Spirited News & Observations II -- NGE/Baxter

PotteryGal

Active Member
So, this isn't so? Because I thought Uni was acquiring them.

Rumors are floating around - but those have been on again, off again for years. I personally don't want it ~ Tolkien's world is so complex, a theme park can't do it justice. I love the Wizarding World, don't get me wrong...Tolkien is just not something I want to see in a theme park IMO
 

PeterAlt

Well-Known Member
Rumors are floating around - but those have been on again, off again for years. I personally don't want it ~ Tolkien's world is so complex, a theme park can't do it justice. I love the Wizarding World, don't get me wrong...Tolkien is just not something I want to see in a theme park IMO
I did a Google search and found other websites reporting that as fact. Are you 100% sure this is a joke?
 

PeterAlt

Well-Known Member
Rumors are floating around - but those have been on again, off again for years. I personally don't want it ~ Tolkien's world is so complex, a theme park can't do it justice. I love the Wizarding World, don't get me wrong...Tolkien is just not something I want to see in a theme park IMO
Yeah, it had to be a joke... $10 billion is way too much for it, considering they got LucasFilm for $4 billion, Marvel for $4 billion, and Pixar for $7 billion.
 

PotteryGal

Active Member
I did a Google search and found other websites reporting that as fact. Are you 100% sure this is a joke?
If you click the link and read to the bottom, it says 'Staffer Entmaiden adds, “Hope you enjoyed our little April Fools folks!”'

So yes, LOL, pretty sure...plus all the comments are in agreement below it.
 

PeterAlt

Well-Known Member
If you click the link and read to the bottom, it says 'Staffer Entmaiden adds, “Hope you enjoyed our little April Fools folks!”'

So yes, LOL, pretty sure...plus all the comments are in agreement below it.
As Obi Wan Kenobi once said "Who's more foolish: the fool or the fool who follows him?"

I have no idea what he meant by that, but I think I'm beginning to. Lol
 

Figments Friend

Well-Known Member
If said tickets had names on them, it would be one thing. But they were left for me and three guests and clearly I couldn't use three tickets in one day. The CM was boorish and if I didn't want to get my friend in trouble, I would have told her off as there was no policy I was breaking. Tickets can be bought as gifts, after all.
Agree....and a fine gift idea it is.
Sorry to hear about your less-then-magical experience.
 

fosse76

Well-Known Member
I often wonder why I keep my WDW AP when it is very clear that TWDC doesn't want my business and I am quite capable of getting in for free practically any day of the year. I chalk it up to my own residual Pixie Dust addiction!

I originally bought my AP based on the number of times I thought I would visit the resort, and the AP was always the cheaper option. Last year I upgraded to the Premier Pass (before the price increases), which was cheaper than buying both the regualar WDW AP and a 4-day DLR ticket. With the price increases not really allowing for any savings, the lack of anything new of any substance, I am not renewing the pass nor am I getting a pass of any kind. I only plan on visiting Disneyland once in June and Disney World in September. I do have a few trips, on the otherhand, planned for Universal. I wouldn't even consider visitng WDW in September if it weren't for my Pixie Dust addiction, and I am a bit curious to see what they did to Test Track.
 

MattM

Well-Known Member
An April Fools joke, maybe, but I can't find any of Lutz's articles on their site. Did he leave or are they playing a joke?
 

GoofGoof

Premium Member
I do as well. I was joking.

But you certainly could. I recall being at HKDL in 2010 and seeing Fantasyland's shops selling Spidey an Iron Man toys, which made absolutely no sense whatsoever
How about the avengers wrap on the monorail last year. They took one of the most iconic symbols of WDW and painted it with characters from rides down the street.
 

Bolna

Well-Known Member
Meant to post this when I read it, but no time ... but this is what the techies love about the direction Disney is headed and this is what I hate about it: (all in one little easily digested piece of fluff news)

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/disney-501855-experiences-technology.html

Read this article and I must say that I just don't understand that need of everything being interactive.

Through history humans have expressed creativity that then was enjoyed by others in ways that are not interactive - starting with the Greek drama, and continuing with things like the Sistine Chapel, the works of Michelangelo, Rembrandt, Picasso, Monet, the plays of Shakespeare, millions of novels which are considered classics, music by Bach, Mozart or Puccini and so many more. People are still watching TV and movies today - they might do it in new ways and no longer at the fixed time of the TV schedule. They listen to the music on the radio and they still read (maybe not on paper - but Amazon appears to make an awful lot of money with kindles).

I do believe that Disney parks need to be immersive - they need to take you and transport you to another place or time. That's what they are so good at. But that does not have to be in an interactive way! I would even go so far that in certain ways interactivity takes away some of the immersiveness. As I know that I am not from that world, I am a "guest" and don't belong there. Watching passively, I can't disturb that other world with my actions. If I have to interact, that new world is "disturbed". Also, the one's guest interactivity might make other people's experiences less magical.

So - not a fan at all of interactivity being the new buzz word for everything!
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Read this article and I must say that I just don't understand that need of everything being interactive.

Through history humans have expressed creativity that then was enjoyed by others in ways that are not interactive - starting with the Greek drama, and continuing with things like the Sistine Chapel, the works of Michelangelo, Rembrandt, Picasso, Monet, the plays of Shakespeare, millions of novels which are considered classics, music by Bach, Mozart or Puccini and so many more. People are still watching TV and movies today - they might do it in new ways and no longer at the fixed time of the TV schedule. They listen to the music on the radio and they still read (maybe not on paper - but Amazon appears to make an awful lot of money with kindles).

I do believe that Disney parks need to be immersive - they need to take you and transport you to another place or time. That's what they are so good at. But that does not have to be in an interactive way! I would even go so far that in certain ways interactivity takes away some of the immersiveness. As I know that I am not from that world, I am a "guest" and don't belong there. Watching passively, I can't disturb that other world with my actions. If I have to interact, that new world is "disturbed". Also, the one's guest interactivity might make other people's experiences less magical.

So - not a fan at all of interactivity being the new buzz word for everything!
I've even argued that the "interactive queues" are not even all that interactive, particularly in the diversity of experience that is supposedly being offered. The noises made at The Haunted Mansion will always be the same each visit. They same effects (unless broken) will be seen. But a true immersive environment is inherently interactive because it engages the visitor. It is not a passive experience and cannot be enjoyed in such a manner. But that requires more than spoon feeding brands to large groups that need to be turned over as quickly as possible.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom