SSE and IASW...travesty's

MuRkErY

Member
Original Poster
Reimagineering have just made another new post on IASW, delving into further depth on this decision. This issue goes even further than IASW, IASW is just a sympton of the WDC's current philosophy.

http://imagineerebirth.blogspot.com/

What the hell is wrong with you people? Do you even realize what your saying? 95% of SSE is still the same. Same story and animatronics, all with the same message. So the last 5% is a touch screen and that negates the whole other 95% of the attraction and its message? You guys keep talking about how much higher your intelligence must be since they dumbed it down for the rest of us, but the only ones who look dumb, are YOU! Your arguments aren't even making sense anymore.

The score was changed needlessly, the script was changed needlessly, the narrator was changed needlessly, the message of the attraction was dumbed down. This all forms a MASSIVE part in the emotional connection off SSE.
 

George

Liker of Things
Premium Member
How old do you people think I am. Certainly I'm part of this generation. Anyways, kids won't watch a show if the characters don't fart, belch, or act, for the lack of a better word, retarded. Nickelodeon can't make shows like Doug and Hey Arnold anymore, because the lack of vulgarity and bodily functions, as the children of today just wouldn't be entertained.

ASJHLJ, your right, SSE's ending is godly with that brand new technology called touch screen (best imagineering ever), the sorcerer's hat at MGM is an Imagineering masterpiece, Shrek 3 is the best animated movie of all time, Spiderman 3 is the best movie period, and scientology is the only real religion in this world. Did I miss anything?

I didn't say that. What I'm trying to say is that what Disney is doing with EPCOT is very hard. They're trying to draw in new fans without alienating old ones. I think with the changes to SSE they accomplished this, but I could be wrong. A lot of the "old school" fans of SSE are genuinely upset. I think they're quite a few fans like myself whose reactions to SSE range from "mildly dissappointed to liking the changes." I also think a lot of people who found the prior versions of SSE boring like it better now so the fan base is larger. However, as I already mentioned, I could be wrong. We'll have to see how lines, etc. hold up for SSE over the next several years.

Skippy_ said:
Sorry for the double post and sorry if I offended anyone, especially ASJHLJ. I got way off topic and got way to carried away trying to prove the crap that average people like.

I apologize.

Apology accepted. We all get carried away sometimes. Keep in mind that one man's crap is another man's treasure chest of earthly delights. :lookaroun
 

djkidkaz

Well-Known Member
The score was changed needlessly, the script was changed needlessly, the narrator was changed needlessly, the message of the attraction was dumbed down. This all forms a MASSIVE part in the emotional connection off SSE.

The score has nothing to do with the message.

The story of communication through the ages only happened one way. No matter how they want to say it, it all happens the same way. Its not like they are making changes and making up stuff that didn't happen.

The narrator has been changed numerous times in the life of SSE.

I think you said it exactly, but don't realize what your saying. It has NOTHING to do with Imagineering or Disneys philosophy, it has everything to do with your MASSIVE emotional attachment to the version YOU liked the best.

Just because you liked it better the other way doesn't mean that Imagineering is wrong and you are right.
 

Wilt Dasney

Well-Known Member
blog guy said:
The introduction of the joyously irascible Donald, the mischievous Stitch, the regal Simba and other Disney characters with their distinct attributes and back-stories destroys the unifying and equalizing anonymity of the original Small World population.

<snip>

The Disney characters are, of course, one of the Company’s chief assets. But they are suffering homogenization, as the Grimm Brothers’ royals cavort with Minnie, Ariel and Jasmine in the Tween Spa Make-over Afternoons. Their insertion into A Small World is one more inappropriate and exploitive over-exposure.

Once the familiar “stars” invade Small World, the attraction loses its individuality. Guests are no longer transported into a unique festival of humanity, but find themselves in a continuation of the Fantasyland milieu of cartoon characters. The ride forfeits its distinct ambience and the park loses a singular different environment.


So which is it? The characters are too distinct to fit in with the ride's message of uniformity or they're too uniform to fit in such a distinct environment? :shrug:

Methinks somebody was too busy focusing on how many 50-cent words he could use to realize he's basically arguing both sides of the coin.
 

MuRkErY

Member
Original Poster
I didn't say that. What I'm trying to say is that what Disney is doing with EPCOT is very hard. They're trying to draw in new fans without alienating old ones.

And that in a nutshell is the problem. Walt Disney never pandered to anybody, When Walt was building an attraction he never said "Oh we should build this, because I can guarantee the under 10's middle class kids market who drink tropicana are going to go wild about this one". He's goal was simply to make great attractions that everybody could ride, and if a few people didn't enjoy them that was there problem not Disneys. You can not please everybody all of the time, but that is exactly what Disney these days try to do with all this market research crap. All it ends up doing is diluting a creative project in a desperate attempt to appeal to everybody. That is what is lacking, the company is lacking a creative vision of it's own, a vision to just simply create the very best attractions possible, to break the mould, to do something new, exiting, imersive and head and shoulders above anything else we have ever seen, or could even be thought possible.

The score has nothing to do with the message.

The story of communication through the ages only happened one way. No matter how they want to say it, it all happens the same way. Its not like they are making changes and making up stuff that didn't happen.

The narrator has been changed numerous times in the life of SSE.

I think you said it exactly, but don't realize what your saying. It has NOTHING to do with Imagineering or Disneys philosophy, it has everything to do with your MASSIVE emotional attachment to the version YOU liked the best.

Just because you liked it better the other way doesn't mean that Imagineering is wrong and you are right.

The score has everything to do with the message. Everything in an attraction must work to a common vision, the score is a vital part of this. The old score used to be grand, mysterious, and inspiring. An opinion this may be but you would be hard pressed to find many people who belive the new score reaches anywhere near the heights of the old one.

The story of communication only happened one way but it is not how it happened, but how it is told. We are now fed information like we are all a bunch of idiots with ADD, who wont understand anything unless it somehow relates to the time we all ready inhabit. Not only that, but the focus has moved from inspiring us all too make sure we use the communication technology we now have at our disposal, effectively, and with the intention of creating, and forging a better tomorrow, but to a selfish, cartoony, jokey future. We are no longer challenged as a race too do better, but instead just simply told to sit back, and laugh at this stupid cartoon. The very fundamental essence of the attraction has changed, and that is not opinion, but fact.

It also has everything to do with Disney and Imagineerings current philosophy. The fact is there was never any need to change the score, script, or narrator. These were elements of the attraction that worked perfectly for a large majority of people. The budget could have been put to much better use elsewhere, IE improving the Descent further, improving more of the AA's etc... The fact that they changed the script just highlights Disneys pandering to the so called "masses", it just stinks of some executive, or somebody in Imagineering going "Interactivity, thats what the kids want, we'll give them video screens and a survey weh hey" without any thought what so ever to what could actually plus the attraction. There is no creative vision coming from inside the company, just a vision too adhere to what people apparently "Want" or can "Understand" as much as possible.
 

aleckendyl

Account Suspended
:snore:After reading the last (it seems like 500) pages of this thread it has easily became noticeable that far to many folks take themselves WAY to serious.
The bottom line is this.
1. SSE is a great attraction. Nothing more complicated than that. 99% of folks that ride it love it.
2. IASW is a great ride also. A classic. But it is what it is. Not a hidden message or anything complicated.
Come on folks, These rides entertain folks and thats all that matters.
If people didnt like them then no one would be riding them.
WAY to much uneccessary "over analizing" going on here.
Its getting kinda "mental" if you know what i mean.:veryconfu
 

jakeman

Well-Known Member
And that in a nutshell is the problem. Walt Disney never pandered to anybody, When Walt was building an attraction he never said "Oh we should build this, because I can guarantee the under 10's middle class kids market who drink tropicana are going to go wild about this one". He's goal was simply to make great attractions that everybody could ride, and if a few people didn't enjoy them that was there problem not Disneys. You can not please everybody all of the time, but that is exactly what Disney these days try to do with all this market research crap. All it ends up doing is diluting a creative project in a desperate attempt to appeal to everybody. That is what is lacking, the company is lacking a creative vision of it's own, a vision to just simply create the very best attractions possible, to break the mould, to do something new, exiting, imersive and head and shoulders above anything else we have ever seen, or could even be thought possible.
I only read this part because the rest seemed to be blah blah blah EPCOT pious-cakes.

Walt pandered all the freaking time. Have you read anything about him? With the exception of the few crazy ideas, which I will conceed worked, the rest of it was pandering.
 

MuRkErY

Member
Original Poster
Walt never panderd. There were some division set up to make money more than others such as the live action division but this was just so he get money to fund more and more of his ideas. To Walt making money was only a means to the end of funding his ideas, not for the sake of just making money.
 

KCMouse

Member
I can see why they are adding characters to IASM. I have a niece and nephew that are 3 and 5. We took them on IASM and they were bored to tears. One even tried to escape from the boat. The sad thing is that I wanted to join them.

Looking around the ride, this seemed to be how most of the kids felt. Now, if parents had well known characters to point out in the different cultures, it might heighten interest again amongst the children.
 

sknydave

Active Member
How is SSE dumbed-down? I don't recall ever having a mentally invigorating experience while passing through a tunnel surrounded by fiber optic lighting.
 

George

Liker of Things
Premium Member
And that in a nutshell is the problem. Walt Disney never pandered to anybody, When Walt was building an attraction he never said "Oh we should build this, because I can guarantee the under 10's middle class kids market who drink tropicana are going to go wild about this one".

Sure he did. Here's the Webster definition of pander -

": to act as a pander; especially : to provide gratification for others' desires <films that pander to the basest emotions>"

I find many of my desires to be entertained gratified whilst I am at WDW. I know pander has a bad connotation, but it's really not that bad a thing. It's just often times used with things that are base (as the example part of the definition shows). Look, my wife who isn't 10, and is not dumb (you're gonna have to take my word on this one) liked SSE better after the changes. I liked the ascent better, but was mildly dissapointed in the descent. I see they have tweaked the descent some since I rode it in the middle of December, so maybe I will be completely satisfied next time I ride. Regardless, I think the new version of SSE panders to or gratifies a larger audience.
 

bugsbunny

Well-Known Member
Sure he did. Here's the Webster definition of pander -

": to act as a pander; especially : to provide gratification for others' desires <films that pander to the basest emotions>"


Walt pandered for certain reasons and only because he NEEDED the money, not becuase he wanted to. Walt cashed in his life insurance when he ran out of money to finish Disneyland. He also "pandered" to NBC by giving them half of Disneyland as long as they would show his Disneyland show on TV. NBC got a show that everyone tuned into for mere peanuts since Walt had to produce it plus they got 50% of Disneyland. However, Walt was smart enough to put a clause in the contract that allowed him to buy it back within 7 years with no penalty.

So his "pandering" accomplished 2 important things: it got him the money to do what he WANTED to do correctly as well as gave him a way to getting DL into the TV set of everyone in America.

That is NOT pandering...that is one smart guy who figured out how to do the impossible! But fast forward to today and Disney has some deeeeeep pockets! If they do ANYTHING, it's all in the name of the mighty $$. The only thing they are pandering to is your wallet.

What's the best way to get people to buy your characters from movies 20 years ago? Put them in today's rides! Now, you can rerelease not just the DVD, but also the plush toys, etc.

What about 20 years from now and we look at PoTC? Will we be saying how stale it is? Who is Captain Jack Sparrow? So maybe even then, they will change the "classic" or will they simply rerelease it on DVD to a whole new audience?

Sadly, IASW is morphing into a riverboat ride through a commercial for Disney products. Plain and simple. Although change is inevitable, it doesn't mean its good or that just because you do it, its being done right.

Disney parks were founded on such cornerstones like IASW and shouldn't be changed. How does one even decide when a classic is no longer a classic and needs to be fixed?
 

EpcotServo

Well-Known Member
How is SSE dumbed-down? I don't recall ever having a mentally invigorating experience while passing through a tunnel surrounded by fiber optic lighting.

I'll agree that old one may have been a bit more inspiring: But I've said it before and I'll say it again....The old ending wasn't that good.
 

hpyhnt 1000

Well-Known Member
Disney parks were founded on such cornerstones like IASW and shouldn't be changed. How does one even decide when a classic is no longer a classic and needs to be fixed?

I suppose when people no longer ride it or aren't entertained by it anymore, and IASW clearly falls into this category.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom