Does Michael Jackson belong at WDW?

[parkgoer]

Lets be honest his records were criminal.

Cha'Mone


Bo Selecta

....lol..?

 

[stlbobby]

Ok, prove the first one. To me, it seems as though the only way to bring MJ's baggage with him is if you bring it yourself. So I would like proof that because MJ is at WDW, his baggage has come with him. I have yet to hear of any accusations that EO came out of the screen and touched a small boy, but I have not been up to the office in a few days. Maybe I will hear about it tomorrow when I get to work. But even so, I'd still like to see your proof.

Second, don't tell me what I'm trying to do and what I'm not trying to do. You want to attack me so you're going to percieve my post as a threat to everyone else. I'm trying to be civil, but you keep trying to force upon me that I am not and are attempting to start a fight. But I hold myself on a much higher level, so you're wasting your time.

Third, I am participating. It may not be how you like it, and it may not be your opinion, but it is participation. I merely made a point, but because you don't agree with my point, you are accusing me of berating the other posters, which I do not come here for. You are the one doing the berating, and it is of my posts and opinions.

Fourth, apparently you have not been around and just joined the other day. There have been numerous threads about MJ being in WDW. Just because you don't want to believe it, does not mean it is not true. You're making yourself out to be very ignorant because you want badly to be correct about this.

Finally, your comments have slowly degraded into attacks upon me and my posts because they do not agree with your opinion. I am not sorry I do not agree with you but I do feel sorry for you because you refuse to acknowledge simple truths. But that's ok, we welcome all types at WDW. I appreciate your concern about me, but I don't need your pity. It is better used on yourself. For future reference, I would like you to think about using the search button in the forums. That way situations like this will not happen to you again.

The fact that this debate has raged for days is proof that the baggage comes with MJ. Even his most ardent supports on these boards admit there is an issue, they may not agree, but they recognize there is an issue.

I will repeat this for the last time. This is the only board dedicated to the MJ controversies. The other boards are dedicated to the attraction itself and the posters on those threads contend the controversy does not belong in those threads, so this thread was created.

I am not trying to tell you what you are trying to do. I am citing what you actually did. You jumped in and attacked people for even discussing the issue and starting a new thread.

All I have done is question why you decided to read and participate in a thread that you yourself stated was irrelevant. A question you have yet to answer.

The only opinion you have offered is that this thread shouldn't exist, I never attacked that position I only questioned your motives. I have not personally attacked you and you have been far from civil.

If MJ really did touch those kids, yea, that's horrible. But you know what? Constantly bringing this up is worse.....You people are keeping the horror of what he did alive by constantly bringing it up.

EO is a part of WDW and Epcot history. You can't erase history, no matter how ugly it is. And if you attempt to, you oughta be shot...... Don't try to make yourself feel better about your decision by trying to get everyone else on your side. If you make that choice, stand with it, and stop yelling it out to everyone else.

Those are attacks on the posters of the thread and come directly from your original post. You were not offing opinions on the subject at hand you were berating people for expressing their opinion.

The final sad word is that someone who comes to a Disney discussion group stir up trouble, lash out at people, and start arguments is worthy of nothing but my pity, so this is the last you will get from me.

 

[misterID]

The first kid who accused him described Michael's nether regions and was completely wrong... On everything. And like what was mentioned before, the guy put his son under sedation with a drug that was used by therapists who were implanting phoney traumatic events into their patients. The second kid was a proved liar as was his family.

Steven Tyler had a 13-year-old girlfriend who lived with him while he made Toys In The Attic.

Tommy Kirk had a relationship with a 14-15-year-old boy during his Golden Age of Disney run. And Walt himself hired him (after firing him) for a film after HE KNEW what was going on because he was personally confronted by the boys mother who caught Tommy and her son... doing stuff... and she threatened to expose it.

Unless you want to start protesting Disney for selling Old Yeller and Swiss Family Robinson, just drop it already.

 

[Mr. Morrow]

The first kid who accused him described Michael's nether regions and was completely wrong... On everything. And like what was mentioned before, the guy put his son under sedation with a drug that was used by therapists who were implanting phoney traumatic events into their patients. The second kid was a proved liar as was his family.

Steven Tyler had a 13-year-old girlfriend who lived with him while he made Toys In The Attic.

Tommy Kirk had a relationship with a 14-15-year-old boy during his Golden Age of Disney run. And Walt himself hired him (after firing him) for a film after HE KNEW what was going on because he was personally confronted by the boys mother who caught Tommy and her son... doing stuff... and she threatened to expose it.

Unless you want to start protesting Disney for selling Old Yeller and Swiss Family Robinson, just drop it already.

Agreed I said it earlier everyone that has accused him has either been proven a liar or not been very credible.

 

[Timekeeper]

TUnless you want to start protesting Disney for selling Old Yeller and Swiss Family Robinson, just drop it already.

You mean to tell me that some people are blinded by their own prejudices, bias, and hypocrisy? Say it ain't so!

You hit the nail on the head. :sohappy: Now, what was that old saying about casting the first stone...

 

[fosse76]

I think the Californians (i.e. Disneyland) responded much more positively than visitors to Epcot are likely to. It's a different "crowd," so to speak.

Disneyland is a "locals" park, so nostalgia is strong. WDW is a one-time-only or a "casual" (i.e., once every few years, if that) tourist destination, so the nostalgia factor is removed. On its own (and even by 1986 standards), Captain Eo is horrendous. So to bring back something no one was clamoring to see is a wasted opportunity. Although, WDW has substantially more foreign visitors than Disneyland, and foreignors love Michael Jackson. But again, bringing back a 20-year-old film that isn't even good is going to be lost on even them.

 

[Timekeeper]

But again, bringing back a 20-year-old film that isn't even good is going to be lost on even them.

Therein lays the beauty of subjectivity and opinion, my friend. Determining whether art is "good" or "bad" is as subjective a topic as they come. I mean, did Hurt Locker really deserve the Oscar over Avatar? Hmmm....:brick:

Also, whether something as entertainment value is not necessarily the same as whether it's good or bad. I think we can all agree that Jungle Cruise skipper script is filled with nothing but "bad" jokes, but it's entertaining nevertheless.

 

[Martian Crab]

I saw Captain EO the first time around and it seemed wrong then...this feeling hasn't mellowed with time. To me the re-release of this movie shows how the Disney Company has changed from an innovator to bottom-feeder. They distanced themselves from this "man" when he was alive (and rightfully so) and then a year after his death they embrace him because there is a cheap buck to be made. Futureworld is even more an ironic title, now.

 

[unkadug]

I saw Captain EO the first time around and it seemed wrong then...this feeling hasn't mellowed with time. To me the re-release of this movie shows how the Disney Company has changed from an innovator to bottom-feeder. They distanced themselves from this "man" when he was alive (and rightfully so) and then a year after his death they embrace him because there is a cheap buck to be made. Futureworld is even more an ironic title, now.

My point EXACTLY.

 

[copcarguyp71]

:ROFLOL::ROFLOL::ROFLOL::ROFLOL::ROFLOL::ROFLOL::ROFLOL:

I crack myself up sometimes.

 

[Martian Crab]

Which MJ album had that cover?

 

[unkadug]

Which MJ album had that cover?

Michell Jackson's Journey to Hell

It had a limited release in Hades.

 

[Martian Crab]

Was the single "Jesusjuice4juveniles"?:veryconfu

 

[Mammymouse]

I have been trying to read through all these posts to get to the end and I gave up by page 5. All I want to say is I didn't get why Disney had the first Capt EO show way back when. I just didn't get the obsession with him. Then it dawned on me about the international popularity he had at the time and it made sense. But because his life became so publicly bizarre and the allegations that were flying around in recent years I just thought he now would be kryptonite to Disney. My first thought when I heard it was coming back was - heck Disney won't even sell lottery tickets at the Hess gas stations on their property because of the gambling image - but MJ is okay? Just a thought.

 

[VeggiFruitFruit]

This thread seems to have lost any sense on intellectual discourse.

Are you saying the three questions you won't answer are stupid questions?

That is an easy way out of the discourse. They are not as irrelevant to the original post as you might think. At least you answer that you do think it is OK to say something is "wrong" when you see it. That's all half of us are doing with EO.

 

[Horizonsfan]

Better question:

Does Walt belong at WDW? There are accusations he was anti-semitic.:lookaroun


This thread is just an echo chamber at this point.

 

[Mr. Morrow]

Close the thread it is tied and that's what I figured it would be.

 

[VeggiFruitFruit]

Unless you want to start protesting Disney for selling Old Yeller and Swiss Family Robinson, just drop it already.

Hmmm... Thanks. Good point. I didn't know this about these movies, and probably won't watch them now.

The books are much better than the movies anyway.

In all seriousness, we all have to draw the line somewhere. We have to say for ourselves which entertainment is good and bad and only allow ourselves to watch what makes the cut. Right?

I simply choose not to (as Disney has done) implicitly support a "bad" hero on the screen.

 

[disneyrcks]

Yikes...this was an interesting thread with many good points but it is getting a little hostile

 

[Walt Disney1955]

So no Rod Serling on ToT?:shrug:

Well he didn't exactly have any controversy swirling around him either. Plus with him on the ride it gives the theme a little more of a "black and white" feel