Originally Posted By MPierce >> I know old man Pierce things I am obsessed with fatties, but I'm not. I just have never seen the sheer amount of morbidly obese people that I see at WDW regularly. Sorry, but 300-600 pounds aren't normal healthy weights. << You are. Are there some really fat people at WDW? There sure are. Is being overweight healthy. Definitely not. Can we eliminate obesity. We sure can. We can get the Government involved, and put a tax on items that the Government feels cause obesity. We can let the Government dictate what they think a healthy lifestyle consist of. In the Marine Corps boot camp they send recruits that are overwight to a two week course called the fat farm. Maybe we could do that to all those fatties After we fix all those fat people what should we eliminate next?
Originally Posted By MPierce >> As to RC ... I am resigned to the fact it will continue to rot away until some kid dies or they can build a DVC on the site. << I thought that was a done deal?
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo While they shill free meals, 14 day tickets for the price of 7 etc. It will be lowering the standards. sorry, but it will. WDW used to be Bloomingdales or Macy's, now it is Target with some Kmart blue light specials in place. And the masses eat it up. Try Tivoli, or Europa PArk, or Efteling. I am.
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORWEN: Well, I agree with most of what you're saying, Spirit, duckling--except for your dislike of the Disney Characters. Disney characters are supposed to live at the Disney parks because that's what gives the parks their mythology. ORDDU: And because of the increased attendance at the parks, characters would get mobbed if they weren't more organized in special areas so that guests can meet them more easily. Apparently the characters have enough fans who demand to see them when they go to the parks or Disney management wouldn't bother to have them around. (You know how they like to save every penny they can.) ORWEN: It's not the over-use of characters that bothers us. It's the lack of more quality, over-all, for attractions in general. I don't think the new Little Mermaid attraction is going to begin to compete with Harry Potter's attraction. It COULD have, but Disney doesn't want to spend the money.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo >>>We can get the Government involved, and put a tax on items that the Government feels cause obesity.<<< If the evidence is there, I say go for it. Part of America's obesity problem (and the UK to a lesser extent) is it is cheaper to get a drive thru than fresh produce. economic incentives have been shown to pay huge dividends with smoking cessation, and in nutrition too.
Originally Posted By MPierce >> No, if I want to see skinny people I can visit a Disney resort outside the USA (although Anaheim still has smaller guests on average because people in SoCal seem to care more about healthy eating/living). << It just means fat people prefer WDW also. You should have seen the rather large, but extremely attractive lady I met at DL in 1967. It would blow the image of what you are trying to present as reality away. Her name was Belinda. She drove a 1959 pea green, and white Ford Fairlane, and yes she did leave a lasting impression on me. GREEN, AND WHIE
Originally Posted By Autopia Deb >>>You won't find one 400 pounder driving an ECV while chomping on a burger basket or turkey leg in those 1980s videos ... because you wouldn't see one soul like that.<<< I think the reason you didn't see this back in the '80s is because we didn't have the ECVs back then. This isn't to say the obesity problem hasn't reached the point where it's an epidemic since then, just that even in '87 plenty of people would have happily spent the entire day stuffing their faces, riding in motorized chairs.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer Classier, smarter, more unique, cleaner, quainter, smaller, more dynamic, more daring, and calmer. That's the WDW I miss. Now everything is over stated, hyped, and out of control. Look at how CALM those videos are. Promotion, bust subtle. And they have pride, too. Now we just get pixie dust, characters and MAGIC shoved down our throats without any different opportunities and openings to other parts of "The World". Sigh.
Originally Posted By Bob Paris 1 "Yep, in the UK I am fat, at DLP I am morbidly obese, in California I felt large to average, in WDW I felt average to small. Not cool. What is up with that?" Don't let ANYBODY categorize you, Dave. You are you and from your posts are a lovely person.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Pins debuted before the 35th...<< I have examples of Disney pins going back to the 1970s in my collection, but they were mostly few and far between. The first big push was in 1984, when the Los Angeles Olympics sparked an interest in pin trading in Southern California. Disneyland produced their own set, which was avidly collected and traded at the park. Disneyland also produced monthly pins for the 30th and 35th birthdays (1985, 1990). In 1998 a superb set of 60 attraction pins was produced and released to capitalize on the opening of the latest "New Tomorrowland." It was not until March, 2000 that formal pin trading began, however. That year saw a set of "Character of the Month" pins (originally just a component of the 45th "Magic in the Stars" promotion) and the first set of gift with purchase pins. Pins have always been a component of Disney souvenirs. It is only since 2000 that they have become so ubiquitous.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo >>>Don't let ANYBODY categorize you, Dave. You are you and from your posts are a lovely person.<<< Thanks Bob, sadly though, I am morbidly obese. working on it, lost 25 kilos (about 50lbs) over the last 4 years, just anout 50k (100lbs) to go.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<Sorry Spirit, but you could make much the same film today and see very few differences except for:>> No, you couldn't. Back in 1987 (we'll leave out the 1980 MK video clip), a vast part of WDW (I believe well over 80% of the land Disney owned) was untouched. Things have changed so profoundly ... <<River Country - I think most people who've tried them all would prefer the present water parks to River Country.>> Disagree. I'd also state that many would say that RC attracted a different clientele than TL and BB once they opened because it was a simpler, quieter place. It was unique. TL and BB are great parks, but they aren't unique like RC was. And because RC attracted a largely different audience once Disney opened its mega water parks, one might argue that Disney turned its back on those people. <<Discovery Island - doesn't even start to compare with Animal Kingdom (which is why they closed Discovery Island).>> No, that was the talking point reason. The real reason, much like RC, was to save money by moving the animals and letting the land go back to nature. Much like you wouldn't compare MK to Winter Summerland ... or EPCOT to DD ... you wouldn't compare DI to DAK ... one was a small diversion, the other a major theme park. <<Imagination and World of Motion - Without getting into a debate over which is "better", a film made today showing a clip of Test Track would look just as interesting as the clip of WoM. You've got me though on Imagination.>> I can easily argue that both WoM and Imagination are classier attractions than their replacements, though. The replacements (whether people love or hate them ... and it would see they love TT and hate Imagination 3.0) are much more common and simple ... and Walmart. <<Lack of buses - that is true though you could certainly make a promotional video today without ever showing them. I think that is exactly the case on the videos they currently show in the hotels. Buses weren't needed then because all WDW hotels were on the monorail.>> Well, not true. The Disney Inn wasn't on the monorail. Neither were the Hotel Plaza properties, which all had WDW official bus transport in the 80s. But no one is ever going to convince me that buses are MAGICal or were a smart way of solving the resort's transport issues. They show no vision at all. <<Glorious lack of strollers - I'm sure some existed in 87 though probably far fewer. With none of the Moderate or Value Resorts open then far fewer families with very young children could afford to go to WDW.>> I think you are so off on this, Trippy. I don't for one second think WDW ever attracted far fewer childern ... I am sure the general percentages have remained pretty constant. I will also point out that WDW admission and food (and likely the merchandise too) was vastly cheaper then. And the VAST majority of folks stayed off property where they could get rooms for $19.99 minutes from the 'Main Gate' (remember that there was only one back then!) You had fewer strollers because kids weren't brought up to be fat and lazy like they are today. Totally different World and world. <<I think the major difference in "feel" of WDW in 1987 comes down to two things: 1) WDW's hotels being limited to the monorail resorts greatly changed both the style of transportation and the clientele that could afford a WDW vacation.>> I think I covered that above. WDW is vastly more pricey now than it was in 1987. And that is even taking into account MYW tickets and DDP and the presence of on-property, Disney owned value 'resorts'. <<2) A totally different style film style (more refined) than what is used in today's promotional videos. I think that is really more an indication of how marketing styles have changed over the past 25 years than anything else.>> I (naturally) disagree with that ... well, part of it. I'll give you that WDW has dumbed down its marketing and just slams you with toons ... and WISHES, DREAMS AND MAGIC!!! BUT ... they are also marketing a much lower quality product ... they are marketing to folks who think it's perfectly fine to put shoes up on tables and sofas in the GF lobby while eating chicken finger baskets. Those people just weren't at the GF in the late 80s. <<WDW in 1987 was a more upscale in experience not so much because the parks were greatly different but because the clientele was.>> That much is true. Our society has been Walmarted and trash (no matter whether it has money or not, so let's leave that out of the discussion) seems to feel much more at home in the MAGIC than it would have in 1987. <<I've long agreed with that being the case but also feel it is a somewhat elitist point of view... which you've readily admitted.>> Yes. I am an elitist and proud. I want people to join me ... if it means having an education and realizing there is a world out there beyond their town, state or nation and respecting others (provided they aren't acting boorishly, I do believe in a live and let die minset ) and their right to be different ... I love being an elitist snob. <<Which comes down to a question of goals and values. What does the Disney Company sees as a more important goal for the parks... keep the original upscale feel or make it so a far larger percentage of Americans could afford a WDW vacation. They obviously went for inclusiveness.>> I just don't agree with this. WDW in the 80s was vastly less expensive. And yet it was a higher class product. Disney just decided that Walmarting the MAGIC would be better over the short term ... the problem was the business model constantly expects more cutbacks and lower quality to keep increasing revenue and profit. And the bigger WDW got, the tougher it was (and is) to keep increasing the bottom line. <<Given where I'm at today I would far prefer the more exclusive feel. But I can guarantee you, when I was in my thirties and had a 7 and 14-year-old that I wanted to bring to WDW I FAR preferred the goal of inclusiveness. It is the only way I could have ever gone then.>> I don't know since you've got some years on me, decades perhaps. But I grew up and was conditioned to expect a certain level of quality from the mid-70s thru the mid-90s ... and WDW honestly feels like a Bizarro Universe version now (and has since at least the late 90s). If I were a kid today, I doubt very much I'd become a Disney fanboi if say my first Disney parks experience was a visit to WDW in 2004 not 1974. <<By the way... so far I've only viewed the first film, but I think I would likely feel the same after having seen all of them.>> I could come up with plenty more ... I need to find one that shows the Gulf Coast Room for a special fanboi friend!
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 >> I know old man Pierce things I am obsessed with fatties, but I'm not. I just have never seen the sheer amount of morbidly obese people that I see at WDW regularly. Sorry, but 300-600 pounds aren't normal healthy weights. << <<You are. Are there some really fat people at WDW? There sure are. Is being overweight healthy. Definitely not. Can we eliminate obesity. We sure can. We can get the Government involved, and put a tax on items that the Government feels cause obesity. We can let the Government dictate what they think a healthy lifestyle consist of.>> I believe your post was in jest ... but I do think government could/should do things to encourage healthier lifestyles. Having a crisis of morbid obesity costs us so much annually in both human terms (people we lose to it) and financial ones (what those people and their illnesses cost). I do believe the government would (and should) have a problem with fat lazy redneck Texans who sit on their arses all day drinking beer and playing with their towel pets ;-) <<In the Marine Corps boot camp they send recruits that are overwight to a two week course called the fat farm. Maybe we could do that to all those fatties>> I say we should ... <<After we fix all those fat people what should we eliminate next?>> Tattoos ... I honestly can't believe what people do to their bodies today and they don't look good ... on anyone ... discuss!
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 >> As to RC ... I am resigned to the fact it will continue to rot away until some kid dies or they can build a DVC on the site. << <<I thought that was a done deal?>> It is/was/should be ... just there are five DVCs planned for WDW right now and it appears that GF has gone to the front of the queue because it is cheaper to develop and Disney believes it can get the biggest premium yet.
Originally Posted By HokieSkipper <<It is/was/should be ... just there are five DVCs planned for WDW>> I know you and many people have said this before...but this is such bull excrement. The fact that there are 5 DVCs planned, all of which will undoubtedly happen is sickening, especially when I doubt there will be 5 attractions built in the same time period.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 >>>Don't let ANYBODY categorize you, Dave. You are you and from your posts are a lovely person.<<< <<Thanks Bob, sadly though, I am morbidly obese. working on it, lost 25 kilos (about 50lbs) over the last 4 years, just anout 50k (100lbs) to go.>> It isn't easy ... I sure know that ... I am about 30 pounds from my perfect weight ... and if I just dropped Coke from my daily diet, I know 10-12 pounds would immediately go bye-bye. But I am stubborn with things I enjoy. Still, I am down a good 30 pounds from my all time high that so disgusted me ... the image of a Spirited bowling ball is all the encouragement I need to keep pushing to hit the magic number. And, hey, we both must be doing something right since that bed at the Crowne Plaza didn't collapse with the two of us on it! ;-)
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<And the VAST majority of folks stayed off property where they could get rooms for $19.99 minutes from the 'Main Gate' (remember that there was only one back then!)>> That is true. But have YOU ever stayed in one of the hotels along Hwy 192? That is where I stayed during my first visit in 1991... at the Radisson Maingate, which no longer exists. I have no idea what it might be now. My first reaction was major disappointment. In Minnesota, where the chain has its headquarters, the Radisson is known as having pretty high quality. Not a 4-Seasons or even a Hilton, but certainly a Marriott. The Radisson Maingate was more like a Super 8. Any upscale feel WDW may have had then was rapidly destroyed when we returned to our hotel. From being accosted in the lobby by timeshare salesmen to the cheap 2 for $12 T-shirt place across the street, UPSCALE was the absolute LAST thing I would have said about that vacation. Yes, I enjoyed the parks enough that I wanted to return. But NEVER to an off-site hotel again. My second trip was in 1995 and we stayed at the All Star Music... what our budget allowed at the time. I thought I'd died and gone to heaven. Yes, the room was smaller than I thought it would be. But the overall resort experience was WONDERFUL! Disney quality service and friendliness by staff throughout the resort. Bus transportation everywhere I needed to go so I did not have to find my way around the vastness of WDW, which can be pretty intimidating for a newbie. Right at the resort there was a Food Court with a wide variety of relatively low-priced food and a Gift Shop that was 100 times nicer than that T-shirt place on Hwy 192. What else could a person ever want? So I have to disagree with you. I do believe that WDW's development of the moderate and value resorts brought MANY more people of modest means to WDW than would have happened otherwise. Given the experience I had on my first trip in 1991 I would have returned to the parks maybe once every 5-10 years. After staying on-site ONCE I was sold on WDW as a vacation destination and have returned at least once every year since then. I've had at least 22 visits to WDW in the 16 years since I first stayed on-site. As a resident of Florida I don't know if you've ever had that experience or would notice the difference. But it made a HUGE difference to me and my family.
Originally Posted By Bob Paris 1 ^ But see, something that you say was a good thing is one of the problems Spirit says basically destroyed the WDW experience from twenty years ago - that "MANY more people of modest means" could actually come to Orlando. I am not saying *I* think this is a good thing or not, just that you two are coming at this from different ends of the argument.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<I am not saying *I* think this is a good thing or not, just that you two are coming at this from different ends of the argument.>> Yes. I realize that. And I would certainly agree with the Spirit that these changes have resulted in a vacation that feels less upscale than it probably did in the mid-80's. Personally, I think the trade-off is just fine. Sure... it has diminished the upscale feel of WDW. The resorts that used to beat a Hilton now barely exceed a Marriott. Sometimes. On a good day. But I still think it is worth it to allow far more Americans to experience what is one of the greatest U.S. vacation destinations there is!
