DisneyKidds
<font color=green>The TF thanks DisneyKidds for mo
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2001
So much debate of dis, dat, and da other ting - all of it culminating in 'that is because you are in Car X and feel XXXXXXXX'
So try this on for size . All in good fun, of course .
TOPIC: The Irony of Many a Car #3 Occupant
1. Believes he/she is the realist, when in fact they at one point were most unrealistic.
2. Believes anyone in Car #1 is 'drunk on the Brand', when in fact they were the only ones ever 'intoxicated by Disney'.
3. Wants so much added to Disney that they would have nothing added at all.
There are others, but they have been said before. I'm sure someone else might be able to think of a few new ones. And I'm sure someone will come up with a list pertaining to other Cars (bring it on )
TALK AMONGST YOURSELVES (I'm feeling a bit verklempt)
p.s. - I attribute these ironies to a few of my fave Car #3 quotes and firm beliefs, those being:
'is that a man behind the curtain?'
Some (all?) Car #3ers feel that WDW has been whittled down so much that 'the man' at some point along the line became visible. But that man was always there. Some Car #1 passengers always knew that, accepted that, and understood the interaction of the Magic, the curtain, and the man. So you see him a little, not such a surprise, and no reduction in the Magic. In Car #3 you are now realists because you see this man and realize what is happening, but was it unrealistic to not see this (or be able to anticipate some of it) in the first place?
Car #1 folk are not drunk, never have been. Perhaps many have always known how to hold their liquor (Magic). Maybe the #3 folk have sobered up after their intoxication, which isn't a bad thing, but now they have the shakes and are going through withdrawal.
'Give the customer everything you can, or not at all'
Everything in AK would have included BK, so without it Disney should have passed? DinoRama could have been done better, so they should have passed? MGM put together piecemeal - should they have passed? People want the dream and the Magic, we need hotel rooms, deluxes don't work for everyone (company and consumer alike) - should no moderate/value hotels have been added? I shutter to imagine WDW without any of these. I, for one, wouldn't have visited WDW nearly as much without (yes - I've stayed in mods and the All Stars). I, for one, wouldn't own DVC without MGM and AK - a two park WDW just wouldn't have justified the investment.
No offense to the many learned and knowledgeable people outside of Car #1 - just thought it might be good for a few fun pages of discussion .
So try this on for size . All in good fun, of course .
TOPIC: The Irony of Many a Car #3 Occupant
1. Believes he/she is the realist, when in fact they at one point were most unrealistic.
2. Believes anyone in Car #1 is 'drunk on the Brand', when in fact they were the only ones ever 'intoxicated by Disney'.
3. Wants so much added to Disney that they would have nothing added at all.
There are others, but they have been said before. I'm sure someone else might be able to think of a few new ones. And I'm sure someone will come up with a list pertaining to other Cars (bring it on )
TALK AMONGST YOURSELVES (I'm feeling a bit verklempt)
p.s. - I attribute these ironies to a few of my fave Car #3 quotes and firm beliefs, those being:
'is that a man behind the curtain?'
Some (all?) Car #3ers feel that WDW has been whittled down so much that 'the man' at some point along the line became visible. But that man was always there. Some Car #1 passengers always knew that, accepted that, and understood the interaction of the Magic, the curtain, and the man. So you see him a little, not such a surprise, and no reduction in the Magic. In Car #3 you are now realists because you see this man and realize what is happening, but was it unrealistic to not see this (or be able to anticipate some of it) in the first place?
Car #1 folk are not drunk, never have been. Perhaps many have always known how to hold their liquor (Magic). Maybe the #3 folk have sobered up after their intoxication, which isn't a bad thing, but now they have the shakes and are going through withdrawal.
'Give the customer everything you can, or not at all'
Everything in AK would have included BK, so without it Disney should have passed? DinoRama could have been done better, so they should have passed? MGM put together piecemeal - should they have passed? People want the dream and the Magic, we need hotel rooms, deluxes don't work for everyone (company and consumer alike) - should no moderate/value hotels have been added? I shutter to imagine WDW without any of these. I, for one, wouldn't have visited WDW nearly as much without (yes - I've stayed in mods and the All Stars). I, for one, wouldn't own DVC without MGM and AK - a two park WDW just wouldn't have justified the investment.
No offense to the many learned and knowledgeable people outside of Car #1 - just thought it might be good for a few fun pages of discussion .