Fair enough, though I will admit that it seems like such an odd choice to me. Coco is a fantastic film, but you can make a solid enough land using Encanto and IJ with some general Latin America flourishes. Why waste Coco on something as trivial as a carousel? Especially as it seems that it is still in the running to be used in the Beyond Thunder Mountain aspect - some have mentioned that a Coco version of FoP is still in contention there. and Coco would be a good neighbor thematically to Frontierland for the transition.
IMHO just make the flat ride in Tropical Americas related to Encanto and move on. Don't waste Coco for nothing.
They can use Coco as many times as they want. “Wasting” it is kind of a silly way to look at it in my opinion. It’s not like they get 1 Coco ride. They can do whatever they want and it still won’t be a waste. In fact, it might be more of a wasted opportunity if they don’t use it as much as they can.
What if MK’s Coco Land is the Land of the Dead while DAK’s Coco area is the land of the living?
You’re making too much sense! What if DAK’s carousel represents a cultural nod to Alebrijes as brightly colored Mexican folk art with a Coco tie-in while the MK attraction represents something more like what we see and experience in the film and fantasy of Coco.
Alerbijes are a real part of culture irrespective of Coco. The Coco tie-in doesn’t make the carousel and MK experiences redundant. It’s like they might as well cut BBTM because they have folk art in the lobby of the Mexico EPCOT pavilion. Please be for real…
I may have missed it, but why are they not putting Coco in the most obvious place, Three Caballeros?
No room. That pavilion doesn’t need more attendance. It can’t handle the popularity of the 80-year old Three Caballeros… just imagine Coco.
It's not just the carousel -- it's the whole design of the land around the carousel.
While the design is Spanish colonial in general and thus doesn't have to relate to Coco specifically, I'm concerned we are going to end up with very similar areas at both the MK and DAK.
They could just build a Coco E-ticket at the MK with a single facade and not a Mexican inspired land around it, though.
As mentioned previously, MK is fantastical where DAK places more weight on realism. It’s the same difference between EPCOT Germany and Fantasyland, the EPCOT Outpost and DAK Africa, DHS Hollywood/Sunset BLVDs and Main Street USA, World Discovery and Tomorrowland. There are a ton of ways they can differentiate the lands and make them distinct.
Must we get another Soarin' ride? Even Soarin' 2.0 with the new patent isn't exactly a gamechanger.
I agree with this, but I think I’ll appreciate the thrill. Your post doesn’t mention FoP but that feels like Soarin 2.0 to me, and sometimes I feel like the only person who doesn’t care for it. Much prefer Soarin over California than Soarin over Pandora. Who knows… Soarin over Coco might best them all.
I'd be SHOCKED if that's what we're getting for COCO.
Well then you might want to be seated for what’s next LOL
I'm admittedly very interested in their internal stats where they are getting that Coco of all things is going to be generate so many visitors that they need to make two brand new rides for the film at different parks so there aren't these like 5 hour waits, but at the same time Frozen is only popular enough for the hand me down EPCOT ride
It’s a strategic business operation chasing growth. Why don’t you look at American demographic trends as a start, extrapolate past 2050 and then go from there. Frozen is adequately represented in FL with planned expansion in CA and heavy representation globally.
Honest question:
Who has the more iconic villains?
Universal Monsters, or Disney Villains?
I honestly go back and forth on this.
The Universal monsters *feel* of the same era and place setting in a way that feels like they could exist in the same universe.
The House of Mouse Villains type team up may work for a made for tv film or a Kingdom Hearts game, but not sure how you could see it working in a thematically consistent land…
I don’t think this matters. It depends how you measure what it means to be iconic. They are each iconic to different groups of people. I find them both to be super iconic in different ways. It’s not a superlative thing. There’s no right answer.
Fantasyland isn't thematically consistent - it's just the place where many of the Disney Heroes seem to live, or play, or be. What reason do Peter Pan, Ariel, and Alice have to "pal around" in one area together other than that it creates a fun and satisfying guest experience?
I think some people here are really overthinking this. There are absolutely Villains Land concepts that could work effectively for a wide audience while also fitting the DNA of The Magic Kingdom.
Bingo.
The conversation behind Frontierland's issues is really being mischaracterized here, and really shouldn't continue apace.
Perhaps it'd be better to center the conversation on Disney's forthcoming plans and the surrounding rumors instead of what people have decided for themselves the motivations behind them *must* be.
On a roll.
