DVDizzy Forum

I don't know. I mean, I really enjoy riding on rides. But still, I think it is more interesting that they are trying to come up with original ways for guests to interact with beloved characters, rather than just rolling past robots of them.

Wow, Margos and me are really agreeing these days!

Yea Rudy Matt, I suspect you're just one of those teens who's too into the thrill rides. Exploring a character's world, interacting with them, even making them things is much more intimate and a new way of being with your favorite characters. Walking through their LIFE-SIZE WORLDS may be more magical than riding past them. And kids definately would love the more playtime and interaction with their favorite chatacters.

In fact, walking straight into their LIFE-SIZE WORLDS straight out of the films is capturing the imagination!

Margos wrote:I don't know. I mean, I really enjoy riding on rides. But still, I think it is more interesting that they are trying to come up with original ways for guests to interact with beloved characters, rather than just rolling past robots of them.

People go to WDW to experience the movies and and other aspects of the company, and that includes taking pictures with people in costumes. Wasting huge acreage on meet-and-greet and toddler-level activities is a shocking lapse in judgement. It is a pathetic attempt to try and compete with the Harry Potter street and ride at Universal, that's all it is. Imagineering on the cheap.

Disney Duster wrote:Yea Rudy Matt, I suspect you're just one of those teens who's too into the thrill rides.

And I suspect you're a Disney fan and apologist. Wow, we can call each other names, isn't the internet fun.

Exploring a character's world, interacting with them, even making them things is much more intimate and a new way of being with your favorite characters. Walking through their LIFE-SIZE WORLDS may be more magical than riding past them. And kids definately would love the more playtime and interaction with their favorite chatacters.

In fact, walking straight into their LIFE-SIZE WORLDS straight out of the films is capturing the imagination!

They tried that at Disneyland, it was called "Mickey's ToonTown" and judging by the incredibly empty meet-and-greet yawn-fests of Mickey's House and Minnie's House, it was an idea whose time came and went. You want to make birthday cards with a person in an Aurora costume, you go right ahead. The last major attraction built in WDW Magic Kingdom was Splash Mountain, all they have been doing in the last 20 years is re-dressing other rides and throwing up minor attractions and removing them a few years later. Story time with Belle? Birthday cards with Aurora? Pictures with a dumbed-down Tinker Bell? Dress-up with Cinderella? Two Dumbo rides and a ported-over Mermaid dark ride? Are you kidding me?

This Fantasyland expansion is an absolute joke.

Yea, except that almost everyone here, including you are those things, but I know I'm not a teenager who only wants thrill rides because I like things that are not always rides like this.

It still sounds like you will only be happy if it's new rides.

And Toontown actually is something that is very missed by many people. It was so popular it was copied into Disney World. I'm sure you'll claim it's some other reason, but it still stands it was copied and is liked and will be missed. But more to the fact, Toontown is getting replaced by this this, Toontown is getting replaced with something just like it, only even bigger, for more popular characters (yep them princesses are more popular than the Fab Five) and with lots more interactivity, especially getting to do things with the actual character. Plus the new ride and restaraunt.

And you should know that every single person considers the people in the costumes to actually be the characters more than the animatronics on the rides, of course. So people do feel like they are getting to meet the actual characters. Kids will especially love it, and if you don't think most people (not all, just most) go to Disney World because they have kids, your deluding yourself.

But since not only kids but lots of people like me will also be in Heaven getting to explore life-size versions of the places we've only seen in our favorite movies, getting to explore them, yes, it captures the imagination and is a very welcome dream come true. It's something big and wonderful, whether it is enough for you or not.

Rudy Matt wrote: People go to WDW to experience the movies and and other aspects of the company, and that includes taking pictures with people in costumes. Wasting huge acreage on meet-and-greet and toddler-level activities is a shocking lapse in judgement. It is a pathetic attempt to try and compete with the Harry Potter street and ride at Universal, that's all it is. Imagineering on the cheap.

How cynical! I feel that this is the best kind of imagineering. Imagination! Not just, "Hey, let's put some wheels on some sort of cleverly-shaped capsule-thing, and surround people with robots in the dark!" No, I want them to make full-out experiences, and age demographics be damned! I mean, think about it, would you rather wait in line for hours to sit upon a four-minute retelling of Cinderella, or would you rather go to Cinderella's house and hang out with her? Ummm... I would think that's a no-brainer.

No-brainer?

That describes people who think they are actually going to be able to "explore" the environments or "hang out" with the characters (what, you think you're going to actually be free to roam the halls of the Tremaine house, from the basement all the way up those spindly creaking stairs to Cindy's room?). No - you'll be shuffled in groups through a plastic 1st-floor set with every single item nailed and glued to the floor (everything, that is, except for the construction paper when making your birthday cards). You won't be "exploring" anything, you'll be shuffled in a line from one set to another. You won't be "hanging out" with the charcaters. You'll be marched through the set like children at the mall in line to meet Santa.

And Toontown wasn't "copied" for Disney World -- WDW expanded for "Mickey's Star Land", then Disneyland added Toontown. WDW re-named "Mickey's Star Land" in the 90's. Both versions in both parks have been little more than meet and greet locations for toddlers, they do nothing anymore to draw people to the parks. Might as well call this "Placeholder Expansion Project 2010"

Rudy has a point. When you go to any part of Magic Kingdom, the most memorable or well known attractions are: Haunted Mansion, Jungle Cruise, Space Mountain, Splash Mountain, Pirate of Caribbean etc. What are all of these? Rides. People likes rides. No matter how much you try refute or convince yourself otherwise, it's true that rides are mostly sole reason and purpose for people to go to a theme park: to go on fun rides. Of the expansion, we only get one new ride: Mermaid. Dumbo is just a relocation and being duplicated to two due to popularity of the ride and to reduce the line wait for it. The rest is meet and greet or something geared for little kids exclusively.

i would realy love to see Rapuzels tower in the new fantasyland. kids would love to see the newest disney princess and now the movie is gender friendly :lol both boys and girls would love to meet and act like Rapunzel or Flynn. Oh it would also b nice if theres a thrilland with rollercoasts based on disney films i.e THE EMPEROS NEW RIDE. It would also be nice if disney villians had a roll in new fantasyland like Maleficent at the cottage after Prince Phillip,

Rudy Matt wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:Yea Rudy Matt, I suspect you're just one of those teens who's too into the thrill rides.

And I suspect you're a Disney fan and apologist.

I've frankly said quite enough about this Fantasyland fiasco, so I shall stop soon (or at least try to ). But this latest flame between Duster and Matt has made me have to jump in and say a few semi-final words. Duster, you have been acting like an apologist, and I have to say that your faith in some of the new Fantasyland attractions is a bit blind (aka "what kid wouldn't want to do that?"). Matt has a point in saying that Disney is making a number of mistakes with focusing too much on young girls with this expansion and not including enough in the way of more substantial attractions. The exteriors do look like they have potential, but there needs to be more than just meet-and-greets and activity sessions.

Now, I don't expect everything to be a ride or a show. Even just an elaborate and atmospheric walk-through can work well in certain cases (look at the Swiss Family Treehouse, which is very atmospheric and very true to the film, as are some of the walk-through attractions exclusive to Disneyland Paris, such as the Nautilus and Alice's Curious Labyrinth). The fact is that the Magic Kingdom is a park for everyone, with great appeal to both children and adults. Even the thrill rides focus more on ambiance than true intensity, making them more accessible to a broader audience. Equally, supposed kiddie rides draw large adult crowds and fans; even my brother, who has never been much of a Disney fan and is generally more into thrill rides, enjoys a number of the Fantasyland rides. But something geared just at kids isn't going to get Disney an overall good public reception, and goes against the general ethos of Disney Imagineering. A childish activity like making birthday cards for a cartoon character is not going to appeal to adults, and word-of-mouth about it could be consequently off-putting, resulting in people going to other places (like Universal or Sea World) instead.

Anyway, I'm going to go now. I probably can't change opinions, and I'll probably get written off as an unimaginative twat for not wanting to bake cakes with Sleeping Beauty...so be it, I guess.

Rudy Matt wrote:The problem with the Fantasyland Forest concept is that it fails to capture the imagination.

Well, you're interacting with the characters, so that can capture kids' imaginations. And making birthday cards- you have to use your imagination for that. And this Belle walking tour that was mentioned above- that uses your imagination. I think that interactive houses use the same amount of imagination as rides and shows...?

I've only been to Storytime with Belle once, but I think that that's a really neat idea. You're interacting with a character, and you're acting out scenes. It's a really neat thing for kids to do and everyone to watch. And you're Belle's world, acting out her favorite thing- stories!

Saying that, a thought just popped into my head: I would be more enthusiastic about the activities to do in the new areas if they had things to do with the characters. Sure, Sleeping Beauty centers around Aurora's birthday, but maybe do something that she enjoys doing. Like sewing. (I kid, I kid.) Maybe making crafts of animals dressing up as a prince! Or coloring in a glass slipper with your own design (like the Vinylmation sheets that you can color, only it'd be a glass slipper). And I do like the idea of Storytime with Belle, so I think that that should stay (is it? I'm confused!). Or maybe kids could write a short story in Belle's area. Something related more towards the likes of the characters would be cool.

Rudy Matt wrote: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!

I think that there should be a good balance. I wish that there were more than just one new ride. If you look at Universal's Harry Potter World, though, isn't there just one new ride, and then the other rides were just rethemed? We're getting a rethemed Barnstormer, and kind of rethemed Dumbo. I mentioned Universal not because I think Disney should do what they do, because I don't- Disney is Disney and Universal is Universal- but because if the Fantasyland Expansion is an answer to Harry Potter, then there's one new ride at each park. I think the new restaurants will be fun- I'm very, very much looking forward to them- but another show or ride would've been great.

Disney Duster wrote:In fact, walking straight into their LIFE-SIZE WORLDS straight out of the films is capturing the imagination!

You said that better than I did, and in fewer words. But that's like what I meant...

Rudy Matt wrote:a ported-over Mermaid dark ride?

Well, it's not necessarily ported-over, since they'll be in construction at the same time...And it'll be a great ride!!! I'm very excited for it.

Disney Duster wrote:And you should know that every single person considers the people in the costumes to actually be the characters more than the animatronics on the rides, of course.

I agree- I love meeting the characters...I'm not thinking that it's a person in a suit- they're the character!

Margos wrote: I mean, think about it, would you rather wait in line for hours to sit upon a four-minute retelling of Cinderella, or would you rather go to Cinderella's house and hang out with her? Ummm... I would think that's a no-brainer.

It depends what we'd be doing with Cinderella...

DisneyDude2010 wrote:i would realy love to see Rapuzels tower in the new fantasyland. kids would love to see the newest disney princess and now the movie is gender friendly :lol both boys and girls would love to meet and act like Rapunzel or Flynn. Oh it would also b nice if theres a thrilland with rollercoasts based on disney films i.e THE EMPEROS NEW RIDE. It would also be nice if disney villians had a roll in new fantasyland like Maleficent at the cottage after Prince Phillip,

Yeah (didn't someone else mention that here, or was that elsewhere...? too lazy to look...), I think that, of course, it'd be cool if every movie was represented in the parks, and Rapunzel does seem to fit well in a forest setting, I guess, but of course it depends on how well the film does. Didn't Tiana's Showboat Jubilee start before the movie? I guess parades and the like are cheap ways to advertise a film, but they won't invest the money to make a permanent park attraction unless the movie does really well...

And a thril-land, of course, is an amazing idea, and it'd surely be hugely popular, and I do like your idea of having rollercoasters themed to different films. (The Emperor's New Ride = clever!) And, yes, the villains having their own area would be awesome.

Wonderlicious wrote:But something geared just at kids isn't going to get Disney an overall good public reception, and goes against the general ethos of Disney Imagineering. A childish activity like making birthday cards for a cartoon character is not going to appeal to adults, and word-of-mouth about it could be consequently off-putting, resulting in people going to other places (like Universal or Sea World) instead.

That's a very important point, though. I enjoy meeting characters, but I'm not excited at all about making a card for Aurora. I think it'd be fine in moderation- have Aurora's house where you can make her a birthday card, but have other things geared towards other people. Have treasure hunts with John Smith, or have a Mary Poppins section that is like a chalk drawing come to life that you can walk through, or the oft-mentioned Wonderland or Never Land. I think that the more to do in an area, the more it will appeal to others. Wonderland appeals equally to boys and girls, hopefully, and Never Land has things for boys and girls.

Nice post, Wonderlicious! (and you too, BlackCauldron, as yours was added while I was typing

This is a fairly long reply since much has been added to the discussion since I last read it.

I am not against meet and greets and walk-throughs, but I think there should have been more of a balance in the new FL, considering all the money they are spending.

The Fantasyland dark rides are among my favorite in all of WDW, and actually prefer the Peter Pan, Pooh, and Snow White rides over a lot of more higher-profile "E-tickets" because of my love of the DACs, and their characters, songs, and story.

The Fantasyland dark rides may be short but IMO they are extremely sweet and do a very good job of capturing the magic, essense, and story arc of their films.

So, I am excited very much about the Mermaid ride, but would have loved it if WDW had used this expansion to finally address the issue of the DL classics that have always been inexplicably missing at WDW! DL has 12 rides in their Fantasyland, plus a Roger Rabbit Ride in nearby Toontown, which is missing from our soon-to-be-closed Toontown. By contrast, the MK Fantasyland currently has 8 attractions.

I would have been blown away if we were getting the Pinocchio and Alice dark rides like DL has, as Super Aurora has pointed out in a much earlier post. A return of a new and improved Mr. Toad would also be very welcome. Also, the Casey Jr. Circus Train and Storybookland Canal Boat attractions would have blown me away as well!

I would LOVE to get the Matterhorn also, although I realize this is the least likely of all the missing DL classics. *

And I understand and respect that many people like the fact that different DL/MK-style "castle parks" have rides that are unique to just one location, but since I live near WDW seasonally and have only been to DL twice (and the first time I was so little I don't really remember it), I welcome and appreciate "clones", ESPECIALLY when they are the type of rides I love the most, like the FL dark rides - which for my taste, I consider the DL Fantasyland attractions missing in the MK every bit as "classic" and "essential" as things like Pirates and Haunted Mansion.

The way I see it, a version of pretty much EVERYTHING at DL was included in the MK, except almost half of the Fantasyland attractions, and, years later, the Indy ride. So what makes the FL rides the exception to the rule and why should they be excluded from the MK when almost everything else from DL made it to the "East Coast Disneyland"?

As for the "clone" issue, just about all the older MK attractions that started out at DL are not true "clones", because there are design differences - sometimes subtle, sometimes big. So IMO, it would still be fun to go to Disneyland to see the differences, even if these missing Fantasyland rides were eventually included in the MK.

After the expansion, our Fantasyland will have 9 attractions and some new walk-throughs/meet and greets, but those new walk-throughs are coming at the expense of losing the Toontown walk through attractions. So in my eyes, not much is really expanding other then there will now be an extra attraction in FL (and it's about time, as 20K Leagues closed 16 years ago!!!!)

But hey, I can think "outside the box" and my desire for more rides in our Fantasyland does not have to be limited to JUST DL rides missing from the MK. I'd also love to see rides for classics like Beauty and the Beast, Sleeping Beauty, Mary Poppins, or Cinderella added. Perhaps a mix of new dark rides like Mermaid and one or two others COMBINED with some missing DL classics like Pinocchio would have been a good plan.

Like Super Aurora said, not counting Hong Kong (which is missing more than half of the attractions you would expect to find in a Disney "castle park"), the Pinocchio ride is found in EVERY other DL/MK style castle park in the world EXCEPT Florida. And I love this ride and film so much; and would be blown away if it would come to the MK.

And for those who enjoy the walk-throughs and meet and greets, I mean no argument with you. I think they are a good idea, but just wish some more rides could have been added to balance out the expansion more.

After all, I'm in the apparent minority of online fans who will really miss Toontown. Not so much for the being "herded like cattle like children lining up to meet Santa" aspect of things that Rudy Matt alluded to for things like "Meet Mickey", but I mean more for the charming Mickey and Minnie's House walk-throughs, which IMO have a lot of charm and whimsy, both in their architecture as well as in their propping, gags, and incredible amount of detail. To me, these houses are in the same tradition and spirit of other self-guided classic walk-through attractions like Swiss Family Treehouse and Tom Sawyer Island - so there is a precedent for this sort of thing dating back to Walt.

I also really love the Toontown music loop as it showcases tracks from the classic Silly Symphony and Fab 5 character shorts from the 20's and 30's.

* interesting article about the idea of a Matterhorn in the MK: http://www.imagineeringdisney.com/blog/ ... yland.html

For my money, the Peter Pan dark ride is one of the greatest rides in history of Disney theme parks - I'm talking top 3 of all time - so I'm nopt against dark rides.

I'm against taking up all this land and all this space for a horde of meet-and-greets and plastic sets...Four of them!...while adding only one new ride, which is a modest dark ride at that. When I saw the D23 presentation, I was excited to see the Fairy Cottage from Sleeping Beauty (and you can hear the audible gasp from the crowd on the video) but then they showed what you would do *inside* of it, and my heart plopped down to my shoes. The crowd grew silent as Church Mice. Then they showed Cinderella's house - amazing exterior, awful "interactive" 1st-grade junk inside. Same thing, except some murmurs now from the crowd. Then they showed Belle's Village. Shops and more junk. And a resteraunt. Then they showed Pixie Hollow. Another meet and greet, for a series I don't even like. Finally Mermaid and Dueling Dumbos.

All that land and potential, squandered. Epic failure of Imagineering. I swear, this whole thing is nothing more than a marketing ploy to exploit sales of Disney Princess junk. It's actually quite shocking when you realize how mercenary and pathetic this expansion truly is. It's going to be a giant Disney Princess store aimed at grade schoolers, with a relocated Dumbo, and the Little Mermaid dark ride. Whatever happened to appealing to everyone? Adults dig the dark rides as much as the kids (although in different ways). This expansion is indeed like taking kids to a mall to meet Santa. I'm reminded of Walt Disney at Griffith Park, annoyed that there was nothing for the adults to do while the kids played. The only thing adults are going to do in this expansion is open their wallets and buy a bunch of cheap junk and crappy food.

By the way, I was looking at the map on page 1, and I noticed the huge castle walls breaking Fantasyland between old and new...does anyone else have a problem with Fantasyland being broken apart by large giant walls? Crowd control is one thing, but surely they can find a more aesthetically pleasing alternative.

Here's something I found that I felt I should with those of you who dislike how it turns out. On WDWMagic.com, someone has taken the time to defend the Fantasyland with three things, all of which you can read here: Criticism #1: Fantasyland expansion is for girls, Criticism #2: Fantasyland expansion is only for kids and Criticism #3: Fantasyland expansion is "underwhelming". Go take a look if you want.

Thanks for the compliment, David! You, too!

David S. wrote:I am not against meet and greets and walk-throughs, but I think there should have been more of a balance in the new FL, considering all the money they are spending.

Absolutely- they're spending a crapload of money, and they're really only targeting one main group. That doesn't make much sense. Although at least the Mermaid ride and the 2 B&tB restaurants (or at least the one if the other doesn't get built) have more of a wide appeal, since they're a ride and a restaurant.

David S. wrote:but those new walk-throughs are coming at the expense of losing the Toontown walk through attractions. So in my eyes, not much is really expanding other then there will now be an extra attraction in FL

Very good point. I don't think that I had thought of that before.

Rudy Matt wrote:I'm against taking up all this land and all this space for a horde of meet-and-greets and plastic sets...

Well, I think that they'll be a little more than just "plastic sets".

Rudy Matt wrote:I'm reminded of Walt Disney at Griffith Park, annoyed that there was nothing for the adults to do while the kids played. The only thing adults are going to do in this expansion is open their wallets and buy a bunch of cheap junk and crappy food.

Yeah, I wonder how Walt would've felt about this... I mean, nothing in Disneyland in his time was overtly girly or boyish. Like, even with the Mike Fink boats, girls could enjoy the boat ride, even if they didn't like Davy Crockett. But for the meet and greets, you're just making a card for a princess...

*edit*



BDF posted while I was typing, so here I am editing my post (the quotes are from the 3 links he posted):

Yes, the target demographic of the princess and fairy-themed sections of the new Fantasyland will be little girls. But that ignores the Dumbo-themed section of the expansion.

Yes, okay, valid point, but the Dumbo section is the only "non girly" section.

And even the princesses and fairies will have appeal beyond their target demo. Just visit the current princess or fairies M&Gs to see who lines up. It’s not just little girls.

Okay, but the vast majority are, and many of those who aren't are there because they're with a little girl. (And, older girls as well will enjoy things like this.)

My second response to this criticism is to say “So what if it does appeal primarily to little girls?” Frankly, there is precious little in the parks that appeals primarily to this target demo. If you look at the majority of lands, themes and attractions, you will see that most of them are currently targeted towards what would traditionally be considered male
fantasies; pirates, cowboys, astronauts, dinosaurs, etc. Yes, there’s stuff that could be considered gender neutral. But you’d have a hard time arguing that the parks as a whole don’t skew towards little boys currently.

This may be true. Maybe the merchandising of the princesses makes us think that they are more represented than they are?

7) Possibly an additional attraction in Pixie Hollow.

What is the author hinting at?!?

In my opinion, the Griffith Park quote can be used to support either argument. So its impact to either point of view can be nullified. The fact of the matter is Walt included both thrill rides and “kiddie” rides at Disneyland. The MK should and does have a mix of both.

That's a pretty valid thought, actually.

And since it is only replacing other “kiddie” attractions, it can hardly be blamed for making MK into a “kiddie” park.

This actually is a very valid point. I mean, Minnie's house is "girly", and Mickey is "for everyone", so it's (uh. the computer erased what I just wrote...)...not like they're replacing lots of gender-neutral stuff with all girly stuff...I mean, sure, Pete's Garage, but that wasn't much of anything anyway. And the Daisy Boat, but that could almost be seen as girly...?

We all know why there haven't been any new e-ticket attractions at MK since Splash Mountain. The other parks need them more. Many still consider DHS and AK to be half-day parks. Certainly, AK needed EE more than MK needed a new e-ticket...These kinds of e-ticket thrill rides are built to increase attendance. The Magic Kingdom is currently number one in attendance. While I'm sure Disney wouldn't mind increasing attendance at all of its parks, other parks need the attendance bump of a new e-ticket more than the Magic Kingdom does.

That makes sense.

They are certain to be better than the barely themed meet and greets they are replacing. Even if one assumes the worst, these highly themed experiences are bound to be an improvement over the tents of Toon Town.

That's a good point. I think, for me, I'm thinking of the houses as less of meet and greets and more of activity centers. As long as the characters greet and spend a little time with each guest who wants to meet them, then this point is a good one- grand theming is better than only a little theming...

blackcauldron85 wrote:
It depends what we'd be doing with Cinderella...

I vote for sex.

The fact of the matter is Walt included both thrill rides and “kiddie” rides at Disneyland.

No. Adults AND children can enjoy a carousel. Adults AND children can enjoy Small World and Peter Pan's Flight. The Dark Rides ARE NOT CHILD EXCLUSIVE, this is a very dangerous argument because it feeds into the Disney = Children argument I've been fighting my whole life. Don't buy into this argument because you need to support your fandom.

Peter Pan's Flight = All Ages Dark Ride.
3 minute Meet and Greet with Aurora Making her a Birthday Card = Arts and Craft Day for SIX YEAR OLDS!

It is age exclusive, it re-inforces the prejudice against animated features as "kids films", and it seems to violate the entire approach to Disneyland taken by Walt in the 1st place. I'm not so hung-up on the gender aspect that seems to have so many in a tizzy, it is the exclusion of adults and pandering to toddlers that has me so alarmed, along with the general lack of ambition and imagination in the whole affair. Unless there is more being planned that we just don't know (and I mean a LOT more), the planned expansion is a disaster, on multiple levels.

I made this photoshop image of a WDW Magic Kingdom I would love it to be.

http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/9996/mkmap2.jpg

Just a few things.

First is that I realized Disney must see not just what is popular, but what lasts and will stand the test of time. they will have to replace some things but a lot of these Fantasyland things should stay. All of the princess films, and Peter Pan and Alice in Wonderland and Dumbo, have proven their timeless loveable power.

Second is that I heard a lot of people will miss Toontown and they even said Mickey and Minnie would have homes elsewhere. So some other big characters from the films having homes will be great, too.

Another one is that it still sounds like some people are categorizing all these things as just for kids. But adults are really going to like wlaking through the worlds of Disney and appreciate the art and detail. What is one BIG thing adults do with Disney movies? They appreciate the art and detail like only adults can. That will happen here, too. Also, some people will want to make birthday cards for Aurora, some adults will want to show off their art skills, join in the fun, or even feel like a kid again.

Next, why can't you see these pieces of architecture from the films may be just like the Swiss Family Robinson Treehouse which was made by Walt and is enjoyed by adults and kids? And if they aren't, maybe they can be. But since they cover I think even more area than that one treehouse, I think there will be even more to explore.

Rudy Matt wrote:Then they showed Cinderella's house - amazing exterior, awful "interactive" 1st-grade junk inside.

It wasn't 1st-grade or junk. This time they were showing a special effect, and what I have heard, a very, very impressive effect that feels magical. It has a little bit of the story, too, it will be like watching a show or a ride scene for a bit, but with live people. The Fairy Godmother might even do more special magic acts, who knows.

Margos, I think you are right that most little kids, and a lot of teens and adults, would love, love to hang out with their favorite characters more than the rides. However I might actually prefer a dark ride of Cinderella. This is because I am a Disney dweeb on a Disney forum who is more into movies and things, I don't do as well with people. I like the Disney films more for their stories than characters, too. But I would love to meet the Disney princesses, especially if I could mee the real, real ones, especially Cinderella, even though I would be slightly scared to hang out with these perfect, wonderful ladies.

I just realized, Cinderell could take you on a tour of her house and, with the Fairy Godmother's magic, show scenes of her story, with projections and/or animatronics and/or live people. It would be a timed, guided tour of her house with scenes. This could happen with Aurora and Belle, too, I could see the spinning wheel appearing and Aurora touching it and falling and Phillip coming through the door, or Belle almost touching the rose and the Beast popping out hella scary. Or seeng the mice make Cinderella's dress in her attic, and then the fight between them and Lucifer, and Cinderella bringing down her hidden glass slipper to the Duke, bringing everyone back to the first floor again.

Super Aurora I love your map and that is the best theme park castle I admit, but of course I would have Cindy's replacing that (also what Walt wanted specifically). But then Paris could keep their epic Stephen castle, or Disneyland's could become more awesomer. Also Cindy's needs to look more like the film where it was awesomer.

Where to start?

I guess the hate centered around FLE comes from years of minor additions to MK and this begin the first big thing in a long time and not living up to some pie-in-the-sky fantasy of "Fan Boy Mountain featuring TRON gift shop". However the amount of positives offered by FLE begin so shamelessly slammed by some is well, ridiculous. I'll list them:

- Existing, aging, "temporary" and legitimately popular meet and greets finally begin replaced with ones that look vastly superior and handle crowds better
- Doubled capacity for Dumbo, another popular ride
- A long over-due replacement for 20K. One that both handles crowds better too.
- A new 552 seat restaurant to off set existing demand for CRT and give a park with very limited table service locations another option
- Another quick service eatery location (again in a park that could really some)
- An indoor, better themed and air conditioned location for "Storytime With Belle"
- A re-designed queue and exterior for Winnie the Pooh
- And a far better looking Fantasyland and the long overdue removal of Birthdayland (now Toontown Fair)

^ "Epic Fail of Imagineering"? Perhaps to the bitter, selfish and narrow minded. Are there not other lands and times in MK to build rides? Do not plans change despite announcements sometimes (see: Asian Resort, WRE, Beastly Kingdome, Meet the World, WS countries etc.)? Should we not wait for the final result and guest reaction before labeling anything "a disaster on multiple levels"?

No doubt I'll be labeled an "apologist" for feeling this way. I don't care if I am, because even if I were to agree with adding one more ride to FLE, it wouldn't change the afternoon parade that's been the same for 10 years or update the Carousel of Progress or make Stitch's Great Escape suck any less.

Change takes time, every bit helps. Is this an idea to complain about like removing holiday offerings or DCA in its original state? IMO heck no! For all the reasons I've mentioned earlier. Along with that fact that very little is begin removed to make way for it.

I get some don't like 100% of it, do I? No, but I would hope other perspectives would be taken into consideration by some before joining the bashing bandwagon.

If it's several more years before anything else major happens to MK, then I'll get upset, but not now for this.