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

[KNRG]

I think the America scene is ugly and doesn't match the look of the rest of the attraction.

I'm a huge fan of Mary Blair's art and style, and i don't recall any of her work looking like much of that scene.

[club33az]

So you've seen ALL of her work, KNRG?

[club33az]

China and the Philippines sound like good additions that keep with the original message and theme of Small World.

Nobody said that Small World should stay in its original form. Opponents of the changes want good changes.

It is a good change.

First, I would have to ask someone more familiar with the backroom dealings of Disney in the 60s than I if that is an accurate story.

And even if it is, it doesn't prove anything. There could be a reason why those designs never made it into the attraction in the first place.

You'd rather believe Al Lutz than the L.A. Times? Brother, please! What are Al's sources? Oh, that's right, we don't know.

[refurbmike]

And even if it is, it doesn't prove anything. There could be a reason why those designs never made it into the attraction in the first place.

Exactly. We shouldn't take every drawing made for Disneyland and start making them into reality. There's a reason things got rejected. Obviously money wasn't an issue, since the ride actually got built - and I can't imagine it costing much more money to build a flat barn instead of a flat something else.

You'd rather believe Al Lutz than the L.A. Times? Brother, please! What are Al's sources? Oh, that's right, we don't know.

Actually, I'd rather believe a snail on the ground than the L.A. Times, but that's another story.

So what're the Times' sources?

http://travel.latimes.com/daily-deal...orld-rid-1530/

[club33az]

Exactly. We shouldn't take every drawing made for Disneyland and start making them into reality. There's a reason things got rejected. Obviously money wasn't an issue, since the ride actually got built - and I can't imagine it costing much more money to build a flat barn instead of a flat something else.

Perhaps Walt rejected it? The point is that it was considered and the Imagineers DID use a Mary Blair design to creat the new US scene.

So what're the Times' sources?

http://travel.latimes.com/daily-deal...orld-rid-1530/

I'd say offhand it'd be Kim Irvine.
And why did you provide a link to an LA Times article from May of '08? I mean, half the info in the article is wrong.

[KNRG]

If that's so wonderfully true - where's the sketch? Why isn't it in the article?

Likely because it's a half truth. I've seen many of Mary Blair's original drawings for small world live and in person and none of them remotely resemble what appears in the America scene in style or content.

They probably pulled out a few thumbnail sketches of ideas and are using those as if they justify the whole scene - heck it could be a single child in that scene which is her design. An indian and a cowboy have existed for years in WDW's small world.

[club33az]

Because, unfortunately, KNRG, the LA Times article wasn't about answering Disney geek questions. It was a puff piece to tell the public that IASW was open and maybe give a little background. If you are so interested in that part of the article, email the reporter.

But, hey, don't let a little common sense get in the way of a perfectly super little conspiracy theory.

[refurbmike]

Perhaps Walt rejected it?

Great theory.

I'd say offhand it'd be Kim Irvine. And why did you provide a link to an LA Times article from May of '08? I mean, half the info in the article is wrong.

Sorry. Let me quote that which I figured you might have read:

Disney Imagineers are considering changes to Small World that include adding Mickey Mouse, Minnie Mouse, Peter Pan, Belle, Simba, Nemo, Lilo and Stitch to locations throughout the ride while replacing the Papua, New Guinea, rain forest scene with an American tribute, reported MiceAge’s Al Lutz.

So YOUR source is citing Al Lutz as their source.

[1FoolishMortal]

^ You're citing an old article written by a completely different author (a blogger, if we're getting into specifics). Just because one author/blogger uses Lutz as his source doesn't mean the entire paper does.

[refurbmike]

^ You're citing an old article written by a completely different author (a blogger, if we're getting into specifics). Just because one author/blogger uses Lutz as his source doesn't mean the entire paper does.

Again, quotes are good. Club said:

You'd rather believe Al Lutz than the L.A. Times?

The fact is, the Times staff writers use Al Lutz as a source. So if he's going to question Lutz, he better question the Times as well.