This week is another grab bag of letters answered by several of MousePlanet’s regular contributors. In the first letter this week, Mark Goldhaber answers a question about those mysterious buildings known as the “Treehouses” at Walt Disney World. Kelly S. writes:
When my family went to Walt Disney World for my 6th birthday (Back in 1988!), we stayed in a place called the “Treehouses.” I believe they have closed some time ago, but I was wondering if you could tell me a little about these lodging facilities on the Walt Disney World Resort property. Were they owned and/or operated by Walt Disney World? Where exactly were they? What was their official name? When did they open? And close? Why was it closed?
Also, I remember something called the Disney Institute. You could take classes there ranging from culinary arts to animation, to photography, to gardening. And I think they also had a day spa. Can you tell me more about this? Is it still operating? If not, when and why did it close?
The Treehouse Villas were part of the original Disney Village Resort, which also included the Fairway Villas and Vacation Villas. They were all built early on near the Lake Buena Vista Shopping Village, which is now the Downtown Disney Marketplace.
They stayed open through the Disney Village Resort’s conversion to the Disney Institute, but closed with the resort in 2001 and have never reopened to the public. Some of the Vacation Villas became the Disney Institute’s Bungalows, while the Townhouses were built on the site of others. When the Institute was closed and work began on the Saratoga Springs Resort, the area of the Vacation Villas was first to go, to be used for Phases I and II. Once the first phase was completed, the Fairway Villas were next, being knocked down for Phase III.
Now Saratoga Springs is nearly complete, with the final four buildings under construction, and the Treehouse Villas still stand. That’s because they are located on protected land. However, due to upkeep and maintenance issues, they will not reopen to the public. Instead, for more than two years now, they have been the home of a number of International Program Cast Members. It seems that it has been mostly Brazilians that have been located there.
As for the Disney Institute, it was a Chautauqua-style resort where guests could take a variety of classes. The Institute opened in 1986 and remained open for over a decade before closing as a resort and ending its open schedule of classes. However, the Disney Institute itself lives on as a series of classes that is available for business and other groups. The classes are given at various locations around Walt Disney World and, on request, at remote locations. The Spa at the Disney Institute has been enhanced and rebranded as The Spa at Disney’s Saratoga Springs Resort.
Next, Mouse Tales author David Koenig responds to a letter from reader Dave who wrote in response to the February 22 mailbag. Dave writes:
I’ve heard from a reliable Cast Member source that the whole “Pirate’s Lair at Tom Sawyer Island” title and the supposed Twain-related setting is indeed merely a ruse to save face with Disneyland purists and old-timers, and that the new attraction is clearly designed to be a tie-in directed towards fans of the Pirates movie series.
So in the end, I would say to Philip, “You should never judge a book by its cover.”
Thanks, Dave! My information was confirmed by folks actually involved in remaking the Island, so I’m giving their claims slightly more weight than Philip’s.
The next two letters, answered by MousePlanet CEO Alex Stroup, refer to information from recent editions of MousePlanet’s weekly Disneyland Park Update. Carlo writes:
In a recent Disneyland park update, which I read every Monday, you included this bullet point:
“…For those who care to know, the 2007 edition of Gay Days at Disneyland will be Friday, October 5 through Sunday, October 7. On Saturday the focus will be on Disneyland and then moving over to DCA on Sunday.”
Why single one section of an update out as “for those who care to know”? This is a section of the update relevant to a segment of Disney and your fan base. Would you do this for other events that only appeal to a single segment, like a senior event, Star Wars weekend, faith event or a marathon? Isn’t the whole idea of reading through these updates that you read things that you care to know about? You might as well preface every bullet with “for those who care to know”. Can you please explain why you did this?
You’re right that there is much that could be read into that introduction and certainly more than anything intended by it. Yes, I might very well use the same phrase to introduce any other event of the types you mention. The reason being that generally we don’t mention unofficial gatherings at Disneyland. But Gay Days is larger than most and a lot of people not directly involved do care to know when it is happening. Yet, every time it does get mentioned we get e-mail from people saying they don’t care and why are we wasting space mentioning it.
So I guess my writing that phrase was just an unconscious attempt to forestall such complaints. In other words, if you don’t care then just move on. But you’re right that it was an unnecessary disclaimer.
Mark R. writes:
Regarding the list of attractions in all 5 Magic Kingdom parks, there is also some form of Dumbo the Flying Elephant (16 sweep newer design in every park but Tokyo Disneyland, which still has the old 10 sweep model), and some form of Astro Orbiter/Star Jets attraction (12 sweep newer model at Disneyland and Disneyland Paris; 12 sweep older model at Magic Kingdom and Tokyo Disneyland; 16 sweep flying saucer variation at Hong Kong Disneyland).
Every Magic Kingdom park also has a carousel- 4 abreast Dentzel at Disneyland, 4 abreast Dentzel inspired model at Hong Kong Disneyland; 5 abreast Philadelphia Toboggan Company (PTC) #46 at Magic Kingdom and two other 5 abreast PTC inspired models at Tokyo Disneyland and Disneyland Paris.
Does Disneyland Paris not have a Winnie the Pooh attraction? I’m racking my brain on that one. Would seem odd for them not to have it, what with Pooh’s European heritage.
I think that about does it. Great reports as always.
Thanks for the correction. That is why I always hate making lists, I know I’ll mess it up somehow. I’m not particularly familiar with Hong Kong Disneyland’s offerings and rather than navigate their Web site (which like all Disney resort Web sites is flash heavy and onerous) I relied on a third party list which apparently was incomplete.
Hong Kong does have a Many Adventure of Winnie the Pooh attraction but mentally I balked at thinking of it as a ride at all the resorts. The Tokyo version of the attraction is so superior to all of the others, I can’t think of it as the same ride in anything other than name.
Finally, staff writer Lisa Perkis answers reader mail in response to her review of the direct-to-video sequel Cinderella III. JMom writes:
Thanks for your review. I too was pleasantly surprised by this movie. My 4-year-old daughter loves it and it stood the “repeat play up I-5” test for me.
I bought it last week at the GCH gift shop, because I hadn’t realized that there are DVD players in the rooms at that hotel. It was priced at $24.95, but I think there was a special promo price of $19.99… and somehow I also got my AP discount on it too so it wound up being a much more reasonable price that $29.99, which I would not have paid.
Yes, it’s hard to argue the point about “not messing with the classics” with a 4-year-old who just wants to watch something with familiar characters and an entertaining storyline. If it works for them, great. And that you can find it at a discount, even better!
Geoffa writes:
Interesting that over here in the U.K. the III (3) has been dropped and the DVD cover is just Cinderella – A Twist In Time as you can see from the image from Amazon.co.uk:
I agree about the voices and, yes, I thought I heard Page O’Hara but on checking the cast list discovered it wasn’t. As for Lady Tremane—nobody could have the deep quality of Eleanor Audley. Another bit of script that grated on my nerves was when Cinders addressed the mice as “Guys.” A modern idiom I know but not from Cinderella. I thought there were times when the artwork was good and then it would suddenly slip into the quality of Return of Jafar and thus wasn’t consistent.
I enjoyed your review and agreed with most of it. No doubt, though, Disney will be calling it a “classic” before long.
I had no idea about the different cover art in the U.K.—thanks for the tip. I’m not sure why they dropped the “III” off the title—did they ever release Cinderella II in the U.K.?
I agree that the modern idioms grated on the nerves—the one example I used from the prince was just the most glaring one when I first viewed the DVD. I realize they want to make the characters lifelike and natural, but some things should be left alone.
