MK Villains Land Announced for Walt Disney World's Magic Kingdom

[LSLS]

If you want thrill coasters, your local Six Flags is more than happy to supply them. Heck, if you want thrill coasters in beautifully themed environments with great hotels and strong service, Universal is right down the road.

So is Hollywood Studios. I'm not sure why adding a thrilling ride to MK is a big no-no. And this from someone who doesn't do intense roller coasters.

 

[DrStarlander]

No, the land doesn’t need any of that. It needs a bunch of rides based on Disney villains with a broadly unified aesthetic. You’re doing the post-Potter thing where every land needs to be based on a single IP with coherent lore. That’s not how the Disney parks were built.

I disagree, I think what you're describing will under-impress on a massive (billion-dollar) scale.

And you're wrong that what I'm describing is a "single IP" land.

To simplify, these are the common approaches to a land:

1. Compendium (Fantasyland, Adventureland, Tomorrowland, Pixar Pier, Fantasy Springs...). All of these have a broadly unified aesthetic, yet the characters/stories are kept separated.

2. Single IP (Cars Land, Toy Story Land, SWGE, Monstropolis). These follow the Potter format.

So the Villains Land I'm describing is neither of these models. It's very much "different IPs" but it would have a context/concept that unified them. Maybe Fantasy Springs is the closest thing but I don't think the characters are intertwined in any way as Villains Land would/could.

If they do a straight up Compendium with no context/concept that unifies them, it will be lambasted as a failure. Too many guests will find it unsatisfying and question why the land even needed to exist (individual rides with these villains can just go in Fantasyland).

 

[DisneyHead123]

I understand that, but then if you're Disney, don't even attempt to make a land based on bad guys if you're going to just make it not feel like a land for bad guys lol.

100% agree. I hope this is just a rumor because it sounds like a worst of both worlds situation. Who is a land like this supposed to be for? If you're worried about scaring kids, create a land that isn't scary for kids!! Just go with a totally different theme. Don't create a land that's literally full of childhood nightmare fuel and then try to make it "nice" so that kids coming from Bippity Boppity Boutique don't freak out. Again, who is the target audience for that?

Here's my take. When it comes to kids, they are weird, weird little creatures. One never knows. They are blissfully talking about murderous animatronics a la Five Nights At Freddie's one minute and rolling around on the floor screaming because a tiny insect landed on them the next. They're gleefully discussing Poppy's Playtime and Baldi's Basics and then a flip switches and they're screaming that they can't use the potty alone because they're afraid of Skibidi Toilet (who seems far friendlier than Poppy and Baldi, quite frankly). They find murderous Grimace shakes fascinating but jack-o-lanterns terrifying. The takeaway - if you don't want to scare kids, just don't roll those dice. Don't have anything that could remotely be considered scary in there, because trying to "nice-ify" it isn't going to work.

When it comes to adults - the target vibe for spooky stuff would really seem to be Haunted Mansion, Pirates, Tower of Terror (my son, in kindergarten, is next level obsessed with Tower of Terror at the moment). These are the iconic vibes that launched 1,000 gothic style Etsy dresses. Not terrifying, not Fantasyland-in-greyscale. Intriguing, tantalizingly evocative of another world, mystical-not-magical. A Villain's land that is basically a big extension of Gaston's Tavern should really just be some kind of Fantasyland Part 2.

 

[Casper Gutman]

Got it, so according to your logic, Tower of Terror, Expedition Everest, Indiana Jones, Rock n' Roller Coaster, Guardians of the Galaxy, Dinosaur, Tron, Space Mountain, and Incredicoaster are all bad rides and additions because they're coasters and have height restrictions? Not everything should be a Fantasy Land style dark ride, it's okay to appeal to multiple audiences with tone and thrill level.

None of the rides you mentioned are based on animated family films with the exception of Incredicoaster, which was a terrible retheme. Tron and Guardians were bad additions. Everest is quite mild, and doesn’t seem that far off from what we’d expect from the Yzma coaster.

A few rides with height restrictions, especially ones based on properties like Indy or the Twilight Zone, are fine. The problem becomes when those become Disney’s focus, as they recently have.

 

[disney fan 13]

While I think it would undeniably be silly to have an “adult” land in the Magic Kingdom, there is a difference between a land for 6-10 year olds and 11-15 year olds. It felt like the original plans were more geared towards the latter, which would make sense considering this entire land is some sort of response to Epic Universe, and the teen demo is where Universal absolutely eats Disney’s lunch.

Despite the description, they could still surprise, the water ride could be a show stopper, and a slinky dog style ride in the dark I imagine would be on par thrill wise with Space. Hopefully that comp was made because of the “family launch coaster” aspect than describing the experience more generally.

 

[Stupido]

Got it, so according to your logic, Tower of Terror, Expedition Everest, Indiana Jones, Rock n' Roller Coaster, Guardians of the Galaxy, Dinosaur, Tron, Space Mountain, and Incredicoaster are all bad rides and additions because they're coasters, semi-intense rides and have height restrictions? Not everything should be a Fantasy Land style dark ride, it's okay to appeal to multiple audiences with tone and thrill level.

Especially when a more intense rollercoaster would pull focus from Tron resulting in less wait times. Every single piece of feedback for Tron is that "it's fun, but too short and never worth the wait time." Adding something on the same intensity, if not more, would lower Tron's average wait time, and directly chip away at one of the biggest critiques of the ride. It feels like a no brainer. Adding a new attraction, while supporting existing attractions seems win/win to me.

 

[Bleed0range]

If it's a "Villains Coaster," it may have more than one IP villain in the mix. For whatever coaster drop or water ride chute, all that is needed from The Emperor's New Groove is "pull the lever Gronk."

Maybe if TENG is being tapped for this, we'll then see Gronk/Yzma in Tropical Americas some time in the future.

I’d be okay with it if Emperors new groove started it but it still featured other villains.

 

[Casper Gutman]

I disagree, I think what you're describing will under-impress on a massive (billion-dollar) scale.

And you're wrong that what I'm describing is a "single IP" land.

To simplify, these are the common approaches to a land:

1. Compendium (Fantasyland, Adventureland, Tomorrowland, Pixar Pier, Fantasy Springs...). All of these have a broadly unified aesthetic, yet the characters/stories are kept separated.

2. Single IP (Cars Land, Toy Story Land, SWGE, Monstropolis). These follow the Potter format.

So the Villains Land I'm describing is neither of these models. It's very much "different IPs" but it would have a context/concept that unified them. Maybe Fantasy Springs is the closes thing but I don't think the characters are intertwined in any way as Villains Land would/could.

If they do a straight up Compendium with no context/concept that unifies them, it will be lambasted as a failure. Too many guests will find it unsatisfying and question why the land even needed to exist (individual rides with these villains can just go in Fantasyland).

Most guests - heck most fans - absolutely do not care about a land’s lore. A subset of fans like you can become preoccupied with it. It’s a preoccupation that, if shared by designers, can do tremendous harm to a land - look at SWL. Worse, you’re trying to treat disparate IPs as one unified property, which will come at the expense of the things that made each IP special in the first place.

Most folks are fine with “compendiums” - it’s the approach that built the Disney parks.

 

[tissandtully]

I actually think moving the big E-ticket indoors is a great idea even though the story says it was mostly motivated by LL purchases. They saw what's happening with Epic and weather and want to avoid that, and everyone has been clamoring for the ride system from Shanghai coming over here, so this seems like a win in that respect as well.

 

[Casper Gutman]

Especially when a more intense rollercoaster would pull focus from Tron resulting in less wait times. Every single piece of feedback for Tron is that "it's fun, but too short and never worth the wait time." Adding something on the same intensity, if not more, would lower Tron's average wait time, and directly chip away at one of the biggest critiques of the ride. It feels like a no brainer. Adding a new attraction, while supporting existing attractions seems win/win to me.

This is called “doubling down on a mistake.”

 

[Jack Torrence]

None of the rides you mentioned are based on animated family films with the exception of Incredicoaster, which was a terrible retheme. Tron and Guardians were bad additions. Everest is quite mild, and doesn’t seem that far off from what we’d expect from the Yzma coaster.

A few rides with height restrictions, especially ones based on properties like Indy or the Twilight Zone, are fine. The problem becomes when those become Disney’s focus, as they recently have.

In all fairness, Dinosaur was based on an animated family film (kind of). Everest is more intense than Slinky, which is what the Yzma ride was directly compared to, and has a threatening tone and animatronic (static figure?) attached to it. Calling Guardians a bad addition is crazy considering how well received it is.

Honestly, I expected the tone of the queues here to be like going through Hogwarts and kind of creepy. TENG is a flat out comedy, and this would be a roller coaster featuring Patrick Warburton. The creepiest the Yzma coaster is going to get is like going through Bowser's library in the Mario Kart ride. The tone just doesn't match and wouldn't be out of place in the current adventure land. Why are you building this if you aren't going to have a darker tone?

 

[disney fan 13]

None of the rides you mentioned are based on animated family films with the exception of Incredicoaster, which was a terrible retheme. Tron and Guardians were bad additions. Everest is quite mild, and doesn’t seem that far off from what we’d expect from the Yzma coaster.

A few rides with height restrictions, especially ones based on properties like Indy or the Twilight Zone, are fine. The problem becomes when those become Disney’s focus, as they recently have.

I understand fans having a problem with how Tron and Guardians turned out, but these “meh” thrill rides pull in some of the highest wait times in their respective parks, which signals that there is an appetite for these types of thrill rides.

 

[tissandtully]

I understand fans having a problem with how Tron and Guardians turned out, but these “meh” thrill rides pull in some of the highest wait times in their respective parks, which signals that there is an appetite for these types of thrill rides.

people think Cosmic rewind is meh? that's crazy

 

[DizMagic]

I'll take a great E-ticket boat ride over an E-ticket coaster any day.

I like the updated plans. A truly "scary" land simply does not fit with MK or Disney in general.

 

[Jack Torrence]

people think Cosmic rewind is meh? that's crazy

It's fairly certifiable. I think the reaction mainly comes from people who don't enjoy coasters, and that's what Guardians is first and foremost, and a really fun one at that.

 

[Andrew C]

A truly "scary" land simply does not fit with MK or Disney in general.

A little scary or perilous is the sweet spot, or at least should be for this land IMO. The concern is Disney will avoid that entirely.

 

[Andrew C]

It's fairly certifiable. I think the reaction mainly comes from people who don't enjoy coasters, and that's what Guardians is first and foremost, and a really fun one at that.

The ride itself is super fun; effects, track layout, vehicles, etc....but the Guardians storyline adds nothing to it.

 

[Smoky]

My biggest takeaway from that article, assuming the reports are true, is that Disney will never do a major attraction outside ever again because of LL. Get ready for more giant blue buildings.

 

[DrStarlander]

Most guests - heck most fans - absolutely do not care about a land’s lore. A subset of fans like you can become preoccupied with it. It’s a preoccupation that, if shared by designers, can do tremendous harm to a land - look at SWL. Worse, you’re trying to treat disparate IPs as one unified property, which will come at the expense of the things that made each IP special in the first place.

Most folks are fine with “compendiums” - it’s the approach that built the Disney parks.

The guests don't need to be told the details of the land's lore. The designers need the lore to do a good job designing it so it doesn't come off like an arbitrary hodge-podge junk-drawer of IPs. We don't need a second land at Magic Kingdom like this, just use Fantasyland -- these IPs are already part of Fantasyland.

 

[disney fan 13]

A little scary or perilous is the sweet spot, or at least should be for this land IMO. The concern is Disney will avoid that entirely.

Critically, as to what I was saying early, it shouldn't be “scary” to an adult, but it should be “scary” to a child/preteen, at least for a moment, before balancing out the vibes. Haunted Mansion is the poster child of this with the attic scene leading directly into the graveyard.