorts. Wilderness is wonderful. ALK is wonderful. (We can also mention the Grand Californian, which is also wonderful). BUT!! They are all the same!! Sure the bathrooms are on the right in Wilderness and on the left in AKL. And there are decorating differences of course, but basically they are the same!! WHY!!?? And I contend that this takes away from the “wonderfulness” when viewed in it total concept of WDW.

And we haven’t even gotten into the “Disney” concept. We stipulated earlier (or at least I did) that the resorts are in fact “Disney”. But are they? Being a Disney Resort does not necessarily mean ‘standard deluxe accommodations currently used throughout the industry”. NO!! It means an extension of the theme park experience!! We got that in The Poly. We got that in the Contemporary. We even got that in Fort Wilderness. But do we have that in the “Disney Decade” resorts? Are they an extension of the theme park experience?

And now, sadly, it’s too late. The ground has been filled up, or worse, sold off to Ei$ner’s cronies or (YIKES!) his wife!!! So now, if someone did come to the Disney Helm who “GOT IT” and decided to carry the theme park experience to a resort he’s got no room to do it. He comes in and understands what E.P.C.O.T is and wants to extend that concept to a resort. He wants a resort fashioned after Venice. Complete with canals. And instead of taking the guest to their room via golf cart they are whisked away, within the first few minutes of their stay, in a gondola complete with a singing guy in a stripped outfit wielding a pole!! Now that could be “MAGICAL”!!

But instead we have mostly USA styles resorts that have almost no connection with the theme parks and very little “Disney Magic” about them. Again, individually some are very, very nice. But overall I find it lacking. Don’t you agree?

Animal Kingdom - which - despite it's problems is a WWWD type of project

Whew!! I’ve written too much already. And this topic needs at least a page and a half! We’ll get back to it.

[DVC-Landbaron]

Question: Did the creation of the YC/BC/BW make any positive difference - in your Opinion. Visa vi: Soften the blow?

If you've read my last post and agree with any of it, or at least understand my point of view, you will know already that the answer to your question is - NO! In fact, it kind of makes it worse!! If only because of the lost potential.

[bom_noite]

Originally Posted by DVC-Landbaron

OK! To continue with bom_noite most eloquent post…

But in the mean time (the time I had to take to write my response), bom_noite made several other statements. All of which lead me to believe that he is much more on my page than I earlier thought!!

Great minds! Great minds my friend! I apologize as I come off as arrogant at times. Trust me: I only come across as arrogant as I am an arrogant Pain In the A$$! Love a good debate - but I do know my short comings and always walk away learning more then what I came in with!

As you said, Walt Disney World is not Walmart. There is an emotional attachment with the place! In fact, while Universal does a great job, there is not that same bond? I could be wrong.

I think you are also a DVC Owner? That gives us both the God Given Right, or so we think, to play Arm-Chair QB. We have not only the emotional link - we backed it up with an investment!

But, DVC or not, any Disney Geek that makes the yearly or bi-yearly Pilgrimage to the world has a right to express his/her opinions regarding their thoughts on the place and document their "World of the World" address. Their very Green Money earned them that right! Thanks to many sites we have that ability! Sadly, not sure our friends in LBV seem "above" our rantings and have never done a good job of listening all the time!

I have, at times, made enemies here. I don't mean to - is just my nature to lack certain civil caveats at times! I think the group here, and, on other sites serve a huge service! We may not all agree - but - we all care deeply! Simply put: I am a fan of the Disboards, many other sites, and anybody who has that Magical Bond like we all do! We care in a way that I am not sure WDW Employee's will ever understand nor grasp.

As great a job the folks at Universal have done - they have not, and may never, create that Unique Customer / Business Bond!

Originally Posted by DVC-Landbaron

Are they wonderful? Are they really ‘wonderful’? I know it’s pretty subjective, but I kind of take issue with the ‘wonderful’ bit.

You are 100% accurate - very, very subjective thing! I think they are wonderful - they make me happy! I find serenity, security and a deep-down happiness when I visit many of them (not all - but many!). Too me so many of the resorts are a place to unwind, relax and meditate. Luckily, my family feels the same way.

Am 50 now - the kids are 22 and 19. We go down there once / maybe twice a year and I find myself backing out of the Park visits and wandering around Resorts.

In '87 I proposed to my wife in the Bar at the Poly. When we bought in to DVC in '97 we could not afford weekly / yearly passes - we would take the kids on a Resort / Pool Hopping adventure. We let the kids call the shots and determine the day. The only rule: Only one hour per pool (which we always overlooked if they were having a great time!).

Some of my favorite places in the World (the entire World):

• The Pool area at the Poly. Looking out over the lake.
• The Pool area of the Wilderness
• OKW - our Proud 2nd Home. I can sit on the deck for hours! Or, wander around Conch Flats and play shuffle-board or basketball for hours on end. I might spend the day playing golf or renting a boat and sailing away. One day, my wife found me teaching 5 year old's the proper Sand Sculpture building techniques - I got their parents involved - my kids came over. Finally - a half-dozen guests joined in: It was classic and simple fun!
• Wandering around the Contemporary looking at Monorail Drive through.
• Driving to the Campgrounds and just walking around the place.

Many co-workers question my silly infatuation and ask: "Don't you ever get bored?"

I have traveled 4 Million miles over the last 25 years to 100 different countries. I don't need to go to Europe to be Happy! I am in Europe 5 times a year!

At WDW, if I get tired of the view, I simply change the atmosphere!

While I am not often to defend Eisner - I think he created this wonderful assortment of places. I am not 100% sure it was done before he did what he did at WDW! I give him a passing grade in that respect. If the D & S were Refrigerators, I would be with you with in wanting to exile them! How cool would be the never built Asian/Persian site on those grounds? Eatern Hospitality and Conventions go together seamlessly! Tishman would be a Quadrillionaire! Instead, they sell those rooms under market value Eisner certainly got the last laugh!

I think the Universal folks would love to have had the land Disney had and create these resorts. I really believe the resorts create the Bond and are a centerpiece of the Magic.

You are a smart guy - and I will always listen to your opinions! Still Friends?

[DVC-Landbaron]

Well, I really don’t know what to make of your last post, other than that we are kindred spirits of a sort. You really didn’t answer any of my points, so I am left with two choices. You either consider my ramblings utter nonsense and not worth response, or you are in complete agreement! Somehow both answers don’t seem to fit what you’ve written before. Maybe it’s all wrapped up in this:

You are 100% accurate - very, very subjective thing! I think they are wonderful - they make me happy! I find serenity, security and a deep-down happiness when I visit many of them (not all - but many!). To me so many of the resorts are a place to unwind, relax and mediate. Luckily, my family feels the same way.

Yes I agree. They are certainly a place to “unwind, relax and mediate”.

BUT ARE THEY “DISNEY”!!??

That is my point. Don’t get me wrong. I LOVE OKW. I wouldn’t trade it in for anything. BUT… Wait!! Maybe I would…

Does it have to be a western hemisphere/northern hemisphere theme? Wouldn’t an extension of an EPCOT theme been a little better? Say a Japanese, Moroccan, Chinese or German villas? Perhaps that Venice canal thing I mentioned before, snaking through the already existing golf course!!

Or keep it OKW and lay out Saratoga differently. Or keep both of them and re-imagine The Beach Club as an alpine mountain retreat, complete with chalets and ski lifts!! Something other than USA!! Something other than what I can get for real within a two and a half hour plane ride. How about a Lunar Outpost! Or an old west boom town. Or maybe ancient Rome, Greece or Egypt!! Just think of the immersive theme it would take to pull that off!! All lost potential because Ei$ner filled up (or sold off) every square inch of land with rather mundane hotels, when viewed in the grand scheme of things.

Am 50 now - the kids are 22 and 19.

We are 7 years apart, me being older.

In '87 I proposed to my wife in the Bar at the Poly. When we bought in to DVC in '97 we could not afford weekly / yearly passes - we would take the kids on a Resort / Pool Hopping adventure.

We often stay at OKW and not step one foot in the parks. We call it Hotel Hopping. We started calling it that before the term Pool-Hopping was ever thought of. And as for pool hopping!!! Don’t get me started!! I was LIED to by Disney (DVC) salesmen!! While they are technically right, the spirit of the rule has been broken to pieces!!!

You are a smart guy - and I will always listen to your opinions! Still Friends?

Always friends!! And thank you. You seem pretty smart yourself! OK!! Enough love fest!! RESPOND!

[bom_noite]

Originally Posted by DVC-Landbaron

BUT ARE THEY “DISNEY”!!??

To answer the question: Yes, AKL and WL, in my opinion ARE DISNEY! Though someone yelled out: "Hey somebody go get me the WL BluePrints": when building the AKL. "OK! We basically build the same thing - make it darker - build a few buffet's and get me a few Giraffe's and Deer out back! A few hidden Micky's - we call it a day!".

Regardless, I am 100% all over your very creative thoughts: Alp's, Germany, Venice, Greece! How about the Outback? Forget Morocco and China - been there a few dozen times - bad memories!

In fact, why did All Stars have to be All Stars and not be an expansive but Quaint Austrian Villiage and then tied in to a slightly different theme at Blizzard Beach?

Why could POP not have been a Venetian Villiage with a Venetian styled Water park?

Why / who picked the Saratoga Theme? Regardless, if you ask me kindly I will tell you a cheap way to tie it in and make it 100% better!

Nope, am starting to drink the Coolaid!

[golf4miami]

Originally Posted by bom_noite

To answer the question: Yes, AKL and WL, in my opinion ARE DISNEY! Though someone yelled out: "Hey somebody go get me the WL BluePrints": when building the AKL. "OK! We basically build the same thing - make it darker - build a few buffet's and get me a few Giraffe's and Deer out back! A few hidden Micky's - we call it a day!".

Regardless, I am 100% all over your very creative thoughts: Alp's, Germany, Venice, Greece! How about the Outback? Forget Morocco and China - been there a few dozen times - bad memories!

In fact, why did All Stars have to be All Stars and not be an expansive but Quaint Austrian Villiage and then tied in to a slightly different theme at Blizzard Beach?

Why could POP not have been a Venetian Villiage with a Venetian styled Water park?

Why / who picked the Saratoga Theme? Regardless, if you ask me kindly I will tell you a cheap way to tie it in and make it 100% better!

Nope, am starting to drink the Coolaid!

This! 100X this! LandBaron has done an amazing job of laying out the alternatives and his reasoning behind why he thinks the WDW property could have been better utilized.

This is where I am at on it all, as a young Disney fanatic. To be completely honest I am happy with how the Value resorts have turned out. Sure they could be better and the execution and theme leaves a little to be desired. But considering it's where I have to stay when I visit since I'm on a budget I think I get my money's worth and I enjoy them when I stay there.

Overall though, I think there is a lot of repetition in the theme of the Value resorts which follows right along with what LandBaron said about the repetition of the Deluxe and Moderate resorts. I never really sat down and thought about the whole repetition of the style of resorts because to me each of them has their own character and so I see them all differently even though they may all come from the same area of the Eastern USA.

I've definitely had an education through this thread.

[DVC-Landbaron]

Hi golf4miami. Welcome.

You said two things that caught my eye right away.

I've definitely had an education through this thread.

Glad I could help. I love talking about Disney philosophy. If someone feels ‘educated’ along the way, so much the better!!

This is where I am at on it all, as a young Disney fanatic. To be completely honest I am happy with how the Value resorts have turned out.

OK. You’re young and yet you followed all this ancient Disney philosophical nonsense. That bodes well!!! And you are a self-admitted “fanatic”. Good!! So am I! (I hear there’s a 12 step program, you know, “Hi, My name is LandBaron and I’m a Disneyholic!” And the crowd replies – “Hi LandBaron!!)

But wait!! Hold the Phone!! Stop the Presses!! (and any other trite cliché you can think of.) That’s only half of the paragraph!! You also say…

To be completely honest I am happy with how the Value resorts have turned out.

Ah! Evidently – (read like Yoda) – Complete your education is not, my young Padawan!

The values!! Those sad – UNDISNEY – buildings scattered around the WDW property. Don’t get me started on “The Values”!!

OOOOOOPS!!!! To Late!! The sequence already started!! Sit back!! I have a tale to tell!! Here we go!!!!!

Once upon a time… In a Central Florida location near you… a man walked on some recently acquired property. He envisioned a city. A brilliant, vivacious community of tomorrow…

STOP!! That’s the syllabus for E.P.C.O.T. Start again…

Once upon a time there were only two resorts in all of WDW. (Not quite true, but we’ll leave Hotel Plaza for later in this talk. It plays an important part in the story.)

Anyway, only two resorts. And these two resorts were unlike any resort in the country. They were NOT five star resorts. They were NOT cheap motels. They were not even on a par with ‘industry standards’. It wasn’t that they were less in quality (although in some respects they were) and it wasn’t as though they were extravagant like the most ritzy hotel out there (although at times they were). What they were was unique! One of a kind. And what made them that way? In a word: THEME. In two words: DISNEY THEME!

For the first time in hospitality history a resort was themed. And it wasn’t just a random theme. NO!! It was an extension of the theme that Walt took so much time perfecting in DL. Now, for the first time ever (it would take Vegas many years to catch up) a guest visiting a theme park could take that experience back to the room with him and enjoy it 24/7 – for the entire length of his stay!! WHAT A CONCEPT!!!

And hold on to your hat, but here comes the really magical part (as if that isn’t enough), it was priced within what the industry standard considered a moderate!! Say a Marriott or Hyatt. It was certainly NOT priced the same as some downtown New York hotel!! No!! It was way the heck cheaper!! Really only five or ten bucks more than your average Howard Johnson or Holiday Inn!!

Now some say that price doesn’t matter in the creation of “magic”. But as a young married person, with a growing family, I can tell you – IT WAS MAGIC!!! And you know what else that made it? Yep! You guessed it!! A VALUE!!

So where does that leave us in this discussion. Well, all I can think is that Walt, and the “What Would Walt Do” crowd, thought that this experience (the Poly and the Contemporary) should be priced to hold the most amount of “value” as possible. Evidently Ei$ner disagreed. Within two years (it could have been three, my memory fails me at times, suffice to say a relatively short time period) the cost of the Poly DOUBLED!! Several years after that (again, hazy memory) it tripled!!! For me that didn’t diminish the magic at all! It absolutely KILLED it!

But wait!! Just in the nick of time what do you think happened? Yep! The Caribbean Beach opened and slipped right into the same price point that the Poly used to own. How convenient!! How nice of Disney not to let me stay ‘outside’ the Magic!

But wait!! While the Caribbean is nice, is it like the two originals? No. Not quite. Hmmmmm. How disappointing. But I guess by paying less than people staying in those two, I deserve, less magic. A lesser Disney experience. It’s only fair. Pay more. Get more “Magic”. Pay less. Get less “Magic”. I guess the Disney experience is more like a commodity than a true experience. I used to think that a Disney experience had only one definition. I didn’t realize that it could be portioned out depending on how much you are willing to pay.

And a few years later, what do you think happened. That’s right; prices kept going up WAY faster than inflation for both levels of accommodations. Ah! But benevolent Disney comes to the rescue!! What do they do for those poor unfortunate people that they just priced out of their rooms? They gave them the “Value” resorts!! Thanks the Disney gods that wonderful Mr. Ei$ner was looking out for them!!

But wait!! There’s even less magic here! Very much less! That Disney experience doesn’t even exist here!! OH! No!! I’m wrong. It does exist!! There are GIANT, Primary Colored Icons to remind me!! Wonderful decorations!! No theme at all, but HUGE decorations!! But what do you expect? You’re only paying a third of what people pay for at the Floridian! You’re lucky you have a place to stay at all! If it were not for the kindness of Disney© you’d be out on International Drive, looking in!!

Never mind that accounting for inflation the price point of the Values are roughly the same as The Poly was in 1972 (or ’75 – memory fails). The Poly for the price of the Values (heck even the Moderates!) is indeed a VALUE!!! Pop Century at any price (even for free!!!!) is still not a Disney experience!!

Make sense?

[MassJester]

I'm not convinced we aren't seeing the past through rose colored glasses.


I used to stay in the Contemporary in the o,d days, and I just don't see how that was a better example of Disney story or vision than it's more recent cousins. It was a disjointed collection of themed spaces including musical theatre, Disney characters, sterile design, and a strange partial veneer of native America. I liked it well enough, but the magical story was hard to discern.

[DRDISNEYMD]

Originally Posted by bom_noite

I would STRONGLY encourage anyone who has read / contributed to this Thread to look for two books:

Storming the Magic Kingdom: Wall Street, the raiders, and the battle for Disney.
John Taylor. 1987. : This book looks at the Post Walt Company and focuses on the company up through the hiring of Eisner / Wells.

Disney War
James Stewart. 2006.: This book takes up where "Storming" left off. It looks at the Eisner era from the beginning to right before his final departure.

Both books are wonderful reads, and, a must for all of us Disney geeks. Neither focus on the Parks, but, all things Disney business. I would consider them "Business Books". But, with that said - we all know Disney's Business, the Players and the Industries they play in (or we would not be posting here)! Both are extremely well written, easy reads and "Page Turners".

I would read them both in the order presented. If you are only interested in Eisner, then Disney War is more geared for you. Reading the OMG moment Eisner / Iger went through on 9-11 was an amazing insight in to running a large company! We all criticize those up top - I would not have traded my job for theirs on that day!

Storming gives a great insight in to the Post-Walt company. How dreadful the decisions were and how un-creative the bunch that followed Walt/Roy actually were! You learn how close we all were to lose a business which has become a National Icon! You learn Eisner/Wells were a savior!

While written by different Authors, with different angles and writing styles, you almost believe they are two books in one series. When you read both you really can visualize the People, the Problems, the Ego's, the Success and the Failures.

I just looked, both are available on Amazon used for $.01! I would not sell my copies at any price!

~Thanks for the reading suggestions! I can't wait to read your other posts, along with everyone else's. I'll have to get caught up, later.

Originally Posted by Walt's Frozen Head

"So basically, you despise Eisner, but you're not on team Iger, either."

In some ways, it would be difficult for me to ever be on "Team Iger," because Iger was Eisner's hand-picked toady... Smithers to Eisner's Burns. While Iger was learning everything he knows from Eisner, Eisner was pocketing about a billion of Disney's dollars. In America, that cumulative paycheck makes Eisner a success no matter how he came about it, and it's hard for me to imagine Iger _not_ being affected by watching it happen, and affected in a way I would consider to be adversely.

And let me be clear about this as well: I don't despise Michael Eisner, I've never met the man personally. I don't even begrudge him his billion dollars. What I despise is what he did to the Disney organization; what bothers me is to compare his compensation for what he did to Walt's compensation for what he did. Eisner was in it for personal gain, so it's predictable what he turned Disney into: a money-printing machine. The old Disney was a story-telling machine, probably the best one ever devised, and the money just naturally followed because we human beings really need such a machine in our lives.

I would never have written word one about Michael Eisner if he'd worked for Wal-Mart or Monsanto... businesses that had long ago sold whatever whatever greasy goo passed for their souls in the pursuit of the almighty billions of dollars. But Disney was different... up until Eisner was wholly in charge.

"When you refuse to acknowledge Eisner for ToT and Splash (among several other things) by giving all the credit to someone else under his leadership -- it's like removing my queen, bishops, rooks, knights and just leaving me with the pawns to fight with -- while Iger keeps his entire arsenal of chessman."

My apologies if it came across that that was the "side" I was taking in an argument. I have a habit of fixating on a portion of a thread or a post and making that a jumping-off point for the latest version of what is essentially the same thing I've been typing since about the turn of the millenium. I think Disney was Special, capital "S," and yes, Magical, capital "M." Michael Eisner changed that, and made Disney merely Profitable, capital "$." I don't know that Iger could or would change that back... his history makes me skeptical, and the opinions of people I respect suggest it just ain't happenin'.

My purpose is to point out how and why Disney changed, and how and why that damaged every one of us. I am not arguing with you, I am telling you, as they say.

Walt built an amazing machine: The Disney Company itself. I used the shorthand "Wells' policies" when splitting the ToT/Splash hair, but it was really Walt's policies and systems that Wells had enough sense and brassies to protect from Eisner. Once Wells was gone, Eisner got to do what most of us believed he always wanted to do: gut Disney's creativity in the name of cost savings and run off copies of (and change laws to extend the copyrights on) what was already in the tank.

Eisner also built a formidable machine, but the machine Eisner built was meant for a different purpose than the one Walt built. I know my children and I are the poorer for that difference, and I deeply believe that you are, too.

~Wow... another fabulous post! No apology needed, I'm already a fan! This really isn't an "argument" is it? This is more like a reflection on the evolution of Disney. And, I'm beginning to wonder, if there is anything that could have been done differently?

~Thanks for providing further insight into the Eisner/Iger relationship. Honestly, they both seem like they're cut from the same cloth. Iger may be a little more personable and perhaps better for Disney as a whole, but allowing the theme parks to go neglected for so long, is just wrong. Eisner seemed to have a strong vision for Walt Disney World and that's what I appreciate most.

~I totally agree with you, that Eisner should not compare himself to Walt. And, I couldn't agree more that the old Disney was a "story telling maching" (love that!) but from my understanding, "the money did *not* follow." So, in a desperate act, Eisner was brought in to make Disney profitable again, in hopes of avoiding a hostile takeover.

~Eisner did exactly what was expected of him, along with redefining the Disney brand & theme park experience. Is it really fair to say Eisner was in this solely for "personal gain" -- I'm not sure I follow. Eisner was just doing his job, his contributions are a huge part of why Disney is "too big to fail." What more could he have done? Or, should he should have done less?

~I'm have mixed feelings. How could you overlook the fact that Disney was in serious jeopardy of being seized and sold off for parts by corporate vultures? My feeling is that Eisner did what was necessary to save Disney, maybe he became complacent after success, but I believe his intentions were noble. I think we agree for the most part, but the efforts to transform Disney into a profitable machine was indeed -- a necessary evil, to survive and weather the hostile corporate climate.

~I do agree that we are all poorer for it, but I can't blame this entirely on Eisner. I'm beginning to form the opinion, that Disney was forced to adapt to our ugly, greedy corporate culture or die. They brought in a guy that not only adapted Disney to that harsh reality but conquered it. The down side is -- I think Disney has out priced most working families -- a single day at MK will cost a family of four almost $400 dollars. But, do you really think Walt would disapprove of how profitable his company is today? Mixed blessing, I suppose. But, I would rather have big corporate Disney, than no Disney at all.

[golf4miami]

Originally Posted by DVC-Landbaron

Make sense?

Thank you for the welcome.

First let me agree with MassJester on the rose colored glasses sentiment and also add that, to me at least, Disney 'magic' is somewhat what you make of it. I have found that I can have just as much 'magic' at a value resort as I could at a moderate or deluxe resort. I think this issue is beside the point though so I will return to the current discussion.

For me the problem of comparing the prices of the resorts from early WDW to current WDW is kind of hard to do. Of course the prices were going to be fairly low in the beginning years! They needed to build attendance and customer loyalty for the 'great experiment' that Walt himself wasn't even sure if it was going to work. Furthermore demand over the years has shot through the roof right along with those prices. It's easy to look at the prices and compare them to inflation and consider what they used to be and say 'well it's just too high!' and you know what? In some cases it is. But when you look at a supply and demand model and realize that the demand is there, then I can kind of see why it makes sense. There is a reason why these deluxe resorts, especially the ones on the monorail are in such high demand.

Returning to my 'make your own magic' point from above I think it really has to do with deciding what you're willing to pay and then making your vacation the best it can be no matter what property you're staying at. Some people choose to stay in a value simply because theme isn't all that important to them and they are willing to pay a little extra per night for the little perks of transportation, and EMH. I know you're going to say that they shouldn't have to sacrifice theme in order to get that and I somewhat agree with you. I just don't think the economy of it would work out correctly. In order to build theme, that costs $$$$$$ which has to be made back somehow.

I'm hoping you can see where I'm coming from and I'm sure you'll point out where I'm wrong :P I am enjoying this back and forth and look forward to your next installment

[DVC-Landbaron]

MassJester wrote:

I'm not convinced we aren't seeing the past through rose colored glasses.

That’s pretty funny. I used to use that line all the time accusing others (Ei$ner defenders mainly) of visiting WDW with “rose-colored-glasses” and not being able to see through all the pixie dust!

I used to stay in the Contemporary in the o,d days, and I just don't see how that was a better example of Disney story or vision than it's more recent cousins.

Well. You don’t say what the “old days” were. Exactly how old is old when talking about the past. Because it’s kind of important. Your tag says:

A lot of visits to different reorts since 1983

I assume you meant to say “resorts”. And if that date is true you started going just as Ei$ner started de-magic-ing things.

Now I will say that the Contemporary isn’t everyone’s cup of tea. (It isn’t mine, but I can see the story and concept behind it.) It also hasn’t held up terrible well. That is inherent in the basic concept, I’m afraid. The supposed future or even contemporary-ness is very elusive and can be dated rather quickly. In fact, I’d say that when it first opened, The Contemporary was – WAY COOL!!!! Nothing else like it!! Sleek lines, concrete, steel and glass!! AND A MONORAIL, FOR PETE’S SAKE!!! WOW!!

Several years later it was already getting stale and 12 years later… When you started… Well, I can see what you’re saying. It badly needed an update, which NEVER came!! I’m still waiting!!

The Poly on the other hand or Fort Wilderness is the more perfect example of how rose colored glasses have nothing to do with how we remember our Disney past. I think you’ll agree with that.

But even as stale as the Contemporary became, there is no doubt that it’s theme was an extension of the theme park. In fact, it is really the only resort you can see from the Magic Kingdom. And from where? You got it!! Tomorrowland!! There was a time where all the resorts were to be tied to a theme park and not only the park, but to a specific land!! NOW THAT’S DETAIL!!

Instead we have Ei$ner’s version of theme. A fair copy of a California hotel (named after Florida?!?!?) and east coast memories of his childhood. No ties at all to any theme park under the sun! Yea! Ei$ner magic!! No rose colored glasses needed here!

[meowmarie]

Originally Posted by SpacePlace

Thanks for the very thoughtful and respectful reply. That's interesting you guys were just talking about this. As far as a Pixar formula, I think a lot of Pixar stories can be modeled around the central (or major) character(s) being a talking (or in some way being animated/alive with human comprehension/expressions) animal(s)/machine(s)/toy(s)/monster(s)/virtual characters(s) that gets taken out of its comfortable, normal environment by choice or force and has to grow through the challenges and adversity of being this "fish-out-of-water cause I don't exactly fit in or I accidentally got lost along the way." IMHO, I think this applies to Toy Story, Bug's Life, Toy Story 2, Monster's Inc., Finding Nemo, Cars, Ratatouille, WALL-E, Up (main character was at least human but then they were able to squeeze those talking dogs in there), and Toy Story 3. Incredibles was a Brad Bird invention.

Here's a good way to sum it up, when I saw Toy Story 18 years ago I was like 'wow, toys that are alive and how funny, small things to us are big to them and uh-oh they are out of their environment, have to get Buzz and get home. Wow, along the way his priorities and goals changed.' And then I saw Wreck it Ralph last year and I was like 'wow, video games that are alive and how funny, small things to us are big to them and uh-oh they are out of their environment, have to get the medal and get home. Wow, along the way his priorities and goals changed.'
.........
Thanks again for the good discussion. And I just want to say that DISBOARD is the best place to go and talk to others respectfully about their views on Disney!

Yeah I see what you mean about the personified things/creatures being the main characters. I think they were just experimenting with CG and different kinds of materials. Until recently it had been fairly difficult to really do a good human in full CG, and that wasn't really their thing. You can see that in their short films in particular going back to the late 80's. They played around with lamps, toys, snow globes, birds, etc. I remember being amazed by the luminosity of the ants in Bug's Life, and the fur on Sully in Monster's Inc. They take their time and they do it right. I feel bad that Brave was such a departure for them and it wasn't as well received. For the record, Ralph isn't Pixar. You'd think Brave and Ralph would be from opposite studios right? On the other note, I think the basic formula for almost any good story is a main character or set of characters, a central problem that needs to be solved, and the character(s) growing and learning something in the end. I dunno, I still love my Pixar. They have helped change and shape the direction of all animated movies and I'm glad Disney got 'em back. And I agree about DIS, I love this place 99% of the time! Take care