Save the Rainforest - Keep "it's a small world" a classic.

[BassBone]

I refuse to ride Pooh again because every time I do I end up in excruciating pain. There is no leg room on that ride at all.

[ZeekSlider]

Originally Posted by lazyboy97O

So you are acknowledging the use of a wide brush ad hominem?

I'm acknowledging the fact that someone got the joke.

But then again, the internet is serious business, and I tend to forget that 90% of the people here don't have a sense of humor 80% of the time they are online.

That said...

[fo'c's'le swab]

Originally Posted by ZeekSlider

I'm acknowledging the fact that someone got the joke.

But then again, the internet is serious business, and I tend to forget that 90% of the people here don't have a sense of humor 80% of the time they are online.

That said...

In my opinion, your whole posting on this matter is a joke, whether or not your 'Civil Rights' allusion was really one or not.

[HBG2]

Originally Posted by ZeekSlider

I'm acknowledging the fact that someone got the joke.

But then again, the internet is serious business, and I tend to forget that 90% of the people here don't have a sense of humor 80% of the time they are online.

Wow, again the Oracle has deigned to speak. 90%, 80%....such precision. And elsewhere we discover that you know what the entire population of China knows or doesn't know, and why they would or would not visit an amusement park, based in part on their presumed similarity to the Japanese (which makes sense, since...well, you know, those people are all pretty much all alike). http://micechat.com/forums/showpost....&postcount=114

And now it's the "Just joking, just joking" defense.

Rule #1 for getting out of a hole: stop digging.

[aashee]

Originally Posted by ZeekSlider

But then again, the internet is serious business, and I tend to forget that 90% of the people here don't have a sense of humor 80% of the time they are online.

I'll help you out with words of wisdom from Linus. There are 3 things you probably shouldn't discuss without people getting angry. Politics, Religion and the Great Pumpkin.

[4 Park Central]

LP has an interesting article about the creation of Hong Kong Disneyland's version of it's a small world - it is with the imagineers responsible and they talk about the integration of the Disney characters.

It is on their homepage if you want to read it.

[Coheteboy]

Originally Posted by 4 Park Central

LP has an interesting article about the creation of Hong Kong Disneyland's version of it's a small world - it is with the imagineers responsible and they talk about the integration of the Disney characters.

It is on their homepage if you want to read it.

mmmm... yah that site is great. I love asterisks.

edit: nevermind.

[4 Park Central]

Originally Posted by Coheteboy

mmmm... yah that site is great. I love asterisks.

edit: nevermind.

Hadn't seen that before. Thought I'd done something wrong!

[HBG2]

The relevant section:

LM: So why add the Disney characters for the first time?

JM: I had been waiting for that question.

TM: We thought long and hard about this. We wanted something special for Hong Kong that was more than just a new city scene. The park doesn’t have a whole lot of attractions or places where you get exposure to the characters. We thought it’s a small world was a good place to introduce that in a careful way. It could have looked gratuitous.

JM: Like product placement.

KO: Or subliminal advertising.

TM: Exactly. There were many concerns from an artistic standpoint. These are two different worlds – that of it’s a small world and that of the Disney characters – and even each character lives in its own stylistic world. How do you reconcile that?

JM: We tried to make it unobtrusive. We didn’t create a lot of new sets and worked them into the existing sets and original designs. We were not trying to do a huge overlay. The characters are just part of the scene.

LM: As if you had replaced a it’s a small world doll with a character?

JM: That is exactly what we did. We had x number of dolls and we had 40 Disney characters to work in as dolls and toys. So we took out dolls from the relevant country and replaced them.

Notice that they admit that the world of IASW and the world of Disney characters are two different worlds. They "reconcile" the difference between these "two different worlds" by making one of them stylistically similar to the other. So the difference between the world of Disney characters and the world of the IASW dolls is superficial enough to harmonize them through surface stylization.

After thinking "long and hard," they have managed to cheapen and degrade both worlds with a single stroke. I don't care what their credentials as Imagineers might be, I say they're idiots.

[Datameister]

This thread seriously needs to be refurbed. It's not thematically consistent with the attraction it's defending.

[HBG2]

It's not thematically consistent with the attraction it's defending.

Doesn't need to be. Two different worlds, mate, two different worlds.

[Datameister]

Doesn't need to be. Two different worlds, mate, two different worlds.

If the theme of IASW isn't relevant to the real world, why is so much energy and disrespect being invested in its defense?

[lazyboy97O]

I am on my phone, so I am inable to tell who "JM" and "KO" are, but they both blatantly state the denied marketing link. Then the replacement description matches what so many stating "not so bad" believe will take place. Just more propf that "not a clone" is a hallow attempt at distancing themselves the marketting based origins of these additions.

[HBG2]

Originally Posted by Datameister

If the theme of IASW isn't relevant to the real world, why is so much energy and disrespect being invested in its defense?

Because there are some ironies to be embraced as part of the nature of things, and others to be eliminated as evidence of moral inconsistency.

If some malicious punk approached this painting with a can of black spray paint, what would you do?



Would you be morally inconsistent to resist the vandal with a combative rigor alien to the innocence and tranquility of the Renoir? Would it be okay to slap the tagger down, though, if he happened to be attacking a different painting in the gallery, one with a tougher, bleaker world view? Making such a distinction would be silly, wouldn't it?

I'm protesting loudly and bluntly a proposed act of corporate vandalism. The fact that the target of the vandalism in this instance happens to have as its theme human harmony and unity is ironic, no doubt, but it is an irrelevant irony.

[patattack]

Love the term corporate vandalism