The NY Times just published an overview of New Fantasyland. The author, Stephanie Rosenbloom, is a regular columnist for the Times, and someone who has visited WDW more than 20 times.
For a piece by someone who's both a regular writer for the paper (as opposed to a "guest" columnist drawn from the ranks of the great unwashed) and a self-identified longtime park visitor, it's surprisingly bland.
There didn't seem to be too much in the way of particular insight, although Rosenbloom does talk briefly about issues that might be well-known in the fan community, but less well known among the general public (e.g., the closing of Snow White, and the angst that entailed among some fans).
The article is largely positive, although Rosenbloom throws in a few minor criticisms (the MK is "saccharine, expensive[,] and homogenous") and a poke or two at an Imagineer's reluctance to discuss the Lumiere AA as anything other than a "real" character. The nature and mildness of these comments tend to make them read more like an effort to keep the article "balanced" and less like genuine observations about problems in the parks (e.g., the lack of upkeep and regular maintenance).
On the whole, I was a bit baffled by the piece. Although it was largely free of the kind of factual errors that usually plague even the NYT's previous articles on Disney parks, its content was also so unexceptional as to make me wonder why the the paper bothered. The timing is also odd -- the information was gathered in early December, so why print the piece now? I suspect it didn't take several weeks to write, and its publication mere days before Christmas makes it of relatively little utility to anyone who might have been contemplating a last-minute holiday vacation.
Thoughts?
http://travel.nytimes.com/2012/12/23/travel/inside-disneys-new-fantasyland.html?ref=travel
And the author's companion piece on a "magical day" at WDW:
http://travel.nytimes.com/2012/12/23/travel/a-magical-day-at-disney.html?ref=travel&_r=0
For a piece by someone who's both a regular writer for the paper (as opposed to a "guest" columnist drawn from the ranks of the great unwashed) and a self-identified longtime park visitor, it's surprisingly bland.
There didn't seem to be too much in the way of particular insight, although Rosenbloom does talk briefly about issues that might be well-known in the fan community, but less well known among the general public (e.g., the closing of Snow White, and the angst that entailed among some fans).
The article is largely positive, although Rosenbloom throws in a few minor criticisms (the MK is "saccharine, expensive[,] and homogenous") and a poke or two at an Imagineer's reluctance to discuss the Lumiere AA as anything other than a "real" character. The nature and mildness of these comments tend to make them read more like an effort to keep the article "balanced" and less like genuine observations about problems in the parks (e.g., the lack of upkeep and regular maintenance).
On the whole, I was a bit baffled by the piece. Although it was largely free of the kind of factual errors that usually plague even the NYT's previous articles on Disney parks, its content was also so unexceptional as to make me wonder why the the paper bothered. The timing is also odd -- the information was gathered in early December, so why print the piece now? I suspect it didn't take several weeks to write, and its publication mere days before Christmas makes it of relatively little utility to anyone who might have been contemplating a last-minute holiday vacation.
Thoughts?
http://travel.nytimes.com/2012/12/23/travel/inside-disneys-new-fantasyland.html?ref=travel
And the author's companion piece on a "magical day" at WDW:
http://travel.nytimes.com/2012/12/23/travel/a-magical-day-at-disney.html?ref=travel&_r=0
