Don't wanna be angry, but I am...[Rant]

erasure fan1

Well-Known Member
Todays screen oriented youth are bored with that and want the excitement and reality that screens can simulate.

AA's are amusing the first time you see them, but screens almost automatically immerse them in the story and create a far more exciting and complete immersion.

some young kids enjoy them when they are younger which is why they should never get rid of them completely, but as they age their attention turns to other things.

How are you getting that out of what I said? In fact, I mentioned that there should be both. I just flat out reject the reasoning that screens are an affront to nature. I still enjoy both and always will. I just hate to hear people advocating against not only a reasonable way of entertaining, but one that has been used in theme parks since Mission to the Moon in Disneyland in 1955.
You said only some young kids like them, but when they're older their attention turns. You have been arguing that AAs are only interesting to the older generations. Your only post that you say both, sounds like keep AAs in Fantasyland dark rides, but after that no one one cares. Not many, if any, are advocating no screens. We are advocating balance. If anything, you are the one dismissing the the rise of the resistance style ride that is AA heavy. If you want to say the parks need a good balance between all types of tech, I'm right there with you. But again, this idea that no one cares about AAs except some little kids isn't accurate.

Keep in mind, if you want to talk about the future, and the tech that will keep them on top for theme park rides. Rides that focus on screen based, could have the most trouble in the near future. VR is jumping at leaps and bounds. Why pay all that money to disney when I can actually step into the world I want to immerse myself in. VR gives you control of the screen environment and lets you interact with it. But what screens and VR can't do is put you in a physical environment. The human mind always knows it is looking at a screen, but a good AA and physical set is much more convincing.
 

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
Advertisement
You said only some young kids like them, but when they're older their attention turns. You have been arguing that AAs are only interesting to the older generations. Your only post that you say both, sounds like keep AAs in Fantasyland dark rides, but after that no one one cares. Not many, if any, are advocating no screens. We are advocating balance. If anything, you are the one dismissing the the rise of the resistance style ride that is AA heavy. If you want to say the parks need a good balance between all types of tech, I'm right there with you. But again, this idea that no one cares about AAs except some little kids isn't accurate.

Keep in mind, if you want to talk about the future, and the tech that will keep them on top for theme park rides. Rides that focus on screen based, could have the most trouble in the near future. VR is jumping at leaps and bounds. Why pay all that money to disney when I can actually step into the world I want to immerse myself in. VR gives you control of the screen environment and lets you interact with it. But what screens and VR can't do is put you in a physical environment. The human mind always knows it is looking at a screen, but a good AA and physical set is much more convincing.
That doesn't mean that they should be abolished. It means that times change, tastes change. New technology takes over from past technology. You don't see many people traveling the highways with horse and buggy's anymore do you. As far as virtual reality goes, what does that have to do with anything? That would develop with or without theme park screens. One has nothing to do with the other, but if screens, especially 3D, can't keep up with VR how the hell is the 60 year old technology of animatronics going to pull that off? I still love seeing the old stuff, but I am also a realist and I know that it is old technology. It also isn't anywhere near as impressive as it was when it was first introduced. It is the past. The past is good, but those of us that were more than impressed with animatronics may still be enjoying it as nostalgia, but that is our era nostalgia, not those that are coming of age now. Disney and all the rest must keep up or they will fall to far behind to survive. Besides that what's to say that Screens won't be replaced by a very large version of VR? If one isn't moving forward they are falling back. I also disagree that the Human mind knows it is looking at a screen. That just isn't so anymore then those buildings on main street are all three actual stories high. Our minds are easily fooled.
 

erasure fan1

Well-Known Member
It means that times change, tastes change. New technology takes over from past technology. You don't see many people traveling the highways with horse and buggy's anymore do you.
So you are arguing that new tech needs to take over. And that new tech is screens, that are older than the tech you are saying it needs to replace? I know you like to move the goal posts, so don't tell me the tech has evolved or something, because the same can be said for AAs.
As far as virtual reality goes, what does that have to do with anything? That would develop with or without theme park screens.
Agreed, but your argument is Disney needs to innovate and keep up. And my point with VR is this. Screen tech looks out of date very quick. Home VR already looks better than something like toy story mania. So when you talk about losing a kids interest, why would they beg their parents to go to a theme park if the interactive screens they have at home on their Playstation, xbox or PC, are better? Personally I think kids are smarter than that, and if you build a great ride, no matter the tech, kids or adults will enjoy it.
If one isn't moving forward they are falling back. I also disagree that the Human mind knows it is looking at a screen. That just isn't so anymore then those buildings on main street are all three actual stories high. Our minds are easily fooled.
Ok so what does looking at a physical building using forced perspective have to do with the mind knowing you're looking at a screen. So if the first floor of main street was physical, and the rest was screens, everyone would know. Even if it was in a dark Soundstage. A screen is 2d and as you move, and that is the key on a ride, the screen is always 2d. Your mind easily picks up that you are looking at a picture and not a physical object.
 
Last edited:

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
So you are arguing that new tech needs to take over. And that new tech is screens, that are older than the tech you are saying it needs to replace? I know you like to move the goal posts, so don't tell me the tech has evolved or something, because the same can be said for AAs.
No I'm not arguing anything, I am stating my opinion. My opinion is not the new tech NEEDS to take over I am saying that new Technology WILL take over just like cars replaced horses. Just like you can't delay aging, you cannot stop progress and change and I think it is a waste of time to worry about it.
Agreed, but your argument is Disney needs to innovate and keep up. And my point with VR is this. Screen tech looks out of date very quick. Home VR already looks better than something like toy story mania. So when you talk about losing a kids interest, why would they beg their parents to go to a theme park if the interactive screens they have at home on their Playstation, xbox or PC, are better? Personally I think kids are smarter than that, and if you build a great ride, no matter the tech, kids or adults will enjoy it.
VR has not reached the point of large life size VR on display for everyone to be part of. Screens are, to me, the first steps in that transition just like those tiny lame screens in Mission to the Moon were the beginnings of Animatronics (pre-show) and primitive screens. I can tell you from experience that with the right kind of mind set the brain was tricked, if just for a few minutes into accepting it as reality.
Ok so what does looking at a physical building using forced perspective have to do with the mind knowing you're looking at a screen. So if the first floor of main street was physical, and the rest was screens, everyone would know. Even if it was in a dark Soundstage. A screen is 2d and as you move, and that is the key on a ride, the screen is always 2d. Your mind easily picks up that you are looking at a picture and not a physical object.
Yup, that is right. There is absolutely no difference between the brain being tricked by physical sets or by screens, especially with well done 3D. It doesn't matter that you know that the buildings were built with forced perspective. In spite of that they still look tall don't they? With the truth firmly planted in your brain, they still look large. It is obvious that you don't agree, but that doesn't matter because it is what it is. If you seriously do not want to believe things you won't. Your example isn't anywhere near realistic they are two separate ways of deceiving the mind. Both work physical and screen. Once again it is called the willing suspension of disbelief.
 

Animaniac93-98

Well-Known Member
You are of course correct.

Personally, my old adage is that WDW is so phenomenal that even a WDW that is only half of what it was or ought to be still is great.
There have been moments in recent trips where I did, sadly, feel I didn't belong and wasn't welcome either. :(

I worry that other half will not last much longer. It's a minor miracle that things like Tom Sawyer Island or the Swiss Family Treehouse still exist at all.

The economic collapse of the last few months may spare us from Disney doing much more damage in the short term, but there's still a chance that things just close and are left to rot in plain sight.
 

spock8113

Active Member
I think many people have this sentiment. There's a lot of denial and ignoring what is right in your face these days.
Disney's changed since Iger got in and I agree, it hasn't had the Disney continuity, just propping up stocks and ensuring dividends continue to pay off as we pay out. Even their animations department has been so-so lately with a few good ones mixed in with some duds like Mars Needs Moms and John Carter. Even their "souvenirs" are getting cheaper and are more knock-off than ever. And YES, many are made in China. So how is that putting America First? It's not; because the bottom line supersedes that old and worn out adage.
And don't get me started on the new hotels that look more like Biff's Pleasure Palace. Self-proclaimed megalopolis's, ruining the relatively flat Disney landscape. I haven't been to Disney in 5 years and I don't see myself going back anytime soon, not only because of the construction or the numerous rides being closed but the high prices I'd be paying to get COVID. Too soon and not that desperate!
Is this a RANT? Nope, because my caps lock is broken.
 

Attachments

  • OIP.jpg
    OIP.jpg
    15.3 KB · Views: 9

eliza61nyc

Well-Known Member
No disrespect but i don’t understand these comments. If you dont like something dont go or support. If i go to a restaurant and it used to be great but the last 5 times tastes like cat food, dont go back. Find somewhere else to enjoy and spend your money. Lifes too short and theres a world to explore.
I definitely think a lot of folks are way more invested in Disney than I am. but I do also acknowledge that maybe if I went during these "golden" days I would see this terrible decline, who knows.
The layoffs while sad certainly didn't surprise me or depress me. has no one noticed the 10 of thousands of other people that have been laid off (including myself for two months) around the country? Disney is not on some magical island immune to the rest of the nation and the effects of this virus
I too am like you@ppete1975, there have been a number of places I've gone that have changed so I simply don't go back.

my last 4 trips to the mouse world were fabulous, no dirty rooms, no overflowing trash cans, have no problem with IP in the parks at all, just really great trips. We were definitely disappointed to not be able to go and are hoping that things are a little better by next September
 

The Empress Lilly

Well-Known Member
I worry that other half will not last much longer. It's a minor miracle that things like Tom Sawyer Island or the Swiss Family Treehouse still exist at all.

The economic collapse of the last few months may spare us from Disney doing much more damage in the short term, but there's still a chance that things just close and are left to rot in plain sight.
It will be interesting to see what lasting effect the pandemic will have on WDW.

For the first time in forty years Disney is not awash with cash. There are now actual financial worries, instead of the imaginary ones of fanboi apologists of old. The parks now are a liability instead of an ATM. Grim scenarios are possible.

But for a contrary consideration, for the past ten years or so many of the creatively poor decisions that so diminished the WDW experience have been the result of too much money rather than too little. WDW rode a global explosion in tourism. Every hot-spot on earth became overrun. WDW could insult, extort, humiliate its customers and still be packed. This might be over, at least for a number of years rather than the 'blink of an eye' tourism crises of 2001 and 2009.

A WDW that needs to work for a living again might be a blessing in disguise.
 

erasure fan1

Well-Known Member
It will be interesting to see what lasting effect the pandemic will have on WDW.

For the first time in forty years Disney is not awash with cash. There are now actual financial worries, instead of the imaginary ones of fanboi apologists of old. The parks now are a liability instead of an ATM. Grim scenarios are possible.

But for a contrary consideration, for the past ten years or so many of the creatively poor decisions that so diminished the WDW experience have been the result of too much money rather than too little. WDW rode a global explosion in tourism. Every hot-spot on earth became overrun. WDW could insult, extort, humiliate its customers and still be packed. This might be over, at least for a number of years rather than the 'blink of an eye' tourism crises of 2001 and 2009.

A WDW that needs to work for a living again might be a blessing in disguise.
My gut tells me they'll continue to push the boundaries with pricing and cutting things even when we are at a more normal time. History has taught them they can pretty well do what they want to the customer experience and people still come in hordes. Post covid will that continue? I guess we'll see. But you are right on. A Disney that needs to try again, would be a great thing.
 
Last edited:

KBLovesDisney

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
I think my love of Disney has stayed on the version of what did exist instead of what it is now and the future of the place.

Sadly, before and during this pandemic my thoughts of the theme parks has gone up and very much down (check the beginning and middle of this thread). I was one of many who became very depressed that they closed their parks due to the pandemic, but was proud of them for doing so.

However, after watching them try to get by by trying to get people back in the parks during a continuing deadly virus has me questioning where the business moral bar sits versus the safety of others, whether it is the people visiting or their own CMs.

Even now watching live streams...the Disney-feels have begun to leave me. This didn't happen before.

Yes, I am sure there is another thread blogger out there screaming at their computer screen getting ready to type "If you don't like it, then don't go", but I assure you to the veteran visitors of the parks, those words are not that simple.

All in all, I have come to the conclusion that I am still angry at the company. Do I feel bad for the impact this virus has had? Of course. But this has long been in the works when I traveled to the parks before and had to keep telling myself 'but it is Disney'.

I don't like the direction the parks have gone and are still going.

It doesn't really feel...Disney.
 

_caleb

Well-Known Member
I worry that other half will not last much longer. It's a minor miracle that things like Tom Sawyer Island or the Swiss Family Treehouse still exist at all.

The economic collapse of the last few months may spare us from Disney doing much more damage in the short term, but there's still a chance that things just close and are left to rot in plain sight.
Man, the last few posts of yours I've seen have been pretty negative about the parks. You've never been afraid to provide a contrarian opinion, but I don't know. Did something happen that turned you sour (more than usual, I mean)?
 

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
The only factor that all the critics are leaving out is that there is a freaking Pandemic all around the world. This isn't something that any theme park has had to deal with. The last one was in 1919. Almost no one were even able to leave their yard back then. But the idea is Disney is a hero for closing down (I think it was the state the mandated that) and now they are the villain for opening back up again and trying to blame it on Chap and Iger with poor management has no logic to it at all. Ask yourselves what would you do. Do you think that there is some magic formula that will allow a company to continue to pay expenses that would make us faint with no income. Aren't those without jobs having trouble even keeping their heads above water? And we are talking about just a tiny fraction of what Disney expenses are.

Until this hit, they had the peddle to the metal building and investing in the parks. Now because people cannot get there easily they are bad managers. Man I'm glad I never worked for most of you.
 

NelleBelle

Well-Known Member
The only factor that all the critics are leaving out is that there is a freaking Pandemic all around the world. This isn't something that any theme park has had to deal with. The last one was in 1919. Almost no one were even able to leave their yard back then. But the idea is Disney is a hero for closing down (I think it was the state the mandated that) and now they are the villain for opening back up again and trying to blame it on Chap and Iger with poor management has no logic to it at all. Ask yourselves what would you do. Do you think that there is some magic formula that will allow a company to continue to pay expenses that would make us faint with no income. Aren't those without jobs having trouble even keeping their heads above water? And we are talking about just a tiny fraction of what Disney expenses are.

Until this hit, they had the peddle to the metal building and investing in the parks. Now because people cannot get there easily they are bad managers. Man I'm glad I never worked for most of you.
I think people had issues with Disney's management, specifically with Chapek and Iger for years. From the way the parks were neglected for years (lookin' at you WDW) to allow for billions to be spent on Shanghai. Unfair wages for CMs. It was many things.

My issue is with Disney executives, specifically Chap/Iger, was in the beginning of all this, they made promises that they would take salary cuts...most execs took only 20-30% cuts; Chapek gives up 50%; Iger was the only one to give up 100% of his salary for the year, until you look closer. The execs' salaries went back into effect the end of August. Iger only gave up his salary for the "fiscal" year, which ends in Sept. If you're going to appear like you're actually making a sacrifice for your company, why don't you actually do it!!! A true example of this is the CEO of Southwest Airlines who actually gave up his salary until the end of next year.

I do applaud the parks opening, if only as an example of how things can be done safely! I understand the unfortunate layoffs and grieve for everyone who finds themselves in this horrible situation. But if I were a CM who had been part of the round of layoffs and learned that executives resumed their multi-million dollar salaries, I'd be extremely hurt and upset, especially when you see companies like Southwest who are having their employees take a voluntary cut in pay to avoid furloughs and layoffs, with the CEO taking the biggest pay-cut! I'd at least have felt they were trying to do something.
 

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
I think people had issues with Disney's management, specifically with Chapek and Iger for years. From the way the parks were neglected for years (lookin' at you WDW) to allow for billions to be spent on Shanghai. Unfair wages for CMs. It was many things.

My issue is with Disney executives, specifically Chap/Iger, was in the beginning of all this, they made promises that they would take salary cuts...most execs took only 20-30% cuts; Chapek gives up 50%; Iger was the only one to give up 100% of his salary for the year, until you look closer. The execs' salaries went back into effect the end of August. Iger only gave up his salary for the "fiscal" year, which ends in Sept. If you're going to appear like you're actually making a sacrifice for your company, why don't you actually do it!!! A true example of this is the CEO of Southwest Airlines who actually gave up his salary until the end of next year.

I do applaud the parks opening, if only as an example of how things can be done safely! I understand the unfortunate layoffs and grieve for everyone who finds themselves in this horrible situation. But if I were a CM who had been part of the round of layoffs and learned that executives resumed their multi-million dollar salaries, I'd be extremely hurt and upset, especially when you see companies like Southwest who are having their employees take a voluntary cut in pay to avoid furloughs and layoffs, with the CEO taking the biggest pay-cut! I'd at least have felt they were trying to do something.
Just like every other thing having to do with business management, the board of directors are the ones that choose and approve executive salaries and compensation as well as having influence in what the rest of the lower echelon makes. Share holders elect the Board. Logically, if less money is going to the executives the more that is available down the line but it won't ever get that far. The whole idea started with the ridiculousness of "trickle down". I JUST DOESN'T HAPPEN! Seems like a good idea but it is useless. People are greedy and self centered. There isn't a person or talent worth the money these clowns get paid. But society has allowed it to happen because the ruling class, the involved class are the beneficiaries of the blocked trickle down artery. Nothing works fairly without ethical behavior.
 
Last edited:

KBLovesDisney

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
Wow. Just, wow.

There went the heart of Disney for me.

sad youtube GIF by Hyper RPG


No longer angry, no. Now just appalled and depressed.
 

IanDLBZF

Well-Known Member
The only factor that all the critics are leaving out is that there is a freaking Pandemic all around the world. This isn't something that any theme park has had to deal with. The last one was in 1919. Almost no one were even able to leave their yard back then.
You do know there were a number of flu pandemics prior to COVID (1957, 1968, and 2009) that I’m sure Disney HAD to get through.
 

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
You do know there were a number of flu pandemics prior to COVID (1957, 1968, and 2009) that I’m sure Disney HAD to get through.
Not this caliber there wasn't. I'll guarantee you that Polio was foremost on our minds in the 50s and I don't recall any unusual one in 68, and I was in college and in the service during the first and last parts of those years. 2009??? Nope don't remember that one. There are flu's and there are flu pandemic. Those two are not the same thing. There is a flu that goes around every year. This is flu season and the reason why we get flu shots every year. This is a whole nother animal that the world hasn't seen since 1917, 103 years ago.
 

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

Top Bottom