Originally Posted By lazyboy97o Kennesaw Tom, why should a blog not be the voice of it's author? If you want a blog that says otherwise it may well exist, or you can go to Google or several other websites and in a few steps start your own for free and without coding.
Originally Posted By ReelJustice <<My statement wasn't meant to imply Disney can do whatever they want and I'd love them. It means that even at twice the price and less maintenance I'd still find it better than the competition. I go to Universal and Sea World often and have been to Busch Tampa many times but not recently. To me there's still no comparison - it's not even close. I realize your mileage may vary, but I'm speaking honestly for myself. For the things that are important to _me_ and the experiences _I_ want to have, Disney is still head and shoulders above the rest. I've stayed at Portofino at Universal - maybe the nicest room I've stayed in in Orlando - I'd still rather stay at WDW. The Kitchen at Hard Rock has the best Mac and Cheese I've ever had and I eat there often. I'd still rather eat at Disney most times. Not because they buy me off or because they can do no wrong, but because it's where I prefer to be. I like the Disney look, I like the characters, I like the background music, I like the clientele, I like the friendly cast - the things that make Disney truly special to _me_ are things that Universal and Sea World don't have and I'm not even sure they want to have. I'm glad Universal is doing great, competition is a wonderful thing and as I wrote in a couple of articles, I actually became a Potter fan solely from my love of the Wizarding World. But for me, it's still not Disney. For others it's better and I'm happy for them and for Universal. And that's why I love Brand Y. It's not an unconditional love, but they've got a long way to go to lose it. Doobie.>> With all due respect, how is anyone supposed to take this seriously? Perhaps my brain has melted from the Constitutional Criminal Procedure exam I took earlier, but you say it's not an unconditional love and that Disney can't do whatever they want. However, the words in between those claims suggest the complete opposite to me. You say the best hotel you've stayed in is at UOR. You also say the best meal you've had is at UOR. You then say that WWoHP made you a fan of Potter. Yet, you'd rather be at WDW no matter what? Even if they raised already exhorbinant prices two-fold, you'd still prefer WDW (as is?!!!) Cliche ReelJustice is cliche, but "this is why we can't have nice things." Just incredible to me. This tells Disney that they don't have to do anything to one-up themselves, to one-up the competition, or heck even maintain what they have. UOR can run the best hotel, the best restaurant, and build the 2 best rides in Orlando, but "it's not Disney" therefore "do. not. want." People love to poke fun at Spirit, call him a kook, and say he's just being paranoid. Well then, I must be a kooky conspiracy theorist too because the things he has brought up in the past month or so are happening right before my eyes. I love Disney, but I can love Universal too. I love to have fun. I love innovation. I love quality. I love story. I love freedom. A parent can love their child unconditionally yet still realize their shortcomings and hope for better. A fanboi can love their theme parks unconditionally and still hope for better. We're paying customers. We expect the best because we sure are paying for it. Now more than ever, it should be painfully obvious how hard that money is to come by for the average joe. I'm gonna go to the best bang for my buck in Orlando regardless of name. ....back to studying. :grumble: (sorry if I'm overstepping boundaries, but I just had to get that all off of my chest)
Originally Posted By HokieSkipper RJ, terrific post. I couldn't have said it better myself. Agree with everything you said and more.
Originally Posted By ReelJustice One more thing, I've often wondered what fanbois would think about Universal if they built full replica of Tokyo Disney SEA. Something tells me, they would rip it to shreds because Disney isn't on the marquee.
Originally Posted By Christi22222 >>People love to poke fun at Spirit, call him a kook, and say he's just being paranoid. Well then, I must be a kooky conspiracy theorist too because the things he has brought up in the past month or so are happening right before my eyes.<< THIS! Oh my goodness, THIS! Just in case you needed an example, one is demonstrated immediately. >>A parent can love their child unconditionally yet still realize their shortcomings and hope for better. A fanboi can love their theme parks unconditionally and still hope for better.<< Why is this so hard to understand? What could possibly be our motivation to call ourselves fans, yet gripe about everything for no good reason? >>You say the best hotel you've stayed in is at UOR. You also say the best meal you've had is at UOR. You then say that WWoHP made you a fan of Potter. Yet, you'd rather be at WDW no matter what?<< I agree that this is a frustrating statement. I felt much better about where you stood and the position you're in right up until you said, "yeah, I drink the kool-aid." Great post Justice. Really well written and (to me) does not feel inflammatory.
Originally Posted By Doobie <<< You say the best hotel you've stayed in is at UOR. You also say the best meal you've had is at UOR. You then say that WWoHP made you a fan of Potter. Yet, you'd rather be at WDW no matter what? >>> Most of what you wrote above I did not say. I was very specific in what I said. I said it was the best hotel ROOM I've stayed at. It wasn't the best lobby, it wasn't the best grounds, it wasn't the best service, it wasn't the best location - it was the best room. The Kitchen has a great dish, but it's not my favorite restaurant for many of those same reasons. Just the way the workers there dress is a turn off to me. I realize it fits the theme of the Hard Rock Cafe and that's great for those who want that - I'm not one of them. I'm not sure what "I'd rather be at WDW no matter what" means. I have passes to both and go to both. WDW is my favorite. For my tastes, Disney is so much of a better fit than the competition that they have a very long way to fall before they get passed. That's probably why I was so drawn to Disney in the first place - their goals fit my tastes. I don't think Universal much cares about appealing to my tastes in the same way and that's fine. I'm not answering the question of who has objectively created the best themed environment and attractions, I'm answering who has created the one that most appeals to me. That's an easy question for me to answer - it's not even close. Just the experience of going and leaving Universal taking a long walk through City Walk with loud pop music is a huge turn off. Universal does many things I love but they do many things I loathe as well and I thus far anyway Disney is no where near going down that road. If they do, I'll change my mind. But for my tastes, Disney is so far ahead, they have a very long way to drop before they get to that level. Maybe this analogy will help - I like Universal a lot more than Sea World. And even if Universal doubles their price and lets some of their best rides go to pot, I'll still like Universal better because the overall look of both parks and the Wizarding World and quite a few of the rides appeal to me more than jumping mammals and conservation pushing. Not that I don't like those things (I enjoy Sea World, too) but just as I don't think I'm Universal's ideal market, I think I'm even less Sea World's ideal market so I'm not the guest they're trying to please 100%. Of all the places I've been Disney is the one that creates an environment that's most in line with where I want to be. <<< This tells Disney that they don't have to do anything to one-up themselves, to one-up the competition, or heck even maintain what they have. UOR can run the best hotel, the best restaurant, and build the 2 best rides in Orlando, but "it's not Disney" therefore "do. not. want." >>> I'm not interested in telling Disney anything. I'm interesting in having a good time with my entertainment dollar. I'll go wherever I have the best time (in this case I have passes to all 3 parks). You be the watchdog if you want to, that's fine with me. I'm not going to stop going to a place I love just to send Disney a message. As soon as I no longer love it there or I love it more somewhere else, I'll stop spending my money there. If I had a choice of spending my money at WDW circa 2011 or WDW circa 1997 (or whatever), that would be one thing. But I don't. My choices here are Disney, Universal and Sea World and today, for my tastes and desires, even at twice the price, I'd choose Disney. It's completely logical to me. I'm sorry if it's not to anyone else. Doobie.
Originally Posted By Doobie <<< I agree that this is a frustrating statement. I felt much better about where you stood and the position you're in right up until you said, "yeah, I drink the kool-aid." Great post Justice. Really well written and (to me) does not feel inflammatory. >>> Admin hat on - There was absolutely nothing inflammatory about RJ's post. There is with the comment "yeah, I drink the kool-aid." I don't care if you disagree with me, don't understand me, find me illogical, etc (as RJ very respectfully did), I do care if it's so obviously characterized in an insulting way like that. I'm not sure how that facilitates a civil discussion. Doobie.
Originally Posted By njDizfan >>>>It comes with a connotation that isn't positive. But yes, you are correct. <<<< Yes technically you are correct, but I believe the word has evolved to mean something far more sinister or at least meaning it is words or actions with a hidden agenda based on dubious or inaccurate data.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>Why is this so hard to understand? What could possibly be our motivation to call ourselves fans, yet gripe about everything for no good reason?<<<< People love Disney more than their kids. Check it. LOL.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>Yes technically you are correct, but I believe the word has evolved to mean something far more sinister or at least meaning it is words or actions with a hidden agenda based on dubious or inaccurate data.<<< Exactly. And that's why it was thrown around here. What Disney does IS sinister. They control, they bend, they hide their reasoning. All psychological cues for you to LOOOVE Pixie Dust.
Originally Posted By Christi22222 Well Doobie, I guess I should apologize. Granted I was being pointed, but I did not mean to be rude or offend with that quote. We use it in my family a lot to jokingly refer to fervent loyalty, and have apparently done so enough to make me immune to the offensiveness of it. (Example: my husband works in the oil business, so when we discuss environmental issues we will say something like, "I think XXX, but since I drink the oilfield kool-aid...") You had made it much more clear than I realized that you were a Disney fan with limited qualifications to that loyalty. Before that, I had never known if you were just as disgruntled with Disney as some D&G folks. Your posts had been so much more referee than opinion. I don't mean to excuse what is apparently bad behavior by me, but simply to explain why it didn't feel to me like I was being hateful. I'll try to check myself a little more closely in the future.
Originally Posted By Doobie No problem and I'm sorry to have singled you out like that - I really don't like to do that publicly. But like I did last time, it seemed like a good time to give a specific example rather than just talk in generations. Doobie.
Originally Posted By Bolna >>>It always amazes me how much the word propaganda has been vilified to the point that it is something separate and more than it is, "ideas or informations spread to promote or injure a cause, nation, etc." (dictionary.com). All good advertising is propaganda. Any blog that features a person espousing his ideas is propaganda. These threads are almost all propaganda.<<< <<It comes with a connotation that isn't positive.>> <<Yes technically you are correct, but I believe the word has evolved to mean something far more sinister or at least meaning it is words or actions with a hidden agenda based on dubious or inaccurate data.>> Since English isn't my first language I tend to look up words regularly to make sure that I use them according to their correct meaning. I have found that while definitions in dictionaries can be helpful, even more context is often even better. And one of my regular "dictionaries" is actually Wikipedia. I think the introduction there is quite telling: <<Propaganda is a form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position so as to benefit oneself. As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda, in its most basic sense, presents information primarily to influence an audience. Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus possibly lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or uses loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the attitude toward the subject in the target audience to further a political agenda. Propaganda can be used as a form of political warfare. While the term propaganda has acquired a strongly negative connotation by association with its most manipulative and jingoistic examples, propaganda in its original sense was neutral, and could refer to uses that were generally benign or innocuous, such as public health recommendations, signs encouraging citizens to participate in a census or election, or messages encouraging persons to report crimes to the police, among others.>> Even though the word might have been harmless in its original meaning it is now used to describe something quite different. And one element of how propaganda is understood today is that it << uses loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented.>> And that was one of the points we were discussing about the Disney Parks Blog - how it uses more emotion than facts. And this why most of the threads here are not propaganda and even most blogs aren't. They aren't created to produce an emotional response in order to influence the readers.
Originally Posted By lazyboy97o <<Yes technically you are correct, but I believe the word has evolved to mean something far more sinister or at least meaning it is words or actions with a hidden agenda based on dubious or inaccurate data.>> Who ever used propaganda for a hidden agenda? That makes no sense. The attempt to link Disney's web presence to totalitarianism is ridiculous because as of now The Walt Disney Company does not and cannot control every website. Every person, group, organization wants to control what is said about themselves but actually having the ability to do so is completely different. There is no power to shut down a website that points to the decline of Walt Disney World. No sane business would be trying to do anything different as it makes no sense to demean your own products.
Originally Posted By lazyboy97o <<And this why most of the threads here are not propaganda and even most blogs aren't. They aren't created to produce an emotional response in order to influence the readers>> Just using the word in this context makes it a message of trying to create an emotional response. It is an attempt to invoke highly negative imagery.
Originally Posted By njDizfan I'm not trying to insinuate that TWDC is a totalitarian ologarachy but they, like many companies, are trying to use media to deflect problems and elevate the positives. Propaganda can't have a hidden agenda? Remember not just evil empires use propganda to promote their own worth. Lets not forget the huge American propaganda machine during WWII and into ther Cold War. Those newsreels they played before the movies were not just to show what was going on in the War, they were designed to show American bravery and thusly provide a larger enlistment and sell more war bonds. Or what about having school age kids sit under their desks during bomb alerts, was that to protect them from a nuclear blast? no it was designed to enforce the idea that the USSR was evil and we need to hate them. Again I am not comparing these examples to what TWDC is doing but as I originally stated, advertisement is closely resembling that form of propoganda.
Originally Posted By Bolna <<Just using the word in this context makes it a message of trying to create an emotional response. It is an attempt to invoke highly negative imagery.>> Or it might just be a term to describe a certain way of trying to convince people. And as I said above it is not only the emotion, but the exploitation of an emotion to convince people only through their emotional response without convincing them on the underlying facts.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>> And this why most of the threads here are not propaganda and even most blogs aren't. They aren't created to produce an emotional response in order to influence the readers<<<< Wellll... the Disney Parks Blog certainly does. Pixie Dust Levels, Nostalgia, Memories... it's all meant for a reason.
Originally Posted By Lee hisownself Just to veer the topic back to social media proper... This was tweeted a bit ago by the official Walt Disney World twitter account: >>Did You Know? During the 1980s, Fantasyland was home to a rocking dance club called Videopolis.<< Get it? The WDW twitter acct? Where there never was a Videopolis? ~GFC~
Originally Posted By Bolna <<Wellll... the Disney Parks Blog certainly does. Pixie Dust Levels, Nostalgia, Memories... it's all meant for a reason.>> Yes, and that's exactly what I said in the line above the one you quoted...
