Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "All too often, however, I see parents getting mad at their kids because the kids aren't having fun. I don't think it's hard to understand why they aren't, and why the situation will never fix itself." Sorry for replying to myself but I wanted to add this. When a parent gets mad at a kid for not having fun ("We came all this way and paid all this money just so you can cry?!"), I become convinced that this is the reason kids learn to simply say they liked something even if they didn't, and learn not to make a fuss because negativity means they get yelled at. They more than likely retain that attitude in adulthood.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss <<Good parents talk to their kids about everything. When kids and parents get off a ride, the parents expect the kid to be having fun. How about in addition to asking them, "Well, did you like it?" ask them, "What specifically did you like about it? Was there anything you didn't? What made it good and what could be improved?">> I agree that is good parenting, but you're going to get zero kids to say, "I think they should remove the characters from the ride." In fact, they might say they want more.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones They very well might. Such is the danger of asking children to think for themselves. They just might disagree with us
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "but you're going to get zero kids to say, "I think they should remove the characters from the ride."" But if they have all the information they need to make an informed decision, some will indeed say the characters should be removed and placed elsewhere. It's not so much the solution that's healthy, but the analytical process of arriving at that solution. Again, this goes for everything in life, not just Small World.
Originally Posted By crazycroc In working with children with psychiatric problems, I was often confronted with parents who didn't like the outcome of their child's treatment. To which I would respond that I'm not paid for a specific outcome, but rather in helping someone back on their journey. I think we can gnash our terrible teeth, and roar our terrible roars all we want, but people will decide what they think of this ride, once they ride it. If the majority of people enjoy it, it will stay, if not it will go. It's not up to us, singularly. To the rest of the world, this is a non-issue, and frankly let's stop acting like Trekkies. If it means that much to you, vote with your own pocketbook, to attempt to control one other person's let alone the whole world's opinion of an event is futile.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "If it means that much to you, vote with your own pocketbook, to attempt to control one other person's let alone the whole world's opinion of an event is futile." Please show me how people who are speaking out against the additions is an attempt to control someone else's pocketbook. Should we do away with debate and criticism, then? I will never stop analyzing Disney theme park attractions for better or worse.
Originally Posted By danyoung >I'm sure that little girl would love to see characters on every ride. Why not add characters to Lincoln? To the Grand Canyon Diorama?< This is rhetoric that just amazes me. Why does everything have to go to the nth level? This is the same logic as "he smokes pot, therefore he'll be a heroin addict in a year!" It's just over the top crazy. No one in this debate would ever advocate animated Disney characters in Lincoln or the Grand Canyon. Totally different situations here. But in iasw, with the new characters modified to fit in with the existing design - absolutely nothing wrong with it.
Originally Posted By oc_dean ^^^^ To you it's rhetoric ... to others .. it's actually a fair point. And that "fair point" is that you can just as well foyster anything you want into any attraction .. just as long as it "artistically blends in."
Originally Posted By oc_dean I see this whole debate as two camps: Those who feel 'it's a small world' is open to any interpretation they want, the Disney characters will fit .. and that can go for just about else including a kitchen sink, just as long as it "artistically blends in". Second camp: Those who realize the ride is not open to any random interpretation, but follow it's rather delicate and brilliant sub themes. And recognize the Disney branded characters don't really mix in very well at all. They do on a superficial level. But not on a deeper level. I'll say for the umpteenth time ... Disneyland's foundation was not built on all-cutsy superficial experiences! It's not hard to understand the Disney branded characters are rooted in fiction. But the message of 'it's a small world' is not fictional at all.
Originally Posted By HMButler79 ""Why does everything have to go to the nth level? This is the same logic as "he smokes pot, therefore he'll be a heroin addict in a year!" It's just over the top crazy."" Lets see, BECAUSE..... Tikis UNM Begat Buzz Lightyear which begat Tarzans Treehouse which begat Pooh in Critter Country which begat Jack Sparrow which begat Stitch in TL which begat Pirates Lair which begat Nemo Subs which begat Monsters Inc. in TL which begat Three Caballeros in Epcot which begat characters in Small World....... notice said irreversiable trend??????????
Originally Posted By HMButler79 ""No one in this debate would ever advocate animated Disney characters in Lincoln or the Grand Canyon. Totally different situations here. But in iasw, with the new characters modified to fit in with the existing design - absolutely nothing wrong with it."" Um WHY NOT? Theyre older than Small World so shouldnt they be even less relevant according to you?
Originally Posted By trekkeruss You lump all those who don't see it your way together, as if I would be for any change at all. I assure you that is not the case.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "But in iasw, with the new characters modified to fit in with the existing design - absolutely nothing wrong with it." Human actors have worked alongside many cartoon characters. Lincoln could teach Donald Duck about patriotism for example.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones Here's my idea for a Donald Duck addition to Great Moments with Mr. Lincoln. Donald is angry at his nephews for not knowing anything about American history. He tries to teach them stuff but he realizes he doesn't know anything either! So he chases Huey, Duey, and Luey out of the house and in doing so causes a bowling ball to fall on his head and he knocks out. He has a dream where he travels back in time and learns about the terrible tragedy of the Civil War. Film ends. The curtain rises and he watches Lincoln's famous Gettysburg Address and learns the true meaning of patriotism. Then an animatronic Donald wakes up on stage and suddenly has all this knowledge about American history and starts teaching his nephews about it. The curtain drops, the end.
Originally Posted By oc_dean >>You lump all those who don't see it your way together, as if I would be for any change at all. I assure you that is not the case.<< Staying on track, what "middle ground" is there on this subject? One is either for the characters, or not.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss <<what "middle ground" is there on this subject? One is either for the characters, or not.>> That's not what you said. You wrote: "Those who feel 'it's a small world' is open to any interpretation they want, the Disney characters will fit .. and that can go for just about else including a kitchen sink, just as long as it "artistically blends in"." I am not for "just about anything else including the kitchen sink." I do not want characters everywhere, IaSW or otherwise. I don't like that Nemo is in the Submarine Voyage, but I am happy to at least have the subs back. I am not for the Pirates Lair on TSI, but I haven't been there, so I reserve judgement. I don't like the idea of The Little Mermaid in San Francisco in DCA; that makes no sense to me at all. But I am fine with the few characters in IaSW... from what I have seen and read, it appears to me they are treating the ride with respect. Now, if Disney went overboard and had dozens and dozens of characters in IaSW, yeah, I would have a problem with that.
