Originally Posted By WDWFigment <<< If all animated films are art, then they didn't choose the films for their art, but solely on which have the highest consumer value.>>> Nowhere did I say this. I said that the four chosen are art, in my opinion. If "Meet the Robinsons" were in there, I'd certainly question the "Art" being in the title. <<<What a joke. They can't even fill the rooms they have without heavy discounting, but they need to add more?>>> I take it you haven't tried to book one of the suites at ASM lately? Sure, Disney might have trouble booking the non-DVC studios at SSR and OKW, Grand Floridian and Yacht Club, but I think there is a pretty clear distinction between those resorts and this one, and in no way will this resort cannibalize the business of those resorts that are having trouble. <<<<They've been increasing capacity at the resorts for a DECADE and haven't added anything to capacity. And FLE isn't even a net addition, it's a fixing of the MK since a lot of that parks capacity has been wrecked.>>>> With the possible exception of the Magic Kingdom, I think one could make a very strong argument that the resorts' capacity needed to catch up to the parks for this period of time (see the discussion on Star Tours v. Body Wars). On a lot of decisions regarding substantive quality, I'm right with you that TDO has its head up its ass, and has no consideration for the long term. However, those are the type of decisions that require the consultation of both creative minds and the numbers-savvy folks. This is not such a decision. Disney can fairly accurately determine whether there is demand necessary for such a resort by consulting its own numbers and estimates for those of Nickelodeon. It's a decision that's very easy to quantify. Now, if you want to criticize the substantive theme (the creative part of the decision) that's obviously more subjective. However, I think it'd be tough to argue against any of these films from "clearly Disney doesn't know what it's doing", since these properties are very (most?) likely to entice families to stay at the suites. While I'd prefer something more along the lines of the Poly for my own tastes, I think the target demographic will eat this resort up. My opinion in a nutshell: 1) eliminate the uncompleted Pop eyesore? check! 2) new non-DVC resort? check! 3) appealing theme for families with small children? check!
Originally Posted By knicksed34 Does no one else relize that they are opening this hotel the same time the first part of the Fantasy Land project is set to be complete.
Originally Posted By WDWFigment <<<Can someone tell me what's up with the trident that it had to be photoshopped? Either the tines are photoshopped in or something in the background was photoshopped out.>>> That does look really odd. I think maybe the photographer used too slow of a shutter speed and the lady moved her head a bit during the shot (notice only a bit of her head isn't sharp), that in turn makes everything that is near her head look 'fake' in the image. I do see a bit of a dark halo around the outside of the trident, but it definitely wasn't photoshopped in (maybe it just reflected too much sunlight in the unedited shot so they (poorly) burned it?). In any case, yeah, it looks weird.
Originally Posted By danyoung >However, I think it'd be tough to argue against any of these films from "clearly Disney doesn't know what it's doing", since these properties are very (most?) likely to entice families to stay at the suites.< I know I have a 6 year old nephew who, if I gave him the complete descriptions of all WDW hotels and told him price was no object, he'd still pick Cars in a hummingbird's heartbeat! I think it's a great choice of themes.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 wait until 2012 or 2013 when Disney builds a marvel universe hotel at WDW.... you think people are complaining now....
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>In short, I don't think it was ever an issue where management sat down at a table and said, "We'll either build Beastly Kingdom or Animation Hotel...which should we pick?!" Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see more attractions, but what's the point of grumbling about the construction of something unrelated (imo) to the construction of attractions? All of this assumes they are unrelated...I'm more than happy to hear what others think on that issue.<<< In actuality, if they can allocate the money for this, they can just as easily invest in our parks. Sure, it's a nice thing to build, but when the parks are stale, run down, and full of capacity issues?! C'mon. It's time to put some money into what people REALLY go to Disney for.
Originally Posted By Disneymom443 Well put EE,I feel the same way. Did they really need another resort?
Originally Posted By danyoung But why would Disney do that, when there are so many people coming now that they need to build another hotel to meet the need? From a business standpoint it makes all the sense in the world for them to pay for more lodging choices. That will equate to more money in the Mouse's pocket. A new attraction in the parks will drive more attendance, but they don't really seem to need more people these days. Don't get me wrong - I'd love to see a new E ticket in every park. But the smarter money is obviously on more hotel rooms in the immediate future.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>Well put EE,I feel the same way. Did they really need another resort?<<< Thank you. And no, they didn't. If they needed family suits, they could have easily refurbed some rooms in existing hotels to meet that. >>>Don't get me wrong - I'd love to see a new E ticket in every park. But the smarter money is obviously on more hotel rooms in the immediate future.<<< If they don't build a huge draw in the parks soon, what are people going to be drawn to to in the first place?
Originally Posted By trekkeruss <<I said that the four chosen are art, in my opinion. If "Meet the Robinsons" were in there, I'd certainly question the "Art" being in the title.>> But we both know Meet the Robinsons was a flop, so there is no way they would choose it for its art. I'm not saying Disney is wrong for choosing the themes they did. Obviously they will be a hit with families. There is no doubt too that the films they chose are well crafted. I'm merely saying they wouldn't have been my choice as the movies that most exemplify animation which are considered art..
Originally Posted By danyoung >If they don't build a huge draw in the parks soon, what are people going to be drawn to to in the first place?< While I agree with you about the long run, Disney is running their parks on the short run these days. If they can make big bucks in the near future by building more hotel rooms, then that's what they're going to do. They'll deal with the parks when they think they need to. And judging by park occupancy these days, there's really no big urgent emergency.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>While I agree with you about the long run, Disney is running their parks on the short run these days. If they can make big bucks in the near future by building more hotel rooms, then that's what they're going to do. They'll deal with the parks when they think they need to. And judging by park occupancy these days, there's really no big urgent emergency.<<< Sure, but in terms of quality, and in attractions, and capacity? I think that's a urgent problem, then. They are packing the house, sure, but the occupants are soon going to realize they are seeing the same shtick, and jump ship. You need new shtick to attract new occupants.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss <<You need new shtick to attract new occupants.>> But they've been attracting new occupants with old schtick for years.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA Can someone tell me what's up with the trident that it had to be photoshopped? Either the tines are photoshopped in or something in the background was photoshopped out. > Hey merf, when you look at the smaller maquette of King Triton in the lower right of the -- there's no 'head' on the end of the triton. I'm wondering if the large one also has no 'head' on the end of his triton, and they added it in to make it look more what people expect. Dunno...
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>But they've been attracting new occupants with old schtick for years.<<< It's soon to run out...my peers are a prime example. They've been raised on Uni, not Disney. I wonder where they are going to take THEIR kids?
Originally Posted By Krankenstein <<Did you see the themes for the other half of Pop Century? Some were cute, but most were very dry and sort of boring. They'd all be the like the country western section of music - no one really wants to be stuck there.>> Yes I have, and I preferred it.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer ...I just don't get the rampant defense of this project by some. Oy.
Originally Posted By danyoung >But they've been attracting new occupants with old schtick for years.< And that's my point. Until they see a need for new attractions, they're just gonna keep on giving us incremental stuff like the new Fantasyland. Sure, it'll be nice - but not like getting a new E ticket in each park. >...I just don't get the rampant defense of this project by some. Oy.< I'll say it again. If I had control of the purse strings, I'd be putting in a buncha cash into the parks, particularly the MK, long before I'd build a new hotel. But there's money to be made in a new hotel, and they just don't see a need to plus the parks right now.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 <<But there's money to be made in a new hotel, and they just don't see a need to plus the parks right now.>> Agreed, but this does seem like a very short-sighted strategy to me. It's not like all these people are coming to stay at these hotels because Central Florida is such a great place - no, they come for the theme parks. For some reason, the general public has been just fine with the lower quality offerings at WDW for the past decade, but how long will that last? Eventually, people will demand some quality - especially when they see what Universal is offering with Harry Potter down the street, and hopefully that will get TDO off their butts and make them start investing in their parks again. But I can't say that I'm hopeful any of that will happen soon.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
