Spirited News, Observations & Thoughts IV

[GoofGoof]

BLT has 428 rooms all told, So based on your numbers 35% belongs to CRO not 5%, Based on 281 rooms or equivalents average points per week is 258.6

428 rooms total (14 grand villas, 148 dedicated 2 bedrooms, 133 1 bedroom villas and 133 studios). The studios can be combined with a 1 bedroom villa to create a 2 bedroom lockoff. When you combine the studios and 1 bedrooms into a 2 bedroom room you get 14 grand villas and 281 2 bedroom equivalent rooms. DVD has declared 267 2 bedroom equivalent rooms plus the 14 villas as DVC inventory leaving the equivalent of 14 2 bedroom villas as cash rooms. That's about 5%. For @stevehousse - That's simple math

 

[GoofGoof]

The problem here is a 200 Room timeshare in Manhattan run by Westin their annual houseskeeping budget is 1.1 Million and that includes daily cleaning and turndown service,

I think we can all agree NYC is one of the most expensive cities in the world. So how does Disney justify such a high figure in a low cost/low wage area such as Orlando other than being wildly inefficient or cooking the books I dont see a third alternative.

People sweat a lot in Florida. They have to change the sheets out more

This could go on forever. I'm sure we are never going to see eye to eye on this and I'm sure it's just annoying to most other people so I will agree that you are right and I am wrong. Disney is cooking the books.

 

[TalkingHead]

I was 13 and I remember it being a big deal when Splash came out. Lots of media attention around Disney releasing a PG-13 movie with brief nudity.

FWIW (not much I know), Splash was rated PG.

 

[flynnibus]

During the period of time that Touchstone was producing films such as "Pretty Woman", the primary source of information for people was their local sources. Local sources consisted of newspaper, television, news magazines, and radio news. In more affluent demographics, delivery of the Wall Street Journal and similar publications might also have been in the mix. Information as to what exactly made up a company's holdings, their division structure, or corporate make up wasn't easily available.

Back then, information was harder to come by. I utilized BBS well before many of my peers because I had resources they could not posses and interest in tech. Prior to services like AOL, the reach of most people was still their local sources. In today's society, information is readily available within seconds from multiple internet connected devices.

I would agree with you... if you were talking about 1820. But you're talking about the 1980s. There was plenty of media with national reach and interest in topics such as corporate actions or culture. Time magazine, US News, etc etc. We had 'news magazine' shows on TV... we even had a national newspaper.. USA Today.

Why is this important?

It is important because many of the arguments made about Disney's participation in licensing it's IP have involved reaching back to find examples of similar controversial themes. Touchstone films is part of Disney. Was that common knowledge back then? To my recollection it was not. Did the release of "Pretty Woman" in 1990 have controversy? Sure it did. The likes of programs such as The 700 Club made it one.

It was common knowledge about Touchstone. No, the rube on the corner probably didn't know, but anyone who cared enough about Hollywood, entertainment news, or the Disney company knew. It also would have been a top level subject when Ron Miller as the CEO OF THE COMPANY getting the boot. Or do you think the firing of the CEO of one of the darlings of American media would have been lost as well in your more quaint times?

Actually, forget it. Nuances in this format of a discussion will not help convince others of divergence. You either recognize that Disney's public image is one oriented around the family or you don't

Ok, Lets play your way...

You either recognize Disney is a conglomerate of multiple organizations and companies or you don't.

Oh, and BTW, back in the days of 'local only' media... Disney was a single brand. It no longer is... with many businesses like TV, radio, print, film, theme parks, touring, etc. That's why the branching out back then under Miller was so much more controversial than it is now. Disney already has many siblings under it's parent.

 

[1023]

I was 13 and I remember it being a big deal when Splash came out. Lots of media attention around Disney releasing a PG-13 movie with brief nudity.

It seems that the film (Splash) was the first released under the newly formed "Touchstone Pictures" to distance the Disney name from anything in the PG realm. Disney was tired of defending itself over releasing PG material. They needed a place to put films like; The Black Hole, Condorman, and Tron. The move was successful and generated a ton of money during the 80s.

I bet you snuck into that dirty little mermaid movie. Didn't you?

*1023*

 

[HMF]

Lots of giant companies and corporations have very evil and negative sides to their businesses these days and I think it's silly for people to believe that Disney doesn't have its own skeletons...

This is the thing that troubles me. I love Disney and it's parks but if I see this kind of unethical behavior I feel it is my duty both as a fan and as a socially Conscious Human Being to do everything in my power to stop it. I fear that we have reached a point in our culture that we are so blinded by brand loyalty that we look the other way on ethics and morals. My ultimate allegiance is to this grand and miraculous Spaceship we call Earth and it's Passengers, While I like the ideals and products of the Walt Disney Company, They are not infallible, especially, when the people on top are corrupt and out of touch with reality.

 

[TalkingHead]

Touchstone films is part of Disney. Was that common knowledge back then? To my recollection it was not. Did the release of "Pretty Woman" in 1990 have controversy? Sure it did. The likes of programs such as The 700 Club made it one.

The fact that Disney owned film divisions that played along controversial themes was not easily appropriated information.

In the 1990s, it became more widely recognized that Disney's holdings included more "adult" fare like Miramax (which released Pulp Fiction back when Disney still owned Miramax).

There was also a rather large controversy when the Insane Clown Posse released an album with Hollywood Records (which Disney owned). As I recall, the album had lyrics that referenced killing cops(?) or some other "controversial" material. Was the album pulled from shelves?

Here's the story from Wikipedia:

>> The group started recording its fourth studio album, The Great Milenko, in 1996, during which Disney requested that the tracks "The Neden Game," "Under the Moon," and "Boogie Woogie Wu" be removed. Disney also asked that the lyrics of other tracks be changed, threatening to not release the album otherwise.[18][19] Bruce and Utsler complied with Disney's requests...

During a music store autograph signing, Insane Clown Posse was notified that Hollywood Records had recalled the album within hours of its release,[18] despite having sold 18,000 copies and reaching #63 on the Billboard 200.[20][21] The group was also informed that its in-store signings and nationwide tour had been canceled, commercials for the album and the music video for "Halls of Illusions" (which had reached #1 on The Box video request channel) were pulled from television, and that the group was dropped from the label.[18] It was later revealed that Disney was being criticized by the Southern Baptist Convention at the time because of Disney's promotion of "Gay Days" at Disneyland, in addition to presiding over the gay-themed television sitcom Ellen. The Convention claimed Disney was turning its back on "family values."[22] Although Abbiss told the press that Disney had stopped production of The Great Milenko to avoid further controversy, Disney claimed instead that the release of the album was an oversight by their review board, and that the album "did not fit the Disney image" because of its "inappropriate" lyrics,[23] which they claimed were offensive to women. <<

 

[HMF]

I was 13 and I remember it being a big deal when Splash came out. Lots of media attention around Disney releasing a PG-13 movie with brief nudity.

Apparently the media at that time never saw Fantasia or the early shorts

 

[flynnibus]

Apparently the media at that time never saw Fantasia or the early shorts

No - the idea of movie ratings is just newer than those

The G/PG/R system didn't come around till the late 60s. Movies went through censors at the time, but didn't have a tiered rating system. That's in part why the Disney brand and what it meant to people to expect carried alot more impact back then.

 

[lebeau]

FWIW (not much I know), Splash was rated PG.

You're right. But only because PG-13 didn't exist yet. Forgot about that. Had it come out a few months later, it would have almost certainly gotten the PG-13 rating. But you are right to correct my memories.

My point being, I do think that the fact Touchstone was affiliated with Disney was reasonably well known pre-internet.

It seems that the film (Splash) was the first released under the newly formed "Touchstone Pictures" to distance the Disney name from anything in the PG realm. Disney was tired of defending itself over releasing PG material. They needed a place to put films like; The Black Hole, Condorman, and Tron. The move was successful and generated a ton of money during the 80s.

I bet you snuck into that dirty little mermaid movie. Didn't you?

*1023*

Not quite sure what the history lesson is for. As I said, I was aware of all of this when I was 13. But thanks.

I didn't have to sneak into Splash. My dad's best friend recommended it so they dropped us off. Which was extremely rare because we didn't see a lot of movies and my parents were usually extremely careful about what we could and could not see.

The previous summer I was not allowed to go see Never Say Never Again or Octopussy because they were PG. The only G-rated movie out was Smurfs and the Magic Flute which I declined to watch. 30 years later I'm still mad about that one.

 

[PhotoDave219]

But much like Starbucks coffee, it lacks that Disney Magic.

It has Philadelphia magic.

 

[HMF]

During the period of time that Touchstone was producing films such as "Pretty Woman", the primary source of information for people was their local sources. Local sources consisted of newspaper, television, news magazines, and radio news. In more affluent demographics, delivery of the Wall Street Journal and similar publications might also have been in the mix. Information as to what exactly made up a company's holdings, their division structure, or corporate make up wasn't easily available.

Back then, information was harder to come by. I utilized BBS well before many of my peers because I had resources they could not posses and interest in tech. Prior to services like AOL, the reach of most people was still their local sources. In today's society, information is readily available within seconds from multiple internet connected devices.

Why is this important? It is important because many of the arguments made about Disney's participation in licensing it's IP have involved reaching back to find examples of similar controversial themes. Touchstone films is part of Disney. Was that common knowledge back then? To my recollection it was not. Did the release of "Pretty Woman" in 1990 have controversy? Sure it did. The likes of programs such as The 700 Club made it one.

The fact that Disney owned film divisions that played along controversial themes was not easily appropriated information.

{Pause}

Actually, forget it. Nuances in this format of a discussion will not help convince others of divergence. You either recognize that Disney's public image is one oriented around the family or you don't. They may produce, license , or sell things that are contrary to that image. It is up to the individual to decide if that concerns them or not. Disney is not controversy free for any extended period of time. This one may cause them trouble.

Let's move onto what may or may not be coming to the Happiest Places on Earth. I would love some good Disney News. I myself have about 12 attraction ideas if anyone knows someone interested.

*1023*

Disney has tried too hard to become "Everything for Everybody" and that is why it is largely suffering. Excess can be a really dangerous thing. The logic of the Marvel thing still boggles my mind.

 

[Soarin' Over Pgh]

LOL, insane clown posse. Oh man.

 

[lebeau]

Apparently the media at that time never saw Fantasia or the early shorts

Did those movies include flashes of Daryl Hannah's ?

 

[HMF]

Did those movies include flashes of Daryl Hannah's ?

There are plenty of in Fantasia and as late as the Rescuers.
For a complete list of Non-family friendly Whether based in fact or not, check here.
http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/films.asp

 

[truecoat]

Did those movies include flashes of Daryl Hannah's ?

No, just a cupid named Daryl.

 

[HMF]

Again, Just because you can profit off of something doesn't mean you should. That seems to be a forgotten fact in today's business world and why we suffer from the likes of the Kardashian's and Honey Boo Boo. People, for better or worse do get a lot of their perceptions from media and if the media they are exposed to is dumb. Then you are going to have a dumb generation and everyone will suffer in the long run and I fear that is what has been happening over the past decade.

 

[PhotoDave219]

Here's something interesting.

Wdw is redefining what they consider to be a credible media outlet & whom they let In to their events.

"Behind the thrills" was your first casualty.

 

[Nemo14]

Were they just "not invited" or told not to come?

 

[lazyboy97o]

I think the point that's being missed is that they have actively marketed Spiderman to kids.

The difference to me is that this is absolutely nothing new for Marvel. For decades now they have had no qualms with having different versions of characters aimed at different audiences. This is a big part of why Disney promised not to interfere with Marvel, because it was known that Marvel had some very different versions of characters, many of whom did not fit the Disney image. In these very threads we've discussed how Marvel has stood up to Disney and made them stay out of their affairs. Marvel doing business as Marvel has done for decades is not a big revelation.