singerguy04 wrote:but do we really need THAT much Dumbo?
It's entirely possible that alot of the Dumbo section will remain undeveloped when this project is done. I doubt a merch/food location could take up all the plot reserved for PH.
Edit: read on another site that the existing Toontown tents will be replaced with new ones (due to the poor condition of them) so that could take up a good amount of space and house the merch/food outlets.
singerguy04 wrote:There's a lot to hate and love about this expansion now.
I love that we're getting the mine train roller coaster ride, but I hate that it's at the cost of losing SWSA. I guess they felt there was more appeal to the roller coaster but having 2 Snow White attractions would be overkill.
I don't think it would be overkill, though. Disneyland has Casey Jr. and Dumbo both representing Dumbo, and they feel like two completely different, unique attractions, even though they are from the same film.
Likewise, Disneyland has Mad Tea Party and the Alice dark ride, both from the same film. The Tea Party focuses on just one specific scene, but the dark ride tells the story of, and explores the world of, the entire movie!
In our own MK, Mickey's Philharmagic has Peter Pan and Aladdin scenes, even though the park already has Peter Pan's Flight and the Magic Carpets.
So, I think a Dwarfs' Mine coaster should not make them consider the Snow White dark ride redundant! The coaster will probably not be able to tell the STORY of Snow White the way the dark ride does. On a coaster, you move too fast to have anything other than a general sense of atmosphere and maybe some story elements connected with that (mainly in the queue more than on the ride itself!)
There was a rumor on wdwmagic.com that the new "mystery ride" might be a flume system instead of a coaster, and some were speculating that this may be themed to Snow White. If that were the case, then maybe they could tell the story of Snow White via this ride system - look at how good the storytelling is on Splash Mountain! The drop could be the queen falling off the cliff, and there could be a happy ending show scene after the drop (as on Splash) with Snow White being awakened by the Prince, saying goodbye to the dwarfs, and living Happily Ever After! (this is my favorite scene in the current version of the MK Snow White dark ride!)
I could be wrong, but I just can't see them getting all the story elements that are in the current ride into a coaster, and IMO that's why they should keep the current ride!
It's certainly preferable to (yet another) meet and greet!
This post is not meant to be argumentative; it's just my thoughts on why they should
SAVE SNOW WHITE'S ADVENTURES!
The "One That Started It All" and "The Fairest In The Land" deserves to keep her ride in the Magic Kingdom!
Last edited by David S. on Mon Aug 23, 2010 12:00 pm, edited 3 times in total.
"Feed the birds, tuppence a bag"- Mary Poppins
"How high does the sycamore grow? If you cut it down, then you'll never know"- Pocahontas
"I do not make films primarily for children. I make them for the child in all of us, whether he be six or sixty. Call the child innocence." - Walt Disney
singerguy04 wrote:There's a lot to hate and love about this expansion now.
I love that we're getting the mine train roller coaster ride, but I hate that it's at the cost of losing SWSA. I guess they felt there was more appeal to the roller coaster but having 2 Snow White attractions would be overkill.
I don't think it would be overkill, though. Disneyland has Casey Jr. and Dumbo both representing Dumbo, and they feel like two completely different, unique attractions, even though they are from the same film.
Likewise. Disneyland has Mad Tea Party and the Alice dark ride, both from the same film. The Tea Party focuses on just one specific dcene, but the dark ride tells the story of, and explores the world of, the entire movie!
Well, the thing with the Dumbo rides is that Casey Jr. and Dumbo are about two separate characters.
David S. wrote:
I don't think it would be overkill, though. Disneyland has Casey Jr. and Dumbo both representing Dumbo, and they feel like two completely different, unique attractions, even though they are from the same film.
Likewise, Disneyland has Mad Tea Party and the Alice dark ride, both from the same film. The Tea Party focuses on just one specific scene, but the dark ride tells the story of, and explores the world of, the entire movie!
Well, the thing with the Dumbo rides is that Casey Jr. and Dumbo are about two separate characters.
Right. And a coaster themed to the Seven Dwarfs' Mine is also completely different than a ride that tells the story of Snow White (even though the dwarfs are a part of that story)
SAVE SNOW WHITE'S ADVENTURES!
"Feed the birds, tuppence a bag"- Mary Poppins
"How high does the sycamore grow? If you cut it down, then you'll never know"- Pocahontas
"I do not make films primarily for children. I make them for the child in all of us, whether he be six or sixty. Call the child innocence." - Walt Disney
Dumbo taking THAT much space? wtf? make that extra space be Pinocchio or Alice in Wonderland or something. Dumbo doesn't need to be that big.
As for Snow White ride, the good one died long ago in 1994 so taking it out I guess is ok. Leave DL's in then. As for the SW mine roller-coaster. Probably going to be some shitty roller coaster for kids. I'm not impress.
I didn't think this was true, and it sounds really stupid and not well-planned at all, but if it is true...
My reasons for wanting to go to Walt Disney World so badly are fading.
Oh, sure, the uber-popular Beauty and the Beast and Little Mermaid get to keep their stuff, but the original, starting it all Walt princesses get shoved into one little corner which won't be anything like their individual houses or dark ride.
I agree Super Aurora, some of that Dumbo should be changed to Pinocchio or Wonderland. I vote Wonderland because it's a big space and Wonderland has much more to explore than Pinocchio's village, though maybe they could do both, it's a big space.
Or they could, you know, have the princess houses there instead...with Pinocchio's dark ride, or just the princess houses...
Rudy Matt wrote:You guys were all on board for this meet and greet low-cost junk, now you're paying for it with the loss of Toontown and Snow White.
I called this monstrosity an Epic Failure of Imagination and Ambition several weeks ago. You guys wagged your finger at me for it. Now you're learning I was right. This thing is going to turn into California Adventure Part II, if trends continue.
No, I was excited for exploring the worlds and homes of those characters, not for this crappy meet and greet they are planning now. The original plans did not involve removing Snow White's ride.
You were not right. This is something new going back on the plans we were excited for.
Super Aurora wrote: As for Snow White ride, the good one died long ago in 1994 so taking it out I guess is ok. Leave DL's in then. As for the SW mine roller-coaster. Probably going to be some shitty roller coaster for kids. I'm not impress.
I disagree about the old version of Snow White being better. I MUCH prefer the current version. IMO, the old version was too much about the witch, and not enough about Snow White! It was NOT faithful to the movie, and instead of a Happily Ever After, it ends with the witch dropping a boulder, implying in the last scene that it falls on riders. The End. What the heck were they thinking?
The current version is IMO the best Snow White ride of them all, and more faithful to the film than ANY of them in ANY park! It balances out the light and dark moments, just like the movie does! And then you get the payoff of the Happily Ever After scene, where you see the Prince wake up Snow White, while the lovely choral version of "Some Day My Prince Will Come" plays in the background!
And then you see the Prince and Snow White wave goodbye to the dwarfs as they ride off to live Happily Ever After. And Dopey waves goodbye to guests from up on the bridge, next to a cute birdie and a squirrel! (or is it a chipmunk?) . I always enjoy waving goodbye to Dopey on the way out!
So I think the current ride is much better and more balanced; has a lovely, Magical, MUCH better ending; and is MUCH more faithful to the film!
PS. Now the same person on wdwmagic who posted the ride was leaving is saying there is a chance it could stay!
SAVE SNOW WHITE'S ADVENTURES!
Last edited by David S. on Mon Aug 23, 2010 5:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Feed the birds, tuppence a bag"- Mary Poppins
"How high does the sycamore grow? If you cut it down, then you'll never know"- Pocahontas
"I do not make films primarily for children. I make them for the child in all of us, whether he be six or sixty. Call the child innocence." - Walt Disney
Rudy Matt wrote:You guys were all on board for this meet and greet low-cost junk, now you're paying for it with the loss of Toontown and Snow White.
I called this monstrosity an Epic Failure of Imagination and Ambition several weeks ago. You guys wagged your finger at me for it. Now you're learning I was right. This thing is going to turn into California Adventure Part II, if trends continue.
No, I was excited for exploring the worlds and homes of those characters, not for this crappy meet and greet they are planning now. The original plans did not involve removing Snow White's ride.
I agree! There is a HUGE difference between exploring the magical worlds and homes of the Princesses, as compared to just a generic Meet and Greet. I'm not really into doing the meet and greets regularly, but I DO enjoy exploring Mickey and Minnie's homes as a walk-through attraction.
So in the same spirit, I would have enjoyed exploring the Princess homes as well.
SAVE SNOW WHITE'S ADVENTURES!
"Feed the birds, tuppence a bag"- Mary Poppins
"How high does the sycamore grow? If you cut it down, then you'll never know"- Pocahontas
"I do not make films primarily for children. I make them for the child in all of us, whether he be six or sixty. Call the child innocence." - Walt Disney
David S. wrote:
I disagree about the old version of Snow White being better. I MUCH prefer the current version. IMO, the old version was too much about the witch, and not enough about Snow White! It was NOT faithful to the movie, and instead of a Happily Ever After, it ends with the witch dropping a boulder, implying in the last scene that it falls on riders. The End. What the heck were they thinking?
That's what made it awesome.
And you miss the point that you were suppose to be Snow White hence why she hardly was in the ride.
No, I got the point, but I personally don't think it translated well. And if you were supposed to "be" Snow White, than that just makes the ending of the witch dropping a boulder on you, as the last scene in the ride, even worse!
If I pay my good money to go to a Disney park, I want the REAL story of Snow White, not some bizarro alternate universe version where she does NOT live Happily Ever After and the witch wins!
I'm not trying to argue with you in a mean-spirited way; we obviously simply have a difference of opinion and should agree to disagree!
SAVE SNOW WHITE'S ADVENTURES!
"Feed the birds, tuppence a bag"- Mary Poppins
"How high does the sycamore grow? If you cut it down, then you'll never know"- Pocahontas
"I do not make films primarily for children. I make them for the child in all of us, whether he be six or sixty. Call the child innocence." - Walt Disney
Super Aurora...on the ride...I might actually agree with you, not on that it should be taken out, but that the first one may have better in a way...
David S., I love the current Snow White ride, but how can I explain...okay, I like the idea of seeing everything that was in a movie I love come to life in 3 dimensions at the park. But, I also like the idea of the park showing me something different, because I already have the movie. And I also like the idea of the ride being scary, and offering an alternate experience from the movie that surprises me.
Also, Mr. Toad's wilde ride was similar, with people getting hit by a train. Getting hit by a train or a giant diamond/boulder is more of a thrill, it is a more thrilling ride. Also, it is different from the film just like Sleeping Beauty's walk-through which is not exactly like the film and has alternate scenes and is really scary, even ending with Maleficent's shadow.
So...that is why I did like the original Walt Disney World ride, though I do not know if I like it better, I cannot say. The original Disneyland ride Walt approved was not too close to the movie either, and just ended with the witch falling!
Also, I liked the idea of you being the characters. I wish that in Peter Pan's ride we were the Darlings, and that we were Mr. Toad, or that we were Pinocchio, or we were Christopher Robin or just real people visiting 100 Acre Wood, or we could be Phillip if there was a Sleeping Beauty ride.
Anyway, I realized that the only reason they were changing these plans is because of complaints that it was too girly.
Since complaints changed it, doesn't that mean complaints can change it back?
So everyone, let's think of ideas how to voice our opinions if they do plan on doing these new plans!
Disney Duster wrote:David S., I love the current Snow White ride, but how can I explain...okay, I like the idea of seeing everything that was in a movie I love come to life in 3 dimensions at the park. But, I also like the idea of the park showing me something different, because I already have the movie. And I also like the idea of the ride being scary, and offering an alternate experience from the movie that surprises me.
Also, Mr. Toad's wilde ride was similar, with people getting hit by a train. Getting hit by a train or a giant diamond/boulder is more of a thrill, it is a more thrilling ride.
Well, I respect your opinion. In a way, I find the current version more thrilling in the sense that the beautiful "Love's First Kiss" Happily Ever After sequence in the current version is sublime, beautiful, and can give me goosebumps! The old version didn't move me or give me goosebumps - it just left me puzzled by the ending
Since complaints changed it, doesn't that mean complaints can change it back?
So everyone, let's think of ideas how to voice our opinions if they do plan on doing these new plans!
We could write letters to WDW voicing our opinions and concerns. A large letter-writing campaign didn't help save Mr. Toad in 1998, but it did help get Figment back in the Imagination ride at Epcot after he had been previously taken out.
SAVE SNOW WHITE'S ADVENTURES!
"Feed the birds, tuppence a bag"- Mary Poppins
"How high does the sycamore grow? If you cut it down, then you'll never know"- Pocahontas
"I do not make films primarily for children. I make them for the child in all of us, whether he be six or sixty. Call the child innocence." - Walt Disney
Looks like an extensive revision of the original plan to me. Thank God they came to their senses, scrapping the low-cost, low-imagination meet and greets (SB, Pixie Hollow, and Cinderella) in favor for two new rides (Snow White Mine Car Roller coaster, and new attraction coming for Snow White). The meet and greet in SWSA is a place holder until the permanent building is made for them. I can live with a major Snow White attraction and a new Fantasyland dark ride. Across the land may it be said, Ding Dong the walk-through meet and greets are dead.
Anyway, I like the idea of a Snow White Mine Coaster Ride, but ONLY if it's more like Big Thunder Mountain then Indiana Jones et le Temple du Péril. If it's like Big Thunder Mountain, I could see them reusing props and sets from Scary Adventure to tell the same story but on a bigger-more thrilling scope.
Also, I'm glad they're getting rid of Pixie Hollow, but I'm mad that they're replacing it with MORE Dumbo (which I thought was TOO big to begin with). A clown themed Barnstormer sounds like a step backwards from the current Goofy themed one (love the chickens). Why not give us the Toon Town from DisneyLand instead of more Dumbo?
So here's some new footage of the Fantasyland expansion:
The technology they're using to virtually build the rides and area is amazing. I've sure it's making these revisions a lot more feasible and cost effective. I bet it makes these rides even more safe.
jpanimation wrote:Wow, I haven't posted here in a long time.
Anyway, I like the idea of a Snow White Mine Coaster Ride, but ONLY if it's more like Big Thunder Mountain then Indiana Jones et le Temple du Péril. If it's like Big Thunder Mountain, I could see them reusing props and sets from Scary Adventure to tell the same story but on a bigger-more thrilling scope.
If they can tell the same story told in the current ride, I'll be less upset about losing the current dark ride. I'm not sure how they could do in a coaster, unless maybe it's a coaster/dark ride hybrid? Or unless you mean most of the story scenes would be on the lift hills, since Thunder moves too fast to have character figures with storytelling scenes and dialogue like the dark ride does except on the lifts.
Also, I'm glad they're getting rid of Pixie Hollow, but I'm mad that they're replacing it with MORE Dumbo (which I thought was TOO big to begin with). A clown themed Barnstormer sounds like a step backwards from the current Goofy themed one (love the chickens). Why not give us the Toon Town from DisneyLand instead of more Dumbo?
Even though Dumbo is my favorite DAC, I have to agree with this. I would have loved to see a new Casey Junior scenic train ride back there, but retheming the Barnstormer to clowns?
Count me in with the people who aren't into clowns! And the clowns in Dumbo are hardly friendly, sympathetic characters.
I prefer the AA chickens that were rescued from World Of Motion, and since I seem to be one of the few people in Internetland who LOVES Mickey and Minnie's Houses, I agree with your idea of expanding ToonTown by adding the Downtown section and Roger Rabbit Car Toon Spin dark ride.
SAVE SNOW WHITE'S ADVENTURES!
"Feed the birds, tuppence a bag"- Mary Poppins
"How high does the sycamore grow? If you cut it down, then you'll never know"- Pocahontas
"I do not make films primarily for children. I make them for the child in all of us, whether he be six or sixty. Call the child innocence." - Walt Disney
Wow, I need to check the theme park section more often, as this was all new to me. I had enough to stress over when I heard about all that EPCOT FutureWorld redesigning, and what ever happened with that? Well, they've already ruined most of FutureWorld anyway...
Okay, I'm going to share my thoughts, and my apologies if I kill another thread. Since I started posting on this webboard, my posts often seem to end threads, for reasons beyond me. It's a large part of why I often feel no one here likes me, ha. Anyways,...
Personally, I haven't been to Walt Disney World since 2004. This is mainly because my family has had hard financial times since then. My sis and I have been hoping we might get to go for Christmas of 2011, but that is dependent on my finding a job this month, and I've been here two months (in Austin) and have only had 2 interviews. Oh well. Nevertheless, Disney World is very dear to me, as I visited multiple times growing up, and even a few times during college. If you've read some of my posts, you may know by now that my feeling is the parks were in their hey day in the late 80's and early 90's, when everything Disney seemed to be at its post-Walt peak, and most changes they have made since then, in my opinion, have been disappointing. Now, I'm talking changes, not additions like Animal Kingdom. Some have been good, but to me, most have been downgrades. The changes to EPCOT have hurt me the most, though I support a few of them, like adding the Nemo attraction/theming, even though I haven't seen it in person yet.
So, naturally, I am nervous about any changes I hear of now. One of the worst things about changes is they usually involve removing things. Here, we're talking about removing Toontown first and foremost.
Well, being that Who Framed Roger Rabbit is my favorite film, you might understand that I would consider the loss of Toontown to be a major one. I naturally have always hoped to see the Roger ride in Florida since I have yet to make it out to California again (I visited Disneyland once when I was around 5). HOWEVER, the fact is that Toontown in Florida was never fully realized. It always had a temporary air about it, and only adding the Barnstormer really made it feel more permanent. I will miss seeing Mickey's house there, and I hope it does get relocated. After getting used to the idea, I will miss Disney World's Toontown (Fair) for nostalgic reasons, and I think such a land has potential that could and should be fleshed out at Disney Hollywood Studios, perhaps where the backlot tour was, or is that area filled up? I would think it would be neat if some sort of ride through Toontown, but one similar to the studio tour in style, would be set up near/behind the animation building, though I really don't know what the space situation is over there right now. I also would love it if the Disney Afternoon characters were brought back for such an area. They used to have some neat shows in the Magic Kingdom's Toontown. Maybe this should be more a meet 'n' greet area than anything, but I still say Toontown is a nice idea if done right and if Disney would take some lessons in theming from what I here they did for Harry Potter or even for their own Tokyo Disneyland. Don't go cheapy with the sets and everything! Make it seem real! It looked like that was the way they were going to approach the original Fantasyland expansion, and that's one aspect I would hope would remain, but I fear that they will wimp out on being hardcore with the environments once again. We'll see, I guess.
But, on to talking about the Fantasyland Expansion. I want to talk about the original plans first. I'm not sure I can remember them all without looking back, but let me try: Big Dumbo's Circus area with two Dumbo rides, Big Pixie Hollow area, big Fantasy Forest that is basically 3 Meet 'n' Greets with princesses that involve activities for small children, Belle village section with big Beast castle restaurant, and Little Mermaid castle with upscale dark ride. I don't doubt I forgot something, but anyway... Now, I know they changed these plans a lot, and they say it is because it was too geared towards girls. Frankly, I think that sucks, but I do realize we still live in a world where boys are taught to think cartoon princesses and fairies are just for girls or effeminate boys. Myself, I have never had issues with that. I have been in love with most Disney girls my whole life, and I am always into seeing more of the princesses. What can I say, they turn me on. Maybe I shouldn't walk around Disney World turned on, but I'm pretty sure it's not just me. In my case though, it's not just because they're college girls in costumes, but because I genuinely am in love with the characters themselves. So, what I'm saying is, I did not have a problem with the fact that most of this new stuff was female geared. Though, it was quite noticeable, and really, shouldn't the male characters get some attention too? It did seem a little too blatantly franchisey. But, I was also amazed at the proposed detail and extravagance in the theming of all the new stuff. I was/am a bit doubtful we will see anything built to be as gorgeous as those initial art pieces, but it was a beautiful idea and it does seem they have stuff like that in Tokyo. It would be nice to see some intense theming like that here. And I didn't have a problem with Dumbo's section at all. First, I was happy to see attention paid to a Walt-era, non-princess character, even if he already was around. I mean, I am just glad he was getting an expansion rather than the boot. And, again, the art of this section, I thought, made it look very cool! Plus, there's no doubt the lines for Dumbo, at least in the summer when I go, are intolerable. Then, there's Pixie Hollow. Now, I am a huge Tink fan, and I was long before she was a franchise. So, I was psyched about this. I was also a little confused. Doesn't she have a Pixie Hollow section already? Yet this was supposed to be Phase 2? What happened with that? And if the plans for Pixie Hollow are now gone, does that mean also getting rid of the current one? I know folks have argued that it is just a fad franchise, and when the movies are done, it will fade away. However, I have to disagree with that. Maybe memory of Tink's friends will fade, maybe not, but Tink has been a fan favorite since the 50's. Even if she didn't have a franchise, I wouldn't be shocked at her getting her own area of the park, for Meet 'n' Greet at least, which was long overdue but hard to figure out since she is supposed to be so tiny. I think it's great that they have a setup to meet her now, and they always should, and yeah, I'd love to see a whole Pixie Hollow, well-made section for this. Tink is not just a fad. Her popularity is what led to her getting her own franchise. She's one of the most beloved Disney characters. Heck, she's getting 5 movies made about her, even if they are just direct to video, and there's a huge number of books for her now, and they keep coming, and even after the movies are done (IF they only make 5), Tink will continue to be everywhere, probably from now on. She totally should have a permanent Meet 'n' Greet area, and with the popularity of the princesses, permanent Meet 'n' Greet areas are necessary for them too. Meeting characters may not be top priority for many guests, but they are definitely a part of the experience and a part of the draw, and characters that are favorites should be available to meet. And, let me tell you from experience, it sucked back in the days when you were lucky if you saw any characters on a visit to the Disney parks, let alone your favorites, and when it was very hard to get your turn (with no lines set up or anything). Yes, it's quite a lot like meeting Santa Claus in the way it goes, especially if the characters are sitting in a throne or something, but that's better than the alternative, which is mayhem (like when a character is not in a designated area and it is a busy park day, especially back when there weren't so many characters out and about). I've seen it.
HAVING SAID THAT, I by no means feel that such a large expansion should be 90 or whatever percent focused on Meet 'n' Greets. NOR do I care for McDonald's style play areas or construction paper activities. These latter two are totally contradictory to what Walt created the original Disneyland for. The idea was for parents and children to have fun together. That's why I do not like attractions geared at a specific age range, nor do I like to see TOO many thrill rides that are too rough and therefore cannot seat small children or the elderly. I understand the need for thrills, but I hope Disney parks never become thrill-ride focused parks, like the crappy Six Flags parks. Disney parks are and should remain more about showmanship, even in their rides. That's why I've always loved the dark rides, and I'd like to see more of those, but elaborate ones like Pirates of the Caribbean rather than simple ones like the Pooh ride, not that I dislike or want to see rides like that one, or Pan, or SNOW WHITE's ride removed. Just that newer rides I would prefer be more elaborate, but only occasionally to the point of being thrill rides... I think the Little Mermaid ride will fall into that category, and I'm very pleased with that, of course. The only character I love as much as Tink is Ariel. But, where was I, yeah, I don't think people pay the big Disney ticket fees to have their kids do arts and crafts or put on shows, or play on jungle gyms. Rides, shows, and character meetings are the real reasons people OF ALL AGES go to Disney. And, frankly, I have never really met the princesses, and being a 35 year old, single, straight male, I still want to take my pictures with them, and Tink too, though I don't think the original plans for this forest of arts and crafts and such would have helped me do this. Seems like this would have been way too focused on little kids and would have made an adult fan all the more awkward. Sadly, I'm not sure they've weeded out these aspects of the plans. I fear they mainly are just getting rid of the cool forest idea with the fancy locales. That kinda sucks. Like others have said, it would be neat to really see and walk by/through these cottages and everything.
Personally, I think the idea of a Fantasyland Forest as a walk-through meet 'n' greet area is a great one. I'm thinking a really elaborate walk-through like Tom Sawyer Island, but with more than just princesses. Imagine it like walking the Yellow Brick Road on your own and meeting various Disney characters along the way! With great theming, that's almost like a ride in itself. One could meet more than just the princesses, they could meet princes, Robin Hood and his friends, Merlin, the seven dwarfs, Peter Pan, Wonderland characters, Mickey and the gang in Fantasyland-type costumes, Pinocchio characters, Bongo, the Big Bad Wolf and Three Little Pigs, and probably many more. Though, personally, some characters I think work better in other places, like Aladdin and his friends in Adventureland along with the Jungle Book crew.
And, before I forget, yes, Rapunzel's tower should be somewhere amongst all this. And I wouldn't hate some Giselle presence either.
Anyway, at this point, I'm a little unclear on what is really supposedly still going to happen. I guess a Snow White coaster is in the works now, but it will replace Snow White's Scary Adventures? I'll really miss that ride, but maybe this will be similar. It would be sad if we don't see the old hag on this mine ride. And where will it be located? That could have worked well as a part of this Fantasyland Forest, and it would make it more than just Meet 'n' Greet. I really do like the Fantasyland Forest idea, and I like the other ideas too, just feel some areas needed more than meet 'n' greet and
don't care for the arts and crafts or jungle gym stuff. I think Pixie Hollow could be a great idea and would prove to have long term appeal because the Tink character is a fan favorite and always has been, but they needed a show or attraction there too. Maybe something like Soarin', but in TinkerBell scale? Hard to say, as I've never been on Soarin', but do you get what I mean? Maybe riding on the backs of Bees or something, like they used to have that Honey I Shrunk the Kids bee on the backlot tour. Anyway, I think their original plan had a lot of good stuff to it, and they should have just tweaked it in those ways: Add a Pixie Hollow ride, lose the arts and crafts and play areas, make sure you keep the theming extreme, a la Potter's park and Tokyo Disney. I think when all was said and done, everyone would have liked an expansion like that, and I still say Dumbo's area looked so cool in those original art concepts, and I'm not even big on the whole circus thing. I know Walt was though.
slave2moonlight wrote:I naturally have always hoped to see the Roger ride in Florida since I have yet to make it out to California again (I visited Disneyland once when I was around 5).
I don't think they will ever add a Roger Rabbit ride, not with some legal, contractual namby-pamby getting in the way.
...but I still say Toontown is a nice idea if done right and if Disney would take some lessons in theming from what I here they did for Harry Potter or even for their own Tokyo Disneyland.
Well, technically, Tokyo wasn't owned by Disney, it was owned by some outside group that paid Disney the rights to use its characters.
Er, what? Crow T. Robot isn't "Crowe" if that's what your trying to say.
I'm waiting for you to explain why you thought Toontown was ever going to stay ("now you're paying for it with the loss of Toontown") when no model, rendering or blueprint leaked/revealed showed it. Or for a well developed argument on why anyone should agree with your opinions when you've failed to comprehend mine or properly address them.
"More extensive" was used by me even considering the major change leaked that in itself could still change. Snow White could be staying, for example. What I meant by that was if the entire project was "epic failure of Imagination" wouldn't it require even more work, beyond ditching some of the current character greeting sections (some are staying and different ones will supposedly be built) and adding one ride to get it "right" or to make you happy? Like having major alterations to the Mermaid ride, Batb section, castle wall, double dumbos themselves, Pooh's rework etc?
Or perhaps those sections have merit to them? Maybe you shouldn't use the word "epic" so carelessly? It's that kind of posting style (along with complaining about offerings that are actually popular) that makes it easy for Disney to dismiss the fan community, even when they might have something legitimately worth complaining about.
Hopefully this isn't right, but is it that Belle gets her own meet and greet cottage, village, castle, and storytime, Ariel gets her own meet and greet and ride, and all the other princesses get shoved together in one small space?!
That's really unfair, if Belle can keep her storytime then Cinderella should keep her transformation and dancing and knight-training and Aurora should have her card making (or food-making, like the cake?), and they should all keep their seperate meet and greets and houses from the films!
David S., I like Toontown and especially Mickey's and Minnie's homes too! And actually, a lot of people really did complain about them losing their homes, which is why they said Mickey and Minnie's homes, perhaps made smaller or less elaborate, would eventually be moved to another location.
Hey, couldn't we also Facebook protest these new changes? All I would want to protest is to keep Snow White's Adventures and keep the original plans, but make Pixie Hollow be Neverland or something else and make the other things just have more thrill and boy-friendliness.
Slave2moonlight, I finally get why the meet and greets as they were may have been hard for guys like you to see them. I actually planned on sitting and making birthday cards for Aurora, and I never thought it would only those activities, I thought grown-ups would get their turns to meet characters while the kids did something else or got their turns. What if there was a "grown-up table" at the cottage?
Anyway, we were not saying Tinker Bell shouldn't have her own place, just not the place from the direct to video movies. We were saying her Fairies franchise, not her own popularity by herself, was a fad. She could still have her own place, preferably in Neverland, but I wouldn't mind her just having her magic tree in there, just one thing so there's room for other, more gender-neutral or boyish things.
