A Spirited Perfect Ten

Nubs70

Well-Known Member
I think the issue with the potential trajectory of the PBS special is its hypothesis seems to be too narrow in focus and lacking context. It appears that it is going to lay the whitewashing of American history and it's subsequent distraction of current events solely at the feet of Disney whilst ignoring the context of the larger picture.

Perhaps more than lip service to the larger picture will be given and the argument will still be sound after that but knowing how "documentaries" today present information, I'm not optimistic.
The whitewashing of history happens all the time and Disney is neither solely nor partially responsible. Media, academics, activists, etc... everyone that "bears false witness" by commission or omission all play a part in creating a false impression of history.

For example: Historical movies taken as fact such as Saving Private Ryan. If you ask younger people if they know about WWII, they often say they learned all about it from Saving Private Ryan.

One project I would like to do it to take the text from speeches from Triumph of the Will and compare it to current political speeches.

Disney is an idealized recollection of the past with a postulation of the future. If a high brow academic cannot figure this out, they are not worth the money invested in their education.
 
Last edited:

bakntime

Well-Known Member
Again, you're not saying anything new. The overload of the 90s was worse than the 80s. The overload of the 1890s worse than the 1880s. The notion is also beyond an occasional respite, it is a notion regarding the entirety of popular culture.
I'm not sure I follow your point, and I don't think that your argument is "There should be more factual/informational attractions and films", but I'll explain my position as though I'm trying to argue why edutainment doesn't fly anymore.

The next generation is exposed to more overload than the previous generation. Just because the concept of "it's worse now than it was then" has been around for centuries doesn't mean it's not increasingly true. It is true: We're exposed to more news, violence, crime, gore, tragedy, sex, information than we've ever been. This isn't "I had to walk to school through 10 feet of snow uphill both ways!!!!" kind of hyperbole. There is a legitimacy to the idea that as a culture we have so much information coming at us at such a rate that we don't want any of it when we're on vacation or watching TV or movies. We seek "mindless" fun and diversions.

Information is crammed down our throats, via technology and media (and school), more than ever before, and I therefore argue there's an even greater need to escape that constant stream of brain-numbing data. Even if that information is whimsically presented, it can be hard to stomach it as an escape from the real world. I'm a huge fan of Epcot, Worlds Fairs, and the kind of "fun" history that attractions like American Adventure, Spaceship Earth, Carousel of Progress, and World of Motion (RIP) provide. I like Living with the Land, I like attractions that are slow paced, long, and informational (even if that information is whimsical and of dubious accuracy). But I'm not the majority. The majority wants Harry Potter and fantasy and excitement and fancy ride systems that are an escape from facts and reality. There's a reason that certain attractions have long lines, while others (like the aforementioned ones in this paragraph) have/had short ones. Thought-provoking attractions often receive the critical praise and often have a cult following, but they rarely have mass appeal in 2015. Sure there are some unique kids and nostalgic adults out there that would adore World of Motion today. But not enough.

There's a reason why Horizons and World of Motion are dead while Pirates of the Caribbean and Haunted Mansion survive, and it has nothing to do with Disney's executive decisions. And it's not because Horizons and WoM were that fundamentally different an experience than HM or PotC. It's because HM and PotC lack any shred of reality. They're complete and total escapism. They don't educate, they don't elucidate the human condition, they don't inform, they don't predict, they don't preach, they don't analyze, they don't reflect. They throw you into a wild, fantastic scenario, and allow you to experience the ridiculous fantasy first hand, without so much as a slight nod to the real science, facts, or history behind piracy or death.

It's hard to sell educational entertainment. Edutainment is increasingly prevalent in school, television, and computers and video games. It's therefore harder to sneak educational value into a Disney theme park attraction without kids (and adults) instantly picking up on that, and wondering why they have to "learn stuff" when they're in a theme park. In today's world, most people won't pay for that, most people won't wait in line for that. I might, you might, others might, but again, not nearly enough to keep a business running.
 

bakntime

Well-Known Member
Monsanto house was before my time yet it was an engineering marvel and was written up in many engineering journals, They had to saw it apart as the wrecking ball bounced off the structure, These would have been great in hurricane prone areas wind, mold and rot resistant.
And it was built because Monsanto had the money to fund it, because Walt certainly wouldn't have chosen that kind of thing for its prime hub location, if for anywhere at all.

And slightly unrelated: House of the Future was popular enough not to be rejected out of hand, because the culture at the time (late 50s) had a much greater interest in the future cool stuff your home might one day have. We hadn't even gone to the moon yet, and wouldn't for another decade. Innoventions attempted to replicate the concept of Monstanto house of the future. It didn't work. Not because it was any different in fundamental premise or execution, but because nobody wanted to go to Disney and see what their house might look like in the future. We have the internet for that kind of predictive and informational stuff. World's Fairs are not a valid form of popular entertainment any more. People don't flock to "exhibits" of science, technology, and culture like they would 60 years ago.
 

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
And it was built because Monsanto had the money to fund it, because Walt certainly wouldn't have chosen that kind of thing for its prime hub location, if for anywhere at all.

And slightly unrelated: House of the Future was popular enough not to be rejected out of hand, because the culture at the time (late 50s) had a much greater interest in the future cool stuff your home might one day have. We hadn't even gone to the moon yet, and wouldn't for another decade. Innoventions attempted to replicate the concept of Monstanto house of the future. It didn't work. Not because it was any different in fundamental premise or execution, but because nobody wanted to go to Disney and see what their house might look like in the future. We have the internet for that kind of predictive and informational stuff. World's Fairs are not a valid form of popular entertainment any more. People don't flock to "exhibits" of science, technology, and culture like they would 60 years ago.
He might not have chosen it or financed it, but, he allowed it to be within plain sight of HIS Fantasy Castle. That speaks volumes, whether, all those that think they know how Disneyland was established, care to acknowledge it or not. All this pristine, life was perfect back then is just an illusion and those that buy into it are buying into the rhetoric that the Disney company has worked so hard at nurturing into what is believed as truth. And they call the rest of us apologists and pixie dusters. There are realists and there are those stuck in that illusion.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
I'm not sure I follow your point, and I don't think that your argument is "There should be more factual/informational attractions and films", but I'll explain my position as though I'm trying to argue why edutainment doesn't fly anymore.

The next generation is exposed to more overload than the previous generation. Just because the concept of "it's worse now than it was then" has been around for centuries doesn't mean it's not increasingly true. It is true: We're exposed to more news, violence, crime, gore, tragedy, sex, information than we've ever been. This isn't "I had to walk to school through 10 feet of snow uphill both ways!!!!" kind of hyperbole. There is a legitimacy to the idea that as a culture we have so much information coming at us at such a rate that we don't want any of it when we're on vacation or watching TV or movies. We seek "mindless" fun and diversions.

Information is crammed down our throats, via technology and media (and school), more than ever before, and I therefore argue there's an even greater need to escape that constant stream of brain-numbing data. Even if that information is whimsically presented, it can be hard to stomach it as an escape from the real world. I'm a huge fan of Epcot, Worlds Fairs, and the kind of "fun" history that attractions like American Adventure, Spaceship Earth, Carousel of Progress, and World of Motion (RIP) provide. I like Living with the Land, I like attractions that are slow paced, long, and informational (even if that information is whimsical and of dubious accuracy). But I'm not the majority. The majority wants Harry Potter and fantasy and excitement and fancy ride systems that are an escape from facts and reality. There's a reason that certain attractions have long lines, while others (like the aforementioned ones in this paragraph) have/had short ones. Thought-provoking attractions often receive the critical praise and often have a cult following, but they rarely have mass appeal in 2015. Sure there are some unique kids and nostalgic adults out there that would adore World of Motion today. But not enough.

There's a reason why Horizons and World of Motion are dead while Pirates of the Caribbean and Haunted Mansion survive, and it has nothing to do with Disney's executive decisions. And it's not because Horizons and WoM were that fundamentally different an experience than HM or PotC. It's because HM and PotC lack any shred of reality. They're complete and total escapism. They don't educate, they don't elucidate the human condition, they don't inform, they don't predict, they don't preach, they don't analyze, they don't reflect. They throw you into a wild, fantastic scenario, and allow you to experience the ridiculous fantasy first hand, without so much as a slight nod to the real science, facts, or history behind piracy or death.

It's hard to sell educational entertainment. Edutainment is increasingly prevalent in school, television, and computers and video games. It's therefore harder to sneak educational value into a Disney theme park attraction without kids (and adults) instantly picking up on that, and wondering why they have to "learn stuff" when they're in a theme park. In today's world, most people won't pay for that, most people won't wait in line for that. I might, you might, others might, but again, not nearly enough to keep a business running.
Education entertainment is dead at Disney but thriving in the industry, so your whole premise is just wrong. But that has nothing to 'escapism' versus 'reassurance.'

You're also just flat out wrong with this idea that people need a chance to turn off their brains. Those same channels of information "overload" are more than able to offer mindless distractions. Categorizing Disney as a mindless distraction makes it evil. It means the whole thing is about preying on people and their fears. You're trying to defend Disney by saying it is the very awful thing such critics claim.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
He might not have chosen it or financed it, but, he allowed it to be within plain sight of HIS Fantasy Castle. That speaks volumes, whether, all those that think they know how Disneyland was established, care to acknowledge it or not. All this pristine, life was perfect back then is just an illusion and those that buy into it are buying into the rhetoric that the Disney company has worked so hard at nurturing into what is believed as truth. And they call the rest of us apologists and pixie dusters. There are realists and there are those stuck in that illusion.
The whole point of the Central Plaza is the ability to see the various realms of Disneyland. Everything is in sight of the castle as part of the design.
 

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
The whole point of the Central Plaza is the ability to see the various realms of Disneyland. Everything is in sight of the castle as part of the design.
OK, let's assume that is true. Then one has to ask why everyone has their undies in a knot when things aren't hidden by forests or opening up the hub in WDW. Isn't that in keeping with the original concept?
 

bakntime

Well-Known Member
He might not have chosen it or financed it, but, he allowed it to be within plain sight of HIS Fantasy Castle. That speaks volumes, whether, all those that think they know how Disneyland was established, care to acknowledge it or not. All this pristine, life was perfect back then is just an illusion and those that buy into it are buying into the rhetoric that the Disney company has worked so hard at nurturing into what is believed as truth. And they call the rest of us apologists and pixie dusters. There are realists and there are those stuck in that illusion.
Oh, absolutely. He agreed to do it not because he thought it was the best idea, but because Disney and Monstanto were forging a mutually beneficial partnership.
 

bakntime

Well-Known Member
Go look up Thea Award recipients.
Do you understand what "thriving" means? What do the heck do critical awards have to do with something being popular? Thriving = profitable, not worthy of critical acclaim. Some of the most obscure entertainment of all time received great critical acclaim; nobody payed to see it.

For fun, let's list the highest grossing films of the past decade, the highest rated TV shows of the last decade, and the highest grossing theme parks in the world. Then tell me how many of them are classified as anything even close to educational or informational.

Critical acclaim doesn't pay the bills.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Do you understand what "thriving" means? What do the heck do critical awards have to do with something being popular? Thriving = profitable, not worthy of critical acclaim. Some of the most obscure entertainment of all time received great critical acclaim; nobody payed to see it.

For fun, let's list the highest grossing films of the past decade, the highest rated TV shows of the last decade, and the highest grossing theme parks in the world. Then tell me how many of them are classified as anything even close to educational or informational.

Critical acclaim doesn't pay the bills.
The award winning examples aren't the only ones in existence.
 

bakntime

Well-Known Member
Why? You've already said you don't count examples because that is not indicative of revenue.
Now you're just evading the very simple question I've posed.

Name me examples of successful (in your words "thriving") themed entertainment that is also educational. It's a simple question that doesn't seem to warrant this cat and mouse game you're playing. If educational entertainment is so popular, such that it's "thriving", there should be plenty of examples of it, right? That's it. That's all I'm asking. Name a few. Name a few thriving examples of educational entertainment.

And to take it a step further, you said this: "Education entertainment is dead at Disney but thriving in the industry," which implies that Disney's peers ("the industry") are succeeding at educational entertainment (thriving at it, even). I'd love to know which of Disney's peers are doing such.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom