Californian Elitist
Well-Known Member
You’re not being serious, are you?
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
I think “The Magic” is mostly gone for me…
- Thread starter Mike S
- Start date
yensidtlaw1969
Well-Known Member
You mean like when someone says they were 'feeling the absense' of Universe of Energy, seemingly because they liked it - the statement, I may remind you, that started your whole weird tirade?
Your committment to this bitterness is both puzzling and just plain rude. How immature.
NickMaio
Well-Known Member
He does of course.........
CaptainJackNO
Well-Known Member
Very well said
G00fyDad
Well-Known Member
Who says what is bad though? Is your definition of bad the right one? Or mine?
Goofyernmost
Well-Known Member
So if you don't like an attraction then it's not possible for anyone else to like it? Of course it is subjective. Yes, it is an opinion which is what makes it subjective. In this case if it is bad for you, all it really is that we can be certain about is that you didn't like it for whatever reason you subjectively had.
Kamikaze
Well-Known Member
Like I said, you can LIKE a bad attraction. That doesn't make it good. That UoE was a 'good' attraction isn't subjective. It was awful.
Goofyernmost
Well-Known Member
It wasn't awful if some liked it, you didn't so it was awful for you. You don't get to decide what others think about it, you can only make your own decisions and either like it or not. Totally up to you for your personal approval or not. Thus the meaning of the word Subjective.
For the record, I didn't think it was anything more than a 40 minute infomercial for Exxon/Mobil. That doesn't mean it wasn't done well. It was just that I wasn't it's target audience. It was one huge corporation expressing its delusion of grandeur to a captive audience but every single sponsored attraction, Imagination = Kodak, WoM = GM, CoP = General Electric and so on were attractions that were well done and good, just not for everybody. They reflected the image that those companies were trying to convey. My personal opinion can only be about whether or not I liked something not that it was unequivocally awful or good.
So I can acknowledge that it did not float your particular boat, not bad, not good just something that you didn't happen to like.
BlakeW39
Well-Known Member
You have a deep, deep misunderstanding of what the word "subjective" means.
Circling itnall back tl tje trend in the last couple decadees that has increased its rat in the last ten years...
One thing should be for sure. When an attraction is not working as its intended design. It is objectively not presented how intended.
You can not mind a corner of your tv screen broken. Its not a deal breaker.
You may be fine with an old theater having a few speakers blown out, but you are objectively not getting all of the creators intent.
With the blown speakers on Dinosaur, to the broken rocks on Big Thunder, you are not getting th le attraction as it was designed to be by experts in their field.
One thing should be for sure. When an attraction is not working as its intended design. It is objectively not presented how intended.
You can not mind a corner of your tv screen broken. Its not a deal breaker.
You may be fine with an old theater having a few speakers blown out, but you are objectively not getting all of the creators intent.
With the blown speakers on Dinosaur, to the broken rocks on Big Thunder, you are not getting th le attraction as it was designed to be by experts in their field.
Kamikaze
Well-Known Member
It was awful because it wasn't a good attraction. Not because I didn't like it. Nothing about it - especially EEA - was entertaining or educational, or otherwise GOOD. That makes it bad. Not my personal feelings.
BlakeW39
Well-Known Member
you're acting like what you're saying is logical, but it's actually profoundly stupid. Throwing around a non-descriptive, subjective word like "good"— and yes that word is INHERENTLY subjective, in case you need to get the old dictionary —as if it describes abject fact on any level is farcical.
good
/ɡo͝od/
adjective
1.
to be desired or approved of.
"a good quality of life"
2.
having the qualities required for a particular role.
"the schools here are good"
So let's break it down...
1. UOE is factually 'approved of and desired' by some people and by others not, and therefore, whether or not the attraction is 'good' is subjective under this definition
2. there are no qualities which inherently define what makes a good attraction; there no physical laws of the universe saying this makes an attraction good and this makes it bad. therefore, under this definition, whether or not UOE is good is subjective, based on how you define what makes a good attraction
And the attraction is categorically educational too btw.
DznyRktekt
Well-Known Member
Guess it's time to break out the all CAPS and BOLD..
MagicRat
Well-Known Member
No, no don’t even try to argue with Mr Kamikaze, he performed clinical analysis on this attraction. He is the the Chief King Judge of what is good and what is bad. Bad it is,
willtravel
Well-Known Member
There are 3 nostalgic attractions (?) left for right now. SSE, LWTL, and JIIF. They are just sitting there right now with no updates and lack of interest it seems from management. Of course, maybe that is good. Just had UOE go to a complete overhaul. I see wait time for rollercoasters in WDW, but I don't see wait times for the 3 listed above (maybe at Christmas and New Year there is). For me Studios and Epcot are just turning into an IP land and an extension of Magic Kingdom. JMO
Last edited:
NickMaio
Well-Known Member
Ya
It's sad, Epcot was amazing because it was different from any other park on the planet.
DznyRktekt
Well-Known Member
To me EPCOT Center was a physical representation of the internet before the internet existed. Or possibly the "World Book" of theme parks.
In other words, if you don't mind paying more and more for less and less, it's great!