DVDizzy Forum

It'd cost an awful lot of money (which they're already using to make an entirely new Fantasyland) to completely gut the entire "it's a small world" attraction simply to rebuild it again further back in order to include a new facade that people can see. And adding a Pinocchio dark ride next to it...

Perhaps it'd be easier simply to make the queue for Small World entirely open-air so the new facade would be visible without having to go inside the attraction to see it. I can't remember what they're doing in the area that used to be Skyway (it's been stroller parking forever), but they could extend the queue there a bit, or even include some kind of small world facade there. Also, the actual building for Haunted Mansion is next to small world and there's some backstage area there that would be affected.

albert

Yea I do know it's a lot of money and not saying that's it has to be done this instant with the new Fantasy Land park, but it is a consideration idea I thought of. You do have some valid points though. Though I don't see how your idea could work since it would be below ground level and such. I dunno.

I hope I didn't come across as squashing your ideas, Super Aurora. Just that if they tried to do it now, it'd cost a whole lot more than it should because they're already spending a lot to work on another area of Fantasyland. But I can see it possibly happening in the future.

As for my idea, I totally forgot that the actual ride is below the rest of the ground level of Fantasyland, so it can easily be squashed.

(though technically, the ride is on ground level of the tunnels. )

albert

Thank you Kram Nebuer, I often hope that people will appreciate how amazing things are! We are seeing the homes and worlds of the Disney classics!!!!! And thank you for the news and info. Toontown will still exist! Yay!!!

They should get rid of the Bibbidi Bobbidi Boo Boutique, I think. I mean, girls don't really need that...I'm sure something like that could be moved into other stores or just moved as a new store by itself...it should go away to make more room for something better in Cinderella's castle, matching the "visit a character's world" idea.

Did you catch I thought that Snow White should actually just have her ride facade changed to more like a home (either the castle or the cottage with the castle) so that can be her and her friend's meet and greet and home?

Sleeping Beauty is like both Snow White and Cinderella, but yes, more like Snow White. Cinderella is like Beauty and the Beast too in all you mentioned, yes!

Dumbo fits into fantasy land because like almost every Walt Disney film his film is fantasy. He has the magic feather, and even without it, fantasy-sized flying ears!

MichaeLeah wrote:we are supposed to get to see Cinderella magically change from rags to her gown. That would be cool.

Yay! And congratulations on your little girl!

Amy, it is not princessland, it is fairytaleland. People need to realize/remember it's not about princesses, it's about magic and fantasy, and the Disney classics!

Okay, so new ideas and what I like of other's ideas:

WHY are people complaining that Cinderella gets two areas, BUT Beauty and the Beast gets THREE? Do you see the injustice there? If Belle can have three, Cinderella can have two, but this is what I would rather happen:

Cinderella's castle is expanded, just on the inside, and improved. The castle is made to look a little more like in the film, with the clock in the tower and such, just a little bit of a change. There is a grand ballroom with a dining experience just as good as the ballroom and dining in the Beast's castle (why would Cinderella let the Beast have so much more, better stuff in her own land?). It has Cinderella transform by the Fairy Godmother, then the Fairy Godmother puts on a show with magic and comedy with the mice, with lots of interactivity (the enchanted objects look like they will be interactive in the Beast's version of a dinner show).

Beauty and the Beast land could be just two things, the castle and the cottage, or the castle and the tavern. The story performance could be in the castle library, my goodness, Beauty and the Beast doesn't need three spaces! Let something else be in some of that space!

Snow White's cottage could then replace Cinderella's chateau, or just make her ride have a cottage on the side, or just make it more like a home, in the Queen's castle, for meet and greet and seeing Snow White's home.

Peter Pan either gets his ride made over into more of a home, either the Hangman's tree or whatever the Lost Boy's home is, or the Darling's home, for a meet and greet and look at these characters' homes.

OR, make half of Pixie Hollow more into Peter Pan's world, Never Land (and a little London?), maybe even moving the ride to there. If it does include London, have a little bit of Alice's world, with Wonderland there too. The Tinker Bell films and the new fairy friends are not Disney Classics! The less of them the better.

Or like Kram said, make all of Pixie Hollow into Wonderland!

Put Pinocchio in, as Super Aurora said could occur.

And then it would be so great, feel almost complete and perfect...

I just realized... With Disney's official plans for Fantasy Land and our own ideas we are close to creating a LITERAL Disney World. Like, instead of visiting a theme park we are going to see the worlds of the classic Disney films. That sounds pretty damn awesome if you ask me...

Duster: I think Amy is right in calling it Princessland...because that's how Disney is selling it. If you watch the presentation video the guy keeps saying "Princesses" left and right. If they truly want to immerse people in the Disney magic they should have said "These new lands will bring some of the most beloved Disney stories to life, allowing guests to interact with the Disney characters in their own worlds".

The reality is that even if they achieve in creating an incredible thematic experience they will still sell the Princesses because that's where the money is apparently.

Super Aurora wrote:

What you said makes sense and I can understand it (although the traffic snare reason i don't get) However I looked on the map from google satellite and I see that with even the new Fantasyland expansion, There STILL enough land space available develop some thing else.

Next time you are in the Magic Kingdom on a busy day, try walking back and forth from Mickey's Phillarmagic to the Liberty Square entrance that goes past Small World and Pan. It's pure chaos. Guest flow goes from a big open courtyard to a narrow street by comparison, with two attractions and a restaurant all exiting onto it. Add parents trying to park strollers and you have one heck of a traffic snare. When the park is busy, I prefer to actually go the long way in front of Cinderella Castle to get to any area of Fantasyland.

And I love your map. It would be nice if they could find a way to relocate Small World further back to open up that space and give it the great facade. But even beyond financial reasons, I know of one very important reason why that can't ever happen: It's a Small World is part of the same structure that supports the tunnel system that runs under the Magic Kingdom. What I mean by this is that they are connected and the attraction itself creates a wall that basically goes from the entrance of the tunnels (under the Village Haus) all the way to the Rivers of America (because The Haunted Mansion continues the wall). I don't even want to think of the headaches redoing the tunnel walls would cause.

Escapay wrote:

Perhaps it'd be easier simply to make the queue for Small World entirely open-air so the new facade would be visible without having to go inside the attraction to see it. I can't remember what they're doing in the area that used to be Skyway (it's been stroller parking forever), but they could extend the queue there a bit, or even include some kind of small world facade there.

As a former cast member, you might remember that Disney World doesn't do any open-air queues because of the downpour that occurs almost daily in Central Florida. I said before that I heard the Fantasyland skyway was marked for demolition to increase the stroller parking space, which is needed, but it would be neat if they could build some sort of Small World piece there like you suggested. Maybe a smaller version of the Disneyland exterior with the working clock with characters that come out? It would be right next to Small World, which would be cool.

pap64 wrote:

Duster: I think Amy is right in calling it Princessland...because that's how Disney is selling it. If you watch the presentation video the guy keeps saying "Princesses" left and right. If they truly want to immerse people in the Disney magic they should have said "These new lands will bring some of the most beloved Disney stories to life, allowing guests to interact with the Disney characters in their own worlds".

The reality is that even if they achieve in creating an incredible thematic experience they will still sell the Princesses because that's where the money is apparently.

Princesses are indeed where the money is at. If you look at the three most popular character meals in WDW (Cinderella's Royal Table, 1900 Park Fair, and Akershus Royal Banquet Hall) all of them are Princess meals. If you look at the character lines, the longest are always for the Princesses (the Toontown meet and greet rarely has a line less than 60 minutes). And the top selling merchandise is Princess related. The Bibbidi-Bobbidi-Bootique at Downtown Disney proved so popular that appointments were booked up 6 months in advance, causing a second to open up in the Magic Kingdom and now a third over at Disneyland. All three are booked months in advance.

So when Disney decides to dish out some cash to expand Fantasyland, it should come as no surprise that the centerpiece of the expansion is for Princesses. Obviously, we aren't the core demographic for the Disney Princess franchise, but this will boost ticket sales and keep those "little princesses" and their families coming back on repeat Disney vacations.

If you look closely on the blueprints, you will notice that each Princesses area has it's own merchandise location to sell things specifically related to that princess. My theory on why Snow White wasn't given a piece of real estate on the old lagoon is because there is already a gift shop devoted to that film adjacent to the attraction. So her meet & greet will be delegated to random Main Street appearances and Germany at Epcot. I'm not saying that Disney is building the Princess areas solely to sell merchandise, but when the pitch was made it seems that the only ones they green lit are the ones that will sell lots of plushes, dresses, tiaras, and pins.

I'm not trying to put a damper on the project. On the contrary, I'm really excited for all of the announcements. While Princesses may not be the best use of the space, in my opinion, I think the whole land is going to be absolutely gorgeous when it's over. It will be the kind of place that you can go and have a great time even if you don't ride anything simply because it is so esthetically pleasing.

goofystitch wrote: Next time you are in the Magic Kingdom on a busy day, try walking back and forth from Mickey's Phillarmagic to the Liberty Square entrance that goes past Small World and Pan. It's pure chaos. Guest flow goes from a big open courtyard to a narrow street by comparison, with two attractions and a restaurant all exiting onto it. Add parents trying to park strollers and you have one heck of a traffic snare. When the park is busy, I prefer to actually go the long way in front of Cinderella Castle to get to any area of Fantasyland.

Ouch. We be honest, I haven't gone to Disney World in a while. Last time I went was in 2000. So I'm not aware of how the place is like on somedays.

The reason I'm kinda like this in wanting Small World fix up and have the Alice in Wonderland and Pinocchio ride in WDW is that I always go to the WDW park due to having relative that live in Florida, so going to WDW is always a natural vacation place for us. California has little important to us so we never really go there and to bother visiting Disneyland. And it's seems a waste of money imo to just go all way to Cali just to experience two-three rides.

goofystitch wrote:And I love your map. It would be nice if they could find a way to relocate Small World further back to open up that space and give it the great facade. But even beyond financial reasons, I know of one very important reason why that can't ever happen: It's a Small World is part of the same structure that supports the tunnel system that runs under the Magic Kingdom. What I mean by this is that they are connected and the attraction itself creates a wall that basically goes from the entrance of the tunnels (under the Village Haus) all the way to the Rivers of America (because The Haunted Mansion continues the wall). I don't even want to think of the headaches redoing the tunnel walls would cause.

Oh shit I forgot about that. Damn that is a problem. lol

Thanks for liking the map btw. Though it seems nobody bother commenting where I placed my ideal place for Alice in Wonderland ride lol.

I don't know where that Alice ride would be in a place I haven't been to since I was 11, but I think Alice should have an entire Wonderland replacing Pixie Hollow, or at least half of it.

pap and goofystitch, first of all I'm a little surprised. I thought you were on my side saying that Dick Cook should not have been saying it was for meeting princesses, but instead should have said it was meeting classic characters and exploring their worlds, though he did say you see the princesses in their worlds.

Look, I don't care what today's contemporary corporate Disney marketing says, I know that Walt Disney would never call it a princess land expansion. He would think it was about magic, castles, beauty, classic stories, and of course, fantasy! Walt never made a princess film. He made fairy tales. And so did the filmakers of The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, and Aladdin aim to make fairy tales, not princess films.

This is about exploring fairy tale worlds, the beautiful classic Disney worlds, not princess worlds. We all know this is more than just Disney Princess marketing. But by God I bet you are right, the princess marketing and the very term "Disney Princess" is probably exactly what caused the presentation to sound like it did and for people to groan. They would have made this expansion without the princess line, to compete with Harry Potter, and because Disney needed something new. And without the idea of focusing on princesses, it would still be about the same. Because it's about fantasy and fairy tales, and the more popular ones. And even without the marketing, Cinderella, The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, and perhaps even Sleeping Beauty would still be the most popular films next to The Lion King. Maybe Peter Pan and Alice in Wonderland would get a little more, since they are very popular as well, just less so.

So, yea, there.

goofystitch wrote:As a former cast member, you might remember that Disney World doesn't do any open-air queues because of the downpour that occurs almost daily in Central Florida.

Hey, cut me some slack, so I forget a few details now and then.

goofystitch wrote:It will be the kind of place that you can go and have a great time even if you don't ride anything simply because it is so aesthetically pleasing.

I agree. Though the main concern is that many people (who aren't huge theme park junkies that post about it like in this and other forums) associate theme park with rides, and for those people who don't stop and smell the roses, to them this expansion will bring very little for them to actually do. (for example: when the NJ Trilogy went to Disneyland this summer, we went with cousins who were all about the rides, and so we couldn't really stop and observe the park and its details and wienies as much as we wanted to.)

albert

Duster: I AM in your side in that this will be about the enchanting world then the princesses themselves, and BELIEVE that this will be a truly magical thing when it's done. Just stating to not be surprised if people like Amy keep calling it "princess lands" because that's the angle Disney is going to use when marketing this.

So don't worry dude, I'm on your side on this .

Super Aurora I'm gonna be frank and I'll say thank God you don't work for Disney, cos I'm not a fan of cloning stuff. (incl people)

Jack Skellington wrote:Super Aurora I'm gonna be frank and I'll say thank God you don't work for Disney, cos I'm not a fan of cloning stuff. (incl people)

You must hate making copies of documents, then...

Disney Duster wrote:Thank you Kram Nebuer, I often hope that people will appreciate how amazing things are! We are seeing the homes and worlds of the Disney classics!!!!! And thank you for the news and info. Toontown will still exist! Yay!!!

(snip)

Did you catch I thought that Snow White should actually just have her ride facade changed to more like a home (either the castle or the cottage with the castle) so that can be her and her friend's meet and greet and home?

You're very welcome and you're very welcome! I am so excited to step through the lands of the famous Disney fairy tales...just thinking about it makes me giddy. Also, your comment about making a Snow White cottage facade for her attraction reminded me of this image from California Adventure to promote Snow White Diamond Edition:

http://www.laughingplace.com/Live.asp
I think it would be lovely if they could apply an expanded version of this design to the ride! BUT...as goofystitch or someone else said, I think changing the facades of the courtyard/castle wall/tent look of the ride facades will disrupt the Castle Courtyard feel. I think they would have to do what they did in Disneyland and change all of them, but then that would make Fantasyland a clone of Disneyland's. But if they do do that, I would love the cottage look for Snow White and perhaps a London Street for Peter Pan and an old English theater look for Philharmagic and perhaps a 100 Acre Wood look for Pooh.

---

I apologize to stray from this heated debate about Fairy Tale expansion vs. Princessland, but I was reading a Disney blog and noticed these very intriguing questions the blogger brought up that I thought was worth discussion:

What will become of Cinderella's Royal Table?
With the new "Be Our Guest" restaurant coming to Belle and the Beast's castle, I figure this will become the new princess character dining location. The princesses can't be in two restaurants at once, so I guess Disney's leading ladies will leave the restaurant in the castle. Perhaps Cinderella and her friends will be the only ones to remain at CRT? Will Disney convert the space into a more adult-oriented upscale eatery? Many good questions.

Will Storytime with Belle stay in the same place? Will it move? Will it be closed?
In a similar manner to Cinderella's Royal Table, Disney faces a continuity problem if Belle is both at her castle in her attraction/meet-and-greet and at the old Storytime with Belle location between Cinderella's Castle and the Mad Hatter's Tea Party. If I had to take a guess, I'd say Storytime with Belle is on its last few chapters. Although it is one of the best places for some one-on-one interaction with a character, I can see Disney deciding to close the book on this show.

http://disneydaddy.blogspot.com/

I'm most intrigued of what is to become of CRT in response to a new table service restaurant opening up in Fantasyland. CRT really is the most magical and famous place to meet the Disney royalty, being in the castle and everything. I don't think the new restaurant would cause a shift on the character guests at the character meals. Cinderella Castle is simply too magical and appropriate to have a character meal with Disney royalty. My guess is that the Beast's castle restaurant will be a Beauty and the Beast characters meal or just an opportunity to dine with the other fairy tale characters by Disney that may or may not be represented already in Fantasyland or another character meal. Imagine having Peter Pan, Wendy, Alice, Mad Hatter, etc. and others join the Beauty and the Beast characters. Maybe they'll have more realistically scaled proportions of the enchanted objects on carts like Remy in France. Perhaps their human forms will mix and mingle with guests. I think it would be great if human Mrs. Potts herself comes by to refill your teacup or coffee cup with her teapot self!

Also, I'm wondering what is to become of the area for Storytime with Belle since obviously a newer version of the "show" is now happening in Maurice and Belle's cottage. I hope it doesn't become a shop or snack stand or whatever as Fairy Tale garden is a very quaint spot that's somewhat more removed from the hustle and bustle of the main walkways of the park. Does anyone know what it was before it was Fairy Tale garden? Obviously something must have been there before Beauty and the Beast was made.

pap64 wrote:You must hate making copies of documents, then...

If this is aimed at me, I don't follow what you're trying to say....

Kram Nebuer wrote:I'm most intrigued of what is to become of CRT in response to a new table service restaurant opening up in Fantasyland. CRT really is the most magical and famous place to meet the Disney royalty, being in the castle and everything. I don't think the new restaurant would cause a shift on the character guests at the character meals. Cinderella Castle is simply too magical and appropriate to have a character meal with Disney royalty. My guess is that the Beast's castle restaurant will be a Beauty and the Beast characters meal or just an opportunity to dine with the other fairy tale characters by Disney that may or may not be represented already in Fantasyland or another character meal. Imagine having Peter Pan, Wendy, Alice, Mad Hatter, etc. and others join the Beauty and the Beast characters. Maybe they'll have more realistically scaled proportions of the enchanted objects on carts like Remy in France. Perhaps their human forms will mix and mingle with guests. I think it would be great if human Mrs. Potts herself comes by to refill your teacup or coffee cup with her teapot self!

I have no problem with character dining myself and think it's a great opportunity, but personally, I wish it wasn't really at almost every table service restaurant in the Magic Kingdom. My gf and I have been wanting to eat at Cinderella's Royal Table for some time now, but we can't because every meal is a character meal. I have no problem with interacting with the characters sometimes, but we just want to have a nice romantic dinner at a fairly resonable price alone together. We ate a dinner at Tony's Town Square Restaurant (and since LatT is her favorite film, it was magical there), for only about 50 dollars for the both of us. However, charging almost 40 bucks a person for a one or two main entree selections buffet is just absolutely ridiculous and what really ruins it for me. It just screams huge ripoff to me and I can't justify it.

We absolutely love Tony's, and we loved having lunch at the Liberty Tree Tavern which was my first time there again in over 10 years, but it makes me sad I can never go and eat at Cindy's Royal Table or the Crystal Palace without us having to fork over 30 to 40 a person for a one choice buffet and just the opportunity to see characters. I almost wish with the restaurants that Disney had character meals, they'd do 75 percent of the restaurant for the character meal, and the other 25 percent of the area saved for people who just wanted a standard table service meal from the menu.

From what I've heard, Be Our Guest won't be a character meal in the traditional sense. There will be a "show" element, but from what I've heard, it will be audio anamatronics of the enchanted objects from the film. The concept that I've heard almost sounds similar to Walt Disney's original intentions for The Enchanted Tiki Room, which was meant to be a restaurant and during every meal, the room would come alive with singing birds that would put on a show.

Super Aurora wrote:

pap64 wrote:You must hate making copies of documents, then...

If this is aimed at me, I don't follow what you're trying to say....

This was aimed at Jack Skellinton, who said that he wasn't a fan of cloning stuff, including people. I then made a wittty observation that he must hate making copies of documents, since you are cloning documents then .

Just a random thought is all.

Pap, thanks, though I didn't mean there was anything wrong with any attraction being based on a princess character herself. Just thinking that it's only about "Disney Princess" instead of thinking "oh, it's about this great character...who happens to be a princess".

Thanks Kram, glad to see the theme park promoting the new home video release! And making the facades look like their homes would not make them identical to any other park because no other park has that either. Even if they did, Fantasyland should probably try to do a similar expansion, actually...

Oh, and kids will not think "how can Belle be in her castle and in her cottage, or in Cinderella's castle?!", they will think "So Belle walked over to here now, cool!"

I also wanted to say, with the characters having "homes" now, they don't need to keep putting characters in every ride everywhere. They can now keep the focus on original rides, that have some, well, non-Disney things.

This is important because Disney World and Disney Land are the most popular theme parks of all, and so, more people would rather not so much Disney, at least those "cartoon" characters, everywhere all the time. And too much Disney will make them think twice about coming back.

jpanimation wrote:Also, before Disney starts re-imagining anymore rides in any of the parks, they should consider returning JII to it's former glory. The ride hasn't had a line since they screwed it up and nobody enjoys it anymore.

As much as I adored the original JII, it unfortunately didn't have a line long before they changed it.

Disney Duster wrote:They should get rid of the Bibbidi Bobbidi Boo Boutique, I think. I mean, girls don't really need that......

Of course not. But think of all the money that horrid place rakes in.