A Spirited Dirty Dozen ...

GiveMeTheMusic

GiveMeTheMusic

Well-Known Member
PhotoDave219 said:
I like the effect but I dont like the way they utilize it..... Could be so much better. So much of that technology has refined in the past 10 years.
Click to expand...

It's the equivalent of the gawdawful Constance effect in HM. It has not aged well and could be done better. I just prefer those scenes as they were, without someone batting me over the head with crappy dialogue.
 
S

Sandurz

Well-Known Member
GiveMeTheMusic said:
It's the equivalent of the gawdawful Constance effect in HM. It has not aged well and could be done better. I just prefer those scenes as they were, without someone batting me over the head with crappy dialogue.
Click to expand...

Right? I swear everything in that scene was done on the cheap...the piano score sounds like a Casio, the projection is terrible, the dialogue is trash. So jarring. The actual set design is nice and in line with the rest of the attraction but anything moving or making noise is out of place.
 
VJ

VJ

Well-Known Member
brb1006 said:
Tokyo Disneyland just announced today yet another "renewal" of the Tokyo Disneyland Electrical Parade Dreamlights adding a Frozen float, the return of an enhanced Beauty and the Beast float and some additions/enhancements to the Cinderella unit.

This is for July 2017
Click to expand...
Didn't think to post that here! Well, for those interested there's a dedicated thread (of mine) for it in the Tokyo/Hong Kong/Shanghai forum. :p
 
Nubs70

Nubs70

Well-Known Member
JakeSpadaro said:
I'm cringing, I really hope nothing becomes of this or its fake. Supposedly it would be more of a thing where you put it on a different band rather then them shipping you a brand new band with the same technology every time? I also can't see this saving Disney money. Unless it's more for the Disneyland system?
View attachment 155948
Image via: http://www.chipandco.com/disney-working-magic-band-replacement-246214/
Click to expand...
The band is outdated. I'm at a Hilton that just installed NFC locks on the room doors. Phone is used for entry. No key, no band, no card.
 
bhg469

bhg469

Well-Known Member
Nubs70 said:
The band is outdated. I'm at a Hilton that just installed NFC locks on the room doors. Phone is used for entry. No key, no band, no card.
Click to expand...
But the band is already out and an application doesn't need to be installed or running. I love NFC, most of my phones have had it for close to 6 years now. I just think a key with rfid or the band is better. I am definitely no fan of the band either o just think it is a good use of it.
 
peter11435

peter11435

Well-Known Member
Nubs70 said:
The band is outdated. I'm at a Hilton that just installed NFC locks on the room doors. Phone is used for entry. No key, no band, no card.
Click to expand...
Phones would work for all guest use applications at WDW. The problem is that Disney wanted the device wearable in order to increase operational efficiency. This way there is no waiting for guests to get out cards or phones at main entrances, Fastpass entry points, or registers since they are already out and in your wrist. Additionally phones would not have allowed for the automatic linking of photo pass images, interactive elements around the resort, and data collection since not all users would have this capability and many utilize enhanced security/privacy features that would prevent it. Lastly, even in 2016 not everyone has a cell phone and certainly not a phone capable of what Disney wanted. And while most families probably do have a phone capable, they do not have one for every member of their party.
 
bhg469

bhg469

Well-Known Member
peter11435 said:
Phones would work for all guest use applications at WDW. The problem is that Disney wanted the device wearable in order to increase operational efficiency. This way there is no waiting for guests to get out cards or phones at main entrances, Fastpass entry points, or registers since they are already out and in your wrist. Additionally phones would not have allowed for the automatic linking of photo pass images, interactive elements around the resort, and data collection since not all users would have this capability and many utilize enhanced security/privacy features that would prevent it. Lastly, even in 2016 not everyone has a cell phone and certainly not a phone capable of what Disney wanted. And while most families probably do have a phone capable, they do not have one for every member of their party.
Click to expand...
And lets be honest.. May half of the users will be prepared to use their phone. I do ticketing and event access for a living and ticketing on a phone causes a definite slow down in access. People fumble with them, have to bring up multiple tickets and the there is the screen. Not all cell phones are visible in sunlight, something Florida has plenty of.
 
MichWolv

MichWolv

Born Modest. Wore Off.
Premium Member
ParentsOf4 said:
Companies typically sell stock to get money (a.k.a. "generate equity"). When they repurchase (a.k.a. "buyback") stock, they are returning that money to the people who gave it to them (a.k.a. "returning equity to shareholders"). Let's examine this more closely using a simple example.

I have no money but have a great idea to make money. I convince you that my idea is great and you agree to give me $1000 in return for 2 shares of stock, each with a 'value' of $500. Remember, those shares really are nothing but paper. You gave me $1000 and I gave you a piece of paper. ;) However, you're hoping I can do something with your money to create additional value. Still, at the moment you gave me the money, the 'value' of the company was $1000.

Through my business savvy, I succeed and the value of the company rises to $2000. Theoretically, your two shares are now worth $2000 (i.e. $1000 each).

Taking this one step further, you agree to sell one share back to me (as the company) for $1000. You now have your original $1000 back and the company is once again worth only $1000 because $1000 of the company's value was paid back to you. Your one remaining stock is worth $1000 while you received $1000 back from me (as the company).

So, when a company buys back stock, that money goes out the door and cannot be spent by the company since the company no longer has that money.

Think of the original transaction. You gave me $1000. You gave me 'something' for 'nothing'. When a company buys back its own stock, the exact opposite happens. The company is giving away 'something' for 'nothing'.

A stock buyback indicates that the people running the company don't have good ideas to "generate shareholder value". Effectively, when Iger buys back stock, he's saying, "I don't know how to spend the money Disney is making so I'm just going to return it to the investors and let them figure out how to spend it."
Click to expand...
You were so close on this one to giving a true unbiased exlplanation and a good example, right up until the end. Your explanation could be deemed as correct if it were a dividend. In a dividend, the shareholder doesn't have a choice -- he/she gets a portion of his/her investment transformed into cash. But a stock buyback is a bargained transaction. You don't sell unless you, the shareholder, agree that you'd rather have the money than the share of stock.

Either way, though, the whole point of investing in a Company is to turn that investment into more money than you started with. Why is it evidence of failure on the company's part when they help you do that?
 
ford91exploder

ford91exploder

Resident Curmudgeon
JakeSpadaro said:
I'm cringing, I really hope nothing becomes of this or its fake. Supposedly it would be more of a thing where you put it on a different band rather then them shipping you a brand new band with the same technology every time? I also can't see this saving Disney money. Unless it's more for the Disneyland system?
View attachment 155948
Image via: http://www.chipandco.com/disney-working-magic-band-replacement-246214/
Click to expand...

It's real there is another thread about MB 2.0 and the FCC paperwork has been filed for the MB 2.0 as well
 
michmousefan

michmousefan

Well-Known Member
Nickels5 said:
I know there was a lot of talk about Petes dragon on here, and I just wanted to say the movie was excellent, in my opinion it's better then jungle book which I thought was good as well.
Click to expand...
I also thought JB was good, but had its flaws... PD is a better film overall -- one big advantage is that the kid playing Pete is a far better actor than the kid who played Mowgli -- actual acting as opposed to a lot of running around and mugging for the cameras. Elliott is a better-realized CGI character as the audience isn't trying to focus on how "realistic" the animals of JB look; makes it easier to lose yourself in the impressive creation (of course, after you get over the fact that he's a dragon...) that is Elliott .
 

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

Back
Top Bottom