Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 153
  1. #16

    • New Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    34

    Re: 4/19: Grim Grinning?, Part III

    I like the new graveyard, although I think it should be a little bit bigger, and I agree it needs to be darker, i.e. more shady. It would be more atmospheric, and also less brutal during the summer months.
    I don't really get the idea that they are too funny. If you read the original gravestones, they are just as witty and funny as the new ones. I think that the ride just didn't have gravestones like the new ones when it opened because the technology didn't exist.
    Still, I kinda wish it was a bit bigger and more spaced out, giving the crypts the room they need and allowing more guests in from the main queue. Although, maybe Master Gracey's crypt is too small because they don't want you thinking someone's buried there. Don't want uptight parents freaking out.

  2. #17

    • Inhospitable about happy
    • Offline

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    5,540

    Re: 4/19: Grim Grinning?, Part III

    First, a nit pick. Kevin, I believe you've misidentified several of the tributes. "Good friend Gordon" is not Bruce Gordon but Gordon Williams, an audio designer for the HM; "Brother Dave" is not David Mumford but David Burkhart, a modeler and show designer; and "A man named Martin" is not Marty Sklar but Bud Martin, VP of design at WED back in the day. These stones go back to 1971 and honor original HM imagineers.

    Since a portrait of one of the queue busts is now installed alongside the hitchhiking ghosts inside the HM, the additional characters in the new queue are deliberately integrated into the ride, whether you bypass the queue or not. Conceptually, Pepe Le Queue is not "optional."

    This thing is an absolute disaster. It radically alters the fundamental concept of the entire ride. The HM has always been a representation of the real world in which you live, with the sole exception that ghosts and ghostly activities are real. You are the main character, and the "story" is you going through a "real" haunted house. That's the essential show concept. But with the queue characters added in, the HM now depicts a fictional world, populated by fictional characters (cartoony sea serpents for pets, etc.), and it just happens to be the case that ghosts are part of that fictional world. Big whoop. It is no longer a depiction of your world any more than Mickey's House in Toontown is a depiction of your world.

    You can say, "So what?" to that if you like, but what you can't say is that this isn't a fundamental alteration to the attraction's core concept. As far as I'm concerned, Pete Carsillo, Eric Goodman, and Eric Jacobson do not understand the ride and have ruined the WDW HM.
    "My mental facilities are twice what yours are, pea brain!"

    The conversation continues at Long-Forgotten, the blog.

  3. #18

    • Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    South Bay
    Posts
    640

    Re: 4/19: Grim Grinning?, Part III

    Don't mince words, HBG2, what do you really think?
    Everyone is entitled to an informed opinion.
    Harlan Ellison

    I may not be the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree, but I do shine.

    Texan by birth, Californian by choice.

    There should be a sticky thread called "This Day in Disney History." The company has a long history and this would be a good way to acknowledge it. Walt was born 112 years ago; that's quite a chunk of American history and culture.

  4. #19

    • Member of Baxter's Army
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Haunted Mansion
    Posts
    2,389

    Re: 4/19: Grim Grinning?, Part III

    Kevin' Good Friend Gordon is not a tribute to Bruce Gordon but Gordon Williams as stated in the book Walt Disney World Hidden History written by someone named "Kevin Yee".

  5. #20

    • MiceAge Columnist
    • Moderator
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Orlando, FL
    Posts
    2,023

    Re: 4/19: Grim Grinning?, Part III

    I was waiting for the corrections on Bruce, David, and Martin... thank you! I wrote those with question marks on my internal document (I had known they were old gravestones) and like an idiot I sent it off for publishing before remembering to look that up.
    Kevin Yee
    MiceAge Columnist

    I am the author of several Disney books:
    Jason's Disneyland Almanac - a daily history of Disneyland
    Walt Disney World Hidden History - tributes, homages, and ride remnants at WDW
    Your Day at the Magic Kingdom
    Mouse Trap
    Tokyo Disney Made Easy
    101 Things You Never Knew About Disneyland
    Magic Quizdom (The Disneyland Trivia Book)

    “The press [should be] a watchdog. Not an attack dog. Not a lapdog. A watchdog. Now, a watchdog can't be right all the time. He doesn't bark only when he sees or smells something that's dangerous. A good watchdog barks at things that are suspicious.” – Dan Rather

  6. #21

    • Banned User
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,497

    Re: 4/19: Grim Grinning?, Part III

    You’re supposed to be able to shout a word out to complete the writing in the book,
    but this never works well when I see it.
    What's up with them not using special effects that work? Sigh. If it doesn't work, they should have altered it by having a pre-recorded soundtrack and then having the writing in the book follow through.

  7. #22

    • Frustrated A/V Engineer
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    3,344

    Re: 4/19: Grim Grinning?, Part III

    I think it's a little soon to badmouth Disney because of this effect. We've heard from one person (Kevin) who had a hard time with this. Perhaps it was a momentary thing, or maybe too much ambient sound. I'd give 'em a little time before jumping on the DISNEY IS BAD SIGH bandwagon.

  8. #23

    • Workin to live,lovin life
    • Offline

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    So Cal
    Posts
    700

    Re: 4/19: Grim Grinning?, Part III

    Quote Originally Posted by danyoung View Post
    I think it's a little soon to badmouth Disney because of this effect. We've heard from one person (Kevin) who had a hard time with this. Perhaps it was a momentary thing, or maybe too much ambient sound. I'd give 'em a little time before jumping on the DISNEY IS BAD SIGH bandwagon.
    Agreed. It's one person's account of it... considering Kevin's very detail oriented, maybe most people don't even notice or even know what it's supposed to do? And being negative towards anything including Disney is just a waste of energy if you ask me. It's like being angry at a politician... they can't hear you if you just tell your room mate. Do something about it, ya know?

  9. #24

    • Banned User
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,497

    Re: 4/19: Grim Grinning?, Part III

    I have a phone with Google voice. It doesn't work well either. It works occasionally when I articulate carefully. I will grant that Disney is utilizing current FLAWED technology. I can't blame them for the technology, but I do blame them for putting in an imperfect special effect. If it doesn't work, why leave it in?

  10. #25

    • Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    714

    Re: 4/19: Grim Grinning?, Part III

    Quote Originally Posted by HBG2 View Post
    First, a nit pick. Kevin, I believe you've misidentified several of the tributes. "Good friend Gordon" is not Bruce Gordon but Gordon Williams, an audio designer for the HM; "Brother Dave" is not David Mumford but David Burkhart, a modeler and show designer; and "A man named Martin" is not Marty Sklar but Bud Martin, VP of design at WED back in the day. These stones go back to 1971 and honor original HM imagineers.

    Since a portrait of one of the queue busts is now installed alongside the hitchhiking ghosts inside the HM, the additional characters in the new queue are deliberately integrated into the ride, whether you bypass the queue or not. Conceptually, Pepe Le Queue is not "optional."

    This thing is an absolute disaster. It radically alters the fundamental concept of the entire ride. The HM has always been a representation of the real world in which you live, with the sole exception that ghosts and ghostly activities are real. You are the main character, and the "story" is you going through a "real" haunted house. That's the essential show concept. But with the queue characters added in, the HM now depicts a fictional world, populated by fictional characters (cartoony sea serpents for pets, etc.), and it just happens to be the case that ghosts are part of that fictional world. Big whoop. It is no longer a depiction of your world any more than Mickey's House in Toontown is a depiction of your world.

    You can say, "So what?" to that if you like, but what you can't say is that this isn't a fundamental alteration to the attraction's core concept. As far as I'm concerned, Pete Carsillo, Eric Goodman, and Eric Jacobson do not understand the ride and have ruined the WDW HM.

    Wow. I want to provide a counter point to this having destroyed and completely changed the Haunted Mansion. It has done nothing of a sort.

    The Haunted Mansion was never 100% reality based. The gravestones on the outside have always been rather tongue and cheek. The pet Cemetery is also humorous and was always meant to be. Beyond that, the stretch room portraits also have been, and have always been intended to be…. FUNNY!!!!

    Those protriats do start off looking so serious, but not exactly like real people even though the host says they are prior guests. As room stretches, and the ghost host voice becomes more ominous, the portraits are doing the opposite, letting you in on the joke.

    The new interactive que has not fundamentally changed anything. As previously stated, the engravings on the tombstones outside have always been humorous to read and speculate about, and this takes that concept and makes it touchy feely.

    I can understand perhaps the argument that someone might make for making the busts more human looking and less cartoon like. Ditto for the hitch hiking ghosts, but I do not find the style in the new que in conflict with the painted portraits of the stretch room. Those portraits are clearly, even at first sight, not in the same more realistic portrait style as Master Gracey’s protrait in the first room. The two men that shot each other in the ball room are other examples done in a realistic style, but the stretch room is not.

    The haunted mansion from beginning to end has always been in conflict with itself. Is it serious? Is it humous? Answer…. Yes.


    Stating this is a disasters and completely changed the nature of the attractions is, in my opinion, an exaggeration that betrays the credibility of Disneyfans, purists and on-line groups. I say this because I have been through the enhancements enough times now to get a pulse on the crowd’s reactions and feedback, and they like it. They are entertained by it, are having fun with it, and talk about afterwards in a positive manner. So while some purist bemoan Disney, the paying guest, by large seems to really have enjoyed the changed.

    I don't mind critics. Anyone that knows me knows I do not look at Disney with any rose tint in my glasses. But also feel sometimes it goes to far with broad sweeping exaggerations that discredit on-line communities as viable sources of feedback.

  11. #26

    • Inhospitable about happy
    • Offline

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    5,540

    Re: 4/19: Grim Grinning?, Part III

    Quote Originally Posted by Kidgenie View Post
    Wow. I want to provide a counter point to this having destroyed and completely changed the Haunted Mansion. It has done nothing of a sort.

    The Haunted Mansion was never 100% reality based. The gravestones on the outside have always been rather tongue and cheek. The pet Cemetery is also humorous and was always meant to be. Beyond that, the stretch room portraits also have been, and have always been intended to be…. FUNNY!!!!

    Those protriats do start off looking so serious, but not exactly like real people even though the host says they are prior guests. As room stretches, and the ghost host voice becomes more ominous, the portraits are doing the opposite, letting you in on the joke.

    The new interactive que has not fundamentally changed anything. As previously stated, the engravings on the tombstones outside have always been humorous to read and speculate about, and this takes that concept and makes it touchy feely.

    I can understand perhaps the argument that someone might make for making the busts more human looking and less cartoon like. Ditto for the hitch hiking ghosts, but I do not find the style in the new que in conflict with the painted portraits of the stretch room. Those portraits are clearly, even at first sight, not in the same more realistic portrait style as Master Gracey’s protrait in the first room. The two men that shot each other in the ball room are other examples done in a realistic style, but the stretch room is not.

    The haunted mansion from beginning to end has always been in conflict with itself. Is it serious? Is it humous? Answer…. Yes.


    Stating this is a disasters and completely changed the nature of the attractions is, in my opinion, an exaggeration that betrays the credibility of Disneyfans, purists and on-line groups. I say this because I have been through the enhancements enough times now to get a pulse on the crowd’s reactions and feedback, and they like it. They are entertained by it, are having fun with it, and talk about afterwards in a positive manner. So while some purist bemoan Disney, the paying guest, by large seems to really have enjoyed the changed.

    I don't mind critics. Anyone that knows me knows I do not look at Disney with any rose tint in my glasses. But also feel sometimes it goes to far with broad sweeping exaggerations that discredit on-line communities as viable sources of feedback.
    I am not exaggerating, and you may be sure that I'm prepared to defend my statements. I am also not a stick-in-the-mud purist. (I think the new HHG effect is excellent.) What I said was that the HM is a depiction of the real world except that ghosts and ghostly activities are real. Those ghostly activities include warping the very fabric of the building and other trickery designed to make you wonder what is real and what is "your imagination." The ghosts include the kind you find in "non-fictional" ghost lore as well as the blatantly fictional, fun-loving types you find in comic songs, for example. If you remove the ghosts and the ghostly activity, what remains is a logically consistent artistic representation of the real world of today, asking no more of a suspension of disbelief than a realistic short story or play or movie.

    The whimsical tombstones you refer to are typical "boot hill" humorous epitaphs (which really do exist) and in no way take you out of the real world into a fantasy world. Pet cemeteries also really exist, and have for thousands of years. You need only postulate that a rather eccentric Victorian who loved animals once lived here. The presence or absence of light-hearted humor has nothing to do with whether you're seeing a depiction of the real world or a fantasy world.

    I fully agree with you that some of the new queue artwork is in the same style as the stretchroom portraits. The problem is that the alterations to the stretchroom portraits (with their macabre wit, implied threat, and unrealistic depictions) are manifestly the result of ghostly activity. They aren't "real"; they are part of a trick to disorient you, as the GH suggests with his mock question. But the busts in the queue are "real," not the result of ghostly manipulation. You can touch them, examine them in broad daylight.

    Remove the ghosts and ghostly activities, and the HM is logically consistent to an astonishing degree, because the Imagineers all knew it was supposed to be the real world. But Pepe Le Queue is a fountain of logical absurdities. How can ghosts that have never yet been seen be depicted on old funerary monuments in the family plot? Why are ghosts depicted on funerary monuments at all? Why are there realistic instruments depicted on one side of an organist's crypt, and bizarre, surrealistic instruments (plus a cartoon cat) depicted on the other? How can a specific raven character be depicted on an old crypt? Ravens only live about 44 years, tops. How did three random hitchhikers, including a convict with ball-and-chain, suddenly become family members and residents of the same house? Why are tombstones set up in such a way that there is obviously no body buried in front of them? Why is a Victorian-era poetess writing about off-road vehicles and gasoline tanks? Who would erect a funerary monument with a book in it, exposed to the open air? Why does the banner in a Victorian woman's tomb refer to her ghostly activities? The list goes on and on.

    The answer is that the Imagineers who designed this mess don't think the HM depicts a ghost-infested real world house but a ghost-infested cartoony, fictional house, where such logical consistency is not necessary.

    That is a fundamental conceptual change. In my opinion, it is a change much for the worse.
    "My mental facilities are twice what yours are, pea brain!"

    The conversation continues at Long-Forgotten, the blog.

  12. #27

    • Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Middle River, Maryland, United States
    Posts
    1,408

    Re: 4/19: Grim Grinning?, Part III

    Quote Originally Posted by Dustysage View Post
    Also, I wonder if the Marty Sklar tombstone might not have been placed a little too soon, considering that he is still very much alive (though many in Imagineering can't stand him, he isn't dead yet).
    ALL of the Imagineers to whom the queue tombstones paid tribute to were very much still alive when the headstones were originally installed at both Mansions. Several are still alive today. The first posthumous installation was the Leota headstone in 2001. Even Collin Campbell's stone was installed a couple of weeks before he passed.


    P.S. - When did that divider appear in the middle of the queue? I don't recall seeing that anywhere until the photo in Kevin's column. In the videos, it still appears wide open, with cast members directing people to the "fun" side or the "fast" side. There were no physical barriers down the middle of the queue like that. (Although in some videos, the old queue is blocked off, forcing guests through the new queue, but still there was nothing splitting the queue like that before.)
    Last edited by Grinning Ghost; 04-22-2011 at 06:07 AM. Reason: Afterthoughts

  13. #28

    • MiceAge Columnist
    • Moderator
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Orlando, FL
    Posts
    2,023

    Re: 4/19: Grim Grinning?, Part III

    That's not Marty's tombstone - as pointed out earlier in this thread, that's a mistake in my article. Stupidly, I neglected to look at my own notes (or book!) and relying on memory got me into trouble this time.
    Kevin Yee
    MiceAge Columnist

    I am the author of several Disney books:
    Jason's Disneyland Almanac - a daily history of Disneyland
    Walt Disney World Hidden History - tributes, homages, and ride remnants at WDW
    Your Day at the Magic Kingdom
    Mouse Trap
    Tokyo Disney Made Easy
    101 Things You Never Knew About Disneyland
    Magic Quizdom (The Disneyland Trivia Book)

    “The press [should be] a watchdog. Not an attack dog. Not a lapdog. A watchdog. Now, a watchdog can't be right all the time. He doesn't bark only when he sees or smells something that's dangerous. A good watchdog barks at things that are suspicious.” – Dan Rather

  14. #29

    • Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    714

    Re: 4/19: Grim Grinning?, Part III

    Quote Originally Posted by HBG2 View Post
    I am not exaggerating, and you may be sure that I'm prepared to defend my statements. I am also not a stick-in-the-mud purist. (I think the new HHG effect is excellent.) What I said was that the HM is a depiction of the real world except that ghosts and ghostly activities are real. Those ghostly activities include warping the very fabric of the building and other trickery designed to make you wonder what is real and what is "your imagination." The ghosts include the kind you find in "non-fictional" ghost lore as well as the blatantly fictional, fun-loving types you find in comic songs, for example. If you remove the ghosts and the ghostly activity, what remains is a logically consistent artistic representation of the real world of today, asking no more of a suspension of disbelief than a realistic short story or play or movie.

    The whimsical tombstones you refer to are typical "boot hill" humorous epitaphs (which really do exist) and in no way take you out of the real world into a fantasy world. Pet cemeteries also really exist, and have for thousands of years. You need only postulate that a rather eccentric Victorian who loved animals once lived here. The presence or absence of light-hearted humor has nothing to do with whether you're seeing a depiction of the real world or a fantasy world.

    I fully agree with you that some of the new queue artwork is in the same style as the stretchroom portraits. The problem is that the alterations to the stretchroom portraits (with their macabre wit, implied threat, and unrealistic depictions) are manifestly the result of ghostly activity. They aren't "real"; they are part of a trick to disorient you, as the GH suggests with his mock question. But the busts in the queue are "real," not the result of ghostly manipulation. You can touch them, examine them in broad daylight.

    Remove the ghosts and ghostly activities, and the HM is logically consistent to an astonishing degree, because the Imagineers all knew it was supposed to be the real world. But Pepe Le Queue is a fountain of logical absurdities. How can ghosts that have never yet been seen be depicted on old funerary monuments in the family plot? Why are ghosts depicted on funerary monuments at all? Why are there realistic instruments depicted on one side of an organist's crypt, and bizarre, surrealistic instruments (plus a cartoon cat) depicted on the other? How can a specific raven character be depicted on an old crypt? Ravens only live about 44 years, tops. How did three random hitchhikers, including a convict with ball-and-chain, suddenly become family members and residents of the same house? Why are tombstones set up in such a way that there is obviously no body buried in front of them? Why is a Victorian-era poetess writing about off-road vehicles and gasoline tanks? Who would erect a funerary monument with a book in it, exposed to the open air? Why does the banner in a Victorian woman's tomb refer to her ghostly activities? The list goes on and on.

    The answer is that the Imagineers who designed this mess don't think the HM depicts a ghost-infested real world house but a ghost-infested cartoony, fictional house, where such logical consistency is not necessary.

    That is a fundamental conceptual change. In my opinion, it is a change much for the worse.
    I disagree to any conceptual change. You bring up Boot Hill.... The Various Boot Hills (there is more then one) do feature some interesting reads on their tombstones. But they are all real and there is no doubt of that. The tombstones around the mansion are far more humorous and numerous, which almost all have a pun, a rthym or both. The same cannot be said for Boot Hill, yes it does have a few famous clever ones. But with ALL the tombstones at the Haunted Mansion in this humorous style, rather then a few, well a kid may be worried about being scared, but an adult is going to know this is going to be a humorous attraction, not a frightlful one.

    Re: the pet cemetary, there is nothing victorian about the Haunted Mansion so I would be hard pressed to walk away from it thinking an eccentric Victorian who loved animals once lived there. In the main pet cemetary at disneyland (there is a secret second one, you'll need to ask a cm to see it and they don't always fulfil the viewing request), the tombstones are arranged in such a way that makes it clear this is all fun and games. The ghosts didn't do this the owner did that you could not come to the conclusion that the owner was real and did this. Canary tombstones around the Cat's tombstone with a statue of the cat staring at the birds around it?

    Speaking of, even without the ghosts activity....How do the pets tie into the story? Why is there no litter box in the mansion if the owner had Cats? Where is the Bird cage? The point being is everything outside does not need to be fully explained inside for you to enjoy the attraction. I would wager that is part of the brillance of the HM.... YOU can fill in the gaps. So to you it was an eccentric Victorian, but to me.... not so much.

    So to all your questions about the new que.... You accepted the pet cemetry and made what you believe to be logical conclusion as to its existance. Do the same for the new parts? Who said all the ghost in the cemetrey are related or family? I never thought that, especially of the three hitch hiking ghosts. I never surmised that in the grim grinning ghosts graveyard party, that this was a family reunion. But even so.... the ghost wth a ball and chain.... hes a ghost.......


    ....Maybe that's Cousin Huet, and maybe he really did do it dispite what the family thinks, and so remains the jinx.

    Its easy to fill in the gaps. I just made that up on the fly, never put any more thought into it until I read your post. But again coming up with the answers is part of the fun. They don't have to tell you everything and most of the time they don't. You know what change I don't like at all.... the Bride. There is no guessing now. I use to wonder was she a victim, or was she the killer, and even was she real??? Now she pretty much just tells you... I KILLED THEM, I KILLED THEM ALL. There really isn't a gap for me to fill in on her story any more. Though I can still wonder about all her husbands. And its fun to see how she kept marring up.

    My thoughts are both inside and out, the Mansion has always been at a tug of war with itself. And yes thats a bit more obvious on the outside now, but it does not fundamentally change the experience. The strech room dispite its cartoony portraits is still menacing, the doom buggies are still doom buggies, Madam Leota is herself, and the Ball Room scene is still a swinging wake (why are ghosts having a birthday party at a wake anyway???? so aburd!) And in the end, the ghosts can still throw one heck of a party in the grave yard. Even if most of those ghosts are cartoony, complete with cartoon like glimics (owl streching his neck when the trumpet blows to closely).

    Its always been tug of war, and bring that tug of war outside has not completely changed the mansion in concept nor.... execution! (pun intended)

  15. #30

    • Inhospitable about happy
    • Offline

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    5,540

    Re: 4/19: Grim Grinning?, Part III

    Quote Originally Posted by Kidgenie View Post
    I disagree to any conceptual change. You bring up Boot Hill.... The Various Boot Hills (there is more then one) do feature some interesting reads on their tombstones. But they are all real and there is no doubt of that. The tombstones around the mansion are far more humorous and numerous, which almost all have a pun, a rthym or both. The same cannot be said for Boot Hill, yes it does have a few famous clever ones. But with ALL the tombstones at the Haunted Mansion in this humorous style, rather then a few, well a kid may be worried about being scared, but an adult is going to know this is going to be a humorous attraction, not a frightlful one.
    The HM tombstones are not one bit further out than "Here Lies Lester Moore, Four Slugs from a .44, No Less, No More." There are lots of funny epitaphs in real cemeteries. Nothing about the HM epitaphs takes you into a cartoon, fantasy world. And no, not all of the HM tombstones are humorous. "In Memory of Our Patriarch, Dear Departed Grandpa Marc," "Master Gracey Laid to Rest, No Mourning Please at His Request." Real knee-slappers, those.

    Re: the pet cemetary, there is nothing victorian about the Haunted Mansion so I would be hard pressed to walk away from it thinking an eccentric Victorian who loved animals once lived there.
    Okay, pick your own era. An eccentric animal lover lived here once. That's all you need to explain it.

    In the main pet cemetary at disneyland (there is a secret second one, you'll need to ask a cm to see it and they don't always fulfil the viewing request), the tombstones are arranged in such a way that makes it clear this is all fun and games. The ghosts didn't do this the owner did that you could not come to the conclusion that the owner was real and did this. Canary tombstones around the Cat's tombstone with a statue of the cat staring at the birds around it?
    Nothing there beyond Victorian eccentricity (at DL it is Victorian-era we're talking about). And "fun and games" does not = fantasy world.

    Speaking of, even without the ghosts activity....How do the pets tie into the story?
    Story? The HM doesn't tell a "story."

    Why is there no litter box in the mansion if the owner had Cats? Where is the Bird cage?
    Actually, there is an old bird cage in the attic, and besides, this was quite awhile ago, when the house was occupied by living humans. It is perverse to demand to see a litter box in order to prove that the cat in the pet cemetery is a representation of a real cat and not a cartoon, fantasy cat.

    The point being is everything outside does not need to be fully explained inside for you to enjoy the attraction. I would wager that is part of the brillance of the HM.... YOU can fill in the gaps. So to you it was an eccentric Victorian, but to me.... not so much.
    I have never criticized anyone who wishes to enjoy the HM as a superficial, funsy ride and no more. Have at it. But to those of us (and there are many) who recognize that it is also a unique piece of art, Pepe Le Queue bristles with logical impossibilities. Until now, everything could be explained logically, as if the house were real, but infested with ghosts (that has always been the only fantasy element). With the new queue, the loose, funsy approach is now the only possible approach.

    So to all your questions about the new que.... You accepted the pet cemetry and made what you believe to be logical conclusion as to its existance. Do the same for the new parts?
    You can't. It is possible to explain an eccentric pet cemetery found in the real world. But do people in the real world have pet sea serpents with human facial expressions? Only in cartoons.

    Who said all the ghost in the cemetrey are related or family?
    That cemetery is the family plot. It's on the grounds of the mansion. You wouldn't have a public cemetery right in your front yard. The familial names reinforce this ("Grandpa Marc"; "Cousin Huet"; "Brother Dave").

    I never thought that, especially of the three hitch hiking ghosts. I never surmised that in the grim grinning ghosts graveyard party, that this was a family reunion.
    The cemetery out back is a different graveyard. It's a public cemetery that the house was evidently built next to. You'll notice you enter it through a big, iron gate, and in concept art the cemetery's name was even found on a plaque on one of the brick posts.

    Its easy to fill in the gaps.
    Oh really? Take another walk through that list of logical absurdities in my earlier post and have at it. Double-dog dare ya. Who would put up tombstones in their family plot that cannot have bodies buried in front of them? Why are there funerary monuments erected not just to people who have died, but also to their ghosts? How is it that ghosts that have never been seen before (the banshees) are carved on an old crypt? And yes, the ghostly manifestations enabled by Madame Leota are a unique, never-before-seen event, not something that takes place regularly, as many think. Otherwise, how can you explain the look of utter astonishment as well as fear on the old Caretaker's face? The instruments depicted on the left side of the organist's crypt are those seen (1) in the Séance and (2) in the Graveyard Band. But the Graveyard Band is a collection of ghost musicians from different times and places in history ("from creepy old crypts all over the world"). Some are in medieval garb; some are in 18th c. (?) bandsman uniforms. So how come the instruments used by this ad hoc ensemble are collected and memorialized on an old crypt in the family plot, as if the band has been around for a long time and played together in life? Like I said, the logical absurdities just pile up and pile up.

    My point is that logical consistency has now (and only now) been made optional, since the living human occupants of the HM are now for the first time depicted as fantasy, cartoon figures (Bertie and his sea serpent, etc.), whereas before, everything (and I do mean everything) was explicable as consistent with an artistic depiction of the real world—other than the ghosts, some of whom are the zany, fun-loving, party-throwing type you find in purely fictional sources like comic songs.

    I just made that up on the fly, never put any more thought into it until I read your post. But again coming up with the answers is part of the fun. They don't have to tell you everything and most of the time they don't.
    Hey, that's just like reality. The real world doesn't overtly give you "the answers" either. But if you decide to probe and ask questions, you generally find a plausible answer.

    My thoughts are both inside and out, the Mansion has always been at a tug of war with itself.
    Then I would suggest you give it further thought, because it isn't at war with itself from the point of view of logical consistency. Or wasn't, until now.
    "My mental facilities are twice what yours are, pea brain!"

    The conversation continues at Long-Forgotten, the blog.

Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Instrumental Version of Grim, Grinning Ghosts
    By Twist_of_Fate in forum Disneyland Resort
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 05-16-2006, 09:23 PM
  2. 9/30: Hong Kong Disneyland - Part III
    By Al Lutz in forum MiceAge Discussions
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-03-2005, 12:03 AM
  3. 7/13: A Look Back, Part III
    By Al Lutz in forum MiceAge Discussions
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-13-2005, 10:14 PM
  4. 2/3: Hotels of Disneyland Paris - Part III
    By Al Lutz in forum MiceAge Discussions
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 04-12-2005, 11:44 PM
  5. 2/8: Disney’s Reinvention Problem, Part III
    By Al Lutz in forum MiceAge Discussions
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 02-13-2005, 08:14 PM

Tags for this Thread

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
  •