State of UOAP & General Theme Park Fandom

[s8film40]

To play devil's advocate--I don't think there was anything malicious in guest behavior toward Matt Korn. But, based on Universal's actions since, it seems likely their conduct cost him his job.

Guests who sing along with Thurl in the Stretch Room or dress up for Dapper Day aren't trying to disrupt the experience for other guests--they're trying to be part of the show instead of just watching it. To me, that's what makes it toxic, not their intent.

As far as Matt Korn goes I don’t personally think it had as much to do with the treatment he was getting from fans. I think Universal as a company simply didn’t feel comfortable having one employee have so much power in controlling such a large number of customers.

 

[SeventyOne]

As far as Matt Korn goes I don’t personally think it had as much to do with the treatment he was getting from fans. I think Universal as a company simply didn’t feel comfortable having one employee have so much power in controlling such a large number of customers.

I agree with your latter statement, but I think it all ties together.

 

[Legacy]

You’ve managed to put an awful lot of people in the “toxic” category including even much of the staff of this very forum.

I also think you’re dead wrong on Universals reasoning for not supplying actors names. It’s to protect the integrity of the characters for children, this has always been the case in the theme park industry. If you’re not a child this simply doesn’t apply to you. At the same time they’re not going to announce it during a show or post out front in view of children.

I think one another thing to add to this is we are going back and forth talking about true performers and scareactors. These are very different categories. A scareactor has more in common with a ride operator than a stage performer. Someone who is entering the acting field is looking for this type of thing and expects and hopes to build a following. Scareactors are often just high school kids looking for something fun and different to do for a month. They’re not really prepared to handle this sort of thing and often don’t really know where to draw the lines themeselves.

This is, unequivocally, incorrect. If this is the rule Universal presents when you walk in the park, it applies to everyone. Adults included. That's the agreement. Just because you "know" they're performers doesn't mean they owe you, as a fellow adult, a damn thing.

Arguing that stage performers "wants celebrity" also broaches a "if they didn't want to be famous, they should have picked a different career" point. That implies that, because they enjoy being on-stage, they have a requirement to be available when they're not on-stage. And yeah, I'll label this as toxic and unacceptable. They're people. In the context of theme parks, television, movies, sports, whatever it is, they are doing their job. They are getting paid to perform a function. If you enjoy their performance in the their job, you can support them and thank them, but you can't demand accessibility. You can't demand they respond to your requests or behave like your admiration of them is the ultimate authority in their value as people. There are, literally, thousands of performers who do everything in their power to be as inaccessible as possible because they don't want to deal with overzealous, toxic fans. The catch for anybody in a field with any sort of notoriety though is that, if a fan doesn't like how the performer responds, it can become a PR nightmare. Fans use these people, living their lives, as a form of coercion. That's wrong. Period.

Here's the thing - there are countless people who think this sort of mindset is fine. I'd expect some members of the site staff to be lumped into that. That doesn't mean it's appropriate. Any staff members who feel a need to get hyper defensive about my point, it's on them.

 

[shiekra38]

As far as Matt Korn goes I don’t personally think it had as much to do with the treatment he was getting from fans. I think Universal as a company simply didn’t feel comfortable having one employee have so much power in controlling such a large number of customers.

So you believe he was let go?

 

[s8film40]

This is, unequivocally, incorrect. If this is the rule Universal presents when you walk in the park, it applies to everyone. Adults included. That's the agreement. Just because you "know" they're performers doesn't mean they owe you, as a fellow adult, a damn thing.

Arguing that stage performers "wants celebrity" also broaches a "if they didn't want to be famous, they should have picked a different career" point. That implies that, because they enjoy being on-stage, they have a requirement to be available when they're not on-stage. And yeah, I'll label this as toxic and unacceptable. They're people. In the context of theme parks, television, movies, sports, whatever it is, they are doing their job. They are getting paid to perform a function. If you enjoy their performance in the their job, you can support them and thank them, but you can't demand accessibility. You can't demand they respond to your requests or behave like your admiration of them is the ultimate authority in their value as people. There are, literally, thousands of performers who do everything in their power to be as inaccessible as possible because they don't want to deal with overzealous, toxic fans. The catch for anybody in a field with any sort of notoriety though is that, if a fan doesn't like how the performer responds, it can become a PR nightmare. Fans use these people, living their lives, as a form of coercion. That's wrong. Period.

Here's the thing - there are countless people who think this sort of mindset is fine. I'd expect some members of the site staff to be lumped into that. That doesn't mean it's appropriate. Any staff members who feel a need to get hyper defensive about my point, it's on them.

Well we’ll agree to disagree on Universals intention on not actively supplying actors names. It’s seems obvious to me that it’s all about maintaining the integrity for children. I’ve gone through lots of Disney training and can absolutely say that’s their reason.

When I say that actors are going into the field with the expectation of a fan following I don’t say that to excuse people crossing a line, but rather to point out these actors often actively encourage it. When an actor posts on social media their new roles where to find them show times etc. it gives people the impression that it’s okay to go see them because it absolutely is okay.

I think we overall agree that people shouldn’t be crossing the line and seeking these people out in a way that’s unwanted. If the actors are happy and the guests are happy I think people calling it weird and creepy can in itself become the real true toxic behavior.

 

[s8film40]

So you believe he was let go?

I think it was a mutual decision that he wouldn’t have come to on his own.

Personally I imagine it went something like they told him they were going to end the way he interacted in the UOAP community or remove him completely from it into a different role. Possibly even something very unappealing. So I don’t think he was let go, but very possibly “forced out”.

 

[Nick]

I think it was a mutual decision that he wouldn’t have come to on his own.

Personally I imagine it went something like they told him they were going to end the way he interacted in the UOAP community or remove him completely from it into a different role. Possibly even something very unappealing. So I don’t think he was let go, but very possibly “forced out”.

It's also possible Korn went to Universal and told them that the UOAP monster was getting too large for one man to take care of all on his own and that he was growing tired of always being tagged asking him questions.

Matt Korn may have wanted out just as much as Universal wanted to make a change.

 

[s8film40]

It's also possible Korn went to Universal and told them that the UOAP monster was getting too large for one man to take care of all on his own and that he was growing tired of always being tagged asking him questions.

Matt Korn may have wanted out just as much as Universal wanted to make a change.

Oh sure that’s definitely possible. I just don’t think he would’ve left the company completely over it. I have no real knowledge just my observation.

Edit: Also to add. He did post that he would be away for a vacation over the holidays. So it would seem his departure was a surprise somewhat to him.

 

[ThemeParks4Life]

This is, unequivocally, incorrect. If this is the rule Universal presents when you walk in the park, it applies to everyone. Adults included. That's the agreement. Just because you "know" they're performers doesn't mean they owe you, as a fellow adult, a damn thing.

Arguing that stage performers "wants celebrity" also broaches a "if they didn't want to be famous, they should have picked a different career" point. That implies that, because they enjoy being on-stage, they have a requirement to be available when they're not on-stage. And yeah, I'll label this as toxic and unacceptable. They're people. In the context of theme parks, television, movies, sports, whatever it is, they are doing their job. They are getting paid to perform a function. If you enjoy their performance in the their job, you can support them and thank them, but you can't demand accessibility. You can't demand they respond to your requests or behave like your admiration of them is the ultimate authority in their value as people. There are, literally, thousands of performers who do everything in their power to be as inaccessible as possible because they don't want to deal with overzealous, toxic fans. The catch for anybody in a field with any sort of notoriety though is that, if a fan doesn't like how the performer responds, it can become a PR nightmare. Fans use these people, living their lives, as a form of coercion. That's wrong. Period.

Here's the thing - there are countless people who think this sort of mindset is fine. I'd expect some members of the site staff to be lumped into that. That doesn't mean it's appropriate. Any staff members who feel a need to get hyper defensive about my point, it's on them.

Well said. Hell, we've seen this happen decades ago on a severe scale with John Hinckley. The guy moved close to Yale when he found out Jodie Foster was going there. Just read the last letter he sent her before shooting Reagan:

Over the past seven months I've left you dozens of poems, letters and love messages in the faint hope that you could develop an interest in me. Although we talked on the phone a couple of times I never had the nerve to simply approach you and introduce myself.... The reason I'm going ahead with this attempt now is because I cannot wait any longer to impress you.

What if that ever happened again with an actor, be it A-list or a theme park actor? There is a line between stage and home that shouldn't be crossed.

 

[shiekra38]

I think it was a mutual decision that he wouldn’t have come to on his own.

Personally I imagine it went something like they told him they were going to end the way he interacted in the UOAP community or remove him completely from it into a different role. Possibly even something very unappealing. So I don’t think he was let go, but very possibly “forced out”.

I feel if I was in charge of the community I would have acted the same way he did...Perhaps there is an important lesson to be learned from someone like Aiello that is distant enough to be his own person and close enough to be involved

 

[Imperius]

Fully understand why Matt moved on if it was his idea. Getting tagged 100 times a day with a question like what time does the park open? You’re adults, google it.

 

[Legacy]

Well we’ll agree to disagree on Universals intention on not actively supplying actors names. It’s seems obvious to me that it’s all about maintaining the integrity for children. I’ve gone through lots of Disney training and can absolutely say that’s their reason.

When I say that actors are going into the field with the expectation of a fan following I don’t say that to excuse people crossing a line, but rather to point out these actors often actively encourage it. When an actor posts on social media their new roles where to find them show times etc. it gives people the impression that it’s okay to go see them because it absolutely is okay.

I think we overall agree that people shouldn’t be crossing the line and seeking these people out in a way that’s unwanted. If the actors are happy and the guests are happy I think people calling it weird and creepy can in itself become the real true toxic behavior.

I think everyone is on board with Disney's reason for not supplying actor names. But it's also uniformly applied for children and adults. If I, a random adult man, ask Cinderella what her name is, she is going to say, "Cinderella." If I run across the same actress away from the parks and ask her who she plays, she's most likely going to say, "I'm a friend of Cinderella." Adult theme park fans understand the bit, and we all nod and play along because that is agreement.

That's the rub. When an adult goes through a M&G line to see a character, they are ignoring reality and seeing that character. If an adult goes through a M&G line to see a performer that they know, the guest must decide if they will play along. Within the context of theme parks, I fully argue, guests HAVE to play along.

The big difference between theme park actors and stage/screen performers is one of access. Theme park performers' purpose is to interact directly with guests. Their job (key point) is to fill a role that requires suspension of disbelief by ALL guests (adults included). When they are asked for their real name, or addressed by their real name, or followed around because of another role they play, the guest is forcing the performer to choose between breaking character or not. Forcing that decision goes back to my "rules" that engaging with employees beyond what the employee finds comfortable or in a manner that interferes with an employees' ability to perform their job are both unacceptable.

And it is okay to see an actor who post about their new role, however the perspective is important. For people THEY know (their friends and family) it's about celebrating something they've accomplished. For anyone else who follows them, it's advertising. It's a business proposition where they create a virtual (read - imaginary) relationship with fans to encourage those fans to give them money. That's why so many people with a "public" persona have a private social media account and a public account. It's part of their job. IF a performer is actively pursuing a larger fan base, it's for that reason. "Toxicity" comes when fans lose that perspective.

And there is a vast different between a performer pursuing a larger following of fans (Brian Brushwood and others following a mass of people in exchange for more follows, posting your social media/website in a playbill bio) and a fan pursuing a performer. Universal has the vehicle to allow their performers to do it (performer boards, public databases), but they don't. Within their current business model, they have determined that, within their theme parks, it is not acceptable.

Guests/fans/bloggers, whatever you are, are either crossing a line themselves when pull this "We love you PJ" when a performer is onstage (and in Universal's rulebook, "If guests can see you, you're onstage") because they both forcing a performer into a situation they don't NEED to be in and cultivating something that Universal has not officially codified as "okay."

I've stated Universal needs to pick a side on this for this very reason. Either adopt the Disney "you are not your role" mantra or fully embrace "these are performers."

 

[SeventyOne]

Well we’ll agree to disagree on Universals intention on not actively supplying actors names. It’s seems obvious to me that it’s all about maintaining the integrity for children. I’ve gone through lots of Disney training and can absolutely say that’s their reason.

But they do it for adult venues as well. Obviously Bill & Ted, but also things like the hosts at Rising Star. Even at Pat Os, piano players may use their (real) first name, but they don't fully announce who they are.

 

[s8film40]

I think everyone is on board with Disney's reason for not supplying actor names. But it's also uniformly applied for children and adults. If I, a random adult man, ask Cinderella what her name is, she is going to say, "Cinderella." If I run across the same actress away from the parks and ask her who she plays, she's most likely going to say, "I'm a friend of Cinderella." Adult theme park fans understand the bit, and we all nod and play along because that is agreement.

That's the rub. When an adult goes through a M&G line to see a character, they are ignoring reality and seeing that character. If an adult goes through a M&G line to see a performer that they know, the guest must decide if they will play along. Within the context of theme parks, I fully argue, guests HAVE to play along.

The big difference between theme park actors and stage/screen performers is one of access. Theme park performers' purpose is to interact directly with guests. Their job (key point) is to fill a role that requires suspension of disbelief by ALL guests (adults included). When they are asked for their real name, or addressed by their real name, or followed around because of another role they play, the guest is forcing the performer to choose between breaking character or not. Forcing that decision goes back to my "rules" that engaging with employees beyond what the employee finds comfortable or in a manner that interferes with an employees' ability to perform their job are both unacceptable.

And it is okay to see an actor who post about their new role, however the perspective is important. For people THEY know (their friends and family) it's about celebrating something they've accomplished. For anyone else who follows them, it's advertising. It's a business proposition where they create a virtual (read - imaginary) relationship with fans to encourage those fans to give them money. That's why so many people with a "public" persona have a private social media account and a public account. It's part of their job. IF a performer is actively pursuing a larger fan base, it's for that reason. "Toxicity" comes when fans lose that perspective.

And there is a vast different between a performer pursuing a larger following of fans (Brian Brushwood and others following a mass of people in exchange for more follows, posting your social media/website in a playbill bio) and a fan pursuing a performer. Universal has the vehicle to allow their performers to do it (performer boards, public databases), but they don't. Within their current business model, they have determined that, within their theme parks, it is not acceptable.

Guests/fans/bloggers, whatever you are, are either crossing a line themselves when pull this "We love you PJ" when a performer is onstage (and in Universal's rulebook, "If guests can see you, you're onstage") because they both forcing a performer into a situation they don't NEED to be in and cultivating something that Universal has not officially codified as "okay."

I've stated Universal needs to pick a side on this for this very reason. Either adopt the Disney "you are not your role" mantra or fully embrace "these are performers."

The thing is in a theme park setting the characters are almost always acting as that character. So yes the adults have to play a long. It’s much the same way you wouldn’t yell out an actors name at a play it would be totally inappropriate. When they’re outside of that role which is very rare in a theme park setting then it’s okay. I think that’s where Universal has handled this very well. If your meeting Bill and Ted actors after the show to me it feels much more like a green room type meet and greet. They’re not portraying characters walking around the park. Even so they do if in costume generally attempt to stay mostly in character. There are certain times like the last show of the year where they relax that a bit and acknowledge the cast and crew in front of what are only the die hard fans and I think that’s completely appropriate.

 

[Legacy]

The thing is in a theme park setting the characters are almost always acting as that character. So yes the adults have to play a long. It’s much the same way you wouldn’t yell out an actors name at a play it would be totally inappropriate. When they’re outside of that role which is very rare in a theme park setting then it’s okay. I think that’s where Universal has handled this very well. If your meeting Bill and Ted actors after the show to me it feels much more like a green room type meet and greet. They’re not portraying characters walking around the park. Even so they do if in costume generally attempt to stay mostly in character. There are certain times like the last show of the year where they relax that a bit and acknowledge the cast and crew in front of what are only the die hard fans and I think that’s completely appropriate.

But that is an extremely rare exception (though not in 2017). The problem is a certain subset of fans who seem to expect this sort of "character breaking" all the time. And those fans exists.

 

[s8film40]

But that is an extremely rare exception (though not in 2017). The problem is a certain subset of fans who seem to expect this sort of "character breaking" all the time. And those fans exists.

Yeah we agree there.