Yuku free message boards

You have badly mischaracterized my arguments.

Nowhere have I said there isn't or shouldn't be a "Master Gracey" character. Nowhere. But a number of people here keep arguing (some explicitly, some implicitly) that "Master Gracey" may well have been intended as the GH from the beginning. That is sheer lunatic nonsense.

There is also no evidence of any division at WDI about the fact that the GH is not MG. The GH is the Hatchet Guy. That's WDI's position, and they (and they alone) decide what's "real" and what isn't "real" within the imaginative world of the HM. If a couple of clueless dolts at local WDW management authorized a construction sign that equated the GH and MC, that does not mean there is "disagreement within WDI." A better characterization is that WDI quickly whacked down a non-WDI-authorized blunder. WDI obviously cares about it, perhaps because they're getting ready to raise the Hatchet Guy's profile, as several clues suggest.

A sentence that begins, "Who's to say they may one day decide..." can be finished with practically anything. It is therefore a way of writing yourself a blank check against any and all arguments. As for suggesting that "all of us" (including me, presumably) need to be "trying to see others' points of view and ideas," that's an insult. Are you suggesting that I have not been reading the posts in these threads? And if you concede that I have, are you saying that I haven't accurately represented the arguments that I've opposed? If so, show me. I've considered very carefully all the points of view and all the ideas you all have cared to post, and so far, the arguments for MG = GH are all junk. The fact that I think so and say so is no evidence whatsoever that I have a closed mind.

More junk.

Tony gives a lengthy spiel about how the HM has no story other than that it's just a haunted house, and if there's nothing more than that, it doesn't matter. Every guest can fill in the blank however he/she pleases. It's like POTC that way. He then gives his own private interpretation of the foyer portrait. Here's the exact quote: "We try to think of him, at least my way of interpreting it is, this is the phantom of the manor, and this is a portrait of him in his better days." He then goes on to identify this phantom with the hanging man and the disembodied Ghost Host.

Notice that he starts to say, "We think of him..." and then he stops and corrects himself, ("at least my way of interpreting it") because he knows it's only his private interpretation and he doesn't want to give the impression that it is in any way official. He has already made it crystal clear that the HM has no actual story. He begins the whole speech by pointing out that when they did PM, they deliberately strengthened the story element. Tony likes things to have a story, so this is how he fills in the HM blank for himself.

So yes, I will grant you that Tony Baxter is personally sympathetic to your equation between the portrait and the Ghost Host. Interestingly (and contrary to your summary, btw), he did not use the words "master" or "gracey" anywhere.

I have already said that if you want to think of MG as the GH in your own little world, go right ahead. But if you try to put it out there as part of the intentional presentation of the HM's imaginative universe, you've got nothing. In that arena, the GH = Hatchet Guy. You, Tony, everyone who goes on the ride, can spin whatever tale they want in their heads. When it comes to giving an actual public presentation, however, WDI does not tolerate GH = MG.

One final point on the "Lord and Master" outtake, which some keep insisting is relevant evidence of early intent, as they then blithely connect this with "Master Gracey." As I've said umpteen times, the outtake was recorded before any character by the name of MG existed, but it is equally true that the creation of the MG character was done by people (fans) with no possible knowledge of the outtake. In other words, the fact that both use the word "master" is a pure accident. It is a fluke. It is not even possible that it is not a fluke. To speak of "original intent" under those circumstances is literally absurd. In fact, to do so weakens the case even further, since by "original intent" the one usage is "master" = "owner," and the other usage is "master" = "expert" (Yale). Even the fluke is the result of another fluke, an accident of the English language.