Staggs says changes to Fantasyland...

[MiklCraw4d]

Then we should probably ignore what boys want, LMA is a waste of space. Does anyone even see that more than once?

Young boys have seemed to enjoy Fantasyland for decades now, nothing too masculine in there as it is.

This +1000. I can't abide the painting of any demographic in such broad strokes as some here seem intent on.

 

[WDWFigment]

I think DAK's issue is that their main AA in their headliner attraction is broken, but there isn't enough capacity elsewhere in the park to correct the problem.

I think this might be one of the reasons why the Yeti hasn't been fixed, but I think DAK has a lot more problems. In my opinion, the park is really imbalanced. It has wonderfully intricate theming and details, but it lacks quality substantive content. I think it relies too heavily on "simple" animal attractions that it's difficult to get enthusiastic about. While it would be reducing many of these attractions to their most basic sense, they are pretty similar to things I can see at my local zoo or science museum.

It's definitely a park that tries to skate by on "form over substance" and I think in doing so, falls flat on its face. Don't get me wrong, the Disney Details are something I love, but you can't just throw a bunch of details out there and concoct a story line and expect that to be an adequate substance for doing the storytelling through unique and captivating attractions.

My best evidence for this is an old "DSI" segment from WDWRadio. Lou discusses all of the details in Hester & Chester's Dinorama! and Dinoland. The sheer detail and storyline put into that land is almost laughable when you compare it to the substance of the land. It's almost as if someone said, "________, we don't have enough money to make this good, let's see if we can 'explain away' the poor quality with a good story!"

As for the subject at hand, I can't wait to hear what the future of the project brings. I was enthusiastic about the original project, and am equally enthused to hear the changes! I view anything new, properly done, as a big positive for the MK.

 

[Grizzly Hall 71]

I think this might be one of the reasons why the Yeti hasn't been fixed, but I think DAK has a lot more problems. In my opinion, the park is really imbalanced. It has wonderfully intricate theming and details, but it lacks quality substantive content. I think it relies too heavily on "simple" animal attractions that it's difficult to get enthusiastic about. While it would be reducing many of these attractions to their most basic sense, they are pretty similar to things I can see at my local zoo or science museum.

It's definitely a park that tries to skate by on "form over substance" and I think in doing so, falls flat on its face. Don't get me wrong, the Disney Details are something I love, but you can't just throw a bunch of details out there and concoct a story line and expect that to be an adequate substance for doing the storytelling through unique and captivating attractions.

My best evidence for this is an old "DSI" segment from WDWRadio. Lou discusses all of the details in Hester & Chester's Dinorama! and Dinoland. The sheer detail and storyline put into that land is almost laughable when you compare it to the substance of the land. It's almost as if someone said, "________, we don't have enough money to make this good, let's see if we can 'explain away' the poor quality with a good story!"

As for the subject at hand, I can't wait to hear what the future of the project brings. I was enthusiastic about the original project, and am equally enthused to hear the changes! I view anything new, properly done, as a big positive for the MK.

Here we go about Dino-Rama.

I'm not going to argue but IMO Animal Kingdom has better story telling than all the other parks. The story behind Harambe, Asia, and DinoLand are so great.

What Ak does different from zoos is place the animals "seemingly" together. The flamingos, vultures, and kangaroos are seen together given that real feel. The safaris seem like the animals are together. It's authentic.

Dino-Rama is authentic. Based off it's source material is pretty darn good. Just like Paradise pier.



But this is all off topic, back to the topic at hand.

 

[DocMcHulk]

While my wife would love to see Neverland replace the Pixie Hallow area, I'm not sure I see that happening. The idea of building a new ride and then re-theming the existing Peter Pan ride would be too expensive, in my opinion. And, i dont see them having a Neverland area plus a Peter Pan ride somewhere else.

I would LOVE to see a Wonderland area, but I doubt that'll happen.

 

[SMRT-1]

I disagree. AK has much more serious issues that need to be addressed.
Epcot is doing just fine.

yes AK has it's issues as does EPCOT, MK, and HS. :lol:

 

[MiklCraw4d]

So, after 15 pages of no facts whatsoever, it all comes back to the original article, and Staggs's confirmation that something is indeed being changed in the Fantasyland plans.

It all pretty much adheres to what I've been hearing so far:

- Pixie Hollow is gone.
- M&Gs getting downscaled or consolidated but not eliminated.
- Slight increase in budget, combined with savings from cuts, will go to 1-2 new, C- or D- ticket rides. Most likely, traditional dark rides.

No need for all this fantastical extrapolation or the dredging up of every rumored E-ticket from the last 15 years. And I think everyone is traying to parse Staggs's comments way too closely.

Now what I'm looking for is this: While it has not come up at all in the information I've received, I'm looking for someone to assuage me that the new plans don't involve Toy Story Playland. My concerns:

1) Pixie Hollow gone and needing replacement
2) TSPL already designed and very cheap to replicate
3) TSPL already used as a "backup" when it was substituted at the last minute for Glacier Bay at HKDL
4) Toy Story is "boy friendly", according to marketing wisdom
5) TSPL includes mild thrill elements

Like I said, no one has mentioned this to me as a possibility. But I want assurance that it's not in the cards.

Also, all the gender typing in this discussion drives me crazy. I loved *everything* at WDW when I was a kid (everything that didn't terrify me, of course). And I still ride pretty much everything when I'm there. Fantasyland included.

 

[Next Big Thing]

Jason Garcia just posted a another article relating to the FLE article he posted yesterday: http://thedailydisney.com/blog/2010/08/a-few-more-words-about-fantasyland/

 

[Lee]

Like I said, no one has mentioned this to me as a possibility. But I want assurance that it's not in the cards.

I haven't heard it mentioned as a possibility, but you never know...
The practicality of just recycling it again may really appeal to the bean counters.

I really hope not, and honestly doubt it.
I had heard that Studios was going to be the home of any future Pixar properties, and agree with that plan.

 

[WDWFigment]

Here we go about Dino-Rama.

I'm not going to argue but IMO Animal Kingdom has better story telling than all the other parks. The story behind Harambe, Asia, and DinoLand are so great.

What Ak does different from zoos is place the animals "seemingly" together. The flamingos, vultures, and kangaroos are seen together given that real feel. The safaris seem like the animals are together. It's authentic.

Dino-Rama is authentic. Based off it's source material is pretty darn good. Just like Paradise pier.



But this is all off topic, back to the topic at hand.

Just because you can make a pile of fake vomit or dog crap that smells, looks, and heck, even tastes authentic doesn't change the fact that its source material is still vomit/crap.

I'm not denying that they aren't executed very authentically, I'm saying they're poor concepts to execute in the first place. Why would a company known for high quality and cutting edge attractions want to emulate something that is of inferior quality? The authenticity argument, as I see it, holds little water.

I'll grant you that the seamless habitats (on the safari) of the animals is very cool, and I love that attraction, but I still believe the park over-relies on "look at that animal" 'attractions' far too much. You can have a theme park about the animal kingdom without having so many 'here are animals, look at them' attractions.

The details are excellent, the theming is excellent, the 'real' attractions (Nemo, Dinosaur, Everest, Lion King, Tough to be a Bug, etc.) there are fantastic (even with their issues). The problem is, there aren't enough of those 'real' attractions, in my opinion. Zero omnimover dark rides? Come on!

I would happily overlook Dinorama (call it a 'fun foray' or whatever) if the rest of the park offered sufficient attractions. I don't believe, at this point, it does.

 

[Grizzly Hall 71]

So, after 15 pages of no facts whatsoever, it all comes back to the original article, and Staggs's confirmation that something is indeed being changed in the Fantasyland plans.

It all pretty much adheres to what I've been hearing so far:

- Pixie Hollow is gone.
- M&Gs getting downscaled or consolidated but not eliminated.
- Slight increase in budget, combined with savings from cuts, will go to 1-2 new, C- or D- ticket rides. Most likely, traditional dark rides.

No need for all this fantastical extrapolation or the dredging up of every rumored E-ticket from the last 15 years. And I think everyone is traying to parse Staggs's comments way too closely.

Now what I'm looking for is this: While it has not come up at all in the information I've received, I'm looking for someone to assuage me that the new plans don't involve Toy Story Playland. My concerns:

1) Pixie Hollow gone and needing replacement
2) TSPL already designed and very cheap to replicate
3) TSPL already used as a "backup" when it was substituted at the last minute for Glacier Bay at HKDL
4) Toy Story is "boy friendly", according to marketing wisdom
5) TSPL includes mild thrill elements

Like I said, no one has mentioned this to me as a possibility. But I want assurance that it's not in the cards.

Also, all the gender typing in this discussion drives me crazy. I loved *everything* at WDW when I was a kid (everything that didn't terrify me, of course). And I still ride pretty much everything when I'm there. Fantasyland included.

I'm not an insider, but I don't think with a Buzz ride in TL, a woody show in FL, a ride and restaurant in HS that they would put a new toy story land in there. They just built Toy Story Mania. Why would they go back and make an entire land based off of it?


But anything is possible.

 

[Grizzly Hall 71]

Just because you can make a pile of fake vomit or dog crap that smells, looks, and heck, even tastes authentic doesn't change the fact that it's still vomit/crap.

I'm not denying that they aren't executed very authentically, I'm saying they're poor concepts to execute in the first place. Why would a company known for high quality and cutting edge attractions want to emulate something that is of inferior quality? The authenticity argument, as I see it, holds little water.

I'll grant you that the seamless habitats (on the safari) of the animals is very cool, and I love that attraction, but I still believe the park over-relies on "look at that animal" 'attractions' far too much. You can have a theme park about the animal kingdom without having so many 'here are animals, look at them' attractions.

The details are excellent, the theming is excellent, the 'real' attractions (Nemo, Dinosaur, Everest, Lion King, Tough to be a Bug, etc.) there are fantastic (even with their issues). The problem is, there aren't enough of those 'real' attractions, in my opinion. Zero omnimover dark rides? Come on!

I would happily overlook Dinorama (call it a 'fun foray' or whatever) if the rest of the park offered sufficient attractions. I don't believe, at this point, it does.

I see. It' is called Animal Kingdom after all though. But maybe if BK comes it will get a Fantasia dark ride. I do understand, a lot of people I know say its just a zoo. They do need more rides besides looking at the animals.

 

[David S.]

So, after 15 pages of no facts whatsoever, it all comes back to the original article, and Staggs's confirmation that something is indeed being changed in the Fantasyland plans.

It all pretty much adheres to what I've been hearing so far:

- Pixie Hollow is gone.
- M&Gs getting downscaled or consolidated but not eliminated.
- Slight increase in budget, combined with savings from cuts, will go to 1-2 new, C- or D- ticket rides. Most likely, traditional dark rides.

That would make me VERY happy! I would welcome any of the DL dark rides missing at WDW with open arms, such as Pinocchio, Alice, or Toad. Alice would fit with a possible Wonderland sub-section that would also include the Mad Tea Party. It's a timeless property even more popular now thanks to the recent film, and would be a great fit, IMO. Pinocchio would also be a great choice, and would be a nice way to get this timeless film, story, and character much more recognition in FL than just a restaurant.

I would also enjoy new dark rides never done before, such as Beauty and the Beast, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, Mary Poppins, etc. The first three of which are already planned as meet and greets in FLE, and since people are saying the new additions would be based on properties already in FL or FLE, may be plausible.

Also I'm wondering if Casey Jr. Circus Train might be a possibility, since others have hinted the new additions would feature properties already found in Fantasyland, and they are doing a new Dumbo section with the "Dueling Dumbos".

I agree with you that getting a clone of the Toy Story section that will be found in Hong Kong and Paris would be disappointing.

Also, all the gender typing in this discussion drives me crazy. I loved *everything* at WDW when I was a kid (everything that didn't terrify me, of course). And I still ride pretty much everything when I'm there. Fantasyland included.

:sohappy::sohappy::sohappy:

I agree COMPLETELY!

Nice post!

 

[DisneyWall-E]

I like the idea of making the M&G more boy friendly. but am hoping that PH will be changed into Neverland. It still can include PH in a scaled down area but include more boy friendly areas

 

[David S.]

I'll grant you that the seamless habitats (on the safari) of the animals is very cool, and I love that attraction, but I still believe the park over-relies on "look at that animal" 'attractions' far too much. You can have a theme park about the animal kingdom without having so many 'here are animals, look at them' attractions.

The details are excellent, the theming is excellent, the 'real' attractions (Nemo, Dinosaur, Everest, Lion King, Tough to be a Bug, etc.) there are fantastic (even with their issues). The problem is, there aren't enough of those 'real' attractions, in my opinion. Zero omnimover dark rides? Come on!

I think you've just hit the nail on the head on why there are so many different opinions about AK.

Personally, I LOVE zoological parks and looking at the animals, so I consider those type of attractions "real" attractions and can easily spend a full day at the AK just spending time with the animals!

I can respect that others like yourself have different opinions, though, and certainly would not complain if they added a few more traditional "Disney Park" type of attractions such as dark rides.

But the main focus of the park on "look at the animal" type of attractions has never bothered me. While the presence of SOME more traditional "Disneyesque" attractions such as Bug, Everest, Dinosaur, Nemo, Lion King, and the parade (all of which I LOVE) makes the park more than just a zoo, I've still always considered the park Disney's take on a zoological park (and of course, the attractions where you DO look at animals are done and themed better than I've seen at any zoo!).

Just as Blizzard Beach is Disney's take on a water park and Epcot is Disney's take on a classic World's Fair. I've always liked the way each park has a completely different feel and inspiration.

 

[DocMcHulk]

I like the idea of making the M&G more boy friendly. but am hoping that PH will be changed into Neverland. It still can include PH in a scaled down area but include more boy friendly areas

I think a scaled down PH in a Neverland makes total sense. But with the Peter Pan ride being elsewhere, I dunno if they will go with the Neverland theme.

 

[Lee]

An expanded version of the article:
http://http://thedailydisney.com/blog/2010/08/a-few-more-words-about-fantasyland/

I'm kinda starting to like Staggs...

 

[MiklCraw4d]

That would make me VERY happy! I would welcome any of the DL dark rides missing at WDW with open arms, such as Pinocchio, Alice, or Toad. Alice would fit with a possible Wonderland sub-section that would also include the Mad Tea Party. It's a timeless property even more popular now thanks to the recent film, and would be a great fit, IMO. Pinocchio would also be a great choice, and would be a nice way to get this timeless film and character much more recognition in FL than just a restaurant.

I'm sure I've said this on here before, but I always envisioned putting Alice & Toad dark rides across from Pooh, and combining that with the Tea Party for a little British countryside area. Pooh's forest, Alice's cottage with adjacent Wonderland, and Toad Hall. It would all fit together nicely.

FWIW I've heard a couple of those DL-exclusive names mentioned for FLE, but I'm pretty sure it was just idle water cooler gossip and not anything serious.

Also I'm wondering if Casey Jr. Circus Train might be a possibility, since others have hinted the new additions would feature properties already found in Fantasyland, and they are doing a new Dumbo section with the "Dueling Dumbos".

There was a Casey Jr. in those original renderings from D23, and I asked about it at the press conference. They seemed surprised that I had noticed, and said that there was a possibility that Casey would be incorporated in some way, but their ideas at the time were different from the version at DL. That was a long time ago, though.

Nice post!

Thanks!

I haven't heard it mentioned as a possibility, but you never know...
The practicality of just recycling it again may really appeal to the bean counters.

I really hope not, and honestly doubt it.
I had heard that Studios was going to be the home of any future Pixar properties, and agree with that plan.

I've heard a few people on the fringe try and stir things up with it, but not from anyone on the inside. It concerns me that it fits the parameters that Staggs seems to set up in his interview. Again, this is probably just me worrying about nothing...

 

[jakeman]

I think this might be one of the reasons why the Yeti hasn't been fixed, but I think DAK has a lot more problems. In my opinion, the park is really imbalanced. It has wonderfully intricate theming and details, but it lacks quality substantive content. I think it relies too heavily on "simple" animal attractions that it's difficult to get enthusiastic about. While it would be reducing many of these attractions to their most basic sense, they are pretty similar to things I can see at my local zoo or science museum.

I can agree to that to a certain extent.

Most of the animal exhibits do resemble nothing more than a zoo. Living in NC we have access to arguably one of the best zoo in the country with regards to animal habitat, so nothing habitat-wise at Disney is very impressive.

I'll admit my own bias to safaris being that is where I worked, but I think if more attractions used that model and found a way to view animals in a unique format (such as plans for tigers on Kali) it would go a long way to break them out of the "zoo" rut they fight against.

It's definitely a park that tries to skate by on "form over substance" and I think in doing so, falls flat on its face. Don't get me wrong, the Disney Details are something I love, but you can't just throw a bunch of details out there and concoct a story line and expect that to be an adequate substance for doing the storytelling through unique and captivating attractions.

My best evidence for this is an old "DSI" segment from WDWRadio. Lou discusses all of the details in Hester & Chester's Dinorama! and Dinoland. The sheer detail and storyline put into that land is almost laughable when you compare it to the substance of the land. It's almost as if someone said, "________, we don't have enough money to make this good, let's see if we can 'explain away' the poor quality with a good story!"

I can see your point there.

As a former cast member, the story was easily understood because we interacted with it everyday. Even in lands where we didn't work we understood the story and how everything fits.

Dinorama doesn't bother me because it is a continuation of the Chester and Hester story line that was present when I started working there. I just see it as another chapter in the story. I can fully understand the average guest not getting it and because they don't get it, being upset over the quality of the area. I don't think their wrong to come to the conclusion. The back story is complex for Dinoland and it isn't explained anywhere except for one plaque that I can barely find myself when I'm there.

I think the storytelling at Animal Kingdom is too subtle for its own good. I'll also be the first to admit I have no idea how it would be fixed.

As for the subject at hand, I can't wait to hear what the future of the project brings. I was enthusiastic about the original project, and am equally enthused to hear the changes! I view anything new, properly done, as a big positive for the MK.

Exactly, now that it is pretty much confirmed that we are getting something instead of nothing, I am anxiously waiting for what it is.

 

[IWant2GoNow]

An expanded version of the article:
http://thedailydisney.com/blog/2010/08/a-few-more-words-about-fantasyland/

I'm kinda starting to like Staggs...

Fixed. Had a few too many "http"s in there. :wave:

 

[raven]

The concept art of the FLE released to the public (the one everyone has seen) isn't even current. New art was made that looks similar but has the changes on it. I'm guessing they want to keep that part of it a surprise as long as they can. The new art has some very welcomed changes to it. :animwink: