Originally Posted By SpokkerJones You misread my post as a rant and perceived anger that wasn't there. The most telling line in your post was that this "uproar" was somehow unpleasant. This uproar consisted of words on the Internet and unpleasantness is the last thing I would call it. Keep in mind that I had different observations than you and I am simply posting those observations as you did. If we were discussion this in person over a beer I think you would find the conversation quite jovial.
Originally Posted By Bob Paris "You know, the more I think about it, there is this running theme of Imagineers telling anyone who dislikes something that their either too dim to "get it" or that they (in Jim Hill's view) need to "get a life."" Hill has been pushing this barrow for a while now. In recent editorials he has openly called Disney fans "dweebs" and treated the people who speak out the loudest as some kind of propeller hat wearing basement dwellers. It is my opinion that somebody who runs a Disney blog site and jets around the country to the opening of attractions and visits collectible art conventions immediately loses the right to call ANYBODY else a dweeb or a nerd. Maybe he, like the company he claims to not venerate should stop and think it isn't good business sense to piss off your core fanbase.
Originally Posted By danyoung >The most telling line in your post was that this "uproar" was somehow unpleasant. This uproar consisted of words on the Internet and unpleasantness is the last thing I would call it.< Spokker, perhaps you have a different tolerance level for unpleasantness than others. I can say from my perspective that it was at times completely unpleasant. The two sides of the argument were deliniated over and over, with those one one side calling the other apologists, and then getting called anti-change in return. In one thread I was a part of, it actually came to the point of one member of the other side (that is, those who opposed the changes) questioning my intelligence, maturity and love of Disney, and in a most rude manner. So Spokker, I could accuse you of employing revisionist history here, but I won't, as I believe your perspective was far different than mine. But I saw a huge uproar, was in the middle of quite a bit of it, and it was indeed most unpleasant.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones It's best not to take it too seriously. I think it's fun to argue on the Internet and nothing more. I don't hold grudges against anybody for what is said online.
Originally Posted By danyoung That's a good way to be, Spokker. Trouble is, others aren't always that way. When it gets nasty I can dish as well as I can take, but I'm such a nice guy normally that it's sorta out of character for me to be mixing it up like that.
Originally Posted By Anatole69 ^^ It is a small world after all. Sorry, just had to lighten the mood a little. ^_^ - Anatole
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "It is my opinion that somebody who runs a Disney blog site and jets around the country to the opening of attractions and visits collectible art conventions immediately loses the right to call ANYBODY else a dweeb or a nerd." The Internet was created so that its users could attempt to assert superiority over others. That's all this really is, a d--- measuring contest. Jim Hill used to conduct tours inside of Disneyland until security threw him out. The next time he starts calling people dweebs let that one rattle around in your noggin' for a second or two.
Originally Posted By DlandDug Pleasant or unpleasant, the point remains that there was, indeed, an uproar. That's all. (Parenthetically, I find the admonition to "deal with your insecurities" decidedly unpleasant. Unnecessary, too.)
Originally Posted By 2001DLFan <<HMButler79: Yes that quote was telling and also the beginning of her statement. She is saying shes NOT for it but shes NOT against it either. And she blantly lays the decsion at the "committee" IE: TDA, Consumer Products, Rasulo. But yet she also says that it was handed off to the person who would LEAST Screw it up and execute it in a style worthy of said attraction.>> All in all, Alice’s remarks were very PC. She made her point that the additions weren’t in keeping with the attraction but praised SOME of the results. Personally, I got the feeling that there were at least two different teams working on various elements. Some of them came across fairly close to the original design and, outside of their character backgrounds and blatant positioning, fit into the rest of the attraction (Cinderella, Alice, Aladdin/Jasmine, etc.). However, the other group just stood out as totally out of place (Woody/Jessie/Bullseye, Stitch, Pinocchio, etc.) The Lilo & Stitch were probably the worst in the attraction. If stitch wasn’t on the surfboard, there was no way to identify Lilo as she is only readily recognizable by her character’s design. The costume provides no clue as it does for most of the other characters. So, it felt like half of the design successfully followed the original design while the other half just failed.
Originally Posted By Yookeroo "That the general public was largely unaware of this doesn't mean it wasn't an uproar." One pretty much limited to the Disney dweeb community. I had let my AP lapse for a couple of years and renewed it last December. I had heard nothing of this uproar until I started poking around DL message boards again. And I'm someone with a bigger than average interest in DL. The roar wasn't heard much by the general public.
Originally Posted By DlandDug Asked and answered: That the general public was largely unaware of this doesn't mean it wasn't an uproar.
Originally Posted By Bellella What a tempest! Admittedly, some characters work- the ones up to the Lion King characters, with the exception of Pinocchio. The others- no way.
