Buh-bye Poly, hello Aulani?

[misterID]

Never mind the tower, what about those GIANT BIRDS!?! Those would have really ruined things...

Haha

I find it hard to believe Disney would spend that kind of money on an original resport in Hawaii and then build a clone of it in Orlando, modified or not. Anyway you slice it the whole idea doesn't make sense. They want people to fork out money for a vacation to Hawaii, which isn't cheap, and stay at a new, beautiful, original resort. The main attraction. I don't think they would mess with that by making a clone, especially this soon... And considering how popular Poly is... And planting the new resort's clone at WDW... Which really doesn't have a problem at bringing in guests... I don't know I buy that.

If original rides are given 6 year exclusivity rights before they can be cloned at another park... You know, so to get people interested and motivated to visit that park for that specific ride, I don't think they'd shoot themselves in the foot by building a clone resort in their targeted audiences backyard.

 

[Wilt Dasney]

Whether Disney builds Aulani in Florida or not, I feel very comfortable going out on a limb and saying they're not worried about cannibalization.

Who cancels a vacation in Hawaii because they can stay at the same hotel in Orlando? Honestly, I think that's just as absurd as saying people would cancel visits to WDW if Disney opened a Contemporary Resort in Toledo, Ohio.

 

[misterID]

They're trying to get people to visit the resort in Hawaii... And they're targeting people who are going to Hawaii... With an original resort you can't get anywhere else. Why would they build a clone of an investment like this?

Your analogy is horrible, btw.

 

[Wilt Dasney]

They're trying to get people to visit the resort in Hawaii... And they're targeting people who are going to Hawaii... With an original resort you can't get anywhere else. Why would they build a clone of an investment like this?

Your analogy is horrible, btw.

I thought about the analogy after I made the post, and the only real weakness I see with it is that Toledo isn't (to my knowledge) known for its local attractions or tourism.

So let's pick some places that are known for tourism...Branson, Missouri or Pigeon Forge, Tennessee come to mind. Would a cloned Disney hotel in those places really cause people who would otherwise visit WDW to be content with a trip to those places instead? I really don't see it.

If I follow your logic, you're saying people would be less likely to visit the Hawaii resort if the exclusivity factor (a sense of cache, I guess) was compromised through cloning.

I can't imagine someone who was already going to Hawaii and who was intrigued by the Disney resort deciding to stay at another hotel in Hawaii because the Disney resort also existed somewhere else thousands of miles away. Perhaps I'm vastly underestimating the psychological importance of having an experience that no one else on earth can have for the Hawaiian tourist market. :lol:

Again, I just think the logic is flawed. Nothing personal, and certainly nothing against you, since you're not the first (or second) person to make this argument.

 

[misterID]

I thought about the analogy after I made the post, and the only real weakness I see with it is that Toledo isn't (to my knowledge) known for its local attractions or tourism.

So let's pick some places that are known for tourism...Branson, Missouri or Pigeon Forge, Tennessee come to mind. Would a cloned Disney hotel in those places really cause people who would otherwise visit WDW to be content with a trip to those places instead? I really don't see it.

If I follow your logic, you're saying people would be less likely to visit the Hawaii resort if the exclusivity factor (a sense of cache, I guess) was compromised through cloning.

I can't imagine someone who was already going to Hawaii and who was intrigued by the Disney resort deciding to stay at another hotel in Hawaii because the Disney resort also existed somewhere else thousands of miles away. Perhaps I'm vastly underestimating the psychological importance of having an experience that no one else on earth can have for the Hawaiian tourist market. :lol:

Again, I just think the logic is flawed. Nothing personal, and certainly nothing against you, since you're not the first (or second) person to make this argument.

I was actually going to put Branson or Vegas there instead of Toledo and argue that, since I didn't get Toledo. I thought that comment came out harsh, so sorry about that

What would be the benefit of building/cloning an already existing Disney resort in Branson or Vegas? You have to consider the people who would go to Hawaii to visit that specific Disney resort has probably, more than likely, already stayed at a Disney resort before and are looking for an original experience.

Considering the cost, the average American family can take a trip to Hawaii and stay at an exlusive resort you can't find anywhere else... I don't think Disney would hurt that scenerio by offering them the same resort at WDW. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I wouldn't want any reason for someone 'not' to visit my new, very expensive resort.

If I'm going to Hawaii, considering all the great resorts already out there, why would I stay at a resort I can visit at home and save some money?

And if Disney built a Branson resort, it would be exclusive to Branson. If they built a Vegas resort, it'd be exclusive to Vegas. They aren't going to put that much investment into a resort you can visit somewhere else. That's just my take.

 

[VDisneyFan18]

where did you find that

The Poly was the very first WDW resort to open. The Contemporary opened 45 minutes after the Polynesian did. I've also heard fort wilderness didn't open until later that day as well. Most people think that only two resorts were operating on opening day, but in fact there were 3 operating.

Really Thats a cool fact where did you find that out??:veryconfu

 

[Krack]

Never mind the tower, what about those GIANT BIRDS!?! Those would have really ruined things...

Rumor is they had to get rid of them because they ate all the sailboats.

 

[Computer Magic]

Whether Disney builds Aulani in Florida or not, I feel very comfortable going out on a limb and saying they're not worried about cannibalization.

Who cancels a vacation in Hawaii because they can stay at the same hotel in Orlando? Honestly, I think that's just as absurd as saying people would cancel visits to WDW if Disney opened a Contemporary Resort in Toledo, Ohio.

If you build a WDW Poly in Ohio, I know a family of 6 that might cancel trip to WDW :lookaroun

 

[TP2000]

The only thing I can see hapening even remotely like this would be a massive refurb of the GCH including some of the new ideas used at the Aulani resort (Interactive elements and such). Even with that though I am sure the overall look and feel will remain very true to the current design.

What I think folks here don't get, being primarily those living east of the Rockies who don't vacation in Hawaii much or keep tabs on the Honolulu papers, is the deep cultural significance built in to Aulani. A deep cultural significance that is largely missing from Disney's Polynesian Resort N' Dinner Show.

For those who have not been to Hawai'i in the last 15 years, there is a surprisingly strong political movement afoot to secede from the Union, also known as the Hawai'i Sovereignty Movement. While the native Hawaiians who want to secede are still a voting minority, there is a much larger group of Hawaiians that approve of the secession movement on purely cultural grounds, if not politically and economically. There are now regular secession protests in front of the Iolani Palace not far from the Disney property, the same palace where the US government overthrew Hawai'is last monarch and imposed by armed force federal rule over the islands and its people in 1893. (Stuff they generally don't teach in Ohio public schools, but is required reading in O'ahu classrooms)

Hawai'i Independence Parades and Protests 2010

Not exactly like when the Brady Bunch went on vacation to Waikiki in '73, is it?

Disney tip-toed in to this politically and culturally sensitive environment by trying to do everything right when it came to honoring and respecting the native culture of Hawai'i, starting with simply using the correct Hawaiian languge spelling of Hawai'i and O'ahu instead of the Americanized version without the apostrophe, Hawaii and Oahu. Disney didn't want to be seen as yet another mainland corporation building a mega-hotel with a thatched roof snack bar by the pool. Disney has brought in native religious leaders to bless the Aulani property in traditional pre-Christian ceremonies, they have cultural ambassadors on staff to ensure the proper pre-Christian etiquette and belief-systems are being followed by Aulani Cast Members, and they have gone to great pains to use local artisans and cultural experts to maintain proper nomenclature and symbolism throughout the property.

While the secession movement may never get enough votes to actually happen, the cultural movement attached to secession is only getting stronger among native Hawai'ians every year. Disney is walking a fine line culturally, and thus far they have impressed the heck out of nearly every local on O'ahu with their clear respect for traditional Hawai'ian culture.

Compare that to the Polynesian Resort with its white-bread Nixon era homage to Tiki Room cocktail culture, all built prefab by the nice folks at US Steel. For the Disney staff working on Aulani for the past few years, the Polynesian at WDW is now embarassingly cheesy and culturally insensitve in comparison.

Personally, I think the Hawai'i secession movement is a dumb move for them politically. But, I can certainly understand the natives desire to rebuild their unique culture, religion and language, and elevate it back to the status it had before the missionaries and the federal marshalls showed up 140 years ago. Disney now gets it too.

Once Aulani is open to the public and representing the Disney brand in Hawai'i, the imagery below from the other Disney hotel using Polynesia as a theme to mock and stereotype the native culture suddenly becomes rather embarassing for Disney.

Yikes! I'm sure we can all think of several other cultures that would be furious if Disney turned their culturally important icons in to wacky decorations for tourists in the lobby of an aging prefab theme hotel.

A cultural rethink of the Polynesian Resort is likely a big part of this plan to redo the property, along with a more mundane need to remove asbestos and update, if not bulldoze, aging facilities and convert a few hundred rooms in to two-bedroom DVC villas. Aloha! :wave:

 

[WDWFigment]

^I think you give Disney guests way too much credit, and you also assume that Disney actually cares about the perception of the resort.

Like many things Disney does, the product (the Polynesian Resort) is a cheeky caricature of reality. Most guests probably don't realize this, and assume the Poly is how Hawaii actually is (after all, Hawaii has been portrayed that way in pop culture). If you portray Hawaii in a sense that's actually representative of the culture, people may find less allure in the product. Reality doesn't matter as much as perception, and my bet is that the unrealistic Hawaii as is portrayed by the Poly is the perceived Hawaii for most guests. Most people who do understand that's not how things actually are, are astute enough to realize that much of Disney is a caricature of reality, and don't really care about authenticity.

Which brings us to the second point. If my above bet is true, why on earth would Disney spend money (unnecessarily) to make changes to the resort? Costly changes that would--potentially--be bad for business.

In other words, I don't see Aulani impacting the Polynesian in any way whatsoever.

 

[Slowjack]

TP2000, come on, man

Wdwfigment already expressed much of what I was going to say, but since I bothered to type this already, I'm going to post it!

To the extent that the Polynesian is culturally insensitive, the same can be said of all of Adventureland, so if they're going to raze one, they would need to destroy the other as well. For that matter, Fantasyland is not an accurate portrayal of Europe, and World Showcase is certainly guilty of de-contextualization, among other things.

And don't get me started on saying that Hawai'i is the "correct" way to write the word. The Hawaiian language was never written down before they met foreigners, so it's not as if we are discussing how things are written in Hawaiian, because things are not written in Hawaiian, but rather how Hawaiian terms should be transcribed into English characters. Instead of saying that "Hawai'i" is "correct," it would be more accurate to say that some Hawaiians, but certainly not all, prefer to write it that way to explicitly mark the glotal stop.

You say that the Polynesian hotel is not an accurate portrayal of Hawaiian culture, but more a celebration of tiki kitsch. This is true, but it never claimed to be otherwise. Personally, when I go on a Disney vacation, I want to be transported to a semi-idealized fantasy and not co-opted into a separatist movement. I suspect others feel the same.

 

[flavious27]

In defense of the idea, they could esily shave off a few floors to have it fit the location better. And they would save buckets of money by having all the drawings and design done. The towers themselves are fairly cookie cutter with individual design elements. So adapting it to the poly location seems rather easy.

If they shave off floors they shave off the number of rooms, Aulani has less rooms already. They will need to change the amount of villas to regular rooms, which will add a cost for the engineers to rework the design and make sure that the facilities can handle that change. It will be a huge cost for disney to do this while also taking 800+ deluxe rooms off the market for 2+ years. They might as well just build a new deluxe hotel on the plot of land just north of gf.

 

[redfive13]

If this was to actually happen (which I doubt), what timeframe might we be talking about here? 2012, 13, 14?

 

[CDavid]

there is a surprisingly strong political movement afoot to secede from the Union, also known as the Hawai'i Sovereignty Movement.

States cannot secede from the Union, no matter how many votes they get. This is abundantly clear in constitutional writings of the founding fathers, but if there was any lingering doubt, the issue was settled in 1865 with the Union victory in the Civil War. Secession would be tantamount to revolution.

More on topic, if the Polynesian Resort could be considered in any way culturally insensitive, consider what that says about Pop Century.

 

[TP2000]

And don't get me started on saying that Hawai'i is the "correct" way to write the word. The Hawaiian language was never written down before they met foreigners, so it's not as if we are discussing how things are written in Hawaiian, because things are not written in Hawaiian, but rather how Hawaiian terms should be transcribed into English characters. Instead of saying that "Hawai'i" is "correct," it would be more accurate to say that some Hawaiians, but certainly not all, prefer to write it that way to explicitly mark the glotal stop.

Whether we as Haole's consider it correct or not, Disney has gone out of its way to use what the locals consider the correct way to spell native words in the Hawaiian language. If Disney is spelling it now, it's Hawai'i, on everything from billboards to menus to brochures to elevator signs to DVC stickers for the kiddies.

And when Disney wants to note the exact island, they use the native form of the word with the apostrophe on all written communication. It's O'ahu as far as Disney is concerned. And the locals have noticed and approve. That was my only point.

 

[TP2000]

States cannot secede from the Union, no matter how many votes they get. This is abundantly clear in constitutional writings of the founding fathers, but if there was any lingering doubt, the issue was settled in 1865 with the Union victory in the Civil War. Secession would be tantamount to revolution.

I can't pretend to be a constitutional scholar, but the word "secede" is often used by folks in the sovereignty movement on the islands. They also use the phrase "declare independence" or "restore independence" when discussing their desire to no longer be the 50th state. Call it whatever you'd like, but leaving the union is a really dumb idea if you ask me. But there it is, gaining steam and protesting regularly in front of Iolani Palace.

As for the Polynesian Resort at WDW, I love that it's kitschy and classic Americana Tiki. But I think just from the room designs and architecture and furnishings used in Aulani, I think there's probably a better way to pull off the Polynesia theme in the 21st century.

If the Polynesian does close for a major rehab, I would bet two churros the wacky Tiki gods and circa 1975 iconagraphy gets replaced with a more culturally accurate Aulani-style of furnishing and decorating. But as seen in the Aulani model rooms, there's a way to do that and still have a Mickey-Mouse-On-Surfboard wit and Disney zip to that cultural accuracy.

Yesterland.com had a great look at the new Aulani style of Disney-approved Polynesia. http://www.yesterland.com/disneykoolina13.html

 

[flavious27]

A deep cultural significance that is largely missing from Disney's Polynesian Resort N' Dinner Show.


Compare that to the Polynesian Resort with its white-bread Nixon era homage to Tiki Room cocktail culture, all built prefab by the nice folks at US Steel. For the Disney staff working on Aulani for the past few years, the Polynesian at WDW is now embarassingly cheesy and culturally insensitve in comparison.

Yikes! I'm sure we can all think of several other cultures that would be furious if Disney turned their culturally important icons in to wacky decorations for tourists in the lobby of an aging prefab theme hotel.

A cultural rethink of the Polynesian Resort is likely a big part of this plan to redo the property, along with a more mundane need to remove asbestos and update, if not bulldoze, aging facilities and convert a few hundred rooms in to two-bedroom DVC villas. Aloha! :wave:

Disney has been changing the look of the Polynesian over the years to look less passé; the look of the rooms is much different then when the resort opened in 71. Also the theme is all of polynesia, not just hawaii. As for the carvings, they are in the gift shop, and they work there because it fits in with the tiki bar culture in our country.

 

[thewhitequeen]

I can't pretend to be a constitutional scholar, but the word "secede" is often used by folks in the sovereignty movement on the islands. They also use the phrase "declare independence" or "restore independence" when discussing their desire to no longer be the 50th state. Call it whatever you'd like, but leaving the union is a really dumb idea if you ask me. But there it is, gaining steam and protesting regularly in front of Iolani Palace.

As for the Polynesian Resort at WDW, I love that it's kitschy and classic Americana Tiki. But I think just from the room designs and architecture and furnishings used in Aulani, I think there's probably a better way to pull off the Polynesia theme in the 21st century.

If the Polynesian does close for a major rehab, I would bet two churros the wacky Tiki gods and circa 1975 iconagraphy gets replaced with a more culturally accurate Aulani-style of furnishing and decorating. But as seen in the Aulani model rooms, there's a way to do that and still have a Mickey-Mouse-On-Surfboard wit and Disney zip to that cultural accuracy.

Yesterland.com had a great look at the new Aulani style of Disney-approved Polynesia. http://www.yesterland.com/disneykoolina13.html

Looks lovely. Also makes the Poly look like a dump.

 

[redshoesrock]

I can't pretend to be a constitutional scholar, but the word "secede" is often used by folks in the sovereignty movement on the islands. They also use the phrase "declare independence" or "restore independence" when discussing their desire to no longer be the 50th state. Call it whatever you'd like, but leaving the union is a really dumb idea if you ask me. But there it is, gaining steam and protesting regularly in front of Iolani Palace.

Real quick aside - I am not a constitution scholar...but I did take Constitutional Law in college! *note - if you don't care about this stuff, feel free to skip over this post. It's quite...legalish.

Texas v. White (1869) is the Supreme Court case which says that states do not have the right to secede or leave the United States. It was about Texas selling its U.S. bonds to raise money during the Civil War when it was a Confederate state. Anyhoo, the relevant parts for our discussion from the majority opinion of the court; feel free to swap out "Texas" for "Hawaii" for our general purposes [all emphasis is mine]:

"...The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?

"...When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States...

"...Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union. "

So in laymen's terms, just because Texas "said" they weren't part of the United States doesn't mean they actually weren't. They continued to be part of the United States. If Hawai'i wants to leave the United States, it will only come, as the Supreme Court states, "except through revolution or through consent of the States." Don't count on either happening anytime soon.

 

[flavious27]

I can't pretend to be a constitutional scholar, but the word "secede" is often used by folks in the sovereignty movement on the islands. They also use the phrase "declare independence" or "restore independence" when discussing their desire to no longer be the 50th state. Call it whatever you'd like, but leaving the union is a really dumb idea if you ask me. But there it is, gaining steam and protesting regularly in front of Iolani Palace.

With their parents, grandparents, and great grandparents approving statehood by a 17 - 1 margin, what ground would they even have? Along with that, no one lost their private land holdings and any public kingdom lands are controlled by the state.