Haunted Mansion to Return with New Enhancements and Magic :(

[Sharon&Susan]

Man, all the more reason for me not like like Kim Irvine. We were actually close to getting rid of IASW and she helped prevent that??? I would have cried tears of joy to see Disney get the cojones to replace that oversized attraction.

 

[J4546]

i know im in the minority, but id gladly get rid of small world if it meant a larger/better redo of the Small world/Nemo/Autopia land. Small world is such a large building for such a boring dumb ride (imo) I know its got history, but I just dont like it at all, and would glady trade it for something else.

 

[Professortango1]

i know im in the minority, but id gladly get rid of small world if it meant a larger/better redo of the Small world/Nemo/Autopia land. Small world is such a large building for such a boring dumb ride (imo) I know its got history, but I just dont like it at all, and would glady trade it for something else.

Keep speaking that truth! I don't hate IASW, but I don't feel the footprint is justified, especially, as you pointed out, how that footprint borders a large corner which is needing a new approach.

 

[BayouShack]

They’ve got so many conditioned to think it’s a “space” issue when in reality it’s just about adding new draws without increasing operating expenses. There’s plenty of room to expand. Any argument from the company that Small World needs to be sacrificed for new attractions is made completely in bad faith.

 

[TP2000]

I understand the concern, but think you guys are overthinking this. I don't think people will be fixated on the portrait the entire time they are walking down that corridor, especially when the portrait gets behind them. The line moves slow enough to get to see it change at least once or twice.

The barrier on the left looks see-thru enough to get the gist of what's happening on the other side. We also don't know what they did at the point where you step onto the conveyor. Perhaps it's more lit and the CMs will be directed to help point it out more.

Lastly, it's too hard to see where that barrier stops before you get onto the conveyor based on the video and images we have. Perhaps you will have more time to see what's going on than we think.

I think it'll be fine. We'll know soon enough when opening day videos start popping up.

I'm not as confident as you are.

That conveyor belt has been there since 1969. It's in the exact same place and the exact same length as it's always been.

And it catches people by surprise and makes grandma freak out and stumble. And that was when that boarding area was blatantly displayed on your left for 90 seconds prior to stepping onto it.

Now they've obscured it all with screens, and moved a changing portrait to that area to draw your eye further away from the imminent Omnimover boarding area.

That's not going to end well for grandma or nervous nellies when they turn a corner and suddenly see a moving conveyor belt at their feet.

 

[Mac Tonight]

Her less than awe inspiring creative credits aside, I can say from personal experience that Kim Irvine is very nice lady.

 

[TP2000]

Thanks for this!

I like this new version so much better. And I had the same thought as @chadwpalm about the ADA area.

Hopefully it won't be a big deal operationally.

I hope so too. But I'm not convinced.

I was trying to catch up here after being away on vacation for the past week, and I had the exact same thought as others here did about this new boarding area. I thought I was so clever for posting about it, only to discover a few minutes later that several other people had already had the exact same thought I did.

Most impressively, @yensidtlaw1969 explained my own thoughts even better than I could!

If multiple people here familiar with this attraction have the same concern, I think there's something there. It just seems to me that this was designed by young Imagineers who have never worked at Disneyland and never studied how that loading area works with a few thousand people per hour shuffling onto that darkened conveyor belt.

 

[SuddenStorm]

If multiple people here familiar with this attraction have the same concern, I think there's something there. It just seems to me that this was designed by young Imagineers who have never worked at Disneyland and never studied how that loading area works with a few thousand people per hour shuffling onto that darkened conveyor belt.

Basically the problem with modern Imagineering in a nutshell.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Honest opinions are fine, but it seems like some people here could use some context as they form those opinions. Some posters talk as if Kim Irvine always misunderstands the assignment, meanwhile the guests aren't told what the assignment actually is.

If someone tells you "get ready to close Small World" and you come back and say "maybe we could just add some marketable characters to it instead" and get them to agree, all the guests see is you adding characters and assuming it's because YOU don't love the classic attraction, when really the opposite was true. You know? We ALL know Small World was better before, of course, but if you were given the choice between letting it close or adding some less-than-ideal elements to keep it around, which would YOU choose?

I have never before heard that “it’s a small world” was slated to close and that makes no sense with the timeline. Disney was opening “it’s a small world” in Hong Kong as it was closing in Anaheim for the flume replacement. Adding characters was also not her idea as it started as an idea for the Magic Kingdom that was shelved before being implemented in Hong Kong first and Anaheim second. “It’s a small world” at Disneyland had to close because the ride system needed to be replaced. Disney felt they had to make the attraction marketable after such a prolonged closure and avoid the actual reason why the flume was no longer able to accommodate guests (weight). Closing a ride for a new attraction also wouldn’t really involve the local park team. It’s something that would be developed in Glendale.

I can’t speak for how everyone behaved but my memory of that time is that the ire was directed at Disney in general and then specifically at Marty Sklar. There were open letters to Disney from the likes of the Blair Family and Peter Docter. My recollection is Kim was brought up more by fans defending the project, pointing to her mother (a tradition that continues to this day) and her mother’s friendship with Mary Blair as justification. I don’t doubt that some may have acted horribly towards her but I do not think it an accurate reflection of the moment. Would Pete Docter be the creative lead of Pixar if he was publicly part of a campaign to harass Kim?

Lastly, I think you might be misinterpreting the title of art director. In themed entertainment the art director is often more akin to the director in film or theater, being the lead creative on the project. A good recent example is some of the publicity for Velocicoaster highlighting Greg Hall and Shelby Honea. So while the art director may not make the decision to change a scene or actually write new dialogue, approving that dialogue would be part of those responsibilities. Expanding Club 33 may be a decision made by others but alignment, scale and proportion of built elements would absolutely be the purview of the art director.

 

[DrAlice]

Would Pete Docter be the creative lead of Pixar if he was publicly part of a campaign to harass Kim?

Umm... Poor treatment of women has never kept a man from leading anything at Pixar. Especially during that time period.

 

[CaptinEO]

Talk about alienating the majority of the fanbase, and getting rid of a people eater. If it ever happens, I won’t be returning to any Disney park for the remainder of my time on this planet.

I mean they took away the following rides over the years:
People Mover
Carousel of Progress
Tower of Terror
Splash Mountain

They heavily modified Pirates of the Caribbean to the point where its almost a completely different ride when you add up the 90s changes, Johnny Depp changes, and Pirate Redd.

I don't think anything is safe these days. The "Disney fans" are supposed to LOVE any announcement the park makes. Vloggers and Bloggers are "hyped" for each announcement as they feel their jobs are to drum up excitement for every little thing Disney does.

Disney could announce Small World's Closure tommorow to be replaced with "Insert 2000s Movie Here" the ride and people would be in support of it.

 

[Homemade Imagineering]

Disney could announce Small World's Closure tommorow to be replaced with "Insert 2000s Movie Here" the ride and people would be in support of it.

Then people might as well be in favor of the complete removal of PotC and the HM. Plus, CoP was closed decades, upon decades ago for a reason, and it was simply moved to WDW for General Electric's product placement. Not because Disney felt, that just after a few years of it being at DLR, that it had no place in the Disney Brand. Splash isn't being completely razed and replaced with something that'll be the polar opposite of a flume ride, same goes for ToT (take an attraction with good bones and rework it because said attraction can be flexible with multiple themes due to the thrill factor). People Mover was just an unfortunate victim to the Pressler era, and at the time, during the mid 90s, was no where near the level of iconic-ness IASW has always had. It has gained popularity over the years though pop culture and a fascination for extinct attractions through the internet.

 

[Homemade Imagineering]

I have never before heard that “it’s a small world” was slated to close and that makes no sense with the timeline. Disney was opening “it’s a small world” in Hong Kong as it was closing in Anaheim for the flume replacement. Adding characters was also not her idea as it started as an idea for the Magic Kingdom that was shelved before being implemented in Hong Kong first and Anaheim second. “It’s a small world” at Disneyland had to close because the ride system needed to be replaced. Disney felt they had to make the attraction marketable after such a prolonged closure and avoid the actual reason why the flume was no longer able to accommodate guests (weight). Closing a ride for a new attraction also wouldn’t really involve the local park team. It’s something that would be developed in Glendale.

I can’t speak for how everyone behaved but my memory of that time is that the ire was directed at Disney in general and then specifically at Marty Sklar. There were open letters to Disney from the likes of the Blair Family and Peter Docter. My recollection is Kim was brought up more by fans defending the project, pointing to her mother (a tradition that continues to this day) and her mother’s friendship with Mary Blair as justification. I don’t doubt that some may have acted horribly towards her but I do not think it an accurate reflection of the moment. Would Pete Docter be the creative lead of Pixar if he was publicly part of a campaign to harass Kim?

Lastly, I think you might be misinterpreting the title of art director. In themed entertainment the art director is often more akin to the director in film or theater, being the lead creative on the project. A good recent example is some of the publicity for Velocicoaster highlighting Greg Hall and Shelby Honea. So while the art director may not make the decision to change a scene or actually write new dialogue, approving that dialogue would be part of those responsibilities. Expanding Club 33 may be a decision made by others but alignment, scale and proportion of built elements would absolutely be the purview of the art director.

This.

 

[Brer Oswald]

Imagine genuinely despising a woman whom you've never met, and hurling insults at them at every chance possible. The POTC scene was done poorly, but these changes look cool and add some much needed TLC.

Don’t think it has much of anything to do with her being a woman. She’s positioned as the face of many of these disliked additions & changes. It’s only natural for people to attribute them to her.

As others have pointed out, she’s more than likely not responsible for all of the changes people don’t like. I think she does genuinely care for the park, given her family history with the company.

 

[DanielBB8]

I have never before heard that “it’s a small world” was slated to close and that makes no sense with the timeline. Disney was opening “it’s a small world” in Hong Kong as it was closing in Anaheim for the flume replacement. Adding characters was also not her idea as it started as an idea for the Magic Kingdom that was shelved before being implemented in Hong Kong first and Anaheim second. “It’s a small world” at Disneyland had to close because the ride system needed to be replaced. Disney felt they had to make the attraction marketable after such a prolonged closure and avoid the actual reason why the flume was no longer able to accommodate guests (weight). Closing a ride for a new attraction also wouldn’t really involve the local park team. It’s something that would be developed in Glendale.

I'm pretty sure it was just used as an example.

 

[mickEblu]

I have never before heard that “it’s a small world” was slated to close and that makes no sense with the timeline. Disney was opening “it’s a small world” in Hong Kong as it was closing in Anaheim for the flume replacement. Adding characters was also not her idea as it started as an idea for the Magic Kingdom that was shelved before being implemented in Hong Kong first and Anaheim second. “It’s a small world” at Disneyland had to close because the ride system needed to be replaced. Disney felt they had to make the attraction marketable after such a prolonged closure and avoid the actual reason why the flume was no longer able to accommodate guests (weight). Closing a ride for a new attraction also wouldn’t really involve the local park team. It’s something that would be developed in Glendale.

I can’t speak for how everyone behaved but my memory of that time is that the ire was directed at Disney in general and then specifically at Marty Sklar. There were open letters to Disney from the likes of the Blair Family and Peter Docter. My recollection is Kim was brought up more by fans defending the project, pointing to her mother (a tradition that continues to this day) and her mother’s friendship with Mary Blair as justification. I don’t doubt that some may have acted horribly towards her but I do not think it an accurate reflection of the moment. Would Pete Docter be the creative lead of Pixar if he was publicly part of a campaign to harass Kim?

Lastly, I think you might be misinterpreting the title of art director. In themed entertainment the art director is often more akin to the director in film or theater, being the lead creative on the project. A good recent example is some of the publicity for Velocicoaster highlighting Greg Hall and Shelby Honea. So while the art director may not make the decision to change a scene or actually write new dialogue, approving that dialogue would be part of those responsibilities. Expanding Club 33 may be a decision made by others but alignment, scale and proportion of built elements would absolutely be the purview of the art director.

This makes a lot more sense and it lines up with what I would like to believe so I’m rolling with it

 

[britain]

I simply think the screen separators are up so that your eyes are more directed to the new painting.

 

[Brer Oswald]

Disney could announce Small World's Closure tommorow to be replaced with "Insert 2000s Movie Here" the ride and people would be in support of it.

I wouldn’t in the least be surprised to see a Small World smear campaign initiated by the “fans”, to see it result in a Frozen replacement.

It is beloved, but several find it annoying. I’ve seen many try to claim that it’s racist, and it would be easy to convince the unsuspecting that don’t really care. The ride isn’t racist, it quite literally promotes a message of racial equality, but we know how this song and dance goes on the internet.

Nothing is sacred, except for Mansion (their reluctance to move suicide corpse makes that pretty clear) and the existence of Pirates (despite the heavy changes, the ride will still exist for the rest of our lives). Disney knows that the Online “Inclusivity Heroes” value ye Plantation House above all else, so much that they can’t remove a hanging corpse (suicide and mental health is not on issue to the Twitter Warriors. No, they are perfectly fine with bullying others into that state, so long as everything else is okay). Mansion is the golden goose, and it does make sense for them to prioritize it.

Don’t hold your breath for IASW. I rarely hear the song playing these days anyways.

 

[PiratesMansion]

I have never before heard that “it’s a small world” was slated to close and that makes no sense with the timeline. Disney was opening “it’s a small world” in Hong Kong as it was closing in Anaheim for the flume replacement. Adding characters was also not her idea as it started as an idea for the Magic Kingdom that was shelved before being implemented in Hong Kong first and Anaheim second. “It’s a small world” at Disneyland had to close because the ride system needed to be replaced. Disney felt they had to make the attraction marketable after such a prolonged closure and avoid the actual reason why the flume was no longer able to accommodate guests (weight). Closing a ride for a new attraction also wouldn’t really involve the local park team. It’s something that would be developed in Glendale.

I can’t speak for how everyone behaved but my memory of that time is that the ire was directed at Disney in general and then specifically at Marty Sklar. There were open letters to Disney from the likes of the Blair Family and Peter Docter. My recollection is Kim was brought up more by fans defending the project, pointing to her mother (a tradition that continues to this day) and her mother’s friendship with Mary Blair as justification. I don’t doubt that some may have acted horribly towards her but I do not think it an accurate reflection of the moment. Would Pete Docter be the creative lead of Pixar if he was publicly part of a campaign to harass Kim?

Lastly, I think you might be misinterpreting the title of art director. In themed entertainment the art director is often more akin to the director in film or theater, being the lead creative on the project. A good recent example is some of the publicity for Velocicoaster highlighting Greg Hall and Shelby Honea. So while the art director may not make the decision to change a scene or actually write new dialogue, approving that dialogue would be part of those responsibilities. Expanding Club 33 may be a decision made by others but alignment, scale and proportion of built elements would absolutely be the purview of the art director.

Was POTC ever closed for a similar change of ride system? Being that they were of similar vintage and used similar vehicles and ride systems?

If so, did they do that when they added the movie changes originally?

 

[PiratesMansion]

I wouldn’t in the least be surprised to see a Small World smear campaign initiated by the “fans”, to see it result in a Frozen replacement.

It is beloved, but several find it annoying. I’ve seen many try to claim that it’s racist, and it would be easy to convince the unsuspecting that don’t really care. The ride isn’t racist, it quite literally promotes a message of racial equality, but we know how this song and dance goes on the internet.

Nothing is sacred, except for Mansion (their reluctance to move suicide corpse makes that pretty clear) and the existence of Pirates (despite the heavy changes, the ride will still exist for the rest of our lives). Disney knows that the Online “Inclusivity Heroes” value ye Plantation House above all else, so much that they can’t remove a hanging corpse (suicide and mental health is not on issue to the Twitter Warriors. No, they are perfectly fine with bullying others into that state, so long as everything else is okay). Mansion is the golden goose, and it does make sense for them to prioritize it.

Don’t hold your breath for IASW. I rarely hear the song playing these days anyways.

IASW isn't going anywhere.

They might swap out a few dolls here and there to make them more culturally sensitive, but it's arguably the next most iconic attraction after Pirates and Mansion and it has killer ride capacity that they would miss desperately if they took it out.

Changes to Splash and Jungle Cruise, contrary to misguided rumor, does not mean that someday Disney will burn the park and all its icons to the ground.