Originally Posted By Admin This topic is for Discussion of: <a href="http://www.LaughingPlace.com/News-ID511860.asp" target="_blank">11/29/07 Greg Maletic: Walt Disney World Trip Rep</a>
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By twirlnhurl I agree that the Magic Kingdom is usually mostly clean. The places where I notice problems is in the attraction Queues. Buzz Lightyear, parts of Thunder Mountain, and parts of Pirate's queues are usually not that clean. The main corridors rarely seem to be a big problem.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<MK sets and maintains a very high standard of cleanliness>> Your opinion. In general, I highly disagree. The place isn't kept nearly to the standards it was in the 70s and 80s and early 90s. Not close. The pavement wasn't filthy because it was washed nightly. There weren't stained pools of filth near food carts because they hardly had any and they were placed were they wouldn't create a mess. The queues weren't dirty because they regularly had custodial CMs in them cleaning, and they didn't allow you to bring lunch for eight with you onto an attraction. The restrooms were damn near spotless because they had a specfic CM or CMs assigned to keep it that way ... not someone who may or may not check on it every few hours. The attraction vehicles weren't filthy (like the Splash Mountain logs) because they were cleaned regularly ... No, generally the MK as a whole is 'pretty clean' when it isn't crowded now. But that's a far gulf from what it once was all the time. And, frankly, not to pick on Greg (but he did pen the column) but someone who visits once every few years may not notice things regulars would. Besides, anyone who enjoys the MK's Space Mountain in its current state of utter disrepair and feels its the best attraction at WDW ... well, I'd take what they wrote with bagloads of salt!
Originally Posted By magnet Oh c'mon, Spirit. Greg has no credibility with you because he likes Space Mountain at WDW? That's over the top.
Originally Posted By BlueOhanaTerror >>>Oh c'mon, Spirit. Greg has no credibility with you because he likes Space Mountain at WDW? That's over the top.<<< Getting Spirit's back here... 1) Space Mountain - in what universe does it exceed the quality of the current Space Mtn. at Disneyland? Florida's is rickety, Anaheim's is whooshy smooth. Florida's has lighting issues, Anaheim's is not only pitch black where it needs to be (in the ride) but the lighting effects throughout are (pardon the pun) stellar and state of the art. And I've not ridden France's version, but I'd bet that it exceeds both as an attraction. 2) Greg's prior articles have had their share of weird or dubiously-supported opinions. I guess it's not fair to bring that into an article here, but if we're talking about credibility... I'm wondering just what makes Maletic's opinion any more valid or "expert" than the next guy... or why he should be publishing articles that merit our attention. I know that's harsh, and I agreed with a lot of his points in his current article... but fact remains, Spirit's point is valid - if Maletic goes once every few years... WHY is he writing about this stuff as though his opinion really had any "expert" observation to it? If anything, it should be prefaced with some sort of "framing" where "this is the best perspective of the very infrequent visitor" - which, one could argue, is a MORE objective or truer vantage point, than hardcore theme park geeks who visit every few months or more. I don't dislike Greg. I just don't think he offers anything particularly valuable or distinctive to merit having a regular, running feature.
Originally Posted By MPierce I thought that was an excellent review. I found myself agreeing with almost everything he said. I would have liked him to complain a little more about the Mall effect on mainstreet, but overall the review was excellent. I'm definetly looking forward for the rest of his review covering Epcot, AK, and DHS. I sure hope you post it Doobie.
Originally Posted By magnet BOT, what you wrote here does not "get Spirit's back" The issue here is whether or not it's fair to use someone's personal like or dislike of a ride as evidence to impugn their credibility on WDW as a whole. I say it's not. And to even bring it up is mean-spirited. I like Monster's Inc. Laugh Floor. If you don't like it does that mean you won't believe anything I have to say about WDW? Will I be labeled a DOM and discredited? Nothing you wrote, BOT, defends the opposing view. It's all just red herrings and attacks. 1. The comparison between DL and MK is irrelevant. 2. Your attack on Greg as having "weird" opinions is ridiculous.
Originally Posted By gmaletic >I would have liked him to complain a little more about the Mall effect on mainstreet, MPierce, I couldn't agree more. I've complained about that in other articles (check out the end of this one at <a href="http://www.LaughingPlace.com/News-ID509690.asp" target="_blank">http://www.LaughingPlace.com/N ews-ID509690.asp</a> ), so I avoided it here. I will address is a bit in the 2nd part of this article. >if Maletic goes once every few years... WHY is he writing about this stuff as though his opinion really had any "expert" observation to it? I'll talk about my "cred" in just a moment. First, I wondered whether it was even appropriate to bring it up. Does one need credibility to have an opinion? After thinking about it for a while, I've decided that there is a minimum threshold that needs to be met...beyond that, everything else is excess. I'll argue that I meet that minimum threshold, but I'll also argue that someone with far less experience would as well. (And, indeed, many people here have more than I do.) So here it is: when I lived on the East Coast I visited WDW annually between 1972 and 1989. Now that I'm on the West Coast, I've visited Disneyland at least once annually from 1994 to the present, and visit the other parks when I can. I've visited Paris and Tokyo on multiple occasions, and I visited the park in Hong Kong once, though that was before it opened. I've worked for Imagineering off-and-on for the past four years as a contract illustrator. And I've been writing about the parks--mainly for LaughingPlace--since 2001. (On the down side, I do like Disney World's Space Mountain, don't like the "Partners" statue, and wish they would stop performing "Fantasmic" at Disneyland, so you can subtract those items away from any score you might be tallying. ;-) ) As I mentioned earlier, I'd suggest that beyond meeting a minimum threshold, all of that doesn't matter very much. Opinions either resonate with you or don't, and no amount of "credibility" can change that. In a recent issue of Tales From the LaughingPlace, Tony Baxter made a statement that I completely disagreed with, on the effectiveness of the Pinocchio attraction in Disneyland. (He doesn't like it.) The fact that he has more credibility on the subject than anyone didn't make me think he was right, however. (Nor, I'd argue, should it.) Same with what I write...I'm okay with people disagreeing. What I hope for is to articulate why I feel the way I do, and that I can make even my most outlandish opinions at least make sense. I get enough positive feedback to suggest that I do an okay job with that, but still, not everyone agrees. Concerning this week's article, it might have been a good idea for me to present more context at the beginning, but for expediency's sake, and since I write a blog here, and there's no shortage of my opinion floating around, I left it out. Maybe I'll do that differently in the future.
Originally Posted By BlueOhanaTerror Like I said. I don't dislike Greg. I just don't think he's adding anything MORE than opinion... nothing really distinctive from a place of experience that anyone else might right (particularly someone who visits the park with more frequency to gauge some perspective of changes that occur). >>>I like Monster's Inc. Laugh Floor. If you don't like it does that mean you won't believe anything I have to say about WDW? Will I be labeled a DOM and discredited?<<< I don't see why. My statement was that Disneyland's attraction is far and away the superior one, to WDW's creaky, should-have-been-rehabbed-a-long-time-ago version. I think there's a difference between citing an attraction that's clearly in need of serious maintenance and/or replacement, and citing your favor towards an attraction that simply is a matter of "liking" the material for its entertainment value. DL's SM is pristine - WDW's is on its last legs. It's frankly laughable to "give the edge" to the attraction that could be teetering on safety issues. >>>Nothing you wrote, BOT, defends the opposing view. It's all just red herrings and attacks.<<< Well, it's your right to say so. Doesn't make it accurate. >>>1. The comparison between DL and MK is irrelevant.<<< Not at all... it's actually completely in accord with the heart of the issue: COMPARISON in OPINIONS. And if there's a clear evidenciary situation at hand - i.e., MAINTENANCE and FUNCTIONALITY, then it's completely relevant. Sorry that you can't wrap your head around that. >>>2. Your attack on Greg as having "weird" opinions is ridiculous.<<< That's not an attack. Go into his backlog and read some of his articles. WDI contract illustration or no, he's got some odd statements - just plain bizarre - in some of his older articles. Of the two of us, I was the one who bothered to read them apparently, and actually knows what he's talking about.
Originally Posted By BlueOhanaTerror >>>from a place of experience that anyone else might right<<< Write. Homonyms will be the death of me. Sorry if I angered you, Magnet. You can go back to publishing rumors touted by CM's.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<Oh c'mon, Spirit. Greg has no credibility with you because he likes Space Mountain at WDW? That's over the top.>> I never said he had no credibility with me. I said that I'd take what he said with 'bagloads of salt.' I stand behind my words. It's kinda like if someone told me they were going to vote for Mit Romney in the next election or buy a Chevy over a Honda or shop at WalMart. I'd respect their right to make those choices. I'd also question their tastes and judgment. And I guess being honest enough to just say so bothers some people. So be it! Greg said the MK's Space Mountain was his fave roller coaster at any Disney park, and he enjoyed it more than Expedition Everest. It's perfectly fine for him to have that opinion. It's also perfectly fine for me to think that's a wacky opinion since it's my least fave coaster of any of the eight Disney parks I have an AP for. Space Mountain is rough and is falling apart. What was once a cutting edge ride world-wide is now just a total joke (that's why it's closing down next year for a major redo) because it isn't thrilling, it isn't dark, it has cheesy special effects etc ...I can think of a dozen Disney coasters that are better (and that doesn't include Tokyo or Hong Kong parks). He has the right to have his opinion. And I have the right to take points off, if you will, because I strongly disagree with his point. Sometimes this stuff can be taken way too seriously. I'm not judging Greg's worth as a human being or even a columnist. I'm just saying I think his opinion is ... a bit out there. But he's entitled to be as far out as he wants to be.
Originally Posted By gmaletic BlueOhanaTerror said: >Go into his backlog and read some of his articles. WDI contract illustration or no, he's got some odd statements - just plain bizarre - in some of his older articles. I don't mind someone disagreeing with me, but the idea that something I wrote comes off as crazy -does- bother me, because that means I didn't express myself as clearly as I'd hoped. I'd love to discuss some of the more "bizarre" statements, if you'd like to bring them up here. Thanks.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<BOT, what you wrote here does not "get Spirit's back">> I say it does so there! <<The issue here is whether or not it's fair to use someone's personal like or dislike of a ride as evidence to impugn their credibility on WDW as a whole.>> I was never intending to impugn anyone's cred. But I will tell you that out in the real world, people do judge others based upon their opinions, tastes and choices. There is nothing unfair about it. If someone posted here that Magic Mountain is a better themed park than DAK, I'd think they were nuts. Is that fair? I dunno. But it is human. <<I say it's not. And to even bring it up is mean-spirited.>> Was that an intended pun? If so, you get 1/2 a point. <<I like Monster's Inc. Laugh Floor. If you don't like it does that mean you won't believe anything I have to say about WDW? Will I be labeled a DOM and discredited?>> Not by me. But if you say it's the best attraction at the MK or any Disney park, you will lose any cred you have with me. <<Nothing you wrote, BOT, defends the opposing view. It's all just red herrings and attacks. 1. The comparison between DL and MK is irrelevant.>> Not true at all. Greg said the MK's Space Mountain is his fave Disney coaster. I'd say DL has three coasters that are far superior. And that doesn't include DCA's Screamin too.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<Does one need credibility to have an opinion? >> Of course not. <<After thinking about it for a while, I've decided that there is a minimum threshold that needs to be met...beyond that, everything else is excess. I'll argue that I meet that minimum threshold, but I'll also argue that someone with far less experience would as well. (And, indeed, many people here have more than I do.) So here it is: when I lived on the East Coast I visited WDW annually between 1972 and 1989.>> I'd be very interested in your opinions of WDW then vs. now. That would go a long way (for me, not that you would or even should care) toward your cred level with me. For instance, if you told me the MK is just as clean and fresh as it was in 1972, 1989 or any year in between, you'd lose it. Or if you told me that show quality is as important and prevalent at the MK as it was then, you'd lose it with me. Just some examples. <<Now that I'm on the West Coast, I've visited Disneyland at least once annually from 1994 to the present, and visit the other parks when I can. I've visited Paris and Tokyo on multiple occasions, and I visited the park in Hong Kong once, though that was before it opened. I've worked for Imagineering off-and-on for the past four years as a contract illustrator. And I've been writing about the parks--mainly for LaughingPlace--since 2001.>> Impressive Disney history, no doubt. <<(On the down side, I do like Disney World's Space Mountain, don't like the "Partners" statue, and wish they would stop performing "Fantasmic" at Disneyland, so you can subtract those items away from any score you might be tallying. ;-) )>> Three big points down ... <<As I mentioned earlier, I'd suggest that beyond meeting a minimum threshold, all of that doesn't matter very much. Opinions either resonate with you or don't, and no amount of "credibility" can change that.>> I agree totally. <<In a recent issue of Tales From the LaughingPlace, Tony Baxter made a statement that I completely disagreed with, on the effectiveness of the Pinocchio attraction in Disneyland. (He doesn't like it.) The fact that he has more credibility on the subject than anyone didn't make me think he was right, however. (Nor, I'd argue, should it.)>> I'd disagree with Tony too, although I'd be interested in knowing why he feels that way. I also don't put one Imagineer's opinion above all else, but I do give it some extra cred. Well, with one dead exception ... John Hench, I would put his opinion's above all others since the man did more to develop Disney parks than any human being. But sadly he passed away three years ago. <<Same with what I write...I'm okay with people disagreeing. What I hope for is to articulate why I feel the way I do, and that I can make even my most outlandish opinions at least make sense. I get enough positive feedback to suggest that I do an okay job with that, but still, not everyone agrees. Concerning this week's article, it might have been a good idea for me to present more context at the beginning, but for expediency's sake, and since I write a blog here, and there's no shortage of my opinion floating around, I left it out. Maybe I'll do that differently in the future.>> I have no issue with your column whatsoever. But another poster misinterpreted something I wrote (happens a lot) and things took off from there ... I tend to be the LP's lightning rod. But, yeah, I do find it hard to believe anyone could prefer the MK's SM over any other Disney coaster. It's not even half the ride BTMRR in the same park is.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 << My statement was that Disneyland's attraction is far and away the superior one, to WDW's creaky, should-have-been-rehabbed-a-long-time-ago version. I think there's a difference between citing an attraction that's clearly in need of serious maintenance and/or replacement, and citing your favor towards an attraction that simply is a matter of "liking" the material for its entertainment value. DL's SM is pristine - WDW's is on its last legs. It's frankly laughable to "give the edge" to the attraction that could be teetering on safety issues.>> Some CMs will say its not even teetering anymore. I know I won't ride it again until it is rehabbed. I guess I've heard too much.
Originally Posted By gmaletic For those of you wanting to know more about why I like the WDW Space Mountain so much, I wrote a little more on my blog. Check it out at <a href="http://www.laughingplace.com/blogs/maletic/View-155.asp" target="_blank">http://www.laughingplace.com/b logs/maletic/View-155.asp</a> Thanks.
Originally Posted By mousermerf Well, i will say i prefer an educated stance versus some off the wall crapola that some folks spew online. I didn't read anything in the article that reeked of Kevin Yee-esque complete misunderstanding of WDW's history. Nowhere was something mentioned that i felt the writer had no grasp of its intended purpsoe, design, or function. Yes, there are folks out there who write articles (frequently at that) who haven't the foggiest. That said, i'm a bit surprised that people would give someone credibility because they worked for WDI in some fashion. I suppose if you were the senior show manager or something i'd take note of it, or if the person's name kept showing up in press releases for a few years.. but in general? I almost feel the term is given more power then it's really worth. I think that stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of how the design process works. Seriously, there are hundreds of people who might work on a project - but the number of significantly involved people will be very minor. A good example would be Mary Blair. You can easily recognize her work and artistic style. Then even looking at her works, at times she was removed from certain aspects of the process in making a whole attraction. Someone once mentioned the lighting differences between small worlds, and well, i can 99% guarantee Mary Blair had nothing to do with the lighting. Artist versus artisan perhaps? Not that lighting designers aren't artists, but if someone comes in and redoes the lighting to modernize it and it becomes less effective in the process.. well, the design wasn't bad, but the execution was poor. I think that's an inherent problem in theme parks and theater - as they're active living productions. At any given time the best of intentions can be foiled by improper execution. The Haunted Mansion foyer lateness comes to mind. Is WDW's poor because of it? No, it's not being operated properly. It's not a bad show, it's a bad cast/crew etc. On broadway no one is happy to see the understudy for a reason So, i we can differentiate between those things, then i think we can really appreciate and judge the parks on similar criteria as art, music, drama, etc. The judgment system is by no means rigid like aesthetic, but more personal and moldable like semiotics. For example, i think we can all agree that at DCA there is something unpleasing about the proportions of the Golden Gate Bridge as its presented. There's also something inherently unpleasent or offputting about Stitch's Great Escape to many people. We're not saying a monetary or attendance failing - but really an artistic failing, because it doesn't connect with the audience properly. Unless the intent is to look odd or be offputting, and well, that Imagineer needs to be fired.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<I'll also concede that part of what I like about the attraction is pure nostalgia>> Thanks for the added explanation, Greg. But I kind of thought the above may have factored into your orginal comments. I meant to address that by throw out posts very quickly, sometimes before they are fully thoughtout ;-) I think nostalgia is behind a lot of fans' attatchments to many attractions and the MK's Space Mtn certainly is at the top of most lists. But I also think, as someone who once loved the ride for all the reasons you wrote about, that nostalgia is a poor reason for wanting an attraction to be 'left alone' even as it decays to the point where safety truly is an issue. I want the cutting edge Space Mtn experience I had back in the 70s and 80s. This attraction should have been gutted for either the 'new' T-Land's debut in 1994-95 or premiered for the Milennium. That it's taken this long is sad. What's worse is that so many people want the exact same experience forever. I can't wait to start reading the complaints when we start hearing about the new track (especially if it's a new layout, which I'm hoping for ... either merging the two for a much longer experience or having two versions, one more thrilling than the other), the new rockets, the new onboard sound system and even the new post show. It'll get ugly here. But I just look to old Uncle Walt on something like this. He'd never have something so old and decrepit running in his Tomorrowland, so neither should we live in the past.
