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

[fo'c's'le swab]

Originally Posted by Anatole69

Do we have concept art for the proposed new scene?

Protesting it blindly is like protesting a movie you have never seen, or a book you have never read.

A more fitting metaphor here would be protesting changes to classic literature, or historical accounts when the 'changes' were yet unseen. In essence, I don't need to see "Little Women" with Sylvester Stallone as 'Beth March' to know it will not be a change for the better, or support the author's intent. 'Wait and see' isn't always a sensible approach.

[The International]

Originally Posted by MasterGracey

Disney likes to keep fans in the dark these days for the sake of "preserving the magic" and then ignore the fans -- the people paying the bills -- if the fans don't like the idea or product.

What are you talking about? There's no Disneyland show on ABC anymore but I think Disney does a pretty good job of informing people about upcoming attractions and changes in the parks, through podcasts and press releases, among other things. That's not even mentioning the new preview center, the sole purpose of which is to show upcoming additions to the resort.

And while Walt did showcase his new attractions on his show, I don't think he exactly solicited public opinion. The episode where he introduces Pirates shows several concepts that were put verbatim (for lack of a better word) into the final product.

And I think "preserving the magic" is a great thing for a few reasons. From a business standpoint it makes people curious about new attractions and want to experience them, and personally I like knowing as little as possible about new attractions and changes to old attractions so when I ride them I'm surprised.

[GhostHost2]

Originally Posted by KISSman

While I don't support all of Disney's decisions, I do support their effort to make this tired attraction more interesting.

How does an America section instead of a Rainforest section and insertion of adverstisements for merchandise (the Disney characters) make IASW attraction more interesting? What an America section and Disney characters in IASW would do is dumb it down, and nothing in Disneyland should ever be dumbed down.

Nemo in the subs is a prime example of dumbing down an attraction.

[fo'c's'le swab]

Originally Posted by The International

That's more hypocritical than ironic.

Agreed. The behavior IS more hypocritical than ironic. Good point.

And by all means, voice your concerns to Disney. I'd expect that since the changes aren't concrete by this point a flood of complaints might actually affect the outcome.

I suppose my position on this is a 'what can it hurt?' stance.

[techskip]

Originally Posted by fo'c's'le swab

Good post, P. It's ironic that some who criticize and ridicule those who choose to speak out against what is distasteful to them, are the same posters who time and time again seek out 'theme' threads in order to speak out against what is distasteful to them.

Not sure if that was directed to me or not Swab. I enjoy the spirit of any debate, and love reading how others feel. At the same time I find posts pleading for a specific change or "save campaign" to be a waste of time. Focus on how you feel... but don't hold your breath about Disney changing to match those feelings.

[HBG2]

A note about art.

While it's true that arguments about what is art and what is not can take discussions like this one right off the rails, let's not be extreme. If there is ANY Disney ride that can lay serious claim to being a large, kinetic work of art (no asterisks, no quotation marks), that attraction is IASW. Nothing else comes close to being such an open and shut case.

[Anatole69]

Originally Posted by fo'c's'le swab

A more fitting metaphor here would be protesting changes to classic literature, or historical accounts when the 'changes' were yet unseen. In essence, I don't need to see "Little Women" with Sylvester Stallone as 'Beth March' to know it will not be a change for the better, or support the author's intent. 'Wait and see' isn't always a sensible approach.

Yeah but there have been many changes to attractions over the years. Are you saying a ride should stay the way it was from the very first day?

Even if you did, many people would disagree and since you are attempting not to just articulate your own position but to sway public opinion, you need to find the view that will have the most resonance with the public.

Since many Disneyland attractions have had small changes made over the years, some of which have improved the ride, it's not likely to be a very strong argument to make.

Besides which, a novel is work made and owned by a single author. A ride at disneyland is made by a team and owned by a corporation. Protesting changing Little Women is quite different than protesting changing a company owned ride.

- Anatole

[Anatole69]

Where is the abstraction in IASW?

It's all up front and in your face, actually. ha ha.

- Anatole

[fo'c's'le swab]

Originally Posted by techskip

Not sure if that was directed to me or not Swab. I enjoy the spirit of any debate, and love reading how others feel. At the same time I find posts pleading for a specific change or "save campaign" to be a waste of time. Focus on how you feel... but don't hold your breath about Disney changing to match those feelings.

It was directed at no one, just general observation.

[Coheteboy]

Originally Posted by The International

What are you talking about? There's no Disneyland show on ABC anymore but I think Disney does a pretty good job of informing people about upcoming attractions and changes in the parks, through podcasts and press releases, among other things. That's not even mentioning the new preview center, the sole purpose of which is to show upcoming additions to the resort.

And while Walt did showcase his new attractions on his show, I don't think he exactly solicited public opinion. The episode where he introduces Pirates shows several concepts that were put verbatim (for lack of a better word) into the final product.

And I think "preserving the magic" is a great thing for a few reasons. From a business standpoint it makes people curious about new attractions and want to experience them, and personally I like knowing as little as possible about new attractions and changes to old attractions so when I ride them I'm surprised.

Walt instructed his imagineers time and time again to go to the parks and wait in line with the guests. Listen to what they have to say. It DID mean a lot to Walt and the same should apply to the company now.

Look, we're not here asking them to do the impossible. This addition, will not do anything to sway people's opinion of the attraction in a more favorable light. It will STILL be the long boat ride that annoys guests with the same song.

And there are many of us who appreciate it for what it was. There are FIVE Small World attractions in the world and only ONE original. If the original still works, I'm all for keeping it that way.

Disneyland is the only park that Walt walked in and though he pushes for changes a lot, there really is something about keeping one of his original visions as pure as possible.

Walt Disney World, the tourist destination of the world would be a better fit for this kind of addition. The original park, not so much.

[fo'c's'le swab]

Originally Posted by Anatole69

Yeah but there have been many changes to attractions over the years. Are you saying a ride should stay the way it was from the very first day?

No. I've always held the belief that when changes are made, they should satisfy theme, and original intent before they are opened to hopefully satisfy guests.

If new attractions are opened, they must support the theme of the Land they reside in, or not be opened at all.

BTMRR, IJA, Star Tours are good 'recent' examples of this. The WFJC, HM and Tiki Room are examples of changes 'for the better', IMO.

BLAB, and Pooh are poor examples of new attractions; and PLOTSI, Finding Nemo and POTC are examples of poorly-conceived 'changes', IMO.

[The International]

For how long? Should we keep these rides exactly the same forever? What constitutes an acceptable change?

[Coheteboy]

Originally Posted by fo'c's'le swab

No. I've always held the belief that when changes are made, they should satisfy theme, and original intent before they are opened to hopefully satisfy guests.

If new attractions are opened, they must support the theme of the Land they reside in, or not be opened at all.

BTMRR, IJA, Star Tours are good 'recent' examples of this. The WFJC, HM and Tiki Room are examples of changes 'for the better', IMO.

BLAB, and Pooh are poor examples of new attractions; and PLOTSI, Finding Nemo and POTC are examples of poorly-conceived 'changes', IMO.

For the newbies:

BTMRR = BIG THUNDER MOUNTAIN RAILROAD
IJA = INDIANA JONES ADVENTURE
WFJC = WORLD FAMOUS JUNGLE CRUISE
HM = HAUNTED MANSION
BLAM = BUZZ LIGHTYEAR ASTRO BLASTERS
PLOTSI = PIRATES LAIR ON TOM SAWYER ISLAND
POTC = PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN
IMO = IN MY OPINION

[Coheteboy]

Originally Posted by The International

For how long? Should we keep these rides exactly the same forever? What constitutes an acceptable change?

Exactly the same? Don't be silly. Good change is GOOD. Small World changes that would be favorable would be the new flume as it benefits all shapes and sizes who ride it (would you want to get stuck in small world?).

The "hello" and "goodbye" rooms are supposed to get some extra additions. That's GOOD change as they were the cheapest looking rooms.

Other good changes are fresh paint, new robotics, better or cleaner effects, etc.

[The International]

Originally Posted by Coheteboy

The "hello" and "goodbye" rooms are supposed to get some extra additions. That's GOOD change as they were the cheapest looking rooms.

Originally Posted by Coheteboy

Disneyland is the only park that Walt walked in and though he pushes for changes a lot, there really is something about keeping one of his original visions as pure as possible.

You're contradicting yourself, and as far as I can tell you only like change if it's change you like, you know what I'm saying?