• Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.You can use your Twitter or Facebook account to sign up, or register directly.

News Refurbishment coming soon to Disney's Polynesian Village Resort - Moana details to be included

UNCgolf

Well-Known Member
They literally changed Figment’s color because Kodak was upset that he had Fuji’s color. The Making Memories song was a defacto jingle for them too. Marty Sklar said they were developing a pavilion specifically to highlight GE and the “GE Style”, which became Horizons. Corporate sponsorship and integration was literally in the DNA of at least Future World. And God knows it was all over Disneyland, Walt’s baby.

View attachment 573366
View attachment 573367
View attachment 573368
View attachment 573369
View attachment 573370
View attachment 573371
And let's not forget that Figment is purple because Kodak requested he be changed from Fuji films green, and that his sweater is yellow and red to match Kodak.


I feel like you both completely missed my point; none of this disagrees with what I said. Yes, the pavilions were sponsored. But the attractions themselves had little advertising whatsoever (except Universe of Energy and Magic Journeys, I guess, if you want to call Making Memories a Kodak ad). Even the post show areas were mostly free of overt advertising, with a couple of exceptions. Also, Making Memories had nothing to do with Journey into Imagination. It was part of a separate attraction.

The pavilions (again, with the exception of original Universe of Energy, to an extent) almost never functioned as an outright commercial for their sponsor. Most people who visited EPCOT would not have even been able to tell you who sponsored any of the pavilions -- especially based on the attractions -- because it was so in the background. That's also why some of them were able to switch sponsors without really having to change anything.

Corporate sponsorship is not remotely the same thing as a "nonstop commercial". I would love to have corporate sponsorship back if it meant they would build attractions and post show areas like they built at EPCOT, though.

EDIT: As for the Figment thing -- I don't really get your point. That shows that the corporations were involved (which should be obvious) but it really has nothing to do with being an advertisement. It's not like Figment was branded with the Kodak logo; his color scheme didn't tell guests, "This is Kodak; go buy Kodak!" which is why they haven't needed to change anything about his design.
 
Last edited:

Doberge

Well-Known Member
using decor/furniture that some feel is more trend and flash vs. timeless and substance.

The rooms have always been "of the period" and more trend. I'll put some old room photos below from Tikiman's Facebook page as examples showing how not timeless the rooms have always been. I liked what was just replaced and also like the new. What's now won't exist forever either and will eventually be replaced by the next designs of the next period.

Source: https://facebook.com/Tikimanpages/

164794999_4422933624417944_5421351591282536722_n.jpg
164724820_4422933877751252_4118242749153127239_n.jpg
164502263_4419839001394073_7135871912671906731_n.jpg
164691222_4419838784727428_4658817327013453928_n.jpg
164691231_4419839074727399_8121115228276906709_n.jpg
168646113_4455484321162874_4858960514135360096_n.jpg
188109052_4604366199608018_6451784379363139864_n.jpg


164560385_4419838954727411_1058016270865990020_n.jpg
 
Last edited:

Disney Analyst

Well-Known Member
The rooms have always been "of the period" and more trend. I'll put some old room photos below from Tikiman's Facebook page as examples showing how not timeless the rooms have always been. I liked what was just replaced and also like the new. What's now won't exist forever either and will eventually be replaced by the next designs of the next period.

View attachment 573394View attachment 573395View attachment 573396View attachment 573397View attachment 573398View attachment 573399View attachment 573400

View attachment 573393

I can practically smell the cigarette smoke just by the looks of those rooms 😱😂
 

Splashin' Ryan

Well-Known Member
So... I guess they're just going to leave the underside the way it is? That's unfortunate.
It sure looks like that. It completely takes away from the illusion that the roof is thatched. Makes even less sense considering most people will see the underside more than the top or sides.
I really hope we're all wrong but I don't see them closing an area they already opened.
 

James Alucobond

Well-Known Member
So... I guess they're just going to leave the underside the way it is? That's unfortunate.
It looks to me like @Sir_Cliff might've been right and I was wrong. In those images, it looks like it's a tan or cream color rather than a bare factory finish, so it may have already been painted. If so, I think this color is less effective than the darker golds and burnt oranges used for the undersides of similar structures elsewhere in the resort.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
It looks to me like @Sir_Cliff might've been right and I was wrong. In those images, it looks like it's a tan or cream color rather than a bare factory finish, so it may have already been painted. If so, I think this color is less effective than the darker golds and burnt oranges used for the undersides of similar structures elsewhere in the resort.
It’s not painted. It’s a factory finish and those can come in all sorts of colors.
 

UNCgolf

Well-Known Member
It looks to me like @Sir_Cliff might've been right and I was wrong. In those images, it looks like it's a tan or cream color rather than a bare factory finish, so it may have already been painted. If so, I think this color is less effective than the darker golds and burnt oranges used for the undersides of similar structures elsewhere in the resort.

I doubt they painted it -- they probably just ordered it that color. There are plenty of factory finish colors available. Either way, it doesn't look very good.

EDIT: @lazyboy97o beat me by a few seconds!
 

jmuboy

Well-Known Member
I don't love these Moana rooms (the rooms at Universal's Royal Pacific are better for something with a relatively similar theme), but the Incredibles reveal at the Contemporary went a long way towards making them look great. The Incredibles rooms are terrible.
I agree with this 1000% - the awful Contemporary room updates makes me more grateful the Polynesian got the better of the room refurbishments ( and a vastly improvised arrival as well)
 

LittleBuford

Well-Known Member
It completely takes away from the illusion that the roof is thatched.
It seems the kind of roof they're referring to is actually fashioned in this way, with a thin layer of thatching over a base of close-set planks:

stock-photo-polynesian-thatched-grass-roof-with-wooden-struts-and-tropical-palm-and-plants-surrounding-640757023.jpg



tropical-home-over-water-with-thatched-roof-and-a-boat-at-dock-huahine-FW77K5.jpg


fp-insert.jpg


 

RSoxNo1

Well-Known Member
I generally was not a fan when they were announced and photos were released but seeing it on videos has changed my mind a bit. It is better, IMO, to get this instead of the bland rooms we’ve been seeing in the past decade.

+ extra points for hidden Mickeys
I think this looks better than the Contemporary rooms. I'd like it better if Hei Hei wasn't in the flowery section and if the accent wall was just Maui's tattoos and did not feature versions of Maui and Moana.
 

Ponderer

Well-Known Member
I feel like you both completely missed my point; none of this disagrees with what I said. Yes, the pavilions were sponsored. But the attractions themselves had little advertising whatsoever (except Universe of Energy and Magic Journeys, I guess, if you want to call Making Memories a Kodak ad). Even the post show areas were mostly free of overt advertising, with a couple of exceptions. Also, Making Memories had nothing to do with Journey into Imagination. It was part of a separate attraction.

The pavilions (again, with the exception of original Universe of Energy, to an extent) almost never functioned as an outright commercial for their sponsor. Most people who visited EPCOT would not have even been able to tell you who sponsored any of the pavilions -- especially based on the attractions -- because it was so in the background. That's also why some of them were able to switch sponsors without really having to change anything.

Corporate sponsorship is not remotely the same thing as a "nonstop commercial". I would love to have corporate sponsorship back if it meant they would build attractions and post show areas like they built at EPCOT, though.

EDIT: As for the Figment thing -- I don't really get your point. That shows that the corporations were involved (which should be obvious) but it really has nothing to do with being an advertisement. It's not like Figment was branded with the Kodak logo; his color scheme didn't tell guests, "This is Kodak; go buy Kodak!" which is why they haven't needed to change anything about his design.

Hoooooo! Let’s spend a ridiculous amount of money on sponsorships and make sure no one is aware that we’re doing it! Yeah!

And why did you turn this a discussion about Epcot? While your point is easily disproved - I already posted Marty Sklar’s comments that Horizons was all about selling GE - I’m talking about about Disney’s entire history as a theme park corporate shill in blatant and subtle ways. The whole point is that people are complaining about IP because it’s ruining the purity of the parks or the resorts or whatever. And I’m saying that Disney has never, ever been pure, but no one complains about that. Elsa is ruining World Showcase and Moana is ruining the Polynesuan but Monsanto’s commercial in Disneyland was adorable! It’s ridiculous.

(I still can’t get over that you think that the commercialization wasn’t absolutely blatant in Future World, though. Gobsmacking. World of Motion had an actual *Eastern Airlines reservation desk* as riders got off. Must’ve been a coincidence! Can’t imagine how they’d have gotten the notion to book a flight on Eastern Airlines!)

Anyway, that’s my perspective, YMMV, and I’m not gonna derail this thread any further. Have a great one.
 

UNCgolf

Well-Known Member
It seems the kind of roof they're referring to is actually fashioned in this way, with a thin layer of thatching over a base of close-set planks:

stock-photo-polynesian-thatched-grass-roof-with-wooden-struts-and-tropical-palm-and-plants-surrounding-640757023.jpg



tropical-home-over-water-with-thatched-roof-and-a-boat-at-dock-huahine-FW77K5.jpg


fp-insert.jpg



Yeah, I don't think having an underside like that is a problem -- I just think the color is off. It doesn't look like wood, at least in the photos I've seen, and it's a different color than all of the other "wood".
 
Last edited:

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Top Bottom