New Crypt Queue in Haunted Mansion-What do you think?

[HBG2]

Here you go.



You haven't cited anything concrete.

You have many many assumptions, but nothing official that I have seen presented here. Therefore, everything is still just your opinion.

I simply asked you to support your opinion with cited references from an official source.

So, if I say, "The basic concept of the ride has been changed," and give the reasons why I think so, the sufficient rebuttal is, "Show me a book published by a Disney company where someone says, 'The basic concept of the ride has been changed.' If you can, then it's a fact. If you can't, then it's only your opinion and carries no weight." Is that really your position? The thing that changes "opinion" into "fact" in your mind is whether or not there's a book somewhere with that thing printed in it? Good Lord.

 

[jakeman]

So, if I say, "The basic concept of the ride has been changed," and give the reasons why I think so, the sufficient rebuttal is, "Show me a book published by a Disney company where someone says, 'The basic concept of the ride has been changed.' If you can, then it's a fact. If you can't, then it's only your opinion and carries no weight." Is that really your position? The thing that changes "opinion" into "fact" in your mind is whether or not there's a book somewhere with that thing printed in it? Good Lord.

Or a statement from Disney as to the original intent of the attraction is in line with your asertation.

Please forgive me if I am misreading your tone, but I'm unsure why that request is met with what appears to be incredulity.

 

[skimbob]

Wow! This thread shows just how much many of us love this ride. It boils down to whether one thinks this new queue adds to the attraction or takes from the attraction. I personally am not sure what I think. I see both sides in this and I know that not everyone will agree on this. As for the hitchhiking ghosts I think they are trying to enhance them. Whether this works or not will be left up to invidual interpretation. The imagineers are trying to improve the ride experience and like us they are not always going to be able to hit a home run with all of the fans. I hate to see people attack each other over this. This forum is meant for people to express their opinions. It is not a place for us to attack each other. Let's face it we wouldn't be on here if we didn't love Disney and want the best for the parks. Enough said.

 

[yensidtlaw1969]

Or a statement from Disney as to the original intent of the attraction is in line with your asertation.

Does the attraction itself not make this statement? Quite simply, for a long time no ghosts were fully present in any of the world's three mansions before Madame Leota summoned them and there were no instances where theming interfered with that sequencing. Now there are.

 

[jakeman]

Does the attraction itself not make this statement? Quite simply, for a long time no ghosts were fully present in any of the world's three mansions before Madame Leota summoned them and there were no instances where theming interfered with that sequencing. Now there are.

Are ghost fully present now?

I haven't been there but from what I can tell there is no full body apparition or any sort of non-repeating phantasm or a class-5 free roaming vapor.

 

[HBG2]

Or a statement from Disney as to the original intent of the attraction is in line with your asertation.

Please forgive me if I am misreading your tone, but I'm unsure why that request is met with what appears to be incredulity.

Incredulity because argumentum ad potentiam hasn't seen much use since the 16th century.

 

[Krack]

The art director and show designer for this WDW queue is Peter Carsillo. He has exchanged several PMs with me over the past week and personally wants to open a private dialogue with me to discuss the project, having read my very negative comments. He tells me he's a big fan of the blog.

I would kill to read this conversation (I know, you said private, so I'm not asking - private should be private). But, still, I'd kill to read this conversation. I've got about 25 questions that I'd like to ask myself.

 

[jakeman]

Incredulity because argumentum ad potentiam hasn't seen much use since the 16th century.

/sigh

You definitely are a professor. Since in your opinion, what you deduce is more accurate than what the originator of the material may deem is factual.

I guess it is too much to expect the people who came up with the concept, designed, built, operate, and upgrade the attraction to have a better understanding than an internet poster.

You missed this part of your article:

As with all logical fallacies, the fact that an argument is an appeal to authority does not make its conclusion untrue...and does not make it unreasonable to believe the truth of the argument.

As a professor would you support a conclusion that doesn't take into account any quotes from the originator of the material?

Taken to the extreme (a little Slippery Slope argument for you), I'm sure I could make up all sorts of things about you. I guess they would be true as long as I could support them with a heavy dose of inference and I don't ask you directly about them right?

So again I'll ask, please provide citations for your conclusion that go beyond your personal inferences. If you are unwillingly or unable to do so, that's fine. Your opinion is just as valid as anyone else, but it is not a fact and never was.

 

[HBG2]

As a professor would you support a conclusion that doesn't take into account any quotes from the originator of the material?

Absolutely yes. What's true is true, regardless of whether or not the person who created the work you're discussing decided to talk about it somewhere. If you want, I could pull out the old Marc Davis quote to the effect that he didn't think these rides should tell stories but rather provide a set of experiences, which fits my analysis like a glove. No story, just you in a haunted house. There is a school of thought among some Disney Imagineers that Davis was just wrong, and they think rides should tell stories. That's what happened at Phantom Manor. It's well-known that Davis hated PM. The Constance thing pushes the HM in that direction, but it's still stuff involving realistic people (not cartoons) and it's stuff you could conceivably learn while going through a real haunted house. Here are some pictures in the attic, with dates on them. Here are some marriage certificates. Here is a wedding portrait with the same pose as the stretchroom widow, etc. Since they made sure the Constance story was something you could just pick up by looking at stuff lying around as you make your way through a haunted house, it technically stays in bounds. But the new stuff involves characters that don't or couldn't exist in the real world, so if the HM contains and tells their stories as "real," then the imaginative world of the HM must be a cartoony, unrealistic world, and the ride doesn't mimic the experience of you going through a real haunted house anymore. You're going through a haunted house that has its setting in another, cartoonish world. A milder version of ToonTown. I call that a fundamental change in concept, and I think it comes in part by ignoring Davis's prescription.

 

[jakeman]

Absolutely yes. What's true is true, regardless of whether or not the person who created the work you're discussing decided to talk about it somewhere.

I'm sorry, I disagree with this philosophy. Progenitors of materials and ideas have the authority to dictate what their own works mean.

If anything is open to interpretation then nothing is true, which is what you are saying. If nothing is true then there are no facts. If there are no facts then there is no true support for your argument. Therefore, your "facts" are nothing more than opinion.

In my opinion, it is the height of arrogance to assume that you know more about a work than the producer of the work.

 

[HBG2]

Taking it to PM's, as this is going to go further and further off topic.

 

[Malvito]

I think you are so hung up on attacking the messenger over tone, that you don't really care what the message is. If you don't like being called "blissfully unaware", I'm sorry that upsets you, but it's the tamest way I could think of to express that viewpoint (a viewpoint I still hold despite your posting).

I attacked someone? Only if suggesting that a little civility might help HBG2 get his message across better might be considered an "attack."

If I'm watching Raiders of the Lost Ark and I say to my friend, "I love Indiana Jones. He's such a heroic figure, almost like he's been a great guy his entire life, always doing the right thing," and my friend explains to me that if you look at the subtle clues of the film - that he was in his mid-20s having a romantic affair with a 16 year old girl, that everyone but his best friend describes him as a grave robber, that he's entirely self-obsessed until the last 20 minutes of the film (that they made an entire prequel explaining he spent his youth concerned only with "fortune and glory") - my first reaction is not to say "Oh, you spend too much time thinking about things" or "just enjoy it" or "I'm not going to get bent out of shape worrying about it." I'd generally be thankful the person explained to me something hidden beneath the surface and improved my understanding of the story.

These items might deepen the character for you, but they will not elevate the Indiana Jones saga into Shakespearean literature, anymore than a deepening of the HM experience, for some, would constitute art of comparison to the Mona Lisa, a comparison made earlier in this thread. And, to use the Indiana Jones movies as an example, if I do not care for movies #2 and/or #4, I can ignore them without ruining my enjoyment of the remaining movies, as I can, if I so choose, not allow an interactive queue to ruin my enjoyment of HM, if I find I don't enjoy the interactivity.

That is what I mean by "blissfully unaware". HBG2 is explaining things in the attraction that are in some cases hidden beneath the surface (and in other instances obvious, imo). Instead of saying "hmm, I never thought about it that way," or "I disagree because of [insert fact based analysis of the story here]," people are just saying "Stop being a fanboy" (as if that's a perjorative on a WDW message board) or "You're thinking about it too much" - as if being knowledgeable about the subject or having informed opinions (even if they are debatable) is something he should be ashamed of. I disagree.

HBG2 is stating his interpretations of aspects of the HM experience as "facts," obvious to people who read them "the right way." That such interpretation is subjective seems anethema to him. Jakeman has requested, for several posts, citation by the creators of the attraction to support HB's interpretations as the only possible interpretations, to no avail. It is this refusal to either show how his opinions are informed or to even cede the debatability of the subject, and not the interpretations themselves, that are garnering accusations of behaving like a stereotypical fanboy or of overthinking the subject.

And, for the record, I don't care what your viewpoint is, or whether or not it can be changed. It remains your viewpoint, not a "fact."

 

[HBG2]

HBG2 is stating his interpretations of aspects of the HM experience as "facts," obvious to people who read them "the right way."

Show me. I give my honest interpretations of facts. I don't say the interpretations are themselves facts. If you can find some place where I have, then I'll withdraw it with apologies.

And just because it is such a nasty little devil in these kinds of conversations, I'm going to insert this little thing. Skip it if you want:

We need to be careful when we say, "That's your opinion." Sometimes (lots of times?) when someone says that, what they really mean is, "That's merely your opinion." That wins the argument by cheating. If I say, "In my opinion, the world is round and not flat," and someone says "That's your opinion," they're stating the obvious, so technically they're right. If what they mean is, "That's just your opinion," then they're wrong, because it's an opinion based on good evidence.

So if some readers think they've countered or neutralized something I've said by saying, "That's your opinion," then they're cheating, because if they mean that literally, then of course it's true; but if what they really mean is, "That's only your opinion," then it isn't true if I've cited evidence to support it. I may still be very wrong, but it's not because it's "only my opinion," it's because the evidence cited is inadequate or inaccurate or not logically relevant, or something like that. You challenge an opinion by pointing out that kind of thing, not by chanting, "That's not a fact, that's (just) your opinion." I'm not pointing to anyone in particular, but I see this kind of thing all the time, and it's a devil. It turns debates into quarrels.

 

[jokerjames94]

New visiter to the forum. HUGE Haunted Mansion fan. Just breezed through that long conversation. lol

My opinion keeps changing about the queue. Part of me LOVES it because it adds a new layer to the story, or at least to the characters. Part of me hates it because it really is just a huge disruption to the feel of the Mansion.

Forgive me for forgetting their names. I think Gracey was one of them...but there were those two imagineers who kind of were responsible for making the mansion what it is. One wanted it to be really spooky (this, if memory serves, was Gracey. Still not sure. Too lazy to google it, lol) and the other wanted it to be fun. They combined this, spooky elements in the beginning, fun at the end.

This, to me, is the perfect arrangement.

The wait is what builds the suspense. It kills you, it's annoying, but the majority of the time if you're a first time rider you are only thinking "will this be scary? how scary will it be?" (or, at least this was the case for me when I was around ten. I ended up almost crying because well...I was terrified). But to me that's perfect. It should build up the terror, scare you, then ease into the fun at the end.

When you sandwich in the scariness with this potentially fun queue (hey, they make it seem fun but maybe it'll seem a little bit more morbid when they're totally done) it kind of ruins the flow. You have this fun in the queue, and then all the suspense is gone. Maybe it won't effect it if you come to your senses when you first go in the Mansion. idk. I won't know til' I see it myself. I'm mostly undecided about the queue. Maybe this was all already said. I kind of quickly sped through all the other posts. But yeah. That's my take on it.

 

[Krack]

Forgive me for forgetting their names. I think Gracey was one of them...but there were those two imagineers who kind of were responsible for making the mansion what it is. One wanted it to be really spooky (this, if memory serves, was Gracey. Still not sure. Too lazy to google it, lol) and the other wanted it to be fun. They combined this, spooky elements in the beginning, fun at the end.

This, to me, is the perfect arrangement.

Claude Coats (spooky) and Marc Davis (funny)

 

[WDWGoof07]

New visiter to the forum. HUGE Haunted Mansion fan. Just breezed through that long conversation. lol

My opinion keeps changing about the queue. Part of me LOVES it because it adds a new layer to the story, or at least to the characters. Part of me hates it because it really is just a huge disruption to the feel of the Mansion.

Forgive me for forgetting their names. I think Gracey was one of them...but there were those two imagineers who kind of were responsible for making the mansion what it is. One wanted it to be really spooky (this, if memory serves, was Gracey. Still not sure. Too lazy to google it, lol) and the other wanted it to be fun. They combined this, spooky elements in the beginning, fun at the end.

This, to me, is the perfect arrangement.

The wait is what builds the suspense. It kills you, it's annoying, but the majority of the time if you're a first time rider you are only thinking "will this be scary? how scary will it be?" (or, at least this was the case for me when I was around ten. I ended up almost crying because well...I was terrified). But to me that's perfect. It should build up the terror, scare you, then ease into the fun at the end.

When you sandwich in the scariness with this potentially fun queue (hey, they make it seem fun but maybe it'll seem a little bit more morbid when they're totally done) it kind of ruins the flow. You have this fun in the queue, and then all the suspense is gone. Maybe it won't effect it if you come to your senses when you first go in the Mansion. idk. I won't know til' I see it myself. I'm mostly undecided about the queue. Maybe this was all already said. I kind of quickly sped through all the other posts. But yeah. That's my take on it.

I've done a little thinking, and a few things have occurred to me since I first discussed this.

Of course, the buildup to the ride is different now, but I don't think the suspense has been in any way diminished. The fun elements in the graveyard lead you to let down your guard. The ghosts you interact with there seem to be harmless, and you enter the the house with no inhibitions. Then, the door shuts behind you. The changing images on the portraits and the stretching of the stretching room reveal that what you saw in the queue might well be poltergeist-influenced distortions of physical structures, which I believe is perfectly plausible in the HM world as indicated, for example, by the singing busts in the graveyard scene. Worse yet, the narration of the Ghost Host and the activity of unseen ghosts in the Hallway seem to indicate that most spirits here might not be as friendly as you thought in the queue. However, the happy haunts receive your sympathetic vibrations and visibly materialize to you for a swinging wake, putting your fears (mostly) to rest (hitchhiking ghosts that will haunt you until you return notwithstanding).

The suspenseful buildup is just different, not destroyed. Before the interactive queue, the wait outside the house was simply mysterious. Now, it's more of a head fake that lowers your inhibitions and entices you to go further, which makes that "no turning back now" feeling once you're trapped in the stretching room even more scary. The mystery is still there. If they silenced the poetess, the new queue would be even more effective in doing this.

 

[RSoxNo1]

21 pages? for a queue? (did it even open yet?)

Did I miss anything?

I KNOW this is a very-important deal in the world today because it was on the front page of what's left of my local newspaper (and no, I don't live in O-Town and no, I am not joking).

I think I'm going to build an interactive queue in my fanboi dungeon ...

We still have 180 pages to go to reach Lights of Winter status.

 

[Wilt Dasney]

9 pages for me. I'm always amazed at the number of people who stick with the default 15 posts/page setting. So much extra clicking!

 

[wm49rs]

9 pages for me. I'm always amazed at the number of people who stick with the default 15 posts/page setting. So much extra clicking!

I didn't know. I'm giving myself this in honor:

 

[lazyboy97o]

Or a statement from Disney as to the original intent of the attraction is in line with your asertation.

Please forgive me if I am misreading your tone, but I'm unsure why that request is met with what appears to be incredulity.

Disney is never going to admit that they have changed anything drastically, especially if it is something dating back to Walt and/or the original Imagineers. All of the work being done at Disney's California Adventure has been described as business as usual, the Disney tradition of "plussing". The closest the company has come to publicly acknowledging the park has not been received as expected and has problems is Iger saying, "In the spirit of candor, we have been challenged" at the March 2006 Annual Shareholders Meeting.

There is also the company's response to the opposition to the changes at Disneyland's "it's a small world" where again the Company said it was really nothing new. The Company has learned its lessons and to publicly admit altering an older work is a risk that can be bad for business. They sell Walt as part of the product and company image, and everything done today is painted as being in the vein of what he wanted.

You claim victory by asking for something that would never be stated publicly, a reality understood by most who spend even just a little time examining how Disney has and does operate.

How many official publications mention the color blind bulldozer operator at Disneyland, a story Marty Sklar admits to fabricating? How long did it take for Disney to really be forward with Walt's smoking, something even he tried to hide from the public for the sake image? Disney will only say what they want you to hear, regardless of its truthfulness. Most of the Imagineers who were the creative forces behind the Mansion cannot be asked to weigh in.