News Reedy Creek Improvement District and the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District

GimpYancIent

Well-Known Member
And it costs both parties an incredible amount of (wasted) money. Whether they realize it or not, FL taxpayers are paying for this hissy fit from their govenor.
True! RCID will go away, another entity will be created to fill the void that will not look like nor be named RCID but cover all the necessary functions, the state, counties, WDW and other parties involved will continue just fine. The small army of legal eagles working out the legal language and details are billing a ton of hours (yeah, they are happy) and the everyday citizen? will just foot the bills and have to survive with the results.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
You really have it wrong! You can have all the free speech, no limits, but! the speech that is impactful is eloquent. So you still don't get it. No one is talking about limiting free speech. It's about meaningful free speech that has impact and is not useless noise. Everyone and anyone can generate noise. Most protests have soo many people exercising "free speech" they successfully drown each other out and all that is heard is NOISE!
You are one who was characterizing the speech as problematic because it was a “threat.”
 

LittleBuford

Well-Known Member
Here, as a reminder, is Disney's statement:

Florida’s HB 1557, also known as the ‘Don’t Say Gay’ bill, should never have passed and should never have been signed into law. Our goal as a company is for this law to be repealed by the legislature or struck down in the courts, and we remain committed to supporting the national and state organizations working to achieve that. We are dedicated to standing up for the rights and safety of LGBTQ+ members of the Disney family, as well as the LGBTQ+ community in Florida and across the country.​

It's not the most eloquent of compositions, to be sure, but neither is it "useless noise". I'm not sure how else the company could have expressed itself without prevaricating, which, to my mind, would have been worse.
 

LittleBuford

Well-Known Member
Here, as a reminder, is Disney's statement:

Florida’s HB 1557, also known as the ‘Don’t Say Gay’ bill, should never have passed and should never have been signed into law. Our goal as a company is for this law to be repealed by the legislature or struck down in the courts, and we remain committed to supporting the national and state organizations working to achieve that. We are dedicated to standing up for the rights and safety of LGBTQ+ members of the Disney family, as well as the LGBTQ+ community in Florida and across the country.​

It's not the most eloquent of compositions, to be sure, but neither is it "useless noise". I'm not sure how else the company could have expressed itself without prevaricating, which, to my mind, would have been worse.
Is Chapek's supposed threat in reference to the statement I quoted above? Or is another statement meant?
 

GimpYancIent

Well-Known Member
Why lie when the post is still right there for all to see?
No lie. You do like to throw that word around. Yes, my post is there for all to see and everyone, you included, are entitled to interpret what you want. BC's presentation could have been done in one sentence, been nonabrasive and moved on. That is not how it was presented, not what happened, and a lot of unnecessary turbulence has occurred. What happened / happened, no changing history just now adapt to the present and the future that is being crafted as we speak.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
No lie. You do like to throw that word around. Yes, my post is there for all to see and everyone, you included, are entitled to interpret what you want. BC's presentation could have been done in one sentence, been nonabrasive and moved on. That is not how it was presented, not what happened, and a lot of unnecessary turbulence has occurred. What happened / happened, no changing history just now adapt to the present and the future that is being crafted as we speak.
You’re complaining about it being two sentences too long? Which parts are overly abrasive? And no, what happened does not have to be accepted by anyone as the final word on what happened. What has happened absolutely can be changed otherwise a whole bunch of laws now considered unjust would still be enforced.
 

LittleBuford

Well-Known Member
No lie. You do like to throw that word around. Yes, my post is there for all to see and everyone, you included, are entitled to interpret what you want. BC's presentation could have been done in one sentence, been nonabrasive and moved on. That is not how it was presented, not what happened, and a lot of unnecessary turbulence has occurred. What happened / happened, no changing history just now adapt to the present and the future that is being crafted as we speak.
The statement was from the Disney Company, not Chapek personally. None of us know how directly he shaped the wording.

Could you specify what you consider to be a threat in the statement?
 

Disstevefan1

Well-Known Member
No lie. You do like to throw that word around. Yes, my post is there for all to see and everyone, you included, are entitled to interpret what you want. BC's presentation could have been done in one sentence, been nonabrasive and moved on. That is not how it was presented, not what happened, and a lot of unnecessary turbulence has occurred. What happened / happened, no changing history just now adapt to the present and the future that is being crafted as we speak.
I think it was the flip flop BC did that was a problem. BC mistakenly initially wanted to focus on the business instead of more important work of inclusion. Then he corrected himself and made it clear that the company was going to use its power to change the law.

If BI was in charge, he would have made it clear from the start he was against the law and made it clear that the company was going to use its power to change the law with no flip flop.
 

GoofGoof

Premium Member
You really don't get it. People need to learn from the great speakers instead of opening mouth and inserting foot. How something is presented is very often more important than what is presented.
View attachment 693126
I fail to understand how this applies to my post in any way. Even if Chapek completely botched the delivery of his statements how is that an attack against the state? I assume you just wanted to post this meme and picked my post which is fine. I wasn’t talking about whether Chapek was smart or elegant or charismatic as a speaker and I never suggested he did a good job getting his point across. I specifically said I thought the delivery was botched from the start. That still doesn’t make what he said an attack against the state.
 

celluloid

Well-Known Member
I don’t think you have an agenda. That wasn’t directed at you and I don’t think there’s anything wrong with us disagreeing on this topic. There are many things we agree on, doesn’t have to 100%. We can agree to disagree on how much of a conclusion can be drawn by a few films over a very limited period. You are assuming the only reason Disney animated features under performed was this conflict with DeSantis but I think it’s hard to place all of the blame on that. I don’t disagree they didn‘t have their best year, but other Disney movies did fine. If it’s a boycott that’s causing the decline are people really splitting hairs and only boycotting animated films? That to me seems like a stretch. We will see as time goes on.

Oh don't get.me wrong. I don't think it was the conflict with Desantis that caused the animated films to severely underperform. I think it is reasons of similar political ideologies to the one that happens to be with Desantis too.

I appreciate and enjoy the respectful conversation.
 

GoofGoof

Premium Member
Oh don't get.me wrong. I don't think it was the conflict with Desantis that caused the animated films to severely underperform. I think it is reasons of similar political ideologies to the one that happens to be with Desantis too.

I appreciate and enjoy the respectful conversation.
I go with the simpler explanation that they were just average films, but it’s too soon to know either way.
 

celluloid

Well-Known Member
I go with the simpler explanation that they were just average films, but it’s too soon to know either way.
I have never seen such an average Disney film do so poorly. Like Mars Needs Moms poorly with Strange World. Them being meh films did not help.


And as good as Minions: Rise of Gru was, it was not exactly Citizen Kane. So there are direct comparisons.
 

UNCgolf

Well-Known Member
I have never seen such an average Disney film do so poorly. Like Mars Needs Moms poorly with Strange World. Them being meh films did not help.


And as good as Minions: Rise of Gru was, it was not exactly Citizen Kane. So there are direct comparisons.

I haven't seen Strange World, but I think part of the problem with it was that it had almost no marketing. I'd never even heard of it until a week before it was released when I finally saw one ad somewhere, and I never saw another.

Lightyear seemed to have more marketing.
 

celluloid

Well-Known Member
I haven't seen Strange World, but I think part of the problem with it was that it had almost no marketing. I'd never even heard of it until a week before it was released when I finally saw one ad somewhere, and I never saw another.

Lightyear seemed to have more marketing.
It was teased and marketed early on. After political concerns and the character traits and content within the movie came.to.limeligjt it suddenly ceased completely.

Same issue though, why would a company suddenly stop marketing a movie that was their big Thanksgiving and Christmas time release?

The marketing argument never makes sense. It's an apologist take. People take kids to movies Thanksgiving and Christmas time and look to what they can go see.

"M3GAN", a PG13 AI slasher flick was not marketed with a budget like Strange World and more than doubled it's domestic performance alone so far.
 
Last edited:

mikejs78

Premium Member
Going off memory here, but it is community development districts that require unanimous approval. Without checking, the state run districts may be able to happen without that level of approval. I’m doubtful even something like the North Broward Health District would have ever achieved that high bar.

The difference between Reedy Creek though and something like Broward Health District is the ability to raise revenue via ad valorem taxes. I believe it was @GoofGoof who did the research and found that there are no state controlled districts with the power to raise revenue via ad valorem taxes, which is where landowner or voter approval might be required.

So - the question is, does the state have that power?
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom