Disneyland's Fantasyland Themeing

[MagicHappens1971]

As stated by @Eric1955, it is part of the initial Fantasy Forest storyline that sort of dropped off when the project became New Fantasyland. The idea was that the expansion was a forest located outside of Cinderella Castle's walls, and that forest would have also covered the Mickey's ToonTown Fair / Storybook Circus area, which was to be Pixie Hollow.

Which would've been much nicer.

 

[The Empress Lilly]

Disneylands fantasyland buildings are so much nicer than WDW's, what happened?

The MK was the improved, superior version 2.0 of DL. Including Fantasyland (except for sheer number and variety of rides). But DL has improved over the years, despite vandalisation, whereas the MK has been vandalised, despite improvements.

1983 was a great improvement for DL FL, lifting it up almost to the aesthetic level of the MK. But not quite. It is easy to forget when walking through the modern toontown slash concrete desert FL how pretty the place once was. DL and DLP can only dream of reaching the soaring heights of the MK at its best.

For one, it had trees, and fountains, and lakes, and waterfalls, and more trees and more waterfalls:

For another, the colours of the buildings were more subdued. Rendering them more realistic, which better fits the architecture. As cartoon-coloured buildings the the architecture looks boring, becausem, well the buildings are too straight and normal to be cartoony. But as a realistic architecture, FL reaches WS levels of immersion and beauty in many areas.
Which also served the cohesiveness of the MK as a whole, seamlessly blending in FL with the rest of the MK - the MK was not build as toontown, but as a 'realistic' environment, inhabited by humans, not toons. That is how the magic happens: in toontown it is normal that pirate ships fly, but in the human world, to fly over London is a fantasy, a living dream. (Which reminds me I should be doing just that sometime soon)

For a third, the subdued colours and more realistic architecture contrasted with the colour explosion of the attraction entrances, the tents. These serve(d) a purpose: they show the visitor where the attractions are! Where the action is, just like these fair tents would've done in real mediaeval towns. For a fair in a mediaeval courtyard is/was the very theme of FL.

But when everything is brightly coloured, the tent colours no longer stand out. The historic placemaking function is lost, as is the function of subtly telling visitors where the action is. Instead, the rides later needed to advertise their placement with massive marquees. Which then further undermines the realistic look and park cohesiveness, diminishes the land's central theme, and which adds more colour to further reduce the separation of coloured and subdued areas in one overarching scheme.
As a result, to the modern visitor, the tents look like remnants of silly, cheap theming.

 

[MagicHappens1971]

It's a boundary meant to mark the transition from the castle courtyard (old Fantasyland) to the Enchanted Forest.

That's what i thought

 

[Eric1955]

The MK was the improved, superior version 2.0 of DL. Including Fantasyland (except for sheer number and variety of rides). But DL has improved over the years, despite vandalisation, whereas the MK has been vandalised, despite improvements.

1983 was a great improvement for DL FL, lifting it up almost to the aesthetic level of the MK. But not quite. It is easy to forget when walking through the modern toontown slash concrete desert FL how pretty the place once was. DL and DLP can only dream of reaching the soaring heights of the MK at its best.

For one, it had trees, and fountains, and lakes, and waterfalls, and more trees and more waterfalls:
View attachment 80381

For another, the colours of the buildings were more subdued. Rendering them more realistic, which better fits the architecture. As cartoon-coloured buildings the the architecture looks boring, becausem, well the buildings are too straight and normal to be cartoony. But as a realistic architecture, FL reaches WS levels of immersion and beauty in many areas.
Which also served the cohesiveness of the MK as a whole, seamlessly blending in FL with the rest of the MK - the MK was not build as toontown, but as a 'realistic' environment, inhabited by humans, not toons. That is how the magic happens: in toontown it is normal that pirate ships fly, but in the human world, to fly over London is a fantasy, a living dream. (Which reminds me I should be doing just that sometime soon)

View attachment 80382

For a third, the subdued colours and more realistic architecture contrasted with the colour explosion of the attraction entrances, the tents. These serve(d) a purpose: they show the visitor where the attractions are! Where the action is, just like these fair tents would've done in real mediaeval towns. For a fair in a mediaeval courtyard is/was the very theme of FL.

But when everything is brightly coloured, the tent colours no longer stand out. The historic placemaking function is lost, as is the function of subtly telling visitors where the action is. Instead, the rides later needed to advertise their placement with massive marquees. Which then further undermines the realistic look and park cohesiveness, diminishes the land's central theme, and which adds more colour to further reduce the separation of coloured and subdued areas in one overarching scheme.
As a result, to the modern visitor, the tents look like remnants of silly, cheap theming.

Those pictures make me so sad that I'm too young to have experienced the Magic Kingdom when it looked like that.

 

[George Lucas on a Bench]

@The Empress Lilly, you always reference that really great section of Magic Kingdom's Fantasyland, but that's only like 20% of it. Disneyland's is obviously superior.

 

[Tom Morrow]

I personally think WDW has the superior Fantasyland now with the expansion complete - aesthetically, not content-wise. The only lackluster facades are IASW Philharmagic, and Fairytale Hall. Yeah, Disneyland has the fancy facades on the dark ride classics, but beyond that, there isn't really that much else.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I personally think WDW has the superior Fantasyland now with the expansion complete - aesthetically, not content-wise. The only lackluster facades are IASW Philharmagic, and Fairytale Hall. Yeah, Disneyland has the fancy facades on the dark ride classics, but beyond that, there isn't really that much else.

Except for more and updated dark rides plus the little gems that wind through Storybook Land.

 

[Zweiland]

Except for more and updated dark rides plus the little gems that wind through Storybook Land.

And, if you consider it part of Fantasyland, the Matterhorn.

 

[lazyboy97o]

And, if you consider it part of Fantasyland, the Matterhorn.

Fantasyland at the Magic Kingdom now has its own mighty mountain!

 

[Little Green Men]

Which would've been much nicer.

Then we would have a huge meet and greet where the mine train is, and a flat ride where the tents are, which FL didn't really need another of. We would've kept SWSA, but I think the SDMT is a better ride.The FLE we got is better than what was first announced.

Fantasyland at the Magic Kingdom now has its own mighty mountain!

Despite being shorter SDMT definitely has more comfortable seats than The Matterhorn, and its show scene is better than anything in The Matterhorn, IMO.

 

[LAKid53]

As stated by @Eric1955, it is part of the initial Fantasy Forest storyline that sort of dropped off when the project became New Fantasyland. The idea was that the expansion was a forest located outside of Cinderella Castle's walls, and that forest would have also covered the Mickey's ToonTown Fair / Storybook Circus area, which was to be Pixie Hollow.

Too bad that forest was more of the concrete variety. The artist's rendering of the new Fantasyland was lovely - what we got....concrete. Would love to have those rolling hills behind Ariel's Grotto.

 

[LAKid53]

Fantasyland at the Magic Kingdom now has its own mighty mountain!

Which is nothing compared to the Matterhorn.

 

[Little Green Men]

Too bad that forest was more of the concrete variety. The artist's rendering of the new Fantasyland was lovely - what we got....concrete. Would love to have those rolling hills behind Ariel's Grotto.

Concrete? It may not be fully grown in yet, but there are a lot of trees in NFL.

 

[SnarkyMonkey]

I think the forest part of NFL looks foresty.

 

[George Lucas on a Bench]

I personally think WDW has the superior Fantasyland now with the expansion complete - aesthetically, not content-wise. The only lackluster facades are IASW Philharmagic, and Fairytale Hall. Yeah, Disneyland has the fancy facades on the dark ride classics, but beyond that, there isn't really that much else.

Yeah, not that much else.

 

[Tom Morrow]

Yeah, not that much else.

Touche', but I could find equally as many cool shots in WDW's FL thanks to the expansion. (Again, DLR's Fantasyland attraction lineup is obviously superior)

 

[Walt Disney1955]

It is true, Disneyland's Fantasyland is far superior. I've always thought that since I first visited Disneyland. Magic Kingdom could use their space a bit better. I know they want a more "open" feel but there is enough of that in the park, they could add a thing or two again.

 

[Little Green Men]

Touche', but I could find equally as many cool shots in WDW's FL thanks to the expansion. (Again, DLR's Fantasyland attraction lineup is obviously superior)

 

[englanddg]

Dumbo isn't in Fantasyland anymore.

 

[englanddg]

The MK was the improved, superior version 2.0 of DL. Including Fantasyland (except for sheer number and variety of rides). But DL has improved over the years, despite vandalisation, whereas the MK has been vandalised, despite improvements.

1983 was a great improvement for DL FL, lifting it up almost to the aesthetic level of the MK. But not quite. It is easy to forget when walking through the modern toontown slash concrete desert FL how pretty the place once was. DL and DLP can only dream of reaching the soaring heights of the MK at its best.

For one, it had trees, and fountains, and lakes, and waterfalls, and more trees and more waterfalls:
View attachment 80381

For another, the colours of the buildings were more subdued. Rendering them more realistic, which better fits the architecture. As cartoon-coloured buildings the the architecture looks boring, becausem, well the buildings are too straight and normal to be cartoony. But as a realistic architecture, FL reaches WS levels of immersion and beauty in many areas.
Which also served the cohesiveness of the MK as a whole, seamlessly blending in FL with the rest of the MK - the MK was not build as toontown, but as a 'realistic' environment, inhabited by humans, not toons. That is how the magic happens: in toontown it is normal that pirate ships fly, but in the human world, to fly over London is a fantasy, a living dream. (Which reminds me I should be doing just that sometime soon)

View attachment 80382

For a third, the subdued colours and more realistic architecture contrasted with the colour explosion of the attraction entrances, the tents. These serve(d) a purpose: they show the visitor where the attractions are! Where the action is, just like these fair tents would've done in real mediaeval towns. For a fair in a mediaeval courtyard is/was the very theme of FL.

But when everything is brightly coloured, the tent colours no longer stand out. The historic placemaking function is lost, as is the function of subtly telling visitors where the action is. Instead, the rides later needed to advertise their placement with massive marquees. Which then further undermines the realistic look and park cohesiveness, diminishes the land's central theme, and which adds more colour to further reduce the separation of coloured and subdued areas in one overarching scheme.
As a result, to the modern visitor, the tents look like remnants of silly, cheap theming.

As usual for your posts along these lines...you get this from me! Spot on!