LOL sorry, I charge for my time. Why say in 5 words what you can say in 50. So sue me ;)

lol! :D
Oh you crazy guys with the long words and the big vocabulary and all them legal jargons. You an iSm should write a textbook.
:D

I realize it's not rational for me to expect them to be making rational decisions, but it was the only context I could imagine that would lead to someone thinking that was actually a good idea. I can't say I can agree with it, but if it was a Blaired-out Peter Pan flying around Big Ben, I could see some people thinking that was a way to add "Disney" to iasw.

(yes, I know iasw is plenty "Disney" on its own, but the powers that be, playing to an audience that apparently sees "Disney" as a world exclusively populated by direct-to-DVD animations, evidently disagree.)

Add Prudence to the law textbook writing team.
:D

Ugh, it just points out a bigger problem. That the cretins in charge don't realize how much Disneyland says Disney.


You do not need to put Goofy in the Haunted Mansion. The Haunted Mansion says Disney. Johnny Depp was not necessary. Pirates of the Caribbean says Disney. And yes, I know that's not the reason he's there ... I'm just sayin'.


it's a small world is about as Disney as it gets. It's also about as kid-appealling an attraction as Walt Disney ever created, even without Mickey Mouse and Simba. That's why I think it's exempt from any ill-conceived Alex Rule of 20-Years. There's always a new batch of 6 year olds. No need to reinvent this ride. The tike audience is always new. And the adult audience has the sophistication to appreciate it without a flaming loop being installed along the deeper flume.

Do you think that 20 years from now the adults raised on todays technology and media would? Is it too simple for them to appreciate?

Perhaps, if they visited while 6 and it brings back memeories from their youth, otherwise I think not. When the ride first opened TVs and muscle cars were still new ideas. The biggest thrills were the massive wooden roller coasters on the boardwalks around the countries. And I can't imagin what IASW will compete with 20 years from now. Online holigraphic theme parks perhaps?

Now mind you I'm not saying that the shamefull Disney branding of the ride will save it from the wrecking ball, but it may just bring a little new life to it. Oh, and by Blairifing it, I mean that if someone had never been on it before, they would think the Disney characters had always been there, that's all. To not have them stick out like a sore thumb.

Why would the adults of 20 years from now be looking for thrills? Are they somehow going to be even less adult than the adults of today? Will lifespans reaching prod people to stay adolescent through their 50's?

I hate to say this .... because it makes Disneyland seem like a museum. But perhaps more than any attraction, the unique stylings of Mary Blair make a trip thru small world enjoyable for the exploration of art, not thrills. There's also the exploration of joy and the exploration of the world in a fun way. These are adult pursuits, and I don't see them changing in 20 years even if the dolls remain real and not holograms.


In fact, the more things go to holograms and 3-D movie screens, the more the wonder of elaborate physically created environments becomes fantastical in the extreme.

I agree with IsM. But I want to add that not all adults want thrills. Some of us are quite happy with simple delight.

What about ghoulish delight?

We're happy with him, too. ;)