GB

I know that my 6 year old daughter gains new respect for the countries at Epcot when she can sees various characters that are specific to that country. It provides a starting point for discussing that country when she sees Alice in England or Mulan in China. The same thing will work for its a small world.

I agree with just about everyone that getting rid of the rainforest is wrong on many levels and hope we don’t see that.

What a double-edges sword.

Dave – I may have been trying to do too much in my post and muddled things in the process. There were really two kinds of change Walt did: doing something new, and plussing. When he did something new it was usually on empty land within the Park; when he “replaced” something, it was usually with a similar theme but dramatically improved (with a few exceptions, like the Mickey Mouse Club Circus becoming the Junior Autopia). Of course Walt plussed things, but not on a small scale. Your examples demonstrate this.

The part John quoted was mostly about whether “it’s a small world” would have long ago been replaced by something else. Based on other changes by Walt to improve on his creations rather than to replace all but the big failures, I think it would be.

We dont want an easy way out. There were plenty of characters around when Walt created Its a Small World. But guess what? He didnt put them into the attraction. He created characters out of nothing, and let them be an attraction among themselves.

Why after SO MANY FAILED attempts, does Disney STILL feel putting characters in a ride is a way to “update it” or “make it more interesting”. We were promised a good update with the Tiki Room and its TERRIBLE and I dont know anyone who disagrees. We were promised an update to Alien Encounter, to make it more kid friendly. I dont know any kids who enjoy sitting through that mess. Thats just citing 2 of these “necessary character updates”

I agree they will have (another) marketing nightmare on their hands if gut the rainforest.

On another note its sad they theyve dumbed the public down so much to think that they will only enjoy rides with Disney Characters in them. Disneyland was built on themes, not characters. And themes will continue to drive people places.

I understand their reasoning. I dont ride Its a Small World. It will get people in there… but only for a short while. And then it will be that ride for kids with the annoying song, and youll have ruined the ‘classicness’ that it once had. Reducing it down to the eye roll I give the tiki room when i walk by it. As an AP and a stockholder, im really dissapointed.

More than anything, this change seems like the straw that broke the camel’s back. Disney fans have been putting up with sloppy, half-hearted and poorly thought-out “improvements” for a long time now, not to mention the overall decline in maintenance and upkeep, the blatant money-grabbing, attractions being shut down with no replacements, and so on.

Personally, I’m astounded that THIS is the outcry Disney chose to respond publicly to, but I guess it’s the last straw on their part as well. Hopefully they’ll start to realize that these online protests represent more than the opinion of a few hardcore fans and purists and that, rather, the company is on the wrong track and has been for some time.

I don’t believe Disney owes the fans any proof of their actions or samples of what they are planning. I for one often feel that leaked information taints the magic of it all. Disney is a company and other than the stock-holders doesn’t need to explain themselves to anyone.

They’ll do what they’re doing and we’ll either be unhappy or thrilled, or perhaps indifferent, but until then it’s all speculation.

I mean there’s something really fishy going on here because no way would Disney go into this without knowing the PR nightmare they were walking into and having a better strategy for combating it. They send out Dave Smith without even telling him what all they were doing? There’s something else going on here we don’t know yet and I don’t like the possibilities…

If your one to follow the “insiders” then story is one of a lot of internal politics and fighting. One, that I myself find to be usually reliable, even claims that Tony Baxter and Kim Irvine are not involved the way that Marty Sklar states.

All that is being asked for as an answer to “Why?” Saying it will make the attraction more relevant and “Disneyland will never be complete” is not much of an answer. Dave Smith’s response to Laughing Place just makes this change look like the result of an automated process and not innovation and creativity.

But it should be clear that I, and many many others, feel very passionate about how wrong this is on multiple levels. So we’re using what voice we have to say “this is enough Disney you’ve gone too far.”

They’ve gone too far in their ‘character invasion’ of the parks; too far in the addition of an America scene and diminishing of the rainforest; and now too far in sending out Marty Sklar and Dave Smith to flame with weak arguments the very people who are most passionate about their products.

On my part it really is nothing personal. It’s an idealogical fight and reasonable people can agree to disagree on a few issues and remain committed to the over all thrust of the mission. In this case making Disney Magic for centuries to come.

We may lose this fight on maintaining the original message and vision of “its a small world”, we probably will, but at least we know we tried.

Here’s the thing: By pursuing this point, all we’re doing is making Disney even more secretive from, and nakedly hostile to, their “superfans.” I scarcely thought it possible, but when Dave Smith pops out of the archives to put the smackdown on someone, you know that the company is becoming galvanized.

We need to pick our battles – to keep the heat on Disney to drive out the Vacation Club hucksters, pollsters and ODV carts, to get rid of Fastpass and the multiple levels of Annual Pass structure, to make sure that the Park is clean and beautiful and to keep admission and food prices down where families can afford them. This is a battle we can’t win, at least not through these means. If you truly want to send Disney a message, stop giving them money. The only place Disney can hear us is through their coffers.

For the record, I oppose removing the rainforest — but I am ambivalent to the addition of Disney characters. I will wait and see, and if I don’t like what the Imagineers have wrought, then I’ll make a case. Hard to get bent out of shape over something I haven’t yet seen. Besides, if I wanted to live in a static and unchanging Disneyland, I would stay home with my memories, which only get better with every passing year.

I apologize for this tastelessly long-winded response. As I said before, I have enjoyed this blog for several years, and will continue to. But I can’t protest something that two men who worked directly with Walt seem to be in favor of — not without seeing it with our own eyes.

Let’s give the Flower Street mob a chance. The changes, as I understand them, are relatively minor. The minute they replace the Sherman Brothers with Justin Timberlake, we can hit the picket lines … and I’ll join you.