Two coasts: One very different world

[WDW1974]

I'd go further than that... they don't WANT people complaining. Word of mouth can be the best or worst advertising for a business. They don't want the word on the street to be negative. As long as they continue to offer a quality vacation, they can count on positive reviews between friends and family. When people I know and trust start saying their vacation wasn't that great or I see the overall quality drop -- I'll pay attention. But it's going to take more than hyperbole and that's mostly what we have here.

No company wants to hear complaints in 21st century America. Companies would rather people just go away (largely, obviously not every company in every situation) than complain, even if those complaints are legit and help the company in the long run. That's why you have companies that now actively black-list and even ban customers (read something online recently about Bank of America doing so) who dare complain. And I am not talking about chronics, who always demand freebies and always have issues. And let's not even get into the way some, like Disney, are using Social Media to get customers who think with a herd mentality.

And I, until the past 4-5 years ago, always told friends, family, coworkers, strangers etc to visit WDW (even though I knew it wasn't what it was supposed to be or used to be or could be again). I don't anymore because I think it's fallen to a point and the prices have risen that I can't tell people to give Disney their dollars in Florida ... although I still regularly shill the BRAND when it comes to Anaheim, the DCL (especially the DCL!) and the international resorts (although that may change with Paris if it doesn't get its act together soon!)

 

[Tom]

I've never set foot in a walmart before, but you have said walmart so many times that you have convinced me to finally see what it is like. I mean, if I like disney world, and walmart is so similar, then maybe I will like walmart. I'm going to call it Waltmart.

I didn't know there was anyone living in the US who hadn't stepped foot in a WalMart?

Regardless, it's a novel concept you must certainly check out. They do a wonderful job of flattening out the bell curve.

 

[WDW1974]

Just a general comment: I don't get the point of counting the recently built resorts as a substantial addition to WDW from a general guest experience point. Yes, it does add accommodation for some. But for anyone else it really is nothing besides maybe an additional restaurant. And while the new food court at Art of Animation sounds great how many guests would venture there for a meal if they don't stay there. The only recent addition to restaurants in resorts that are a "destination" is Sanaa. I very rarely read of people who venture to the Turf Club at SSR if they are not staying there and the BLT does not even have a restaurant - and I guess neither will the new GF wing have one. The last resort that really added something substantial to the general visitor not staying at that specific resort was the Animal Kingdom Lodge.

Good points all around. I don't sense that most guests would even have a clue what places like Turf Club and Sanaa are or even located (both are among my favorites at WDW though!) unless they're staying there. I already mentioned I'll visit the AoA ... but I do it so I can see the product and judge it ... just like a consultant would. Most guests won't visit (VAST majority) a resort that is a destination like DAK Lodge, so they sure as (blank) won't take time away from SPlash Mountain or ToT or a character meal to go check out the Beach Club let alone Coronado Springs or OLK or the ASMu ... they just won't.

As to the GF DVC, I'd guess they are taking the BLT cheapest way possible, which means no separate check in, no new dining or shopping venues and no new pool area. They will do it the cheapest way possible, using the model they really started when they dropped the BCV into wetlands that were never intended for development.

 

[HenryMystic]

As to the GF DVC, I'd guess they are taking the BLT cheapest way possible, which means no separate check in, no new dining or shopping venues and no new pool area. They will do it the cheapest way possible, using the model they really started when they dropped the BCV into wetlands that were never intended for development.

And charge a hefty, hefty premium to buy in! I shudder at the thought of how much it'll be.

 

[WDW1974]

Why is it not fair to grade a company based on the standards that they set themselves 57 years ago? A standard DLR still holds itself to. WDW held themselves to that standard until the 90's. None of us are saying that you and others are not allowed to have a good time at WDW, and everyone here that is critical of WDW has said so. The reason we are critical is because we love WDW and want it to be the best. But while WDW is hanging back, the other kids on the block are upping the ante at a rapid pace.

Yep.

Why I am responding, I dunno ... just like repeating myself.

But I am only holding Disney to the standards THEY conditioned me to from say 1974-1994. They could do no wrong during that period as far as I was concerned and I was happily addicted to the Pixie Dust.

But waaay too many people have become fans AFTER Disney stopped being Disney ... after it was now the Walmarted World of Disney. And if your first visit was in 2004 and you became addicted, there's very little you likely want to hear about why you have become a crazy rabid fan of a product that is much lower in quality than what it was back in the 20th century. Not everyone, obviously. But a majority of those new fans.

If you weren't at WDW (or alive) in the 70s, 80s and early 90s ... if you haven't been to DLR or any of the international resorts or UNI/SW/Busch parks ... then you do NOT know that WDW is the best place for themed family entertainment and better than it's ever been. And you may still love it (guess what? I do!), but you just appear ignorant when you make those claims.

Because I was conditioned to expect and demand a whole lot more from Disney than it is currently willing to deliver in the Central FLA swamps!

 

[WDW1974]

Ladies & gentlemen, we have another JT. Round of applause!

I dunno ... JT has his charm (God, I hope he doesn't see this!!!) and often gets so circular in his reasoning (and I shudder to use the word in a sentence with him) that he winds up totally opposite what his original opinion was ... and then he'll start arguing the point from the other side of the riverbank!

I don't really need another young person who is bored because school is out running roughshod over a thread. But maybe I'm just an angry old Spirit ... oh wait, I am!

 

[spacemt354]

No, that's not true.

I've said this many times when dealing with opinion, sometimes it is subjective and sometimes it is objective based on FACT.

The fact that a spinner isn't an expensive, high-quality Disney attraction isn't opinion whether your favorite attraction at WDW is Dumbo or not. That is reality.

The reality that Disney isn't putting its best work into Fantasyland isn't simply opinion, it's based on objective methods for determining quality in themed attractions (lightbulb posted a very thorough explanation of this numerous times before and he's worked for Disney and UNI and others at the top of the business). It's why the 1971 Haunted Mansion or the 1973 PoC or the 1981 BTMRR are all higher caliber attractions than anything that will open in the 'new, new, new, but not really Fantasyland'.

There are basic metrics that can be used to judge them. That is reality. Not mine. Not yours. Just plain reality.

So, people can like the Casey Junior Children's Pee, Pooh and Puke Lawsuits Waiting To Happen While Pedophiles Lurk with Their Cameras Fountain, but it doesn't change the fundamental point that it is cheap and simple and, many would say, unworthy of being in a MK-style park.

Yes but a "fact" still needs to be interpreted by people. The word quality is based on opinion. When you say the Dumbo spinner is not "high-quality," that's an opinion. You yourself are judging it based on the amount of money disney spent to construct it. Yes, It didn't cost a lot to build, but does that make it a "fact" that it is not high-quality? No. Also, if the 1971 Haunted Mansion, the 1973 PoC, and the 1981 BTMRR were all higher caliber attractions than anything in the FLE, then why were they all just updated in the last few years? If they were higher caliber, why need an update? And again, judging higher caliber is an opinion. One may say ToT is the best ride is wdw, others may say soarin' and list the factual details of the attractions such as cost, design, etc to prove their point. It doesn't make one any more right than the other, they just have different opinions. So when you say the Dumbo spinner is not higher quality, there are "facts" that back up your statement such as its cost. Then there are other "facts" that support the opposite opinion, such as the detail and sulpture given to the spinners.
So the real "reality" is that everyone is going to have their own interpretation of facts. You can't condemn someone's opinion because they interpret the facts differently than you.

 

[WDW1974]

Not to continue staying off topic but I wanted to chime in. I love coming to this website because Steve does a tremendous job of reporting on everything related to the World. I also like to frequent the message boards although I very rarely post. I don't mind the critical posts even though I don't necessarily agree with them. Everyone has a right to say what they feel.

The only thing that bothers me is when someone starts a positive thread and others turn the discussion negative.

I would like to suggest that maybe we could have a section of the forum dedicated to the so-called "pixie dust" people. A section where people can go to discuss their positive opinions and excitement of WDW. The rules of that section would be that no critical or negative posts are allowed.

Maybe a separate "doom and gloomer" section would be nice too.

I still think the focus of the forums should allow us to all integrate and have great conversations and debates but it would also be nice to have a place to take a break from it all or to share opinions with those that think similarly as you do.

That is ridiculous.

I'm sorry (well, no, I'm not) but are we all seven? Do we all need to feel good about ourselves based on what strangers on the Internet say about Disney theme parks? Do we not have the self control to not post or read something that bothers us? Can we not have adult discussions about WDW and the entertainment/media business? Do we not know how to argue without taking criticisms of our opinions as statements of worth about our values as a member of the species?

Absurd. I mean ... seriously.

 

[Jimmy Thick]

That is ridiculous.

I'm sorry (well, no, I'm not) but are we all seven? Do we all need to feel good about ourselves based on what strangers on the Internet say about Disney theme parks? Do we not have the self control to not post or read something that bothers us? Can we not have adult discussions about WDW and the entertainment/media business? Do we not know how to argue without taking criticisms of our opinions as statements of worth about our values as a member of the species?

Absurd. I mean ... seriously.

And this folks, is coming from the guy who says people from Disney forums are trying to kill him.

Caveat Emptor.


Jimmy Thick- Couldn't help it.

 

[bubbles1812]

Yes but a "fact" still needs to be interpreted by people. The word quality is based on opinion. When you say the Dumbo spinner is not "high-quality," that's an opinion. You yourself are judging it based on the amount of money disney spent to construct it. Yes, I didn't cost a lot to build, but does that make it a "fact" that it is not high-quality? No. Also, if the 1971 Haunted Mansion, the 1973 PoC, and the 1981 BTMRR were all higher caliber attractions than anything in the FLE, then why were they all just updated in the last few years? If they were higher caliber, why need an update? And again, judging higher caliber is an opinion. One may say ToT is the best ride is wdw, others may say soarin' and list the factual details of the attractions such as cost, design, etc to prove their point. It doesn't make one any more right than the other, they just have different opinions. So when you say the Dumbo spinner is not higher quality, there are "facts" that back up your statement such as its cost. Then there are other "facts" that support the opposite opinion, such as the detail and sulpture given to the spinners.
So the real "reality" is that everyone is going to have their own interpretation of facts. You can't condemn someone's opinion because they interpret the facts differently than you.

I think you missed his point... Disney could have should have (if they were the company they used to be) done more than just choosing the cheapest option. Did dumbo need a second spinner? Maybe...or they could have done what they used to and make a totally unique new ride, invested, and Gasp! Horror! spent more money (which the original budget would have allowed) to create a new experience for the guest rather than what really is for the most part "same old, same old." the spinners are nice but again nothing new, nothing that forced them to stretch their creative muscles. They took the cheapest route and it's evident in much of NFE, no matter how pretty it will look.

 

[HMF]

No. Also, if the 1971 Haunted Mansion, the 1973 PoC, and the 1981 BTMRR were all higher caliber attractions than anything in the FLE, then why were they all just updated in the last few years? If they were higher caliber, why need an update?

This is the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard. Even Attractions of the highest caliber will need to be updated with age in order to keep them of the highest caliber. Of your examples The 2006 update to Pirates of the Caribbean was not really an upgrade. We lost the Barker Bird, Talking skull added the Jack AA's, Replaced half the rides dialogue to focus on a nonsensical "Where is Captain Jack Sparrow" subplot. Everything else was barely touched and what is currently there is a bizarre hybrid of 1973 and 2006 technology. The Haunted Mansion's 07 refurb on the other hand was done because the Attraction was literally falling apart and was magnificently done so I will give them credit for that. Sadly the new Interactive Queue has soured the goodwill that the 07 refurb brought. As for BTM, It was just a basic routine refurb.

 

[marni1971]

Also, if the 1971 Haunted Mansion, the 1973 PoC, and the 1981 BTMRR were all higher caliber attractions than anything in the FLE, then why were they all just updated in the last few years? If they were higher caliber, why need an update?

Life-expired parts aside, because one was needed for "synergy", one was the park VPs pet project, and one was weather hammered.

Btw, BTM was 1980.

 

[bubbles1812]

I think you missed my point. These so called "facts," such as the "guaranteed" better experience you claim the original budgeted FLE project would have brought, all come down to people's opinions. You don't have anything to prove that FLE project would be better other than your own feelings, and I don't have anything to prove that you are wrong, because it was never built. For example. While one person may complain that disney is being cheap, another person may say disney is saving money. They are both saying the same "fact" (Disney has cut the budget money), but they put two different spins on it through their own opinions. (Also, just a note - I don't agree with either of those statements...I was just giving an easy example to explain.) You can bicker till kingdom come if you don't realize that people's opinions drive how they view these so called "facts", and it doesn't make them any more right or wrong than you. After reading these discussions on the forum, this happens a lot where people can't understand some individuals who view the same "fact" with a different outlook, and deem their opinions to be wrong. It's their opinions, it's neither right or wrong. Maybe you don't agree with all statements they make, but this is a discussion board, people are always going to disagree. I just don't like it when people write off someone's opinion on wdw simply because they don't agree with them.

Erm... There was actual evidence, hard fact about what they then original plan for NFE was. That wasn't just my opinion or something I was making up out of thin air. But if you'd rather have more Dumbo spinners than an actual unique ride that absolutely would have show cased the imagineers creativity both in show and technology more power to you... But that there originally was a ride like that in development is fact.

I get where you are coming from to a degree when it comes to your statement about facts. But some things are just hard facts...disney''s attendance growth has flatlined since 2008 for example. That is a hard fact that you can't dispute though I guess you can try...but the numbers are there and numbers don't lie.

Your reference to people using different terms to describe something is an opinion, I agree with you there...but I wasn't ever trying to say it was a hard fact like you seem to think I was. For me, I'd use the term "saving money" if I knew it were going towards another substantial project (no im not counting mandatory refurbs as substantial projects as they are general maintenance) rather than it just going back to the stockholders and the executive bonuses. But nope, for the most part that's were all that money goes back to.. So I use the word cheap. Because they slashed the budget and didn't use it for much elsewhere within the parks to address other problems. They just did it because they could and it meant they got to keep more money. But that's my opinion. It really is fine if it's not yours.

And thank you so so much for the lecture at the end there. Seriously, I soooooo needed that. *rolls eyes* I don't just write off the opinions of those who disagree with me or think they have no value. I just state what I disagree with after reading a post. It doesn't mean I didnt think their points had merit. And generally I try to acknowledge what points I do think they made that are valid from my perspective. I think I even replied to you earlier in this thread about how I was with you on a paragraph up til your last sentence. I didn't discuss much about what I agreed with you on because I wanted to dialogue on the points I disagreed with. That's a whole heck of a lot fun and interesting than "oh yes in agree" especially on threads like this and others of the news thread. This isn't my first rodeo when it comes to being on a forum. I know people will disagree with me and I actually welcome it. If we all just agreed...well, then we'd have a super bland forum...aka something like Disboards

 

[lazyboy97o]

On the issue of objective quality, there must be something to the notion as the ticket system is still used internally as a means of giving a general assessment of an attraction project.

 

[Poirot4]

That is ridiculous.

I'm sorry (well, no, I'm not) but are we all seven? Do we all need to feel good about ourselves based on what strangers on the Internet say about Disney theme parks? Do we not have the self control to not post or read something that bothers us? Can we not have adult discussions about WDW and the entertainment/media business? Do we not know how to argue without taking criticisms of our opinions as statements of worth about our values as a member of the species?

Absurd. I mean ... seriously.

Thanks for calling my post absurd. This is exactly why I posted in the first place. There was no need to attack me for just offering my opinion.

I did NOT say that the entire forum should be divided like that. I just suggested that maybe there should be a section where people could go where they could post without having to worry that their thread would be turned into a negative commentary.

That's all.

You know, I sometimes like reading your commentary because I do not consider myself incapable of criticizing Disney. On the contrary, I see plenty that I wish would change. But I find that your insightful commentary can sometimes be diminished by your rudeness.

I find it ironic that you would suggest that I am juvenile.

 

[Tom]

WHOA! Whoa...whoa...whoa...whoa...

When did we start referring to the FantasyLand Expansion as NFE?

 

[Tom]

I find it ironic that you would suggest that I am juvenile.

Not to defend anyone on here calling anyone else names or using derogatory comments....but a lot of us WDWmagic veterans are a tiny bit on edge recently, given that there has been a massive influx of new members, conveniently at the same time that K-12 schools let out for the summer.

There is a lot of freshly juvenile posting on here, and it comes across as trolling due to the lack of experience and knowledge these new members possess. All they're doing is getting under the skin of those of us who not only have been discussing these topics in depth for months (or years), but who have also experienced the pre-2000 WDW.

As WDW1974, and others, have indicated, people who were not exposed to Walt Disney World before 1995 honestly do not know what the rest of us are whining about....and we can't reasonably expect you to understand.

It's something I take into consideration when reading many of the posts made by "youth" - but when someone 18 or under tries to argue over the current state of WDW with those of us who visited the parks in the 70s, 80s or 90s....the argument should stop, because the younger generation can't possibly understand where we're coming from.

 

[spacemt354]

Not to defend anyone on here calling anyone else names or using derogatory comments....but a lot of us WDWmagic veterans are a tiny bit on edge recently, given that there has been a massive influx of new members, conveniently at the same time that K-12 schools let out for the summer.

There is a lot of freshly juvenile posting on here, and it comes across as trolling due to the lack of experience and knowledge these new members possess. All they're doing is getting under the skin of those of us who not only have been discussing these topics in depth for months (or years), but who have also experienced the pre-2000 WDW.

As WDW1974, and others, have indicated, people who were not exposed to Walt Disney World before 1995 honestly do not know what the rest of us are whining about....and we can't reasonably expect you to understand.

It's something I take into consideration when reading many of the posts made by "youth" - but when someone 18 or under tries to argue over the current state of WDW with those of us who visited the parks in the 70s, 80s or 90s....the argument should stop, because the younger generation can't possibly understand where we're coming from.

For the record, I've never said the current state of wdw was any better than back in the day. In fact, I've even said several times before that I completely understand why people think those days were better than today. All I have been saying this whole time is that I still enjoy the world and until I see something drastically change, I'm going to continue to go back. If that is considered to be trolling around these parts, I don't really know what to say... I guess you should really take poirot4's suggestion into consideration, with just a little change. Let the veterans go on and on about "Back in my day..." topics in a separate section devoted to only "true" experienced disney goers, so us "freshly juvenile" posters don't make you all get "on-edge" because we might have a different viewpoint. Because as you said, once a discussion begins between a veteran and a youth on here regarding those issues, the argument should just stop because the youth will never understand.

 

[Captain Chaos]

Not to defend anyone on here calling anyone else names or using derogatory comments....but a lot of us WDWmagic veterans are a tiny bit on edge recently, given that there has been a massive influx of new members, conveniently at the same time that K-12 schools let out for the summer.

There is a lot of freshly juvenile posting on here, and it comes across as trolling due to the lack of experience and knowledge these new members possess. All they're doing is getting under the skin of those of us who not only have been discussing these topics in depth for months (or years), but who have also experienced the pre-2000 WDW.

As WDW1974, and others, have indicated, people who were not exposed to Walt Disney World before 1995 honestly do not know what the rest of us are whining about....and we can't reasonably expect you to understand.

It's something I take into consideration when reading many of the posts made by "youth" - but when someone 18 or under tries to argue over the current state of WDW with those of us who visited the parks in the 70s, 80s or 90s....the argument should stop, because the younger generation can't possibly understand where we're coming from.

Don't forget, members who keep getting banned for their behavior continue to come back and act like bigger idiots than they did previously... And that gets extremely annoying too...

 

[asianway]

For the record, I've never said the current state of wdw was any better than back in the day. In fact, I've even said several times before that I completely understand why people think those days were better than today. All I have been saying this whole time is that I still enjoy the world and until I see something drastically change, I'm going to continue to go back. If that is considered to be trolling around these parts, I don't really know what to say... I guess you should really take poirot4's suggestion into consideration, with just a little change. Let the veterans go on and on about "Back in my day..." topics in a separate section devoted to only "true" experienced disney goers, so us "freshly juvenile" posters don't make you all get "on-edge" because we might have a different viewpoint. Because as you said, once a discussion begins between a veteran and a youth on here regarding those issues, the argument should just stop because the youth will never understand.

Maybe when it's your own money being flushed, you might understand...