The lame excuse

[pianoman13]

Recently i've seen a lot of posts and threads justifying their opinions on the "Walt wanted change" argument. Here's the thing, there's a difference between good change, and bad change. Good change are updates, like the Haunted Mansion got in 2005, Leota stared to float, the effects became impressive and overall the outcome improved the attraction. Bad changes are things like The IASW Disney characters fiasco. Things that are bad changes alter the meaning of an attraction and most of the time is just because the executives only care about the "bottom line". So I'll take a comprimise between NEVER CHANGE ANYTHING THAT WALT DID and the CHANGE THIS BECAUSE THATS WHAT WALT WANTED. This brings me to another thing, everyone justify's everything with a "what would Walt do?" It starts to get pretty annoying because no one will ever realy know specificaly what he wanted, This isn't me saying that we should forget everything that Walt wanted in Disneyland, but sometimes it get's so over saturated like it has been recently with people saying things like "nothing should of ever been changed after Walt's death because we don't know what he wanted" Disney should just have to focus on making quality attractions that if replace another, the new one should be better. Another thing, It bugs me when people base their opinions on pure nostalgia, wich is NOT what Walt wanted

-Thanks for taking your time to read this and feel free to express your thoughts

[sleepybear]

Good points!

[»PW]

Wwwd?

[pianoman13]

thanks! and(below) huh?

[»PW]

What Would Walt Do?

[pianoman13]

^ thanks PW

[brandond6]

Yeah good point, although I really don't care about IASW being changed too much because I never really ride it too often when I go. But think, everyone hated how they were putting Captain Jack Sparrow in POTC but it actually turned out to be pretty cool and added to the ride imo. I don't think we should really judge the IASW changes until we see it.

[pianoman13]

^ I still don't even think that this matters, The POTC update is pretty contriversial actualy, the integrity of the ride has been challenged, Taking out the original Captian for the Barbosa thing wasn't an improvement in my eyes. Enough of that though, The up with America thing replacing the Rainforest is NOT an improvement. It dosn't follow the meaning of the ride and no matter what, adding Characters that don't have anything to do with the ride can not be good. Not as bad with Pirates(because those characters actualy sort of fit in) Even if you don't ride it often(like me) It still bothers me that a work of art will go to waste.

[Rex Dopey24]

you got a point there.

[SCUBAbe]

I guess it depends on who feels they are good and bad changes. I don't think the IASW changes are bad. I'm also willing to give any change a chance before I get all bent out of shape about them.

This whole IASW thing has made me aware how many people are emotionally attached to a ride. I had no idea so many people cared since the ride is a walk on all the time except for when ti has the holiday makeover.

[pianoman13]

I guess it depends on who feels they are good and bad changes. I don't think the IASW changes are bad. I'm also willing to give any change a chance before I get all bent out of shape about them.

This whole IASW thing has made me aware how many people are emotionally attached to a ride. I had no idea so many people cared since the ride is a walk on all the time except for when ti has the holiday makeover.

yeah, I'm not even realy a fan of IASW but i'm just saying that the changes that are specificaly stated in the rumors are bad and can be considered bad even without riding it. But the changes stated also depend on peoples opinion. I just don't see how any of these changes will actualy improve the attraction. So i'm not emotionaly attached to IASW, but I still think that they should stay true to the original intent of the attraction. And that's enough to fight for even if you don't ride the attraction that much.

[GhostHost2]

Yeah good point, although I really don't care about IASW being changed too much because I never really ride it too often when I go. But think, everyone hated how they were putting Captain Jack Sparrow in POTC but it actually turned out to be pretty cool and added to the ride imo. I don't think we should really judge the IASW changes until we see it.

Once the changes are made, it will be too late to change it back, at least anytime in the near future. To wait and see, is not a good course of action in cases like this IMO.

[Aladdin]

So, this is another thread about proposed changes to IASW being bad?

[Sir.Mouse]

I had no idea so many people cared since the ride is a walk on all the time except for when ti has the holiday makeover.

Well, I think part of the reason the line is so short is because of it's efficient . I noticed that besides when it re-opened, Pirates is usually a 5-15 min wait.

All I'm going to say about the preservation over change debate is that I don't think Walt sat around guessing what others would do. The best way for Disney to preserve Walt's legacy is live up to it's full potential in general. Granted it's truly complected to do so, but the key is effort.

[lazyboy97O]

So, this is another thread about proposed changes to IASW being bad?

It has more to do with a trend in such discussions. Many try to paint them as change vs. no change, and that has never been the case. Those accused of wanting no change are not advocating such, just looking to discuss the degrees and nature of change. Despite this, such arguments are continually rebutted by many as if no change was being advocated.

All I'm going to save about the preservation over change is that I don't think Walt sat around guessing what others would do. The best way for Disney to preserve Walt's legacy is live up to it's full potential in general.

The problem though is that there is no single driving force with a cult-like following. Michael Eisner saw himself in that position of the single driving force, but his constant clashing with others made him one that people sought to take down, not raise up.