Page 1 of 11 1234 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 154
  1. #1

    • Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    673

    Were we lied to?

    On April 4th, 2008, Marty Sklar put out a letter titled "A Magic Kingdom for all the World's Children.

    "Now the rumors are swirling that we are 'ruining Walt’s creation.' I’ve heard that we are planning to remove the rainforest, add Mickey and Minnie Mouse, create an “Up with America” tribute, to effectively “marginalize” the Mary Blair style and Walt’s classic (all not true)."

    He goes onto say...

    "To make “It’s A Small World” even more relevant to our guests, Tony Baxter...and I arrived at the same place eight years ago. To accomplish our objective, we decided to seamlessly integrate Disney characters into appropriate thematic scenes in the attraction, and do it completely in the distinctive “Mary Blair style.”

    (You can read the whole letter HERE.)

    So he does confirm, while they may not be adding Mickey and Minnie, that they are, in fact, adding Disney characters. But what about the Rainforest turning into an America scene? He says that the removal of the Rainforest was "not true" and further says that it wouldn't be replaced by an America scene.

    Fast forward to today...Al Lutz tells us all about the small world changes in his article. He includes not only characters but a replaced Rainforest/Papua New Guinea scene...replaced by and America scene.

    IMO, we were partly lied to but also decieved. He really works his words in this letter and I find that disgusting.

    What do you all think? Were we lied to? Or did he just really mangle his words and tell the truth? Your thoughts??
    ap·pur·te·nant – adjective: appertaining or belonging; pertaining.

    ...to Disneyland.

  2. #2

    • no flash photography...
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    In my own little world..
    Posts
    13,287

    Re: Where we lied to?

    IDK...where were you lied to?

  3. #3

    • Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    673

    Re: Were we lied to?

    ^ Thanks.

    I fixed it.
    ap·pur·te·nant – adjective: appertaining or belonging; pertaining.

    ...to Disneyland.

  4. #4

    • =)
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,290

    Re: Were we lied to?

    I just posted this in another thread regarding "Marty Sklar's cleverly-worded and retrospectively deceptive statement":

    "Very, very interesting. Plans change, of course. It's entirely possible that at the time, they were not "planning" to remove the rainforest, which would make his statement technically true. It's not like he said they wouldn't...they just weren't planning on it at the time. It's disappointing to see things turn out this way simply because it makes it that much harder for me to believe Disney when they say...anything."

    So no, we weren't lied to, unless he actually knew that at the time, they were planning on removing the rainforest. What he did was cleverly select words that would strongly indicate that the rainforest wasn't anywhere without actually making any promise that its removal wouldn't happen. It's possible that at that time, they truly had zero intention of doing that. But it's still bad form to tell the fans that an unpopular move is not in the works and then execute it without letting them know.


  5. #5

    • Banned User
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    321

    Re: Were we lied to?

    I don't know if we were lied to, but one thing I do know.. this thread will hit 1,000 before the day is out. Talk about a HOT topic....

  6. #6

    • MiceChat Round-Up Crew
    • Nikon +Disneyland = :)
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    12.5 minutes from Disneyland
    Posts
    14,009
    Blog Entries
    9

    Re: Were we lied to?

    My answer to the above question is...yes. Marty doesn't get to make a statement emphatically DENYING that the rainforest would be removed only to have imagineering make the change anyway. The official line could have been "We're still working on it" , but that's not what was said.

    This was an extremely poor decision by Disney which was made worse by the fact that they tried to mollify the public by assuring them that the change would not be made.

    This stinks.

  7. #7

    • Circle of Ancients
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    22,685

    Re: Were we lied to?

    Am I the only one willing to wait and see the changes before I complain too much???


  8. #8

    • Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    396

    Re: Were we lied to?

    Why doesn't everyone just trust the Imagineers on what they do best... their job!

    Baxter and Sklar hail from the glory days and I for one fully trust their calls on what's going on with IASW.

    Maybe this is rumors, maybe it isn't, but wouldn't your life be a bit better if you just stopped worrying and waited to see what happens?

  9. #9

    • Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    114

    Re: Were we lied to?

    Yes, we were lied to.

    But what do you expect? Disney is no longer about the "ideals, the dreams, and the hard facts that have created America". They are now about corporate profit and pleasing the shareholders.

    What is even more amazing is how these people who never even visit a park are the ones making the decisions. It seems that whenever they do something right, they take it away from us. ex: Main Street Electrical Parade, Disney Gallery, Adventurers Club, etc...

    Why should we expect anything else from Disney at this point? Actions speak louder than words. These actions have proved that the Disney company no longer has a soul.

    It is indeed a very sad time. I love Disneyland. For the first time in over 10 years, I am without an annual pass. I'm sure I will eventually renew it, but I need some time away, as the magic has been replaced with anger. And, unlike those "other" passholders that think they own the park... I don't yell and complain. I just spend my money elsewhere.

    --Brian

  10. #10

    • Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    690

    Re: Were we lied to?

    Sklar is a company man. He always stands firmly with the corporation, often using his ties with Walt and the old WED as his mantra, yet never straying from current company spin. Disney uses him as their shill whenever they have a nostalgic problem that they need a face for. Sklar has made it through every regime, both good and bad, and has created quite a career at the Disney Company. This should be no surprise to anyone.
    Last edited by mickeyandme67; 10-07-2008 at 07:44 AM. Reason: speeling
    Permanecer sentado por favor...

  11. #11

    •   
    • Skeevy Ray Vaughan
    • Online

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Fullerton
    Posts
    38,006

    Re: Were we lied to?

    Sure we were lied to, but that's how business runs. You think a company would come out with the statement "We're changing it regardless of what the foaming fans think!"? It's so much easier to say one thing and apologize later. I have no problem with what Sklar did because I would have done the same thing.

  12. #12

    • Cove Bar Official Dj
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Simi Valley, CA
    Posts
    287

    Re: Were we lied to?

    aashee is right.
    -Ricky
    DLand Connoisseur
    http://www.djrickyjay.com

  13. #13

    • I'm not really here
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Too Far From Disneyland
    Posts
    11,241

    Re: Were we lied to?

    Quote Originally Posted by aznshrek88 View Post
    Why doesn't everyone just trust the Imagineers on what they do best... their job!
    The main problem is that putting an American scene in a ride which is about the world, that is located in America, is totally pointless. We know what America looks like. Having an American scene in the versions in Europe, Tokyo and Hong Kong is great, but we don't need that here since we kind of know what America is like. We needed the rainforest as it is a part of the world that we don't really have here. Ironic that as the worlds rainforest's shrink, so too does Disneyland's.

    Our revels now are ended. These our actors, As I foretold you, were all spirits and Are melted into air, into thin air: And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, The cloud-capp'd towers, the gorgeous palaces, The solemn temples, the great globe itself, Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff As dreams are made on, and our little life Is rounded with a sleep. mycroft16 on Twitter

  14. #14

    • no flash photography...
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    In my own little world..
    Posts
    13,287

    Re: Were we lied to?

    Quote Originally Posted by sir clinksalot View Post
    Am I the only one willing to wait and see the changes before I complain too much???
    no there's at least two of us...

  15. #15

    • Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    673

    Re: Were we lied to?

    This may be "how business runs" but, (IMO) that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.
    ap·pur·te·nant – adjective: appertaining or belonging; pertaining.

    ...to Disneyland.

Page 1 of 11 1234 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. [Other] So I Guess We Were Lied to Then
    By DL_CRAZE in forum Disneyland Resort
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 01-30-2009, 11:28 AM
  2. Someone hit my car, what should I do? (Man Lied)
    By MsSarah in forum MiceChat Main Lounge
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 06-12-2008, 09:13 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •