Originally Posted By disneywatcher I've just browsed through an article in Sunday's New York Times on the DisCo's CEO, Robert Iger, and found the following paragraphs interesting. They offer an inside look at WoC: >>>>> On a Friday [in late February], staffers gave Mr. Iger, the chief executive of the Walt Disney Company, a 30-minute rundown of final plans for a new multimillion-dollar attraction at the Disneyland Resort. He hated it. That Disneyland attraction, a high-tech water show set to music called World of Color (think the Bellagio fountains in Las Vegas on steroids), was being reworked. He felt that the attraction over all was outstanding, but he worried that the music was all wrong. So he had written notes about each song on how to make the show more modern. “Ninety-five percent of the decisions made at the company are made by other people,” he says. “But this is a big show, and I felt opportunities were being lost.” <<<<<
Originally Posted By trekkeruss So then the "show" that's in the video is based off of his notes, and may be closer to the final product than what was listed in the D23 presentation? That's how I read it.
Originally Posted By mousermerf Side note, March 5th (the subsequent first Friday of March) was the D23 presentation where WDI seemed to not know what they were doing when discussing plans for Fantasyland Forest. Suppose Iger got them in a similar "late February" meeting to discuss missed opportunities?
Originally Posted By Supermatt70 <<So then the "show" that's in the video is based off of his notes, and may be closer to the final product than what was listed in the D23 presentation? That's how I read it.>> That's what I took out of that! And this is EXACTLY what I feared. From the video, the soundtrack seemed to me to be the weakest part of the show. Way too much Amy Grant at the start of the show and less that 30 seconds of the original Sherman brothers song. And a Disney show about COLOR with not even a trace of the Spectrum Song? I think Bob has his "modern" show!
Originally Posted By mousermerf Maybe he didn't like what we don't like either? I still haven't really "watched" the video fully, I skipped around ym comments were based on the few transitions bits I caught that seemed rough enough to notice they needed work. I suppose I'll go back with an eye (ear i guess) to it as a sound designer and see just how "modern" it is.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Not letting the English language be destroyed without a fight.> Well, in situ is, of course, straight-up Latin. Literally, it just means "in place." <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/insitu" target="_blank">http://www.merriam-webster.com...y/insitu</a> "in the natural or original position or place" - which would mean Leemac's use was perfectly acceptable. The lagoon is WOC's natural and original position. The various meanings you offered are acceptable as well; like many Latin phrases, in situ has come to have various meanings that the Romans could never have envisioned, such as the one shown here, related to aerospace: <a href="http://www.answers.com/topic/in-situ" target="_blank">http://www.answers.com/topic/in-situ</a> "In the aerospace industry, equipment on board aircraft must be tested in situ, or in place, to confirm everything functions properly as a system. Individually, each piece may work but interference from nearby equipment may create unanticipated problems. Special test equipment is available for this in situ testing." At any rate, leemac's use was perfectly fine, and it was abundantly clear what was meant. On the use of the ENGLISH language you cherish, however... "It also says volumes about a poster when they only post once in a blue moon and always have their word taken as de facto truth despite obvious cherry-picking of topics and lack of actual discourse. Instead they address only questions and information they want to highlight..." ... the "they"'s there should have been "he"'s to be proper English. Just sayin'.
Originally Posted By mousermerf I like how "a vista" is ignored despite being more relevant, proper terminology for the discourse at hand, and more accurately describing the sentiment. No, lets use a term that has to be stretched to aerospace usage and say that's "abundantly clear." You folks are just amazing.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 It WAS abundantly clear. I got what he meant, and so did everyone else who has weighed in. He could have used "a vista," but (gasp!) he used "in situ," and as I showed, it was a perfectly acceptable usage. Meanwhile, you sniff that you "won't let the English language be destroyed without a fight" - pretentious to begin with, but a). "in situ" is Latin, and b). you seemingly can't even be bothered to make your pronouns match the subject; a common mistake, but surely not one that someone with your superior command of the English language should ever make. Normally, I wouldn't correct such a thing, but in this case I couldn't resist making an exception. Physician, heal thyself, and all that.
Originally Posted By Ohana <<< It also says volumes about a poster when they only post once in a blue moon and always have their word taken as de facto truth despite obvious cherry-picking of topics and lack of actual discourse. >>> Interesting Mouser, and similarly it speaks volumes of posters, like you, who come in and continually lift their leg and squirt their negativity in many threads. Do you call your typing discourse?
Originally Posted By danyoung >I like how "a vista" is ignored despite being more relevant, proper terminology for the discourse at hand, and more accurately describing the sentiment. No, lets use a term that has to be stretched to aerospace usage and say that's "abundantly clear."< Are you aware what an idiot you're being? Lee used a word, you thought there was a better word (and you might or might not be right about that), and then you continue to argue that he's wrong because he didn't use the verbiage that you thought he should. And we're in the wrong because we object to your continued harping about a stupid word. Utterly amazing.
Originally Posted By avatarmickey115 I cant see the video!!! ive tried putting in the url in 3 different internet browsers and it doesnt work!!! not even laughingplace.com works...ughhh of course this would happen!!! but i can go on everyother single website!!!
Originally Posted By trekkeruss The video is on YouTube: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ii9v5-uEXyI" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...v5-uEXyI</a>
Originally Posted By Mickeymouseclub I have been unable to log on to lp.com all day also and finally googled it and went in thru "discussion boards'...is anybody else having problems?
Originally Posted By CuriouserConstance I have the same problem all day, I have to come in by clicking on a post link in my history file.
Originally Posted By mousermerf <<<Interesting Mouser, and similarly it speaks volumes of posters, like you, who come in and continually lift their leg and squirt their negativity in many threads.>>> Like most animals who partake of the act, I'm just replacing the stench previously left by others.
Originally Posted By CuriouserConstance mousermerf I keep trying to keep an open mind about you and be nice, but you are awfully impolite sometimes. It's hard to imagine why you'd bother coming here if you think so poorly of everyone else here.
