Again, I think the problem is that many people accuse the "purist geeks" of opposing changes. That is JUST not true. The vast majority of attractions that have been replaced or updated needed something done. However, where the problem is lies in this new trend of requiring characters in just about every renovation or refurb done. Each of the attractions at one point filled a very necessary role/void. They may not be filling that now, but many of the character implementations have completely changed the void that is being filled. That is where the character changes are causing "damage." There is a big difference between updating and changing. And, we are seeing some of the great things that can come from the former, especially at WDW and DL. IASW, DL's Mansion, Pirates, overall The Land, DL's SM, DL's JC, etc. However, many of the character importations have changed what the original place was: Tiki, SGE. This is not always bad. In fact, some roles were overfilled or unnecessary. While I miss what they were, I can understand why Epcot is getting the Nemo-fied Seas and why Buzz is infinitely more successful. Pirates is a similar situation where people were confused by the lack of Capt. Jack. However, each of these really should not lose sight of the big picture of the isluar "lands," a fault Disney really is having trouble with or intentionally disregarding (and admittedly so by many managers). I guess I still have a huge problem when people claim that purists hate change. Purists hate abandonment of the things that worked that leaves a void, especially when so many projects have maintained classic approaches while implementing new ideas and ways to fill the remaining hole.
