Tom Morrow
Well-Known Member
A bunch of these people have registered within the last few months and 90% of their posts are about how "bad" Galaxy's Edge is.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News Expose reveals WDC control in online fan community
- Thread starter tirian
- Start date
wdwtopten
Well-Known Member
You think Disney is paying people to post negative stories in this forum...about Disney? Seems like a stretch to me.
Also, I greatly prefer Disney Parks to Universal Parks, but it isn't hard to look at the last 2 lands that Universal has made (Hogsmeade and Diagon Alley) and concede that they are better than (or at least as good as) new Fantasy Land, Avatar, and the current Galaxy's Edge. I'm not sure I 100% believe it myself, but I wouldn't argue too hard with someone who had the opinion.
Last edited:
willtravel
Well-Known Member
I will openly admit I have not followed what is happening (all) to Epcot or should I say the new improved Epcot, but this statement makes me a little concerned on what it will eventually turn out to be. Especially when you said "suppose to be there".
Tom Morrow
Well-Known Member
Again, did you read the article in the OP? Because what I'm saying is exactly in line with what the article is alleging. I can't prove that all these new negative posters are paid shills or not, but the timing of their registrations and their clear agendas certainly makes it suspicious.
I agree that Diagon and Hogsmeade are as good as Disney's efforts. I don't believe they are tremendously better, though, but you have people in here saying Diagon has more to do than Galaxy's Edge, when, when all is finished, Galaxy's Edge will have more stuff to do that doesn't cost additional money.
Paid? No.
Actively encouraged? Possibly.
During my time, people in my department checked fan forums every single time we launched something, and our leaders told us to do so. But we were looking for feedback. As far as I know, none of my coworkers attempted to direct conversations.
In the early days, Disney banned CMs from participating in online forums until Legal told them it was protected by Free Speech laws. Then it became a matter of not claiming to represent the company.
If the PR department was trying to direct online conversations in the early 2000s, they absolutely would’ve gone through elaborate ghostwriting methods to avoid being directly linked. Heck, the Disney Blog only exists because of the popularity of MiceChat, WDWMagic, and the CreepyDisBoards (my name for it).
But I want to reiterate that I have no idea whether that column is true.
Those were primarily CMs and a big reason Disney shut the place down. I was...very close to that situation (and very sad about it).
You can get a good idea by checking out who follows the legit newsmakers here, because they make sure they can chime in and disagree whenever a knowledgeable fan posts something the corporate line doesn’t like. (Of course, plenty of innocent people follow too; just check to see who’s compelled to defend a faceless corporate conglomerate.)
At one point, when Snyder — I mean, WDW1974 — was here, he attracted a group that constantly tried to counteract every critical thing he posted. Yet he had legit inside sources and info, and the shills were scrambling to cover everything he exposed.
Alas, his in-your-face writing style didn’t help him win favors.
_caleb
Well-Known Member
It's funny, my suspicions are tending to fall the other way (as the article claimed)– that those who are all super negative about everything in the parks are ones with corporate sponsorship.
I followed the conversation on these boards during the D23 announcements, and it all really struck me as being a coordinated influence campaign against everything that was announced (particularly around the Parks, Experiences, and Products panel).
I understand that many fans were expressing disappointment over the changes coming to Epcot or the things we expected but weren't announced. Certainly everyone is entitled to an opinion. But many posters repeated the same negative and mocking comments that seemed to be pulled from a list of talking points. I think this then had an overall effect of shaping overall opinion on the boards in what seemed to be a herd mentality.
Anyone else get the same sense?
I think you have a point, and 18 years ago when Al Lutz was the leading theme park expert/source for industry media, that “herd mentality” could sway opinions.
Yet DL was truly in bad shape under Pressler, and the company had lost much of its luster in Eisner’s final years of cheap-quels, sequels, and power grabs.
Are we approaching a similar era? I don’t know. The lineup of remakes and franchise tentpoles suggests we’re heading into another dearth of original creativity.
As for the SWGE reactions, many of the DL-centric forum posts have been outrageously negative. My own review was more mixed.
Yet I’m hearing similar sentiments from my coworkers and friends who definitely don’t participate in online fan forums. Many of my friends are SW fanatics whom I expected to rush the park. And they’re not interested for the same reasons that Disney fans state: no OT, no emotional connection, they looked online and it cost too much.
Plus, why would Disney purposely bury its brand-new investment just to make an exec look bad? That’s a ridiculous conspiracy to suggest. If the rumors are true that Bob and Zenia did spread dissatisfaction online through MiceAge in 2003, they were only saying what everyone already knew. Eisner WAS destroying the company. In contrast, the problems with SWGE come from Iger’s insistence to use only “his” movies — just like Mickey’s Runaway Railroad must use “his” version of the Mouse running on “his” Disney Channel. Disney wants SWGE to be successful. They’re not going to pay people to bad-mouth it.
IMO, we’re seeing negative reactions because people are truly disappointed, and we’re probably seeing a ton of extremely negative comments because society tends to comment in extremes.
Tom Morrow
Well-Known Member
I understand having some criticisms and nitpicks and being a little letdown. However, the amount of supposed theme park enthusiasts who are angrily slamming their fists going "there's no music! the whole thing is GARBAGE!!!", if earnest, is kind of pathetic. The land is beautiful and you could spend hours just walking around, taking it all in. I personally don't care that Luke Skywalker isn't there, or that there's no music like we've been conditioned to think that there should be. It could be more lively. It needs kinetic energy and sorely needs entertainment. The problems the land has can mostly be easily fixed.
RobWDW1971
Well-Known Member
I agree many of the problems could be fixed, but I've yet to see any evidence they understand or accept the fact they built a (highly detailed) dull, lifeless, depressing land that has failed to resonate with nor excite the public on both coasts.
Until then, "May the Spires keep you!". Or something.
Last edited:
Tom Morrow
Well-Known Member
I've visited twice so far, both times I saw people all over smiling and having a good time. I saw people stop and have a moment when they first see the Falcon the same way first time visitors do when they first emerge through the wall into Diagon Alley. I saw kids run up to Chewie and hug him. People love interacting with the roaming Stormtroopers. I saw Rey just kinda chillin' around the Falcon making idle conversation with people. The land needs improvement for sure but this notion that everyone absolutely hates it is completely overblown.
LSLS
Well-Known Member
This reminds me of all the restaurant shows where the owner says something like "nobody is complaining and they are happy when they are here" and the chef expert says something like "there's only 4 people here. I dont care about those people, I care about the people not coming."
Yeah, the music thing bothers me. Maybe more than it should, but here we are. But honestly, it's just not exciting to me. I actually was offered tickets from a friend in the area after our cruise, and declined them to start heading home. It just came down to do I want to add a few hours to our travel to go walk around a beautiful but empty land, ride one ride, and see a bunch of shops. And the answer was an easier than I expected no. As a casual star wars fan, nothing about this land makes me want to go out of my way to see it. And judging by the discounts/etc., I'm much more of the norm.
Kram Sacul
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- Yes
Meh, those are just recent Micechat rejects/refugees who wandered out of the DL forum pit.
xdan0920
Think for yourselfer
So, you like it. Therefore if someone doesn't like it, they are pathetic? Interesting.
_caleb
Well-Known Member
Yeah, and this is kind of what I mean. Folks who are not huge Disney nerds are parroting some of the same handful of criticisms. To me, this shows that the campaign might be working. Criticisms generated here are picked up by bloggers and clickbait “news” sites and then make their way to other fandoms as they spread to the general public.
Obviously, there are legitimate gripes, concerns, and disappointments. But isn’t that how an effective influence campaign works? Take the opinions you want to promote and shape them into easily-repeated zingers that spread easily and repeat them. I’m NOT saying everyone who voices a negative response is a shill. As you mention, the company is giving fans a lot to be disappointed in!
I’m not sure it’s wise to think of Disney as a singular actor here. As the article outlined (with varying degrees of truth, I’m sure), a faction within TWDC could be working against some of the Executive leadership. A major failure on the scale of SW:GE might result in a change of leadership at some level. As in the past, it seems that might be the motivation of these efforts.
Maybe I’m wrong.
_caleb
Well-Known Member
I don’t think the people who don’t like SW:GE are pathetic. But I think it’s strange that someone would comment repeatedly—as in, dozens of times—a complaint they read on the internet and then work to convince others that this complaint is the only way to think about the land.
Ravenclaw78
Well-Known Member
You're not wrong, or at least it certainly doesn't seem so. Even if the whole Troy Porter thing is complete nonsense and Lutz really wrote the article, he clearly got his inside info from someone very highly placed in the company who fed him a hit-piece on Chapek specifically. There's certainly always been some level of hate for Chapek in these forums, but simultaneously all these "insiders" pop up out of nowhere driving a narrative that Chapek is solely to blame for everything that's wrong with Galaxy's Edge and other missteps. I don't see how anyone could look at that and not see a coordinated attempt by someone either hoping to save their own job or to open a chance for a promotion at Chapek's expense.