I was challenged on the question. You guys prove how irrational you are. The education that you require is knowing what the story is instead of inventing an outrage over consent. Interesting that no one here offered an reimagining or even a discussion about reimagining. There is none. It eviscerates the Snow White movie.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News Disneyland to give Snow White’s Scary Adventures dark ride a major facelift in 2020
- Thread starter Communicora
- Start date
George Lucas on a Bench
Well-Known Member
Remember when Reimagining was primarily associated with a Tim Burton quote regarding his awful remake of Planet of the Apes? I haven't seen the word really connected to anything good since.
Put me down as one of those irrational looneys you seem to always be arguing with. Sure are a lot of us who don't know what we're talking about!!
Disney Analyst
Well-Known Member
I noticed the pit on Justin's video and kept meaning to post it here, seems like the way they are doing it is the pit and mirrors.
chadwpalm
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- No
It's actually not a pit.......but I'm going to put the rest of this post in spoiler tags just in case.
What you think is a pit is actually a reflection of the opening to the tunnel you are looking through. @yensidtlaw1969 is correct, the tunnel is going up, not down. The mirror is tilted in a way where the top part is farther from the viewer than the bottom part at a 45-degree angle. I've used white arrows to indicate the edge of the mirror. The yellow lines are pairing up the same jewels with the upper ones being in eyesight and the lower ones the reflections.
Castle Cake Apologist
Well-Known Member
Wow, that is truly a brilliant little piece of Imagineering. I LOVE physical illusions like this so much.
So, to be sure I fully understand...
the real physical tunnel goes up above the "tunnel entrance" cutout, which has an angled mirror set inside it reflecting the physical tunnel. So, if we were able to see "down" inside the "pit" at the tunnel entrance, we the riders would be "inside it," as it is actually a reflection of the opening out into the ride envelope? That's so well done!
chadwpalm
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- No
You got it!
Castle Cake Apologist
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure how many different ways you have to be told that we're not specifically talking about Snow White or the ride, before you understand that we're not specifically talking about Snow White or the ride. You know how people keep telling you that you don't seem to even understand the conversation we're having? That's because every time you're told that this isn't specifically about the new scene in Snow White, you insist on continuing to go on and on about "cancel culture" trying to "cancel" Snow White. Why?
I know this discussion must be easier for you if you're able to keep arguing over and over with the same limited irrelevant points you think you have about situations that don't exist, but you're legitimately not even having the same conversation as the rest of us, and it's incredibly frustrating that you continue to insist on either playing dumb or just flat out refuse to understand what we're talking about. This really seems to be a trend with your posts (not just in this thread), which seems to cause frequent arguments with other posters, so at a certain point it starts to come across as trolling.
Either figure out what we're talking about, or stop responding. At this point, you're not worth continuing to engage with.
I know this is hard for you, but I'm not specifically talking about Snow White or the Ride when I'm talking about Cancel Culture and Consent. And then you have to say we are also not talking about "about "cancel culture" trying to "cancel" Snow White" when that is exactly what the article was saying and it was brought up again like a record that repeats itself. Then you come around and say that is not what is being discussed when it is. I'm not fooled by a misdirect.
Between the discussions about cancel culture and consent, people were talking about kissing their own wives when they were sleeping and that is okay without asking for consent. Evidently, this is okay topic. YAWN.
Okay Topic. LOL.Lmao I'm married, but okay!
Like @raven24 has pointed out several times, lack of consent isn't always a terrible thing, but kissing somebody without asking is indeed non-consensual. I'm on the same page though, that consent doesn't necessarily always have to be verbally given either. Sometimes you can indeed tell when the moment is right and it's okay, but you should never just grab somebody and kiss them out of the blue.
And whyyyy is everybody still going on and on about cancel culture?? The article that started this discussion never called for anything to be canceled, and I'm pretty sure that absolutely nobody in this thread has either. It's so wild that this is the only way some people here know how to have a discussion, with stupid insults and straw men.
yensidtlaw1969
Well-Known Member
We haven't offered a reimagining because we know that two things can be true at the same time - Snow White can inspire a useful conversation about consent, and the scene in the ride need not be changed. And what's more, you and I both know full well the ride WON'T be changed. Disney JUST opened it and isn't about to redo it.
You're digging your heels into the idea that anyone is outraged over consent in the Snow White ride - even the original writer wasn't outraged. And neither are we. Raising a point and having a conversation is not the same as demanding removal. And even if it WERE in this case, Disney isn't gonna listen anyway. So why not calm down?
You're fighting a ghost of your own making. What a waste of energy.
Last edited:
CaptinEO
Well-Known Member
How about a useful conversation about fiction vs reality?
You don't think I need to answer a challenge? That's like someone getting mad at me for not responding and then saying it's all in my head. You guys are playing mind games and I'm not amused.
Someone is certainly outraged and it's not me. Take it up with the challenger if you still remember that fool (el_super). You're the waste of energy to keep bringing up the article and saying it isn't what I can read clearly word for word that it's cancel culture.
You don't need to change the ride because the ride and the movie has nothing to do with consent. Sparking a discussion on consent is the waste of energy. Anyone who knows the story knows Snow White was presumed DEAD. She is incapable of giving consent. I gave two edited photos that can clear up the confusion. She's at her tomb.
Last edited:
Professortango1
Well-Known Member
If Disney decided to rework the Dumbo ride with jive-talking crows named after Minstrel Show characters, I think some people would point out that its an odd choice considering the ride doesn't need that and that its problematic for a modern audience. Nothing wrong with people pointing out that the new unneeded additions to an old ride feel out of place in a modern theme park.
yensidtlaw1969
Well-Known Member
I mean - literally you don't HAVE to do anything, you could have ignored them, but that wasn't my problem. I don't care if you feel like you're being challenged by another poster. The issue was that the tone of the "solution" you proposed was clearly dismissive and not constructive. Why even answer at all, at that point.
No one's playing mind games with you. My goodness. The main point is that EVEN IF the writer from SFGate WAS trying to "cancel Snow White's Enchanted Wish", NOBODY has been emboldened by her writing to join in any crusade. EVEN IF she wanted the scene gutted and redone, she was just as defeated before any of the people up in arms about the headlines added their 2 cents. The ride isn't changing again, the scene isn't going anywhere, and the belief that it should change again is held by literally a handful of people at MOST. Insignificant. Negligible.
So why keep "fighting" to keep something from happening that was never going to happen? Why keep shouting down an opinion that was basically invented by poorly-written headlines?
It’s called a rebuttal to your defense of a ridiculous article. You defended it numerous times. I don’t even know how to characterize your current opinion of it.
yensidtlaw1969
Well-Known Member
I didn't "defend" the article. I've been clear about my opinion of it. If you don't know how to characterize that then I don't know what to tell you.
Perhaps you have nothing better to do with your day than spin your wheels on this, but I do. Feel free to keep tripping over daisies.
mickEblu
Well-Known Member
Nope. Must be verbal consent. Preferably written in stone if at all possible
mickEblu
Well-Known Member
They re all over the place. Snow White the ride and the movie are fine and neither have a consent issue and they apparently don’t agree with the article but are up in arms when we condemn the article and are upset we don’t want to use Snow White the ride (which they say is fine) as a ridiculous platform for teaching our kids about consent. Then in addition want to minimize these article as some one off thing when we know news outlets are reporting about it. At that point it doesn’t matter where it originated and begins to spiral out of control.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
It spirals out of control because people react to headlines the way you did, with outrage, instead of a simple acknowledgement of a criticism that is not new.