I will agree with you there, but I read Shakespeare for fun
Even given the fact that the classic animation of the past does hold a stronger emotional tie for the kids of today than iasw does, I don't see how the classically animated, fictional characters belong in a ride that caricatures the reality of children around the world in a message of getting along. Ariel and Pinocchio simply don't fit in. Saying that "oh, Alice is from England" and "Ariel lives under the sea" is really stretching things. That is forcing. It's shoe-horning things in.
I know you don't think that, I never have. And you are doing a great job as devils advocate here, but I understand where Disney is coming from... I simply don't see these changes really adding any sort of relevance to the ride. It is still the same song that annoys so many, and it will only take one or two ride-throughs before kids are over it and stop wanting to sit through "that song" again. We actually saw statements to that effect in the official sticky review thread even.
Oh this is absolutely true. Though in classical animated Disney films, often times the morals and values are put in the songs because children remember songs so much easier. The song creates the emotional tie to the scene which makes remembering it easier. I've definitely got my playlist of favorite Disney songs from favorite Disney movies on my iPod and work computer.
Oh absolutely... I would argue that because they are timeless, relevance really doesn't even matter any more. The lessons and principals apply regardless of what year it is. But what is the reason that little girls run around dressed as the princess of their choice? If you ask little girls why they like a particular princess, it is usually some aspect of their personality. Their a really good friend, they read, she helps others, etc. It goes back to the core values of the film rather than a specific character for the sake of a character.
Oh crap, I just created a great argument to put the characters into the ride! Haha... that happens from time to time. The values that many of these characters espouse and stand for are those that the ride stands for as well. However, I don't think this is a strong enough reason to put them in.
Well, all I can say to that then is that I have walked past iasw during the exceptions, because I always have to wait till it's late at night to get on without a wait. I guess that's timing.
Actually the song is not the same. They have added counterpoint harmonies to the iasw song from each of the characters film in the areas in which they appear. In other words, as you pass Alice, you will hear a lilting, light version blended in with the iasw song of music from Alice in Wonderland. This is used to great effect in the Electrical Parade as the floats pass and the harmony and melody alter slightly to match the subject material of the current float. This does alter the message and further detaches you from the core of the ride, the music, where the emotional drive lies.
Though I must admit I am curious to hear the new ride audio in a quality recording. I hope that they did this part very well as it takes an immense amount of talent to blend musical cues together in this manner.
How does seeing Pinocchio help a child understand the message of the attraction better? Or does Pinocchio distract from the attraction by bringing up the memories and emtional connections to that film, that character? Instead of being focused on the vignettes of children playing and singing, albeit in different language, but essentially all the same, kids are now looking for the next character and thinking about that aspect. For an adult, it is easy to ignore these characters and see beyond that, but I don't think it is so easy for kids to not do this. And even if kids don't immediately "get" the message of the ride, the principals and values do sink in and are in there.
Yes it was. I apologize for that.
I agree completely with you here. They are going to do what they think is right... but we're not debating their right to do this. Well, I'm not anyway, some have before. I'm merely debating the rather vague notion of is it right or wrong to do it regardless of having the authority to do it. I will never deny that they have the right to make any change they want to make, for any reason they choose to declare. But I will debate if those decisions are good or not.
Absolutely they set themselves this high standard. And you are right, many many times they do deliver. But not always. When the Swiss Family Robinson treehouse was removed, many interactive elements were removed and it became a simple walk-and-glance through as opposed to walk through and become a part of the environment. It went from real, to museum, complete with name plates at each exhibit to explain what it is. I think this was a decision that was not up to their high standards. The quality of it is great, but the actual experience has sufferred.
Monsters, Inc. probably bumped attendance when it debuted
And that's my point... that bump faded, and rather quickly. In the long run, the expense to build Monsters, Inc. did not return. It did nothing to aid the park except in the very very short term. Curiosity attendance is not what they should be trying to get, but long term, repeat attendance. I think the characters being added to iasw will end up being like Monsters, Inc. and Pirates... curiosities.
No... it is relevant to Disneyland because they are both Disney parks. One built to the high standard that we expect of Disney, one built to another standard, much lower. The values and principles that guide Disneyland should guide DCA as well, but they didn't. Every single project should be undertaken with the utmost respect for theme and to the highest standards of quality possible. Is this expensive, yes... but that is the legacy that Disney has given itself. This is why no one cared about Disney animation over the last few years... because they were no longer at that high standard. If the parks decide to not hold themselves to the high standard 100% of the time... they too will suffer as people realize they can get the same thing cheaper elsewhere. This is why it is important to always keep that standard in mind and at the core of any decision.
No, there were no complaints from the bean counters about the money it brought in... but 5 years is less than 10% of the age of the park. Five years is very short term. Long term is decades. Long term is building something that will bring people in consistently for decades. This idea of corporate franchising is destructive to the creativity that made Disney the household name that it is. It destroys the ability of WDI to think outside the box and give us a new experience. It's great for the rest of the company as it ties the brands together, and in some cases, it can work for the parks... but 99% of the time, franchising will hurt the parks.
So was that brief time worth all the money spent to change it? Probably not. If something is really not popular any more and simply not working... take a page from Walt himself... pull it out and make something new! Removing Captain Eo for HISTA was a great choice... HISTA now needs to be removed desperately. Plussing it won't save it at this point.
But does identifying the ride with movies kids are familiar with really help the ride? No. Because that is not the purpose of the ride. (Again, I'm not arguing if it helps the bottom line of Disney or not, just the fact that it doesn't help the ride. Increasing ride attendance is not always right if it destroys the core point of the ride.)