Originally Posted By WorldDisney << I mean why shouldn't Disney build junk like Pixie Hollow if people are willing to line up and have their picture taken with the latest corporate character franchise?>> Hans, what is Pixie Hollow?
Originally Posted By avro_imagineer It's a photo op that replaced Triton's Garden. They rethemed it to fit the current girlie product Disney seems enthralled in ramming I mean, helping you choose for your young missie.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss See, I don't really have a problem with Pixie Hollow; it's just a redressing of an area that was serving the same purpose before. Fairies instead of mermaids, big whoop. That in my mind is a wash. Certainly it would be better if there was an honest-to-God attraction in that space (House of the Future, anyone?), but oh well.
Originally Posted By TMICHAEL Exactly trek, Some seem to forget that Disney IS A BUSINESS AFTER ALL. The SMALL attractions, like photo op spots, need to change to stay current and offer some small new "lookie here" that is different from the last time.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Yeah, Pixie Hollow doesn't bother me. There hasn't been an actual attraction there since 1966, and there isn't really room for one. From the pics I saw, it actually was pretty well done for what it is; I could see a little girl finding it enchanting. Meet and greets aren't my thing, but it seems well done for an M&G. And being essentially hidden, it doesn't even bother me as further "toonization" of the park, especially since Ariel was there before anyway. I AM one who thinks the parks are being "over-tooned" and that detracts from the VARIETY you used to experience there to a greater degree, but Pixie Hollow doesn't really bother me.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "Certainly it would be better if there was an honest-to-God attraction in that space (House of the Future, anyone?), but oh well." Well, that was partially my point. They could have built ANYTHING there. But they chose their latest corporate kiddie marketing character franchise. They do this because there is demand for it. As much as I hate it, I understand and don't really disagree with their motives from a business standpoint.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "Yeah, Pixie Hollow doesn't bother me." It doesn't bother me either. It's still garbage though.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss <<They could have built ANYTHING there>> As Dabob2 said, it would be very difficult to have a real attraction in that spot. It would almost have to be some kind of walk-though because of the small footprint.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt Good grief. I said "anything" - meaning that it didn't have to be character related. So, I wasn't speaking specifically of about an attraction per se. Let's not get hung up on Pixie Hollow please.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss I wasn't hung up on the pixies; I didn't get that you meant anything including non-attraction ideas.
Originally Posted By Bellella I've seen the new "improvements" on an Internet video. The only good change is the new America section. The Disney characters look out of place and stupid on the ride. How long could it take them to take these new dolls out? 2 weeks? 2 months?
Originally Posted By oc_dean They could do it overnight .. if they wanted to. If I could look into a crystal ball ... these "annoyances" will be there for at least a couple/few years. But my feeling ... if they could go back to the classic white facade, go back to Space Mountain's classic white design was well. Plus .. for a few years, the arrangement used for DLP's 'small world' was put in DL's ... but then reverted right back to the original '64 arrangement. So .. it's part of DL history .. that they "came to their senses" .. and realize there were some things that were better before. Sleeping Beauty Castle is another example. It was one design when it opened (1957-1977) .. and then another - 1977-2001 ... now it's back to it's "1957" design. So ... if The Future Powers That Be see these Disney characters in way some of us see it ... they could very well change the "change" .. and realize how unnecessary change is, just for the sake of change!
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt ^^While that is certainly a possibility for Small World, surely in the meantime they will wreck something else.
Originally Posted By danyoung Amazing. The vast majority of respondents here and on other sites enjoy the new characters, or at least don't have a problem with them. Yet you talk about Disney taking them out as if that's even slightly a possibility. As far as Disney (and me) is concerned, this upgrade is an overwhelming success.
Originally Posted By oc_dean So ... let me guess ... You read some responses on the net, and they speak for the world at large?
Originally Posted By oc_dean >>this upgrade is an overwhelming success.<< Well, it's not surprising that coming from you! You have a huge bias in favor it, so therefore you're going to paint whatever picture you want. And that's fine. But neither you .. or even myself can call anything "an overwhelming success". These changes are controversial in the eyes of so many people. I think to call these changes an "overwhelming success" is stretching it a bit.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt The only way to know if it's an overwhelming success or not is to know what Disney's expectations were from the outset. Since none of us know that then to say it's an "overwhelming success" is mostly conjecture. By my own estimation, there is no real way to measure the response to these changes other than to survey folks when they exit. Even then, Disney has no real way to make a real connection between characters in Small World and their impact on visitor spending habits after riding it.
Originally Posted By danyoung >You read some responses on the net, and they speak for the world at large?< Basically, yup. People on these websites are ALWAYS more critical than the general public. That's been my impression over many many years of following Disney parks, and I see nothing different about this situation. Just pulling numbers out of the air, I'd bet of the general public, about 1/2 of them don't even realize that there's any difference, probably 40% see the difference but either like it or don't care, and maybe 10% have a problem. I know, I know, totally unscientific - just my perception of the situation. >You have a huge bias in favor it, so therefore you're going to paint whatever picture you want.< I have absolutely no bias at all. I haven't even seen it yet. I've seen pics on the web, and I think they look great. I also think the new America room is somewhat suspect, and I can't wait to see it and render a decision for myself. But to say I have a bias would mean that I have some overriding reason for liking or disliking the additions without really considering what they look like, and that simply isn't true.
