Originally Posted By crazycroc What's a hub vibe? Oh, I get it now. A mystery appendage protuding from a naughty, naughty place.
Originally Posted By crazycroc I think they should do those types of additions to all the rides actually. I definitely think that adding genitalia to the tiki room might improve attendance.
Originally Posted By lesmisfan "Pinocchio looks like Eric Cartman. That is all." Great now i can't look at that pinocchio without hearing cartman going,"I want cheesy poofs."
Originally Posted By oc_dean Post 257 sounds like a testimonial that the Disney parks are built specifically for children only. So, therefore ... every ride, every land, every piece of theming is designed to appeal to children only. You know ... it wasn't too long ago .. when the idea was to entertain "the whole family". You know .. those things called grown ups. Adults is another word too.
Originally Posted By danyoung >Great now i can't look at that pinocchio without hearing cartman going,"I want cheesy poofs."< Respect my authorit-eye!!!
Originally Posted By Acapulco Boy When it comes to updating certain "family" attractions, yes, we should prioritize on what our current children want to see and experience. Do I sometimes just chill and enjoy a nice dinner with my "adult" friends or shop at Disney Specialty Stores? Of course. My family and I go to the Disneyland Resort often and we all enjoy its attractions and entertainment. I've had trips to the WDW Resort before (adults only) and it has always been fun as well! Do I think that every ride, every land, every piece of theming at Disney is and should be designed to appeal to children only? No. I think it has been and should continue to be designed to appeal to people of all ages. There are many family attractions and themes that are mainly "geared" towards children but are enjoyed by adults as well. As a matter of fact, Disneyland is that one place where I can live, think and play like a child without having to worry about the outside world. I love going on attractions and reliving those stories and movies with the same excitement a child has. Do I agree with every idea and change that Disney creates? No. But whether it is a small refurbishment or a major revamp, I do appreciate them trying to at least attempt to improve and/or update an attraction or area.
Originally Posted By TMICHAEL >>>So, you assume everything Disney does is always right, and never make a mistake? Right?<<< Nowhere did I imply that. They have created many mis-steps as did Uncle Walt himself. When things were not popular or well received Walt changed or got rid of them. And now with DCA and soon Tomorrowland, the trend continues. And by the way oc, I never ASSuME. >>> How about the cartoonization of every "magic kingdom" park Tomorrowlands?<<< Sorry, but I don't have a problem with this when done well. Without Disney/and now Pixar Toons, Disney would be a very different beast altogether and not nearly as popular, IMO. And personally, Tomorrowland has always been my 'least liked' area. Outside of Space Mountain, there really wasn't much of a draw until Buzz arrived. >>>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.<<< And that is your prerogative. However, I have to disagree with your last sentence. It's my feeling that the current trend is Disney spending quite a bit to correct recent mistakes, like DCA and TL98. But the changes to Small World are not the outrageous blasphemy that some make it out to be. Was it really needed? Probably not. Does it take away from the theme? Probably not. Will the general public enjoy seeing something different but at the same time familiar in an old ride? Most likely.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt I think we fans need to pick our arguments. There have been times when has Disney goofed and management needed to be taken to task for making some truly awful decisions. Tomorrowland '98 comes to mind. Judging by the pictures and the feedback from most of the people who've reported about the ride, I don't think that this is one of those times. This just isn't that big of a deal and too much emphasis is being placed on the rather pedestrian underlying "meaning" of It's a Small World. As blatantly commercial as these additions are, I don't see how they've muddled that message at all. To Disney's credit the changes have been done in a mostly clever and subtle way.
Originally Posted By Anatole69 ^^ Just how is spot lighting the Disney characters so they stand out from the other dolls, and adding music as background on top of the Small world song, subtle? lol. I still say they should add cereal boxes. - Anatole
Originally Posted By trekkeruss <<I think we fans need to pick our arguments>> I think I will pick my nose instead.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "Just how is spot lighting the Disney characters so they stand out from the other dolls, and adding music as background on top of the Small world song, subtle?" They could have designed all the new dolls to look like Barbies. Or Cabbage Patch Kids. Or they could have redesigned the entire thing and made it Lilo and Stitch's Trip Around the World. So, yes, all things considered the changes are subtle and are done in a tasteful manner. Several people have mentioned that many of the characters are hard to spot. Those that are easy to identify mostly match their surroundings or the look of the existing dolls. Yes, there are exceptions, but from what I can tell these changes do not warrant all the fuss that is being made.
Originally Posted By Anatole69 ^^ Sorry, those examples are unrealistic. All things considered, this is not subtle. - Anatole
Originally Posted By danyoung >All things considered, this is not subtle.< In your opinion. In others (like Hans's and mine) it is very subtle and well blended.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss <<All things considered, this is not subtle.>> So in your opinion you don't think the Imagineers tried to make the characters in the style of the original IaSW dolls? That's what I think they did, and to my sensibilities, that is subtle.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros I think that to an extent, they tried to make them look like the iasw dolls, but that doesn't nessecarily solve the problem. Many of the issues come with the placement of them. Ariel is the middle mermaid, up near the top. The lights are very bright on her, and almost not on at all with the other two mermaids. They're there, but I would bet that at least 3/4 of the people on the ride don't even realize it. I had to look to see them, because the scene is designed in a way that all the attention is pointing to Ariel. The placement of Aladdin and Jasmine has similar problems. They're on a flying carpet directly above the flume, positioned in the 'corner' created by the two sets of carpets that spin in circles. Aladdin and Jasmine hover up and down a little, but their movement is practically nothing compared to all the movement going on directly behind them, so they stand out. Additionally, the other dolls on the other carpets appear to be made of paper mache, but Aladdin and Jasmine are made to look like the AA dolls, and they stick out like a sore thumb. Rounding the bend in the Polynesian section and seeing Stitch on the surfboard is not subtle. He is right next to you, again in the focal point of the room, and does not look the least bit like any sort of critter that exists in the real world (or really go with any thing else in the room). The Three Caballeros are directly at the end of a long straight section of the flume in the South America room. They are one of the first things you see when you enter the room, and are the focal point until you leave. I spotted their spot during the holidays, through the big arches with the Christmas lights on them. There is nothing subtle about their placement. Again, they also do not look enough like people to look like the children, but they are doing human things, so they don't really look like the animals in the ride eithe. Making them look like they fit in the ride just isn't enough. The way that they are placed within it matters a lot too. I could go on (the big ring of lights around Pinocchio, etc), but I think you guys get the point. Yes, they made an effort to make them blend in, in general. However, they made them so they would match the attraction while they were sitting waiting in a warehouse somewhere. When they were actually installed, they were positioned (both physically and with lights) so that they became the center of attention of whatever room they were in.
Originally Posted By danyoung >Making them look like they fit in the ride just isn't enough. The way that they are placed within it matters a lot too.< So now it sounds like the argument is that they DO fit in stylistically, but they're spotlighted too much. Again, all my opinions are based on pictures that I've seen online. But I don't have any problem with Disney featuring the new characters. Why should they put new stuff in and then hide it in the back? Again (and for the 14 thousandth time) if it fits with the style, I'm OK with it.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss I guess I don't quite understand all the angst over adding the characters, that it somehow dilutes the message of world peace. I agree with others who have said it is not a subtle one, and even with the characters, I still "get it." Does that make me shallow, or does it just mean I can still embrace the context of the message even with some changes to the content?
Originally Posted By danyoung russ, I'm having the same problem. Some people seem to feel that iasw can only have one message, that of world peace, and it can only be presented with the original dolls that Mary Blair designed. I'd really love to hear what Mary herself would have said over this change. I know her estate (her son?) was very freaked out, which is kinda understandable. But I'd bet she'd be right in there with the other Imagineers, making sure that the overall look was still consistent. And maybe the new America room would look better than it does!
Originally Posted By Yookeroo "but who ever did should read a little more about Walt, and understand he was looking for more than just 'merely entertaining.'" I wrote that. I know plenty about Walt. He's not a deity. And it's still only an entertainment company. If you look to Walt for more than that, there might be an emptiness in your life. "when the idea was to entertain "the whole family". You know .. those things called grown ups. Adults is another word too" IASW has never appealed to adults. Other rides have height requirements that make it impossible for whole families to enjoy. "I guess I don't quite understand all the angst over adding the characters, that it somehow dilutes the message of world peace." It doesn't. The message is still a 2X4 smack to the head.
