Mickey's Halloween Treat info for 2007 announced
Cindy Stephens
October 5, 12, 19 and 26; 7:30 p.m. - 11:30 p.m.
October 4, 11, 18, 29, 30, and 31; 6:30 p.m. - 10:30 p.m.
AP presale price - $24
Regular price - $39
Tickets go on sale to APs May 15. No info on when tickets go on sale to the
general public.
If you want to see more information without having to log into the AP page,
go here: http://mousepad.mouseplanet.com/showpost.php?p=1064101&postcount=1
.
---
/cs
Disneyland Resort trip reports, restaurant reviews and more -
http://www.colddeadfish.net/csdlr.html
The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love and be loved in return.
gjw
<ci...@colddeadfishFODDER.net> wrote:
>Disney has announced dates for Mickey's Halloween Treat this year.
>
>October 5, 12, 19 and 26; 7:30 p.m. - 11:30 p.m.
>October 4, 11, 18, 29, 30, and 31; 6:30 p.m. - 10:30 p.m.
>
>AP presale price - $24
>
>Regular price - $39
>
>Tickets go on sale to APs May 15. No info on when tickets go on sale to the
>general public.
>
>If you want to see more information without having to log into the AP page,
>go here: http://mousepad.mouseplanet.com/showpost.php?p=1064101&postcount=1
I just clicked on that link and read the fine print. As expected, it
included "Please choose costumes that are not obstructive, offensive,
or violent."
But here's an odd one: "Guests' eyes must be visible at all times."
Go figure...
Cindy Stephens
"gjw" <g...@example.net> wrote in message
news:rc3743d6jtei7coaq...@4ax.com...
> But here's an odd one: "Guests' eyes must be visible at all times."
>
> Go figure...
It just pretty much means you can't have a mask or hood or something that
covers your entire face. Pretty much same as last year, as I recall.
gjw
<ci...@colddeadfishFODDER.net> wrote:
>
>"gjw" <g...@example.net> wrote in message
>news:rc3743d6jtei7coaq...@4ax.com...
>> But here's an odd one: "Guests' eyes must be visible at all times."
>>
>> Go figure...
>
>It just pretty much means you can't have a mask or hood or something that
>covers your entire face. Pretty much same as last year, as I recall.
But what's the reasoning behind it? I could understand, perhaps, if
they wanted people to wear half-masks only (such as Batman's or even
the Lone Ranger's) which leave the lower half of the face exposed.
That might allow for some measure of facial identification. But if
the entire face is covered by a mask, is it even possible to cover the
eyes? You need eye-holes just to see where you are going... And even
if it _was_ possible to cover the eyes, still, what difference would
it really make? It seems an odd rule...
Corey
Re: Re: Mickey's Halloween Treat info for 2007 announced
By: gjw to alt.disney.disneyland on Sat May 12 2007 06:06 am
Mickey Mouse has huge eyes.
Mr. Disney Wizard
I am guessing that Disneyland et al. would have no liability insurance coverage should injury result from a guest misstep due to preventable obstructed vision.
They will turn away Darth Vader mask wearers regardless of notice, and notice is posted as a courtesy.
But I don't envision them replying to "But I didn't see it!" with "Yeah, buddy, you don't see a lot of things" even though they may be thinking it.
Last year, I saw Alice from Wonderland and a cat pair of very sexy girl costume wearers turned away walking back to their car. The view of garter and panties was very attractive, but as I lifted my camera, my wife scowled me down, but I tried to explain to her that I would post it as an example of an unacceptable costume, unsuccessfully.
Corey
Re: Re: Mickey's Halloween Treat info for 2007 announced
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
> --------------060009020808070509080803
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> --------------060009020808070509080803
> Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
> <html>
> <head>
> <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
> <title></title>
> </head>
> <body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
> !00% safety issue, unobstructed vision is the key. <br>
> <br>
> I am guessing that Disneyland et al. would have no liability insurance
> coverage should injury result from a guest misstep due to preventable
> obstructed vision.<br>
> <br>
> They will turn away Darth Vader mask wearers regardless of notice, and
> notice is posted as a courtesy.<br>
> <br>
> But I don't envision them replying to "But I didn't see it!" with
> "Yeah, buddy, you don't see a lot of things" even though they may be
> thinking it.<br>
> <br>
> Last year, I saw Alice from Wonderland and a cat pair of very sexy girl
> costume wearers turned away walking back to their car. The view of
> garter and panties was very attractive, but as I lifted my camera, my
> wife scowled me down, but I tried to explain to her that I would post
> it as an example of an unacceptable costume, unsuccessfully.<br>
> gjw wrote:
> <blockquote cite="midbet9435aumk6fba...@4ax.com"
> type="cite">
> <pre wrap="">On Thu, 10 May 2007 23:43:41 -0800, "Cindy Stephens"
> <<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:cindy@colddeadfishFODDE
> </pre>
> <blockquote type="cite">
> <pre wrap="">"gjw" <<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:
> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="news:rc3743d6jtei7coaq8f5irbg62cqs3c9
> </pre>
> <blockquote type="cite">
> <pre wrap="">But here's an odd one: "Guests' eyes must be visible at
>
> Go figure...
> </pre>
> </blockquote>
> <pre wrap="">It just pretty much means you can't have a mask or hood or
> covers your entire face. Pretty much same as last year, as I recall.
> </pre>
> </blockquote>
> <pre wrap=""><!---->But what's the reasoning behind it? I could understan
> they wanted people to wear half-masks only (such as Batman's or even
> the Lone Ranger's) which leave the lower half of the face exposed.
> That might allow for some measure of facial identification. But if
> the entire face is covered by a mask, is it even possible to cover the
> eyes? You need eye-holes just to see where you are going... And even
> if it _was_ possible to cover the eyes, still, what difference would
> it really make? It seems an odd rule...</pre>
> </blockquote>
> </body>
> </html>
>
> --------------060009020808070509080803--
yeah, and you will also get turned away if you look too close to a Disney
charactor too. last year I saw 3 guys dressed as Snow, Aurora and Cindy
get turned away. as soon as they left everyone started laughing....
gjw
<Mr.DisneyWiz...@TheOffice.net> wrote:
>!00% safety issue, unobstructed vision is the key.
>
>I am guessing that Disneyland et al. would have no liability insurance
>coverage should injury result from a guest misstep due to preventable
>obstructed vision.
That makes sense. (Although one would think that no one would be dumb
enough to wear a mask that blinds them...)
>They will turn away Darth Vader mask wearers regardless of notice, and
>notice is posted as a courtesy.
How DO those DV masks work? People have to see out of them somehow,
or they wouldn't be able to navigate... If they are sunglass-like
shaded lenses, then that shouldn't be a problem in the daytime hours
(no more so than normal sunglasses), but could be a liability after
dark...