Three
-
Posts
291 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Three
-
-
Me and my fiancee take off our sandals anyway, even if they have backs on 'em and are legal.
Bare feet on an invert or a floorless is awesome.
-
Why waste the name kilimanjaro on a kiddie area? I mean, that would be a fantastic name for a coaster.
Though I guess it would sorta be similar to Disney's mountain-themed coaster deal.
And it might not fit too well with names like "SheiKra", "Montu" and "Kumba".
So nevermind.
-
What's Mt. Olympus' acreage?
It seemed to me to be one of the smallest parks I'd been to. Funny that somebody would have the opposite opinion.
I did not thoroughly explore the water park area though. Which seemed to be a lot bigger than I expected.
-
Speaking of parody, the only news article google news shows on the event in the past 3 days is this.
Unless I'm not using relevant enough search terms.
-
I think parks go with B&Ms because the public tends to like them. But nobody should confuse the public liking something with brand recognition. The name "B&M" isn't painted proudly on every ride the same way "Kelloggs" is on every box of corn flakes. And do you think most parkgoers have watched those Discovery Channel specials with enough interest that they automatically know the names of the major coaster manufacturers and would recognize their products when they saw 'em? I doubt it. Hell, when I first got enthused about coasters, I didn't know a B&M from any other ride. That sort of thing takes awareness and interest, which I doubt you would find in many park patrons.
Seriously, somebody take a clipboard to a park entry gate and hand out lists of coaster manufacturers with the question, "do these names mean anything to you?" at the top. I bet my statistic pans out.
-
Well Animal Kingdom's had the ride for 8 years now... People visiting for the first time wouldn't know the difference, but plenty who've already been to AK do.
-
Not to the GP.
The parks are close. Most people who visit IoA have been to Disney. And no matter how much better IoA's version might be, it'd still be considered a rip-off.
-
As long as we're caught up in image tarnishing, why not feel bad for the groups out there who can't defend themselves so easily?
I really do get what you're saying, but I think the difference between these groups and Disney is that these groups are being attacked from the outside. Disney is being misrepresented by their own employees and that just shouldn't happen. It's much easier to blow it off when it's not your own company causing your company to look bad, since your company did nothing wrong. Like all the pictures floating around the internet of Disney character 'porn'. Those pictures aren't made by Disney and everyone is [or should be] aware of that. People are going to take the video more seriously because Disney hired these people to represent their company. Honestly, if people believe that Kazakhstan is exactly how it's represented by Borat, then they probably need a little help separating fantasy and reality.
I understand your argument, but I'm not sure it makes quite as big a difference as one might think. Given even footing, yes. A group made to look bad from within will look worse to the public than a group made to look bad from outside. But there are plenty of other factors to consider, the biggest being public awareness. I'll use the excellent example of France which was provided to me earlier. The Ali G show is on HBO, so relatively few people have seen Borat or his depiction of Kazakhstan. Meanwhile, you have people poking fun at France on how many cable news channels, stand up comedy routines, or sophomore history classes? France-ignorance is everywhere, and Kazakhstan-ignorance is a relatively isolated phenomenon.
Similarly, even though this video shows actual employees, pointing the finger at Disney has yet to catch like influenza. And even if it does, France-ignorance will certainly be more pervasive still (in fact, this would certainly contribute to it).
Anyway, that's a somewhat sloppy example. But the point is, there are plenty of factors to consider outside of who it is making the company look bad.
And judging people as a whole, yes. Many do need a little help separating fantasy and reality.
You said that with any company employees are bound to eventually do something like this, and while I do agree that this is probably true considering what many people are like, that doesn't make it any more acceptable. Especially when contracts are involved to ensure things like this don't happen. Yes, you can fire these people, but it's going to take more than that to explain why this happened.I'm 100% with you until the last line. And that depends on how far this goes in the news. So far, I think their silent "we've dealt with it" is probably sufficient so long as public awareness remains where it is. Very few potential Disney vacationers would have any idea what you meant by "Mouse orgy" if you stopped 'em and asked today. If that changes sufficiently, further explanation is a must. But if not (and it hasn't in 24 hours), then I think their actions so far are enough.
They don't want to raise a public awareness that barely exists at present.
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061013/wr_nm/disney_dc
It's been dealt with. Swept under the rug.
I think odds are good it'll stay there. Today's amusing internet meme. Nothing more.
You are just such the "expert" on this aren't you?
Seriously, your posts on this subject have really annoyed me because you absolutely have NO IDEA what you're talking about. But yet you're so SURE that you do....
--Robb "I hate it when people talk out of their asses." Alvey
Just a prediction, nothing more.
Why does this get to you so much? My opinion is not so drastically different from your own. First your problem was because I defended those who found it funny. Next you seemed to equate finding humor in it, or thinking it an inevitable side-effect of Disney's (I admit, understandable) rules as condoning their actions. Then there was apparently some problem with me believing (and justifying my beliefs throroughly) that Disney will have no problem shaking this from their image. And finally you have a problem with a general prediction about where the media will take it from here.
You've hounded me at every turn. You've made rash generalizations about people in my age group. You've attempted to discredit my knowledge about intellectual property rights (which I actually have quite a bit of experience with, despite being just a stupid 22 year old). What's your problem? Can't people have different opinions around here? Mine isn't even that radical. I'm just as happy as you that the situation has been "dealt with" by Disney execs. I find the behavior just as inexcusable in the long run. I think the video's hillarious, but I'd still fire the whole lot of 'em were I calling the shots. And I have little sympathy for Disney because I know they can handle this. They have so much experience defending their image it's not even funny.
Sigh...
To add something new here, I'm a little amazed at some of the posts here. We mentioned how this could escalate out of control in the media and potentially turn people off to Disney (a quick google news search shows it has yet to do so). There was some thought that parents might see this behavior and generalize it to all park employees and make the mistake of thinking their children were in the hands of child molesters or something. The media is terrific at spinning, and such a belief would not be surprising of the average 24-hour news channel viewer.
But I'm a little surprised to see that idea floating around here. Presumably, anyone posting in these forums is in possession of facts the general public does not posess. This was an isolated incident at a park relatively few of the forumgoers here attend regularly. Those people are in all likelihood no longer employed with Disney, and I'm sure the parks will be clamping down on their rules with backstage behavior and cameras. Unless y'all are incredibly naive and were unaware that there were people in these suits, I have no idea why this would affect the "Disney Magic" for you all. Seriously, I'd like to know why a presumably intelligent theme park expert would let something like this affect their view of the parks. Would anyone care to shed some insight?
Finally, an aside. Since so many here are bent out of shape about image tarnishing, I think it's only fair to defend the country of France against similar "rash generalizations" (since nobody else seems to have bothered). In my experience in Europe, French people were no more likely to "do some weird things" than the people of any other country I visited. Unless by "weird things" you mean manufacturing perfume or selling crepes.
-
That is an interesting rumor indeed....
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061013/wr_nm/disney_dc
It's been dealt with. Swept under the rug.
I think odds are good it'll stay there. Today's amusing internet meme. Nothing more.
-
I can't feel to sorry for Disney about this. Sorry. Disney's team of lawyers is excellent. The likelihood of this tarnishing their image in the long run is practically nil.
As long as we're caught up in image tarnishing, why not feel bad for the groups out there who can't defend themselves so easily?
Hell, look at Kazakhstan. A country seemingly picked at random to poke fun at by Borat (Sacha Baron Cohen). Now the country is the mental representation of the "backward middle east" to how many people in the west? There's not a hell of a lot they can do about it. They're pretty much damned if they sue, damned if they don't.
Or let's go even broader. Why not? How can legal action defend the mentally retarded for their "name" being "tarnished" repeatedly by the immature in need of insults? What about the homosexual community, for exactly the same reasons?
Disney's had the greater part of the twentieth century to build up its image. It's stronger than Stephen Colbert's testicles. Something as petty as this isn't going to knock it down. Should they have to go after it in the first place? Probably not. But there are plenty of groups out there we should be concerning ourselves with who are well ahead of the list than the Walt Disney Company.
-
I was not condoning it. I have repeatedly stated that firing these people would be just dandy with me. Give your witchhunt a break.
But with 60 years of hiring people in costumes, certainly footage of bad behavior was inevitable at some point. I'm surprised it didn't happen sooner.
-
^I don't think that the point is how much it'll effect them. Of course they can overcome this. The point is that they shouldn't have to deal with it.
These employees were hired by the park and presumably were aware of all the rules. They chose to break them anyway. An example will almost assuredly be made of them. Future employees will theoretically be at least a little more aware of the consequences of their actions.
But really, this sort of thing is inevitable. People will act like this, no matter how carefully you screen employees. And with a policy like Disney has with its characters, stuff like this was bound to come out sooner or later. At least what we have here is relatively innocuous. It could have been much worse.
-
I think scale here makes all the difference though. Disney is gargantuan. This is miniscule. I will completely understand when employees are fired and rules about character conduct are altered. But this won't have a major effect on the company or its image any more than any of the numerous past allegations have. Or any more than this picture has:
-
Seriously, why do you all keep arguing this point?
Is it that you just can't stand the thought of being "wrong?" Is that it?
I'm not trying to prove anyone wrong, I'm just saying, "look guys....this is inappropriate, and here's why...." regardless if I think it's funny or not funny. It's clearly not appropriate and damaging. And that's not an opinion, that's a factual statement!
It's clearly not appropriate. As for damaging, time will tell.
I don't think anybody here has a "can't be proven wrong" complex. There are simply different opinions on the severity.
Different. Opinions.
edit: quotes were messed up
-
Realistically, this isn't the first time nor the last time that misbehavior by park guests or employees has "threatened" Disney's image. And past accusations have been much more public and potentially harmful than a handful of employees in costumes mimicking the doggy style.
Disney lived through that, and they'll live through this.
There's a difference there -
Look at the years. 1976.....1981. No pictures. No video, no internet back then.
And the 2004 incident. There wasn't even a picture to back it up.
These were just "stories" without any visuals.
Now you have video of this current incident all over the internet and the news. And this is the FIRST TIME something like this has been as "visual"
If a picture is worth a thousand words, a video is worth a million.
How can you make the argument that this incident and the ones in the past are the same? It's not.
--Robb "Who doesn't really understand why people keep trying to argue a point that's so clearly and factually stated." Alvey
But there are other differences that you fail to mention here. For one, this was backstage and out of view of park guests. For two, we aren't talking about molestation here. This isn't a video of molestation, it's a video of employees goofing off backstage. True, it's been recorded. But what has been recorded is not nearly as problematic.
We must keep in mind that Disney essentially has the best team of lawyers in the world. They managed to knock three molestation charges out without blinking an eye. The charges (if any) here are much less severe. I imagine some employees will be silently axed, some new rules will be implimented, and people will forget about this relatively quickly.
As I said, Disney will live through this.
-
Realistically, this isn't the first time nor the last time that misbehavior by park guests or employees has "threatened" Disney's image. And past accusations have been much more public and potentially harmful than a handful of employees in costumes mimicking the doggy style.
Disney lived through that, and they'll live through this.
-
Just when I think I've heard of all of Disney's defunct projects, I stumble upon another.
Parking underground? The origins of the Country Bears? Fascinating stuff.
How come I haven't heard of this?
Does anybody have more information?
-
Any kids who stumble upon this video will almost certainly be old enough to laugh about it with all their friends.
I just don't see too many elementry-school-aged kids typing "minnie+dry+hump" into google.
See, you're missing the point. It's not about teenage kids finding it on google and laughing about it, those kids aren't the ones paying admission into the parks to begin with. It's about the media creating a bigger issue out of it than it needs to be.
Think about if this gets on the Today show what impact that would have to the PARENTS bringing their kids to Disney parks or Disney functions.
Or if some right wing Christian group get ahold of the story and wants to push the issue.
You're focued on the WRONG audience as to how this affects the company. It's clear you and some other people just do not understand that point.
--Robb
Actually, I was trying to dismiss the "OMG, think of the children" argument. Which I think is bogus because kids aren't apt to see it in the first place.
Now you're right, there is a chance of this being blown out of proportion by some media agency or another. And certainly they would be prone to using the "think of the children" argument. Of course, by making a big deal out of it they'd be the ones seeing to it that children would see it. Certainly proving that such agencies are more concerned with ratings than general public wellbeing, but I digress.
Such groups meddling with this for their own purposes is certainly a problem. But one we'll have to just wait and see on.
Disney has a reputation as being one of the most lawsuit-happy industries out there. But I suspect they'll try to keep this as stealthy and hushed as possible, for precisely those reasons.
-
Any kids who stumble upon this video will almost certainly be old enough to laugh about it with all their friends.
I just don't see too many elementry-school-aged kids typing "minnie+dry+hump" into google.
-
I think the flyer is more likely, nowadays. If either is in the works.
For one, Florida doesn't have one. It'd be a unique attraction, whereas the jeep tours would not.
And, yeah. I notice that there's no mention of the River Adventure in the concept art (correct me if I'm wrong). I get the idea that maybe it was going to be an either/or on doing jeeps or boats. They went with the boat ride -- perhaps because it had proved sucessful at the Hollywood park.
Just a hypothesis, of course.
-
And what about those helicoptor tours? What's that about?
I still hope they don't make a jeep tours ride, since
1) it's conceptually very similar to the idea for the boat adventure. As in, let's go look at all the dinosaurs. Sh*t! Everything goes wrong!.
2) there is a very similar attraction now at Animal Kingdom.
Makes me wonder though. I know a lot of IoA's designers came from Disney and did do a lot of work on Animal Kingdom. Is that the reason IoA never got this ride? Because Animal Kingdom went for it first?
-
Too many broken funny bones out there.
Should they be fired? Who cares?
Why should that stop anybody from laughing at Minnie and Goofy dry humping?
"OMG! Inappropriate work ethic!"
Lighten up.
Harry Potter and Disney?
in Theme Parks, Roller Coasters, & Donkeys!
Posted
I've always been very surprised Six Flags hasn't done anything. I mean, the movies are done by Warner Bros., and Six Flags has the rights to several Warner Bros. properties already (not sure of the extent of the contract).
Though I realize that a studio having the rights for a movie and having the rights for theme park attractions are totally different animals.
Anyway, somebody needs to get cracking while the property is hot. This level of interest can't last forever.