Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "The argument isn't whether she looks fine, the argument is whether she blends in. She is standing all alone on the top of that column in a prominant place. That ain't blending in." What we were constantly being told? "Oh, you'll never notice them!" Come on.
Originally Posted By oc_dean >>>>Disney says it supplemented the human dolls with make-believe figures to keep the aging ride appealing to younger generations<< So, I guess it never did before, huh?! (Translation: That's just a made up story to hide our real reason.)> What is the real reason, oc_dean -- inquiring minds want to know... << I don't think it's too difficult to collectively make an assertion .. that it all comes down to further exploitation of the Disney Character brand. Disney never gave anyone a clear reason how this improves the ride. So, what we are left with is to pull all our collective knowledge of Disney theme park history together .. and it doesn't take much to come to the conclusion, that they are just looking for further ways to push the Disney characters.
Originally Posted By oc_dean Pardon me if this story has already been offered in a related topic: <a href="http://www.pe.com/family/stories/PE_News_Local_S_disneyland05.3bd9ee2.html" target="_blank">http://www.pe.com/family/stori...ee2.html</a>
Originally Posted By Anatole69 Related topic? It was already offered in post # 28. Oh well, if you've read one thread about the changes to IASW, you've read them all. lol. - Anatole
Originally Posted By tonyanton I like that Cinderella is not in her ballgown (like in HK), in that sense IMHO she already blends in better than I thought.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss <<The argument isn't whether she looks fine, the argument is whether she blends in. She is standing all alone on the top of that column in a prominant place.>> I am telling you that Cinderella blends in to my eyes. If someone hadn't told me to look for her, I might not even realize who it is supposed to be, other than another one of the Children of the World. <<If 99.5% of the people were told about Walts desire for the ride to promote world unity, and if 99.5% of the people were told about Mary Blair's contribution to the ride, and 99.5% of the people were then asked how they felt about the ride knowing those things, 99.5% of the people wouldn't be as happy with the ride.>> That's a heck of a lot of "if's." It's also an unsupportable thesis, because I am well aware of how the ride came about, and it doesn't change the meaning for me. IaSW is still about unity, it just happens to have some characters in it. <<most people will ride it expecting it to be nothing more than another amusement park ride>> Is there something wrong with that? Most people don't go to DL for any other reason to be entertained.
Originally Posted By oc_dean >>Anatole69 Thu 2/5/2009 3:46a Related topic? It was already offered in post # 28. << oops In my best "Jar-Jar Binks": Excweeze me.
Originally Posted By Anatole69 That 99.5% of the people will like the new ride is an unsupportable number, so don't stop with my thesis, we could keep on going since much of this board is based upon conjecture. However I can offer a counter argument to your example pretty easily: when I read about Mary Blair and Disney's intent for the ride, I was swayed by the argument. When I saw the video of the HK ride, I thought the character dolls only fitfully blended in, the animal dolls (especially Stitch) really stood out and distracted me. - Anatole
Originally Posted By trekkeruss We've been down this tube before, but IaSW has always had elements beyond the children; mermaids, wacky elephants, flying fish, etc. To me, those things are no different than what Disney has added now. They are ancillary to the meaning and the ride.
Originally Posted By Anatole69 Has Disney always been selling plush or pushing characters based on those other characters? The answer is no, and this time the additions are part of a larger marketing picture. That changes their effect on the ride and the rides meaning. - Anatole
Originally Posted By trekkeruss BTW, Disney has sold IaSW dolls. I guess that means the ride has been commercialized before.
Originally Posted By Yookeroo "As it is, most people will ride it expecting it to be nothing more than another amusement park ride," It is nothing more than another amusement park ride.
Originally Posted By danyoung If you want to see a silly comment, go to Miceage and look at the AP video that went out today. Al Lutz is quoted as saying that children will miss out on the original meaning of the ride because they'll be busy playing Look For The Disney Characters. As if children have the ride's meaning foremost in their minds anyway. Silly.
Originally Posted By HMButler79 " As if children have the ride's meaning foremost in their minds anyway. Silly." lets see, children dressed in thier native costumes in thier native lands and at the end they are all mixed and wearing white. yea, REAL HARD to "get". You must think all kids, like TDA, thinks, are mental midgets.
Originally Posted By HMButler79 what Al said is true. WDI has OBLITERATED the Message, Theme, Purpose, and Intent of the attraction to soothe thier egos and TDAs.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss It's not a question of whether or not kids get the meaning. They aren't debating about it... the kids DO NOT CARE. What they care about is that the ride is fun and cute.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "As if children have the ride's meaning foremost in their minds anyway. Silly." And we wonder why children are so retarded these days. We treat them as such.
