Do the funky chicken?
- Thread starter Lesley
- Start date
DVC-Landbaron
What Would Walt Do?
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2000
- Messages
- 1,861
The LandBaron rises from his seat. Applauds wildly, cheering:
BRAVO!!! WELL SAID, Brian430!!! BRAVO!!!
BRAVO!!! WELL SAID, Brian430!!! BRAVO!!!
airlarry!
Did you know some ferns date back to Prehistoric t
- Joined
- May 30, 2000
- Messages
- 959
Mais mon capitain:
Brian430 and I are not 'sitting on high' and knocking Micktel 6 'just because.'
I for one tried to point out that I am not a so-called GF 'snob', nor do I find anything distasteful about what many consider to be the most beautiful of all the resorts.
All I am saying is that Ei$ner figured out what Walt probably knew but ignored: that the general public *will* sacrifice quality in exchange for a lower price. I always felt that Disney was above this philosphy, however. Sure Walt could have gotten away with gold-colored paint on his carousel. But *he* would have known it was fake.
In fact, the arguments for the Micktel 6 by CBR are 'just because' arguments: i.e. that Ei$ner is building these schleppy hotels 'just because' he knows that there are people just like me who will put up with their garishness in exchange for a cheaper price and the convenience and magic of staying on-site.
But I ask you, is that right? Is it Ei$ner's job to figure out how low of a threshold the public has for exchanging magic for profit?
Or put another way...is this the best that Disney could come up with? If these additions are not the best they could do, then why do it?
Brian430 and I are not 'sitting on high' and knocking Micktel 6 'just because.'
I for one tried to point out that I am not a so-called GF 'snob', nor do I find anything distasteful about what many consider to be the most beautiful of all the resorts.
All I am saying is that Ei$ner figured out what Walt probably knew but ignored: that the general public *will* sacrifice quality in exchange for a lower price. I always felt that Disney was above this philosphy, however. Sure Walt could have gotten away with gold-colored paint on his carousel. But *he* would have known it was fake.
In fact, the arguments for the Micktel 6 by CBR are 'just because' arguments: i.e. that Ei$ner is building these schleppy hotels 'just because' he knows that there are people just like me who will put up with their garishness in exchange for a cheaper price and the convenience and magic of staying on-site.
But I ask you, is that right? Is it Ei$ner's job to figure out how low of a threshold the public has for exchanging magic for profit?
Or put another way...is this the best that Disney could come up with? If these additions are not the best they could do, then why do it?
Another Voice
Charter Member of The Element
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2000
- Messages
- 3,191
The Conservation Area really isnt there any more. In the original master plan, it took up around a third of the total property and consisted mostly of the southern part of the property (now the Celebration area) and the western boundary of the property. The conservation designation was just in Disneys plan, it had no legal standing.
That was until Disney started to kill an alarming number of animals and to destroy large tracts of wetlands outside of the conservation area. In a deal with the federal and state governments, Disney agreed to offset the habit loss by purchasing other wetlands in the state. The largest chunk is about 50,000 acres well north of the property and is the offset for the Animal Kingdom development. In fact, the Animal Kingdom and the lodge pretty much ripped the guts out of the conservation area (Irony, thy name is profit). Its also interesting to note that Disney has received the largest fines every levied against a corporation for violating the endangered species act even larger than logging companies.
The Celebration area is a slightly different matter and deals with taxes, politics and ego. Basically, the southern area is in a different county from the rest of the property and Disney has used that chunk of land as a tax dodge (under law, the entire property is taxed as a cattle ranch you can even see the cows they have to keep if you know where to look). The Reedy Creek Improvement District gives Disney amazing advantages, but there are some loopholes for the local governments and they are always looking for a way to challenge and overturn the entire arrangement. Disney Management figured that any development south of highway was going to trigger a fight between the counties, and fight between the counties & Disney (the details are rather lengthy). In the end, Disney decided it was better to cede the property at the county boarder and try to make money using non-tourist means to protect the rest. Celebration hasnt panned out any where near what Disney wanted and so, like so many other things, theyve more or less walked away from an expansion plans. Whats there is there and thats all that will pretty much happen.
And the location of the hotels and such on property is really driven by infrastructure needs. Putting everything next to each other reduces the length of roads, sewer lines, power lines, bus routes, etc. and that saves money. Nothing is really worth doing well if it can be cheap. A large amount of land also has to be used for flood control. The property is still basically a swamp and moving water through the property is a tremendous engineering feat. There are other ways of handling the flow, but large catch basins are much cheaper than the alternatives.
The controlling factor at WDW is not the availability of land its money.
Well almost everything. As was proven by Pop Century, even money cant buy taste.
That was until Disney started to kill an alarming number of animals and to destroy large tracts of wetlands outside of the conservation area. In a deal with the federal and state governments, Disney agreed to offset the habit loss by purchasing other wetlands in the state. The largest chunk is about 50,000 acres well north of the property and is the offset for the Animal Kingdom development. In fact, the Animal Kingdom and the lodge pretty much ripped the guts out of the conservation area (Irony, thy name is profit). Its also interesting to note that Disney has received the largest fines every levied against a corporation for violating the endangered species act even larger than logging companies.
The Celebration area is a slightly different matter and deals with taxes, politics and ego. Basically, the southern area is in a different county from the rest of the property and Disney has used that chunk of land as a tax dodge (under law, the entire property is taxed as a cattle ranch you can even see the cows they have to keep if you know where to look). The Reedy Creek Improvement District gives Disney amazing advantages, but there are some loopholes for the local governments and they are always looking for a way to challenge and overturn the entire arrangement. Disney Management figured that any development south of highway was going to trigger a fight between the counties, and fight between the counties & Disney (the details are rather lengthy). In the end, Disney decided it was better to cede the property at the county boarder and try to make money using non-tourist means to protect the rest. Celebration hasnt panned out any where near what Disney wanted and so, like so many other things, theyve more or less walked away from an expansion plans. Whats there is there and thats all that will pretty much happen.
And the location of the hotels and such on property is really driven by infrastructure needs. Putting everything next to each other reduces the length of roads, sewer lines, power lines, bus routes, etc. and that saves money. Nothing is really worth doing well if it can be cheap. A large amount of land also has to be used for flood control. The property is still basically a swamp and moving water through the property is a tremendous engineering feat. There are other ways of handling the flow, but large catch basins are much cheaper than the alternatives.
The controlling factor at WDW is not the availability of land its money.
Well almost everything. As was proven by Pop Century, even money cant buy taste.
That's insulting!
No, I don't really like any of the above things but that's another thread (several, I guess...don't even get me started on Dino-rama)....and I don't think I'm alone in that respect. But I'm also not alone in being ready and willing to applaud when something is done right. At WDW less and less is being done right these days....but there are little rays of hope here and there. The VWL are spectacular, I love RnRC and AK is my favorite park....all things done within the last 5 years. Before I started visting these boards I had no real opinion of Eisner. Its not about Eisner at all....its about a huge ugly motel taking up space where there could be something worthwhile...even if it were just a huge NOT-UGLY motel, if that's what WDW needs.
The place has already brought down the quality of the WDW experience simply by being visible, particularly from CBR. I don't know what kind of landscaping could hide it...but I sure as heck hope they find something!
KaterBell
I've been Pugged!
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2002
- Messages
- 785
Oh boy - with all of these comments about PC, I absolutely have to make a drive by in June just to see what everyone's talking about.
I don't see the problem with "affordable" hotels on Disney Property - This will make 4 of the "Value" hotels on site now -- Just about catching up with the #s of the other types of resorts on site, Moderate, Deluxe or HAFH... Just as long as Disney keeps it balanced, then I find no reason to be upset - Sure, we have the fundage to stay at the GF now, but who knows what'll happen in the next few years with the economy the way it is... This way I'll know that I can always stay SOMEWHERE on property... My (future) children won't know the difference - they'll be on Disney Property. Yahoo for them.
I just don't want to see every possibly developable acre on property get turned into some type of attraction.
I don't see the problem with "affordable" hotels on Disney Property - This will make 4 of the "Value" hotels on site now -- Just about catching up with the #s of the other types of resorts on site, Moderate, Deluxe or HAFH... Just as long as Disney keeps it balanced, then I find no reason to be upset - Sure, we have the fundage to stay at the GF now, but who knows what'll happen in the next few years with the economy the way it is... This way I'll know that I can always stay SOMEWHERE on property... My (future) children won't know the difference - they'll be on Disney Property. Yahoo for them.
I just don't want to see every possibly developable acre on property get turned into some type of attraction.
All Aboard
Por favor mantengan se alejado de las puertas
- Joined
- Oct 21, 1999
- Messages
- 2,602
So I said I was out of this thread, my can't I just stick to my convictions?
Seems we are arguing multiple things here.
1) Pop Century is
a) ugly
b) not ugly
2) Value resorts:
a) are a reduction of quality that is inconsistent with what "I" think Disney is.
b) are fine with me, fills a nice need for many.
Others go to the next level and believe:
3) The presence reduces my overall experience at WDW for whatever reason.
For clarification of my points:
1. Pop Century is ugly, the All Stars are not.
2. I am thankful for the presence of Value resorts.
3. I didn't call you a snob. And, yes, you are saying this.
Seems we are arguing multiple things here.
1) Pop Century is
a) ugly
b) not ugly
2) Value resorts:
a) are a reduction of quality that is inconsistent with what "I" think Disney is.
b) are fine with me, fills a nice need for many.
Others go to the next level and believe:
3) The presence reduces my overall experience at WDW for whatever reason.
For clarification of my points:
1. Pop Century is ugly, the All Stars are not.
2. I am thankful for the presence of Value resorts.
3. I didn't call you a snob. And, yes, you are saying this.
Peter Pirate
Its not the end of civilization...But you can see
- Joined
- Dec 19, 1999
- Messages
- 2,656
Lesley, I wasn't trying to be insulting...Well, not to you anyway. Now, Landbaron, thats another matter!
Anyway, I apologize for the insensitive remarks that I've made...And the upcoming ones, as well...
With regard to Pop, you all seem to be appointing yourself the judge of 'good taste' and while I agree with airlarry that there will be a number of people staying at Pop simply to save money, I disagree that there will not be loads of people that will find this place 'fun'. Remember bowling, Nascar & WWF are very big in this country.
AV, thanks fort the update on the land issue. I was sure they weren't in danger of running out of buildable property anytime soon. But could you please lead me towards information on those huge environmental fines you mentioned. I don't believe that is correct, but if so I want to know about it...
As to WDW's landscaping abilities, this should be evident in all that they've done. AKL does have a couple of screening issues but the foilage is in place and will shortly grow in. I don't know the degree of 'hiding' necessary between CBR & PC, but I'm sure it's coming.
Lastly, airlarry, IMO Eisner figured out what Walt knew & wasn't alive long enough to institute. I don't for one minute think Walt's (considered) altruistic values were, in fact altruistic. Walt was pioneering, developing what had never before been developed, doing what had never before been done & taking great risks with what was mostly his families personal fortune (good for us that he did). Current Disney doesn't, won't or most likely can't do the same. I'm not saying Eisner is the best thing since sliced bread, but Disney is still going today, all these years after Walt's death. Maybe things are wobbling a little, maybe it's just a cyclical thing, but to intimate that the building of Pop Century in any way signals how Disney is non-responsive to guests needs in incredulous, IMO...
Anyway, I apologize for the insensitive remarks that I've made...And the upcoming ones, as well...With regard to Pop, you all seem to be appointing yourself the judge of 'good taste' and while I agree with airlarry that there will be a number of people staying at Pop simply to save money, I disagree that there will not be loads of people that will find this place 'fun'. Remember bowling, Nascar & WWF are very big in this country.
AV, thanks fort the update on the land issue. I was sure they weren't in danger of running out of buildable property anytime soon. But could you please lead me towards information on those huge environmental fines you mentioned. I don't believe that is correct, but if so I want to know about it...
As to WDW's landscaping abilities, this should be evident in all that they've done. AKL does have a couple of screening issues but the foilage is in place and will shortly grow in. I don't know the degree of 'hiding' necessary between CBR & PC, but I'm sure it's coming.
Lastly, airlarry, IMO Eisner figured out what Walt knew & wasn't alive long enough to institute. I don't for one minute think Walt's (considered) altruistic values were, in fact altruistic. Walt was pioneering, developing what had never before been developed, doing what had never before been done & taking great risks with what was mostly his families personal fortune (good for us that he did). Current Disney doesn't, won't or most likely can't do the same. I'm not saying Eisner is the best thing since sliced bread, but Disney is still going today, all these years after Walt's death. Maybe things are wobbling a little, maybe it's just a cyclical thing, but to intimate that the building of Pop Century in any way signals how Disney is non-responsive to guests needs in incredulous, IMO...
More Pages of this and we still haven't gotten any farther then we did a year ago. Heck, at least the board is busy again.
I found it interesting that a large protion of the people I talked to on the Cruise that had been at the world stayed at the Deluxe hotels, a few at the moderates, many at the Swan Dolphin, nobody admitted to being at All-Stars.
I doubt that means anything, but I thought it interesting.
I found it interesting that a large protion of the people I talked to on the Cruise that had been at the world stayed at the Deluxe hotels, a few at the moderates, many at the Swan Dolphin, nobody admitted to being at All-Stars.
I doubt that means anything, but I thought it interesting.
JeffJewell
DIS Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2000
- Messages
- 534
Your quote marks indicate that you feel that an expectation of quality from Disney is a personal problem on my part. And at this point, I realize that pretty much sums up the collected opinion on this board.
I first make the excuse that it's not my fault: I came to expect high quality from Disney based on the fact that that was what Disney produced for decades. Even if I didn't personally care for a particular product, the care, attention to detail, and immersive storylines inherent to Disney's products were clearly head and shoulders above that of the competition.
It's Disney's own history that makes Disney's present so disappointing, and their foreseeable future so heartbreaking.
Disney captured me by making animated movies and theme parks that were simply better than everything else available. They don't make those things, anymore. It is not their intention to even try to make those things, anymore.
Jeff
Another Voice
Charter Member of The Element
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2000
- Messages
- 3,191
Walts interests were first and foremost for the project. Money was only useful for what it let Walt create. He was willing to spend, and he was willing to charge. Yes, Walt did put a lot of his personal money into Disneyland. 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea was the most expensive movie that had ever been made up until that point. Disneyland was considered an expensive ticket for its day. Hes even quoted as saying that he knew it was expensive, but that quality costs and people would be willing to accept that. Walt was interested in making a good film, a good park and a good attraction. He knew that if the quality was there, the returns were likely to follow.
Today, the exact opposite is the corporate rule. The product is second to the financial returns. Pop Century was not built because it was a good idea. It was not built because it would give Magic ® to the masses. It wasnt built because it was truly needed. It was built only to separate people from their cash with the least possible effort. The place is a cheap way of turning the brand equity of the Disney name into more stock options for Burbank.
The defense of Pop Century seems to be a certain class of people should sacrifice their vacation to save a buck (as long as they can get WWF on the TV in their hotel room). What an aspiration for The Company to shoot for were just good enough for the price. The better challenge would have been to provide a unique and quality experience for the same cost. That is a worthy goal, one that the company under Eisner wont take on.
As for the fines, the three big cases concern the destruction of wetlands using bulldozers (they simply buried the animals alive, including endangered tortoises), the poisoning and shooting of birds on the now closed Discovery Island (there were criminal charges filed in these case as well), and the improper storage of hazardous chemicals which spilled into federally protected wetlands (trailers in the middle of swamp dont hold corrosives all that well). There are several other cases which I can dig up when the time is available. Lets just say that a lot of the environmentally stuff you see around property isnt done because the company wants to do it.
Lastly on the landscaping abilities at WDW; I remember a while ago standing near the China pavilion with some WED people watching construction cranes in the distance. They were talking about what to do with the Bird and Fish projects that were under construction and how to best approach Corporate. They wanted a fix, a visual barrier of some sort. There was talk of trees, there was talk of giant backdrop, there was talk of another building (better themed to World Showcase). And there was a lot of talk about how they were certain that Corporate would understand that this kind of visual intrusion simply wasnt done Michael would definitely approve their budget request.
As far I know, theyre still talking.
Today, the exact opposite is the corporate rule. The product is second to the financial returns. Pop Century was not built because it was a good idea. It was not built because it would give Magic ® to the masses. It wasnt built because it was truly needed. It was built only to separate people from their cash with the least possible effort. The place is a cheap way of turning the brand equity of the Disney name into more stock options for Burbank.
The defense of Pop Century seems to be a certain class of people should sacrifice their vacation to save a buck (as long as they can get WWF on the TV in their hotel room). What an aspiration for The Company to shoot for were just good enough for the price. The better challenge would have been to provide a unique and quality experience for the same cost. That is a worthy goal, one that the company under Eisner wont take on.
As for the fines, the three big cases concern the destruction of wetlands using bulldozers (they simply buried the animals alive, including endangered tortoises), the poisoning and shooting of birds on the now closed Discovery Island (there were criminal charges filed in these case as well), and the improper storage of hazardous chemicals which spilled into federally protected wetlands (trailers in the middle of swamp dont hold corrosives all that well). There are several other cases which I can dig up when the time is available. Lets just say that a lot of the environmentally stuff you see around property isnt done because the company wants to do it.
Lastly on the landscaping abilities at WDW; I remember a while ago standing near the China pavilion with some WED people watching construction cranes in the distance. They were talking about what to do with the Bird and Fish projects that were under construction and how to best approach Corporate. They wanted a fix, a visual barrier of some sort. There was talk of trees, there was talk of giant backdrop, there was talk of another building (better themed to World Showcase). And there was a lot of talk about how they were certain that Corporate would understand that this kind of visual intrusion simply wasnt done Michael would definitely approve their budget request.
As far I know, theyre still talking.
All Aboard
Por favor mantengan se alejado de las puertas
- Joined
- Oct 21, 1999
- Messages
- 2,602
JJ, that was a collective "I" not pointed at you. In fact, I don't think I realized you had a post in this thread. But true, we've all gone 'round and 'round on our definition of quality.
Many believe that anything short of deluxe is no-go for WDW. I believe that value (done right - which I believe the All Stars are) fits perfectly within "my" definition of Disney quality.
I am as much an "I" as you are an "I".
YoHo, hmmm an expensive Disney Cruise, everybody on board stays at Deluxes... I don't get it either.
Many believe that anything short of deluxe is no-go for WDW. I believe that value (done right - which I believe the All Stars are) fits perfectly within "my" definition of Disney quality.
I am as much an "I" as you are an "I".
YoHo, hmmm an expensive Disney Cruise, everybody on board stays at Deluxes... I don't get it either.
All Aboard
Por favor mantengan se alejado de las puertas
- Joined
- Oct 21, 1999
- Messages
- 2,602
AV, with all due respect, I think you're off base.
I'll never sway the opinions of anyone on this board that doesn't care for them. Clearly, I'll never budge the folks that have a disdain for them. So, I won't bore you with all of the reasons why they are so much more "Disney" and so much higher in quality than the Motel 6's (or any other chain motel for that matter) that people so frequently compare them to. I bet I could come up with at least 100 reasons.
I'm beating my head against a wall, I know it. Perhaps it's because it seems that the folks who criticize the Value resorts seem to also be criticizing the people that stay in them. Equating "bad taste" and "class of people."
When I stay at the All Stars I'm sacrificing NOTHING. To the contrary, I get to have an extremely enjoyable stay at a resort in Walt Disney World. Thus eliminating the sacrificing act of having to stay in some dirty, disgusting joint on US 192 (and not really save much money in comparison to boot.)
I'll never sway the opinions of anyone on this board that doesn't care for them. Clearly, I'll never budge the folks that have a disdain for them. So, I won't bore you with all of the reasons why they are so much more "Disney" and so much higher in quality than the Motel 6's (or any other chain motel for that matter) that people so frequently compare them to. I bet I could come up with at least 100 reasons.
I'm beating my head against a wall, I know it. Perhaps it's because it seems that the folks who criticize the Value resorts seem to also be criticizing the people that stay in them. Equating "bad taste" and "class of people."
airlarry!
Did you know some ferns date back to Prehistoric t
- Joined
- May 30, 2000
- Messages
- 959
Gcurling:
Hmm...I thought the argument was leaning away from the "Value Resorts De-value MY Disney vacation" to "Value Resorts should be value in price only...not in quality!"
At least that was the point I was making. Whether I personally care for the theme and decoration of All-star or not is not the point...the point is whether or not Disney could have done a better job of it.
Now when it comes to the PC resort...sigh...I am still waiting for the first person to come up and defend the concept. I've seen it, I've read about it from its inception, and I just can't figure it out. It seems in poor taste. It doesn't have that "Adventure" that LandBaron IMHO succintly stated is what we should all expect from a Disney resort. It doesn't have the connectivity to the parks that AKL or Carribean or Dixie Landings/PO have (AK, Adventureland, and Splash Mountain in shorthand).
In fact, it seems like Burbank was so happy that the great unwashed masses (which I repeat, includes myself a veteran of two tours with All-Star Music) would fill up the AS resorts, that they congratulated themselves, and then set themselves on the worthy goal of getting away with even less of Disney Magic/Adventure/Quality in the PC phase.
Come on, does anybody really believe that the Motelineers really used 100% of their creative juices and hit a home run (and any other mixed metaphor I can think of) with this one? Hey suits in Burbank...is the design and implementation of the PC concept (and even the AS concept) really the best you could do for that price? I just don't believe it. In five minutes, I bet I could think up 10 different hotel concepts that would be better suited to Disney, and I'm not even an architect or engineer. Just a Disney fan. I don't think the people who designed these hotels were fans.
Hmm...I thought the argument was leaning away from the "Value Resorts De-value MY Disney vacation" to "Value Resorts should be value in price only...not in quality!"
At least that was the point I was making. Whether I personally care for the theme and decoration of All-star or not is not the point...the point is whether or not Disney could have done a better job of it.
Now when it comes to the PC resort...sigh...I am still waiting for the first person to come up and defend the concept. I've seen it, I've read about it from its inception, and I just can't figure it out. It seems in poor taste. It doesn't have that "Adventure" that LandBaron IMHO succintly stated is what we should all expect from a Disney resort. It doesn't have the connectivity to the parks that AKL or Carribean or Dixie Landings/PO have (AK, Adventureland, and Splash Mountain in shorthand).
In fact, it seems like Burbank was so happy that the great unwashed masses (which I repeat, includes myself a veteran of two tours with All-Star Music) would fill up the AS resorts, that they congratulated themselves, and then set themselves on the worthy goal of getting away with even less of Disney Magic/Adventure/Quality in the PC phase.
Come on, does anybody really believe that the Motelineers really used 100% of their creative juices and hit a home run (and any other mixed metaphor I can think of) with this one? Hey suits in Burbank...is the design and implementation of the PC concept (and even the AS concept) really the best you could do for that price? I just don't believe it. In five minutes, I bet I could think up 10 different hotel concepts that would be better suited to Disney, and I'm not even an architect or engineer. Just a Disney fan. I don't think the people who designed these hotels were fans.
JeffJewell
DIS Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2000
- Messages
- 534
...I was referencing the section:
...and familiarity with your previous posts on the topic had me assuming you would answer "b," not "a." The answer you gave in the original post, "I am thankful for the presence of Value resorts," also seems to confirm that you do not consider yourself an "I" in the situation as described.
The walls around here must be taking unprecedented damage, because that's precisely why I'm closing up shop.
I could say something similar about equating "appreciation of quality" and "snob."
To me, the bottom line in all this is as follows: If you grew to appreciate Disney based their heritage of high quality, then the Disney you know is dead. If you grew to appreciate Disney based on the fact that the All-Stars have a bigger saxophone icon than does the HIFS, then Disney's business plan will provide ample future opportunities to appreciate such marginal Magics. It may be frustrating to have a couple fringe dwellers on the 'net say things that make you feel criticized, but at least Disney is still making products for you.
The Value resorts (and cloned rides and off the shelf rides and direct-to-video sequels) hurt me not because I'm forced to think about the unwashed heathen wallowing therein, but because each instance represents Disney choosing to turn their back on the type of quality products that made the company in the first place.
Back when I started on the boards, I hoped to get people energized about demanding more from Disney; that Disney live up to the company's unparalleled reputation. I was afraid, you see, that if Disney didn't get feedback that the lower quality was affecting satisfaction, they might decide to forego quality altogether, as a business plan.
Greg, as to the question in your PM, no, absolutely not, I did not feel as though you were targetting me personally with the "I" bit. And once again, looking over my own post, there's actually more in _my_ post than yours that could come across as being an "attack" when none was intended. I'm not skipping out because of "personal attacks"... I'm skipping out because the game's over. Quality is no longer budgetted for at Disney. The business plan is set: cheaper is better, and if we accidentally end up with a decent story, well, that probably won't hurt sales any.
I originally came here to try and muster voices that would cry out to Disney to reaffirm its commitment to its high quality tradition. There are now two truths in evidence regarding my intent: A) it ain't gonna happen while Eisner's in charge, and B) it seems I'm one of about five people who actually care about the difference.
So what's the point?
Jeff
All Aboard
Por favor mantengan se alejado de las puertas
- Joined
- Oct 21, 1999
- Messages
- 2,602
I'm sorry. Seems I've done more damage than good here.
For what it's worth, if anybody is in the minority opinion in this thread, it's me. If I could name 5 people on the Rumors boards that are fans of the All Stars I'd be suprised. Quite the opposite.
I grew up on WDW as well. I don't view AS as being done "on the cheap." Everyone can shake their heads in disbelief. I view them as affordable, value resorts that were plussed quite a bit. And that's what makes them so much better than non-Disney resorts.
Why have dalmation spotted shrubbery? Why have flickering gas lamps in Jazz? Why have authentic road signs and street material in broadway? Why have the dancing waters at Herbie? Why have the entire baseball field laid out for the pool at Home Run? Why have Mickey summoning the water at Fantasia pool? Why design the food court to look like box offices? Why include the magic popcorn box lights? Why have any of this? If you want to make it cheap, just make it like Days Inn. Make it a plain old hotel with nothing unique, nothing special, nothing memorable. Nothing to want to take photos with, nothing to have the kids flocking to. The Contemporary Garden Wings serve that purpose perfectly.
With that, I quit this thread. I promise.
For what it's worth, if anybody is in the minority opinion in this thread, it's me. If I could name 5 people on the Rumors boards that are fans of the All Stars I'd be suprised. Quite the opposite.
I grew up on WDW as well. I don't view AS as being done "on the cheap." Everyone can shake their heads in disbelief. I view them as affordable, value resorts that were plussed quite a bit. And that's what makes them so much better than non-Disney resorts.
Why have dalmation spotted shrubbery? Why have flickering gas lamps in Jazz? Why have authentic road signs and street material in broadway? Why have the dancing waters at Herbie? Why have the entire baseball field laid out for the pool at Home Run? Why have Mickey summoning the water at Fantasia pool? Why design the food court to look like box offices? Why include the magic popcorn box lights? Why have any of this? If you want to make it cheap, just make it like Days Inn. Make it a plain old hotel with nothing unique, nothing special, nothing memorable. Nothing to want to take photos with, nothing to have the kids flocking to. The Contemporary Garden Wings serve that purpose perfectly.
With that, I quit this thread. I promise.
Just for the record....I didn't state that mere existance of value resorts lowers the quality of experience at WDW in general. Perhaps my phrasing was confusing. I meant that the existance of a gigantic eyesore urging me to "do the funky chicken" that is visible from other places lowers the quality of experience. I'll admit I'd have a similar problem with the All-Stars if the were highly visible from..hmmm, lets say CS. And I don't even think the AS are ugly! Not to my taste maybe...but not offensive just by their existance.
As far as value resorts...when there were WDW resort guest perks like EE they could be effected by the sheer #'s of guests the value resorts bring in. But that is not an issue with the resorts being "value" its an issue with the size of the resorts. I know there will come a day when I'm thrilled that I can get a room for under $100 on property...its really not a "value" vs. "deluxe" or even "moderate" thing. And I still think they could do much better with actually providing themeing in a value resort....but then that goes into the whole quality/motivation thing that is covered by others much more thoroughly and convincingly than I can manage. (As AV and JJ just did...sorry if I'm missing anyone else!)
As far as value resorts...when there were WDW resort guest perks like EE they could be effected by the sheer #'s of guests the value resorts bring in. But that is not an issue with the resorts being "value" its an issue with the size of the resorts. I know there will come a day when I'm thrilled that I can get a room for under $100 on property...its really not a "value" vs. "deluxe" or even "moderate" thing. And I still think they could do much better with actually providing themeing in a value resort....but then that goes into the whole quality/motivation thing that is covered by others much more thoroughly and convincingly than I can manage. (As AV and JJ just did...sorry if I'm missing anyone else!)
DVC-Landbaron
What Would Walt Do?
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2000
- Messages
- 1,861
For the most part I've been sitting on the sidelines (doing a bit of cheerleading) but staying out of the main conversation on this one. For two reasons. First I need a break from the boards. It is very consuming at times. And second, anyone who's been here any length of time knows where I stand on the issues and Mr. Voice (can we refer to him as Sir Voice?) and Mr. Larry (is that the proper form for his name?) have done a remarkable job of saying EXACTLY what I want to say. And they do it with way less quotes and way less words than I do. But, because I'm sitting on the sidelines I've noticed, as Greg alluded to, that the two opposing camps are talking around the issue, circling, yet never quite zeroing in on it. I believe he used the phrase "arguing multiple things". So
Let me try to ignore some of the rhetoric and instead choose a few things that may narrow the focus a bit.
Gcurling says:
And for the answer I think we have to turn to Walt. After all, he invented the "standard" It is his philosophy I'm always on about. So let's turn to AV for a moment. He says:
Airlarry said the same but also points out how opposite Ei$ner's philosophy is:
So I'll try one more time. Again Sir Gcurling gets the nod from my quote machine (sorry Captain, you just gotta try harder):
All are true. Yet none are true. Looked at individually they are all part of the reason, yet none, even collectively, tell even half of the story. And it's such a simple story. Summed up in one word. Philosophy! Or if you like more words "Disney Standards". Simple. And all those 'becauses' up there speak to the central issue of where to draw the line. What is and what is not acceptable. For Disney. Not for Universal. Not for Knotts Berry Farm. Not for Marriott. And not for Motel 6. And even not for personal use for anyone on this board. We're not talking how you decorate a kids birthday party or your Mickey Mouse bathroom. We're talking about what Standards to apply to WDW.
I think this concept is pivotal to the argument. Instead we talk about likes and dislikes. Snobs and money. When we should be talking about the central theme of the Walt philosophy and how far in the dust PC has left that philosophy. Which is why the very existence, even if I never set eyes on them, makes me kinda sad.
Well, well, well! Having written all of the above, I was about to post it when one final checked with the thread revealed that JJ had checked in.
Hmmm. Instead I spend most of my free time arguing minutia (with a Pirate more often than not). Things, that I find glaringly apparent and can't for the life of me figure out how everyone can't agree, on a Disney site where I am clearly outnumbered! Not quite what I had in mind either!! Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh well! Time to check the other threads!!!
Let me try to ignore some of the rhetoric and instead choose a few things that may narrow the focus a bit.
Gcurling says:
I think this is as good a starting point as any. "NOTHING" compared to what? Compared to staying outside WDW in a motel six? Compared to the Poly? Compared to a tent in a KOA in Winter Garden? I think it is very important to quantify the comparison. And again it boils down to what "Disney Standards" really are. It is this "theme" (pardon the pun) that runs through the core of all the great threads on this board.
And for the answer I think we have to turn to Walt. After all, he invented the "standard" It is his philosophy I'm always on about. So let's turn to AV for a moment. He says:
The very principle that Disneyland was founded!!! The essence of the "Walt Philosophy"!! Go on. Re-read it again! It kinda makes you smile, doesn't it? For me its reminiscent of that Disney I knew when QUALITY was the watchword. And while expensive, not so far out of reach that only the "snobs" could afford it. Cost didn't matter. Profits didn't matter. Creativity mattered. And above all - (drum roll please) - QUALITY!!!
Airlarry said the same but also points out how opposite Ei$ner's philosophy is:
Ahhhh! Feel the tears welling up? He says: "I always felt that Disney was above this philosophy". So did I Larry. So did I. But in today's philosophy, as you stated so well, we are dead wrong!!
So I'll try one more time. Again Sir Gcurling gets the nod from my quote machine (sorry Captain, you just gotta try harder
):
You are right, Greg. I have a disdain for them. In fact, I HATE them. But not for the reasons many would think. I've heard it said that we hate them because they are cheap. Because they are gaudy. Because they use primary colors. Because they have huge icons. Because they traded decorations for theme. Because we are snobs.
All are true. Yet none are true. Looked at individually they are all part of the reason, yet none, even collectively, tell even half of the story. And it's such a simple story. Summed up in one word. Philosophy! Or if you like more words "Disney Standards". Simple. And all those 'becauses' up there speak to the central issue of where to draw the line. What is and what is not acceptable. For Disney. Not for Universal. Not for Knotts Berry Farm. Not for Marriott. And not for Motel 6. And even not for personal use for anyone on this board. We're not talking how you decorate a kids birthday party or your Mickey Mouse bathroom. We're talking about what Standards to apply to WDW.
I think this concept is pivotal to the argument. Instead we talk about likes and dislikes. Snobs and money. When we should be talking about the central theme of the Walt philosophy and how far in the dust PC has left that philosophy. Which is why the very existence, even if I never set eyes on them, makes me kinda sad.
Well, well, well! Having written all of the above, I was about to post it when one final checked with the thread revealed that JJ had checked in.
BROTHER I FEEL YOUR PAIN!!! Two or three years ago, in the middle of Main Street, decrying the shorter hours, I turned to my wife and said that I was going to check out some Disney web sites. Surely other fans could see the same terrible slip in quality as I have seen. We would rally the troops (bugle charge, played under) and stop the insanity!!!
Hmmm. Instead I spend most of my free time arguing minutia (with a Pirate more often than not). Things, that I find glaringly apparent and can't for the life of me figure out how everyone can't agree, on a Disney site where I am clearly outnumbered! Not quite what I had in mind either!! Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh well! Time to check the other threads!!!
Share this page
-
The Allure of Disney Freedom
-
New Year's Eve Treats Coming to Disneyland & Disney World
-
GROOVY Exclusive Merchandise from Disney's Pop Century Resort
-
Get 10% Off & a FREE Accessory with Your Scooter, Stroller, or Wheelchair Rental!
-
Why Did Walt Buy So Much Land in Florida if Disney Won't Use It?
-
Vintage Disney Shopping: Chloe's Treasure Thursday
Free Vacation Planning!
Dreams Unlimited Travel is here to help you plan your ideal Disney vacation, with no additional cost to you. Our Authorized Disney Vacation Planners offer expert advice, answer all your questions, and constantly seek out the best discounts, ensuring you get the most value for your trip. Let us handle the details so you can focus on making magical memories.
CLICK HERE
