That's your opinion. I disagree. Imagine that, people disagree on an internet message board; we might have just made history. Your dollar is as green as mine and that's all Disney cares about.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
PHOTOS - New interactive Haunted Mansion queue opens for guest previews today
- Thread starter wdwmagic
- Start date
That's your opinion. I disagree. Imagine that, people disagree on an internet message board; we might have just made history. Your dollar is as green as mine and that's all Disney cares about.
jakeman
Well-Known Member
Yep, that's working out great.
I can see that the story is so clear cut that the fan base really understands what happens and doesn't have any sort of disagreements over the meaning or story of the ride.
(Little bit of sarcasm there)
This makes absolutely no sense in the context of this discussion.
donniedisney
Member
Of course it does. We disagree. And Disney couldn't care less about which one of us is "right" (or if either of us is "right") as long as we give them money.
FigmentJedi
Well-Known Member
Simba
HBG2
Member
Okay, I'm sure some of you are dreading this post. Bear in mind that that there are other readers who may be looking forward to it and find the discussion interesting. I'm giving you fair warning, and you can scroll on down, no harm, no foul. Besides, if someone says, "You're 100% wrong" and "it's just sour grapes," you really can't deprive a guy of the right to respond, can you?
The posts by fyn and redshoesrock were two of the better attempts I have seen to defend the "not unique occurrence" position, and they deserve a response. In no particular order...
The place is haunted. These can be dismissed right off the bat. "Materialize" means you can see the ghost. It has a ghostly body, you might say ("astral" body is a common term). "Haunted" does not refer simply to that. If a house is chock full of poltergeists, it's haunted, even though none of them have materialized. Who would say otherwise? The HM has been well and truly haunted with very noticeable but disembodied spirits for some time. Nothing you see before Leota is necessarily unique. Some of them are evidently in the actual fabric of the building and its furnishings, which explains the distortions of rooms and doors, the weird manipulations of paintings, and the banging on the walls. Others are apparently drifting around inside, like the ghostly piano player at WDW and the candelabra bearer in the Endless Hall. Oh, and contrary to what redshoe's comments might imply, the idea that spirits may be trapped in a building or some other physical "body" and unable to leave at will is not something foreign to common ghost lore.
"The real chills come later." Indeed they do. Downstairs they are content to glower at you and make scary faces through the artwork or disorient you through manipulation of the fabric of the building. Once you go upstairs, they get much scarier and much more threatening, culminating with an actual attack on you in the form of a shadowy hand. Those are real chills, probably the worst in the ride. By comparison, the materialized ghosts that follow Leota are hardly "chilling" (excepting the original attic, I will admit).
"The spirits will materialize only if you remain quietly seated at all times." This is part of the safety spiel, which is a necessary evil, part of the price you must pay in order to have an imaginary world operating for profit in a real world. I screen out "safety bar" stuff like I screen out the green EXIT lights. All he says here is that they won't materialize if you don't follow the safety rules OSHA and the Disney lawyers insist be given to you. Besides, nothing about it suggests that they have necessarily done it before. When the GH says that hey, maybe Leota can get 'em materialized, it isn't as if the thought just occurred to him. You join a séance in progress, so at this point Leota must already be in the house and getting warmed up, so to speak. The GH thinks this may be the lucky night and warns you not to screw it up.
Grim Grinning Ghosts come out to socialize. Contrary to what fyn claims, the grammar of GGG could describe either something that happens routinely, or something unique that is happening right now, this moment, as we speak.
They'll be expecting me. I don't see anything in the GH's comment that implies previous materialization. He is the Host. If they're going to throw a party, he'd better get down there and check in with them.
If you decide to join us, final arrangements may be made at the end of the tour. Equally true whether they're materialized or not, isn't it?
I don't agree with redshoes that "Looks Toon-Towny, looks tacky" and "The quiet build-up of creepiness that used to lead into the HM has been screwed up by this noisy thing" are the same kind of objection.
The argument that the ghosts go back behind the doors and bang away like that just as a joke, to scare you, while the GH is so sardonic that he usually means the opposite of what he says, is possible. The argument that they sound desperate because they are, and that the GH usually means more or less what he says, is also possible. Do I need to point out where the burden of proof lies in that kind of dispute?
Number 3: "Some small creepy things have been noticed at the mansion; people have even seen a ghost or two but (like most hauntings) it's nothing on a grand, huge scale. The ghosts, however, after feeling the sympathetic vibrations of their most recent visitors, decide to throw a huge party ("swinging wake") with their sympathetic "living" friends in tow. The caretaker has never seen anything happen like this -on that scale before- which accounts for his reaction.
Inadvertently, this argument of redshoes comes thisclose to simply restating my position. Under the mistaken impression that poltergeist banging, clanging, and distorting is materialization, redshoes argues that the Caretaker has been a frequent witness to such behavior before (plus, a "ghost or two" have been seen by folks), and he's astonished now because they've kicked it up a huge notch with this open, visible jamboree. Just throw out the comment about a ghost or two being seen (a speculation based on nothing) and ta da, there's my position: He's never seen them materialized like this before.
Besides, he's probably not the HM's caretaker anyway: he's the caretaker for the public cemetery behind the HM. He's headed through the big iron gate into the public cemetery with his shovel (i.e., to do some task) when we encounter him. I doubt that the HM has anyone taking care of it.
The posts by fyn and redshoesrock were two of the better attempts I have seen to defend the "not unique occurrence" position, and they deserve a response. In no particular order...
The place is haunted. These can be dismissed right off the bat. "Materialize" means you can see the ghost. It has a ghostly body, you might say ("astral" body is a common term). "Haunted" does not refer simply to that. If a house is chock full of poltergeists, it's haunted, even though none of them have materialized. Who would say otherwise? The HM has been well and truly haunted with very noticeable but disembodied spirits for some time. Nothing you see before Leota is necessarily unique. Some of them are evidently in the actual fabric of the building and its furnishings, which explains the distortions of rooms and doors, the weird manipulations of paintings, and the banging on the walls. Others are apparently drifting around inside, like the ghostly piano player at WDW and the candelabra bearer in the Endless Hall. Oh, and contrary to what redshoe's comments might imply, the idea that spirits may be trapped in a building or some other physical "body" and unable to leave at will is not something foreign to common ghost lore.
"The real chills come later." Indeed they do. Downstairs they are content to glower at you and make scary faces through the artwork or disorient you through manipulation of the fabric of the building. Once you go upstairs, they get much scarier and much more threatening, culminating with an actual attack on you in the form of a shadowy hand. Those are real chills, probably the worst in the ride. By comparison, the materialized ghosts that follow Leota are hardly "chilling" (excepting the original attic, I will admit).
"The spirits will materialize only if you remain quietly seated at all times." This is part of the safety spiel, which is a necessary evil, part of the price you must pay in order to have an imaginary world operating for profit in a real world. I screen out "safety bar" stuff like I screen out the green EXIT lights. All he says here is that they won't materialize if you don't follow the safety rules OSHA and the Disney lawyers insist be given to you. Besides, nothing about it suggests that they have necessarily done it before. When the GH says that hey, maybe Leota can get 'em materialized, it isn't as if the thought just occurred to him. You join a séance in progress, so at this point Leota must already be in the house and getting warmed up, so to speak. The GH thinks this may be the lucky night and warns you not to screw it up.
Grim Grinning Ghosts come out to socialize. Contrary to what fyn claims, the grammar of GGG could describe either something that happens routinely, or something unique that is happening right now, this moment, as we speak.
They'll be expecting me. I don't see anything in the GH's comment that implies previous materialization. He is the Host. If they're going to throw a party, he'd better get down there and check in with them.
If you decide to join us, final arrangements may be made at the end of the tour. Equally true whether they're materialized or not, isn't it?
I don't agree with redshoes that "Looks Toon-Towny, looks tacky" and "The quiet build-up of creepiness that used to lead into the HM has been screwed up by this noisy thing" are the same kind of objection.
The argument that the ghosts go back behind the doors and bang away like that just as a joke, to scare you, while the GH is so sardonic that he usually means the opposite of what he says, is possible. The argument that they sound desperate because they are, and that the GH usually means more or less what he says, is also possible. Do I need to point out where the burden of proof lies in that kind of dispute?
Number 3: "Some small creepy things have been noticed at the mansion; people have even seen a ghost or two but (like most hauntings) it's nothing on a grand, huge scale. The ghosts, however, after feeling the sympathetic vibrations of their most recent visitors, decide to throw a huge party ("swinging wake") with their sympathetic "living" friends in tow. The caretaker has never seen anything happen like this -on that scale before- which accounts for his reaction.
Inadvertently, this argument of redshoes comes thisclose to simply restating my position. Under the mistaken impression that poltergeist banging, clanging, and distorting is materialization, redshoes argues that the Caretaker has been a frequent witness to such behavior before (plus, a "ghost or two" have been seen by folks), and he's astonished now because they've kicked it up a huge notch with this open, visible jamboree. Just throw out the comment about a ghost or two being seen (a speculation based on nothing) and ta da, there's my position: He's never seen them materialized like this before.
Besides, he's probably not the HM's caretaker anyway: he's the caretaker for the public cemetery behind the HM. He's headed through the big iron gate into the public cemetery with his shovel (i.e., to do some task) when we encounter him. I doubt that the HM has anyone taking care of it.
billybastion
Member
This is one of the most internety arguments I've read in a long time.
I'm really looking forward to a conclusion that will surely bring us a definitive answer as to who is wrong and who is right. That will happen right?
unkadug
Follower of "Saget"The Cult
Only if you skip forward to the end of the internet.
http://www.endoftheinternet.com/
http://www.weirdity.com/internet/eoti.html
http://www.1112.net/lastpage.html
yankspy
Well-Known Member
I mean no disrespect to anyone else or their opinion I am just wondering what happened to HM simply being a fun ride.
It seems to me that once something is so overanalyzed the fun is taken out of it.
I have been experiencing HM for over thirty years. It is my favorite attraction. I have to say, I never had a desire to find out more about the storyline or to look for logical inconsistencies. I do not want to analyze my fun. I want to enjoy it. It is sort of like finding out how a magician does a trick. It no longer becomes fun.
Disney is absolutely famous for details. However, in a world of make believe, can we really cite logical incosistincies? If so, Disney has been doing that for years. King Stefan's Banquet Hall? The Tomorrowland Speedway?
I am sure there is a good point that I missed in the previous 10+ pages. (Yes , I read the whole thread). I guess I am just not that complex when it comes to certain forms of entertaining myself.
My apologies if this makes no sense. I often babble.
It seems to me that once something is so overanalyzed the fun is taken out of it.
I have been experiencing HM for over thirty years. It is my favorite attraction. I have to say, I never had a desire to find out more about the storyline or to look for logical inconsistencies. I do not want to analyze my fun. I want to enjoy it. It is sort of like finding out how a magician does a trick. It no longer becomes fun.
Disney is absolutely famous for details. However, in a world of make believe, can we really cite logical incosistincies? If so, Disney has been doing that for years. King Stefan's Banquet Hall? The Tomorrowland Speedway?
I am sure there is a good point that I missed in the previous 10+ pages. (Yes , I read the whole thread). I guess I am just not that complex when it comes to certain forms of entertaining myself.
My apologies if this makes no sense. I often babble.
Please don't take this the wrong way, but when I read a post like this my immediate first reaction is: Would it make you feel better if I lied and said I thought the new queue was a good idea?
jakeman
Well-Known Member
Yes.
yankspy
Well-Known Member
Always fight first reactions, they are usually emotional. To be serious though, it would not make me feel better. I just wish to understand. I am still not convinced that it is the travesty that some are making it out to be.
I do not necessarily think it is a bad idea. I think it is an addition that will make some happy, some not. Is it cartoony, absolutely. So are the portraits in the stretching room. Heck, I would even go so far as to say that some of them are Wyle Coyote esque.
However, my point still stands about logical inconsistencies.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
But what is it that makes the Disney attractions and parks fun? Why has it been so hard for so many to replicate Disney's success and level of fan devotion? While it may not be the whole reason, there is a lot of documentation out there from the people involved citing both Walt Disney's and eventually their own commitment to thinking about and sweating the "small stuff". It is perfectly acceptable to not want to bother with what you call "over analysis," but that in no way discounts our enjoyment in the analyses or proves that serious and meticulous thought did not occur or is unwarranted.
HBG2
Member
There is nothing wrong with your approach whatsoever. It is undoubtedly what most people do. I have no problem with it.
The thing is, now everyone is forced to go with your approach whether they want to or not. It used to be you could take it as just a funsy thing OR you could look at it more deeply, discovering and appreciating that it is truly a work of art unlike any other and answering very well to any amount of inquiry. Now, if you do that, you run into a raft of absurdities and contradictions that were never there before. Your way is now the only way, IMO, and that's a rotten shame.
wolf359
Well-Known Member
Please don't take this the wrong way, but when I read a post like this my immediate first reaction is: Will there ever be a day when we can be mature enough to wait until we've experienced something in person for ourselves before jumping on the bandwagon (whichever one) and drawing lines, digging trenches and "going to war" over our conclusions?
Sure, for those that feel like they need to be seen in these threads early on giving their valuable and deeply considered opinions it's easier to look at a few pics and video and jump right in, but there's nothing terribly worthwhile about that tactic.
Add in the fact it still isn't even finished yet, and no one has seen this at night leads me to believe it's still too early to have such well reasoned and dramatic essays already written on the topic.
JustInTime
Well-Known Member
I think it would make everyone feel a bit better. It's been pretty unbearable lately. It seems that with TDO it's a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. People nitpick everything to shreds. Anything from a new light socket to the new Fantasyland...nothing goes unscathed by the foaming fangs of the rabid fanboys these days. I know TDO has historically kept up with fan sites, but I hope they are overlooking this one for now. It's this kind of reaction that gets nothing done. The average guest don't care and the fanboys freak out at the smallest update (even the amazing ones like HM Queue and FLE). So why update if attendance is strong and nothing can please the Armchair Imagineer Fanboys?
So yes, please fake it! Put on a happy face incase the moaning has an actual impact. So that way us happy people can continue to get updates and new additions...
yankspy
Well-Known Member
I get the work of art part. I mean, I have been on the thing hundreds of times. It is definitely fun taken to a much higher level.
The thing is, art can be understood in a number of ways. When I saw the Mona Lisa, I just looked at it. I did not try to figure it out. (Yes I mentioned the Mona Lisa in an HM thread.:lol
I do also think that Disney has a history of contradictions, as I said in my original post.
As far as the only way, maybe they will continue to have two lines. For your sake, I hope so.
At least you're honest.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
This argument is always brought up, but it falls apart when being used against arguments that are based in the idea and not just the physical reality. There is an idea behind these additions and personal experience does not prohibit analyzing those ideas. Real stone, marble, copper and all of the other materials would make the execution impeccable in the reality of materials department, but would do nothing to change a lot of the criticisms.
Wilt Dasney
Well-Known Member
Dear lord, I'm about to agree with imagineer boy. :lookaroun
I've already said in Animaniac's thread that I like these queue enhancements in principle, and I'll stick with that. I think they work perfectly over at Pooh.
But after seeing the video, I'm not sure they fit the Mansion. HM has a specific narrative arc...you start off with the dark, foreboding, slightly menacing feel of the lobby, stretching room, inner queue, library, etc. which then segues into a jaunty, musical spook party in the graveyard (with the seance and ballroom serving as the barrier between the two).
With this, it looks like the more upbeat and jazzy parts of the story are now integrated into the queue, which gets things a bit out of order. A spot where kids used to look around nervously while a lonely dog howled in the distance (Speaking of which, did they remove the dog? I never heard him during my 5 or so rides in January) is now a spot where they'll jam out to a ghoulish rock concert.
I will take solace that it sounds like the stretch of queue leading up to the front doors doesn't have this stuff, so that little area can at least maintain some of the somber and creepy feel that you need when you enter the manor.