News Contemporary Refurbishment--April to Sept 2021

[Poseidon Quest]

Example: two years ago, we had a problem with our shower at the Wilderness Lodge. Within minutes, they had someone up to look at it, and a few minutes later, the manager knocked on our door to check in. She conferred with the maintenance guys then said, “This will take some time to fix. May I move you to a different room? We’ll be happy to move everything to your room, including anything in your fridge.” We said that would be fine, we were heading out to dinner. She asked where, we said Flying Fish. She immediately said, “It’s on us.” And then as soon as we got to Flying Fish, the host looked us up and was, “Hello! I understand you’ll be dining with our compliments tonight,” and made us feel like royalty. And when we got back to out new room (with a tremendous view of fireworks and the Contemporary monorail), we found it full of balloons and chocolates and mugs and photo frames. That level of response to what was a minor inconvenience stunned my wife, who was kind of a Disney Park skeptic.

That's quite the experience, but it seems very much the exception and is in line with what I've heard about management for that resort. I wouldn't say that I've had any outwardly negative experiences with cast members because I think you'll get friendliness in return as long as you approach them that way, but I've rarely seen anything exceptional. I've also had a lot of bizarre experiences. Cast members weirding my girlfriend out by calling her princess and trying a little too hard on multiple occasions (she's in her mid-20s). Going to the Nine Dragons and having all of the cast there standing around glaring at everyone. Seeing a verbal fight break out in line for Small World behind the cast members and having them just standing there casually chatting. Not to mention the often dirty pathways and overflowing trash cans from lack of maintenance staff (pre-pandemic).

Yes, people demand characters and IP. Almost one of the first things Eisner asked when he took over is where the characters were in Epcot, and almost immediately Mickey showed up there. Suddenly, Star Wars and Indiana Jones were in Disneyland. You got massive Roger Rabbit tie-ins. You got the Twilight Zone brand slapped on a ride that, while great, has absolutely nothing to do with what the Twilight Zone actually was. Hell, I know people love The Great Movie Ride, but let’s be honest, it was an easy way to lure people into the park by offering them glimpses of beloved IP properties - I mean, I rode it specifically because I wanted to see the Alien scene. Iger didn’t gut the cherished Imagination pavilion with a hacky tie-in to the Honey I Shrunk the Kid movies, Eisner did. It is what it is.

I don't think there's an issue with the use of IP in the parks, so much as it's the application. The original Star Tours was an innovative and creative attraction with a lot of thought and budget put into it. When it re-opened as Adventures Continue, I was very much on board and it was briefly pretty great. However, as they've continued to add more planets and scenes, the thematic inconsistency between apparently random time periods kills the experience. It shows that Disney cannot be bothered with the show and is more concerned with using the attraction as a vessel to promote their films and merch. I fully expect not just Disney, but really any park to do this. However, they're doing it at the cost of the actual park experience itself.

There's a way to tastefully use IP and Iger/Chapek really don't get it. I understand criticism that the Tower of Terror only has a superficial relation to the Twilight Zone IP but it's still both a great attraction and fits in with the theming of Sunset Blvd. Roger Rabbit would have done the same. But what does Star Wars have to do with Hollywood Studios? Star Tours as an attraction made sense, because it was made to fit in with the studio aspect, but Galaxy's Edge does not. The whole "we want to immerse you into the movies" aspect would work if Disney had actually decided to put the effort into sending the message. Instead, it's a thin excuse to just dump IP into the park without any thematic consistency. Toy Story Land would have made a lot more sense if it was portrayed as an extension of Pixar Studio, but instead the transition is random and abrupt. The land itself could have really come into its own, but instead its a cheap addition just for the sake of adding something to fill up land. Toy Story Lands are really just larger scale Chester and Hester Dino-o-Ramas for troubled parks that need a quick band-aid fix. It's not that Eisner didn't have problems. There's no reason for the America Gardens Theater to feature a Barbie show, but you'd think lessons would have been learned. Now, we have a cheap Guardians of the Galaxy sing-along instead. I can't think of a single addition to the Disney parks that doesn't feel like a cheap tie in, with the exception of some of Shanghai Disneyland and Pandora. I've stated before that Pandora is still a terrible idea, but was salvaged through the creative leadership of Joe Rohde. It's the right addition to Animal Kingdom, but for the wrong reasons. With few exceptions, the Iger/Chapek era hasn't done anything to improve upon the problems of late Eisner. Walt Disney Studios Park is still an embarrassment, and the new additions don't look to address any of the problems with the park at all.

 

[Ponderer]

That's quite the experience, but it seems very much the exception and is in line with what I've heard about management for that resort. I wouldn't say that I've had any outwardly negative experiences with cast members because I think you'll get friendliness in return as long as you approach them that way, but I've rarely seen anything exceptional. I've also had a lot of bizarre experiences. Cast members weirding my girlfriend out by calling her princess and trying a little too hard on multiple occasions (she's in her mid-20s). Going to the Nine Dragons and having all of the cast there standing around glaring at everyone. Seeing a verbal fight break out in line for Small World behind the cast members and having them just standing there casually chatting. Not to mention the often dirty pathways and overflowing trash cans from lack of maintenance staff (pre-pandemic).

I know this stuff happens, but I certainly heard about all of the above happening in the 90s too. I was involved in a lot of CompuServe and Usenet groups, so you heard about this stuff over and over and over again. People look back with great nostalgia, but seriously, it’s only because of the lack of a social media echo chamber, and the ability to steer a corporate narrative with much less of a counter-narrative. It’s not a coincidence that things looked worse and worse the more people got online, and it was Paul Pressler’s bad fortune to take charge right at its first real mass blossoming. I never saw an overflowing trashcan during my last trip. I DID see one on my 1998 trip during the first two months of Animal Kingdom’s opening, and that was back when WDW really had its choice of the local employment pool. I saw a drunken fistfight in the Port Orleans lobby in 1996, and didn’t see any particular attempt to stop it. Make of that what you will.

I don't think there's an issue with the use of IP in the parks, so much as it's the application. The original Star Tours was an innovative and creative attraction with a lot of thought and budget put into it. When it re-opened as Adventures Continue, I was very much on board and it was briefly pretty great. However, as they've continued to add more planets and scenes, the thematic inconsistency between apparently random time periods kills the experience. It shows that Disney cannot be bothered with the show and is more concerned with using the attraction as a vessel to promote their films and merch. I fully expect not just Disney, but really any park to do this. However, they're doing it at the cost of the actual park experience itself.

It is interesting that you point out how a lot of these things fit in well with Disney-MGM, but the unspoken thing is that almost none of them fit into either Disneyland or whatever the heck DCA is. And shouldn’t Disneyland have been the very first priority? Star Tours was a great attraction but *absolutely* violated what Tomorrowland was supposed to be about. Complaining that Star Tours violates continuity - and I find that silly, it’s a tongue-in-cheek love letter to all forms of Star Wars, something that a themed land locked in a particular fictional era could never be - absolutely pales to the event that turned Tomorrowland into Science-Fiction-Land. Seriously. Star Tours is when Disney gave up on the future.

Anyway, we were supposed to be talking about those new curtains at the Contemporary or something…?

 

[Sharon&Susan]

It is interesting that you point out how a lot of these things fit in well with Disney-MGM, but the unspoken thing is that almost none of them fit into either Disneyland or whatever the heck DCA is. And shouldn’t Disneyland have been the very first priority? Star Tours was a great attraction but *absolutely* violated what Tomorrowland was supposed to be about. Complaining that Star Tours violates continuity - and I find that silly, it’s a tongue-in-cheek love letter to all forms of Star Wars, something that a themed land locked in a particular fictional era could never be - absolutely pales to the event that turned Tomorrowland into Science-Fiction-Land. Seriously. Star Tours is when Disney gave up on the future.

I could see someone making a valid argument that Star Tours doesn't fit Disneyland's Tomorrowland, because it takes place in another galaxy "long, long ago". But it not fitting into Tomorrowland because it's Sci-Fi, it replaced a ride about a scientist shrinking guests down and putting them into a snowflake for kicks after all.

 

[Ponderer]

I could see someone making a valid argument that Star Tours doesn't fit Disneyland's Tomorrowland, because it takes place in another galaxy "long, long ago". But it not fitting into Tomorrowland because it's Sci-Fi, it replaced a ride about a scientist shrinking guests down and putting them into a snowflake for kicks after all.

Point taken. The proper way I should’ve phrased that is that it took a land that was committed to exploring real-life future concepts, as well as touting science and exploration of the universe in all its forms, and replaced it with an attraction of shoot-em-up fantasy and no scientific or educational value at all. It was exactly the same thing as putting Guardians of the Galaxy into Epcot.

And as someone who saw Star Wars opening day, I’m not even saying I care that much about that kind of purity. But yeah, if we’re going to get into when Disney stopped caring about continuity or preserving a certain thematic mission, it‘s kind of a good place to start.

 

[UNCgolf]

it would also be fair to separate Eisner’s reign into the Frank Wells and post-Wells era. Eisner had the same advantage with Wells that Walt had with Roy Disney - a money guy who could allow him to dream big. Once he lost that, the scope became small, the efforts became cut-rate, and maintenance and upkeep across the parks self-destructed.

Iger, for all his faults, was the first Disney guy who managed to balance the long-term financial interests of the company - and keep in mind, it wasn’t about how much money Disney was making off the parks but whether Disney was even *going to exist as we know it* - and some wonderful achievements in the parks. He oversaw a decade where he absolutely revitalized Disneyland and salvaged the DCA debacle, not to mention Pandora and Galaxy’s Edge and a whole slew of new technologies. (And we won’t even mention the quality of life stuff like the ridiculous strides in theme park food quality under his reign, even in the food courts.) It’s an extraordinary achievement. Not perfect by any means, but also unprecedented in company history.

The first part is absolutely true.

The second part isn't, really -- Disney was in significantly worse condition when Eisner took over than it was when Iger took over. Disney was in danger of being stripped for parts when Eisner took the reins. When Iger took over, Disney was already a massive corporation with ESPN printing money. He's grown it even more, but Eisner was the CEO who returned Disney to a powerhouse position and saved it from dissolution, not Iger.

Also, an increase in theme park food quality? Disney (at least Disney World) had much higher quality restaurants in the past, with a couple of exceptions. Iger doesn't get the blame for that, because it was already happening under Eisner, but the Disney Dining Plan has corresponded with a significant decrease in the overall food quality, not an increase.

The food is still better than what you can get at most of Universal, though.

 

[lazyboy97o]

The second part isn't, really -- Disney was in significantly worse condition when Eisner took over than it was when Iger took over. Disney was in danger of being stripped for parts when Eisner took the reins. When Iger took over, Disney was already a massive corporation with ESPN printing money. He's grown it even more, but Eisner was the CEO who returned Disney to a powerhouse position and saved it from dissolution; not Iger.

And of course if Disney was in ruin when Iger took charger, who was the previous COO that drove Disney to such a point? Iger’s greatest success has been to completely control his image and even rewrite recent history like an ancient king.

 

[GimpYancIent]

And of course if Disney was in ruin when Iger took charger, who was the previous COO that drove Disney to such a point? Iger’s greatest success has been to completely control his image and even rewrite recent history like an ancient king.

 

[UNCgolf]

And of course if Disney was in ruin when Iger took charger, who was the previous COO that drove Disney to such a point? Iger’s greatest success has been to completely control his image and even rewrite recent history like an ancient king.

Right. It's not like Iger was an outside hire; he was an integral part of the management team during the much maligned (deservedly so) latter part of Eisner's tenure as CEO.

 

[Ponderer]

The first part is absolutely true.

The second part isn't, really -- Disney was in significantly worse condition when Eisner took over than it was when Iger took over. Disney was in danger of being stripped for parts when Eisner took the reins. When Iger took over, Disney was already a massive corporation with ESPN printing money. He's grown it even more, but Eisner was the CEO who returned Disney to a powerhouse position and saved it from dissolution; not Iger.

Also, an increase in theme park food quality? Disney had much higher quality restaurants in the past, with a couple of exceptions. Iger doesn't get the blame for that, because it was already happening under Eisner, but the Disney Dining Plan has corresponded with a significant decrease in the overall food quality, not an increase.

The food is still a lot better than what you can get at most of Universal, though.

I mean, what do you mean by higher quality restaurants? The food courts were garbage for all of his reign. There were some peaks - I ate at California Grill and V&A in the 90s, and they were absolutely prime then. Jiko, yeah. Chefs de France was a SMIDGE better than Monsieur Paul. Artist Point was terrific but inconsistent even then. But I mean, what else? Not all that much. I’d argue places like Skipper Canteen, Tiffins, and even Satu’li would’ve been really unlikely in the Eisner era, and there is just a whole panoply of excellent eateries at Disney Springs. You could easily eat at all the good places at Disney World during one medium-length trip in Eisner’s term, and you couldn’t remotely do that now.

I‘m not knocking Eisner, because I recognize a lot of what’s good now started under Eisner. He was certainly the guy who said we don’t have to settle for the dreck theme park food was locked into. But the last ten years, it’s been overwhelming improvement. I couldn't have imagined something like the Art of Animation food court back then. And the options the last few years for people with different diets are legitimately groundbreaking.

IMHO, of course.

 

[UNCgolf]

I mean, what do you mean by higher quality restaurants? The food courts were garbage for all of his reign. There were some peaks - I ate at California Grill and V&A in the 90s, and they were absolutely prime then. Jiko, yeah. Chefs de France was a SMIDGE better than Monsieur Paul. Artist Point was terrific but inconsistent even then. But I mean, what else? Not all that much. I’d argue places like Skipper Canteen, Tiffins, and even Satu’li would’ve been really unlikely in the Eisner era, and there is just a whole panoply of excellent eateries at Disney Springs. You could easily eat at all the good places at Disney World during one medium-length trip in Eisner’s term, and you couldn’t remotely do that now.

I‘m not knocking Eisner, because I recognize a lot of what’s good now started under Eisner. He was certainly the guy who said we don’t have to settle for the dreck theme park food was locked into. But the last ten years, it’s been overwhelming improvement. I couldn't have imagined something like the Art of Animation food court back then. And the options the last few years for people with different diets are legitimately groundbreaking.

IMHO, of course.

Disney Springs is a separate thing -- their QS places are better than most of the table service restaurants in the parks and resorts, but I don't consider it part of the parks/resorts food.

The food courts may be better (they're still not anything special), but most Disney table service restaurants serve the same food purchased in bulk now (a consequence of the Disney Dining Plan); there's very little room for interesting dishes on the menus or for any really high quality items. Chefs used to be able to source their own food and craft their own menus, but that's been eliminated at almost every restaurant on property. There are a few exceptions, but even they generally have smaller menus with ingredients that are of a lesser quality than they once were (Flying Fish comes to mind -- it's still one of the 5-10 best restaurants on property, but it's not quite as good as it used to be). There are barely any restaurants left on property that actually bake their own bread; it's mostly mass produced in a central location.

There are also still plenty of restaurants on property that serve barely edible food. I think you could easily eat at every really good restaurant at WDW on a week long trip.

 

[Ponderer]

Disney Springs is a separate thing -- their QS places are better than most of the table service restaurants in the parks and resorts, but I don't consider it part of the parks/resorts food.

The food courts may be better (they're still not anything special), but most Disney table service restaurants serve the same food purchased in bulk now (a consequence of the Disney Dining Plan); there's very little room for interesting dishes on the menus or for any really high quality items. Chefs used to be able to source their own food and craft their own menus, but that's been eliminated at almost every restaurant on property. There are a few exceptions, but even they generally have smaller menus with ingredients that are of a lesser quality than they once were (Flying Fish comes to mind -- it's still one of the 5-10 best restaurants on property, but it's not quite as good as it used to be). There are barely any restaurants left on property that actually bake their own bread; it's mostly mass produced in a central location.

There are also still plenty of restaurants on property that serve barely edible food. I think you could easily eat at every really good restaurant at WDW on a week long trip.

Hmmmm. Disney Springs is part of the Disney resort. A lot of the same vendors there supply food and run restaurants inside the parks. Many of them take the Disney Dining Plan, and most of them are designed with active input from Imagineers with a storyline tying anything together; I don’t see how it can just be arbitrarily waved away. Heck, some of the restaurants INSIDE the parks run by the same purveyors are *better* than the ones at Disney Springs (Yak and Yeti comes to mind), so it’s not like they suddenly they have freedom to “show what they can do” there.

I completely disagree about there not being room for interesting dishes, and we found plenty of terrific ones on our last trip. But, as people point out, it’s a matter of response. Skipper Canteen has a fascinating menu, maybe not as daring as when it opened, but you can still get a whole head-on fish there, which I guarantee you freaks out Middle America. And Disney has to respond to those tastes, or it’ll be like Skipper - and Tiffins - and be shockingly empty. But they’ve been standing by their most ambitious eateries despite a disappointing response - which is better than Universal, which is to do next to nothing in the first place, and is the default attitude in the theme park industry.

And with genuine respect, I have no idea what you’re talking about with lesser ingredients, at least for the high-end stuff. Flying Fish was *stunning* on our last trip, and I’m someone who’s been lucky enough to dine at Le Bernardin and The French Laundry; I’m not new to high-end dining and easily wowed. You think Takumi-Tei opens without a real commitment to quality? That restaurant takes a *commitment.* It‘s a massive investment for what has to be a fractional audience of WDW connoisseurs, ones who are willing to dress up for a four-hour slow food experience in the dang middle of Epcot.

But anyway. Feel free to have the last word because I think we derailed the Contemporary discussion enough.

 

[TrojanUSC]

Hmmmm. Disney Springs is part of the Disney resort. A lot of the same vendors there supply food and run restaurants inside the parks. Many of them take the Disney Dining Plan, and most of them are designed with active input from Imagineers with a storyline tying anything together; I don’t see how it can just be arbitrarily waved away. Heck, some of the restaurants INSIDE the parks run by the same purveyors are *better* than the ones at Disney Springs (Yak and Yeti comes to mind), so it’s not like they suddenly they have freedom to “show what they can do” there.

I completely disagree about there not being room for interesting dishes, and we found plenty of terrific ones on our last trip. But, as people point out, it’s a matter of response. Skipper Canteen has a fascinating menu, maybe not as daring as when it opened, but you can still get a whole head-on fish there, which I guarantee you freaks out Middle America. And Disney has to respond to those tastes, or it’ll be like Skipper - and Tiffins - and be shockingly empty. But they’ve been standing by their most ambitious eateries despite a disappointing response - which is better than Universal, which is to do next to nothing in the first place, and is the default attitude in the theme park industry.

And with genuine respect, I have no idea what you’re talking about with lesser ingredients, at least for the high-end stuff. Flying Fish was *stunning* on our last trip, and I’m someone who’s been lucky enough to dine at Le Bernardin and The French Laundry; I’m not new to high-end dining and easily wowed. You think Takumi-Tei opens without a real commitment to quality? That restaurant takes a *commitment.* It‘s a massive investment for what has to be a fractional audience of WDW connoisseurs, ones who are willing to dress up for a four-hour slow food experience in the dang middle of Epcot.

But anyway. Feel free to have the last word because I think we derailed the Contemporary discussion enough.

Disney Springs restaurants really do need to be treated separately. They are almost all independently owned/operated. While some do have restaurants inside the parks, the quality at these in-park restaurants is often better than Disney restaurants. Most of the Disney Springs places only dole out a small portion of their inventory to Disney because they do not want the DDP guests.

Yes, there are interesting dishes, but that does not mean the quality is some how better or more diverse than it was before. Boma, Jiko, Tusker House and others were all pushing boundaries, so I think Satu'li could have easily existed under Eisner. However, compared to what they were many years ago, they are a shell of their former selves.

Takumi-Tei is great because it is not a Disney restaurant, nor did they take the DDP. An operating participant took a chance on doing something unique and truly high end. It worked.

Disney in the 90s made a big push to improve food quality. They hired Dieter Hannig, who gave restaurants a lot of autonomy in creating menus, sourcing ingredients and trying to allow each restaurant to offer their own unique experience. Guests were happy to pay high premiums, if the quality was deserving. With the advent of the DDP, they completely got rid of this entire mindset. Guests pre-paid for their food and Disney was charging astronomical prices for the plans. This led to four key changes:

1) Drive up the price on menus to justify to the rubes buying the plan that it was a worthwhile investment ($60 character buffet is joke).
2) Cut back on quality since these people paid for their food in advance
3) Drastically reduce menus to reduce prep time, which allowed for volume & turning tables quickly over quality.
4) Homogenize ingredients used across property

It now became, basically, cruise ship dining across property. You force restaurants to homogenize menus and service offerings (only two restaurants on property now bake their own bread vs many before, for example) to meet what they company is already buying.

Obviously there's some variance, especially at signature places but overall the restaurant offerings at WDW are far more expensive and of a drastically inferior quality than they were pre-dining plan. No longer are there 10-12 entree choices, there's 3-5. Buffets for example used to offer actual prime rib, but because that was too expensive to serve people who had already paid for their meal, they switched to much cheaper cuts. After a 10 year hiatus I visited Chef Mickey's just prior to COVID, I was shocked at what they were calling food. Gone were the homemade restaurant-specific recipes (the parmesan mashed potatoes they used to serve were heaven), in was the defrosted Sysco stuff.

Another anecdotal example is I remember one F&B exec bragging in an employee communiqué about how proud they were to have trimmed the type of French fries served at Disney restaurants from 11 to 2. Previously you could find a great variety (curly fries, shoestring, etc). Personally I loved the seasoned fries at Flame Tree. Now it's the same thing at every restaurant, with only a few limited exceptions. It's a minor example but goes to this cruise ship mentality.

A good article on Hannig:

Dieter Hannig leaving Walt Disney World Co. - Scott Joseph Orlando Restaurant Guide

Dieter Hannig, who is credited with changing the face of restaurants and dining at Walt Disney World as the vice president of the food and beverage division,

www.scottjosephorlando.com

 

[Ponderer]

Yes, there are interesting dishes, but that does not mean the quality is some how better or more diverse than it was before. Boma, Jiko, Tusker House and others were all pushing boundaries, so I think Satu'li could have easily existed under Eisner. However, compared to what they were many years ago, they are a shell of their former selves.

I love these pronouncements, as if it was subjective truth. I mean, yeah, it’s inevitable that some dumbing down is going to occur at most theme park restaurants but it’s literally in response to the tastes of your theme park customer. If they’re not going to eat it, why serve it and just waste that food? That’s why Universal doesn‘t try!

Takumi-Tei is great because it is not a Disney restaurant, nor did they take the DDP. An operating participant took a chance on doing something unique and truly high end. It worked.

The effort to make sure that Disney never gets any credit for something really good and potentially ground-breaking is truly staggering.

Obviously there's some variance, especially at signature places but overall the restaurant offerings at WDW are far more expensive and of a drastically inferior quality than they were pre-dining plan. No longer are there 10-12 entree choices, there's 3-5. Buffets for example used to offer actual prime rib, but because that was too expensive to serve people who had already paid for their meal, they switched to much cheaper cuts. After a 10 year hiatus I visited Chef Mickey's just prior to COVID, I was shocked at what they were calling food. Gone were the homemade restaurant-specific recipes (the parmesan mashed potatoes they used to serve were heaven), in was the defrosted Sysco stuff.

You see, it’s stuff like this that makes me question this whole thing. Buffets by and large NEVER served actual prime rib. Prime rib is not a cut. It’s a grade. Actual prime rib is extraordinarily unlikely to ever have been served in any buffet in America, much less a mass market destination in the 90s. You might have been eating a meaty and delicious beefy dish they *called* prime rib, but it was likely a relatively inexpensive beef roast prepared with nice seasonings. (Also, good riddance because “prime rib” sitting out at a buffet is a lovely disease vector.)

It’s funny that you talk about the cheapness of ingredients, but the chances of you getting an actual egg in a moderate restaurant on property - or even in a food court - exploded in the last 10-12 years. I agree that there’s more consistency at lower-tier restaurants, but it’s a reflection of the need to feed FAR more people than they used to, it is what it is. But you talk about 3-5 entree choices - this is not a Disney thing! Restaurants all over the country moved away from the slop everything on a menu concept years ago, choosing to focus on fewer things done well. Once you get to 12 choices on a menu, the more I stop trusting it because unless you’re Jose Andres, it’s obvious the chef stopped editing. That’s gone with the wind, friend.

But I have no idea where you’re getting 3-5 entree choices from. I did a quick sampling of a number of restaurants and this is what I found:

Ale and Compass: 10 entrees (not counting a number of full salads)
Chefs de France: 5 (I compared it to a menu I took home from 1998, which had 6)
Regal Eagle: 9
Skippers Canteen (6; reduced from 10 pre-COVID)
Tony’s Town Square: 8
Yak and Yeti: 9
Three Bridges: 10
Brown Derby: 8
Prime-Time: 7
Rose and Crown: 8
Jiko: 8 (pre-COVID, obviously)
Columbia Harbour House: 8 (also pre-COVID)

So anyway, I just threw darts on a board and got a much better selection than your dire prognostications.

Like the other person I was talking to, I’ll let you have the last word because we’ve hijacked this thread. If you want to go on about this, there are better areas in the forum to do so.

 

[TrojanUSC]

You see, it’s stuff like this that makes me question this whole thing. Buffets by and large NEVER served actual prime rib. Prime rib is not a cut. It’s a grade. Actual prime rib is extraordinarily unlikely to ever have been served in any buffet in America, much less a mass market destination in the 90s. You might have been eating a meaty and delicious beefy dish they *called* prime rib, but it was likely a relatively inexpensive beef roast prepared with nice seasonings. (Also, good riddance because “prime rib” sitting out at a buffet is a lovely disease vector.)

Whatever you want to call it, Disney wanted to call it Prime Rib and it was replaced, conveniently around the same time the DDP arrived, with much cheaper strip loin:

Disney Guests Ask "Where's the Beef?" Prime Rib Missing From Buffets - Scott Joseph Orlando Restaurant Guide

Prime rib has been replaced on buffet serving lines at Walt Disney World restaurants with whole strip loins. The official, company line is that the switch was

www.scottjosephorlando.com

 

[Ponderer]

Whatever you want to call it, Disney wanted to call it Prime Rib and it was replaced, conveniently around the same time the DDP arrived, with much cheaper strip loin:

Disney Guests Ask "Where's the Beef?" Prime Rib Missing From Buffets - Scott Joseph Orlando Restaurant Guide

Prime rib has been replaced on buffet serving lines at Walt Disney World restaurants with whole strip loins. The official, company line is that the switch was

www.scottjosephorlando.com

The article literally says it’s not that much cheaper.

 

[Rteetz]

Talked to Wave bartenders tonight, they aren't sure where they are moving yet during the closure.

 

[Poseidon Quest]

Talked to Wave bartenders tonight, they aren't sure where they are moving yet during the closure.

I wouldn't be surprised if the hotel just sets up a hastily put-together lobby bar. I've seen it at the Polynesian and all over Disney Springs, so I wouldn't put it past them.

 

[Rteetz]

I wouldn't be surprised if the hotel just sets up a hastily put-together lobby bar. I've seen it at the Polynesian and all over Disney Springs, so I wouldn't put it past them.

They have Outer Rim so its not really needed.

 

[Poseidon Quest]

They have Outer Rim so its not really needed.

The Polynesian quite literally had two bars within the upper lobby, so I'm skeptical.

 

[castlecake2.0]

The Polynesian quite literally had two bars within the upper lobby, so I'm skeptical.

I’m actually surprised they didn’t move the wave to one of the ballrooms during this or even to California Grill for breakfast service. It’s interesting that they’re ok with not having a standard table service at the resort for so long.

They could definitely use a second bar somewhere too, just not sure where as they’re also moving the lobby to level 2 for renos