Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Sorry about the brief response, that was from my phone. I really do not have a problem with change per se (hey, I like DCA and it's original mission), but I do have a significant problem with the toonfestation of Disney parks. I may sound like a broken record, but it seems like WDI are one too. It really is sickening what is happening. Little by little the soul of the parks are being taken away. What used to be a series of adventures and experiences are starting to become advertisements for cartoons. Well I don't know about you guys, I don't watch tv or go to the movies for the ads.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo And Doug, it's all very well that they may change it back, but after a lot of expense and time. Rather than mitigate the misteps earlier.
Originally Posted By ShivaThDestroyer I'm sitting on the fence on this one. While I agree with Dave that I hate to see so many attractions being themed to whatever animated features are popular, Disney has done a pretty fair job with the changes to HM, JC, TSI, POTC and Space. I do love the classics and always worry whenever someone mentions change but SW could be cute with a few cameo appearances of well loved characters. I happen to love Alice, she's always been one of my favorites and SW might be a good fit. Here, let me get an unbiased second opinion,,, wonderingalice to the white courtesy phone please...
Originally Posted By lesmisfan yeah but except for pirates, they didn't add disney characters life like or animated to them. how would you like stitch in say space mt? or baloo and mowgli in jungle cruise? it just wouldn't be the same. I really don't agree with disney on putting disney characters in small world. Small world is meant to be a cute little ride about unity and peace in the world with children and their innocence. but now its gonna become a huge hidden mickey hunt, "okay honey can you spot alice?" or "can you spot peter pan?" by the way is both peter pan and alice going into england in our version, because that is just way to much.
Originally Posted By Skellington88 It was decided there was no room for a line for the attraction in the area, and so it was not put in<< Wrong. There is a quote by Tony Baxter in one of David Koeings books that clearly states the Muppets did not replace Lincoln due to fan reaction. He even went on to say they had a much better Lincoln show planned that would go where the dream suite/disney gallery is now. I can pull out the actual quote if you would like.
Originally Posted By jonvn Don't tell me what is wrong, and don't quote Baxter to me. He was supposedly also going around saying the original sub voyage was based on 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea.
Originally Posted By jonvn BTW, my info comes from the ex-girlfriend of the guy who worked on it, so there you have it. I trust her over Baxter. She has no reason to make something up as boring as that, and he has all the reason in the world to make up a story like that to curry favor with the fan base.
Originally Posted By ShivaThDestroyer >>how would you like stitch in say space mt? or baloo and mowgli in jungle cruise?<< lesmis, don't get me wrong, I would prefer that IASW remain unchanged but that's obviously not an option. Sometimes the world changes and we dinosaurs have to adapt. Disney is smart enough to restore IASW if guest acceptance is poor. I'm just keeping an open mind. True, that mind is slightly warped, many times I have thought to myself that it should have been Mr. Lincoln hiding behind the green dress in POTC instead of Captain Jack.
Originally Posted By knoxvelour I think a good compromise would be to only put the Disney characters in the holiday overlay
Originally Posted By ShivaThDestroyer ^^^ now that's something I think we could all live with. knoxvelour, you're a genius!
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "He even went on to say they had a much better Lincoln show planned that would go where the dream suite/disney gallery is now." How in the world were they going to get the Lincoln show in THERE? And a better one at that.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros The only problem with having the characters appear "seasonally" is that they will probably want them to be there for the non-holiday time. That way, people can see them without anything else distracting them from the new characters. Reports that we've read say that the holiday version of the attraction may open in November, but the characters wouldn't show up until it came out of the refurb in January. If that's the case, it looks like we may get some annual time without the characters, but it would most likely be when there are all sorts of other things covering up the original attraction.
Originally Posted By gadzuux I've already stated that I don't like 'small world' and so don't much care what they do to it. But there's another problem here - alice, and stitch and whoever else they try and shoehorn in are known characters with backstories that most of us already know. Whereas the dolls in the attractions are just that - dolls - mannequins for the little outfits and accessories that denote the region they represent. They're not "characters" and they don't have any backstories or personalities or sidekicks. So there's an uncomfortable mixture of these licensed properties right alongside the rather ordinary generic dolls. Apples and oranges. It might as well be tarzan or cruella or herbie. I don't see why alice or stitch should be somehow less inappropriate to the setting - they're all fully realized characters. Why not emperor cuzco in llama form in the peru section? Why not mary poppins flying around big ben? Once you introduce any of these outside characters into the ride, you effectively change the intent of the ride. They immediately become more interesting than the standard dolls that up until now have been the centerpiece of the attraction. Now they're reduced to supporting roles for the 'real stars'. They're just "pips" in the background. And that's a significant change.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> It was decided there was no room for a line for the attraction in the area, and so it was not put in. << Gee I don't know. Seems to me that there's twice the space in the outer lobby as in the theater itself. Even if they enlarged the theater some, that lobby is pretty darn big. So is the current exit area. But you got it straight from a former girlfriend of the guy who "worked on it". Far be it from me to question your impeccable sourcing.
Originally Posted By wonderingalice <-------Picks up the phone and offers: I was just goofin' to the "I hate Alice In Wonderland" thing... because of my name. I didn't really take it personal. ;-) Of course, I LOVE her attraction; however, I am dead set against the addition of Disney characters to "iasw."
Originally Posted By inlandemporer "They're just "pips" in the background. " LOL! I'm imagining the small world dolls re-programmed to do "pip"-like moves. LOL!
Originally Posted By FerretAfros I think it wouldn't be AS bad (still not good) if they limited their characters to ones from stories created in their countries. For example, Pinocchio in Italy would be fine, but Tarzan in the Africa scene would not. I know most people wouldn't even realize it, but stories from those cultures are a part of those cultures, so it is like they're sharing something with us. I don't think Hawaiian children ten years ago had heard of Lilo or Stitch, so they should be cut. This would make me feel a little better about it, but also keep me very wary of the changes (and then how do you decide who originated the story of Pocahontas, because that's certainly not what the history book say!)
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <It might as well be tarzan or cruella or herbie. I don't see why alice or stitch should be somehow less inappropriate to the setting" Stitch would be, Alice might be slightly less so, because she's a child. So they could make her look like a typical small world child doll, only put her in the Alice dress. I'd still object, but it's less bad than adult characters shoved in there. <Why not emperor cuzco in llama form in the peru section? Why not mary poppins flying around big ben? > Again, adults. If they kept the additions to human children (Alice, Lilo, etc.), it would still be a distraction and a bad idea, IMO, just LESS bad than adding adult characters or Mickey. Those would be even more jarringly out of place. The problem is, there aren't that many sections/countries where they have an appropriate human child character. There's Lilo. There's Alice. But Peter Pan is also English, so that would be overkill. Pinocchio as real boy, I guess, in Italy. What else? They really don't have that many pre-adolescent human child characters in leading roles. Although if they limit themselves to that criterion, that may be a GOOD thing. It might mean just a few additions.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Seems to me that there's twice the space in the outer lobby as in the theater itself." Think about it. When the lobby fills up, where is the line outside the Opera House supposed to go? What will that do to traffic of people coming in and going out of the park? What would that do to the Main Street Vehicle loading areas or ability to even move down the street if the line ends up covering that section of the roadway. This is why nothing of any great popularity can be put in that spot. "Far be it from me to question your impeccable sourcing. " It's a pretty good source, actually, that I don't need to tell all the exact details on. And I would trust this person a lot more than PR announcements from Disney. The fact is that this explanation is far more logical and reasonable, far more pragmatic, and far more boring than "the fans won the day!" And that gives it a very solid ring of truth.
