This looks… ummm… like… something… is being scooped. But not what they were going for.
I missed this when you posted it yesterday. I’m not sure I understand the distinction. Visually speaking, the Hallmark and Timex fonts (especially the latter) very conspicuously disrupt the turn-of-the-century theme. Even the non-branded Chinese laundry sign looks totally wrong for the period.The logo does. The signs themselves are consistent with the other, non-branded signs.
I believe it is a nostalgic nod to the real hero of MK, the horse pooper scooper! He or she always gets hearty applause in my experience. I gleefully shouted “YOU are the Magic!” at him last time.This looks… ummm… like… something… is being scooped. But not what they were going for.
I've seen caramel corn that looks a lot like that.That may be the intention, but that ain’t popcorn as I know it.
This is my take. I'm not necessarily offended that they would choose to highlight the M&M sponsorship. As @LittleBuford has mentioned, they've always had sponsorship on Main Street and it kind of fits the theme. I mean, they're supposed to be shops selling things.If the goal was to add more explicit references to M&Ms to the façade, there were other options.
If they wanted to make an argument that it’s caramel corn, they should have made the scoop a different color. Right now, it looks like it’s all made out of the same colors, so that the only thing that people take in are the m&ms. Such a sad day, product promo should never be this obvious in the parks.
They turned over leadership of the company to an ex-weatherman from ABC and followed that up by installing a merchandising huckster as CEO.Again, what has happened to Disney?
I don't know if that plays much of a part here. These decisions are being made at a much lower level and are largely creative ones. I'm also not sure it's a cost issue. There does seem to be an issue with the culture of the company, though, which perhaps can be traced up to the CEO. These days they just seem to swing wildly between traditional Disney standards and discarding most of the rules of what once constituted Disney standards from project to project, day to day. WDW in particular seems to have pretty poor middle management when it comes to show standards.They turned over leadership of the company to an ex-weatherman from ABC and followed that up by installing a merchandising huckster as CEO.
This is my take. I'm not necessarily offended that they would choose to highlight the M&M sponsorship. As @LittleBuford has mentioned, they've always had sponsorship on Main Street and it kind of fits the theme. I mean, they're supposed to be shops selling things.
I just feel that once upon a time they would have taken the effort to look at advertising from the period and create something that both promoted the product and enhanced the theme. This doesn't seem to do either very well as it's hard to tell what it's even supposed to represent and looks weirdly tacked on.
Kind of like that new poster in the Jungle Cruise queue promoting the Alberta Falls backstory. I have no problem with them doing it, but can't they at least make it look as though it's from the same time period as the rest of the attraction? Again, what has happened to Disney?
Great minds think alike! In the post above I also mentioned the photos right before you posted!they do seem to have created back story and such -- inside the store they have odd photos (odd to me) such as this one:
View attachment 621120
They are confusing Mainstreet with a more Toontown Mainstreet. Baffling.
The transition from Main Street to something more like Toontown has been going on for a long time now.
Helps to justify the meet 'n greets and character merch and the removal of any activity or items that may actually support the OG theme.
Indeed - even this simple photoshopping shows how much a difference it would make to include a period-looking photo of an actual person instead of a weird cartoon:They are confusing Mainstreet with a more Toontown Mainstreet. Baffling.
Indeed - even this simple photoshopping shows how much a difference it would make to include a period-looking photo of an actual person instead of a weird cartoon:
View attachment 621168
I'm sure Disney has dozens of Imagineers who would have gladly lent themselves to being photographed for each of these photos around the Confectionery. They'd achieve the exact same ends while keeping with the theming of Main Street to a stronger degree.
Indeed - even this simple photoshopping shows how much a difference it would make to include a period-looking photo of an actual person instead of a weird cartoon:
View attachment 621168
I'm sure Disney has dozens of Imagineers who would have gladly lent themselves to being photographed for each of these photos around the Confectionery. They'd achieve the exact same ends while keeping with the theming of Main Street to a stronger degree.
I think it's just a basic philosophy that "cartoon = Disney"
Yes, a photo of a real person (archival or staged) would look much better, but I'm sure to WDI and guests today that wouldn't look "Disney" enough.
And it is so convoluted and they are inconsistent in the worst ways, because meanwhile you have the Phil Holmes portrait type situation in Fantasyland, where it should look more from an animated tale or storybook.
Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.