Originally Posted By dresswhites sadly history type attractions just don't fare well in the modern themepark. i predict Mr. Lincoln will have a crowd when it first reopens, but will go back to its old attendance patterns of a dozen or so for each showing. DCA had Golden Dreams,which i really liked, but i was sadly in the minority for each time i went in to see the show there weren't too many other folks in the theater. back to the topic at hand, one could argue that the disney characters are major ambassadors to the world and do bring people together. that is how i look at it. With small world they are placed in the lands that came from. plus most the times i have been on the attraction, people in the boat are still looking at all the dolls, not just the disney ones. They still always seem to point out the goat in Scottland, the can can dancers in France, the hippo in Africa, and the hula girls in the South seas. So except for Stich, Woody and jessie, most the other characters seem to blend into the overall tapestry of the ride. once again, just my humble opinion.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Everyone is entitles to their opinion of course. But Manfred, let me set the record straigh. I don't want DL to be a museum, but I do want it to not rely on toons. I welcomed the idea of an America room, not the toons.
Originally Posted By Pollyana I thought the new Small World additions were nicely done. The whole attraction took on a new glow, and I liked it. It was fun looking for the new guys as they were not always easily found. I have found this attraction to be hohum in the past, but I will be back with the new look!
Originally Posted By Mickeysbestfan *I don't want DL to be a museum, but I do want it to not rely on toons* The only characters that really seemed toonish are Woody, Jessie, and Stitch. The rest are done in the same style as the other dolls and blend right in.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "The inclusion of the new characters has absolutely nothing to do with capitalism and greed. They are simply an attempt on the part of the Imagineers to update a dated attraction, and to make it more of a draw in their parks." Considering that Disney's top brass has publicly stated numerous times now that it wants to exploit its character brands as much as possible, how can you make such a claim with confidence? I agree that the addition of characters in Small World is an example of Disney "plussing" a classic attraction, nevertheless I think it's beyond obvious what the original intent was behind their inclusion.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Ah Bellella and others like you want Disneyland to be preserved and never changed, like a museum.<< But that's precisely the point. Disneyland IS a museum right now - a self-referential museum. Are we seriously saying plopping a couple of already-existing Disney characters onto a ride is the living, breathing, progressing park Walt had in mind? That's what he meant when he said it was always changing? Whether it's IASW or Tiki New Management or Nemo Submarines, DL is a museum - they're just preserving what they've already done and what's already proved popular instead of taking risks with new rides. The two best rides in the park, IMO, are Pirates and Haunted Mansion. What are they based on?
Originally Posted By Manfried ecdc said: "they're just preserving what they've already done and what's already proved popular" Yet if they don't plus the long standing ones, the lines will fall off and the attractions will eventually close. So management decides to spend a few million on adding new stuff to an attraction and it draws a crowd again, versus spending upwards of $170 million on a new attraction. In this economy, I think that's a wise decision. Besides, they're taking plenty of risks with all new attractions at DCA, and yes, they are based on either Disney or Pixar films. So what. Most of the great themes for theme parks have been taken and these new rides give the characters life after the movies. Oh, I'm sorry, Walt Disney himself all ready did that at Disneyland so it must be all right.
Originally Posted By mousermerf Thought: Can you provide a link to the words that are being eaten? I dont think the dolls ruin the ride but are moreso a colossal waste of funds which do nothing for the attraction. Misguided attempt by a certain Madame of imagineering to compare herself to past greats, at best. So.. since i can't recall the OP as terribly outspoken against this, please please provide a link so i dont continue believing this is just a fabrication of a PR shill to illustrate the "its not so bad" methodology of the deny, misdirect, and distract methodology.
Originally Posted By danyoung >I agree that the addition of characters in Small World is an example of Disney "plussing" a classic attraction, nevertheless I think it's beyond obvious what the original intent was behind their inclusion.< Well, if you want to look at things that way, every thing added to a Disney park is with the intent of making more money. It's been that way since Eisner took over. You could say that they built Indy just to keep more people coming, which is sorta true. Of course, the Walt philosophy was to build something of quality, and the profits would follow. I don't think that's the current philosophy of the Disney corporation, but it's still not a bad way to do business. If they added new characters to iasw in an effort to better the ride, which would make more people come to see it, which would put more ticks on the turnstyles and more cash in the coffers of the stockholders, then everybody wins, don't they? I just don't agree with the image of a bunch of Snydley Whiplashes in Disney's home office, twirling their mustaches while laughing evilly at how they're going to screw the next generation of parkstormers while picking their pockets of every last farthing. >So management decides to spend a few million on adding new stuff to an attraction and it draws a crowd again, versus spending upwards of $170 million on a new attraction. In this economy, I think that's a wise decision.< I tend to agree with you on this. If they can bring in a new or larger crowd into iasw without having to shell out bazillions of dollars, then that's a great thing. Of course, I'm hoping for the next cool E ticket attracton just like the next guy. And I think we'll have at least 1 or 2 of those with the new stuff coming to DCA. >since i can't recall the OP as terribly outspoken against this, please please provide a link so i dont continue believing this is just a fabrication of a PR shill...< If you're saying that you don't trust Kar2oon Man, then them's fighting words, merf. 2oony has been around here for ever, and if he says he said a certain thing in the past, and that now he has come to disagree with that stance, then I for one don't need any further proof as to what he said in the first place. Next thing you know, someone is gonna call ME a flack and a shill for Disney, and I'm gonna have to get all mideval on his butt!
Originally Posted By mousermerf Posting a link would be easier then typing that last paragraph - just sayin.
Originally Posted By mousermerf And to retort the current train of thought.. when was small world lacking attendance?
Originally Posted By FerretAfros When was Space Mountain lacking in attendance? Why did they have to do all the extra effects and work in the queue when it went down for a couple years? Why did they put an overlay on it for Halloween? Both cases are a popular attraction closing for a long time for maintenence issues. While the tracks were repaired, they also knew that guests would be expecting something additional when the attractions reopened. Space got new music, effects, and queue spaces. small world got new lighting, freshened sets, and characters. Both are popular all year, yet still get an overlay for part of the year. They do it to go that little extra mile. Even if it doesn't seem like much, people have come to expect those extras from Disney, and Disney happily does them in return.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Yet if they don't plus the long standing ones, the lines will fall off and the attractions will eventually close.<< First, that's not necessarily true - as plenty of the long-standing rides have proven. Second, who said anything about just keeping everything static? I'm fine with changes - just make them creative. I'm not unaware of the difficulty Disney faces. If they bulldoze beloved old rides, then they're accused of tampering with the classics. If they don't do anything, they're accused of making Disneyland stale. It's a tough balance, but one I'm convinced can be achieved with innovation and creativity. Disney used to do that. Now they just push the Disney brand and cross their fingers that the dollars will follow. And I'm fine with earning dollars. Disneyland is a business, after all (though one could argue, and I would, that DL is also an important American cultural icon and that Disney has a responsibility to respect that). But like Dan said, Walt's philosophy was to build quality and the profits will follow. Modern business theory won't allow that - the results have to be fast and furious, and you better see big profits before the next quarter. >>Oh, I'm sorry, Walt Disney himself all ready did that at Disneyland so it must be all right.<< Walt used a few of his characters in Fantasyland rides, sure. How about the pack mules? Jungle Cruise? People Mover? Matterhorn? Submarines? Rocket to the Moon? Carousel of Progress? Adventure Through Innerspace? Mine Train? Monorail? Pirates of the Caribbean? Haunted Mansion? Railroad? Mark Twain? Columbia? Tiki Room?
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "Well, if you want to look at things that way, every thing added to a Disney park is with the intent of making more money. It's been that way since Eisner took over. You could say that they built Indy just to keep more people coming, which is sorta true." Making money isn't the point here. The point is that management has stated that it wants to capitalize on its character brands and the addition of well known Disney character in Small World - for better or for worse - is just one more example of how this is being achieved. To say that they are doing it just to make it interesting to repeat customers is a bit inaccurate. After all, they could have done any number of things to alter or improve the attraction without adding characters to it.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan LOL, thanks danyoung for post 50! For the person musing that I am some PR shill, well, you'd have to go back and find the small world threads to see what I said at the time. I don't remember verbatim but my basic stance was that adding the toons to the ride was creatively lazy and would detract from the overall message of the ride. I still think adding the toons isn't the most innovative thing the could have done with an aging attraction. But having now seen it, the toons were largely not noticeable to me. Sometime I'll ride it during the non-holiday time, perhaps the characters may pop out a bit more when I'm not distracted by all the sparkly lights and filled with holiday merriment.
Originally Posted By Manfried pack mules? Not particularly creative as there were pack mules at the Grand Canyon so that's where that idea came from. Jungle Cruise? Uh, African Queen. Not a Disney film but Walt admitted it came from there. People Mover? Innovative at the time, yes. It was Tomorrowland. But it would be an aging antique now. Matterhorn? Third Man on the Mountain, a Disney film, was the inspiration for this one. Submarines? Walt wanted to use the Nautilus of Jules Verne fame, but the real one had just gone under the North Pole, so he changed his mind. Rocket to the Moon? Let's see all those films Walt did about moon travel were the inspiration for this one, and others had done things like this, such as planetariums, but Walt did it better. Carousel of Progress? Probably the most creative thing other than Lincoln and Tiki Room not based on a film. Adventure Through Innerspace? Give me a break please. It was a boring ride. No one went on it. Mine Train? Nature's Wonderland, all of them. Disney films. Monorail? Gee, its a train in the sky. It doesn't even really do its job any more or Disney would've expanded it to all the other Anaheim area hotels. Pirates of the Caribbean? Now that one was innovative and creative. They just don't come along that often. Haunted Mansion? Another creative and innovative ride-through attraction. Not based on a film, but based on just about every cliche ghost film, or haunted house story ever done. Railroad? You mean Walt didn't make any movies using trains? I don't think so. Mark Twain? Need I say Tom Sawyer? Yes, Walt made a movie based on it. Columbia? A sailing ship on a river. Okay, its creative, not really based on a specific movie. Tiki Room? This was very creative and innovative, but its old and tired and in dire need of a new fresh creative approach. Maybe not the show in Florida, but something new and innovative, and yes, maybe with some Disney characters.
Originally Posted By ecdc Well obviously everything is going to be based on *something*. I think equating the building of an entire snow mountain in Disneyland with dropping some cartoon characters in IASW is pretty apples and oranges. Even the rides you praised, like Pirates or Haunted, are based on the American fascination with swashbuckling, history, and the supernatural. But they were done creatively and thoughtfully. They were carefully themed - on Pirates my seven year old asked if the sky was real. He kinda knew it wasn't, but he was so impressed with it that it made him pause. Sure the subs were based on something, but can anyone deny the scope of the ride? I've never said "No toons! No references to existing entertainment!" It's about quality, nothing more. Dropping toons on a ride is lazy. I'm excited for Carsland and Little Mermaid, even though they're based on toons, because by all accounts the scope, size, and creativity sounds top notch.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>pack mules? Not particularly creative as there were pack mules at the Grand Canyon so that's where that idea came from.<< But Walt didn't own the Grand Canyon. There's nothing to imply that it wasn't a creative attraction, and your sole criticism of it shows that it fits the theme of the land very well. >>Jungle Cruise? Uh, African Queen. Not a Disney film but Walt admitted it came from there.<< It could have just as easily been inspired by Conrad's Heart of Darkness. It's a boat ride past scenery that doesn't have much to do with the film or the book, so other than the most basic inspiration, I would say that the way it was built was pretty creative. >People Mover? Innovative at the time, yes. It was Tomorrowland. But it would be an aging antique now.<< The perfect example of why DL shouldn't be a museum. It was a fine attraction, but if they were to bring it back, they would need to update the technology behind it. They did try to do that with Rocket Rods, but the technology to support the attraction just wasn't ready yet. >>Matterhorn? Third Man on the Mountain, a Disney film, was the inspiration for this one.<< Only the most basic inspiration was pulled from the film. Walt fell in love with the mountain while in Switzerland for the filming of the movie, and wanted his own version in the park. Everything else was completely original for the park. >>Submarines? Walt wanted to use the Nautilus of Jules Verne fame, but the real one had just gone under the North Pole, so he changed his mind.<< I've never heard that story. I've heard that the real Nautilus and nuclear powered subs were big at that time, but I never heard anything about Walt 'settling' for the modern ones for Tomorrowland. A few years after Walt's death, they used the design from the 20K film for the subs in WDW, but the actual attraction had little to do with the film. >>Rocket to the Moon? Let's see all those films Walt did about moon travel were the inspiration for this one, and others had done things like this, such as planetariums, but Walt did it better.<< Umm...all those moon travel shows that they made for the Disneyland TV show? I hardly think that qualifies. That's like saying that the Pirates of the Caribbean attraction was based off of the movies. They needed something to represent Tomorrowland on the show, and they created shows about man's exploration of space. I don't think the popularity (either artistically or culturally) those could count for an attraction that was there on opening day (and refreshed several times through the years). >>Carousel of Progress? Probably the most creative thing other than Lincoln and Tiki Room not based on a film.<< It's basically a commercial for GE. They wanted it for the World's Fair, and Disney got to keep it when they were done. The presentation style is very creative (revolving theater featuring AA's), but the show itself isn't terribly innovative. >>Adventure Through Innerspace? Give me a break please. It was a boring ride. No one went on it.<< You may have thought it was boring, but there are plenty of people who would argue that with you. I never had the chance to ride it, but the concept behind it does seem like it would make for a fun attraction. >>Mine Train? Nature's Wonderland, all of them. Disney films.<< Which films? True Life Adventures? I don't remember any cacti that looked like people or phosporescent waterfalls in any of them. >>Monorail? Gee, its a train in the sky. It doesn't even really do its job any more or Disney would've expanded it to all the other Anaheim area hotels.<< But at the time it was what people thought the future would be like. If they built a ride where everybody drove electric cars right now, and in 50 years that wasn't how the future turned out, would it not still be a creative attraction? Just because it's not the way that it worked in real life doesn't mean that it's not a creative attraction that wasn't based on an existing property. The wild success of it when it opened should show that (why would they have expanded the route if it wasn't popular?) >>Pirates of the Caribbean? Now that one was innovative and creative. They just don't come along that often.<< I don't think there was anything exceptionally creative about the idea behind the attraction (boatride past scenes of pirates doing pirate-ey things), but like COP the execution does take it to another level. >>Haunted Mansion? Another creative and innovative ride-through attraction. Not based on a film, but based on just about every cliche ghost film, or haunted house story ever done.<< I think that it managed to avoid a lot of chiches (where's the guy with the bed sheet over his head?), while coming up with some new cliches of their own. They did a good job of avoiding making it too scary or too funny, which I think was a first at the time. >>Railroad? You mean Walt didn't make any movies using trains? I don't think so.<< He didn't really make any that were basis for the attraction. I'm really not sure why every attraction really must have been based in something that Walt had done earlier. He just liked playing with trains, and this was his big-boy toy. >>Mark Twain? Need I say Tom Sawyer? Yes, Walt made a movie based on it.<< Really? Which one? >>Columbia? A sailing ship on a river. Okay, its creative, not really based on a specific movie.<< It's not all that creative. It's based on the real Columbia, which sailed up a river (the Columbia River to be exact). It's another one of those nice little historical pieces that makes the park so rich and realistic. >>Tiki Room? This was very creative and innovative, but its old and tired and in dire need of a new fresh creative approach. Maybe not the show in Florida, but something new and innovative, and yes, maybe with some Disney characters.<< I'm not sure why Disney characters would make it better. The show already has its own cast of characters, and I'm sure there are creative folks working out there who could come up with a new show that still revolves around them and their personalities. I'm really not sure what the point of the list of attractions was. They weren't based on films. They weren't based on existing properties. They may have been inspired by something, but the execution of them was done in such a way that the end product wasn't really related, in all but the most general sense. Those Walt-era attractions appealed to a lot of people, though many did grow old with time, and managed to be popular without relying on outside characters or properties. I'm not saying that we should bring them back, but they really weren't created as answers to films that the company had made up to that point.
Originally Posted By Manfried Ferrot: "They may have been inspired by something, but the execution of them was done in such a way that the end product wasn't really related, in all but the most general sense. Those Walt-era attractions appealed to a lot of people, though many did grow old with time, and managed to be popular without relying on outside characters or properties." On that we agree. But I don't think the cartoon characters are a bad addition.
