Future Plans For WDW's Fantasyland

[Wonderlicious]

I have no idea what is going on. But it seems from what I'm reading, they're ditching the Fantasyland expansion. At least, from what I understand. Is this true??

I wouldn't really say that they're ditching it; it's more that they're rethinking it. Since the Princess line has proved not to secure guaranteed success (with The Princess and the Frog not doing too well at the box office, and the Disney Fairies line suffering an identity crisis (Tinkerbell remains as popular as ever, but the other ones keep on getting forgotten).

[Disney Duster]

Margos, I side with you so incredliby much and I don't see why anyone else isn't as much!

I think EVERYONE (not jut here, but EVERYWHERE) is kind of missing the point: creating the worlds, the whole worlds, of some of the best loved Disney films of all time, that have stood the test of time. Visiting their worlds. Is it the princess' fault their movies are the most popular and time-enduring?

Although from comments I've read online, some people don't like the idea that Cinderella will have a castle AND a house, although the house is the Tremaines' house, right?

It is the Tremaine's house, but also, of course, Cinderella's as it was her dad's. She lives as a servant there, until her transformation.

]Or, make Cinderella Castle have Cinderella's transformation, and all the other effects from her attraction that would fit (and some more Be Our Guest Restaraunt-like effects) at her Royal Table dining.

Would they have space in there? It's kind of crowded as is...? But maybe in the lobby or something? Not a bad idea at all, actually. I think that would be quite magical, actually...yes, I like this idea very much!

Well, what I meant was whatever effects from the chateau they could instead put in the castle, they would. And if they didn't already, tiny talking mice and birds, like the talking enchanted objects at Be our Guest restaraunt, and other things like that.

Also, it is rumoured that the new walk-through being built inside Tokyo Disneyland's castle will have Cinderella's transformation, and perhaps other effects. That's what I was talking about.

Well, they're not rides. Attractions, meet and greets...but not rides. I WISH they were rides!!!!! XD Then they could have the homes and the rides and it'd be extra magical.

AGREED!!!!!

I also agree with what you and Super Aurora said about having a Neverland, a Wonderland, or/and a Pinocchio. But I'd like to keep Cinderella's chateau if possible along with those. Or put that somewhere in Disneyland and keep Aurora's cottage.

Now to Wondy.


Wondy, yes, YES kids do badly want to do all those things with those characters. I'm sorry, what kid would not want to become a knight for a princess, OR give a gift to a princess they made, OR be in a show with a princess? It's more than meeting characters, it's playing with them. That's way better than just meeting them.

More generally, what kid does not want to enter the whole worlds of their favorite films? To experience what their favorite characters experienced?

It's only the cynical people who don't appreciate exploring a magical world, a lot of teens and some adults, that care more about thrilling rides.

I am surprised you don't want to explore their magical worlds!

And acually, I caught you, you do, you want to explore Wonderland and Neverland, at the expense of exploring the other characters' worlds! And frankly, those other characters you are neglecting are actually more popular and bigger.

I like a lot of your ideas actually, I think they are really good actually, but I want to see your ideas melded with the previous ideas. I even like your idea of moving Cinderella's transformation and other effects to her castle as I have also suggested.

But if we can get to explore all the princesses worlds that we were going to, and either Neverland or Wonderland, which appeal more to both boys and girls and have more possibilities for exciting rides, then let's do that, let's compromise instead of wrecking the chances of exploring the other characters' worlds.

And now I realize, Neverland is kind of already covered with Peter Pan's ride. You go through Neverland.

In fact, get this, the Peter Pan ride, Alice ride, and Pinocchio ride already let you explore the character's worlds! It is only the princesses that haven't gotten the opportunity by not having such rides, so this is their time for the exploration of their environments.

Maybe they could even do both Neverland and Wonderland together in Pixie Hollow's place, or maybe get rid of either Aurora's or Cinderella's for more room, even replace it with Pinocchio, but Cinderella's chateau should get built somewhere, maybe Disneyland, and you only really have to get rid of either her's or Aurora's, not both.

And I cannot believe your disregard for the old rides! Snow White is the first film, it's gotta stay! Maybe a new mine coaster would be okay, but I think that ride is good, it's scary, it's thrilling. What, every single ride at the parks needs to be super popular so there's long lines you have to wait in for all of them so you never catch a break?

The only other thing is...did you really say Pixie Hollow should be in the Neverland volcano?! How could it survive in a volcano?!

[Margos]

Yeah, I agree about Pixie Hollow, come to think of it. It wouldn't make any sense at all inside of a volcano.

It really is a small area of Neverland, according to the bonus features on the DVD. It's small enough that it isn't noticable among the jungle when seeing Neverland from the air, but from a pixie-sized point of view, it is a rather large place. It would be difficul to have both a Neverland and a Pixie Hollow, since the only way to do it physically would be to literally shrink guests. If Neverland was included, I would hide Pixie Hollow using natural landscaping features or something, and then use a "Honey I Shrunk the Kids"-esque cue line to explain how you are suddenly in Pixie Hollow.....

[UmbrellaFish]

Yeah, I agree about Pixie Hollow, come to think of it. It wouldn't make any sense at all inside of a volcano.

It really is a small area of Neverland, according to the bonus features on the DVD. It's small enough that it isn't noticable among the jungle when seeing Neverland from the air, but from a pixie-sized point of view, it is a rather large place. It would be difficul to have both a Neverland and a Pixie Hollow, since the only way to do it physically would be to literally shrink guests. If Neverland was included, I would hide Pixie Hollow using natural landscaping features or something, and then use a "Honey I Shrunk the Kids"-esque cue line to explain how you are suddenly in Pixie Hollow.....

I think that's what they did when they converted Ariel's Grotto to Pixie Hollow.

[Margos]

I know, but if it existed within Neverland..... do you see what I'm saying? It would be confusing.

[UmbrellaFish]

I know, but if it existed within Neverland..... do you see what I'm saying? It would be confusing.

Well, I haven't really been following what was said in this thread, so I don't know if this is even plausible, but if Pixie Hollow has to be included, why not do something like "A Bug's Life" in the Tree of Life at Animal Kingdom? Just stick a giant tree in the middle of Neverland and call it Pixie Hollow. I mean, I don't think the fairies live inside the tree, but theming can be done so it seems like you're in the boughs of the tree, I guess.

And since you're secluded from the rest of Neverland and inside a tree, I think the "shrinking" affect would be achieved. But then again it's late at night and I'm barely awake, so once again I'm not sure if this is totally plausible.

But to be honest- I think it would be silly to make a whole Pixie Hollow themed area. The franchise is going to be over within a few years, and do to its general lack of success, I don't think Disney will ever revive it. It seems to me that creating Pixie Hollow would just waste Disney's money and resources.

[Margos]

Who cares about the franchise? It would still be lovely. Interesting, fun characters in a beautiful location, and very full of the Disney magic. It would be great, and nuts to the stupid Disney marketing people.

The problem with Pixie Hollow being inside of a tree is that it is quite obvious that Pixie Hollow is out in the open, and under the sky, with a view of the Neverland mountains surrounding. It would be difficult, but I think the imagineers could be able to pull it off. It would be disappointing if they took the lazy route of containing it within a tree or building or cave or something of the sort.

[UmbrellaFish]

Who cares about the franchise? It would still be lovely. Interesting, fun characters in a beautiful location, and very full of the Disney magic. It would be great, and nuts to the stupid Disney marketing people.

Okay, I'm going to say it- Pixie Hollow is a passing fad. Twenty years from now, if it's remembered at all, it'll be one of those things where you vaguely remember, perhaps fondly. But as soon as Disney finishes those movies (and unless there's a huge push in popularity with the line soon), Pixie Hollow is Minnie 'n Me.

Other choices like a full Wonderland or Neverland (without Pixie Hollow) are more practical because Disney will always keep those in audiences' consciousness, whereas as soon as Disney can finish marketing Pixie Hollow (and who knows, Dwarf Minez Bedazzler franchise instead) they will.

[Margos]

I don't know about that. They are good films, and they improve in quality as time goes on. Here's what I'm saying: I do not care about Disney marketing. Fans do not care about Disney marketing.

Is Disney marketing doing anything about The Black Cauldron? No, according to them, that film died as soon as it was released. Do we here still discuss The Black Cauldron? Yes. Would some of us (myself included) loved to see a ride in WDW based on The Black Cauldron? Most likely.

So, it stands to reason that Disney marketing is not necessarily in touch with what the people would like and enjoy. And if that means the Disney Fairies "franchise" ends up being as lasting as "mid-popularity" DACs in twenty years (mid-popularity being quite below the Fab Four but way above the package films), then so be it. I don't care if they stop trying to "sell it to the crowd." But they'd better never pretend it never happened.

[DisneyJedi]

Is Disney marketing doing anything about The Black Cauldron? No, according to them, that film died as soon as it was released. Do we here still discuss The Black Cauldron? Yes. Would some of us (myself included) loved to see a ride in WDW based on The Black Cauldron? Most likely.

One or all the Disney parks NEED something like that! The only Disney park attraction I know that featured The Black Cauldron was the Cinderella Castle Mystery Tour in Tokyo Disneyland. And it closed years ago.

[UmbrellaFish]

I don't know about that. They are good films, and they improve in quality as time goes on. Here's what I'm saying: I do not care about Disney marketing. Fans do not care about Disney marketing.

Is Disney marketing doing anything about The Black Cauldron? No, according to them, that film died as soon as it was released. Do we here still discuss The Black Cauldron? Yes. Would some of us (myself included) loved to see a ride in WDW based on The Black Cauldron? Most likely.

So, it stands to reason that Disney marketing is not necessarily in touch with what the people would like and enjoy. And if that means the Disney Fairies "franchise" ends up being as lasting as "mid-popularity" DACs in twenty years (mid-popularity being quite below the Fab Four but way above the package films), then so be it. I don't care if they stop trying to "sell it to the crowd." But they'd better never pretend it never happened.

Here's the fact- no DTV has ever been in the parks before Tink's friends. Occasionally, television characters have been in the park starting in the late '80's, but usually as soon as their show is canceled they're gone.

I don't know so much if it's Disney's marketing who makes the decision to pull these characters from the parks (in fact, they'd probably want to keep them there for as long as possible) or what, but at some point the franchise will be over because it will have become tired and it's demographic will have moved on. That's why building Pixie Hollow is impractical- it is a fad.

Let me put it this way- in the '90's there was a Goliath (of Gargoyles) character at the Disney parks. He was retired and rarely comes out for Halloween parties. Now, as a Gargoyles fan, would I love to see him regularly in the parks? Yeah. But Gargoyles isn't popular like it used to be. Ten years from now, neither will Pixie Hollow.

And here's the difference between Pixie Hollow and the low-level DAC's. They are DAC's. I know you're a big fan, Margos, and I respect that because I know the movies aren't awful (granted, I've only seen the first one, and haven't an interest to see the others). You, as a fan will remember Pixie Hollow and other hard-core Disney enthusiasts as a bright, funny, cute DTV films you loved. But to everyone else who didn't bother to watch the film or become fans of them, they will be footnotes in the pages of Disney history, whereas the real history is about Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Cinderella, The Jungle Book, The Aristocats, The Black Cauldron, The Great Mouse Detective, Beauty and the Beast, so on and so forth.

[blackcauldron85]

Do we need to visit Cinderella's Château when her real castle is a two minute walk away?

I agree with you, if it'd be just Cinderella's house, BUT, if it's the Tremaines' house, which I was under the impression that it is, just make sure that you can meet Cinderella's family, and it'll be fun! Nothing against Cinderella, but since she's pretty easy to meet elsewhere, go for the villains!

Do kids really need to go on a walking tour and engage in amateur theatre with Belle?

What are you speaking of??? I mean, kids already engage in amateur theater with Belle at her storytime, but what walking tour?!?!? I want to have a walking tour with a Disney character!!!!!!!!!!!

Snow White could easily be replaced by another "pretty princess in peril" dark ride, possibly by a Sleeping Beauty adventure (since that was one of the ones that was planned anyway)

I think that a SB dark ride would be great, but don't get rid of Snow White- it scares small children- we need more of that at the parks!!!

being replaced by another ride involving flight (Aladdin, Mary Poppins)

Those 2 would be amazing rides!!!!!!!!!!!!

or a ride based around an interactive game à la Buzz Lightyear (perhaps involving villains, or a variety of famous Disney scenes and characters)

Make it a game a la Toy Story Mania, and I'm sold!

The nearby shops and restaurants could also get some redressing to tie them in to their neighbouring attractions (e.g. if there were a Sleeping Beauty ride, Mrs Pots' Cupoard could be re-themed around the three fairies).

I'm definitely all for making shops more unique.

one would first encounter the Dwarfs' Mine, which would house a mine cart ride through its jewel-lit caverns - think of a tame rollercoaster, a sort of Junior Matterhorn.

I'm loving this idea; I know that a while back in an article, Jim Hill mentioned replacing the Snow White ride with a Beauty and the Beast ride. I don't recall how I felt about that, but I mean, in your mind, they wouldn't keep the Snow White ride while adding the Dwarf mine ride, right?

Near this, there could be a Dwarfs' cottage, which could house a little café, and often feature appearances from the Snow White characters (including some of the dwarfs who hardly come out).

That sounds great. I'm all for Dwarf meet and greets! Oooooh, can the Prince and Queen make apparences, too? And the Huntsman!!!? And Snow White, of course.

As planned, one would eventually hit the Beast's Castle/Be Our Guest restaurant, and one would still be able to visit Belle's village next; there would still be a Gaston tavern, and there would also be shops and stalls like in the film, such as a bookshop and a bakery.
Towards the east of the village, it would start to feel more like a harbour, blending the world of Beauty and the Beast with that of The Little Mermaid, which is where one would find the Ariel dark ride, as well as presumably her grotto.

My first thought after reading that was "I love you". Please be an Imagineer. That's an amazing idea.

nstead of just Pixie Hollow, one would find a more general Neverland setting; this could be like a fantastical version of Tom Sawyer's Island, similar to Adventure Isle at Disneyland Paris. Hook's ship and Skull Rock could be represented, as could a series of caves and other walk-thru exhibits. Within the Neverland volcano would be a Pixie Hollow area, with the magic tree at its centre in a whimsical cavern, and there would be a meet-and-greet area similar to what exists in California.

I definitely think that Never Land makes more sense than just Pixie Hollow. Another good idea, Joe!

The circus, while still retaining the expanded Dumbo, could probably become an all purpose "Carnival of the Toons"; Dumbo would be the star, but some of the evictees from Mickey's ToonTown Fair could also feature in this funfair environment (I'd put Donald and Goofy in charge, with help from Chip n Dale, Roger Rabbit and other funny animals). The Barnstormer could be given a circus theme, while still retaining a character such as Goofy as its proprietor (as opposed to potentially creepy clowns or to a scaled back Casey Junior).

I definitely approve of adding ToonTown characters to this section. BUT, how would you retheme the Barnstormer if it's still Goofy? What would you change about the area? Casey Junior's not a bad idea, though.

Across from that would be an open-air "theatre in the forest", possibly involving a Mickey Mouse Clubhouse show, where Mickey and friends get lost in an enchanted forest, which I should add is simply a placeholder; it could eventually be redeveloped into an attraction based around a successful future film. If we were to forget Cinderella's Château (as I've said, if I had my way, her transformation show would take place in the castle as it will do in Tokyo) there would be a number of possibilities that we could discuss for hours and hours.

My choice be a Wonderland woodland, with a relocated Tea Cup ride as well as a new, updated version of the Alice in Wonderland dark ride. If anything, the Wonderland area, with its repositioning of the tea cups, would help distance the major sights of Fantasyland from the Speedway and Tomorrowland.

I'm all for making a Wonderland. But, when I read "theatre in the forest", my first thought was Pocahontas. Either bring back the Pocahontas & Friends animal show (am I the only one who liked that show?), or make a new stage show for her. OR make a Sleeping Beauty stage show? I mean, yes, Maleficent is highly represented in Fantasmic!, but again, forest. I mean, a Bambi show would be too complicated (unless they use puppets...?) and sad (unless they cut out the whole death part? Who goes to a theme park to cry?). Not feeling the Mickey Mouse Clubhouse show...how would they do it? With puppets like at Playhouse Disney: Live on Stage? They already have that... What would be at Cinderella's Chateau besides the transformation and a meet & greet (if you had a meet & greet in mind)?

Am I the only one who was seriously excited for the updates being what they were going to be? I really, really want to see places I love from the movies, like Belle's cottage, and the Tremaine chateau, and yes, Pixie Hollow! When I read about these things for the first time, I was just so excited that I couldn't wait to get to WDW again to see all these things. Now, not only are they crushing those dreams, but all of a sudden, it's "cool" to defend their sudden reluctance to embrace more feminine franchises? I definitely don't agree with this. I don't see why they don't just stick to what they were originally going to do.

Part of me has been excited to visit places from the films, definitely. But, I'm just not interested in making birthday cards, or really any arts and crafts with Aurora. I'm just not an arts and crafts kind of girl. But if there were other fun activities, or even just have it like ToonTown, where you can explore the various homes, and there would be fun things in the homes, like turning on ovens and things, then I'd be ALL FOR THAT! Woo-hoo! And it just makes sense to have Never Land and not just Pixie Hollow. My concern about just Pixie Hollow is, how long will the Tinker Bell films be...loved? [okay, UmbrellaFish already mentioned this, but I typed as I read people's comments...] I don't know how to word it this early in the morning (:p), but I mean, Never Land has been around and been loved since 1953! Let boys and girls have their fun. If they're going to spend that much money building it, they may as well spend a little more and make it so a lot more people will enjoy it. I mean, dads won't care about Pixie Hollow, but if it's Never Land, the little boy in them will want to visit it!

creating the worlds, the whole worlds, of some of the best loved Disney films of all time, that have stood the test of time. Visiting their worlds. Is it the princess' fault their movies are the most popular and time-enduring?

I think that that's a swell idea, as I mentioned above. I can understand what you're saying, that the princess films, the Disney fairy tales, are definitely some of the most popular Disney films, but I think when it comes to "the whole worlds, some of the best loved Disney films of all time," they could expand their horizons, and make not just "princess" areas, but how about visiting Gepetto's toy shop? Pocahontas' village? Merlin's home?!? The Horned King's castle! Maybe even Sherwood Forest! Wonderland and Never Land make sense, since there are so many places in those lands to visit and explore. While I do like the idea of visiting Aurora's, Cinderella's/her family's, and Belle's homes, there are other places to visit, too. Or going live-action, maybe the Banks' house? We already have the Swiss Family Treehouse. Maybe Nora's lighthouse? I mean, obviously, there are some locations that won't be as familiar with certain people, but you get the idea...

Wondy, yes, YES kids do badly want to do all those things with those characters. I'm sorry, what kid would not want to become a knight for a princess, OR give a gift to a princess they made, OR be in a show with a princess? It's more than meeting characters, it's playing with them. That's way better than just meeting them.

Some kids just want to ride rides...maybe meet a character or two...some kids aren't artistic and don't want to give Aurora a crappily-made card with stick figures and she'll laugh behind their back (we know that she won't, but little kids might be insecure... ).

In fact, get this, the Peter Pan ride, Alice ride, and Pinocchio ride already let you explore the character's worlds! It is only the princesses that haven't gotten the opportunity by not having such rides, so this is their time for the exploration of their environments.

Well, Snow White has a ride, and Ariel will have a ride, and Cinderella and Aurora have castles...just saying.

But to be honest- I think it would be silly to make a whole Pixie Hollow themed area. The franchise is going to be over within a few years, and do to its general lack of success, I don't think Disney will ever revive it. It seems to me that creating Pixie Hollow would just waste Disney's money and resources.

Yes, and by putting it in Never Land, it would last longer... ("it" meaning that attraction)

[Margos]

Look, the thing is, everything had to start somewhere. Sorry to say it, but DTVs are even a step up from TV animation. And as far as DTVs go, The Disney Fairies series is the only thing produced by DisneyToon studios so far to be good enough for a theatrical release. In fact, I wish they had released them theatrically, because then they wouldn't be looked down upon as much, I don't think. The reason why they are the first DTVs to be in the parks is because they were the first to be good enough. And it's so new, and you think, this too shall pass. Because obviously, Peter Pan has been around since 1953, and Tinker Bell since 2008, so Peter Pan must be more lasting. Well obviously, in 1955, Peter Pan was a still pretty new thing, and as far as marketing goes, being pushed aside to make room for Lady and the Tramp. Just a passing fad? Obviously not. Just not in the limelight at the moment.

You cannot tell if something will be lasting until long into the future. Who the heck would have thought some little cartoon about a naughty mouse on a makeshift airplane would have made such an impact? Certainly no one in 1927.

[UmbrellaFish]

Of course I don't have a crystal ball and I can't see into the future- but I've got my history books and I can tell you, the pedigree from which Pixie Hollow hails from is not one which lasts long. Davy Crockett was kicked out of the parks, Gadget was kicked out of the parks, Tinker Bell's friends will be, too. And I think if you weren't a fan of the movies, you'd feel the same way.

We're probably destined to disagree on this subject, and I'm willing to drop the topic now.

[Wonderlicious]

Oh lordy, this is going to be long.

Wondy, yes, YES kids do badly want to do all those things with those characters. I'm sorry, what kid would not want to become a knight for a princess, OR give a gift to a princess they made, OR be in a show with a princess? It's more than meeting characters, it's playing with them. That's way better than just meeting them.

More generally, what kid does not want to enter the whole worlds of their favorite films? To experience what their favorite characters experienced?

It's only the cynical people who don't appreciate exploring a magical world, a lot of teens and some adults, that care more about thrilling rides.

I am surprised you don't want to explore their magical worlds!

You're right about the desire to enter the world of favourite films; that's where the charm of Fantasyland and its dark rides lies. It's not that I don't want to explore the worlds created, or that I want to go on thrill rides every five seconds. My "re-Imagineering" plans still include plans to explore re-creations of certain worlds. Wonderland and Neverland aside, Belle's village is still there, as is the Beast's Castle. My Snow White area is also directly inspired by the film, and I've made it clear that I want rid of the dark rides' original tent façades and have them replaced with architecture inspired by the original artwork from the film or the story's country of origin, similar to what exists at Disneyland Paris and Disneyland in California, so that there's more a feeling that one is approaching the realm of the characters who inhabit the ride.

It's just that I have a few problems with the original proposals. What I'm against is the use of meet-and-greet and playtime at the centre of all the new attractions, as opposed to them being real rides or shows. Bumping into random Disney characters is fun, but it's a more child-centric experience, and the idea of it taking up a whole attraction can feel a bit excluding to adult Disney fans. Renata put it perfectly, in my opinion:

The rest of the areas seem like more ways to exclude people who don't have kids. Sure, if you're a parent or with somebody else's kid, there are a lot of ways to have fun and get involved in the action. However, as couple of adults hanging around the child-centric attractions, you tend to get odd looks from Disney security. Don't get me wrong, it will still be really cool, but until I have kids (which will make Disney trips waaay more expensive ), I can't see much personal gain from the expansion.

The Cinderella transformation show wouldn't be too bad, as long as one didn't have to stay for the meet and greet at the end, but the Sleeping Beauty cottage and Belle's cottage are my main problems; they would look beautiful, but essentially would end up housing somewhat excluding attractions, which is a bit of a waste of space.

Secondly, it has to be admitted that the sole use of princesses (not their stories, but their glitzy and feminine persona as stirred up so much by Disney's mass-marketing people) could be ostracising to boys. I'm going to use a case study of going to the Magic Kingdom when I was 9. It was my first time to a Disney resort, and I went on most of the Fantasyland attractions with enthusiasm and little qualms, but I refused to go and meet Ariel at her grotto, despite having liked The Little Mermaid since a young age; it just seemed a bit lame to wait in an elaborate, overtly girly queue just to see a pretty princess smile and ask what our favourite colour was. What I'm trying to illustrate is that the concepts of meeting princesses and playing around in their respective environments is not going to enthral the vast majority of boys, even those who are open-minded enough to realise that Cinderella and the like aren't just gooey love stories and have something for everyone (and I can safely say that I was one of those children, and still refuse to believe what Disney Consumer Products thinks).

I can understand that many of the most popular Disney films involve pretty female protagonists. But there are a great deal of others that are just as beloved and as popular without having a princess in a main role. Therefore, giving recognition to those characters and films is by no means a bad thing, and will stop Disney from being seen too much as "a girl thing" (which is a problem, no doubt fuelled at least in part by DCP's ridiculous decision to turn the Disney princesses into a glorified Barbie collection as opposed to real characters - I hope you can agree that the Disney Princess line is needless, destructive to good films and a bit sexist).

I don't want to use the whole "what would Walt do?" thing, but we've got to remember that Walt's vision of Disneyland was to create something that all people, no matter what age-group or gender, could enjoy. The heavy use of elaborate playtime with characters generally seems geared towards children (and due to its focus more on the idea of meeting a princess and nobody else, specifically towards girls), whereas traditional rides are more universal and subsequently could be seen as better long-term investments. That's why I actually want to see the Little Mermaid attraction, and why I wouldn't mind seeing the Cinderella transformation (I would just hope that the meet-and-greet were just an option). But a lot of the concepts, as they stand, seem very excluding.

And I cannot believe your disregard for the old rides! Snow White is the first fim, it's gotta stay! Maybe a new mine coaster would be okay, but I think that ride is good, it's scary, it's thrilling. what, every single ride at the parks needs to be super popular so there's long lines you have to wait in for all of them so you never catch a break?

Hold on, I don't disregard the old rides. I don't want all old rides replaced by something new and potentially more popular, but I think that an obsessive desire to preserve them as though they were galleries full of Monet paintings is always necessary, especially when a counterpart may exist somewhere else. In all fairness (and as illogical as it could sound), the WDW version of Snow White's Adventures is the best (essentially, the sequences flow better, whereas the Parisian and Californian versions are somewhat disjointed), but I think that of the dark rides that I've been one, the Snow White ones are probably the weakest. I agree that the film's special position in the canon makes a Snow White attraction a pre-requisite of sorts for any Magic Kingdom, but I think that it could do with better representation than what the current dark ride gives at least somewhere in the world. The Californian version was an opening-day attraction, so it's quite sacred, but I think that the Floridian version isn't so much so and could get the snip. I should add that my mine-cart ride idea isn't an original one. Jim Hill reported that one plan for a New Fantasyland (shelved in 2008 due to the economic problems) included a Beauty and the Beast dark ride replacing the Snow White ride, but for Snow White to still get some nods by there being a kiddie-coaster themed around the dwarfs, which essentially indicates what some of the Imagineers must think of the current ride.

The only other thing is...did you really say Pixie Hollow should be in the Nervland volcano?! How could it survive in a volcano?!

I want to see it burn!

Just kidding. I probably didn't think this one through. What I had in mind was for the Tinkerbell meet-and-greet area to be housed in a dome of sorts, which would probably be located below the volcano/hill in the middle of Neverland. The dome would essentially be like a planetarium and would have twinkling stars over a summer night's sky, with a tree in the middle. Naturally, the way into Pixie Hollow wouldn't be down the top of the volcano, but a passage way located somewhere else in the island at ground level. I think that a Neverland area could act as part of the façade for a relocated and somewhat improved version of Peter Pan's Flight instead of being a showcase for Disney Fairies. Who knows.

Of course I don't have a crystal ball and I can't see into the future- but I've got my history books and I can tell you, the pedigree from which Pixie Hollow hails from is not one which lasts long. Davy Crockett was kicked out of the parks, Gadget was kicked out of the parks, Tinker Bell's friends will be, too. And I think if you weren't a fan of the movies, you'd feel the same way.

I actually met Davy Crockett on the riverboat at the Magic Kingdom back in 1997. Does he still come out at all? The camping/self-catering site at Disneyland Paris is also based around him (Davy Crockett Ranch), and I know people who saw him there when they stayed there, though that would have been in the late 90s.

But I have to agree that Pixie Hollow is a bit of a gamble. Tinker Bell will always be an evergreen character, and I was quite surprised that she wasn't a walk-around character (or at least a regular one) outside of the fireworks and parades before someone came up with the idea for the Disney Fairies franchise. But her fairy friends do indeed seem like incidental side characters from a relatively minor franchise (in this case, a series of DTV spin-offs), and I'm sure that they would eventually fall into the abyss of forgotten TV/DTV characters, just as the Gummi Bears, Darkwing Duck and Bonkers have.

And now to essentially just answer to Amy (without too much quoting)

1. I like the idea of the château being kept if it became the Tremaines' house (it sort of is), though I'm not quite sure of it needing to exist at Disney World, where there's already so much reference to Cinderella (no offence to any fans; for the record, I wouldn't turn Fantasyland into an overwhelmingly Pinocchio, Wonderland or Neverland flavoured adventure).

2. If the mine ride were built, then the dark ride would probably go, as the same ground would be being covered. And I would probably have all the Snow White characters make casual appearances in her area (including the Prince, and the Queen, and probably the Witch as well). I don't think that the Huntsman is actually a walk-around character, but since they create walk-around characters of older characters, then I'm sure that they can create a huntsman costume. Heck, let's even have the Magic Mirror signing autographs.

3. Don't the proposals involve guests walking with Belle from her cottage to the Beast's Castle? That's what I meant by walking tour.

4. As for the Dumbo/Barnstormer area, I would give it a general circus/fair setting, though hosted by toons. I would probably re-theme the Barnstormer to a general circus/fairground setting (something like Goofy's Fun Coaster).

4. The Theatre in the Forest concept is pretty much just a placeholder and something that could be redeveloped into something else. The Mickey Mouse Clubhouse show wasn't anything really serious, but rather just an idea that came out of my head in three seconds. Though not unwelcome, Pocahontas would be better off in Frontierland (she fits in better with the theme there). Bambi would indeed be pretty sad and difficult, but an original show themed around Thumper wouldn't be too bad. A Sleeping Beauty show wouldn't be too bad, or they could restage the Aladdin show from DCA. Who knows.

My first thought after reading that was "I love you". Please be an Imagineer. That's an amazing idea.

That would be awesome if I were. Who agrees that I should be?

[DisneyJedi]

A Sleeping Beauty show wouldn't be too bad, or they could restage the Aladdin show from DCA. Who knows.

I've been longing for a Sleeping Beauty stage show! If Disney decided to make that, I'd be SO happy!

[Disney Duster]

I forgot to say to Amy, thanks for looking at my ideas! This goes for Amy, Wonderlicious and everyone. Both of you had great ideas, by the way.

I heard that Cinderella's Chateau would hold the stepfamily as well, technically it is both Cinderella's and their house because they moved in to her home. But the stepfamily could possibly show up at the castle, too.

I am glad you want to go on a walking tour with the characters, I do too and I think exploring their worlds partly would involve touring of their places, with or without them as guides. This would be exciting for audlts and children! Also, I think you mentioned Amy that it would be like exploring the Toontown homes, playing around and interacting with the things in these princess' homes. Yes, that's what I expected them to be and that's why I hope they are made!

I also am glad you agree we need more rides like Snow White's Scary Adventures, Amy. The witch's sudden transformation scared the crap put of me at age 11!

Amy, you are right Neverland is great for guys and girls, and it is the most boy-like to balance the girlier others. When I said kids would like to make cards for Aurora...I am pretty sure that all little kids like to color and make pictures. Seriously they all do that in elementary school. Anyway, yes, we should get to visit lots of character's places...I guess the hard part is figuring out how to do that many of them, and which ones.

But I was saying, and this goes to Amy and Wondy, that the dark rides already do explore the characters worlds. They take you through almost every part of their worlds in 3-dimensional wonder. If there was a Cinderella dark ride, I would be in absolute Heaven. I suppose seeing character's worlds life-size is a little more wonderful, but in a way the rides are cooler, too, I can't decide. I'm saying in a way Peter Pan, Alice, and Pinocchio have already had their turns with exploring their worlds in three dimensions.

But that does not mean that I oppose Neverland, Wonderand, and Pinocchio's village being fully realized, just alongside Cinderella's chateau or Aurora's cottage. I want them to be together, not one removed for the other. Cinderella's and Aurora's castles just don't have nearly as much to offer as the dark rides, but the plans we heard for their houses did feel equal to the rides for me.

Now, for everyone, but more directly to Wondy.

I think making Snow White's ride look like the cottage would cover and complete the idea of exploring her world, though actually maybe it could look like the Queen's castle, too. You are also right the original original ride is at Disneyland, and so...maybe I would be okay with Disney World's going. I just don't get why it needs to. I think instead of replacing it with another ride, they should put whatever new ride they think of in the new expansion area. If you don't like Snow White's ride, you don't have to, just walk on over to the ride you do like! I just love that ride.

Playing with the characters is something that has not been able to be done anywhere until these plans. This is more than meet and greet, this really about spending a lot of time with the characters, even making things for them. I thought the new plans were a good balance between this new kind of interaction and new rides and restaraunts, but I wouldn't mind one more new ride or two and have one or both of them be a bit more boy-friendly and adult-friendly.

I just realized...couldn't Cinderella's chateau house a whole show about Cinderella? Most of that story takes place at that location than the palace, actually. It would appeal to all, especially with cute and very amazingly done animal friend puppets, the likes of which I have heard of and seen. It wouldn't be too long a show.

Belle's cottage, also, would be more entertaining if the theater done with Belle was more on a stage with special effects and kind of like an abbreviated version of the musical stage show that was (still is?) at MGM. But even if not, wouldn't adults still very much enjoy seeing the kids perform the show?

By the way I don't think the Disney Princess line is all bad because I like that it makes so many things for my favorite stories, but I admit the way they have gone about it is not all right.

What a great dome idea with stars in the sky for Pixie Hollow, and it can change to a sunny sky during the day! I like a lot of your other ideas just mentioning that one in particular.

I wouldn't mind seeing you as an Imagineer!

[Margos]

What a great dome idea with stars in the sky for Pixie Hollow, and it can change to a sunny sky during the day! I like a lot fo your other ideas just mentioning that one in particular.

And you know... now that I think about it.... having Pixie Hollow in an enclosed space that looks like it is outside... that could be a great idea! Especially since (if Pixie Hollow is being represented in its entirety) it would allow the Winter Woods to be blasted with AC, and maybe even a heater in Summer Glade (sure, it's Florida and it doesn't need a heater, but an Air Conditioned building is still and Air Conditioned building). It would be easier to manage, I think.

[blackcauldron85]

I just realized...couln't Cinderella's chateau house a whole show about Cinderella? Most of that story takes place at that location than the palace, actually. It would appeal to all, especially with cute and very amazingly done animal friend puppets, the likes of which I have heard of and seen. It wouldn't be too long a show.

That's a really good idea! Magic Kindgom could use more shows as it is.

[Rudy Matt]

The problem with the Fantasyland Forest concept is that it fails to capture the imagination. Sure, it is a wonderful thing to be able to enter the cottage of the three good fairies from Sleeping Beauty...as long as there is also a ride or a show inside of it. Otherwise, it's just a set taking up space. People come to Disneyland for many reasons, but the rides are chief among them. That's why they are called "Attractions" in the first place. Sleeping Beauty ride = Good. Cooking cake and making birthday cards with Sleeping Beauty = Major Lack of Corporate Balls to Pony Up Cash for a REAL attraction. Storytime with Belle? Making birthday cards? Do people travel all the over the world to visit WDW and spend $79 a ticket for that? No, and good luck making TV commercials trying to sell that idea. Walt Disney World - the place where dreams come true! And your dream of re-living the 1st grade and making a birthday card with glue and cardboard can now come true with the all new Fantasyland expansion!

This Fantasyland Forest expansion is the Light Magic of Disney park projects. Light Magic was obsessed with "interactivity" as well, and it closed within weeks. Fantasyland Forest is to WDW what the original California Adventure was to Disneyland...an epic failure of imagination and capital investment. People's heads should roll over this.