Jim Hill and Grizz's Call to Arms

[Jenngusto]

Long live Grizz!

 

[Computer Magic]

It was shallow and quick writing, neither of which is a part of credibility.

I can see your point here. Jim's credibility was buried by him being shallow and arrogant. I'm not sure I would let Jim of the hook by saying it was quick writing. When you put something out there like that, you better take your time and check your facts. People will judge you. Look at what Jim's writing has caused here. Isn't checking the facts for an article part of ones credibility?

 

[General Grizz]

Long live Grizz!

Oh.. why.. thanks.

 

[Woody13]

It Makes Me Wonder!

I think we need to remember that "The Land" is just one of many complaints Grizz has made concerning the direction and updating of Disney attractions. CoP and Tiki Room Under New Management are just a few of the others of which he has shown his displeasure. I would list others, but the list gets too long!

Now, what has the "D-Army" done about any of this? Nothing that I have seen. The repeated lamentations form a simple theme that defines Grizz as being a very frustrated Disney fan. The time he spends on these subjects is rather long.:zipit:

 

[General Grizz]

I think we need to remember that "The Land" is just one of many complaints Grizz has made concerning the direction and updating of Disney attractions. CoP and Tiki Room Under New Management are just a few of the others of which he has shown his displeasure. I would list others, but the list gets too long!

Now, what has the "D-Army" done about any of this? Nothing that I have seen. The repeated lamentations form a simple theme that defines Grizz as being a very frustrated Disney fan. The time he spends on these subjects is rather long.:zipit:

D-Army has not acted yet. Sit tight.

Trust me. I'll post my negative feelings about Disney management if management makes a poor decision in my eyes. Their overall image is undeniably going down (unless you're for meet and greets, against higher-payed, great Cast Members, which is totally based on opinion).

 

[askmike1]

Here's my quick reply to Grizz, JHM, and all prior posts.
1. I tend to agree with Jim HIll (not necessarily the way he wrote it though). Personally, I don't think he meant to be mean to Grizz, I think that this is a slow month and he want's a subject that is going to last a while. With this, he new a lot of viewers would reply and there you have a second article. More replies equal a third article. He has done this before with various Save Disney articles (including Erasing Roy). You figure that the next big article won't be until early November with The Incredibles.
2. I think people need to let this go a little. After all, if Grizz is fine with it, why can't everyone else be? Also, don't insult JH otherwise you'll just be a hypocrite.
3. I am not going to judge the Land's new theme until I can see it. One person's vision of a Travel Agency can be totally diferent then another person's perception of it. As for the person who said "Travel agency theme will never work," who thought spinning tea cups would work? Most people thought a new Illuminations would kill the show, but zoom ahead to 2000 and you get one of WDW's most popular attraction ever. Finally I leave you with this. Who, in their right mind, would think that people (full grown adults) would line up and take pictures with a person in a mouse costume? I wonder how that turned out?

-Michael

 

[Rotel1026]

"That make it so easy for the powers-that-be at the Mouse House to just dismiss us all as this weird bunch of obsessed weenies."

Now that sentence alone is the one sentence that bothered me most about that whole article. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and in my short experience with Grizzz's posts, they are always very knowledgable. Yes, I cannot say that I am against the changed being made to the Land Pavillion as of right now. Change is inevitable and I understand this pavillion is seen as outdated and tired by a lot of people and they wanna inject new blood and probably better traffic flow for the amount of people that they expect to be coming thru here. But come on, who is kidding who here? The Disney company probably has a top two list of web weenies and Jim Hill is probably second on that list (and no, Grizzz is not no. 1). He was on CNN the day of the big vote against Eisner? I know everyone on here knows who he is but the typical CNN viewer was probably wondering who he was and what qualified him to be on CNN discussing the mouse house and it's business dealings. Did Disney see him on TV and think, gee a concerned fan or another obsessed weenie? I think we all know the answer to that. I've been on that site plenty of times and always find most of what he says pretty interesting but I definitely think he's got a very high opinion of himself after having seen that article. Even not agreeing Grizzz on the changes being made to the Land, I know that his argument is not based on against change at all costs and yet you can tell JHM didn't even bother reading past the first page of posts.

Definitely changes the way I view FHM, that article definitely came off as a bit too territorial and "I know more than you do" in tone.

 

[General Grizz]

"That make it so easy for the powers-that-be at the Mouse House to just dismiss us all as this weird bunch of obsessed weenies."

Now that sentence alone is the one sentence that bothered me most about that whole article. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and in my short experience with Grizzz's posts, they are always very knowledgable. Yes, I cannot say that I am against the changed being made to the Land Pavillion as of right now. Change is inevitable and I understand this pavillion is seen as outdated and tired by a lot of people and they wanna inject new blood and probably better traffic flow for the amount of people that they expect to be coming thru here. But come on, who is kidding who here? The Disney company probably has a top two list of web weenies and Jim Hill is probably second on that list (and no, Grizzz is not no. 1). . . Even not agreeing Grizzz on the changes being made to the Land, I know that his argument is not based on against change at all costs and yet you can tell JHM didn't even bother reading past the first page of posts.

Definitely changes the way I view FHM, that article definitely came off as a bit too territorial and "I know more than you do" in tone.

That really touched me. Thank you for understanding my fondness for progress. It has been frustrating to be labelled a "no-change" person, but if you look through the posts, it's all there. But that's the price of "calls to arms."

 

[Rotel1026]

That really touched me. Thank you for understanding my fondness for progress. It has been frustrating to be labelled a "no-change" person, but if you look through the posts, it's all there. But that's the price of "calls to arms."

No problemo, I'm proud to see you taking the high road and not letting what feels like a pretty personal attack bother you. Your criticisms have never been that simplistic and have always been pretty well articulated so for him to reduce them to what he did is kind of insulting and considering that he considers himself a journalist, not very good journalistic reporting. Really, could he have used your screenname anymore times? I'm glad to see you two won't be duking it out in the lobby of the Land Pavillion.

 

[General Grizz]

No problemo, I'm proud to see you taking the high road and not letting what feels like a pretty personal attack bother you. Your criticisms have never been that simplistic and have always been pretty well articulated so for him to reduce them to what he did is kind of insulting and considering that he considers himself a journalist, not very good journalistic reporting. Really, could he have used your screenname anymore times? I'm glad to see you two won't be duking it out in the lobby of the Land Pavillion.

Actually, he used the term "General Grizz" 13 times and "The Land" 14 times.

I'm a star. . . :lol:

 

[dxwwf3]

To all of those people that say "I'm going to wait and see the result until I make judgement about it", I would have to say that may be the right attitude to have, but we've been burnt so many times lately. I'm almost to the point where I don't want alot of changes in fear that they are going to screw something good up.

If I was confident that the new changes in the Land were going to improve the pavilion, I would be sad to lose all of those things that would be leaving, but I wouldn't mind it at all. I just don't want to see a good pavilion go to waste because they wanted a change.

And for the record, if the changes at the Land are a success, I'll have no problem saying I was wrong.

 

[General Grizz]

To all of those people that say "I'm going to wait and see the result until I make judgement about it", I would have to say that may be the right attitude to have, but we've been burnt so many times lately. I'm almost to the point where I don't want alot of changes in fear that they are going to screw something good up.

If I was confident that the new changes in the Land were going to improve the pavilion, I would be sad to lose all of those things that would be leaving, but I wouldn't mind it at all. I just don't want to see a good pavilion go to waste because they wanted a change.

And for the record, if the changes at the Land are a success, I'll have no problem saying I was wrong.

That is also a valid point. For example, if Epcot were going about changing SE entirely, I just couldn't trust them. Why for? (oh crap, I said why for :lol: ) Disney has gotten rid of 350+ AAs from Epcot with no replacement/bad Imagineering budget/overall "cheap" attitude in remakes (see: Imagination, overall M:S cramped nature).

There just isn't a "clean slate" in going into a new attraction. It's the same management. (Another, perhaps more relevant, example: visible vents and speakers visible in Test Track, Imagination, Mission Space, Mickey's Star Traders). I'd also prefer to be wrong in envisioning the Travel Agency as thematically incorrect.

I totally understand (and appreciate) the "wait and see" approach, but I'd rather have management hear this caution before doing something, because when it's done, it's done.

 

[dxwwf3]

I'd rather have management hear this caution before doing something, because when it's done, it's done.

Exactly. Journey Into The Imagination with Figment is the exception, not the rule. Alot of times, they do not make corrections when something is already done.

Case in point Tiki Room Under New Management is still there. So there are some mistakes that have not been changed. No offense to UNM fans, but I don't think anyone actually likes it BETTER than the original.

 

[General Grizz]

Exactly. Journey Into The Imagination with Figment is the exception, not the rule. Alot of times, they do not make corrections when something is already done.

Case in point Tiki Room Under New Management is still there. So there are some mistakes that have not been changed. No offense to UNM fans, but I don't think anyone actually likes it BETTER than the original.

Actually, I think the younger generation may appreciate it more (along with those who prefer the musical taste), but I don't think the attraction as it is would entice even these fans to view it as a classic, whereas the fans of the original see it as something timeless.

Wow. This is getting pretty complex. What do you expect from the most popular vacation destination?

 

[dxwwf3]

Actually, I think the younger generation may appreciate it more (along with those who prefer the musical taste), but I don't think the attraction as it is would entice even these fans to view it as a classic, whereas the fans of the original see it as something timeless.

Well I mainly think of show length when I talk bad about UNM. That's probably what people want, but it seems like the show is over as soon as you get situated in there. That's where I think it fails, but I guess your right about the kids prefering it.

 

[Computer Magic]

I totally understand (and appreciate) the "wait and see" approach, but I'd rather have management hear this caution before doing something, because when it's done, it's done.

That is exactly the point. Do you "wait and see" and risk being disappointed and then it's too late to change it. or do you speak out and risk being labled as Grizz was. I think people use to take the "wait and see" more in the past but have been burned with what they see as low quality. So they are a little skeptical for waiting.

This is with all business today when changes are coming. But Disney is suppose to be better then your average business. You have to pick your battles and see which ones are dearest to your heart and stand and fight.

 

[dxwwf3]

That is exactly the point. Do you "wait and see" and risk being disappointed and then it's too late to change it. or do you speak out and risk being labled as Grizz was. I think people use to take the "wait and see" more in the past but have been burned with what they see as low quality. So they are a little skeptical for waiting.

This is with all business today when changes are coming. But Disney is suppose to be better then your average business. You have to pick your battles and see which ones are dearest to your heart and stand and fight.

Great post.

I will say if Disney can get this Land changeover right (if it indeed does happen) and Expedition Everest lives up to the hype, then Disney would have my confidence again. But right now, I fear this change. If you have to make the change, prove me wrong Disney.

 

[General Grizz]

or do you speak out and risk being labled as Grizz was.

My image is nothing compared to saving the Land's pavilion. (Saving does NOT mean keeping it as it is - it means keeping it with focus, which *can* be done with Soarin').

Shoot me down, Jim Hill, but I'll still be strumming, "Listen to the Land."

I agree, dxwwf. This is a great challenge to Disney, but the challenge can only be challenged if we actually challenge it. Or something.

Great discussion.

 

[speck76]

But do we really want another "Goofy's Dancing Jamboree" on our hands? The recent track record of the Company, though dotted with significant achievements, is, on the whole, curving downward. When you alter an attraction with such weight as The Land, you must be positive the impact will be for the better, for progress. This is the core of our argument.

Is it really curving downward? I think it did curve downward, around 2001-2002, but it really seems to be in a major upswing. Look at the last few attractions to open.....Philharmagic, Mission Space, Wishes.....all very good (in my opinion) but look at the Pressler-era changes (Dinoland, Goofy's Dancin Jamboree....)Look at the new attractions being built. Some may be clones, but they are very popular and very well-liked where they are now, so I must say, even as clones, I am happy we are getting them. Also, look at EE....that looks to be a future classic too. Yes, in my opinion, there were a few years of "bad additions" but I think that time is in the past....the future looks bright.

 

[dxwwf3]

This is a great challenge to Disney, but the challenge can only be challenged if we actually challenge it. Or something.

Couldn't have said it better myself :lol:

Don't get me wrong, I PERSONALLY do not want this change and I hope that Disney doesn't do it, but if they do they will have alot to prove to me. BUT, if they do step up and make this a great changeover, I'll have confidence again.

I just don't want to risk losing one of my favorite places in Epcot