[Ghoulish Delight]

See, that's why, while I'm wary that iSm may be correct, I'm not assuming doom, I'm more in a wait and see mode. Because when we went to Paris, I had no idea what the differences between the Parisian and Anaheimian versions of Pirates and Mansion were. So I really experienced them as new-to-me attractions. And I thoroughly enjoyed them, and felt that they lived up to their conuterparts. The differences were executed with quality and good creative thought. So I know it's possible for it to be different, yet still excellent.

But I'm a little worried that the recent changes are a little too slap-dash to stand the test of time. Wedged into an existing ride like that, it could disrupt everything. It's one thing to build the ride from the ground up with those kinds of differences. It's another to make major alterations to an existing attraction. Much higher chance of creative clash in that case.

In the park, we had discussed the question of whether "new is good", "new is always good", "classic is good", "upgraded is good", etc. In the end, we realized there was only one statement that holds true 100% of the time. "Good is good." New or old, upgraded or replaced, if something is done well, it's going to show. I worry that these changes rely too much on a "new is good" concept vs "good is good".