AP preview of enhanced "it's a small world"

[Tiggerlives]

That whole argument about "exposure to other cultures" doesn't even make sense when you apply it to the international versions of the attraction.

That's kinda where I was going =)

[refurbmike]

And there's a Japan in the Tokyo version

The above argument can be made again: Disneyland Tokyo is sponsored by who? Golden rule still applies.

[1FoolishMortal]

So as long as a sponsoring company demands their home country be included then it's okay? Why then is a USA section so bad in the domestic versions?

[club33az]

And why is it completely acceptable to be "very happy" about changes you haven't seen yet, but when somebody speaks negatively about it - they get ridiculed with, "Well, you haven't been on it yet, so how could you possibly know?"

The nip and the tuck part of my comment was aimed to the parts we can see. The outside.

And there is a huge difference in what we're saying. What Spokker is saying is that he is boycotting all of Disneyland based on something he's never even seen. He (and many others from a website that shall go meaningless) have stated what they don't like about it without even seeing it. I'm saying from what I've heard about it, I think it'll be good. But I'm not going to say for sure one way or the other until I actually experience it for myself. I can't. Some people don't seem to have such compunctions, though.

I have absolutely zero problem with someone saying they absolutely hate the new additions to IASW after they've ridden it and, at the very least, know what they're talking about. I mean, first hand. Not what they've heard from a certain website owner that has delusions of superiority or seen pictures of what they do somewhere else. That can't take the place of experiencing it firsthand. What it DOES do, though, is set the person up to hate it from the very beginning. If someone go into IASW, totally expecting.... no, not expecting, WANTING it to suck, that's what they're going to get. Does anyone who's read Spokker's posts on IASW expect, at all, that he'll come out of that attraction with a glowing new appreciation for the additions made to it? And why not? Because he's already made up his mind, without even experiencing it, that it's going to be awful. He's already got a chip on his shoulder the size of Camelback Mountain that aint going to be removed any time soon.

Some people find this form of pre-judging things to be perfectly acceptable. I don't.

[Spokker]

And there's a Japan in the Tokyo version, a whole bunch of additional Asian countries in the HKDL version that don't even appear elsewhere, etc., etc. That whole argument about "exposure to other cultures" doesn't even make sense when you apply it to the international versions of the attraction.

Disneyland Paris has a great Small World in my opinion. But what is good for DLP or TDL isn't necessarily good for DL.

I wouldn't agree with putting a Tokyo section in the Tokyo version of It's a Small World. But they did it and the Japanese don't seem to care so whatever. But, you know, experiment in the other parks is what I'm saying. You have to be a little more lenient with the original park because of its rich history. They take advantage of that rich history whenever they can (50th to say the least), but they don't really seem to respect its history, at least based on what I see.

[club33az]

So as long as a sponsoring company demands their home country be included then it's okay? Why then is a USA section so bad in the domestic versions?

Yeah, I don't get this argument either. Did Walt ever specifically state he categorically did not want the USA represented in IASW?

[club33az]

Disneyland Paris has a great Small World in my opinion. But what is good for DLP or TDL isn't necessarily good for DL.

I wouldn't agree with putting a Tokyo section in the Tokyo version of It's a Small World. But they did it and the Japanese don't seem to care so whatever. But, you know, experiment in the other parks is what I'm saying. You have to be a little more lenient with the original park because of its rich history. They take advantage of that rich history whenever they can (50th to say the least), but they don't really seem to respect its history, at least based on what I see.

I think you meant to say you have to be a little more stringent with the original park, not lenient.
So, what you're saying is that you DO want Disneyland to be a museum? In other words, go completely against Walt's vision of plussing attractions and lands because of its history?

[club33az]

But, you know, experiment in the other parks is what I'm saying.

And what happens, in this experimentation phase at other parks, if something works really well? Should not the flagship of the Disney theme parks incorporate those changes as well? Or should we not do that and let Disneyland stagnate because of it's "history?"

[refurbmike]

So as long as a sponsoring company demands their home country be included then it's okay?

No, the opposite actually. But sadly, in this world, money talks.

[refurbmike]

Yeah, I don't get this argument either. Did Walt ever specifically state he categorically did not want the USA represented in IASW?

He may have, but I don't know. I can only imagine the idea was presented to him at one point. But did he ever categorically state he didn't want guns mounted onto every boat and have the dolls used as target practice? Probably not. However, we can assume what he wanted by what... wait for it... he approved and had built.