Anyone else disappointed...that they expand FANTASYLAND?

[Spike-in-Berlin]

Besides, who actually goes to Disney World for the rides? I mean I can name you countless Amusment Parks that do it better than Disney (in terms of thrills and what not). Disney World stands out because of it's magical atmosphere, and incredible, one of a kind theming. That's why you SHOULD be going to disney.
Who cares that this Fantasy land expansion might be light on the attraction side? I'd rather walk through a beautiful field of flowers, viewing a towering castle in the background, than a short 3 minute ride...

If Disney would have thought this way DL would have been a failure already from the beginning. He tried to include as many rides as possible. Sorry but I would never see any reason to go to WDW if there weren't the attractions and they include rides of course. I oppose absolutely every single word you write. There are countless amusement parks with better rides? In terms of thrills and what not? ONLY in terms of thrills are there better ones. There are rollercoasters that are much faster and daring but they are mere technical constructions, no or nearly no theming. But I never expected Disney to build worlds fastest or highest or most thrilling rollercoaster ever built. I expect them to create themed rides that are the most elaborated in the world. And exactly thats what makes the rides in Disney parks unique. PotC, HM, JC, Space Mountain, etc. etc. these are the attractions, are a vital part of the magic that brings billions of people in the Disney Parks.
I wouldn't go to WDW without any rides I can go on.

 

[SeaCastle]

Well live a little? Why are princess not cool? Because your male, need to show off your physical dominance? Or to embarrassed to hang with the young-uns?

To me the new Fantasy Land screams MAGIC. An in a world that is filled with so much crap, I'd be willing to sit on a bench, and just view the magic that it'll bring to everyone, albeit for a few hours.

Besides, who actually goes to Disney World for the rides? I mean I can name you countless Amusment Parks that do it better than Disney (in terms of thrills and what not). Disney World stands out because of it's magical atmosphere, and incredible, one of a kind theming. That's why you SHOULD be going to disney.

Who cares that this Fantasy land expansion might be light on the attraction side? I'd rather walk through a beautiful field of flowers, viewing a towering castle in the background, than a short 3 minute ride...

I've spent a total of around 31 days in the parks between five vacations at WDW. I know this pales in comparison to most other members here, but we've never been to a meet n' greet. It simply doesn't appeal to us, in nearly the same way Universal doesn't. The concept of waiting a half hour for an autograph or hug from a character just isn't my cup of tea. Nothing about asserting male dominance, or a fear of toddlers. It just does not interest us. Perhaps it does for others; maybe my family is different.

Yes, you have a point about theming, but I'd rather spend an hour riding rides in Disney World than three hours in my local park, which is nothing but gardens. I don't know about you, but I go to Disney for the rides and the immersive atmosphere. I can drive thirty minutes anywhere and get both of these, but not at the same time. Most people going on vacation aren't going to sit on a bench with their families for an hour absorbing the scenery. Maybe I would, but thing about the demographics that visit WDW: adult males, adult females, singles, adult couples, senior couples, teenagers, young adults, etc. How is meeting a princess appealing to a college frat boy?

The Fantasyland expansion will be beautiful, just like putting a five-star French restaurant in a strip mall on the outskirts of Detroit. Sure, it'll be nice, but who is really going to enjoy it?

 

[lebeau]

As a family of three non-children, the Fantasyland Expansion is of virtually no interest to us besides the elaborate D-ticket Mermaid attraction, and maybe a nice place to eat. If someone would like to explain to me how Disney is not alienating my demographic by building a bunch of meet n' greets with princesses (Okay...elaborate meet n' greets with princesses and Pixies) I'll buy you lunch at Club 33.

Sure, the expanded area will be beautiful. Sure, it's fixing some long-standing issues at the Magic Kingdom with regard to capacity. But Disney is throwing most people over the age of 13 under the bus with attractions that are irrelevant to us. I don't mean to come across as so negative...I'm sure the new area will be beautiful, and worthy of having the Disney name on it. Perhaps if TDO went with the original proposal, I'd be willing to spend more than a half hour in the new area besides admiring the pretty landscaping. (I'm looking at you too, Space Mountain!)

Disney is in no way alienating your demographic. And I'm going to enjoy that lunch once you're done reading my post.

First off, you openly admit that you're going to enjoy the new ride and new dining. That accounts for probably 1/2 of the expansion right there!

You also (quite correctly state) that the FLE will fix long standing problems with the park. How is this alienating anyone? Don't you want these issues addressed?

Also, even if you never set foot in the FLE, you will reap benefits. Because the people who are enjoying the expansion won't be standing in front of you in line for the rides you actually want to ride. Increased capacity benefits everyone at the park.

So, when you get down to it, you're argument is that you are being aliented by the "meet and greets". The highly themed meet and greets that include new show elements and are replacing barely themed meet and greets somehow offend and/or alienate you.

You would perhaps perfer Toon Town? Becuase that is the alternative.

You can explain to me again how the FLE is alienating guests over lunch at Club 33.

 

[lebeau]

The Fantasyland expansion will be beautiful, just like putting a five-star French restaurant in a strip mall on the outskirts of Detroit. Sure, it'll be nice, but who is really going to enjoy it?

Once the FLE opens, pop your head in. Look at all the people. See how they are enjoying it.

So, you're implying the rest of the MK is like the outskirts of Detroit? :shrug:

 

[SeaCastle]

Disney is in no way alienating your demographic. And I'm going to enjoy that lunch once you're done reading my post.

First off, you openly admit that you're going to enjoy the new ride and new dining. That accounts for probably 1/2 of the expansion right there!

You also (quite correctly state) that the FLE will fix long standing problems with the park. How is this alienating anyone? Don't you want these issues addressed?

Also, even if you never set foot in the FLE, you will reap benefits. Because the people who are enjoying the expansion won't be standing in front of you in line for the rides you actually want to ride. Increased capacity benefits everyone at the park.

So, when you get down to it, you're argument is that you are being aliented by the "meet and greets". The highly themed meet and greets that include new show elements and are replacing barely themed meet and greets somehow offend and/or alienate you.

You would perhaps perfer Toon Town? Becuase that is the alternative.

You can explain to me again how the FLE is alienating guests over lunch at Club 33.

I'm not saying fixing capacity is a bad thing. However, this capacity could have been added in other ways, like an E-ticket (or two...just like in the original proposal...how about that for an alternative?). Instead, they chose meet n' greets. Perhaps "alienating" was a bad word choice, but meet n' greets aren't our thing. I enjoy partaking in immersive attractions, not meeting princesses. But maybe that's just me.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the Fantasyland Expansion won't appeal to every age group and demographic. Children will love it most (which is nothing wrong in of itself), but it's not everyone's cup of tea. For what it is, it's great, it'll be beautiful, a boon for the kids, intricate...but it could be better for everyone if they went with the original proposal.

Once the FLE opens, pop your head in. Look at all the people. See how they are enjoying it.

So, you're implying the rest of the MK is like the outskirts of Detroit? :shrug:

I assume you mean the children will be enjoying it. Outside of watching their children, I have a hard time imagining adults having fun at meet and greets. I compared Magic Kingdom to Detroit in the sense that it's different from the rest. I was comparing the dozens of attractions in the Magic Kingdom to the meet 'n greets they're building. Bad analogy on my part.

Just my opinion. :wave:

 

[njDizFan]

Granted the new FLE is a little kid-centric, although I, as a male adult will be looking forward to seeing it. For all the demographics that may not wish to see the new FLE, they are probobly the same people who didn't wander into toontown. Except the new mermaid ride and restaurant may have some appeal.

On the flip side there are several rides that currently don't appeal to many demographics also. Seniors, parents with younger children, pregnant women, people afraid of thrill rides, people who experience motion sickness. This is currently a pretty large group of people who will look forward to the new expansion.

 

[lebeau]

I'm not saying fixing capacity is a bad thing. However, this capacity could have been added in other ways, like an E-ticket (or two...just like in the original proposal...how about that for an alternative?). Instead, they chose meet n' greets. Perhaps "alienating" was a bad word choice, but meet n' greets aren't our thing. I enjoy partaking in immersive attractions, not meeting princesses. But maybe that's just me.

Why are the two mutually exclusive? What's wrong with an immersive experience in which you meet princesses? Surely we can all agree this is better than an non-immersive experience in which you meet princesses.

I get that you don't want to meet princesses. Lots and lots of people do. Just try to book a princess breakfast. Look at what Disney can charge for them. The demand is there. Disney needs to offer princess meet and greets. Better that they be highly themed then held under Toon Town tents.

Disagree?

As for comparing FLE to a proposal that includes 2 e-tickets, you're really comparing apples to oranges. FLE is a cost-effective way to address MK's most basic issue. 2 e-tickets would not have addressed so many issues so cost effectively.

As I detailed in the Defense of the FLE thread, other parks need e-tickets more. If Disney's going to pony up for e-tickets, it should put them in one of the parks with low attendace. As long as AK and DHS are considered 1/2 parks by some, they are more in need of e-tics than MK.

What MK needs is additional capacity so they don't have to close the gates to paying customers on busy days. FLE provides that. MK also needs more dining options. FLE provides that. FLE also services a very important demographic which is not currently having its demands met by Disney.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the Fantasyland Expansion won't appeal to every age group and demographic.

What project do you suppose would appeal to every age and demographic? Thrill rides certainly don't. They have built in restrictions that prevent certain ages and demographics from riding. By their very nature, they are exclusive. FLE will be able to be enjoyed by anyone who is interested.

I addressed the issue of FLE appealing only to girls or children at length in the Defense of the FLE thread. Rather than rehash, I'll direct you to that thread. Short version: the demographic FLE will appeal to is not currently being sufficiently serviced by Disney. FLE will address that.

Children will love it most (which is nothing wrong in of itself), but it's not everyone's cup of tea. For what it is, it's great, it'll be beautiful, a boon for the kids, intricate...but it could be better for everyone if they went with the original proposal.

I assume you mean the children will be enjoying it. Outside of watching their children, I have a hard time imagining adults having fun at meet and greets.

Yes, this area will primarily appeal to children. As has always been the case with Fantasyland. I don't see the problem with that.

But you're fooling yourself if you think adults don't go to meet and greets. Next time you pass a line for a meet and greet, look who's standing in it. You'll see plenty of adults without children. And some of those adults with kids would be standing in line even if they didn't have kids with them.

Check out the character meals. Sure, you'll see lots of kids. You'll also see tables without them. And again, some of those adults sitting at tables with kids would have come to the character meal even if the kids weren't there.

Look at all the pictures posted here of grown adults posing with characters with not a kid in sight.

Adults will be enjoying FLE. Boys will be too. I am sure that little girls will be there in force. But they won't be alone.

And if you opt out, that's fine. You'll still enjoy the added capacity.

Win, win, win.

When are we having lunch?

 

[lebeau]

Granted the new FLE is a little kid-centric, although I, as a male adult will be looking forward to seeing it. For all the demographics that may not wish to see the new FLE, they are probobly the same people who didn't wander into toontown. Except the new mermaid ride and restaurant may have some appeal.

On the flip side there are several rides that currently don't appeal to many demographics also. Seniors, parents with younger children, pregnant women, people afraid of thrill rides, people who experience motion sickness. This is currently a pretty large group of people who will look forward to the new expansion.

Having been through many FLE discussions at this point, I find that when people say "this won't appeal to every demo" they really mean "this doesn't appeal to me".

There's an assumption I think that what is appealing to me is also appealing to everyone else. I love Splash Mountain, therefore it appeals to everyone. Well, it doesn't.

No attraction has universal appeal. And if you only build attractions that are designed to appeal to the broadest possible demographic, you're going to wind up with a lot of very bland, homogenous attractions.

 

[Lee]

Why are princess not cool?

Ummm....'cause they just aren't. Not cool or interesting in the least.:shrug:

To me the new Fantasy Land screams MAGIC. An in a world that is filled with so much crap, I'd be willing to sit on a bench, and just view the magic that it'll bring to everyone, albeit for a few hours.

Sorry. I'm just not that passive. I want to be involved, not watching others have fun.

Besides, who actually goes to Disney World for the rides?

Me.:wave:

I mean I can name you countless Amusment Parks that do it better than Disney (in terms of thrills and what not). Disney World stands out because of it's magical atmosphere, and incredible, one of a kind theming. That's why you SHOULD be going to disney.

But it isn't all about thrills. I've been going to disney for the last 35+ years to enjoy amazing, top-notch rides located in an awesome, immersive atmosphere.
It doesn't work to have the rides without atmosphere, and vice versa. The atmosphere is not as good if there aren't great attractions.

Who cares that this Fantasy land expansion might be light on the attraction side? I'd rather walk through a beautiful field of flowers, viewing a towering castle in the background, than a short 3 minute ride...

Then you, sir, are the second most desired demographic (behind young girls) for the FLE. Also the most rare.

 

[lebeau]

Ummm....'cause they just aren't. Not cool or interesting in the least.:shrug:

They are not cool or interesting to you in the least. But seeing as how princesses are currently a $4-billion/year franchise, they must be interesting to someone.

Seeing as how I have to call 180 days in advance if I want a shot at an overpriced breakfast with the princesses, someone must think they are cool.

You get my point. The fact that you aren't interested in princesses is really irrelevant. Sorry.

Sorry. I'm just not that passive. I want to be involved, not watching others have fun.

Why is an attraction that is not a ride considered passive? Meet and greets are by their very nature interactive. In some ways, they are arguably more personal and involved than sitting in a ride vehicle watching animatronics.

Again, sorry they don't appeal to you. They appeal to many. There is an undeniable demand. Disney would be wrong not to supply what its audience is demanding.

But it isn't all about thrills. I've been going to disney for the last 35+ years to enjoy amazing, top-notch rides located in an awesome, immersive atmosphere.
It doesn't work to have the rides without atmosphere, and vice versa. The atmosphere is not as good if there aren't great attractions.

I think you know that "attraction" does not equal "ride". Whether they appeal to you or not, meet and greets are attractions. And these will be better than traditional meet and greets.

 

[Lee]

They are not cool or interesting to you in the least. But seeing as how princesses are currently a $4-billion/year franchise, they must be interesting to someone.

No doubt they are interesting to someone. Little girls love 'em. Good for them. And that $ figure you quoted is exactly why they are doing the FLE. Marketing/synergy taken to the nine-figure extreme. Anything else they gain, like capacity, is purely secondary.

Seeing as how I have to call 180 days in advance if I want a shot at an overpriced breakfast with the princesses, someone must think they are cool.

Again, I don't doubt that at all. (And they can have all the princess meals they want...but give me back my grown-up dining in the castle, please.)

You get my point. The fact that you aren't interested in princesses is really irrelevant. Sorry.

Not to me. This thread is about being disappointed in the expansion. I am disappointed, so it is quite relevent to how I view it.

Why is an attraction that is not a ride considered passive? Meet and greets are by their very nature interactive. In some ways, they are arguably more personal and involved than sitting in a ride vehicle watching animatronics.

My statement was meant as a response to the other poster's statement that he'd "be willing to sit on a bench, and just view the magic that it'll bring to everyone, albeit for a few hours."
That is passive compared to actually taking part in an attraction, be it a ride or show. I'd rather be riding a ride like Pirates than sitting on a bench watching kids scamper around in a pretty setting.

Again, sorry they don't appeal to you. They appeal to many. There is an undeniable demand. Disney would be wrong not to supply what its audience is demanding.

True. I will just continue to feel that they are overspending to meet that need, and neglecting some other areas that are also in dire need of a cap. ex. to help with attendence, capacity, etc.

I think you know that "attraction" does not equal "ride". Whether they appeal to you or not, meet and greets are attractions. And these will be better than traditional meet and greets.

Sure. I see an attraction as a ride or show or even an exhibit. Meeting a "character", be it in a minimally themed tent or a highly themed cottage with some little "show" element thrown in.....that's a Meet and Greet. I will go to my grave not considering them an attraction.

 

[lebeau]

No doubt they are interesting to someone. Little girls love 'em. Good for them. And that $ figure you quoted is exactly why they are doing the FLE. Marketing/synergy taken to the nine-figure extreme. Anything else they gain, like capacity, is purely secondary.

Fair enough. But can you blame Disney? They are in the biz of making money.

There are other projects that would appeal to me a heck of a lot more than FLE. The point I'm trying to make is that from a business decision point of view, FLE makes a lot of sense.

Again, I don't doubt that at all. (And they can have all the princess meals they want...but give me back my grown-up dining in the castle, please.)

On the upside, I fully expect that the FLE will cut into the popularity of those character meals in the castle. Right now, you have no choice but to pony up for the expensive character meal or stand in long lines for an unthemed meet and greet. Once the princess crowd has options, the demand for the overpriced character meals may drop off.

If this happens, Disney may see some cost savings in cutting the princesses out of dinner again. In the long run, the FLE may pave the way for "adult dining" (non-character anyway) in the castle again.

Not to me. This thread is about being disappointed in the expansion. I am disappointed, so it is quite relevent to how I view it.

Fair enough. I'm still looking at why FLE makes sense from Disney's perspective.

You have every right to be disappointed. But when you look at FLE from any point of view other than that of a rabid Disney fan without kids, it's a good decision.

I guess I don't get why people continue to feel the need to grouse about a good decision just because it wasn't made with them in mind.

My statement was meant as a response to the other poster's statement that he'd "be willing to sit on a bench, and just view the magic that it'll bring to everyone, albeit for a few hours."
That is passive compared to actually taking part in an attraction, be it a ride or show. I'd rather be riding a ride like Pirates than sitting on a bench watching kids scamper around in a pretty setting.

Fair enough. As someone with kids, I enjoy both. But I'd get antsy at Disney if I spent hours on the park bench.

Bottom line: Disney should have (and does have) both.

True. I will just continue to feel that they are overspending to meet that need, and neglecting some other areas that are also in dire need of a cap. ex. to help with attendence, capacity, etc.

I can't speak to the financials. So I don't know whether or not they are overspending. From where I am sitting, it sure seems like they are getting a lot of bang for the buck. By your own admission, they expect to rake in some big dough off of what is a relatively small investment compared to some of the other options.

Are there other areas in dire need? No doubt. AK is in desperate need of some love. DHS isn't that much better off.

But for what it is, I just can't see FLE as anything but an improvement.

Sure. I see an attraction as a ride or show or even an exhibit. Meeting a "character", be it in a minimally themed tent or a highly themed cottage with some little "show" element thrown in.....that's a Meet and Greet. I will go to my grave not considering them an attraction.

Then, you're being stubborn.

It is an attraction. Just not one that appeals to you.

People wait in line for an hour to meet Tinker Bell. How is something that people are willing to wait in line for an hour to experience not an attraction? :shrug:

 

[Lee]

Then, you're being stubborn.
It is an attraction. Just not one that appeals to you.
People wait in line for an hour to meet Tinker Bell. How is something that people are willing to wait in line for an hour to experience not an attraction? :shrug:

*sigh*
Because it's not, unless you are using the most general definition possible.

M&Gs are only attractions because Disney has conditioned it's guests to see them as such, and only in the last few years.
Character interaction has always been a nice added benefit at the parks. Sort of a side dish to the real attractions. Icing on the cake, if you will.

It's only fairly recently that Disney learned that they can stick the characters in one location with a queue and call it an "attraction" instead of it just being an added bonus. It's inexpensive (until now), provides an activity for the little ones, and can distract guests from the fact that there are no new "real" attractions to be found.

Nothing wrong with M&G, so long as they are not done at the expense of the type of attractions that have traditionally made the Disney park's special: Rides and shows.

 

[wm49rs]

*sigh*
Because it's not, unless you are using the most general definition possible.

M&Gs are only attractions because Disney has conditioned it's guests to see them as such, and only in the last few years.
Character interaction has always been a nice added benefit at the parks. Sort of a side dish to the real attractions. Icing on the cake, if you will.

It's only fairly recently that Disney learned that they can stick the characters in one location with a queue and call it an "attraction" instead of it just being an added bonus. It's inexpensive (until now), provides an activity for the little ones, and can distract guests from the fact that there are no new "real" attractions to be found.

Nothing wrong with M&G, so long as they are not done at the expense of the type of attractions that have traditionally made the Disney park's special: Rides and shows.

You're right; having the ability to meet Mickey, Minnie, Donald et al was never special for anyone, and certainly detracted from such fine rides and attractions as SGE........

 

[Lee]

You're right; having the ability to meet Mickey, Minnie, Donald et al was never special for anyone, and certainly detracted from such fine rides and attractions as SGE........

That's not what I'm saying at all.
It was always special for folks. Everyone loved stumbling across their favorite character. I get that. I also get that it's good to maybe have them in a central location so they are easier/guaranteed to find.
But, I don't like that they would spend, say $100m, on a fancy M&G when there are parks that desperately need new "real" attractions.

To use your SSE example...Would it be cool to find out that the descent for SSE was going to be much more grand and wonderful, but the funds were cut and moved over to create the Character Spot? No. Not cool. (Just an example folks, not the necessarily the actual case.)
M&Gs are/should be secondary to real attractions. In the FLE, they are not.

 

[lebeau]

That's not what I'm saying at all.
It was always special for folks. Everyone loved stumbling across their favorite character. I get that. I also get that it's good to maybe have them in a central location so they are easier/guaranteed to find.
But, I don't like that they would spend, say $100m, on a fancy M&G when there are parks that desperately need new "real" attractions.

To use your SSE example...Would it be cool to find out that the descent for SSE was going to be much more grand and wonderful, but the funds were cut and moved over to create the Character Spot? No. Not cool. (Just an example folks, not the necessarily the actual case.)
M&Gs are/should be secondary to real attractions. In the FLE, they are not.

I challenge your assertion that M&Gs can't be real attractions. So far your defense is that they just aren't. Not much of a defense.

Without that assertion, your whole argument falls apart.

Disney is providing something that park guests are demanding. They would be foolish to do otherwise.

 

[wm49rs]

That's not what I'm saying at all.
It was always special for folks. Everyone loved stumbling across their favorite character. I get that. I also get that it's good to maybe have them in a central location so they are easier/guaranteed to find.
But, I don't like that they would spend, say $100m, on a fancy M&G when there are parks that desperately need new "real" attractions.

To use your SSE example...Would it be cool to find out that the descent for SSE was going to be much more grand and wonderful, but the funds were cut and moved over to create the Character Spot? No. Not cool. (Just an example folks, not the necessarily the actual case.)
M&Gs are/should be secondary to real attractions. In the FLE, they are not.

Actually, it was SGE (Stitch's Great Escape) that I referenced. And quite frankly, removing it for a M&G (such as one devoted to Mickey and Minnie) probably wouldn't cause that much of an uproar.....

Actually, M&Gs are being used in your arguement as being on par with the new rides and restaurants. That values isn't necessarily shared by all. And what, as if the OP suggests, if the expansion was in another land, with M&Gs that included other characters as more Pirates in AL? Would the hew and cry still be as great?

 

[Lee]

I challenge your assertion that M&Gs can't be real attractions. So far your defense is that they just aren't. Not much of a defense.
Without that assertion, your whole argument falls apart..

It all boils down to your definition of "attraction." No real right or wrong answer, just opinion.
To me, attractions are rides and shows. M&Gs are just an added bonus for a park like fireworks and parades. I don't like the idea of just any activity that takes place in a park being considered an attraction. I can't see PotC and coloring with Aurora being in any category together.
Streetmosphere isn't an attraction. A talking trashcan isn't an attraction. Pirate school isn't an attraction. Those are just added touches that help to complete the experience for the guests.

Disney is providing something that park guests are demanding. They would be foolish to do otherwise.

Certainly. I just question the amount of emphasis and money. It's a need that could be met in other ways.

 

[Lee]

Actually, it was SGE (Stitch's Great Escape) that I referenced. And quite frankly, removing it for a M&G (such as one devoted to Mickey and Minnie) probably wouldn't cause that much of an uproar.....

Oh....my bad.

And what, as if the OP suggests, if the expansion was in another land, with M&Gs that included other characters as more Pirates in AL? Would the hew and cry still be as great?

It would be from me. I feel that any expansion should be attraction (ride/show) based, no matter the land or theme. FLE doesn't give that.

 

[Tigerace81]

There wouldnt be any from those who think FLE is stupid and that there is too many M&G for princesses and fairies and not enough rides. But if AL was expanded M&G's would definitely be involved.

I dont understand why there is so much opposition to this. Your not giving up anything other then a M&G and a kids section with a ton of M&G. What replaces it is higher themed M&G and a ride. I dont see how you can be against that.

You guys think they wont ever change anything else in the MK after this. FLE gives FL more room for future rides. Plus it shows they are taking a interest in revamping the entire park by fixing the biggest need. FLE is easier to do because theres land available, TL is confined, AL is confined, and FL is mostly confined. FL only had Toontown to the side and mostly a empty space behind it. Just give Disney sometime and they will work on the rest of the park.