Fantasyland Expansion

skull · Post by **skull** » Sep Mon 14, 2009 10:22 am

PopCentury2007 wrote:
Is there a clip that discusses Star Tours?

Announcement and sample ride video are in this thread

viewtopic.php?t=5723

Mr.ToadWildRider · Post by **Mr.ToadWildRider** » Sep Mon 14, 2009 12:27 pm

To be fair, as earlier posted (99soulz by memory? Sorry if wrong) most of MK seems more themed towards "boys." Frontierland, Adventureland, and Tomorrowland all have sort of a more masculine feel to them. Do girls like them? Sure, but often times it's the boys that like playing Cowboy, or Pirate, or dream of aliens and space (not always but stereotypically speaking...). I don't think the little girl focus seems unfair to be honest.

I'm saying this as a 25 year-old male with no kids.

PopCentury2007 · Post by **PopCentury2007** » Sep Mon 14, 2009 12:47 pm

Good point! (29 - male).

casrin · Post by **casrin** » Sep Mon 14, 2009 2:06 pm

The concept art looks great!

disneylizzy · Post by **disneylizzy** » Sep Mon 14, 2009 3:39 pm

I love the new plans and can't wait to see how they play out. It's really great that they're going to be able to add so much to FL without taking a bunch of rides down for the construction.

Toontown is/was nice, but in WDW it doesn't seem to be as well themed as its sister in DL.

Those who really love Toontown can still visit the one in DL I guess.

Future Guy · Post by **Future Guy** » Sep Mon 14, 2009 3:47 pm

Joe90 wrote:

Thanks, Joe! I'm really looking forward to this. I've heard some criticism to the effect that all Disney's really doing is adding one E-ticket, a restaurant, and a whole bunch of character greeting areas, and the new FL will still have less attractions than Disneyland's. While that's definitely true, I believe that it will go a long way towards relieving some of the congestion; even on relatively slow days, MK is still very crowded.

DisBeamer · Post by **DisBeamer** » Sep Mon 14, 2009 3:59 pm

boilerbabe wrote:Are they getting rid of that walkway that connects you to Tomorrowland? I loved that path.

I was wondering about that, too, but if you look at the over-layed blueprints/google earth image, it looks like it's still there. You can see part of it extending from, uh, Dumboland beside the race track.

I'm not sure where I stand on the 'heavily aimed at little girls' issue yet (well, little girls and teenaged boys - I know Ariel's Grotto's always been big with the tween male set

), but I'm still wondering ... is Dumbo a big enough deal to support that large an area? I realize the existing ride is a big deal for people and their little ones, but I never had the impression that it was because people loved Dumbo. It's just a tame ride with good photo ops, isn't it?

MadEye · Post by **MadEye** » Sep Mon 14, 2009 4:02 pm

Future Guy wrote:I believe that it will go a long way towards relieving some of the congestion; even on relatively slow days, MK is still very crowded.

Especially between Pooh's ride and Pooh's playground. I think this will be one of the best things to come out of this extension.

Post by **Len90** » Sep Mon 14, 2009 7:05 pm

MW1218 wrote:
Len90 wrote:I always hate change. However, I will try and be open to this since it seems that Disney is really going all out on this. It really might be one of the best things they do for the park. I guess only time will tell. It should be interesting to see how Fantasyland is going to look with all the construction walls up. My only concern is that will this turn Fantasyland into something like a mini amusement park that are all over the country.

Interesting to see that they are going with two dumbos now. I would have thought they could have come with another ride.
Have you seen the video? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08W5Os-Wnj0 It looks to be the most well-themed land this side of Disney Sea.

Finally got around to watching the video and it seems interesting. I definitely like the idea of adding another table service restaurant into Fantasyland and another attraction. It should be interesting to see all of this take place in the park. A major worry I see is the lack of a walkway between Tomorrowland and Fantasyland. This walkway really helps keep the congestion down and lets the park all flow together. It would be terrible to have Tomorrowland segregated and to just be a branch in the park.

mindflipper · Post by **mindflipper** » Sep Mon 14, 2009 9:03 pm

Another table service in the park, given its volume of guests, is very much needed. The only thing that worries me is that they make it all character dining (given all the meet-and-greets in this new area, it wouldn't be a surprise). Believe or not, not everyone wants to pay $$$ for character dining. If there was a way to have one dining area for character dining, and one not - that would be great.

I think most of the park is gender-nuetral. Not all girls want to be little princesses, and as they grow older, they mature out the princess phase and move onto other interests in the park. Have you ever seen how many goth girls of all ages are in the line for the Haunted Mansion? And boys and girls both love to get on Big Thunder Mountain to scream their heads off. It's just to me, but the new expansion seems primarily targeted to just that young girl princess crowd.

The Magic Kingdom is suppose to be for girls and boys of all ages. The new section to me just doesn't fit that axiom. However, that doesn't mean I won't keep an open mind about it. I agree that it will help with the congestion. And there are some advantages to consolidating the meet and greets to a central area of the park (where they can also keep better control and security as well). And I can't see them getting rid of the walkway transition between Fantasyland and Tomorrowland. That's important egress needed between both areas.

So, I am going keep watching it and hoping for the best. Let's all be objective and positive about this. It may all work out better than we can currently imagine...

ckc0915 · Post by **ckc0915** » Sep Mon 14, 2009 9:54 pm

looking back at a list of classic animated features that i would consider to be in the realm of fantasy, there do seem to be a few other options that WDW could have considered for this area. Pinnochio is under represented at WDW. others films not represented now or in the past include bambi, robin hood and fantasia. there may be others that represent fantasy to you, but these were the ones that stood out to me. could WDW have chosen to incorporate these films into a new design? maybe. but i dont think that these films and their characters are even in the same universe of popularity as the princesses are, nor do i think they ever will be with current and future young generations. of course, they way disney markets the princesses, how could they be?

that said, the plans and concept art look extremely well thought out. i dont think that changes of this magnitude would be considered unless they were going to do a top notch job. i believe that this newly reimagined fantasyland will be a success, and all who are doubting now will have to pick their jaws up off of the ground the first time they walk past those new castle walls. i cant wait to see what the imagineers have in store for us, i just hope they dont disappoint us...

wdwfaninjapan · Post by **wdwfaninjapan** » Sep Tue 15, 2009 1:20 am

Anyone seen or heard what the Cinderella Attraction will be? A dark ride along the lines of Snow White or Pinocchio's Daring Journey from DL would at least make that 'attraction' somewhat unique to the MK.

Too much Dumbo with a second identical ride next to it? Not hardly. I imagine there'll still be a 45-60 minute wait to ride the elephant.

I am a little sad to see Mickey's Birthdayland finally disappear. Of course it is a little funny that a temporary location would last over 21 years.

mindflipper · Post by **mindflipper** » Sep Tue 15, 2009 9:55 am

Cinderella I believe is just a meet-and-greet opportunity for the kids. Alhtough, I wouldn't mind them moving that princess make-over from the castle area to this part of the park.

wdwfaninjapan: you're right, even if there is a second dumbo ride, the lines will still be there. Although, they're providing bleachers for those waiting? Maybe that whole assault incident in the Dumbo line some time ago has got Disney realizing something more needed to be done to keep people from going postal in the line.

99Soulz · Post by **99Soulz** » Sep Tue 15, 2009 11:35 am

mindflipper wrote:Another table service in the park, given its volume of guests, is very much needed. The only thing that worries me is that they make it all character dining (given all the meet-and-greets in this new area, it wouldn't be a surprise). Believe or not, not everyone wants to pay $$$ for character dining. If there was a way to have one dining area for character dining, and one not - that would be great.

Totally agree, but don't think they would have both options. For some reason I think they'll leave this new sit-down as non-character. Nothing I've heard yet but since it's a Beauty and the Beast theme it would be extremely hard to pull off all of the characters and still have them be personable. Can you imagine trying to get a picture and hug Mrs. Potts or Lumierre? I am hoping this will be a reasonable dining option instead of the Royal Table, nice for one-time experience, but not going to drop $50 per person all the time.

I think most of the park is gender-nuetral.

That's what I thought until I had a daughter.

Not all girls want to be little princesses.

True, and that's where the other 80% of the park comes into play. For the ones that do like princesses, this expansion gives something for them.

The Magic Kingdom is suppose to be for girls and boys of all ages.

Not every attraction is geared to every person, that's why there's variety all over the parks. And remember, the existing Fantasyland is still going to be there, this is just adding a section with 1 new ride, expanding another and creating meet and greets. It's like when the Studios added RnR and ToT - they are certainly not attactions for everyone but gave more focus to a certain group.

While the public opinion seems to think that the parks have turned into a princess frenzy, it really is just isolated to that one section of the MK. Thankfully we don't see Cinderella riding side-sadle weilding a shotgun in Frontierland or Sleeping Beauty tending to the animals on Kilimanjaro Safaris - that would definitely keep me from going back every year for sure!

And mindflipper, I'm not trying isolate/challenge just your opinions - there are many people that have shared the same and I just wanted to give the oposing point of view on all of these issues. Personally I'd like to see growth for other focus groups as well but with fairly recent adds like Everest, Mission Space and Soarin I'm ok with them putting some more focus elsewhere right now.

I am also hoping the Snow White Mine Train dark ride is sititng somewhere ready to be implemented - anyone know more on this?

mindflipper · Post by **mindflipper** » Sep Tue 15, 2009 1:43 pm

99soluz:

Thanks for agreeing about the restaurant. Character dining is expensive too, and the Royal Table price tag is expensive. What's the problem about having a nice affordable dining experience that can be themed yet not be character dining?

When I said "The Magic Kingdom is suppose to be for girls and boys of all ages" in meant in a generic over-all concept. Also note: suppose, but it has grown away from that ideal. To think that Frontierland, Tomorrowland, Adventureland is "for boys, not girls" is perpetuating old gender stereotypes that should no longer apply in this day and age. Girls can be cowgirls, astronauts, or tomb raider explorers nowadays, and given how most dress for Halloween in my neighborhood, it would seem that this is the case. As for the parks being in a "princess frenzy" - no, I don't think its widespread through every park; it is limited for space it consumes in the parks, but I do believe Disney limits how it sees its marketing for girls. Girls are just limited to being princesses anymore.

I wish Disney would explore this angle too so that not only would they find new markets for girls but encourage them to imagine they can do anything - whether be a princess, or female pirate, or a cowgirl. Disney marketing to me seems to tells little girls they should be princess when they can be whatever their imagination creates. If Disney and its marketing changed its approach, maybe the park would get back more to the "girls and boys of all ages."

I do AGREE with you on Disney being too focused on the high-cost high-thrill rides like ToT, RnR, Mission: Space, or Everest. For the expense involved do they get the real benefit? Short run, maybe; long-run, no. Soarin' is a much milder ride, one that basically anyone can ride, and given that appeals to a much broader range of people than Tot, Mission: Space, or Everest. Soarin' has an incredible following: long stand-by lines all day, fast-passes are gone by the morning - and people like to ride it over and over. I rode Mission: Space and to be honest I found it BORING. After all this time, the lines are still strong at Soarin', but have dropped at Mission: Space. I've heard they turned off the centrifuge on one side to get more people to ride it. ToT is okay, but the only way they could get people back is keep dropping them over and over. Soarin' cost less to build and is extremely popular. Disney needs to build more rides like this: rides that have more appeal to a wider group of people. It's just common business sense.

I'm glad they're building the Little Mermaid. But it appears to be the only ride they're adding. Why? Fantasyland needs MORE rides like this. Pooh replaced Mr. Toad, but Pooh is not for everyone - anyone who has back problems can find that bouncing during Tigger painful. Mr. Toad was ride everyone could ride. Again, creating a ride that limits what people can ride it. They could build more affordable rides with general appeal for what they spend on on just one high-cost high-thrill ride that has limited appeal. I agree with you - Disney needs to find a balance.

BTW go ahead and challenge my opinions! That's how we can have such diverse discussion. I didn't see as an "opposing" point of view - just another point of view. We actually do agree on a lot of points.