SSE and IASW...travesty's

[jakeman]

fyn thank you for your post.

Your insight and opinions were well thought out and logically presented.

I appreciate the effort you made in distiguishing between fact and your own opinion. I realize that my approval is not what you seek, nor or I any more important than anyone else, but it is refreshing to see a post similar to yours.

Not to thread drift (but I am), I would be interested in your opinion on the other attractions.

 

[EpcotServo]

These changes don't seem as (Spaceship) Earth shattering as the alarmist author would like you to think. Again, I can't comment on the ride itself as I haven't been lucky enough to ride it yet after the refurb, but this doesn't seem worth getting worked up about. Now, if we want to talk about Nemo replacing SeaBase Alpha, Mission: Space replacing Horizons, or Test Track replacing World of Motion...I'm all ears.

:sohappy::sohappy::sohappy:

I was going to reply to some of these posts, but I can't top that one.

SPACESHIP EARTH IS STILL HERE.

STILL FUN.

STILL INFORMATIVE.

STILL POPULAR.

What MORE do you want? Do you want Time Racers? I sure don't. Even though I disagree with a few parts of the ride (Yes, I do too!) I'm just glad that in ten years I'll still be able to ride Spaceship Earth. NOT a roller coaster.

 

[Vernonpush]

This is an obviously photoshopped pic of the wrong way to do it:

This looks like they way they plan to do it:

It looks like someone wants to "fire us up" before we even see what WDI does.:shrug:

 

[imagine_82]

very true, vernonpush. let's wait & see.

 

[daverube]

Look Out!!!

I sense someone is about to insert an anti-negativity post in this thread.... :fork::fork::fork:

Yeah...well here is a good one!!

It is hard to take any person serious when the refer to changes they don't like at Disney attractions as a "travesty" or a "disgrace".

All that means is someone is not really tuned in to the real world around them, or they really have no clue as to what a real travesty is!!!:brick::brick:

Once again, I am convinced that A) some people just don't like to like things, and B) some people really, honestly believe Disney should cater to them and them only.

ummmmm......I don't think your post qualifies as an anti-negativity post....but thanks for quoting me anyway... :wave:

 

[Wilt Dasney]

This is not a change at Disneyland to take lightly. Letters should go out to all corners of the company pleading for a halt to the desecration of Small World once and for all. A campaign to “Save Our Rainforest” is appropriate, one with tee-shirts, wristbands and a countdown clock. It’s safe to say that with enough of a hue and cry from those of us who actually pay the bills at W.D.I the company might do an about face.

This passage seems like a tip-off that that author isn't exactly "plugged in," if you follow me. Anyone who really thinks that a letter-writing campaign is going to stop a small-scale refurb when a massive P.R. blitz couldn't stop them from demolishing Florida's Mr. Toad has...shall we say...reality issues.

Disney is not Congress, and phoning your district's Imagineer will not dissuade him from voting for the IASW bill.

 

[ChrisFL]

Here are a few things that some folks need to come to terms with (listed in particular order):

Disney is a corporation. A corporation's purpose is to make money.

Any "spirit" or "intent" that is attributed to an attraction is for marketing purposes only.

If you do not like the change to a particular attraction the only way to communicate this is to stop partaking in the product entirely.

As I have said before, the rantings on this board are the equivalent of buying a car you hate and yelling at the other customers about how the model was better 20 years ago.

It doesn't matter to the dealer...you still bought the car. To think otherwise is naïve.

Please excuse any grammar or punctuation errors as I am writing this on my phone.

Spoken like a true MBA, you'd be loved at the Disney company right now, I'm sure.

The fact is that NOW any spirit or intent probably is for marketing purposes, but don't try to tell that to the original imagineers. They could have cheapened out and did stuff that people wouldn't notice was gone anyway and saved a buck, but they didn't and that's because of what Walt believed.

We've already seen what lows Disney will stoop to in order to lure people in and get more profit (and in case you've forgotten, DCA, DinoRama, HKDL, Disney Studios Paris) and we've seen what can happen when we speak with our voices and with other means (the refurb of JIYI and the overhaul of DCA).

So while you may enjoy sitting back and let Disney keep declining in quality across the board, I will be with the purists, constantly reminding them that this path will not lead to the same aura of Disney quality that existed only 15-20 years ago.

 

[Lee]

This is an obviously photoshopped pic of the wrong way to do it:

Exactly. They plan to do it like this.
(Note Cinderella and Charming in the bottom right corner.)

 

[EpcotServo]

Disney is not Congress, and phoning your district's Imagineer will not dissuade him from voting for the IASW bill.

Which brings me to another installment of our 3,231 part series-BETTER KNOW AN IMAGINEER! Today, Prop Design. THE FIGHTIN' PROP DESIGN!

:lol:

 

[Timmay]

Exactly. They plan to do it like this.
(Note Cinderella and Charming in the bottom right corner.)

But can't you see that clearly "disgraces" the original intent and spirit of the attraction that WD intended...:shrug:

A travesty, I tell you...a travesty.

 

[Lee]

But can't you see that clearly "disgraces" the original intent and spirit of the attraction that WD intended...:shrug:

A travesty, I tell you...a travesty.

:ROFLOL:

 

[EpcotServo]

A travesty, I tell you...a travesty.

What is the woyld comin' too! A travesties I tell ya'!

:lol:

 

[Wilt Dasney]

Exactly. They plan to do it like this.
(Note Cinderella and Charming in the bottom right corner.)

Works for me. Unobtrusive, character design appears altered to fit the attraction (from a distance anyway), and yes, "cute" (a factor which has always been part of the ride's appeal, like it or not).

 

[MKCP 1985]

at least the purists might appreciate the characters are Cinderella and Prince Charming (residents of Fantasyland) and not Mr. and Mrs. Incredible.

 

[hpyhnt 1000]

Whew. A lot of discussion going on here about this. Anyway...

Probably the biggest problem I can think of with this apparent refurb of IASW is the fact that they are DELETING an entire scene to be replaced with another. How can you delete a scene depicting the rainforest, one of the most species rich areas of the planet??? Our rainforests are a VITAL part of this earth, providing us with a huge array of animals and plantlife.

Here's the other thing about IASW-if you didn't notice, there's more than just PEOPLE in it, there are also ANIMALS. Yes, IASW means to show that we should accept other peoples of this world. But do you think the animals being placed in there were just a coincidence? Do you think the rainforest scene was an accident and was not meant to portray something? Do you think that, when it was designed, it was meant to just be a "space filler," if you will? No, it has a purpose-to remind us that we are not alone on this planet, and that we must remember that we also live among plants and animals, and we must care for them as well.

Deleting the part of the attraction that depicts one of the most important regions of the world to be replaced with a American themed area is...well, I do consider it a travesty. Besides, no one country has its own display in IASW. Each country has a scene surrounded by other scenes dipicting different countries. By doing this, the world is divided into regions with similar customs and locations, instead of seperate countries. Replacing the region of the rainforest with one of a single country is completely contrary to the design of the attraction. No one country was meant to stand out. Each was meant to blend with the other, showing that we have more in common with each other that we realize.

Perhaps a better thing to do would have been to ADD this as a new scene to the ride, preferably next to Mexico (where it makes sense geographically). This way, another part of the world wouldn't be "sacrificed" just so we could remind ourselves about how great our own country is.

Also, one more thing about movie based rides/additions in theme parks. Sure, you can do some, but in moderation, and choose carefully. Remember, what's popular today won't always be so popular tomorrow. (For prove of this, see Universal Studios Orlando)

 

[kimmychad]

we love the small world in florida, how is the california one different?

 

[jakeman]

Spoken like a true MBA, you'd be loved at the Disney company right now, I'm sure.

The fact is that NOW any spirit or intent probably is for marketing purposes, but don't try to tell that to the original imagineers. They could have cheapened out and did stuff that people wouldn't notice was gone anyway and saved a buck, but they didn't and that's because of what Walt believed.

We've already seen what lows Disney will stoop to in order to lure people in and get more profit (and in case you've forgotten, DCA, DinoRama, HKDL, Disney Studios Paris) and we've seen what can happen when we speak with our voices and with other means (the refurb of JIYI and the overhaul of DCA).

So while you may enjoy sitting back and let Disney keep declining in quality across the board, I will be with the purists, constantly reminding them that this path will not lead to the same aura of Disney quality that existed only 15-20 years ago.

I must disagree with your assessment that the Disney company is declining in quality as most of the facts point in the other direction.

You are of course entitled to your opinion and perception is 9/10th of reality.

My issue with this is you have no facts to back up your claim that Disney quality is declining. It is only your opinion. Every company has its hits and misses. Is that a sign of an error in judgement? Yes. Is it indicative of the overall quality? No.

Perhaps your perception of what the quality should be is too high.

Additionally, I must inquire if you have been to the places that you have listed. I'm sure you would not formulate an opinion on something based soley on what you have read would?

Lastly, just because it is a pet peeve of mine, people do not get the way Dinorama fits with the rest of Dinoland. It is part of a much larger story for that particular land that is ironically, full of detail.

 

[Sumshine 904]

I personally liked the rainforest scene..):

 

[ChrisFL]

I must disagree with your assessment that the Disney company is declining in quality as most of the facts point in the other direction.

You are of course entitled to your opinion and perception is 9/10th of reality.

My issue with this is you have no facts to back up your claim that Disney quality is declining. It is only your opinion. Every company has its hits and misses. Is that a sign of an error in judgement? Yes. Is it indicative of the overall quality? No.

Perhaps your perception of what the quality should be is too high.

Additionally, I must inquire if you have been to the places that you have listed. I'm sure you would not formulate an opinion on something based soley on what you have read would?

Lastly, just because it is a pet peeve of mine, people do not get the way Dinorama fits with the rest of Dinoland. It is part of a much larger story for that particular land that is ironically, full of detail.

My perception of quality is from the high bar set by the original imagineers and Walt himself who wasn't afraid to spend a bit extra because it made the overall experience more special.

Yes I have been to DCA, I've been to DinoRama and I know enough about the sheer lack of attractions at both HKDL and Disney Studios Paris to form an opinion.

Disney appears to have this idea these days that they can build anything, slap some mickey ears on it and people will flood the gates willing to put down $70 a ticket...well it isn't working...just look at the attendance numbers if you don't believe me.

It isn't that I don't "get" that Dinorama fits with Dinoland or Animal Kingdom, it doesn't fit with Disney. You can put a back-story and some neon paint on a pet rock, but at the end of the day it's still just a pet rock.

 

[MuRkErY]

It is hard to take any person serious when the refer to changes they don't like at Disney attractions as a "travesty" or a "disgrace".

All that means is someone is not really tuned in to the real world around them, or they really have no clue as to what a real travesty is!!!

Interesting how some people decided to comment on the most irrelevant thing, the wording of the thread title, rather than the issue at hand.

Do you have a hard time dealing with context? In the context of the Disney theme park, and the Disney legacy, adding characters to IASW, and replacing the rainforest scene with a USA scene (A country you’re all ready surrounded by) is a travesty, relativly, IMO. Hoho, the old discredit the so called “purists” argument, out of touch loony’s aiming for a bar too high that does not exist, silly out of touch dreamers. Interesting, that is also the kind of talk Walt Disney had to go up against while he was building Disneyland, and making Snow White.

The arguments about “If you don’t like it don’t go” amuse me as well, or “If you hate an artists work then you would not buy the artists work”. I don’t know if you've noticed but the “parks” have been an ongoing work in progress since 1955, there-fore a large part of them will have been built when Disney was actully aiming over the bar. So, because I dislike a lot of the stuff that has been going on recently, that means I’m then not allowed to enjoy the work created before Disney started going down hill? All I want too see is the same level of quality that once existed, that is within reach. It seems how-ever that Disney has done a sufficiently good enough job of lowering the bar, so that people are just happy with “What they get”.