Originally Posted By Oldschool Disney Just reading some of these threads it appears some of you visit WDW frequently or even work there. You get to see some of these problems on a daily basis. If you only had a chance to visit every few years would you be a little more forgiving? It's usually four years in between trips for me and I don't tend to focus if there's a spot of missing paint in a queue. I'd rather focus on just having a good time.
Originally Posted By A Happy Haunt I agree totally!! I live in MA, went 2 years ago, headed to DL next year & then probably 2 years later back to WDW. nothing & nowhere are perfect I try to focus on the good time!!
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>> If you only had a chance to visit every few years would you be a little more forgiving? <<< No. Quality is quality. No matter how long I've been away, I can still notice things. Returned to MK in 2009, after 3 years absent...I had a blast. Did that stop me from thinking critically and seeing that there were things wrong with the park? Nope, not at all. It's perfectly possible to go to a place, and think that it could be better, and still have a wonderful time.
Originally Posted By HokieSkipper <<You get to see some of these problems on a daily basis. If you only had a chance to visit every few years would you be a little more forgiving? >> It depends. On some of the smaller things I'd probably let slide, but the glaring problems most of the parks have are pretty obvious.
Originally Posted By standor What I do not like is when I thing I am not getting value for my money. That is the way I feel now.
Originally Posted By MPierce >> Just reading some of these threads it appears some of you visit WDW frequently or even work there. You get to see some of these problems on a daily basis. If you only had a chance to visit every few years would you be a little more forgiving? << Bad show, bad food, cheap generic merchandise, diminishing street performers, broken attractions, dirty Parks, and price points that are starting to make even the very wealthy question their value, and affordability, are the same whether you go once a day or once every 10 years. So my answer is NO.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost >>>What I do not like is when I thing I am not getting value for my money. That is the way I feel now.<<< I usually stay out of these discussions because I believe that quality, especially of theme parks, is a very subjective thing. If you're looking for problems you will find them. If you don't WANT to see them you won't. I went to Disneyland on the 50th anniversary celebration. I had read about how much better everything was in Disneyland, how they had pulled out all the stops and made WDW look like a trash heap. Personally, I never thought that WDW was looking bad but at the time there was a rage going on about every little thing you could imagine. Once there was a multi-page thread on light bulbs being out here and there. All I could do was wonder by what type of mystical means was Disney supposed to flawlessly keep up with the literally millions of light bulbs in operation. Especially when most of them go out at the moment of being powered. Anyway, I go to Disneyland and (again in case you forget) this is during the 50th and I find, without looking. Large chunks of pealing paint (not new) in the entrance to IASW. I see chunks of brick broken out on the stair case leading to the Train. Multiple numbers of "Q" railings rusted and ugly. That didn't happen overnight. I was surprised but my trip was not affected in the least. My point is that unrealistic expectations can and will cause some people stress and make them critical of a situation that they could not fix if they were in charge, but are perfectly willing to be vocal about. As for the value...I think I heard that, on average, it cost about $30.00 per day for admittance to a Disney park. If anyone can, with a straight face, tell me where you can find a more massive, constant entertainment venue for that price...please tell me where it is so I can run to it. Disney theme parks would have to shut down all the rides, fire all the entertainers, never paint anything for 12 years and maybe hire people to throw things at you as you pass to not be a value. And even then they would probably call it a historical exhibit (like Williamsburg) and charge you $70 bucks to look at the outside of the buildings and many would be happy to pay it. Btw, that's the parks...it is easy to find a better value than at the resorts. You may not have a huge red pants rodent running around the hallways off site, but other than that they are usually superior in value and perks.
Originally Posted By MPierce >> Once there was a multi-page thread on light bulbs being out here and there. All I could do was wonder by what type of mystical means was Disney supposed to flawlessly keep up with the literally millions of light bulbs in operation. Especially when most of them go out at the moment of being powered. << Areas were coded to replace the bulbs at the expiration of 80% of their rated life spand. That is the way I remember reading about the subject. There is absolutely no reason that general inspections can not be made of areas on a day to day bases, and maintenance notified immediately when a problem exist. That's the way the Parks were suppodedly run in the past. I can say beyound a shawdow of doubt that Disneyland was pristine in 1967.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost Perhaps it was in 1967 but I went in 2005. Pristine...not so much. About the lights, not to beat it too heavy, but suppose I look at the bulbs today and they are all working and tomorrow when I switch them on one doesn't follow the design and blows out. How can I predict that? By saying, it's going to wear out some day, why don't I change it everyday and then I will stay ahead of unpredicted failure. If you see a light out at Disney do you just assume it is past it's 80% rule and no one caught it ahead of time or do you assume that you had a rogue bulb there and it died young. I go for the latter.
Originally Posted By MPierce >> Perhaps it was in 1967 but I went in 2005. Pristine...not so much. << I don't doubt that at all Goofy, and I wasn't trying to call you on it. I was merely pointing out what it use to be like, so I know it could be done. Not like it is present day. >> About the lights, not to beat it too heavy, but suppose I look at the bulbs today and they are all working and tomorrow when I switch them on one doesn't follow the design and blows out. How can I predict that? By saying, it's going to wear out some day, why don't I change it everyday and then I will stay ahead of unpredicted failure. << As long as you are not charging admission to your house with the visitors expecting a certain ambiance, I don't see anything wrong with an occasional light going out. Again though you are not Disney, and do not present you as such. Now let me ask you a question. When a light goes out at your house do you replace it immediately or do you just say, I'll get around to it eventually? >> If you see a light out at Disney do you just assume it is past it's 80% rule and no one caught it ahead of time or do you assume that you had a rogue bulb there and it died young. I go for the latter. << If it's several lights, in a time frame of several nights it just makes me think there is a lack of concern for show details. This is no exageration on my part either. On my last trip I noticed, as in half of some signs, lots of neon out at the Studios, and I was there in the evening 4 nights apart. It was hard not to notice, and did make me think that the Disney touch just wasn't what it use to be. When you are leaving the Magic Kingdom at night do you think numerous lights being out that outline the builds, makes for good show? Attention to all those small details is what set Disney apart from the others.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>>> Just reading some of these threads it appears some of you visit WDW frequently or even work there. You get to see some of these problems on a daily basis. If you only had a chance to visit every few years would you be a little more forgiving? << Bad show, bad food, cheap generic merchandise, diminishing street performers, broken attractions, dirty Parks, and price points that are starting to make even the very wealthy question their value, and affordability, are the same whether you go once a day or once every 10 years. So my answer is NO. <<< Bravo, Pierce. >> Once there was a multi-page thread on light bulbs being out here and there. All I could do was wonder by what type of mystical means was Disney supposed to flawlessly keep up with the literally millions of light bulbs in operation. Especially when most of them go out at the moment of being powered. << I agree. Though, this is something they have improved in. MSUSA looked fine, this past trip, and the only real issues was a small strip of the pin lights on Japan. On the Tori Gate. Otherwise, all clear.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>This is no exageration on my part either. On my last trip I noticed, as in half of some signs, lots of neon out at the Studios, and I was there in the evening 4 nights apart. It was hard not to notice, and did make me think that the Disney touch just wasn't what it use to be. When you are leaving the Magic Kingdom at night do you think numerous lights being out that outline the builds, makes for good show? <<<< You just reminded me of this. Yeah, December saw a LOT of Neon out in MGM. Especially in the GMR entrance tunnel. Really poor looking.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost >>>I don't doubt that at all Goofy, and I wasn't trying to call you on it. I was merely pointing out what it use to be like, so I know it could be done. Not like it is present day.<<< I know...the point that I am so strongly not getting across is that I go to WDW often and at the time everyone was talking about how much better maintained DL was as compared to WDW. What I was attempting to get across is the variance in individual perception as to what is bad and what is good. In my mind, at the time, Disneyland, a park that was having a major promotion that year was far more in need of TLC then WDW. The few things I see out of line at WDW I can easily blame on the sheer size of WDW and how much of a job it must be to keep up with that much stuff. No excuse...I suppose that is true but reality seems to be in play there. DL is a small, intimate park and there is absolutely no excuse for it being run down. It just not all that big. Now maintenance may be segregated by park but the tour I took to the maintenance building reinforced the idea, in my mind, that they are a shared asset. It would be too expensive to maintain individual departments for the entire property. I suspect that at times they are spread pretty thin.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost That thought brings forth another possible thread questioning the idea that WDW may be to large to maintain in the manner that we would all like to see.
Originally Posted By MPierce >> I know...the point that I am so strongly not getting across is that I go to WDW often and at the time everyone was talking about how much better maintained DL was as compared to WDW. What I was attempting to get across is the variance in individual perception as to what is bad and what is good. << I understand that, and agree with you. There are some folks that think DL is the cats meow end of story. However I think there are other groups that see WDW as the Top Dog. I haven't been to DL in over 40 years so I don't feel qualified to make a judgemnt. They only thing that I remember distinctly was how impressively clean, and how well maintained DL was at the particular times I visted in '67, and '68. Also how much unbelievably better their POTC was compared to WDW's. When it comes to resort destinations as a whole WDW will win everytime in my opinion..
Originally Posted By MPierce >> That thought brings forth another possible thread questioning the idea that WDW may be to large to maintain in the manner that we would all like to see << That would be an interesting topic.
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORDDU: Not going to a Disney theme park very often is like not visiting certain relatives very often. You're less likely to see their faults or even know that they have any if you only see them once a decade. Therefore it's much easier to overlook what's wrong with them and then come to the conclusion that they're just fine the way they are. You're less likely to discover that your cousin's husband is a wife beater that way--or less likely to realize that there really is an animatronic figure of Br'er Rabbit that's supposed to hop inside Splash Mountain. (His hopping is rather irregular at best.)
Originally Posted By HokieSkipper ^^I must be one lucky son of a gun. I've never seen hoppin' Brer Rabbit inoperable, nor have I ever seen the angler fish in Nemo broken.
