MK New Beak and Barrel - Pirates of the Caribbean-themed lounge

[Chi84]

Recent study shows there's no amount of wine or alcoholic drink that isn't harmful to the body.

The old "two per day is OK" rule is out the window. The liver doesn't need the 'exercise.'

Of course, we're not talking about immediate harm, but long-term life-expectancy and quality-of-life terms.

Of course "natural" isn't necessarily better. Alcohol is natural (in over-ripening fruit). Hemlock and Poison Ivy is natural. Over-drinking water can kill you.

Yo ho, yo ho a pirate’s life for me!

 

[DisneyHead123]

Recent study shows there's no amount of wine or alcoholic drink that isn't harmful to the body.

The old "two per day is OK" rule is out the window. The liver doesn't need the 'exercise.'

Of course, we're not talking about immediate harm, but long-term life-expectancy and quality-of-life terms.

Of course "natural" isn't necessarily better. Alcohol is natural (in over-ripening fruit). Hemlock and Poison Ivy is natural. Over-drinking water can kill you.

Yeah in case my comment wasn’t clear, no vices are better than any vice, of course. But between the two, I’d choose the wine. I do not at all like the research I’ve seen on marijuana and cognition.

 

[DisneyHead123]

On that note, I did get a reservation for our fall visit! No idea if we’ll actually go or not because my son and his sensory stuff are still very much a wild card. Excited to get it though, and actually surprised that plenty of times were available at 60 plus 5, not 10.

 

[Casper Gutman]

Yeah in case my comment wasn’t clear, no vices are better than any vice, of course. But between the two, I’d choose the wine. I do not at all like the research I’ve seen on marijuana and cognition.

I think almost everyone in this thread, myself included, would make that choice - but it doesn’t mean it’s morally superior or that Disney pushing one vice in a family-friendly environment would be inherently worse then pushing the other. Yes, the social mores regarding the two are different, but the ones around “magic” ARE actually becoming more permissive.

 

[Dranth]

It’s very funny that you follow up a comment on the nonexistent “puritanical” attitudes in this thread by opining that you wish the menu at the bar was less alcohol heavy.

The menu is exactly what Disney wants it to be. It wasn’t a mistake, it didn’t just happen, it’s not merely a product of the space available. Disney puts a huge amount of consideration into everything they do in the parks. Beak offers an almost entirely alcoholic menu because Disney feels that benefits them.

Why is it so difficult for so many posters to believe that Disney does what it wants to do?

Where did I mention anything about the companies intentions?

Disney did exactly what they wanted, they built a themed "bar" to charge outrageous prices for drinks to make lots of money while also being family friendly. Seems like they did that.

What I did say:

1. People are overreacting to the whole "bar" aspect of this thing and it comes across as very puritanical.
2. It is opening with a restricted menu that needs to expand.

 

[KDM31091]

Although the drinks aren't cheap or even affordable for frequent visits IMO, they are basically on par with drinks elsewhere on property. But they're premixed, so that is going to lower the value to some. Now, Geo82 -- those are outrageous drink prices.

Disney more and more seems to lean into the "one and done" type of experience vs somewhere you'll go again and again, just based on cost alone.

 

[Disstevefan1]

The only product with higher margins than drinks is the "money for nothing" LLs.

There will be more and more lounges.

Maybe they will add the lounges to the attraction list so they can sell LLs to the lounges

 

[Casper Gutman]

Where did I mention anything about the companies intentions?

Disney did exactly what they wanted, they built a themed "bar" to charge outrageous prices for drinks to make lots of money while also being family friendly. Seems like they did that.

What I did say:

1. People are overreacting to the whole "bar" aspect of this thing and it comes across as very puritanical.
2. It is opening with a restricted menu that needs to expand.

The “bar” aspect defines the place. It is the point of the place. It is not an aspect of the location - it is a bar! That’s why it offers a restricted menu - because it is a “bar.”

I don’t know that it’s particularly puritanical to say that people should be allowed to engage in any legal vice they like in an appropriate setting without judgement but that perhaps trying to make a BAR enticing to children is a questionable idea. Everyone here would draw the line somewhere at making vices appealing to children - that’s why I keep bringing up gacha games and Joe Camel. In many cases the idea of a line is being depicted as absurd here simply because it’s DISNEY.

Brian hit the nail on the head - is Disney World for families to do thing together or should it cater to adults at the expense of shared experiences? The proliferation of restrictive thrill rides and emphasis on alcohol make it clear that Disney has made a choice.

 

[Basil of Baker Street]

I think almost everyone in this thread, myself included, would make that choice - but it doesn’t mean it’s morally superior or that Disney pushing one vice in a family-friendly environment would be inherently worse then pushing the other. Yes, the social mores regarding the two are different, but the ones around “magic” ARE actually becoming more permissive.

That is all I'm saying. You just have to open your eyes and look around to see the shift. We are heading that way. Was in Maine a few weeks ago. I saw more Cannabis stores than Duncans...

 

[Basil of Baker Street]

The only product with higher margins than drinks is the "money for nothing" LLs.

There will be more and more lounges.

Maybe they will add the lounges to the attraction list so they can sell LLs to the lounges

Exactly. Air is pure profit, Alcohol isn't far behind.

 

[lazyboy97o]

1. People are overreacting to the whole "bar" aspect of this thing and it comes across as very puritanical.
2. It is opening with a restricted menu that needs to expand.

How is this not a contradiction? The “overreaction” is to the menu being almost exclusively alcoholic drinks.

 

[Chi84]

How is this not a contradiction? The “overreaction” is to the menu being almost exclusively alcoholic drinks.

That’s what a bar is. It sells alcoholic drinks.

It’s highly themed and family friendly because it’s in Disney where people are normally together as families. It has non-alcoholic beverages because there is a demand for them now. The greater the demand, the more nonalcoholic options will appear.

I assume it’s similar to the Haunted Mansion lounge on the DCL Treasure where several families were enjoying the theming, especially the ghost fish tank.

Not everything at Disney is for everyone. If people don’t drink or want their kids to be around alcohol this bar is not the place for them. That doesn’t mean others should be denied the opportunity to enjoy it.

 

[Dranth]

The “bar” aspect defines the place. It is the point of the place. It is not an aspect of the location - it is a bar! That’s why it offers a restricted menu - because it is a “bar.”

I don’t know that it’s particularly puritanical to say that people should be allowed to engage in any legal vice they like in an appropriate setting without judgement but that perhaps trying to make a BAR enticing to children is a questionable idea. Everyone here would draw the line somewhere at making vices appealing to children - that’s why I keep bringing up gacha games and Joe Camel. In many cases the idea of a line is being depicted as absurd here simply because it’s DISNEY.

Yes, the point is that it is a bar, we agree on that. Where I disagree is that kids being in there and enjoying it does not translate to the slippery slope argument people seem to be making.

Brian hit the nail on the head - is Disney World for families to do thing together or should it cater to adults at the expense of shared experiences? The proliferation of restrictive thrill rides and emphasis on alcohol make it clear that Disney has made a choice.

I don't think Beak and Barrel would qualify as coming at the expense of anything. Also, what proliferation of restrictive thrill rides? Outside of Tron, what have they added recently or has been announced that the average four/five year old couldn't meet the height requirement?

 

[Disstevefan1]

Disney will do what it will do to MAKE MONEY. The business is run quarter to quarter.

Will I go into the beak and Barrel at least once? Of course I will

I also want to go to Geo 82 at least once. I want to try that whiskey flight!

 

[Dranth]

How is this not a contradiction? The “overreaction” is to the menu being almost exclusively alcoholic drinks.

To me, all of the following can be true:

1. It is a themed bar.
2. A themed bar can be family friendly. Where it falls on that scale depends on a bunch of factors.
3. The current menu at the Beak and Barrel is too restrictive for anyone who doesn't drink or is too young to drink.

I just don't believe that the lack of additional beverage options for kids makes the entire place not kid friendly. Let me put it this way, if they added 25 new non-alcoholic drinks tomorrow, it would be MORE kid friendly, them not having those options today doesn't make it not kid friendly.

 

[threvester]

Yeah in case my comment wasn’t clear, no vices are better than any vice, of course. But between the two, I’d choose the wine. I do not at all like the research I’ve seen on marijuana and cognition.

Willie Nelson still seems to be all there

 

[LSLS]

That’s what a bar is. It sells alcoholic drinks.

It’s highly themed and family friendly because it’s in Disney where people are normally together as families. It has non-alcoholic beverages because there is a demand for them now. The greater the demand, the more nonalcoholic options will appear.

I assume it’s similar to the Haunted Mansion lounge on the DCL Treasure where several families were enjoying the theming, especially the ghost fish tank.

Not everything at Disney is for everyone. If people don’t drink or want their kids to be around alcohol this bar is not the place for them. That doesn’t mean others should be denied the opportunity to enjoy it.

But just because they don't drink doesn't mean they should be excluded either. Funny you mention the Haunted Mansion bar, cause I think if they had 4 soda style drinks to go with those 2 mocktails, complaints go out the window. But heck, if your kid hates coconut (which mine does), you are out of luck here.

 

[BrianLo]

Brian hit the nail on the head - is Disney World for families to do thing together or should it cater to adults at the expense of shared experiences? The proliferation of restrictive thrill rides and emphasis on alcohol make it clear that Disney has made a choice.

For the moment we're still in the "afterthought" stage as they pivot towards Disney Adults (with kids). We'll see how far they take the trend.

I know you brought up Guardians, but I don't think that's explicitly a franchise aimed at those not tall enough to ride. It's a hard needle to thread for them. Radiator Springs Racers is a case example. It ironically excludes its target demographic but then appeals much more broadly towards the whole populace as a result. The land makes up for it with catering the rest around toddlers.

Yoshi is another example entirely. Where it again excludes the target demo, but in doing so does not create an experience more appealing for those who can ride.

Creatives are likely increasingly childless, if I could identify maybe the source.

 

[TheMaxRebo]

Although the drinks aren't cheap or even affordable for frequent visits IMO, they are basically on par with drinks elsewhere on property. But they're premixed, so that is going to lower the value to some. Now, Geo82 -- those are outrageous drink prices.

Disney more and more seems to lean into the "one and done" type of experience vs somewhere you'll go again and again, just based on cost alone.

For sure - the average guests goes every 2-3 years .... Paying a bit extra for a new, unique, quality, immersive experience is a lot easier every couple of years vs every couple of months

And honestly I would rather pay a bit extra for a Beak and Barrel or Geo-82 over just a random restaurant or lounge that is a little cheaper

 

[DisneyHead123]

I think almost everyone in this thread, myself included, would make that choice - but it doesn’t mean it’s morally superior or that Disney pushing one vice in a family-friendly environment would be inherently worse then pushing the other. Yes, the social mores regarding the two are different, but the ones around “magic” ARE actually becoming more permissive.

That's a very long conversation and would be too far off topic so I'll leave it at that.

To a broader point that is more on topic - I don't think you can say "Well a vice is a vice and either none are allowed or all are allowed, logically and morally". There are always other considerations. Some of them will be valid at a moral level, some of them will be fickle and only matter in that Disney doesn't want to offend their customers by going against the mores of the time. But we don't tend to use that thinking for other things - we don't say if your child is allowed to do one dangerous thing that they should be allowed to do any dangerous thing, or that if you have a dangerous job you shouldn't bother wearing a seatbelt, for example.