Future Plans For WDW's Fantasyland

[DisneyJedi]

Disney begins signing up contractors for Fantasyland redo
http://thedailydisney.com/blog/2009/12/ ... land-redo/
(via disneyreport.com)

So seems like by 2014, it would be about finish.

Aww, rats!

[Big Disney Fan]

So seems like by 2014, it would be about finish.

Aww, rats!

Some 30 years after Disneyland's overhaul of Fantasyland, no less!

[David S.]

And still with fewer rides than Disneyland's, plus a lost Toontown while Disneyland still has theirs...

[blackcauldron85]

Disney testing new meet-and-greet queueing procedures, may point to upcoming Fantasyland changes
http://www.attractionsmagazine.com/blog ... d-changes/
(via disneyreport.com)

[Super Aurora]

Disney testing new meet-and-greet queueing procedures, may point to upcoming Fantasyland changes
http://www.attractionsmagazine.com/blog ... d-changes/
(via disneyreport.com)

Interesting. And yes, I do agree that there should of been more rides. I wish the Pinocchio and the Alice in Wonderland ride came to WDW. They also need fix the already existing Fantasyland especially the fascades.

[Disney Duster]

Margos, Walt Disney didn't intend any of that (or we have no proof he did), so it shouldn't be done, show some respect. And does Cinderella's Fairy Godmother or the Blue Fairy change the seasons? No. And you yourself admitted the princesses seem to come from different worlds. Each Disney film has a different design and different world. I do not believe in a Disney universe so much as the characters are real people, just stylized in their own stylized lands.

[Margos]

Margos, Walt Disney didn't intend any of that (or we have no proof he did), so it shouldn't be done, show some respect. And does Cinderella's Fairy Godmother or the Blue Fairy change the seasons? No. And you yourself admitted the princesses seem to come from different worlds. Each Disney film has a different design and different world. I do not believe in a Disney universe so much as the characters are real people, just stylized in their own stylized lands.

Never said they should. I just like it when things mesh together. For example, I like that the Tinker Bell series connects the Never Fairies vaguely to the Fantasia fairies. Are they the same fairies? Of course not! Never Fairies aren't odd colors, and aren't naked. I just thought it was a cute nod. I'm not being disrespectful to Walt's legacy or anything.

I sometimes like to imagine that the Disney characters can talk to each other, and meet one another, sort of like in Toontown in Who Framed Roger Rabbit. Was that movie being disrespectful? Are crossover fanfics disrespectful? Is House of Mouse disrespectful?

And what about some things released during Walt's lifetime, particularly some images I've seen, or that one WWII parade short. They show characters like Pinocchio, the three little pigs and Mickey Mouse all hanging out together. One old publicity-looking picture in an issue of "twenty-three" showed Cinderella hosting a party that characters from all previous films, as well as some later ones I believe, were attending.

[Disney Duster]

What I find disrespectful is Disney saying "this was Tinker Bell's life" instead of "this could have been Tinker Bell's life". It doesn't seem to fit at all to me that Never Land has a place with some weird copies of the real world seasons where they practice getting ready to change the seasons in the real world. It seems unft to and disrespectful to Disney and J.M Barrie. On that note, I think Disney should have not changed Tinker Bell to a pixie, either, but that makes her more signature and pixie dust sounds more signature than fairy dust. Course they could call it Disney dust as they called it when it first appeared in Cinderella but that's another story.

I do not mind House of Mouse or other imaginings of the characters interacting. But I do mind Disney making movies of it that seem official.

That's why I don't mind Cinderella III, aside from it being good. That was presented as a what if, an alternate reality. I wouldn't mind if these Tinker Bell adventures were actually Wendy's dream or something.

Now, I admit, no one has to accept the Tinker Bell films as official, and maybe they aren't because they aren't called Peter Pan II or anything, but the way they did them, too many people are thinking they are official. Besides, even if they did do a Peter Pan II, I wouldn't accept it anyway, because the original creators didn't make it or approve it. And Walt most certainly wouldn't approve of official film continuation without his say, no matter how good. Unless perhaps there was som story left (like it was based on the original Peter Pan sequels, or they did Through the Looking Glass from Alice, or the last half of Sleeping Beauty, etc.)

But...could you tell me how to find that picture of Cinderella hosting a party for all the characters?! Pretty please?

[Margos]

Now, I admit, no one has to accept the Tinker Bell films as official, and maybe they aren't because they aren't called Peter Pan II or anything, but the way they did them, too many people are thinking they are official. Besides, even if they did do a Peter Pan II, I wouldn't accept it anyway, because the original creators didn't make it or approve it. And Walt most certainly wouldn't approve of official film continuation without his say, no matter how good. Unless perhaps there was som story left (like it was based on the original Peter Pan sequels, or they did Through the Looking Glass from Alice, or the last half of Sleeping Beauty, etc.)

But...could you tell me how to find that picture of Cinderella hosting a party for all the characters?! Pretty please?

It's in one of the issues of D23. Don't remember which one. I'll go check later and let you know.

But, personally, I really enjoy the idea of the Tinker Bell series being her story. It really isn't disrespectful, and I think it does much more for the character. In fact, until I started paying attention to those movies, I wasn't much of a Tink fan. I thought she lacked a lot of redeeming qualities, and I find Peter Pan to be one of Disney's weaker efforts, story-wise, in all honesty.

But now, I love Tink, and I love all of her friends, too. They explain, gradually, why she is how she is. By the end, I'm sure we'll all have a greater understanding of Disney's Tink.

And by the way, I think that this series is almost more "respectful" to J. M. Barrie than Disney's "Peter Pan" was. Barrie said that each child has his or her own Neverland. Maybe a boy or a tomboy would have a Neverland full of pirates and Indians, but a little girl or more feminine boy would probably feel more at home with the mermaids and pixies.... And where those Neverlands all intersect is the true meaning of childhood, I would imagine. Pixie Hollow is just another part of Neverland. Not to mention the fact that Barrie also said that Tink was always supposed to be a literal "Tinker," who fixed things, but the Tink that we know from the 1953 film was too busy being a jealous little drama queen to fix anything! In this series, we see a younger, more focused Tink, whose work is her passion: it is usually her failed projects that triggers her hot-headed outbursts, a foreshadowing of the older, more aggressive Tinker Bell that shadows Peter Pan.

[Disney Duster]

Well, if Barrie always intended her to be a tinker, then I feel better about that!

But it's also about keeping true to Disney's Tinker Bell, Walt's Tinker Bell, Marc Davis' Tinker Bell. It's never fair to make up something new the original creators didn't and say that was always part of the character or the character's life. If they followed Barrie's intsructions in everything they did, like the place of Pixie Hollow or the changing of the seasons, okay, but the only thing that I know so far that they followed was the tinkering and that fairies are born from a baby's laugh.

If Wendy dreamed of Tinker Bell's life, or maybe she even had her own Never Land like Barrie said all children did, and in it was Pixie Hollow, I might be okay with that...though I don't get how if each child has their own Never Land they can go to other Never Lands, Wendy saw the pirates, John saw the mermaids...or maybe the whole of Never Land is actually made up of every child's Never Land in plain sight...

But otherwise I'm sorry, the original Disney creators wanted Tinker Bell to be a hot-tempered jealous biotch because...well, the character they originally made actually fit Barrie's original descriptions. Fairies are so tiny they only have room for one emotion at a time, and Tinker Bell tried to kill Wendy in the original as well over being angry and jealous, right?

But please tell me where that Cinderella party picture is!

[Margos]

You have a point there, but I can't help but point out that Tink may well have changed over time. At the point that it's been revealed in the series, she's a real hothead, obsessively frustrated with her inventions. It makes sense that we see her as a bitch in the original film, because that movie is really told from Wendy's POV. But this series is not Wendy's story, or Peter's story, it's Tink's. And she has an entirely different perspective.

I wondered the same thing about the different Never Lands, though. But I have read that that's what Barrie said. I don't quite understand it, but I guess it makes sense. And really, that could make the Never Land that they all visit together a sort of "composite" Never Land. I mean, when the children "think of wonderful thoughts," Wendy dreams of mermaids, John of pirates, and Michael of Indians.

And the image is in the second issue (Summer '09) of twenty-three. It's #92 in the PHOTOfiles. I don't know if you have a copy of that, or if you can even get a hold of it, because only members can get back issues. I would scan it for you, but I don't have a scanner.

[Disney Duster]

Okay...how else can I put it...when making up something, even a backstory, that the original creators didn't, you don't know if you are being true to what the original creators wanted. And if you don't know you shouldn't make it and say it's official. But if you say it's a dream, an alternate, or a re-imagining, it's okay. So the way the movie is should say "Did you ever wonder what Tinker Bell's life might have been like? Well,hear's what might have happened"... Or Wendy says, "I wonder what Tinker Bell's life was like..." and dreams.

As for Never Land, it actually makes sense that since all of them went there, they would all see each other's Never Lands, but maybe if only one of them went there, they would only see their Never Land. Or maybe, everyone's own Never Land appears in Never Land, and any one can visit anyone's Never Land any time, even visiting without the child that imagined it.

Too bad about that Cinderella picture. I can't pick that one up in the store? Does it say anything on the picture, maybe I could use soem words from it to look it up?

[Margos]

I hear what you're saying.... But, to me, that sounds like poor and lazy storytelling. It's a believable, enchanting story about a fairy that I never really cared too much about until I came to see her from her own perspective. I'm glad we're getting a new, fresh perspective on Tink. I mean, are you sure that Perrault would have felt comfortable with all of the silly animals and such in "Cinderella?" How do you know that he wouldn't have found that very disrespectful? These people are filmmakers, not documentarians, and they're going to tell a good story, even if it means shaking things up a little bit.

Anyway.... the whole "different Never Lands" concept is confusing, so I try not to think about it too much. I only brought it up as a possible reasoning behind Pixie Hollow, that perhaps it doesn't exist in everyone's Never Land.

OK, so here's the caption for the Cinderella picture:

"92 - Disneyland Television Publicity Photo, 1954
This publicity art for Disneyland, Walt's first venture into weekly television, features many major animated stars, with Lady and the Tramp making an appearance before their debut a year later. But where have they gathered to watch the show? Cinderella looks like she may be playing hostess, so we're guessing, by the rifle on the mantel, that this is her father-in-law's hunting lodge. That may explain why Bambi's hiding, too... Actually, we're kidding. The truth is they're reusing a background, er, "set" from the 1953 Donald Duck cartoon Rugged Bear (see picture, page 44), in which Humphrey the Bear hides out in Donald's cabin during hunting season, pretending to be a bearskin rug."

In the picture are: Mickey, Minnie, Donald, Daisy, Goofy, Pluto, Huey, Dewey, Louie, Chip, Dale, Snow White, Doc, Grumpy, Dopey, Sleepy, Bashful, Happy, Sneezy, Pinocchio, Figaro, Jiminy Cricket, Bambi, Thumper, Flower, Bongo, Cinderella, Gus, Jaq, Alice, the March Hare, the Mad Hatter, Peter Pan, Tinker Bell, Lady, Tramp, Fiddler, Fifer, and Practical.

[blackcauldron85]

First Look: 3D Sculpture of Magic Kingdom’s New Fantasyland
http://www.stitchkingdom.com/disney-new ... ntasyland/
(via disneyreport.com)

[Margos]

That's actually pretty cool! I love the concept of being able to walk into the worlds of the Disney films! TThe TLM area looks especially nice! I just wish they would make the Beast's Castle more prominent, as it's my favorite piece of architecture in any Disney film. And I must say, I'm also slightly confused by Pixie Hollow's layout. It doesn't appear to look anything like Pixie Hollow! But other than that... this should be a great new Fantasyland to explore!

[Disney Duster]

Well, thank you for your help Margos, but it seems I can't find that picture. Oh well.

Anyway, there is yet another difference I must point out. When Disney adapted Cinderella, or any story, they adapted it. They made an imagining of it. However, with the Tinker Bell films, the people currently at Disney are taking an already fully-imagind character, and adding stuff to her, including changing her personality a bit, saying that she used to be a different way. They are not adapting Tinker Bell, but changing someone else's full imagining of the character.

Oh, and the mice and some other animals were in Perrault's Cinderella. Making them do silly or humorous things is not damaging the original mice who were only mentioned to be turned into horses. I can understand the worry of damaging how Perrault wanted the tale, but Disney also used some Grimm's influence and made their own version. What Disney did was an adaptation. Perrault didn't make a fully imagined film of Cinderella, or give us all the details, that Disney took and said, "Well, you know, this titian-haired, soft speaking Cinderella used to be a mean old bitch and the stepmother used to be the kindest lady..."

I already explained a way they could do these Tinker Bell films though, if they said something like "Ever wonder how Tinker Bell came to be? Legend has it/we heard this is how it hapened", or Wendy imagines it, or something. But they aren't doing that, and though people can decide whether or not it's official or canon, many people will think that's how it's supposed to be and that the company is saying that's how it's supposed to be. Walt leaves behind a character, then people change it and say that's how she's supposed to be.

As for the new model of Fantasyland Forest, thank you Amy, amazing as always, but the only thing is Pixie Hollow now looks way less cool and wonderfully done than previous concepts showed, and apparently it will be like a re-themed copy of a pre-existing playground that was themed to the stupid car from Cars?! That's just bad.

[Margos]

Anyway, there is yet another difference I must point out. When Disney adapted Cinderella, or any story, they adapted it. They made an imagining of it. However, with the Tinker Bell films, the people currently at Disney are taking an already fully-imagind character, and adding stuff to her, including changing her personality a bit, saying that she used to be a different way. They are not adapting Tinker Bell, but changing someone else's full imagining of the character.

Oh, and the mice and some other animals were in Perrault's Cinderella. Making them do silly or humorous things is not damaging the original mice who were only mentioned to be turned into horses. I can understand the worry of damaging how Perrault wanted the tale, but Disney also used some Grimm's influence and made their own version. What Disney did was an adaptation. Perrault didn't make a fully imagined film of Cinderella, or give us all the details, that Disney took and said, "Well, you know, this titian-haired, soft speaking Cinderella used to be a mean old bitch and the stepmother used to be the kindest lady..."

I already explained a way they could do these Tinker Bell films though, if they said something like "Ever wonder how Tinker Bell came to be? Legend has it/we heard this is how it hapened", or Wendy imagines it, or something. But they aren't doing that, and though people can decide whether or not it's official or canon, many people will think that's how it's supposed to be and that the company is saying that's how it's supposed to be. Walt leaves behind a character, then people change it and say that's how she's supposed to be.

Well, they didn't completely change the character, but she has not yet become what she is to become. I mean, look at Up. Was Carl Fredricksen a grumpy old curmudgeon in his childhood, and throughout the Married Life sequence? No. Things changed, and he changed, too. And Tink was never "fully-imagined" or really fleshed out at all in Peter Pan. She was just some bitch with a very limited motivation.

And as for the mice in Cinderella, you could make the same arguement. Yes, it was an adaptation. But they should have said "This is just our idea of what might have happened if Cinderella's mice could talk and were very silly." But they didn't have Betty Lou Gerson say that in the beginning, because they needed to just get into the story.

And if they had done this with the Tinker Bell series, no one would ever be able to take it seriously. It's just bad, lazy storytelling. It's about the Plausible Impossible, not the "Oh, by the way, this is impossible, but here's our movie, but it's just our ideas, so whatever!" Obviously, a movie is the filmmaker's version of what happened in their own story. Everyone knows that, so it doesn't have to be advertised as such. No one's asking you to take this as the "gospel truth" about the origin of a fictitious character! If you want to see it as canon, great. If not, whatever.

And that's just the thing. Tinker Bell is a fictitous character made long ago. As such, she exists only as an idea, and ideas can be modified to fit the visions of any artists that would like to use it. That's why people make adaptations at all! And if you think that this Tink is that different, well then, just bear that in mind. However, I think that she really is the same Tinker Bell. We do, in fact, see the beginnings of her temper and thought processes develop, as they seem to increase between the first and second film, as she ages. So, how this will all connect to the existing Peter Pan film remains to be seen. But bear in mind that even that differs from Barrie's original ideas quite drastically, if you want to compare "adaptations" to "original versions" so anally. And not to its advantage, either.

[blackcauldron85]

A little more info on my above post:

GDP Special Report: the NEW Fantasyland Update!
http://gdpinvestigation.blogspot.com/20 ... yland.html
(via thedisneyblog.com)

Incredible Fantasyland Expansion Update
http://thedisneyblog.com/2010/01/22/inc ... on-update/

Also, spies have spotted that construction trailers have been placed backstage and construction walls are expected to go up shortly in and about Fantasyland.

[Super Aurora]

Hmm interesting that the Pooh ride facade and Tea Cups will be refurbish for it to integrate with the rest of new Fantasyland. I wonder if they'll refurbish the old Fantasyland facade such as Snow White ride, Peter Pan etc.

I still wish an Alice in Wonderland ride and Pinocchio ride was there.

[blackcauldron85]

I still wish an Alice in Wonderland ride and Pinocchio ride was there.

Do you mean clones of the rides at Disneyland? Sometimes I get withdrawl for the rides WDW doesn't have, but at the same time, I think there's something positive to be said about some rides not being in every Disney resort.