Kamikaze
Well-Known Member
I don't think Gaston's Tavern is a very stereotypically girly addition.
WDI will use antlers in all of their decorating.
10/10 on the reference.
Ok, I'll bite. Explain how it can possibly hurt the company.
-
The new WDWMAGIC iOS app is here!
Stay up to date with the latest Disney news, photos, and discussions right from your iPhone. The app is free to download and gives you quick access to news articles, forums, photo galleries, park hours, weather and Lightning Lane pricing. Learn More -
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
In Defense of FLE
- Thread starter lebeau
- Start date
10/10 on the reference.
Ok, I'll bite. Explain how it can possibly hurt the company.
Studios Fan
Active Member
I would have liked to have seen more rides in the expansion but it is still better than what we have now.
Because it's a ton of money being spent on a fad. When the fad dies out (as all fads do), you're going to be left with an expensive version of a Disney pet rock.
unkadug
Follower of "Saget"The Cult
It sounds like you just have a problem with FLE.
Not really.
That's why you're not an Imagineer.
ABigBrassBand
Well-Known Member
I agree with you completely. I'm a male teen, and I'm totally pumped to see Ariel and Belle xP
Next Big Thing
Well-Known Member
You do realize DHS and DAK serve alcohol as well, right? MK is the only one the doesn't.
Wilt Dasney
Well-Known Member
I do have to say, of all the criticisms I've heard and come up with on my own, the lack of alcohol at Gaston's never once occurred to me. :lol:
Slacker.....:wave:
ABigBrassBand
Well-Known Member
Yea, me too, never really realized that until reading this thread :lol:
I would love for them to put alcohol in Gaston's, but it IS Disney. In the movie though they show them drinking etc....idk. I really don't know my standpoint on this issue. I'm just neutral, but I can't see them changing anytime soon. :shrug:
Neverland
Active Member
The character Tinkerbell is from 1953, but Tinkerbell's friends and everything else Pixie Hollow-related is very recent. I agree with someone on another board who said that they should build Neverland and make Pixie Hollow a small section of it where you can meet the fairies. That way, most of the area will remain relevant, as Peter Pan has, but Disney can still include the lucrative Disney Fairies franchise.
I myself actually like the Disney Fairies, and I love the outdoor Pixie Hollow Disneyland has, but there's no way to know if it will still be popular and known to people 20 years from now. I think the Pixie Hollow section of the FLE is just a little too much space and money dedicated to something that may or may not be relevant in the future.
DisneyNut2007
Active Member
Sorry, but as I said before, they can't build a Neverland area in the place where Pixie Hollow is going. It would be way too far away from the existing Peter Pan's Flight!
And Lebeau, please post Part 2 of your "Defending the FLE" post already...
And Lebeau, please post Part 2 of your "Defending the FLE" post already...
Sketch105
Well-Known Member
I love how everyone questions the relevance. Not to pick on you, Neverland, but this seems to be the statement a lot of people have made about the Fairies franchise and their incorporation into the parks.
A lot of people state that because the movies premiere on DVD, this makes it low that they gain so much space at a park. We may not be fans of the Fairies, but a lot of little girls are getting exposed to the modest fairy movies the same way many young people today are exposed to the eternal Disney classics- at home on DVD! Disney is focusing on films with niche audiences and making modest budgets for them, because the sure-fire Disney hit that used to rake in "Avatar" dollars in the old days (Beauty and the Beast, The Little Mermaid, Lion King) hasn't been working the same magic for most of the newer films (Princess and the Frog).
I lucked out, and grew up in the 1980s, when Disney films were still re-released into theaters for short times. I remember seeing Peter Pan and Cinderella with my father. Nowadays, they don't do such promotions unless you happen to live near the El Capitan.
I think we should be happy that far worse fads- High School Musical and Jonas Brothers- haven't gained full attractions at Disney. The appeal of those will wear off much quicker than girls that want to sprout wings and fly around.
wvdisneyfamily
Well-Known Member
Bring on the FLE. I'm ready for a super WDW 40th Birthday. 
_Scar
Active Member
Okay, great! :shrug: Epcot is usually the park people go to to drink "around the world", so I just put that one.
It's still good MK doesn't serve beer though :lol:
:lookaroun
Animated movies never raked in any where near amounts of Avatar money...
But that doesn't mean they weren't undeniably better than Avatar (it doesn't take much to be better than Avatar, so can you really brag about that? lol)
Anywho, PatF is doing great merch sales and Tiana is now a "princess" which means she will live on. It was Time movie of the year. It got pretty great reviews. It was basically The Little Mermaid of the animation revival... if all goes well that is....
BTW:
Ariel- Worldwide: $211,343,479
Tiana- Worldwide: $266,475,899
So, yea, about that "magic".
Testtrack321
Well-Known Member
I KNOW MAGIC! IT'S CALLED INFLATION CALCULATIONS*! Lets see how much Ariel made when calculated for 2009 dollars vs 2009 Princess & the Frog shall we?
Average ticket price in 2009 was $7.50 according to BoxOfficeMojo. In 1989, release of The Little Mermaid, it was $3.97. Why stop there though?
Dividing out TLM numbers we see that approx 53,235,133 tickets were sold. Multiply out that number by $7.50 and we get the adjusted numbers (again approx.)
TLM (worldwide adjusted to 2009): $399,263,499
PatF (worldwide): $266,475,899
A difference of $132,787,600. That's a lot of magic!
*Simplistic inflation here, for a real representation you need to compare the difference in the purchasing power of the dollar in 1989 and 2009. Also averages account for overal 2009 ticket price, not winter pricing.
Neverland
Active Member
Oh, believe me, I'm definitely glad that there will never be anything more than a small, portable show representing HSM. Like I said, I like the fairies franchise. I like the characters, I like the art style, I like the books and their art, and I like the movies. I'm just wondering if kids in the future will recognize Tinkerbell's friends. Pixie Hollow seems to be a large meet and greet area and playground. If no one knows or cares who the characters (besides Tink) are, and don't want to meet them because of that, then half of the mini-land has no point. It seems to me that kids nowadays who wait in line for Pixie Hollow don't wait in line for fairies, they wait in line for Tinkerbell's friends. They know their names and have favorite characters.
Mhm. As much as I adore PatF, it was nowhere near the success of movies like TLM, Aladdin, and BatB.
(That said, Tiana really is making a killing in merch sales.)
Testtrack321
Well-Known Member
Mhm. As much as I adore PatF, it was nowhere near the success of movies like TLM, Aladdin, and BatB.
And TLM, BatB, or others didn't? (besides probably Tarzan and Hunchback)
I loved Princess and the Frog, it was a great movie, but it wasn't the cultural milestone that TLM was.
I can't praise Disney for making a bad decision (imo) because they didn't make a worse decision.
