The Spirited Sixth Sense ...

[TalkingHead]

But they are still better than 3/4 of Universals shows. Little Mermaid is the show that's most overstayed it's welcome and there's no excuse on why Disney hasn't replaced that it B&tB yet with all of the franchises that they own

If you're talking about live entertainment, I disagree.

Horror Make-Up is my favorite show in either Universal or WDW. There's nothing at WDW as humorous or with the same repeat-factor for me.

Indy, LMA, and Sinbad are all lacking stunt shows. Wouldn't make a point to see any of them again, but Sinbad's probably got the most impressive set. Indy's so long in the tooth, it's embarrassing.

T2 a is 3D-live action mash-up. Nothing at WDW to compare it to.

For singing and dancing shows (which I'm generally not a fan of), I'd say Disney has the edge. Haven't seen the new Beetlejuice yet.

Point being, I wouldn't say Disney's live entertainment is 3/4 better than Universal. Rather, they've both got strengths and weaknesses.

 

[Cody5242]

If you're talking about live entertainment, I disagree.

Horror Make-Up is my favorite show in either Universal or WDW. There's nothing at WDW as humorous or with the same repeat-factor for me.

Indy, LMA, and Sinbad are all lacking stunt shows. Wouldn't make a point to see any of them again, but Sinbad's probably got the most impressive set. Indy's so long in the tooth, it's embarrassing.

T2 a is 3D-live action mash-up. Nothing at WDW to compare it to.

For singing and dancing shows (which I'm generally not a fan of), I'd say Disney has the edge. Haven't seen the new Beetlejuice yet.

Point being, I wouldn't say Disney's live entertainment is 3/4 better than Universal. Rather, they've both got strengths and weaknesses.

Horror Make-Up is next on my list to see. You're forgetting about Fantasmic in the live action, but that might be unfair because it's a nighttime spectacular

 

[ParentsOf4]

The other thing about the IOA store is that it practically faces the lagoon, so when you see it, you aren't "deep in the heart" of Port of Entry.

Like others have said, it's not an ideal solution, but it's one I'm not particularly bothered by. The interior may look like your local location in Strip Mall, USA, but the exterior doesn't upset the area's atmosphere too much.

My complaint is with this sign:

(photo courtesy of Eric Davis)

 

[GLaDOS]

My complaint is with this sign:

View attachment 46635
(photo courtesy of Eric Davis)

I don't have a problem with that at all.

The inside is unfortunate. But it's a lot harder to harp on the small mistakes when you get an E-ticket every year.

 

[TalkingHead]

My complaint is with this sign:

View attachment 46635
(photo courtesy of Eric Davis)

Yes, and that's the one that's facing the lagoon. Ideally, it'd be integrated better.

To me, it's not much different than the old attraction sponsorships that would plaster the corporate logos on attraction signs (like Space Mountain's RCA and FedEx sponsorships).

 

[71jason]

I don't think any of Universal's shows haven't been updated since the 90s.

DHS, on the other hand, is still running shows that debuted in 1989.

I see your point, but...

• Beetlejuice was updated in the early or mid-00s, and was again revamped (no pun intended) just this month, although not for the better
• Horror & Make-Up mostly dates back to 2004, but it also was updated since to replace the emphasis on Van Helsing with one on The Wolfman. Also, they reworked the finale with Eddie (another bad choice, but sure lawyers played a part in that one)
• Earthquake--largely a show--was reworked into Disaster maybe 5 or 6 years ago
• Fear Factor "only" began in 2005, tho long past its sell by date
  
• The night show and the parade are only a couple years old. Ditto the Potter shows.

As for others, Sinbad as old, but they do try to throw in new pop culture references. And Blues Brothers uses songs from the movie, so not much you can do to update that--it still draws a healthy crowd.

 

[TalkingHead]

I see your point, but...

• Beetlejuice was updated in the early or mid-00s, and was again revamped (no pun intended) just this month, although not for the better
• Horror & Make-Up mostly dates back to 2004, but it also was updated since to replace the emphasis on Van Helsing with one on The Wolfman. Also, they reworked the finale with Eddie (another bad choice, but sure lawyers played a part in that one)
• Earthquake--largely a show--was reworked into Disaster maybe 5 or 6 years ago
• Fear Factor "only" began in 2005, tho long past its sell by date
  
• The night show and the parade are only a couple years old. Ditto the Potter shows.

As for others, Sinbad as old, but they do try to throw in new pop culture references. And Blues Brothers uses songs from the movie, so not much you can do to update that--it still draws a healthy crowd.

I may have been unclear. I think Universal's entertainment is much more fresh than DHS's.

I think it's amazing that Disney's premier "live entertainment" park is running shows (like Indy with the same audience plant gag!) from 1989.

That just reeks of "doesn't give a ______."

 

[Animaniac93-98]

Just as Disney was seen as a 'gay friendly' company... WDW is seen as a 'fat friendly' place.

The difference here would be policy. Disney has made explicit efforts to accomodate those of a larger size, from redesigning ride vehicles, pathways and queuing areas to adopting policies regarding disability, rental scooters and such. Unofficial sites also have sections that feature information for this demographic.

While Disney no longer discourages people from coming to MK on certain "busy" days, they have no explicit endorsements or advertsising towards LGBT customers visiting their parks beyond some recent, "subtle" merchandise at DLR. It's all grassroots like Goth Days or Dapper Days.

I'm not saying your wrong, but that perceptions from guests can come from more than one place.

 

[khale1970]

WDW and UNI might have old shows, but none of them could possibly be as stale and uninteresting as the neverending Pixie Duster/Wand Stroker fights.

 

[CDavid]

My opinion ...

I am less bothered by the introduction of common brand names within WDW (or Uni). Disney has been doing it for decades, all the way back to the early days of Disneyland.

My main qualm at WDW is that a modern trendy brand like Starbucks is out-of-place for an idealized version of turn-of-the-century Marceline, Missouri. Couldn't they get another coffee brand that's at least a century old? Or simply have located it around the corner by the Tomorrowland Terrace?

At least the MSUSA Starbucks storefront is discrete.

At Uni, it's worse. Port Of Entry has such enthralling exteriors. The Starbucks sign is just ugly and grossly out-of-place.

To me, it's not much different than the old attraction sponsorships that would plaster the corporate logos on attraction signs (like Space Mountain's RCA and FedEx sponsorships).

I don't have a problem with serving Starbucks (or McDonald's or Coke or Chick Fil-A or whatever) products in the parks and resorts; I do have a problem with having a Starbucks or a McDonald's store in the parks (or resort wide). Instead, just have the same thematically appropriate quick-service locations we've always had, and maybe add a small, discrete sign saying "sponsored by Starbucks" or "proudly serving Starbucks coffee".

Sponsorships (or just menu items) aren't out of place and don't intrude on the 'bubble' created by guests being immersed in the parks, but you can potentially get better quality and more familiar dining selections (I think the stuff Starbucks passes off as coffee tastes worse than dirty dishwater, but a lot of people seem to like it).

 

[flynnibus]

The difference here would be policy. Disney has made explicit efforts to accomodate those of a larger size, from redesigning ride vehicles, pathways and queuing areas to adopting policies regarding disability, rental scooters and such. Unofficial sites also have sections that feature information for this demographic.

Disney made explicit efforts to be 'gay friendly' in policy as well. the difference was this was on the EMPLOYEE side, not necessarily guest spaces as you mention. The 'gay friendly' worked its way into the customer space as well because of how Disney acted internally towards it's employees. Of course it's difficult to be nasty to gay customers when the employees are gay themselves, etc. The tolerance in the customer side is less explict.. honestly because it is less visible on the customer side (sans the controversies over same sex dancing in the TL band stages..)

The paths, queues, etc you mention are an outcome of the self-feeding cycle I described. Because Disney prioritized inclusion and coddled the oversized... the oversized flocked to Disney's banner. Then Disney has to deal with the consequences of their inclusive policies... the growth of that audience outgrew (ha.. again!) what Disney could do on a exception basis... dictating phyiscal changes to the parks to keep up with demand.

Demand that existed because Disney has always been receptive to these guests. It's a bit of 'which came first, the chicken or the egg?'. Disney being established as fat friendly is not because they built bigger walkways... but because they were so supportive of those people's needs... through policies of how they dealt with ECVs, families traveling with ECVs, customer service first, etc.

My point being... Disney being 'fat friendly' was a function of behavior and policy... long before it was because they built the park out for ECV demolition derbies.

 

[the.dreamfinder]

@ParentsOf4, I would love to see UNI Creative and WDI's concepts for their Starbucks locations, methinks Starbucks may be the one dumbing down the theming of these locations for BRAND purposes. Starbucks did kill Fiddler Fifer and Practical's original made to order sandwiches for the crappy premade ones you can find at your neighborhood Starbucks.

 

[HM Spectre]

I don't have a problem with serving Starbucks (or McDonald's or Coke or Chick Fil-A or whatever) products in the parks and resorts; I do have a problem with having a Starbucks or a McDonald's store in the parks (or resort wide). Instead, just have the same thematically appropriate quick-service locations we've always had, and maybe a add small, discrete sign saying "sponsored by Starbucks" or "proudly serving Starbucks coffee".

I'd prefer it that way too but I realize that's not always possible... I just don't want to see the branding and color scheme you'd see passing a Starbucks/McDonald's or whatever down the road. There should be an assumption that if you have a store within the parks, expect your branding to be themed accordingly (wooden sign on an old wooden building, etc). There's not much that rips me back to reality faster than seeing generic, plasticky corporate branding in a themed area.

 

[Rodan75]

I'm well aware of the disaster that was Universal Studios Escape. The deal for Marvel was made in 1994. Marvel went bankrupt in 1996. X-Men kicked off the current wave of Marvel movie mania in 2000. The Amazing Adventures of Spider-Man seems to be the peak of super hero attractions with little thought on how to move beyond its formula, or the decoration based model. The Dubai park was packed with similar ideas. The Iron Man Experience is also the same. Potter fans show up in Hogsmead and declare themselves wizards. Superhero fans show up and remain their same selves in a rather familiar world. The superhero theme at the present lacks a depth of experience that seems to have a corresponding inability to capture the public imagination. Why pay theme park prices for a film, television or comic book experience of externality?

Well said. I think Jedi Academy is a good path to help with that, but it doesn't fill an entire park. I hate to say it...but there is an element of 'pixie dust' missing from the current Superhero offerings that I don't think is easily overcome. (Pixie Dust that even Harry Potter has in addition to excellent theming) I think it is something that will be tough to create with Pandora as well.

 

[George1995]

I don't have a problem with serving Starbucks (or McDonald's or Coke or Chick Fil-A or whatever) products in the parks and resorts; I do have a problem with having a Starbucks or a McDonald's store in the parks (or resort wide). Instead, just have the same thematically appropriate quick-service locations we've always had, and maybe a add small, discrete sign saying "sponsored by Starbucks" or "proudly serving Starbucks coffee".

Sponsorships (or just menu items) aren't out of place and don't intrude on the 'bubble' created by guests being immersed in the parks, but you can potentially get better quality and more familiar dining selections (I think the stuff Starbucks passes off as coffee tastes worse than dirty dishwater, but a lot of people seem to like it).

I would much rather see something like this, but I don't think it is going to happen this way in the future. From the standpoint of the companies such as Starbucks, they want their brand to be shown as much as possible in the parks so that when people leave WDW, they see a Starbucks and it makes them think of the one they saw in WDW, making them potentially more inclined to go there.

Again, I would love to see as little branding in WDW as possible because it makes me instantly snap back into reality so to say. However, from a business standpoint it doesn't make much sense.

 

[asianway]

I would much rather see something like this, but I don't think it is going to happen this way in the future. From the standpoint of the companies such as Starbucks, they want their brand to be shown as much as possible in the parks so that when people leave WDW, they see a Starbucks and it makes them think of the one they saw in WDW, making them potentially more inclined to go there.

Again, I would love to see as little branding in WDW as possible because it makes me instantly snap back into reality so to say. However, from a business standpoint it doesn't make much sense.

I wonder how much the naming rights to Cinderella Castle are worth

 

[alphac2005]

In most major metro areas there are no competitors for Cable and High Speed internet except for some legacy copper DSL carriers.

It's funny that you mention that. We're using U-Verse for Internet service in a 2 pair bonding setup and even though we're on the so-called legacy system, we have a nice speed of 128mbps coming in the house. Thanks thanks to the need to screw over the consumer with any and everything, we're paying for the 18mbps speed and capped at that speed. AT&T isn't even offering speed anywhere close to 128mbps around here. What a shock.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Well said. I think Jedi Academy is a good path to help with that, but it doesn't fill an entire park. I hate to say it...but there is an element of 'pixie dust' missing from the current Superhero offerings that I don't think is easily overcome. (Pixie Dust that even Harry Potter has in addition to excellent theming) I think it is something that will be tough to create with Pandora as well.

Pandora and Star Wars definitely have the environments that can be used to create place. Their issue is the open playing field that @flynnibus discussed earlier. Even with Star Wars I think this could be a problem if they either cram in too many locales or choose ones that are new and/or do not have the same resonance as others.

 

[Cody5242]

The Guardians of the Galaxy trailer came out today and I must say I'm really excited to see that movie. It should be a breath of fresh air not knowing these characters

 

[Funmeister]

Yeah, but your comment about the chocolate mouth, while even 'individualized', stands to paint a negative connotation for the group at large. True or no... in this politically correct society you can't single out fat by guilt because you might offend others who may or may not be fat by guilt.

And yes, WDW does cuddle this demographic (by guilt or not..). The concentration of overweight people at WDW ancedontally far exceeds the ratios observed elsewhere. It's a self-feeding cycle (ha.. see what I did there?)... WDW coddles out of the spirit of customer service... the number of people needing this grows as people become found of the coddling WDW offers compare to other locations.

Just as Disney was seen as a 'gay friendly' company... WDW is seen as a 'fat friendly' place.

I could see it as a slam if I made it up. It really happened. By your logic you are saying all people with chocolate on their mouth are obese instead of an obese person had chocolate on their mouth. I "individualized" a situation not a class of people. Negative or not...it happened and it applied to this conversation. Moving on.