Originally Posted By figment1986 True, but 2 minutes and no seguway, seemed like it was a filler story mostly. now if they were doing that and also had some sort of prize like KTLA does, I can understand. (I am a RTV major in college, but I have messed things up before, and I have Dish network so I can watch KTLA)
Originally Posted By BlueOhanaTerror The two Orlando papers are ALSO only two of six negative reviews of RATATOUILLE. I think the Orlando papers have a weird bone to pick against Disney things in general. >>>You have to remember… most visitors to WDW are not like you. Or even like me. If you took a survey of Epcot visitors I'm sure the majority would either like the wand or not care one way or the other. <<< Taste is rarely something that's wise to determine from the public-at-large. The public-at-large LOVES McDonalds, loves cheap junk in general, and loves Walmart. The public makes Walmart phenomenally profitable. And Walmart is all about making mediocrity palatable. The public at large doesn't KNOW what's good for them, what's "better" or more tasteful. They only know it once they experience it. Walt knew this, and never talked down to them, or dumbed down his ideas for the sake of mediocrity's appeal. Sad that 41 years later, so many folks don't get this, and so gripe about "purists". Purists kept civilization alive. Purists keep valuable architecture from being destroyed. Purists keep some semblance of elegance in a world desperately in need of it.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<Taste is rarely something that's wise to determine from the public-at-large. The public-at-large LOVES McDonalds, loves cheap junk in general, and loves Walmart. The public makes Walmart phenomenally profitable. And Walmart is all about making mediocrity palatable.>> Bows down before the Stitch-lover! I often say WDW is being WalMarted by small-minded, selfish, noncreative execs who wouldn't know a visionary if Walt appeared before their lying eyes. But, sadly, I think this great nation of ours has fallen victim to the whole WalMarting concept ... and Disney is just the latest in a long line of great companies to see their name diminished due to a lack of VISION. <<The public at large doesn't KNOW what's good for them, what's "better" or more tasteful. They only know it once they experience it. Walt knew this, and never talked down to them, or dumbed down his ideas for the sake of mediocrity's appeal.>> No. And what's scary as a WDW guy, even with APs to DL and DLP, is the fact so many guests don't know any better. They either weren't born, hadn't visited or truly don't remember how things were run in 1977 or 1987 ... heck, so many WDW 'regulars' are of the 21st century variety ... they just don't know (sigh!) <<Sad that 41 years later, so many folks don't get this, and so gripe about "purists". Purists kept civilization alive. Purists keep valuable architecture from being destroyed. Purists keep some semblance of elegance in a world desperately in need of it.>> THANK YOU!!! This is the most intelligent statement yet about this garbage. I've always been proud to be a purist... I always will be. Shame some people don't get why ...
Originally Posted By BlueOhanaTerror Now's about the time that someone says "Oh, it was worse, this park was handicapped by this and that, it was far less relevant and worse in 198_, you just have selective memory." Get ready for it.
Originally Posted By BlueOhanaTerror But yeah, Spirit... Kindred Spirits. Rumor has it I have a big hammer too. ;-)
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 Yeah. A FLORIDA newspaper writes an editorial about something at WALT DISNEY WORLD. That is just TOO weird! And then other affiliates of that company run some version of that editorial. IT'S A CONSPIRACY! OMG. Next thing you know the Disney execs will be planting stories that Spirit of 74 doesn't have a big one afterall.
Originally Posted By Skellington88 I bet Eric Jacobson and Tom Fitzgerald are paying these florida papers to make the wand sound like this amazing thing when really it was nothing more than a tacky sign that looked like sh*t.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Sad that 41 years later, so many folks don't get this, and so gripe about "purists". Purists kept civilization alive. Purists keep valuable architecture from being destroyed. Purists keep some semblance of elegance in a world desperately in need of it.>> <<I've always been proud to be a purist... I always will be. Shame some people don't get why ...>> EGO GONE WILD!!! Are you guys going to take your shirts off and jiggle it too? ;-)
Originally Posted By RoadTrip 'Purists' can also keep us mired in the past. They tend to reject anything new and different, being absolutely convinced that what has traditionally regarded as 'good' is the only definition of good. Impressionism was originally savaged by the art critics of the time. In fact the term "Impressionism" was originally coined by art critic Louis Leroy in a biting satirical review of Monet’s work. So while the taste of the public is not always 'good taste', the 'purists' do us no great favors either. Were it up to them we would still be listening to nothing but classical music and all of our buildings would be built in the Classical Greek or Roman style.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<Yeah. A FLORIDA newspaper writes an editorial about something at WALT DISNEY WORLD. That is just TOO weird! And then other affiliates of that company run some version of that editorial. IT'S A CONSPIRACY!>> No. What it is is a mockery of real journalism. What it is is a waste of valuable newsprint on something that doesn't deserve it. What it is is something either planted by someone with connections at Disney that isn't happy about the direction the company is moving (and likely wonders where it might leave them) OR some very self-indulgent twtit who enjoyed the appendages and is ticked off they're going, going, gone. Either way, you've missed the point. <<OMG. Next thing you know the Disney execs will be planting stories that Spirit of 74 doesn't have a big one afterall.>> A big what? The Spirit is well-endowed in many areas ...
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<'Purists' can also keep us mired in the past. They tend to reject anything new and different, being absolutely convinced that what has traditionally regarded as 'good' is the only definition of good.>> Oh, Trippy, why do I bother? Oh yeah, because I won't let you have the last word because that's the one that most feeble-minded folks only remember. Purists absolutely don't live in the past or want to keep us there. Walt Disney is the best (and most fitting example of this discussion). He was a purist. He also was a futurist. And a visionary. He never wanted his park to be a museum. He changed things a lot quicker than management does today. He was quick to see when something wasn't working or was tired. You're myopic view of a purist, is someone who lives in the past, always thinks things were better then and is close-minded to change. Simply not true. Walt was a purist when it came to values ... when it came to doing things the right way ... but he wasn't someone opposed to change and moving ahead ... indeed he was at the forefront of technological innovation his entire life. So what exactly is your point? Is it that SSE without the wand was fine, but it was just as good with it? That those who didn't accept it as anything but a tacky marketing gimmick were simply people who wanted to live their lives in the 1980s? (on a personal note, while the music was a lot better and my life a lot simpler then, I would never choose to go back ... not with all the possibilities the future holds if the planet isn't WalMarted by small-minded cretins.) Because there really is no intelligent way to say the wand belonged on SSE other than 'because I liked it' or 'it made Britney smile when she looked up for 30 seconds before playing with her video game). <<Impressionism was originally savaged by the art critics of the time. In fact the term "Impressionism" was originally coined by art critic Louis Leroy in a biting satirical review of Monet’s work.>> Thanks for the art lesson. I slept thru my sophomore year art history class ... but I kinda like Monet myself. <<So while the taste of the public is not always 'good taste', the 'purists' do us no great favors either. Were it up to them we would still be listening to nothing but classical music and all of our buildings would be built in the Classical Greek or Roman style.>> Sure, Trippy, keep telling yourself it. Then get in line for PoC, JC, Mansion etc ... attractions from the 1950s and 60s that still captivate, still wow audiences in 2007. And tell yourself that things like Test Track will have that staying power ... that Mission Space will ... that PhilharMagic will ... that ... hopefully, you've got the point. What's next a discussion on why 'classical' somehow means bad?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Spirit; I agree with much of what you say... perhaps a majority of it. I just have a real problem with dismissing some opinions as being inferior to your own. If I have an opinion that differs from someone else’s I naturally think my opinion is 'better', but I am not about to declare it BETTER on some grand cosmic scale of what is good and what is not. I don't know that the intent of Disney’s structures is always great architecture anyway. Most architecture critics would declare Disney's Main Street to be puerile schlock. But schlock or not, it provides exactly the feeling Disney was looking for and that is fine. At times making Britney smile is EXACTLY what Disney was striving for; that should not be dismissed. <<Purists kept civilization alive.>> Even in my most egotistical moments I've never attempted to take credit for the survival of civilization as we know it!! LOL <<If i'm a "disney purist" then you are an "Eisner appologist"> Once again a pithy, intelligent comment from Skellington. Keep 'em coming, OK?
Originally Posted By MPierce >> The public at large doesn't KNOW what's good for them, what's "better" or more tasteful. << That may be your opinion, but I'm not ready to speak for the public at large. They might not be in lock step with me or you. I think folks vote with their wallets. Unfortunately that is always the bottom line. WDW is going to try, and give them what Disney thinks they want. The trend of just getting by as cheaply as possible really does need to change though. I think that things are fixing to take a turn for the good, my opinion. I really do understand how you feel though. >> Sad that 41 years later, so many folks don't get this, and so gripe about "purists". Purists kept civilization alive. << I agree to a point. Purist have been very prominent in protecting many things. One of the most important is the Constitution of the U.S.A., which can have amendmets attached to it. I also believe visionaries, and people with strong character, and dedication also have equal parts in the history, and present day of all Disney Resorts. The winds they are a changin'...
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 <<Either way, you've missed the point.>> That's the most egotistical post on this thread yet. Spirit, my friend TDLFAN likes you, so I don't want to believe that you're, um.... pathological. Please tell me you understand that if someone reviews your premises and fails to concur with your conclusion, it's possible that they simply disagree with you and that it's not de facto that they're too stupid to see the obvious truth.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <Were it up to them we would still be listening to nothing but classical music and all of our buildings would be built in the Classical Greek or Roman style. < as opposed to say hip hop and prefab homes or trailers....hmmmmm may want to restate that case tosay purists not ALWAYS right, but sometimes..well yeah they are
Originally Posted By vbdad55 and for hip hop fans - substitute in accordian music - wierd Al music or anything else -- the point is that purists aren't always wrong either... and there is plenty of 'new' stuff at WDW to prove they weren't -- cough cough Poo playground, cough - SGE.....
Originally Posted By BlueOhanaTerror >>>So while the taste of the public is not always 'good taste', the 'purists' do us no great favors either. Were it up to them we would still be listening to nothing but classical music and all of our buildings would be built in the Classical Greek or Roman style.<<< Utter B.S. Hyperbole only sells, Trippy, if it has some grounding in truth. Purists kept civilization alive by reminding us what MAKES for "civil" and makes for a soul, in a people. They've kept documents from disintegrating, important monuments, buildings and moments of history alive and vital, and kept standards of little things like medicine and manufacturing important, vital goods, to a high level. Lord, the apologists for the trailer park mentality. You know what? There are some tastes that are inferior. It's why great art sells for much more than a black velvet painting of Elvis. Epcot has lost much of its soul. That's all the "purists" relevant to that park, want to restore. Enough. Done. So silly to respond to nonsense that's so wafer-thin.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Before you get too danged impressed with yourself you might want to consider that you are using the term "purist" in a way other than how it is commonly defined. <<purist One entry found for purist. Main Entry: pur•ist Pronunciation: 'pyur-ist Function: noun : a person who adheres strictly and often excessively to a tradition; especially : one preoccupied with the purity of a language and its protection from the use of foreign or altered forms >> Source: <a href="http://www.webster.com/dictionary/purist" target="_blank">http://www.webster.com/diction ary/purist</a> From that definition I think you would have to agree that being a "purist" is not always a good thing.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< Before you get too danged impressed with yourself you might want to consider that you are using the term "purist" in a way other than how it is commonly defined. >>> By resorting to a dictionary definition, one might claim that you're being purist in how terms are used around here.
