Originally Posted By princesspaulina LOVE THIS! Bring on more characters in SW! This is not Mary Blair's Small World, it's WALT DISNEY's SMALL WORLD.
Originally Posted By simon I can't even begin to say how much I DESPISE this. Really, this is so wrong on several levels.
Originally Posted By oc_dean Tonight I went to see a screening of "Carousel". And while I was watching this widescreen spectacle .. I thought ... "What was wrong with Rodgers and Hammerstien????" You know ... it's 1956 .. most of the R&H stage shows were out ... the CinemaScope screen so large .. I don't see why they couldn't put little references of King and I, Oklahoma, and South Pacific in "subtle" scenes throughout the background. It would have been "cute". I'm sure my nieces would have loved it .. and giggled at Laurie and Curly .. even while Shirley Jones and Gordon MacRay were playing their respect roles throughout "Carousel". So ... they really missed out! It would have "just been cute" to see some little references of Anna singing 'getting to know you' while a full cast was singing 'June is Bustin out all over'. After all .. who would complain? .. since a little "Anna" hidden way off in the corner. It wouldn't have distracted from the "Carousel" story line. NOT AT ALL. Because it's cute! Those idiots .. Rodgers and Hammerstein! They really missed out!
Originally Posted By danyoung Apples and oranges, dean. A movie is a static moment in time, while a theme park attraction is a constantly evolving entity. That came from Walt himself - it was one of the coolest things about his new park venture, the idea that he could change and plus and tinker. That doesn't mean, of course, that you have to cram classic cartoon characters into every situation. But it does indicate that change is part of the original design.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***A movie is a static moment in time*** Tell that to George Lucas. ***That came from Walt himself - it was one of the coolest things about his new park venture, the idea that he could change and plus and tinker.*** He said a lot of stuff. And much of it has been twisted and adjusted and "tweaked" by management these days to fit their needs. The whole Pleasure Island "booze fest" idea, something I firmly believe Walt Disney would've been appalled by, is one example. But you are right, the whole "ever changing" idea is a good one. I'm not entirely sure the direction the current guys are taking is all that positive though. Does anyone really disagree that the cartoonization happening these days is really all that great? I can only speak from my recent WDW experience, but IMO it's pretty out of hand, and takes away from a lot of the "macro themes" the parks have used to create cohesion over the decades. Tomorrowland and Future World are the two most obvious examples. ***That doesn't mean, of course, that you have to cram classic cartoon characters into every situation.*** Agreed. And yet that seems to be the goal recently. ***But it does indicate that change is part of the original design.*** Also agreed, but only to a point. I think when they start "tinkering" with the classic rides, it usually doesn't make things better. Pirates would be an unusual situation where it might actually add to the thing (though the Pirates ride in Tokyo was nothing all that cool, I thought...kinda neat, but nothing big really and not all that changed overall, except to tie in to the movies somewhat, but not much). The other "tinkerings" have been ham fisted and character-centric...not all that great and DEFINITELY lacking in the finesse and grandeur of efforts past. Again, my opinion, of course.
Originally Posted By danyoung ***A movie is a static moment in time*** >Tell that to George Lucas. < Good point. I have a HUGE problem with Lucas doing this, but he owns the prints, so he can do what he wants. I really do want a movie to be the same movie that I saw in the theater, not with extra scenes and redone special effects. I don't feel the same way about Disney attractions, though.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA When I first visited Disneyland in 1969, I was 7, my little sister was 2 years old. There were only a few things she could go on without being scared. 'It's a Small World' was one of them. And my mom and dad took her on that ride countless times on a single visit to the park. But my parents also enjoyed it. My older brother and I went on ‘small world’ too back then, and we liked it. As a parent, when my daughter was little, my wife and I took her on 'It's a Small World' – and we all enjoyed it. We still do. But I don’t like ‘it’s a small world’ because my kid likes it. If that were the case, I guess I’d be banging on a saucepan with a wooden spoon, or sticking pennies up my nose.
Originally Posted By jonvn You went to see Carousel? Did you have to take some meth to stay awake through it?
Originally Posted By Dznygrl <<As a parent, when my daughter was little, my wife and I took her on 'It's a Small World' – and we all enjoyed it. We still do. But I don’t like ‘it’s a small world’ because my kid likes it. If that were the case, I guess I’d be banging on a saucepan with a wooden spoon, or sticking pennies up my nose.>> THANK YOU. I never got this whole "Well, as long as my kids like it, then it's good enough for Disneyland" sentiment. So what? Kids really like playing inside cardboard boxes too. Does that mean it would be ok to rip out Small World and turn it into "It's a Cardboard Box After All"? Let's not forget that the reason Walt created Disneyland in the first place was because he wanted a place where HE as an adult could have fun too, not just to watch his kids have fun. That concept seems to be slowly disappearing in favor of playing down to the kiddos.
Originally Posted By oc_dean After reading many great comments on both sides of the issue .. not just this topic .. but the score of others going now ... I still believe, The highly recognizable Disney characters (no matter how few they are in ratio to the regular dolls, in the vast showbuilding) do shift the focus of the delicate theme this attraction possesses. In 'it's a small world' .. each doll is intentionally left nondescript. There is nothing ... absolutely NOTHING nondescript about the Disney characters. They have strong identities. I've come up with a few analogies in a few other topics to make myself understood how the Disney characters are not really "plussing" it ... but fundamentally add to the hand of 'changing' it. So .. here's another analogy to chew on: This reminds me of those so called "creative" ideas to colorize B&W films in the 1990s. In the end .. a creative and artistic bad idea! I don't see these ideas for 'it's a small world' any different!
Originally Posted By markymouse Mr X wrote that the cartoonization that's happening "takes away from a lot of the "macro themes" the parks have used to create cohesion over the decades." My partner once referred to Disneyland as "not really a theme park. The only 'theme' is movies Disney has made." It is such a sad commentary on the situation that the place where theme parks were invented no longer strikes a casual observer as even qualifying as a theme park.
