Many people seem to think that when WDI/TDA changes something at Disneyland that Walt "personally" touched or created that it is a crime that could best be described as sacrilege. Why do people have such a hard time letting go of the past? Is it their memories of that attraction? Is it because they feel that the change is less superior to the original?
What makes a change bad? What makes a change good? Can something be changed without offending the super-diehards? We all know that some changes are done on the cheap (IE Country Bears Vs Winne the Pooh), but wasn't this change based merely on bringing something more recognizable and relevant to the table other than some obscure attraction that no one would recognize if they have never been to the park? That could be a good excuse that could easily be refuted by others. Why didn't they just fix and update the show? Replace it with new AAs, fully digitize everything instead of gutting it out with a subpar plywood inspired attraction with very few very limited AAs? That would be the type of reasoning that a diehard would say...it was a Walt Disney classic!
Yes, attractions like The Country Bear Jamboree, Tom Sawyer's Island, The Swiss Family Robinson Treehouse and Pirates, Haunted Mansion, and other attractions were Walt Disney Originals (sorry if my list is missing some), but as the road progress to the future, sadly everything could not be the same. Some things sadly must be shut down and replaced with attractions or updated with additions. Sometimes they are going to be much lower than what our expectations were going to be, but sometimes those attractions and updates create a new following of their own, which is pretty sad that people become impressed by these "lower-quality" replacements that they should not have been exposed to in the first place.
Another point is that the infusion of PIXAR creations should not be so overdone as some feel like it is now. Yes PIXAR is now Disney, but even before it was fully owned by Disney and Disney Consumer Products, there was a sense of "too much" PIXAR being put into the parks. My question is, were these movies/properties not quality movies? Were these lackluster stories? Did they not bring in a lot of revenue for the Mouse House but at the same time capture the hearts of millions of children and adults alike? It's not like Disney put in a Recess ride or a Teacher's Pet show; it's not like they pumped in millions of dollars for far-than-less-superior attractions. Does Buzzy Lightyears Astro Blasters become less than what it could be because it has a lot of limited AAs and plywood cutouts? Does it SUCK as much as Winnie The Pooh does in Critter Country? Two different attractions but they have very similar layouts - yeah, one is a shooter and the other is not, but are they really that different?
But some of the stuff is a bit confusing - take Star Tours for example - that attraction has not changed since it first captured our hearts, but people complain. They say the ride has been long due for an update, and even George Lucas and the other people at Lucasarts (and WDI too) had said they want to change and it IS going to get a change - are people okay with this change because Walt Disney himself did not have a hands on touch with this ride? Or is it because people really do want this to upgrade? I guess that can't be a fair statement as this is a licensed property that Walt Disney Pictures did not create themselves.
And I will be honest - should Walt Disney's words be taken as the gospel? Just because what Walt Disney said and did during his day, does it remain relevant to still follow exactly he wanted and said in the 21st century? Now, that's not to say that I don't believe the ideals he had, but we don't know what Walt may have done and what he may not have done. For all we know, he would have torn Disneyland in the 1970s, but again, we do not know.
I don't like not knowing why some people are so very passionate against change when there isn't a full out explanation on why they hate it so much.
I hate to go further, but I would like to know from both sides of the fence.
I want to know why change is a BAD thing. I don't want to hear the safe statements like "Only if it was a well thought out changed, bla bla bla" because every change goes through many different decision making processes. I want to know exactly why change is a bad thing.
I also wanted to know why change is a GOOD thing. I don't want to hear the safe statements like "Disneyland will always change and Disneyland is not a museum bla bla bla" because we know that Disneyland is not a museum. I want to know exactly why change is a good thing.