Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA As has been discussed in the past -- it's balance. Not every 'Disney' experience has to include Disney cartoon characters. When I visited Disneyland in the 70s and 80s I was a young kid, and the Disney characters were a very minor part of my experience. In the mid to late 80s, with the addition of 'Mickey's ToonTown' and queue lines to meet Tigger -- the characters have taken on more and more importance Clearly that isn't the case anymore as more and more Disney characters are added to new and old attractions.
Originally Posted By gottaluvdavillains I am not saying they should add them - but really are talking making them to fit in the ride - who is to say the lion in Jungle Cruise isn't the lion king or mufasa (I have heard while pointing at the lions yell look it's simba). I don't know how it's really going to be with the characters in ISAW - maybe they will stand out like a sore thumb - maybe they will mostly blend in. They are suppose to be done in the same style as the dolls already in there - SO only time will tell if they inhance, ruin, or make no difference to the ride. It's not like they took the my size cinderella doll and put it in the ride... I guess what I am saying is at least they are trying to make them look like part of the original - now it could be all wrong - but it really could be so much worse.
Originally Posted By oc_dean When you look at the artistry done on attractions like Monsters Inc., Tower of Terror, (Yes) Winnie the Pooh, Buzz Lightyear, Midway Mania, Finding Nemo subs, and the restoration of Sleeping Beauty Castle ............ I don't think there's going to be any argument how the artisans make the Disney characters match the artistry of the ride. I've been impressed with the level of quality done on these various attractions. Each room in 'it's a small world' is massive! Each containing huge sets .. and a huge number of dolls. I really think there's not going to be much an argument of one doll to one large area. It's going to be the principle behind it. Is this just suppose to be one supersized cutsy ride where you can insert just about ANYTHING - just as long as it "artistically" blends in??? Or is this ride the Walt Disney Company's gift to the world - to promote a very powerful message of peace and unity .. with beautifully done dolls representing children of the world? Which one is it? See .... this where I feel Disney is gone too far with their characters ... they are loosing objectivity ... and the Disney Cartoon Characters are the Beginning, Middle, and The End .. to EVERYTHING they do!
Originally Posted By gottaluvdavillains <,Or is this ride the Walt Disney Company's gift to the world - to promote a very powerful message of peace and unity .. with beautifully done dolls representing children of the world?>> While I agree - at the time this ride was made there was only one Disney Park - now one could argue that Disney is now in many parts of the world and why not show that in this ride that all children now enjoy Disney. I am only playing devil's advocate here.
Originally Posted By oc_dean Not sure I'm following your second sentence there .... but let me add this to that "Devil's Advocate" in you .... Then if it becomes the point that 'it's a small world' rides in the "magic kingdom" parks throughout the world make the reversal - Then don't call it "it's a small world"! Call it "Disney's Fabulous Characters Extravaganza" or somethin' similar! :~) Don't mislead the public by making us think it's a replica of what came out of the New York World's Fair.
Originally Posted By gottaluvdavillains You are right - < "Disney's Fabulous Characters Extravaganza> would be about right - and this ride is in all the parks isn't it? How about "Disney's Fabulous Characters Extravaganza - AKA - It's a small World 2
Originally Posted By 2001DLFan <<Jim in Merced CA: As has been discussed in the past -- it's balance. Not every 'Disney' experience has to include Disney cartoon characters. When I visited Disneyland in the 70s and 80s I was a young kid, and the Disney characters were a very minor part of my experience. In the mid to late 80s, with the addition of 'Mickey's ToonTown' and queue lines to meet Tigger -- the characters have taken on more and more importance Clearly that isn't the case anymore as more and more Disney characters are added to new and old attractions.>> You are very right. Characters (outside of Tinkerbell) weren’t even a part of the park for the first five years. How is it that Disney, while expanding their reach in the entertainment world, has actually narrowed the aspects of the company that people are drawn to? I really feel much of it is due to the excessive marketing and merchandising of those limited elements (characters) while weakening the quality of their other products.
Originally Posted By charming husband I was little when I saw IASW the ORIGINAL at the World's Fair. And to this day, I can still recall all of the empty coke cups and other trash that people had thrown out of their ride vehicles in the ride itself. Maybe they were product placing too!
Originally Posted By oc_dean >>coke cups ...... Maybe they were product placing too! Uh-oh! Pepsi probably wasn't very happy to see Coke in their ride!
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "I can still recall all of the empty coke cups and other trash that people had thrown out of their ride vehicles in the ride itself." So much for the rose-colored belief that people were more well-behaved back then.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "...this where I feel Disney is gone too far with their characters ... they are loosing objectivity ... and the Disney Cartoon Characters are the Beginning, Middle, and The End .. to EVERYTHING they do!" I think this is spot on. While I don't think that the changes to Small World are that big of a deal, in my view Disney HAS over done it, and this instance is just one example.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "I really feel much of it is due to the excessive marketing and merchandising of those limited elements (characters) while weakening the quality of their other products." Corporate Disney has given its various divisions a mandate to expand its character franchises. These "brands" are huge money makers. Don't expect this to change anytime soon.
Originally Posted By oc_dean Yeah. And to the detriment to a "Balance" that has kept the company successful since the days of Walt. Is it wise to have a company that is about: Innovation, Artistic Integrity, Characters Or: Characters, Characters, Characters One is a long term solution, the other is not! And how many times do large company's put way too much emphasis on the short term, only to hurt themselves in the long run? We've seen it in Corporate America plenty a time!
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt Unfortunately the fans are at the mercy of the stockholders and the almighty bottom line. The characters are very valuable, so a part of me can understand management's temptation to exploit them. Measuring the expense of building quality new attractions at DL against the low level of return further explains why this practice has gained momentum at Disney's theme parks. I hate it, but until consumers burn out on this sort of thing across the board it isn't going to stop.
Originally Posted By oc_dean >>Unfortunately the fans are at the mercy of the stockholders and the almighty bottom line.<< But who pays for those admissions, concessions, and souvineers? The tooth fairy? The "bottom line" is us. The CONSUMER. NOT the Stockholders. And consumers eventually have a say-so with their pocket books, AND customer feedback.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt dean, I'm talking about the worldwide consumer market, not just DLR. The Cars franchise alone is worth at least a billion dollars in sales. Given this, is it any wonder that Disney is building a full blown Carsland in Anaheim? Stockholders demand positive returns on their investments and cartoon and film franchises like Pirates of the Caribbean and Cars are raking in the dollars. Therefore, it's only natural that management looking for more properties and more ways to exploit them. Just to put brand power in perspective, I read somewhere a few years ago that Disney's ESPN cable channel generates more revenue than all of the company's theme parks worldwide combined. Good luck with those feedback letters.
Originally Posted By Anatole69 ^^ That's no surprise since they expanded their theme park market by building parks on the cheap which then went on to lose the company more money. If they had expanded correctly by investing the proper amount of money into their new parks, then perhaps they wouldn't pale in comparison with other DisCo holdings such as ESPN. - Anatole
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "That's no surprise since they expanded their theme park market by building parks on the cheap which then went on to lose the company more money." What makes you so sure that spending more money would have yielded enough revenue to offset the additional expense? Not trying to attack you, but so often people use this kind of logic and it doesn't always add up.
Originally Posted By oc_dean Thanks Hans. I appreciate your response(s). All true. >>Therefore, it's only natural that management looking for more properties and more ways to exploit them.<< Sure. *New Attractions *Live Entertainment *Merchandising Existing attractions? Pushing them into any land, even if they don't fit thematically? Those two items are the "fine line." And if there aren't enough people within the co. and departments to explain these trickier ways of fitting more characters in without very careful consideration is means to a lopsided way of doing business. ("We are just going to push our way through with excessively exploiting characters to the hilt,no matter what!") You and I and others are having fun just covering the generalities here ... But if we want to get down to it ....... Does a co. just MAUL their way through with character exploitation without really considering the entire picture? Both short term and long?
