slappy magoo said:
1: Unless you know the body of Jim Hill's text on his tour, it's unfair to say he was "trashing" Disney. From what I understand, he was talking about things that used to exist (and where) and rides/attractions that never got off the ground and why. Maybe it's not the "magic" you normally associate with Disney, but not exactly insulting or inflammatory either.
And as *I* clearly explained in that thread, it does not matter. It is unoffical information and yes, indeed, can be considered negative - telling people about something that might have happened but never did because of budget cuts, etc. To fans like ourselves it may not be inflammatory, but to the people who create it it is. There are no degrees of negative here - there is information Disney wants publicly presented in the parks and information they do not. To many guests who don't frequent Disney sites, yes, being told that there was this great attraction you will never see is negative.
slappy magoo said:
2: From what I heard (and since I never took the tour, I take "what I heard" with a grain of salt), Jim's tour was filled with info you were never going to get on any other tour, so therefore, it wouldn't interfere with Disney's bottom line at all. If he were only regurgitating the official Disney tour shpiel, and charging less and thus undercutting Disney (and I understand that's what many other tours do), I'd be more inclined to understandwhy Disney would shut him up. But anyone taking Jim's tour was probably more interested in understanding the nuts-and-bolts history of the park than the whimsical aspect of the park. If anything, Disney should consider a more mature business-oriented style tour of that park to cater to that audience.
The content differences are irrelevant. He is giving paid tours. Just like the Disney rep said, it's like coming to Disneyland and setting up a T-shirt shop in the park. It doesn't matter if you sell T-shirts that you can't get there, it's still the fact that you are selling the same type of product.
It's very very cut and dry. Jim Hill would like you to believe otherwise. He was operating a business in Disneyland that was unauthorized that gave information that Disney did not want someone to get paid to give in THEIR park. And now Jim Hill is using it to elevate himself above "blogger".
It doesn't give his speculative and source-less stories any more weight in my eyes. It's like he has a computer program that spits them out their content is typically so generic he has to try to create a stir to get people to read. Jim Hill WISHES he was a figure in Disney history - and this is his big attempt at becoming it through martyrdom.
People can defend him all they want, but the simple fact is : he was wrong, any way you cut it. And it's quite amusing to see him attempt to make better of it - but man, I'll tell you, I would NOT be proud of the fact that I got kicked out of Disneyland. I'd be so ashamed - being told I wasn't welcome (even temporarily) in the happiest place on earth wouldn't tell me "hey I should try to sell CDs to make money now!", it would tell me maybe I should rethink my relationship to the mouse.
Jim Hill doesn't have that much sense - he just sees it as a money making opportunity and a way to make himself an anti-hero. Ego, ego, ego. Strip away the annoying writing style, the warmed-over stories, and the very few actual sources he cites - and that's really all Jim Hill is.
AEfx
