Originally Posted By 2001DLFan <<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.>> So, Disney should base all their design decisions on those people who are generally oblivious to the themeing the attraction?
Originally Posted By 2001DLFan <<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?>> Again, basing design decisions in an attempt to appease those “who didn't particularly care for the attraction”, at the expense of those who actually DO care is not a good policy. <<“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.>> It would have been even more low cost if they didn’t spend the money on additional dolls. As it is, the addition of the Disney characters was at the expense of some of the original figures that had been removed (probably due to lack of maintenance) that could have been refurbished and returned. For the most part, just the enhancement of the paint lighting and boats was more than enough to make the attraction successful, as has been evidenced by EVERY review remarking on how improved those aspects of the attraction look. The additional controversy has certainly helped at the outset, but I doubt that it will provide any significant long-term benefit.
Originally Posted By Acapulco Boy I always look forward to changes and upgrades. Whether we love or hate certain ideas or themes for current or upcoming atractions, I am just glad that at least Disney is spending the time and money to freshen up and maintain some of our beloved atractions. I know that some of the other parks in Southern CA would do anything to have a themed atraction such as our current "It's a Small World" or at least have the resources to receive upgrades to some of their sometimes old and boring rides. At the end of the day we are lucky to have such an amazing Resort here in Anaheim where you can experience change and growth.
Originally Posted By TMICHAEL <<<So, Disney should base all their design decisions on those people who are generally oblivious to the themeing the attraction?>>> So, Disney should become a stagnating museum oblivious to the changing trends and wants of their current customer base, so the whining minority Disnerds can be happy, then turn around and bash it anyways for not trying?
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "Disney should become a stagnating museum" Nobody ever said that. I would be fine with Small World being demolished completely and replaced with something entirely new and unique. "oblivious to the changing trends and wants of their current customer base" Where was the public outcry for Small World to be turned into a character hunt? People go to Disneyland for that immersive theme park experience and not a single new E-Ticket has been built since 1995. We're not asking for Mount Prometheous to be added to Disneyland, but there's plenty of room in the decaying ruins of old Disneyland (Tomorrowland is a good start) to infuse the park with new life. With Chevron's sponsorship of Autopia expiring soon, it's time to put this "classic" to bed and pave the way for the future.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <"Disney parks history is based on their NOT just being 'a theme park with enjoyable rides and attractions'." What is it if it isn't a theme park? A spiritual center? An institute for higher learning? A research center furthering the cause of science? Anyone treating as anything much more than a theme park is getting way too emotionally invested. Disney is, and always has been, an entertainment company. If you're looking for more than entertainment, you may want to take a closer look at you life and your values. "Walt Disney DID invest more meaning in his park. If he hadn’t, it would have ended up being just another amusement park." It is an amusement park. Nothing more really.> I'm sure that more and more management at Disney convince themselves of the above 'truths' about Disneyland. And once everyone in the room starts nodding in agreement, they can lower the bar and lower the bar and lower the bar, until Disneyland is in fact, 'just another theme park.'
Originally Posted By Rsey103 Maybe this has been discussed and I missed it, but did the Imagineers have a story or narrative in mind explaining how and why Cinderella, Pinocchio, and Flounder suddenly popped up inside It's A Small World? Is there a story behind these additions or are they there simply because Rasulo or marketing or merchandising wanted them there? And do we know who (person or dept) originated the idea?
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "Maybe this has been discussed and I missed it, but did the Imagineers have a story or narrative in mind explaining how and why Cinderella, Pinocchio, and Flounder suddenly popped up inside It's A Small World?" That is a good point I haven't seen mentioned before. Modern day WDI is very big on story. Where old attractions didn't need to have a defined story or plot, "What's the story?" is the modern day Imagineering mantra. So when you see Disney characters suddenly pop up inside Small World with no explanation for why they got there, it goes against WDI's insistence on story.
Originally Posted By oc_dean >>Anyone treating as anything much more than a theme park is getting way too emotionally invested. Disney is, and always has been, an entertainment company. If you're looking for more than entertainment, you may want to take a closer look at you life and your values.<< Not sure who wrote that .... but who ever did should read a little more about Walt, and understand he was looking for more than just "merely entertaining."
Originally Posted By oc_dean >>TMICHAEL Sun 2/15/2009 10:36p <<<So, Disney should base all their design decisions on those people who are generally oblivious to the themeing the attraction?>>> So, Disney should become a stagnating museum oblivious to the changing trends and wants of their current customer base, so the whining minority Disnerds can be happy, then turn around and bash it anyways for not trying? << So, you assume everything Disney does is always right, and never make a mistake? Right? Shall I point to a park across the esplanade? How about Tomorrowland's 1998 make-over? How about the cartoonization of every "magic kingdom" park Tomorrowlands? And this is just the tip of iceberg. You know .. some of those people you call "whining disnerds" are very worried and nervous over the execution, and art direction of many projects of the last 10-15 years. And the trend does not seem to be changing for the better.
Originally Posted By oc_dean >>then turn around and bash it anyways for not trying? << I don't look at the attempt to further synergize the Disney characters in 'small world' as "trying".
Originally Posted By danyoung >Is there a story behind these additions or are they there simply because Rasulo or marketing or merchandising wanted them there?< My understanding of it is that they knew they were doing a major refurb and were looking for ways to plus the ride. Since most Disney classic movies are based on older fairy tales which take place in specific spots around the world, they thought that Alice would fit in nicely in England, Lilo in Hawaii, etc. It wasn't about specifically cramming Disney characters into everything - it was simply a synergy that seemed to make sense. Whether it does make sense or not is of course wildly in debate.
Originally Posted By SoThisIsLove ^^ROFL! No wonder I didn't know who that was...never saw that show...but I will be sure to look for it next time I go. (Poor Pinocchio!)
Originally Posted By Acapulco Boy The last 2 times we were at Disney, my nephew (12 yrs old) wanted to skip "Small World". He considered it boring. After going on it last week, he now expresses interest and enjoys it. He likes thinking about the Disney stories, where they originate and take place, but also is now interested in creating and/or searching for stories throughout other cultures. Of course Disney is utilizing this refurbishment for marketing and increasing sales. Is in't smart in a way? Why wouldn't they? Haven't they being doing since the park opened in some way or another? But I also know that Disney does care about entertaining their guests, specially kids. I know that there are a lot of children out there that love Pirates of the Caribean, Small World, Pirates Lair, Haunted Mansion Holiday, etc. way, way, way more after the editions. We might not agree with alot of Disney's sometimes cheesy ideas and themes such as Cars Land and Toy Story. As long as they keep making our kids smile after spotting a character and/or ridding their "new" favorite attraction, it really doesn't bother me if they retheme the submarines to Nemo or add Peter Pan to Small World.
Originally Posted By crazycroc Seriously, look at these pictures of him. <a href="http://micechat.com/forums/blogs/dateline-disneyland/983-its-small-world-returns-plus-main-street-repaving-big-thunder-ranch-progess.html" target="_blank">http://micechat.com/forums/blo...ess.html</a>
Originally Posted By SoThisIsLove ROFL tears streaming down my face....croc....I'll take your word for it. What's getting me is the next pic as you scroll down. The guy on the flying carpet....kind of a Hub vibe going on there....
