Originally Posted By danyoung dean, I don't deny that there have been many bad decisions in the parks. I just don't think this one is one of them.
Originally Posted By WorldDisney ^^Agreed!! It wouldve been nothing wrong if it stayed the way it was, but this seems fine as well. I imagine in a few years, the characters will look like they've always been there and will just blend in to the ride once the attention falls away.
Originally Posted By oc_dean ^^^ But, dude :~ ........ You said you don't like the ride ... So, they could do anything, and it ain't gonna make a hill of beans to ya!
Originally Posted By oc_dean Extra emodicons for my buddy ... to show you I'm not trying to gang up on you, my friend .. but just to remind you - You have your bias against it, so being objective is "a tad" difficult. ;p
Originally Posted By oc_dean Fair enough Dan. But as you know .. through one too many posts ......... I'm mores sensitive and attuned to the original vision .. set forth in 1963. Flawless in it's execution. Ways to improve it this day and age. Addition of Disney characters trivializes the message, more than "add" to it.
Originally Posted By oc_dean I love to throw this out.... If the Disney characters work so well ... Then why didn't Walt have them added in 1964 for the fair, or 1966 in DL. So important? Why not at DLP in 1992? Why not TDL in 1983? Why not WDW in 1971? If the Disney characters are so perfect for it ... there were .. 5 chances before. Spread out over several decades.
Originally Posted By danyoung ^^ Perhaps because when Walt was alive, the characters were less important to the company image than they are now. In the 50's and 60's Walt was dedicating everything he had to this new park thing. As far as he was concerned, the toons were "been there - done that". Perhaps the toons have had a resurgence, what with Pixar and all, to the point where people really are asking for more toons in the parks. I don't know this to be true, but I can sure see it as a possibility. I think it's been shown over and over again that what Walt wanted in 1965 has absolutely nothing to do with what is good for the company today. The company was stagnating in the late 60's and 70's, sitting still while wondering what Walt would do. It took Eisner and Wells to come in in the 80's and stir things up. And now, with all of the changes in the world over the past 40 years or so, anyone who tries to say what Walt would want today is simply guessing with no foundation. And I say that as someone who knows better than most Walt's history and importance to entertainment, and to the world in general. What Walt would think about the classic characters in iasw is unknown and unknowable. >I'm mores sensitive and attuned to the original vision...< This is gonna sound rude, dean, and I don't mean it that way. But when you say you're sensitive to the original vision, I'd say that you're so locked in to it that you can't begin to see any change at all as having the possibility of being positive. Others have said over and over that these new characters, regardless of whether they stylistically fit or not, do absolutely nothing to dilute the message of children of the world living in peace. But to you they're horrible and don't belong, which is of course your right to feel. I just don't see it, and don't think I ever will.
Originally Posted By JobyCA65 While I don't think the characters detract from the theme of the attraction all that much, I still don't think they add anything to the attraction either. They're sort of just there. Do I come off the attraction thinking, "What a great idea! They should have done that a long time ago!" Not even. If I had a beef with any of it, it would be Woody and the other Toy Story character sitting right there. They seem out of place with the rest of the room, which I actually kind of like. They should have also put Lilo and Stitch back with the hula girls too and left the surfer dude! He was cute. The Little Mermaid singing is a little too much. Of course, I never thought much of her character anyway. She bugs me for some reason. LOL IMO, the addition of the characters doesn't do anything for me, but it doesn't necessarily ruin the attraction either. They just weren't necessary IMO and did nothing to enhance the attraction. The only enhancements worth mentioning come solely from the sprucing up they did inside the show building.
Originally Posted By Yookeroo "I wonder .. for those who have been in favor of the additions of the Disney characters ........ I would ask - Are you big fans of the line-up of characters with an array of collectibles on the characters in your house?" I think the only Disney merchandise I own are movies and some clothing. Bigger fan of the parks than the characters.
Originally Posted By Yookeroo "The track record from 1955 to 1995 was pretty darn good." The post-Walt pre-Eisner/Wells era was pretty awful. The current regime is much better. "I'm mores sensitive and attuned to the original vision" Well, aren't you special.
Originally Posted By Bellella The characters must definetly be important to them, if they're going to toon up every ride they ever built with them. I just feel that enough is too much with their promotion. It's insane for them to put the characters on rides that were never intended for the characters.
Originally Posted By oc_dean >> I'd say that you're so locked in to it that you can't begin to see any change at all as having the possibility of being positive. Others have said over and over that these new characters, regardless of whether they stylistically fit or not, do absolutely nothing to dilute the message of children of the world living in peace. But to you they're horrible and don't belong, which is of course your right to feel. I just don't see it, and don't think I ever will.<< Well .. funny you should put it all that way. Because, from my point of view as an artist, .. and I'll phrase the same way you dished it out: I'd say that you are so locked in to your casual observations, that you can't begin to see from an artisan's point of view, the gift to understand what works, and what does not. I don't expect a lot of people to understand what I'm fundamentally trying to get across if they've never picked up a drawing utensil and created art, or took art classes. I can get into the mind a bit into those artisans who created 'it's a small world' in the WED shops in 1963. I was blessed with the God-given talent of drawing, and an insight into creativity. I've chosen to keep it my hobby, and I'm proud to have a portfolio of drawings since age 6, including my own design of a theme park I did at age 16. And even though I decided to keep it my hobby, than a full-fledge career, it has not diminished my ability to "see" into a creative process in addition to just "casually observe" it.
Originally Posted By oc_dean And Yookeroo .. do me a favor, Want to add to the conversation? Then stop pestering me with your annoying one liners that offer nothing into the discussion. Thank you.
Originally Posted By oc_dean Let me take a minute Dan, just to say ... that while I have no idea what type of "gifted insights" you possess, I think this discussion has reached a level, that depending on how strong our convictions are of the execution, it helps to know from each other, HOW we come to our conclusions. thank you for your time!
Originally Posted By trekkeruss <<from my point of view as an artist>> So do you think the artists who worked on the renewed IaSW can't see these things, or were merely told what to do and did it even if they don't believe in the work?
Originally Posted By oc_dean >>or were merely told what to do and did it even if they don't believe in the work?<< Oh Trek .. you know the answer to that. In 1963 .. the imagination was set loose. Today in 2009 .. it's rule of the committee (Marketing and Accounting!)
Originally Posted By TMICHAEL >>>Well .. funny you should put it all that way. Because, from my point of view as an artist, .. and I'll phrase the same way you dished it out: I'd say that you are so locked in to your casual observations, that you can't begin to see from an artisan's point of view, the gift to understand what works, and what does not.<<< Oh Lord, is this rant serious?! If so, you have crossed over the line of one being passionate about not liking the characters added to SW, into idiotic snobbery. We're now to believe you are the next Mary Blair, LOL, riiiiggghht.
Originally Posted By oc_dean No. Now .. YOU are taking it too far. If this discussion is bothering you ... buzz off. There's tons of other discussions where you can insert something to insult another poster.
Originally Posted By oc_dean Dan, Trek, Hans, and everyone else who's been a trooper .. and had fun with this discussion .. if you feel "we've covered it well enough now." That's fine with me,bros. We have talked about this extensively .. and it's been fun. How about we leave it at that?
