MK Cars-Themed Attractions at Magic Kingdom

[UNCgolf]

What makes it terribly written? Seems fine for what it is.

It's much longer than it should be, partially because it essentially repeats the same point multiple times, and it quotes people like WDW Pro while framing them as some sort of expert.

It reads like an op-ed from a high school newspaper.

 

[ᗩLᘿᑕ ֊ᗩζᗩᗰ]

It's much longer than it should be, partially because it essentially repeats the same point multiple times, and it quotes people like WDW Pro while framing them as some sort of expert.

It reads like an op-ed from a high school newspaper.

This doesn't show up in Dark mode FYI. Unless that was the intent?

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

It's much longer than it should be, partially because it essentially repeats the same point multiple times, and it quotes people like WDW Pro while framing them as some sort of expert.

Maybe you should let Forbes know how long an article should be? They’d appreciate the information I’m sure.

As for WDW pro…. 175k subscribers definitely qualifies as a legit “influencer” - I don’t have an opinion one way or another on them.

 

[Agent H]

Maybe you should let Forbes know how long an article should be? They’d appreciate the information I’m sure.

As for WDW pro…. 175k subscribers definitely qualifies as a legit “influencer” - I don’t have an opinion one way or another on them.

They’re just about the most untrustworthy source ever when it comes to Disney.

 

[ᗩLᘿᑕ ֊ᗩζᗩᗰ]

I'd rather have RoA and the steamboat then this garbage.

I can't make that comparison yet but I do think it foolish to erase the steamboat and portions of ROA. Shame they can't make it all work.

 

[Jedi14]

As for WDW pro…. 175k subscribers definitely qualifies as a legit “influencer” - I don’t have an opinion one way or another on them.

Based on their thumbnail alone, it seems clear they’re a grifter.

 

[JD80]

Based on their thumbnail alone, it seems clear they’re a grifter.

It's a ragebait account that works the algorithm for outrage viewing.

 

[lazyboy97o]

So how much did the cost of this expansion go up today?

It went down! We’re going to make the birds of Heard and McDonald Islands pay big time!

 

[James Alucobond]

Maybe you should let Forbes know how long an article should be? They’d appreciate the information I’m sure.

Anything under www.forbes.com/sites/ is basically a paid-for blog skin. They don't care. If you're looking to get actual news from them, make sure you're not under that subdomain.

 

[BrianLo]

It’s weird how suddenly Forbes is almost looked at as the National Enquirer and former star imagineers credibility is questioned when the information goes against the Disney duster narrative. We are all wrong folks. All of us here. All the old imagineers. All the credible sources in that article. We just hate change and have no idea what we’re talking about.

For the record, this isn't sudden. There's about 10 other times I've complained about her now on this forum.

This is shockingly not her worst article, it doesn't really misrepresent anything other than poorly tying into her hypothesis and thesis, which is common for her.

You can run a search with her name and my username for context.

Very briefly: I caught her engaging in significant self-plagiarism to make word counts. She actually was very lazily copy-pasting full paragraphs often from 3-4 different past articles. Though since that gig is up, I wouldn't be surprised to see some AI usage on her behalf. It's why a lot of the past articles seemed quite detached from the headline or hypothesis.

Here's the original offender (for me): https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolinereid/2024/06/14/the-21-billion-disney-theme-park-gamble/

Once you understand this article is made up for 5 past ones, you realize why it's so difficult to read.

 

[BrianLo]

This might be true but 99% of people reading it don't know that. And that's what the issue is, from Disney's perspective.

I do clearly have a major axe to grind about her... but her Disney parks specific articles are barely read. Most of the clicks were likely driven by it being reposted here.

Someone specializing in "movies and theme parks" is a weird beat. These parks articles bother me far less (because most people can tell how poorly written they are) than the movie production ones. Because those production figures end up actually getting cited and misunderstood longer term.

 

[BrianLo]

So how much did the cost of this expansion go up today?

I'd imagine a good 5-10% already!

 

[JohnD]

The point is this: as insiders, we can pick apart the author and the article. Nevertheless, this article gets out the overriding point to readers who haven't read before that Disney is destroying its own parks for the sake of IP. They're tossing Walt's vision to the wayside.

If it takes a poorly written, almost AI article by a bad author to drive home this point, then good. The dissatisfaction needs to go beyond fans and insiders to the mainstream.

 

[Lord Fozzinator]

I skimmed the article and, yeah, it’s not the best. It doesn’t show much digging and really only uses surface level information to inform people of a complex problem.

Another problem of mine is that it is focused too much on Disneyland in the beginning which doesn’t really say anything about the cars expansion. Sure I think it is good to at least mention the “blessing of size” thing but really focused too much on it.

It also doesn’t particularly unbiased sources (WDWpro cough, cough). Having both sides of the story would have made it a lot better. Perhaps some other opinions would have made the article better.

Other than that, nothing else is really bad with it.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

Having both sides of the story would have made it a lot better.

The other side of the story is….. Disney doesn’t want to spend the money and resources to keep a version of ROA alive at WDW. Simple as that.

I’m still convinced that John Lassiter is one of the reasons we got to keep the rivers at DL.

 

[MagicHappens1971]

The other side of the story is….. Disney doesn’t want to spend the money and resources to keep a version of ROA alive at WDW. Simple as that.

There's also the component that Disney does not see why they should waste money/resources and real estate on an underutilized plot of land in the most popular theme park on earth.

 

[easyrowrdw]

I said this article appears to merely take online posts. Most articles take more. Now I can’t remember whether that was because she did that intentionally or if it’s because of AI which takes from multiple articles across the internet (the discussion about this in the box office thread was a while ago) but they do take from other articles.

You said, “But her articles are badly written and steal things from other sources or in this case from message boards and twitter accounts.” That was what I was quoted and why I asked what was stolen.

I’m still not seeing anything that was stolen in this article. She cites the message boards and posts along with other sources throughout the article.

 

[easyrowrdw]

Maybe you should let Forbes know how long an article should be? They’d appreciate the information I’m sure.

As for WDW pro…. 175k subscribers definitely qualifies as a legit “influencer” - I don’t have an opinion one way or another on them.

I remember the account when it was here. I found it to be obnoxious and full of it as far as being an insider. But it does seem to have a following. Heck, there’s a major site that is banned from even being mentioned here but that doesn’t mean it’s not influential.

 

[Lord Fozzinator]

I remember the account when it was here. I found it to be obnoxious and full of it as far as being an insider. But it does seem to have a following. Heck, there’s a major site that is banned from even being mentioned here but that doesn’t mean it’s not influential.

Yeah, I have seen their videos before, massive click baiters. I don’t trust a word they say. Don’t even get me started on them trying to fix the parks, that was a dumpster fire I don’t even want to get into

 

[mickEblu]

What’s wrong with WDW Pro? Seems like a straight shooter to me.