New Train Station Sign

[ford91exploder]

I forgot
5. Walt Disney is being erased out of existence from the company ...

Too many instances of 'Walt Disney' being shortened to 'Disney' one is a person, The latter is a BRAND

List of changes - corrected

1. The sign was changed from "the magic kingdom" to "magic kingdom"
2. The pop and elevation were removed, Population and Elevation were common elements on small town train stations one was Civic Pride the second was useful data for the engineer.
3. Walt Disney World - Removed from Sign
4 The original sign didn't have a pop and elevation - one version did not.
5. The sign now has an EST 1971 - Another BRAND reference and one coincidentally which is after Walt's death.

 

[King Panda 77]

Too many instances of 'Walt Disney' being shortened to 'Disney' one is a person, The latter is a BRAND

List of changes - corrected

1. The sign was changed from "the magic kingdom" to "magic kingdom"
2. The pop and elevation were removed, Population and Elevation were common elements on small town train stations one was Civic Pride the second was useful data for the engineer.
3. Walt Disney World - Removed from Sign
4 The original sign didn't have a pop and elevation - one version did not.
5. The sign now has an EST 1971 - Another BRAND reference and one coincidentally which is after Walt's death.

Thanks for the #fakenews as always.

 

[21stamps]

I wonder if people were so upset when it changed the last time...

 

[ford91exploder]

Thanks for the #fakenews as always.

I suggest you actually LOOK at the old sign which @danlb_2000 thoughtfully posted early in the thread

http://forums.wdwmagic.com/threads/new-train-station-sign.925144/#post-7612543

As to the Pop/Elevation elements they were extremely common on Midwestern Railways.

 

[King Panda 77]

I suggest you actually LOOK at the old sign which @danlb_2000 thoughtfully posted early in the thread

http://forums.wdwmagic.com/threads/new-train-station-sign.925144/#post-7612543

As to the Pop/Elevation elements they were extremely common on Midwestern Railways.

Not what i was refering to. Keep deflecting by all means.

 

[21stamps]

Sorry, a bit of inside joke, it's been a mini-campaign of mine recently.

I love funnel cake but the only time I ever get one is when I'm at WDW, which isn't very often.

So I just posted in another thread about a wish for more "healthy " options..
However, to completely contradict that-
I wouldn't complain if Disney World started serving these delicious funnel cakes..

 

[The_Jobu]

So I just posted in another thread about a wish for more "healthy " options..
However, to completely contradict that-
I wouldn't complain if Disney World started serving these delicious funnel cakes..
View attachment 193967

Healthy is an ... "option". I'm glad it's there for people who so choose. But on the rare times I find myself in WDW, I live wildly and eat all the things. I'm lucky I can only afford one buffet per trip.

 

[Tom P.]

Too many instances of 'Walt Disney' being shortened to 'Disney' one is a person, The latter is a BRAND

List of changes - corrected

1. The sign was changed from "the magic kingdom" to "magic kingdom"
2. The pop and elevation were removed, Population and Elevation were common elements on small town train stations one was Civic Pride the second was useful data for the engineer.
3. Walt Disney World - Removed from Sign
4 The original sign didn't have a pop and elevation - one version did not.
5. The sign now has an EST 1971 - Another BRAND reference and one coincidentally which is after Walt's death.

My considered replies to your revised list:

1. So what?
2. So what?
3. So what?
4. So what?
5. So what?

As regards your larger point, like it or not, "Walt Disney" is as much a brand as "Disney" is today. The man died over 50 years ago. A very large percentage of visitors to the theme parks have never known "Walt Disney" as anything other than the name of a theme park or a film studio. I guarantee you that for the vast majority of people, Walt Disney World does not evoke any more memory of the man than Disney World does. It's a sad but true fact brought on not by disrespect for the man and what he accomplished, but simply by the passage of time.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Funny how no one wants to directly call out the guy with decades of themed entertainment design experience as ridiculous.

 

[Phil12]

Remember when McDonald's had signs that denoted how many hamburgers they had sold? I always liked those signs as they changed from one million to two million and on up the numerical scale. I think they finally stopped and just left it at "Over 99 Billion Served" before they stopped using those signs.

Wouldn't it be cool if the Magic Kingdom had a counter on their sign that told you the number of guests that entered the park?

 

[larryz]

View attachment 194002 View attachment 194002 Remember when McDonald's had signs that denoted how many hamburgers they had sold? I always liked those signs as they changed from one million to two million and on up the numerical scale. I think they finally stopped and just left it at "Over 99 Billion Served" before they stopped using those signs.

Wouldn't it be cool if the Magic Kingdom had a counter on their sign that told you the number of guests that entered the park?
View attachment 194002

They could just use the National Debt Clock and label it "Satisfied Guests."

 

[The_Jobu]

1. So what?
2. So what?
3. So what?
4. So what?
5. So what?

Do you actually have a thought or opinion for him, or did you honestly just jump into page 12 of a thread to be facetious and ignore all the previous discussion?

People are aware we're all on a WDW forum, right? We're not accosting people on the street with extended diatribes about welcome signs. The mods can save us all a lot of time by replacing the forums with a locked thread called "who cares? It's a theme park".

 

[TP2000]

The reassuring serenity of early 70's WDW. No elevation and population.

Interesting! And it doesn't look like the original sign made space for elevation and population. And yet at Disneyland they had been including that info on the train station sign since 1956, 15 years before WDW opened in '71. The first figure Disneyland put up there was a population of 5 Million in the summer of 1956.

Disneyland kept updating the population annually, and here's that sign in 1965, when Disneyland hit 50 Million guests during the Tencennial, just before Walt announced the Florida Project.

Since Disneyland had added the Population and Elevation to their sign in 1956, and updated the population figure regularly for 15 years before WDW opened, I would have to think the 1971 sign didn't have that info on it because they had no population yet. I would imagine the WDW sign was updated with population, and a symmetrical elevation figure on the opposite end of the sign, sometime around 1972 or '73.

 

[articos]

Interesting! And it doesn't look like the original sign made space for elevation and population. And yet at Disneyland they had been including that info on the train station sign since 1956, 15 years before WDW opened in '71. The first figure Disneyland put up there was a population of 5 Million in the summer of 1956.

Disneyland kept updating the population annually, and here's that sign in 1965, when Disneyland hit 50 Million guests during the Tencennial, just before Walt announced the Florida Project.

Since Disneyland had added the Population and Elevation to their sign in 1956, and updated the population figure regularly for 15 years before WDW opened, I would have to think the 1971 sign didn't have that info on it because they had no population yet. I would imagine the WDW sign was updated with population, and a symmetrical elevation figure on the opposite end of the sign, sometime around 1972 or '73.

I just corrected my post. The pop/elev figures were added in 73 (not 71), when the numbers were released after the first year (Oct 71-72), for exactly what you are saying. Elevation was added, then population shortly after.

 

[Tom P.]

Do you actually have a thought or opinion for him, or did you honestly just jump into page 12 of a thread to be facetious and ignore all the previous discussion?

People are aware we're all on a WDW forum, right? We're not accosting people on the street with extended diatribes about welcome signs. The mods can save us all a lot of time by replacing the forums with a locked thread called "who cares? It's a theme park".

In the mass of messages that make up the 12 pages of this thread, perhaps you were just skimming through and missed it. But after I posted my facetious response, I also a paragraph of actual, reasoned argument as to why I disagree with his point of view.

Additionally, for all of those who continue to use an argument along the lines of "this is a discussion forum, what do you expect?", I certainly understand that's what the forum is here for. However, as an active, participating member of these forums, why is it not just as much my prerogative to point out when I think an argument is silly as it is the prerogative of another poster to state their point of view? And being a bit snarky in expressing points of view, as I was, also happens to be part and parcel to discussions on the Internet. But as I said, I didn't *just* post to be snarky, I also gave my argument.

And, for the record, my argument was not that no one should care because it's a theme park. I care deeply about topics related to Walt Disney World. My argument was that (a) the changes are, IMHO, not significant enough to be worth caring about and (b) that I think the ship has sailed long ago with the name Walt Disney being associated more with a brand than with a man.

 

[NearTheEars]

Any other examples of aesthetic changes to things within (the) Magic Kingdom? And any passionate opinions on either side of the argument? Purple Rocks? New Benches? New Garbage Cans? Is that the same level of change, or is this sign a different level of change?

The entire hub was referred to as a "dumbing down" and ruining theme several times.

 

[NearTheEars]

Too many instances of 'Walt Disney' being shortened to 'Disney' one is a person, The latter is a BRAND

List of changes - corrected

1. The sign was changed from "the magic kingdom" to "magic kingdom"
2. The pop and elevation were removed, Population and Elevation were common elements on small town train stations one was Civic Pride the second was useful data for the engineer.
3. Walt Disney World - Removed from Sign
4 The original sign didn't have a pop and elevation - one version did not.
5. The sign now has an EST 1971 - Another BRAND reference and one coincidentally which is after Walt's death.

Do you think they should stop doing the anniversary celebrations, like the upcoming 50th, since that would be unbelievably BRAND referential. And much like Disneyland's 60th will be everywhere.

 

[The_Jobu]

In the mass of messages that make up the 12 pages of this thread, perhaps you were just skimming through and missed it. But after I posted my facetious response, I also a paragraph of actual, reasoned argument as to why I disagree with his point of view.

Additionally, for all of those who continue to use an argument along the lines of "this is a discussion forum, what do you expect?", I certainly understand that's what the forum is here for. However, as an active, participating member of these forums, why is it not just as much my prerogative to point out when I think an argument is silly as it is the prerogative of another poster to state their point of view? And being a bit snarky in expressing points of view, as I was, also happens to be part and parcel to discussions on the Internet. But as I said, I didn't *just* post to be snarky, I also gave my argument.

And, for the record, my argument was not that no one should care because it's a theme park. I care deeply about topics related to Walt Disney World. My argument was that (a) the changes are, IMHO, not significant enough to be worth caring about and (b) that I think the ship has sailed long ago with the name Walt Disney being associated more with a brand than with a man.

Ok so you didn't have a counter point in the first part? Just wanted to verify.

I don't care about a lot of things on this forum either so I'd better get busy letting people know that in threads. It's the hip new thing.

 

[larryz]

In the mass of messages that make up the 12 pages of this thread, perhaps you were just skimming through and missed it. But after I posted my facetious response, I also a paragraph of actual, reasoned argument as to why I disagree with his point of view.

Additionally, for all of those who continue to use an argument along the lines of "this is a discussion forum, what do you expect?", I certainly understand that's what the forum is here for. However, as an active, participating member of these forums, why is it not just as much my prerogative to point out when I think an argument is silly as it is the prerogative of another poster to state their point of view? And being a bit snarky in expressing points of view, as I was, also happens to be part and parcel to discussions on the Internet. But as I said, I didn't *just* post to be snarky, I also gave my argument.

And, for the record, my argument was not that no one should care because it's a theme park. I care deeply about topics related to Walt Disney World. My argument was that (a) the changes are, IMHO, not significant enough to be worth caring about and (b) that I think the ship has sailed long ago with the name Walt Disney being associated more with a brand than with a man.

It's all good as long as you can keep it civil and don't start screaming for a mod to lock it because you think it's useless/silly.

 

[Tom P.]

Ok so you didn't have a counter point in the first part? Just wanted to verify.

I don't care about a lot of things on this forum either so I'd better get busy letting people know that in threads. It's the hip new thing.

Are you deliberately trying to be a jerk? Seriously. I'm asking for real, I'd appreciate a real answer.

My message had a point, and it was well beyond "I don't care," but you ignored that to snip at me for daring to post my message. I then replied to you, trying to be as nice as possible, and re-explained the point that I was making and why I chose to explain it in the way that I did. You again have chosen to ignore what I said, instead again implying that I should have just minded my own business and stayed out of this precious thread.

Unless and until I am told by a moderator here that I am doing something against the rules, I will continue to post in whichever threads I choose with whatever content I choose. If you would like to put me on ignore so that you don't have to waste your time, feel free. You won't hurt my feelings one bit.