Calling all Car #3 Occupants

[DisneyKidds]

So much debate of dis, dat, and da other ting - all of it culminating in 'that is because you are in Car X and feel XXXXXXXX'

So try this on for size . All in good fun, of course .

TOPIC: The Irony of Many a Car #3 Occupant

1. Believes he/she is the realist, when in fact they at one point were most unrealistic.

2. Believes anyone in Car #1 is 'drunk on the Brand', when in fact they were the only ones ever 'intoxicated by Disney'.

3. Wants so much added to Disney that they would have nothing added at all.

There are others, but they have been said before. I'm sure someone else might be able to think of a few new ones. And I'm sure someone will come up with a list pertaining to other Cars (bring it on )

TALK AMONGST YOURSELVES (I'm feeling a bit verklempt)


p.s. - I attribute these ironies to a few of my fave Car #3 quotes and firm beliefs, those being:

'is that a man behind the curtain?'

Some (all?) Car #3ers feel that WDW has been whittled down so much that 'the man' at some point along the line became visible. But that man was always there. Some Car #1 passengers always knew that, accepted that, and understood the interaction of the Magic, the curtain, and the man. So you see him a little, not such a surprise, and no reduction in the Magic. In Car #3 you are now realists because you see this man and realize what is happening, but was it unrealistic to not see this (or be able to anticipate some of it) in the first place?

Car #1 folk are not drunk, never have been. Perhaps many have always known how to hold their liquor (Magic). Maybe the #3 folk have sobered up after their intoxication, which isn't a bad thing, but now they have the shakes and are going through withdrawal.

'Give the customer everything you can, or not at all'

Everything in AK would have included BK, so without it Disney should have passed? DinoRama could have been done better, so they should have passed? MGM put together piecemeal - should they have passed? People want the dream and the Magic, we need hotel rooms, deluxes don't work for everyone (company and consumer alike) - should no moderate/value hotels have been added? I shutter to imagine WDW without any of these. I, for one, wouldn't have visited WDW nearly as much without (yes - I've stayed in mods and the All Stars). I, for one, wouldn't own DVC without MGM and AK - a two park WDW just wouldn't have justified the investment.

No offense to the many learned and knowledgeable people outside of Car #1 - just thought it might be good for a few fun pages of discussion .

 

[HB2K]

1. Believes he/she is the realist, when in fact they at one point were most unrealistic.

I don't think I'm un-realistic....if I was, Disney wouldn't be suffering through all of it's problems right now. More and more people are not letting Disney slide along by it's brand name....thus the recent failures of DCA, the decline of DAK, the piss poor performance at the box office, and the bomb of ABC. People in the past might have given something released by the Disney company a first look based on the brand name, but now by in large people are requiring Disney to show them the quality before any money is spent. Thus why Lilo has been advertised so much, why DCA is a bomb, etc.

Believes anyone in Car #1 is 'drunk on the Brand', when in fact they were the only ones ever 'intoxicated by Disney'.

No, you're still the smaller segment in America which still trusts the Disney brand name to deliver quality. You may see it in somethings, maybe not in others, but you still give the Disney company a pass when they fail. Nothing more, nothing less.

3. Wants so much added to Disney that they would have nothing added at all.

No, I want QUALITY. I spend a lot of money on Disney products. They aren't cheap. If Disney wants to get into the low end business, that's fine. Just either charge accordingly or advertise it that way. If the majority of the public decides not to spend their money on a Disney product, what of these two choices should DIsney do?

A) Change whatever is wrong and give the public what they want?

B) Run a series of Advertisements telling the public they are wrong about that product?

Car one seems to pick B. I prefer A.

Some (all?) Car #3ers feel that WDW has been whittled down so much that 'the man' at some point along the line became visible. But that man was always there. Some Car #1 passengers always knew that, accepted that, and understood the interaction of the Magic, the curtain, and the man. So you see him a little, not such a surprise, and no reduction in the Magic.

OK...you go to a restaurant which is FAMOUS for it's LARGEportions. Every time you eat there you walk out with a stomach ache. Then one day you mysteriously eat everything....but you're still full so you don't complain and you wonder what happened? The next time you go, you eat everything and you're not so full when you leave. You wonder, but don't say anything since you don't know why this is happening...maybe it's you're appetite.

Then it happens. The next time you go to the restaurant you notice they are still using the same food, but they keep buying smaller and smaller plates to serve it on.

Do you keep going to the restaurant hoping they will bring back the big plates?

'Give the customer everything you can, or not at all'

No, just don't get lazy....see next paragraph

Everything in AK would have included BK, so without it Disney should have passed? DinoRama could have been done better, so they should have passed? MGM put together piecemeal - should they have passed?

Here's the problem. When MGM was built, it was lacking attractions. But they kept building there. DAK was opened incomplete but more addittions were promised. Those addition have yet to be realized and we're almost approaching 10 years. DinoRama should not have been done. Period. No excuse for using a theme which runs contrary to you're brand name's reputation (DinoRama is a TACKY roadside fair, the Brand name stands for quality...or at least it did).

People want the dream and the Magic, we need hotel rooms, deluxes don't work for everyone (company and consumer alike) - should no moderate/value hotels have been added? I shutter to imagine WDW without any of these. I, for one, wouldn't have visited WDW nearly as much without (yes - I've stayed in mods and the All Stars).

I'm not a big hotel person like DVC....I just want a roof over my head and All Stars fit that bill. I'm not the person to argue that point with you.

 

[Bob O]

I disagree with all of the so-called ironies!!
I dont think AK should have been built in the first place!! They should have fixed up all of the holes in their existing parks before building AK. Then once they decide to build it, it should be done correctly and not done as a half day park like it was. They are still trying to fix the park to give people some reason to spend a whole day at the park(with little success so far).
And i cant disagree with H2BK

 

[DisneyKidds]

Of course you do, you are in Car #3, you are SUPPOSED to disagree . But why is the key question. And understanding that is the only way we can solve Scoops 'riddle of the diametrically opposed carpools' .

BTW, with a shoe horn I might be able to squeeze you into Irony 3 (AK-wise at least) .

p.s. HB2K - I think you are saying that they did keep building at MGM and we did get the additions. AK has promises, but we are hardly approaching 10 years. It will be interesting to see what AK looks like when we do get close to 10 years.

 

[Bob O]

Because i believe the car 3 people arent blinded by pixie dust or wearing rose colored glasses. We see things IMHO in a more realistic manner and can see the magic and the warts!!
I have never been drunk on disney!!
And i want to see the parks updated with new rides /attractions, that doesnt mean always building new but replacing dated attractions(except of course the need for a thrill coaster). They built Ak to add room nights and from all reports it failed in that mission and failed as it was built as a incomplete park intentionally to make money while not trying to overwhelm the guest.

 

[DisneyKidds]

Very good O , but (as Baron would say) lets go a little further......

Those in Car #3 can see the warts (yuck), good. You imply that those in Car #1 can't. This is where I think Car #1 is a little misunderstood .

I am going to go out on a limb here (I know, stupid thing to do around here ) and say that those in Car #3 were once in Car #1. Happily riding along in Car #1 when there 'were no warts'. The toad (Eisner ) jumps across the path and, boom, the warts appear and the jump to Car #2 or #3 takes place. Those now in Car #3 are realistic because they see the warts.

The question I have to ask is, were they so realistic when they didn't see the warts to begin with? Because, you see, there were always some warts to be found . Sure, they may have spread, but there were always warts. It would be unrealistic to say there weren't. The rose colored glasses may have prevented anyone from seeing them, or perhaps it was the blurred vision of being 'intoxicated' .

Car #1 passengers have always realized that some warts were out there and we could accept it, realistic as we are - and it doesn't affect the Magic. So there are more now, so what - it still doesn't affect the Magic. And warts have a way of clearing up .

 

[All Aboard]

Disneykidds, I'm curious (and if you've posted this already, I apologize)... what's your WDW history? I mean when did you first go and how frequently have you gone throughout the years. That always helps in this forum to have an understanding of perspective.

Not long ago we all laid out our history. I'll try to find and post a link for you.

Here it is

 

[DisneyKidds]

Greg,

First trip as an adult - Honeymoon , 1991. Probably a half dozen visits during my childhood, with a first MK visit at 3 in '71.

Approximately 16 trips (I'll have to go back and recount) between 1991 and now.

Have stayed in most WDW hotels

DVC owners

I'll read that linked thread and get you more pertinent info later .

 

[HB2K]

I am going to go out on a limb here (I know, stupid thing to do around here ) and say that those in Car #3 were once in Car #1. Happily riding along in Car #1 when there 'were no warts'. The toad (Eisner ) jumps across the path and, boom, the warts appear and the jump to Car #2 or #3 takes place. Those now in Car #3 are realistic because they see the warts.

No, those not in car one had a certain straw which disney dropped and it broke their back.

Everyone is for things until something hits home. GCurling is still smarting about the loss of EE. Mine came around my first visit to DAK.

My appologies. For some reason I thought DAK opened in 94. It opened in 98....so we're talking 4 years and nothing announced for the foreseeable future. It's pathetic and it's the reason the attendance is dropping.

 

[Bob O]

My first visit was in 1982 and have been back often since and have seen small things go down hill over time. And most importantly with eisner in charge i see little hope that things will chnage for the better as that hasnt been the case in the last several years. Its seems to me that disney is taking the car 1 people for granted, that they will buy whatever he sells to them and so htey dont feel the need to improve the parks and can give the public a park like AK and DCA and they just extol the virtues of these inadeqaute parks like they are the second coming of MK.
The additional amount of warts has to affect your enjoyment of the experience, and if it doesnt that could be a major difference between car 1 and car 3. While we still find it magical the warts do affect our overall guest experience at the parks.