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.

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.

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 - 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…

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?