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

[MrPromey]

Even in the best cases concept art almost always looks better than the finished product.

Because that stage isn't just before budgets are slashed, it's usually also before engineers and architects have to remind people about the laws of physics.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Because that stage isn't just before budgets are slashed, it's usually also before engineers and architects have to remind people about the laws of physics.

Neither of this is true. Budgets haven’t been slashed after they’ve been approved in some time (excepting the pandemic which should be understood as unusual) and even though concept design is before official approval there is still a general idea of the budget. Architects and engineers are also involved in concept design. The final concept design will include a set of architectural drawings and at least engineering narratives, but also sometimes drawings and even calculations based on the specifics of the project.

 

[Tha Realest]

Because that stage isn't just before budgets are slashed, it's usually also before engineers and architects have to remind people about the laws of physics.

Yes, and the most obvious law of physics that affects WDI budgets is gravity.

 

[MrPromey]

Neither of this is true. Budgets haven’t been slashed after they’ve been approved in some time (excepting the pandemic which should be understood as unusual) and even though concept design is before official approval there is still a general idea of the budget. Architects and engineers are also involved in concept design. The final concept design will include a set of architectural drawings and at least engineering narratives, but also sometimes drawings and even calculations based on the specifics of the project.

Maybe we're talking semantics? Maybe I should have said "before a budget is set to right-size it?". Also, you're saying final concept design. I just said concept art.

Maybe some of what I'm thinking of doesn't all fall into the category of "final concept design"?

Are we saying that attraction on the left had a full layout intended to fit within or be hidden by what was shown? Asking because to my untrained eye, it sure looks like someone said "Draw something that looks like Splash Mountain from the front but Moana":

Where'd our tree with the boat go? What was that stuff around the fence on the right side? Why does it appear to be either hugely forced perspective or like the "mountain" is about 15 feet tall here?:

Are we back to trackless?:

Maybe the photos of the real table just didn't do what it looked like in person justice?:

Did anyone here ever see a real show that actually looked like this?:

Not trying to argue with you but looking for a way to make what you're saying make sense with some of the stuff Disney's shown us over the years. Scale is often wildly off, they show things happening where people are excited wondering "how will that be possible?!" and it turns out, the answer it's not.

I'm not exactly faulting them for not delivering with most of this but just saying, a lot of it seemed to be wild imagination with thoughts on practical reality not being factored into the depictions.

 

[IMDREW]

Maybe we're talking semantics? Maybe I should have said "before a budget is set to right-size it?". Also, you're saying final concept design. I just said concept art.

Maybe some of what I'm thinking of doesn't all fall into the category of "final concept design"?

Are we saying that attraction on the left had a full layout intended to fit within or be hidden by what was shown? Asking because to my untrained eye, it sure looks like someone said "Draw something that looks like Splash Mountain from the front but Moana":

Where'd our tree with the boat go? What was that stuff around the fence on the right side? Why does it appear to be either hugely forced perspective or like the "mountain" is about 15 feet tall here?:

Are we back to trackless?:
View attachment 911766

Maybe the photos of the real table just didn't do what it looked like in person justice?:

Did anyone here ever see a real show that actually looked like this?:

Not trying to argue with you but looking for a way to make what you're saying make sense with some of the stuff Disney's shown us over the years. Scale is often wildly off, they show things happening where people are excited wondering "how will that be possible?!" and it turns out, the answer it's not.

Aww my dear Rivers of Light, how much promise you held

 

[HauntedPirate]

Maybe we're talking semantics? Maybe I should have said "before a budget is set to right-size it?". Also, you're saying final concept design. I just said concept art.

Maybe some of what I'm thinking of doesn't all fall into the category of "final concept design"?

Are we saying that attraction on the left had a full layout intended to fit within or be hidden by what was shown? Asking because to my untrained eye, it sure looks like someone said "Draw something that looks like Splash Mountain from the front but Moana":

Where'd our tree with the boat go? What was that stuff around the fence on the right side? Why does it appear to be either hugely forced perspective or like the "mountain" is about 15 feet tall here?:

Are we back to trackless?:
View attachment 911766

Maybe the photos of the real table just didn't do what it looked like in person justice?:

Did anyone here ever see a real show that actually looked like this?:

Not trying to argue with you but looking for a way to make what you're saying make sense with some of the stuff Disney's shown us over the years. Scale is often wildly off, they show things happening where people are excited wondering "how will that be possible?!" and it turns out, the answer it's not.

My general rule of thumb? Never believe the first set of concept drawings. And usually not the second set, either. It's served me well over the years. Very well, in fact.

 

[MrPromey]

My general rule of thumb? Never believe the first set of concept drawings. And usually not the second set, either. It's served me well over the years. Very well, in fact.

Oh, I whole hardheartedly agree.

But we've seen a lot of wacky concept art over the years. It used to all be well after we saw the finished project or well after the ideas had been abandoned. Some of the original stuff for Epcot was clearly done by speculative science fiction artists. I'm pretty skeptical much of that was actually researched with real engineers and architects at the time it was drawn and I'm not holding that against the company. For internal purposes of providing inspiration, getting a vibe check for what someone sitting in a chair spouting ideas might look like, etc. - makes total sense.

To me, they only get into trouble when they start hyping future projects or musings of thoughts for future projects with this kind of stuff for marketing purposes which... well, D23.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Maybe we're talking semantics? Maybe I should have said "before a budget is set to right-size it?". Also, you're saying final concept design. I just said concept art.

Maybe some of what I'm thinking of doesn't all fall into the category of "final concept design"?

Are we saying that attraction on the left had a full layout intended to fit within or be hidden by what was shown? Asking because to my untrained eye, it sure looks like someone said "Draw something that looks like Splash Mountain from the front but Moana":

Where'd our tree with the boat go? What was that stuff around the fence on the right side? Why does it appear to be either hugely forced perspective or like the "mountain" is about 15 feet tall here?:

Are we back to trackless?:
View attachment 911766

Maybe the photos of the real table just didn't do what it looked like in person justice?:

Did anyone here ever see a real show that actually looked like this?:

Not trying to argue with you but looking for a way to make what you're saying make sense with some of the stuff Disney's shown us over the years. Scale is often wildly off, they show things happening where people are excited wondering "how will that be possible?!" and it turns out, the answer it's not.

I'm not exactly faulting them for not delivering with most of this but just saying, a lot of it seemed to be wild imagination with thoughts on practical reality not being factored into the depictions.

Your fundamental error is taking a bunch of different types of art and assuming it’s all the same. It all gets slapped with the label “concept art” but that doesn’t actually describe when or why it was made. You’re mixing in pieces that were clearly described as Blue Sky with pieces that are clearly promotional. And because people are most familiar with “concept art” there is this wide assumption that concepts are little more than disconnected art work.

 

[MrPromey]

Your fundamental error is taking a bunch of different types of art and assuming it’s all the same. It all gets slapped with the label “concept art” but that doesn’t actually describe when or why it was made. You’re mixing in pieces that were clearly described as Blue Sky with pieces that are clearly promotional. And because people are most familiar with “concept art” there is this wide assumption that concepts are little more than disconnected art work.

I'm confused.

So "final concept design" is the only thing that is real concept art?

Is that what you're saying?

Is that exclusive to theme park attractions or does it also apply to where the term originated when the final product was also usually 2D art?

Are you saying my fundamental error is thinking that any of this other stuff qualifies as concept art?

I mean, I'm not assuming anything is all the same. I don't think I ever said "all concept art" did I?

Didn't Disney themselves refer to what they showed for "Blue Sky" as concept art?

If they call it concept art, why is it an error for me to?

When you say "concepts" I'm assuming that's shorthand for some specific type of concept art since the literal definition of concept is an abstract idea.

 

[DisneyHead123]

Exactly this. That's the only reason why a lot of us got disapointed by that article and new rumor. Disney already knocked it way out of the park with the concept art that THEY made and THEY showed us. It was perfect. The look of it. The vibe it gave off. Perfection. I think all of us had every right to feel disapointed by the new "news" whether it's true or not. It's not like all the info we had on Villains and the concept came from some random online AI created thing. It was from Disney themselves, and the scaling back on the absolute perfection they showed us that they were going for, is the issue.

I could accept a few different directions with Villains, but I think it should be very distinct from Fantasyland.

I think there is an element of instinctive association about design elements that runs very deep (for example, baby chicks appear to score the bouba-kiki test in the same way that humans do.) A land made for villains simply can’t be rounded, low to the ground and bright, in the way that much of Fantasyland is, and have any real resonance with a villain theme.

 

[𝐌𝖆𝖓 𝖎𝖓 𝐖𝖊𝖇]

I could accept a few different directions with Villains, but I think it should be very distinct from Fantasyland.

I think there is an element of instinctive association about design elements that runs very deep (for example, baby chicks appear to score the bouba-kiki test in the same way that humans do.) A land made for villains simply can’t be rounded, low to the ground and bright, in the way that much of Fantasyland is, and have any real resonance with a villain theme.

A Villains land should lean more Kiki...

 

[Fox&Hound]

My only fear is that the original land looked cool and creepy but what if it was on a bright sunny Orlando day? Would it lose some of the appeal without the dark and brooding skies overhead?

I still definitely want that look more than the new rumors but I do wonder if they were afraid how they would pull it off in the daytime.

 

[HoustonHorn]

My only fear is that the original land looked cool and creepy but what if it was on a bright sunny Orlando day? Would it lose some of the appeal without the dark and brooding skies overhead?

I still definitely want that look more than the new rumors but I do wonder if they were afraid how they would pull it off in the daytime.

Dark Universe has this problem, too. It's much better at night than it is during the day.

Without making the whole thing indoors where you can control the brightness, the only real way to solve that would be some really tall trees that create a canopy that would help block out some sun. There is a reason so many fairytales have bad things happen in forests.

 

[gorillaball]

Dark Universe has this problem, too. It's much better at night than it is during the day.

Without making the whole thing indoors where you can control the brightness, the only real way to solve that would be some really tall trees that create a canopy that would help block out some sun. There is a reason so many fairytales have bad things happen in forests.

I feel like Diagon Ally was done fairly well to keep it darkish/shadowish in a large portion of the land.

 

[_caleb]

I feel like Diagon Ally was done fairly well to keep it darkish/shadowish in a large portion of the land.

I agree! And not just the Nocturn Alley indoor portion, but the entire land has a dark/foreboding feeling even on hot, sunny days.

 

[DisneyHead123]

Poseidon Entertainment weighed in basically saying the land will try to go a whimsical route and in the process be disappointing to many fans:



I hope this isn't the case. Again, I keep returning to - why choose villains... I mean specifically, villains, as your source material if you didn't want something at least a little otherworldly? Surely if that was the intent they would have gone with a safe IP that investors probably would have liked better anyways - Frozen, Zootopia, Inside Out.

Don't get me wrong, when I say this, I'm not talking Dark Universe level dark. Maybe more like the Potter lands. I'm picturing moody, atmospheric, fun, but nothing at all that points to violence or death. So a step down from Haunted Mansion in spooky levels even - but something that is clearly stylistically meant to invoke a mystical, mysterious world, not a cute and bright one.

I still think the "conjured architecture" they talked about at the last update is consistent with this. Unless they say something fairly different at D23, that's still my expectation.

 

[_caleb]

Poseidon Entertainment weighed in basically saying the land will try to go a whimsical route and in the process be disappointing to many fans:



I hope this isn't the case. Again, I keep returning to - why choose villains... I mean specifically, villains, as your source material if you didn't want something at least a little otherworldly? Surely if that was the intent they would have gone with a safe IP that investors probably would have liked better anyways - Frozen, Zootopia, Inside Out.

Don't get me wrong, when I say this, I'm not talking Dark Universe level dark. Maybe more like the Potter lands. I'm picturing moody, atmospheric, fun, but nothing at all that points to violence or death. So a step down from Haunted Mansion in spooky levels even - but something that is clearly stylistically meant to invoke a mystical, mysterious world, not a cute and bright one.

I still think the "conjured architecture" they talked about at the last update is consistent with this. Unless they say something fairly different at D23, that's still my expectation.

That Poseidon Entertainment video research = lurking on the WDWMagic forums.

 

[Purduevian]

That Poseidon Entertainment video research = lurking on the WSWMagic forums.

My favorite part was giving Len Testa credit for having insider connections... then basically saying, but lets throw that out because I don't think he's right.

 

[britain]

I'm confused.

So "final concept design" is the only thing that is real concept art?

Is that what you're saying?

Is that exclusive to theme park attractions or does it also apply to where the term originated when the final product was also usually 2D art?

Are you saying my fundamental error is thinking that any of this other stuff qualifies as concept art?

I mean, I'm not assuming anything is all the same. I don't think I ever said "all concept art" did I?

Didn't Disney themselves refer to what they showed for "Blue Sky" as concept art?

If they call it concept art, why is it an error for me to?

When you say "concepts" I'm assuming that's shorthand for some specific type of concept art since the literal definition of concept is an abstract idea.

It's fine to create wild and wacky designs that will never become reality because you're just trying to inspire the other employees - yes, the leadership but mainly co-workers. Then you begin to craft images that look like something that could actually be built. And it warps, changes, gets completely thrown out, and replaced with other images that could be something actually built. Then as the plan starts to come together, and the greenlights keep coming, you end up with a piece of art that looks a lot like what will be built - or at least it looks a lot like what they want the final product to be perceived as (it obviously will leave out the backstage eyesores).

ALL of that gets thrown into the category of "concept art".

Now, when they want to let the public in on the process... BEWARE because they aren't really letting the public IN, they are letting some concept art OUT. They have appropriated internal tools and turned them into marketing tools.

They might say "now this is only blue sky concept art here" many many times. It won't matter. At D23, everyone is being given a marketing pitch that subconsciously says "We intend to build what we're showing you. Yeah, economies might crash, or executives might change course, but as of right now, as we stand on the stage, we present to you something we really want to build for real, and if everything lines up correctly... we will."

AND IF THEY DON'T, they will disappoint.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

Yeah, economies might crash, or executives might change course, but as of right now, as we stand on the stage, we present to you something we really want to build for real, and if everything lines up correctly... we will.

Which is why it’s so obvious there was a major change in the “beyond” concept.