Originally Posted By MinnieSummer I love this thread. For so long everyone complained about the POP Graveyard every time a new resort was being built. Now, the POP Graveyard is being rebuilt and people are complaining. IMO, I'd rather see a new resort than the graveyard. I also think that building a new all suite resort is a great idea as there are many families who stay off property rather than pay the money for a one bedroom suite at a DVC. All of the parks have gotten something new in recent years, maybe not e-ticket but still new, and MK is getting a new fantasyland so that arguement really doesn't hold with me. The DVC's have to be done for a while as the last I heard they hadn't sold out AKL, BLT or SSR. Therefore it makes sense to finally do something about the graveyard.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros I'm not thrilled with the theme, but doing suites is a great idea. I'm kind of surprised that they haven't done more to turn other rooms into suites. I don't think that 'animation' is the best theme ever, since it will basically just mean four random movies, but I'm sure that it will be busy. Not so sure about the artistic merit of Cars, though (however I do know about the cash register merit of that film...) >>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.<< It looks like the lady has a shadow on her forhead from the head of the trident, so I would assume that it was there in real life. I don't know what is supposed to be behind it, but I've never seen a blank wall in any artist's studio before. I'm thinking there was something back there that they didn't want to show.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 By the way, how horrible is the name: Disney's Art of Disney Animation Resort. Do we really, really need to emphasize that Disney owns a hotel named Art of Disney Animation? I mean really - this need to attach "Disney's" in front of everything is just getting old!
Originally Posted By danyoung >...but this does seem like a very short-sighted strategy to me.< I agree with this and everything else you said in post 39, plp. But to paraphrase an old saying - "Nobody goes to WDW anymore - it's too crowded!" Once the crowds start to slip, then they'll look at new attractions. I'd much rather they be proactive and ahead of the curve, but that doesn't seem likely in Florida these days.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>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.<<< In my eyes, it's easy money for them. They can do both. Take a risk, build a new, innovative, UNIQUE attraction, and do it with quality. THAT'LL work wonders.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>> I think we're talking past one another here. What I'm saying is that nothing about this project precludes Disney from further construction in the parks, just as nothing about the DCA makeover precludes construction at other parks (the reason I said this is because I've often seen folks assert that "WDW doesn't get any money because it's all being invested in DCA" that's about as true as saying "WDW doesn't get any money because Disney is paying Johnny Depp $30m for PotC 4") while connected in the grand scheme of things, each revenue-producing project should be judged independently of the others. If Disney desired to build attractions now, regardless of the status of this resort, they quite certainly could be built. From that perspective, how can you knock this resort? You can certainly knock Disney for not building attractions, but when you make that argument in the context of a discussion about a new resort, it's a little out of place, as it infers that the two have anything more than a tenuous relationship--which is not the case. I will say that I agree with you about building more attractions--but not to attract new guests--to attract repeat visitors. <<< That's true, but where are we seeing them do both at the same time? If they were to invest in both a hotel and a major (Read: Rides.) expansion, that would prove your point. As it is, we only see one, or the other. And that's all hotels. (At least in WDW). >>> ...Seriously, Evan, you're better than a shitty "argument" like that. Instead of just taking some lame and unsubstantiated shot at the position of others, back up your arguments (like you normally do). That's no way for a future lawyer to try to make his point.<<< It wasn't a argument, nor a shot. It was a comment. I honestly don't understand why people consistently defend Disney's actions despite it being their opinion. Not to be rude, as always, but I think the "shitty" comment wasn't the way a "for a future lawyer to try to make his point." either. I'm sorry if you took offense to it, but there's no need to be offensive back. That's one of the huge reasons I leave places...
Originally Posted By MPierce >> 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. << A interesting observation. Do you think the Mouse is anticipating increased booking when the new, and improved Fantasyland makes it's debut? Welcome to LP.
Originally Posted By MPierce >> It wasn't a argument, nor a shot. It was a comment. I honestly don't understand why people consistently defend Disney's actions despite it being their opinion. Not to be rude, as always, but I think the "shitty" comment wasn't the way a "for a future lawyer to try to make his point." either. I'm sorry if you took offense to it, but there's no need to be offensive back. << Now I know what got a ADMIN. The only question for me now is, who was it?
Originally Posted By tonyanton New attractions would be great but they have been very inconsistent in maintaining the ones they already have.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>> A interesting observation. Do you think the Mouse is anticipating increased booking when the new, and improved Fantasyland makes it's debut?<<< If they are, you know what would have been interesting? A FL themed hotel. tie it in. Make it mesh... ..It would certainly be a lot better than "Cars", and would soften the blow.
Originally Posted By MPierce >> ..It would certainly be a lot better than "Cars", and would soften the blow. << I don't know EE. Cars is pretty big with both kids, and adults. All you have to do is check out the meet, and greet at the Studios. DL will have a big Cars attraction, and I have a hunch WDW will end up with one also.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer But putting it in a hotel called the "Art of..." When I heard that, I was thinking Snow White, Cinderella, Peter Pan...
Originally Posted By HokieSkipper << A interesting observation. Do you think the Mouse is anticipating increased booking when the new, and improved Fantasyland makes it's debut?>> If they are, they've got their sights too high... As for the name, if you're going "Art" get Cars the hell out of there. Cars is by far the worst movie Pixar has ever put out. If you want art, put in WALL-E or Pinocchio. We're not dumb Disney, call it what it is, "Disney's Biggest Franchises in Animation Hotel".
Originally Posted By WDWFigment <<<That's true, but where are we seeing them do both at the same time? If they were to invest in both a hotel and a major (Read: Rides.) expansion, that would prove your point. As it is, we only see one, or the other. And that's all hotels. (At least in WDW).>>> I know (at least I think) you're not a huge fan of FLE, but that, Star Tours 2.0, and this hotel's construction will all occur simultaneously. While I will quickly concede that more is needed, I think those projects are evidence that it can be done simultaneously. I'm not making any excuses for other construction not occurring, I'm just saying this project shouldn't be made the scapegoat for Disney's failure to update the parks. I simply don't think it's an either/or proposition. <<<It wasn't a argument, nor a shot. It was a comment. I honestly don't understand why people consistently defend Disney's actions despite it being their opinion. Not to be rude, as always, but I think the "shitty" comment wasn't the way a "for a future lawyer to try to make his point." either. I'm sorry if you took offense to it, but there's no need to be offensive back. That's one of the huge reasons I leave places...>>> First, my apologies. As you point out, there was no reason for me to take that tone or to take any shot at you. I guess the easy response to you not understanding people defending Disney is it would likewise be easy for others to not understand why you 'bash' Disney consistently. Essentially, we're all just going off of our opinions with the only thing to back us up being reasoned premises or 'theories'. I'm sure we would all like to think of ourselves as objectives, but we all have certain biases. I don't see anyone here discussing things with the pie-eyed, rose-colored fanboy glasses, nor do I see anyone arbitrarily saying "THIS SUCKS, MORE RIDES!!! GRRR!!" I see fairly reasoned discussion on both sides, and although I disagree with your reasoning, I at least understand it and view it as logical. To that end, comments critical of others' reasoned opinions (without stating why) just rub me the wrong way. It'd be one thing if you said that in response to a comment such as "LEAVE DISNEY ALONE, WHY DO YOU CRITICIZE DISNEY ON A FAN SITE?!?!" But that was not the case.
Originally Posted By mousermerf Couple of notes.. It's not all suites, 800-something of the rooms in the Mermaid section will not be suites. As mentioned, it's going to open around the time of the FLE. Next, it's right next to Disney's dedicated plot of land for the High Speed Rail station. Finally, attendance is above what it was at in 2001 when the second phase of Pop Century was going to open on schedule. Also - they don't count resorts toward parks infrastructure budget unless it's something that modifies the park akin to International Gateway. A major overall loss from the company may stifle new building across the board, but new resorts don't take money from the parks.
Originally Posted By HokieSkipper << I simply don't think it's an either/or proposition. >> I don't think it should be. However, sometimes I feel like they feel like it is. <<To that end, comments critical of others' reasoned opinions (without stating why) just rub me the wrong way.>> Agreed. It's nice that that rarely happens here.
Originally Posted By WDWFigment <<<new resorts don't take money from the parks.>>>> Does Johnny Depp's PotC 4 salary take money from parks? I heard that's why the audio in POTC (the ride) still sucks! In all seriousness, I wonder what that high speed rail will do for the parks?
