The Hall of Presidents to reopen before Christmas

[erikjp]

Distributing numbers for shopping is a little bit of an ill fitting analogy when comparing it to leaving a current president out of an attraction called “Hall of Presidents”.

Anyway, the decision has been made.. the attraction is reopening. Hopefully people will act like civilized humans.
We shall see..

Its about mitigating potential problems. Disney spends millions of dollars on it a year. And literally no one, other than maybe the people on this forum, would bat an eye if Disney decided to change it policies about HoP to not include current sitting Presidents.

 

[JohnD]

Its really strange that people feel like this is the first controversial President to be added to the HOP. First and foremost, this isn't/wasn't intended to be a popularity contest, it was merely to display our Presidential history no matter who was inducted. Is Nixon apart of this attraction, you bet. Is Clinton, you bet. Simply put, because of the media Trump draws, this will be an event and newsworthy for something that really shouldn't.

Carry on, enjoy the new show and go ride Haunted Mansion when you are done, and don't forget a Turkey leg!

Andrew Jackson knew how to throw a party. People trashed the White House. I bet that made him "controversial." Is he featured? Yes. He was one of the Presidents.

 

[Incomudro]

Uhhh, yes its peoples own personal responsibility. Trump is 100% incredibly divisive, but that doesn't whatsoever mean I think acting out in the middle of HoP is his own fault.

Think of it like Black Friday shopping. People trampling or macing people to get $100 TV's at Best Buy isn't Best Buy's fault, its still the fault of the shoppers who did that, but Best Buy shouldn't be creating situations that push people to act like that.

Disney doesn't NEED to have a Trump AA in HoP to make it a good ride. And they can eliminate potential drama by just not including him until his term is over. Just like Best Buy can distribute numbers in line or just sell everything online to mitigate the damage.

He's not 100% incredibly divisive.
He's only divisive to that section of the population that finds him to be that way

I agree, but you're not viewing it from a Disney angle. They could totally open this ride and nothing controversial happens and we all go our merry ways.

Or someone uploads a video of them heckling the AA, Trump retweets it, it becomes a thing to go heckle the AA, or potentially even violence breaks out.

If you could eliminate a non-crucial part of the ride to potentially not have to deal with scenario 2, why would you not do it?(Especially since it also just saves them money from not having to make the AA in the first place).

Then station a guard in the attraction and kick out anyone who behaves in such a way.
The could even have a sign warning against such immature behavior.

 

[21stamps]

I agree, but you're not viewing it from a Disney angle. They could totally open this ride and nothing controversial happens and we all go our merry ways.

Or someone uploads a video of them heckling the AA, Trump retweets it, it becomes a thing to go heckle the AA, or potentially even violence breaks out.

If you could eliminate a non-crucial part of the ride to potentially not have to deal with scenario 2, why would you not do it?(Especially since it also just saves them money from not having to make the AA in the first place).

You’re only taking one “side” into account.

To not include Trump would anger many people.. for what? Why purposely show your political views in a non-political attraction?

That would be one of the worst things Disney could do.
Facts are- Donald Trump is currently the POTUS.
Hecklers/protesters/#notmypresident(ers).. they aren’t a group who should be catered to by ignoring reality.

 

[wdwmagic]

We are getting very close to political debate here guys, please be careful. And if you want to talk politics, use Politics and Social Issues

 

[JohnD]

We are getting very close to political debate here guys, please be careful. And if you want to talk politics, use Politics and Social Issues

What I find disturbing is the discussion that the attraction is "controversial" because of who the President is. By that logic, all the Presidents are "controversial." Does that mean they shouldn't be featured? Of course not.

 

[TROR]

Its about mitigating potential problems. Disney spends millions of dollars on it a year. And literally no one, other than maybe the people on this forum, would bat an eye if Disney decided to change it policies about HoP to not include current sitting Presidents.

Sure, until President Donald Trump tweets about the disrespect Disney is showing him and his supporters and everyone knows about it and it causes yuge problems for Disney

 

[erikjp]

Sure, until President Donald Trump tweets about the disrespect Disney is showing him and his supporters and everyone knows about it and it causes yuge problems for Disney

In response to you and 21stamps though, that's WAY less likely to happen than a viral video of the heckling being retweeted. trump would have to actively know about HoP and their regular rule about including the current sitting president, and realize that Disney hasn't asked him to come speak yet, for him to complain about it. I would hope that a sitting president has more to do during the day then worry about whether his AA is in HoP yet.

And more directly to 21stamps, I'm taking Disney's side in my stance, not a political one, which is what we are suppose to be debating in this thread. Not including trump AA makes sense business wise. The potential blowback from not including him would be temporary, especially in modern political outrage cycles. And I HIGHLY doubt people would really care or notice a lack of trump AA in it anyways, with the majority of people who are attending HoP never realizing that including the current sitting president was the previous rule.

And just to edit, including Trump's AA in HoP creates a potential for drama for years to come, while the potential blowback by not including him (until his presidency is over) creates a one time drama when the change is announced. No one is going to care about the change in 2019/2020 and we'll all just accept the new rule going forward.

 

[21stamps]

In response to you and 21stamps though, that's WAY less likely to happen than a viral video of the heckling being retweeted. trump would have to actively know about HoP and their regular rule about including the current sitting president, and realize that Disney hasn't asked him to come speak yet, for him to complain about it. I would hope that a sitting president has more to do during the day then worry about whether his AA is in HoP yet.

And more directly to 21stamps, I'm taking Disney's side in my stance, not a political one, which is what we are suppose to be debating in this thread. Not including trump AA makes sense business wise. The potential blowback from not including him would be temporary, especially in modern political outrage cycles. And I HIGHLY doubt people would really care or notice a lack of trump AA in it anyways, with the majority of people who are attending HoP never realizing that including the current sitting president was the previous rule.

And just to edit, including Trump's AA in HoP creates a potential for drama for years to come, while the potential blowback by not including him (until his presidency is over) creates a one time drama when the change is announced. No one is going to care about the change in 2019/2020 and we'll all just accept the new rule going forward.

I don’t see how you can possibly be looking at this thru a “business decision”.

Let’s look at two choices-

Choice A.
Leave Trump out.
Potential Consequences- Gain media attention across the board. Probable Boycotts.

Choice B.
Leave Trump in, just as every other president has been included. Basically, continuing with the status quo.
Potential Consequence- Some unruly, immature, hecklers.

Leaving political leanings/emotional tendencies completely out of it-
Which choice makes more sense for Disney as a company?

 

[JohnD]

Not including trump AA makes sense business wise. The potential blowback from not including him would be temporary, especially in modern political outrage cycles.

And just to edit, including Trump's AA in HoP creates a potential for drama for years to come, while the potential blowback by not including him (until his presidency is over) creates a one time drama when the change is announced. No one is going to care about the change in 2019/2020 and we'll all just accept the new rule going forward.

"Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the Hall of Presidents (except those for whom it makes sense not to include them business wise.) We're all about historical accuracy here . . . to a point. Why no "45"? Well, that was just reserved for our 45th anniversary. It has no further meaning. Just ignore that a President ever had that designation. We'll care again in 2021 when we're positive another President will be inaugurated that January 20."

 

[21stamps]

"Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the Hall of Presidents (except those for whom it makes sense not to include them business wise.) We're all about historical accuracy here . . . to a point. Why no "45"? Well, that was just reserved for our 45th anniversary. It has no further meaning. Just ignore that a President ever had that designation. We'll care again in 2021 when we're positive another President will be inaugurated that January 20."

Lol. The 45th connection could be a good excuse... don’t want anyone overshadowing an anniversary, not even a current President.

 

[erikjp]

I don’t see how you can possibly be looking at this thru a “business decision”.

Let’s look at two choices-

Choice A.
Leave Trump out.
Potential Consequences- Gain media attention across the board. Probable Boycotts.

Choice B.
Leave Trump in, just as every other president has been included. Basically, continuing with the status quo.
Potential Consequence- Some unruly, immature, hecklers.

Leaving political leanings/emotional tendencies completely out of it-
Which choice makes more sense for Disney as a company?

The only way Choice A happens is if Disney decides to make a spectacle out of trump not being included, which they obviously wouldn't do. Nobody in the wider world is really paying attention to the inclusion of this AA, or is even aware of the rules around HoP, then the hardcore Disney fans (like people on this forum).

Your also talking about a park that's suppose to be partly a look towards the future, but who has multiple attractions with technology and references from the 90's. They could honestly just say if people asked "we haven't gotten around to updating it yet", and there would be no reason to not believe them since half the park hasn't been updated in decades.

Also, you are all missing the idea of active vs. passive protests. Its much easier to protest an actual physical AA (and then the ramifications of video from that) then it would be to protest the lack of something that could easily be argued away. And as I said, in todays world outrage over the lack of the AA would be maybe a couple days in todays news cycle, but having it there for years creates the potential for multiple outrage cycles (from people just heckling it, to fighting over it, to vandalizing it, etc.)

 

[larryz]

Its about mitigating potential problems. Disney spends millions of dollars on it a year. And literally no one, other than maybe the people on this forum, would bat an eye if Disney decided to change it policies about HoP to not include current sitting Presidents.

The attraction is called "Hall of Presidents," not "Hall of Our Favorite Presidents."

 

[21stamps]

The only way Choice A happens is if Disney decides to make a spectacle out of trump not being included, which they obviously wouldn't do. Nobody in the wider world is really paying attention to the inclusion of this AA, or is even aware of the rules around HoP, then the hardcore Disney fans (like people on this forum).

Your also talking about a park that's suppose to be partly a look towards the future, but who has multiple attractions with technology and references from the 90's. They could honestly just say if people asked "we haven't gotten around to updating it yet", and there would be no reason to not believe them since half the park hasn't been updated in decades.

Also, you are all missing the idea of active vs. passive protests. Its much easier to protest an actual physical AA (and then the ramifications of video from that) then it would be to protest the lack of something that could easily be argued away. And as I said, in todays world outrage over the lack of the AA would be maybe a couple days in todays news cycle, but having it there for years creates the potential for multiple outrage cycles (from people just heckling it, to fighting over it, to vandalizing it, etc.)

If this were true, then there would have been no need for in an official response discrediting the Vice article.

 

[erikjp]

"Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the Hall of Presidents (except those for whom it makes sense not to include them business wise.) We're all about historical accuracy here . . . to a point. Why no "45"? Well, that was just reserved for our 45th anniversary. It has no further meaning. Just ignore that a President ever had that designation. We'll care again in 2021 when we're positive another President will be inaugurated that January 20."

Do you honestly think that just cutting off the show at 44 wouldn't just seem like a normal thing to the average Disney goer? If you had never been to it before and after riding such up to date attractions like Carousel of Progress or Figment you wouldn't just think "Of they haven't updated this yet".

Heck I just went to Disneys website and a photo popped up of a kid with an old flip phone for a cell phone. I'm surprised actually they even have Obama in there.

 

[erikjp]

If this were true, then there would have been no need for in an official response discrediting the Vice article.

And the giant public outrage from that article is where? They could have not responded at all and it would have had the same effect. Besides, the salacious part of the story wasn't the AA debate, it was that internal Disney employees disliked Trump (creating the impression that they were an anti-Trump business), which Disney wants to obviously avoid. If the goal was to mitigate any fallout, they did so.

 

[Lets Respect]

They've already added him to a bunch of Madame Tussauds Wax Museums (as president)

 

[erikjp]

The attraction is called "Hall of Presidents," not "Hall of Our Favorite Presidents."

No one said it was, but it would be maybe wise of them to change the rules to including only former presidents, regardless of their favorability, so that people can nicely sit through HoP without heckling. It's not granting favorability of you just apply it to all presidents going forward.

 

[networkpro]

No one said it was, but it would be maybe wise of them to change the rules to including only former presidents, regardless of their favorability, so that people can nicely sit through HoP without heckling. It's not granting favorability of you just apply it to all presidents going forward.

Remember there are folks who yell at their television sets as if whatever they were viewing would hear and respond. Even 65 year old technology is beyond some peoples' ability to comprehend.

 

[Maxwell_Edison]

Probable Boycotts.

We should be so lucky.