Originally Posted By lesmisfan well I finally had the chance to ride small world and see everything for myself with some friends from work. Here are my reactions. First of all, the new paint, and lighting are fantastic!!! it makes the ride feel new again! The final room just blew me away! Now for the characters, there were some I didn't mind and some that I completley hated. First of all, I didn't mind peter pan to much since it is above your head and he does look cute. Tink however was shaking so much she looked like she was having a seizure. I feel alice and the rabbit fit in pretty well in london and have no problems with them, could be the fact that they were inspired but the mary blair artwork for alice in wonderland which is practically the same style as small world so it fits better than most of the other characters. Cinderella is ok, and honestly I didn't want to like her but she is not as bad as I thought she would be, very toned down compared to the one in hong kong from what ive seen in videos and gus gus looks so cute! Sorry I have a fondness for the little guy since I played him in second grade in a production of cinderella. Pinocchio looks horrible! Honestly if they were going for a puppet look i think they should have made him look like the puppets before him instead of looking like a black haired augustus gloop! Let's see and absolutley do not like aladdin and jasmine where they are, they do not fit the style of the other flying carpet dolls, if they were done in that way it probably would have been better. I hardley noticed abu until a friend pointed him out and abu doesnt stick out to much. Mulan fits pretty well with the asian section, I wouldn't have known it would have been mulan without mushu being there. and i could have done without the mushu kite. Too much mushu can be a bad thing. Oh and i forgot to mention, jimmney makes a quick appearence near pinocchio but he is so small and up high I would have missed him if another friend didn't spot him. In the jungle, i don't mind pumba and simba at all, they just fit in very well. What i like about simba is he looks nothing like simba! unlike the other characters and fits in well with the others. Timon does not look like timon either and is also one of those if you don't look closely you could miss him. And the jazz music is still in there, its just not as loud as it used to be. Ariel just scared me for some reason and why is flounder about the only one that does not look like they tried to make him look mary blairish? Dory and nemo are alright i guess, i can live with them. And has anyone noticed in austrailia the kid with the boomerang looks an awful lot like mowgli from jungle book? In noticed him back in december during the holiday make over. the lilo doll also looks fine but please either redo stitch or take him away. He in my opinion looks awful and should be sold as a pinata. the american room I had mixed feelings about. While it was nice to see a new room, and looked so out of place themetically, it just does't seem to fit with the rest of the small world sets. And some it looks like it came from superstar limo. and woody and jesse and so bad looking! can they just put them up higher and bring a couple of the dolls to their area. it would make it alot nicer in my opinion. Now with the music the only transition i even seemed to notice was "a whole new world" I didn't think it was gonna be that distracting but honestly it was! for some reason that was the only section to me in the music that showed like a sore thumb. Some of my other friends loved the new additions but hated the american room, others didn't mind the american room and loved all the characters. So to each their own.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt Based on that review it sounds like it's a mixed bag. Some characters work and some don't.
Originally Posted By lesmisfan also is there any reason why ariel is the only small world character that sings?
Originally Posted By Anatole69 >> Hasn't Disney blended characters from other films for awhile now? Belle is in Hunchback, Simba is in Aladdin, etc. They don't advance the story, but people enjoy finding these things. So does it matter if the films are made with them, or if they were added later on, since they aren't integral to the story (spirit) of the artwork? << There is a difference between blending and hiding, like an easter egg, for someone to find who is really looking as a way to give something to the fans. Hiding a character in the background so that only someone who is really looking will find it is one thing, but putting them in a place where they will be seen, highlighting it by changing the music to call attention to it, and doing it for no other point than to push your brand further is another one entirely. As many people have pointed out, the additions only fitfully work inside the attraction. The reason is they don't match the meaning of the ride. However they aren't there for an artistic reason, but a commercial one... that's why they only partially fit. - Anatole
Originally Posted By trekkeruss <<As many people have pointed out, the additions only fitfully work inside the attraction.>> And many more have pointed out that they don't see the problem.
Originally Posted By Anatole69 Compared to how many people liked the ride it was before? The changes were unnecessary artistically. The ride was already a high traffic one, so it was unnecessary from a business stand point. The only reason was to further push the characters and to drive more attendance into the park... both of which could have been achieved better through other means. - Anatole
Originally Posted By trekkeruss <<Compared to how many people liked the ride it was before?>> How do you know the changes won't be viewed as a positive, and that people who didn't particularly care for the attraction will now like it more? <<The only reason was to further push the characters and to drive more attendance into the park... both of which could have been achieved better through other means.>> Of course Disney wants to drive attendance, It's a business. This was an easy, low-cost way to do it.
Originally Posted By oc_dean >>trekkeruss Sat 2/14/2009 9:28p <<As many people have pointed out, the additions only fitfully work inside the attraction.>> And many more have pointed out that they don't see the problem. << But then you have to ask the question - What does the ride mean to them? Is it just a random collection of dolls, that can have almost anything that superficially looks like a fit? And if that is the case .... then it's a detriment to those who happen to care about the more deeper meaning of the attraction. Basically, it's not fair to those who thought it was just fine before.
Originally Posted By oc_dean I'm sure you're just playing devil's advocate in all these discussions trek. I do hope you're not advocating yourself, that it's "just okay" for the company to continue down this slippery slope into a Mediocre Kingdom, where the thinking is devolving into a one dimensional corporate world. The consequences further down the line .. may not be what we'd like to know, even the current keepers of the kingdom, who think their decisions are all sound!
Originally Posted By oc_dean There was nothing mediocre about what was happening in the 1950s, the 1960s .. even as far as 1995 with the opening of Indiana Jones. But true artistic achievements that have been overwhelming success stories have become more spotty. And the last 14 years .. over all have shown to be mediocre.
Originally Posted By JobyCA65 I always thought World had to do with the children of the world, not adults. And it seems that some of those characters in there are adults now. Aren't Cinderella, Aladdin, Ariel, etc. actually young adults in their respective movies? Personally I don't think the changes are that big of a deal, and I'm a real purist when it comes to Disneyland. As long as the dolls are still in there, the additions don't bother me all that much. It's just the adult element that I would think is out of place, if that's how the characters are represented.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss <<There was nothing mediocre about what was happening in the 1950s, the 1960s>> Phantom Boats Mickey Mouse Club Circus Bathroom of Tomorrow Canal Boats of the World Holidayland Viewliner <<But true artistic achievements that have been overwhelming success stories have become more spotty.>. Exactly how many fit into that category, and which attractions are true artistic achievements that can never be re-Imagineered?
Originally Posted By danyoung >I do hope you're not advocating yourself, that it's "just okay" for the company to continue down this slippery slope into a Mediocre Kingdom, where the thinking is devolving into a one dimensional corporate world.< Just jumping in here and not speaking for trek, but I don't acknowledge that the additions to iasw are the same as the slippery slope you're describing. But yes, I'm very concerned about the overall direction the Disney company has taken over the past 10 to 15 years or so. I just don't look at this as the same thing. I look at it as a minor upgrade to a major attraction that most people will look on as a great improvement, which Disney accomplished for relatively little money. Win win in my book.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss ^^What he said. But also, I still think Disney has done some amazing work. I look at the whole world of Disney parks, not just DL. When I think about Soarin', Everest, Sindbad, etc. I still feel the company is offering up some beautifully crafted and successful attractions (well, maybe not Sindbad... that is a dud popularity-wise).
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "The changes were unnecessary artistically. The ride was already a high traffic one, so it was unnecessary from a business stand point." "Plusses" are needed from a business standpoint because they up the repeatability factor for a given ride. The more repeatable the attraction the longer guests spend on site, and the longer guests stick around the more they spend. No theme park business in the world has mastered this formula the way that Disney has. You're kidding yourself if you think that Disney just upgrades attractions for the kick of it.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "I do hope you're not advocating yourself, that it's "just okay" for the company to continue down this slippery slope into a Mediocre Kingdom, where the thinking is devolving into a one dimensional corporate world." Let me ask you this OC, what other choices do Disney fans have? Whether I like it or not, Small World has Disney characters in it now, and more character based attractions are on the way to Disney parks worldwide. There's nothing you nor I can do about that. It's fun to come here and discuss these things, but we might as well accept it and move on because it's too late to change things now.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "There was nothing mediocre about what was happening in the 1950s, the 1960s .. even as far as 1995 with the opening of Indiana Jones." There were lots of mediocre things back then. Midget Autopia? Motor Boat Cruise? Gummy Glen? I always thought that the Country Bear Jamboree and Mission to Mars were two of the silliest things at DL. Still, I agree with you that the subject matter of most of the new attractions they are building now is at an all time low.
Originally Posted By Yookeroo I'm still trying to figure out what deeper meaning people are finding in IASW. If there's one thing the ride doesn't have, it's depth. Seriously, it's got all the depth of Rodney "Can't We All Get Along" King.
Originally Posted By teddibubbles I just saw the video. I am mad and crying. Its a small world. has always been the icon of Disneyland to me. I can not even describe how upset I feel. the first few dolls blended. but so many things I like are gone now. and the DESTRUCTION! of the room THE THEAM OF THE RIDE! the BLATANT IN YOU'RE FACE PIXAR! I am going to consider how much if any. this 1960s- now family. has anything of heritage worth going for anymore.. I am sick of this blatant cast off of our classics! I am so angry. I better not talk!
