Of course, much depends on what you expect from a hotel. If all you expect is a place to sleep, read a book, maybe get breakfast, and possibly do a few loads of laundry, then anything beyond one of the "all stars" would be a waste of money that would be better spent on more and better entertainment. If, on the other hand, you're expecting a spa, a fitness center, 5-star restaurants, and all sorts of other amenities such that you'd have no need to leave the hotel grounds for the duration of your stay, then why would you bother going to Walt Disney World, when you can get pampered closer to home?
Basically, what I'm saying here is that your choice of hotel should be based on how you're expecting to spend your time on the property, and if you're planning to spend so much time at the hotel that you'd really need one of the "monorail" hotels, then you should start wondering how much time would be left to spend at the theme parks.
For my own part, when vacationing, I'd much rather stay at a fairly modest hotel, and blow my money on entertainment. (A typical non-Disney vacation for me includes at least one symphony concert, and/or at least one musical, operetta, play, or other show, while a typical WDW vacation for me includes the BSM tour, side trips to Kennedy Space Center, and lots of theme park time.)
At any rate, I would NEVER pick an off-property (or on-property non-Disney, or even on-property quasi-Disney) hotel for a WDW vacation. For me, that's as stupid and self-defeating as going to San Francisco and staying at a hotel that's nowhere near any MUNI cable car or trolley lines, or going to Chicago and staying at a hotel that's far from the nearest "L" station, or going to Philadelphia and staying at a hotel far from the historic district.
Bookmarks