The ISAM dolls are significantly equal in their charming, impersonal uniformity, distinguished only by facial ethnicity. They are child-like representations of all the world’s real living people.

Disney characters, however, are diametrically opposite: They are fantasy characters with colorful characteristics, unique appearances, and individualistic back-stories. “Stitch,” as an example, is described on Wikipedia as an extraterrestrial alien condemned to a penal colony. Simba is a lion who inadvertently kills his uncle in self-defense. Snow White is a poisoned princess.

The insertion of these intensely larger-than-life characters simply because their plots place them in a particular country would violently invalidate IASM’s vision of a common humanity in search of harmony. The ISAM dolls would be reduced to, well, pretty dolls, serving as background for the more dramatically dynamic Disney-character dolls.

However long the Imagineers have pondered this unfortunate change, it can be hoped that clear-sighted leaders and artists together will find ways to intensify rather than destroy the powerful theme behind this beautiful creation which would convert it into an amorphous “celebration of children.”

Creating alternate melodic strains in harmony with the current theme song (rather than intruding a mix of Disney songs, as has been rumored) would be a good start.

Using new technologies to intensify rather than destroy the original theme of universal world peace (and integrating the individual nationalities in the finale) would be good next steps.

As for merchandising, a stunning new line of ISAM-themed dolls and collectibles would make more sense than another recycling of the Disney characters.

Fingers crossed for a small and fragile world worth saving.

Please do not trot out the “Walt loved change” adage. We’re all smart enough to know he only wanted to change things for the better.

That’s just not so.

“Disneyland is YOUR land,” Walt said. So, why won’t Disney listen to its most ardent fans?

The addition of Jack Sparrow to Pirates of the Caribbean at least added a pirate — not Goofy in a pirate costume or Donald with an eye patch. If you have no idea who Capt. Jack or Johnny Depp is (and in 20 years, most people won’t), the concept still works.

But this new idea really does desecrate the basic concept of “It’s a Small World.” If Disneyland Guests don’t understand or appreciate the meaning behind the attraction, that’s DISNEY’S fault, not theirs. With children increasingly spoiled and coddled by their parents, the message behind “It’s a Small World” is a more potent one than ever before: Children matter. Wherever you go, whatever their color, whatever their culture, children are the same, they are the unifying force in the world.

That’s a sentiment that was important enough that when the United States Postal Service honored Walt Disney with a stamp, the image chosen wasn’t Walt with Mickey Mouse, it was Walt with the children of “It’s a Small World.”

I hold out little hope that they will change their minds, but I hope the Imagineers and Disney managers will take seriously the criticism they are receiving from this wrong-headed decision and change their minds. “It’s a Small World” is a classic; it is at least as relevant, as potent, as popular and as perfect as it was 44 years ago. It has always been one of the most popular rides at Disneyland.

As Dear Abby used to say, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

“It’s a Small World” ain’t broke. But, sadly, I think it’s about to be.

I hope when the boats are changed they still have the real wood parts of them as the originals did and not just have them be all fiberglass (with metal handrails) like the boats are at WDW’s version of the attraction.

The original boats I first rode at the NY World’s Fair and later at Disneyland were so classy, like mini-yachts!

One “plus” I’d love to see is to have theming on both sides of the boat canal, unlike how there were empty spots originally, and to have the water seem to go on beyond the canal as the Imagineers did at the WDW version of the attraction.

It was convenient to bring the attraction to Disneyland as part of the shrewd deal Walt Disney had worked out with Disney’s participation in the 1964 World’s Fair, but I highly doubt it would have stayed “untouched” all of these years.

Again, I’m not saying I’m in favor of the changes. I’m just saying I’m willing to give WDI the benefit of the doubt.

Visiting Disneyland is a voluntarily expenditure of time and money. Anyone who can no longer enjoy the place for whatever reason, including being upset about changing what they consider to be the very essence of classic attractions, is free to stop plunking down their hard earned money and devoting their limited time to visit. I myself miss so much about “EPCOT Center”, including the old Journey Into Imagination, World of Motion, Horizons, and being able to have a normal lunch at Akershus. I would probably be visiting the place more often if those things were still around – though I do enjoy Test Track and Mission: Space.

Hopefully, when “it’s a small world” reopens, most of us will be happy with what has been done.

One thing is for sure already. Disney had gotten an awful lot of free publicity from this – including news reports that depict one of its theme park attractions as akin to an international historic monument, at least in the hearts of many people.

In conclusion (and for something totally different), If Universal can have Harry-Potter-ville (and they can have it), couldn’t Disney create Narnia? Just a thought.

Rev. Woodrow Pace

I do believe that Marty and co. are not trying to make new merchandise for the attractions. But you can bet that the merchandise department will be doing it. And honestly, if we get some NICE Small World merchandise out of this, great. We will just have to wait and see if this is subtle or a hammer to the head.

Marty Sklar apparently doesn’t even know that “it’s a small world” is supposed to be written in all lowercase letters, and we’re supposed to trust him and the Imagineers in their tinkering with the classic attraction?

Look what they did with Walt’s Enchanted Tiki Room “under new management” at WDW’s Magic Kingdom… and remember Disneyland’s “Light Magic” (infamously known as “Light Tragic”).

Where does John Lasseter stand on these changes?

It would be very easy for Disney to just shut down the attraction entirely. Sure, there would be grumbling, but if the options are to spend a lot of money on maintenance and capital improvements, or shut it down, thereby saving that money and the money it takes to operate it (labor, insurance, electricity, water, etc.), there are many companies that would simply shut it down. Let’s not forget how long the Submarine Voyage was closed, or how long America Sang (past tense on purpose) was shut down. I know there are people who do not like the Finding Nemo version of subs, or Innoventions, but the alternative was a dead space. If management is only willing to spend the money to keep Small World in running condition for decades to come if there are some noticeable show changes – that could be the reality that Imagineering is dealing with.

Remmeber – Walt Disney Imagineering does not own Disneyland. If I recall correctly, WDI management is under the Parks & Resorst management, who report to a CEO and a Board of Directors, who in turn are accountable to investors, most of whom (by the percentages of ownership) are not at all bothered by the kind of tinkering that drives some fans up a wall.

I can’t say that I’m happy about what appears to be the changes, based on what Marty said and didn’t say compared to the online rumors and the news media reports. I can’t say – because I don’t know exactly how this is going to turn out. Heck, when I first heard about the idea of the Broadway version of The Lion King, I thought it was going to be horrible (puppets… with the puppeteers plainly visible? Yuck!!!) but I was WRONG. The show, of course, is great and has done VERY well.

So, I guess I’ll have to wait and see on this. Maybe it will be fine, maybe it won’t. Maybe it will be great. My knee-jerk reaction was negative, but that’s how I (and most people) react to change. How many times have you reacted negatively when you heard about a change coming in your life, and then it turned out to be a really great thing?

Marty Sklar’s assurances do provide some hope. However, your responding comments are right on target! You as always express the feelings of thousands of fans.

Look at the Pooh attraction replacing the Country Bears or how empty the Rivers of America are without the Keel Boats and Fort Wilderness. Look at how Tomorrowland 1998 fell flat and how the land that is “always on the move” is now so static. At least we have the classic white Space Mountain back. Do I have to remind you about how shabbily Mary Blair’s Tomorrowland Murals were treated? And just where is Mr. Lincoln? I could go on, but you get the picture.

So you can see how we fans feel twice (or more) burned. Now you’ll have to, as the Missourians say, “Show me”.

Yep, we fans want ‘Show’ to come first. If the changes are in-keeping with the story and vision of the attraction and not just the addition of some Disney characters, then great. Show us. What we’ve heard so far, in rumors and bits and pieces, is not in keeping with the original story of the attraction at all.

It would be great if some concept art or examples of how the new dolls will look could be provided. At the start of this controversy, Disneyland released an image of Mary Blair’s Alice sketch, which was not at all in keeping with the look and feel of the ‘it’s a small world’ attraction. That went a long way to fanning the flames. Then the pictures of IASW out of Hong Kong Disneyland surfaced and, frankly, those weren’t so bad. At least when they were just Disney character costumes placed on the typical child dolls of IASW. But the instances where the typical child doll format wasn’t followed (Woody and Bullseye and Stitch come to mind) were awful. Those uses are not in keeping with the spirit or design of the attraction and don’t belong in “it’s a small world”.

Marty, when you wrote

“Now the rumors are swirling that we are ‘ruining Walt’s creation.’ I’ve heard that we are planning to remove the rainforest, add Mickey and Minnie Mouse, create an ‘Up with America’ tribute, to effectively ‘marginalize’ the Mary Blair style and Walt’s classic (all not true).”

I hope we can take you at your word that the opposite is true. The rainforest stays or is plussed. No Mickey and Minnie (except maybe as hidden mickeys). No America tribute (after all we’re the hosts, we don’t need to be prominent in the attraction), and that all the changes will be exactly as if Mary Blair (and Alice Davis for the costumes, I might add) designed them for the original attraction (no Hong Kong Woody or Stitch).

While you’re at it. How about a nice Main Street window ceremony for both Mary and Alice. It’s been long enough. They should be honored.

No one is against change. But we’re cautious so that we can make sure the change is for the better. Is it possible to tastefully layer in some Disney character experiences to ‘it’s a small world’? Sure. But it also would be very easy to shift the focus away from the message of “A Children’s Prayer for World Peace and Unity” that the original attraction provided.

Now we shall wait and see.