It's a Small World!! Changes!!

disneylandmom · Post by **disneylandmom** » Feb Fri 06, 2009 2:43 pm

sockfire wrote:I don't really see it as any different than all the corporate sponsorships that helped open the park to begin with. For instance, ATIS was a big ad for Monsanto chemicals. Let's also not forget the FedEx ads in the Space Mountain queue, or the AT&T branding of the Indiana Jones queue. There are tons of other examples.

Now maybe I'm just not that observant when at the park. But I hadn't really noticed those. Guess I'm just too busy having a great time with my family.

MintJulepRoo · Post by **MintJulepRoo** » Feb Fri 06, 2009 8:22 pm

I've always been a fan of the Small World ride...I even like the song. I think it's an odd choice to add the Disney characters to a ride that promotes the sharing of cultures. I'm not upset at it though. Before I made any harsh judgments, I'll check it out for myself in May.

I have positive feelings towards the addition of an "America" segment. Why not? Is it bad that there is Liberty Square at the Magic Kingdom in Disney World? Is that too in your face as well??? Why do we have to apoligize for honoring our own country? Geez. I don't think it's brash at all. We do live in America. We are Americans. Visitors from other countries are coming to experience our culture. The U.S. has accomplished a lot. I think its great to recognize this!! As an American History buff, I'm looking forward to seeing these changes.

elizabethswann · Post by **elizabethswann** » Feb Fri 06, 2009 8:50 pm

sockfire wrote:I don't really see it as any different than all the corporate sponsorships that helped open the park to begin with. For instance, ATIS was a big ad for Monsanto chemicals. Let's also not forget the FedEx ads in the Space Mountain queue, or the AT&T branding of the Indiana Jones queue. There are tons of other examples.

Don't forget Goodyear and the Peoplemover and M&M and Star Tours.

disneylandmom · Post by **disneylandmom** » Feb Fri 06, 2009 9:08 pm

elizabethswann wrote:
sockfire wrote:I don't really see it as any different than all the corporate sponsorships that helped open the park to begin with. For instance, ATIS was a big ad for Monsanto chemicals. Let's also not forget the FedEx ads in the Space Mountain queue, or the AT&T branding of the Indiana Jones queue. There are tons of other examples.
Don't forget Goodyear and the Peoplemover and M&M and Star Tours.

OH OH I got one! Chevron on Autopia! How could I forget that!?

SlueFootSue · Post by **SlueFootSue** » Feb Sat 07, 2009 2:25 pm

I agree with some of the posts here that discuss how they are portraying the characters. The artwork is very Mary Blairish. I don't think it is bad to upgrade, repaint, or referbish IASW but I do think that this specific ride shouldn't have Disney additions. They will probably be well made, and maybe we should all see it before we judge as Sockfire says

However Walt had his hand in this attraction personally and the beautiful message of the attraction is timeless and would remain so for years. If it has worked since 1964 why not keep it the same way. Also I think if they are going to add the characters then at least DON'T change the music. I think that is wrong, the Sherman brother's tune is simple, pure, and true even today

. It is always interesting to listen for the different musical arrangements as you travel through the "world". Now instead of hearing cultural musical instruments we will hear movie soundtracks. I'm the first one to say I love Disney music and everything about it . . . but I just don't think its right to put it in this attraction.

Thank you for all the feedback everyone, I love discussions on Subsonic because we all love Disney but have different opinions and I always learn something new and enjoy hearing different view points

Esmeralda · Post by **Esmeralda** » Feb Sat 07, 2009 4:13 pm

At first I was super upset, thinking this would change the theme of the ride. However, the pictures do look pretty subtle, so I'm still holding out hope that this isn't the major change I imagined. And Jungle Blossom is still there!!

Jacca5660 · Post by **Jacca5660** » Feb Tue 10, 2009 11:39 pm

I just hope they keep WDW's IASW true to the original. I might be a little pig headed on this one. I just guess I'll have to see it for myself. I don't understand how they made the Disney characters fit.

Post by **sockfire** » Feb Wed 11, 2009 12:13 pm

So we all went on it during the meet. I think most everyone liked it. There were a lot of additions to the ride. The music sounded great. The lighting also was well polished. It's nowhere near the travesty that those blogs said it would be. I would be happy to ride it again now

boilerbabe · Post by **boilerbabe** » Feb Wed 11, 2009 12:16 pm

I think the ride could've used a face lift, but I don't think the change was necessary. No, I didn't ride it, so who am I to say? I just hope they don't do the same in WDW!

Gymfan15 · Post by **Gymfan15** » Feb Wed 11, 2009 1:02 pm

I haven't seen the new version of Small World yet, obviously, but from the pictures I've seen, it looks bright and sparking and clean...looks like it got some very needed TLC. The Disney additions don't look that bad either. The worst offenders by far are Woody and Jessie, but some of them fit in very well...Alice, Ariel, Simba and Aladdin and Jasmine come to mind.

elizabethswann · Post by **elizabethswann** » Feb Wed 11, 2009 3:08 pm

Gymfan15 wrote:The worst offenders by far are Woody and Jessie, but some of them fit in very well...

I didn't ride it but after going through the pictures, they look so hideous and nothing like the other dolls in the ride.

DisBeamer · Post by **DisBeamer** » Feb Thu 12, 2009 3:48 am

I've looked at some of the pictures of the added characters. I have to say, it looks better than I thought it would, which is saying a lot. But that argument Disney is making that it needed to be made 'relevant' because this isn't a 'museum piece' doesn't hold any water with me at all. Why is it suddenly 'irrelevant' after 50ish years of being perfectly fine the way it was?

I would be more inclined to buy that argument over PotC, since the movie franchise was successful and ostensibly drew people into the parks (maybe), or at the very least people in the parks were looking for Jack and Co. They don't have that reason/excuse with IASW.

I really don't see IASW being capable of becoming dated, frankly. The animatronics, sure, those could use periodic updating for new tech, but the concept of the ride being dated doesn't wash with me. What they were doing, as has been discussed elsewhere in this thread, is branding. Which I don't expect them not to do, but I do have an issue with them obviously doing one thing and saying another, which they've been doing an awful lot of in recent years (see also: raising buffet prices due to 'guest demand' and other lies). The fact they're shoe-horning irrelevant characters into the ride for the purpose of selling their characters bugs me more than a little.

I also think changing it in the original park is kind of a crap thing to do, but that's more of a side issue.

Jacca5660 · Post by **Jacca5660** » Feb Thu 12, 2009 6:18 am

DisBeamer wrote:I've looked at some of the pictures of the added characters. I have to say, it looks better than I thought it would, which is saying a lot. But that argument Disney is making that it needed to be made 'relevant' because this isn't a 'museum piece' doesn't hold any water with me at all. Why is it suddenly 'irrelevant' after 50ish years of being perfectly fine the way it was?

I would be more inclined to buy that argument over PotC, since the movie franchise was successful and ostensibly drew people into the parks (maybe), or at the very least people in the parks were looking for Jack and Co. They don't have that reason/excuse with IASW.

I really don't see IASW being capable of becoming dated, frankly. The animatronics, sure, those could use periodic updating for new tech, but the concept of the ride being dated doesn't wash with me. What they were doing, as has been discussed elsewhere in this thread, is branding. Which I don't expect them not to do, but I do have an issue with them obviously doing one thing and saying another, which they've been doing an awful lot of in recent years (see also: raising buffet prices due to 'guest demand' and other lies). The fact they're shoe-horning irrelevant characters into the ride for the purpose of selling their characters bugs me more than a little.

I also think changing it in the original park is kind of a crap thing to do, but that's more of a side issue.

Well put! I couldn't agree more with you. It bothers me that a few people here have given the "it's not a museum piece" argument. They are right it's not. But just because it needed updating, doesn't mean it needed to be thrown totally out of character. Yes, I believe adding the Fab Five and other Disney characters has done this. Oh, by the way, the KIDS from IASW are DISNEY characters. That's MHO!

Post by **sockfire** » Feb Thu 12, 2009 11:19 am

Sounds like there's nothing that will change your minds. That's cool though, everyone is entitled to their opinions.

I like to keep an open mind about everything at the park, because they are going to make changes, and sometimes they may interfere with my preferences (i.e. Horizons, Peoplemover, Skyway, etc). But the purpose of the park to me is to be happy, and not get tweaked because they are trying to sell me stuff. Commercialization can be frustrating and upsetting, so I feel your pain.

disneylandmom · Post by **disneylandmom** » Feb Thu 12, 2009 11:38 am

sockfire wrote:Sounds like there's nothing that will change your minds. That's cool though, everyone is entitled to their opinions.

I like to keep an open mind about everything at the park, because they are going to make changes, and sometimes they may interfere with my preferences (i.e. Horizons, Peoplemover, Skyway, etc). But the purpose of the park to me is to be happy, and not get tweaked because they are trying to sell me stuff. Commercialization can be frustrating and upsetting, so I feel your pain.

I just have to say I totally agree with this. You said exactly what I was thinking.