[Prudence]

Today's thought:

Using Main Street as an example -- it's not that fat, short, gay, whatever people didn't exist during the time period emulated. Those types of people did exist. (Would you care to gaze at my photo album of midwestern relatives? Then again, they stayed in the midwest.)

But those types of people were not hired at Disneyland in 1955.

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?

Perhaps guests should also revisit the 1955 standards?

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.

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 ? Sometimes the slightest adjustment makes all the difference. I can't wear pants unless they're tailored. My backside is about 2 sizes bigger than my frontside. (And it was that way when I was 100 lbs, too. Where was J-Lo when I was a teen?!) If I get pants that fit my butt they are usually about 2 inches too long in the front rise. And petite pants are 2-3 inches too short in the leg. If I had to wear tailored slacks from the rack I'd look pretty sloppy, too.

Heck, when I was in high school theatre we specifically made costumes that could be taken in/let out at key fitting points. And they looked nice, too. (And Fiona, in the mythical land of Brigadoon, was Chinese -- and that didn't bother anyone, either.)