Goofyernmost
Well-Known Member
And introducing my new memory... @Nemo14. Thanks, I was drawing a blank. That's what I get for having a brain full of absolutely useless and sometimes distorted information.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
A Spirited Perfect Ten
- Thread starter WDW1974
- Start date
Disneyhead'71
Well-Known Member
I do enjoy quality theme parks. And Disney used to make the best. I still believe they can. And as long as people like you keep shouting down the naysayers, they won't.
Mike S
Well-Known Member
Best analogy there is to explain the attitudes of the people who "hate"Why do sports fans cheer for losing teams?
Some of us grew up loving WDW. I still fondly remember the excitement when the kids in the neighborhood learned that "Walt is building an East Coast Disneyland!" I still remember decades of amazing trips to WDW.
That love and devotion for "The Team" does not go away just because they have a losing record right now. Sure, that losing record means that I might not attend as many games as I once did when they were winning the championship year after year, but I still follow the team and go to a game or two from time to time.
Even if the owner and general manager are jacking up prices and trading away the best players. Even if the front office is letting the stadium slowly crumble.
That devotion to "The Team" doesn't go away just because the current owner is cashing in on a team reputation that took decades to build.
It also means I call in on talk radio and complain about the current state of team.
Like other real fans of "The Team" do.
Instead of making excuses for the sorry front office.
My devotion to "The Team" will outlast the current owner, and I'll always hope for better days ahead.
Like every sports fan does.
WDW.
Nemo14
Well-Known Member
Why do sports fans cheer for losing teams?
Some of us grew up loving WDW. I still fondly remember the excitement when the kids in the neighborhood learned that "Walt is building an East Coast Disneyland!" I still remember decades of amazing trips to WDW.
That love and devotion for "The Team" does not go away just because they have a losing record right now. Sure, that losing record means that I might not attend as many games as I once did when they were winning the championship year after year, but I still follow the team and go to a game or two from time to time.
Even if the owner and general manager are jacking up prices and trading away the best players. Even if the front office is letting the stadium slowly crumble.
That devotion to "The Team" doesn't go away just because the current owner is cashing in on a team reputation that took decades to build.
It also means I call in on talk radio and complain about the current state of team.
Like other real fans of "The Team" do.
Instead of making excuses for the sorry front office.
My devotion to "The Team" will outlast the current owner, and I'll always hope for better days ahead.
Like every sports fan does.
So you love my RedSox too?
FigmentJedi
Well-Known Member
Oh hey, NASA wants to build a robotic squid/eel to explore the oceans of Europa. Remember when that was something that would probably be featured at a display at Epcot? Most likely in that spot currently occupied by CG animated cartoon fish?
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/eel-like-robot-could-explore-extraterrestrial-oceans/
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/eel-like-robot-could-explore-extraterrestrial-oceans/
Disneyhead'71
Well-Known Member
@CaptainAmerica, I guess the best answer to to your question is that I have been going to WDW since I was 8 in 1971. Whether I like it or not, it is part of who I am.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Kismet was in Lake County, where the Disney's were married. Kissimmee is about 45 miles from where they lived. As I mentioned earlier, the Disney's marriage license can be viewed on the Lake County website.
FigmentJedi
Well-Known Member
Though the natives weren't working that day, a lot of the attraction is looking good from what I've been hearing. The giant butterflies are all in working order, figures like Chief Namee are displaying animation they haven't in years, and they did some nice work in the temple sprucing up the animal figures and giving things new paint.First time posting in a Spirited thread, I've lurked for a while but in the latest Dateline Disney World from that site the author goes on Jungle Cruise. He writes the ambush scene is completely motionless, yet at the end of the section, he says "Kudos to Disney for keeping a classic in great shape." Doesn't seem like sarcasm, but it has to be, right?
Also gotta love what the Skipper said about the motionless scene, "Like almost everything in Disney World, it's Frozen."
http://micechat.com/101725-wonderful-refurbishments-magic-kingdom/
Cesar R M
Well-Known Member
Sorry, there are only Socialist ones.
ps.. Hail hydra...
its all lies. we all gloom and doomers want WDW to burn in a gigantic pit of fire! /sarcasmBest analogy there is to explain the attitudes of the people who "hate"
Last edited:
Goofyernmost
Well-Known Member
And I would have happily used that if I had remembered that I had posted that on the board before. It's the old Catch 22. These discussions go around in so many circles that I probably should have reasoned that it was a topic at one point or the other, but, I didn't.Don't thank me - thank the search box...
Cesar R M
Well-Known Member
or John Lessetter making a ultimatum to get cars land build?
they need a strong guy to push attractions.
they might even get another one to raise the maintenance levels..
Bairstow
Well-Known Member
The bands being available to resort guests only was actually how the program was rolled out.
I can't see Disney rolling back the program to pay-per-use, simply because Disney's theme parks operate on a different financial model than similar parks.
At Disney, food and merch revenue and the associated concerns is often the cart that drives the horse, rather than just being an auxiliary source of income to park admission and other services. Giving guests more time to patronize these other sources of revenue was the impetus behind the creation of FastPass from the beginning, and given the pull that the retail and food divisions of the park operation have on the overall direction of the business, I really can't see their reversing a trend that's in their favor.
bhg469
Well-Known Member
I feel like they will definitely add more fp options for on site guests. I can see more perks for deluxe resorts soon after. I don't know if they will charge for more but that trend does seem to be leading in that direction.
Perhaps the only thing holding them back is the fact that the system isn't stable enough yet to expect an upcharge for it. That is just a guess though, I'm no insider nor do I play one on the internet.
gmajew
Premium Member
Man who the hell gets up in the middle of the night or even makes them on the six month date. If you want beast castle sure but every other restaurant I can usually make a month out. Which is not atypical for major city dining.
Hell I have one in Chicago that even the best hotels cannot get you in and we have to book months out.
PhotoDave219
Well-Known Member
Well. If its getting a fastpass for Mark Hamill? Then yeah, I'm up at 6AM. And cursing Disney's IT by 6:15.
gmajew
Premium Member
Lol agreed....
Quinnmac000
Well-Known Member
So how in the heck did ABC clear the latest episode of Blackish? way too controversial and its like they are trying to get the show boycotted.
the.dreamfinder
Well-Known Member
BAM!
http://www.forbes.com/sites/monikab...ney-spent-15-billion-to-limit-their-audience/
Disney Spent $15 Billion To Limit Their Audience
Over the last decade, Disney has spent $15 billion to recapture the market they once had a stranglehold on: children. Purchasing Pixar, Marvel, and Lucasfilm allowed the company to acquire a massive mix of current popular entertainment and fervent parental nostalgia, and control the dominating forces of franchise entertainment. The empire has been rebuilt, but can it last when it continues to gender divide children and limit their audience?
When Disney bought these companies, they bought thousands of characters, from Buzz Lightyear to Luke Skywalker to Iron Man, and control over massive Hollywood franchises. Marvel has years of potential blockbuster content mapped out, and even more live action television shows from Agents of SHIELD to the upcoming Iron Fist. Though Star Wars’ prequels are reviled, the Force is brewing again with a new trilogy and a whole series of films and off-shoots.
All eyes are set to the future — so much so that Avengers: Age of Ultron barely reached screens before attention turned to Captain America: Civil War — but practices are staunchly set in the past and willfully blind to the realities of the present.
The arrival of the first Avengers movie marketed “Be a Hero” to boys and “I Need a Hero” to girls, while completely exempting Black Widow from certain merchandise. Disney’s already pushing products for the upcoming Star Wars films, but are excluding Princess Leia from action figures, and popular characters from its Star Wars: Rebels line. Gamora, likewise, was deleted from Guardians of the Galaxy products. With Age of Ultron, Black Widow is not only removed from myriad team shots and merchandise, but from her very own scenes. Instead of marketing Black Widow on her motorcycle, Hasbro offers Captain America and Iron Man.
Black Widow in Avengers: Age of Ultron
What was once implicit is now explicit. Instead of pondering the reasoning behind creative decisions that fail to include women, fans are greeted with flagrant disinterest in the diversity these franchises already have and the money they could make from them. According to a former Marvel employee quoting her supervisor, the company’s desired demographic has no girls because “that’s not why Disney bought us. They already have the girls’ market on lockdown.” The piece goes on to explain, “Disney bought Marvel and Lucasfilm because they wanted to access the male market. To achieve this goal, they allocate less to Marvel’s female demo, and even less to a unisex one.”
Disney spent a staggering $15 billion to expand its hold on the market, only to actively narrow it, limiting their reach and angering the consumers they should be serving: almost half of the 24 million people who identify as comic fans on Facebook are female, and women make up 52% of moviegoers. These empires rely on a certain amount of good faith that diversification is on the way to serve the changing demographics of consumers — faith that’s instantly destroyed by attitudes that trump gender division over basic business sense.
Now everyone from casual consumers to celebrities starring in these vehicles publicly criticize the removal of female characters from official merchandise. Mark Ruffalo lamented the lack of Black Widow merchandise available for his daughters and nieces, while Clark Gregg linked to a petition for Black Widow to be added to a pack of Avengers action figures. This week, Colin Hanks shared a story about making his daughter a Star Wars fan for May 4, only to take her to a toy store where light sabers were only available in the boys’ section, and the only available Leia toy was “Slave Leia,” with a chain hanging from her neck.
There are, of course, many companies involved in these franchises, from Disney, to subsidiaries like Marvel, to the toy companies like Hasbro, to the toy stores that categorize and stock the merchandise. It’s a messy system that allows blame to be scattered and ultimately ignored. But the ultimate responsibilities lay with the owners of the brand and the plans they have for them. If Disney wanted to embrace the diverse fandom these franchises and characters have, they’d push for all of their consumers to be well-served. But at the very least, as a business interested in making money, they’d insist that their products accurately depict the brands they’re selling, and not let old-school gender division hurt the bottom line and anger their audience.
In 2011, Brand Driven Digital published a pieceon eight innovation lessons we can learn from Walt Disney and his life. They include “turn convention on its head,” “diversify,” “keep moving forward,” and finally, “nothing matters more than the community you serve.” Modern Disney is doing the opposite. They are clinging desperately to an old marketing system that doesn’t reflect today’s numbers, while removing fan favorites from their product lines and angering the very community they’re supposed to serve.
With each new creative step, their subsidiaries’ creative content stresses diversity, from the new cast of Star Wars, to the development of a Captain Marvel movie, to the next wave of Avengers. But if they’re not prepared to offer their customers the most basic service — products that reflect the ideas and heroes on-screen — their $15 billion trek to supremacy could become $15 billion trek to destruction.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/monikab...ney-spent-15-billion-to-limit-their-audience/
Disney Spent $15 Billion To Limit Their Audience
Over the last decade, Disney has spent $15 billion to recapture the market they once had a stranglehold on: children. Purchasing Pixar, Marvel, and Lucasfilm allowed the company to acquire a massive mix of current popular entertainment and fervent parental nostalgia, and control the dominating forces of franchise entertainment. The empire has been rebuilt, but can it last when it continues to gender divide children and limit their audience?
When Disney bought these companies, they bought thousands of characters, from Buzz Lightyear to Luke Skywalker to Iron Man, and control over massive Hollywood franchises. Marvel has years of potential blockbuster content mapped out, and even more live action television shows from Agents of SHIELD to the upcoming Iron Fist. Though Star Wars’ prequels are reviled, the Force is brewing again with a new trilogy and a whole series of films and off-shoots.
All eyes are set to the future — so much so that Avengers: Age of Ultron barely reached screens before attention turned to Captain America: Civil War — but practices are staunchly set in the past and willfully blind to the realities of the present.
The arrival of the first Avengers movie marketed “Be a Hero” to boys and “I Need a Hero” to girls, while completely exempting Black Widow from certain merchandise. Disney’s already pushing products for the upcoming Star Wars films, but are excluding Princess Leia from action figures, and popular characters from its Star Wars: Rebels line. Gamora, likewise, was deleted from Guardians of the Galaxy products. With Age of Ultron, Black Widow is not only removed from myriad team shots and merchandise, but from her very own scenes. Instead of marketing Black Widow on her motorcycle, Hasbro offers Captain America and Iron Man.
Black Widow in Avengers: Age of Ultron
What was once implicit is now explicit. Instead of pondering the reasoning behind creative decisions that fail to include women, fans are greeted with flagrant disinterest in the diversity these franchises already have and the money they could make from them. According to a former Marvel employee quoting her supervisor, the company’s desired demographic has no girls because “that’s not why Disney bought us. They already have the girls’ market on lockdown.” The piece goes on to explain, “Disney bought Marvel and Lucasfilm because they wanted to access the male market. To achieve this goal, they allocate less to Marvel’s female demo, and even less to a unisex one.”
Disney spent a staggering $15 billion to expand its hold on the market, only to actively narrow it, limiting their reach and angering the consumers they should be serving: almost half of the 24 million people who identify as comic fans on Facebook are female, and women make up 52% of moviegoers. These empires rely on a certain amount of good faith that diversification is on the way to serve the changing demographics of consumers — faith that’s instantly destroyed by attitudes that trump gender division over basic business sense.
Now everyone from casual consumers to celebrities starring in these vehicles publicly criticize the removal of female characters from official merchandise. Mark Ruffalo lamented the lack of Black Widow merchandise available for his daughters and nieces, while Clark Gregg linked to a petition for Black Widow to be added to a pack of Avengers action figures. This week, Colin Hanks shared a story about making his daughter a Star Wars fan for May 4, only to take her to a toy store where light sabers were only available in the boys’ section, and the only available Leia toy was “Slave Leia,” with a chain hanging from her neck.
There are, of course, many companies involved in these franchises, from Disney, to subsidiaries like Marvel, to the toy companies like Hasbro, to the toy stores that categorize and stock the merchandise. It’s a messy system that allows blame to be scattered and ultimately ignored. But the ultimate responsibilities lay with the owners of the brand and the plans they have for them. If Disney wanted to embrace the diverse fandom these franchises and characters have, they’d push for all of their consumers to be well-served. But at the very least, as a business interested in making money, they’d insist that their products accurately depict the brands they’re selling, and not let old-school gender division hurt the bottom line and anger their audience.
In 2011, Brand Driven Digital published a pieceon eight innovation lessons we can learn from Walt Disney and his life. They include “turn convention on its head,” “diversify,” “keep moving forward,” and finally, “nothing matters more than the community you serve.” Modern Disney is doing the opposite. They are clinging desperately to an old marketing system that doesn’t reflect today’s numbers, while removing fan favorites from their product lines and angering the very community they’re supposed to serve.
With each new creative step, their subsidiaries’ creative content stresses diversity, from the new cast of Star Wars, to the development of a Captain Marvel movie, to the next wave of Avengers. But if they’re not prepared to offer their customers the most basic service — products that reflect the ideas and heroes on-screen — their $15 billion trek to supremacy could become $15 billion trek to destruction.
Last edited:
1023
Provocateur, Rancanteur, Plaisanter, du Jour
I didn't realize that show was still on television. Of course, watching things like Mad Men and Blacklist spoils one into ignoring the other drivel. Quality shows get canceled by the networks too quickly and the mindless pablum rehash is continually recycled into the collective conciseness. Thank the all powerful floating space deity of your choice that AMC, HBO, and other premium networks are around to foster, support and deliver good programming.
*1023*