Safe to panic now (Seas Holes!)

[planet7]

You're an idiot and a lost cause. Go away...

If only it were that easy to banish people from your sandbox.

 

[planet7]

No it doesn't. It means you think apples in general are good. But that doesn't mean that you won't have the occasional bad apple.

Oh my God, I don't believe we're having this conversation.

You're right, "apples in general", "change in general", which--even by your own definition--means "all but the rare exception". That's just a hair's breadth away from "all apples" and "all change". And apparently--at least around here--there is no such thing as a "bad apple" when it comes to Disney, so for all intents and purposes, it may as well mean "all apples" and "all change".

I feel myself losing brain cells by the second...

G7

 

[peter11435]

Oh my God, I don't believe we're having this conversation.

You're right, "apples in general", "change in general". That's not terribly far from "all apples" and "all change". And apparently--at least around here--there is no such thing as a "bad apple" when it comes to Disney, so for all intents and purposes, it may as well mean "all apples" and "all change".

There are "bad apples" when it comes to Disney, but that doesn't change the fact that "change in general" (even at Disney) is good. Although a quick read of your profile shows you seem to hate change or anything new for that matter, so I guess you wouldn't understand.

I feel myself losing brain cells by the second...

Thats your own fault.

You seem to have the mistaken impression that you are more intelligent than everyone else here, and well...

 

[planet7]

Although a quick read of your profile shows you seem to hate change or anything new for that matter...You seem to have the mistaken impression that you are more intelligent than everyone else here, and well...

It amazes me how much absolute strangers think they know about me.

G7

 

[wannab@dis]

It amazes me how much absolute strangers think they know about me.

G7

You're posts and profile are fairly revealing. If you want to create a different impression, you may want to change ( :zipit: ) your posting style some.

 

[planet7]

You're posts and profile are fairly revealing. If you want to create a different impression, you may want to change ( :zipit: ) your posting style some.

I say what I mean, and mean what I say. People read into it whatever they want to, and think they know somehting that they don't. I won't change my persona or posting style, least of all to acquiesce to people who are going to draw their own outrageous conclusions no matter what I say.

G7

 

[wannab@dis]

I say what I mean, and mean what I say. People read into it whatever they want to, and think they know somehting that they don't. I won't change my persona of posting style, least of all to acquiesce to people who are going to draw their own outrageous conclusions no matter what I say.

G7

I think we're back to the definition of "is."

 

[jmvd20]

I say what I mean, and mean what I say. Pepole read into it whatever they want to, and think they know somehting that they don't.

G7

Are any of your 58 posts not negative to a member of this forum? If there are some are any of those not negative in general?

 

[planet7]

Are any of your 58 posts not negative to a member of this forum? If there are some are any of those not negative in general?

Wow, yet another person jumping on the bandwagon. Just because it drives by, doesn't mean you have to jump on it, you know.

I started by responding to a post about The Land. Others turned it negative against me. With the exception of my last post--which was a general statement to all the current passengers on this pathetic bandwagon--I'd committed to ignoring the trolls, most notably "Wannabe". Go back and read how many times he swiped at me, and I didn't say a word.

If you want to know other specifics about my posts, you'll have to re-read them yourself, and--like everyone else--draw your own conclusions, right or wrong.

G7

 

[wdwishes2005]

Hey. I've got an idea, lets quit bickering and get back to a healthy debate. This thread and the way some of the formerly respectable posters have been acting takes me back to grade school.......

 

[wannab@dis]

all the current passengers on this pathetic bandwagon

Perfect summation of your posts. :wave:

However, the only bandwagon that I've seen is the one your driving and I haven't seen but a couple of people riding with you. Maybe the bandwagon should be parked.

 

[CommandoDisney]

I'm guessing you grew up in the late 80's, early 90's, right? You have a much different concept of "success" than I do. (That's not a dig, it's just an observation, a sign of the times).



G7

uhh... what? dictionary time:
suc·cess n.

1. The achievement of something desired, planned, or attempted: <CITE>attributed their success in business to hard work.</CITE>
2. 1. <LI type=a>The gaining of fame or prosperity: <CITE>an artist spoiled by success.</CITE>
   2. The extent of such gain.
3. One that is successful: <CITE>The plan was a success</CITE>

<CITE></CITE>
<CITE>the desire for the pavillions is to have a lot of people in them. sure you can argue that they want to educate and entertain but first they have to get people to get into them. so i would say it was a success. and thats not an opinion, that is a fact. the WoL was not being successful in this anymore. it closed. whether it was a good pavillion anymore or not is an opinion. it wasnt getting many people to come into it anymore, it was not longer successful. soarin' went into the land, more people went into it, its very popular. success. i not concerned about anything else being argued here, but i really dont think this can be argued. im not sure where the decades thing came in... i dont know what decades you grew up in that makes it any different</CITE>

 

[marni1971]

Jeezz.... talk about a drift...

Lets talk about what`s at The Seas. For better or for worse. Try PM-ing personal discussions?

Just a note after 2 or 3 pages of no on-topic discussion :wave:

 

[planet7]

im not sure where the decades thing came in... i dont know what decades you grew up in that makes it any different

The 80's and 90's, probably more than any other decades in American history, defined success solely in terms of numbers--more specifically, dollars. Yes, people have always chased a buck, but I've never seen the kind of rampant and outrageous greed--and disregard for all else--that I have in those two decades.

This greed is also manifested in other ways, with these decades being the "me generation", where nearly everyone is concerned with themselves, to the exclusion of everyone and everything else. It followed--ironically--the "we generation" of the 60's and 70's. My personal take is that people in the 80's and 90's lost out on a lot of the human experience, in their pursuit of what they considered "success". That's not your fault, and I'm not painting you with a wide brush and I'm not putting you down. All I'm saying, is that you lack the perspective of the previous decades, for not having lived through them.

Personally, I've had money, I've lost money, I've been through the whole range--and having lived through both generations, and experienced ups and downs within each, I have a broader definition of "success". It's not nearly as black-and-white as "the numbers".

Getting back to my original example of adding strippers to The Land to bump up "the numbers". Yes, it's an absurd and outrageous scenario, and I purposely made it so to make a point. Yet to my surprise, you still labelled it a "success" based solely on "the numbers", that "success" is all about the coveted "numbers". So you got more people into the building. And what kind of people? Perverts? What did they do once they got in there? (I won't go there on a family board). And how much of the family business did you lose in the process? How did it impact the overall park? I think I can safely say that such a move would be the death knell of the park. Absolute best case, it would be a PR nightmare of unimaginable proportions. That's not "success". Success is not something that can be "drilled down" to a number, exclusive of the "big picture".

Many of Disney's problems over the last 10 year or so have resulted from just this kind of thinking. That if they chase the right "numbers", they'll have success. They're driven by accountants, focus groups, statistics (which they tend to manipulate wildly)--there's no intuition, no humanity, far less creativity. If Walt had run the business like that, there never would have been a Magic Kingdom, let alone an Epcot, or anything else. His vision constantly opposed "the numbers"--yet he succeeded wildly, unlike anyone else before or since in the business.

"Success" for me is setting a goal and achieving that goal--whatever it may be, and not just money--and still being able to feel good about it and the end of the day, feeling like, for having achieved that goal, you're a better person, your life is better, the world is a little better place. Success has to have balance and work within a larger context. If you gain in one area while simultaneously losing in another, you don't have success.

A long-time member of one of my Internet forums--The Horizons Tribute on Yahoo Groups--has always been a great asset and key promoter of the group. A number of times over the group's history, he's emailed me excitedly about how the number of members has gone up (it's a fraction of what this site hosts, but for a Disney group on Yahoo--and a single topic--it's a large number). My response has always been that I couldn't care less about the numbers. A large percent are always going to be "lurkers" anyway (which I don't mind, but they also don't define the group). What's more important and impressive to me, is that we have an outstanding group of people, great conversation, mutual respect for one another, and a good standing in the community. For me, that is "success" within that realm.

[Sorry, Martin, I had to get that out!]

G7

 

[planet7]

uhh... what? dictionary time:

Btw, for future reference--I'm not stupid, and I have my own dictionary.

G7

 

[wannab@dis]

This greed is also manifested in other ways, with these decades being the "me generation", where nearly everyone is concerned with themselves, to the exclusion of everyone and everything else. It followed--ironically--the "we generation" of the 60's and 70's. My personal take is that people in the 80's and 90's lost out on a lot of the human experience, in their pursuit of what they considered "success". That's not your fault, and I'm not painting you with a wide brush. All I'm saying, is that you lack the perspective of the previous decades, for not having lived through them.

Finally something that I agree with in a post by you.

But there's still a problem. You have basically followed the above quote to a "tee" with your posts about how everything that has happened in Epcot recently has been a failure. You don't like the theme, you don't like placement of Soarin, you don't like the updates to the attrations, you don't like the loss of Horizons, you don't like this or that -- you epitomize the "me" factor.

Success is about numbers. If The Land did not improve it's ability to attract guests and entertain guests after the rehab, then it would have been a failure. However, that's far from the truth. It's more popular now than ever with most guests. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean that your viewpoint should be shared by others. It also doesn't mean that we have to agree with your views.

Accept the fact that you are not the central figure in the success of Epcot and your view is not shared by the masses.

FYI... there's a huge difference in this forum and some Horizons group. That niche will always agree and lament the loss of Horizons. This forum has multitudes of members who can live in today and enjoy the park experience without pining for a single attraction. We embrace and look for the changes at the parks that we visit. We anticipate each visit so we can search for the magic in all the new attractions, shows and updates.

 

[Captain Chaos]

I'm curious, if you didn't like the "dark" Land (which really puzzles me, how a pavilion with such an immense skylight could be considered "dark"), how do you feel about Innoventions? Now that place makes me very uncomfortable. I tried twice to go through it, and couldn't wait to get out.

I'll be the first to admit that Communicore was getting long in the tooth and needed an updating (yeah, that's me, that person--ahem--"against all change"), but this wasn't the way to do it. I miss the bright, open, airy feel, and the stunning views of Future World through the glass walls.

I agree with Michael, that The Seas (and Energy, and everything for that matter) would be better served by a more open Communicore. Seas especially really does feel way off the beaten path an easily "missable" now.

G7

I didn't literally mean DARK, as in no lights.. I meant dreary... And I don't go to Innoventions because it bores me

 

[mousermerf]

Dark blue tones has a connotative meaning of "darkness" or the lack of light. It's a theatrical norm, and the mind picks up on it. It shows up in TV, stage, movies, etc. Blue is used for darkness.

The 94 rehab had enouh blue to appear dark. The current Living Seas is so blue-dark it seems almost pitch black in areas.

 

[planet7]

Finally something that I agree with in a post by you.

So let me see if I understand this... you tell me that you agree with me, then tell me I'm all wrong. So what part do you agree with?

how everything that has happened in Epcot recently has been a failure.... you don't like the loss of Horizons, you don't like this or that -- you epitomize the "me" factor.

No, those are the words you keep trying your best to cram into my mouth. I never once said that. There have been many failures, but I never once said everything was a failure.

As to the "me" factor, I write about my own opinions. I don't speculate on others'. That doesn't mean at all that I am "only concerned about me". I do indeed want to see the park succeed. What I don't buy is that the track it is on its one and only path to "success". There is a lot that could have been done a lot better, to even greater "success"--financialy and creatively.

Look at Mission: Space. They spent $100M (mostly of Compaq/HP's money) to create an attraction that for a very short time was a "success" as defined here. And until recently (I haven't been since they added the "green" option) was nearly a walk-on most of the time. In less than what, a year or so? If "the numbers" have been bumped up by the "green" option, great--but they've done so at the expense of what was supposed to make the ride great to begin with. How is that "success"? I'm sure HP doesn't think it is. Compare that to Space Mountain, which has been pulling in huge crowds for 30 years now.

How about Imagination. Was that a success? Innoventions? Wonders of Life?

Despite what anyone here wants to believe, I don't want to see EPCOT remain in a time warp. What I do want to see are updates that are creative, appropriate, and work within a larger thematic framework--not the hodgepodge of half-hearted updates they've given us. A temporary bump in the numbers for Mission: Space didn't justify the loss of Horizons, and the bump from Soarin' doesn't justify the further thematic unraveling of the park. Without THEME being a priority, it's not a theme park. It's an amusement park.

Rant all you want about that, that's how I feel. And I think if they DID exhibit more creativity and more concern for theme, they would have much greater succcess by your definition and mine. They may be doing "better" in some areas, for some periods of time, but that doesn't mean that the "better" they're doing is the ceiling of "better" or that they way they're doing it is the one and only way--let alone the best way.

Success is about numbers.

Again, what part did you suppsedly agree with?

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean that your viewpoint should be shared by others. It also doesn't mean that we have to agree with your views.

I never asked you to. If everyone agreed with me, I'd be bored silly here. But I do expect people to respect my right to have my own opinions, and to take them for what they are--not what they project them to be.

Accept the fact that you are not the central figure in the success of Epcot and your view is not shared by the masses.

Do you even realize how bizarre this statement is? I never remotely suggested that I'm "the central figure" in anything--nor are you. As for acceptance, you need to accept that you don't know what "the masses" want. You saw a temporary bump in the numbers. So what? What if that is one segment of "the masses" and there is a much larger segment that would have responded even better to something different?

That niche will always agree and lament the loss of Horizons. This forum has multitudes of members who can live in today and enjoy the park experience without pining for a single attraction.

If you think tha'ts all The Horizons Tirbute is about, you obviously haven't visited--or, as with me, you've painted everyone with a wide brush based on a few posts. We couldn't survive, let alone be the vibrant group that we are--based on 7 years of lamenting a ride's closure.

G7

 

[wannab@dis]

I agreed there seems to be a few that are only focused on "me."

Despite what anyone here wants to believe, I don't want to see EPCOT remain in a time warp. What I do want to see are updates that are creative, appropriate, and work within a larger thematic framework--not the hodgepodge of half-hearted updates they've given us. A temporary bump in the numbers for Mission: Space didn't justify the loss of Horizons, and the bump from Soarin' doesn't justify the further thematic unraveling of the park. Without THEME being a priority, it's not a theme park. It's an amusement park.

Maybe if your posts contained something optimistic, people would be less likely to judge you as someone that complains all the time. :wave: