Is the clock ticking on the Sorcerer Mickey Hat icon at the Studios? YES!

Wikkler

Wikkler

Well-Known Member
WDWArchitectureGuy said:
Someone asked for more TLC. And you get this.
giphy.gif
Click to expand...
I'm going shopping now.
0004460002452_500X500.jpg

For my brain.
 
spacemt354

spacemt354

Chili's
Goofyernmost said:
I am sort of a contrarian, as you put it, but only when I see rude, degrading and egotistical responses. I am not here to support those ego, but, if I am going to spend time reading these things I would want helpful responses and something other then I know it all, so just listen responses. That's the c rap I do not accept and will be vocal about it. I may have that knowledge, however, if it was explained before I either forget it or missed it and was unaware of it being answered before or that there was any other reason other then the TCM influence. But, I really didn't care, personally, it was the person that made the statement that was dismissed by the words, "Not True". That's what concerns me.

Someone mentioned that there were 80,000 members on this board. They would all know the answer according to you and would just be satisfied by that response because of who said it. That is pure bull. If a person wants to be a spokesperson for something like this, then they must explain themselves whenever the question arises. That how life works on discussion boards. If one wants credibility, then be able to communicate the same message quite often. Otherwise, the credibility is only with a few minor players that have inside information. Again this is off topic and no longer of any concern of mine.. so let's end it.
Click to expand...
You made a huge fuss about something that is irrelevant, while blowing it out of proportion in the process. I have enjoyed reading @articos and I always find the information to be administered in a polite and classy manner. Yet for some reason, you are so perturbed by his curt response that you decided to moderate how insiders post their info. What gives you the right? Why are you so concerned with the detrimental psychological effect on these hypothetical new members who read pithy retorts to questions?

You're trying to censor and mold responses from well-known members into a diction that supports the minority of members on this site, which comes off as overstepping your boundaries. If the "well-known member" definition and large post/like count doesn't give away to new members that this is a reputable source, then it's up to this "new member's" discretion whether or not to believe it.
 
Goofyernmost

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
spacemt354 said:
You made a huge fuss about something that is irrelevant, while blowing it out of proportion in the process. I have enjoyed reading @articos and I always find the information to be administered in a polite and classy manner. Yet for some reason, you are so perturbed by his curt response that you decided to moderate how insiders post their info. What gives you the right? Why are you so concerned with the detrimental psychological effect on these hypothetical new members who read pithy retorts to questions?

You're trying to censor and mold responses from well-known members into a diction that supports the minority of members on this site, which comes off as overstepping your boundaries. If the "well-known member" definition and large post/like count doesn't give away to new members that this is a reputable source, then it's up to this "new member's" discretion whether or not to believe it.
Click to expand...
You call it censor, I call it making things understood to people that read these posts that may not have the honor of personally knowing all the "cool kids". BTW, I am trying to end this discussion because it was about a minor off topic thing, but, I did think it important in contributing to the enjoyment of these threads and not for just a few. So, can we drop it now, like I would like too?
 
Bing Bong

Bing Bong

Well-Known Member
Goofyernmost said:
You call it censor, I call it making things understood to people that read these posts that may not have the honor of personally knowing all the "cool kids". BTW, I am trying to end this discussion because it was about a minor off topic thing, but, I did think it important in contributing to the enjoyment of these threads and not for just a few. So, can we drop it now, like I would like too?
Click to expand...
Don't complain because you can't finish what you started.
 
Tom

Tom

Beta Return
Phil12 said:
I sometimes wonder if people think of Disney icons as public property such as The White House. The castle cake was fine for the 25th anniversary. Disneyland might do an all gold version of Sleeping Beauty Castle for their 60th. Change (even temporary change) rattles some people to no end. Disney can decorate their icons any way they wish. I thought the castle cake was very innovative and appropriate.
Click to expand...

All my comments were directed at the hypothetical situation of leaving the castle-cake in that condition for longer than its intended stay (like the hat).
 
cspencer96

cspencer96

Well-Known Member
Phil12 said:
I sometimes wonder if people think of Disney icons as public property such as The White House. The castle cake was fine for the 25th anniversary. Disneyland might do an all gold version of Sleeping Beauty Castle for their 60th. Change (even temporary change) rattles some people to no end. Disney can decorate their icons any way they wish. I thought the castle cake was very innovative and appropriate.
Click to expand...
Innovative maybe, it was paint and inflatables. Fancy paint and inflatables I'm sure. Appropriate can be debated, given the backlash. But aside from that, Disney already did the gold castle thing for the Disneyland 50th, this is the Diamond Anniversary - I'm hoping for some serious sparkle and glitz on Sleeping Beauty Castle for this one. Classy I hope, but still, it needs to be fitting of a diamond celebration.
 
K

kdzgon

New Member
Goofyernmost said:
Many people did like it and it was because that was all they ever knew. I didn't mind it when I thought it was just temporary, but, then it stuck. I looked at it personally this past week and seeing it like it is now makes it so obvious just how out of proportion that monstrosity was. Once others see what a nice view up the street it is going to be when it is out of there, you will be won over. If only they had put that thing in a different place, maybe we all could have liked it in a place where it didn't just look like growth.
Click to expand...
I agree. I liked the hat (though I am particularly fond of Sorcerer Mickey), but I didn't know anything else. As I see the view reappearing, I do understand why so many lamented the fact that the hat was there. I am excited to see the old view reappeared, and I desperately hope they are not planning to add another hideous stage in that area!
 

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

Back
Top Bottom