Originally Posted By utahjosh Pics are here: <a href="http://www.disneygeek.com/updates/disneyland_update.php?page_id=39&update_dir=2008_12_19" target="_blank">http://www.disneygeek.com/upda...08_12_19</a>
Originally Posted By u k fan This is an interesting debate and one that I would hate to stifle I just think that when the red pen comes out (I did see the post and it did make me laugh) on a topic like this then people might be taking things a bit too seriously whichever side of the camp you fall on. I really dislike the idea of characters in IASW, but I'm reminded of that prayer about having the serenity to accept the things I can't change... I'm enjoying the debate, there's just not much point it escalating to an argument!!!
Originally Posted By Socrates If you're enjoying this debate, wait until you see the comments after people have actually been on the new version. Of course, there is that chance that these new dolls will be very popular and there won't be many comments. Socrates "The unexamined life is not worth living."
Originally Posted By oc_dean ^^^ There are going to be those who have an open interpretation of the ride .. and can insert whatever additions you want - as long as they AESTHETICALLY look pleasing enough .. and you are going to have your contingent of those who believe in the original narrative of the theme, and WILL see the additions as an interference.
Originally Posted By oc_dean I already know I'm going to do a double take. On the surface - "Oh, they blend in enough." On a deeper level - "The Disney characters triviliaze the message." (The dolls represent real children of the world - As the attraction represents a "real world" message. What are fictional cartoon characters doing here?!!) This whole "wait and see" talk is to see how it looks "Face Value". Which is separate and has nothing to do with: Principle!
Originally Posted By oc_dean >>on a topic like this then people might be taking things a bit too seriously << Very important to mention! And not to be confused with being passionate and having heartfelt "carrying" and understanding for selected things in life. Particularly things that are "artistic" .. and were created by brilliant artists to begin with. And sometimes .. just because a new novice comes along ... doesn't mean they have a right to make a change. Somebody needs to care. And sometimes that "somebody" needs to say something, because there are many who won't.
Originally Posted By oc_dean Oh ... I have to joke about this: Going back to post #1. One of the funniest sights of seen in the park .. are the pin holders who either have the fanny pack covered in pins .. or they wear them around their neck .. and at the bottom they proudly wear their AP in a clear plastic holder like a pendant. (I wouldn't. LOL Us APers have a bad enough reputation among CMs why wear it? - But enough of that) I think it would be so funny to create one large pin of a group of Pin Holders in small world boat .. and all hands are pointing in one direction to spot the next Disney character .. and you can make out the pin necklaces around everyone's neck. ;o) LOL I was just thinking how funny that would be. :~)
Originally Posted By oc_dean ..... ........ but I am confused about those who wear your AP around your neck. To me that is a sign of .. Oh look at me, I'm cool because I'm an AP holder. Now .. in the days of the A thru E ticket books, it was possible to have ONE ticket that got you into every ride, and it WAS necessary to show it at the front of every ride, and wearing one, for the years that had this type of ticket, like around your neck had a practical purpose. But APs dressed around one's neck -??- :O) In my very low "Gilbert Godfrey" voice - I wouldn't. But that's for another topic.
Originally Posted By u k fan <<<I think it would be so funny to create one large pin of a group of Pin Holders in small world boat .. and all hands are pointing in one direction to spot the next Disney character .. and you can make out the pin necklaces around everyone's neck. ;o) LOL>>> I think they should create a set of pins that all fit together to make one big pin!!!
Originally Posted By u k fan oc_dean, I agree with you on the art thing. I do consider the original attraction to be a work of art (other park's versions are "in the style of") and IMHO adding Disney characters affects the artist's original intent for the piece which is not cool. Of course, some pieces of art are organic and are created to change and evolve. I can't help but think that as IASW is a theme park attraction Ms. Blair must have had an inkling that the ride would grow and evolve over the years just as the real world would. Maybe not in this way, but still. I can't remember her families responses to this as I haven't read them recently, but it would be interesting to hear what people would say if Mary were around and completely happy with the changes. Would she be getting called names right now?!!!
Originally Posted By Anatole69 If Mary Blair were alive and she added cereal boxes to the attraction, would that make it ok? I think the argument isn't what would Mary Blair do today, but what was her intent when she first created the attraction. Usually it's bad news when an artist tries to go back and tinker with something they did years before... cough, George Lucas, cough. So you have to go with their first vision of the piece as being the place of most significance. - Anatole
Originally Posted By u k fan But a theme park attraction is very different from an oil on canvas. If Mary Blair's intent was to show the world through a child's eyes, then why wouldn't one expect that to change through the years? Anyone who creates a theme park attraction should expect that things might change over time for any of multiple reasons!!!
Originally Posted By Anatole69 Yes but the argument is that the new change does not favor Mary Blair's original intent. It is not an argument against change per se... don't confuse the two. - Anatole
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA The notion here seems to suggest that Mary Blair created this attraction on her own. Was it not a collaborative effort by many Walt Disney Imagineers? And Unicef? According to this website, many people were involved with the production of 'it's a small world.' <a href="http://disney.go.com/disneyatoz/familymuseum/exhibits/articles/worldsfairsmallworld/index.html" target="_blank">http://disney.go.com/disneyato...dex.html</a>
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt Thanks Jim. I was thinking the same thing as I was reading the most recent posts. Mary Blair did not create IASW, but rather she was instrumental in the stylized look of the attraction. While her enormous contributions to the ride should not be overlooked, I think it's possible that some here are being far too reverent in their respect for Ms Blair and this particular attraction.
Originally Posted By oc_dean This is more than just a talk about the style of the ride. (And I'm talking about the whole subject dating back to the beginning of this controversial change to the ride.) This is really about muffling it's rather profound layer not that far hidden ~underneath~. On the very surface ... it "appears" silly with dolls surrounded in this rainbow of color. But the ride was built as more than just some stylized look that Mary Blair took part in. But it's about to become a bit more "sillier" by adding another layer of those silly Disney cartoon characters. I'll say for the 101st time ..... Disneyland is built on deep layers. It's not all just one silly romp after all. But full of experiences that resonated with me on a very profound level. As a very young kid. It was all just silly stuff. But I quickly caught on much of the deeper meanings in many of the attractions. But now ... Disney has been so engrossed into their Disney characters from the Laugh-O-Grams in 1922 to Bolt in 2008, that 86 years of cartoons has gone a wee bit too far ... and now think that after nearly a century of cartoons ... that they can just as well mix in with those other dolls in the ride like nothing. I feel they've lost their objectivity. They are now marketing their characters to such lengths .. it's really gone too far. They think they are adding another "dimension" to 'it's a small world'. But the way I see it ... it's taking away it's dimension. But they can't see it .... because it's as if after a century .. the Disney characters have taken on a new life of their own. Peter Pan and Stitch are just as real as you and me. It was great when they all stayed in their perspective worlds.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "This is more than just a talk about the style of the ride." Well of course it is, but at the same time some of this talk is making much more of the ride than it really is. It's a sweet charming attraction that is a DL icon. I don't like the character additions, but based on what I've seen at HKDL I don't think this change is that big of a deal. In my opinion Nemo and Buzz in Tomorrowland are far bigger transgressions.
Originally Posted By oc_dean >>"This is more than just a talk about the style of the ride." Well of course it is, << Sorry there ... didn't mean to come off harsh. My intent, really, was to "encapsulate" the broader discussion .. and not just the Mary Blair aspect.
Originally Posted By oc_dean And .. NO KID'N ... A cartoon fish, and a cartoon toy in Tomorrowland are worse. If this discussion were about - Lets say Adventure Thru Inner Space was still here ... It would be like inserting little mini Buzz Lightyears throughout the ride. But instead they created a full blown ride and call it a "Tomorrowland attraction."
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones To those who support the additions, are there any attractions at Disneyland to which you would oppose characters being added to in order to make it more relevant and fresh? Simba in the Lion King. Stitch on Space Mountain. Donald Duck in the Haunted Mansion. Etc.
