Since the topic of Disney and its pricing have been discussed on occasion around these parts, I thought this opinion piece might be of interest.
21 Royal Street, previously a private dining experience for Club 33 members, is now open to any member of the general public with $15,000 burning a hole in their pocket. (Counts change in pocket, does not come close.)
I was all into it until the author brought up sexuality and race. Ugh.
I was at full-on eye roll long before he got into that after reading his forensic analysis where he acts as if he's caught Disney trying to pull off some nefarious scam because he can't quite reconcile his interpretation of what an event like that should cost. He talks out of both sides of his mouth early on by acknowledging that it was about the money when Walt was around and then a paragraph later acts as if they're the devil because their pricing for the middle to upper middle class. I almost screamed when he suggested that the worker in the picture was wearing "negligee". What a dumbass.
I guess I was reading the first part differently as I took it as him saying Disney was looking to reprice and that's ok. The comment about her dress was stupid and I stopped reading not long after that.
The message may be perceived by some audiences as both sexist and racist.
I hate to admit that he's right about this, but in the New Age Of Overthinking To The Point Where Offense Can (And Likely Will) Be Taken To EVERYTHING®, he is. The question is, would anyone have perceived such if they had just seen the pictures without reading the article?
Probably. Because NAOOTTPWOC(ALW)BTTE®.
Yeah, admittedly he put that in my head and now I can't un-see it.
See, even after he put it in my head, I can't see it. I can't look at those pictures and think, "yes, that's sexist and racist." (And holy living ****, in what universe is that dress akin to a negligee?)
I suppose I could look at any photo and pick out all the things that are "wrong" with it. Difference is, I'd be doing it ironically to illustrate how asinine it is, not to play social justice warrior.
I read the MiceChat comments so you don't have to :-)
Several people have said they're just not seeing the sexist/racist in that photo; no one has commented that they agree.
He states the dress is like a negligee except for the really long sleeves, so.... no.
And the host in his sharp suit is Black. Can you imagine a company strategically planning what images to use in their print and social media? Well, I'll be- that must be something new.
As for whether anyone would bite? Ok, the Stufflebeans in from Oklahoma? No. But who? If I only knew for sure there were all kinds of rich folks and celebrities in La La Land I could tell you.
I guess I was reading the first part differently as I took it as him saying Disney was looking to reprice and that's ok.
I can see that. This guy is far from the worst of the Disney fan boy writers, but there's always just a hint of suggestion that Disney is somehow wrong when it comes to how they deal with demand in his pieces.
I always joke that I'm so far left that I'm left-handed, and I don't get the race and sexism thing for this either. Admittedly, I didn't read the article because I could care less about an experience that I'll never have and think is ridiculous to even bother with, but I looked at the pictures. I saw a well dressed man in a suit and a woman wearing a classic understated "little black dress". We have so much more to worry about in this day and age. This dude needs to chill.
I always joke that I'm so far left that I'm left-handed
I could care less about an experience that I'll never have and think is ridiculous to even bother with
Not sure you're as far left as you think you are, otherwise you'd expect Disney to give this experience to you for free.
And thats why you're on my favorite poster list.
I really hate the freeloader-Dem thing, but that was funny, I gotta say. Damn. *grin*
This turned up in the commens on the article...
"In a just world, anyone who would squander $15,000 on a single meal, while other people are starving, should have the money taken away from them and given to someone responsible enough to handle it."
Apparently, squandering money on park admissions and hotel stays and transportation to and from the park is OK, but too much money spent on a meal is too much to bear.
^ The "how can you even think of enjoying such luxury when there are starving homeless people" and the "we should take away your money and give it to someone who deserves it more than you" arguments. I'm so sick of that crap.
Agreed. Everyone acts in their own best interest, spending their money where they like.
What struck me about that comment was the professed concern for people who are starving being expressed on a website about a purely discretionary hobby: visiting a theme park.
Wouldn't be the first time. I've seen comments on facebook Mean Streak RMC speculation pointing out how many homeless people could be helped with the money spent to build the coaster so I pointed out that it helps prevent homelessness by allowing the people paid to construct and design it to pay for their mortgage payments and rent. Got no response...
Well, you did go ahead and introduce facts into the conversation :-)
Disney does it again, pricing itself out of the middle class by raising admission and parking prices.
Note to Disney park fans: if you think $20 is too much to pay for parking at Disneyland, you probably don't want to go to Chicago's Museum of Science and Industry.
You must be logged in to post