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

[James Alucobond]

Well, no disagreement there ... it should have been it's own mirror-Magic Kingdom (with Malificent's castle) thrill ride park set where the Transportation and Ticket Center is. But that's not what they are building. *shrugs shoulders*

Cool, we’ve now trotted back out the even worse concept of an entire park based on an outsize faddish fascination with a specific type of character void of all the narrative context that makes them interesting in the first place.

 

[BrianLo]

Looking to these more ornamented early Modern styles actually makes some sense for a villains land. It places it in contrast to the more traditional styling throughout the park without heading towards something that will read more like Tomorrowland.

Thanks for that!

I for one prefer the hint of a promise of a connective thread that isn’t purple rocks and movie facades. We don’t need another New Fantasyland or Fantasy Springs for Villains.

 

[Bleed0range]

Hey I had a great idea. What if they build a River around the land!? Maybe call it River Styx? Or have Captain Hooks ship sail around it? Yeah!! Solved the problem with removing ROA right there!

 

[Mike S]

These types of mood boards are not really good for such an assessment. They tend to be a bit too focused on the aesthetics of specific elements and don’t really tell you about the execution of such elements or the larger crafting of space.

While different architectural styles are most easily distinguished by their visual differences they are also defined by differences in theory, the ideas behind the aesthetic decisions. Most people associate Modernism with a lack of ornamentation and therefore erroneously mis-associate early styles. Art Nouveau is literally the “new art”. The famous maxim “form [ever] follows function” is from Louis Sullivan whose work was quite ornamented. Even the International Style, what most people think of as Modernism, isn’t actually devoid of ornamentation, it’s just different (eg. the completely functionless steel I-beams on the exterior of the Seagram Building). What holds these distinctive aesthetics together under one umbrella is a rejection of traditional, mostly classical ornamentation and a specific invocation of established aesthetics.

Looking to these more ornamented early Modern styles actually makes some sense for a villains land. It places it in contrast to the more traditional styling throughout the park without heading towards something that will read more like Tomorrowland.

Whatever modernism the inside of a Chipotle represents which is now being spat all over the place is the type I despise then

#MakeBuildingsFunAgain

 

[Disone]

Most Disney villains have no connection to an evil forest or dark village and wouldn't really make sense there.

Of course that's part of the reason I think Villains land is a bad idea. The villains are wildly disparate in setting, character, etc.

Do not worry. Just like Peter Quill visiting Epcot as a child, WDI will reverse imagineer a story about how Destopia ( or what ever they officially name villains land) came to be in the MK.

I mean after the beauty of a story came up with for TBA.....

 

[James Alucobond]

Looking to these more ornamented early Modern styles actually makes some sense for a villains land. It places it in contrast to the more traditional styling throughout the park without heading towards something that will read more like Tomorrowland.

It’s also probably wise because of how disconnected many of the villains are both in terms of temporal placement and the nature of their source world (i.e. how much magic exists). You can pass it off as “conjured” for the high-fantasy medieval sorcerers while still not discounting a mundane modern villain like Cruella entirely if they ever want her to walk the land.

 

[The Empress Lilly]

Because no Disney animated films featured a dark forest and village?

There ... I just did their research for them.

These images are great on screen. Perhaps on ride. But they translate poorly into a 3d environment. Guest are walking in thick crowds in 100 degrees sun, not alone in a dark, cold, rainy forest at midnight. Black, oddly shaped leaveless fake vegetation as far as the eye can see is also neither attractive nor particularly spooky without theatrical lighting.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Cool, we’ve now trotted back out the even worse concept of an entire park based on an outsize faddish fascination with a specific type of character void of all the narrative context that makes them interesting in the first place.

I don’t know… Covered Bridge Land is making me reconsider the idea.

 

[James Alucobond]

I don’t know… Covered Bridge Land is making me reconsider the idea.

“Enjoy a Joffrey’s pumpkin spice latte at the converted old Dutch church while watching fellow guests navigate the covered bridge, charmingly underbuilt despite steady headless hoof traffic.”

 

[AdventureHasAName]

That’s an even worse idea and proves the hypocrisy as there isn’t enough existing content to copy to create coherent spaces.

There isn't enough existing content? Are there Disney films that don't have villains?

 

[DrStarlander]

On the surface, Villains Land is about the juiciest Imagineering project I can imagine. They get to play with some of the company's most popular and "cool" IP without having to do a "take-what's-on-the-screen-and-just-build-it" approach...which means they can be creative.

But like SWGE, the expectations are sky high and different fans are going to expect wildly different things, and everybody thinks their vision is "no brainer."

• If they make the land too pristine (because so many of the characters are rich and live pampered lives), a lot of guests are going to think it feels too nice, too sweet, and not nearly dark enough, tonally. They'll say Disney played it safe, pulled their punches, couldn't "go all the way" with a dark-vibe land.
• If they make it decrepit and crumbling in order to convey the characters' decrepit morals (and to make it feel a bit edgy and spooky in ways that are both stereotypical but visceral), fans will say that doesn't make sense, it's too obvious, it's cheesy.
• If they make it a singular "town" of sorts, with all the villains as inhabitants, many will say "this is another Batuu, a place we're not invested in and never needed to go to."
• If they keep each villain separated into distinct thematic areas, many fans who wanted an immersive destination to visit with strong placemaking will feel like they're instead strolling through a checkbox-marketplace of Disney IPs: unengaging, transactional, perfunctory.

These incredibly difficult creative choices for a five-year, billion-dollar project are playing out in an era where disagreement, debate, and pushback are anathema in corporate America. Everybody -- bosses and employees -- are in conflict-avoidance mode. lf a person risks pointing out the weakness of an idea in a meeting -- regardless of whatever gentle, qualified-language tip-toeing and "compliment sandwiches" they employ -- they can be reported to HR for being toxic and emotionally abusive. (I think socially, culturally, this is one of the key reasons we are seeing so much garbage out of corporate entertainment lately...bad ideas are not getting shut down).

As excited as I am, I'm concerned. Whether or not I'll ultimately be disappointed, who knows. But a lot of people will be, and there is likely going to be a lot of negative reaction to whatever they do.

 

[TheMaxRebo]

On the surface, Villains Land is about the juiciest Imagineering project I can imagine. They get to play with some of the company's most popular and "cool" IP without having to do a "take-what's-on-the-screen-and-just-build-it" approach...which means they can be creative.

But like SWGE, the expectations are sky high and different fans are going to expect wildly different things, and everybody thinks their vision is "no brainer."

• If they make the land too pristine (because so many of the characters are rich and live pampered lives), a lot of guests are going to think it feels too nice, too sweet, and not nearly dark enough, tonally. They'll say Disney played it safe, pulled their punches, couldn't "go all the way" with a dark-vibe land.
• If they make it decrepit and crumbling in order to convey the characters' decrepit morals (and to make it feel a bit edgy and spooky in ways that are both stereotypical but visceral), fans will say that doesn't make sense, it's too obvious, it's cheesy.
• If they make it a singular "town" of sorts, with all the villains as inhabitants, many will say "this is another Batuu, a place we're not invested in and never needed to go to."
• If they keep each villain separated into distinct thematic areas, many fans who wanted an immersive destination to visit with strong placemaking will feel like they're instead strolling through a checkbox-marketplace of Disney IPs: unengaging, transactional, perfunctory.

These incredibly difficult creative choices for a five-year, billion-dollar project are playing out in an era where disagreement, debate, and pushback are anathema in corporate America. Everybody -- bosses and employees -- are in conflict-avoidance mode. lf a person risks pointing out the weakness of an idea in a meeting -- regardless of whatever gentle, qualified-language tip-toeing and "compliment sandwiches" they employ -- they can be reported to HR for being toxic and emotionally abusive. (I think socially, culturally, this is one of the key reasons we are seeing so much garbage out of corporate entertainment lately...bad ideas are not getting shut down).

As excited as I am, I'm concerned. Whether or not I'll ultimately be disappointed, who knows. But a lot of people will be, and there is likely going to be a lot of negative reaction to whatever they do.

I the video shown at D23 of Andreas Deja he definitely focused on the idea of the villains interacting with each other so definitely don't think it will be different separate thematic areas ... Maybe the main area will be more regal (Like and Evil Queen vibe) but then another park with be like the "wrong side of the track" - thinking like how the Wizarding World has the main area but then also Knockturn Alley

 

[James Alucobond]

• If they make it a singular "town" of sorts, with all the villains as inhabitants, many will say "this is another Batuu, a place we're not invested in and never needed to go to."

Much as I generally disagree with the argument that Batuu was a problematic approach, the issue isn't the same here. Is anyone really clamoring to explore Jafar's quarters, Frollo's chamber, Ursula's makeup vanity, Ratcliffe's tent, or Lady Tremaine's bedroom? These are not well-defined or interesting locations that people dream of visiting. The villains who have notable lairs are few and far between. There aren't any Mos Eisleys or Cloud Cities among their domains about which people can really wax poetic. Even Maleficent's castle is only iconic in profile and largely featureless within.

 

[Agent H]

Well, no disagreement there ... it should have been its own mirror-Magic Kingdom (with Malificent's castle) thrill ride park set where the Transportation and Ticket Center is. But that's not what they are building. *shrugs shoulders*

I’ve never understood this concept. It sounds like a great idea on paper but quickly falls apart when you think about it for more than 2 minutes. Just a land offers enough space for imagineers to flex their creative muscles and come up with some really cool stuff. But a whole park? I don’t think there are nearly enough good ideas for it.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

I’ve never understood this concept. It sounds like a great idea on paper but quickly falls apart when you think about it for more than 2 minutes. Just a land offers enough space for imagineers to flex their creative muscles and come up with some really cool stuff. But a whole park? I don’t think there are nearly enough good ideas for it.

I said it earlier in the thread ... are there Disney films with no villain? There is plenty of IP; there is plenty of demand for thrill rides; and Disney eventually gives up on every non-castle park. The solution? A thrill-ride castle park.

Their current course of action will be a land with two attractions, a restaurant and a bar ... everyone will be underwhelmed and disappointed ... and the next two decades after it opened will be filled with debates over what they should have done instead.

 

[UNCgolf]

I said it earlier in the thread ... are there Disney films with no villain? There is plenty of IP; there is plenty of demand for thrill rides; and Disney eventually gives up on every non-castle park. The solution? A thrill-ride castle park.

A thrill ride park (or a villains only park, for that matter) would be a terrible idea in general for Disney, and a villains park that was solely thrill rides would be especially dumb. Do you think kids don't like the villains?

 

[AdventureHasAName]

A thrill ride park (or a villains only park, for that matter) would be a terrible idea in general for Disney, and a villains park that was solely thrill rides would be especially dumb. Do you think kids don't like the villains?

It doesn't need to be solely thrill rides ... it just needs to have a lot more thrill rides than a park like the Magic Kingdom (5). I don't even really like the thrill rides, but I acknowledge it is the biggest thing WDW resort is missing.

 

[the_rich]

My thought is that the setting won't necessarily be based on multiple different villains. It might be a more generic area or themed to one villains domain. Where the story is they have all been summoned to plan a takeover of the magic kingdom(or something of that sort).

 

[AdventureHasAName]

My thought is that the setting won't necessarily be based on multiple different villains. It might be a more generic area or themed to one villains domain. Where the story is they have all been summoned to plan a takeover of the magic kingdom(or something of that sort).

I'd bet there's going to be a dark ride where all of the villains have been summoned to team-up and Sorcerer Mickey has to fight them off. It's how you squeeze a ton of otherwise unassociated villains into one land. Then you'll get the building where each villain is in their "lair" for photo ops.

 

[DisneyHead123]

On the surface, Villains Land is about the juiciest Imagineering project I can imagine. They get to play with some of the company's most popular and "cool" IP without having to do a "take-what's-on-the-screen-and-just-build-it" approach...which means they can be creative.

But like SWGE, the expectations are sky high and different fans are going to expect wildly different things, and everybody thinks their vision is "no brainer."

• If they make the land too pristine (because so many of the characters are rich and live pampered lives), a lot of guests are going to think it feels too nice, too sweet, and not nearly dark enough, tonally. They'll say Disney played it safe, pulled their punches, couldn't "go all the way" with a dark-vibe land.
• If they make it decrepit and crumbling in order to convey the characters' decrepit morals (and to make it feel a bit edgy and spooky in ways that are both stereotypical but visceral), fans will say that doesn't make sense, it's too obvious, it's cheesy.
• If they make it a singular "town" of sorts, with all the villains as inhabitants, many will say "this is another Batuu, a place we're not invested in and never needed to go to."
• If they keep each villain separated into distinct thematic areas, many fans who wanted an immersive destination to visit with strong placemaking will feel like they're instead strolling through a checkbox-marketplace of Disney IPs: unengaging, transactional, perfunctory.

These incredibly difficult creative choices for a five-year, billion-dollar project are playing out in an era where disagreement, debate, and pushback are anathema in corporate America. Everybody -- bosses and employees -- are in conflict-avoidance mode. lf a person risks pointing out the weakness of an idea in a meeting -- regardless of whatever gentle, qualified-language tip-toeing and "compliment sandwiches" they employ -- they can be reported to HR for being toxic and emotionally abusive. (I think socially, culturally, this is one of the key reasons we are seeing so much garbage out of corporate entertainment lately...bad ideas are not getting shut down).

As excited as I am, I'm concerned. Whether or not I'll ultimately be disappointed, who knows. But a lot of people will be, and there is likely going to be a lot of negative reaction to whatever they do.

I know we will very much disagree here, but I am somewhat encouraged by the photos of Beak & Barrel, in that it seems Disney was able to really conjure a certain immersive, atmospheric vibe there. Were the details up to snuff? I have no idea, I’m not a details person. But they did, imo, nail the vibe, in a way that could easily translate to Villains. (In a way that, honestly, I do not think Unfairly Ever After does, as fun as that show looks.)

To my mind one of the hardest things about a project like this is the reification that happens when the fantasy world in our minds turns into plaster and paint. Imagine the forest of thorns from Sleeping Beauty in the movie, and then picture it as a plaster statue of thorns in the Florida sun (not saying that’s how this will turn out, just giving an example). It’s so hard to maintain the mood when translating the complex psychology of an entire movie into a few concrete real world objects. I think what the Harry Potter lands have that helps is the idea that they are essentially recognizable humanscapes in many ways, with elements of magic shining through (as opposed to being lands entirely comprised of magic and magical structures and beings). The magical elements are in some cases more implied as something just below the surface, so that a park goer is still filling in some blanks with imagination.