2/10: it's a mall whirl

[belenunlv]

I agree with you Al. I'm not so happy with the addition of the characters myself.

[DisneyFunGuy]

Al, in my opinion, you seem to be going way over board on your judgement call over the changes in *small world*. I've been on that attraction several times since the grand re-opening on Friday, 2/6. And honestly, it's not bad at all.

And because of the enhancements, everyone will (at first) be looking for all the new Disney characters they've added...that's normal. I know I did my first time on it, but after that, I just sat back and enjoyed the attraction for what it's always been to me, nostalgic and whimsical.

And everyone keeps talking about the added music from some of the animated Disney films in certain scenes in the attraction. The only one I really heard (and it was extremely faint) was the Pinocchio scene. Otherwise, I haven't heard a thing from the others.

The only thing I will agree with you on is the newest room they added, the Heartland, Americana Room. My first thought, and I still feel it every time I go through it, is that it reminds me of Superstar Limo. It's a waste of space just to add Woody and Co. It doesn't fit in well with the rest of the attraction, and they need more dolls in there. It looks unfinished to me.


So, if you were to ask me if Disney should have added the Disney characters, I would say no. But the fact they did, didn't diminish how I feel about the attraction now. And this coming from someone who has always loved *it's a small world* since being a child.

[Katella Gate]

Two words: Product Placement. It’s a Small World is now a retail space that uses Walt's original attraction as a backdrop to sell product.

In the old days, attractions used to have a preshow to get the audience ready for the entertainment to follow. Now it’s the shops that have the preshows to get shoppers warmed up to spend.

How did it happen? Because current management believes that Disneyland is a Giant Mall: every square foot of Disneyland must SELL something, or that square foot is wasted. Some executive noticed that IASW had the audience's attention for close to 15 minutes and the ride didn't sell anything but harmony and understanding. That's groovy, but Mr. Burns still wants that other ivory back scratcher.

Am I concerned? Yes, the park is becoming homogenized. Attractions are now starting to look an awful lot like each other - because they keep mining the profits out of the same franchises

*Tom Sawyer’s Island and Pirates of the Caribbean now both tie into the same movie franchise.

*Storybook Canal Boats take guests around the world to visit the homes of Disney cartoon characters.

*It's a Small World takes guests around the world to visit Disney cartoon characters in their home countries.

*In Toontown, guests visit Disney cartoon characters in their homes.

My biggest beef about the "re-do" is the lack of respect shown to Mary Blair's work. A few of the new dolls work OK like the White Rabbit, but I suspect it's because Blair did character sketches for the "Alice in Wonderland" movie and there was some concrete examples to go by.

The Americana room, however, is a train wreck. The massing of the sets, color palates, and the geometric stylization have nothing to do with Mary's original art direction. Nothing. The Blair dolls are few and far between, the Pixar characters are front and center and badly out of scale. For as many "Art and Flair of Mary Blair" books they've sold in the park, maybe somebody should have borrowed a copy and actually looked thru it.

Contemplating the new musical score also makes me wince. The John Debny score did a masterful job on Buddy Baker's Haunted Mansion music for Paris, but seriously tripped up on the re-vamped It's a Small World score from 10 years ago -- probably because he had marching orders to "improve" the music, and shattered the simplicity of the Sherman Bros song. How anybody can pull off interweaving random movie scores with the original Sherman tune defies imagination.

Did the changes "ruin" the attraction? Depends on what your philosophies are. If IASW is just a way to pass a pleasant afternoon then no: there's no reason to be upset because "Disneyland is not a museum". If you are sensitive to the commercial exploitation of somebody else's artistic statement to boost sales, then yes you will be upset.

But as I said, it comes down to product placement. Would “Star Wars” be ruined if a "GE" logo popped out of the tip of Luke Skywalker's light saber? If Coca-Cola could buy the Mona Lisa, would you be offended if they painted a Coke can into her hand? (Don't worry, the paint can be removed later – in case the packaging art changes ).

Products are placed in artwork to make the art more profitable, not more artistic. And that's really what it comes down to.

[daliseurat]

I basically agree with AL. Except for his idea for the America scene, but even that might be better than the lame thing they did put in. I am definitely NOT a fan of placing the characters in this attraction. I think Al's correct that the attraction has become find the characters, except you don't have look hard because they a very prominent. Most of the new figures are just fine and fit in well. Except for Stitch, all the Toy Story folk, and Nemo and Dory. They stick out, are out of scale and really don't look like they belong. Everything else I can live with, because after a few more rides, I'll stop specifically looking at the characters. But they should nix the theme music accompanying the characters. Doesn't work. And the America scene does look like Superstar Limo. But none of this will prevent me from riding. There's enough going on to avoid what I don't like. We all have to remember that Disney has to make changes that will have the biggest impact. And those of us who are more purist, will probably not like them. But at the end of the day, I'll take these changes and keep IASW more many more years than risk it being bulldozed because the current guest aren't interested in it.

[sediment]

Al is right again.

[DannyB]

Wow... if I hadn't ridden the new IASW myself this weekend, Al's review would have made me think that the problems with California Adventure were superficial compared to the IASW disaster. However, since I have ridden it, I must say that I enjoyed it very much, and was only mildly annoyed that some of the Disney characters stand out just a little too much. In my opinion, the additions aren't perfect, but neither are they the "misfire" that Al says they are.

As for IASW being used to sell merchandise, am I to believe that before the introduction of Disney characters, there was no IASW merchandise? When Disneyland first opened, it was criticizing for trying to rob people of their money. Walt responded that he got no subsidy, that the public is his subsidy, and that it's only the so-called "critics" (as opposed to the general public) that seem to be complaining. (My copy of Disneyland: Inside Story is not at hand, or I'd provide the exact quote.) If Disneyland didn't constantly push merchandise, admission prices would have to be twice as high.


I've been reading Al's updates for years, and this is only the 2nd time that it seemed to me he went overboard in his criticism. Not a bad track record. (The other time was his complaint that the backstory of the Don Tomas turkey leg stand was too obscure, that few would know its significance. The same could be said of the Main St. window dedications, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be there.)

[ThatsMisterMouse]

Rode IASW last Sunday with the wife and kids. We enjoyed most of the changes. The kids were quite excited to see charters they knew and I believe enhanced the experience of the ride for all of us.
Although, there are a couple time within the ride the music becomes a jumbled mess of noises and for the America room, just paint the exit of that room blue or black. The Hollywood element has no business being there.

[Ian P]

I think it is a bit of an over reaction from Al.

It is a theme park attraction not a historic monument.

The park needs to be constantly changed, updated, rides removed and added.

Some things you will like some you will not.

Disneyland is a business - pure and simple, not a museum.

Be pleased that Disney spent a great deal of money to try to keep this ride current and popular for the future. A few Disney characters are hardly changing the story of the ride (if it even had one). It is what it is.

[aduecey]

I have yet to experience it myself but i'm glad to know that the ride has been freshened up. My last few time through to me it felt like it needed it. Will I like the additions, I don't know. But growing up with DL i've learned that changes are just part of the park. I haven't always been happy about all of them. Pirates that chase after food and not women come to mind. As much as some changes come that I don't like I'd like it even less if DL was treated as a museum. If nothing changed would there be much of a reason to go back?

[ManaByte]

Originally Posted by Ian P

I think it is a bit of an over reaction from Al.

It is a theme park attraction not a historic monument.

The park needs to be constantly changed, updated, rides removed and added.

Some things you will like some you will not.

Disneyland is a business - pure and simple, not a museum.

Be pleased that Disney spent a great deal of money to try to keep this ride current and popular for the future. A few Disney characters are hardly changing the story of the ride (if it even had one). It is what it is.

Sadly this correct opinion is in the minority.

[aashee]

Originally Posted by ManaByte

Sadly this correct opinion is in the minority.

In this instance, correct opinion is much like Jumbo Shrimp.

[Circa1966]

I've followed Al's writings since back in the days of the Promote Paul Pressler campaign. While some of his thoughts are brutally honest and some of his opinions may seem extreme, he's one of a group of people who actually "get it" when it comes to the magical little park in Anaheim. The intent behind the conception of It's a Small World has been bastardized with these changes. Anyone who doesn't recognize the fact that these changes are meant to take advantage of marketing opportunities is simply not allowing themselves to see. Walt Disney was a great marketer, but he never marketed at the expense of artistic integrity and he never went into Disneyland with the idea of only marketing and making money - the money that was generated at Disneyland was used to improve it, not to fatten stockholder's wallets. And the money was generated because of the Park's integrity...not at the expense of it.

The changes in It's a Small World incorporate already established characters into an already established attraction and negate the original intent of that attraction. Where is the imagination that the Imagineers are named after? Certainly this effort did little to stretch that imagination, and if we were to take Walt's comment in its original context - instead of the way it is currently marketed by the Disney Company - we'd be drawn to the conclusion that Disneyland is complete and imagination is dead.

For those who see the trend to commercialize every square foot of Disneyland as something positive, congratulations. You are the tarket market the Disney operation is looking for. Whereas Disney could use their talents to reach - and so bring you along with them - providing you with experiences that you didn't yet know you wanted to experience, they've found that you're satisfied with adding a poorly represented Woody in an already built attraction. Don't expect something innovative like the first daily operating Monorail in North America ever again. And as Pirates, Small World and other attractions are changed and you welcome these changes, they will continue...until Disneyland is no longer what it was meant to be. Times may have changed, but Walt's original premise could still thrive - if it was nurtured properly.

Oh - and Katella Gate - brilliant post...

[Dizzey]

Al's article is great, and here's why: it prompted all of you to respond and get in the discussion. Just like political discourse we need to hear a lot of voices before a happy medium or balance occurs. Sometimes we need extreme voices before we even take notice of a problem.

Some complain that IASW is a stodgy throwback without enough "crash and bang" for today's kids. Some will complain that there's too much marketing. Some will gripe about altering a single stuck eyelid from the classic attraction. It's all good... it means we care. So thanks, Al for getting us going. Hopefully the discussion, taken as a whole, will filter through to the suits and help move D-land in the best possible direction.


Katella Gate - you get my vote for best overall observation and synopsis. Well done!

[KENfromOC]

Expert??? What makes Al an expert? He is merely someone who started this site as a way to rate and rave and chat about Disney. That does not makehim an expert, it makes him a critic or a columnist. That does not belittle his accomplishments and dedication regarding this site. And he desrves the right to indeed make his opinion known as the "editor" of this site, much the same way a printed newspaper does.
But, in my opinion, and I admit I have not yet seen the new version of small world, I think he needs to open his eyes to the fact that this is not the generation of the 1960's anymore. Kids today, indeed the new upcoming demogrpahic Disney wants and needs to become "Disney Fans", don't want to be bothered with hookey la-di-da dated attractions. This generation wants to see what they know, as in spotting their favorite Disney characters in an attraction that probably meant little to them before. It was slow, tired, and annoying. This generation wants things fast and stimulating. Heck, my 2-year daughter wants to play games and my wife iPhone while we wait fro dinner at a restaurant, and knows how to use it. She watches Mickey Mouse Clubhouse, has the toy, and knows Disneyland well. She has been on small world a couple of times, and I know she will enjoy it even more spotting the Disney characters.

Al, you've done a great job with this site, but perhaps it's time to hand over the editorials to someone else. Change it not always bad, in fact it usually is good!

[Steve DeGaetano]

Originally Posted by shirleyfilms

I think that this site can be a wonderful wealth of information. But I, for one, get tired of having to sift through the daily rhetoric and negativity to get the facts. Even the PHOTO REPORTS contain whiny addendums. It becomes trying, after a while.

I guess I just expect too much. This is not a news/press organization with standards. It is someone's blog. It would be nice if they had the ability to report information with the scruples of a legitimate news organization. But, that is not what they choose to do. This website seems to be closer to a gossip column, in form and function. Or maybe a movie review. Which is fine, I guess.

Yeah. To be honest, now that I think about it... I believe I am in the wrong with my initial expectations. Nowhere on this site do they claim to offer factual or unbiased reporting. For some reason, I just expected it...maybe because this site has become so prominent. But, in truth, that is probably unfair to expect.

I offer my apologies.

I kind of laughed when I read this. "This is not a news/press organization with standards." Beg pardon, but watching the main stream media devolve over the past decades into the kind of opinionated morass that you seem to detest suggest that perhaps MiceAge shouldn't be trying at all to attain the "standards" of a news/press organization.

In many ways, we shoot for standards that are head-and-shoulders above what the news media go for. For instance, my own articles are researched far more in depth than you will find in any main stream news article on the subject--guaranteed (the Orange County Register referring to the Ward Kimball steam locomotive as the "Ward Tinkerbell" was only one of the more egregious and glaring errors. (http://www.ocregister.com/photos/dis...549/pid1654553). They also misspelled the name of the C.K. Holliday and got the number of steam locomotives at DL wrong--all "gross factual errors" that might have resulted in firing at another news paper).

Indeed, the news Al breaks is also far-better researched than what you'll find from a "legitimate news organization." His sources are probably deeper than any beat reporter's.

But...just as newspapers have opinion columns, so to does MiceAge. As noted, this is Al's site: He pays for it, and he lets us play on it for free. When he has news, he posts that. And when he has an opinion, he posts that as well. Eventually, we all are able to distinguish between the two.