Future Plans For WDW's Fantasyland

[Super Aurora]

The fact is that Disney could have the more all-gender-friendly stuff and still keep one or two the attractions they had before. But instead they are only giving us one new ride, and taking away two.

You don't have to say anything back if you don't want to, because no matter what, it will always be that we lost two rides and got one, and we could have more rides.

I think you mean to say attractions as the Aurora cottage and Cindy's chateau were not rides.....

but it is the old rides they mentioned that appeal to me the most!

So if the new rides they propose aren't the same ones or like those, they won't appeal to me and other people like me.

Because entire majority of audience of the theme parks make up your kinds, as well as everything must be the way you want it to be and Disney must abide by it?

[DisneyAnimation88]

you have no proof that not enough people wanted it. You can think that, but you still have no proof.

And you don't have proof that enough people did want it so why continue to argue a point that neither of us can win.

no matter what, it will always be that we lost two rides and got one, and we could have more rides. If Disney is planning on something else, it better be good, because you say that the new rides should appeal to everyone, but it is the old rides they mentioned that appeal to me the most! So if the new rides they propose aren't the same ones or like those, they won't appeal to me and other people like me.

Oh now I understand, Disney only have to make attractions that appeal specifically to you and people who share your taste.

Here's a small suggestion: why not wait until the expansion is finished and you've experienced it before deciding what should be added and removed. I've given you evidence of the reason why these attractions are gone, if you choose to ignore them then that's up to you but the facts are there in black and white from the mouth of the man in charge of the expansion: it didn't appeal to enough demographics to warrant being built. Whether you like it or not is irrelevent, you don't have to accept it but at this moment Cinderella, her special magic trick and the fancy meet-and-greet chateau are gone.

[Disney Duster]

Because entire majority of audience of the theme parks make up your kinds, as well as everything must be the way you want it to be and Disney must abide by it?

Oh now I understand, Disney only have to make attractions that appeal specifically to you and people who share your taste.

No, Disney said they got rid of the old attractions because they didn't appeal to everyone. They have to make rides that appeal to everyone, but it is the old rides that appealed to me, so to truly make a park that appeals to everyone, they must have the new and the old, which they can, but are choosing not to. Maybe to be cheap and lazy.

Here's a small suggestion: why not wait until the expansion is finished and you've experienced it before deciding what should be added and removed.

Aha! But that's not what you or other fans did! They complained about it before they experienced it, they wanted it changed, and then it did get changed! But they're not letting me do the same thing, because even though there's lots of people that wanted the attractions I also wanted, they ignored us. Maybe it really is because the guy was biased because of his sons, or even because of just his own personal taste.

[DisneyAnimation88]

No I didn't, I said I had doubts about it. Had they been built I would have done what I do with all attractions at WDW: experience it once and if I don't like, I won't do it again. I don't have any control over what Disney do and I didn't think they would appeal to me but then again, neither do other things in WDW but I don't complain about it, there's plenty of other things there to do. I have said that it holds more personal appeal for me now than it did but had the original plans had been built, I wouldn't have minded, perhaps I simply wouldn't have spent as much time in the expansion.

Maybe to be cheap and lazy.

No, from Disney's standpoint it was concerns over the attractions' appeal as those articles show. To me, nothing about this expansion seems cheap and lazy.

Maybe it really is because the guy was biased because of his sons, or even because of just his own personal taste.

You really think this one man said "we're not doing this anymore" and that was that? I really don't think it works like that at major corporations at Disney, especially when it comes to such an expensive and ambitious plan. Or maybe he asked the imagineers "what can we really do to piss off Disney Duster?"

And an argument could be made that your also biased; would you be so concerned about this if a Cinderella attraction hadn't been removed?

They have to make rides that appeal to everyone, but it is the old rides that appealed to me, so to truly make a park that appeals to everyone, they must have the new and the old

MUST they have the old and new rides? Again, you speak as if you're the only person Disney has to impress. Disney need to appeal to a wide range of interets, not simply your own. Your incapable of looking at things objectively, if you don't agree with it then that's it, it's wrong, no argument, end of story.

[Disney Duster]

But the 'appeal' would still be there if they kept the old rides with the new ones. Keeping the old rides doesn't just impress me, it will impress everyone, because everyone gets what they want: the old rides some people liked, and the new rides other people like.

[DisneyAnimation88]

Keeping the old rides doesn't just impress me, it will impress everyone, because everyone gets what they want

What makes you think "everyone" wants them? I don't doubt that there are many people out there who share your opinion on the changes that have been made but, be honest, if "everyone" wanted those attractions, would they be gone?

the old rides some people liked, and the new rides other people like.

Again, for me this defeats the purpose of WDW: to create entertainment and attractions that appeal to every person, regardless of gender, age, religion, sexuality, etc. Why spend such a large amount of money on something "some" people will like? As I have said before, Disney have kept some land in the expansion free, probably with future attractions in mind. If the expansion opens and there's a mass outcry of "there's not enough princess stuff here", Disney might just look to rectify that with Cinderella and/or Sleeping Beauty attractions. With Tangled's success, a lot of rumous suggest that something will be built to tie in with the film, so even when the expansion is opened, it won't be completed. If Disney want to make a Cinderella ride, I would have no problem with that and would, personally, much prefer it to the abandoned chateau. I would simply rather wait and see what enhancements and changes Disney will make in the future than dwell on attractions that, for now at least, are gone.

[Disney Duster]

I see what you're saying now. You think every ride should have the same appeal to everyone. But Snow White's Scary Adventures and Alien Encounter did not have the same appeal to everyone. Neither does the Star Wars ride. Basically, I'm saying it is impossible for every ride to have appeal to everyone. There are certain rides that young kids can't go on, too.

BUT what I was saying before was that if Disney kept new rides that appealed to certain people and old rides that appealed to certain other people, then the whole expansion would appeal to everyone as a whole.

And I still think that Cinderella's show was for everyone, maybe the adults wouldn't do the dancing and knight-training but who knows maybe they would have, but the attraction was not just about those parts, people could leave at those parts.

[DisneyAnimation88]

You make a good point in regards to Alien Encounter, something I was terrified of when I was younger. Perhaps you're right that that is impossible, but I think that that is the direction WDW is heading in right now with rides like Alien Encounter and places like Pleasure Island having disappeared.

If the Cinderella attraction was re-announced tomorrow, I would not have any problem with that. I had nothing against the original plans at all, but I would just prefer it if Disney converted the abandoned attractions into rides rather than shows. That's just my personal opinion as I think both of these films offer an opportunity for good rides but I have no problem if you would prefer the shows.

[Super Aurora]

Both of you make good points. As for me, well I will be honest that the scenery and architecture detail and design for Cindy and Aurora would grab my attention but I do find the purpose of them bit lacking. In Cindy's case, the magic changing scene could probably be done as well in the castle of hers. other than that, I can't think of any other purpose for anyone outside little kids, especially girls. What should of been done is a show. audience watch a play on Cinderella and her life in chateau. That could actually work.

As for Aurora's, I like Aurora as character when I heard she gets a section I was excited. After I found out what you do there (birthday cards) I frown and got less excited...

What could be done in her case is make the cottage as a store/meet n'greet(aurora better be in peasant outfit...) That way the place doesn't feel like a girl centric attraction.


I'm more annoyed at the vast land space dumbo takes up.

[Disney Duster]

Yay! We've come to an understanding.

I also forgot about Twilight Zone Tower of Terror not being for everyone.

I would actually be extremely happy if Cinderella's transformation was moved to her castle, so that she would do that before dinner. It's just that...the point was the chateau is where she would wear rags in the first place, and it's where the transformation really happened. But she could still do it at the castle as "getting ready for dinner" in a magic way, but it just doesn't fit as well.

You want to know what my real big problem was? All along my biggest problem really was that it feels like now Disney is giving us less, that they downsized. A few other sites said it felt like they were downsizing the expansion too, so I know I'm not alone.

Anyway, I am no longer arguing anything, these were the other reasons why I thought Cindy's and Auror's places should be there:

1. With Cindy's castle and old cheateau, it felt like her world was real, like she actually lived there, like she went from the house to the castle, it felt like the movies were coming to life.

2. With Cindy's and Auror's ride (and now with Snow White's) it felt like Disney almost covered all of their most popular or iconic movies, and it felt, to quote pap64, like we now had a real Disney world, like a world where Disney was real, almost as if the movies were filmed there or something!

Wow those two points were really the same thing. Well, here's the finale one:

3. They told us about it. If I am wrong, then correct me, but I thought this was the farthest a project has ever come to being built before the plans were changed. What I mean is they started putting up fences and bulldozing and had fully built models of Cindy's and Auror's attractions, and now they're gone. It feels like they teased us with something that would make a lot of us really happy and really excited...and then took it away. Like they killed it.

Okay, I did forget something. They lied. The head of this department lied. He said that they were going to keep the things that were there, but just make them more appealing. But that's not what he did. He removed three old attractions and put in one new one with a coaster. That's not improving or broadening the appeal of Cindy's or Auror's attractions like he said he would. This unfortunately would mean Tinker Bell would have stayed and been broadened, but if that would have been turned into Neverland...that would be perfect! (except that might mean Peter Pan's flight would have to go...is there one in Disneyland? So that might be okay since they always wanted a different ride than Peter Pan in Disney World anyway). It would be cool to be able to get in some kind of harness where you could fly around chunks of Neverland...or a coaster that "flies" you around the whole land, so that people walk below you as you soar over it, like any of those coasters that suspend you, but they make it feel even more like you're flying the way they do it.

I write too much, lol.

[DisneyAnimation88]

"And that does tend to skew towards girls. … We’ve kept that intact — not exactly, necessarily, the way it was presented, but that appeal is there”

From that, I wouldn't say that he lied. He says that they haven't kept the design intact but that they've tried to keep the appeal. To be fair to Tom Staggs, he inherited a difficult situation where he had to make changes to allay the worries of Disney's most senior executives concerning the expansion. It probably isn't easy to throw away years of planning and design but sometimes executives have to make difficult decisions. He never mentioned any specific attractions or promised that nothing would be removed, he simply said that Disney had tried to broaden the appeal of the expansion so I think it's unfair to call him a liar when he was promoted to the position he holds now in order to make the changes that he has made.

[disneyprincess11]

Can I personally say that I'M ANGRY OVER THEM, NOT DOING AURORA'S COTTAGE ANYMORE? Aurora is my favorite Disney Princess and I waited FOREVER for them to do something for Aurora. When they announced they were doing her cottage, I was like "OMG!!!! " I freaked out and that was 2nd thing I was looking forward to out of the expansion!

When they announced they replace it with Snow White's Cottage and Rollercoaster, I CRIED!!!!!! I started to read the updates, and when they were like, "They're now doing Snow White's Cottage and that means Aurora's cottage...", I was like, "Oh GOD!!!! NO, THEY'RE AREN'T!" I read the bad news...I yelled, "NOOOOOOOO!"

OK I'm done On the bright side...ROLLERCOASTER! BTW, I'm new here! I'm Emily

[Atlantica]

Hi Emily ! Nice to have you here

It is sad that Aurora doesnt have her cottage; but to be fair, she does have her own castle in a few of the parks, like Cinderella. I actually prefer the other Princesses who dont have their own place to get more recognition here, ie Ariel's ride and Snow White etc.

[disneyprincess11]

Hi Emily ! Nice to have you here

It is sad that Aurora doesnt have her cottage; but to be fair, she does have her own castle in a few of the parks, like Cinderella. I actually prefer the other Princesses who dont have their own place to get more recognition here, ie Ariel's ride and Snow White etc.

Thanks! and you have a good point.

[disneyprincess11]

I just remembered that Toontown is closing today. I'm happy that we get something better, but sad b/c it's closing because I had very cool memories like opening Toontown for the day with Mickey, then having him show my family and me his house, and of course Minnie's house. But as Walt said, "Keep moving, forward."

I went to Disney this summer with only my mom and sisters, and while my sister rode the Barnstromer, Mom and I slowly toured Minnie's house for one last time. As for Mickey's house, i had to rushed b/c we needed to go to dinner.

[Disney Duster]

"Kep, Moving Forward" doesn't mean everything must change. Walt wouldn't want his old movies to be demolished and make new ones...

I realized another reason why Cinderella's attraction should have stayed. It was Walt Disney's favorite scene from any of his animation! The current Disney just isn't showing the full respect...

[Big Disney Fan]

And when Walt says, "Keep moving forward," he doesn't mean to disregard what happened in the past at all.

[singerguy04]

Just to throw some ideas out there...

When has any concept in Imagineering ever been completely thrown out the window? Perhaps, the Aurora's Cottage and Cindy's Chateau ideas aren't out of the picture yet but needed more development.

I don't think anyone would disagree that seeing Aurora's and Cinderella's attractions wouldn't have been nice. The only thing is that they seemed to only be "nice". Ever since the expansion was announced I felt that Belle's, Dumbo's, and Ariel's areas were given much more thought and were a lot more interesting. It's as if they just threw Cinderella and Aurora in with some child-like play-time features. For me, it was a waste for the characters and their films.

As for seeing Snow White's Scary Adventure's go, I don't really understand why anyone would assume that it'd be against Walt's will when it was against his will to have the ride there in the first place. The original intention was to have different attractions in WDW, and not to clone DL. Aside from that the ride wasn't in it's original state anyway! It'd been refurbished and the story-line itself changed since it's opening, so who's really against change, Disney or you? My only complaint is that we're getting another meet and greet area. I would've liked to see another new dark ride take it's place. Perhaps Sleeping Beauty, Aladdin, or Princess and the Frog.

Let's also not forget that this expansion isn't necessarily being brought to WDW because it is "long over due". It's a direct response to Universal's Wizarding World of Harry Potter. Let's face it, in it's original form the expansion did not have anything that would have appealed to the outside-disney-fan public. Now, on the other hand, a roller-coaster has been added. Roller-coasters are a big deal, and will gain interest from people who think Shrek is a Disney movie.

[Big Disney Fan]

Let's also not forget that this expansion isn't necessarily being brought to WDW because it is "long over due". It's a direct response to Universal's Wizarding World of Harry Potter. Let's face it, in it's original form the expansion did not have anything that would have appealed to the outside-disney-fan public. Now, on the other hand, a roller-coaster has been added. Roller-coasters are a big deal, and will gain interest from people who think Shrek is a Disney movie.

Basically, the expansion is happening because management is worried not about guest appeal, but about themselves. More to the point, they view Harry Potter coming to life at Universal as a blow to their inflated egos.

[WonderlandFever]

After finally getting to see the construction for myself I have to say I am even more pumped up for the new additions! I really do wish SWSA could become a new dark ride for another film but they are going to do what they are going to do. I asked a few different SWSA ride operators when it would close and they all pretty much said the same thing that there was no definite date but three different cast members said it could still be operating next year at this time.