Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>The uproar over these changes was simply not justified. << What uproar? People chatting online about it? That's not exactly storming city hall with torches and pitchforks.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>You're not going to hear a bad word about one creative person to another in this industry.<< Hmmm. That hasn't been my experience. >>What uproar?<< You're kidding, right?
Originally Posted By danyoung Uproar is absolutely the word I'd use, 2oony. It's all been online, but it's been very heated for months.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>It's all been online, but it's been very heated for months<< I've only seen a thread or two here on LP about it. And yes, the discussion got heated at times. But when I think of an uproar, it usually involves a much noisier and active form of protest. >>You're kidding, right?<< Usually, but I wasn't this time.
Originally Posted By Bellella As far as I'm concerned, the Disney character additions were completely unneccessary and the characters are already over-promoted enough. But at least the "Imagineers" tried to make them blend well. They'd succeed better if the movie themes woven into the Small World soundtrack were taken out. P.S. Stitch will never blend well.
Originally Posted By mawnck What if she climbed the fence and started stomping on the flowery Mickey Mouse face at the DL entrance? What if she recited the entire script of Haunted Mansion... while riding Pirates? Would she not be classy anymore?
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "What uproar?" There was enough noise being made online about it that several bloggers have devoted time specifically to discuss it, not to mention the endless threads here since the announcement was made a little over a year ago. I think one of them is still going. Even the local Southern California papers weighed in on the subject.
Originally Posted By danyoung >Would she not be classy anymore?< Umm, no, she wouldn't. But I don't see the point of your entire post. Ms. Davis is who she is.
Originally Posted By Bellella What's all this about Mrs. Davis not being classy? I for one have great respect for everyone who personally knew and worked with Walt Disney.
Originally Posted By Yookeroo "What if she climbed the fence and started stomping on the flowery Mickey Mouse face at the DL entrance? What if she recited the entire script of Haunted Mansion... while riding Pirates? Would she not be classy anymore?" Behaving in a manner that isn't classy would probably indicate she isn't classy. What "uproar" there is is really only limited to a handful of Disney "purists". They're noisy enough that they get a bit of attention. Most visitors to the park are probably completely unaware of the "uproar".
Originally Posted By oc_dean Want to talk about an "uproar"? How about the uproar .. that a handful of posters want to defend the changes, vehemently .. that some look for ways to write-off, chastise, trivialize anyone who's against it. The simple answer is - You disagree with some .. and have a different opinion. THAT'S IT!
Originally Posted By danyoung I think there's merit in both of the above points. But I agree with Yookeroo in that most visitors to the park are most likely unaware and really uncaring about the changes. And if they are aware, then it's most likely a minor blip on their Disney day.
Originally Posted By Yookeroo "How about the uproar .. that a handful of posters want to defend the changes, vehemently .. that some look for ways to write-off, chastise, trivialize anyone who's against it." I have no problem with people who don't like the changes. I'm not crazy about the American section myself. But when people start talking about picketing the ride or starting up websites in protest, then, yeah, they deserve all the mocking they're getting. They take this stuff way too seriously. If you're in an uproar over some minor changes to a dated ride in an amusement park, you can probably expect much laughter and eye-rolling. It's always hard to take the Chicken Littles of the world seriously.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones I'd say the majority of Disneyland nuts on the Internet deserve some kind of derision for their intense fervor over anything Disney, whether they praise, complain or do both. I'd say that just by posting here, a lot of the general public would think you're weird. I've seen a lot of wacky things on these kind of boards. It comes with the territory.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt I've seen a lot of wacky things on these kind of boards. It comes with the territory. Yes, it does. Still, there are people who appreciate Disney (or sports, or fashion, gourmet cooking, or any number of things) and come to places like this to chat with others about similar interests. I don't think anyone would find that odd. What's odd to me is when people start campaigns to boycott a ride or protest because of changes they dislike. That kind of thing is silly in my opinion.
Originally Posted By DlandDug The uproar I referenced was the sudden flare up when the changes were first "leaked" on another site, followed by intense reaction to what was largely a rumor at the time. There were any number of speculative arguments, some of which led to calls for letter writing campaigns and petitions. The general tenor (which is still lingering in some quarters) was that Disney was intentionally destroying it's a small world. The height of all this was a set of "open letters," basically in reaction to the hue and cry. Mary Blair's son wrote one in which he essentially charged that his mother's work was being desecrated. Marty Sklar of WDI then took the rather extraordinary step of addressing several falsities that were being widely circulated. Each of these letters, in turn, further fanned the controversy. There are still people to this day who claim Marty Sklar was a liar, even though everything he wrote in his letter was true; much of what was being bandied about on line was simply false, and designed to cast the changes in the worst possible light. That the general public was largely unaware of this doesn't mean it wasn't an uproar. At its height, it was as contentious and rife with unpleasantness as anything I've ever seen in the Disney fan community.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "The uproar I referenced was the sudden flare up when the changes were first "leaked" on another site, followed by intense reaction to what was largely a rumor at the time." Those rumors largely turned out to be true. "There were any number of speculative arguments, some of which led to calls for letter writing campaigns and petitions." I never participated in any letter writing campaigns. I only posted my opinion online, which is what I thought these web sites were for. However, if you have an opinion, why not send it to Disney if you still believe that anybody at a large corporation cares what their fans have to say? "The general tenor (which is still lingering in some quarters) was that Disney was intentionally destroying it's a small world." Intentionally? The general tenor is that they were doing it, as with all things they do, to make money. I felt they could make money in better ways. "The height of all this was a set of "open letters," basically in reaction to the hue and cry. Mary Blair's son wrote one in which he essentially charged that his mother's work was being desecrated." And...? That's how he and his family felt and I appreciate that they posted their opinion. Others in the entertainment industry, mostly animators, also offered up their opinions. "Marty Sklar of WDI then took the rather extraordinary step of addressing several falsities that were being widely circulated." What falsities would those be? There was an American scene. There were characters in the final product. "At its height, it was as contentious and rife with unpleasantness as anything I've ever seen in the Disney fan community." All I saw were people posting their opinions. If it offended you, well, you should deal with your insecurities.
Originally Posted By DlandDug SJ, in your zeal you have confused a set of observations with some sort of rant. Nowhere did I indicate an agreement or disagreement with anything I was relating. It was just an effort to explain why this has been refered to as an "uproar." That this has led to such a contentious reaction is a just another example of what I meant.
