Originally Posted By DlandDug Thank you. I had to really think through what it is about a blog that seems to bring out animosity in some people (both in criticizing and defending the piece). I think the problem here is further compounded by the fact that MacDonald is a blogger for the LA Times. The LA Times carries an imprimatur. It is expected to be a newspaper. NEWS. But a blog is just an opinion. So it ends up, as I said above, neither fish nor fowl...
Originally Posted By danyoung I appreciate what you wrote, Dug. But I guess for me I don't really care whether something is published in a newspaper, on a website, or in a blog. Snarky is snarky. And in this case it's completely unnecessary.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>So it ends up, as I said above, neither fish nor fowl...<< Yep. Well said. Honestly, in the "new media" world it's even more important to know a little something about the writer, to know if their opinion is one worth considering, to understand what their particular "angle" might be. I brought up the previous incident not because I necessarily dispute the blog post he wrote (and certainly I am no die-hard Disney defender 100% of the time) but to offer some reminder of the prism with which he apparently views the wonderful world of Disney. Bloggers don't get to have it both ways, especially one associated with a major media company.
Originally Posted By FiveBearRugs LOL...I guess I should pay more attention to my DL fireworks shows. With the exception of the 50th Anniversary, they all appeared the same to me. *dodges pitchforks and tomatoes* But they're still fun to watch
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "offer some reminder of the prism with which he apparently views the wonderful world of Disney." One blog post does not give you a clear idea of how Brady views Disneyland. I've been reading the blog for a long time and I think he is definitely a fan and whether he is speaking positively about the place or negatively, he is genuine and hardly trying to bring the place down because he once disagreed with a policy or two. He calls it like he sees it and the way he sees it isn't always the way others see it. I mean, what could you say about me? My comments have been extremely negative. I have no financial motive or any motive at all really except that I am a die hard fan who is unhappy with some recent developments. I call it like I see it and never pull punches because I might sound too mean. I also never pull punches when it comes to positivity. The Walt Disney Co. is a large corporation and all of the pros and cons of a large corporation come with it. At the same time they, as a company, foster the most brilliant works of the art the world has ever seen, and also put out some of the stupidest, braindead, derivative products in the world. That is the prism in which I view Disney. What does it mean? I don't know.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>One blog post does not give you a clear idea of how Brady views Disneyland.<< It tells me that he would engage in a type of behavior that I personally dislike. It is taht entitled, work the system sort of thing I find repellent. As a result, it reveals a little something about the person and I keep it in mind. If you enjoy his posts, enjoy them. Meanwhile, I'll form my own opinion about him in the manner I see fit. I'm just calling it like I see it as well.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I think he is definitely a fan<< That's fine, but for me, it isn't a requirement that one swears some sort of loyalty oath to Disney to write about it.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "It is taht entitled, work the system sort of thing I find repellent." He didn't try to work the system. He followed the rules after making his case to the proper level of management. Once he made his case he followed the rules but expressed discontent for them on his blog.
Originally Posted By SleepingBeauty82 I for one, am sick of having to defend everything I say. We are all entitled to our own opinions. We get it Spokker, you think we're overreacting and being sensitive Disney fans. This is a website for Disney fanatics. It's to be expected. Lets all get over it and move on.
Originally Posted By Mr F The guy who wrote the review is right. Doing routine upgrades to existing shows, then advertising the heck out of them as if they were something completely "new" is pretty lame.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones Well, tens of thousands of people showed up to see the "new" offerings so they must be very popular. Of course they are popular when annual passes are $69 down and $8.75 a month thereafter
Originally Posted By SleepingBeauty82 Has anyone seen the "new" Fantasmic? Is it really "new" and better?
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones There are several improvements that I saw when they made them about a year(?) ago. A lot of the lighting was improved and so were the "boats" that the princesses dance on. Some of the pyro cues were changed that weren't really better, just different, but just as good. This happened before Nightastic. Looking at those changes and the recent ones, they certainly enhance the show, but I can't say they change the core experience nor is the experience any better than it was in 1992.
Originally Posted By DlandDug Fantasmic! isn't a new show, nor is it being presented as such. The promotion is all built around the new dragon-- which has unfortunately proved balky. The rest (new croc, Flotsam and Jetsam, digital projectors) are just icing on the (as yet non-existant) cake.
Originally Posted By danyoung >... but I can't say they change the core experience nor is the experience any better than it was in 1992.< Or any worse, either! F! has always been the best mixed media outdoor show on the planet, and it seems they are continuing that tradition!!!
