Don't Worry, Be Happy

[Sarangel]

That's the title of Jim Hill's new column in which he addresses the reasons his columns focus so often on what Disney is doing wrong. One of the best comments in the article is

So that's why I do what I do. I'm going to continue to call Eisner & Co. on their behavior. Sure, if they do something good, I'll take time to talk about that too. But -- beyond that -- my job (as I see it) is to keep the spotlight tightly focused on the current Disney management team, to make that the public is kept aware that -- in spite of Mickey's ever present smile -- that all is not sweetness & light within Disney's Magic Kingdom.

I thought of DVC-Landbaron immediately.

Sarangel

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

I am shocked and surprised that no one else has posted on this thread. All those Hill bashers out there are strangely silent. And I wonder why.

Two thoughts:
First - It could be that they have simply given up. If this is true, I hope not. I would like to think that they had the courage of their convictions and stayed the course. Lord knows my first few posts were greeted… ah… well… shall we say… Less than enthusiastically.

Or Second - it could be that they believe him. And that they are starting to listen to his content. But if that were true, I'd also wish that they'd come out and say it. A little crow never hurt anybody!!

I thought of DVC-Landbaron immediately.

Thanks!! It's nice to be thought of. And while I'm a little upset at you beating me to the story and posting the link (Hill articles are MY job!!! ) I appreciate being remembered.

And I'm glad you thought of me in connection with a story such as this. Because the last article and this one really reflect, exactly, what I feel about Disney. And that fact is hard to convey sometimes when posting on these boards. It's hard to communicate the LOVE you have for Disney when you keep (admittedly) BASHING it. That's one of the reasons I don't like positive lists. I can probably draw up a list of MAGIC at least as good (if not better) than 95% of the members here. I therefore leave some threads alone. It is only where I perceive Disney's shortcomings that I enter into the fray. And lately that's a lot of the conversation!!!

Anyway thanks for the link Sarangel! I hope others read it and understand.

 

[HBK]

Landbaron....

I'm sitting here nodding my head reading your posts.....everything was right on the mark.

 

[All Aboard]

Or, 3, I can't friggin connect to laughingplace to read the dadgum article for some reason. Firewalls, indeed!

 

[YoHo]

I can't say I've never bashed hill (far from it) but I get a sense of editorialization that he adds and that lessens the impact for me. If Jim Hill is so smart he can open his own Theme Park.

So, Yes, I understand his position, but he shades things too much with opinion and we've seen in the past that he takes things at face value, before all the relevent facts are revealed.

 

[airlarry!]

DVC:

This article should be required reading for anyone about to bash Jim Hill. He says in two pages what the Rumor Boarders have been arguing about for since the start of the DIS.

I give Jim two thumbs way up for this one. Clear and succint, a little bit of history and a little smarmy, this article shows why he gets paid to do what he does, and why I write just for the fun of it.

All he is saying is what all of us should be saying-- that we love the Disney company for the pride it had in creating magic, not in creating shareholder wealth. <Insert your favorite Quote from Quotable Disney, DVC>

 

[Another Voice]

An interesting question is what do people consider “editorializing”. If someone were to write that ‘Mullholland Madness’ at California Adventure is “cheap” – people will accuse him of bias and making editorial comments. Yet, if someone says that ‘Atlantis’ as a wonderful movie and a prime example of Disney animation – is that not also reflecting a bias and making an editorial stand?

 

[ScroogesNephew]

Good reading.