Save the Rainforest - Keep "it's a small world" a classic.

[Coheteboy]

Originally Posted by MrLiver

There is no justification that you will accept. Disney obviously has their reasons to believe this change will help the attraction, or they wouldn't be spending the money to do it. This notion that Disney is only out to hurt the parks and the fans like an evil super villain plotting and planning in the back halls of some lair is ridiculous and omnipresent in this fan community.

Why can't you just trust that they have the best wishes of the park in mind and have their reasons for doing it?

(bold mine)

I think the scariest part of that comment is that you're right. It is ridiculous to think that Disney is consciously out to damage the park in any way.

The problem is that they are damaging the park and don't realize that they're doing so. Their defense for this is simply that they are doing Walt's work because Disneyland is not a museum. It will never be completed as long as there is imagination left.

If you look at many of the past blunders (blunders that sound as if they were created by 4 year olds), there was no imagination taking place and there is none taking place in this attraction now from what I've seen by ANY of Disney's official press responses.

Walt was an artist and has incredible respect for artists. Look at the artists on the re-imagineering blog voicing their concern about these changes. This is NOT a good idea, no matter how long you wait, no matter how you convince yourself otherwise.


The real reason why we're fighting this stance so strongly is because we've seen many attractions change for the worse. Disneyland (and Magic Kingdom) have taken a turn for the worse creatively. If Small World gets fixed, there WILL be a lot of people who will like it. But these same people would have liked it just the same if they DIDN'T change it. Disney will see this as a success and then look for the next classic non-tooned up Disney attraction to mess with next.

Do you see? THIS WILL NOT STOP. Would you like Stitch Space Mountain or Woody's Big Thunder Mountain? This toonification is spreading like a disease until there will be nothing original left. This isn't Disney's Hollywood Studios, folks. This is DISNEYLAND. It used to be named after a man with big ideas. Now it's named after a brand. And the more corporate you get, the more people will tune out.

[flynnibus]

wow.. I guess we've seen it all now.

People telling Dave Smith to

'go and learn about the thematic perspective of the show"
"Please stay in the archives"
telling him he's learned nothing

deplorable.. from what? Kids in their 20s? The man has been living Disney long before most of you were born. This type of behavior is childish and really discredits the authors.

This truely comes across as 'we don't like your answers, so you are stupid!!'

The letter from Dave Smith does not specifically address the specific changes coming, nor does it try to justify the changes themselves. It simply addresses the point of not touching classic attractions. Nothing more. You can't go blasting him or his position on the specific changes when he didn't even discuss them!

[merlinjones]

>>Why can't you just trust that they have the best wishes of the park in mind and have their reasons for doing it?<<

I'm sure the road to DCA, Pooh, Tarzan's Treehouse and Tomorrowland '98 was paved with good intentions, but the execution and reasoning for the changes just wasn't (and isn't) there.

Bad taste is bad taste. And now we are stuck with mediocrity. As Yoda said, "Do or do not. There is no try."

Walt had good taste and that's one reason we love his vision of the park more than theirs and hope much of it it can outlast us all.

[fo'c's'le swab]

Originally Posted by flynnibus

The letter from Dave Smith does not specifically address the specific changes coming, nor does it try to justify the changes themselves. It simply addresses the point of not touching classic attractions. Nothing more. You can't go blasting him or his position on the specific changes when he didn't even discuss them!

(BOLD mine) Actually, it does EXACTLY that--and uses some of the worst DIS past thematic 'enhancements' as examples of this change really being 'business as usual'. The frequency with which poor decisions are made is not justification for more, IMO. Read it again, and see if you don't agree:

It is difficult for me to speak to that, since I do not know what characters are being put in the attraction, or what they will look like. But, we have added characters to previous character-free attractions: witness Pirates of the Caribbean (Jack Sparrow), Tiki Room (Iago, at the Magic Kingdom in FL), Treehouse (Tarzan), Big Thunder Ranch (Little Patch of Heaven), Tom Sawyer Island (Pirates Lair), Main Street Cinema (Disney cartoons), Haunted Mansion (Haunted Mansion Holiday), Submarine Voyage (Finding Nemo Submarine Voyage), El Rio del Tiempo (Gran Fiesta Tour, at Epcot)...

I think that making allusions to those ill-advised (in some cases thematically disastrous) enhancements, and drawing a parallel to the new IASW 'enhancement' is worrying some, and IMO what is creating the indignation, not necessarily Smith's qualifications, pedigree, or authority.

[MrLiver]

Originally Posted by Coheteboy

(bold mine)

I think the scariest part of that comment is that you're right. It is ridiculous to think that Disney is consciously out to damage the park in any way.

The problem is that they are damaging the park and don't realize that they're doing so. Their defense for this is simply that they are doing Walt's work because Disneyland is not a museum. It will never be completed as long as there is imagination left.

They are not changing Disneyland just for the sake of changing it.

They are not changing it simply so the fans get upset.

They make the changes because they think people will like them. They make the changes because they believe that by attracting more guests to their attractions they can get more revenue and continue to be successful. Simple as that.

Sometime the changes are good and sometimes they're bad. When they're bad, they get changed again. When they're good, they stay.

Trust that they have the best interests of the park in mind, and trust that the fifth freedom of free enterprise will keep Disneyland striving to make the most people happy.

[Coheteboy]

Originally Posted by MrLiver

They are not changing Disneyland just for the sake of changing it.

They are not changing it simply so the fans get upset.

They make the changes because they think people will like them. They make the changes because they believe that by attracting more guests to their attractions they can get more revenue and continue to be successful. Simple as that.

Sometime the changes are good and sometimes they're bad. When they're bad, they get changed again. When they're good, they stay.

Trust that they have the best interests of the park in mind, and trust that the fifth freedom of free enterprise will keep Disneyland striving to make the most people happy.

The trend lately is that when they're bad, they stay. And the things that are GOOD... get changed. Simple as that.

I know what you're saying... it's what they truly believe and want us to believe. But it's far from what's actually happening.

[MasterGracey]

Originally Posted by MrLiver

They are not changing Disneyland just for the sake of changing it.

They are not changing it simply so the fans get upset.

They make the changes because they think people will like them. They make the changes because they believe that by attracting more guests to their attractions they can get more revenue and continue to be successful. Simple as that.

Sometime the changes are good and sometimes they're bad. When they're bad, they get changed again. When they're good, they stay.

Trust that they have the best interests of the park in mind, and trust that the fifth freedom of free enterprise will keep Disneyland striving to make the most people happy.

The best interest of the theme park would be to maintain, strengthen, and enrich the themes of the park.

Watering them down and muddling themes is not in the best interest of a theme park. See: Knott's Berry Farm, Universal Studios, etc.

[MasterGracey]

Originally Posted by fo'c's'le swab

(BOLD mine) Actually, it does EXACTLY that--and uses some of the worst DIS past thematic 'enhancements' as examples of this change really being 'business as usual'. The frequency with which poor decisions are made is not justification for more, IMO. Read it again, and see if you don't agree:


I think that making allusions to those ill-advised (in some cases thematically disastrous) enhancements, and drawing a parallel to the new IASW 'enhancement' is worrying some, and IMO what is creating the indignation, not necessarily Smith's qualifications, pedigree, or authority.

Great post, Swab.

I think the very fact that Dave Smith felt the need to send an open letter to LaughingPlace is evidence enough that he's defending the creative changes being made to "it's a small world." Even if doesn't outright say it like Sklar did, just by saying anything and repeating the Walt Disney "never complete" quote makes his intentions very clear.

[MrLiver]

Originally Posted by Coheteboy

The trend lately is that when they're bad, they stay. And the things that are GOOD... get changed. Simple as that.

I know what you're saying... it's what they truly believe and want us to believe. But it's far from what's actually happening.

See here's where the problem lies. You think that bad changes stay regardless of whether they are bad or good, and what you fail to realize, or simply do not want to realize, is that the changes you sometimes see as bad, are really good for the general populace.

Just because you think they're bad doesn't mean they are really bad. Some people like them, and if Disney thinks it's worth the money to keep them open, then they must know something about their popularity that we don't.

[MasterGracey]

Originally Posted by MrLiver

See here's where the problem lies. You think that bad changes stay regardless of whether they are bad or good, and what you fail to realize, or simply do not want to realize, is that the changes you sometimes see as bad, are really good for the general populace.

Just because you think they're bad doesn't mean they are really bad. Some people like them, and if Disney thinks it's worth the money to keep them open, then they must know something about their popularity that we don't.

So, the Enchanted Tiki Room Under New Management at the Magic Kingdom is a good attraction? The show mocks its predecessor and the theme park experience in general.

Should Disney be insulting its own product in its shows? Should they be insulting the people who like the original show? Should they be insulting their customers?

"Hey, stop the music! Are you listening to me? I said stop the music!What is that? I'm gonna toss my crackers. And these people below me, they ain't gonna like that. Trust me."

"Come on, keep moving. You've had enough of the 'Enchanted' thing for one day."

"Hey lady, it wouldn't hurt you to walk a little faster!"

"Boy, I'm tired. I think I'll head over to the Hall of Presidents and take a nap"

It must be a good attraction though, because it's still playing at the Magic Kingdom.

[mycroft16]

As for Dave's letter, the thing the struck me the most is that his example of Pirates has zero bearing on the matter. PotC inspired the movies and in turn they took back from the movies to enhance the ride. Fine, at least they are related.

How on God's green Earth is Mickey Mouse and gang related to iasw in any way? There is ZERO relation there. That's what bothers me so much about this and why I can at least live with Jack in PotC even if it does alter the storyline/plot of the ride.

[Coheteboy]

Originally Posted by MrLiver

See here's where the problem lies. You think that bad changes stay regardless of whether they are bad or good, and what you fail to realize, or simply do not want to realize, is that the changes you sometimes see as bad, are really good for the general populace.

Just because you think they're bad doesn't mean they are really bad. Some people like them, and if Disney thinks it's worth the money to keep them open, then they must know something about their popularity that we don't.

See, you're defending mediocrity, which is what many of the attractions have become. They're bad in various degrees but you can multiply anything times zero and it will always be zero.

Tarzan's Treehouse may be more relevant to the 90s audience but it's a far weaker attraction than Swiss Family Treehouse. I never even seen the film it was based on, but there was something about it that evoked a sense of wonder and amazement. Everyone has dreams about living in a treehouse. The swiss family treehouse allowed you to really see what it could be like. It was wonderful.

I never seen El Rio del Tiempo at Epcot and yah, I am a sucker for Gran Fiesta. And while I like it, I can completely see that the attraction has really little to do with the Mexico pavilion that it's a part of. I only wish I saw the original version.

Tiki Room at Magic Kingdom... see MasterGracey's post. It's pretty bad. And not just bad... but annoying too.

Stitch Encounter is pretty bad too. They took something that was pretty impressive (though good one time only) and turned it into something that wasn't even worth one time. The attraction is worse.

The list continues with great attractions that are given the mediocre treatment. And I didn't even bring up Monsters Inc in Magic Kingdom not only being mediocre, but in the wrong theme park.

[MrLiver]

Originally Posted by Coheteboy

See, you're defending mediocrity, which is what many of the attractions have become. They're bad in various degrees but you can multiply anything times zero and it will always be zero.

You can sit there and tell me which attractions are good and bad until you're blue in the face, but those opinions will always remain your opinions and your opinions alone. I have no desire to sit here and argue back and forth on which attraction meet your approval. You simply need to take responsibility for your own feelings on the matter, and realize that at the end of the day they are your own.

They only objective standard to which we can measure the success of Disney's attractions is through their continued existence. If the attraction remains successful it will remain in operation. When an attraction can be more successful, it is modified and changed. When an attraction is no longer successful, it is closed.

Originally Posted by MasterGracey

Should Disney be insulting its own product in its shows? Should they be insulting the people who like the original show? Should they be insulting their customers?

Zazu: [Singing] "it's a small world after all..."
Scar: No! Anything but that!

[Rustymuscle]

Originally Posted by MrLiver

Zazu: [Singing] "it's a small world after all..."
Scar: No! Anything but that!

Yeah, I can't imagine Disney having a healthy sense of humor about itself...

[MasterGracey]

Originally Posted by MrLiver

You can sit there and tell me which attractions are good and bad until you're blue in the face, but those opinions will always remain your opinions and your opinions alone. I have no desire to sit here and argue back and forth on which attraction meet your approval. You simply need to take responsibility for your own feelings on the matter, and realize that at the end of the day they are your own.

They only objective standard to which we can measure the success of Disney's attractions is through their continued existence. If the attraction remains successful it will remain in operation. When an attraction can be more successful, it is modified and changed. When an attraction is no longer successful, it is closed.




Zazu: [Singing] "it's a small world after all..."
Scar: No! Anything but that!

There is a difference between small jabs at itself and repeated insults and degradation of its own product and customers in a short amount of time.

There isn't just one small poke at itself in Tiki - Under New Management -- there are several jabs at itself and its customers.

There's a point where it stops being a cute joke and turns into an insult.