Frommer article full of WDW misinformation

[YoHo]

I doubt we'll be seeing any more in florida for some time. There is the planned anouncment of DVC for The Grand California which includes a new structure I think.
Now, off property, we will see things like the Hawaii resort.

 

[SueM in MN]

Sounds like they cheaped out on the renovations. It was probably cheaper to make one longhouse ADA compliant rather then make some rooms in all ada compliant.

In particular, you would think they would make at least one concierge level room ADA compliant.

Personally, I don't much care about making a distinction in view at the poly. I like to spend time on the grounds, but I don't sit on the porch much. Still, the option should be there.

Depending on just what their renovations were, they may not have been required to make any rooms ADA complaint. If all the renovations were 'cosmetic', they may have not been required.

Also, there may have been technical reasons why they could not change some rooms to roll in shower. Since they would have to move walls to make the bathroom big enough for the roll in shower, there may have been a reason they could not move the walls.

 

[DC7800]

I think that All Star Music has Disney feel, because it is staged and pays attention to detail the way Disney pays attention to the details in the parks. The theming is also a bit more subtle at All Star Music.

At least the All Star resorts do not have words like "DUH" plastered all over the buildings.

All Star Music has normal sized props spread around the grounds to help with the theming.

We're really throwing the phrase "theming" around rather loosely. Space Mountain is a themed roller-coaster - it ostensibly simulates a "race through time and space"; Primeval Whirl is a decorated coaster - it doesn't even try to simulate an illusion you are really going back in time, it only has decorations which dress up (rather sloppily) an off-the-shelf coaster.

The value resorts, much like a really bad movie, do have their moments - which may occasionally reveal a kernel of class, style, or even a token gesture towards proper-Disney standards, but these elements are still just decorations and do not constitute 'theming'. Your photographs illustrate many of Music's better qualities, and indeed - you might argue that All-Star Music is aesthetically the best (if marginally) of the value resorts.

I'm glad that Disney, by accident or design, has a resort structure which is well suited to your needs. It also meets the needs of a lot of us by providing a more reasonably priced place to stay, and I look forward to my upcoming stay at the Funky Chicken Lodge (Pop Century). Neither of those facts, nor what we personally think about the place, has anything to do with whether the property is well-themed (tells a story) or just decorated concrete structures. But why, one might reasonably ask, cannot lower-cost accommodations adhere to the same basic standards which Disney itself established for resorts. It wouldn't be as "nice" (fancy), offer so large a room, or have nearly as many amenities as a deluxe property, obviously, but there is no reason why inexpensive has to equal tacky.

You cannot create a 'Jazz' theme with just a fountain and little else, nor can you make the guest feel like they really are staying on Broadway by placing a garden and single cab on a fake 'street' out front. If the Jazz buildings were carbon-copies of what already exists at Port Orleans, then yes - you could be well on your way to a Jazz themed resort section (yes, I know - why would Disney copy Port Orleans over at the All-Stars, but that's not the point - you get the idea). Again, these elements may (very slightly) improve upon the otherwise tacky decorations of the resort, but they woefully fail to create a feeling of time or place, and here are utilized only as less-tacky design elements - nothing more than mere decorations. Actually, nothing precludes the creation of a non-tacky decorated resort; For the same money spent on oversized fiberglass (it wasn't cheap), you could have more tastefully-designed decorations or - imagine this - actually craft a design which attempts to portray an actual, legitimate theme. Maybe it won't be as immersive as the Polynesian, being a 'value' resort, but at least it wouldn't be tacky.

I said they weren't about creativity, meaning I don't think they were built in mind by Disney saying "Let's make these resorts something amazing and different!!!".

Which is exactly the problem. They fail to meet Disney's own standards - they didn't even try to make something creative or which would 'wow' the guest. A lower price point is no excuse for lack of effort.

What should Disney have done? Instead of the All Stars built another Polynesian type resort and charge $400 a night for those rooms? The Value Resorts were an ingenios move on the part of Disney.

By most accounts, Disney could sell the Polynesian rooms at All-Star prices and still make a (small) profit. I'm not suggesting they do that, as the deluxes are worth more and demand alone will support a much higher price, but it is an element of greed which dictates a cheapened experience for lower-priced accommodations.

The Value resorts aren't about creativity. They're about allowing guests who could otherwise not afford to do so a chance to stay on Disney property.

Maybe the nearly 3,000 rooms at Pop and the 6,000 rooms at All Stars that are always filled are filled with people who are all making a huge mistake.

They were done to capture some of the business previously lost to off-site hotels, but instead many of the rooms are filled with families who otherwise would have stayed on-site anyway at a moderate or deluxe. It's fine, or even a good idea, to go after this business - it's the way they went about it which is the primary problem.

In a strange way, the values are a more authentic Disney experience than some of the deluxes.

How so? Because they have huge images of the characters attached to the side of the buildings? At best, they represent a very superficial portrayal of the "Disney experience". Pop Century or the All-Stars make you feel like you have stepped into...a hotel in central Florida. No, you probably can't really do that anywhere else - but properly themed Disney resorts transport and immerse you in a different place ("stepped onto a movie set", or "into a dream"), from New Orleans (Port Orleans) to Africa. The decorated value resorts make you feel like you are in a...decorated WDW resort. That's not fantasy - that's reality.

It's sort of like Magic Kingdom vs. Epcot. Both have incredible theming and attention to detail, but there is a sense of wonder and fun and magic at MK that just doesn't exist at Epcot.

Please...tell me you're kidding!!! The wonder (and sense of awe) in Epcot - and Future World in particular - from opening day in 1982, is something that has never since been equalled.

Why go to a fake Hawaiian resort when you could travel to a real one?
Why go to a fake Cape Cod seaside resort when you could travel to a real one?

By that standard, World Showcase should not exist. Even with the resort concepts we actually have, many people will never actually go to those places - WDW will be their only experience. That would have been even more accurate with the unbuilt Venetian and Persian.

 

[YoHo]

Bravo!

Working backwards, it's not just about experiencing a place that people could go to, it's a specific place and time. It's capturing a moment, a feel, an experience. Sure, anyone could go to Hawaii and Tahiti.

That also relates to price, we already know Disney could build a resort with all the themeing of the deluxes at a lower price point, we know that, because they did. The poly and Contemp had a much lower price port through the 70s and early 80s and Disney made a profit on those rooms at that price. So we know it's not impossible.
You're now judging the Polynesian based on it's current pricing model. And I agree, for over $300 a night rack, it simply more cost effective to GO to Hawaii, but if the prices were down around $200 where they belong? And I'm at WDW? Now that's a different story all together.

 

[dwaters]

Please...tell me you're kidding!!! The wonder (and sense of awe) in Epcot - and Future World in particular - from opening day in 1982, is something that has never since been equalled.

Not kidding.
I think maybe I'm trying to see it how a child sees it. I think of Epcot as a park designed for adults where kids are welcome as opposed to Magic Kingdom which is for kids of all ages.

 

[amyhughes]

I have been lurking for awhile now. Sorry, but I find this conversation one of the few intelligent ones going on these boards. Here are my two cents:

Eisner and Wells saw a sleeping giant. They made a lackluster company gain huge profit margins in the eighties and nineties through massive marketing, straight to VHS then DVD releases, and then jacking prices up on anything bearing a Disney signature. I guess they figured if our client base likes us this much they will pay however much to own, experience, or view our product.

Where this is backfiring? Places like right here where folks are calling it like it is. Yes, this is a business and a business that was founded on the basic principals of storytelling and making everything first rate. While Walt may not have set out to make money Eisner and Wells sure as heck did. I also get ansy when I hear folks quoting "What Walt would have done, what he would have wanted." This is impossible to know. For all the joyous wonderment that I find in Epcot, it is NOT Walt's original plans.

Would Walt have wanted "roadside" motels slapped with oversize Disney characters and 'Flair', I don't THINK so. But we will NEVER know. Just based on the Disney experience I had as a child, it seems out of place compared to the other places to stay on property.

I feel let down by the designs. I have stayed at ASMU and find it a far cry from the next step up. My Grandma stays there all the time and I have offered to pay the extra $30 or more a night to get her out of her comfort zone and into a mod like POFQ. The only reason she stays there is that is what she can afford so that she can go once a year.

My comparison is this: When you go to a box or chain restaurant and they have all the junk on the walls like a street light, someone's old Atari, movie posters etc. Still doesn't mean the food is going to be any good. Disney has done the same thing here with these properties. They have treated them like a chain restaurant, "Throw enough "Fun" stuff on the walls and they will come."

 

[boomhauer]

I have been lurking for awhile now. Sorry, but I find this conversation one of the few intelligent ones going on these boards. Here are my two cents:

Eisner and Wells saw a sleeping giant. They made a lackluster company gain huge profit margins in the eighties and nineties through massive marketing, straight to VHS then DVD releases, and then jacking prices up on anything bearing a Disney signature. I guess they figured if our client base likes us this much they will pay however much to own, experience, or view our product.

Where this is backfiring? Places like right here where folks are calling it like it is. Yes, this is a business and a business that was founded on the basic principals of storytelling and making everything first rate. While Walt may not have set out to make money Eisner and Wells sure as heck did. I also get ansy when I hear folks quoting "What Walt would have done, what he would have wanted." This is impossible to know. For all the joyous wonderment that I find in Epcot, it is NOT Walt's original plans.

Would Walt have wanted "roadside" motels slapped with oversize Disney characters and 'Flair', I don't THINK so. But we will NEVER know. Just based on the Disney experience I had as a child, it seems out of place compared to the other places to stay on property.

I feel let down by the designs. I have stayed at ASMU and find it a far cry from the next step up. My Grandma stays there all the time and I have offered to pay the extra $30 or more a night to get her out of her comfort zone and into a mod like POFQ. The only reason she stays there is that is what she can afford so that she can go once a year.

My comparison is this: When you go to a box or chain restaurant and they have all the junk on the walls like a street light, someone's old Atari, movie posters etc. Still doesn't mean the food is going to be any good. Disney has done the same thing here with these properties. They have treated them like a chain restaurant, "Throw enough "Fun" stuff on the walls and they will come."

That's a really interesting post. I think there are some (myself included) that simply don't see it that way.

If Disney had built the Values and they were comparable to Deluxes, why would people pay the money for Deluxe Resorts? We all want to live in this fantasy world where Disney isn't trying to make money. That's just not realistic.

The Values are what they are, and aren't trying to be anything more. They're not trying to be moderates. They're not trying to be deluxes. They're trying to be a budget place of stay for families, where kids will enjoy staying. I paid $170 a night to stay at Port Orleans in July, and trust me, my 6 year old much prefers the Values, as actually, do I.

Maybe the Value resorts aren't everybody's thing, but clearly, there are many fans of them out there, and not just of the price. So, where as you might see it as something Disney had done wrong, others see it as something Disney did very right.

 

[dwaters]

Would Walt have wanted "roadside" motels slapped with oversize Disney characters and 'Flair', I don't THINK so.

It may be "Flair", but if you are going to do it like that that, All-Star Movies has some of the coolest "flair" around!
Toy Story has the big Buzz and Woody, plus an RC car you car sit in, huge blocks you can climb on, and a giant door to Andy's room that makes you feel like one of the toys in the movie. It may not be "immersive" but with a little imagination (which kids certainly have) you are transported to Andy's room from the movie.
I think it fits the target audience of families with small children very nicely.
Wilderness Lodge is amazing to grown-ups, but the details are just lost on the kids anyway.
I didn't see a bunch of six and eight year olds wandering the lobby saying, "This totem pole surely captures the essence of Native American culture in the Pacific Northwest of the twenties"
"I beg to differ Logan, I think the carvings portray a more primitive use of tools, possible decades earlier. Now hand me my juice box and some Goldfish crackers if you wouldn't mind".

The All-Stars and the Pop may not be on the same level creatively as the Contemporary and Polynesian, but as values do they really have to be?

 

[Mickey&Donald]

Would Walt have wanted "roadside" motels slapped with oversize Disney characters and 'Flair', I don't THINK so. But we will NEVER know. Just based on the Disney experience I had as a child, it seems out of place compared to the other places to stay on property.

I feel let down by the designs. I have stayed at ASMU and find it a far cry from the next step up. My Grandma stays there all the time and I have offered to pay the extra $30 or more a night to get her out of her comfort zone and into a mod like POFQ. The only reason she stays there is that is what she can afford so that she can go once a year.

My comparison is this: When you go to a box or chain restaurant and they have all the junk on the walls like a street light, someone's old Atari, movie posters etc. Still doesn't mean the food is going to be any good. Disney has done the same thing here with these properties. They have treated them like a chain restaurant, "Throw enough "Fun" stuff on the walls and they will come."

I have to completely disagree with you here. I am a big fan of the Value resorts, especially Pop, with all of the junk on the walls. I think it's wonderful that there's a fun, colorful, happy place to stay on Disney property that is affordable for most guests. When I was at Pop in September, my entire family enjoyed the stay, loved the decor and the hotel in general, and we saw tons of kids and families having the time of their lives. I didn't witness any glum faces moping around, "Sigh, I wish we had that extra $30 to stay at POFQ..." I mean, how elitist is THAT? Do you view all Value guests as charity cases who must settle for a crappy hotel just to enjoy WDW? Have you ever considered the fact that many people LIKE those hotels?

Bringing Walt's opinion into the equation... I think he would have completely approved of the Values. Walt was not a man interested in making piles of money. He was interested in entertaining families, especially the children, and making those special times accessible to ALL people. He once said, "I know more adults who have the children's approach to life. They're people who don't give a hang what the Joneses do. You see them at Disneyland every time you go there. They are not afraid to be delighted with simple pleasures, and they have a degree of contentment with what life has brought - sometimes it isn't much, either." He also said (and I realize he's talking about DL, but he wasn't alive to witness anything else), "Disneyland is a work of love. We didn't go into Disneyland just with the idea of making money."

Personally, I think Walt would have be revolted by the cost of a room at the Contemporary or the Poly. If those were the only options, many, many people would never have the chance to experience Walt's dream.

 

[DancingBear]

Wilderness Lodge is amazing to grown-ups, but the details are just lost on the kids anyway.

But the point is that they are there. Kids enjoy the general Western theme, the fact that there is water bubbling up in the lobby, the ketchup schtick at Whispering Canyon, the geyser shooting off. Grown-ups (and some older kids) think it's cool that the stone in the fireplace replicates the layers seen in the Grand Canyon.

The All-Stars and the Pop may not be on the same level creatively as the Contemporary and Polynesian, but as values do they really have to be?

If you care about whether the brand which Eisner overexploited still has any value in another couple of decades, yes. Used to be that Disney stood for high quality family entertainment and great customer service. The new Disney tries to capitalize on that by stamping "Disney" on a "family-friendly" cell phone, or selling corporate seminars on the Disney way--but meanwhile they produce product which undermines the whole premise.

 

[boomhauer]

I have to completely disagree with you here. I am a big fan of the Value resorts, especially Pop, with all of the junk on the walls. I think it's wonderful that there's a fun, colorful, happy place to stay on Disney property that is affordable for most guests. When I was at Pop in September, my entire family enjoyed the stay, loved the decor and the hotel in general, and we saw tons of kids and families having the time of their lives. I didn't witness any glum faces moping around, "Sigh, I wish we had that extra $30 to stay at POFQ..." I mean, how elitist is THAT? Do you view all Value guests as charity cases who must settle for a crappy hotel just to enjoy WDW? Have you ever considered the fact that many people LIKE those hotels?

Bringing Walt's opinion into the equation... I think he would have completely approved of the Values. Walt was not a man interested in making piles of money. He was interested in entertaining families, especially the children, and making those special times accessible to ALL people. He once said, "I know more adults who have the children's approach to life. They're people who don't give a hang what the Joneses do. You see them at Disneyland every time you go there. They are not afraid to be delighted with simple pleasures, and they have a degree of contentment with what life has brought - sometimes it isn't much, either." He also said (and I realize he's talking about DL, but he wasn't alive to witness anything else), "Disneyland is a work of love. We didn't go into Disneyland just with the idea of making money."

Personally, I think Walt would have be revolted by the cost of a room at the Contemporary or the Poly. If those were the only options, many, many people would never have the chance to experience Walt's dream.

I agree 100%.

 

[minnie61650]

But the point is that they are there. Kids enjoy the general Western theme, the fact that there is water bubbling up in the lobby, the ketchup schtick at Whispering Canyon, the geyser shooting off. Grown-ups (and some older kids) think it's cool that the stone in the fireplace replicates the layers seen in the Grand Canyon.
.

Sadly, very few children today know or care about a general Westren theme.
They are NOT growing up playing cowboys and Indians like I did when I was a youth.
They don't know and don't care about Roy Rogers.

Westren pograms are no
longer shown on TV unless someone in the home turns on an old westren movie or an old TV rerun . TV shows like: Gunsmoke, The Lone Ranger, The Rifleman, Wanted: Dead or Alive, Have Gun, Will Travel, Bonanza, The Virginian, Wagon Train, The Big Valley, Maverick, The High Chaparral are all long gone.


My 5 year old grandson loves , playing pirates, he loves Toy Stoty,Cars, Star Wars (because his dad is a Star Wars fan) , Super Heros, and the characters from popular children's programs.

He is not interested in the westren theme because he really has no idea what the westeren theme even represents.

Just my 2 cents

 

[amyhughes]

I don't think it is possible to make the "Values" on property resemble the "Monorail" circuit hotels and still charge lower. That, I agree, is not going to work. I also am appalled at the prices of the Deluxe rooms. So we could have the space we needed we ended up renting DVC points and it was comparable to a Moderate rate when all was said and done. But, would I pay "rack rate" for Boardwalk. Heck, no. This last time we rented a whole house for less than a grand a week, this would have been 3 nights at a Deluxe.

I too am appalled at the price gouging that goes on. So don't misinterpret my post as,"Well, I pay it so should you." In fact I wish they would give more options to the Average American family as far as resorts b/c when you book if you look at the amount of Deluxe and Deluxe Villa resorts vastly outweigh the number of values.

And for the poster that mentioned the 'charity case', I was simply trying to offer my G-Ma a chance to stay somewhere else and see how she liked it. The only place she has ever stayed is ASMU and if that is what she thinks a WDW resort is I wanted to show her a different place and help foot the difference.

I had a boss that used to stay at the Values, his reasoning: We aren't in the room very much. Why would I pay $300 for a place I shower and sleep and that's it? And on most Disney vacations this is what most do. The hotel is just a place to crash only to wake in 6-7 hours to rush out the door.

If folks like the Values, that's great. Honestly, I don't and I am allowed to have that opinion. We all have our views of what is "Disney" and what is not.

 

[G8RFAN]

As beautiful as WL is, why is it that it is one of the least expensive Deluxe resorts? I don't think it is because of a lack of monorail because CR is also pretty cheap compared to the Poly. IMHO, the structure of the AKL is equally as spectacular to the WL and the animals add so much more. I remember sitting in the hot tub and having a giraff only 20 feet away. Simply amazing. As many times as I've tried to book there, it seems to always have no availability. Come to find out, they have closed off wings and floors, reducing availability for I assume overhead reasons. Now, with the conversion to AKV, it all makes sense. So I ask you, if the charter of Disney is to create quality and immersion to take guests away from reality, why is it that these deluxe resorts have "failed"? Quality of service? Not enough value for the buck? Every time I call CRO, I have yet to see AP/FL resident discounts available for the YC, BC, GF, and Poly. That doesn't mean they never have them, if they do, it is likely they are the first inventory to go. I will guess that the two driving factors of success for YC, BC is SAB and it's proximity to WS. I definitely don't feel like I'm in New England when staying at/visiting these two resorts. I believe that GF is popular because of its signature status even tho I don't believe you get better "service" at this resort over the others. I also don't think its architecture is indicative of anything "Florida in a grand scale". Thus IMHO, Poly is the only deluxe resort with a high level of "emersion content" that seems to drive its success in terms of demand. I guess what I question here is the importance of this emersion formula that seems to be the backbone of the Disney experience. It's the guests and their checkbooks that eventually drives the product, not the other way around.

 

[minnie61650]

As beautiful as WL is, why is it that it is one of the least expensive Deluxe resorts? I don't think it is because of a lack of monorail because CR is also pretty cheap compared to the Poly. IMHO, the structure of the AKL is equally as spectacular to the WL and the animals add so much more. I remember sitting in the hot tub and having a giraff only 20 feet away. Simply amazing. As many times as I've tried to book there, it seems to always have no availability. Come to find out, they have closed off wings and floors, reducing availability for I assume overhead reasons. Now, with the conversion to AKV, it all makes sense. So I ask you, if the charter of Disney is to create quality and immersion to take guests away from reality, why is it that these deluxe resorts have "failed"? Quality of service? Not enough value for the buck? Every time I call CRO, I have yet to see AP/FL resident discounts available for the YC, BC, GF, and Poly. That doesn't mean they never have them, if they do, it is likely they are the first inventory to go. I will guess that the two driving factors of success for YC, BC is SAB and it's proximity to WS. I definitely don't feel like I'm in New England when staying at/visiting these two resorts. I believe that GF is popular because of its signature status even tho I don't believe you get better "service" at this resort over the others. I also don't think its architecture is indicative of anything "Florida in a grand scale". Thus IMHO, Poly is the only deluxe resort with a high level of "emersion content" that seems to drive its success in terms of demand. I guess what I question here is the importance of this emersion formula that seems to be the backbone of the Disney experience. It's the guests and their checkbooks that eventually drives the product, not the other way around.

I believe you have a very valid point.

 

[dwaters]

I think these resorts are hardly the biggest offenders when it comes to lowering Disney's image and reputation for quality.
For that I would take a look at the direct to video cheap sequels like Lady and the Tramp II, Bambi II, Cinderella II and III, Jungle Book 2 etc. etc.
You don't have to go on vacation to see these. They fill the shelves of every department store of every town, screaming "We're too lazy to think of anything better, so here you go".
Thankfully, it seems they are cutting back on this practice and this is probably a topic for a whole 'nother thread.

(G8RFAN -We also stayed at the Sheraton Anaheim and loved it. How did you like it?)

 

[G8RFAN]

(G8RFAN -We also stayed at the Sheraton Anaheim and loved it. How did you like it?)

I can't say the same unfortunately. The carpeting in certain areas was pulling away from the floor. The hotel uses a central boiler/AC system and the temperature during Dec was cool in the mornings but there was an awkward period of time during the day when the room was too warm and there was nothing you could do but open the windows. The shuttle was excellent tho with frequent trips every 30 minutes if I recall. I have to admit that I had booked it thru Disney and was so disappointed that we couldn't get a room on site so that also played a factor. The other factor was that we had stayed at the Hilton at Universal City just prior to Anaheim and had a corner suite overlooking USH and the mountain range. We could not have asked for a more picturesque view then having to compare it to the lack of view at the Sheraton. I heard they remodeled since our trip.

 

[raidermatt]

I'm not sure the deluxes are "failing", but yes, certainly some of them are not fetching the prices Disney had liked. Why?

The majority of even the deluxes do not really match the true Disney we have been talking about. AKL doesn't really endeavor to put you into Africa. Yes, its very neat having the animals there, and there's some wonderful detail and decorationg, much more involved than at the values.

But in the end, it's a box hotel with the animals used as a gimmick. Further, to the untrained eye, it, the WL and the GC at DL are the same hotel with slightly different decorations.

Location is most certainly a factor. AKL is only close to AK, along with MGM the least popular parks in WDW, and even then there's no special transportation. The WL not being on the Monorail line does certainly hurt it's appeal for some.

The Contemporary might not fetch the prices the Poly does, but all that says is that it isn't as popular. It certainly isn't having to discount like the WL and AKL do.

But again, except for the Poly and Contemp, you're talking about hotels that were built by the same management that built Pop and the Values. These newer deluxes have more of that true Disney in them, but they miss the mark in lots of ways as well.

Thus IMHO, Poly is the only deluxe resort with a high level of "emersion content" that seems to drive its success in terms of demand. I guess what I question here is the importance of this emersion formula that seems to be the backbone of the Disney experience. It's the guests and their checkbooks that eventually drives the product, not the other way around.

Yet if Disney originally operated under that mantra there would be no Poly, and probably no WDW or even DL. What you are describing is the change in philosophy away from what created the foundation that all you see today was built upon. There's only two deluxes that were truly desinged and built before that change. Is it no wonder that they are possibley the two most successful?

When I was at Pop in September, my entire family enjoyed the stay, loved the decor and the hotel in general, and we saw tons of kids and families having the time of their lives. I didn't witness any glum faces moping around, "Sigh, I wish we had that extra $30 to stay at POFQ..." I mean, how elitist is THAT? Do you view all Value guests as charity cases who must settle for a crappy hotel just to enjoy WDW? Have you ever considered the fact that many people LIKE those hotels?

I'm not sure how many times this has to be said, but what we are talking about has NOTHING to do with what you said. There's people having the vacation of their lives staying at the HoJo. It's not about anybody's budget or personal preference. It's about recognizing differences in purpose, design and motivation.

Personally, I think Walt would have be revolted by the cost of a room at the Contemporary or the Poly. If those were the only options, many, many people would never have the chance to experience Walt's dream.

First, the people gave you the beloved values are the same ones that raised the Poly/Contemp prices to an appalling level.

Second, nobody said the Poly/Contemp should be the only options. Its not that they build other hotels and levels of hotels, its HOW they built them.

The All-Stars and the Pop may not be on the same level creatively as the Contemporary and Polynesian, but as values do they really have to be?

If they are going to be Disney, and you expect a certain level of quality from Disney, then yes, they do have to be. The difference in price point can come from what amenities are offered, room size, etc, as has already been stated in this thread.

 

[DancingBear]

Sadly, very few children today know or care about a general Westren theme...They are NOT growing up playing cowboys and Indians like I did when I was a youth....My 5 year old grandson loves , playing pirates....He is not interested in the westren theme because he really has no idea what the westeren theme even represents.

Minnie, I think you are nitpicking here, for several reasons:

--Cowboys and indians are still around and still appealing to kids, even if not as popular as some times in the past. Just wait 'til somebody makes a "Pirates of the Caribbean"-type Western movie. Folks keep saying the Western is dead but then they keep makin' em (see 3:10 to Yuma and The Assasination of Jesse James).

--Leaving aside cowboys and indians, plenty of kids love the whole outdoorsy/camping element. "Look, there are animal footprints!"

 

[DancingBear]

As beautiful as WL is, why is it that it is one of the least expensive Deluxe resorts? I don't think it is because of a lack of monorail because CR is also pretty cheap compared to the Poly. IMHO, the structure of the AKL is equally as spectacular to the WL and the animals add so much more...So I ask you, if the charter of Disney is to create quality and immersion to take guests away from reality, why is it that these deluxe resorts have "failed"? Quality of service? Not enough value for the buck? Every time I call CRO, I have yet to see AP/FL resident discounts available for the YC, BC, GF, and Poly....I guess what I question here is the importance of this emersion formula that seems to be the backbone of the Disney experience.

Certainly there are lots of factors in play making certain resorts more and less popular. But would YC/BC be just as popular if it were just an unthemed Marriott in the same location? Would the experience be the same? How about a vanilla hotel in the WL location?