A Spirited Valentine ...

[Longhairbear]

With some exceptions, when the vast majority of the public thinks "Disney vacation" they think "theme park". Disney has a hard time justifying DVC prices at anywhere except near a theme park.

Hilton Head and Vero Beach are both small timeshares compared to the typical WDW DVC resort. Both opened ahead of nearly all WDW DVC resorts at a time when the Disney brand was at its zenith and DVC options were extremely limited. 20 years later, direct and resale prices at those resorts languish far behind prices at WDW DVCs.

Aulani is proof that the public doesn't have an appetite for a Disney timeshare away from a theme park. Opened six years ago, it still hasn't sold out, selling slower than the expansive, beautiful Animal Kingdom Villas, which the public was slow to embrace because of its incorrectly perceived "bad" location on the southwest corner of WDW property. (I still can't figure out why AKV resale prices are about the same as the massive, rather ho-hum SSR. Seriously, AKV is WDW's most beautiful resort.)

Remember, building/converting at WDW is cheap. Disney already owns all the land and infrastructure. Building anywhere else is significantly more expensive for Disney.

This is all about volume and margin. Disney is never going to find a timeshare location that will sell as quickly and with as high of a margin as at WDW.

I posed a question on this thread about Disney needing, and not building a new DVC at Disneyland, while expanding DVC at WDW. I got many great replies, and replies to replies that informed of the various reasons Disney will not build a new DVC at DLR. Of course it is all about money, and the perceived need by DVC members for more villas at DLR, such as myself, is outweighed by profit, politics, zoning, tax exemptions, and room to expand etc.
I recently joined a Facebook group DVC Neighborhood, or something to that affect. Many posts complain about no room at the inn concerning the DLR DVC villas. Of course I agree, as we have our DVC home base at Wilderness Lodge, or what ever it has been renamed, but haven't been back to WDW in over 7 years. We use our points at DLR, and get a villa when lucky. Otherwise we get a hotel room via points at the resort. We're not alone in this.
I read on Facebook of one family buying into Aulani, but never staying there, as they had moved from Hawaii to the mainland, and wanted to use their points at DLR, and couldn't get an actual DVC villa due to there are only 50 of them, and always booked solid. Same for us.
Disney would only be doing us a favor by building a new DVC at DLR, and of course we would buy in, and sell our Wilderness Lodge points at a loss. For us, even though losing some cash, we feel we would be in a win/win situation. Buying a new DVC in California, would give us a room when needed at DLR, and a huge advantage for booking less popular DVC in FLA. However, us returning to WDW in the near or far future is iffy, and probably won't happen. TWDC needs to realize this.

 

[brb1006]

Can't tell if this picture is related to DLP's 25th or old concept art

 

[brb1006]

Saw Rivers of Light tonight and maybe it was my low expectations, but I thought it was fantastic.

I don't really get the Illuminations' globe comparisons, either. This show has better pacing and feels more cohesive than Illuminations. (Admittedly, I've never been a huge fan of that show.)

This is an elegant nighttime show that fits DAK beautifully. The Earth-first theme is going to seem a little wonky after Pandora opens, but whatever. It's ambitious so it gets points for that.

Also, I hadn't heard DAK's closing announcement before, but it's a nice version of the "kiss goodnight." Not sure what the specific script is, but it's quite well written and lyrical without being too cheesy.

I realized tonight that after dark many of DAK's attractions are "thrill" rides (or at least many have a height requirement). Everest, Dinosaur, Primeval, and once it opens the Pandora E-ticket. It's too bad there aren't a couple more D-tickets in the park for the night experience (I guess the Avatar boat ride is one), especially since the animal trails close and the viewing areas are shut down.

It'd be nice if some of the shows had performances later (Nemo's final one is 5, Lion King is 6, and I'm not sure about any of the other shows).

Wait DAK has a closing announcement? Any footage online?

 

[JoeCamel]

Can't tell if this picture is related to DLP's 25th or old concept art

They have palms in Paris?

 

[aprincessatlasst]

Can't tell if this picture is related to DLP's 25th or old concept art

Cinemagique is closing at the end of this month, so I would imagine an old picture?

They have palms in Paris?

Yes, Versaille has them as well as orange trees. Also Luxembourg Gardens has Palm trees.

 

[VJ]

Can't tell if this picture is related to DLP's 25th or old concept art

Plus that's the old 2001 Soarin' over California logo...

 

[truecoat]

Saw Rivers of Light tonight and maybe it was my low expectations, but I thought it was fantastic.

I don't really get the Illuminations' globe comparisons, either. This show has better pacing and feels more cohesive than Illuminations. (Admittedly, I've never been a huge fan of that show.)

This is an elegant nighttime show that fits DAK beautifully. The Earth-first theme is going to seem a little wonky after Pandora opens, but whatever. It's ambitious so it gets points for that.

Also, I hadn't heard DAK's closing announcement before, but it's a nice version of the "kiss goodnight." Not sure what the specific script is, but it's quite well written and lyrical without being too cheesy.

I realized tonight that after dark many of DAK's attractions are "thrill" rides (or at least many have a height requirement). Everest, Dinosaur, Primeval, and once it opens the Pandora E-ticket. It's too bad there aren't a couple more D-tickets in the park for the night experience (I guess the Avatar boat ride is one), especially since the animal trails close and the viewing areas are shut down.

It'd be nice if some of the shows had performances later (Nemo's final one is 5, Lion King is 6, and I'm not sure about any of the other shows).

I assume they won't extend the shows as you'd need another batch of performers for the rest of the day and my guess is they don't want to pay for that. How many shows stay open past 6 at DHS, a park bereft of attractions?

 

[michmousefan]

Saw the new tentpole last night. Was anyone else underwhelmed by Beauty and the Beast, as I was? Definitely did not meet expectations.

 

[Quinnmac000]

Saw the new tentpole last night. Was anyone else underwhelmed by Beauty and the Beast, as I was? Definitely did not meet expectations.

100% concur.

 

[mickeyfan5534]

Saw the new tentpole last night. Was anyone else underwhelmed by Beauty and the Beast, as I was? Definitely did not meet expectations.

I mean it wasn't as good as the original but I genuinely enjoyed it for what it was, a live action remake of a near perfect animated film. Call me a pixie duster all you want but the cast was amazing, the new songs were wonderful, and it was good for what it was.

 

[Quinnmac000]

I mean it wasn't as good as the original but I genuinely enjoyed it for what it was, a live action remake of a near perfect animated film. Call me a pixie duster all you want but the cast was amazing, the new songs were wonderful, and it was good for what it was.

The voice actors, Luke Evans and Josh Gad were good. It was Emma who brought most of the film down. Some of the choices Bill Condon made were dumb. I'm not a big fan of Maleficent or Cinderalla but both those two at least justified their existence other than cash grabs.

 

[TalkingHead]

Wait DAK has a closing announcement? Any footage online?

Heard it in front of the Tree of Life as we left RoL.

 

[FigmentJedi]

The voice actors, Luke Evans and Josh Gad were good. It was Emma who brought most of the film down. Some of the choices Bill Condon made were dumb. I'm not a big fan of Maleficent or Cinderalla but both those two at least justified their existence other than cash grabs.

How did Cinderella justify its existence? Wasn't it also just "The animated movie, but rendered with overly detailed CG" but with less singing and not much to distinguish itself otherwise?

 

[Californian Elitist]

The voice actors, Luke Evans and Josh Gad were good. It was Emma who brought most of the film down. Some of the choices Bill Condon made were dumb. I'm not a big fan of Maleficent or Cinderalla but both those two at least justified their existence other than cash grabs.

What do you mean they "justified their existences?"

I found Cinderella to be mediocre and Maleficent was all around terrible.

 

[Quinnmac000]

What do you mean they "justified their existences?"

I found Cinderella to be mediocre and Maleficent was all around terrible.

Maleficent was an original take on Sleeping beauty rather just using the animated version and retelling the same story over again, same with Cinderella, they actually revamped it and actually added value to a somewhat bland animated film. Beauty and the beast is one of the most beloved Disney films and it should've been better than what I saw.

 

[mickeyfan5534]

Some of the choices Bill Condon made were dumb.

The couple things I didn't like was the teleporting book but that ended up leading to a really good scene. The other thing was the shorter timeline. The beauty (pun intended) of the original film was the intent that it was over months or even years and there was a real slow burn for Belle and the Beast to go from hating each other to becoming friends to falling in love. Here, it's the span of a few days and makes the romance far less sweet and genuine than it was in the original.

 

[FigmentJedi]

What do you mean they "justified their existences?"

I found Cinderella to be mediocre and Maleficent was all around terrible.

Maleficent was a movie that had its own identity rather then being a slavish copy of the original. It was pants-on-head stupid and a complete failure at understanding why Wicked worked, but that's still more then you can say about Beauty and the Beast.

 

[Quinnmac000]

The couple things I didn't like was the teleporting book but that ended up leading to a really good scene. The other thing was the shorter timeline. The beauty (pun intended) of the original film was the intent that it was over months or even years and there was a real slow burn for Belle and the Beast to go from hating each other to becoming friends to falling in love. Here, it's the span of a few days and makes the romance far less sweet and genuine than it was in the original.

That was one of my complaints as well as it made sense for Belle to fall in love over time rather in 5 days. Belle's mom was never mentioned in the original. It was dumb to mention it now. The original didn't need to use the dead parent crap to tell the story and in this film it was really un-needed.

 

[Californian Elitist]

Maleficent was an original take on Sleeping beauty rather just using the animated version and retelling the same story over again, same with Cinderella, they actually revamped it and actually added value to a somewhat bland animated film. Beauty and the beast is one of the most beloved Disney films and it should've been better than what I saw.

I see. Personally I only accept re-tellings if they actually work. Maleficent failed in that department.

 

[mickeyfan5534]

That was one of my complaints as well as it made sense for Belle to fall in love over time rather in 5 days. Belle's mom was never mentioned in the original. It was dumb to mention it now. The original didn't need to use the dead parent crap to tell the story and in this film it was really un-needed.

I liked the added backstory. Why else would Belle and Maurice, two very forward thinking people of high intellect and learning, end up in a small minded town full of people with very conformist attitudes and who's high standard is Gaston?