News Cítricos to reopen July 15 reimagined to the whimsy and elegance of Mary Poppins Returns

[Missing20K]

We can agree to disagree.

It’s “cheerio”.

Yes, we can. Ain’t America grand?

Oh we’re pointing out typos? That’s fun.

 

[Missing20K]

That's pretty much all I've been saying for three pages, so there's very little to "sus out". Her personal style in Returns is entirely compatible with the resort and does not interfere with the overarching theme of the resort when creatively applied to furnishings and accents.

I'd wager the reason they name Returns specifically is because her costumes are much, much more colorful in that film even though they maintain her classic silhouette. Additionally, the Royal Doulton bowl, the other explicitly mentioned part of this inspiration, is exclusive to Returns (and also period-appropriate). They make no other mention of the content of the film other than to quote song lyrics in a silly way.

Ok. I find it strange and bewildering to attempt storytelling based on similar fashions, but I’m sure there is room for both viewpoints on the subject.

I’d say it cuz she “returns” but I like your explanation better.

 

[LittleBuford]

Oh we’re pointing out typos? That’s fun.

I thought, as an American, you might not know how it was spelt, just as I, as a Brit, used to think "keister" was "kiester" until the correct spelling recently came up in this forum (courtesy, I believe, of @MisterPenguin). I am not in the habit of correcting typos (it's a low blow), and I apologise if that's how it came across.

 

[Missing20K]

Additionally, this very character (and others from classic British literature like Alice and Winnie the Pooh) have appeared at 1900 Park Fare for ages, which somehow hasn't ruined the ambiance.

For those who hate the hotel anyway, none of this should matter.

There is a mighty large difference between having characters in the dining room dressed period appropriate and whatever this is.

But for like the hundredth time, this is all my opinion, blah, blah, blah.

Can’t help but find it interesting that my “zealotry” has made the discussion unproductive while I keep getting replies. Everyone is free to ignore me anytime they wish.

*Cheerio*

 

[James Alucobond]

Ok. I find it strange and bewildering to attempt storytelling based on similar fashions, but I’m sure there is room for both viewpoints on the subject.

I ... still don't quite get why you're bringing up storytelling. It's designed as a subtle homage (exact diction from the press release), not a narrative. It's a nod and a wink that otherwise blends in with the Victorian environs, just like an actual Royal Doulton bowl would if it were sitting on a credenza in the lobby.

 

[Missing20K]

I ... still don't quite get why you're bringing up storytelling. It's designed as a subtle homage (exact diction from the press release), not a narrative. It's a nod and a wink that otherwise blends in with the Victorian environs, just like an actual Royal Doulton bowl would if it were sitting on a credenza in the lobby.

Storytelling ≠ narrative

 

[DonaldDoleWhip]

There is a mighty large difference between having characters in the dining room dressed period appropriate and whatever this is.

Agreed - this is way more subtle and innocuous than having the actual characters walking around.

I only wish more of the forced IP integrations were executed this one.

 

[Missing20K]

Agreed - this is way more subtle and innocuous than having the actual characters walking around.

I only wish more of the forced IP integrations were executed this one.

I see what you did there. Cheeky

Character dining experiences in which you pay to have you or your children get photos with beloved characters in thematic appropriate garb is more of a necessary “evil” if you will. If they aren’t there, the experience makes no sense.

The “subtle” attempt at forced IP integration so as not to ruffle the feathers of WDW’s highest paying customers is a cop out.

As an aside, my “zealotry” is to the ideas and ideals that the company and WED/Imagineering came up with themselves. They invented an industry I care deeply for. I see no issue in holding them to the standard they set. I give credit where it’s due, and critique when I feel it’s warranted.

SW land? Total success.

Carsland? Perfect.

Rock’n’Roller coaster? Not so much.

Contempo room renos? Blehh.

DisneySea might be the best theme park on the planet.

I simply want to see them do their best work and I don’t feel as though this project was.

 

[MisterPenguin]

I thought, as an American, you might not know how it was spelt, just as I, as a Brit, used to think "keister" was "kiester" until the correct spelling recently came up in this forum (courtesy, I believe, of @MisterPenguin). I am not in the habit of correcting typos (it's a low blow), and I apologise if that's how it came across.

My grammar is practically perfect in every way!

 

[James Alucobond]

Storytelling ≠ narrative

I'm sure someone will tell me I'm woefully ignorant of some Imagineering definition of storytelling, but, uh, if you're telling a story, there's an associated narrative. The narrative may only be implied through placemaking, requiring inference, observation, and historical context on the part of the "story listener", but it's still there.

My point was that this update is neither additive nor subtractive from a storytelling perspective, unless you count the fact that it vastly improves the soft goods in the restaurant. It's inspired by Mary Poppins Returns in the same way that the color scheme in your den might be inspired by the shades of autumn or your bathroom by the beach. Basically interchangeable with "Mary Poppins Returns" in this instance is "Victorian-era painted ceramics and colorful fabrics".

If, in your opinion, this level of subtlety is a cop-out, then there's really nothing to convince you of as that's your prerogative.

I’d say it cuz she “returns” but I like your explanation better.

I think you maybe misread what I wrote as I was talking about why they refer to Mary Poppins Returns in the article instead of the original movie or book series. But ... maybe this is just a joke I don't understand, in which case please ignore my stupidity.

 

[Missing20K]

I'm sure someone will tell me I'm woefully ignorant of some Imagineering definition of storytelling, but, uh, if you're telling a story, there's an associated narrative. The narrative may only be implied through placemaking, requiring inference, observation, and historical context on the part of the "story listener", but it's still there.

My point was that this update is neither additive nor subtractive from a storytelling perspective, unless you count the fact that it vastly improves the soft goods in the restaurant. It's inspired by Mary Poppins Returns in the same way that the color scheme in your den might be inspired by the shades of autumn or your bathroom by the beach. Basically interchangeable with "Mary Poppins Returns" in this instance is "Victorian-era painted ceramics and colorful fabrics".

If, in your opinion, this level of subtlety is a cop-out, then there's really nothing to convince you of as that's your prerogative.

I think you maybe misread what I wrote as I was talking about why they refer to Mary Poppins Returns in the article instead of the original movie or book series. But ... maybe this is just a joke I don't understand, in which case please ignore my stupidity.

The differentiation between story/storytelling and narrative is a literary construct, not a themed entertainment one. Imagineering uses it as a foundation, but the idea is rooted in literary theory.

Story, Plot, and Narrative

 

[LittleBuford]

As an aside, my “zealotry” is to the ideas and ideals that the company and WED/Imagineering came up with themselves.

Since I'm the one who introduced the term (and I apologise for using charged language), let me clarify what I mean.

I'm not referring to your passionate views on questions of IP or storytelling. You have every right to dislike what they've done at Cítricos, and while I may not understand the extent of your opposition, I respect your views on the matter. (For what it's worth, I'm lukewarm about certain aspects of the scheme. Parts of it look vulgar, for want of a better word.)

Rather, my reference to zealotry pertains to when a person's (legitimate, subjective) dislike of something becomes generalised into (excessive) obstinacy on even the smallest point. @lazyboy97o asked how Mary Poppins the character relates to the Grand Floridian, and I responded by saying that she evokes early twentieth-century grandeur. Acknowledging this is not the same as endorsing the Cítricos renovation; denying it is akin to saying that Moana has nothing to do with Polynesian culture just because one doesn't like the use of her IP at the Polynesian.

This is what I was trying to get at. Sometimes, people become so ideologically invested in their position that they seem unable to agree to anything said by those expressing a different view. I feel this discussion has reached that stage.

 

[Missing20K]

Since I'm the one who introduced the term (and I apologise for using charged language), let me clarify what I mean.

I'm not referring to your passionate views on questions of IP or storytelling. You have every right to dislike what they've done at Cítricos, and while I may not understand the extent of your opposition, I respect your views on the matter. (For what it's worth, I'm lukewarm about certain aspects of the scheme. Parts of it look vulgar, for want of a better word.)

Rather, my reference to zealotry pertains to when a person's (legitimate, subjective) dislike of something becomes generalised into (excessive) obstinacy on even the smallest point. @lazyboy97o asked how Mary Poppins the character relates to the Grand Floridian, and I responded by saying that she evokes early twentieth-century grandeur. Acknowledging this is not the same as endorsing the Cítricos renovation; denying it is akin to saying that Moana has nothing to do with Polynesian culture just because one doesn't like the use of her IP at the Polynesian.

This is what I was trying to get at. Sometimes, people become so ideologically invested in their position that they seem unable to agree to anything said by those expressing a different view. I feel this discussion has reached that stage.

So I can’t disagree with you that she evokes early twentieth century grandeur? Okey dokey.

Isn’t everyone on these boards “ideologically invested” in some form or fashion to varying degrees over items of personal taste? Otherwise why would we all be here and spend our hard earned dollar bucks at Disney?

One could argue that on the opposite side of my “zealous” coin is an equal amount of zealousness towards any criticism of the project. I won’t. But one could.

 

[LittleBuford]

So I can’t disagree with you that she evokes early twentieth century grandeur? Okey dokey.

Your initial reply to me was: "During the depression? That’s when the sequel is set". Only later did you expand this into an outright rejection of the very idea, even to the point of denying that her looks from the two animated sequences might fit the bill. I can't interpret this as anything other than disagreement for disagreement's sake.

One could argue that on the opposite side of my “zealous” coin is an equal amount of zealousness towards any criticism of the project. I won’t. But one could.

I suppose one could, though I doubt you'll find anyone here who would consider the project faultless or above criticism, least of all me.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Since I'm the one who introduced the term (and I apologise for using charged language), let me clarify what I mean.

I'm not referring to your passionate views on questions of IP or storytelling. You have every right to dislike what they've done at Cítricos, and while I may not understand the extent of your opposition, I respect your views on the matter. (For what it's worth, I'm lukewarm about certain aspects of the scheme. Parts of it look vulgar, for want of a better word.)

Rather, my reference to zealotry pertains to when a person's (legitimate, subjective) dislike of something becomes generalised into (excessive) obstinacy on even the smallest point. @lazyboy97o asked how Mary Poppins the character relates to the Grand Floridian, and I responded by saying that she evokes early twentieth-century grandeur. Acknowledging this is not the same as endorsing the Cítricos renovation; denying it is akin to saying that Moana has nothing to do with Polynesian culture just because one doesn't like the use of her IP at the Polynesian.

This is what I was trying to get at. Sometimes, people become so ideologically invested in their position that they seem unable to agree to anything said by those expressing a different view. I feel this discussion has reached that stage.

Except the scenario to which you made this statement is one entirely of your own making. Nobody said those costumes were inappropriate to the setting. Those costumes though are only in those two, fantasy sequences and not her typical attire. How far does wearing a single costume apply to a character much less their appropriateness to a setting?

 

[Missing20K]

Your initial reply to me was: "During the depression? That’s when the sequel is set". Only later did you expand this into an outright rejection of the very idea, even to the point of denying that her looks from the two animated sequences might fit the bill. I can't interpret this as anything other than disagreement for disagreement's sake.


I suppose one could, though I doubt you'll find anyone here who would consider the project faultless or above criticism, least of all me.

Yes I rejected the idea. My comment was the first one. My later comments of rejection expounded on my reasoning. You chose two still images from the films to back your point. I chose two stills from the same films to back my point. Interpret that however you’d like.

I only say it because my opinions seem to have struck a chord. I’ve said numerous times, these are my opinions. I’ve also said that there is room for your opinions as well. I’ve also said feel free to ignore me and my obstinate, zealous takes. And yet, I keep getting notifications that someone has replied.

 

[LittleBuford]

Except the scenario to which you made this statement is one entirely of your own making. Nobody said those costumes were inappropriate to the setting. Those costumes though are only in those two, fantasy sequences and not her typical attire. How far does wearing a single costume apply to a character much less their appropriateness to a setting?

But those costumes provide you with an answer to the question you posed: they enable Mary Poppins to evoke a grandeur befitting the Grand Floridian. That they appear only in the animated sequences doesn't mean they can't shape people's general perception of the character, just as Cinderella has becomes associated with sumptuous ballroom settings despite wearing rags for most of the film.

Let's not forget that Mary Poppins always appears in her iconic holiday garb at Walt Disney Word.

 

[LittleBuford]

And yet, I keep getting notifications that someone has replied.

A fair point, and props for the Daisy GIF. I won't bother you with any further replies.

 

[lazyboy97o]

My point was that this update is neither additive nor subtractive from a storytelling perspective

If it is not additive then it is subtractive. It is a distraction from the point being told. You'd get annoyed if you were listening to a story that kept getting stopped for random asides that added nothing to the point.

 

[Missing20K]

A fair point, and props for the Daisy GIF. I won't bother you with any further replies.

Not a bother per se, I just typically don’t respond with such passion to posts I disagree with, I just read it and move on. But it’s all good. I don’t mind a lively debate. I think you’ll find my initial comments on most every thread aren’t replies to anyone. I state an opinion and then do my best to give reasons why I feel that way. I just seem to be on the “wrong” side of the fence with said opinions with most folks here lol. But it’s no skin off my nose.