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

TheMaxRebo

Well-Known Member
Yep. The “scariness” of Villains is going to be at the level of ToT/Knockturn Alley at worse. Anything thinking or hoping for a HHN type of fright is being unreasonable

I am thinking general tone of Haunted Mansion - some parts a little darker/scarier, some more humor. Assuming two rides, maybe the coaster leans a little scarier just as will already have a height requirement, but nothing super dark
 

LittleBuford

Well-Known Member
I don’t mean to be rude to anyone but I find it strange that so many people have this take about a family theme park. Especially when Epic just opened up down the road with something more in line with what you are wanting.
It's puzzling to me too, especially given that the villains have always been represented with lighthearted humour in the Disney parks. I stumbled upon this example the other day:

 

danlb_2000

Premium Member
Could someone skilled at searching FDEP records find what this permit for trailers/a parking lot is referring to:


Is it a paved lot or gravel?

See, it is close to what the following referred to as Villains Land -- that could just mean that is where the HQ for construction would be:

The dirt road through the new parking lot was considered Maple Rd:

View attachment 862726


The South Florida Water Management District permit for that area said it would be a gravel laydown yard. If they were paving it, it would likely require a new SFWMD permit.
 

danlb_2000

Premium Member
Could someone skilled at searching FDEP records find what this permit for trailers/a parking lot is referring to:


Is it a paved lot or gravel?

See, it is close to what the following referred to as Villains Land -- that could just mean that is where the HQ for construction would be:

The dirt road through the new parking lot was considered Maple Rd:

View attachment 862726


I did try searching the FDEP site but couldn't find thier permit.
 

ᗩLᘿᑕ ֊ᗩζᗩᗰ

Hᴏᴜsᴇ ᴏʄ  Mᴀɢɪᴄ
Premium Member
It's puzzling to me too, especially given that the villains have always been represented with lighthearted humour in the Disney parks. I stumbled upon this example the other day:


Except that no, they haven't. Character encounters however, ESPECIALLY the villains are required to maintain an approachable demeanor. Disney's attractions on the other-hand have historically shown that villains as their truer, darker nature. The former Snow White's Scary Adventures exemplified that, the same for Under the Sea: Journey of The Little Mermaid, with Ursula's portrayal (about the only good thing in that attraction)

To that, ride vehicles serving as both a physical and psychological buffer, allow Imagineers to craft more intimidating experiences. They can be scarier here! Rather than diluting the villains' character with forced humor or some contrived story, the attractions could preserve their authenticity, respecting both the source material and the audience's desire for richer and truer character experiences. Villainous portrayals don't need to be lighthearted on the rides. And shouldn't be. The question is how will they approach this and if the land being located in Magic Kingdom impacts their portray. Though given how they've "sillyified" the Villain's show in DHS, maybe we already have our answer.

Obvious striking the right balance is key but I do think it fair to question. Nothing puzzling about it.
 
Last edited:

LittleBuford

Well-Known Member
tab

Except that no, they haven't. Character encounters however, ESPECIALLY the villains are required to maintain an approachable demeanor. Disney's attractions on the other-hand have historically shown that villains as their truer, darker nature. The former Snow White's Scary Adventures exemplified thi, the same for Under the Sea: Journey of The Little Mermaid, with Ursula's portrayal (about the only good thing in that attraction)

To that, ride vehicles serve as both physical and psychological buffer, allowing Imagineers to craft more intimidating experience. Rather than diluting the villains' impact with forced humor or some contrived story, the attractions could preserve their authenticity, respecting both the source material and the audience's desire for richer and truer character experiences. Villainous portrayals don't need to be lighthearted on the rides. And shouldn't be. The question is how will they approach this and if the land being located in Magic Kingdom impacts their decision.
I mean, sure, the approach to the villains isn't monolithic, and my previous post could have done a better job of reflecting that, but I'm surprised that anyone would expect the new Villains Land to skimp on the humour and campery, which I don't think is limited to character interactions (Ursula's portrayal on Under the Sea is funny rather than scary, in my opinion).
 

Purduevian

Well-Known Member
What if they all teamed up to defeat Chernabog instead?

Or Iger?
1749348310234.png

What was the most recent Disney attraction to actually have a "scary" element (aside from the thrills, intensity, what have you) to it? Was it the Little Mermaid ride?
ROTR
 

Tha Realest

Well-Known Member
If you want a scary Disney villain ride then you better get on Dinosaur while you can.

Modern Disney doesn't even let their thrill rides have tension anymore, and people are expecting something scarier than Tower of Terror? Not happening.
It’s hilarious people think we’re getting something that pushes the theme park equivalent of PG-13 in the World’s Largest Stroller Park (Magic Kingdom).
 

Agent H

Well-Known Member
If you want a scary Disney villain ride then you better get on Dinosaur while you can.

Modern Disney doesn't even let their thrill rides have tension anymore, and people are expecting something scarier than Tower of Terror? Not happening.
I love dinosaur but it’s hardly scary to anyone over the age of 7. The haunted mansion is much scarier in its overall tone and slow build up to the ghosts appearing.
 
Last edited:

JD80

Well-Known Member
So counting Villains land, that makes what, +4 in what will be 20 years? I did say 'one of the few'. That's not very good.

Maybe we are finally turning a corner to expansions over rethemes on both coasts, but it remains to be seen long term.

I'll be honest with you, the whole replacement vs expansion argument is a waste of time and stupid to me. I'd say SWGE is an expansion but someone on the internet will say "butbutbut it repleaced some flower pots, so it's a replacement."

I personally don't care as long as I get to do new fun things when I visit the parks.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom