Originally Posted By liveforvacations I don't usually get into these sort of things but I just couldn't help myself. You are very skilled writer and have a great command of the english language. Yes, this is a compliment! It is true that you do refrain from directly insulting people. However, when you criticize something that someone else likes, you are in fact insulting them. The fact that you do not do it directly, anyone with any understanding of the english language, gets that it is an insult. I know that you will not agree with this but it is true. I am surprised that you take things so personally considering that you are quite vocal about what you believe and quite so strong in your opinions. I do however, appreciate your opinions and although I do not agree with a lot of them, I do understand where you are coming from and the diversity is good for discussion.
Originally Posted By jonvn "However, when you criticize something that someone else likes, you are in fact insulting them." People do this to me all the time. How can you discuss something and not be critical of things sometimes? And if you are critical of something, someone is going to like it. For years, I was called an "apologist" because I thought DCA should be given a chance, and that people were being so extremely negative about it that it was simply out of control. I liked the place, still do. But I still hear people making rank criticism of it. Should they not be allowed to state what they feel because I may be insulted by the fact they don't like the place, and find it beneath contempt? It's all just opinions, and I state mine too strongly sometimes, yes. I don't intend to insult anyone, and I don't expect people to do the same to me. I expect people to behave as reasonable and civil adults. Thanks for the compliment. It's appreciated.
Originally Posted By jonvn "And if you are critical of something, someone is going to like it." Ugh....ISN'T going to like it.
Originally Posted By jonvn "And if you are critical of something, someone is going to like it." Ugh....ISN'T going to like it.
Originally Posted By jonvn "I don't expect people to do the same to me" I mean...I do expect people to do the same to me. This board needs an edit feature...anyone ever suggest that?
Originally Posted By dresswhites wow, ok. back to the topic on hand. i like the current look of the castle. i particulary like the stained glass window in front.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Yes, back to the castle. I liked what they did to the blue parts of the castle very much, thought the gold railings were okay for the 50th but should have been removed, but don't like the too-bright pink they have now. IMO, they should go with an intentionally pale pink (as opposed to paint that simply faded, as in the 90's), or the original stone color. I'm divided on the rain spouts. They're kind of fanciful (and real castles do have their gargoyle rainspouts), but too large for what they're supposed to represent.
Originally Posted By jonvn I think stained glass is cool. That's a nice touch. I also liked how they made it all gold colored for the 50th. The problem with the squirrel gargoyles is if they make them much smaller, they'll be invisible, but they are behind small sized bricks which were put there for the forced perspective. They just can't possibly ever look the right size. The original stone color is actually very nice looking. One of the reasons the castle in California is better than the one in florida is the one in florida, while larger, has this plastic exterior, as opposed to the stone on one the smaller castle. It should be left in its natural state.
Originally Posted By aracuanbird My issue with the ferrets is scale. They throw the castle off by being as large (visually) as some of the ground-level sculpts in Snow White Grotto. The whole idea of forced perspective is tossed in the toilet. I cannot argue counter to your point, jonvn, that Walt didn't elect to do this kind of ornamental overlay in the ten+ years he was alive after the park opened... But I think it's fair to suggest that this level of detailed sculpt was largely devoid of the park circa 1965. It's a newer approach, not a new level of craftsmanship, but something Disney didn't do before. I can't argue why, but I'd think it is a demonstartion of prowess over weather-hardy materials and the park's comfort level with what is involved, maintenance-wise, I would have no qualms more of this type of treatment (a more sculptural connection to Sleeping Beauty) if there was more of it and it respected scale. In fact, more of it would be refreshing (if treated correctly). Why? 1. It would feel less half-hearted (what is that: more full-hearted?) if the treatment wasn't limited to a small troop of rodents. 2. The very fact that it references one of Disney's less successful films would reaffirm the company's connection to its past, with little regard to whether the "intellectual property" yielded big blockbuster bucks at the box office. Disneyland was the creation of a guy who wouldn't quit. A Brer Rabbit of a man, to draw from Michael Barrier. I love it best when the park is a little offbeat, idiosyncratic, and mindful that it was an individual man's "dream." Sleeping Beauty--like Alice in the 50's, like the True Life Adventures today--may be among the lesser Disney productions (you define "lesser" yourself) but Walt chose to promote it, give it a home in his park. I respect that and feel its part of Disneyland's uniqueness when compared to other magic kingdoms.
Originally Posted By jonvn "But I think it's fair to suggest that this level of detailed sculpt was largely devoid of the park circa 1965." Well, it kind of was. If you look at what Frontierland and Adventureland looked like, and even Main Street, those were fairly detailed. But it's not the detail that is the problem. It is whether or not the detailing done is appropriate for the location. Detailing is great. The thing is by cartooning up the exterior of the castle, it is actually breaking the theme of the area. All the other exteriors in Fantasyland do not appear as a cartoon like castle. They appear as miniature versions of the countries of the buildings they represent. In fact, the buildings in the area matched the castle then in this manner. By making the castle cartoon like, it belongs more in the realm of Toontown, and not Fantasyland. Talk about splitting hairs, but that does make the change out of theme for the area.
Originally Posted By 2001DLFan <<jonvn: "That would be Walt Disney." No, it wouldn't. It was done about 30 years after he died. What he built was based on an actual castle in Europe. It was colored as if it were made out of stone. I think if he wanted a pink castle with cartoon squirrels on it, he would have built it that way, or changed it in the ten or so years he was running the place.>> Actually, yes, it would be Walt. The interior of the castle was modified in ‘57 to provide for the Sleeping Beauty Walk-thru based on the film. The original version (modified later with a “Ken & Barbie†version) was heavy with Eyvand Earle artwork. As for the squirrels, I agree with you whole-heartedly. They are like when they tore out the Eyvend Earle artwork and stuck in Barbie and friends.
Originally Posted By jonvn Since I'm talking about the exterior of the buildings, what happened in 1957 doesn't really enter into it. I'm aware that the castle, like the rest of the rides in Fantasyland have content that is animation based. That's the idea of the area. The exteriors of the buildings, however, appear differently. What was done to the castle makes it actually out of joint with the rest of the exteriors within Fantasyland.
