mickEblu
Well-Known Member
Carmen Smith explained it already.
Got it.
Carmen Smith explained it already.
If that is all you want to take away from what I posted, ok. Lol.Got it.
If that is all you want to take away from what I posted, ok. Lol.
Anyways, as I said before lets hope your prediction comes true so you can get something you want in this attraction.![]()
Yup. I mean, it definitely does make it more approachable. Anticipation is always a huge part of fear. I don’t really agree with it (I think most kids can handle it) but I get how it happened.They didn’t want to scare kids before the 50 foot drop?
Yup. I mean, it definitely does make it more approachable. Anticipation is always a huge part of fear. I don’t really agree with it (I think most kids can handle it) but I get how it happened.
I mean they have been taking tension out of a lot of attractions over the last decade or so. So why is this that surprising?If that was their reasoning they re more lost than I thought.
I mean they have been taking tension out of a lot of attractions over the last decade or so. So why is this that surprising?
Whether that makes them "lost" or not is debatable.
Sure when you only look at that specific attraction as a singular example. But put into the larger context of the Parks and what appears to be an on-going effort to tone down the tension in all attractions and its not surprising at all.It’s surprising when you consider the 50 foot drop, the shoes it had to fill and the villain they omitted.
Sure when you only look at that specific attraction as a singular example. But put into the larger context of the Parks and what appears to be an on-going effort to tone down the tension in all attractions and its not surprising at all.
Look, you're going to find fault in anything discussed here and I get that. So I'm just going to say it make sense on a whole why they made that decision as @DarkMetroid567 mentioned, whether one agrees with it for individual attractions or not.Sure, when you take out all the details that make it a puzzling choice for that specific example? Just because it’s an ongoing effort, it doesn’t mean it makes sense to do on every attraction. And if we re talking toning down the scariness on existing attractions is that list not just basically Snow Whites Scary Adventures? A kiddie ride in the Fantasyland courtyard. Not the best comparison.
I believe the people specifically working on TBA Adventure wanted to avoid using Facilier (as the whole aim of TBA was to be as inoffensive and uncontroversial as possible following Splash's closure), but that the Disney company as a whole has never abandoned him.I believe this would be a wrong and poor assumption based on what we know.
Look, you're going to find fault in anything discussed here and I get that. So I'm just going to say it make sense on a whole why they made that decision as @DarkMetroid567 mentioned, whether one agrees with it for individual attractions or not.
I believe the people specifically working on TBA Adventure wanted to avoid using Facilier (as the whole aim of TBA was to be as inoffensive and uncontroversial as possible following Splash's closure), but that the Disney company as a whole has never abandoned him.
Don't pull me into your feud, I'm innocent, lol.lol why are you liking this comment @Disney Irish ? Is it because it’s not me saying it? You are a trip man. lol
Eh, I don’t think so. Again I think it was the wrong choice, but kids get freaked out by the tiniest things — common sense isn’t really a thing they have a lot of. Nor do kids really care about the “shoes” the ride had to fill.If that was their reasoning they re more lost than I thought.
Sure, common sense, like saying Disney "banished" Facilier all because they didn't include him in the attraction when he is still used elsewhere in the company.Lol no I’m going to continue using common sense
I liked it because it basically what I've been saying in multiple posts. That the Disney company never actually "banished"/"cancelled" him even if they chose not to use him for the attraction.lol why are you liking this comment @Disney Irish ? Is it because it’s not me saying it? You are a trip man. lol
Eh, I don’t think so. Again I think it was the wrong choice, but kids get freaked out by the tiniest things — common sense isn’t really a thing they have a lot of. Nor do kids really care about the “shoes” the ride had to fill.
Sure, common sense, like saying Disney "banished" Facilier all because they didn't include him in the attraction when he is still used elsewhere in the company.
I liked it because it basically what I've been saying in multiple posts. That the Disney company never actually "banished"/"cancelled" him even if they chose not to use him for the attraction.
Kids survived the suspenseful nature of the original Splash Mountain lift hill for more than 30 years. Overcoming the fear gave it a "rite of passage" aspect that I think TBA (in its current form) is lacking.Eh, I don’t think so. Again I think it was the wrong choice, but kids get freaked out by the tiniest things — common sense isn’t really a thing they have a lot of. Nor do kids really care about the “shoes” the ride had to fill.
Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.