It's a Small World!! Changes!!

Disneyland and California Adventure parks

Moderator: Moderators

Mr.ToadWildRider
Flight to the Moon Flight Director
Flight to the Moon Flight Director
Posts: 1185
Joined: Apr Thu 13, 2006 2:25 pm
Location: No where in particular (okay...Massachusetts)

Post by Mr.ToadWildRider » Feb Thu 12, 2009 3:54 pm

I looked at the pics and with the exceptions of Dori, Nemo, and Flounder, and maybe Pinnochio I think they actually fit. People who are complaining that there is no place for Disney characters on IASW I think are sorely mistaken. I get the vitriol directed at the characters in EPCOT - they were never supposed to be there - but IASM is in FANTASY LAND - the land that characters live in. I think it ties the Disney experience together as the stories actually come from around the world but many children may believe they are all dreamed up in Anaheim/Lake Buena Vista/Kissimmee/whatever.

DisBeamer
PeopleMover People Mover
PeopleMover People Mover
Posts: 1487
Joined: Mar Sat 31, 2007 1:56 am
Location: The lost city of Atlanta

Post by DisBeamer » Feb Thu 12, 2009 6:24 pm

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.
See, that's the key, to me. There will come a point - and I can picture it now better than I could, say, 10 years ago, based on the changes that have been made since then - that the commercialization will completely dominate the parks. Yes, they've always been about selling things to some extent. Disney is not a charity and I don't begrudge them trying to make money. What I do begrudge is them sacrificing the theme and 'immersiveness' they worked so long to create in favor of making a buck. They used to be able to make 'enough' money without doing resorting to things like that because the emphasis was on creativity and doing things no one else in the world did, and making that their calling card. Shoe-horning characters into rides where they don't need to be is the kind of crass commercialism that makes me feel they've really lost their way. I'm, strangely, not opposed to them squeezing every nickle then can get out of people; I am opposed to it being obvious that's what they're doing.

That said ... I'm glad we can agree to disagree, and I'm glad that you as (I think?) a Disneyland native are pleased with the changes. I shall retreat to my parks in the east. :)
~ Caroline

[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v480/atoning_unifex/Caroline%20Gaia/tta.gif[/img]

sockfire
Shooting Galleries Gun Cleaner
Shooting Galleries Gun Cleaner
Posts: 708
Joined: Feb Thu 19, 2004 5:34 pm
Location: Tomorrowland

Post by sockfire » Feb Thu 12, 2009 6:45 pm

DisBeamer wrote:
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.
See, that's the key, to me. There will come a point - and I can picture it now better than I could, say, 10 years ago, based on the changes that have been made since then - that the commercialization will completely dominate the parks. Yes, they've always been about selling things to some extent. Disney is not a charity and I don't begrudge them trying to make money. What I do begrudge is them sacrificing the theme and 'immersiveness' they worked so long to create in favor of making a buck. They used to be able to make 'enough' money without doing resorting to things like that because the emphasis was on creativity and doing things no one else in the world did, and making that their calling card. Shoe-horning characters into rides where they don't need to be is the kind of crass commercialism that makes me feel they've really lost their way. I'm, strangely, not opposed to them squeezing every nickle then can get out of people; I am opposed to it being obvious that's what they're doing.

That said ... I'm glad we can agree to disagree, and I'm glad that you as (I think?) a Disneyland native are pleased with the changes. I shall retreat to my parks in the east. :)
I agree. As far as commercialization goes, this is just the most recent layer of an enormous glacier. That said, it's not that crass. Character shoe-horning is old hat for Imagineering (i.e. Jack Sparrow, Nightmare Before Christmas, etc). Granted, there are a few changes that stick out badly (i.e. Flounder, Stitch, Woody, etc), the other complaints about the music changes and the North American room turned out to be no big deal.

To get an unspoiled opinion, my 2 year old loved it and has been singing the song all week 8-) As soon as the boat floated out of the building she asked to go on it again. So, I pass the torch on to her, and will forever enjoy the park through her eyes regardless of my personal opinion and memories.

Captain Schnemo
Columbia Sailing Ship Admiral
Columbia Sailing Ship Admiral
Posts: 938
Joined: Oct Tue 18, 2005 2:18 am
Location: Seabase Omega

Post by Captain Schnemo » Feb Mon 16, 2009 4:23 am

The commercialization sucks, and you can argue the museum vs. nostalgia point, but people seem to be overlooking the fact that these changes simply don't make sense.

If the point is to make the ride more relevant, then how does adding cartoon characters do that?

In terms of just generally improving the ride, how do these characters advance the message and purpose of the attraction? As someone else mentioned, does anyone even notice the message when they're playing "spot the plushy I want to buy at the end of this ride"?

How does adding a special room for America not totally torpedo the message? Did Sam the Eagle plan this show? I see Disney management is getting even more irony-impaired.

The attraction should be aiming for something like makes you feel like this, and instead they've given us this.

I object to these changes for a number of reasons, but most of all because they're just plain stupid.

Jacca5660
Submarine Voyage Captain
Submarine Voyage Captain
Posts: 6842
Joined: Jun Sun 25, 2006 12:11 pm
Location: Chattanooga Tn
Contact:

Post by Jacca5660 » Feb Mon 16, 2009 7:35 am

Captain Schnemo wrote:The commercialization sucks, and you can argue the museum vs. nostalgia point, but people seem to be overlooking the fact that these changes simply don't make sense.

If the point is to make the ride more relevant, then how does adding cartoon characters do that?

In terms of just generally improving the ride, how do these characters advance the message and purpose of the attraction? As someone else mentioned, does anyone even notice the message when they're playing "spot the plushy I want to buy at the end of this ride"?

How does adding a special room for America not totally torpedo the message? Did Sam the Eagle plan this show? I see Disney management is getting even more irony-impaired.

The attraction should be aiming for something like makes you feel like this, and instead they've given us this.

I object to these changes for a number of reasons, but most of all
because they're just plain stupid.
That was me, yea put that one on my ticket, no plush rides! Captain Schnemo has, as usual hit it on the head. It's not a upgrade it's just marketing. This is also my fear when people talk about a rehab on the great movie ride! I thought the creative people were back when we finally got rid of Eisner :twisted: . Apparently Igor and Jobs also feel that the MBA's should dictate were Disney is going. I just hope they have Walt bound tightly with copper wire so his spinning in his grave can be marketed as one of Disney's green energy solutions.

It's good to see Captain Schnemo back and posting again! You are one of my favorite writers, even when I don't agree with you! Now I'll be gone for a week or two. I'll be at work,Yea!! Been laid off since October. See Y'all when I get back!
"Our dreams can come true - if we have the courage to pursue them" WED

"There's a fine prow on that steamer, let's climb aboard her!" Fireside

"You're off the map mateys..Here there be SeaMonsters!!"

The original "LICENSE MAYHEM MARAUDER!!ImageImage

agingerbugg
PeopleMover People Mover
PeopleMover People Mover
Posts: 1456
Joined: Jun Fri 20, 2008 9:43 am
Location: The Vacation Kingdom

Post by agingerbugg » Feb Mon 16, 2009 4:16 pm

Captain Schnemo wrote:The commercialization sucks, and you can argue the museum vs. nostalgia point, but people seem to be overlooking the fact that these changes simply don't make sense.

If the point is to make the ride more relevant, then how does adding cartoon characters do that?

In terms of just generally improving the ride, how do these characters advance the message and purpose of the attraction? As someone else mentioned, does anyone even notice the message when they're playing "spot the plushy I want to buy at the end of this ride"?

How does adding a special room for America not totally torpedo the message? Did Sam the Eagle plan this show? I see Disney management is getting even more irony-impaired.

The attraction should be aiming for something like makes you feel like this, and instead they've given us this.

I object to these changes for a number of reasons, but most of all because they're just plain stupid.
Well said, Captain, I am glad to see you back and feel the same about this travesty.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

-Benjamin Franklin

sockfire
Shooting Galleries Gun Cleaner
Shooting Galleries Gun Cleaner
Posts: 708
Joined: Feb Thu 19, 2004 5:34 pm
Location: Tomorrowland

Post by sockfire » Feb Mon 16, 2009 7:47 pm

You guys are probably still upset they took out Adventures Through Inner Space and put in Star Tours. :lol: You guys are in the purist category, pleasing you is near impossible. What was the last change that you approved of?

It's hard to take you guys seriously if you haven't even seen it in person.

Captain Schnemo
Columbia Sailing Ship Admiral
Columbia Sailing Ship Admiral
Posts: 938
Joined: Oct Tue 18, 2005 2:18 am
Location: Seabase Omega

Post by Captain Schnemo » Feb Mon 16, 2009 9:04 pm

Jacca5660 wrote:I thought the creative people were back when we finally got rid of Eisner
The most creative people must have left the company by now. How could they have continued day after day in that environment?

I know there was always this hope that valiant and long-suffering Imagineers were just waiting for the shackles to be thrown off so that they could return Disney to greatness, but that was always just a fantasy.

In fairness, we shouldn't blame the Imagineers because 1) that was never where the greatness came from in the first place and 2) it's not their call. I suppose that's just two ways of saying the same thing.

The point is, they just take orders. They might have accomplished the tasks they were given in absolutely the best way possible, but the problem is that the tasks were just stupid.
sockfire wrote:You guys are probably still upset they took out Adventures Through Inner Space and put in Star Tours.
You're completely missing the point.

The comments in this thread supporting the changes range from "it's not as bad as I thought it would be" to "it remains consistent with the style of the attraction". Well, OK, but what about the substance?

I'm not asking to leave the attraction as a museum piece or for a billion-dollar upgrade to convert all the dolls into holograms that poop free candy, I just want the changes to make sense.

Has Disney fallen so far that even that is asking too much? Are you that averse to applying the slightest bit of critical thought to how to actually improve things? Are you really happy with changes that make sense at only the most superficial level?

I'm not even a Disneyland purist...WDW is my home park, but the same shallow idiocy that has infected my home park is obviously spreading...

"The Living Seas has fish... Add cartoon fish!"
"The Mexico ride has Hispanics... Add cartoon Hispanics!"
"it's a small world has dolls... I've got it! Add cartoon dolls!"
"Brilliant!"

If it were simply an issue of change for change's sake, that would be wasteful, but not destructive. A way to get people talking about the attraction, to give it a second look...OK, fine.

But these changes not only don't add anything relevant to the attraction, they actually subvert the original intention.

They spent all that money and effort just to undercut themselves.

sockfire
Shooting Galleries Gun Cleaner
Shooting Galleries Gun Cleaner
Posts: 708
Joined: Feb Thu 19, 2004 5:34 pm
Location: Tomorrowland

Post by sockfire » Feb Mon 16, 2009 10:31 pm

Substance is subjective. And that means opinions. And that means disagreement. Hence, the discussion.

I don't see how adding 20+ new dolls subverts the substance. Half of them actually blend in very well. The other half, notsomuch. But the original intention is still clearly visible. Ride it, and you'll see. Poll the kids in the park and I bet they are happier with the changes too.

Mary Blair said that she wanted the ride to look like children had made it out of common arts and crafts stuff, like pipe cleaners, glitter, and doilies. It still looks like that.

I can't believe I'm defending this ride, I haven't really enjoyed riding it since I was a kid. It's purely a point of nostalgia for me. I'm extremely familiar with the ride since I was trained on it when I worked there. They did a fantastic job at upgrading the sound, lighting, paint, and the boats/flume.

There's a video podcast about the ride changes that Disney put together in the official podcast. I think it helps explain a lot. Here:
http://adisneyland.disney.go.com/media/ ... ast030.mp4

Or try here:
http://disneyland.disney.go.com/disneyl ... istingPage

Seriously, they are going to change stuff. Good or bad, it's not going to stop me from enjoying my time there.

It is good to question the changes, but calling them stupid is not helpful, and it's going to get you ignored by the powers that be.

Captain Schnemo
Columbia Sailing Ship Admiral
Columbia Sailing Ship Admiral
Posts: 938
Joined: Oct Tue 18, 2005 2:18 am
Location: Seabase Omega

Post by Captain Schnemo » Feb Tue 17, 2009 2:21 am

sockfire wrote:I don't see how adding 20+ new dolls subverts the substance.
I must back off a bit from my "stupid" comment. (I'm going with "intellectually bankrupt", which isn't the same thing at all.)

I was mostly objecting to the America room, as I thought it was over and above a previous interpretation of America. I remembered cowboys and Indians and Mounties, so I thought North America was covered.

I see now that this is in reaction to the omission of the USA, and I don't think adding it modifies the message of the attraction (although there was a clear choice to leave it out initially, and I'd be interested in the reasoning behind that). I have some qualms with the implementation, but the choices they made regarding the structure and flow of the attraction don't make them stupid.

I must say that I always thought the transition room before the finale was a bit sparse and a little tightening up of the "editing" would have benefitted the attraction.

Anyway, the original attraction portrayed all the cultures from a "neutral" standpoint, depicting them all in the same style. Obviously it's not entirely pure, as the style was set by a Western mind, but the effort to be neutral was evident.

The cartoon characters are all filtered through the lens of Disney films, which often abandoned the original intention of the stories. The Pooh of Disney movies is by no means the one Milne envisioned, The Little Mermaid abandons the original ending, etc.

This is fine for films, where putting your own spin on an existing tale is common, but putting these bastardized characters into a completely different setting with a completely different goal is at best inconsistent and at worst offensive. Regardless of their source material, all of these characters are now considered "American". If you're going to specifically celebrate other cultures, then why pepper them all with Americanism?

But let's say you think the above is mumbo-jumbo. It is, as you say, subjective.

No one has yet answered the question of why, artistically speaking, these characters were added. What do they add to the message?

We know Disney wanted something "new". OK, they are new. And I understand there is a style and they tried to conform these characters to that style. Fine.

But the attraction wasn't created because Walt wanted something that looked like it was made out of construction paper and pipe cleaners. Those are stylistic choices, yes, but this isn't about a simple expression of style. It's not fundamentally why the attraction exists.

Look, these days Imagineering is always talking about "story". What do these characters add to the story of the attraction?
Seriously, they are going to change stuff.
This isn't a blanket objection to change. Please stop mentioning this. It has nothing to do with this conversation.
...calling them stupid is not helpful, and it's going to get you ignored by the powers that be.
What's not helpful is defending something without thinking about it. TPTB stopped caring about or listening to people who think or care about this kind of thing ages ago, so that's not a significant concern, and it's not the issue on the table.

Maybe we should start from the beginning.

What do you think the message of the attraction is?

Do you feel that the message is now stronger, based on the addition of these characters?

sockfire
Shooting Galleries Gun Cleaner
Shooting Galleries Gun Cleaner
Posts: 708
Joined: Feb Thu 19, 2004 5:34 pm
Location: Tomorrowland

Post by sockfire » Feb Tue 17, 2009 11:27 am

I completely hear your point, and I don't disagree with it.

The North America area is still a little sparse. I think there are 6 dolls in there, including the 3 pixar dolls.

I think I did read or hear something about why, and the reasoning was to show that all these stories exist in the same world. It's a Small World and all that. So I guess if you can get past the Fantasyland aspect of it, the message is a little stronger, if Disney-fied. I'm not saying it was the right way to go. I didn't like the sound of the changes when I heard about them either. All I want to say is it's not that bad, and definitely not worth arguing about.

Did you watch that podcast?

Captain Schnemo
Columbia Sailing Ship Admiral
Columbia Sailing Ship Admiral
Posts: 938
Joined: Oct Tue 18, 2005 2:18 am
Location: Seabase Omega

Post by Captain Schnemo » Feb Tue 17, 2009 7:30 pm

sockfire wrote:...the reasoning was to show that all these stories exist in the same world.
But even that isn't true. The world of Nemo is a more realistic place (relatively speaking) than the settings of stories with wizards and dragons and things. Adding fictional characters also undercuts the real world message of the attraction, and encourages you to think of the whole thing as more fairies and figments instead of philosophical commentary.

Actually, it encourages you to stop thinking at all. Maybe that's on purpose.
All I want to say is it's not that bad, and definitely not worth arguing about.
I think it's absolutely worth discussing, unless you think "not that bad" should be the new standard.
Did you watch that podcast?
I did and I found it depressing. They show what the attraction was originally about, and then in the modern context talk only about style and respecting Blair.

I think those things are important, but it actually feeds back into the notion that only nostalgic issues should be taken into consideration when making changes. "Don't mess things up too bad." It makes it too easy to dismiss complaints as knee-jerk reactions to change, instead of frustration at yet another blown opportunity for positive and thoughtful change.

Deciding to revamp a signature attraction is a ballsy move. My thoughts were, "Well, it is a 'classic', but it's also mostly famous for having an annoying song. Something about the original intention isn't working any more, and it'd be cool to see what they could do to connect to modern audiences."

But instead they just did the same frickin' thing they seem to do every time they update an attraction now...throw in some cartoon characters.

Sure, cleaning up the dolls, repainting, recostuming, fixing up the mechanics, adding new digital light and sound systems...all that stuff is great. But that should be the baseline for all attractions. They should be doing that for every single attraction all the time without calling attention to it.

The depressing thing is that almost no thought went into the substantive changes.

Even if they simply wanted "new", they could have done something more interesting than playing "Where's Waldo?" with cartoon characters. That turns the original attraction into background noise which is just there to hide the real attraction...more marketable characters.

They could have added the Bird's Nest and the Water Cube in China, or the Petronas Towers from Kuala Lumpur, or the Burj Al Arab in Dubai...all of these things would be new additions from the real world and wouldn't mess with the meaning.

Spotting the new things would open your mind to other cultures and make you think about the world instead of making the world more inconsequential by converting other places into merely settings for American cartoons.

But it would be even more exciting to promote the original message of the attraction and find a way to get people to think about the world and be hopeful. We could certainly use a message like that these days, and I was amazed at how that dancing video conveyed such a powerful message with such a simple trick.

I just want Disney to be a place that lights up your neurons again, instead of a place destined to feed to you only what you're already familiar with.
Last edited by Captain Schnemo on Feb Tue 17, 2009 9:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

sockfire
Shooting Galleries Gun Cleaner
Shooting Galleries Gun Cleaner
Posts: 708
Joined: Feb Thu 19, 2004 5:34 pm
Location: Tomorrowland

Post by sockfire » Feb Tue 17, 2009 8:35 pm

Captain Schnemo wrote:
sockfire wrote:...the reasoning was to show that all these stories exist in the same world.
But even that isn't true. The world of Nemo is a more realistic place (relatively speaking) than the stories with wizards and dragons and things. Adding fictional characters also undercuts the real world message of the attraction, and encourages you to think of the whole thing as more fairies and figments instead of philosophical commentary.

Actually, it encourages you to stop thinking at all. Maybe that's on purpose.
I don't think you realize how rude this sounds. I enjoyed the ride somewhat. I guess I stopped thinking?

How do these changes encourage me to stop thinking? That's a ridiculous thing to say. You're being more than a little belligerent to those of us that enjoyed it.

I understand your point, but you are not hearing mine. I understand you are disappointed with the direction Imagineering has taken the park, but I'm not. All you're doing is depressing me and ruining my good time. But maybe that's your intention.

Here's the bottom-line, in my opinion. It's a kids ride. Kids aren't expected to understand the message of the ride on their own. Any parent is capable of helping their child understand the point of the ride. What difference does it make if we also learn that Cinderella is from France and that the story is based on a real place on our planet? I think that enhances the learning experience.

Captain Schnemo
Columbia Sailing Ship Admiral
Columbia Sailing Ship Admiral
Posts: 938
Joined: Oct Tue 18, 2005 2:18 am
Location: Seabase Omega

Post by Captain Schnemo » Feb Tue 17, 2009 9:33 pm

sockfire wrote:How do these changes encourage me to stop thinking?
Everything in your response to the change indicates that you haven't thought much about the attraction. In part, that's the fault of the attraction for not stimulating your brain and making you think of it only as a place with cute dolls and a song that sticks in your head.

I was hoping they'd address that, but instead they moved farther away from the original intention.
I understand your point, but you are not hearing mine.
I hear it loud and clear, I just find it incredibly depressing.

Your point is that you don't care if the attractions are smart or if the people designing them put careful thought into creating them for you. Attitudes like this encourage the degradation of the parks and that bums me out.
All you're doing is depressing me and ruining my good time. But maybe that's your intention.
Absolutely not. I try to encourage people to think about the entertainment they're consuming and maybe a little bit about why things are done the way they are. It's not just about pointing out what's wrong with some attractions, but about highlighting what is/was great about others. You can appreciate these things on many different levels, and it only gives you more respect for the genius that was responsible for them.

There's a reason Disney attractions were considered to be the pinnacle of quality. The Disney name didn't always mean something, Walt fought hard to get the respect he earned. All manner of scholarly papers were written on what Walt did and how and why he did it.

Now they're just coasting on this good will.
Here's the bottom-line, in my opinion. It's a kids ride.
Just stick a dagger in my heart, why don't you?

If a farting dog wandered into any kids movie at five minute intervals, the kids would probably love it.

The thing that made Disney famous and worthy of attention is that he created things that were better than they needed to be, and at the same time had mass appeal. They were entertaining as hell, but also good for you. Not like the mindless drivel the Disney Channel is currently filled with, but educational and thought-provoking things that you were actually excited to see.

And these things worked whether or not a person wanted to use his brain, so everyone could enjoy them (although hopefully he could trick the audience into a little bit of thinking or learning from time to time). If a person didn't want to think about the words the dolls are singing or why there's a hippo here or a gondola there, they didn't have to, but a person who wanted to appreciate it on a higher level would get something extra out of it.

This isn't me being elitist, this is the entire Walt Disney philosophy. If you don't like that, your problem isn't with me, it's with Walt.

sockfire
Shooting Galleries Gun Cleaner
Shooting Galleries Gun Cleaner
Posts: 708
Joined: Feb Thu 19, 2004 5:34 pm
Location: Tomorrowland

Post by sockfire » Feb Tue 17, 2009 9:58 pm

Captain Schnemo wrote:
sockfire wrote:How do these changes encourage me to stop thinking?
Everything in your response to the change indicates that you haven't thought much about the attraction. In part, that's the fault of the attraction for not stimulating your brain and making you think of it only as a place with cute dolls and a song that sticks in your head.
You really don't think you're being rude?

Post Reply