My take on the It’s A Small World hubbub
We generally don’t discuss Disneyland that much on Mouse Extra as much as we should. And I certainly try not to discuss the Re-Imagineering blog, whether we agree with it or not, as it clearly has a one-sided agenda. But they posted a letter yesterday from Kevin Blair, the son of Imagineering legend Mary Blair, lambasting rumors of changes to It’s A Small World. It has become the talk of the Disney internet community and I just couldn’t help but comment on it.
I would suggest you read the entire letter, but the part that is making the most waves deals with a rumor that WDI may insert Disney characters and remove the rainforest sequence while adding a patriotic tribute to America.
My Mother and I have always had a strong sense of patriotism for America and I DO support a tribute to America. Disneyland has several venues, which are perfect places for this tribute including “Main Street USA” or “New Orleans Square”; unfortunately the “It’s a Small World” ride is NOT one of them. Once again this will marginalize the children of the world theme and bastardize my Mother’s original art. Furthermore ripping out a rainforest (Imaginary or otherwise) and replacing it with misplaced patriotism is a public relations blunder so big you could run a Monorail through it.
First, we obviously have some political overtones in this statement with regards to the rainforest area. Saying it will be a public relations blunder is assuming that folks will see some symbolism into the change that reflects upon certain conservation issues. That may be the case for some, but I am not so sure that the majority of guests are going to walk away from the ride thinking Imagineers are a bunch of planet killers. Disney actually does a lot for conservation, especially at the Animal Kingdom, and I don’t think their efforts in saving the real rainforest are going to be trumped because they dismantled a cardboard one.
The other thing that truly drives me nuts is this “misplaced patriotism” statement. I’m sorry, but has Kevin Blair seen these plans? I don’t believe he has, so how can he possibly judge it as misplaced? It may very well turn out to be terrific and fit in perfectly.
No, the issue here is not misplaced patriotism or saving the rainforest. It’s about purism. These other issues are simply rationalizations for saving the classic ride from a major refurbishment regardless of whether or not the changes are for the better. Here is the next paragraph.
As a former WED employee I am saddened to realize the degradation of the company’s talent and focus and the subsequent decline at the Disneyland Park itself. I cannot believe someone from WDI was paid to come up with such an idiotic plan as this.
An idiotic plan? How do you know it even is a plan? Has WDI announced something? No, they have not. These conclusions have been reached on a completely conceptual basis and are not rooted in hard information. It’s an internet rumor! Is that truly enough to slam WDI like this?
I can’t help but be reminded of my favorite Diane Disney-Miller quote…
“…with the park, it’s something you could change, something that can grow. But the people who really love it won’t let them change any of the old attractions. I don’t think he ever thought that would happen.”
I understand the children of Mrs. Blair want her terrific creations to endure forever, but that is simply not the Disney way. For better or for worse, Walt wanted time to march on inside the park. I know this may not be a popular notion among Disney purists, but it is what it is.
Randy said,
March 21, 2008 @ 2:17 am
I agree that it seems people are getting worked up over something that they don’t even know will happen. Disneyland is not a museum and if WDI decides to update the attraction, the general public will decide whether or not it was a good move, not a bunch of crazed fans.
The opinions of the Disney fantatics (of which I am one) remind me of movie reviewers who will pan many movies that the public enjoys seeing.
Dude said,
March 21, 2008 @ 7:57 pm
Okay, I’m confused. You wrote:
But if Disney really wants to combat the other parks they need something fresh and new, not the destruction of something that is already a huge hit. Don’t waste your time changing an attraction that is already successful into something that may potentially not be as successful or loyally loved. Instead, invest in a new e-ticket with the marketing power and wide appeal of Expedition Everest, Soarin, or Test Track. Add a new land to the Animal Kingdom or, build a coaster to the new Pixar section at the Studios. That will grab the people’s attention.
And now you say that people defending things that already work are “purists,” as if it’s a bad thing. Okay…
David said,
March 22, 2008 @ 9:10 pm
Because the two are not at all related. Most of Small World project is upkeep and capacity driven. The stuff that has drawn this type of anger is small in comparison to the whole ride. I see this more along the lines of HM or PotC.
Space Mountain is an attempt to make a serious splash to combat competition. To me, those funds are better spent on additions. That project is a matter of where to spend cash, more than a purist agenda to save the old Space Mountain. That’s why I say an HM or PotC style refurb would be fine.
Dude said,
March 24, 2008 @ 1:57 pm
What about a Disneyland-style Space Mountain upgrade? Or is that too much?
Raidermatt said,
March 26, 2008 @ 8:04 am
David, and I ask this seriously, why is it that you insist on labeling anybody who disagrees with a change to a “classic” attraction as a purist (we all know that you use the term in a dismissive manner)?
First of all, it appears the “rumor” has been confirmed. http://travel.latimes.com/daily-deal-blog/?p=1552. I’d keep in mind that the artwork released is probably the one that WDI felt would be the least intrusive to supporters of the current ride.
That said, can you, or anyone, give me a strong creative reason for needing to insert Disney characters into the ride? (Before saying anything about relevance, keep in mind that Disney’s Alice in Wonderland film was released 13 years before IASW opened.)
The ride has remained extremely popular, even moreso at DL and at WDW, and it’s themes are no less relevant today.
Can anyone seriously put forth a reason other than another crass marketing ploy?
David said,
March 26, 2008 @ 11:44 am
Dude - again, I have no problem with that. But that is not something that should be done as an earth shattering-competition blasting project.. There are other possibilities available within the massive space at WDW.
Raidermatt - because Disneyland is not a museum. And things shouldn’t stay the same just for the sake of nostalgia. You have no idea if the new finished product will be better or worse. (I find it sort of funny that the posting you highlight ALSO uses the phrase “purists”.)
This concept seems like a good one to me. I think it will work great and inject some new and fun life in the ride. What’s wrong with that? It looks subtle, artistically appropriate, and respectful to Mrs. Blair’s original work. What’s wrong with tweaking it a bit and adding something that may excite some of the younger riders?
I feel a posting coming…
Raidermatt said,
March 26, 2008 @ 5:40 pm
Sure you feel a posting coming, because deep down, I think you do “get it”. It’s just that being truthful about what Disney has become doesn’t win you a lot of points in the internet fan community.
Purist in and of itself doesn’t carry a negative connotation. Yes, lots of articles use the term. But they usually use it at face value. You do not, which is why I posed the question to you.
I said nothing of leaving the ride as it is for nostalgic purposes. There is not a single ride that I would ever say needs to be left alone because of it’s historical signifigance, so that’s not going to work here.
Excite younger riders? By adding characters from a movie 13 years older than the ride? I realize there will be newer characters as well, but exciting younger riders is not an issue with IASW. The young ones are it’s sweet spot. They love it. And since Disney is apparently not changing the overall feel of the ride, those who hate it and want to take a baseball bat to all the dolls aren’t going to be appeased either.
How many of these characters makeovers have to occur before we can all admit they aren’t being done simply to plus our experience, but rather to try to sell us more DVDs and plush?
Really, when some “purist” suggests that Disney offer more value they are attacked by dozens of fans telling them Disney is a business and has to please stockholders and has to focus on expanding it’s revenue growth just like every other company, yada, yada, yada. Yet when somebody suggests Disney might be applying that same kind of spreadsheet analysis decision making to an attraction, all of a sudden Disney becomes a company that would never stick characters in front of us simply to promote it’s brands and cross-sell products.
There simply is no other logical reason to make this move. The changes aren’t enough to appreciably change the appeal of the ride. In that sense I guess we should be thankful. At least we won’t get a Tiki Room Under New Management or Stitch’s Encounter.
But look around. Almost everything Disney is doing in the parks has to have character tie-ins now. All of the announced DCA changes, Toy Story Mania, Laugh Floor, Buzz, Stitch’s Encounter, Donald in Mexico, Nemo in The Living Seas, Nemo in the DL Subs, Nemo Musical, Cap’n Jack in PotC. They’ve even added Mickey’s name to the struggling Pirate and Princess party.
And now IASW.
Yes, there are a few exceptions. Space Mountain (DL), Mansion and SE got refurbs without adding Stitch or Nemo, and EE opened a few years ago, but these types of examples are getting more and more rare. Certainly they are the exception now.
If you don’t mind that this is what Disney has become, ok, that’s fine. To each his/her own. Certainly if we tried to avoid all crass marketing ploys we wouldn’t be able to leave our homes or turn on a TV. But to deny it’s happening, and to claim it’s all just to inject fun into our experiences… well, I know you know better than that.
Raidermatt said,
March 28, 2008 @ 11:38 pm
A few parts of that last post came across a little more confrontational than I’d like. Sorry about that. I do essentially mean what I said, but I probably could have said it differently.
Anonymous said,
March 29, 2008 @ 3:45 pm
I agree with you, Dave.
Besides, the DL IaSW changes with the character additions and rainforest removal are only rumors–I too have been trying to get that point across recently without much success.
Even the company has confirmed that characters will not overrun the DL attraction and that it will not become a carbon copy of the Hong Kong Disneyland version of IaSW, which is opening on April 28th.
The character appearances are going to be exclusive to HKDL’s version, as confirmed by such official sources as HKDL’s current ambassador.
And, last but not least, not every thing that Disney does (including character-based attraction makeovers and whatnot) is done for commercial reasons–they’re done for entertainment more than anything! Disney is NOT an evil corporation that only cares about money! End of story.
Raidermatt said,
March 31, 2008 @ 8:26 am
It’s interesting how defensive some get when it comes to Disney.
I guess Mr./Mrs. Anonymous didn’t catch this part of my post, but the characters going into DL’s Small World are no longer a rumor. Disney has confirmed it. In addition to the link I posted earlier, here’s another one. http://www.latimes.com/news/science/environment/la-fi-smallworld29mar29,1,2888579.story?track=rss
It’s funny, I never said anything about Disney being evil. I questioned the wisdom of their decision, yes, and also pointed out the obvious changes to the way they do things, but said nothing about them being “evil”.
Of course they have changed they way they look at attractions and even the parks as a whole. There is nothing inherently good or evil about that. It’s simply a different way of doing business.
Sure, I think the new way is unfortunate in that (A) it NEVER would have resulted in the building of the Disney company so many love today if it had been employed from the beginning, and (B) it represents a tremendous missed opportunity for the company as it moves forward.
Beyond that, on a personal level it does sadden me to see what has happened.
But it’s not about good and evil. There’s enough real-life situations involving that kind of thing all around us. Disney is merely a company. It used to be a company that believed in a different way of doing business and it backed up that belief with talent and hard work. Now, it runs like most other corporations.
I know the feeling that stirs in many. I felt it too before I realized it was true, and I did sometimes lash out at those who talked about it. The truth isn’t always pleasant.
On the plus side, understanding what is really happening does free you up from feeling as if you have to defend the virtue of Disney. You can enjoy Disney for what it is, and not have to find ways to fit round pegs into square holes.