Lilo and Stitch coming to Disneylands small world. Are we next?

[Kamikaze]

I agree. I have been very vocal about the negative changes that have been implemented in the parks over the past few years. However, I have no problem and have always been extremly supportive of positive changes such as replacing the "ultra hip" food rocks show with the more tasteful Soarin', the addition of Everest to Animal Kingdom, the replacement of the mannaquin scenes in SSE with scenes that now have AA's again, the removal of the tacky wand, the renaming of MGM studios, etc.

One of the things that I and others have a problem with is this need by Disney's marketing people to try to shove tie-ins in our face which is something the Disney company used to be above doing. attractions like stitch and monsters inc are poorly conceived and designed and actually bring down the value of their respected franchises and those are just two examples.

Really?
Really?
Are you sure?
No tie-ins?
They never used to do it?
Really?

I suggest you do some research into a little something called Sleeping Beauty Castle.
You might have heard of it before.
What you might not know is that it was not originally going to be called that. They changed the name (before DL opened) to Sleeping Beauty Castle to TIE IT IN to the movie.
So tie-ins have been done since before day 1 of Disney theme parks.

You may say that you like some of the changes, but there are plenty of vocal people that hate those same changes. For instance, there are plenty of people that swear that Food Rocks is better than Soarin.

Even by your own examples, take Monsters Inc. The other choice was to have an empty pavilion. TK wasn't open much, and wouldn't have stayed open. Now you have a show that draws plenty of guests, as well as is something that is different from everything else offered. Why is that bad? Just because you don't like doesn't mean that no one likes it.

I have supported the addition of everest, soarin' replacing food rocks, the overall refreshment of the land pavilion, the option of allowing guests to have a lighter experience on mission space, project tomorrow, various elements of the new SSE including supporting judi dench, the new AA's, refreshened sets, etc

I have also supported the updated American Adventure finale film, most of the new O' Canada, new exhibits that have come to Innoventions, toy story mania, because even though it is character based, the new technology can last for many years and will most likely be layed over with another character overlay down the road.

I have supported a new star tours film. I don't want the original one to be stuck in the 80s forever.

I have supported the change to the epcot entrance that resulted in the wand and stars coming down.

I am in support of a Space Mountain refurb that still has modern day tributes to the original SM i.e. moog music, groovy halographic windows, hexagon walls, etc while still providing an awesome new rollercoaster experience, or a nice smooth replica track experience similar to what was done at disneyland.

I was in support of the 2005 small world refurb that got rid of the ghastly 70s mural and the outdated images of children at the exit ramp.

should I continue or have u seen that many of us do support change, but there is no reason why we must beleive everything disney does is right and support all the changes they do?

Don't you think its kind of odd that you have to list the things that you do like rather than what you don't?

 

[Eyorefan]

Can I just say that, if done right, i don't have a huge problem with this. I'm thinking of something along the lines of the "Ariel" mermaide in Peter Pan. We all know that its her, but it works in the context of the ride and doesn't stike out. Like some one said, "hidden mickey" like.

 

[Expo_Seeker40]

I love how people say Disney is not meant to be a museum.

Really? How so?

Two weeks ago I went to New York's museum of natural history and metropolitan museum of art.

Both museums were packed with young familes, teenagers, school groups, youth groups etc.

I couldn't find one child, except for maybe a tired 4 year old that wasn't engaged by something in the museum.

Serious exhibits, scientific things, but a blend and transition of other fun and interactive things to see and do for the children. There was a balance.

Seems alot of kids were interested in learning about space, the tropical rainforest, and seeing something as simple as a static representation of a tiger.

Museums have permanent collections i.e. dumbo, haunted mansion, etc.

Museums also have new and exciting exhibits that come an go throughout the years.

Museums allow people to experience and see honored and distinguished pieces of artwork, as well as discovering new things to see and do.

What disney is doing now would be like having the Lourve alter the Mona Lisa.

Rather than restore the piece "ala 2005 WDW small world rehab"...the Louvre will alter the mona lisa by adding wooly mamouths, and a killer whale floating in the river.

Why?

"We at the Louvre are always looking at ways of plussing and adding new things for our guests. Because children have shown so much interest recently in mamouths and the study of killer wales, we felt it was a great time to take an age-old favorite, the mona lisa, and plus it by adding new things to see in the portrait. Don't worry though, her smile and eyes are still there, but now kids and adults can enjoy the killer whale in the river behind her."

The result?

Many pure artist-museum lovers will complain.

Many will say "well the mona lisa was overated and boring to begin with" so this is cool because the Louvre is a respected organization and I will trust them in whatever they do.

The majority will go see the mona lisa, many for the first time, possibly not even knowing that the painting was altered and say "what the hell were they thinking"

:wave:

 

[Kamikaze]

I'm not trying to say that you have to support everything that gets done. But no matter what a change is, there are plenty of members that will jump up and down like two year old and say how this is ruining WDW or that attraction or that park, whatever it may be.

Would a Stitch with the hula dancers REALLY be that bad? Would it really ruin your experience?
No, of course not.

But you might have some children going 'Look mommy, its Stitch!' and then wanting to ride IASW again to see Stitch. Is giving the children that such a change would be targeted to the message that we should all get along such a bad idea? Giving them things they recognize as part of that message can only help, not hurt. Why do you think Smokey is a cartoon and not a big actual beat when he's telling to 'Prevent Wildfires'? Because it gets the message to kids better than way.

 

[imagineer boy]

Ugh, just what we need... more marketable character shoved in our faces in every single ride.:brick: I honestly hope this is not true, this is just a terrible idea.

No, this is 100% false.

Change is good if it is done tastefully and done in a way to keep the same feeling to the attraction it is coming to or replacing.

Character overlays are cheap fixes and usually don't add anything to the attraction but cheapen the experience. (There are some exceptions IMO though...Nemo is a plus over the original seacabs). Turtle Talk w/ Crush is a great addition.

Thank you, I'm so tired of these self-Righteous morons saying "you can't handle change!" when that is simply not true, we like change, but just don't like the kind of change we are seeing.

Really?
Really?
Are you sure?
No tie-ins?
They never used to do it?
Really?

I suggest you do some research into a little something called Sleeping Beauty Castle.
You might have heard of it before.
What you might not know is that it was not originally going to be called that. They changed the name (before DL opened) to Sleeping Beauty Castle to TIE IT IN to the movie.
So tie-ins have been done since before day 1 of Disney theme parks.

Wow, aren't you knollegable in Disney history. Good for you. Tie-ins are fine if they're not over-done like they are now, and if they are done tastefully.

You may say that you like some of the changes, but there are plenty of vocal people that hate those same changes. For instance, there are plenty of people that swear that Food Rocks is better than Soarin.

They're called personal opinions. Get over it.

Even by your own examples, take Monsters Inc. The other choice was to have an empty pavilion. TK wasn't open much, and wouldn't have stayed open. Now you have a show that draws plenty of guests, as well as is something that is different from everything else offered. Why is that bad? Just because you don't like doesn't mean that no one likes it.

There are large amounts of people who have vocally said they don't like it. Besides, I'm afriad no attraction is better than having a very bad attraction in its place.

 

[Timmay]

Cool, I hope they do it for two reasons.

A) I think it would be great to see some of the characters in the ride…kind of out of the way and hidden, not up front and in your face

and

B) I like watching the usual suspects look into their crystal balls, read their tea leaves, or whatever it is they do, and convince themselves they need to freak out like they are ready to have a blood vessel pop inside of their head.


To the folks in category B, I salute you with your official mascot!!

I love how people say Disney is not meant to be a museum.

Really? How so?
:wave:

Pretty simple, really.

WDW is a theme park. If it were a museum, that is what it would be called and advertised as. It's not...case closed.

 

[Kamikaze]

The majority

And thats where your argument falls apart. How do you know the majority is going to do anything?

And the majority is going to be up in arms because Peter Pan is in IASW? I don't think so.

Did the majority revolt when they added Captain Jack to POTC? No, of course not. The ride is much more popular that it had been in the previous 10 years.

But of course there is that vocal minority that hates the changes to POTC.

Confusing the vocal minority and the majority is easy to do, because the squeaky wheel is the one that gets the grease, but I'm confident that TWDC has found out how to differentiate the two by now.

 

[Expo_Seeker40]

"Really?
Are you sure?
No tie-ins?
They never used to do it?
Really?"

Nope, no denying movie tie ins. Though once proposed to be Snow White's castle, sleeping beauty which broke ground with widescreen and a budget that was much higher than snow white and used new talents and technology to create a masterpiece that may in fact have succeeded everything snow white tried to offer...tying that with the castle...no problem.

Let's take a look at Disneyland...say 1967 when tomorrowland went all sleek and new.

Of all the attractions that were at Disneyland that year...let's take a look at how many were character base.

the carousel, dumbo, snow white, toad, peter pan, tom sawyer, davy crocket, a zoro meet and greet, a fireworks show, an afternoon parade.

Let's take a look at the uniquely made theme park attractions made by the imagineers of Disney

matterhorn, peoplemover, submarine voyage, rocket jets, adventure thru inner space, circlevision, mr. lincoln, small world, pirates of the carribean, tiki room, jungle cruise, mine train through nature's wonderland,.

There was once a balance in the 80s and 90s, and now it was swung too far to character based attractions.

 

[wannab@dis]

:zipit:

Comparing the Mona Lisa to IASW is almost as bad as comparing a painting of a city skyline from the industrial revolution to nazi concentration camps. (yes folks, someone did just that in one of the many SSE threads)

Let's be honest in our discussions. Not everything is painted as bad around here, but many announcements or rumors are met with less than optimism. Also, let's not whitewash forum history. I saw many EE complaint threads, untold number of Soarin / balloon / Land QS threads that were over the top negative and massive amounts of M:S complaint threads.

 

[Kamikaze]

Ugh, just what we need... more marketable character shoved in our faces in every single ride.:brick: I honestly hope this is not true, this is just a terrible idea.

Of course it is. Granted, you won't be able to come up with a valid reason WHY it is so bad, but it is.

Thank you, I'm so tired of these self-Righteous morons saying "you can't handle change!" when that is simply not true, we like change, but just don't like the kind of change we are seeing.

So then why are you still going? The change is going in this direction. Its not going to stop. Same as the wand removal didn't revert Epcot to 1995, complaining over this isn't going to stop future tie ins.

Wow, aren't you knollegable in Disney history. Good for you. Tie-ins are fine if they're not over-done like they are now, and if they are done tastefully.

And a small tribute to Stitch or Peter Pan in IASW isn't tastefully?

They're called personal opinions. Get over it.

They are also called 'invalid'. Deal with it.

There are large amounts of people who have vocally said they don't like it. Besides, I'm afriad no attraction is better than having a very bad attraction in its place.

So you'd rather have a park of empty attractions rather than ones that you do not like? Good business model there.

 

[Expo_Seeker40]

I see your point WannaB and give you that respect. :wave:

*takes breathe*....so to end this....because I think the Mom is hovering over this thread....if any of you want to voice your concern over the POSSIBLE changes coming to small world at Disneyland do so on your own accord. People have talked about hidden mickey refrences, while I disagree completely that any characters should come to small world, if it was done a minute level, I could adapt to that. But if Al Lutz does prove right and these will be quite noticeable characters, than I would find it a distatesful addition.

Oh well not like it's happening in Florida....yet. :lookaroun

We'll see what happens come November.

 

[WeLComeHomE OKW]

Which means the other 99.5% of guests will probably like it. :lookaroun

You mean they may not like it now? Well, then something should be done to increase their enjoyment.

Cheapen? The normal first reaction for plans to plus an attraction... Mulan as a chinese doll, Lilo/Stitch as Hawaiian dolls, Woody as an American cowboy... seems to match the theme pretty good.

Yep, they like dolls and their favorite character friends from movies

Sure, if Woody starts shooting the other cowboys, maybe it's a little over the top.

Really? I love being a kid while on VACATION at Disney World!

It seems like a) you are mocking me. b) you didn't understand any of my points.

so, let me try and explain myself alittle better. 99.5 percent will not like it. Its a Small World and all these original attractions were not meant to have disney characters. Its a small world is more about cute scenes with children from around the world. YES, it has an element of fantasy, because its in fantasyland. But, its about real children, and once they include elements from movies, it takes away a whole other level of believability.

It is like watching a cartoon and someone getting chopped in half, and you saying "well, thats not realistic." and someone else responding, "well, it is a cartoon..." Right, its a cartoon, but you still insist on having a certain level of believability within that cartoon.

I am definately not saying additions will make kids not like it. i am saying, this addition will not make kids run to this attraction instead of space mountain. Some cut-out characters will not rise its a small world to number 1. Its a "plussing" that is both unnecessary and has no gains, financially or thematically.

Yes, these additions DO cheapen the ride. Adding established disney characters into its a small world is like making the host of carousel of progress Mickey Mouse. How is that not cheapening? I don't think woody or mulan match the theme AT ALL. It is about kids. Diverse kids from around the world coming together. What does Stitch have to do with that? Or Woody? He is a TOY, a cowboy adult TOY. really now.

kids love all sorts of things, but that doesnt mean it adds to the experience. This is exactly why you don't work in some high management level at disney, or any other theme park. At least, I hope you don't. If I managed a theme park like disney, my first question would be, "does this add to the experience?" I go to disney world to be immersed in entertainment. That means, I want all stories to stay true to themselves. That is why Animal Kingdom is so brilliant. Their stories are so perfect. Expedition Everest, and Kali Rapids dont need Mulan or The Lion King to plus their attractions. They are themed with their own unique story. Its a Small World is its own unique story, and it does not need franchises to assist it.

Do not mock me because you think I am your average disney purist. I am not. I am 20 years old, and I love the additions to Pirates and Haunted Mansion. I love additions that work and that add and enhance the story and theme. But, when disney sees the need to add as many franchises as possible to all the classic attractions, I see a lack of imagination and innovation. A lack of creative risk, and a lack of creative integrity.

I'm sorry if you disagree.

 

[Timmay]

let me try and explain myself alittle better. 99.5 percent will not like it.

You do, of course, have some kind of statistical data to support this...um, fact. Right??

 

[wannab@dis]

It seems like a) you are mocking me. b) you didn't understand any of my points.

There was no "mocking" intended. :wave:

99.5 percent will not like it

Sorry, just can't make that illogical leap.

It is like watching a cartoon and someone getting chopped in half, and you saying "well, thats not realistic." and someone else responding, "well, it is a cartoon..." Right, its a cartoon, but you still insist on having a certain level of believability within that cartoon.

Again, seems to be an illogical comparison.

I am definately not saying additions will make kids not like it. i am saying, this addition will not make kids run to this attraction instead of space mountain. Some cut-out characters will not rise its a small world to number 1. Its a "plussing" that is both unnecessary and has no gains, financially or thematically.

Again, statement of fact with no support.

Yes, these additions DO cheapen the ride. Adding established disney characters into its a small world is like making the host of carousel of progress Mickey Mouse. How is that not cheapening? I don't think woody or mulan match the theme AT ALL. It is about kids. Diverse kids from around the world coming together. What does Stitch have to do with that? Or Woody? He is a TOY, a cowboy adult TOY. really now.

Dolls are toys that are loved by many kids. Disney characters are also loved by many kids.

This is exactly why you don't work in some high management level at disney, or any other theme park. At least, I hope you don't.

And this pertains to what? (Granted, I'm VERY glad many of the posters around here have zero decision making power.)

If I managed a theme park like disney, my first question would be, "does this add to the experience?" I go to disney world to be immersed in entertainment. That means, I want all stories to stay true to themselves. That is why Animal Kingdom is so brilliant. Their stories are so perfect. Expedition Everest, and Kali Rapids dont need Mulan or The Lion King to plus their attractions. They are themed with their own unique story. Its a Small World is its own unique story, and it does not need franchises to assist it.

I agree. I'm not sure anything is needed to "assist" IASW. Of course, the lines at WDW doesn't exactly come close to most of the other Fantasyland attractions. Could there be a logical correlation? :lookaroun

Do not mock me because you think I am your average disney purist. I am not. I am 20 years old, and I love the additions to Pirates and Haunted Mansion. I love additions that work and that add and enhance the story and theme. But, when disney sees the need to add as many franchises as possible to all the classic attractions, I see a lack of imagination and innovation. A lack of creative risk, and a lack of creative integrity.

I'm sorry if you disagree.

Again, I was not "mocking" you at all. Only pointing out a different viewpoint. :wave:

 

[WeLComeHomE OKW]

You do, of course, have some kind of statistical data to support this...um, fact. Right??

if you read the quote and read my statement in context, this would make sense.


wannab says that "99.5 will like it". and i am saying "no, 99.5 percent will not like it.

In other words, his/her statement is incorrect. I am not making a claim that 99.5 percent will hate the attraction. I am just saying that her/his assumption is wrong.

If wannab can provide the statistical data that 99.5 percent will like...now, thats another question altogether...

 

[WDWFREAK53]

If this is so false, find me one change/upgrade/whatever that these forums are for. You can't.

No? How about the Haunted Mansion.

Thank you.

 

[Expo_Seeker40]

Where do higher ups at Disney get their data that support their decisions? Unless they are conducting actual questionaires,or providing some sort of poling to a larger audience. Then I don't see how, other than keeping track of not only people attending the parks, or attraction and show attendance....that how a higher up can say adding characters to small world is appropriate.

It boils down their opinion and what they think is right for the public.

"Oh do it so-and-so they'll love seeing peter pan in the ride!"

Who is they, and how does the higher up know they will like it, let alone everyone else that is outside the target audience.

Now I see why so many people no more than ever say Disney, especially the magic kingdom(s) are for kids....they weren't really for kids back then, but Disney is about to nail their pixie dust ladden coffin shut with their hip and cool and ever so temporary fads they will have to poor money into every 3-5 years to keep the parks from being a "museum".

Rather than a park that has a substantial base of permanent and classic rides and shows, with a nice mix of changing things, and every so many years a new fireworks show, parade, evening or daytime show, a new ride here and there replacing another temporary fad ride. Allowing the classic permanent rides to never be endangered.

Come to Disneyland we have something new for you....they will....but the other audience can go to Disneyland knowing that small world isn't invaded with peter pan, and that eddie murphy isn't in the haunted mansion or the stretch room portraits now feature minnie mouse standing over a crocodile.

 

[Timmay]

No? How about the Haunted Mansion.

Thank you.

Okay, fine!!

Now give us two...

 

[WDWFREAK53]

I believe I already stated that I wouldn't mind characters popping up if done the correct way as to not disturb the main focus of the attraction. The attraction is showcasing all of the different countries and areas of the globe in a unitized working, HAPPY, environment. We can all be happy and peaceful if we give it the chance. No matter what your background is...everything in that attraction is equal. All the children of the world are smiling and enjoying themselves TOGETHER in that final scene.

Where does Stitch fall in this story/feeling?

Lilo is a child. Wendy, Peter, etc...are children. They would kinda fit...Stitch wouldn't.
Mickey wouldn't, Minnie wouldn't, Jafar wouldn't.

 

[Expo_Seeker40]

Project Tomorrow! There's number two. :ROFLOL:

while many had initially complained there was a lack of things to do, more things continue to be added in. Unique and creative things the whole family can enjoy and still in the spirit of EPCOT Center/Epcot while still being fresh and new.