KCRW 89.9 FM in SoCal to have a WDI person on in the next 30 minutes (2:30 PM) today

[lazyboy97O]

Originally Posted by Quacky4Donald

I find it sad that people are putting more energy into saving a fake rainforest than the real ones in the world. I guess in x-amount of years when the lush rainforests in Costa Rica and the like are gone I should be happy enough knowing that because of all the fuss on MiceChat I can still see the fake one in Disneyland. :rolls eyes:

- Joe

And you have any proof of this? Why don't you set the example, stop wasting your time reading this and actually go do something productive? This argument is simply baseless.

[MasterGracey]

Originally Posted by Seawolf

Very very short term thinking as usual Mr. Liver. Forget the image and quality of the product as long as it gets more butts in the seats for the time being right? It's safe to say this refurbishment will get a bump in attendance simply due to people’s curiosity. Heck even I will ride the attraction after this at least once to see what they did. However you completely bypass lasting ability and that is where this kind of thinking fails.

Short term thinking, indeed.

MrLiver is forgetting that refurbishments don't need to have a hook to pull guests back into the attraction. Take a look at the Enchanted Tiki Room... Disney cleaned it up and restored it and the show is typically pretty busy now. Moreso than it had been when it had been left to decay for years. Similarly, the Jungle Cruise or Haunted Mansion were thoroughly cleaned up and re-opened with little fanfare in regards to their new additions, and both attractions are, apparently, still popular.

Why couldn't "it's a small world" benefit from this same type of cleaning up? Oh wait, the attraction is scheduled to come back during one of two good times for a good marketing campaign: the Holidays, when Disney could make "it's a small world" the main focus of the holiday marketing campaign, or right after the holidays in the off-season after the Year of a Million Dreams has finally ended.

Either way, a nice gimmick will help marketing, and what better way to do it? A relatively cheap addition to an attraction that can be over-hyped and sold as a great new experience - whether it be during Christmas or after -- it's definitely a gift for TDA's Marketeers.

[disneytim]

Originally Posted by MasterGracey

Nevertheless, my main issue with this interview was not that Kim Irvine repeated the aesthetics fluff, but that she contradicted what Marty said about the rainforest scene. Marty said that the rumors regarding the rainforest were "all not true," Kim said that no firm decisions had been made. What gives?

Personally, I'd love to discover someday that Disney did this intentionally all along just to f*** with you guys.

Guess what? Good or bad, we're all talking about IASW. Disney wins.

[Seawolf]

Originally Posted by Quacky4Donald

I find it sad that people are putting more energy into saving a fake rainforest than the real ones in the world. I guess in x-amount of years when the lush rainforests in Costa Rica and the like are gone I should be happy enough knowing that because of all the fuss on MiceChat I can still see the fake one in Disneyland. :rolls eyes:

- Joe

Alright you tell me what to do about the real rainforests? I'm all ears.

Can we please stop distracting from the issue at hand? These lame attempts to shut down opposing views are quite annoying.

[MasterGracey]

Originally Posted by disneytim

Personally, I'd love to discover someday that Disney did this intentionally all along just to f*** with you guys.

If this is an elaborate April Fool's Day joke, then I'll be pretty dang happy with that egg on my face.

[HBG2]

Let's say the sharp-pencil boys (a Walt-ism) did the research and came back and said, "Look, we've crunched the numbers, and if we put in a strip club in Downtown Disney, the increased revenue from attendance by young males who don't ordinarily spend money at our parks will more than offset the lost revenue from church boycotts and others who will be mad enough to stay away. If we can just ride out the short-term stink, the bottom line is, it'll make more money than it will lose."

By Liverian logic, does the strip club get a green light? There's nobody who will say, "Look, we're Disney and we don't DO that. The long-term damage to our image would not be easily repaired, and besides, it's wrong. Let someone else make those kinds of dollars."

[disneytim]

Originally Posted by HBG2

Let's say the sharp-pencil boys (a Walt-ism) did the research and came back and said, "Look, we've crunched the numbers, and if we put in a strip club in Downtown Disney, the increased revenue from attendance by young males who don't ordinarily spend money at our parks will more than offset the lost revenue from church boycotts and others who will be mad enough to stay away. If we can just ride out the short-term stink, the bottom line is, it'll make more money than it will lose."

It's a ridiculous example, but yeah, I'd go.

[Mr Wiggins]

Originally Posted by HBG2

By Liverian logic, does the strip club get a green light? There's nobody who will say, "Look, we're Disney and we don't DO that. The long-term damage to our image would not be easily repaired, and besides, it's wrong. Let someone else make those kinds of dollars."

By Liverian logic, Disney and any company can do (within the law) whatever it wants, for whatever reason it chooses. Aside from not purchasing its products, its customers have no justification for protesting, except if they do so by Liverian rules. Bottom line, Liverian rules disallow forms of social protest not specifically sanctioned by Liverian rules.

Think that's an exaggeration or distortion? Read the posts.

[futureman]

If there is nothing Disney could say to make some of you think adding Disney characters to IASW is ok, what do you want them to say? Sklar already said the rainforest won't be leaving, which seemed to be the main part of the whole uproar, but that didn't seem to make the super-purists happy. If everyone can be part of the small world, can't Disney characters also? Apparently not, they all have to be generic characters or else the ride is ruined.

[lazyboy97O]

Originally Posted by futureman

If there is nothing Disney could say to make some of you think adding Disney characters to IASW is ok, what do you want them to say? Sklar already said the rainforest won't be leaving, which seemed to be the main part of the whole uproar, but that didn't seem to make the super-purists happy.

And now Irvine is saying that that decision still has not been finalized.

If everyone can be part of the small world, can't Disney characters also? Apparently not, they all have to be generic characters or else the ride is ruined.

The attraction is anti-character.

[mrfantasmic]

Originally Posted by Seawolf

Don't you see there is no alternate choice, we can't buy something else, Disneyland is a completely unique product.

Oh yes I see that and you can bet Disney does too.

Originally Posted by MasterGracey

Actually, I didn't expect much from the interview -- my issue is with Disney's speaking out in general.

You'd rather they have just gone through with it instead of trying to explain their philosophy on the changes at all?
I would, just so I wouldn't have to watch so many respected Imagineers and Legends be belittled by a group on hyper-attentive twenty-somethings on the Internet.

[MasterGracey]

Originally Posted by mrfantasmic

You'd rather they have just gone through with it instead of trying to explain their philosophy on the changes at all?

Being spared this PR fluff would have spared a lot of drama, no doubt. They didn't do much when the fan community got up in arms over Tom Sawyer Island, they just made sure "Tom Sawyer Island" remained in the name of the attraction, right?

Frankly, the people speaking out against this, myself included, would have lost a lot of steam if Disney hadn't opened their mouths. They're just digging their own grave by repeating their non-answers, contradicting themselves, and calling fans "complainers."

You've got to admit, having more and more of their people speak out little by little is only fanning the flames by keeping it in the media spotlight.

Originally Posted by mrfantasmic

I would, just so I wouldn't have to watch so many respected Imagineers and Legends be belittled by a group on hyper-attentive twenty-somethings on the Internet.

Who's doing the belittling now?

[mrfantasmic]

Had to get my share in at some point.

[Coheteboy]

Originally Posted by mrfantasmic

You'd rather they have just gone through with it instead of trying to explain their philosophy on the changes at all?
I would, just so I wouldn't have to watch so many respected Imagineers and Legends be belittled by a group on hyper-attentive twenty-somethings on the Internet.

Oh please. The respected imagineers and legends aren't the ones that are belittled. It's the corporate political culture that is the real problem.

[Seawolf]

Originally Posted by mrfantasmic

Oh yes I see that and you can bet Disney does too.

So that makes it alright to ruin anything they want simply because Disney knows the public will still show up, is that what I'm hearing? It's such a shame how many people are clueless as to what made Disneyland an American icon, they look at the place merely as a theme park to have fun in, nothing else and that makes me sad. If there was any emotional connection to Disneyland by some of you there wouldn't be such apprehension towards the people here that simply want to preserve it. It's not about bashing imagineers, it's not about bashing Disney, it's about preserving Disneyland's timeless classics that DO NOT need to be altered any more than the classic movies do. Once they are gone they are gone, and I can promise you nothing like that will ever be made again because that is an extinct era. Every time a classic is altered like this a little bit of Walt dies, not just in the park but in some of us fans. There are many places at Disneyland that offer expansion opportunities, why change Small World, an art form that has touched millions?