Originally Posted By Goofyernmost ~Vermont was better before WalMart invaded~ Only in your mind. If you didn't mind living in a place that was basically a service industry paying minimum wage and attempting to feed and cloth yourself buying everything from over priced Mom and Pop or "granola" stores, then it was better. Walmart didn't hurt Vermont. In fact, as one would expect, it helped many and hurt no one except the family shops. They didn't pay employee's over minimum wage, offered no benefits or security. Do I think that Walmart is the best thing to ever happen? Hell, no! Is it a scourge on society? Hell, no! Is there a quality sacrifice? I very seldom listen to the judgment of others concerning those things. I will tell you this...I have purchased Disney T's from Walmart and from the World of Disney. The Walmart $8.00 T's are still going strong. The $24.00 Disney T's are faded, distorted and are now rags. I fail to see how that can be called quality. I think that one could easily turn that around and say that if Walmart lowers it's quality it would be Disneying, not the other way around. If Walmarting means lower prices for better quality I am all for it. Bring it on. I do understand the point that is trying to be made but I strongly feel that the example being used is not relevant to the discussion. It really is a slam on people that cannot afford the luxury of paying more for the same thing.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***In fact, as one would expect, it helped many and hurt no one except the family shops.*** Behind every family shops exists a family, one that once was contributing to the community and adding a certain flavor to the mix. Now they're all wearing Walmart smocks. Maybe that's okay for some, but I'd say it's a pretty big price to pay honestly. I've seen more than one community center decimated by this phenomenon, and it's not just walmart but rather the "corporatization" of small town America in the form of strip malls and box stores. Maybe that's just a survival of the fittest thing, but I must admit things are far less enjoyable and charming than they used to be.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip It is bad for Mom and Pop but better for the community as a whole. Health benefits etc. are virtually non-existent at Mom and Pop's. Wages are usually rock-bottom... worse than those at Wal-Mart's. At the Mom and Pop's there was no place for advancement. Mom and Pop managed the place and always will. If you were a clerk you were always going to be a clerk. At Wal-Mart a person starting as a clerk could become a store manager in a relatively short period of time if they showed the interest and ambition. I know. I have a niece whose husband was a Store Manager for Wal-Mart making what was BIG MONEY for a small town. He started as clerk and worked his way up in a very short time. Wal-Mart also brings a far greater variety of goods to small towns than typically existed before. People who previously had to drive 50 miles for major shopping trips (using scarce resources and polluting the atmosphere) can now shop 5 minutes from home. Wal-Mart’s great success shows that except for a few holier–than-thou types; American shoppers have embraced what they offer. Do I currently shop at Wal-Mart? Not very often at present… there are none close to where we live. Our suburb is the home of the very first Target store, and I think they do everything they can to keep Wal-Mart out of Target’s birthplace. But when we move to Branson I will be there several times a week. They have a brand new Super Wal-Mart close to where we will live that is every bit as nice as any Target I’ve been in. Good lighting, wide aisles, and attractive display of merchandise… if you didn’t see the Wal-Mart name on the outside you would never guess you were in one. Besides… they have wine and scotch at great prices available for purchase 24x7. It just doesn’t get any better than that. ;-)
Originally Posted By alexbook I'm actually not a fan of Wal-Mart, myself. I think they're terrible for the economy, for all the reasons everybody else cites. I shop there anyway, sometimes, because they're cheap and I'm broke. I get really, really tired of the idea that poverty equals stupidity. If you want to rail against stupidity or lack of sophistication, go ahead and do so, but don't conflate it with bigoted remarks about poor people. It's classism, and it needs to be fought.
Originally Posted By HMButler79 ""The "old way" was not a black tunnel - it never was. I can't believe people are saying that."" But don't you know that modern day/current "fans" want to convince us that Walt Disney, Card Walker, Ron Miller and Micheal Eisner never existed or had standards for the parks!??? ; )
Originally Posted By RoadTrip No, the "old way" was not originally a dark tunnel. But the various effects in that tunnel have been turned off for at least the past half dozen years... long before the current changes.
Originally Posted By leobloom >>You have to remember that SSE has a sponsor and that sponsor wanted a way to link the attraction to the post-show area where they have the opportunity to integrate their products into the mix. SIEMENS can't integrate their products into the attraction as it is a historical presentation so there needs to be an incentive to get guests into Project Tomorrow. >> So let me get this straight. The Flash-animation screens are just a way to lure people to Project Tomorrow? Last time I checked you have to pass through that area to exit the building. If that area looks exciting and inviting wouldn't people naturally be lured there as they exit the ride? Is the allure of getting to see your picture on the big blue globe the thing that's supposed to get people to stick around? If Siemens wants to use the descent to get people to spend more time in PT, using animations of a future that isn't plausible or inspiring isn't a good way to do it. I assumed that most of the stuff in PT was as juvenile and fictitious as the stuff on the descent animations. They could have used the same "see yourself in the animated future" gimmick while using a realistic prediction of the future to get people to PT. People would have stilled lined up to see their faces on the big blue globe, and the descent wouldn't seem like it's an absolute joke, completely lacking in wonder and gravitas. Let's look at my favorite example from the screens: A suitcase that packs itself. Is the guest supposed to think this is a real possibility? Is the guest supposed to be amused by how outlandish it is? Is this supposed to inspire the guest (a la Horizons)? Is the guest not supposed to think about it at all and simply be impressed that his/her face is on the screen? Is the video simply an excuse to use the face-technology to pull the guest into PT? Does WDI not critically evaluate their work? I find that hard to believe, but I also find the screen animations mystifying in a critical sense. And I appreciate that WDI is playing with other people's money, but still, the content of the descent animation is insulting to anyone who has completed high school.
Originally Posted By HMButler79 Can we all stop saying Siemens was the one who initiated the IDEA of screens at the end. It was Fitzgerald 100%.
Originally Posted By CarolinaDisneyDad All I know is both my kids refused to ever rise SSE after their first time b/c it was boring to them. I talked them into trying it again b/c it had been redone and they actually liked it and wanted to ride again on another day later in the week. So I consider it an upgrade.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss I can't comment on the current SSE since I haven't ridden the attraction for years now. But the ride back down has always been anti-climatic So even if you think the current ending is bad, it was never good to begin with.
Originally Posted By leobloom The trip down may have been "anti-climatic" in the sense that it wasn't wall-to-wall with AAs, but I can assure you it wasn't mindless like the current screen-induced crapfest.
Originally Posted By bobbelee9 The first time I rode SSE, '83, I just knew we were going up up up, and eventually would have to go down, and I was so afraid it would turn into a roller coaster speed down! Believe me, the actual down, was great for my stomach and nerves.
Originally Posted By lesherb I remember my first time on SSE. The trip down was a bit hairy with a squirmy 3 year old. Gravity was my biggest concern then.
Originally Posted By HokieSkipper >>Most people would consider it an upgrade.<< Ummmm...no, sorry. Initially it went over well, but believe me, it's not so anymore.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost No, I'm talking about most people. Not the few of us nerds that spend most of our time concentrating on Disney. I realize that I am in the minority of us, but everyone I have talked to that are just casual Disney people, like it. What's not to like. It personalizes an other wise generic ride and makes one a part of it no matter how hokey it may seem. It's fun to see yourself on the screen even if it doesn't always line up properly.
Originally Posted By HokieSkipper >>No, I'm talking about most people. Not the few of us nerds that spend most of our time concentrating on Disney. I realize that I am in the minority of us, but everyone I have talked to that are just casual Disney people, like it.<< Considering I worked the attraction, I know that a ton of people have been complaining lately. Not just the "nerds". >>What's not to like. It personalizes an other wise generic ride and makes one a part of it no matter how hokey it may seem. It's fun to see yourself on the screen even if it doesn't always line up properly.<< What's not to like? How bout the fact that it destroys the theme of the ride, and debases it to comedy.
