Ya that is a very good point, I guess I felt there was much more these people could have done. They could still have kept the bluriness and shot something that looked like time travel tho, but as you said that might cause panic. But then again, that doesn't match with any possible motives. Titor, whatever his real motives were, wanted us to be afraid. He comforted us by saying it would all work out for the better in the end, but what he describes happening in the next few years is, quite frankly, un-Disney. Not that that's any kind of damning evidence for this new info, but the motive I got from Titor one way or the other was to scare us enough to wake us out of this TV-induced half-sleep that the country's populace has been in lately. And I'm not so sure about testing out a new character for a ride. The article states that all Epcot rides are 'science-based' not 'scifi-based'. Massive civil war, nuclear world war, and the society that is born from it all, if just a story, is pure scifi. It looks like Disney wants epcot rides to be more 'serious' I guess, meaning Titor's story and character would have no place there. Also, like I said, that's a pretty apocalyptic story for a Disney thing. I dunno, I hope people don't think i'm nit-picking at all this new evidence, I'm just trying to work through it all. I would be very interested to see what the Titor family's lawyer has to say about all this. Maybe that's why the address no longer shows up on google?I think that just because they may have had the resources to put on a movie-quality production doesn't mean they would have. A blurry little video vs. a crystal-clear time travel extravaganza leaves room for \"Well maybe it's true, maybe it's not\".
?
If they'd done the movie quality thing, people would panic because it would seem like there's undeniable evidence that the world is going to end and everything... It'd be in their best interests to just do something little and spark a lot of curiosity than to do a lot and cause widespread fear. Maybe their budget was a factor too?
?
BTW, VirtualGirl, awesome thread! I'm loving the conversation we have going here
?
Edit: As an example, say Universal decided to pull some hoax to promote Jurassic Park. I believe that a Bigfoot-esque video where stuff is a little blurry and subject to people calling bull would be a lot more effective than some perfectly shot, perfectly timed video.[/b]
In a message dated 5/26/2005 7:55:21 AM Eastern Daylight Time, LarryHaber writes:
Thanks also for the web sit link. I can tell you for sure that the Disney link is not correct
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Buggy\")</div>He comforted us by saying it would all work out for the better in the end, but what he describes happening in the next few years is, quite frankly, un-Disney.[/b]
I agree, why not Disney?! They own Miramax Films as well as Touchstone Pictures. This means that they have dabbled in violent story lines before. Can't rule them out!Why not Disney?[/b]