Do the funky chicken?

[raidermatt]

Pirate- Thank you for the most insightful comment of the thread!

Baron-

It is most definitely defined by Disney! Not the guest! The guest can choose to accept what Disney offers or reject it, but the concept is dictated by Disney.

This is only valid to a certain point. Yes, Disney offers the overall concept of Magic. And if most or all of it is lost on the guest, so be it. But nobody is the same, and there are different aspects to the Magic that appeal to each of us. Just taking MK/DL as an example, that's why some of us are captivated by Peter Pan, others by Space Mountain, others by Dumbo, or Spectro, or MSEP, or Main Street, or any combination of those things and many others. There are very few who find EVERYTHING in DL/MK to be a magical experience (I guess we are the lucky ones!). The same is true of a resort.

WRONG!!! Or I am truly an anomaly. I drive everywhere I can when in Disney. The transportation options are still very important to me.

In all honesty, I would guess you are an anomaly in this case (there are worse things to be) . I understand the idea that just because we don't use something doesn't mean we would say "no" when asked if we want it on a survey. However, I just don't think there are very many who lose Magic because of things that have little/no direct effect on them. Besides, AS being on the grounds does not stop the launches or the Monorail. They are still there and available for those of us who care.

quote:

But catering that Magic to the individual is a wise decision.


I disagree. But that is a business discussion and I have been talking
philosophy.

From my perspective, its a philosophy that results in good business.

 

[JeffJewell]

Greg...

Even if I didn't like the All Stars, I don't think I'd see them as a disturbing trend.

...I just don't give the current decision-makers as much credit as you're willing to. And, I believe the financial success of the only-occasionally-Disney-oriented iconic theming of the All-Stars did lead logically (in some sick mind) to the anything-from-the-last-100-years-oriented iconic theming of the Pop Century.
'Scoop...

From the research I've read, the financial problems of the mid to late 70s was the result of the practices from the 60s

I'll not go much further down this road... for a variety of reasons... but my overall impression of the time was that Ron and Card's near paralyzation, likely due to feeling Walt's shadow over them, when it came to pursuing certain methods of building the business, caused the business to languish in most areas. Everyone mentions Walt's "never miss an angle" quote, and we argue over how to tell the difference between an angle and a cut corner: I think Walker and Miller missed a lot of angles, because of this same confusion.

there was no big payoff in the end. Just a business model which, after its charismatic leader passed, could not longer sustain itself

The big payoff was the loyalty of the customers over what would become generations... again, I see the problem at the time being creative constipation throughout the company. I'd like to go ahead and throw the agree-to-disagree flag, on this one, I think.

I believe that the pillars may again need to be reworked. Can the current regime realize this like it did in the early 80s? Hopefully

I think the resurgence of block-buster feature animation was the foundation upon which the late 80's/early 90's success was built. The current regime fired those guys.
'Baron...

Sorry JJ, but it doesn't have to have a monorail. However, it MUST offer some sort of "alternative" transportation.

This thread has comes an awful long way from the post where I actually said the WL (and the remaining Boardwalk area resorts that didn't clearly qualify) _does_ qualify, although just barely. I also consider "some" alternative transportation a minimum, and one method to one park is about as minimal as you can get, thus, WL "barely" qualifies.
Another Voice...

Disney “magic” is when you say to yourself, “I didn’t think a place like this could really exist”.

Heavens, I wish I'd said that.

Jeff

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Just taking MK/DL as an example, that's why some of us are captivated by Peter Pan, others by Space Mountain, others by Dumbo, or Spectro, or MSEP, or Main Street, or any combination of those things and many others. There are very few who find EVERYTHING in DL/MK to be a magical experience (I guess we are the lucky ones!). The same is true of a resort.

Very true!!! Some are very magical (almost universally accepted). Some are… well… very subjective. And others are universally failed attempts. Gallant attempts, but failed (hey not everyone can be a winner). But (until the recent glut of rotten concepts) Disney Standards were oozing from every attraction. They didn’t dumb down the experience and open a ‘cheaper” park to let in the huddled masses.

Now you may personally be captivated by the magic(?) exhibited by AS, but I think you’ll admit that it is somewhat less an experience than is offered at the Poly. And to me that ain’t right!! But hey! I think I’m going to hang on this alone!! It won’t be the first time.

However, I just don't think there are very many who lose Magic because of things that have little/no direct effect on them. Besides, AS being on the grounds does not stop the launches or the Monorail.

Yes AS being on the grounds certainly does have the potential to do just that. It blurs the concept. It substantially lowers the bar. It helps create a “good enough” attitude as opposed to an “exceeding expectations” thought process. Quite simply it obliterates the Standard. And most importantly it redefines Walt’s philosophy. Something I really didn’t think needed redefining. Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe we should have tinkered with it, but somehow it just feels wrong to me.

It leads to spinning rides (good enough). Midway games (good enough). No EE (good enough). No monorail to “deluxe” resorts (good enough). Sequels to the classics (good enough). The new Disney Stores (good enough). Shorter summer hours (good enough). And last but not least – Good old – PC (just barely good enough).

Each time they seem to lower the bar, move the line, what ever you may want to call it. Until they actually get people believing that a fifty foot bowling pin is a unique Disney experience. Hmmm. In comparison AS isn’t so bad after all.

HEY!! Maybe that was the intent!!

From my perspective, its a philosophy that results in good business.

Again, I disagree. Apparently so did Walt!

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

... causes two in a row posts!!!

Scoop!!!

I have an answer for you about Walt's terrible mismanagement of the Disney Corporation!!

Ready? Here it is!!!

Ditto relevant parts of AV and JJ's post.

Thanks guys!!

 

[Peter Pirate]

Landbaron, there you go again...

Until they actually get people believing that a fifty foot bowling pin is a unique Disney experience.

Praytell, where else do you see 50 ft. bowling pins? Seems unique to me...

And again, what makes you (us) the arbitor of good taste and the guardians of Walt's wishes?

Disney is the Company that is symbolized by a talking mouse; Disney, a Company and a man, who were always self serving and egocentric before any talk of altruism was ever bandied about (certainly he wasn't viewed as a saint while he was living). Disney who gave us that ultimate classic attraction Jungle Cruise that is the epitome of 'cheesy' - Don't get me wrong it's mouse cheese & I visit JC every single trip, but face it, it is hokey now and has been hokey since my very first visit. But you're telling me that a Resort can't possibly contain any Disney magic because it was developed by someone you feel has no taste? Because it doesn't contain all of the amenities of a deluxe, forget the fact that perhaps many of the people taking advantage of a budget hotel wouldn't know how / or would prefer not to deal with deluxe formalities. I have never stayed at a Ritz-Carlton & know I wouldn't be very comfortable doing so. A Marriot works fine for me. A few years ago a Holiday Inn worked fine for me, before that a Days Inn. There is no crime in different structures being offered under the same umbrella. There will always be certain similarities such as the CM's themselves, transportation (like it or not) and mere locality, to name a few. At AKL I look out the window and see Animals, Disney Magic at its best but for $200 less per night I can bet there are many families that see AS as truly magical, as well. That's why the S/D are truly magical for me. They have always given me great rates, deluxe service, right smack dab in the middle of all things Disney. Not a Disey hotel? Preach it to the chior. It's a Disney Hotel to my family and many, many more.

See, I don't get it. If people visit AS & PC and go home raving about their WDW vacation then it's magic whether it fits your definition or not.

 

[airlarry!]

--brief aside to quickly respond---Oh, Scoop, you do make good points in your last post. My only answer? Not even Walt perfected perfection....he did put his trousers on one leg at a time, don't fight the hypothet counselor, yada yada yada.

And as for Fort Wilderness and River Country, I remember when they were built, or right after, and reading Boys Life articles about how the imagineers wanted to build a swimmin' hole and a campground for all those people who have never experienced that. I grew up around places like this, but how many people in Chicago have?--back to post.

I have been 'counting the noses.' I'll paraphrase Justice Stevens when I point out the winner, IMHO. "I can't define good Disney theming, but I know it when I see it."

AV's nose wins.

1. 'Screevers of the highest degree' brought us The Contemp, DxL, Poly etc...because they all have a story to tell us, and they all transport us into that painting.

AS does not. And Peter/Captain/Scoop, please admit that for the price of this hotel, the Disney artists should have designed a hotel with a story. You don't want the latest Six Flags ride to be plopped in the middle of the Lagoon, right? You want it themed with a story and a backstory. Rides get boring after a while, but Attractions are classic and cool. Hotels are boring, but DxL is cool.

There is something about Disney’s ability, when they put their minds to it, to make walking into a hotel feel like you’re walking into a movie. It’s the “realized ideal” found in Dixie Landings, Yacht & Beach, AK Lodge, and even the Contemporary (“the future come to life right here in 1975!”) that works.

2. Let's not define Disney just by amenities or service. AV has convinced me of that. The amenities should be part of the story. But still, AV, Jeff & I are right that Disney is cheating when they rely on these plain white buses. That's the easy way out.

3. I finally, finally, finally, see Baron's point about the GF. It's one of those flip flop arguments. On the one hand, GF doesn't fit the theme of the WDW resort...there's no attraction anywhere that it correlates to.

On the other hand, Sir Baron, it does have a story. And a backstory. And a theme, all beautifully carried out. And it does take you away into a beautiful painting.

But on the other hand, Sir Baron, you are correct, it was built not for the story, it was built to get that Holy Grail of a 5 star diamond or whatever it is from Michelin. And that's not what Walt would do. He would try to build the best for customer satisfaction, not for some publication's satisfaction. Please insert one of your famous Walt quotes here that is appropro.

I just think that your point may be quibbling a bit. The GF is beautiful, it has a theme, it has a story, it is well done and well maintained...and its too late to get them to tie it into the parks--which I still say was a major mess-up by you-know-who.

4. What other hotels flunk/pass? The AV-Baron test, the BAVometer, definitely flunk the Dolphin and the Swan. Not only is there no theme, they were built just for the sake of creating alleged architectural art, and interfere with the EPCOT theming. Doublewhammy!

I think the BAVometer lights up when it passes by the All-Star and the PC too. What movie is this from, Stuart Little Goes to Woodstock? Honey I Shrunk the Musicians? Field of Big, Gigantic, and Humongous Dreams?

Personally, I think The BAVometer hums a bit when it floats by the WL and safaris past the AKL. I'm positive it is quiet by the Poly and Contemp (what is with the people that don't understand the original themed concept of the Contemp?). Talk about it amonst yourselves.

 

[JeffJewell]

how do these extremely mundane creatures of a regime long gone escape your derision and spite

...we've posted often about the difference between painting off-the-shelf sideshow stuff when you're trying desperately to open your new park without capital, and doing the same thing as SOP when you're making multi-billion dollar acquisitions; there're also some cases of things that were genuinely cool in the early seventies that have bafflingly lost their appeal in the intervening decades; the Golf Resort was a deliberately unthemed WDW resort, and was not a particularly successful one (a lesson to be learned?); and, honestly, I believe I have mentioned a distaste for the arcade/t-shirt store, before.

What do you stand in Fort Wilderness and say...

I've spent time in RV parks throughout this great land of ours (really. You can read about it, if you want: http://www.jjewell.com/j98NAT1.html Warning: I'm not exactly Mr Rogers here on the boards, but I get downright potty-mouthed on a few of the Tour updates), and let me tell you that Fort Wilderness is a really nice RV park. Anyone concerned that not enough of the unwashed masses can stay on-site at Disney would be a big FW fan, I'd think.

why has no other entrepenuer or company picked up the ball which some claim Disney has fumbled

We've had this discussion before, too. There are other companies making it in different fields by having higher quality than everyone else. Pixar and Lucasfilm are the two that typically get mentioned quickest. Oriental Land Company seems to have found an audience.

Why has no one picked up the high quality amusement park ball? Because no individual who cares is a position to do anything about it, and it's not enough of a cash cow for some big company to hand over a check to someone who does care. Just as some (many? most?) customers don't mind reductions in quality, if it costs a bit less, some (many? most?) executives don't mind reductions in quality, if it increases margins a bit more.

Jeff

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

How’s that title for showing my age!!!!

Praytell, where else do you see 50 ft. bowling pins? Seems unique to me...

Cap… Peter!!! I actually laughed out loud! Congratulations!! It is, by far, the most outrageous sentence within this thread!!

And again, what makes you (us) the arbitor of good taste and the guardians of Walt's wishes?

I’m not. Walt was. Do you really think he would have built PC?

But you're telling me that a Resort can't possibly contain any Disney magic because it was developed by someone you feel has no taste?

Taste has nothing to do with it (for the millionth time!!) Taste is nothing. The Disney Standard is everything!! Please Peter!! Start reading some of the posts!! JJ, AV, Sir Larry and I have said the same thing (in our own styles) over and over and over and over….. For the last time. It is a matter of philosophy. NOT a matter of taste!!!!

Because it doesn't contain all of the amenities of a deluxe, forget the fact that perhaps many of the people taking advantage of a budget hotel wouldn't know how / or would prefer not to deal with deluxe formalities.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!! “Peter, Peter, Peter”, he said, half pleading, shaking his head in disbelief. PLEASE READ THE POSTS!!!! I specifically said that amenities don’t matter at all. And I think I pointed to AV’s section where he referred to movies. (but in all honesty I don’t remember. And I’m too tired and lazy to search through the thread to find it. Look it up. And read some of the posts along the way. Maybe you’ll accidentally catch the meaning.)

At AKL I look out the window and see Animals, Disney Magic at its best but for $200 less per night I can bet there are many families that see AS as truly magical,

What’s this!?!?! Price equaling magic?!?!? I thought they were mutually exclusive!?!? At least that’s what I inferred when I was bashed for attempting the same parallel a while back. Hmmm. I wonder who took me to task. Hmmm. Now don’t tell me. I’m thinking. OH! I’ve got it!! It was the Captain!!!

Chad my friend, this isn't easy and please don't take it personally:

What do you stand in Fort Wilderness and say...

"I didn't think a place like this could really exist! (what highly immersive llamas we have here)"

This little bit truly shows how little you understand the SHOW or Walt’s philosophy. You’re damn right I did!! Way back in 1972 I did!! And at the tender, young and very cynical age of 17. And last year when I spent two weeks there I said it again! It is one of the places within WDW that the greedy hand of Ei$ner hasn’t touched! It is very, very, very, very (this could go on a while), very, very, very, very up to Disney Standards! You bet it is!!!! Try it sometime. You might learn something!

Or did you stand at the doors of the Disney Golf Resort and say..."my gosh, this place just magically takes me far away to, Venice no...er..asia...actually....umm....it takes me away to a stinkin' GOLF RESORT" If that's the case, here's a tip...save the cash...go to destin!

Again, you have no idea what you are talking about!!!! Have you ever been there? Do you realize what the concept was in the first place? Or do you just assume that because it was cheaper it was a ‘moderate’ in design? Check out both the Golf Resort and Fort Wilderness and we’ll discuss it. Until then please don’t talk about something you don’t understand. It makes your other arguments sound equally as foolish!

Query: If whatt you describe as what once existed really could exist today...don't you think its a little odd that NOBODY, NADA, NO Company at all has done it for the last 25 years?

Naw. Not odd at all. It’s a golden goose. And history tells us that most people kill them. It takes a real special kind of guy not to. One that doesn’t really care about personal wealth and only uses money for his next dream! A guy like Walt!!!

 

[Planogirl]

May I interrupt this galloping thread with a question?

To those of you who have been to Disneyland, how does the Disneyland Hotel stack up to these standards? The hotel seems kind of mild-mannered in pictures at least. But since Walt had full input into this hotel, I was wondering what it was like.

Now, please don't pause on my account.

 

[Another Voice]

“…why has no other entrepreneur or company picked up the ball…”

Actually, the entire country has picked up the ball. Ever been to a “themed” shopping mall? How about those great “theme restaurants” (Rainforest, Planet Hollywood, others)? Ever pick up a copy of a home improvement magazine with the article about how to turn your living room into “an African safari wonderland”? The whole world is “themed” now, there’s no need for anyone to find another 43 square miles to build a themed resort when you can become the next themed hotel in Vegas and let someone else worry about the infrastructure. Sorry, but slapping fiberglass yo-yos on the side of a tilt wall concrete slab really isn’t innovative or magical these days.

Unless of course you believe that Disney’s Bowling Pins are “magical” while Putt Putt Golf’s Really Big Guy Holding a Golf Club isn’t. Must be the brand name. I think we have the real issue here. If Pop Century had been built on the other side of I-4 we would not hear single voice from the front car talk about it and “magic”, “lodging for the masses” or “people will enjoy it” in a positive way. Marriott’s Pop Century would have been derided with the same contempt and scorn these same people heap on hotels already there.

As for the Golf Resort – it was built intentionally as a “normal” hotel. Back in days before The Company became BUY PLUSH OR WE’LL KILL THIS PUPPY about its business, it was assumed that some people might not want a Disney experience. Maybe people just wanted a nice hotel. And it is possible to play a round of golf without once wanting to search for hidden mickeys. Most people, in fact, would consider this normal behavior.

Lastly, “what makes you (us) the arbiter of good taste and the guardians of Walt's wishes?” The answer, sir, is my pocketbook.

P.S. – 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.

 

[Peter Pirate]

I have a very busy day today so there can be no posting from me (ok, I hear the sighs of relief). But I will bow out of this thread by saying to my worthy foes, I totally understand your inability to see my POV. The circular nature of the argument makes focusing on one thing impossible & the readmittance of the same material in different perspective gets frustrating, to say the least. I know these things because I feel exactly the same way. Much as you all see common threads among your argumetnts, I understand scoop & raidermatt perfectly. I know my arguments seem repetitive & uninformed (alas, a doofus to most) but I choose not to move on to another area until one is complete & on this thread none are complete. I am often blamed for not reading threads and I have to say I claim the same.

Philosophy vs. taste? Oh landbaron please explain how these paths do not cross? The Disney Philosophy would guide the basic direction of any project...As in saying 'all Resorts must be themed in a manner to entertain, enlighten or amaze the guest'...Fair enough? PC is certainly trying to enertain. The fact that you don't find it entertaining makes it a taste issue. You basically disagree with the imagineers view for this project...That my friend, is subjectivity, & taste most certainly is the at the crux of your argument, unless you assume that a corporate mandate would be so specific to as directly dictate that 50 foot bowling pins should never be used .

Our analogies of accepted, yet poor or unthemed areas are right on the money but the response is no more than "oh yeah?" You cannot explain away accepted mediocrities as 'because they were Walt's' and then criticize another because it is Eisner's (and I know I'm injecting here). That is too transparant & totally illogical.

Thats it for me. I'm off to Miami for exciting high school tennis (nerve wracking for Dad's, eh larworth?) I'll hope to see this resolved by tomorrow! - Oh yeah, he's a funny guy!

 

[airlarry!]

I know Peter won't see this, but his point about disagreeing with the imagineers on the PC project would be a great one.

The fact that you don't find it entertaining makes it a taste issue. You basically disagree with the imagineers view for this project...

'Course, that would be if the imagineers actually participated in this project. AV, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this designed and implemented by the Hotelleers, not the Imagineers. Different division within the company, if I remember right.

Nice try, though.

 

[d-r]

...but this is just tangential, and I don't want to get into the bigger argument. I just had a couple of thoughts about the Grand Floridian. The GF is not my favorite hotel, and my wife and I have said to each other that we won't stay there again unless we have a child that really wants to. Not that it isn't a fine hotel, but because we would rather stay somewhere else around the lagoon (Polly/cont/wl) so that is what we would do instead of staying there.

Having said that, I think about the GF fitting in around the lagoon like this. When wdw first opened, there was polly, cont., and ft. wilderness. (An aside here. They had different price points and different experiences. I think that one could argue that ft. wilderness was the original value resort, but I don't care to. Actually, I think that it was geared to appeal to a different segment of vacationers - those who brought their rv to tool around Florida for a while, vs. those who wanted to stay in hotels. Similarly, the golf resort was opened to appeal to those who wanted a Florida vacation to play a few rounds of golf and maybe take in a theme park). But back to my point, which is why I think GF fits in around the lagoon. When it opened, the polly fit with adventureland, the contemporary with tomorrowland. It was made so that you could only see these resorts from that land, where they "Fit" with the theme. Ft. Wilderness, and then alter what seems to me as the "Wilderness Area" with the WL and WLV (which I see as the descendant of the "Wilderness Junction" idea) were frontierland. Personally, I think there is a lot of magic in ft. wilderness, you just have to get the whole Disney-Davie Crocket - frontierland thing. Now, what areas of MK does that leave? Main Street and Fantasyland. I'm not sure how the Venetian or Grecian or Asian would have fit in with those, but if you thing about it, Main Street is a nostalgic look back to the old days of an idealistic and romanticized vision of the victorian age. To me, if you take two parts Main Street, and throw in one part fantasy, what you get out of it is the Grand Floridian. GF fits with both main street and fantashyland (tea parties and princesses and other frufeenes). YMMV of course.

So I think that the GF does fit in with the lagoon and the links to MK, even if it isn't my personal favorite of the resorts around the lagoon. I've stayed there, and I've stayed at all stars, and personally I'd rather stay at another resort than either. But look around these boards or listen to people when you visit wdw, there are lots of people who have their own personal favorites and that is the only place they want to stay (and many of them are either GF or All Stars, for that matter. Other people only want to stay in Epcot area. Other's think that DxL is the only place to stay. Others always at s/d. etc. etc.). All for different reasons (and money isn't the only one). That is OK with me, I know what my favorites are. They are wl, which some people would never stay at because of the transportation or because it doesn't fit their midwestern sensibilitiies of "Florida," the Polly, which some people would never stay at because it looks to campy or 70's, contemporary, which some people would never stay at because it is just a concrete building without a theme, and boardwalk, which some people would never stay at because it is in the epcot area and so not a traditional wdw resort, and it is too loud and has neon and is for vacation club. For every resort at WDW you will find people who will tell you why it is the best, and other people who will tell ou that it is an abomination that they would never stay at. Magic is where you find it, and one man's junk is another man's genie lamp. It is all a matter of personal taste and perspective (and I'll admit, the PC thing violates mine, but so what. Someone will think it is great).

Actually, that is more than I wanted to say, and I'm not trying to argue about any of it. Please drive through.

DR

 

[JeffJewell]

Philosophy vs. taste? Oh landbaron please explain how these paths do not cross?

...one has to do with the approach of the creators when creating, the other has to do with the prejudices of those experiencing the creation. The two have relatively little to do with each other.

The All-Stars and Pop Century were built from the same budget-first, iconic theming plan. The only discernable difference lies in the decision of what icons to hang on the buildings. I am opposed to both resorts on the basis of the philosophy, Greg likes AS and does not like PC on the basis of liking and not liking what's on the buildings. Both are valid points of view, we're talking about two completely different aspects of the resorts: whether we think it's a good business direction versus whether we think it's good to stay there.

It's very possible to separate philosophy from taste: I like the approach they used when creating Tower of Terror, but I don't actually care for the ride experience, that much. On the other hand, I hate the approach they used when building Rock 'n' Roller Coaster, but I love riding it.

You cannot explain away accepted mediocrities as 'because they were Walt's' and then criticize another because it is Eisner's (and I know I'm injecting here). That is too transparant & totally illogical.

I'm tempted to quote from my post where I addressed this precise question from 'Scoop, but I certainly don't want to imply that you're not reading the thread...

First of all, Disney's resources in 1966 and in 2000 were two vastly different beasts. Talk about an illogical comparison. Secondly, blame Walt if you want, but he was too cremated to have fixed any of the stop-gaps he had to resort to when opening WDW. Finally, I find it a waste of time to ***** and moan about the relatively few thirty year old dead guy mistakes, whereas I feel complaining to _current_ management about _current_ business philosophies that are leading to a full plate of mistakes could possibly change something for the better. Or at least I felt that until recently.

No, not even Walt wasn't entirely happy with everything he put into Disney World. The difference is, it was in his philosophy to go back and improve on things, even though he didn't get the chance, in this case. Eisner's philosophy, as applauded by Peter Pirate, is to let those mistakes linger for decades, then use the worst examples from Disney's past as the measuring stick for Disney's future.

Jeff

 

[All Aboard]

I think you all can either thank me or darn me for making this place hop again!

Landbaron, I think the Golf Resort really breaks down your argument. Seems the only reason you believe it to qualify under the "Disney Standard" is because it's been there since your "glory days of WDW".

It's location is no better than the Wilderness Lodge. Neither are it's transportation options. But since WL was built during the Eisner regime, you don't think it's Disney Standard. I just don't see it any other way. Even if WL is a bad example. I can't possibly fathom how someone (despite how many times I re-read your posts) can call the Disney Inn "Magical" and the GF "not Magical."

I'd like to know how the original guests of the Golf Resort got to the Magic Kingdom. Did they walk over to the Poly and hop the monorail? Did they take a bus? Seems a very important element in your definition.

 

[Peter Pirate]

Jeff, I understand precisely the difference between philosophy and taste but landbaron claims philosophy and explains with taste. Even your definition gives creedence to this. If the philosophy is to 'create a resort that must be themed in a manner to entertain, enlighten and amaze' we can all understand & agree, right. Then to say PC is garrsh & themed poorly because of a 50 ft. bowling pin is taste - If there is no specific reference in the philosphical guidelines (& there wouldn't be), it is then up to management to determine what plan meets the criteria of being entertaining, enlightening or amazing. They choose Pop. You may not like it but it is a taste differencial. What do you say to the people who would never stay at the Poly because it's a crass, ideosyncratic, plastic view of what the real Polyenesia is? They're right you know. Even if, like me, you happen to like the resort...Is it taste or philosophy?

 

[KirstenB]

I don't view AS and Pop Century in the same light. Although the are both examples of the "icon" mode, as I understand it, at least AS has some Disney related theming, ie, Woody from Toy Story. I haven't been to AS, so please jump in if I'm wrong.

Pop Century doesn't appear to tie in with Disney at all. I don't think of Disney when I see bowling pins, or funky chicken imperatives. If there's no Disney tie in, why not just let it be a budget hotel? If one feels compelled to build giant icons, do some big Mickey hands and ears, and paint the place white, black and red.

Unlike other properties that don't have a Disney theme, ie Swan/Dolphin, the only niche that PC seems to fit is budget.

 

[JeffJewell]

'create a resort that must be themed in a manner to entertain, enlighten and amaze'

...that's not the philosophy I'm talking about. I described the mindset in question as the "budget-first, iconic theming plan," which I think is a bad philosophy with which to build a Disney resort. The Swan and Dolphin, although their theming has nothing to do with Disney and is not particularly preferred by some, were not built with that philosophy, and as a result do not appear to be Motel 6's with giant statues stapled to them.

Then to say PC is garrsh & themed poorly because of a 50 ft. bowling pin is taste

Right... that's the kind of taste based determination I attributed to Greg. I don't believe I personally have ever complained that the PC is garish, because there's no use trying to debate personal taste. I _have_ complained that it was built to be the cheap way out (just like the All-Stars), but that's based on the business philosophy... which, although we've not made much headway on it, I believe can be discussed and debated outside of the question of whether or not we like a hotel (and by the way, I think you misunderstood the 'Baron's bowling pin point [or are purposely using it incorrectly for your own nefarious ends], but I see KirstenB has already reiterated it).

You may not like it but it is a taste differencial

You are simply wrong in describing my dislike of PC as a taste differential... I was on the boards complaining about the Pop Century before it was even built, on the basis of the low-ball budget alone. Yes, at the time, people like yourself avoided addressing my point by saying "you can't judge it until you see it." In other words, you dismiss the complaint up front, prefering to delay until you can make a taste judgement on it, then dismiss the complaint again after the fact _because_ you say it's a taste judgement. How duplicitous.

What do you say to the people who would never stay at the Poly because it's a crass, ideosyncratic, plastic view of what the real Polyenesia is?

Why would I say anything to them? They've made a judgement that the Poly's not for them, no skin off of my teeth.

Even if, like me, you happen to like the resort...Is it taste or philosophy?

The question of taste is referenced when saying I like the Poly better than the Contemporary and the All-Stars better than the Pop Century. The question of philosophy is referenced when noticing that the Poly and the Contemporary were built to standards higher than that of TraveLodge, and the All Stars and Pop Century were not. Regardless of which one in each pair appeals to or offends your eye.

Jeff

 

[raidermatt]

Scoop- Sometimes, I think there is some validity to the whole "Left Coast is whacko" theory. Sometimes I look around and just say


To ditto or not to ditto...

Alright, my turn for a few parting (?) words.

I'm too lazy this morning to find quotes, so I'll just make some comments on what was posted since I bailed out yesterday.

Somebody (LB?) said the Golf Inn was ok because it was a different concept. My response=what? If the Disney standard is to make a totally imersive experience, then it either is or it isn't. This inn carries the Disney brand, and therefore, by the LB+ definition, must be immersive AND have at least one alternative form of transportation. If this was built because it was thought some people might want a less than normal Disney experience, than how is this any different than what Eisner and Co are being accused of for buliding AS? (hint- Its not.)

Some people don't want to be whisked away to a replication of some bygone era. To them, its not the real thing and therefore cheesy. Staying amongst giant Dalmations and Woodys (can I say that?) from cartoons, however, is something they want to do. They don't see it as cheesy because its not a cheesy attempt at something real. I'm not saying I agree with them, but who am I (or any of us) to say they are wrong?

Disneyland Hotel- More selective application of standards. Walt didn't have the money? So he allowed his friend to slap the Disney name on something he was not proud of? Well, if that's true, Walt made a business decision, not a philosophical one based on the Disney standard. We're not just talking a pre-Eisner decision, were talking Walt HIMSELF! Or maybe it was his evil twin? (Like in those old Knight Rider episodes).

Disneyland itself- Walt opened that park before it was ready. Why? Business decision. Stuff was breaking down left and right. I was watching the Disney Treasures Disneyland USA DVD and was struck by how immature the landscaping was. Why weren't mature trees planted? Business decision. Furthermore, why weren't all of the animated shorts (Mickey, Donald, etc) produced with the same painstaking effort that went into the animated features? Business decision. There is nothing wrong with making a business decision. Everyone has to do it. Current Disney may have more resources, but they still have financial targets Wall Street expects them to meet. They cannot ignore this anymore than Walt could ignore business matters that weighed on him.

Alright, one quote. Scoop said:

Had the creators of FW made a campground immersively themed as a backcountry Amazon river camp or an African hunting camp...yeah, that would seem to might your immersion philosophy...

This was worth repeating. If its just a nice campground, and not an immersive experience in some far-off fantasy world, then how is that different than a nice Motel 6? (I'm not saying AS is a nice Motel 6, only pointing out the selectiveness of the argument)

 

[JeffJewell]

but those wings seem to represent the exact business philiosphy that you are complaining off.

the PC issue we're discussing is not a new issue

I've agreed with both of those statements (or reasonable facsimiles thereof) on numerous occasions.

maybe more prevalent these days for some

Absolutely that's the real issue. Walt wasn't able to precisely follow his own philosophy to the letter every single time, true. But to use those examples as a defense for today's Disney throwing away that philosophy entirely (particularly in the absence of the capital crunch that caused many of the anomolies in the first place)... I mean, that raises throwing the baby out with the bath water to a new level.

Everybody keeps mentioning the Golf Resort/Disney Inn as an example of early Disney acting like recent Disney, but by an awful lot of measures, the Golf Resort/Disney Inn was a failure. How is it logical to defend today's lack of theming based on a similar example from the past that failed?

"Hey, we've always made mistakes like this, so we've just declared it a Disney tradition!"

Jeff