Why do you own DVC if you hate Disney?

Being a bit of a history buff, we tend to look at historical figures in the past thru todays eyes. Walt Disney had flaws, but was not an evil or bad guy. Today, there are those who will state he was an anti semite (hi Meryl Streep), but do not try to convince the Sherman Brothers. There are those who paint Abe Lincoln (probably the most liberal president in our history) as a racist- if you look at his views in the 1850's and 60's and compare to today you can make an argument. I prefer to view people in the context of their times. Sorry if I got off topic, but this has always been a hot button with me.
Yeah, you get a bit of a surprise when you start to read up on people in history. They're not quite the warm, caring angels you though they were. But it does make you want to find out more.
 
I think it comes down to people who hate change and blame Disney. I will say like some other posters have mentioned and I whole heartily agree is the change to the Norway ride was sacrilege and the Poly waterfall was a huge blunder. I also want Disney to keep up with the times and renovate and innovate so change is needed.

We can't live in the past and without change we can't have the future. How many amusement parks do you remember that never upgraded/changed and are no longer around???? I can honestly say the memories won't keep them in business.
 
Yes I miss the original Imagination ride, no update to that ride has been as good as the original ride. JMHO

Also miss the water feature that was in the lobby at the Poly resort...

But I still love the idea of Disney! pixiedust:
 
I've had my DVC since 1992 and I have become more and more, as someone stated, "disenchanted" over the last few years. Just because I own a DVC membership doesn't mean I have to wear my rose-colored glasses 24/7. I used to be one of the biggest Disney apologists. Maybe it has something to do with getting older and perhaps wiser and also a bit more cynical, or just that I don't care for some of the decisions made by Disney. When I purchased DVC, Disney was a different company with outstanding customer service and an appreciation of their clientele.
 


I think it comes down to people who hate change and blame Disney. I will say like some other posters have mentioned and I whole heartily agree is the change to the Norway ride was sacrilege and the Poly waterfall was a huge blunder. I also want Disney to keep up with the times and renovate and innovate so change is needed.

We can't live in the past and without change we can't have the future. How many amusement parks do you remember that never upgraded/changed and are no longer around???? I can honestly say the memories won't keep them in business.
Yes I miss the original Imagination ride, no update to that ride has been as good as the original ride. JMHO

Also miss the water feature that was in the lobby at the Poly resort...

But I still love the idea of Disney! pixiedust:

But there is a difference between not agreeing with creative decisions and being downright venomous toward the company. I am STILL angry with Disney over what they did to the Tiki room - even though it's MOSTLY repaired (after they ripped out the terrible Iago thing from the fire, they put back in a shortened version). I loved ExtraTERRORestial encounter even though I get why they removed it, it saddens me. I am upset they are booting out the muppets from MK. I miss the osborne festival of lights - it was one of the few reasons I liked to go for Christmas season. I really, really miss the old space mountain exit. Horizons was an awesome ride. There are probably few here who agree with me, but I personally loved Kitchen Kabaret.

I get people being upset about these and hundreds of other extinct Disney Attractions I could name. I love that sometimes Disney even pays homage themselves to the rides (Mr Toads wild ride, RIP).

That said.... I have to keep in mind that if they didn't rip out Mission to Mars, we would never have had ExtraTERRORestial enounter in the first place. Kitchen Kabaret made room for Soarin. The festival of lights didn't exist - heck none of Hollywood studios existed - when the park opened. It would never have been made without the collaboration with MGM. EPCOT was built almost entirely on corporate sponsorship (a good thing because Disney could never have afforded to build it in those days). If it was not for RCA's sponsorship (a company that itself is long extinct), space mountain itself may never have existed.

Then there are the people who are just convinced everything Disney does it for money. I am pretty sure if Disney announced that it was giving all Sr bonuses and every dollar of profit for one year to the homeless, someone here would argue it was somehow a money grabbing move (perhaps in tax evasion), or somehow turn it into a bad act.
 
I loved the backlot tour and the Osborne Lights, both gone now in the name of progress. The race track they put in place over the backlot tour was a real bust in my opinion and since it's gone I guess I'm right. I guess they try somethings and they are very successful like Soarin and other things like the race way or track (I don't remember the name) and they are huge waste of money...

I am a person who isn't a huge fan of change, I know that about myself so I try very hard to keep an open mind when changes are made. I think most changes are good, some not so much. I'm really keeping my fingers crossed for the update to Grauman's Chinese Theater, this was one of my husbands favorite rides. Hopefully the update will be very good.
 
Then there are the people who are just convinced everything Disney does it for money. I am pretty sure if Disney announced that it was giving all Sr bonuses and every dollar of profit for one year to the homeless, someone here would argue it was somehow a money grabbing move (perhaps in tax evasion), or somehow turn it into a bad act.
It's easy to fall into this trap. I'll be first to admit that I do it.

When shampoo/soap dispensers were going to be replacing the individual sized bottles, I felt like it was pure cost cutting (as opposed to a step in the eco-friendly direction).

When UY designations could be changed with respect to contract reacquisitions, I saw it as an opportunistic way to take back cheap contracts and turn them around for profit (as opposed to better serving the ownership waitlist).

When point minimum buy-ins changed, I thought it was an attempt to squeeze more out of people who wanted the benefits (as opposed to a step in the right direction of eliminating the studio-only, small-contract ownerships that taxes the system).

But I think given what we've seen with recent changes specific to Disney's timeshare management/development practices; lock-off-premium-leveraged reallocations, resort development where small contracts are knowingly sold against large units, increasingly less honest/adversarial sales practices, product-changing resale restrictions that only benefit Disney; there is an erosion of trust that Disney bears some responsibility for, and that has nothing to do with an aversion to change.
 


It's easy to fall into this trap. I'll be first to admit that I do it.

When shampoo/soap dispensers were going to be replacing the individual sized bottles, I felt like it was pure cost cutting (as opposed to a step in the eco-friendly direction).

When UY designations could be changed with respect to contract reacquisitions, I saw it as an opportunistic way to take back cheap contracts and turn them around for profit (as opposed to better serving the ownership waitlist).

When point minimum buy-ins changed, I thought it was an attempt to squeeze more out of people who wanted the benefits (as opposed to a step in the right direction of eliminating the studio-only, small-contract ownerships that taxes the system).

But I think given what we've seen with recent changes specific to Disney's timeshare management/development practices; lock-off-premium-leveraged reallocations, resort development where small contracts are knowingly sold against large units, increasingly less honest/adversarial sales practices, product-changing resale restrictions that only benefit Disney; there is an erosion of trust that Disney bears some responsibility for, and that has nothing to do with an aversion to change.

if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, sometimes it really is a duck.
 
I think it comes down to people who hate change and blame Disney. I will say like some other posters have mentioned and I whole heartily agree is the change to the Norway ride was sacrilege and the Poly waterfall was a huge blunder. I also want Disney to keep up with the times and renovate and innovate so change is needed.

We can't live in the past and without change we can't have the future. How many amusement parks do you remember that never upgraded/changed and are no longer around???? I can honestly say the memories won't keep them in business.
I would agree if you said “upgrade” instead of “change”.
 

GET A DISNEY VACATION QUOTE

Dreams Unlimited Travel is committed to providing you with the very best vacation planning experience possible. Our Vacation Planners are experts and will share their honest advice to help you have a magical vacation.

Let us help you with your next Disney Vacation!




Latest posts






Top