MK Cars-Themed Attractions at Magic Kingdom

jah4955

Well-Known Member
What, You don't consider "Hollywood's Dark Prince" legitimate journalism?
Glad you mentioned that one! That "book" was so poorly "researched" that the author didn't even realize Lillian Disney was still alive and able to vocally debunk much of its overt sensationalism. Some authors gloss-over the blemishes, some apply their spin to make the person worse than they actually were, some gloss-over the good things in their attempt to make them outright monsters. Bob Thomas claimed the only restriction placed upon him was not to mention that Sharon Disney was adopted (which he stated plainly in the 1994 edition). I admit histories/biographies cannot be written without the biases (good & bad) of anyone involved, often influenced by how they even felt while giving/researching their accounts (not to mention how much time passed since the actual events). One of many examples....I've read firsthand accounts given by Marc Davis of, definitively, the exact same event that still differed on many details. So which was right? We'll never know for sure. Part of my career involves "drilling down," as much as possible, to the historical sources behind what was written to create as accurate an understanding as possible behind events, what was said, and what was meant by those words (without having been there, it'll always be lacking, there could always be new opportunities for further refinement in understanding). My hobby is applying my formal training to studying historical texts regarding the life of Walt Disney, who himself frequently admitted he was no saint, but still has a profound impact nearly 6 decades after his death.
 
Last edited:

HMF

Well-Known Member
Glad you mentioned that one! That "book" was so poorly "researched" that the author didn't even realize Lillian Disney was still alive and able to vocally debunk much of its overt sensationalism. Some authors gloss-over the blemishes, some apply their spin to make the person worse than they actually were, some gloss-over the good things in their attempt to make them outright monsters. Bob Thomas claimed the only restriction placed upon him was not to mention that Sharon Disney was adopted (which he stated plainly in the 1994 edition). I admit histories/biographies cannot be written without the biases (good & bad) of anyone involved, often influenced by how they even felt while giving/researching their accounts (not to mention how much time passed since the actual events). One of many examples....I've read firsthand accounts given by Marc Davis of, definitively, the exact same event that still differed on many details. So which was right? We'll never know for sure. Part of my career involves "drilling down," as much as possible, to the historical sources behind what was written to create as accurate an understanding as possible behind events, what was said, and what was meant by those words (without having been there, it'll always be lacking, there could always be new opportunities for further refinement in understanding). My hobby is applying my formal training to studying historical texts regarding the life of Walt Disney, who himself frequently admitted he was no saint, but still has a profound impact nearly 6 decades after his death.
To this day I am legitimately shocked by stories about Walt that are widely believed. I actually had to explain to a friend once that Der Fuhrers Face was a satire piece meant to be a morale booster for the Allies. Not Donald Duck being a propaganda mascot for the axis.
 

Brer Panther

Well-Known Member
To this day I am legitimately shocked by stories about Walt that are widely believed.
Most of it is probably because of Family Guy and its multiple anti-Walt jokes.
I actually had to explain to a friend once that Der Fuhrers Face was a satire piece meant to be a morale booster for the Allies. Not Donald Duck being a propaganda mascot for the axis.
Did they not know that the short ended with the revelation that it was all just a horrible nightmare Donald had? Sheesh.
 

jah4955

Well-Known Member
To this day I am legitimately shocked by stories about Walt that are widely believed. I actually had to explain to a friend once that Der Fuhrers Face was a satire piece meant to be a morale booster for the Allies. Not Donald Duck being a propaganda mascot for the axis.
There's a lot of crazy stuff out there...this is among the craziest I've ever seen! If it was pro-Hitler why was it awarded the Oscar (back when that meant something lol)? It is amazing that all the lies persist when virtually all of them have mountains of evidence debunking them thoroughly. But people are going to believe what they want to believe.
 

jah4955

Well-Known Member
Most of it is probably because of Family Guy and its multiple anti-Walt jokes.

Did they not know that the short ended with the revelation that it was all just a horrible nightmare Donald had? Sheesh.
nevermind how most of the DD shorts of that era he was a soldier for the Allies...nm his sailor suit lol!
 

HMF

Well-Known Member
There's a lot of crazy stuff out there...this is among the craziest I've ever seen! If it was pro-Hitler why was it awarded the Oscar (back when that meant something lol)? It is amazing that all the lies persist when virtually all of them have mountains of evidence debunking them thoroughly. But people are going to believe what they want to believe.
There is plenty of legitimate evidence about Henry Ford being pro-Hitler and Ford motors is still a thing, so yeah. Again, since we seem to be living in a post-fact hellscape where even objective reality is up for debate, anything goes I guess. The Disney Company itself is not helping in the sense that while they make audio-animatronic likenesses of him behind the scenes they spit on his memory and business philosophy and conveniently use him as a scapegoat when legitimate criticisms of their falling standards are pointed out.
 
Last edited:

HMF

Well-Known Member
Most of it is probably because of Family Guy and its multiple anti-Walt jokes.
A lot of the writing on Family Guy seems to be random and lack real emotional relevance or context. The fact that they actually now refer to irrelevant filler jokes as "manatee jokes" in the actual writers room betrays a gross lack of self-awareness.
 

jah4955

Well-Known Member
There is plenty of legitimate evidence about Henry Ford being pro-Hitler and Ford motors is still a thing, so yeah. Again, since we seem to be living in a post-fact hellscape where even objective reality is up for debate, anything goes I guess. The Disney Company itself is not helping in the sense that while they make audio-animatronic likenesses of him behind the scenes they spit on his memory and business philosophy and conveniently use him as a scapegoat when legitimate criticisms of their falling standards are pointed out.
It's easy to conclude from interactions he had with others from parallel situations that he would not hold back in expressing his disapproval! Considering how exponentially larger Disney has become since 1966, he would likely have little choice but to tear into the bosses of the respective departments. Right before his health really took that final nosedive he told his son-in-law he wanted to focus all his attention on EPCOT & CalArts. So as vastly-smaller the company was in 1966, it was already getting overwhelming for anyone, never-mind someone of Walt's caliber.
 

HMF

Well-Known Member
It's easy to conclude from interactions he had with others from parallel situations that he would not hold back in expressing his disapproval! Considering how exponentially larger Disney has become since 1966, he would likely have little choice but to tear into the bosses of the respective departments. Right before his health really took that final nosedive he told his son-in-law he wanted to focus all his attention on EPCOT & CalArts. So as vastly-smaller the company was in 1966, it was already getting overwhelming for anyone, never-mind someone of Walt's caliber.
Seeing as how someone like Walt would have legitimate trouble getting hired as an hourly Cast Member at his namesake company today. yeah, it's completely understandable.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
I was thinking about this.

Is it by design that rain runoff in MK goes into RoA?

If part of the function of RoA was to be a "storm drain" for MK, they got to re think their rain storm drainage situation.
That’s why they had to file for a water management permit. The drawings show how they are rethinking the situation. It’s why they’re building new ponds and canals.
 

Disstevefan1

Well-Known Member
That’s why they had to file for a water management permit. The drawings show how they are rethinking the situation. It’s why they’re building new ponds and canals.
I have no idea about any of this but I think need to address this now so RoA doesn't keep refilling with water as they are trying to fill it in with something other than water.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
I have no idea about any of this but I think need to address this now so RoA doesn't keep refilling with water as they are trying to fill it in with something other than water.
There is literally an active construction project right now.

Does anyone have a copy of the engineering plans? I think I remember seeing plans for a raised drain system to be installed. 809 pages is hard to search
Search for project “407 Basin” if the direct link breaks.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom