Attractive and Ugly Cruise Ships


Jim Kalafus

Member
Dec 3, 2000
6,113
34
398
>When the QM2 made her debut, people were furious that some of the most pricey cabins overlooked public decks, and the cry went out "but people can see you!!"

Kyle, my friend, there is more to it than that. Mike and I, on an evening walk, watched an occupant of one of the suites in a state of...well....what the Victorians called 'naturalness,' choosing an outfit for the evening. I gave a G-rated account of it on the Maiden Voyage thread. And, NO we were NOT looking, but when you come up the steps to the terrace you are eye to eye with the suite windows, unless you travel with eyes demurely downcast.


The fact is, if you rent the suites you have the choice of A) drawing the shades and effectively eliminating that for which you chose the suite, or B) doing NOTHING in your cabin that you dont want the people on the Todd English Terrace witnessing. If you enjoy COMPLETE formality and habitually emerge from your bathroom fully dressed, and if you sleep in pajamas, and if listening to "Hot Hot Hot" blaring 8 times a day for seven straight days doesnt inspire you to retch, then the suites' location is not so bad.
 
K

Kyle Johnstone

Guest
That's right..."IF" you rent the suites..."
don't book the suite if it's a problem.
or pull the drapes when you are in a "delicate" situation. Then open them when you are decent.
Is that so much of an inconvenience?

For those who want or need total seclusion, just don't book such a suite.

I find it hard to believe that anyone, even on the QM2 maiden voyage, with no shortage of photographs of the ship and easily obtainable deck plans, would book themselves into such a suite under complete ignorance that the suite is in close proximity to and in view of and earshot of public areas.


As for myself...Yes, I DID dress in my bathroom knowing that my cabin was in full view of those passing on the adjacent deck. Or, I could have chosen to close the drapes while changing clothes. Simple.
At night, there's nothing to look out the window at anyway, so I pulled the drapes closed. No problem. It didn't bother me a bit.
For me, the very close proximity to public areas was a huge plus in choosing that cabin.
I always had the option of NOT booking it.

Joe Millionaire in his ultra-deluxe luxury suite can probably figure the same thing out.

Oh Jim, let's not bicker... ;)
 

Jim Kalafus

Member
Dec 3, 2000
6,113
34
398
Kyle: the earrings are coming off!

Let's face it- it is stupid to design any room, regardless of price, in which the occupants have the choice of either keeping the drapes closed 24/7 or becoming an alternative to the softporn one can order in-cabin. Unless one is one of those scarred beings who showers wearing clothing and only gets changed in the dark, there ARE moments where one finds oneself minimally attired around the cabin. Similarly, unless one was blessed with a mother like Piper Laurie in Carrie, there are the occasional in cabin....visitors.....and some people just have some wretched behind closed doors habits~ nail biting, nose picking, air guitar playing~ that are best left unseen by the general public. Who wants to pay $40,000 to spend a week hiding behind closed drapes or listening to Hot Hot Hot?

Placing the suites ABOVE the restaurant terrace rather than below it was just asinine.
 

John Clifford

Member
Mar 30, 1997
1,691
24
313
58
Jim, Kyle, I remember fondly the scenes on the Queen Mary 2, during the Hawaii Excursion.
When they held the parties on the Deck 8 Pool Terrace, the people in the 3 suites were out on their terrace areas viewing everything, so they knew, full well, how visible they were, to everyone. Fortunately, those people appeared to be discreet in everything.

The other "trade-off" I got to endure was having lunch at Todd English; I call it a "trade-off", since the lunch atmosphere is casual (no problem with polo shirts and shorts), but it was "interesting" to see people out by the pool area, sunning themselves.
That, IMO, is one reason why the Todd English on the Queen Victoria will be lower down on the ship, away from the Deck spaces.

The other thing passengers have to remember is that when you have an upper-level balcony cabin, the glass and railings do not act as a two-way mirror for them.
That was borne out, during the ship's final approach to Honolulu. On Deck 8, one couple came out on their terrace, with the man wearing only his briefs. I think the wife had to remind him to put on a robe, as she noticed many people gathering below on Deck 7.

Jim, Kyle, I hope you did not endure similar scenes during your recent trips on the Queen Mary 2.

If I had one of those expensive, but non-private cabins, I would probably make very good use of the robes provided by Cunard, and know when to draw the shades.
 

Jim Kalafus

Member
Dec 3, 2000
6,113
34
398
>but it was "interesting" to see people out by the pool area, sunning themselves.

"Interesting" is one way of putting it! We had a window side table, and a view of something so indescribably horrific in one of the poolside showers that two an a half years later I still wake up with night sweats when I think of it
happy.gif


>If I had one of those expensive, but non-private cabins, I would probably make very good use of the robes provided by Cunard, and know when to draw the shades.

So would I, but the point is neither of us should HAVE to! Stacking the suites one deck higher, or placing Todd English aft of the funnel would have made more sense. Much like the inaccessible Queen's Room and the impossible to enter except through the Queen's Room disco, the too visible suites are part of the liner's odd charm.

>I find it hard to believe that anyone, even on the QM2 maiden voyage, with no shortage of photographs of the ship and easily obtainable deck plans, would book themselves into such a suite under complete ignorance that the suite is in close proximity to and in view of and earshot of public areas.

The catalogues went out of their way NOT to include the view from the suites and, to be fair, I dont think that anyone who booked them realised quite how....exposed....they really are. It is like the view from the hull-hole "balconies." They were advertised pre-introduction simply as "balconies." Many passengers were NOT pleased by the maiden voyage discoveries that the view from the balcony vanishes behind a steel wall as soon as one sits down and that the size of the cut-out makes the sittng area rather shady at times. We liked ours, but many did not.

Of course, there IS the trade off of the elegant private deck for suite class passengers. You remember~ the one with two public staircases running through it and the classy black and white photocopied "Private Deck" signs intended, futiley, to keep the constant flow of people up and down the stairs from crossing over.
 
A

Adam Lang

Guest
I definitely agree with Jim on the fact that for $40,000+ dollars, you shouldn't HAVE TO worry about closing your shades and looking decent. For the amount of money paid, one would expect to find the location of the suite to be the best on the ship! Think of the Parlor Suites on the Olympic-class ships--in the middle of the ship where the ride is smoothest, very close to the elevators, and in a secluded area where you won't be bothered by passers-by or a calypso band.

A better location for the duplexes might be up front where the Queen Mary and Elizabeth Suites were. They had unarguably some of the best views from the ship. Although that specific area doesn't seem like it would be too calm during a storm, it's another "trade-off" as John put it. The elevator access to the room is also another reason the duplexes should be there. Why have private elevator access to a room that's less expensive than one without one? I think the Mary and Elizabeth Suites are the most bang for the buck.

-Adam Lang
 
K

Kyle Johnstone

Guest
What's there to worry about? For several thousand $$$ more just get a suite that IS fully private. ;)

Nowadays, the most expensive suites are never found at the "best" location of the ship for a cabin, which is low down and midships. They're usually up high and forward or aft.

And the Todd English Floor Show...sounds like a comedy rather than a tragedy.

*sigh* I guess I just don't worry about the same things other people do...
 

Joe Russo

Member
Apr 10, 2006
810
2
123
Weren't the two most expensive cabins on the Normandie equally as exposed to the lower classes? Maybe this was another homage to the Normandie like the bow? ;)
 
A

Adam Lang

Guest
"Weren't the two most expensive cabins on the Normandie equally as exposed to the lower classes? Maybe this was another homage to the Normandie like the bow? ;)"

Hmm, interesting thought, but it would be a very subtle homage if it was. I think it was mainly just to add to the classic appearance of it. Cunard would put the suites in a location where they thought they would be best before making the stern look similar to that of another ship, although I don't really agree with Cunard's thoughts on where the duplexes would be best, as stated in my previous posts.

-Adam Lang
 

Jerry Nuovo

Member
Jan 18, 2003
700
2
183
New Jersey,USA
After reading John Clifford's post about being aboard the QM2 last February during the QM2's cruise to Hawaii and seeing the husband and wife go out onto the balcony of their Deck 8 suite and the husband is in his briefs really had to be an embarrassing moment for this man.I do remember a few years ago I was aboard the QE2 during a cruise to the Caribbean and I was on Quarter Deck aft at the railing which has a view of the outdoor pool on 1 Deck at the stern.There was a husband and wife sitting by the pool and there was no one else there because it was early in the evening at dinner time.All of a sudden the husband stood up took off his shirt and shoes and pulled down his pants.The funny thing is that underneath his pants was not a bathing suit but a colored brief and you can tell it is a colored brief and not a speedo because the brief had a white waistband.And then the husband jumped into the pool wearing just his underwear.To this day I can't help thinking that didn't this husband and wife even know that I was there one deck up from them looking at them and this is a public area at the edge of the pool.If this man wanted to take a dip into the pool why not put on your bathing suit? I would never swim in the pool wearing just underwear because it is embarrassing and I always remember to pack a bathing suit when I go on a cruise.I could understand a little 2 year old boy swimming in the pool in his underwear but not an adult man.
 
K

Kyle Johnstone

Guest
Hi Jerry,

Maybe the gentleman at the pool was just taking to heart the old Cunard marketing slogans "Getting There is Half the Fun" and "Ships Have Been Boring Long Enough"

woohooo! Come on in, the water's fine!
 

Jerry Nuovo

Member
Jan 18, 2003
700
2
183
New Jersey,USA
Well Kyle maybe this particular man forgot to pack his bathing suit and he wanted to take a dip in the pool so badly that he did not mind embarrassing himself by jumping into the pool in his underwear.Funny that his wife did not strip down to her bra and panties to join her husband in the pool.Or maybe this same particular man is a member of a nudist club and he wanted to swim naked in the pool but his wife would not let him so the husband then would say to his wife "O.k. honey I'll swim in the pool wearing my underwear".But all kidding aside I was kind of shocked when I saw this man do his x-rated strip to his underwear and then swim in the pool act,I just thought that this kind of x-rated behavior would never happen aboard a Cunard Ship.So Kyle you must be right that this man believed in the old Cunard slogans to do his x-rated act.I wonder if this same man and wife ever cruised aboard an Norwegian Cruise Line Ship where "Freestyle Cruising" is done and this same man literally believes the "Freestyle Cruising" slogan means swimming in the ship's swimming pool in the nude or in his underwear. LOL
 
A

Adam Lang

Guest
If someone was going to go (almost) skinny-dipping, he should at least go on a cruise appropriately themed for it!
 

Jim Kalafus

Member
Dec 3, 2000
6,113
34
398
>If someone was going to go (almost) skinny-dipping, he should at least go on a cruise appropriately themed for it!

Another travel horror story- Mike and I were one a cruise a while back, and one of the beach excursions, sold to the mostly-born-during-the-reign-of Queen- Victoria passengers, was to a beach where....uhhh....bathing suits were somewhat optional, and EXTREMELY brief when worn at all. The only thing scarier than our fellow passengers who rebelled at the thought, were those who did not. Yes, I KNOW...life is not only meant for the enjoyment of the young, toned, and users of electrolysis....but it was still the stuff of nightmares. I relaxed enough to loosen my tie, but that was it.
 
Jul 31, 2011
8
0
31
In my opinion, the cruise ships I think that are most attractive are Royal Caribbean's Radiance class.

239900.jpg


My reasons are:
1. RCL didn't overdo the balconies, just enough to give the ships a sleek profile.
2. RCL didn't exaggerate the ship's height.
3. Perhaps the stern shape could be rounder, but I'll let it slide for Radiance...
4. And finally, the superstructure nicely complements the ships themselves (it doesn't look tacked on, like Norwegian Epic...)

*If I end up designing ocean liners/cruise ships in the future as a naval architect, I am definitely taking a voyage on these ships as part of the design process for my ships.
 

Similar threads

Similar threads