RSoxNo1
Well-Known Member
Many thanks
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Country Bear Jamboree closing for lengthy refurbishment in August
- Thread starter wdwmagic
- Start date
Figment82
Well-Known Member
I saw the show again last night - the Sunbonnets' slides are now aligned to the screen. So at least there's one positive...
Oh, and we happened to notice that Buff, Max, and Melvin are talking to each other during Trixie's song. The way they were interacting, it almost looks like the "big" joke conversation lives on, just muted.
Oh, and we happened to notice that Buff, Max, and Melvin are talking to each other during Trixie's song. The way they were interacting, it almost looks like the "big" joke conversation lives on, just muted.
Bairstow
Well-Known Member
Saw the new show Sunday. The abbreviated show routine was ok, but I was really impressed with how nice the AA animation is right now. Maybe it's an old gag, but I noticed a really funny bit during "The Ballad of Davey Crockett" where the bear sings, "...Tamed him a bear when he was only 3," and Buff leans over to Melvin and appears to whisper, "He actually killed that bear," and Melvin looks shocked and appalled.
Buried20KLeague
Well-Known Member
Really? I've never noticed that... Gonna have to watch the video for it!
pumpkin7
Well-Known Member
I don't think the video focuses much on Max, Melvin and Buff but I've noticed that they do move and appear to have their own conversations, but yuo kind of have to be there. Unless there's a video out there that solely focuses on them. Might have to have a look.
CountryBearFan
Active Member
Of course I'm serious! WDI DOES have authority over the parks!
It does not work that way! Anyone who thinks it does is totally incorrect, including yourself!
Nope! Wrong again!
Waiting for one of the more intelligent posters like wannab@dis and jt04 to back me up...
GLaDOS
Well-Known Member
It does not work that way! Anyone who thinks it does is totally incorrect, including yourself!
You don't seem to be the most rational of posters, so I'm probably wasting my time, but that's exactly how it works.
WDI is basically an internal contractor doing the work they're told to do.
The Empress Lilly
Well-Known Member
No, because Disney did not cut back the running time just, or even predominantly, to increase capacity. But because it believes modern audiences prefer a faster cut, faster paced show, a shorter time sitting still on their behinds. Even with capacity to spare, the show would run in its cut form.
This post was planted by the CIA to discredit Disney critics.
GLaDOS
Well-Known Member
Believe what you want to believe...but that NYT article was pure hogwash.
The Empress Lilly
Well-Known Member
Hogwash? A perfectly fine read about entertainment corporations responding to changing modern tastes, as they are written a million times every day.
This post was planted by TDO to discredit Jimmy Thick to prepare forum members for WDWMagic´s new frontpage look.
This post was planted by TDO to discredit Jimmy Thick to prepare forum members for WDWMagic´s new frontpage look.
GLaDOS
Well-Known Member
I mean sure, that's what it's mask is. Not what it was for though.
baymenxpac
Well-Known Member
i'm on page 37 of 42, but if you don't think this story was a product of a disney PR push, you don't understand the PR industry. don't feel badly. most don't. but i do this stuff eeeeeevery day. someone like me had his hands all over this.
baymenxpac
Well-Known Member
okay, let me try to explain this in simple terms.
1) most people confuse PR with marketing and/or advertising. while, at times, they work in lock step with one another, they're very different. therefore, many people think they grasp the PR industry when what they really are familiar with is one of the other two aforementioned industries.
2) as a result, you may not get the subtleties and nuance that are in this article that make it about more than just a CBJ refurb.
3) information is the currency used to trade, not money. it's completely unethical for a journalist to take anything from a PR agency or a subject of an article (and when i say journalist, i mean reporters employed by recognized news outlets, not lifestyle bloggers who exist mostly for the perks they get in exchange for their coverage). therefore, this NYT report could have written this story in exchange for a number of things. one could possibly be an exclusive on WDW's next gen roll out.
4) journalists are motivated to publish POPULAR stories. in the world of blogging and online media, clicks (read: traffic, which leads to advertising dollars) hold the power. so if you're a journalist writing a story about one of the world's most beloved companies, you're willing to throw them back a relative puff piece for a bigger story down the line.
5) the times has insane editorial standards. you're not going to get a straight puff piece through. as a result, you're going to need to throw in strawman negative (in this case, refurbs unpopular with fans).
6) once disney is interviewed for this piece, they're going to hand it over to their messaging man, who is slick and paid to give interviews with answers that reiterate company talking points to the media. those points gradually makes you comfortable with some kind of initiative they're trying to implement/change. that's what @WDW1974 is talking about when he says about them making you comfortable with next gen. by showing you that disney is "constantly adjusting to fan reaction," and "shifting with the changing times," consciously or not, it makes you think in your head disney = always looking out for me, always on the cutting edge. whether they are or not.
7) that is part of good brand building. because a company can't force their brand down your throat. the brand is the ultimate reflection of what the mass consumer believe. that's why PR is done through traditional media outlets: it comes from a more legitimate carrier. people inherently don't trust ads. they do inherently trust newspaper articles.
i could go on and on and on and on, but there is your quick PR 521 course for the day.
1) most people confuse PR with marketing and/or advertising. while, at times, they work in lock step with one another, they're very different. therefore, many people think they grasp the PR industry when what they really are familiar with is one of the other two aforementioned industries.
2) as a result, you may not get the subtleties and nuance that are in this article that make it about more than just a CBJ refurb.
3) information is the currency used to trade, not money. it's completely unethical for a journalist to take anything from a PR agency or a subject of an article (and when i say journalist, i mean reporters employed by recognized news outlets, not lifestyle bloggers who exist mostly for the perks they get in exchange for their coverage). therefore, this NYT report could have written this story in exchange for a number of things. one could possibly be an exclusive on WDW's next gen roll out.
4) journalists are motivated to publish POPULAR stories. in the world of blogging and online media, clicks (read: traffic, which leads to advertising dollars) hold the power. so if you're a journalist writing a story about one of the world's most beloved companies, you're willing to throw them back a relative puff piece for a bigger story down the line.
5) the times has insane editorial standards. you're not going to get a straight puff piece through. as a result, you're going to need to throw in strawman negative (in this case, refurbs unpopular with fans).
6) once disney is interviewed for this piece, they're going to hand it over to their messaging man, who is slick and paid to give interviews with answers that reiterate company talking points to the media. those points gradually makes you comfortable with some kind of initiative they're trying to implement/change. that's what @WDW1974 is talking about when he says about them making you comfortable with next gen. by showing you that disney is "constantly adjusting to fan reaction," and "shifting with the changing times," consciously or not, it makes you think in your head disney = always looking out for me, always on the cutting edge. whether they are or not.
7) that is part of good brand building. because a company can't force their brand down your throat. the brand is the ultimate reflection of what the mass consumer believe. that's why PR is done through traditional media outlets: it comes from a more legitimate carrier. people inherently don't trust ads. they do inherently trust newspaper articles.
i could go on and on and on and on, but there is your quick PR 521 course for the day.
flynnibus
Premium Member
Thank you for repeating this.. make sure you don't burst people's bubbles about quotes in Press Releases and who really writes them
WDW1974
Well-Known Member
You're VERY mistaken, Lilly ... or just looking to stir the pot. I don't see what point there is to that when you're flat out wrong.
The show was cut for capacity reasons. Period.
Much like Fantasyland's new areas/attractions were added for capacity reasons.
WDW1974
Well-Known Member
As someone who has worked on both ends of that equation -- THANKS!!!
Even though some of the thickerheads here will choose to believe their own little fantasy about why the story was in the Times.
You want to read some great fantasy, btw, read a bio of Brooks Barnes and his days growing up in a circus (NYT writers have some awesome 'backstories'.)
Pumbas Nakasak
Heading for the great escape.
PR = Psy Ops, there's an agenda behind everything.
RSoxNo1
Well-Known Member
This further points to "adding false value". Added capacity wasn't needed for Country Bear Jamboree. It would be different if guests ever had to wait more than one show to see it.
I really hope that attendance at the Country Bears drops to the point where it's actually accommodating less guests than it was previously. Either that or a well placed electrical shortage requires them to return the show to a longer version.
WDW1974
Well-Known Member
No, I don't think I worded that right (sorry, limited time and I'm busy dealing with social media and the semantics of asking/framing a question).
It wasn't capacity in terms of guests having to wait ... they wanted (Phil Holmes EDICT -- FACT!) more shows per day and therefore higher capacity at Grizzly Hall, which they now have.