Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>...and the impression was that Club 33 was a kinda formal men's club/speakeasy.<< Umm...isn't it? It's the only place in the park to get booze, and you have to "know the password" to get in the front door. It started out as a place for Walt to wine and dine his (presumably male in the mid-60's) guests of honor high above the crowds of commoners shuffling through the park below. I'm not sure what's wrong with Club 33 feeling that way; to me, that's almost all of the allure of the place >>I don't think they're going to fire Kim Irvin anytime soon.<< I agree. She's done too much for the park, and seems to be one of WDI's Golden Children who can't do anything wrong. I agree that this design is a misstep, but it doesn't resemble any of her other work in the past, so I'll let her slide (though they still need to fix the logo) >>Maybe it was different in person, but from the pictures it looked like it needed an update.<< I visited it in 2012 (after the new rules went into effect, but our reservation was made shortly before they were announced so we were grandfathered in), and that seems like a fairly accurate statement. In a way, it reminded me of the Plaza Inn, which is also highly themed to another era, but is distinctly from the early 60's in a design standpoint. It had a certain charm since it was so old it was almost chic again, but in another way it felt very dated. It will be interesting to see how it turns out
Originally Posted By Mr X ***The pictures from Club 33 at TDL are even worse*** Not to mention far more exclusive, and far costlier as well. Welcome to Japan! (still, I wouldn't say no to an invitation someday, to either place!)
Originally Posted By smd4 >>>In the grand scheme of things this change isn't a big deal really<<< That is the excuse that has been applied, individually, to all the changes, mostly for the worse, that have taken place in recent years. Individually, it may not be a bid deal. For those of us who look at the bigger picture, instead of simply judging each individual change on its own, as if the changes existed in a thematic vacuum, it is indeed a marker of inept overall design and a fundamental misunderstanding of Disney's own brand, and what it used to represent. The microbes that took out the Martians in "War of the Worlds" were also deemed not to be "a big deal really."
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "(still, I wouldn't say no to an invitation someday, to either place!)" Nor would I! "That is the excuse that has been applied, individually, to all the changes, mostly for the worse, that have taken place in recent years. Individually, it may not be a bid deal" They've done a lot of good things recently too and we aren't expected to like every thing Disney produces. It's a logo for an exclusive club that most of us will never enter. Big deal.
Originally Posted By smd4 The logo was also part of Disney's very deep history and lore, which we all do enjoy. While we may not get to experience it ourselves, we understand that the Club was meant to be refined and elegant, and of high quality. When the original elegant logo is traded out for a gaudy cartoon logo, we instinctively know that the decline in quality at what is regarded as one of the highest-quailty restaurants will likely trickle down to the rest of the Park. If they can't give the $10,000-a-year crowd something of high-quality, what do you think they will give the great unwashed masses?
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>That is the excuse that has been applied, individually, to all the changes, mostly for the worse, that have taken place in recent years.<< And when you have lots of those "no big deal" changes, they add up.
Originally Posted By smd4 >>>And when you have lots of those "no big deal" changes, they add up.<<< Exactly. It's the collective effect of the changes, not their effect when looked at individually.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <When the original elegant logo is traded out for a gaudy cartoon logo, we instinctively know that the decline in quality at what is regarded as one of the highest-quailty restaurants will likely trickle down to the rest of the Park.> I don't like the logo either, but I think that's an overstatement. <If they can't give the $10,000-a-year crowd something of high-quality, what do you think they will give the great unwashed masses? > The unwashed masses can now eat at the recently unveiled Carthay Circle, for one. Impeccably AND creatively designed (I loved the different feels of different rooms - I checked it out late afternoon between busy times and most were empty so I could really look). IMO, more attractive than Club 33. Great food and service too. And the perfect Manhattan. So it doesn't necessarily follow that a misstep in one place signals a decline in quality everywhere. Having said that, the new logo is a definite misstep.
