I'm curious about that, actually. I may be giving Exxon 'scientists' too much credit for chipping in ideas to the original attraction. Honestly I don't remember the original that well (perhaps I should try to request it on here again ... and stay awake through it). I definitely agree they would have had veto power over what could and could not be said, though, which makes sense to me if they were footing the bill. For the record, though, I didn't mean so much 'oil companies are evil' as I did that it would seem more obviously short-sighted/one-sided to have Exxon do it now that energy and energy production with fossil fuels are more of a household topic. However, you're right to point out the oil crisis, which I hadn't considered (and I defer to your knowledge on that one. I was too young to have an opinion on much of anything in 82.)Captain Schnemo wrote:I don't think Exxon lent any particular expertise to the attraction. I doubt they actually wrote the script, they probably just had a hand in directing it...and of course they had veto power, so there were probably rules about what could be said. We already knew oil companies were evil in 1982. It should have been fresh in our minds after the oil crisis of the 70s.
I don't think they need it anymore, no, particularly since I think it'd be hard to find a sponsor to do it (as you say, maybe BP, but I'd be surprised). Frankly, I'd be surprised if Disney wanted to do anything to cast fossil fuel-type companies in a bad light, or really get involved in the politics of the global warming/climate change thing at all. It's kind of a tricky pavilion now, in that respect, I think.Captain Schnemo wrote:Anyway, I don't think you need an energy company involved in the process at all. All you need are some decent researchers willing to investigate the state of the art. If the show is dynamic enough, it shouldn't be too hard to find some company looking to build up a green reputation. You could maaaaybe get BP to own up to some truths, but getting them involved would probably just complicate the process.
More than that; they're not even as pirate-y as they were when I was a kid. No more pirates chasing ladies. No more "have you set your eyes on a bewitching maiden" he'd be willing to "share". And these are freakin' pirates they made clean up their acts. Sacking the town is a-okay but down with sexual harassment on the Spanish Main! It's always baffled me why "you ain't seen nothin' till you're down on a muffin" (that'd be out of Walk this Way, part that they do play on the ride, that is) and shooting lil' Buford got under the radar but pirates needed to be sanitized.Captain Schnemo wrote:Pirates have been the topic of children's adventure stories for years, but they left out the details of how they all had syphilis and such.
I dunno about that. The height restriction on RnR is 48 inches. An 'average height/weight chart' puts that around ... 6 to 8 years for a boy (as the outer percentiles). I'm pretty sure when I was 6 to 8 years (maybe a little older as I'm a girlCheshire Cat wrote:yodiwan1 has brought up a good point... if someone is tall enough to ride RnR, then they are probably old enough to hear those lyrics. Granted, there are probably some extreme cases of advanced growth and over-protective parents, but hey.
) my parents wouldn't have been letting me listen to Aerosmith, and they weren't overprotective by any means. It doesn't really seem to fit with the type of entertainment Disney would normally present for that age group either (though obviously RnR isn't targeted at kids - that's just the discussion at hand). On the other hand, I suppose to be fair, it's hard to understand what Steven Tyler is ever saying. *shrug*I agree, though, in the grand scheme of things they probably picked a group with enough generic mass appeal to offset the unsavory factor they bring with them. It's a lot better than Celine Dion's Wailocoaster.
