I think it really sucks. There's so much friggin' room in WDW, to purposely build ugly stuff you can see from inside a park that put so much thought into its architecture is really insulting.MansionButler wrote:What are your thoughts on the Swan infringing upon the World Showcase skyline?
As for the big argument about who, specifically, is to blame, I don't really care about that. A bunch of people with limited information presenting their theories about which lawyers said what and what was said inside some boardroom they've never seen doesn't really interest me. Ultimately, the buck stops with Eisner and that's that.
I was hoping some of the "inside baseball" talk would be revealing, but really it's just a bunch of people venting at those they don't like and defending those they are personally attached to (but are also part of the problem).
I'd be happy with much less of that, and much more critical analysis of the end result. The (extremely thin) premise of the blog is that Disney will react in some (positive) way to articles written on a blog that a handful of hardcore Disney nerds reads. I can believe it is possible that they might consider ideas about attractions that work and those that are lackluster, but I can't imagine the corporate structure would be the slightest bit interested in the ramblings of a bunch of wounded ex-employees who resort to namecalling and irrationally attack those that basically agree with them.
I think the Epcot blog is much, much better. He's a much more rational person who knows how to response to criticism.
Frankly, if I'm reading articles like that, I don't want to have to consider the sanity of the authors, I just want to consider them on the basis of their content.