Future Plans For WDW's Fantasyland

[Disney Duster]

Wait, what theaters are being torn down for these new Mickey and Minnie meet and greets in Town Square?

Now...Margos...

But in the original version of the scene, Cogsworth's eyes were more helpless, more relaxed and letting go, and he had his arms out, like he was at a loss, another helpless movement. That is more woeful. In the new version, he goes stiff with his arms at his side and his eyes wide. Not to mention he does it so fast, where as the old Cogsoworth did his movements slower, more serious and woeful. Also, you missed the shadow and detail missing. I can't find the video comparison that showed them side by side, but it is the case.

Your theory on why I am hard on these films does not work when I also dissaprove of Return to Never Land and Jungle Book 2, which were in theaters. Not to mention I like Cinderella III. Not only was that high quality, it had the alternate reality thing which allowed it to be something that didn't really happen, a film I could enjoy while knowing it was in a parallel time-changed world, not the real Cinderella world.

Your pointing out how different Peter Pan and Tinker Bell are as films only further points out why Tinker Bell shouldn't have been made. But I don't see your problem with Wendy dreaming about her own Never Land where Pixie Hollow exists, since that goes along with J.M. Barrie's original ideas. And though it's not exactly what I want, I consider it a great compromise for the films to be made and for Disney's films and characters to be respected. I consider it a great compromise for you and me to get what we want!

And by respected, respecting Walt and his work, I mean not making anything that is a sequel to his films, not coming up with new scenarios for the characters and changing them in ways we can't know Walt would do and that he can't approve of (because he is dead), unless the people making them had some way of saying they aren't the real versions of those characters, or the new stories aren't what really happened to them.

Walt said everything needed to be approved by him, he told his workers what he wanted and they made it, following his acting out the stories and his descriptions, but he's dead and he can no longer say if they're doing his characters (either literary characters he imagines his own interpretations of or characters completely made up by him) wrong or not, so they shouldn't do anything further unless they say it's not what really happened. Things like House of Mouse and theme parks don't count because they are not films. The characters can show up hosting parties in publicity or be in shorts or something, but not any other films, in the universes from the first films.

Now we have to agree to disagree, I am just stating my reasons for why I want what I'm talking about, respecting the dead and all that. Even if Tinker Bell or any character seems to be kept very close and faithful to how the character was under Walt's direction, we just don't know if Walt would approve, and that's what it comes down to.

[Margos]

You talk about respecting Walt and J. M. Barrie at the same time? Really? I gotta say, Peter Pan is the one case in all of the Disney films that I feel that the original author would be disappointed by. Talk about respecting the dead, show a little courtesy for the guy that really created Tink!

And why in the hell would Wendy be dreaming about Tink? Aren't they rivals or something? No, Wendy has grown up after meeting Tinker Bell, or don't you get that? Peter Pan was a story of maturation, and Wendy wouldn't have time for nursery dreams after her adventure. It doesn't make any sense. Period.

And yes, I did see the side-by-side comparison. I don't care how many details or shadows or whatever were there before, since Cogsworth was being so distracting and laughable that I couldn't even notice them. Seriously. Now that I've seen the improved version, I LOL (totally spoiling the mood) every time I see the old way.

And I do find it hysterical that you say things like "The Real Cinderella World." Ummmm..... You do realize that there is no such thing, right? That's why different people, whether they be authors or filmmakers or just average people who aren't going to do anything with it, can imagine anything at all to happen in these make-believe universes. It's all about what the individual thinks and feels about it. You can do whatever you want to common-domain characters, and if you have the copyrights, you can even do them to ones that aren't common-domain. Guess what? Disney isn't going to ask you, or dead people, what they can or can't do! It's what they want, and what they believe.

If you believe that Lady Tremaine suddenly learning to do magic is somehow more believable than Tinker Bell having a life before meeting Peter..... wow.... That's seriously the reason why I never bothered to watch Cinderella III. Because that simply doesn't happen in my "Real Cinderella World." Yikes! Disney never said that she could do magic. Show some respect for the dead.

[Disney Duster]

This is all easy to explain...

As I said, please don't ignore the word adaptation or version, those are important words in the creative world. Walt Disney made an adaptation of someone else's work. However, today's Disney company is using the same version of the characters he made in a new story they're making up.

As for Wendy, I was thinking they would just show her little, dreaming of her own Never Land, Pixie Hollow, even having her mother tucking her in and reading a story about Peter Pan to influence her dreams (she said her mother told her about him, right?) Then she dreams of Tinker Bell before she is mean to her and is her rival, and it only shows Wendy in bed and maybe say a few lines, so it has no chance to change Walt's character of Wendy except show her same design as a little girl.

Pointing out that you only laugh at the old Cogsworth after seeing the new version further explains to me why they shouldn't have changed it (or maybe gotten the guy who was lead animaor, who wanted to animated him so bad, do it), but I never like when they tamper with the original that the audience has loved for so long anyway. Human Again is fine as long as they don't change the colors or anything else and the original version is still available (which it's not, the changed animation and colors are still there in the version they say is the original on the current DVD).

I have to admit, Lady Tremaine gaining magic does occur within the (fake DTV version of) Cinderella universe, but then the rest of the film and what she actually does, including the reversal of Cinderella's happily ever after and changes (or development, however you slice it) in characters only happens in a parallel universe. But the damage is minimal because their are only a few minutes of that, and not much happens in it that's a big change except the fairy godmother gtting revealed to everyone. But here's the kicker, the magic time reversal also erases all that we see in the first few minutes, so it kind of even erases itself! It's just one of the more okay ways I think they can make these films without saying they're what really happened.

I like some of these sequels. But if they tried some way to say they never really happened, I, and I think many others (no, maybe not you) would be okay with them, and mayb enjoy them too. And you may not like the dream thing, but at least you would get a chance to still see the stories you want.

When I say things like real Cinderella world, I mean the world of Walt Disney's Cinderella, the world in a film using Walt's imagination, using his character's, his environments, his world that he made up. By saying it's a dream, a parallel time world, or even a newly written book like you suggested, it makes kind of an alternate world that isn't the real one within the film.

Look at The Wizard of Oz for instance. Oz was a dream world (or not, depending on the fan, as I think it was "real"), and Kansas is supposed to be the real world. But that farmhouse, and the characters who ran it, weren't real, it wasn't a real place. Disney films set their magical kingdoms in real places. Belle's town was in real France, and Cinderella's tiny kingdom was probably around France, too. Snow What was Germany, Aladdin was the Middle East, etc. But a dream world or magical alternate wrld would be a fake world within the real world of the movies. Yes, it's confusing, but atlast I attempted to explain. I think you already knew those things though and were being harsh on me for sake of argument.

I don't understand, I'm trying to compromise so you can have your stories and yet they can respect Walt by saying they "might" not have happened. You're really bothered by that idea, when the original Peter Pan could have been a dream, and never happened, either...but the thing is, you can believe that Tinker Bell's adventures really happened, and Wendy only thought it was a dream (like she imagined Pixie Hollow and it became real, and she saw it through her head, but she didn't know it was real, or whatever you can imagine), just like I can think Oz really happened even though Dorothy thought it was a dream. It gives fans more choice to decide if it's real or not, to believe what they want!

[WDWLocal]

Time to admit defeat, Disney Duster.

[blackcauldron85]

D23 Spring 2010 Magazine Reveals “Fantasyland Forest” and Possible 40th Plans
http://www.wdwnewstoday.com/archives/4958
(via disneyreport.com)

[UmbrellaFish]

D23 Spring 2010 Magazine Reveals “Fantasyland Forest” and Possible 40th Plans
http://www.wdwnewstoday.com/archives/4958
(via disneyreport.com)

**drool**

I'll be thinking about this all day...

I wish I could go to the Disney Parks more often. I may be going later this year (crossing my fingers!), but I hope I get to see this some day once it's been constructed. Although, to be honest, I'm less than excited about hearing a Pixie Hollow area may be built. I doubt the franchise will have enough lasting power to garner a whole area in Disney World (disregarding their temporary home at Ariel's old Grotto, of course). In fact, wouldn't the series be over (or just about) by 2013? Seems like they'd be wasting money to even focus on doing something like this with Pixie Hollow to me.

[WDWLocal]

I wish I could go to the Disney Parks more often. I may be going later this year (crossing my fingers!), but I hope I get to see this some day once it's been constructed. Although, to be honest, I'm less than excited about hearing a Pixie Hollow area may be built. I doubt the franchise will have enough lasting power to garner a whole area in Disney World (disregarding their temporary home at Ariel's old Grotto, of course). In fact, wouldn't the series be over (or just about) by 2013? Seems like they'd be wasting money to even focus on doing something like this with Pixie Hollow to me.

Just because a series may be "over" does not mean that it won't endure and become remembered for a long, long time.

[blackcauldron85]

I'm just now reading the article that I posted earlier...(I was busy this morning)...

1.

Enchanted Tales with Belle

So what's going where Storytime with Belle is currently?

2.

A Birthday Surprise for Sleeping Beauty

Um, her name is Aurora, Disney. I mean, I can understand that a lot of people don't know that she has a real name, and maybe some people would be less likely to go to "A Birthday Surprise for Aurora", but maybe they need to educate people. I know that it's not the end of the world, but it always irks me when they call her Sleeping Beauty. {On a side-note, maybe Disney really should stick with Rapunzel as the film's title- maybe some people will call Rapunzel "Hidden Tower" or something (like how many people call Aurora "Sleeping Beauty"...)

3.

Briar Rose Cottage

Or you could call it "A Birthday Surprise for Briar Rose"...this might get even more confusing for people.

4.

deep within a lush, Eyvind Earle-inspired forest

What, with real trees, or with matte paintings?!?

5.

Imagineers are also air-conditioning the entire experience by moving the queue indoors-under the big top, as it were. “We’ll provide a fully immersive circus environment inside Dumbo’s Big Top,” says Jon, “where guests are invited to engage in a series of interactive experiences, from sideshow acts to carnival midway games, while they wait.

Yay for air conditioning! I wonder, though, if the lines will be even longer than they are now (meaning even though there will be 2 Dumbo rides, maybe with all the new stuff (and hello, air conditioning!), the lines will be even longer than we're used to right now).

6.

will also absorb Goofy’s Barnstormer and transform it into a Dumbo-centric, clown themed coaster.

It's nice to know what's really going on with the Barnstormer!

7.

Imagineers already have their eyes on 2013, when Pixie Hollow will bring Tinker Bell and her fairy friends to Fantasyland Forest in the expansion’s second phase.

I didn't realize that there would be a second phase, that Pixie Hollow wouldn't be opening with the rest of the expansion.

***

Although, to be honest, I'm less than excited about hearing a Pixie Hollow area may be built. I doubt the franchise will have enough lasting power to garner a whole area in Disney World (disregarding their temporary home at Ariel's old Grotto, of course). In fact, wouldn't the series be over (or just about) by 2013? Seems like they'd be wasting money to even focus on doing something like this with Pixie Hollow to me.

I have the same exact feelings.

Just because a series may be "over" does not mean that it won't endure and become remembered for a long, long time.

I agree... I haven't seen either Tinker Bell film (but I did read the first Disney Fairies book), and I know that at least the first one went through production hell, but I'd think that they'd be theatrical (and I don't mean a short run at the El Capitan) features if they were long-lasting theme park quality (if that makes sense!). Especially in 2013, will people still care? Do people care enough now? I mean, making Agrabah or Jamestown or Prydain (haha) would make more sense (kidding, unfortunately, on the last one) than Pixie Hollow, just because the movies have longer lasting power. I mean, sure, we can't know yet- maybe the Tinker Bell movies will be as beloved as Snow White some day (although I doubt it...), but it just seems like such an of-the-moment choice. I mean, it'd be like if in 2007, Disney planned on making a HSM-Land at one of the parks...by the time it'd be built, even though HSM still has its fans, it'd be less popular and would seem like an odd choice, to put something that doesn't necessarily have the lasting power as many of the DACs do.

And what about a Bambi section? I mean, forest, Bambi, hello?!?

And with all the princess & fairy "stuff", how about a Disney Heroes section? I mean, you could have Agrabah (Aladdin & Jasmine- double win!) or Jamestown (John Smith & Pocahontas- double win!), or Nottingham...or Treasure Planet if the film did better...same for Atlantis & Prydain...so many possibilities.

[UmbrellaFish]

Just because a series may be "over" does not mean that it won't endure and become remembered for a long, long time.

I agree... I haven't seen either Tinker Bell film (but I did read the first Disney Fairies book), and I know that at least the first one went through production hell, but I'd think that they'd be theatrical (and I don't mean a short run at the El Capitan) features if they were long-lasting theme park quality (if that makes sense!). Especially in 2013, will people still care? Do people care enough now? I mean, making Agrabah or Jamestown or Prydain (haha) would make more sense (kidding, unfortunately, on the last one) than Pixie Hollow, just because the movies have longer lasting power. I mean, sure, we can't know yet- maybe the Tinker Bell movies will be as beloved as Snow White some day (although I doubt it...), but it just seems like such an of-the-moment choice. I mean, it'd be like if in 2007, Disney planned on making a HSM-Land at one of the parks...by the time it'd be built, even though HSM still has its fans, it'd be less popular and would seem like an odd choice, to put something that doesn't necessarily have the lasting power as many of the DACs do.

And what about a Bambi section? I mean, forest, Bambi, hello?!?

And with all the princess & fairy "stuff", how about a Disney Heroes section? I mean, you could have Agrabah (Aladdin & Jasmine- double win!) or Jamestown (John Smith & Pocahontas- double win!), or Nottingham...or Treasure Planet if the film did better...same for Atlantis & Prydain...so many possibilities.

What blackcauldron85 said. You're absolutely right, WDWLocal that series can have long lasting affects on audience after it's over, but "Tinker Bell" and "Pixie Hollow" have by no means affected enough people to be deemed worthy a section in a long-lasting theme park (or, for that matter, a MMOG, but I digress). Seriously, quiz anyone except Disney fans and they'd probably never have heard of it. I rather doubt it's that popular with it's target audience. In fact, I've never heard it mentioned in outside conversation, but I've certainly heard of Barbie, Dora the Explorer, and so on. Almost beyond a shadow of a doubt, the Tinker Bell series will be just a footnote in the record of Disney history. If the area was built, it would definitely be revamped in the future.

However, I really like Amy's ideas about other Disney "neighborhoods". I haven't seen TBC so... I can't talk about that. But an Agrabah area would be awesome. Even cooler, why doesn't Disney team up with the actual Jamestown settlement and sprinkle some of their magic pixie dust over the place. I've never been there, but for me at least, historical recreations tend to be a bit disappointing. I'm not saying stick in a Poca walk-around, but just make great exhibits and tours and stuff. Really immersive, you know. God knows Disney would have the money to put into the project.

Now, out of my imagination and back into the real world, where something like that will never happen (or Disney would royally screw it up if they did).

[blackcauldron85]

However, I really like Amy's ideas about other Disney "neighborhoods". I haven't seen TBC so... I can't talk about that. But an Agrabah area would be awesome. Even cooler, why doesn't Disney team up with the actual Jamestown settlement and sprinkle some of their magic pixie dust over the place. I've never been there, but for me at least, historical recreations tend to be a bit disappointing. I'm not saying stick in a Poca walk-around, but just make great exhibits and tours and stuff. Really immersive, you know. God knows Disney would have the money to put into the project.

Thanks! And you should see TBC. Just saying. Technically, there is an Agrabah section, near the carpet ride in Adventureland, but it's not much at all, and regardless of what the Diamond Editions line says, Aladdin is a popular property. And about Jamestown- I think Disney would be more likely to build other movie locations over Jamestown because, if you know anything about Disney's America park (that never came to be)...if it was controversial then, it'd probably be controversial now. But if it was educational, then why not...?

I wonder, if the Fantasyland go-into-the-worlds-of-your-favorite-characters idea is really popular and successful, I wonder if it'll be expanded to other parks (I know the article mentions Magic Kingdoms in other parks, but I'm thinking more along the lines of...):

Epcot, I think, would be a perfect place for expansion, in terms of character environments:

China: Mulan
Italy: Pinocchio
United States: ...Ichabod (New England?), Lady and the Tramp (New England), Pete's Dragon (Maine), The Rescuers (Louisiana), The Fox and the Hound, Oliver & Company (New York), Pocahontas (Virginia), Atlantis (1920s...), Lilo & Stitch (Hawaii), Brother Bear (Alaska), Home on the Range (the South), Bolt (Hollywood/California), The Princess and the Frog (Louisinana)
Canada: Brother Bear
Morocco: Aladdin (the fictitious Agrabah)
France: The Aristocats, The Hunchback of Notre Dame (how amazing would a Notre Dame Cathedral be at Epcot!?!), (no need for Beauty and the Beast, since that's at Magic Kingdom)
United Kingdom: Alice in Wonderland (although Wonderland really isn't England, I guess), Peter Pan, 101 Dalmatians, The Sword in the Stone, Mary Poppins, Bedknobs & Broomsticks, Robin Hood, Pooh (even though the animal characters aren't necessarily British in the films...), The Black Cauldron, The Great Mouse Detective, Tarzan
Mexico: maybe The Emperor's New Groove (I don't know my geography and don't feel like looking it up at the moment.)

(If there was an India: The Jungle Book.)
(If there was a proper Australia: The Rescuers Down Under.)
(If there was a proper Africa [I know that Africa isn't a country...]: The Lion King, Tarzan.)
{If there was a Greece: Hercules.)

Obviously some of these movies aren't as popular as others, and obviously it'd cost a lot, but I think putting some of these themed areas in Epcot would make sense, and the park would be more child-friendly (since many people think that Epcot isn't too child-friendly).

[pvdfan]

^I would despise that many characters in the World Showcase. Right now they already have Pooh and friends and Mary Poppins in the UK along with princess dinning somewhere (want to say Norway.) Lets try to keep WS more adult like. It's one the big draws of it.

I actually like that the Pixie Hollow part is opening later then the other parts. Gives the park something to at least look forward to after the Fantasy Forrest expansion.

[UmbrellaFish]

And you should see TBC. Just saying.

Ugh! I meant to say I have seen it, but it's been so long I do think I need to rewatch it. I know it comes on Toon Disney from time to time, but it must be cut and edited.

Just wikipedia'd Disney's America. I have, of course, heard of it in the past, but forgotten all the little details (and most of the big ones...) and while I think it would have been a history buff's complete paradise, I understand the controversy.

For years rumors have been swirling about Disney taking up some space in TN, my little state, probably near Dolly Wood. I would die if that happened. Actually, Disney's America would probably have had a much more ideal location in Pigeon Forge than where ever they were planning to place it in Virginia.

Completely off-topic. Sorry.

I sort of agree with pvdfan about keeping the characters in low quantity at Epcot. There's nothing wrong with having a few walk-arounds and themed shows and restauraunts and such, but the appeal of me about going to Epcot would be getting a taste of what foreign countries are like, and no matter how much I'd like to fantasize, you can't really meet Mary Poppins in London... She's in Cali, anyway.

[blackcauldron85]

Well, I didn't really mean that ALL those characters need to be in Epcot, but maybe having a Pinocchio area in Italy, for example, where you can go into Gepetto's shop and meet some of the characters (and they can sell puppets- gift shop = $ = for Disney!). You know, how you'll be able to visit the Princesses' homes at Magic Kingdom. Just a couple, even, would make sense to me, if the Fantasyland Expansion's meet & greet areas are a huge success.

[UmbrellaFish]

Well, I didn't really mean that ALL those characters need to be in Epcot, but maybe having a Pinocchio area in Italy, for example, where you can go into Gepetto's shop and meet some of the characters (and they can sell puppets- gift shop = $ = for Disney!). You know, how you'll be able to visit the Princesses' homes at Magic Kingdom. Just a couple, even, would make sense to me, if the Fantasyland Expansion's meet & greet areas are a huge success.

I like that idea. Like have an authentic looking little Italian place (well, I'm sure there's tons of them, but this would read "Gepetto's Shoppe" or something) and have a walk-around Gepetto manning the store with authentic marionettes for sell. Maybe Pinocchio could be outside the door greeting the shoppers.

Seriously, why doesn't Disney think of that?

[Disney Duster]

Pixie Hollow with Tinker Bell's made up fairy friends should not be in the parks.

A DTV lie of Walt Disney's characters without Walt's approval should not have an attraction in the parks...

A DTV anything should not have an attraction in the parks...

And this franchise which is not anywhere near the Disney Animated Classics should not have an attraction in the parks.

I might be okay with Neverland being where Pixie Hollow would be, and maybe a little tiny bit of it have a little Pixie Hollow, but otherwise no.

Pinocchio should be in Fantasyland, not Epcot! Epcot should be for science and history and "real" things that the fantasy characters just visit sometimes, because that's what it is! The fantasy and real stuff are seperate, so keep them to Walt's vision!

And doesn't Pinocchio have a "Village Haus" somewhere?

By the way, does anyone know, was Pixie Hollow ever mentioned in Peter Pan or J.M. Barrie's works? Was it on the map that Tinker Bell shows Peter Pan's hideout on in the original classic?

[Nala]

^I would despise that many characters in the World Showcase. Right now they already have Pooh and friends and Mary Poppins in the UK along with princess dinning somewhere (want to say Norway.) Lets try to keep WS more adult like. It's one the big draws of it.

I actually like that the Pixie Hollow part is opening later then the other parts. Gives the park something to at least look forward to after the Fantasy Forrest expansion.

You can already see Mulan in China. I had my picture taken with Mulan when we were in WDW in December.

[Nala]

Pinocchio's Village Haus is in Fantasyland at the Magic Kingdom. I've seen Pinocchio at Disney's Hollywood Studios. I've seen Jiminy Cricket at Animal Kingdom. The Pooh Charaters are also at Animal Kingdom.

[pvdfan]

^I would despise that many characters in the World Showcase. Right now they already have Pooh and friends and Mary Poppins in the UK along with princess dinning somewhere (want to say Norway.) Lets try to keep WS more adult like. It's one the big draws of it.

I actually like that the Pixie Hollow part is opening later then the other parts. Gives the park something to at least look forward to after the Fantasy Forrest expansion.

You can already see Mulan in China. I had my picture taken with Mulan when we were in WDW in December.

I thought she was there, but did not spend much time in that country so I was not sure.

The only reason I know Mary Poppins and the Pooh characters are in the UK is by accident. We happened to see Mary Poppins leaving for a rest and went into the toy story right as the Pooh characters got there. We were the 2nd people in line to see them. It was almost like the old days of character run ins.

[Super Aurora]

Pinocchio should be in Fantasyland, not Epcot! Epcot should be for science and history and "real" things that the fantasy characters just visit sometimes, because that's what it is! The fantasy and real stuff are seperate, so keep them to Walt's vision!

And doesn't Pinocchio have a "Village Haus" somewhere?

Believe or not, Pinocchio is one of those fantasy stories that works well with both Epcot's Italy or Fantasyland. Black Cauldron's idea of Geppetto shop is actually a neat idea and is very transmittable setting could that works well in either Epoct Italy or Fantasyland. This is mainly cause it's a shop. One of the main focus of the world showcase is shops that sell country related items and goods. The Geppetto shop could work well there. It can also work well in Fantasy land just by the nature of the idea: puppets and classical toys.

Now I do think Pinocchio ride is more suitable for fantasyland. The rides in Epoct usually non-fiction educational and try suppress the use of Disney characters in them. I'm still hoping one day WDW gets the Pinocchio ride, cause I want to ride it.(not going to bother going all the way to Cali just for that.)

[blackcauldron85]

I might be okay with Neverland being where Pixie Hollow would be, and maybe a little tiny bit of it have a little Pixie Hollow, but otherwise no.

I agree with that. And Never Land would make sense: not only could you have Peter Pan & Wendy, you could have Pirates and Fairies! Disney's favorite things mixed together!

You can already see Mulan in China. I had my picture taken with Mulan when we were in WDW in December.

You can, but I meant if the new Fantasyland locations prove to be popular, then maybe having other character homes would make sense, too, and would add a little something more.

Pinocchio should be in Fantasyland, not Epcot! Epcot should be for science and history and "real" things that the fantasy characters just visit sometimes, because that's what it is! The fantasy and real stuff are seperate, so keep them to Walt's vision!

And doesn't Pinocchio have a "Village Haus" somewhere?

Well, you already can meet characters in Epcot, so why not have some movie locations there? And Pinocchio's Village Haus is a Pinocchio-themed restaurant, but it's not a movie location.

One of the main focus of the world showcase is shops that sell country related items and goods. The Geppetto shop could work well there. It can also work well in Fantasy land just by the nature of the idea: puppets and classical toys.

Now I do think Pinocchio ride is more suitable for fantasyland. The rides in Epoct usually non-fiction educational and try suppress the use of Disney characters in them.

I agree- Gepetto's shop would also fit in Fantasyland (if they made the space for it...to me, it'd make sense near the Village Haus). And, yeah, a Pinocchio ride definitely would fit better in Fantasyland- I was just talking about the home/shop idea.