Are you joking?? What sort of super extrovert are you, and why do you think everyone is like that? I’ve never been to Disney world or wherever and it’s SPECIFICALLY because of what you just typed!! Bloody nightmare. Just get me a cabin somewhere.
They described A MASSIVE CROWDED AMUSEMENT PARK THAT REQUIRES CONSTANT PLANNING AND SURPRISES AND HUMAN CONTACT. And then go “oh the only thing said was for extroverts was maybe making reservations”
Are you for real? You either don’t know what extroversion is or maybe trolling.
I was specifically talking about what OP said, which is literally just planning and booking reservations. I did not know planning was an extrovert trait.
“We found ourselves waiting in massive lines for rides and spending hours waiting for tables in restaurants. We realized we screwed up and we had to do better.”
“Every morning we wake up, we know what park we are going to. We spend about 20 minutes every day we are there planning that day’s activities, and we roll with whatever changes we encounter.”
Did you not read the post? Am I being trolled? How are people telling me this is the same as renting a cabin lmfao did I take crazy pills?
It’s not extroverted to book a reservation. Particularly since Disney let’s you do it online without talking to anyone. I’d say it’s less extroverted than replying to a post on Lemmy.
I’m not sure why you’re focusing on booking a reservation because there’s a lot more (obvious) things to Disney world that introverts aren’t going to like other than booking reservations.
I think mostly because that’s what the article was talking about: the need to book plans in advance (as well as the price) being the critical factor in the stress of the Disney World vacation.
The article wasn’t really about people who don’t like being in crowds.
I got that. I was never trying to argue that at all. The only thing I was trying to comment on was what I interpreted as OPs exasperation at how anyone at all would want to avoid that vacation, when to me even with all the planning and reservations and everything they described it is still asking a lot from introverts, even if it’s way easier than just winging it without a plan.
So why is it so crazy to suggest that that planning itself would be off putting for some people, regardless of how easy they’ve made it? is that not what many people (disproportionately introverts) specifically go on vacations to get away from? The bigger the park gets, the more people that go, the more things require planning, and the more off putting it is for the folks like myself who just wanna sit and relax. They’re not making it easier for these folks regardless of how streamlined booking a hotel or reserving a dinner table is, because the park itself is inherently off putting and the bigger it gets it only gets worse.
It seemed like you weren’t remembering these people exist at all, which is why I commented in the first place.
Edit: less rambling Tl;Dr: making planning easier doesn’t make planning more fun for people who don’t like planning. These people will be stressed no matter what, and the source of stress is the Disney park
I’m not disagreeing with you! In fact, I never wanted to talk about people who avoid Disney World at all.
The only point I’m trying to make, is that it is disingenuous to suggest that planning is just something new for a Disney park trip. It’s been that way for decades.
Obviously, nothing I’ve said would apply to people who would never ever consider stepping foot in a Disney park. I don’t know why someone who would recoil at the thought of being in WDW would even read a post about visiting Disney Parks.
Super introvert here and a few years back, I did a Disney World trip. When I did it, you booked everything online (and I mean everything, down to FastPasses for rides six months in advance.) This also included restaurant bookings, as well as the hotel itself.
Not sure how it works now, but back then, we actually got the Magic Band wristband shipped to us ahead of time. With these wristbands, we could get into our hotel room - we didn't even need to go to the front desk to check in.
So yeah, regardless of whether you'd enjoy it or not, Disney did make it very easy to build an experience on your own online without needing to interact with a bunch of people.
Nah. The Little Mermaid live action was pretty good. There are many kids I know that prefer the remakes than the original cartoons. I’m okay with letting them have their own movies that us old folks maybe don’t like as much
What if we tried coming up with new stories instead of giving our kids the same reheated leftovers from yesterday?
“Capitalism breeds innovation”. The “innovation”: Entertainment executives too afraid to try out new ideas for the absolute dread of commercial failure, so they'd rather give us Despicable Me 8 and Toy Story 6 instead
What if we tried coming up with new stories instead of giving our kids the same reheated leftovers from yesterday?
All of theater is basically a nostalgia game. Shows and Operas have been playing for hundreds of years, and that's fine. Even something like "Lion King" is a not-so-subtle replay of the incredibly traditional Shakespearean play "Hamlet".
And plays like Peter Pan were going on for decades before Disney's cartoon edition.
Sometimes, its nice to just lean into the nostalgia. A changed song or two with a new set of actors is ... fine? Its how its been done for decades, or even centuries of theater.
I'm well aware most of the themes and plots in literature are an exercise in “Can I copy your homework?” “Sure, just change it up a bit so it doesn’t look obvious”.
But there's “original”, and then there's “are you even trying?”. We all know the current live action remakes were done for copyright extension reasons and little to no effort was put into refreshing up the stories, giving them a nice twist, nada.
If Sophocles was able to do retellings of ancient myths, which his audience already knew in full, and still could keep people interested in the play and even introduce enough innovations to earn the praise of his peers, then so can we even if we start from a material that's not truly original.
Actually, Lion King is a testament Disney knows how to do this. When it came out, nobody was saying “This movie is trash. It's just Hamlet with talking animals”, even though when you're told you can clearly see it takes lots of themes and character archetypes from said play. But it also changed things up a bit to warrant being it’s own thing, and praised accordingly.
Treasure Planet was one of the best animated Disney movies of the early 21st century (and arguably, of all time) and the story could hardly be called original. It's what the movie built on top of that, including the experimental seamless union of animation styles, that made it great. But it was a comercial flop (more of a self-fulfilled prophecy with its release date), so the mouse said nevermore.
Its how its been done for decades, or even centuries of theater.
Trying to compare mediums like animation movies to theatrical plays is bound to make for some strange comparisons. With movies if I want to take a stroll down memory lane I can just replay the old ones, even show them to my kids for them to see what I liked when I was their age.
On the other hand, it's in the very nature of theatre to redo the same plays over and over by one same company, sometimes in an itinerant fashion sometimes not. Because it's a live spectacle, that's the only way for new audiences to actually watch the play.
Actually, Lion King is a testament Disney knows how to do this. When it came out, nobody was saying “This movie is trash. It’s just Hamlet with talking animals”, even though when you’re told you can clearly see it takes lots of themes and character archetypes from said play. But it also changed things up a bit to warrant being it’s own thing, and praised accordingly.
One more thing (I'm making a new post because I forgot about this point a few days ago...)
All the parts that weren't stolen from Hamlet were stolen from the 1966 Japanese-anime "Kimba the White Lion". Which were basically the animal parts. Simba himself is damn near identical to a golden-fur'd Kimba.
The actually unique story, which Disney had to pour tons-and-tons of money into to actually get done, was Pocahontas. But as we all know, Lion King made more money, so Disney learned its lesson.
Uniqueness / new stories don't sell as well as you think they do. Unfortunately. Its a lot easier to take designs from 30+ years ago (ie: a 1990s cartoon stealing a successful style from a 1960s anime) than to invent a new style.
Trying to compare mediums like animation movies to theatrical plays is bound to make for some strange comparisons. With movies if I want to take a stroll down memory lane I can just replay the old ones, even show them to my kids for them to see what I liked when I was their age. On the other hand, it’s in the very nature of theatre to redo the same plays over and over by one same company, sometimes in an itinerant fashion sometimes not. Because it’s a live spectacle, that’s the only way for new audiences to actually watch the play.
Except you know as much as I do that “The Great Gatsby” and “A Star Is Born” is remade every 20 to 30ish years. That’s well within movie/cinema tradition.
When I look at the good remakes, like Aladdin, I can easily point out that all the songs have changed significantly. Will Smith is more of a rapper than a singer. As such, the Genie songs were closer to rap. And that’s an interesting change.
The stunts in the live-action version of Aladdin are real. The actor they chose was an expert parkour guy with incredible moves: able to leap, roll, climb, and descend on-par with Jackie Chan. These stunts hit in a way that a cartoon-movie could never do.
Finally: each Live-action remake is ~2 hours of runtime rather than ~1h 30m. There’s at least 30-additional minutes of script in all of them. Its not always used effectively, but I think its safe to say that Cinderella, Aladdin, and The Little Mermaid all did a good job with the additional 30-minutes. (Other movies: Dumbo or Mulan, did not do a good job).
A lot of people seem to think The Little Mermaid is doing quite well and if you're just reading the headlines from all the major reporting groups I could see why. If you look at the box office numbers, it is a different story. Many sources state the break-even point for it to be north of $500 million and after almost a month in theaters it still hasn't made the mark.
Marvel, Star Wars, Pixar, and their animation studio have produced a lot of content since 2020 with most of it losing money, barely breaking even, being critically panned, or having terrible viewership. Disney is in turmoil financially and it's clear that their current pool of talent isn't delivering what fans want to see. Elemental just released to the worst opening weekend for a Pixar movie ever. They need some changes to right the ship. Chopping some live actions from the line up may be something we see if they dry up as a major cash source as is indicated by The Little Mermaid.
Honest question, what is Disney being in financial turmoil based on? They beat/met expected EPS (earnings per share) three of the last four quarters. They are more than a TV/streaming/movie making business. They have LOADS of assets. They report losing money on streaming, but if you look back they didn’t expect streaming services to be profitable until 2024. it looks to me like Disney is and will be fine financially.
You're right. I'm only referring to their movie and streaming service revenue. From the constant losses on movies and the fact that they have lost millions of Disney plus subscribers for 2 quarters in a row, I don't see that service even being profitable by that 2024 expectation. I'm sure the writer strike will further hamper their ability to produce content. I don't see more people signing up for a service that is shedding subs and offering little new content.
I wish there was a larger fraction of artists out there doing respectful, earnest, creative or inspired things with these works going into the public domain.
But I understand the notion that Disney has not worked to earn those good graces.
But it’s public domain now, can’t the public have these things without perverting them?
Maybe that’s a reason copy write extension has been argued so hard for, for so long.
Maybe both sides are equally bad and there are no winners?
As a citizen with access to this work I don’t wish to see any perversions of it, I hope there will be people out there who seek to do good things with it, and they’re just drowned out by the angry mob of repressed Disney rule 34 creators (self corrected from the aptly put creatures).
I think that’s going to happen once the spite burns out. This character has kinda become the symbol of a denial of culture for corporate greed. And I don’t think that he’ll ever be the real icon of what becomes more common. I suspect in the mischievous cartoon character we’ll wind up with a lot of interesting takes on bugs bunny when we can and that should be fun.
But that’s not where I think we’re really stunted. A hundred years ago it was 28 years copyright automatically and could be extended another 28 to 56. That means this year we’d be getting content from 1968 that’s maintained and 1996 that isn’t. That means everything from the 1920s would not only be in the public domain, some stuff that’s created using 1920s public domain content would be too. It would mean that the lord of the rings would’ve been in the public domain for a decade now. And it’s characters and content like that that I think is where public domain really shines. We’ve already seen it with fanfic and with characters like Sherlock Holmes.
So yeah, give it a few years, let people’s anger die down and let something they love fall into the public domain and I think you’ll at the very least see the love that can come from public domain.
Perversion is subjective. But nothing, especially in the case of Disney is truly wholly 100% original these days. Everything is derivative of something else. A recombination or a slightly different mix. That has been the cornerstone of human culture for millennia. The problem with copyright is that it’s stifles human culture.
As we all celebrate Mickey mouse finally entering the public domain 50 years later than he should have. Disney now controls and owns the lion share of modern popular culture in many ways. They should be broken apart. Well honestly they never should have been allowed to get so big in the first place. And are a threat to society as a whole.
disney
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.