• Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.You can use your Twitter or Facebook account to sign up, or register directly.

Haunted Mansion Changing Portrait Update

erasure fan1

Well-Known Member
Your opinion is based on a video of a lighting effect that is still in the process of being fully implemented.

You can’t really call it like you see it when you haven’t even seen it.
I'm not really sure why this keeps coming up, but if you would kindly read the WHOLE post, you would see I said (for the 3rd time now) maybe it's better in person or they are still adjusting. I am calling it exactly as I am seeing it, and that's from video. So I'm guessing that I'm not allowed to say flight of passage looks awesome because I haven't seen it yet? If when we go, and this new effect looks awesome, then I'll say so. But for now, it's MY opinion that the paintings just look off.
 

The Empress Lilly

Well-Known Member
Advertisement
When I was there in early December I didn't notice the effect working at all. Maybe it was just extremely dim but it looked turned off to me.
That could very well be. I remember the paintings effect not working, maybe it wasn't working whatsoever.
 

MotherOfBirds

Well-Known Member
At the risk of being the 999th person to screech "Please no more screenz," please, for the love of The Dark Lord, stop "fixing" things. The portraits were great before, and one of few 2007 changes that don't cause me physical pain.

Well, we'll always have Paris.
 

peter11435

Well-Known Member
At the risk of being the 999th person to screech "Please no more screenz," please, for the love of The Dark Lord, stop "fixing" things. The portraits were great before, and one of few 2007 changes that don't cause me physical pain.

Well, we'll always have Paris.
They are still not screens. The effect is achieved the same way it was before. Just with upgraded light fixtures.
 

mergatroid

Well-Known Member
At the risk of being the 999th person to screech "Please no more screenz," please, for the love of The Dark Lord, stop "fixing" things. The portraits were great before, and one of few 2007 changes that don't cause me physical pain.

Well, we'll always have Paris.
They are still not screens. The effect is achieved the same way it was before. Just with upgraded light fixtures.
:)
 

999th Happy Haunt

Well-Known Member
At the risk of being the 999th person to screech "Please no more screenz," please, for the love of The Dark Lord, stop "fixing" things. The portraits were great before, and one of few 2007 changes that don't cause me physical pain.

Well, we'll always have Paris.
What 2007 changes do you not like? I thought everyone kind of agreed the 2007 update was good (aside from the attic).
 

MotherOfBirds

Well-Known Member
They are still not screens. The effect is achieved the same way it was before. Just with upgraded light fixtures.
The overall effect is still pretty reminiscent of a screen. I think it detracts from the overall effect

What 2007 changes do you not like? I thought everyone kind of agreed the 2007 update was good (aside from the attic).
I don't really care for the Escher staircase and I would have preferred something else, but I can live with it. The attic is a whole other matter, though. I really hate Constance and the amount of emphasis there has been on her in the park and in merch. I'm still deciding if I dislike her more or less than Pepe Le Queue, which was unnecessary, the wrong tone for that portion of the attraction, and overall is the perfect embodiment of "lore without meaning." For a better example of the latter, see everything J.K. Rowling has done and said in the last two years.
 

Thelazer

Well-Known Member
Key Notes, the prudent thing to do, is update the effect, but leave the "new" show lighting turned off until levels are property set. IE, you would see the paintings, there just would not be a "lighting flash" effect, at this time. Work would continue at night while the effect is installed, and then before the ride is opened those fixtures are unplugged or etc. Then once approved by WDI show lighting, it is then turned on fully for guests to enjoy.

Why that wasn't followed here.. well...?
 

999th Happy Haunt

Well-Known Member
I don't really care for the Escher staircase and I would have preferred something else, but I can live with it. The attic is a whole other matter, though. I really hate Constance and the amount of emphasis there has been on her in the park and in merch. I'm still deciding if I dislike her more or less than Pepe Le Queue, which was unnecessary, the wrong tone for that portion of the attraction, and overall is the perfect embodiment of "lore without meaning." For a better example of the latter, see everything J.K. Rowling has done and said in the last two years.
I really love the staircase room, but I agree with what you say about the attic. It's fine making the bride a little scary, but why oh why have her spout lines every 5 seconds and make an in-your-face backstory that has nothing to do with the rest of the attraction?
 

ChrisFL

Well-Known Member
I really love the staircase room, but I agree with what you say about the attic. It's fine making the bride a little scary, but why oh why have her spout lines every 5 seconds and make an in-your-face backstory that has nothing to do with the rest of the attraction?
The new bride isn't scary at all, she's just annoying. The old, silent bride with the heart beating was MUCH more scary and creepy.
 

Magenta Panther

Well-Known Member
Walt diddn't even want a Florida park but only relented and put a copy of Disneyland in when investors said no to his city of the future idea...
Eh, sorta. From what I've read, Walt did indeed want a second park, but originally he wanted it in Missouri, because that's where the Disney family farm was located (in Marceline). But that fell through because there wasn't enough land available. So Walt, as we all know, eventually settled on Florida. As for him not wanting to build Disneyland-like attractions there, yes, I think that's true; he wanted to focus on EPCOT. But investors did indeed insist on him putting attractions there to draw in tourists, so he did. That's how I understand things anyway.
 

flynnibus

Well-Known Member
Eh, sorta. From what I've read, Walt did indeed want a second park, but originally he wanted it in Missouri, because that's where the Disney family farm was located (in Marceline). But that fell through because there wasn't enough land available. So Walt, as we all know, eventually settled on Florida. As for him not wanting to build Disneyland-like attractions there, yes, I think that's true; he wanted to focus on EPCOT. But investors did indeed insist on him putting attractions there to draw in tourists, so he did. That's how I understand things anyway.
They had been shopping for a way to do another theme park.. with several failed attempts (the ski lodge, st louis). AFAIK the theme park was always part of the Florida Project, it was just a question of priority and emphasis... Walt wasn't focused on it, but the business side felt it was necessary to prioritize it to minimize the risk associated with the future city concepts.

So 'walt didn't want..' I think is a stretch, it's not that he was against it, but I think it's more of 'walt wasn't concerned with...'

Which is true of many projects in WDP... Walt had moved on and barely paid notice to...
 
Top Bottom