The Miscellaneous Thought Thread

[Californian Elitist]

Just don’t get the point of doing it in a place where it’s redundant and hundreds of other people are doing the same thing. Why not stand out?

Because it’s nice seeing other people rep the same thing you’re repping, even if it’s a representation of the place you’re in. People aren’t thinking it’s redundant, they’re thinking it’s fun.

You never understood spirit week in high school either, I take it? There’s almost a sense of camaraderie when people sport gear of the school, company, etc. they’re supporting. I’d actually argue that standing out by doing the opposite makes you stand out in a bad way. It’s neither cool, nor interesting.

 

[Californian Elitist]

 

[Dear Prudence]

Because one is representing and showing pride/spirit.

I love wearing my Disney gear to the parks. It's the only place where I feel...it's okay to wear it. I feel safe wearing it and that people understand me.

I graduated from a historic college program with high honors as one of the first people who got the newly established degree and I have ZERO gear from my time in college.

 

[Dear Prudence]

Just don’t get the point of doing it in a place where it’s redundant and hundreds of other people are doing the same thing. Why not stand out?

That's why you get the most unique shirts and rock obscure characters!

 

[DrAlice]

Wearing Disney merchandise at Disneyland has always made zero sense to me. Same with wearing college attire on the campus of the actual college. Why?

It gets me in the Disney spirit when I'm getting ready to go to the parks. It's part of the experience.

 

[Communicora]

Wearing Disney merchandise at Disneyland has always made zero sense to me. Same with wearing college attire on the campus of the actual college. Why?

It is pretty much the only place where I would wear Disney-related apparel!

 

[Californian Elitist]

I mean…the concept of showing love and support at Disneyland or at a college by wearing Disney-branded/college-branded clothes is not very difficult to understand.

 

[mickEblu]

I mean…the concept of showing love and support at Disneyland or at a college by wearing Disney-branded/college-branded clothes is not very difficult to understand.

No it’s not very hard to understand and yet I used to be on the same wavelength as Batlord. Now of course I’ve been around people in Disney parks so long wearing Disney T shirts that it’s all become normal. But initially it seemed kind of redundant to me. To me it made more sense to rock the Disney parks apparel outside of Disneyland where you stand out. Of course, I have a grand total of one Disney parks T shirt. The 35th anni logo shirt with Sorcerer Mickey because that logo is nostalgic for me. See, this is where you have to one up the other nerds that are wearing generic Disneyland 2021 shirts. Find your niche in the midst of the basic Disney stuff.

 

[Californian Elitist]

No it’s not very hard to understand and yet I used to be on the same wavelength as Batlord. Now of course I’ve been around people in Disney parks so long wearing Disney T shirts that it’s all become normal. But initially it seemed kind of redundant to me. To me it made more sense to rock the Disney parks apparel outside of Disneyland where you stand out. Of course, I have a grand total of one Disney parks T shirt. The 35th anni logo shirt with Sorcerer Mickey because that logo is nostalgic for me. See this is where you have to one up the other nerds that are wearing generic Disneyland 2021 shirts. Find your niche in the midst of the basic Disney stuff.

Sure. It’s one thing to not want to wear a Mickey shirt to Disneyland, but to not understand why people do it is something else. At least you understand.

 

[Dear Prudence]

I know that a lot of old friends have been spotted in the park recently, but who is the most obscure character you've seen? Have honest John and Gideon been out!

 

[DrAlice]

If you're looking for something to don on this Sunday afternoon, I would recommend this BBC documentary on beauty. A brilliant critique on postmodernism and the need to return to the wisdom of tradition.

Which tradition?

 

[Californian Elitist]

Which tradition?

That was my exact question and thought. And tradition, according to whom?

 

[Parteecia]

I skipped to the Wiki

ReceptionEdit​

Michael Hogan wrote in The Daily Telegraph:

A counterpoint to Waldemar Januszczak's Ugly Beauty treatise last week, which insisted that beauty exists in contemporary art if you know where to look, Scruton's view is much more conservative. ... En route, Scruton namechecks many of the same modern artists as Januszczak: Carl Andre's bricks, the kitsch of Jeff Koons and the Young British Artist movement. His is a passionate argument, eloquently put, if perhaps a reactionary one.[2]

Left wing leaning Tim Dowling of The Guardian wrote:

[Scruton's] precis of the history of theories about beauty, from Plato to Kant, only served to soften his case. There's a reason people don't think of the world as "intrinsically meaningful" any more: because it isn't. ... Scruton's biggest problem was his failure to provide us with anything to replace the modern world with. To point us in the right direction for the future of architecture, he could only offer Poundbury, the Prince Charles-sponsored Anglo-Disney in Dorset. His visit with a traditionalist sculptor came across as two grumpy old men venting their contempt for all things new.[3]

 

[No Name]

Pixar has never made a sequel to a movie that they made after Disney bought the company. They’ve made 8 sequels (1 was a prequel) to their first 6 original films and 0 sequels to their latest 10 original films. I guess I don’t really have a thought on it, it’s more of a miscellaneous fact.

 

[No Name]

Just kidding, I’m full of thoughts on it. Pixar’s made a lot of great original movies since 2006, but they haven’t made one with quite the same level of cultural resonance and marketability as Toy Story, Cars, Finding Nemo, Monsters Inc., or even The Incredibles. Nor does it seem like they’re trying to. And most importantly, nor does it seem like Disney is bothered by it. Ironically, since 2006, the parks division hasn’t had nearly the same level of freedom and trust, and is left to milk guests’ love for its earlier creations or cash in on synergy with a Pixar sequel. There’s a healthy level of management somewhere in the middle that Disney has evidently not found.

 

[waltography]

Just kidding, I’m full of thoughts on it. Pixar’s made a lot of great original movies since 2006, but they haven’t made one with quite the same level of cultural resonance and marketability as Toy Story, Cars, Finding Nemo, Monsters Inc., or even The Incredibles. Nor does it seem like they’re trying to. And most importantly, nor does it seem like Disney is bothered by it. Ironically, since 2006, the parks division hasn’t had nearly the same level of freedom and trust, and is left to milk guests’ love for its earlier creations or cash in on synergy with a Pixar sequel. There’s a healthy level of management somewhere in the middle that Disney has evidently not found.

I think you're cutting it off a little too early there - Wall-E and Up in 2008/09 I think achieved the same kind of cultural resonance as the ones you mentioned, which is impressive given their slightly older-skewing or otherwise higher-brow premises. Up itself was even nominated for Best Picture, only the second animated movie to do so. (I will give you that neither are particularly marketable initially, but I think they get a pass because they've since stuck around in the cultural landscape in ways that Onward, Soul, and Luca have yet to do).

I do agree since the 2000s Pixar hasn't caught the zeitgeist like it used to—perhaps the closest it's gotten was 2017's Coco.

 

[Californian Elitist]

What do you guys and gals think Disney will do for Disneyland’s 70th birthday, besides the usual merchandise and cupcakes?

 

[waltography]

What do you guys and gals think Disney will do for Disneyland’s 70th birthday, besides the usual merchandise and cupcakes?

70th is platinum, so a Platinum Jubilee would be fun. New costumes for the Fab Five, platinum decor for the castle and Carthay, and a new fireworks show.

I could also just be completely wrong and they'll keep it low-key to wait for the 75th, but that's diamond again so I'm not sure.

 

[DrAlice]

What do you guys and gals think Disney will do for Disneyland’s 70th birthday, besides the usual merchandise and cupcakes?

I don't know, but I'm sure it will have an up charge.

 

[mickEblu]

What do you guys and gals think Disney will do for Disneyland’s 70th birthday, besides the usual merchandise and cupcakes?

Crazy it’s less than 4 years away. I wonder if MMRR will be the only “new” ride (not including PatF Mountain) by the time the 70th hits. I’d say a Marvel E ticket is 50/50 but they would have to announce that pretty soon like Destination D or next Summer latest. I’d like to think they would open a new ride for the 70th. A Coco dark ride at DCA would be a good choice.

Kind of depressing to think of TL still being in its current state for the 70th but I don’t really want the current regime to touch it anyway. Maybe they re shooting for a new TL for the 75th. At the very least put something decent in the TL theatre for the 70th. Maybe give Buzz a heavy refurb with lots of upgrades or they put some new stop gap shooter there. Pooh could be up in the air but my money would be on it staying. I hope they don’t try to extend NOS to include Splash. Just rename the new ride and leave the lands alone. It still makes sense. They re in the bayou/ country somewhere outside of NOS. If they try to change the lands around it might create a negative ripple effect for Critter Country/ Hungry Bear/ Pooh Corner.