Lest i'm unclear about this (because again much of this was said in the other thread), I again didn't get my info from Disney's PR team. Since that would likely be the rebuttal to my comments. Anyone who is familiar with my posting history can tell you that I would not be allowing this project any benefit of the doubt without some sort of decent reason. The person who shared the info also hates that this project even exists in the first place (and the reasons behind it), as much as anyone else here. But they've said Tiana will likely turn out very well and has potential to be a worthy replacement based on what they've seen so far...
Unfortunately, the absolute worst aspect of this project is going to be the thing that is most focused on for a while, the destruction of the exterior. I also suspect we won't be given much info on the real "meat" of the ride (the interior) until much later. We've known for a while that the exterior of the ride will be pretty bad. As I understand it, not everyone working on the project are pleased about that either (or the Salt Mine backstory). What i'm waiting to see more of is the interior, which again is where the ride is supposed to shine. We'll see.
Provided i'm not dead when the ride opens, i'll be here to trash talk it if it turns out to be terrible. If anything happens to me though, well then consider this a proactive apology in advance for being wrong. At the present however, I have heard good things.
Wasn't Tony brought in as a consultant, and not a lead imagineer?
And if the plans are finalized, why would a consultant stay on?
A "consultant" means very little in and of itself without elaborating on the extent of involvement. It's a broad spectrum of influence. It can mean as little as a short two-sentence exchange where someone is told something and they give an opinion back (and their opinion could also be ignored), or it could mean they have an active and significant participation in something.
Most of us naturally assumed it was just the former, that Tony was paid to put out a PR statement giving his "blessing" to a project he had no real hand in. Before my source got information on the project, that's also what they assumed to be the case. This opinion did a complete 180 in the latter half of last year. I was told Tony's influence is very much significantly present in what they went with. If this wasn't the case, I'm quite certain this would have been conveyed to me. Or if he had left the project upset.
If Tony Baxter himself states something, I would take his word for it. Or if a reputable source here such as marni1971 verifies the nature of his involvement, I would also take it seriously. As of now and until I hear it from someone else I trust, i'll trust my own source.
