|
|
|
-
07-26-2008, 04:00 AM
#241
Originally Posted by PeterPan
I was a personal witness to some of the most abhorrent, abominable, immoral, illegal behavior imaginable at PI. These observations were made over many years. It was disgusting behavior - for any city in America, much less our beloved WDW.
GOOD RIDDANCE.
These things can happen anywhere. The story of the little kid urinating off of the TTA comes to mind. I'm sure many more would follow if I were to think on it. When you get that many people together, there are sure to be some less than desirable ones in there.
I'll meet you at the Rainbow Bridge.
-
Please Support INTERCOT's Sponsors:
-
07-26-2008, 02:19 PM
#242
Originally Posted by Cinderelley
If all I wanted was a drink, these might be acceptable alternatives. But that's not what I want. I want the atmosphere that Adventurer's Club and Comedy Warehouse had to offer. I could go in there and not drink a drop of alcohol, but I can't go to any other WDW place and get AC & CW's comedy.
Weeeeeelllll.....Disney's making no money off you at those clubs then. The alcohol is the money maker.
I completely understand what you're saying, though. Hopefully some of the new experiences will be something like that. Who knows, you could have a by popular demand situation with the Adventurers Club. I'm not encouraging the online petitions, which I think do nothing, but you never know what Disney has in mind.
Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're NOT out to get you!
-
07-26-2008, 04:28 PM
#243
Originally Posted by Cinderelley
I would like to know how this figures into a family-friendly atmosphere. Hi kids, Mickey wants you to take up smoking cigars.
Yeah, I was wondering how Sosa cigars figures into a family atmosphere too. And, isn't smoking banned except in designated areas??
-
07-26-2008, 06:21 PM
#244
Originally Posted by Cinderelley
But this does happen and taking PI away won't change it. Anyone who has a drink at Epcot or with a nice dinner (which could happen at any of these "new" restaurants they are proposing.) could use the transportation as the designated driver. It doesn't mean that they were loaded or anything. It just means that they are being responsible, and for that I say "Thank you." It would be a horrible vacation to have a family member injured because someone was drinking irresponsibly. No matter how small the drink is, it still has an effect.
I'm sure you see Epcot as a Disney thing.
Thank you! Responsible people don't drive even after one drink, as the effects of alcohol can change with many factors (sleep, food etc). Nevermind all restaurants on Disney property outside of MK serve alcohol!
'90 - High School Trip
'05 - Animal Kingdom Lodge
'06 - Wilderness Lodge (Honeymoon!)
'08 - VWL and BCV
Next Up:
'09 - Wilderness Lodge Villas
-
07-26-2008, 06:29 PM
#245
It sounds exciting,and much more family-orintated then the nightclubs.But I do miss the Shopping Village of the early 80s;a handfull of shops and eateries(heidelberg's deli especially), a quiet waterfront and twinkling white lights in the trees.I wish that section could be preserved as a more peaceful and relaxed get away from the sensory overload that WDW can often be.
1981(FW) 1982(FW) 1983(FW) 1984(FW) 1985(FW)
1986(FW) 1987(FW) 1989-2x(FW) 2004(ASMO)2008(CSR)
You can't just let it go...not even on your birthday.
-
07-26-2008, 07:46 PM
#246
Originally Posted by big blue and hairy
Weeeeeelllll.....Disney's making no money off you at those clubs then. The alcohol is the money maker.
I completely understand what you're saying, though. Hopefully some of the new experiences will be something like that. Who knows, you could have a by popular demand situation with the Adventurers Club. I'm not encouraging the online petitions, which I think do nothing, but you never know what Disney has in mind.
I'm sure Disney makes plenty of money off of me in another areas.
I do hope that the "popular demand" situation occurs. If they can listen to those who say they wanted more shops/dining, they can listen to those who want the Adventurer's Club & Comedy Warehouse. After reading through all these posts last night, it seems like that's what the majority of the naysayers are upset about.
I'll meet you at the Rainbow Bridge.
-
07-28-2008, 09:35 AM
#247
Money
Originally Posted by big blue and hairy
..Disney's making no money off you at those clubs then. The alcohol is the money maker...
I thought Disney made money selling "Water Parks and More..." add-ons to MYW.
How many people are holding never expire 'plus visits' they anticipated using partly on PI attractions like the Adventurers Club?
-
07-28-2008, 03:42 PM
#248
Counterpoint
Originally Posted by PeterPan
I have this to say:
Second of all - I hated it from the beginning. The first time I heard it announced, I had a fit. What were they THINKING? Isn't the whole Disney philosophy (coming down from Walt, The Man, himself) about FAMILIES having fun together? What is all this about adding ADULT themed clubs, etc.? You mean there is a whole AREA at WDW - I'm talking acres of themed entertainment - that is virtually off-limits to kids?
I still think (even tho it made countless millions) it is the stupidest idea that came out of the Eisner Era. I was a personal witness to some of the most abhorrent, abominable, immoral, illegal behavior imaginable at PI. These observations were made over many years. It was disgusting behavior - for any city in America, much less our beloved WDW.
GOOD RIDDANCE.
There is NOTHING wrong with there being one SMALL portion of WDW that is off limit to kids. WDW is PRIMARILY about kids and rightly so, but there is more than enough entertainment for families to keep them busy for WEEKS.
I looked at PI as something for the adults without kids who pay the same ticket prices as adults with kids but don't enjoy the truly "kiddie" stuff like Dumbo or the Aladdin's Carpet or Toontown kind of stuff. Why are people so upset that another group of people who spend as much money as anyone else might have something to enjoy?
I apologize if this sounds rough, but I think this hit a nerve.
I think the problem with PI started when it became accessible to locals without an admission required. I think they had it right when they charged admission just like any other "park". They should have kept admission expensive enough to discourage loitering bad elements. Families could choose not to pay that ticket and not go just like I choose not to pay admission to the waterparks and go to them.
There are many different types of customers at WDW and pretending there aren't doesn't help anything. I hope that there are some adult oriented kinds of places that go into the new place. If it isn't appropriate for your child JUST DON'T GO IN.
Something that has been going on in the back of my mind for a while now is this. We often bring up the argument "what would Walt do?" I ask this? A good deal of the entertainment Walt created was sexist. How many of his ideas were the poor little female rescued by the big strong prince. Most of the adventures were had by the boys only. He virtually ignored the EXISTANCE of people of color. Do we want to stick to THAT "thing that Walt did" too? Do you want to go back THAT? As almost sacriligious as it might be to say, not EVERYTHING in Walt's "vision" or what he created was a good thing or is still a good thing today. Personally I think the idea that there can be nothing at ANY part of WDW that is not for children os one of those ideas whose time has passed.
It just needs to be done in such a way that it does not attract the bad elements that PI did.
"Most folks are about as happy as they make up their minds to be." - Abraham Lincoln
-
07-28-2008, 04:02 PM
#249
Alcohol
It ridiculous to think the changes at DTD are to curtail "adult behavior".
Do we think WDW is going to ban alcohol sales at the many restaurants at DTD and BW and resorts that serve alcohol?
Jellyrolls will be a 21 and over place with no apologies to the "Our Beloved Disney World" guests until someone determines placing BBB #3 there would be more profitable.
Changes to DTD are about maximizing profits and we can't fault the Disney Company for wanting to do that.
-
07-28-2008, 06:07 PM
#250
Just got something from Disney that if you purchased the Water Parks & More and are going to be there at the time these nightclubs are closing (Sept 28), that you can "enjoy one round of golf at Disney's Oak Trail Golf Course".
Offsite...(12/97 & 10/99)
DL...(10/02 & 5/05)
CBR/Disney Wonder 2004, AllStar Music 2004, AKL 2006, POP 2006, POP 2007, Poly 2007, BWI 2007, WL 2008, CSR 2009, Poly 2009, CBR 2010, AKL 2011...
-
07-29-2008, 07:07 AM
#251
Originally Posted by big blue and hairy
Weeeeeelllll.....Disney's making no money off you at those clubs then. The alcohol is the money maker.
How much money is a character greeting area making? Or a single attraction? Nothing. But it makes people come to WDW and spend money on tickets, lodging, food, drinks and merchandise. There are also people going to WDW because of the AC. They may not spend a lot of money on alcohol, but they also pay for tickets, lodging, food, drinks and merchandise...
95 DLRP
96, 97, 98, 99, 00, 01 ASS
98, 01 DLRP
98 DLRP
00 DLRP
02 DLRP
02 CBR & AKL
03 DLRP
03 CBR
03 DLRP
04 DLRP
04 CBR
05 May: PC, Jun: ASS & Sep: PC
06 Jan: PC, Sep: PC
07 May: PC, Sep: CBR
08 Jan: ASMo, Sep: Pop
09 Feb: OS, Sep: SS
11 May: SS
-
07-29-2008, 06:06 PM
#252
Originally Posted by The Joker
How much money is a character greeting area making? Or a single attraction? Nothing. But it makes people come to WDW and spend money on tickets, lodging, food, drinks and merchandise. There are also people going to WDW because of the AC. They may not spend a lot of money on alcohol, but they also pay for tickets, lodging, food, drinks and merchandise...
That was exactly my thought, also. Some things that don't directly make money are part of creating the overall experience - which is what draws us all down there.
D.
-
07-31-2008, 12:42 PM
#253
I still think that tossing aside The Adventurer's Club, and the Comedy Warehouse, are bad ideas. The other clubs might be a dime-a-dozen and generic, but those two were something special and were done very well.
I'm sure many people are still riding the Bob Iger train, but I'm not. I'd love to see a continued emphasis on what they do well, rather than just on what makes the most money. I know shareholders and Wall Street have a different idea about how to run things. If Disney could make better profits off of an empty parking lot, many of them would insist that Iger do it. It doesn't matter about the experience and unique appeal to them, it is all about dollars and cents.
-
08-01-2008, 01:15 PM
#254
Originally Posted by big blue and hairy
Weeeeeelllll.....Disney's making no money off you at those clubs then. The alcohol is the money maker.
I completely understand what you're saying, though. Hopefully some of the new experiences will be something like that. Who knows, you could have a by popular demand situation with the Adventurers Club. I'm not encouraging the online petitions, which I think do nothing, but you never know what Disney has in mind.
The "new" experiences you speak of are resteraunts and gift shops. O yea--also a bowling alley. As if they didnt have enough gift shops and places to eat. I can go bowling here in town. These are what I was told would be replacing PI by someone from their executive offices.
73-4-5-76Cntpry-77-8-9Polnsyn-80-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-90-1-2 Disney villas-93-4-5-6-7-8 Crbn Bch-99 Grnd Flrdin -00 Anml Kngdm Ldg-01 Wldrns Ldg-02 Brdwlk-03Cntpry-04 Sratga Sprngs-05 Saratoga -06 Sratga -07 Grand California -07 Sratga- 08 Sratga- 09 Wldrns. Ldg.- 10 Treehouse villas
-
08-02-2008, 05:38 AM
#255
Originally Posted by Tekneek
I'm sure many people are still riding the Bob Iger train, but I'm not. I'd love to see a continued emphasis on what they do well, rather than just on what makes the most money.
I think the John Lasseter train may be gaining steam in the Disney company, and I believe his influence will gradually migrate over to the Florida parks as well. The "Pixar philosophy" as I like to call it is about making stuff that you personally enjoy, rather than trying to make things that you think will be popular. That's always been Lasseter's philosophy, and I think it will continue to trickle down through the Disney ranks over the next several years. And I don't mean that you'll simply see more Pixar attractions, I mean you'll see a reversion to more detailed, "magical", pixie-dust-inspired themeing and attractions.
I think many people forget just how little there used to be at WDW. There's just a LOT more to do there now. There wasn't much of a reason to stay more than 3-4 days... now, you can literally spend more than a week (two days at each park and a couple of days doing other activities) and still not feel satisfied.
Obviously the removal of some unique things like Adventurers Club or Comedy Warehouse only to replace them with shops/restaurants is a step backwards in terms of overall entertainment. However, I think the focus has shifted from "adult" things to do to "family" things to do. While Disney surely wants to maintain that adult audience, I think they're understanding that they can't compete with the likes of Citywalk, for example, for that "nightclub" atmosphere, and rather than waste more cash on something that's not popular, they're re-focusing on their core audience. Some of us may not be happy about that, but that's the way it works.
The Pleasure Island location is part of what's hurt it. It's smack dab in the middle of a very un-adult area of Downtown Disney. That's partly Disney's fault for not thinking ahead and realizing that DD might eventually expand with "west side", and built around PI. That caused major crowd-flow issues. They attempted to resolve this issue by allowing crowds to freely walk through PI to get to the other side of DD, which may have been part of what killed PI. I think their solution to resolve the confusion about the whole area is just to make the whole thing basically the same type of experience. The entire concept of a family-oriented area (DD), with very adult-themed clubs RIGHT in the middle of it all is just a very bad juxtaposition and wasn't working.
I do not think they've completely abandoned the concept of some late-night adult offerings. I have a hunch that the "night kingdom" concept will eventually come to be, in one form or another. Essentially a total expansion on the Adventurer's Club concept. I have a feeling they know there are people who are looking for that kind of unique experience and would be willing to pay for it.
"If we can dream it, we can do it!"
POP!- September 13 - 22, 2008!
-
08-03-2008, 12:42 PM
#256
I was just at AC last Monday night and the bartenders were talking about rumors that it might be turned into some kind of cool dining experience... Not sure how true this is but I would surely love it! I don't want it to go away - it was soooo sad at the Hoopla...
"Is there a 12 step program for this Mouse addiction?"
Next Trips:
11/18-11/29 Destination D:Amazing Adventures!! GF for two nights then Caribbean Beach with free dining...
-
08-03-2008, 04:23 PM
#257
I think it would be nice if we could get away from the current use of the word "family". Because what is really meant is "kid-friendly". As many of us have mentioned, families come in all shapes and sizes, and sometimes don't include children at all.
'90 - High School Trip
'05 - Animal Kingdom Lodge
'06 - Wilderness Lodge (Honeymoon!)
'08 - VWL and BCV
Next Up:
'09 - Wilderness Lodge Villas
-
08-03-2008, 04:44 PM
#258
Originally Posted by Tigger&Stitch
I think it would be nice if we could get away from the current use of the word "family". Because what is really meant is "kid-friendly". As many of us have mentioned, families come in all shapes and sizes, and sometimes don't include children at all.
"Family", when used in that context, is a figure of speech, a slang term. Everyone uses it, and what it really means is "appropriate for all ages." I don't think that everything at Disney has to be appropriate for all ages, but the majority of it most definitely needs to be.
I don't think anyone is confusing the idea that families come in all shapes and sizes, some with children, some without, but in American culture, the words "family entertainment" or "fun for the whole family" iplies that it's "safe" for all age groups, nothing more. Yes, it might be nice if we actually said "appropriate for all ages" but you're asking everyone to change a long accepted figure of speech that's not likely to go away.
"If we can dream it, we can do it!"
POP!- September 13 - 22, 2008!
-
08-04-2008, 06:34 AM
#259
Originally Posted by Vito
"Family", when used in that context, is a figure of speech, a slang term. Everyone uses it, and what it really means is "appropriate for all ages." I don't think that everything at Disney has to be appropriate for all ages, but the majority of it most definitely needs to be.
I don't think anyone is confusing the idea that families come in all shapes and sizes, some with children, some without, but in American culture, the words "family entertainment" or "fun for the whole family" iplies that it's "safe" for all age groups, nothing more. Yes, it might be nice if we actually said "appropriate for all ages" but you're asking everyone to change a long accepted figure of speech that's not likely to go away.
English is a "living language" and many figures of speech can be changed over time to mean different things.
Just as certain terms used to be acceptable in common speech, but aren't now (I'd give examples, but most of them are offensive).
If you go back through the replies, you'll see quite a few of us object to the limited use of 'family' in the phrase 'family-friendly'. I'm only suggesting the use of "kid-friendly" so that opinions are a bit more clear.
I certainly do not mean "appropriate for all ages" when I refer to my family (which is just me and my husband).
'90 - High School Trip
'05 - Animal Kingdom Lodge
'06 - Wilderness Lodge (Honeymoon!)
'08 - VWL and BCV
Next Up:
'09 - Wilderness Lodge Villas
-
08-04-2008, 07:38 AM
#260
Originally Posted by Tigger&Stitch
English is a "living language" and many figures of speech can be changed over time to mean different things.
Just as certain terms used to be acceptable in common speech, but aren't now (I'd give examples, but most of them are offensive).
If you go back through the replies, you'll see quite a few of us object to the limited use of 'family' in the phrase 'family-friendly'. I'm only suggesting the use of "kid-friendly" so that opinions are a bit more clear.
I certainly do not mean "appropriate for all ages" when I refer to my family (which is just me and my husband).
I didn't mean to come off as harsh. I was just simply pointing out that the term "family entertainment" is quite firmly entrenched in our culture. So even if a few people here would like to see other terms used, most of us are going to miss those posts and use the term like we're used to using it.
Yes, the word is a misnomer, but I hardly think that it's objectionable in any way. When someone says that an attraction is a "family" attraction, we all know what they mean. Sure, we can try to be more specific or descriptive, but it's hardly worth arguing over the semantics of a term that's widely used. "Fun for the whole family" is an incredibly common advertising cliche, and honestly, I don't see anything offensive or derogatory about it. I am 31 years old, have one younger brother (26), two parents, and no spouse or children. I don't find the term in any way troublesome, nor do I find that it demeans what I consider to be "my family".
And yes, English, like most languages, is a "living language" with terminology constantly changing, but unless a term is somehow offensive then I don't see the point in forcing a change of a widely accepted and understood term. If the word or terminology evolves, it evolves.
I don't think anyone here is trying to suggest that a family isn't a "real" or "true" family if they don't have several children of various age groups along with two parents. But heck, there's an entire television station called "ABC Family" and I think we all understand that the accepted vernacular meaning for the word "family", when used in such a context, simply means "safe for all age groups." Not to mention "family" is a much more succinct term than having to say (or type out) "safe for all age groups" every time we want to reference such an entity. Again, the key here is the context. If you say something is "family" entertainment, or it's a "family" attraction, everyone knows what that means. If you are talking about your family (you and your husband), obviously the context is completely different and people will understand.
"If we can dream it, we can do it!"
POP!- September 13 - 22, 2008!
Share This Thread On Social Media:
Share This Thread On Social Media:
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|
Share This Thread On Social Media: