CaptainAmerica
Premium Member
You're conflating "rides" with "things to do." They're not the same thing. Disney is at its best when they're giving you things to do that aren't rides, IMO.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
A Spirited Valentine ...
- Thread starter WDW1974
- Start date
rushtest4echo
Well-Known Member
I tend to agree with you most of the time, but Animal Kingdom is the doldrums for those under 6 at night. Especially at a park where you can comfortably do all of the rides/shows during the day. Most of the shows are done well before sundown, and unless someone specifically stops the kiddies from riding stuff during the day in order to "save it" for evening when the Animal trails and shows are closed, then their kids are going to be bored to tears at night. Live music probably isn't going to help, and Avatar probably won't do a lot either. Then again, this same issue is present at EPCOT and DHS.
Angel Ariel
Well-Known Member
At night, I would agree. The comment that Captain America and I were both originally responding to was not limiting the comments about nothing for preK age to do to nighttime, though. It's only recently that AK's consistently been open late enough for the shows ending/animal exhibits closing to significantly affect the experience for the rest of the time the park is open.
CaptainAmerica
Premium Member
"Under 6 at night" is a VERY specific complaint when you consider that the park has only been open at night for a few months in the first place. I'm not sure why you don't think Avatar and live music would help. They'll help in two ways. First, it'll give people something to do at nighttime. Second, it'll give people more to do in the day time so they're waiting until nighttime to do other things.
Animaniac93-98
Well-Known Member
Speaking of DVC, has there ever been plans to put a bunch of Grand Villas on Discovery Island? That seems like the kind of thing Disney would do now.
asianway
Well-Known Member
The costs involved seem prohibitive. No way I would want to own there
I'm no expert on these things. I was told there would be no math. Here is where I read the 86% figure:
http://dvcnews.com/index.php/resort...galows?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook
The "Disney Princess" branding may be considered a mistake by some, but it's made ridiculous amounts of money.
I cannot equate Eisner to Iger at all. Eisner, for all his post-Wells and post-heart attack flaws, still had a passion for the parks and could be found in the parks even when there wasn't a press conference or event to attend. I was firmly in the #SaveDisney corner, as Eisner was his own worst enemy by that point, but Iger became the "be careful what you wish for" worst nightmare scenario. All nice and smiles to start, coupled with the acquisition of Pixar, only to show his true colors a couple of years later. You'd have to drag his cold, dead corpse into a park to find him in a park if there isn't a press junket, let alone have him be in a park without a horde of handlers. He embodies "living in an ivory tower".
I agree. There are many other places that would be more conducive to DVC development. Besides, building there would ruin all the lore and legend of the abandoned Discovery Island.
I cannot equate Eisner to Iger at all. Eisner, for all his post-Wells and post-heart attack flaws, still had a passion for the parks and could be found in the parks even when there wasn't a press conference or event to attend. I was firmly in the #SaveDisney corner, as Eisner was his own worst enemy by that point, but Iger became the "be careful what you wish for" worst nightmare scenario. All nice and smiles to start, coupled with the acquisition of Pixar, only to show his true colors a couple of years later. You'd have to drag his cold, dead corpse into a park to find him in a park if there isn't a press junket, let alone have him be in a park without a horde of handlers. He embodies "living in an ivory tower".
I agree. There are many other places that would be more conducive to DVC development. Besides, building there would ruin all the lore and legend of the abandoned Discovery Island.
flynnibus
Premium Member
No, that's not what your article says. The 85.8% number is a percentage WITHIN the DVC inventory.. not the whole Poly Resort.
http://dvcnews.com/index.php/resort...olynesian-villas-bungalows?utm_source=dlvr.it
"
Including this latest declaration, 16 bungalows and 312 studios have now been added to the DVC inventory. This accounts for 3,460,724 points, or 85.8% of the Polynesian’s 4,032,720 total points. There are four bungalows and 48 studios that have not yet been declared for the DVC inventory.
This declaration gives DVC members access to more rooms at the Polynesian. For every Use Day, 85.8% of the resort can be booked using DVC points; the remaining 14.2% is still owned and controlled by Disney, which can use it for cash reservations or other ways it desires."
This is talking about how much of the total DVC inventory has been released to sales/use. It's not talking about DVC vs remainder of Poly property.
PorterRedkey
Well-Known Member
I loved this touch when we stayed at Cabana Bay. The resort was the second-best thing at USF for me and my wife (behind Potter).Yeah, it's really not that hard.
Not many rides are imo.
The_Jobu
Well-Known Member
"I want to go to France and Italy!"
"... like EPCOT?"
It's scary. My GF and I have had this exact conversation.
I'm not at all saying you're wrong.. but why would DVC not control 100% of DVC inventory??
Also...as you quoted: "For every Use Day, 85.8% of the resort can be booked using DVC points; the remaining 14.2% is still owned and controlled by Disney" Please help unconfuse me.
flynnibus
Premium Member
Because the # of points defined for the property are set up front... the # of rooms actually in circulation is ramped up over time. You are reading too much into the wording 'controlled by DVC' - it's all DVC (eventually). They are referring to the points.
WDWTank
Well-Known Member
Totally
They need to stop shoe-horning marketing executives into careers designed for themed entertainment
HMF
Well-Known Member
That's what the Bobs see them as, so.
Then you can go to any old generic theme park, right?
"Hey, Billie, wanna go to Theme Park Land? You can get your picture taken with a random costumed mammal! You can go on several boat or slow track rides featuring animatronic characters you've never heard of! You can ride a coaster or two!"
"You mean, like the local Six Flags?"
"Sure, why not."
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Then why isn't Mickey Mouse in Beauty and the Beast? Isn't Belle just some random girl if she isn't 'played' by Minnie?
We're talking about IPs in the park. Not IPs in IPs.
TalkingHead
Well-Known Member
Both of you are missing the bigger point: why would Disney care that Rivers of Light doesn't test well with pre-K'ers? It's not as if the park caters to their age range - nearly every ride has a height requirement or a scare factor with the exception of Safari and the shows.
Maybe the "Disney cares what pre-K kids think of Rivers of Light" rumor is groundless, or maybe Disney can't see the forest for the trees. Beats me which it is.