Originally Posted By oc_dean People who say some of us are getting in an uproar over nothing. This isn't just about 'it's a small world' .... This is the icing on the cake. The cake has been a steady stream of all-character driven attractions for several years now. And the intrusion on a perfectly crafted attraction, already, was the final straw. People get it mixed up .. and think it's just about our nostalgia about our past Disneyland visits as kids. This is about a company that truly knew how to create deeply resonating experiences ..... to now ... have nothing better else to give the public, than a corporate mandate to push their fictional cartoon characters onto their theme parks ... and you know something ... It just makes it a more "shallow" experience. I'm seeing the deep layers being peeled off ....... and in their place .. this "cutsy" layer of icing. And the "glittier" that surface becomes .. the more that glitsy surface gets past off as something deep. But it's not.
Originally Posted By danyoung There are many in the online world who think that the characters are out of control, that Disney is forcing them into areas where they don't belong. And there are those who don't mind this overall trend. trekkeruss said it very well in that Nemo doesn't belong in Tomorrowland, but at least the subs are back, and I for one enjoy the attraction. I'm willing to let theme slacken just a bit if it means that we get new attractions. But I don't like the Monsters Inc. Laugh Floor in the MK's Tomorrowland - I can't find any justification at all for this attraction being in a land that's about the future (plus it's not that great of an attraction!). I don't like being characterized (pun not intended) as being for all change all the time. That's where I think this thread has degenerated into hyperbole and not well considered argument. There are many Disney attractions that don't need classic Disney characters, like Indy, the HM, etc. But I feel they fit perfectly in iasw, as long as they're themed within the proper areas. Stitch wouldn't fit in to merry old England, but he and Lilo fit very nicely into the Polynesian scene. Those who are worried about the dilution of theme I think give too much credence to that theme. Yes, the ride was designed for UNICEF to have a theme of world unity and peace. But it was also designed to be a nice, simple boat ride through a bunch of cute, brightly colored scenes. If people came off of the attraction thinking more about world unity, great. But if they came off thinking "hey, that was a fun ride - let's do it again", then I'm sure Walt would have been more than satisfied. It's all about entertainment, with a background of educating, and iasw has always been great at this dual purpose. And I still think it will continue to do so.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo >>>Well, people got over the changes to Pirates didn't they?<<< Not really so much. I love the new AA's, but not so keen on the soundtrack changes. At least in Paris we still have the original soundtrack. But I was not as artistically or morally opposed to the PotC changes as the IASW changes. Also, some of the outcry is not about changing an attraction. If they wanted to update and modernize it to be closer to DLP's, they would have my full endorsement. I am sick of all the shoving of toons/product synergy everywhere. As a boy, my fav attractions had nothing to do with Disney mass product - Jungle Cruise, Tahitian Terrace, PotC, HM, Mark Twain, Golden Horseshoe Revue, IASM, ATIS, the People Mover and the Train - these experiences are why we came to DL (and still are). My interest in the animation side has always been secondary and I have never been interested in character meet and greets (except the princesses when I was a teen - and ok, Jack and Sally).
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo >>>I like that Cinderella is not in her ballgown (like in HK), in that sense IMHO she already blends in better than I thought.<<< Well if I were to put a positive spin on this you could have the press office state - Cinderella is a real representation of what UNICEF is all about. WDI tell stories. In Hong Kong we wanted to highlight the plight of childhood marriages and human trafficing, hence showing Cinderella functioning as a child bride. In California we have moved our story on to demonstrate the plight of child neglect and child labour, 2 cornerstones of UNICEFs continuing mission to support children's rights. Disney and UNICEF proudly present...
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo >>> the kids DO NOT CARE. What they care about is that the ride is fun and cute.<<< Not true. IASW had a profound effect on me as a child (as well as my upbringing). I went on to do human rights work and study International Relations and even call upon IASW in my thesis. I wanted to work for UNICEF and have dedicated most of my life to children's rights. IASW was a large part of that (as well as the wonderful storybook I had as a kid about Patrick the orphan who went on IASW and wondered what his background was - he found something he related to in every scene and at the end, it dawned on him we are all people and he is related to every culture - one of my absolute favs as a kid). Sorry, this sucks, but then again, Disney has for a while. They lost their mission.
Originally Posted By danyoung >As a boy, my fav attractions had nothing to do with Disney mass product - Jungle Cruise, Tahitian Terrace, PotC, HM, Mark Twain, Golden Horseshoe Revue, IASM, ATIS, the People Mover and the Train - these experiences are why we came to DL (and still are). My interest in the animation side has always been secondary and I have never been interested in character meet and greets...< Dave, I'm in total agreement with you there. Whether or not an attraction has a toon in it means nothing to me. But unlike you, I don't mind if a toon is in there, as long as it fits in. I like what they did to the Treehouse, especially in an age where the Swiss Family Robinson was becoming increasingly a thing of the past. I would not have been in favor of a new scene in iasw featuring all of the characters cavorting around. But as I keep saying, incorporated thematically into the proper scene, I think they work just fine. >IASW had a profound effect on me as a child (as well as my upbringing).< As the saying goes, no generalization is 100% correct - not even this one. I can now see where your feelings come from, Dave, and I respect them, as I will continue to respect Spokker and dean and Otown as long as they make an attempt to respect me and my opinion. I think this subject is just going to come down to agreeing to disagreeing. No one is going to change my opinion on this - seeing it for myself might or might not. But the discussion has been fun!
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Indeed Dan, but by the same token I am really very disappointed by the direction of WDC and the fans. This will sound very sad, but as a child and an adult Disney meant the world to me, it inspired me to learn, it inspired me to be who I am. It gave this disabled kid a chance to have an adventure. To me, Walt Disney became a mantra for my life. I disavowed religion, having explored catholosism, jewdaism, islam and Buddihsm. Disney was the closest I had to a religion, an ethos, a meaning to life. To see all the toons coming in morally feels like if schools scrapped english, math and history and taught all about celebrity instead. I know it sounds crazy, but it is how I feel. And that is why I am looking for something new. We still go, and the kids like it. But the parks have lost their meaning. It's like the person who has lost their faith that goes to church to humour their spouse.
Originally Posted By WorldDisney Sorry to interrupt, but someone asked how many characters were in the ride. I read an article somewhere that said there were 29 different Disney characters added to the ride, about 9 less than HKDL.
Originally Posted By danyoung >But the parks have lost their meaning. It's like the person who has lost their faith that goes to church to humour their spouse.< I find this very sad, Dave. I know from reading your posts over the years that you are very knowledgeable about the parks, and have very strong feelings about the direction the company is taking. I've said before that the best thing you can do is take a break. There's no sense in going back to a place that doesn't bring you pleasure. On the other hand, when you talk about the direction Disney and the fans are taking, it's an indication that you realize that Disney is responding to its visitor base, who seem to want more toons. Or at least, they don't seem to mind it. As I said above, I don't care one way or the other if a toon or a Pixar character is the feature of an attraction - I just want them to build first rate attractions. Not all E tickets - the new Mermaid in DCA is probably going to be a strong D. But do it first rate, do it Disney style. Don't cheap out like they did when they first built DCA. Everything I'm reading about Disney's Imagineer culture says to me that they are indeed returing to this standard of quality. They proved it bigtime to me with Everest. Now let's see how they do with the rest of the DCA rebuild.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Indeed, just like the media prefers to cover what Hilton or Spears are up to, so sad. Quality, great, but if a toon has to be the reason behind it, I rather they didn't add anything at all. Walt never was led by his audience, it was the other way around. When people asked for a sequel to the 3 Little Pigs, he said you can't top pigs with pigs. He was always looking at how to plus things. Disney was doing a great job until about 9 years ago. Sadly it is what the masses want. But you know what, that is not always the right thing to do. Fashions change (flairs or leg warmers anyone? Howabout lava lamps). And yet visionary attractions such as PotC or HM don't really need to.
Originally Posted By Yookeroo "And Disneyland is nothing more than a trivial set of attractions with superficial meanings." Well, kind of. It's a theme park with enjoyable rides and attractions. It's at the apex of theme parks, but the bottom line is that it's a place where people go to have some fun. I'm not sure I'd go so far as to call them trivial or superficial, but they are just rides, attractions and shows. To invest much more meaning than that is to lose perspective. "Those who realize the ride is not open to any random interpretation, but follow it's rather delicate and brilliant sub themes." We're still talking about IASW, right? Delicate and brilliant sub themes? The ride that pounds you over the head with "It's a small world after all" over and over and over and over and over. And then you get to the 2nd room where you get to hear about how small the world really is. Over and over and over. This is the ride you're talking about? The people selling the kids short here are the ones that think that kids can't look for the characters AND understand the message of the ride (the message isn't exactly presented subtly).
Originally Posted By avromark I cringe anytime I hear any of the following: - Marketing - Brand Synergy - Focus Group - Market/Consumer/_ Trends - Excel - PowerPoint Let's get rid of this Corporate Culture / Tie In gone wild and get back to - Quality Product - Obvious position (One that doesn't require a position statement/buzzwords/some sort of advertising etc to convey the meaning for example if I say "Disney" you should think Family Values right away (or Quality, or Imagination. I shouldn't need to add a tagline. Now I'm of the well enough alone mindset, however I am not a decision maker. Also there will always be naysayers. There are people who probably love the ties in (And they are probably also trying to keep up with the Jones) - I am however grateful they haven't replaced IASW with the Princessland Boats or something to that affect.
Originally Posted By tonyanton dave...you know there were about 3 or 4 follow-ups (sequels if you will) to 3 Little Pigs...they were never as successful, hence Walt's famous quote.
Originally Posted By Socrates ISAW has been around for roughly 45 years. If its purpose was to promote world unity, how successful do you think it has been? Socrates "The unexamined life is not worth living."
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "Walt never was led by his audience, it was the other way around. When people asked for a sequel to the 3 Little Pigs, he said you can't top pigs with pigs." They are definitely adhering to Walt's principles here. People keep screaming, "FIX TOMORROWLAND FOR THE LOVE GOD PLEASE!" and they offer characters in Small World.
Originally Posted By oc_dean >>ISAW has been around for roughly 45 years. If its purpose was to promote world unity, how successful do you think it has been? << And where's this leading to?
Originally Posted By Anatole69 The United Nations has been around for 60 years. How successful do you think they have been in promoting World Unity? I guess we should just close down both attractions. I hear the lines to get into the UN have been decreasing recently... or even better, maybe it's time to add Disney Characters to the background of the UN in order to make it more relevant to todays youth. lol. - Anatole
Originally Posted By Anatole69 The painting of the Mona Lisa has been around for hundreds of years. If its purpose was to promote an ideal beauty, then how successful do you think it was? People seem to be just as butt ugly as they have always been, and even fatter now! Maybe we should add some Disney Characters in the background in order to make it more relevant to todays youth? lol. - Anatole
Originally Posted By oc_dean And public libraries just are not what they use to be .. what with the internet age. Lets go around town and decorate our libraries with plush Disney character toys to make it more relevant to today's youth.
