deleted

KINGLOUIS1993

Well-Known Member
That was actually about language. someone got offended because we said some of the rides at disney were older than a "he who should not be named". evidently even mentioning the name of a deity is offensive. go figure. that led to a discussion about Political correctness and sensitivity. it never was about religion truly.

usually around the 5th or 6th page of a thread it always veers off topic.

Haha great post match analysis! I just saw some bits about **** and thought that is a debate I do not want to be involved in.

I can't wait for a forum for avid fans of The Holy Land Experience ;)

But in all seriousness I often use language or references people may find offensive but genuinely I mean no harm, I love everyone really!
 

JohnD

Well-Known Member
People don't care about the wonders and details of indoor plumbing until they find themselves in a house without a working bathroom too. How about Disney gets rid of their bathrooms, they're just taking up space right? How about not more trashcans -- what's more boring that a trashcan!? How about queue lines, those are incredibly boring to stand in and we all hate waiting in line -- why not just let people line up wherever they want and sprawl the big boring line throughout the park for everyone to bump into. And traffic lights and stop signs. Who likes to wait at traffic lights and stop at stop signs? Just make the entire road system of the resort the Wild Wild West where everyone has to suck it up and driving around a madhouse -- wouldn't want boring traffic lights taking up the park's time.

I recently saw Blue Man Group. They did a bit on our interconnectedness. We're all linked together world wide. You think it's its maybe the world wide web, the Internet, Social Media? Nope. It's plumbing.
 

xdan0920

Think for yourselfer
That was actually about language. someone got offended because we said some of the rides at disney were older than a "he who should not be named". evidently even mentioning the name of a deity is offensive. go figure. that led to a discussion about Political correctness and sensitivity. it never was about religion truly.

usually around the 5th or 6th page of a thread it always veers off topic.
Typically it goes off topic when you open your big mouth and tell us all personal anecdotes about your life that have nothing to do with anything. 🤷‍♂️
 

xdan0920

Think for yourselfer
Woah dude. Come on. It's not a big deal to tell personal stories.
It’s not. Actually none of this is a big deal. It’s a WDW forum after all. However in the context of a WDW forum, it’s pretty aggravating to have every thread be about one posters personal life.
 

Demarke

Have I told you lately that I 👍 you?
Premium Member
I agree with you on most of your points... they should definitely continue to make non IP attractions. To me, that has defined Disney just as much as the movies. With RR, I think that the main point was to make Mickey’s first attraction the focal point of the “retheming” of Hollywood Studios. I would’ve loved to see GMR get updated rather than removed, but I can see Disney’s logic for why they removed it; I just don’t like it. And I believe that the reason that they’re leaning on IPs more is the competition from parks such as Universal. Disney still controls the theme park industry for the most part, but Universal is becoming increasingly popular, and they solely use IPs. Families that make these once-in-a-lifetime trips may be weighing which resort gives their children more familiar characters and content. If Disney hadn’t started making the IP push, some may start to believe that they were falling behind. Hopefully after the 50th anniversary, WDI will spend a few years developing non-IP attractions after this massive splurge on IP attractions.
I don’t disagree with giving Mickey an iconic/focal point location for a ride, but if you’re doing that, why not use an iconic version of the character? I get that the “edgy” look is the new thing, but that seems more like fad than icon status. The look of the new characters just strike me as what someone trying to draw edgy satire would make them look like and Goofy looks like he has a meth problem.
349000
 
Last edited:

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
Widely known that Ub Iwerks actually invented Mickey. Tons of documentation, books, and other research on this. You’ll find articles if you google a bit.
Ub fleshed out Mickey. But, even if he did come up with the idea, he was an employee of Walt Disney. That's the way it works, BTW, I have never heard it put that way before. That isn't stealing if it happened, which every indication I have, contradicts that statement. You can't steal from your own company. Walt Disney's name was on everything produced by Disney Bros. and later Walt Disney Company.
 

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
I said "arguably" on purpose. Regardless, my understanding is that it is a bit more complicated than that. For example, is everything an employee does (even in his/her spare time) the property of the Company they work for? No. Read some of the books and come up with your own opinion (or it sounds like you already have). Different people can disagree, and we will never really know for sure.

Just one opinion:
In about the third paragraph of that it was stated that they were brainstorming and WALT suggested a mouse. That's the creation point. Ub worked for Walt as an animator and formed the body and looks of the mouse that was to eventually be Mickey. There is no mistaking that even if the story about coming up with it on the train, which by the way was confirmed by Walt's wife, Lillian. She also was the one that talking him out of calling the character Mortimer and suggested Mickey, also confirmed by her. The character was created before a single drawing hit the paper. So if you want to say that Walt came up with the character and Ub made it a physical drawing that would be closer to correct, but, like I said... When you employ someone to draw a picture of something that you suggest that doesn't mean that artist created anymore then a visual image that then was approved by the boss, one Walter E. Disney. How that get twisted into he stole it from Ub is a mystery to me. Does that mean that he also stole, Donald Duck, Daisy Duck, Minnie Mouse, Goofy, Pluto and the other assorted cartoon characters in the Disney Inventory?
 

The Empress Lilly

Well-Known Member
You said you you've "never heard it put that way" and so I showed one example of it being put that way. You are quoting stories that I have heard as well, and I also know other stories are out there that paint a very different picture... in the end you won't be convinced that you are wrong and I accept that. I don't know what the truth is, all I know is that it is alleged that Walt essentially stole the idea for Mickey from Ub Iwerks and I've put up an example of someone else, besides me, saying that.

Whether or not he did or didn't is probably matter of opinion.. my view is that if someone came up with an idea for something/invented something then they should be given credit for it (regardless of who the legal owner is), but regardless, one thing is certain: the company has been extremely careful to cultivate an certain image of Walt over many decades. They commissioned/edited books, repeated stories, created employees trainings, created all sorts of other content, and done everything possible to bolster the man.... THIS was a marketing decision made to generate profits... historical accuracy has never been the priority.
Me I've heard rumours that Walt is already dead despite the company trying to convince the audience he filmed the latest Marvel movie all on his own by putting Disney's name on it.
 

KDM31091

Well-Known Member
People don't care about the Epcot FW pavilions now because, with the exception of Spaceship Earth and I'll throw in Living With the Land as its a personal fave, they honestly are trash. No care has been put into maintaining FW and it shows badly. Test Track is a snooze now, Mission Space is meh, Seas offers nothing exciting, and the new Soarin is an inferior CGI extravaganza to its predecessor, while the current Imagination is horrendous and deserves to be ripped out and put to the history books. There is nothing inspiring about Future World anymore. I would love to see the direction of FW go back to its glory days but it ain't happening. Its fine to be upset at the basic tastes of the new fans, but really the blame should only be placed with Disney....not the fans the Company has conditioned to accept the "new"

Yes, unfortunately, as much as I like the classic Epcot, the fact is that Future World as it stands is embarrassing. It probably should just be all torn out and started over (except Spaceship Earth). There is no cohesive theme, no backstory, and no purpose. But as stated earlier in the thread, the majority don't care. Build popular IP attractions and people come.

We are a devoted subset of fans who like things the classic way, but Disney will ultimately do whatever is going to make them the most money. Appealing to masses with easily recognized IP seems to be the way they want to go, and obviously it's working for them. I don't like it any more than anyone else, but from a business POV, it's selling and selling well. As stated in other threads, crowds are almost never light anymore.

I wish we could see things restored, like Imagination, but I just don't think Disney feels there's enough of a market.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom