An absolutely fantastic read that should be mandatory for all of us

[Nottamus]

Definitely a good read. Everyone has a time when they first experienced something...and it’s that magic that’s always remembered

Change hurts sometimes...sometimes ruins something , but that’s kind of opinion mixed in with fact

My first trip in 1998 was amazing because of the place. It just blew me away. BUT 1998 was probably ‘changed’ Disney to some

My wife and I went in 2014 and guess what....it was magic again. Not Disney sprinkle magic....but magic on how WE were there. We loved 2014 Disney. And 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and hopefully 2020.

But that being said...we split on Epcot Forever. I liked the new show as an evolution. Not as much as illuminations, but I was aware things change.
My wife hated it. Because of the change.

Hopefully Harmonious fixes us! Hahaha

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Well...it was definitely too wordy.

But honestly...nearly spot on. Well informed and and based on understanding AND observation. You gotta have both to make a case. The Rollins college line made me snarf too.

Particularly insightful is the cautious nature of every iger move, the impact of what Happened with potter, and what they’ve done with hotels (it’s not good).

Where I have to disagree here is the authors praise of the Star Wars land. They are attempting to apply the “doesn’t matter the IP - look at avatar” logic completely backwards and it’s not gonna work. Disney Star Wars is close to a disaster...and is most likely only saved from being so because of the size and financial clout of Disney.

It’s been a few months...stay tuned. The place is gonna recede quickly. Star Wars was always about the long game...that’s what made it so unique and revered. They’ve pooched their long game. They claimed “ambiguity” while basing their land and rides off two bad movies...nice try on that.

And the closest “longterm” franchise I can think of? Full circle...Harry Potter. I thought it would fade and argued on the pixie dust playgrounds to that point ten years ago. I was dead wrong...it’s hard to fight things that defy logic. Like potter and the original Star Wars.

I was just at potter...I found it amazing. So much better than I thought I would AFTER being to Abrams land. Anyone saying the opposite is not being honest in the mirror (my opinion). I’m a middle age Star Wars fanatic - to be clear. I love what is good and know what is bad.

Well...it was a good read...and does a lot to explain the motives BEHIND the story they don’t tell you. You have to investigate it. Never believe a Disney “reason” or official release. They’re lying...all businesses do.

And as an aside: when your 10 and 12 year olds are given the choice between a long weekend at Loews royal pacific (it was meh - by the way) and universal OR annual passes and 3-4 trips to WDW...
That would be what I would have called when I was an analyst “concerning”...then I would have thrown up in the bushes outside TDO

 

[marni1971]

but is that a "bad" thing? does every Disney fan have to agree on the direction of the parks? If someone actually likes the new additions and updates, why are they vilified?

Not everyone will agree with everything..

 

[baymenxpac]

loved the article. as usual, not a big fan of the fray that has followed.

if some of you noticed that this place is getting more echo chamber-y, it's because a lot of us just don't feel the need to engage anymore.

 

[FullSailDan]

I'm trying to get your points. But ultimately I can't help but find the above two statements contradictory.

I suppose I should clarify, the quality service and overall experience was what I remembered going to the parks as a kid. NOT necessarily the physical park itself. Though yes the park has retained much of its original aesthetics, it's the culmination of many things that reminds me of the fun I used to have in the parks as a kid. Something about Disneyland feels so much more relaxed, not-stressful, and easy than a day in MK feels. The cast members were nice, food quality was exceptional even at quick service restaurants, rides were in excellent condition, things looked fresh and clean, attractions weren't gutted and sitting empty, etc.

 

[Tom Morrow]

Hey can we keep the "Star Wars Land is a DISASTER and EVERYONE HATES IT!" tired rhetoric from the noted handful of posters out of this thread please? TIA

 

[Oddysey]

loved the article. as usual, not a big fan of the fray that has followed.

if some of you noticed that this place is getting more echo chamber-y, it's because a lot of us just don't feel the need to engage anymore.

Agreed. I have followed this fan site for a very long time (longer than my join date), and have been visiting the parks with regularity for 30+ years. I have seen many come and go through this time, and along with turnover comes a significant variation in the way newer fans view the parks and park operations. I believe these forums and point of views demonstrated in said forums mirror the ever changing landscape that is the Disney World of today.

In my opinion, the author sums her article up very well with "It's not our Walt Disney World anymore...,but it might just be somebody's." In today's forums, I will probably viewed by many as the guy stating "get off my lawn" and rather than engaging in the modern debate, I choose recognize and except that I am no longer Disney's target demographic. The appeal is to a new generation, and I am at peace with that. After all, I have enjoyed the parks for the vast majority of my life and no one can take those memories away. Disney has moved away from me in many ways, and value being highly subjective, the value proposition no longer fits my personal profile. While June will be the first time in nearly 2 decades that I do not renew my annual pass, I am blessed to have been able to enjoy the parks for as long as I did. I can only hope the next generation gets as much if not more enjoyment out of the product.

 

[flynnibus]

Just what I thought

Honestly I can't tell what the author's postulation even is.

Is the piece a book report on what happened during the period with some commentary thrown in for each piece?

Is there some message that the book report is trying to provide supporting material for?

Is there some trait pro or con they are trying to show as common (or uncommon) in all these sites?

Honestly the piece is so long and so drawn out without real composition structure I have no idea what point they are trying to make.

Is the point of the piece to highlight and argue the point "This is something Disney had really lost sight of in the 90s and 00s: delivering the kind of experience people want in a way they are prepared to pay for"

Because I can't make sense of how the piece tries to conclude or wrap up how the history book report format and cites aims to tie all that together to support that claim/point.

It goes on and on citing all these examples of works that had flaws... but yet are really successful. So, if they are really successful, how does that support the postuation that they aren't delivering on things people want and are prepared to pay for?

 

[Tom Morrow]

My main takeaway is that it's intended to be an examination of the successes and failures of the 00's and 10's that have led to the current state of WDW and the decisions being made today. There are several side tangents and personal opinions that don't really fit the overall narrative which makes it come off a bit as a big "doom and gloom" rant.

 

[The Empress Lilly]

Honestly I can't tell what the author's postulation even is.

Is the piece a book report on what happened during the period with some commentary thrown in for each piece?

Is there some message that the book report is trying to provide supporting material for?

Is there some trait pro or con they are trying to show as common (or uncommon) in all these sites?

Honestly the piece is so long and so drawn out without real composition structure I have no idea what point they are trying to make.

Is the point of the piece to highlight and argue the point "This is something Disney had really lost sight of in the 90s and 00s: delivering the kind of experience people want in a way they are prepared to pay for"

Because I can't make sense of how the piece tries to conclude or wrap up how the history book report format and cites aims to tie all that together to support that claim/point.

It goes on and on citing all these examples of works that had flaws... but yet are really successful. So, if they are really successful, how does that support the postuation that they aren't delivering on things people want and are prepared to pay for?

Personal reflections of 2010s WDW at the closing of the decade? To me that's all of the author's goal.

 

[The Empress Lilly]

My main takeaway is that it's intended to be an examination of the successes and failures of the 00's and 10's that have led to the current state of WDW and the decisions being made today. There are several side tangents and personal opinions that don't really fit the overall narrative which makes it come off a bit as a big "doom and gloom" rant.

What I read was a history of a stale WDW at the beginning of last decade, and a vibrant one at the closing - albeit one that is no longer hers.

 

[Parker in NYC]

I've read FoxxFur for maybe decades at this point, and her depth of knowledge is practically unmatched by anyone but @marni1971. I'd say both of them have continued to inform me with their distinct and inclusive points of view, such solid research and love for the theme parks. I've learned more about theme park design from a single video or article from them than anywhere else one can go on the interwebs, forums, and Disney-approved propoganda.

It's impossible and delightful for me to go down to WDW without noticing details I'd hitherto been unaware or ignorant of in the past. The ceilings! Structure, design, composition. How it all fits together.

Yes, I think she's begun to eulogize more often, which is absolutely normal in such shifting times. But she keeps the past alive, as does Martin. I think that's worth celebrating.

 

[correcaminos]

The article had some very valid points to it. Some I really liked and completely agreed with. Some just sounded like a disgruntled ex-employee of sorts. The flow could've been better from idea to the next as well.

One of the interesting things I disagreed with a lot was the Polynesian lobby. I was all set to hate it. I don't. I actually spend time in the lobby hanging out when I didn't before. There wasn't really space for that prior and I didn't realize until after it was gone how much I hated the smell LOL So things like that and talking about fire code are kind of strange to me. The lobby at the Polynesian is always more filled than I ever remember it being before, you just didn't realize it because more of it was covered with a huge moldy waterfall (that I loved, but it did smell).

 

[The Empress Lilly]

There was very little in the way of a lobby. Plants were the focus, nature, water.

All other hotels in the world have a lobby. The WDW hotel has a Polynesian jungle. Until they decided that WDW hotels should look exactly like all the other hotels in the world.

 

[The_Jobu]

View attachment 445509

There was very little in the way of a lobby. Plants were the focus, nature, water.

All other hotels in the world have a lobby. The WDW hotel has a Polynesian jungle. Until they decided that WDW hotels should look exactly like all the other hotels in the world.

Never got to see it in person, but it looks amazing.

I'll have to take everyone's word about the smell

 

[Nunu]

Never got to see it in person, but it looks amazing.

I'll have to take everyone's word about the smell

I can't say much about the smell, maybe I never got that close to it?

It was amazing! To see a a little jungle with rocks and a cascade in the middle of a hotel lobby made quite an impression on me. I also remember the relaxing sound of water running as soon as you entered the lobby. Sigh...

 

[UNCgolf]

I thought it smelled fine in there -- it smelled earthy, which is the way a jungle waterfall should smell.

The current lobby is so disappointing compared to how great the original was.

 

[Tom Morrow]

Throwing in my 2 cents, I’m in the minority here but I felt the original Polynesian Lobby gave off a very 70’s shopping mall atrium vibe. With the updates the resort no longer feels locked in the 70’s, which I suppose was part of the nostalgic charm for some.

I do think the lobby needed a better centerpiece than the dinky statue they gave it, however. But I love the light fixtures above.

 

[WDWTank]

They aren't wrong, but their core premise that Disney's product being nostalgia is flawed. At some point nostalgia becomes increasingly trifle, archaic, and irrelevant to society. Disney's parks can't become a museum of fun in the 70's and 80's and continue to be profitable.

Says the guy from Full Sail, a “creative” school that takes alumni no where. Seriously, Full Sail is a scam.

 

[eliza61nyc]

Throwing in my 2 cents, I’m in the minority here but I felt the original Polynesian Lobby gave off a very 70’s shopping mall atrium vibe. With the updates the resort no longer feels locked in the 70’s, which I suppose was part of the nostalgic charm for some.

I do think the lobby needed a better centerpiece than the dinky statue they gave it, however. But I love the light fixtures above.

Me and you both. My family always thought it was chinzy plastic and always reminded me of those cheap Vegas motels that are on the outskirts of the strip. I had been to Hawaii as one of my siblings was stationed there and it never reminded me of Hawaii. That's why we never had any desire to stay there.

But I will say it memorable.