Printable View
I see it more as a way to avoid the trickier and deeper intellectual discussion about the subject; "casual readers" only have to reach into their bag of tricks and whip out the old chestnuts like "You want Disneyland to be a museum!" without having to tackle the far meatier implications and substance of our arguments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wren
But that's just me.
As opposed to the "Our argument is intellectually and morally superior, and we're going to dismiss yours as ignorance because we don't agree with it, because its beneath us"Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve DeGaetano
That's perfectly ok right?
It's pretty easy to dismiss arguments that don't address the subjects presented. So when Wiggins makes brand arguments or I make theme arguments that are more than one paragraph long, and all we get back in retort is "You're just nostalgic and want Disneyland to be a museum!!" it does in fact appear to be intellectual laziness. Do you disagree?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wren
Regardless of how well written or long-winded your arguments may be, if the content of the argument boils down to, even if read in its entirety is what those you claim to be 'lazy' actually is; does one need to make an equally long winded and well written retort to it, if one line can summarize whats basically being said?Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve DeGaetano
Regardless of how an argument is hidden within text or embellished with text, its still the same basic simple argument.
So I disagree, believe it or not, there are those who read the entire text and still all they get from it is "They want it to be a museum", its not intellectual laziness; its a failed argument that always produces the same response to it.
Though this mostly applies to you Steve, you have well written posts even if I mainly disagree with a lot of them. And I have actually learned things I didnt know from them at times. But if someone doesn't need a long drawn out post to get the point across, its not 'intelectually lazy' to post a simple reply.
Size of post matters not.
Judge this post by its size do you?
Simple request from "purists": if you're going to replace something, replace it with something BETTER than what was there before.
That's all any of us really want. That is something we should all agree on.
Now, if Disney management cannot imagine something better, well, then, as Walt implies in one of his famous quotes, Disneyland is completed.
Reasonable post I agree with.Quote:
Originally Posted by sediment
Though the definition of BETTER differs from person to person.
I like CJB better, my GF likes Winnie the Pooh better. Go figure.
Dude, dump that girl! Red flags all around!!
Lol thats the only time I think I've heard that. I think I can forgive her for liking Winnie the Pooh though.Quote:
Originally Posted by sediment
Does she make you ride it? Or is it like some tunnel of love (or ATIS for us old folks)for you two?
Thought all the cool kids used Haunted Mansion for thatQuote:
Originally Posted by sediment
But its more of a trade-off, Ill go on that if she'll go on Mr Toad.
They were both good for romancing.
Compromise is good for a relationship. Good luck to you two!
I also think Walt Disney had a different idea for nostalgia than we do. Main Street represents not a singular movie but his childhood. Replacing an entire land isn't something he hoped to ever do.
And he has replaced many attractions but because they were placeholders for something better. Key word: BETTER.
I don't think he would let character meet & greet take over a ride. He'd find ways of making the ride better if nobody was going on it... OR, he'd replace it with a better ride. It's about plussing rather than doing what would be more "cost-effective". He also didn't care which movie was more represented in Fantasyland either it seems since Alice in Wonderland and Dumbo got more attractions than the rest.
Most of what can be said or argued about the Snow White ride in Florida also applies to the one in California. I would think most would agree it has one of the shortest waits in the park. Even shorter than most Meet n Greets.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coheteboy
I think I'm going to have to go with option 3 on your list. It's not necessarily that it is too old fashioned, but in a park full of E tickets, why would you waste your time?
I am all for Mr. Staggs' statement and wholeheartedly approve of Disney's "Great Leap Forward" IF it was being done well. Yes remove the old and antiquated attractions that thrive only due to nostalgia BUT don't replace them with substandard current era tie ins that won't be remembered a few years after their release (See Tarzan's Tree House). If you are going to do progress then do progress well, otherwise keep the old attractions in house until you can figure out what Disney's Evolution actually is.