Lounge of Tomorrow

Lounge of Tomorrow (http://74.208.121.111/LoT/index.php)
-   Disneyland and all things Disney (http://74.208.121.111/LoT/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Riding crop costumes go bye bye (http://74.208.121.111/LoT/showthread.php?t=2476)

Prudence 11-30-2005 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Not Afraid
Marceline, MO is about as Miswest as you can get. ;)

This is true!

I always imagined Main Street as sort of a live-action Music Man set.

One Grecian Urn!

Giant Chicken 11-30-2005 03:31 PM

hahahaha!!!! Pancakes to America....you are just insane.

Kevy Baby 11-30-2005 08:15 PM

I like big butts and I can not lie
You other brothers can't deny
That when a girl walks in with an itty bitty waste
And a round thing in your face
You get sprung, wanna pull up tough
'Cause you notice that butt was stuffed
Deep in the jeans she's wearing
I'm hooked and I can't stop staring
Oh baby, I wanna get wit'cha
And take your picture
My homeboys tried to warn me
But with that butt you got makes me feel so horny
Ooh, Rump-o'-smooth-skin
You say you wanna get in my Benz?
Well, use me, use me
'Cause you ain't that average groupy
I've seen them dancin'
The hell with romancin'
She's sweat, wet,
Got it goin' like a turbo 'Vette
I'm tired of magazines
Sayin' flat butts are the thing
Take the average black man and ask him that
She gotta pack much back
So, fellas! (Yeah!) Fellas! (Yeah!)
Has your girlfriend got the butt? (Hell yeah!)
Tell 'em to shake it! (Shake it!) Shake it! (Shake it!)
Shake that healthy butt!
Baby got back!

Cadaverous Pallor 12-01-2005 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prudence
So, for those of you in favor of the "show," which show would you like Disneyland to emulate, exactly? The historical background of Main Street? Or the 1955 of the park's creation? A representation of a representation?

First off, I don't jive with iSm's interpretation of hiring CMs so they "match" the land they work in. I don't get how that would work, and I'd like to hear iSm explain that. I don't think I understand it, unless you're talking about race, which obviously, he is not.

I also don't think the costumes should represent 1955.

What I'm talking about is the inescapable fact that a restaurant that hires "attractive" waitstaff makes more money than a restaurant that does not. This has been proven over and over again in studies. It's the same reason that attractive people get acting jobs on stage and screen. You do not see overweight dancers, or overweight models. Yes, there are exceptions outside the mainstream, but they are just that.

I'm not saying society's standards are fair. But they do exist. If you built two identical Disneylands next to each other, and staffed one with hunky guys and big busted bomshells while the other had more normal types, which do you think would pull in more guests? I know I'm a weak human and have felt the affect of having a really cute waiter attend to me. I also am more likely to see a movie if it features Johnny Depp. Such is the human condition.

I'd like to reiterate that obviously looks shouldn't be the main hiring point. CMs need to be intelligent, capable, and friendly, whatever their position. Once they meet these qualifications though, it wouldn't be surprising that Disney would go for a more attractive employee, the same way a restaurant/theater company/Hollywood studio would.

Quote:

On a pratical note, I don't understand the aversion to more universally flattering costumes. If costume A with a pleated, above-the-knee skirt is only flattering on a size 6 and costume B with an a-line, at-the-knee skirt is flattering on a range of sizes, why not go with the a-line skirt? I don't buy this notion that moving to styles that flatter more shapes is automatically equivalent to dressing everyone in shapeless sacks.
This depends on the focus of costuming. Are they shooting for something that shows off the person's body, or something that's simply flattering? There's a reason why the canoe guys have those fitted shirts with rolled up sleeves. They could easily do their job in more standard clothing that fits well, but they wouldn't look as good doing it. As the focus moves away from such things that will change.

Quote:

Furthermore, why not make sure costumes actually fit? Don't CMs have their "own" costumes now? That they take home and launder? Why not have them tailored ?
CM turnover is huge. I don't see Disney condoning CMs customizing their garments when they're pretty sure the CM will quit in 3 months.

Prudence 12-01-2005 12:56 PM

So, overweight people aren't attractive. You know, actually I feel better knowing how you stand on this issue. It makes my life simpler.

Not Afraid 12-01-2005 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prudence
So, overweight people aren't attractive. You know, actually I feel better knowing how you stand on this issue. It makes my life simpler.

I think most of us know that it's not weight, or lack thereof, that makes you attractive or sexy, it's your personality and attitude.

I am more attractive now - at 50 pounds overweight - than I ever was as a skinny waif.

innerSpaceman 12-01-2005 01:09 PM

CP is NOT making the statement that she finds overweight people unattrative; she is (if I read it right) simply pointing out that businesses tend to hire public-interactive employees who meet the model of standard attractiveness determined by the prevailing cultural concepts of WHAT SELLS.

Her restaurant example was perfect. Outside of show biz, I have found the hawtest of the hot to work, ironically in my opinion, waiting tables.



As for my personal explanation of the fit-the-role hiring practice, it's simply a matter of scrawny boys being shunted away from the canoe ride, and boys of any type being barred from serving on a Storybook Land boat. Guys with good legs would wear the Zlick-required laderhosen to get those Matterhorn jobs, and those with chicken legs might find themselves behind a turkey-leg ODV cart.

And, yes, every cast member would have to meet the standards of grooming that comprise the "Disney Look." On top of that, the cuter you were by mass-audience standards, the more likely to get a job in entertainment or a position of high public interaction, such as the tour guide position. I would treat attractions casting like actual casting, and standard qualities of good looks would indeed factor in. (Life's rough, and I myself would have to work in food service.)


My entertainment venture hiring practices are quite different from my friend determination practices, so please don't confuse the two.

Prudence 12-01-2005 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman
My entertainment venture hiring practices are quite different from my friend determination practices, so please don't confuse the two.

When I was young and pretty and repeatedly turned down for jobs because I looked too cute to be competent, I swore that I would never make the same type of judgement about other people, regardless of the circumstances. Unfortunately, far too many people in this world are happy to continue such practices, defending themselves with the justification that it's just society's way.

And if it really is society's way, if that's just the way society is and it's never going to change, then odds are you, CP, and most everyone else here really does think fat = ugly. If it's so much of a given that whole industries can be forgiven for never hiring over a size 6, then why all the "but *I* would never think that way!" protest? If majority rules, and if the majority is as vast as has been implied (har har), then why not be forthright? Why not just say (and this is directed at no one in particular) that electronic conversations are all well and groovy, but damn, if you have to look at baggy knees below shorts one more time you're going to puke?

Isaac 12-01-2005 01:46 PM

My problem is that a character in a theme park is being altered
because a few people are jealous they can't portray that character.

Talk about selfish.

SzczerbiakManiac 12-01-2005 01:50 PM

[Reality Check]
Quote:

Originally Posted by Prudence
So, overweight people aren't attractive.

In current Western society, when compared to non-overweight people, no, fat people are not physically attractive.

Is this a surprise to anyone?

Does it suck? Sure. Is it "fair"? Probably not. But PC bullshït aside, it's a reality and us fat folks* need to accept and deal with this appropriately.

Look, being fat doesn't mean you can't be loved. It doesn't mean you can't have friends who genuinely like you. It doesn't mean you can't be a productive member of society. It doesn't mean you can't work at Disneyland. It does mean that to an overwhelming majority of people, you're not as attractive as you would be if you were not overweight.

[/Reality Check]


*In case you've never seen me, I am morbidly obese.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:06 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.