Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 103 (click to see context) from:
* From a Watsonian perspective, how do you explain the costume characters sizes, particularly the ones that are clearly larger than life? All the characters are the size of adult humans or larger, even if they are smaller in their cartoons. I know in some cases there is an explanation for this. For example, there is a place where guests meet and interact with Tinker Bell where the guests are supposed to be shrunk down. Same thing with guests in Toy Story Land. But sometimes, there seems to be no real explanation as to why the characters are much larger than their film counterparts. For example, how would you explain a giant Chip and Dale walking among the guests, besides the fact that they are really people in costumes? I can see kids asking something like, "Why are they so big?" or "I thought they were smaller than that." It's also not surprising many of the characters scare certain children.
to:
* From a Watsonian perspective, how do you explain the costume characters sizes, particularly the ones that are clearly larger than life? All the characters are the size of adult humans or larger, even if they are smaller in their cartoons. I know in some cases there is an explanation for this. For example, there is a place where guests meet and interact with Tinker Bell where the guests are supposed to be shrunk down. Same thing with guests in Toy Story Land. But sometimes, there seems to be no real explanation as to why the characters are much larger than their film counterparts. For example, how would you explain a giant Chip and Dale walking among the guests, besides the fact that they are really people in costumes? I can see kids asking something like, "Why are they so big?" or "I thought they were smaller than that." It's also not surprising many of the characters scare certain children.children.
*Why was Mr. Toad's Wild Ride in Florida closed down, and Disney still shut it down even after all of that protesting the fans went through? Like, Disney fans literally made T-shirts, made angry parades throughout the parks, and sent letters to the company, yet Disney still closed it much to the fans' dismay. Why couldn't they cancel plans seeing how much people loved that ride? In fact, why did they replace it with Pooh in the first place, couldn't they have made that a separate ride? I mean, I searched all around the internet for the reason, but the best one I could find was that it was "too scary", but I've always found Pooh's Heffalump scene terrifying as a little girl, and yet that was the replacement? And the other reason I could find was that Mr. Toad isn't popular enough with kids, but that's not really that good of a reason, it could still advertise the Wind in the Willows book to people who think the ride is cool. I just don't know, this really bugs me a lot.
*Why was Mr. Toad's Wild Ride in Florida closed down, and Disney still shut it down even after all of that protesting the fans went through? Like, Disney fans literally made T-shirts, made angry parades throughout the parks, and sent letters to the company, yet Disney still closed it much to the fans' dismay. Why couldn't they cancel plans seeing how much people loved that ride? In fact, why did they replace it with Pooh in the first place, couldn't they have made that a separate ride? I mean, I searched all around the internet for the reason, but the best one I could find was that it was "too scary", but I've always found Pooh's Heffalump scene terrifying as a little girl, and yet that was the replacement? And the other reason I could find was that Mr. Toad isn't popular enough with kids, but that's not really that good of a reason, it could still advertise the Wind in the Willows book to people who think the ride is cool. I just don't know, this really bugs me a lot.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 103 (click to see context) from:
* From a Watsonian perspective, how do you explain the costume characters sizes, particularly the ones that are clearly larger than life? All the characters are the size of adult humans or larger, even if their characters are smaller in their cartoons. I know in some cases there is an explanation for this. For example, there is a place where guests meet and interact with Tinker Bell where the guests are supposed to be shrunk down. Same thing with guests in Toy Story Land. But sometimes, there seems to be no real explanation as to why the characters are much larger than their film counterparts. For example, how would you explain a giant Chip and Dale walking among the guests, besides the fact that they are really people in costumes? I can see kids asking something like, "Why are they so big?" or "I thought they were smaller than that." It's also not surprising many of the characters scare certain children.
to:
* From a Watsonian perspective, how do you explain the costume characters sizes, particularly the ones that are clearly larger than life? All the characters are the size of adult humans or larger, even if their characters they are smaller in their cartoons. I know in some cases there is an explanation for this. For example, there is a place where guests meet and interact with Tinker Bell where the guests are supposed to be shrunk down. Same thing with guests in Toy Story Land. But sometimes, there seems to be no real explanation as to why the characters are much larger than their film counterparts. For example, how would you explain a giant Chip and Dale walking among the guests, besides the fact that they are really people in costumes? I can see kids asking something like, "Why are they so big?" or "I thought they were smaller than that." It's also not surprising many of the characters scare certain children.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 103 (click to see context) from:
* From a Watsonian perspective, how do you explain the costume characters sizes, particularly the ones that are clearly larger than life? I know in some cases there is an explanation for this. For example, there is a place where guests meet and interact with Tinker Bell where the guests are supposed to be shrunk down. Same thing with guests in Toy Story Land. But sometimes, there seems to be no real explanation as to why the characters are much larger than their film counterparts. For example, how would you explain a giant Chip and Dale walking among the guests, besides the fact that they are really people in costumes? I can see kids asking something like, "Why are they so big?" or "I thought they were smaller than that." It's also not surprising many of the characters scare certain children.
to:
* From a Watsonian perspective, how do you explain the costume characters sizes, particularly the ones that are clearly larger than life? All the characters are the size of adult humans or larger, even if their characters are smaller in their cartoons. I know in some cases there is an explanation for this. For example, there is a place where guests meet and interact with Tinker Bell where the guests are supposed to be shrunk down. Same thing with guests in Toy Story Land. But sometimes, there seems to be no real explanation as to why the characters are much larger than their film counterparts. For example, how would you explain a giant Chip and Dale walking among the guests, besides the fact that they are really people in costumes? I can see kids asking something like, "Why are they so big?" or "I thought they were smaller than that." It's also not surprising many of the characters scare certain children.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 102 (click to see context) from:
*** That's a new development, and presumably complex and expensive--worthwhile for *the* Mickey Mouse, not so worthwhile for every random character greeting with Flik or the White Rabbit. As for shows, those happen at a distance, so the lack of face movement doesn't stand out as much. There's also the matter of getting actors who can do the character's *voice*--again, something that can be done on an individual basis, but isn't really workable for every character in the park (and something that isn't an issue in the shows, which use prerecorded clips).
to:
*** That's a new development, and presumably complex and expensive--worthwhile for *the* Mickey Mouse, not so worthwhile for every random character greeting with Flik or the White Rabbit. As for shows, those happen at a distance, so the lack of face movement doesn't stand out as much. There's also the matter of getting actors who can do the character's *voice*--again, something that can be done on an individual basis, but isn't really workable for every character in the park (and something that isn't an issue in the shows, which use prerecorded clips).clips).
* From a Watsonian perspective, how do you explain the costume characters sizes, particularly the ones that are clearly larger than life? I know in some cases there is an explanation for this. For example, there is a place where guests meet and interact with Tinker Bell where the guests are supposed to be shrunk down. Same thing with guests in Toy Story Land. But sometimes, there seems to be no real explanation as to why the characters are much larger than their film counterparts. For example, how would you explain a giant Chip and Dale walking among the guests, besides the fact that they are really people in costumes? I can see kids asking something like, "Why are they so big?" or "I thought they were smaller than that." It's also not surprising many of the characters scare certain children.
* From a Watsonian perspective, how do you explain the costume characters sizes, particularly the ones that are clearly larger than life? I know in some cases there is an explanation for this. For example, there is a place where guests meet and interact with Tinker Bell where the guests are supposed to be shrunk down. Same thing with guests in Toy Story Land. But sometimes, there seems to be no real explanation as to why the characters are much larger than their film counterparts. For example, how would you explain a giant Chip and Dale walking among the guests, besides the fact that they are really people in costumes? I can see kids asking something like, "Why are they so big?" or "I thought they were smaller than that." It's also not surprising many of the characters scare certain children.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** I don't see why this is a problem. I went to the haunted gold mind, I barely survived... I went back again! Up until they changed it, every time I set foot on Star Tours I firmly believed that THIS time I was going to make it to Endor.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
** In fact, there had been multiple unmanned missions to Mars already when the ride was built.
Changed line(s) 99 (click to see context) from:
** Yes, but the characters DO speak on certain occasions (i.e. during shows, etc.). Also, from my knowledge, they’ve at least started developing technology in recent years allowing the characters to talk to guests. (And they’ve already done that with Mickey Mouse.)
to:
** Yes, but the characters DO speak on certain occasions (i.e. during shows, etc.). Also, from my knowledge, they’ve at least started developing technology in recent years allowing the characters to talk to guests. (And they’ve already done that with Mickey Mouse.))
*** That's a new development, and presumably complex and expensive--worthwhile for *the* Mickey Mouse, not so worthwhile for every random character greeting with Flik or the White Rabbit. As for shows, those happen at a distance, so the lack of face movement doesn't stand out as much. There's also the matter of getting actors who can do the character's *voice*--again, something that can be done on an individual basis, but isn't really workable for every character in the park (and something that isn't an issue in the shows, which use prerecorded clips).
*** That's a new development, and presumably complex and expensive--worthwhile for *the* Mickey Mouse, not so worthwhile for every random character greeting with Flik or the White Rabbit. As for shows, those happen at a distance, so the lack of face movement doesn't stand out as much. There's also the matter of getting actors who can do the character's *voice*--again, something that can be done on an individual basis, but isn't really workable for every character in the park (and something that isn't an issue in the shows, which use prerecorded clips).
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 25 (click to see context) from:
* Everytime I see Disney/{{Mulan}} in the parks, she's always in her kimono. The one she didn't even spend half of the movie wearing. Why not a different outfit? Is she just not recognizable without it?
to:
* Everytime I see Disney/{{Mulan}} WesternAnimation/{{Mulan}} in the parks, she's always in her kimono. The one she didn't even spend half of the movie wearing. Why not a different outfit? Is she just not recognizable without it?
Changed line(s) 37,38 (click to see context) from:
* Does anyone else wonder if the people managing the Theme parks have something against a couple Disney films? I notice that Disneyland isn't very nice to Disney/{{Mulan}}, since she's barely acknowledged at all. They clearly have something against many of their live-action films that aren't ''Film/MaryPoppins''. Maybe they think the kids wouldn't recognize them, and the PeripheryDemographic of the costumed characters (e.g., people who don't like to meet them but like to see how the costumes were designed) isn't large enough to have people from less-popular Disney movies walking around? It would explain some absences, in addition to the fact that nobody probably wants to walk around dressed like Film/TheReluctantDragon or [[Disney/ThePrincessAndTheFrog Louis]]. But why the Mulan hate? I've been there in 2010 and 2011, and it seems almost like it's been put into CanonDiscontinuity. Heck, they even put Rapunzel's hair in the park and added Tiana to the Fantasmic show.
** This Troper is convinced that the characters have become nothing more than walking advertisements for their popular/newer movies. If they can't make money off of it, why bother trying, right? *facepalm* For the record, This Troper is a huge fan of ''Disney/TheHunchbackOfNotreDame'' and has been terribly embittered by the lack of characters from that movie.
** This Troper is convinced that the characters have become nothing more than walking advertisements for their popular/newer movies. If they can't make money off of it, why bother trying, right? *facepalm* For the record, This Troper is a huge fan of ''Disney/TheHunchbackOfNotreDame'' and has been terribly embittered by the lack of characters from that movie.
to:
* Does anyone else wonder if the people managing the Theme parks have something against a couple Disney films? I notice that Disneyland isn't very nice to Disney/{{Mulan}}, WesternAnimation/{{Mulan}}, since she's barely acknowledged at all. They clearly have something against many of their live-action films that aren't ''Film/MaryPoppins''. Maybe they think the kids wouldn't recognize them, and the PeripheryDemographic of the costumed characters (e.g., people who don't like to meet them but like to see how the costumes were designed) isn't large enough to have people from less-popular Disney movies walking around? It would explain some absences, in addition to the fact that nobody probably wants to walk around dressed like Film/TheReluctantDragon or [[Disney/ThePrincessAndTheFrog [[WesternAnimation/ThePrincessAndTheFrog Louis]]. But why the Mulan hate? I've been there in 2010 and 2011, and it seems almost like it's been put into CanonDiscontinuity. Heck, they even put Rapunzel's hair in the park and added Tiana to the Fantasmic show.
** This Troper is convinced that the characters have become nothing more than walking advertisements for their popular/newer movies. If they can't make money off of it, why bother trying, right? *facepalm* For the record, This Troper is a huge fan of''Disney/TheHunchbackOfNotreDame'' ''WesternAnimation/TheHunchbackOfNotreDame'' and has been terribly embittered by the lack of characters from that movie.
** This Troper is convinced that the characters have become nothing more than walking advertisements for their popular/newer movies. If they can't make money off of it, why bother trying, right? *facepalm* For the record, This Troper is a huge fan of
Changed line(s) 52,53 (click to see context) from:
* Why is it some characters from the movies ''don't'' appear at the parks anymore when they have appeared previously? From old videos that I have seen on Website/YouTube, I have seen that the parks have in fact used costumes of [[Disney/FunAndFancyFree Bongo and Lulubelle]], [[Disney/AliceInWonderland the March Hare]], [[Franchise/WinnieThePooh Owl]], [[Film/BedknobsAndBroomsticks King Leonidas]], [[Disney/TheGreatMouseDetective Basil and Ratigan]], [[Disney/OliverAndCompany Oliver and Dodger]], none of whom have appeared at the parks in recent years. So where are these costumes now?
** Blame PopCulturalOsmosis for that. These characters, and characters from their later 90s films like Disney/{{Hercules}} and [[Disney/TheHunchbackOfNotreDame Hunchback of Notre Dame]] simply don't MATTER to today's kids and aren't remembered by the current generation of parents, which is really confusing since they have characters from stuff nobody will care about in a few years like WesternAnimation/LittleEinsteins still walking about. TL;Dr version: They aren't as easy to milk merchandise out of, because Disney tends to forget some of their own Animated Canon stuff in favor of the more well-known Franchise/DisneyPrincess movies and fare, creating a vicious cycle that makes people only remember the Disney movies that are [[MerchandiseDriven merchandised]]. Maybe in a few years they'll have more of the forgotten Franchise/DisneyAnimatedCanon entries like Great Mouse Detective or Hunchback, but I sorta doubt that'll happen. Seems ''Franchise/KingdomHearts'' is really the only way to go for lovers of 90's Disney nostalgia.
** Blame PopCulturalOsmosis for that. These characters, and characters from their later 90s films like Disney/{{Hercules}} and [[Disney/TheHunchbackOfNotreDame Hunchback of Notre Dame]] simply don't MATTER to today's kids and aren't remembered by the current generation of parents, which is really confusing since they have characters from stuff nobody will care about in a few years like WesternAnimation/LittleEinsteins still walking about. TL;Dr version: They aren't as easy to milk merchandise out of, because Disney tends to forget some of their own Animated Canon stuff in favor of the more well-known Franchise/DisneyPrincess movies and fare, creating a vicious cycle that makes people only remember the Disney movies that are [[MerchandiseDriven merchandised]]. Maybe in a few years they'll have more of the forgotten Franchise/DisneyAnimatedCanon entries like Great Mouse Detective or Hunchback, but I sorta doubt that'll happen. Seems ''Franchise/KingdomHearts'' is really the only way to go for lovers of 90's Disney nostalgia.
to:
* Why is it some characters from the movies ''don't'' appear at the parks anymore when they have appeared previously? From old videos that I have seen on Website/YouTube, I have seen that the parks have in fact used costumes of [[Disney/FunAndFancyFree [[WesternAnimation/FunAndFancyFree Bongo and Lulubelle]], [[Disney/AliceInWonderland [[WesternAnimation/AliceInWonderland the March Hare]], [[Franchise/WinnieThePooh Owl]], [[Film/BedknobsAndBroomsticks King Leonidas]], [[Disney/TheGreatMouseDetective [[WesternAnimation/TheGreatMouseDetective Basil and Ratigan]], [[Disney/OliverAndCompany [[WesternAnimation/OliverAndCompany Oliver and Dodger]], none of whom have appeared at the parks in recent years. So where are these costumes now?
** Blame PopCulturalOsmosis for that. These characters, and characters from their later 90s films likeDisney/{{Hercules}} WesternAnimation/{{Hercules}} and [[Disney/TheHunchbackOfNotreDame [[WesternAnimation/TheHunchbackOfNotreDame Hunchback of Notre Dame]] simply don't MATTER to today's kids and aren't remembered by the current generation of parents, which is really confusing since they have characters from stuff nobody will care about in a few years like WesternAnimation/LittleEinsteins still walking about. TL;Dr version: They aren't as easy to milk merchandise out of, because Disney tends to forget some of their own Animated Canon stuff in favor of the more well-known Franchise/DisneyPrincess movies and fare, creating a vicious cycle that makes people only remember the Disney movies that are [[MerchandiseDriven merchandised]]. Maybe in a few years they'll have more of the forgotten Franchise/DisneyAnimatedCanon entries like Great Mouse Detective or Hunchback, but I sorta doubt that'll happen. Seems ''Franchise/KingdomHearts'' is really the only way to go for lovers of 90's Disney nostalgia.
** Blame PopCulturalOsmosis for that. These characters, and characters from their later 90s films like
Changed line(s) 56 (click to see context) from:
* On a similar subject, what ''does'' Disney do with the outdated versions of the costumes they've since updated, like [[Disney/PeterPan Mr. Smee]], [[Franchise/WinnieThePooh Pooh]], and [[WesternAnimation/DuckTales1987 Scrooge McDuck]]?
to:
* On a similar subject, what ''does'' Disney do with the outdated versions of the costumes they've since updated, like [[Disney/PeterPan [[WesternAnimation/PeterPan Mr. Smee]], [[Franchise/WinnieThePooh Pooh]], and [[WesternAnimation/DuckTales1987 Scrooge McDuck]]?
Changed line(s) 66 (click to see context) from:
* Disney/TheLionKing is Disney's highest-grossing animated movie. Why isn't there a ride or anything for it? Rafiki would be a great face/fur character, if they did the costume right. Even just a Pride Rock area would be cool.
to:
* Disney/TheLionKing WesternAnimation/TheLionKing is Disney's highest-grossing animated movie. Why isn't there a ride or anything for it? Rafiki would be a great face/fur character, if they did the costume right. Even just a Pride Rock area would be cool.
Changed line(s) 73 (click to see context) from:
*** Even more egregiously, Mowgli from ''Disney/TheJungleBook''--set in India for the probably five people who don't know--is placed in the Australia section (at least the last time this troper went on it).
to:
*** Even more egregiously, Mowgli from ''Disney/TheJungleBook''--set ''WesternAnimation/TheJungleBook''--set in India for the probably five people who don't know--is placed in the Australia section (at least the last time this troper went on it).
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 56 (click to see context) from:
* On a similar subject, what ''does'' Disney do with the outdated versions of the costumes they've since updated, like [[Disney/PeterPan Mr. Smee]], [[Franchise/WinnieThePooh Pooh]], and [[WesternAnimation/DuckTales Scrooge McDuck]]?
to:
* On a similar subject, what ''does'' Disney do with the outdated versions of the costumes they've since updated, like [[Disney/PeterPan Mr. Smee]], [[Franchise/WinnieThePooh Pooh]], and [[WesternAnimation/DuckTales [[WesternAnimation/DuckTales1987 Scrooge McDuck]]?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 67 (click to see context) from:
** There's the [[CrowningMusicOfAwesome awesome]] Festival of the Lion King at Animal Kingdom, and Rafiki shows up around the parks prettty often as a fur character, as does Timon.
to:
** There's the [[CrowningMusicOfAwesome awesome]] SugarWiki/{{Awesome|Music}} Festival of the Lion King at Animal Kingdom, and Rafiki shows up around the parks prettty often as a fur character, as does Timon.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** This troper's memory might be faulty, but I also recall an animatronic show in the Magic Kingdom - Mickey's Philharmagic has long since taken its spot
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** Not sure where it says that on Wikipedia - there isn't a relevant remark on either the ride's page or on the page for ''Animal Kingdom'', which I presume means that it was removed at some point. At any rate, planning for the park began shortly after the opening of the ''MGM Studios'' park, which would have been sometime in 1989 or 1990. When the ride itself saw its first planning is unclear, as is when ''Carnotaurus'' was selected as the primary "villain" of the ride. ''Carnotaurus'' would have been more recently discovered than the original antagonist of the ride - the classic ''Tyrannosaurus rex'' - and in Hollywood terms would have been considered very recent, since pop culture always seems to be slow to adopt new paleontological discoveries.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** I see two possible explanations: 1) We don't know what degree of precision the time-travel technology in the ride has. The difference between the mid-Cretaceous and the late Cretaceous period is tens of millions of years, and it's not clear if the machines are capable of being so precise as to differentiate between individual years, let alone days or hours, in time periods over 65 million years in the past. 2) Temporal paradoxes might ensue if a dinosaur is removed from the timeline before it dies; what happens to possible offspring that dinosaur might eventually have? By snagging a dinosaur from the timeline shortly before it would be expected to die anyways, those paradoxes might not be as much of an issue. Of course, the ride goes into neither of these possibilities and doesn't really address the issue, but it does have only so much time to touch on everything, and time travel as a plot device inevitably seems to cause problems in most works anyways when you think about it too much.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 1 (click to see context) from:
* To fully embrace the magic of the Disney Theme Parks (especially the ones in style of the Magic Kingdom), you should believe that everything is real. Big Thunder Mountain is a real gold mine, you really save the universe with Buzz Lightyear, The Haunted Mansion is really cursed and so on... But even if you get pass by all the TimeTravel involved, you still have to suspend your disbelief and ignore the crowds and all the safety spiels. And even then the illusion crumbles as soon as you ride a second time.
to:
* To fully embrace the magic of the Disney Theme Parks (especially the ones in style of the Magic Kingdom), you should believe that everything is real. Big Thunder Mountain is a real gold mine, you really save the universe with Buzz Lightyear, The Haunted Mansion is really cursed and so on... But even if you get pass past by all the TimeTravel involved, you still have to suspend your disbelief and ignore the crowds and all the safety spiels. And even then the illusion crumbles as soon as you ride a second time.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Changed line(s) 36 (click to see context) from:
** Several reasons I would imagine. '''1)''' Studio Ghibli is completely independent from Disney - they'd have to get permission from it. '''2)''' Studio Ghibli could probably sponsor it; however they probably aren't in the financial state to do so. '''3)''' Space. Probably in Florida, since they have a lot of breathing room but in California? There's really not a lot of room. '''4)''' The omnipresent UnpleasableFanbase.
to:
** Several reasons I would imagine. '''1)''' Studio Ghibli is completely independent from Disney - they'd have to get permission from it. '''2)''' Studio Ghibli could probably sponsor it; however they probably aren't in the financial state to do so. '''3)''' Space. Probably in Florida, since they have a lot of breathing room but in California? There's really not a lot of room. '''4)''' The omnipresent UnpleasableFanbase.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 95 (click to see context) from:
** They would either need to have the person in the suit speak while the mouth doesn’t move, which would seem low effort, and potentially creepy, or they could have the mouth move. If they made the mouth move, they could try to just have it move up and down, which would also seem low effort and kind of creepy, or have the mouth be fully articulated, which would be impressive, but incredibly difficult for multiple reasons, such as costs, and synchronising it with what the actor says, and the weight of the stuff, making it incredibly impractical. It’s easier to have them not speak and instead have them use body language, and have a cast member help them out with anything that would require speaking.
to:
** They would either need to have the person in the suit speak while the mouth doesn’t move, which would seem low effort, and potentially creepy, or they could have the mouth move. If they made the mouth move, they could try to just have it move up and down, which would also seem low effort and kind of creepy, or have the mouth be fully articulated, which would be impressive, but incredibly difficult for multiple reasons, such as costs, and synchronising it with what the actor says, and the weight of the stuff, making it incredibly impractical. It’s easier to have them not speak and instead have them use body language, and have a cast member help them out with anything that would require speaking.speaking.
** Yes, but the characters DO speak on certain occasions (i.e. during shows, etc.). Also, from my knowledge, they’ve at least started developing technology in recent years allowing the characters to talk to guests. (And they’ve already done that with Mickey Mouse.)
** Yes, but the characters DO speak on certain occasions (i.e. during shows, etc.). Also, from my knowledge, they’ve at least started developing technology in recent years allowing the characters to talk to guests. (And they’ve already done that with Mickey Mouse.)
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 94 (click to see context) from:
* Why are the face characters allowed to speak while the fur characters (in general) aren't?
to:
* Why are the face characters allowed to speak while the fur characters (in general) aren't?aren't?
**They would either need to have the person in the suit speak while the mouth doesn’t move, which would seem low effort, and potentially creepy, or they could have the mouth move. If they made the mouth move, they could try to just have it move up and down, which would also seem low effort and kind of creepy, or have the mouth be fully articulated, which would be impressive, but incredibly difficult for multiple reasons, such as costs, and synchronising it with what the actor says, and the weight of the stuff, making it incredibly impractical. It’s easier to have them not speak and instead have them use body language, and have a cast member help them out with anything that would require speaking.
**They would either need to have the person in the suit speak while the mouth doesn’t move, which would seem low effort, and potentially creepy, or they could have the mouth move. If they made the mouth move, they could try to just have it move up and down, which would also seem low effort and kind of creepy, or have the mouth be fully articulated, which would be impressive, but incredibly difficult for multiple reasons, such as costs, and synchronising it with what the actor says, and the weight of the stuff, making it incredibly impractical. It’s easier to have them not speak and instead have them use body language, and have a cast member help them out with anything that would require speaking.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 93 (click to see context) from:
** Supposedly, it's the first manned mission. They sent robots in ahead of you to build it.
to:
** Supposedly, it's the first manned mission. They sent robots in ahead of you to build it.it.
*Why are the face characters allowed to speak while the fur characters (in general) aren't?
*Why are the face characters allowed to speak while the fur characters (in general) aren't?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 37,38 (click to see context) from:
* Does anyone else wonder if the people managing the Theme parks have something against a couple Disney films? I notice that Disneyland isn't very nice to Disney/{{Mulan}}, since she's barely acknowledged at all. They clearly have something against many of their live-action films that aren't ''Film/MaryPoppins''. Maybe they think the kids wouldn't recognize them, and the PeripheryDemographic of the costumed characters (eg, people who don't like to meet them but like to see how the costumes were designed) isn't large enough to have people from less-popular Disney movies walking around? It would explain some absences, in addition to the fact that nobody probably wants to walk around dressed like Disney/TheReluctantDragon or [[Disney/ThePrincessAndTheFrog Louis]]. But why the Mulan hate? I've been there in 2010 and 2011, and it seems almost like it's been put into CanonDiscontinuity. Heck, they even put Rapunzel's hair in the park and added Tiana to the Fantasmic show.
** This Troper is convinced that the characters have become nothing more than walking advertisements for their popular/newer movies. If they can't make money off of it, why bother trying, right? *facepalm* For the record, This Troper is a huge fan of Disney/TheHunchbackOfNotreDame and has been terribly embittered by the lack of characters from that movie.
** This Troper is convinced that the characters have become nothing more than walking advertisements for their popular/newer movies. If they can't make money off of it, why bother trying, right? *facepalm* For the record, This Troper is a huge fan of Disney/TheHunchbackOfNotreDame and has been terribly embittered by the lack of characters from that movie.
to:
* Does anyone else wonder if the people managing the Theme parks have something against a couple Disney films? I notice that Disneyland isn't very nice to Disney/{{Mulan}}, since she's barely acknowledged at all. They clearly have something against many of their live-action films that aren't ''Film/MaryPoppins''. Maybe they think the kids wouldn't recognize them, and the PeripheryDemographic of the costumed characters (eg, (e.g., people who don't like to meet them but like to see how the costumes were designed) isn't large enough to have people from less-popular Disney movies walking around? It would explain some absences, in addition to the fact that nobody probably wants to walk around dressed like Disney/TheReluctantDragon Film/TheReluctantDragon or [[Disney/ThePrincessAndTheFrog Louis]]. But why the Mulan hate? I've been there in 2010 and 2011, and it seems almost like it's been put into CanonDiscontinuity. Heck, they even put Rapunzel's hair in the park and added Tiana to the Fantasmic show.
** This Troper is convinced that the characters have become nothing more than walking advertisements for their popular/newer movies. If they can't make money off of it, why bother trying, right? *facepalm* For the record, This Troper is a huge fan ofDisney/TheHunchbackOfNotreDame ''Disney/TheHunchbackOfNotreDame'' and has been terribly embittered by the lack of characters from that movie.
** This Troper is convinced that the characters have become nothing more than walking advertisements for their popular/newer movies. If they can't make money off of it, why bother trying, right? *facepalm* For the record, This Troper is a huge fan of
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 53 (click to see context) from:
** Blame PopCulturalOsmosis for that. These characters, and characters from their later 90s films like Disney/{{Hercules}} and [[Disney/TheHunchbackOfNotreDame Hunchback of Notre Dame]] simply don't MATTER to today's kids and aren't remembered by the current generation of parents, which is really confusing since they have characters from stuff nobody will care about in a few years like WesternAnimation/LittleEinsteins still walking about. TL;Dr version: They aren't as easy to milk merchandise out of, because Disney tends to forget some of their own Animated Canon stuff in favor of the more well-known Franchise/DisneyPrincess movies and fare, creating a vicious cycle that makes people only remember the Disney movies that are [[MerchandiseDriven merchandised]]. Maybe in a few years they'll have more of the forgotten Franchise/DisneyAnimatedCanon entries like Great Mouse Detective or Hunchback, but I sorta doubt that'll happen. Seems KingdomHearts is really the only way to go for lovers of 90's Disney nostalgia.
to:
** Blame PopCulturalOsmosis for that. These characters, and characters from their later 90s films like Disney/{{Hercules}} and [[Disney/TheHunchbackOfNotreDame Hunchback of Notre Dame]] simply don't MATTER to today's kids and aren't remembered by the current generation of parents, which is really confusing since they have characters from stuff nobody will care about in a few years like WesternAnimation/LittleEinsteins still walking about. TL;Dr version: They aren't as easy to milk merchandise out of, because Disney tends to forget some of their own Animated Canon stuff in favor of the more well-known Franchise/DisneyPrincess movies and fare, creating a vicious cycle that makes people only remember the Disney movies that are [[MerchandiseDriven merchandised]]. Maybe in a few years they'll have more of the forgotten Franchise/DisneyAnimatedCanon entries like Great Mouse Detective or Hunchback, but I sorta doubt that'll happen. Seems KingdomHearts ''Franchise/KingdomHearts'' is really the only way to go for lovers of 90's Disney nostalgia.
Changed line(s) 60 (click to see context) from:
* Since ''KingdomHearts'' is really popular, why doesn't Disney put some characters from it at the Japan pavilion. I know their attempt at Sora failed because they made him a [[UncannyValley mask character]], but they could revive them as face characters - they'd probably be able to make convincing wigs for all the guys with AnimeHair, and meeting and greeting, say, Aqua or Riku would be fun for the PeripheryDemographic.
to:
* Since ''KingdomHearts'' ''Franchise/KingdomHearts'' is really popular, why doesn't Disney put some characters from it at the Japan pavilion. I know their attempt at Sora failed because they made him a [[UncannyValley mask character]], but they could revive them as face characters - they'd probably be able to make convincing wigs for all the guys with AnimeHair, and meeting and greeting, say, Aqua or Riku would be fun for the PeripheryDemographic.
Changed line(s) 62 (click to see context) from:
** I had wondered why as well, but chances are, there're licensing issues. Even though ''KingdomHearts'' makes heavy use of Disney, the other characters are Creator/SquareEnix's.
to:
** I had wondered why as well, but chances are, there're licensing issues. Even though ''KingdomHearts'' ''Kingdom Hearts'' makes heavy use of Disney, the other characters are Creator/SquareEnix's.
Changed line(s) 74 (click to see context) from:
** And where did you see KingdomHearts characters in that?
to:
** And where did you see KingdomHearts ''Kingdom Hearts'' characters in that?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 47 (click to see context) from:
** Those are both GeorgeLucas franchises. His partnership with Disney began with ''Film/CaptainEO'', and continued from there. Star Tours was supposed to be a ride for Disney's ''Film/TheBlackHole'', but the movie wasn't that popular, and the price for creating the attraction was too much. So, they turned to Lucas for help, and he let them use StarWars. The partnership helps bring in money for both parties involved. In fact, all rides at Disneyland used to be sponsored by some company or another.
to:
** Those are both GeorgeLucas Creator/GeorgeLucas franchises. His partnership with Disney began with ''Film/CaptainEO'', and continued from there. Star Tours was supposed to be a ride for Disney's ''Film/TheBlackHole'', but the movie wasn't that popular, and the price for creating the attraction was too much. So, they turned to Lucas for help, and he let them use StarWars. The partnership helps bring in money for both parties involved. In fact, all rides at Disneyland used to be sponsored by some company or another.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Changed line(s) 86 (click to see context) from:
* Why is the Alice In Wonderland ride out of order in terms of it's plot? I mean like is it for any actual reason or is it because TheyJustDidntCare?
to:
* Why is the Alice In Wonderland ride out of order in terms of it's plot? I mean like is it for any actual reason or is it because TheyJustDidntCare?plot?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 6 (click to see context) from:
** AcceptableBreaksFromReality. Think of it as "Reliving" your adventure.
to:
** AcceptableBreaksFromReality. Think of it as "Reliving" "reliving" your adventure.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 92 (click to see context) from:
** It's the training for the first -manned- mission.
to:
** It's the training for the first -manned- mission.mission.
** Supposedly, it's the first manned mission. They sent robots in ahead of you to build it.
** Supposedly, it's the first manned mission. They sent robots in ahead of you to build it.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 52 (click to see context) from:
* Why is it some characters from the movies ''don't'' appear at the parks anymore when they have appeared previously? From old videos that I have seen on Website/YouTube, I have seen that the parks have in fact used costumes of [[Disney/FunAndFancyFree Bongo and Lulubelle]], [[Disney/AliceInWonderland the March Hare]], [[Franchise/WinnieThePooh Owl]], [[BedknobsAndBroomsticks King Leonidas]], [[Disney/TheGreatMouseDetective Basil and Ratigan]], [[Disney/OliverAndCompany Oliver and Dodger]], none of whom have appeared at the parks in recent years. So where are these costumes now?
to:
* Why is it some characters from the movies ''don't'' appear at the parks anymore when they have appeared previously? From old videos that I have seen on Website/YouTube, I have seen that the parks have in fact used costumes of [[Disney/FunAndFancyFree Bongo and Lulubelle]], [[Disney/AliceInWonderland the March Hare]], [[Franchise/WinnieThePooh Owl]], [[BedknobsAndBroomsticks [[Film/BedknobsAndBroomsticks King Leonidas]], [[Disney/TheGreatMouseDetective Basil and Ratigan]], [[Disney/OliverAndCompany Oliver and Dodger]], none of whom have appeared at the parks in recent years. So where are these costumes now?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 46 (click to see context) from:
* What's with all the attractions that are based off franchises not owned by Disney, like IndianaJones and StarWars? They never had anything to do with that company throughout their respective histories. Sure some of the rides at the parks were original creations not derived from the studio's history, but I would never compare StarWars to something related to Disney.
to:
* What's with all the attractions that are based off franchises not owned by Disney, like IndianaJones ''Franchise/IndianaJones'' and StarWars? ''Franchise/StarWars''? They never had anything to do with that company throughout their respective histories. Sure some of the rides at the parks were original creations not derived from the studio's history, but I would never compare StarWars to something related to Disney.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 62 (click to see context) from:
** I had wondered why as well, but chances are, there're licensing issues. Even though ''KingdomHearts'' makes heavy use of Disney, the other characters are SquareEnix's.
to:
** I had wondered why as well, but chances are, there're licensing issues. Even though ''KingdomHearts'' makes heavy use of Disney, the other characters are SquareEnix's.Creator/SquareEnix's.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 53 (click to see context) from:
** Blame PopCulturalOsmosis for that. These characters, and characters from their later 90s films like Disney/{{Hercules}} and [[Disney/TheHunchbackOfNotreDame Hunchback of Notre Dame]] simply don't MATTER to today's kids and aren't remembered by the current generation of parents, which is really confusing since they have characters from stuff nobody will care about in a few years like LittleEinsteins still walking about. TL;Dr version: They aren't as easy to milk merchandise out of, because Disney tends to forget some of their own Animated Canon stuff in favor of the more well-known Franchise/DisneyPrincess movies and fare, creating a vicious cycle that makes people only remember the Disney movies that are [[MerchandiseDriven merchandised]]. Maybe in a few years they'll have more of the forgotten Franchise/DisneyAnimatedCanon entries like Great Mouse Detective or Hunchback, but I sorta doubt that'll happen. Seems KingdomHearts is really the only way to go for lovers of 90's Disney nostalgia.
to:
** Blame PopCulturalOsmosis for that. These characters, and characters from their later 90s films like Disney/{{Hercules}} and [[Disney/TheHunchbackOfNotreDame Hunchback of Notre Dame]] simply don't MATTER to today's kids and aren't remembered by the current generation of parents, which is really confusing since they have characters from stuff nobody will care about in a few years like LittleEinsteins WesternAnimation/LittleEinsteins still walking about. TL;Dr version: They aren't as easy to milk merchandise out of, because Disney tends to forget some of their own Animated Canon stuff in favor of the more well-known Franchise/DisneyPrincess movies and fare, creating a vicious cycle that makes people only remember the Disney movies that are [[MerchandiseDriven merchandised]]. Maybe in a few years they'll have more of the forgotten Franchise/DisneyAnimatedCanon entries like Great Mouse Detective or Hunchback, but I sorta doubt that'll happen. Seems KingdomHearts is really the only way to go for lovers of 90's Disney nostalgia.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 91 (click to see context) from:
* In "Mission Space": [[spoiler:If this is the first mission to Mars why is there a runway?]]
to:
* In "Mission Space": [[spoiler:If this is the first mission to Mars why is there a runway?]]runway?]]
**It's the training for the first -manned- mission.
**It's the training for the first -manned- mission.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** A habit this troper has noticed is that the most commonly featured Disney stories are the Grimms fairy tales characters. You see a lot of snow white, and beauty and the beast. But the more historical, or folktale ones are ignored much more. Hercules, pocahontas, mulan. All based off something that can legitimately offend somebody (not that this is the reasoning), and these ones are not featured nearly as prominently, if at all.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 90 (click to see context) from:
* In "Mission Space": [[spoiler:If this is the first mission to Mars why is there a spaceport?]]
to:
* In "Mission Space": [[spoiler:If this is the first mission to Mars why is there a spaceport?]]runway?]]
