Can you give some examples?
And this is solely from a personal point of view and I suppose my statement would have been much better served saying the potential addition of characters to pre-existing attractions seeing as how very few have actually gone through, but I'll explain.
The tiki room is the main one which comes to mind. The addition of yago and zazu may not have significantly hindered the original idea concidering they are after all singing birds but I doubt have enhanced it either, and from my point of view certainly not. Besides, the tiki room is not themed to either alladin or lion king so they certainly don't belong.
Even Tarzan's tree house in Cali in this category for me for two reasons. First is it seems to me sculptures of the tarzan characters were just thrown in as a desperate attempt to resurrect a failing attraction whose original purpose was to represent innovation and creativity utilizing minimal resources.
What do goofy and Pixar characters dancing have to do with liberty square and how is it any better than golden horseshoe revue?
The Alladin spinny ride in the middle jungle town is a little tacky IMO.
Then there are rumored changes such as Cars to the tomorrowland speedway (Cars characters have less to do with "tomorrow" than the current attraction does which if I am not mistaken is already very popular without them), or the three caberllos to el rio which have as much to do with Mexican culture as Taco Bell, or that someone thought adding Godzilla to the world showcase was a good idea.
I suppose the potential frightens me more than anything. I just wonder where it stops. How about lion king and tarzan charcters in the jungle cruise ride, or woody narrating big thunder mountain, or donald duck in place of the grave keeper in the haunted mansion.
Not only do I not like many instances or potential instances of character additions but I also prefer in some instances original concepts as opposed to attractions using prexisting characters. I hate feeling like an attraction exist solely for the purpose of making money. Sure, that is the main reason, but a really good attraction does this without being intrusive instead of reminding you that the disney corporation intends reinforcing their brands (characters/movies) with ongoing subjection.
A good example of proper character use is Splash Mountain. They are rich characters in an immersive environement whose purpose was not to enhance profitability with their presense but however provide a good back drop for an attraction. And despite no one remembering the movie it's one of the most popular attractions at the world. That just goes to show it takes a good ride and not a prexisting character to bring in the peeps and enhance profitability unless you are banking on sales of merchandise and DVDs more than anything else. Stitch escape is also a great example, but at the other end of the spectrum. A good character doesn't automatically make a good ride.
And remember, I don't claim any of the above is true, just my opinion and how I feel, but feel free to tell me I'm wrong anyway, keeps the discussion going, just as long I'm not called a self involved idiot for feeling this way.
.