Originally Posted By oc_dean Dalmations moving into 'it's a small world' :~ This is a bit interesting: <a href="http://disneylandnewstoday.com/archives/1375" target="_blank">http://disneylandnewstoday.com...ves/1375</a> Now .. the question is ... why didn't they use Mary Blair's artwork, per batem. It surely would have fit the rest of the attraction instead of that glaring "SuperStar Limo" motif!
Originally Posted By trekkeruss I have not belittled anyone in the discussion. All I have said is that I don't understand what all the fuss is about, and that I believe the vast majority of people don't see this as some watershed event. I get that you and a few others think this is like painting a mustache on the Mona Lisa. I just don't agree. I actually think there are other decisions made by the company that have a much more negative impact on the Disney park experience than this one.
Originally Posted By 2001DLFan ^^^^ Then why not just focus on those issues that YOU feel have had a more negative effect, and leave IASW to those who feel that IT is an issue they feel has had a negative effect. Everyone has issues that they feel are worth fighting over. To be challenged by those who don't really care just makes their frustration even more intense.
Originally Posted By oc_dean Trek...... If you read my topic - 'it's a celebration of world cultures' ... you may remember where I put it all into perspective. Rather than repeat myself .. just scroll down to that section. The paragraph is clearly labeled in caps - "Putting it all into perspective."
Originally Posted By oc_dean >>Everyone has issues that they feel are worth fighting over. To be challenged by those who don't really care just makes their frustration even more intense.<< And to add to that .... it's hard to make some people understand my viewpoint, if they never cared/liked-at-all the attraction in the first place. Or just mildly, very casually interested. For instance, WorldDisney, my bud .... does not like the ride. So, therefore, (LOL) it's makes little difference to him whether the ride is changed, unchanged, or leveled. And he would naturally feel ... "Oh, what's all this fuss?" .. since he carries a bias. But what I admire, he throws that important piece of info out ahead of his comments. Which I appreciate.
Originally Posted By oc_dean Can I tell you all a very interesting word a poster of another site used referring to the changes? Cloying. Never heard that word used in this subject yet. And, coincidentally, it was from someone also not a big fan of the ride at all. >>I come to this ride with a rather neutral stance. It is a part of the park's, in fact Disney's, history but really I am not a huge fan of it. So when word broke that Disney was going to revamp the ride by adding Disney characters and music to it I was only mildly irritated. Not by the fact that it seems to be a total sell out but because it would make this classic attraction even more cloying than it already is.<<
Originally Posted By trekkeruss FWIW, I liked IaSW. Obviously not the way you like it, but for me it is/was enjoyable. Maybe I have a bit more of the child-like spirit in me, much like the dolls in the ride, which is why I don't see anything wrong with the ride either way.
Originally Posted By Anatole69 ^^ Actually I was indifferent to the ride before the changes. Once news broke and the Unicef part was explained to me, along with Mary Blairs contribution, I understood where the objections came from. Once I saw the HK version it confirmed that adding characters would be a distraction for the most part, and really didn't belong. Now that I have seen the DL version, it again confirms my feelings. - Anatole
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "So, my question is, why are those who are ambivalent or indifferent about IASW making such an effort to try and belittle the feelings that some people have for the original intent of the attraction?" Sorry, but I don't see that happening here.
Originally Posted By oc_dean It was straddling off in that direction ... but lets not fuss over it .. and keep on track with our talk.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt What more is there left to say? Seriously. Do I need to make a trip down to Anaheim and see this for myself?
Originally Posted By oc_dean In response to your post #310 Anatole ..... This poster from Micechat sums up nicely for me: >>Did the changes "ruin" the attraction? Depends on what your philosophies are. If IASW is just a way to pass a pleasant afternoon then no: there's no reason to be upset because "Disneyland is not a museum". If you are sensitive to the commercial exploitation of somebody else's artistic statement to boost sales, then yes you will be upset.<< For me, I fall into the latter group. It's more than that .. but my full and complete view can be found in my new topic.
Originally Posted By oc_dean >>What more is there left to say? Seriously.<< I think we pretty much covered it. LOL I've been trying to get to my big write-up. Finally did it - Done. >>Do I need to make a trip down to Anaheim and see this for myself?<< Between LP and Micechat, and Miceage, and a TON of photos of the additions .. you may not need to make that trip, if it's a long trip. If you want to come down to see something where the artistic integrity is not compromised .. come see the fantastic restoration of Sleeping Beauty Castle's walkthrough.
Originally Posted By danyoung >...why are those who are ambivalent or indifferent about IASW making such an effort to try and belittle the feelings that some people have for the original intent of the attraction? Those who are accepting of the attraction as it now stands can do so without causing distress to those who aren’t.< You are very correct, 2001DLFan, in that there's no reason for getting crazy on either side of this issue. I don't think I've done any belittling, but I am amazed at the passion with which the "opposition" carries on the discussion. It's as if someone painted a mustache on the Mona Lisa. Sure, Disney attractions are better than 6 Flags attractions, but they're still just amusement park rides. And I don't feel the ride has been diminished at all by these additions. Others disagree, as is their right. And at this point no one is going to change the other's opinions, so it's starting to become a moot point.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones An excerpt from the book Disneyland: The First Quarter Century, published in 1979 by Disney. "Disneyland, obviously, was never meant to be an "amusement park." The new concept in entertainment dedicated on July 17, 1955, was much more: a fabulous playground, something of a fair, a city from the Arabian Nights, a metropolis of the future. Above all, it was a place for people to find happiness and knowledge."
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones Is it always right to do what's popular with the masses? If Walt Disney believed that, he would have never built Disneyland in the first place. "Collectively, some of the people who were most indifferent and reserved toward the Disneyland concept were the nation's amusement-park owners and operators. Early in 1954, key Disney staff members assigned to Disneyland development toured major amusement parks across America, learning far more about what *not* to do than what to do. Recalls one: "We could have paid for the entire trip with a few dollars from each person who told us, 'If you don't put in a roller-coaster or a Ferris wheel, you'll go broke!'" A family park? A park without "whips" and "shoot-the-chutes"? A park *sans* barkers, baseball-throws and a tunnel of love? Top amusement-park owners couldn't believe it. "All of that money just for theming and landscaping? Walt's got to be kidding. It'll never go!""
Originally Posted By trekkeruss While I agree with much of that, there is also hyperbole connected to it. DL still has roller coasters and other carnival rides, and even games like the shooting gallery and what used to be a penny arcade. The difference is that it is all themed to offer an "experience;", hence the term attractions instead of rides.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones I think concessions can be made for Disneyland's first few years because... "'I could never convince the financiers that Disneyland was feasible,' Walt recalled, 'because dreams offer too little collateral.' Newsweek magazine reported that 'to build Disneyland, Walt and his brother Roy Disney borrowed to the corporate hilt, and then Walt sold his vacation home and borrowed against his personal life insurance policies.'" From the same book. Despite the fact that some spinny carnival type rides made it into Disneyland, they were very much dressed up versus what you'd see in a usual amusement park. And their inclusion doesn't take away from the achievements of the park in those first few shaky years. I just wonder if Rasulo or Iger would sell their vacation homes to get an attraction financed...
