Baron-You're right about the vacuums!!

[HB2K]

Matt-

There's a huge difference in correcting the hat mistake vs. correcting the reduced services mistake.

The company isn't fixing one investment by making another if they restore services such as hours, maintenance, etc. The only "cost" is the savings the cuts created in the first place.

The hat cost money to install, and it's going to cost money to remove. Considering the company's reluctance to spend any money to actually BUILD something, I find it very unlikely that they would spend money to remove something. The only hole in my arguement would be Journey....

 

[manning]

Landbaron

What's Phil Holmes phone number??

I won't tell anyone!!

 

[raidermatt]

Okay. It's subjective whether we like it or not, but the decision to create it and then where to place it was objectively wrong?

Again, you're definitions of objective and subjective are confusing me, my friend.

Point taken.

If one accepts the idea that the concepts that went into designing MGM's entry, including the view of the Theatre, forced perspective, etc, etc, are "right", then the decision to place the hat there was "wrong". However, you are right that accepting those concepts as the way Disney "should" do things is subjective.

The idea that it clashes with the concepts used in designing that area of the park may not be 100% objective, but its close enough.

Whether one likes it anyway, regardless of whether it "fits" or not, is completely subjective, I agree.

Just curious, Scoop, what exactly do you think the reasoning for the design and placement were, and how do you view that process as "right"? (Keeping in mind that this all happened long before the recent 'shift' in WDW's direction you have stated has taken place.)

 

[raidermatt]

The hat cost money to install, and it's going to cost money to remove. Considering the company's reluctance to spend any money to actually BUILD something, I find it very unlikely that they would spend money to remove something. The only hole in my arguement would be Journey....

I don't disagree that it would be less likely to happen... just that if it could be "proven" that the removal would be a benefit (similar to shuttering an attraction and removing the inner workings), it could happen.

Of course, I'm also sure there would be some politics involved, since whoever championed the BAH in the first place would not want to admit a mistake, if they are even still around. (That's all predicated on enough complaints coming in, and someone actually bothering to translate that into lost revenue or increased expense)

 

[mytmouse]

Originally posted by JeffH
.
When I go to WDW, I have a tendency to be a cleaner, more thoughtful person, not piggy and thoughtless. [/B]

I tend to be more on the Kermit side!!!!