Curious Constance
Well-Known Member
What's truly shocking is that some people can be aware, understanding, and appreciative but still have a different opinion.I think its important for fans to understand both.
Last edited:
What's truly shocking is that some people can be aware, understanding, and appreciative but still have a different opinion.I think its important for fans to understand both.
Couldn't have said it better myself. The comments about some people needing to have a better sense of appreciation around here are really judgemental. If you're of the opinion that your thoughts are the only valid thoughts on a matter and try to ignore or think badly of anyone who thinks otherwise you really need to ask yourself how you came to such a narrow minded point in your life.I've been called out for not being respectful of DL's history here, so I feel compelled to comment.
No other entertainment organization its size is as respectful to its founder and legacy than the Walt Disney Company. Look no further than the efforts being done to ensure that the Pope House in kept intact as an example. As a lifelong Disneyland fan I love and celebrate the park's history, as we all do, but at the same time I've accepted that my adoration and appreciation for DL's legacy doesn't make me an authority on how the place should be run, rain on someone else's fun when I disagree, judge how others choose to experience the place, or demonize management for milking an IP strategy that has seen extraordinary success across its resort portfolio over the past decade.
We all have varying opinions on how the park should function, and that's ok, but the only right answer is the one that honors Disneyland's historical context as ground breaking themed entertainment complex and keeps profits growing in the 21st Century, which is exactly the fine line that Disney is walking right now. So please, don't berate me or assume I'm dissing DL legacy when I'm excited about new relevant content being added to the park that may infringe on a piece of the park's history.
I'm pretty sure people who have never even heard of you know that.I hate hate hate HMH. Anyone who knows me knows that.
I never meant to be condescending towards anyone's opinions. My opinions on the land's potential impact are far from fact. However, saying that this is something different from anything that Disney has done in that park before is a fact. While what you Think about that difference is wholly your opinion, there are already basic facts about the land that people can question and debate about.What's truly shocking is that some people can be aware, understanding, and appreciative but still have a different opinion.
I'm in complete agreement with that. And my comment certainly wasn't exclusively meant for you. Seems to be the common view point around here if you don't think everything is doom and gloom.I never meant to be condescending towards anyone's opinions. My opinions on the land's potential impact are far from fact. However, saying that this is something different from anything that Disney has done in that park before is a fact. While what you Think about that difference is wholly your opinion, there are already basic facts about the land that that people can question and debate about.
Thank you.I'm in complete agreement with that. And my comment certainly wasn't exclusively meant for you. Seems to be the common view point around here if you don't think everything is doom and gloom.
And that's the worst part of this entire thing. Not only will this never go away, but the franchise will end up being associated with the wrong man because it interfered with what was once and always will be HIS park. Star Wars should always be associated with George Lucas just like Disneyland should always be associated with Walt Disney.
If you create two categories for Disney movies and put all original material into one column and all of the material adapted from books/borrowed/bought characters/franchices, imagine how hard pressed you'd be to find many movies for the original column.Devils advocate here. Winnie The Pooh wasn't an original Disney Character, however 50 something years after Disney got the rights to the franchise he is widely accepted as a Disney character. I mean if you want to get technical about it, the stories of Snow White, Cinderella, Alice in Wonderland, etc. aren't original Disney stories either, but after Disney made movies about these stories, the stories and characters are now 100% associated with Disney. Yes Star Wars was originally written by Lucas, just like Disney had nothing to do with the 1865 Alice in Wonderland novel. However over time and Disney adaptation, which is what the new movies are/will be, Star Wars will be associated with Disney, which I don't think is any different than any of the other cases.
Good points. Pixar's films are more "Disney" in my mind than The Appledumpling Gang or Candleshoe, films which were 100% produced by the Disney Studio.
Wha.... what it this magnificence?
Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.