Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA My perspective is this... Write a backstory if you want. Just don't make them public. Again, it's like on 'American Idol' -- watching the contestant prepare his song with Lady Gaga or whomever it is. "Do it this way" -- "Hit the high note like this" -- etc... Then, they cut to the performance. Weird. It's like a watching a 'how we did the special effects' before watching 'The Avengers' Put it together and let me decide how to respond. Hey Disney -- stop telling me how to feel!
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "Just don't make them public." They make them public to people like you and me. Remember that the average visitor isn't digging around the internet looking for this stuff.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "Hokie, the FLE backstory is mind-numbing." And it gets even more confusing: <a href="http://disneydragons.tumblr.com/" target="_blank">http://disneydragons.tumblr.com/</a>
Originally Posted By HokieSkipper The dragon, from what I understand, will not be part of New Fantasyland for long.
Originally Posted By Manfried I guess WDI has so much time on their hands they can create idiotic backstories that feed the ego mania of one of its designers. Woe betide them actually create a new, original attraction. I am thinking they are writing a backstory to try and stop the TV movie because they were probably not asked about it.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA "Just don't make them public." <They make them public to people like you and me.> They're not doing it for me Hans -- I think it's terrible! LOL Remember that the average visitor isn't digging around the internet looking for this stuff.> I don't know, Hans. I think with the Internet and blogs and fansites -- even Disney's own blogs and fansites, the average Disneyland guest hears about this stuff more and more.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I agree with Jim on this. I like when the attraction sets a scene and the guest is allowed to fill in the blanks on their own. Haunted Mansion is a great example of this. Do we really need to know exactly why the mansion is haunted? Or is it okay to have a series of cool scenes and sight gags and not get quite so literal about things? For Big Thunder, it's a runaway mine train in the old west. That's kind of enough for me. There's really no reason to overwork it so much. Or do we really need to know the backstory of the dynamite chewing goat, or how the dinosaur got embedded in the layers of rock? I say (stamping my foot so loud that the other folks in the retirement home turn away from the TV and stare at me) use that creative energy on some brand NEW amazing attraction.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "I don't know, Hans. I think with the Internet and blogs and fansites -- even Disney's own blogs and fansites, the average Disneyland guest hears about this stuff more and more." I doubt it. If so, it's in one ear and out the other. It's like the difference between anticipating and watching the latest Marvel superhero movie versus being the geek who knows the development and back story of every popular character in the franchise.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA You could be right, Hans. These backstory things and other 'published' details from Disney -- maybe it's the equivalent of the 'extras' chapters on a DVD. The foamers eat it up and the average viewer just watches the movie. *shrug* (Sits down in the recliner -- the one next to Kar2oonMan and nods off)
Originally Posted By leemac <<Remember that the average visitor isn't digging around the internet looking for this stuff.>> That isn't necessarily the point. The issue is whether it is necessary to know the backstory to appreciate the attraction (and its interactive queue) and how that is communicated to guests in situ. PR can do what they like to justify their headcount.
Originally Posted By leemac <<The dragon, from what I understand, will not be part of New Fantasyland for long.>> And what a colossal waste of time, energy and money have been devoted to that ridiculous Tumblr blog. The modified ultralight was designed as a test to see if a flying dragon could be created without the need for guide wires. Unfortunately the fan and the need for the ultralight pilot to have unrestricted vision means that the dragon cannot fly at lower altitudes where he can be easily be seen. So he has been benched and will get an outing in two weeks. Millions of dollars of R&D for a marketing gimmick.
Originally Posted By HokieSkipper Wow, Leemac. had no idea it was that bad. I figured the dragon would be used at night when he was in use. Didn't know he was basically useless.
Originally Posted By leobloom >> The dragon, from what I understand, will not be part of New Fantasyland for long. << So why is it getting this elaborate viral campaign? The whole thing is weird.
Originally Posted By leemac << I figured the dragon would be used at night when he was in use. Didn't know he was basically useless.>> I gather the plan is to use him at night - the problem will still be trying to light him (if they even bother - they may choose to just show a silhouette). I wouldn't say useless - but the size of the fan on the back and the need for the pilot to have unrestricted sight causes show problems. He can flap his wings and breathe fire - but he is no Lucky. I wasn't impressed when I saw him at Bakersfield in the summer but it was broad daylight. I just don't think he can fly low enough to have an impact - unless you want to destroy the illusion. R&D had high hopes for him and maybe they can continue to tweak the design to make him into a better show character. I do applaud the fact that they took such a gamble on him - he would be an incredible character if those engineering issues can be resolved.
Originally Posted By leobloom Oh, my. That's just...stupid. I guess they figure they've wasted money designing the dragon so they might as well waste some more to promote it? Who's running the store?
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <It's salisbury steak night, Jim> AGAIN? We had that crap last Tuesday !!!
Originally Posted By leobloom Incidentally, how can a low-flying aircraft get past Legal while overhead show elements apparently cause great consternation?
Originally Posted By HokieSkipper <<R&D had high hopes for him and maybe they can continue to tweak the design to make him into a better show character. I do applaud the fact that they took such a gamble on him - he would be an incredible character if those engineering issues can be resolved.>> Right. I think it could be something spectacular. Which why the current push for it seems so odd.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "That isn't necessarily the point." Of course it isn't. "The issue is whether it is necessary to know the backstory to appreciate the attraction (and its interactive queue) and how that is communicated to guests ...." Maybe from a business perspective, yes, but the average boob from Missouri or wherever just wants to do the "mine train" ride and hit the pool before going over to the "the animal park" to ride Everest. Fans are the only guests who really care or think about this kind of storytelling trivia.
