Future Plans For WDW's Fantasyland

[Disney Duster]

Margos...I feel like you ignored the difference between adaptation and creating a backstory for a fully imagined adaptation.

Fully imagined means it's not just words, you have all the specifics, the shape, the color, the whole design, how it moves, how it sounds, how it happened, in more than a book can tell you. Fully imagined means a full imagining of one thing, it doesn't have to be the whole life of a thing. They did a full imagining of what Barrie gave them, as I can remember. A fairy who can only feel one emotion at a time, gets jealous, tries to kill wendy, almost kills herself to save Peter, and actually they made her even more than that, all her quirks and personality. A fully imagined character, especially a fairy, doesn't have to have all the sides you think a person should have. Some people might honestly be angry and selfish a lot of the time, etc.

Look it's hard for me to explain but here's what it is: Disney's Cinderella was clearly their version of a story. So was Peter Pan. That whole mice explanation thing is not applicable for an adaptation or a version of something.

But with the Tinker Bell films, they are not making their own version of what happened. They are saying this is what happened to that version of the character. But they can't say that because the people who made the first version never said that. I mean, I know that I can choose to think that it's not canon, it's just a "what if", but they don't make any effort to say that at all. Seriously, using a dream of Wendy's or "I heard this is how Tinker Bell came to be" is not lazy and perfectly fits the naure of this thing anyway.

Maybe the best way is to put you in the original creator's shoes. You take a story that has a character that isn't all that well defined. You make your fully imagined version of that story in a movie, including making the character that wasn't all that described in the book one of the most memorable characters in the movie, and your movie is considered a classic. Then, you retire or your properties come into the hands of some other people, and they say that your character had this whole backstory, that your character was different once.

What if Walt Disney and Marc Davis and even J.M. Barrie wanted Tinker Bell to always have a temper, and not be so helpful and going out of her way to do good? Maybe the only reason she saved Peter was because she loved him, so it meant a lot that she risked her life for him because she had always been a pretty selfish person before? It doesn't matter that they'll say in these new movies that someday she became the Tinker Bell we know, because she's not the Tinker Bell we know anymore if they say at one time she was different.

It's just like with the Evil Queen in the book "Fairest on of All" with a backstory for her. They say she used to be nice and she only became evil because she was distressed over her husband's death and haunted by witch sisters. So the evil queen wasn't evil on her own? Well that certainly changes the character and the feel of the movie! It takes away form the idea the queen was really evil, and chose to be. That's just one example.

[WDWLocal]

Give it up, Disney Duster. Margos wins the argument.

[Margos]

Look, Disney Duster, I feel like you're trying so hard to make a point that you don't even understand what you're saying anymore. Disney said that "this is what happened to Cinderella and her mouse friends," not "this is Cinderella's dream about her mice friends talking." So, there you have it. Now, they're doing the same thing to Tink. You can argue that it's different all you like, but they're just taking a fictitious character and telling new stories about her. They don't need to put in any sort of disclaimer like "This is not the real Tinker Bell!" You know why? Because there is no "real" Tinker Bell! She can be whatever a filmmaker wants her to be. And they are staying pretty faithful to Disney's and Barrie's collective visions, if you ask me. They're just fleshing her out more.

[Super Aurora]

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.

I can understand people not wanting clones rides but at same time it' would be nice to have rides not made for said theme park.

Alice in Wonderland probably would be ok as a disneyland only ride but Pinocchio is in every park except WDW. So I would make sense to have that ride in WDW too. Pinocchio is a classic example of a fantasy theme and would make sense to have it in WDW Fantasyland.

I'm also waiting for facade renovation in old Fantasyland so it matches well with new Fantasy Land.

[Disney Duster]

Yea we should have a Pinocchio ride, also because it is one of Disney's best and most famous classics and represents so much of Disney.

Margos, you keep ignoring the very real, defined ideas of adaptation and version. You are not making a very good argument by ignoring those. These ideas are very important in the world of creativity and art.

Disney made an adaptation and version of Cinderella. When you do that, you don't need a disclaimer, because the only disclaimer needed is "adapated from" in which case they did say they adapted it from Perrault's story, but they made their own thing.

They also did this with Peter Pan. But what the new animators are now doing is not making an adaptation of Disney's Tinker Bell, an adaptation of an adaptation, but they are new people putting a backstory in other people's adaptation.

All I really want you to do is just see that, at least. And also, it doesn't matter if something isn't "real" or not. That's why we make patents of things and copyright intellectual properties (like ideas, like characters in our heads). If you came up with a whole character, or even just a character's design, voice, movement, and pretty much whole personality, you wouldn't want someone to do anything to it you didn't approve of, even if you're dead and can't approve anything.

But all I want now is for you to see the difference between doing an adaptation...and adding a backstory to someone else's fully imagined adaptation. Heck, I want you to even just realize the difference between doing an adaptation and adding a backstory period. That's all now.

[Margos]

I'm sorry, but I still don't understand what exactly you mean. I mean, it's no different than the kind of things that Disney comics have been doing for years.

[Disney Duster]

Well, the Disney comics were a different medium. They weren't movies. I have to admit the CGI in Tinker Bell does help a bit.

What I really wish is that Disney would not use Walt's characters in films, because then the films are seen as likelike official sequels or prequels when Walt can't approve. Unless they presented them in an alternate, fantasy, or dream way. I think Cinderella III is the only example. I wouldn't even mind if they had Tinker Bell come wave a wand over the original films and they said Tink helped magically make a what if story about what could have happened.

Anyway, at least you seem to see the difference between doing an adaptation and adding backstory to an adaptation. It's like "this is our version of Tinker Bell" versus "This is our Tinker Bell's backstory." Maybe they don't need to say something to make it clear that it's only what could happen, and not what Walt would have done, but it would still be nice to have it.

I wuldn't have such a problem with Tinker Bell if it weren't for changing her personality, even though it's only for some part of her films. Same with Fairest One All, that should have a disclaimer saying it's what could be, but not what is. Not many people care, but it would help fans like me, and not hurt other fans at all, and it would take hurt away from Walt. We should respect the dead, what can I say.

[Margos]

Disney Duster, it would hurt fans like me. I love having a single continuity for a single character, and that's why I generally ignore the Disney Comics unless there is a concept that helps explain something in the main body of work (ie. Penny as Max's mom, etc.). But that whole "this is not the real Tinker Bell, but some fanfiction we threw together and decided to show you" is terribly lazy story telling, and should never, ever happen.

Look, here's the thing. It's not being disrespectful (like adding Morgana into the TLM universe.... ugh!). They are staying remarkably faithful to Disney's Tink, and you know something? They're not Walt Disney, but they are Disney! And Disney didn't make Tink all by himself! It was the entire creative team behind Peter Pan, who went on to train future generations, including John Lasseter, who trained the makers of Tinker Bell. She is an intellectual property owned by Disney. The company. Which is alive and thriving to this day. Not Walt. Yes, we should have respect for him, and Marc Davis, and everyone who helped introduced Tink. But we should also give credit to the people who, right now, are giving her her own voice and her own story.

They could do what you suggest, and try to invalidate their own work somehow. But what's the point? They have a very good film series on their hands, and to cheapen that is to destroy the decades of Disney legacy that they've somehow finally learned to channel properly! They ought to be congratulated, not reprimanded! They've figured out (with Lasseter's help) how to tell a story the proper way, and respect a classic character, beloved worldwide.

Can you imagine what would happen if, every time they used Mickey Mouse's image from 1928 on, it had to be a dream of the Minnie Mouse we saw in "Plane Crazy" wishing that her boyfriend wasn't an abusive asshole? Would he be the beloved icon we know today? There's not a snowball's chance in hell.

[Disney Duster]

Wait, how would it hurt you if you could just ignore it like the comics? Maybe the best way to not hurt anyone is to not make it at all. Lasseter originally wanted to cancel it, you know. Meanwhile, it can't be ignored if they are presented as what really happened (well, they can, as I ignore all the sequels except Cinderella III as an alternate reality, so it still doesn't count in the original film at all either. At least all the sequels were direct-to-video...oh, not all of them).

Why do you think it's lazy? It's the same story, just saying "this is what could have been" right before it, what is lazy about making more effort to say that? And I thought a dream was pretty creative...

You still haven't thought about what you would like people to do with any creation of yours after you die. Even if you created your own version of someone's character, that chearcter was only words till you created you great version. Even if you might possibly like what people did with your character, you wouldn't be there to know. So no one should do anything to your work after you are dead.

And I have seen the first Tinker Bell, and I don't know about the rest, but even if they were better I didn't think the first film was very good at all actually. Not bad but certainly lackluster and made me feel Tink was cheapened.

And I'm pretty against Morgana, too, unless Triton created some locket that showed what it would be like if Ursula had a sister or something. Or the original film's creative team approved and had some hand in the production (don't think they did). And your Plane Crazy idea doesn't follow, either, because the same guy who made that made the continuations. And because Mickey and the others have been part of a series, they are okay for current Disney to continue. It is only the characters that have only been part of one film that should not continue in other films, because they are supposed to be in only one film, and Walt said no sequels (and thus, no prequels or midquels).

And making Tinker Bell innocent, nice, and helpful is not staying faithful! Yea, it's backstory, but it's still not being faithful to the Tink we have known even if she grows into what we have known.

If you need me to end this here and now, I will continue to say that Disney can make these sequels and prequels and midquels as long as they do stay reasonablely faithful and they find some way to make them only a possibility, not what officially happened.

I may not mind how they changed Tinker Bell as long as they said it's only what could have been, a dream, Never Land Legend or whatever, even a story Wendy reads to her brothers or own children (J.M. Barrie said she had children?). But I still don't know, Tink to me, and others, was fun because she was always sassy an selfish and hot-tempered...

One big reason is because to consider some of the things that happen in the films as true changes the whole original film. Thinking Tinker Bell wasn't always like that, or Ariel turned into a hypocrite and just like her dad, or the princesses didn't all live happily ever after, etc.

[Margos]

OK, you're never going to get it at all. But let me just say this:

First of all, I do ignore all of the cheapquels (including Cinderella III). But the Tink movies aren't really cheapquels so much as a seperate series that happens to link to another film. And I did try to ignore them until I was persuaded to watch the first one, and found it charming, delightful, and visually gorgeous.

And I know what I would want done with my characters. I'm working on a fairy tale as we speak, actually. During my lifetime, I would (if it got popular) fend off any offer to make a film unless it was Disney Animation, in which case I would sign a contract faster than you could say "Bob's your uncle!" But, after I died, I honestly couldn't care less what happens to them. Sure, they're characters that I love and put my time and effort into them. But, when your characters become super-popular, they don't really belong to you anymore: They belong to the world. Just like Lasseter said on the Toy Story DVD, about when he saw a little boy playing with his Woody doll.

And, if you ever saw the DVD for The Incredibles, Brad Bird laughed at himself for ever wanting to include a dream sequence for Helen. Think of how stupid he would have felt if his whole movie was a dream! But, sure, I guess it makes sense that you know more about effective storytelling than Brad Bird.

And Tink really isn't too innocent or helpful. She's nice, but she only wants to help because she feels bad about ruining everything, and wants to prove herself. And while she does feel remorse for her actions, she always seems to be getting into trouble, whether that's mischief like the "Stinkbug Incident," trying to change her talent, or getting into huge fights with the ones who care about her. And that comes out even more if you watch some of the Pixie Previews. She's younger, less-experienced, and surrounded by people who are somewhat more forgiving of her. Oh, and since she has no feelings for Peter, who she hasn't met, she has no motivation to be a complete bitch. It just wouldn't make sense!

And Disney Duster, I'm pretty sure that Ub Iwerks left Disney before Mickey turned all goody-two-shoes.

And the original team certainly had no hand in Morgana, because she makes no sense as a character! Where on earth does she fit into the family tree? She'd be Triton's sister, too.

[Disney Duster]

So you decided not to ignore it because it turned out you liked it. I guess that makes it okay then for you.

When you make something, it is yours that you made and theirs that they loved and watched. The original thing you make should always be available unless you feel really terrible about it, the case depends. But tat's another issue.

As for Brad Bird, he can do his thing and I'll do mine. More people may like his way than my way, so his way may be more effective for some while mine effective for another. But he did consider doing a dream in the first place. The Wizard of Oz was all Dorothy's dream and it's, uh-oh, the most popular film ever. And I don't like to think it was a dream because of how I feel personally and because of how the original book was (it wasn't a dream). So even though it allows the theory of a dream, it also allows the theory of the slipper's magic making it seem like a dream. It serves many fans.

And the reason for the whole dream or alternate reality idea in sequels to Walt's films is not just there to be there, but an important reason so as not to say that's what happened to Walt's characters, since Walt never said it was.

Tink could be bitchy even without love for Peter. She could be bitchy over anything. But I admit, the love reason feels better as a reason for her to be that much. But what about the moments she's not bitchy over Wendy or Peter? The way she is with other characters, not wanting to help the rest of the Darling's, even when Peter wanted it. I don't see that in these new films.

As for Ub Iwerks, what the, everyone knows Mickey was very much Walt's creation, and Ub just co-made the shorts with who knows how much actual input. But there's also a difference between walking out on a character...and...dying, no longer able to work on your character.

And woah, you think Ursula is Triton's sister? Look, the musical is adapted to the stage, it is an adaptation of Disney's version. Lots of things are different, like no Vanessa and Eric having to get married by a certain time. The deleted scene for the film saying Ursula is Triton's sister cannot count as it was deleted. It is quite possible they still meant her to be his sister, but it is still a deleted scene and could be a deleted concept, and the concept's not official for the film unless we hear otherwise.

But anyway, I said I ignore Morgana, too, because the original team didn't have any say on her. Though I like The Little Mermaid II a lot, I just watch it to enjoy it, and don't consider it canon.

[Margos]

The original thing is still available, Disney Duster, it's not like they've burnt the negatives of Peter Pan or anything.

Tink's not even Walt's, she's J. M. Barrie's.

Whatever. You know what, screw it. I'm just not getting through to you, am I?

Anyway.... No, I've never even seen the musical version of TLM. But I do own the Platinum DVD. And the way Ron worded it, it sure sounded like the meant that the deleted scene "revealed" that Triton and Ursula were siblings, never metioned in the film. He didn't say it was a deleted concept, he said that the scene was deleted, but that we learn about their relationship in it. So it sure sounds like that was what they originally intended, but thought that explaining it slowed down the story.

[Disney Duster]

Well, I was more referring the complaint that Beauty and the Beast should have it's original version available for the fans that fell in lov with it (and because the changes done to it didn't improve anything, and in some opinions harm it).

Ron Clements said before the deleted scene that "some exposition was cut that where we learn that Ursula the sea witch is King Triton's sister." The exposition was cut.

Anyway, the way he said it, it could be taken your way, or it could be taken my way that they decided she wouldn't be his sister. If you think she is, it is okay, it's just not official. I hope we would find out someday.

Andin any case, I am glad you can enjoy Tinker Bell, and I kind of enjoyed the film too (I just didn't think it was a s good as peoplesay it is), I just wish they would have something so they can tell the story, but yet not make a new movie about Tinker Bell, as a dream would. I think a book Wendy made would be nice, too. But I know what you want is different, you want it to be treated as real. I think we could have it both ways with my way, because it "could" be real, just like I can think Dorothy's adventure was real but others could think it was a dream. Or if Wendy read the story and her kids asked if it really happened and she said "What do you think?" or something.

[blackcauldron85]

Disney World’s government starts to spend for Fantasyland expansion
http://thedailydisney.com/blog/2010/01/ ... expansion/
(via disneyreport.com)

[WonderlandFever]

check it out! updated plans have leaked.

http://www.wdwnewstoday.com/

I can't wait for this

[Margos]

I'm just thinking about the emphasis on his words. It was more like "in which we learn that Ursula, the sea witch, is King Triton's sister." I belive. So, I kind of interpreted it that it was just cut as unneccesary exposition for something that still existed. And of course, neither or them would ever want to mention it, since he's banished her, and she's incredibly jealous of him.... But yeah, that one's totally up to how one interprets Clements' words.

I agree that BatB ought to be available in the original version..... But the original filmmakers themselves were the ones that changed it. So it's their version of BatB, right? Besides, it definitely does help. "Human Again" is a lovely sequence, changes were made to coincide with it, change awkward continuity errors and fix that animation on Cogsworth which, let's face it, looked disgustingly out of character and embarrassing. I much prefer the "new and improved" BatB, and it was already my favorite Disney movie before the changes!

And no, you really couldn't have it both ways at all. I don't like the whole "could be real" thing, and that's why the end of The Wizard of Oz is always a huge disappointment to me. I think that telling some wonderful, amazing story, and then saying that none of it was real hurts the audience. They've just spent the last hour and a half falling in love with these characters, hoping they get out of any scrapes, crying when bad things happen. Telling them "HaHa, you just had strong emotions over something we threw together and never happened anyway!" is just a heartbreaker. We all know that movies are just movies, but they need to feel real while we're watching them, or they'll never connect.

The only way that I could see what you're saying make sense is if they took the "Walt-era Princess Film" approach. Show the book opening in the beginning. That way, people like you could interpret it as "oh, we're basically just reading a story that happens to be moving and making sound, so it isn't really happening." No "this is just a story" narration. Let the "story" turn into something authentic, and don't let that go!

[DisneyJedi]

Awesome new model of the expanded Fantasyland!

[Disney Duster]

Okay, heard what you said, and we seem to agree on Ursula...it's an open possibility.

As for Batb, the lead animator for Cogsworth actually didn't like the first version of the scene either (someone else animated it), and then he didn't get to animate the second time for the re-release, and he still didn't like the new version! I think he preffered the second version... But I prefer the original for this reason I think he didn't notice: because he comes off more woeful in the first version, and it is a woeful, more serious scene that's going on. But the big thing is the colors and shadows changes they did. In fact, some details and shadow are missing in the re-animated scene! Also, the entire film...the color issue, but you know! Also, as for Human Again, I feel Beauty and the Beast, as any story, should concentrate more on the main characters than the sidekicks or even the villains. But, that one is less big to me than the colors of the film changing, and thus, the mood and feeling of the whole thing (ever notice the Beast is already well seen before he steps into the light, in the new version?). If you don't agree, most fans find that a big problem as well as the rest of the changes, but at least you also think the original should be available.

As for the "dream" thing, like I said, I can believe Oz really happened and the ruby slippers (or Glinda) only made it seem like a dream. Also, I think part of the director's original intention is that Dorothy does not leave her friends. She discovers that the Lion, Scarecrow, and Woodman were the friends she had on the farm back home, and her love for them is rekindled, and stronger. They are real. But I prefer thinking of them as seperate characters she will see again sometime...!

As for Wendy having a dream, she could look up at the moon and wonder if Tinker Bell's adventures ever happened. I just remembered that even in the original film, it was suggested Never Land might be a dream, with the Darling children asleep, and the pirate ship only a cloud...or did it magically change to decieve the parents? Or was it fading away because the childen were growing up? But I also think Wendy could read her children a story, and they ask if it was real, and she says, "What do you want to believe?" But both these ways, like The Wizard of OZ, it could be a dream, a story, or it could be real.

Your storybook theory I might be okay with accept Peter Pan didn't open with a book. I don't know if it could work for me, they'd have to find a way...but what about that whole the first Never Land almost seemed a dream thing, and Wendy wonders if it's real, and it could have been real? I know it sounds cheesy but she could say she had a dream of Tinker Bell and she says she got it from listening to Peter's stories another life, or she simply wakes up from it and it could have been her imaginaion of what happened or a memory from watching it as a little girl... Tinker Bell is above her, unnoticed, sprinkling the Pixie dust that makes her have the dream/memory? Oh wait, what if she was visiting her own private Never Land, as a girl, and we are left to wonder if she dreamed it or she saw Pixie Hollow through her mind...?

If we don't agree after this it just might not happen lol, but you came up with a good idea and I think we're gettin' somewhere...I would not mind Tinker Bell sprinkling dust on a book making the story appear, I think...and I might not mind any film that originally opened with a book having a sequel that opened with another, different book, that I guess could be considered a recorded real event, or made up, we get to decide. Cinderella II almost even had that idea, but it was supposed to be what really happened...in direct-to-video fake world, for me!

I write a lot...by the way I hope you know I consider the Walt Era book-opened films, and all Disney Animated Classics for that matter, to be something that "really" happened! Just not the sequels. It's that the sequels make no effort to differentiate themselves from the originals as being un-real what-ifs that bothers me and I feel disrespects the original filmakers. I guess Rescuers Down Under and Fantasia are the real, legitimate sequels.

[blackcauldron85]

Construction on the new Mickey and Minnie meet and greet at Town Square Expo Hall to begin soon
http://www.wdwmagic.com/Attractions/Tow ... n-soon.htm
(via disneyreport.com)

[Margos]

I don't know.... for me, wild, inane flailing is not woeful. It's just weird. And certainly not right for Cogsworth. His action in the revised version is more confused and hopeless, much more suitable for his character and motivation. And yes, the colors are a little off, but that really wasn't that distracting for me, I had to admit. I really don't care so much, because the other revisions actually improve the movie to the point that I'd rather watch that, unusual color palette and all, instead of the OTV.

I agree, also, that I see the book opening things as stuff that "really" happened. I'm just saying that some people might not. And here's the thing: Tinker Bell really isn't a sequel. It's barely even a prequel. It's sort of a "side story." It's something new involving the same character, but it's not directly linked to the plot of the original.

I think people (yourself included) are prejudiced against these films just because they were released DTV. Well let me tell you something, the "DTV-fake-world" in Tinker Bell is something magical and different, and certainly higher quality than some theatrically-released animated fare I could mention!

I agree, though, that Rescuers Down Under and F2000 are the only "legitimate" sequels (well, and The Three Caballeros as well, since that was kind of sort of the follow-up to Saludos Amigos).

But absoultely not, the whole "reading a story" idea or "might be a dream" crap-o-la is just not proper Disney storytelling. It sounds like the kind of cheap tricks that DisneyToon might have tried to pull had Lasseter not intervened and saved the day. I'm sorry, but it's simply nonsense.

And this story is (thankfully) different in tone than Peter Pan, so the "might be a dream" comparison really isn't valid. I know I've shared my opinion on Peter Pan on other threads. You see, Peter Pan is more an metaphorical adventure for Wendy, learning to be a woman while travelling through her childhood made real. In fact, it would make more sense logically if it was all a dream. Tinker Bell, however, is a literal story of a young fairy finding herself and learning to love herself for who she is. It's not meant to be a metaphor or anything, it's just a story. You just can't make the comparison in the least. They're two totally different types of things with a character in common.

But you know something? This is going nowhere. How's this: Either don't watch the Tinker Bell movies (but kindly quit complaining about them), or take the fact the FBI warnings as something before the film saying "Hey, this was made by somebody, so don't worry, it didn't really happen, so it can't possibly challenge your preconceived notions in the least! It's not real, since we just made it up! As long as you don't pirate it, we're OK! Huzzah!"