Animal Kingdom Lodge – Innovative or Well Done

[mattjs]

Love reading you guys and one of these days I'll muster the courage to dive right in myself.

But I gotta say this AKL innovation discussion, while exceptionaly entertaining, is going nowhere. It seems to me if you're position is that the african savannah, zoo around the resort, staffed primarily by native africans, in central Florida concept doesn't qualify as innovative...well...that's end of discussion right there. There's nothing wrong with holding that oppinion. You're entitled to it and you defend it passionately.

But in doing so, I think you've set a standard that either exceeds by so much or is sufficiently different from the one set by those who disagree with you on the boards that even discussing the matter becomes pointless. On this very specific point, there's not enough common ground to even bother.

 

[Another Voice]

This three hour head start you people get is unfair.

I suppose I could answer each an every point that’s come up. I’m very glad that many seem to understand what I’m saying.

But one comment really struck me more than anything else I read:

“But seriously, if you guys don't think the AKL is Disney doing a bit of what Disney has always done (at its best), then there is no conversation to be had and I must again bring up the 'ulterior motive' possibility”

Never has the problem with today’s Disney been so well put. The Company and others simply DEMAND you accept and love what they do – or you’re an evil person.

Or from Burbank’s point of view, the problems with Disney’s products don’t lay with Disney, they lay with you the consumer.

Brand loyalty is a fact of life for many. Entire corporations are founded around the concept of people doing dumb things simply to be part of the in-crowd. And it works well for a time. You’ll see a lot of marketing about “quality” and a lot of internal bragging about being “best in the business”. And all the while the company tries a little less, worries about things other than its customers. Soon the public forgets what made the brand special to begin with. Eventually the world moves on and the public leaves. And the Company that screams and yells and threatens that you accept its product’s “quality” is left all alone. Ask K-Mart, ask Pan Am Airlines, ask Chrysler.

I want Disney to EARN its reputation, not make a living by selling it. My loyalty and my money are not the birthright of any corporation, no matter how fervent some “fans” may feel about it. I look for something more than a brand label and I do not feel I need to blindly “love” whatever is tossed my way to be a good person.

Others may feel differently. And that’s fine. Please, go spend your money while you can.

 

[JeffJewell]

I think you've set a standard that either exceeds by so much or is sufficiently different from the one set by those who disagree with you on the boards that even discussing the matter becomes pointless

...the very heart of most of my posts on this thread has been to point out that there was no attempt to set any "standard" by pointing out AKL's not that innovative. Declaring retroactively that this was supposed to be a "standard" was manufactured by "those who disagree."

I mean, this conversation was pulled to its own thread just to separate it from the now wearisome "standard" Merry-Go-Round.

I don't think some people will be happy until every dissenting voice has been browbeaten into silence.

Jeff

 

[mattjs]

By stating that AKL isn't innovative you are setting a standard for the idea of innovative as you see it. A standard you feel AKL does not meet.

And I agree with scoop that it would help to have some existing examples to get a feel for where you see the innovative line being drawn.

 

[JeffJewell]

Let's all take a breath here (myself certainly included!) and try to figure out if AKL is not innovative, has any other Disney resorts been innovative.

I guess my point is that AV appeared to move this subsection of thread away from the wider "Disney standards" discussion, and I felt he did it for a reason: to explain how he could call a clearly well-done hotel "not innovative." I don't think calling something non-innovative is the same as bashing it or suggesting it's inferior to anything in particular... New Coke was perhaps an innovative recipe compared to Old Coke, but was judged clearly inferior. "Innovative," in and of itself, does not imply any value judgement.

Perhaps I'm too suspicious, but I don't see where discussing the relative innovation level of Disney resorts is going to go anywhere positive. As I mentioned earlier, to my way of thinking, only the Poly and Contemporary showed significant innovention at the time of their construction. I'm not saying that everything else should be torn down, and I'm not saying that guy in charge at the time was the only innovator Disney ever had. And I don't see where the comparison takes us except back to a place where one group of posters can say "See, the new guy innovates just as often as the old guy... therefore Disney standards haven't slipped," when innovation is at best a small part of what "Disney standards" are made of.

Jeff

PS: The browbeating comment may have been inappropriate; the point was that I think a person should be able to say "AKL is not an innovative hotel" without being expected to delinate all innovation ever occuring in any Disney hotel, or being dismissed as a basher.

 

[larworth]

I guess my short answer is I wouldn't term AKL as tremendously innovative, but I also have no complaints about its addition.


How critical is resort innovation, anyway? Should we expect Disney to be innovation leaders in the lodging and restaurant industry? Or should we only expect them to be innovative in the application of best industry practices to their business niche?

I assume themed lodges/resorts pre-existed the Poly/Contemp. Some place you could go and pretend you were of a different time and place. I can accept that the application of this concept to extend the immersive experience beyond the park gates was very novel (innovative) at that time.

AKL seems to be just another good application of this same concept. A fine/good/great? addition to the family. Does it stretch the concept in new novel ways to be termed innovative? I’d say no. Now, maybe the ToT Hotel would have been considered an innovation.

I’m really not sure what level of innovation standard to apply here, given that they will soon be a 100% resort based business model. Anyway, we have much more glaring symptoms to base our diagnosis on.

 

[Testtrack321]

Innovative- Anything that has made people re-think the idea of hotels.
Well Done- A hotel that uses standard construction methods, but these and the sceanery are very well done.

The Contemporary was innovative becasue; it used a box-like constructing method, and it had the monorail running through it.

 

[Captain Crook]

The AKL is innovative because they built a wildlife park around it...

 

[raidermatt]

I've stayed out of this one because I haven't seen AKL in person. I can only say it certainly looks to be very well done.

Innovative? Just like anything else, there are different degrees to innovation. Views of the simulated African plane may not be exactly cutting edge, but I'd certainly give this a certain level of uniqueness, and therefore at least a small amount of innovation.

How about an African-themed resort hotel? Certainly that's one Vegas hasn't attempted. Why? Because its not a guaranteed hit. There are easier, glitzier solutions. So again, while an African-themed resort is not exactly the equivalent of innovations like the George Foreman Grill, or automobile cup holders, there was a certain amount of risk involved that didn't need to be taken.

As for does it really matter whether AKL is innovative, I'm pretty much in agreement with Larworth: No. Or at least it does not matter nearly as much as being well-done.

 

[Testtrack321]

Raidermatt, how can you compare AKL to the George Forman Grill. That's a first. AKL is very well done it's my favorite hotel at Disney. I love it. But the problem is the same as always, it isn't revolutionary. It dosn't do anything brand new and exciting that expands the imagination. If it opened in '92, yes, then it would be innoventive, because AK wouldn't have been built.

 

[Another Voice]

The deal with “innovation” is that it is a constantly changing target. The world is constantly trying to catch up and any thing that really is innovative usually sets the new standard that everyone tries to meet.

Way back in 1971 the Polynesian Resort was very innovative. It was the first truly “mega themed” resorts and even Ceasers Palace in Vegas didn’t carry its theme as thoroughly as the new Disney Resort. This was back in the day when hotels wanted to look like hotels, “themes” were nothing but the names of the restaurants and the logos on the cocktail napkins. Amusement park atmosphere ended at the turnstiles. The whole concept of walking into another world and loosing yourself was very new, and the idea of using movie-making techniques in a resort setting was completely unheard of.

Now fast forward a third of a century to today. Almost every major resort is now a “themed” complex. Take a look at the Vegas strip or watch the Travel Channel. Gee, even low-end restaurants are mega-themed (Rainforest Café). The demand to have a themed experience is so pervasive that the developers of The Block shopping mall just south of Disneyland publicize that their “theme” is an urban shopping mall (and they’re spent serious money decorating their mall to look like it). And the latest mega mall up in L.A. is bragging about how they used Disney imagineers and set designers to create their new place.

Putting up a standard hotel building, putting up a bunch of authentic art and serving a few Americanized authentic dishes in the main restaurant just isn’t unique anymore. Is the Paris resort in Vegas “innovative” today because it has a replica Eiffel Tower? Atlantis has its shark pools, Mirage has its tigers and dolphins, and a friend owns a lodge in Montana that keeps buffalo and elk near the cabins to give the guests the feeling of “being in Big Sky Country”. Are all of those places now “innovative”? Just being bigger doesn’t necessarily make one unique.

So if themed hotels are no longer innovative, what is? How about making the hotel go away? If the goal of the place is to see the animals – then put the animals at the center of attention. Make it feel that the animals surround the guests rather than the hotel surrounds the animals. How about small clusters of rooms/villas surrounded by the grasslands? Or how about a safari tent in the middle of a clearing (if people can provide four-star service in these tents in Uganda then Disney can figure out a way to do it in Orlando). Let me feed the animals, let me walk among them, let me do things that I can’t do at a zoo or at a themed restaurant. I can go to any animal park in the country and take their open truck tour to feed and touch the giraffes; floating in a hotel pool and watching one from a distance is a lesser experience than that.

Real innovation is not taking an existing concept and doing it bigger or better than anyone else. That’s an issue of quality (which I am not disputing at Animal Kingdom Lodge). Real innovation is a matter of surprising people. I’ll be very happy to be surprised by Disney again.

 

[Lesley]

Oh geez, here we go again!

As far as innovation the Poly and Contemporary, considered in the time they were created, were innovative. Partial credit for innovation goes to many other resorts, including AKL. Stormalong Bay could be considered innovative...though the rest of the hotel is pretty standard. There is nothing at all innovative about the GF, though as a hotel it is beautiful. But as usual I think we all have our own definitions.

Not everything has to be innovative...everything should be extremely well done, as AKL is. But I think what really gets to many of us is that "extremely well done" is being passed off as innovation, and many other things being done at WDW now aren't really all that well done. To me the whole thing is what I said before...the motivation. The focus is no longer upon creating great experiences because there is great satisfaction in creating and experiencing them......it is on creating things for the sake of making money. The heart of the company is no longer in it. I think it may have lasted quite a while after Walt's death because of the many others in the company who were also dedicated to making dreams come to life. The focus is now on the spreadsheets, the formulas and which concept is the one that can make us the most $.

From what I can tell of the business world (of which I know nothing really....my background is in education, art, family and home) the focus of Disney will probably never be what it was...it is long lost already. We may see that level of creativity and vision again someday....I really do hope so....but not from this company. Actually not from any company. I think it needs to start again with an individual...who can gather others...start something new. And once the initial visionary is gone, once that individual's dreams become just a company, that will slowly disappear as well.

Walt Disney is dead.

Walt was the magic, the spark, the vision of Disney. Its amazing that so much of his magic has lasted so long after his death. That truly is remarkable. I'll continue to visit and enjoy WDW... hey, I've got points to use every year until 2042! But maybe its time to stop wishing for what will not ever return. I'll enjoy what I can of it all as long as possible. But I'm more and more certain that the great days of WDW are over. Let me try to be very zen about this and accept it. I think I need a new car..... the magic is all but gone, but I'll continue to visit as long as I can still enjoy myself and sniff out little specks of pixie dust.

Now wait...I seem to have gone off on a tangent....innovative vs. well done? Actually I think it may be pointless to even go there. For me anyway.

 

[hopemax]

Okay,

Innovation: Using the parks and hotels to play off of each other to add to the show: Tomorrowland as the backdrop to the Contemporary, Adventureland as the backdrop to the Poly. If the Contemporary had been built where the Poly is and vice versa the innovation would have been lost. And for this reason, I'm not sure how innovative the animal areas at AKL are. AKL plays off the existing theme park, the theme park relies heavily on animals and African architecture, so of course there would be animals and African architecture at the hotel. It required more resources to pull off than the Poly/Adventureland but I don't know if that makes it "innovative?"

 

[WDWHound]

Originally posted by Lesley

From what I can tell of the business world (of which I know nothing really....my background is in education, art, family and home) the focus of Disney will probably never be what it was...it is long lost already. We may see that level of creativity and vision again someday....I really do hope so....but not from this company. Actually not from any company. I think it needs to start again with an individual...who can gather others...start something new. And once the initial visionary is gone, once that individual's dreams become just a company, that will slowly disappear as well.

I understand what you are saying, but this doesn't have to be true. Walt was a genious (as was Roy in his own way), but his techniques were not mysterious. Disney could recreate the Magic again. Put simply, Walt always produced the best product he could. It was expensive, but the quality and innovation attracted the visitors in large enough numbers to pay for it. Want proof, look at Tokyo Disney Seas. This park shows clearly that Walt's old techniques still work and can be implemented today. Now if Disney was only willing to risk their own money on the concept.

Even now, the company could turn around if several strong leaders were placed at the helm who insisted that the focus of the company return to quality and long term investment. This will be difficult at best. It would mean they have to have the courage to stand up to wall street. It would also mean risk because it would cost the money in the short term, making them even more at risk for a hostile takeover. The risk of failure would be very real, but no higher than the risk Walt originally took with Disneyland. There is still a chance that the company will come to their senses and take that risk. As long as that chance is there, I will have hope that the parks can rerun to what they once were.

AV: I find myself of mixed opinion on what you have written on this thread. I agree that Disney rarely innovates anymore, and I miss it too. Still, AKL represents a high standard of quality that we so rarely see from Disney these days and that encourages me. Recently we have been getting low quality and no innovation in almost everything Disney does in the states. At least they have upped half of that magic equation with this hotel. I too would like to see a return to the days when everything they did was high quality and most were innovative as well, but I am overjoyed just to see a high quality project again.

 

[JeffJewell]

...the Poly also used the modular construction... oddly enough, I didn't remember/realize the C did. Checked back on Tikiman's site to make sure I right about it being the Poly before I publicly stuck my tongue out at you for mixing them up, and it turns out that the rooms for both hotels were manufactured miles away, trucked in, and stacked up like BA Legos (I decided to keep my tongue where it's at).

AV hit on my next biggest point... immersive theming that attempted to place you somewhere and/or somewhen else was a new direction at the time (this kind of ties in to one of my past arguments concerning the Values... they don't try to put you anywhere/anywhen other than in a hotel in Florida. The other resorts may be derivations of the Poly and C's innovative brand of theming, but the Values even gave up on that. But I digress...).

So not many of the resorts are really "innovative," and even the once innovative aspects of the Poly and the C are now commonplace.

I'm still not sure what we hope to gain, here. The fact that the WL isn't innovative doesn't keep it from being my favorite WDW resort. Being innovative in some aspect or another won't raise or lower anyone's opinion of a given resort. Innovation is certainly a facet of Disney Magic; it's not the whole gem.

Jeff

 

[Lesley]

WDWHound...I would love if you were right. I disagree that the focus should be quality and long term investment though....the focus should be, needs to be, creative vision. Acts of creating for the sake of creating. Artistry...the love and excitement of making dreams a reality.

But from what I can see....a "company" especially one that has become what Disney (trademark) has can't really do that these days. I would love to see them try even if it were a failure, but they won't try because its not what business does. Individuals with dreams and creativity make the wonderful things happen. And its highly unlikely that someone with the level of vision necessary could become the head of the Disney company....to get that job you need to be a businessman.

I don't know much about TDS as far as how it actually got built...but wasn't the major force behind it one man?

I still assert that the difference is in motivation...the "why" behind the projects...until that motive changes, which I seriously doubt it will, there will be no improvement. Anyone care to comment on this? Or should there be yet another new thread?

 

[Another Voice]

"...the reality is that sometimes "ideas" cannot realistically be turned into reality. "

But isn't that "Disney magic". How easy it is to give up.

 

[raidermatt]

Raidermatt, how can you compare AKL to the George Forman Grill. That's a first.

I don't know. I was just trying to think of something truly innovative, I hadn't gone to lunch yet, and I was thinking about hamburgers. Now that I've had my hamburger (Fuddrucker's. Yum.), that does sound pretty lame.

...put the animals at the center of attention. Make it feel that the animals surround the guests rather than the hotel surrounds the animals. How about small clusters of rooms/villas surrounded by the grasslands? Or how about a safari tent in the middle of a clearing... Let me feed the animals, let me walk among them, let me do things that I can’t do
at a zoo or at a themed restaurant.

The PETA people would go nuts (about 100x more than they already are). Also, given the limited amount of guests that could partake of this experience, it would either cost a small fortune, or have a 20 year waiting list...

I get what you're saying, and what you describe, or something similar, would certainly be innovative. I just don't see it as being a practical choice.

Yes, themed hotels are everywhere, but most go for themes that are generally viewed as romantic, fantasy-like, or mystical. Africa fits this mold for very few people, and therefore is not a gimme. But from most reports, it adds to the diversity of WDW in a way that entertains and does not seem over-bearing.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Hey!!! I’m the one with the city job!!! Doesn’t anyone have to work today!

I hate when this happens. So many things pop into my head as I’m catching up and most are answered by someone else!! (Especially JJ and Sir Larry!) OK, here goes (warning – the first quote goes back to page #2!!) My good friend Captain Crook:

If building a nice replica of an African Lodge in Central Florida isn't innovative, or importing African CM's, artwork & arifacts isn't innovative, or landscaping the area so properly that African CM's can't tell the difference between Disney & home isn't innovative, so be it. But building a zoo around a hotel has got to be innovative.

I agree.

Uh? Whaddhe say?!?!

Yep! I agree.

The concept for AK isn't awesome?

No! (well, that agreeing thing didn’t last long, did it?) It is somewhat innovative (yes I disagree slightly with my Lord Liege Sir Voice). But it falls short of awesome. Very, very, very well done. And even somewhat innovative (or at least “Disney” enough to sell me on the animals off the back porch concept). I give it a very strong thumbs up!! But NOT awesome!!

Next some issues with the paragraph address directly to me:

Landbaron, I understand your view of me and that's ok.

Captain!! I admire you. And I love your sense of humor. Out of everyone (including JJ and AV) I look forward to meeting up with you again this summer! I truly consider you a friend. I know many people don’t understand the relationship we have, and probably wonder why we blindly accept the verbal barbs we sling at each other. It has to do with mutual respect that goes far beyond our ability to even understand where the other is coming from. Besides, it’s hard not to like someone who is so logically challenged!!

But you of all people here, do know I'm not blind. You know I see and you know what I see, you just can't figure out how I get from point 'A' to 'E' without going through 'b, c & d' first…

That was put perfectly! I don’t understand it at all!!!

But seriously, if you guys don't think the AKL is Disney doing a bit of what Disney has always done (at its best)

See!! It just this kind of thing. I was with you, 100%, until that parenthetical phrase was brought into the mix. It is not ‘at its best’!! That’s the whole point of this entire conversation.

then there is no conversation to be had and I must again bring up the 'ulterior motive' possibility.

And then further alienation continues with this nonsense!! Try getting to “E” by way of ‘b, c, and d’ and you may begin to grasp the subtlety of the discussion!!!

If Walt had done AK, there would be nothing, NOTHING that could compare with the accolades that would be being heaped upon this place...

I daresay you are right. That would have placed it before my beloved Polly. Yes!! True innovation!!

And a final proposition for you, my dear Captain. Clear your brain for a second (not that it would take long) and forget about everything you’ve heard on this thread about what ‘could have been’. Now, let yourself go for a minute. Full flight of fancy. Imagination run wild! Just think what a guy like Walt would have done with a ‘resort with animals’ concept!! WOW!!! Now that thinking by way of ‘b, c, and d’!!!!

Scoop, my friend. Are you never in court!!! I blame you and JJ for the rapid growth of this thread!! (a lot good it does to have a city job!!!) Anyway:

It just befuddles me that several fellow posters anoint the freakin' Golf Resort as magical ("because it magically takes someone away to a...uh....GOLF RESORT?!?), yet finds fault with AKL?

I know others jumped all over you, but I really couldn’t let it go. We’re not talking magic, of course. We’re talking innovative concepts. Quite a difference in my book.

AirLarry!:

I think it is unfair to criticize Mr. Voice's disappointment in What Could Have Been. If critiquing of this nature is done without bitterness, it is good for the Company. Anybody care to guess whether or not the Imagineers (instead of the Hotelleers) would have taken those treehouse villas from the golf course area and integrated them with the Savannah? They ran a monorail through a Polynesian village and a Cement Skyscraper, for Walt’s sake!

WOW!!! Did you hit the nail on the head!! Exactly!! Imagineers should have had a crack at it. I think even AV’s description would have fallen short of their concepts!!!

Greg:

"Could have done more." Give me a situation anywhere, anytime where that isn't true Everything that was ever built, everything ever conceived could have been more.

I agree. And that’s what’s fun about conversations in car #3. We question EVERYTHING!! We ‘blindly accept’ NOTHING!!! It’s fun to try and out-think the builders. To try and imagine it better. To tell you the truth, I never even considered anything such as AV described. But now that I hear it, I have to wonder why. Of course that doesn’t diminish the AKL, but it kind of gets you thinking what could have been if the Imagineers had had a go of it. Doesn’t it?

We take this very, very well done resort and think about in ‘magical’ terms. Is it a three run triple, an inside the park homerun or a Grand Slam??!! I think it’s fun. (and wouldn’t it be nice if this were all we had to talk about? Triples and grand slams? Instead we’re talking about strikeouts, infield fly rules and games called on account of rain!!)

Scoop, oh Scoop!!

I likewise do not believe that Fort Wilderness was innovative because they simply created campsites or wilderness homes no different than any other existing types of campsites. To me Fort Wilderness is a wonderfully decorated campground but nothing innovative about it beyond its wonderful decorations.

Someone mentioned temporal perspective! PLEASE!! I must have visited hundreds of ‘campsites’ before 1972. My parents dragged us to every state in the union (but seven). And I can garentee, honest to God, cross my heart, there was never anything, remotely as innovative as Fort Wilderness when it opened. NOTHING!!!! Please get off it!! You know not of what you speak!!!!

Larworth:

I guess my short answer is I wouldn't term AKL as tremendously innovative, but I also have no complaints about its addition.

Ditto

Lesley:

I think I need a new car..... the magic is all but gone, but I'll continue to visit as long as I can still enjoy myself and sniff out little specks of pixie dust.

Again… Ditto

 

[Captain Crook]

...I believe we have a first! A friendly conclusion to a well argued, well thought out thread! Way to go folks, my mouse ears are off to you all.