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

[RSoxNo1]

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

The video tour is a great look at these rooms. There are things that I object to and things that I think were very well executed.
My thoughts:

• The swirly Moana logo all over the place is a nice touch.
• Functional use of space is well done.
• I think the subtle Moana print in the bathroom is perfect. I think the bathroom is exceptionally well executed.
• I think the Moana print on the wall is exactly what I expected for an obvious tie to the character. These types of prints are relatively normal in Disney hotel rooms and this fits the room and resort.
• The headboards / bed dressing with the flower print body pillow look great.
• I don't like Hei Hei on the wall. I would have preferred just the flower prints.
• The Maui tattoo accent wall is interesting but I could do without Maui and Moana on that wall.
• I'm undecided on the Moana lamp.

 

[UNCgolf]

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.

You're arguing something completely separate -- I never said the park wasn't commercialized. The very fact that it had sponsorships means it was commercialized. But commercialized does not equal a nonstop commercial, which was the comment you made. The final version of Horizons had essentially nothing to do with GE, which is the entire point. No one rode it and came off thinking that they needed to buy GE products. I'm not sure General Electric was even mentioned on the ride, although it may have been somewhere -- the fact that I can't even remember shows how minor it was if it was. You've somehow decided that sponsorship automatically means the entire park was a commercial, which is clearly false. I'll say it again -- the vast majority of EPCOT visitors had no clue who sponsored most of the pavilions unless they happened to read what it said on the sign out front. It just wasn't in-your-face most of the time the way you're suggesting.

Any by the way, the Eastern Airlines reservation desk was in the Magic Kingdom in Tomorrowland (at If You Had Wings), not in EPCOT. That attraction basically was a commercial.

Paging @marni1971 because he probably knows more about EPCOT than anyone -- am I way off here? Am I just forgetting a ton of in-your-face advertising at EPCOT? I remember it being mostly subtle, with a few exceptions.

 

[James Alucobond]

It’s not painted. It’s a factory finish and those can come in all sorts of colors.

Yeah, probably true. It just looked way more gray when they were initially assembling it, but it was probably lighting and camera settings making it look different.

 

[LittleBuford]

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".

I don’t mind the colour—the concept art hinted that the underside would be white—but I agree a wooden finish would have been better than a metal one.

 

[Ponderer]

You're arguing something completely separate -- I never said the park wasn't commercialized. The very fact that it had sponsorships means it was commercialized. But commercialized does not equal a nonstop commercial, which was the comment you made. The final version of Horizons had essentially nothing to do with GE, which is the entire point. No one rode it and came off thinking that they needed to buy GE products. I'm not sure General Electric was even mentioned on the ride, although it may have been somewhere -- the fact that I can't even remember shows how minor it was if it was. You've somehow decided that sponsorship automatically means the entire park was a commercial, which is clearly false. I'll say it again -- the vast majority of EPCOT visitors had no clue who sponsored most of the pavilions unless they happened to read what it said on the sign out front. It just wasn't in-your-face most of the time the way you're suggesting.

Any by the way, the Eastern Airlines reservation desk was in the Magic Kingdom in Tomorrowland (at If You Had Wings), not in EPCOT. That attraction basically was a commercial.

Paging @marni1971 because he probably knows more about EPCOT than anyone -- am I way off here? Am I just forgetting a ton of in-your-face advertising at EPCOT? I remember it being mostly subtle, with a few exceptions.

You're right abt the Eastern Airlines desk, I got my references confused.

But you’re missing my point. I’m not saying the whole park was commercialized, just as everything in the parks is not going IP. What I keep saying is that all this sponsorship and advertising was a real presence in the parks, but no one particularly lost their minds about it, even as they were selling you flights and hyping offshore drilling and better living through chemistry. And that’s fine. But, you know, they did a super-minor Mary Poppins retheme of Citricos and ppl couldn’t shut up about it, that the presence of any IP at all was a crime against Walt and humanity. It’s not whether or not if IP is well done or well-integrated or minor. It’s that *any attempt to do it is crass and commercial and sullies everything about Disney.* It comes up every day on various boards. And I find that an ironic double-standard. Letting Exxon propagandize isn’t crass. The chicken from Moana is. You tell me.

 

[Mike730]

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.

My thoughts exactly. And I realize my interest in having less characters in the rooms is an opinion some find ridiculous. I would have preferred to see the characters appear as they do as small parts of the paintings in the room and that’s it.

The contemporary rooms seem like a serios miscalculation in my opinion and give off major cartoon laboratory/office vibes, which is absurd considering the resort they are a part of.

 

[dreday3]

I think these rooms look fantastic. And the hallways....what an upgrade! Soooo much better.

 

[Weather_Lady]

I think these rooms look fantastic. And the hallways....what an upgrade! Soooo much better.

I agree, although I enjoy "clean, bright and breezy" as an aesthetic, and don't mind the Moana touches, which I find cute and whimsical rather than cloying. I also really like the "functional" changes they made -- higher beds to store luggage, surfaces and charging ports on each side of each bed for phones and other devices, opening up the room by putting the coffee area at the end of the closets instead of between them, etc. Obviously there are many who preferred the prior iteration. While we will no longer get to enjoy the new Polynesian rooms this time around (when we visit next month), they're at the top of my list for whenever we make it back again.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

Although I don't love these IP-conversions of the hotels, there are some things in this room I like such as the beds. Overall, though, the rooms just look a bit drab to me. No real color or character... in the true sense of the word, that is! They could have leaned at least a little more into the retro Polynesian pop vibe.

Just my impression from watching a few of the videos.

 

[dsinclair]

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.

Remember, Moana is also ruining Epcot.

But to the larger point, it feels to me there are two things going on: One, a push back against the perceived commercialization of the properties (as you've pointed out), and two, there is a pretty constant drumbeat among many on the site against things children will actually enjoy or be excited about. I don't think point two is a conscious thing, but in almost any thread if a change occurs that isn't geared toward adult attendees it's looked down on and deemed a mistake.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Remember, Moana is also ruining Epcot.

But to the larger point, it feels to me there are two things going on: One, a push back against the perceived commercialization of the properties (as you've pointed out), and two, there is a pretty constant drumbeat among many on the site against things children will actually enjoy or be excited about. I don't think point two is a conscious thing, but in almost any thread if a change occurs that isn't geared toward adult attendees it's looked down on and deemed a mistake.

Yes, it’s a good thing Bob Iger fixed Walt Disney World and finally made it appeal to children.

 

[dsinclair]

Yes, it’s a good thing Bob Iger fixed Walt Disney World and finally made it appeal to children.

Never said that. Just that if anything is done with children in mind it's bad. Sorry that upsets you.

 

[GimpYancIent]

In the pecking order of Disney Resorts Poly is an over priced mid range resort (moderate) advertised by Disney as a Deluxe simply because of proximity to monorail and MK. What is offered does not justify the price. Disney can do much better.

 

[J4546]

for every person that thinks these hotel renovations are bad and wont stay in them anymore, there are 1000 people that like them and will

 

[FigmentFan82]

Yes, it’s a good thing Bob Iger fixed Walt Disney World and finally made it appeal to children.

Yeah that not at all what the OP was getting at.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Never said that. Just that if anything is done with children in mind it's bad. Sorry that upsets you.

Yeah that not at all what the OP was getting at.

Oh please. If these things are done to appeal to children then that means the previous attitude before the franchise mandate didn’t appeal to children.

 

[UNCgolf]

Oh please. If these things are done to appeal to children then that means the previous attitude before the franchise mandate didn’t appeal to children.

Yeah, I don't understand that original comment at all. Disney has built very little that's supposed to appeal to adults only.

It's possible to build things that appeal to both adults and children. Building something that only appeals to children is not a very good business strategy for Disney for the most part (there are exceptions), which is why they haven't generally done so.

Most people aren't annoyed/upset that Disney is building something to appeal to children. They're bothered that Disney is building something dumbed down and lazy and then justifying it as "it's for the children!" as though kids don't enjoy things that are more complex. EPCOT was my favorite park as a 7 year old, so that's clearly not the case.

 

[Ponderer]

Oh please. If these things are done to appeal to children then that means the previous attitude before the franchise mandate didn’t appeal to children.

There's more in-between those two poles. Many children simply want more. Even if they meet Mickey Mouse, they want to meet Mickey Mouse while wearing Mickey Mouse clothes and holding a Mickey doll. The reinforcement of familiar characters is comforting to them. There's almost never too much of a good thing for most children.

I certainly know I was that way. I needed my Darth Vader action figure while wearing my Star Wars shirt climbing into my bed with Star Wars bedsheets, surrounded by Star Wars posters.

 

[Ponderer]

Yeah, I don't understand that original comment at all. Disney has built very little that's supposed to appeal to adults only.

It's possible to build things that appeal to both adults and children. Building something that only appeals to children is not a very good business strategy for Disney for the most part (there are exceptions), which is why they haven't generally done so.

Most people aren't annoyed/upset that Disney is building something to appeal to children. They're bothered that Disney is building something dumbed down and lazy and then saying "it's for the children!" as though kids don't enjoy things that are more complex. EPCOT was my favorite park as a 7 year old, so that's clearly not the case.

Yeah, but also, one of the first things Eisner demanded to know about EPCOT was, "Where's Mickey?" And he fixed that real quick.

 

[FigmentFan82]

Oh please. If these things are done to appeal to children then that means the previous attitude before the franchise mandate didn’t appeal to children.

Again you're not reading what was posted.