Rumor Hall of Presidents Replaced by Muppets American History Show???

[Cliff]

I don't believe the articles.

Because I have eyes.

Disney continues to use Facilier, just not for TBA.

The new Villians land "seems" to skip over the good Dr. If so? why?

Maybe Burbank will change it's mind someday?

The timing of today's "That Park Place" video today about Dr. Facelier is a funny coincidence to our forum talk on this.

 

[space42]

The new Villians land "seems" to skip over the good Dr. If so? why?

Maybe Burbank will change it's mind someday?

The timing of this video today is a funny coincidence to our forum talk on this.

if we just could leave the rage bait on YouTube. This forum would be a much better place.

no wonder some of you folks are constantly outraged...

 

[Cliff]

Past management in Burbank has been a problem here and there. Yes, as fans, we complained in the 70's and 80's and 90's and 2k. Yes, Michael Isner was a complaint before Iger. But for the most part, we agree that the company was still a "good" one. We complained, yes, but Burbank didn't give us "that" much to complain about and we were not really "that" polarized.

Even in the first half if Bob Iger's administration, fans were generally OK with him and his leadership. However,..right about when Fox deal was finished, Burbank made the conscious decision to get into social activism and politics. Burbank turned Disney into a political messaging football to be fought over. (And nobody,...please don't say this is not true. Iger himself ADMITTED this and told us he was changing the company to move AWAY from it)

When any,...ANY company decides to jump into the HEATED culture war? When ANY company decides to be a five-star general in the war? It is BAD for ALL of us. The culture war is a war that NOBODY can "win". As a company, if you decide to battle it out and carry the flag for "either" side? You lose.

The culture war and politics is a very dirty and messy place. I begged Burbank to NOT jump into that quicksand. Once you do that, it's very hard to get out.

Uggg,....only time will tell what happens now but the Disney fan base is severely divided today in a way it NEVER was 10-20 or 30 years ago. The in-fighting was NEVER...EVER this bad before.

 

[Chi84]

Past management in Burbank has been a problem here and there. Yes, as fans, we complained in the 70's and 80's and 90's and 2k. Yes, Michael Isner was a complaint before Iger. But for the most part, we agree that the company was still a "good" one. We complained, yes, but Burbank didn't give us "that" much to complain about and we were not really "that" polarized.

Even in the first half if Bob Iger's administration, fans were generally OK with him and his leadership. However,..right about when Fox deal was finished, Burbank made the conscious decision to get into social activism and politics. Burbank turned Disney into a political messaging football to be fought over. (And nobody,...please don't say this is not true. Iger himself ADMITTED this and told us he was changing the company to move AWAY from it)

When any,...ANY company decides to jump into the HEATED culture war? When ANY company decides to be a five-star general in the war? It is BAD for ALL of us. The culture war is a war that NOBODY can "win". As a company, if you decide to battle it out and carry the flag for "either" side? You lose.

The culture war and politics is a very dirty and messy place. I begged Burbank to NOT jump into that quicksand. Once you do that, it's very hard to get out.

Uggg,....only time will tell what happens now but the Disney fan base is severely divided today in a way it NEVER was 10-20 or 30 years ago. The in-fighting was NEVER...EVER this bad before.

Can you please just stop spreading this garbage across every thread? It's against the TOS and it's exhausting.

 

[Mr. Sullivan]

These same folks also find Lincoln problematic.

I can promise you that the individuals who have issues (justified ones at that) with people like Thomas Jefferson or Andrew Jackson do not have the same issues with Lincoln. It is possible to acknowledge that the historical depiction of Lincoln isn’t totally accurate while also acknowledging that there is a large spectrum of people who’ve held the office of President and not all of them are of comparable evil to each other.

Someone who holds a completely negative view of Lincoln would not be engaging with this attraction anyway, but someone who may feel negatively only toward certain Presidents may and that is why I think choosing the Presidents who are generally more accepted to speak vs. current ones or the other boogeymen on the roster is not a bad idea.

You could even reasonably pick one per era to speak up to around (but not including) Clinton and be fine.

Personally I think this gets avoided altogether with a show about important figures in American history (Harriet Tubman, Frederick Douglas, MLK, Susan B. Anthony, Neil Armstrong, etc) rather than the presidents.

 

[SplashJacket]

I can promise you that the individuals who have issues (justified ones at that) with people like Thomas Jefferson or Andrew Jackson do not have the same issues with Lincoln. It is possible to acknowledge that the historical depiction of Lincoln isn’t totally accurate while also acknowledging that there is a large spectrum of people who’ve held the office of President and not all of them are of comparable evil to each other.

Someone who holds a completely negative view of Lincoln would not be engaging with this attraction anyway, but someone who may feel negatively only toward certain Presidents may and that is why I think choosing the Presidents who are generally more accepted to speak vs. current ones or the other boogeymen on the roster is not a bad idea.

You could even reasonably pick one per era to speak up to around (but not including) Clinton and be fine.

Personally I think this gets avoided altogether with a show about important figures in American history (Harriet Tubman, Frederick Douglas, MLK, Susan B. Anthony, Neil Armstrong, etc) rather than the presidents.

I think the important figures is just American Adventure…

 

[The Leader of the Club]

I can promise you that the individuals who have issues (justified ones at that) with people like Thomas Jefferson or Andrew Jackson do not have the same issues with Lincoln. It is possible to acknowledge that the historical depiction of Lincoln isn’t totally accurate while also acknowledging that there is a large spectrum of people who’ve held the office of President and not all of them are of comparable evil to each other.

Someone who holds a completely negative view of Lincoln would not be engaging with this attraction anyway, but someone who may feel negatively only toward certain Presidents may and that is why I think choosing the Presidents who are generally more accepted to speak vs. current ones or the other boogeymen on the roster is not a bad idea.

You could even reasonably pick one per era to speak up to around (but not including) Clinton and be fine.

I feel like if you just speaking roles to Washington, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, & JFK then people would be very receptive. Those probably should be the default four.

 

[Mr. Sullivan]

Co

I find it ridiculous to judge people in the past by standards of today. Without Thomas Jefferson there would be no US Constitution

Contrary to popular belief, you can to a degree because there were plenty of people then who recognized certain things as wrong. Just because a behavior was widespread doesn’t mean no one was aware of it as an issue. Even some of Jefferson’s own direct peers thought some of what he engaged in was wrong.

It is possible to acknowledge the things of value and importance someone contributed to the world while also desiring their legacy to include some accountability for the known evils they committed. Most people who feel strongly about these men in the negative don’t deny their historical significance, but rather bristle against the dishonesty in their retrospective assessments.

To be clear I like the HoP a lot and do it every trip despite finding half the panel to be deplorable individuals. But it’s silly to pretend that there’s not valid reasons for why people’s thoughts on certain things have shifted some. The sort of sentimentality that bred things like HoP just doesn’t exist anymore, and I do think that is mostly for the better.

Do I think that means the show should go? Not at all. But I would never begrudge someone for feeling uncomfortable with it. And I would also never begrudge the decision to make some alterations to it, or change it’s core thesis. I think there is way to have a show about the Presidents and the history of the office that is also less blindly deifying.

 

[Mr. Sullivan]

I think the important figures is just American Adventure…

Which is exactly why I think they should either close Presidents and move a new animatronic important figures show into AA or leave Presidents and give AA something else. I’ve always thought AA was a little redundant when Liberty Square exists.

I feel like if you just speaking roles to Washington, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, & JFK then people would be very receptive. Those probably should be the default four.

Yeah that I think would mostly go alright. Most definitely avoid anyone past like…Carter and especially avoid the obvious bad guys.

 

[Cliff]

Can you please just stop spreading this garbage across every thread? It's against the TOS and it's exhausting.

Wow,...was it really "that" bad?

What did I say that was against the TOS. (Terms of Service???)

 

[Brer Panther]

By whom? Walt?

I could've sworn somebody with "inside information" or whatever claimed that.

 

[MisterPenguin]

I could've sworn somebody with "inside information" or whatever claimed that.

It's the illusion that the echo chamber creates when one site says it and all the others repeat it. It turns out to be just one poor source, or just a supposition.

Like when the Internet swore up and down that with actual real inside information that Kathleen Kennedy was about to be fired. For ten years now.

 

[Cliff]

It's the illusion that the echo chamber creates when one site says it and all the others repeat it. It turns out to be just one poor source, or just a supposition.

Like when the Internet swore up and down that with actual real inside information that Kathleen Kennedy was about to be fired. For ten years now.

Well?...some rumors are wrong, some rumors are right. It's still fair to say though that everything that has ever actually, truly happened in this world DID start off with some rumor at some point. (And there was always somebody that claimed it was BS too)

There is nothing wrong with "rumors". They are part of human nature. As long as what is being rumored is clearly labeled as just that. It only becomes dishonest when a rumor is delivered as 100% "fact". As the receivers of a rumor, it's our job to question it and keep that information in perspective....as with ALL the information we get from ANY place today.

Echo chamber? Another thing that is just simple human nature. It's the hive-mind mentality and it's never going away. All of social media is an echo-chamber for a million different subjects. This very forum is not immune. It falls under that category too. We have different "tribes" here that naturally group up and push together. Yes, we have tribes that are real upset with Disney and tribes that defend Disney at all cost from them. Perfectly normal.

I'm big into Sony and Lumix cameras. If you go onto pro-Nikon forum and try to mention the "fact" that Sony makes the sensors that Nikon uses in their cameras? Whoo-wee! Those Nikon tribes can FLAME you to Hell and wish death on the "Sony fan boys" for posting that! It's like: "Don't bring your Sony BS to a Nikon forum or we will BAN your account"

It's funny how humans are. Thousands of years of tribal, hive-mind thinking is not going away for a LONG time.

 

[MisterPenguin]

Well?...some rumors are wrong, some rumors are right. It's still fair to say though that everything that has ever actually, truly happened in this world DID start off with some rumor at some point. (And there was always somebody that claimed it was BS too)

There is nothing wrong with "rumors". They are part of human nature. As long as what is being rumored is clearly labeled as just that. It only becomes dishonest when a rumor is delivered as 100% "fact". As the receivers of a rumor, it's our job to question it and keep that information in perspective....as with ALL the information we get from ANY place today.

Echo chamber? Another thing that is just simple human nature. It's the hive-mind mentality and it's never going away. All of social media is an echo-chamber for a million different subjects. This very forum is not immune. It falls under that category too. We have different "tribes" here that naturally group up and push together. Yes, we have tribes that are real upset with Disney and tribes that defend Disney at all cost from them. Perfectly normal.

I'm big into Sony and Lumix cameras. If you go onto pro-Nikon forum and try to mention the "fact" that Sony makes the sensors that Nikon uses in their cameras? Whoo-wee! Those Nikon tribes can FLAME you to Hell and wish death on the "Sony fan boys" for posting that! It's like: "Don't bring your Sony BS to a Nikon forum or we will BAN your account"

It's funny how humans are. Thousands of years of tribal, hive-mind thinking is not going away for a LONG time.

A weary defense of indulging in untruths that make one feel good.

Good day.

 

[Cliff]

A weary defense of indulging in untruths that make one feel good.

Good day.

Really? If you hear a rumor that the Mike Tyson fight was staged. You can't just call that "untruth" or "misinformation"...unless!...you have FACTUAL information in your possession that proves it wrong.

You can't say this rumor is "untrue" until you hear Mike Tyson and Netflix release a public statement confirming the rumor.

You can't confirm or deny ANY rumor in this world unless you have perfect evidence that refutes...or proves it. Until then, all you can say is:

"Well?....I have no evidence either way so I don't know if the rumor is true or false...but I prefer to believe it (or not) because that's what makes me feel happy"

You could also say: "I want to believe the Mike Tyson fight was real and genuine and the rumor that it was staged makes me feel sad,...so I will denounce and repudiate this malicious rumor and I choose to believe it was a real and fair fight instead. You rumor spreaders are mean and evil"

Yep, this applies to ALL Disney rumors we debate here too.

We are ALL guilty of this buddy,...every single one of us.

 

[Ghost93]

Maybe the imagineers of Tiana's Bayou Adventure disliked Facilier, but he's still being actively promoted by the company.

During the month of October, numerous official Disney Facebook and Instagram videos were made highlighting Disney villains, with several of them prominently featuring Dr. Facillier. He hasn't been "banned."

 

[Santa Raccoon 77]

no wonder some of you folks are constantly outraged...

 

[Brer Panther]

It's the illusion that the echo chamber creates when one site says it and all the others repeat it. It turns out to be just one poor source, or just a supposition.

There are so many claims and rumors flying around this website I have no idea what to believe that hasn't been announced by Disney itself now.

 

[celluloid]

It is a real thing, but it’s not actively out to scrub Americana from the parks. If it were, the parks wouldn’t still be celebrating Veterans or Independence Day or adding new Walt experiences. The goal is to make the parks more welcoming to all guests. Do I think some bad decisions have been made in service of that, yes, but on the whole I don’t think it’s a bad thing.

Celebrating holidays is not evidence of not scrubbing the other Americana from the park. Nor is that really Americana.
It us intentional either way. Americana has been removed.

 

[MisterPenguin]

There are so many claims and rumors flying around this website I have no idea what to believe that hasn't been announced by Disney itself now.

You can ask. Some of us keep track of these things.

Notice how unfounded rumors are attacked for being... unfounded. And when a source is asked for, there is no clear source.

There's a lot of people with willing gullibility, like all those who believed that the company was cancelling Walt or that Kennedy was about to be fired for the past decade. There were no credible sources for those rumors. Low level company employees don't count as sources. Iger doesn't invite them to C-Suite meetings. But people believe and repeat the unfounded rumor because they want it to be true.

It's a larger problem in our society, too.

Truthiness - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org