?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 
 
24 January 2016 @ 11:40 am
[linking] Sunday Sporadic Link Round-Up  
Yosemite, Trademarks: Yosemite Changing The Names Of Popular Park Landmarks Following The Most Ridiculous Trademark Dispute Ever by Mike Masnick at TechDirt is absolutely ridiculous. Basically, a concession provider ended up owning registered trademarks used throughout Yosemite, and when Yosemite started accepting bids from different concession providers, threatened and then sued Yosemite because of those trademarks. Which is completely stupid, and I don't know why the company actually thought threatening the national park people would get their contract renewed, and I am highly amused that the company is now acting like Yosemite is the one "using beloved names of places [...] as a bargaining chip in a legal dispute" and is absolutely shocked that Yosemite would rename the locations rather than play ball. I think it is stupid that the concession provider is the one who allegedly owns the trademarks in the first place. Oh, intellectual property law. You never cease to be weird.

(As usual, the pejorative use of "crazy" abounds, which is a TechDirt standard. Because of course, I can't be interested in technology, the law, and technology and the law, and read a great resource for both, without being metaphorically punch in the face every time I do.)

Wikipedia, WWE: Wikipedia Is 15, so Let’s Look at Their Top 15 Most-Edited Articles by Dan Van Winkle at The Mary Sue does exactly what it says on the tin. I can't believe Wiki is 15. Van Winkle's commentary is pretty funny, but what I liked best is the fact that "list of WWE personnel" is one of the most-edited pages cumulatively over the past 15 years, a fact that surprises Van Winkle, but the comments are all over that. (And I think if you're actually familiar with what WWE does, it's not much of a surprise. They put out so much content every single week, have a giant roster of wrestlers, much less people behind the scenes, often do ridiculous things, and have had heroes mired in their own racist bullshit recently, so lots of editing at all times.)

Wikipedia: Related, Why Wikipedia Is in Trouble by Chris Wilson at Time talks about the scarcity of dedicated editors. It also briefly touches on Sydney Poore's efforts to diversify the pool of active editors to make it less heavily male and Western.

The problem, most researchers and Wikipedia stewards seem to agree, is that the core community of Wikipedians are too hostile to newcomers, scaring them off with intractable guidelines and a general defensiveness. One detailed study from 2012 found that new editors often find that their first contributions to the site are quickly rejected by more experienced users, which directly correlates with a drop in the likelihood that they will continue to contribute to the site.


Lilo & Stitch, Walt Disney World: Stitch's Great Escape: Ten Years at Passport 2 Dreams points out that in 2014, the Lilo & Stitch ride at Disney World turned ten, which means it will be twelve this year, and for some reason this makes me feel old, not my nieces and nephews becoming teenagers. This.

I've only been to Disney World once (and never to Disneyland), back in 2005 with Sarah and Craig, and it was ridiculous and wonderful and fun, mostly because of the company, but also because I was on a Stitch hunt. I collect (collected, for the most part, because I haven't added any in a long time, and I am getting ready to go through my collection and see what I can cull) Lilo & Stitch toys, particularly stuffed Stitch toys, and I found a bunch of wonderful things to add to it while there.

I learned from this post that the Stitch ride is apparently considered the worst in the park. I thought it was adorable and fun, but okay, I know I am biased. This is a really interesting look at the history of the movie and of the Stitch invasion of the park and of the ride itself.

Take something like the Swiss Family Treehouse, which more people visit in a month than have seen the movie in the past ten years. And yet, it still works and is fully comprehensible to any viewer. This is because the only thing you need to know about the film to enjoy the attraction is right there on the sign - shipwrecked family builds a house. That's it. The attraction allows you to go into the house, and the attraction-tree never really resembled the film-tree in a serious way. The form of the attraction is harmonized with the tie-in film property in a way that has universal, not specific, appeal.

Where Stitch's Great Escape, and all of these movie tie-in attractions in general go wrong, is that they are bound to weirdly specific moments in the narrative of the films to have their effect. Nearly every moment in the attraction is referencing some moment in the film. If you know nothing about Lilo & Stitch besides that it exists, then Stitch's Great Escape is the worst advertisement for it imaginable. It conveys nothing of the tone of the film or the love the character inspires in audiences. Actually, you'd probably correctly infer from the attraction that Stitch is a malicious bastard.

That's probably the real reason Stitch's Great Escape fails to interest audiences, it isn't because of those restraints or that it isn't a ride; that's just shorthand people use to skirt around the real issue, which is that there's no payoff for going to see it. It's a lot of sound and fury for no good reason at all. At least, one could reason if she wished, Alien Encounter was trying to be scary. Stitch's Great Escape has no reason to exist, no onus, besides itself.


Brave: A Medievalist’s Review of Brave by Amanda at Made of Wynn is really interesting, though I cannot speak to accuracy. I expected it to be more critical than it was, and the information she focuses on was really great.

This entry was originally posted at Dreamwidth.org with comment count unavailable comments. Read the original post there. Comment here or there using OpenID.
 
 
 
a2zmoma2zmom on January 25th, 2016 12:23 am (UTC)
That Yosemite story is so funny and ridiculous.
Carla M. Leecarlamlee on January 27th, 2016 12:05 am (UTC)
Right? I just keep shaking my head over it.