Technology is killing creativity

[Phil12]

The entire Walt Disney World property is a major part of the Everglades watershed. It's important for TWDC to observe environmental standards and make sure they reduce air, water and soil pollution as much as possible. Part of that effort is to reduce pyrotechnic displays by limiting some of the more poisonous pyro chemicals. As it turns out some of the most spectacular colors used in fireworks also cause the most damaging pollution. So in the end it's a relatively small price to pay to help save Donald Duck's brethren.

 

[thomas998]

The entire Walt Disney World property is a major part of the Everglades watershed. It's important for TWDC to observe environmental standards and make sure they reduce air, water and soil pollution as much as possible. Part of that effort is to reduce pyrotechnic displays by limiting some of the more poisonous pyro chemicals. As it turns out some of the most spectacular colors used in fireworks also cause the most damaging pollution. So in the end it's a relatively small price to pay to help save Donald Duck's brethren.

When countries like China that pump toxic waste into the atmosphere to the point that the people near their plants have to wear respirators just to walk outside stop pumping everything under the sun into the air, then I'll say maybe Disney should follow suit.... but the amount of pollution from some fireworks shot off by Disney don't amount to squat. You probably get more toxic gunk from the Tomorrow Land raceway in a day than you do from all the fireworks shot in a week.

 

[bUU]

Emotion is feeling a deeper connection beyond just "ohhhhs and ahhhhhs".Honestly - Wishes was one of the reasons why we kept coming back every summer.

Wishes? Seriously? What about Fantasy in the Sky? I could almost understand that concern. But, Wishes? Seriously?

I'm being facetious - well, a little. We saw Fantasy in the Sky so many times that losing it was what we cared about when Wishes premiered. We gave Wishes a chance, and watched it with family when they visited with us, but it was never the same. The point is that it didn't need to be: It was different, and Walt Disney knew how important it was to replace even the beloved attractions over time so that a new generation of guests, like you, can find your own favorites. (Full Disclosure: We didn't have this problem with MSEP and Spectromagic! We feel they were both equally great.)

-- folks here tend to want the "old" wdw. basically there is nothing new that disney could do that people would like.---

I think there are a number of folks who do their darnedest to browbeat away the expression of preferences others than those those folks share. It misrepresents the typical and creates a miasma that new folks fall into, thereby damaging their own ability to appreciate the new.

With Happily Ever After I can't help but think that they created it as a way to save money.

Perhaps that's the miasmic cynicism to which I referred above.

I haven't counted the fireworks, but it seemed to me that it had fewer fireworks overall and that they were just using projections more which is kind of lame.

Except it isn't lame if you go into it open to what the new technology can offer you. I mentioned our general indifference about Wishes, above. We were so indifferent about Wishes that we didn't even bother to check out Happily Ever After when it premiered. It took some great reviews and some YouTube videos to get us to pay attention to it, and get us to be excited about making room in our plans for a Magic Kingdom evening, specifically because of the new projection technology portion of the presentation.

More generally, judging how good something is by how much it costs the person giving it to you is a problem. And if anything, we should all be aiming to marvel at how good something is even though it treads lightly on the world (uses less resources, costs less money, etc. - these things should be deemed as positives, not negatives).

When countries like China that pump toxic waste into the atmosphere to the point that the people near their plants have to wear respirators just to walk outside stop pumping everything under the sun into the air, then I'll say maybe Disney should follow suit....

If Johnny jumped off a bridge does that mean you'll jump off a bridge?

No. We each should do our part regardless of whether other people don't.

 

[bUU]

lol, I can already see the pitch forks being sharpened, it's going to be interesting when illuminations replacement comes out.

Very. Few are more passionate about Illuminations than I. I drove our waitress at Rose & Crown to tears after the last time we saw the show, regaling her with our storied memories of seeing the show: 5-year old Rachel piloting the pontoon boat and then settling into our primo viewing spot under the bridge by France; holding 8-year old Benjamin a foot off the ground for 17 minutes because our viewing spot ended up being a solid wall by Morocco; etc. However, the kids are grown and gone. Maybe we'll be able to share such experiences with the new permanent Epcot nighttime show with Rachel's and Benjamin's kids someday. That would be great. That doesn't take away from our great memories of Illuminations, and we get the opportunity to forge a new affinity for a (couple of) new show(s).

The other problem Disney runs into with guests, is "Why wasn't my child's favorite character _______ included in your show???? our vacation is RUINED!!" type.

There seems to be an IP obsession ...

On the part of guests - and perhaps a lot more of them than others.

 

[RustySpork]

When countries like China that pump toxic waste into the atmosphere to the point that the people near their plants have to wear respirators just to walk outside stop pumping everything under the sun into the air, then I'll say maybe Disney should follow suit.... but the amount of pollution from some fireworks shot off by Disney don't amount to squat. You probably get more toxic gunk from the Tomorrow Land raceway in a day than you do from all the fireworks shot in a week.

We should be responsible for ourselves, and at the same time try to convince others to be responsible too. "They're not doing it, so we shouldn't either" is an immature and irresponsible position to take.

 

[eliza61nyc]

Emotion is feeling a deeper connection beyond just "ohhhhs and ahhhhhs".
Honestly - Wishes was one of the reasons why we kept coming back every summer. It was a huge emotional draw for us.
Watching it evoked feelings of happiness and connections to our real lives - -- the whole story and message of wishes just clicked.

-- folks here tend to want the "old" wdw. basically there is nothing new that disney could do that people would like.---

Folks here also tend to just LOVE whatever WDW does......WDW could do not wrong / how dare your criticize what the Mouse does!......stop complaining you are lucky to go and you are lucky to give WDW your hard earned money.

---I've never understood the "emotion" thing? ----
I feel sorry for you - - - - emotion and WDW have gone hand in hand for generations in our family.
Emotion is WHY we keep coming back. Story is why we keep coming back -

We all feel that WDW has been missing on these beats - - not just for the sake of complaining - - - but through our emotions.
We just don't feel it as much in their New creations.

IP experiences are nice - - - but the original WDW rides and ideas hold up more in my opinion. They have a uniqueness that IP based attractions can never hold.

and that's great FOR you.

My point being is all this is "subjective". Now I admit, I'm slap happy with wdw. if I wasn't I would not go. my stance has pretty much been the same for years. You criticize the mouse and then give it thousands of dollars is like betting in Vegas, the house always wins. I actually think the folks who love wdw are more pragmatic. we know Disney is NOT going back to the 19___ version, that's done, we feel we are still getting a good value for our dollar AND more importantly if we stop feeling that we don't complain, we move on.

Don't feel sorry for me, once again this is very personal and subjective. Just because I don't get verklempted over a theme park show is really not all that important.

To give you an example, I'm a widow, a few years after my husband lost his battle with cancer I asked my sons what were some of their favorite memories with dad. guess what, DISNEY did not even break the top 10. I teased them and said I wish you guys had told me this 10 years ago before we spent truck loads of money. the point being, if wdw is what you live for, hey go for it for others it's a place they vacation, like 20,000 other options.

Actually I feel the opposite, I feel bad for folks who constantly go to the world longing for the "old" days. it's a no win situation, they are not coming back any time soon. IP is here, whether one likes it or not. I've said it before, if you go on a vacation to anyplace and when you come back all you do is complain about the changes, some thing is wrong.


The point for this thread is simple. technology isn't killing anything, it's change how things are done. it's simply a matter of preference. I'm glad they got rid of Maelstrom and the great movie ride, they were old and horrible. doesn't mean that the folks who liked those two rides are wrong, it's not sad that I don't get the boohaha over those two rides, just that I have different taste.

lol but then again, I'm on the dark side. I think they should make a world showcase out of Wakanda.

 

[thomas998]

If Johnny jumped off a bridge does that mean you'll jump off a bridge?

No. We each should do our part regardless of whether other people don't.

Your analogy doesn't even make sense. My was simply if what you are doing is a drop in the bucket compared to what someone else is doing then your stopping does nothing to solve the problem. That is completely different from if someone jumps off a bridge then you should too. If you don't understand that difference then there is no point in explaining to you all the other problems in your arguments.

 

[thomas998]

We should be responsible for ourselves, and at the same time try to convince others to be responsible too. "They're not doing it, so we shouldn't either" is an immature and irresponsible position to take.

No, it is irresponsible for one business to change when the change amounts to absolutely nothing compared the actions of others. It is just like all the carbon emission cutting being pushed by green weenies in the US... given the atmosphere is global and your fastest growing countries like China and India are increasing their emission at an alarming rate there is not logical reason to stop doing anything in the US. It is pretty much the equivalent of people on the Titanic trying to stop water from going into an open window while the side of the ship is still suffering from a gapping hole. If green weenies are upset with the fireworks being shot at Disney then they should do their part and stay home instead of driving or flying down to Disney where they are causing more pollution from their travel. In fact if they are so concerned about the environment maybe they should give up all their electric usage at home and live by nothing more than sunlight and moonlight.

 

[RustySpork]

No, it is irresponsible for one business to change when the change amounts to absolutely nothing compared the actions of others. It is just like all the carbon emission cutting being pushed by green weenies in the US... given the atmosphere is global and your fastest growing countries like China and India are increasing their emission at an alarming rate there is not logical reason to stop doing anything in the US. It is pretty much the equivalent of people on the Titanic trying to stop water from going into an open window while the side of the ship is still suffering from a gapping hole. If green weenies are upset with the fireworks being shot at Disney then they should do their part and stay home instead of driving or flying down to Disney where they are causing more pollution from their travel. In fact if they are so concerned about the environment maybe they should give up all their electric usage at home and live by nothing more than sunlight and moonlight.

Many businesses are changing, and it does make a difference. Reading your comment reminds me that some people are just tools of their own ignorance. To echo your perspective; since you can't fix stupid, why should we even try?

Using your logic we shouldn't have passed bills into law like the Clean Indoor Air Act of 1985 because people in China smoked indoors.

 

[networkpro]

Technology is the way these things are presented. Its progressed beyond your local group of hunter-gatherers shuffling around a campfire grunting with glee at a random bunch of sparks released as a log popped. It continues to change with new innovations and always has costs beyond a single campfire which have to come from somewhere.

Imperious customers demanding X ? Since they are not royalty or oligarchs, they have the option of either paying or not paying for the experience.

 

[thomas998]

Many businesses are changing, and it does make a difference. Reading your comment reminds me that some people are just tools of their own ignorance. To echo your perspective; since you can't fix stupid, why should we even try?

Using your logic we shouldn't have passed bills into law like the Clean Indoor Air Act of 1985 because people in China smoked indoors.

We shouldn't have. Businesses should have been free to make their own decisions on whether to allow smoking or not. If more people didn't want smoking than wanted it business would have eliminated smoking on their own. And, no I'm not a smoker and never have been... I just believe governments should stay out of the lives of people as much as possible. If people want to kill themselves, then let them. If businesses want to ban smoking let them. The government shouldn't get involved.

 

[RustySpork]

We shouldn't have. Businesses should have been free to make their own decisions on whether to allow smoking or not. If more people didn't want smoking than wanted it business would have eliminated smoking on their own. And, no I'm not a smoker and never have been... I just believe governments should stay out of the lives of people as much as possible. If people want to kill themselves, then let them. If businesses want to ban smoking let them. The government shouldn't get involved.

I used to actually agree with this position until I realized that it's not just themselves they're harming. There's a line where one persons rights stop and anothers begin, and it's the government's job to ensure that line is not crossed. You're correct that some businesses would eliminate it on their own, but others would not to the detriment of those they employ and to the environment around them. Apple is a pretty good example of the former, and Walmart is a great example of the latter.

It's not a bad posture to believe you should leave something as good as or better than it was when you found it.

 

[thomas998]

I used to actually agree with this position until I realized that it's not just themselves they're harming. There's a line where one persons rights stop and anothers begin, and it's the government's job to ensure that line is not crossed. You're correct that some businesses would eliminate it on their own, but others would not to the detriment of those they employ and to the environment around them. Apple is a pretty good example of the former, and Walmart is a great example of the latter.

It's not a bad posture to believe you should leave something as good as or better than it was when you found it.

I would agree that the second hand smoking is a problem, but the only people that it is really a problem for that have control over it are the children of smokers that can't simply choose to go somewhere else. As the Clear Air Act did nothing to eliminate smoking by parents around their children, I can't see that it was justified. I would have agreed to it being reasonable if it simply banned any person from smoking, buying cigarettes or having cigarettes if they were the parents of a child under 18 years of age as that would have at least protected those unable to avoid the smoke on their own... but it didn't do that. And I doubt many people would have wanted that type of a law, most certainly not the states that rely so heavily on smokers for their tax revenue.

 

[RustySpork]

I would agree that the second hand smoking is a problem, but the only people that it is really a problem for that have control over it are the children of smokers that can't simply choose to go somewhere else. As the Clear Air Act did nothing to eliminate smoking by parents around their children, I can't see that it was justified. I would have agreed to it being reasonable if it simply banned any person from smoking, buying cigarettes or having cigarettes if they were the parents of a child under 18 years of age as that would have at least protected those unable to avoid the smoke on their own... but it didn't do that. And I doubt many people would have wanted that type of a law, most certainly not the states that rely so heavily on smokers for their tax revenue.

It curbed indoor smoking that affected people who didn't smoke and were employed at locations where it couldn't be otherwise avoided. Restricting what people do in their own homes would be an improper government intrusion.

It doesn't really matter what some people want once it crosses the line of effecting the lives of others. Having an effect on their feelings is not the same thing, but that's a common point of confusion these days.

 

[thomas998]

It curbed indoor smoking that affected people who didn't smoke and were employed at locations where it couldn't be otherwise avoided. Restricting what people do in their own homes would be an improper government intrusion.

It doesn't really matter what some people want once it crosses the line of effecting the lives of others. Having an effect on their feelings is not the same thing, but that's a common point of confusion these days.

But assume the law was never created, eventually as non-smoking worker got lung cancer and sued employers for providing them with an unsafe work environment, companies would have eliminated smoking on their own simply to avoid being bankrupted from litigation. Smoking in businesses would have vanished with or without the law. But the kids of smokers were and still are subjected to second hand smoke at a time of their life when they are most vulnerable to it. In regard to protecting the most vulnerable group the law was a complete failure.

 

[RustySpork]

But assume the law was never created, eventually as non-smoking worker got lung cancer and sued employers for providing them with an unsafe work environment, companies would have eliminated smoking on their own simply to avoid being bankrupted from litigation. Smoking in businesses would have vanished with or without the law. But the kids of smokers were and still are subjected to second hand smoke at a time of their life when they are most vulnerable to it. In regard to protecting the most vulnerable group the law was a complete failure.

People getting lung cancer is precisely what was happening from the time Tobacco products were invented until the law went into effect, except that companies didn't have to avoid bankruptcy because it was socially acceptable behavior, and the Tobacco companies were using all of their tricks to convince the population that their products weren't bad. There wasn't any regulation against it, so the posture was "let them die, we'll hire more".

That's pretty much the unregulated capitalism story.

We probably need a new thread for this topic.

 

[NickMaio]

We are onto smoking now?

Just because there are a few things that I criticise or dislike about WDW does not mean that I should not go anymore. This logic of, why do you keep going if you don't like it is asinine.
I love WDW and I hold it to a high standard. That is WHY I criticise. Not because I pine for the past.

Let's agree to disagree.

 

[eliza61nyc]

We are onto smoking now?

Just because there are a few things that I criticise or dislike about WDW does not mean that I should not go anymore. This logic of, why do you keep going if you don't like it is asinine.
I love WDW and I hold it to a high standard. That is WHY I criticise. Not because I pine for the past.

Let's agree to disagree.

Honestly I always say that because that's all it seems like some posters do. Now I would question ANYONE that did that. It just seems to me that some folks complain about every single thing wdw does.
They hate IP
The new construction looks bland, like a mall
It's too crowded
They are getting rid of all my old favorites
They prices are too high.
The after hours events are a rip off.

Lol, so I do scratch my head. if someone hates every single thing that the new management does or the current way the parks are run, exactly what are they enjoying?

If one of your friends went to Paris and came back and complained about the food, the prices, the attractions, the people, you wouldn't question why if they told you they were going back?

I think it's quite logical to ask that.
But absolutely agree to disagree

 

[NickMaio]

Honestly I always say that because that's all it seems like some posters do. Now I would question ANYONE that did that. It just seems to me that some folks complain about every single thing wdw does.
They hate IP
The new construction looks bland, like a mall
It's too crowded
They are getting rid of all my old favorites
They prices are too high.
The after hours events are a rip off.

Lol, so I do scratch my head. if someone hates every single thing that the new management does or the current way the parks are run, exactly what are they enjoying?

If one of your friends went to Paris and came back and complained about the food, the prices, the attractions, the people, you wouldn't question why if they told you they were going back?

I think it's quite logical to ask that.
But absolutely agree to disagree

There is so much more to WDW than what I complain about. Otherwise, yes, we would never go back.
Nothing is 100 percent perfect.
WDW is tough environment because it spans generations.
If I don't think that HEA is that good. It only seems natural that I compare it to a show that I loved.
I am not a fan of screens in WDW parks. So HEA was a loss for me even before I watched it. Beyond that though the music just misses the mark.
I loved some of the new additions. Frozen is great. TT is fun, when its working.

WDW set the standard for theme parks. I want to hold then to it.....yes with my opinion.

 

[bUU]

Your analogy doesn't even make sense.

It does make sense, so much so that the next poster said the same thing. You just don't like having the point you made effectively refuted. Get over it.