Future Plans For WDW's Fantasyland

[Big Disney Fan]

I think that Snow White coaster looks neat. I wonder what the cottage is for, however. I could see them using it as a meet-n-greet for the Seven Dwarfs.

[Disney Duster]

It's interesting they called Cinderella's attraction "Dreams Come True with Cinderella", because that did sound like one of my dreams come true.

And now Disney killed the dream.

Don't any of you guys who thought there was "too much little girl focus" agree that all this really is is just making Dumbo bigger and turning two princess attractions into one? They really could have kept the two princess attractions with Snow White's, don't you guys see that?

Also, I don't get how people will be able to walk through Snow White's location. If the mine coaster goes all the way through that whole area, how will people be able to walk through it? Now, if they made half of that area a Sleeping Beauty cottage with a roller coaster that goes from one half of the cottage 9the other half is open to a meet and greet) all the way through an Eyvind Earle styled forest (passing by Aurora and animals and Phillip dancing) to Maleficent's domain and/or a thorny mountain cliff where we see Phillip fighting the dragon, then that would be worth sacrficing the ability to walk through those areas.

Similarly, I hope that one half of the cottage let's the mine train pass through to see the dwarfs dancing and playing instruments and then the witch giving Snow White the apple, like on Scary Adventures which is now closing. Actually, the could even make one of the underground "inside the mountain" parts of the ride be the witch's dungeon to have her transforming and poison apple scenes, that makes enough sense, right? Oh, wouldn't that be cool?

Anyway, here's a look at inside the Snow White mine train:
Click here to go inside the Seven Dwarfs' Mine Train

In that link, on the official artwork sign, they spelled Dwarfs' wrong. They put the apostrophe after Dwarf. Like it's one dwarf. The Seven Dwarf. Disney's not thinking in more ways than one.

[Big Disney Fan]

Anyway, here's a look at inside the Snow White mine train:
Click here to go inside the Seven Dwarfs' Mine Train

In that link, on the official artwork sign, they spelled Dwarfs' wrong. They put the apostrophe after Dwarf. Like it's one dwarf. The Seven Dwarf. Disney's not thinking in more ways than one.

I just hope that that's not the official name when it opens and that they actually do call it "Dwarfs' Mine", not "Dwarf's Mine". That does seem a little awkward. Even dropping the apostrophe completely and calling it "Dwarfs Mine" wouldn't be too out place.

[DisneyAnimation88]

I have to ask but would you be as bothered about this if the Cinderella attraction hadn't been abandoned?

My opinion is that if they had been actual rides based on Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty, I would have had no problem. As a male in my 20's, being told a story by Cinderella and making cards for Aurora doesn't interest me and obviously Disney also saw that as a problem. They might have looked nice to walk through but would that have been enough of a long-term draw for guests? The thing that I like about the Dumbo area is the concept of the interactive queue in the big tent so I'm not too bothered about the size of the circus area when Disney seem to have left room for new attractions if they want to add any. I think the mine coaster looks brilliant and, perhaps solely for sentimental reasons, I think there should be at least one Snow White attraction in Magic Kingdom given the prestige of the film and it's importance in the company's history.

[FigmentJedi]

I'd rather like a Sleeping Beauty dark ride to take the spot of Scary Adventures. Was actually in the original Magic Kingdom plans.

Putting the Snuggly Duckling into the forest area somewhere as a Fantasyland counterpart to the Golden Horseshoe would be great too. And definitely expand on Wonderland a little.

I also like the idea of the Sleeping Beauty dark ride taking that spot, and perhaps also being a meet and greet, but I guess that would fit more in the expanded Fantasyland forest idea.

But as for the Snuggly Duckling, that idea is already pretty much done with Gaston's Tavern, don'tcha think?

That's why I'm thinking Golden Horseshoe for the feel. Give it a bit of "dinner theater" with various pub thugs putting on different acts and that'll give it more of it's own identity from Gaston's.

[Disney Duster]

Hey, you still didn't answer my questions, guys!

DisneyAnimation, if they left Cinderella's show, I wouldn't be upset because we'd still have a good amount of rides, but did you realize that they removed two attractions to only expand one already existing attraction (Dumbo, which is already just an expansion of old Dumbo) and the new attraction is really just like the two princess house attractions with a coaster?

No one thinks we should go into the Queen's dungeon or have a coaster for Sleeping Beauty with Maleficent's dungeon and a dragon fight?

FigmentJedi, do you really think we need another restaraunt, which is still a lot like Gaston's, or do you just want to have the Snuggly Duckling because you like it so much? If it's just cause you want one so much, that's okay, but I just wanna know.

[FigmentJedi]

Eh, it's mostly because I can't really think of park-able stuff from the movie that can still fit in the expansion space that's not just a meet and greet.

[DisneyAnimation88]

but did you realize that they removed two attractions to only expand one already existing attraction (Dumbo, which is already just an expansion of old Dumbo) and the new attraction is really just like the two princess house attractions with a coaster?

Yes I did realise that, it's pretty obvious when you look at the plans. The Dumbo area isn't just two Dumbo rides though is it, it will have the Barnstormer and the interactive big tent so I don't think it's necessarily a waste of space, and the area doesn't look to be particularly big. It's replacing Toontown anyway so I'm sure if Disney had wanted to build the two abandoned Princess attractions, they could have done so.

As for the mine coaster, I will go out on a limb and say the majority of people will prefer that to throwing a birthday party for Cinderella. I think the only way we would see a Cinderella attraction would be if they made a dark ride similar to the current Snow White ride. For me, it is more than worth sacrificing the Cinderella show, which had a limited appeal for a wide demographic of guests, for the mine coaster.

Put a coaster in the Sleeping Beauty cottage and I would have no problem with that but I don't think it would happen. With the success of Tangled, I can't help thinking that Disney will use the space they kept to perhaps put in Rapunzel's tower and an attraction. At the D23 expo when the expansion was announced, Lasseter was asked if Rapunzel would be a part of it and he answered that Disney would wait to see how the film was received so, judging by the response to it, a Tangled attraction wouldn't surprise me.

[Disney Duster]

Yea, but you got one thing wrong. Cinderella's attraction wasn't a birthday party (though I don't understand why girls and boys wouldn't both like birthday parties, or adults for that matter, if there was cake and food it could have been like a restaraunt in a way). Cinderella's attraction was watching the Fairy Godmother magically transform her, then meet her, and then dance with her (girls would like) or become knights (boys would like). They already actually made the transforming effect and said it was stunning.

What if it was actually more like a magic show, and then if you didn't have kids, you could just skip the dancing and knight training (unless you wanted to do it!) or explore the house?

[DisneyAnimation88]

Considering WDW is facing some major competition now, I thought from the beginning that an awful lot of money was being spent on an area that would look nice but wouldn't have much to do and the Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty attractions were a big part of that feeling. Does a teenage boy want to sit and watch Cinderella get a nice dress or do they want to ride a roller coaster? Disney has to offer something for everything which is the reason they gave for making the changes they have; I believe the executive in charge actually said he decided to make the changes as his sons felt that there wouldn't be much to do in the expansion.

The bottom line is Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty are gone and, for me, the expansion has a better balance now. We are getting two rides rather than elaborate meet-and-greets, and ultimately I think rides are one thing that offer appeal to everyone, not particular demographics. The princesses are still getting a nice, new meet-and-greet area so it's not like Cinderella and Aurora are being wiped from the expansion completely.

What if it was actually more like a magic show, and then if you didn't have kids, you could just skip the dancing and knight training (unless you wanted to do it!) or explore the house?

With everything there is to do in WDW, would a significant number of adults go to a magic show? Take out the elements for children and you end up with the same problem it had anyway: your trying to appeal to a certain demographic, in this case, adults. Maybe Disney thought they couldn't find the balance in appealing to everyone with these attractions, which is why they've decided to build a coaster instead.

[pinkrenata]

What if it was actually more like a magic show, and then if you didn't have kids, you could just skip the dancing and knight training (unless you wanted to do it!) or explore the house?

With everything there is to do in WDW, would a significant number of adults go to a magic show? Take out the elements for children and you end up with the same problem it had anyway: your trying to appeal to a certain demographic, in this case, adults. Maybe Disney thought they couldn't find the balance in appealing to everyone with these attractions, which is why they've decided to build a coaster instead.

Here's the other thing --even in a Disney park, where adults are supposedly able to act like kids, I have have it on pretty good authority (read: my own experiences) that attractions like the knight training, dancing, etc. really would just be limited to kids. An adult who tried to participate without a child of his or her own, would probably be regarded as a creeper and would be given strange looks from parents. Heck, when I was <b>12</b>, I had my hand slapped away by an angry mother because she thought I was budding in front of her younger child in line to get Donald Duck's autograph. Just like trick or treating, there comes a time when certain things just can't be done.

[Disney Duster]

It isn't watching Cinderella get a nice dress. It is watching magic happen before your very eyes. Any person, boy or girl, teenage or adult, would like that.

And we aren't getting much new. All we are getting is two attractions removed, and one new coaster. One. We're really getting less than there was going to be. If that's what you call balancing it out...

You know, I realize this has the potential to sound mean. But that's not my intention. I'm just saying what's really happening, and how this could be better.

We all know Disney could fit at least one of the deleted attractions back in.

[Big Disney Fan]

I'm most concerned about how Mickey and the gang will fit into the Expo Hall when Toontown Fair gets dipped.

I don't see how they can possibly convert the Expo Hall into living quarters for Mickey and the gang. It's an awkward position, right inside the park entrance. It's off to the side and I don't think people realize it's there. They're going in or out of the park and they're probably not thinking about doing anything right at that exact moment.

It's like with the Opera House at Disneyland where Mr. Lincoln is (which is in the same general vicinity as the Expo Hall). The location for that show is problematic. People are just walking in or leaving the park and are not thinking about doing attractions at that particular juncture. The hat shop next door actually does more business than the show does. This was why Disneyland tried time and time again to replace the sparsely-attended show, only to face opposition for fans whenever it does that.

So if Mr. Lincoln never did much business, how can they expect the Expo Hall to do better, even if it is in a different park?

[DisneyAnimation88]

I meant there's now balance in the entire expansion: we have the Snow White mine coaster, the Little Mermaid attraction and the Dumbo area, so we have more rides than we did before. There's the Beauty and the Beast dining experience which is said to be unlike anything Disney has done before and there is a big new princess meet-and-greet area. That's what I meant by balance, now we don't just have mainly elaborate meet-and-greets that would have appealed primarily to children. Your suggestions of also doing adult shows ultimately defeats the purpose of WDW appealing to entire families so I don't think that would ever happen. At the end of the day, if Disney wanted to keep Cinderella they would have. They haven't so that leads me to think that perhaps they had doubts over its appeal too.

I don't think your being mean, I think your assuming everyone wants what you want. We all have suggestions we think that would improve WDW but when all is said and done, its Disney who make the decisions and we can do nothing about it. Rumours on the internet suggest that Disney expect to add a Tangled area to the expansion so it's not impossible that one day we might also see the Cinderella attraction.

[Disney Duster]

This was why Disneyland tried time and time again to replace the sparsely-attended show, only to face opposition for fans whenever it does that.

How did fans prevent them from doing it?

DisneyAnimation, I completely forgot that you had said before that the head of this' sons didn't like the expansion. You will need to show me where you heard that, because the only thing I heard was that he had sons and he, himself, thought they wouldn't like the expansion as it was.

Also...I've said it so many times, I don't know how else I can say it. Nothing is new here, the only thing that happened is two attractions got taken away, and the princess meet and greet area got expanded to include one coaster, while Dumbo just got bigger.

I see that you do understand that they could put one of the deleted attractions back in, and actually they could probably put two back in. What I am saying is they have no good reason to not put them back in, because the park would still have all the boy-friendly things that you and others want.

And I did not mean have an "adult show", I meant that kids and adults would like to see magic, even if it is in a princess' house.

The new princess meet-and-greet is not what anyone wanted, because the original attractions were not just meet-and-greets, they had the show with magic for Cinderella and the birthday party for Aurora. Unless they do that in the new Princess Fairy Tale Hall, then it's not what any of us wanted. They already did the magic effect for Cinderella, now it won't be used. A lot of people wanted that show, not just me. They may not be speaking up now, but I've seen people say it here and many other places.

[DisneyAnimation88]

Also...I've said it so many times, I don't know how else I can say it. Nothing is new here, the only thing that happened is two attractions got taken away, and the princess meet and greet area got expanded to include one coaster, while Dumbo just got bigger. But they could fit in one of the attractions they got rid of. They could actually fit in two attractions they got rid of, and it would still have all the boy options that you and others want. I really want an expanation how you do not see that this is all possible.

I'm getting tired of saying this now as I think I've said it twice before; I KNOW THIS IS POSSBLE and there is land left but why would Disney fill it up now. It's a common practice in theme parks to leave land for future attractions which is why I said there are rumours they are planning a Tangled area. Disney aren't leaving land free for no reason, perhaps they have better ideas of what to put there than the Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty attractions.

http://www.diszine.com/content/fantasyl ... s-chairman

Read that and you will see that Disney blatantly said they were changing the expansion because of concern about its appeal, particularly: "And that does tend to skew towards girls. … We’ve kept that intact — not exactly, necessarily, the way it was presented, but that appeal is there,” Staggs said. “I think we’ve added some things that aren’t just princess-focused, and that’s a good positive.”

In this article, Disney say that they think the changes have actually made the expansion better,

http://www.diszine.com/content/walt-dis ... -expansion

As for the executive, whatever he said he came to the conclusion that the area didn't appeal enough to males and changed it. They aren't putting in Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty, no matter how much you don't like it. Maybe they will in the future but Disney clearly thought these changes would be for the better and I personally agree with them.

The new princess meet-and-greet is not what anyone wanted, because the original attractions were not just meet-and-greets, they had the show with magic for Cinderella and the birthday party for Aurora. Unless they do that in the new Princess Fairy Tale Hall, then it's not what any of us wanted. They already did the magic effect for Cinderella, now it won't be used.

So? Disney have abandoned entire hotels and water parks in the past, what's so signficant about one special effect? Like a film, plans for attractions change all the time and in this case, they changed significantly. What's NEW is the Snow White roller coaster that wasn't previously planned With the new meet-and-greet, the princesses will still be in the expansion. Disney don't make decisions like this on a whim, they survey and question guests substantially for their opinions on the parks so the changes here suggest to me that a significant amount of people must have had their own problems with the expansion or other things that they wanted to see added that helped bring about the changes. There were rumours for months that the expansion would be changed and the articles suggest that there were concerns about it within the upper echelons of Disney.

[Big Disney Fan]

This was why Disneyland tried time and time again to replace the sparsely-attended show, only to face opposition for fans whenever it does that.

How did fans prevent them from doing it?

They wrote letters on the Internet, which resulted in a big controversy.

One of the first times they actually did replace the show was in 1973. That year, they replaced Mr. Lincoln with the Walt Disney Story, a retrospective on the man's career, but the public was furious and demanded that Honest Abe be returned. Disneyland capitulated, merging both shows into one. A similar controversy erupted sometime later when Disneyland considered replacing Mr. Lincoln with the Muppets.

What I'd like to know is how the Expo Hall will do any better business than the Opera House.

[DisneyAnimation88]

I see that you do understand that they could put one of the deleted attractions back in, and actually they could probably put two back in. What I am saying is they have no good reason to not put them back in, because the park would still have all the boy-friendly things that you and others want.

Because Disney obviously have other plans for that land. I think the reason why they don't put them in now is the reason they were taken out: the basic problem of their appeal. As the articles I posted show, Disney realised that the expansion was aimed too much at females so they rectified it. It's not about "girl or boy-friendly", the point of WDW is it provides attractions for families, regardless of age and gender, to participate in and enjoy. These particular attractions simply didn't provide that. Just because one is based on Cinderella and has a fancy special effect does not mean it should stay if it can't be enjoyed by everyone. If eventually it gets built, fine, but if Disney's mindset remains as it is now, I don't think it will happen.

A lot of people wanted that show, not just me. They may not be speaking up now, but I've seen people say it here and many other places.

Obviously, not enough people wanted it and, most importantly, neither do Disney at the moment.

[Disney Duster]

Big Disney Fan, do you mean they wrote letters and E-mailed them to Disney, or they wrote petitions, or they just wrote in forums, do you know?

Disney Animation, you have no proof that not enough people wanted it. You can think that, but you still have no proof.

The fact is that Disney could have the more all-gender-friendly stuff and still keep one or two the attractions they had before. But instead they are only giving us one new ride, and taking away two.

You don't have to say anything back if you don't want to, because no matter what, it will always be that we lost two rides and got one, and we could have more rides. If Disney is planning on something else, it better be good, because you say that the new rides should appeal to everyone, but it is the old rides they mentioned that appeal to me the most! So if the new rides they propose aren't the same ones or like those, they won't appeal to me and other people like me.

[Big Disney Fan]

Big Disney Fan, do you mean they wrote letters and E-mailed them to Disney, or they wrote petitions, or they just wrote in forums, do you know?

Here's what I read, from the book "Mouse Under Glass":

Twice, Disneyland tried to replace its sparsely attended Great Moments With Mr. Lincoln, sparking public outcries. "No matter what you do, you're going to meet some resistance," says attraction show writer Ryan Harmon. "The location of that theater is a problem to begin with; people are just walking in or leaving the park, and at that point are not thinking about going on an attraction. The hat shop next door does more people than Mr. Lincoln. When there was talk of the Muppets replacing Mr. Lincoln, I rewrote the (Lincoln) show to go in a theater by the Disney Gallery (above Pirates of the Caribbean). They'd park a train outside as if New Orleans was one of the campaign stops during the Lincoln-Douglas debates. The theater fit about 100 people, so it would be a much more intimate setting. But people started writing letters on the Internet, and there was a big controversy."

I hope this helps.