Disney Duster wrote: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:
pinkrenata wrote: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.
Duster wrote: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.
Duster wrote: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.
UmbrellaFish wrote: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.
blackcauldron85 wrote:My first thought after reading that was "I love you". Please be an Imagineer. That's an amazing idea.
("it" meaning that attraction)
Who agrees that I should be?