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

[PragmaticIdealist]

When Steve Davison was doing the changing to "it's a small world", I don't remember anyone objecting.

The criticisms of these proposed alterations are well-formed and persuasive. And, the only rebuttal Disney can muster is that change happens?

[MrLiver]

Originally Posted by PragmaticIdealist

When Steve Davison was doing the changing to "it's a small world", I don't remember anyone objecting.

The criticisms of these proposed alterations are well-formed and persuasive. And, the only rebuttal Disney can muster is that change happens?

Here knock yourself out:

Google Groups

Google Groups 2

[MrLiver]

Or for those of you too lazy to click a link, here's a quote from Al Lutz regarding the changes to Small World in 1997:

I had thought this was an interesting idea too, until I heard who was
behind it.

Michael "Light Magic" Maines.

So be afraid, VERY afraid folks. It could turn out to be pretty kitschy
and ugly. The only good thing is that this will be temporary, and that the
ride will be returned to its original state [hopefully refurbished?] at the
conclusion of this promotion. Pressler has said he couldn't compete with
Knott's and Halloween, so he wants to "own Christmas." Sigh... he is so
clueless.

Marc Davis [who along with Mary Blair originally put this ride together] as
I understand is quite livid about it. I myself cannot understand why
Entertainment is being allowed to junk up an attraction like this, they
should be hard at work doing entertainment, not attractions. That's WDI's
job.

[Snip]

Why do I feel such a huge sense of dread about this? Ahhh, this is
Presslerland, that's why. Talk DOWN to the audience, and not UP. And do
it on the cheap...

[PragmaticIdealist]

I wasn't making any objections at the time. "it's a small world" Holiday, as a concept, deftly preserved the original design intent and the original artistic intent of the 1964 attraction.

A prayer for peace became a prayer for the more seasonally-appropriate "peace on Earth."

[MrLiver]

Originally Posted by PragmaticIdealist

I wasn't making any objections at the time.

Yes, but unlike what you claimed, there were people out there making objections to it at the time.

And most of those objections followed the same reasoning here - that it violated the spirit of the ride.

Turns out that most of those objections were quickly forgotten when the ride turned out to be a huge hit.

If people could be wrong back then, certainly you admit they can be wrong today.

[HBG2]

Say kids, can you spot the logical errors?

(1) There have been silly complaints about changes in the past, therefore your complaints about the current changes must also be silly.

(2) There is no need to answer your arguments, because you're old, and old people hate change.

I knew you could!

[HBG2]

Originally Posted by MrLiver

If people could be wrong back then, certainly you admit they can be wrong today.

Hey, another one. "You could theoretically be wrong; therefore you are."

[MrLiver]

Originally Posted by HBG2

(1) There have been silly complaints about changes in the past, therefore your complaints about the current changes must also be silly.

Not MUST be silly - but COULD be silly. If the ride is a huge hit when it reopens with characters, no one will remember all the complaints levied here against it now.

(2) There is no need to answer your arguments, because you're old, and old people hate change.

There's no need to answer your arguments because the ride is going to be changed regardless of what you say here.

Feel free to believe whatever you want about the changes, but logically the only thing left to do now is to wait for the ride to open and see if the public likes it.

Funny how no one here is willing to wait.

[MrLiver]

Originally Posted by HBG2

Hey, another one. "You could theoretically be wrong; therefore you are."

You don't think you might be wrong?

[PragmaticIdealist]

Originally Posted by MrLiver

Yes, but unlike what you claimed, there were people out there making objections to it at the time.

And most of those objections followed the same reasoning here - that it violated the spirit of the ride.

Turns out that most of those objections were quickly forgotten when the ride turned out to be a huge hit.

If people could be wrong back then, certainly you admit they can be wrong today.

I'm not speaking for anyone but myself, and no one is speaking for me.

Certainly, you admit that equating the alterations recently proposed with those for the holiday version is logically-inconsistent for the reason I stated. One preserves original design intent, and the other does not.

[MrLiver]

Originally Posted by PragmaticIdealist

Certainly, you admit that equating the alterations recently proposed with those for the holiday version is logically-inconsistent for the reason I stated. One preserves original design intent, and the other does not.

I wouldn't know. I haven't seen the changes yet.

I'm guessing you haven't either.

At least take this from what I posted: Al jumped to a conclusion about the layover based on information he had heard and not having experienced the attraction first hand. It turned out he was wrong about it.

Why don't you just wait until it opens and then complain about it then?

It might save you some embarrassment later.

[PragmaticIdealist]

Originally Posted by MrLiver

I wouldn't know. I haven't seen the changes yet.

I'm guessing you haven't either.

At least take this from what I posted: Al jumped to a conclusion about the layover based on information he had heard and not having experienced the attraction first hand. It turned out he was wrong about it.

Why don't you just wait until it opens and then complain about it then?

It might save you some embarrassment later.

Interestingly, the reason that many people seem skeptical of "it's a small world" Holiday in the forums you cited is because Steve Davison and Paul Pressler had just produced Light Magic, which was merely one of a long series of embarrassments for which the Eisner-Pressler regime was responsible.

Their track record was pretty pathetic. However, I was able to identify which of the concepts would fail when I first learned of them. So, you could say that my personal track record has been 100% accurate in predicting these disasters.

Now, after this long string of failures, I'm merely identifying yet another. Perhaps, Disney would do well to listen this time.

[HBG2]

Originally Posted by MrLiver

You don't think you might be wrong?

At this point, I do not.

"Might be" is a loaded, slippery modality. Of course I could be wrong, and I am more than willing to entertain opposing views, but until someone offers a convincing rebuttal (and so far no one has), I do not think I am wrong. No one can accuse me of being close-minded until they have attempted to engage me in the arguments themselves.

Before you play the popularity card, I should forewarn you that I don't care how insanely popular the additions may turn out to be, or how far out of public memory this debate may eventually fall. I do not consider truth to be subject to referendum, so those factors are irrelevant to the merits of my position.

[MrLiver]

Originally Posted by PragmaticIdealist

So, you could say that my personal track record has been 100% accurate in predicting these disasters.

Originally Posted by HBG2

At this point, I do not.

Nevermind.

[Coheteboy]

I remember when Small World Holiday was coming out. I myself thought it was a pretty good idea. These character additions are NOT.

There is most certainly good change and bad change.