News 'Beyond Big Thunder Mountain' Blue Sky concept revealed for Magic Kingdom

haveyoumetmark

Well-Known Member
From Wikipedia (yes, I know it's not a reliable source, but it's as good a place as any to get a definition, and it seems to be correct): "A theme park is a type of amusement park that bases its structures and attractions around a central theme, often featuring multiple areas with different themes.

The type of theme park that Magic Kingdom is, and most theme parks actually, conform to the "multiple areas" aspect. No actual central theme, apart from in this case it's "magical". Disneyland is, erm, a land of Disney. Six Flags parks similar. And Universal. Some may go deeper with a central theme, e.g. Silver Dollar City which has the overarching old world, rustic feel. WDW's subsequent three parks were built around a specific, central theme. Deliberately.

Thing is, when a theme park does have a specific, central theme, and it was built for that purpose, it is actually expected that it sticks to that theme. That's not a bad thing. You're saying that once built, the theme shouldn't be adhered to.

Why shouldn't a parlk that is built to celebrate human achievements continie to have attractions built to clerebrate human achievements, for example? Why is it too rigid to stick to that theme? If it's not stuck to, the theme becomes irrlevant and it just becomes another "multiple areas" park with no central theme.

Universal's parks are like that and Disney is aspiring to convert its parks into that image, rather than continuing to keep the specific themes that certain parks were built for.

Disney isnt' really "going to some lengths" to fit things in appropriately (unless you mean the head-scratching that goes on after they've chosen what to do). The theme should be first and foremost in a park with a specific theme, and design attractions around that. Then there's no need to make things "fit". Once they've decided tgo tell a story about that theme, them (if they want to they should look at what movie IP could best tell that story. Not decide on the IP first and then try to make it fit.
That is not at all what I’m saying. Not even close.

I’m saying that people have really rigid, boring, flat, myopic interpretations of theme. Themes can be and are broad. They can and do encompass many things. They can also evolve over time. There is no one singular right way to stick to a theme. Everything is up to interpretation.

There are central themes and sub themes, lesser themes and grander themes. They don’t render each other irrelevant. Theme doesn’t mean tunnel vision.
 

mickEblu

Well-Known Member
Anyway, back on topic: Does anyone find it odd that if Moana were to come to fruition, that would be 3 boat rides in Adventureland? Seems more than a little imbalanced.

True but still less odd than two boat rides in Pandora. Besides wasn’t Moana going to be a flume ride?
 

celluloid

Well-Known Member
It will and always has had a lot to do with aesthetics and framing. Why does the Haunted Mansion variably appear in Liberty Square, New Orleans Square, and Frontierland, depending on the park? Is that a failure of theme?
Read your own comparison. Variably. And notice how those are in entire differently parks that complement the areas they are in. They don't directly compete with funny and grim ghosts in one and darker grim ghosts in the other.


If they opened a ghostly haunted house that are just the most grim-based ghosts across the park in an expansion...it would of course be awkward, as they belong with The Haunted Mansion.

That is more akin to Fantasyland and Villains.
 
Last edited:

DisneyHead123

Well-Known Member
Besides wasn’t Moana going to be a flume ride?

I had a vague memory of some talk in that direction but the log flume thing actually came from a spoof site. Seems like a strange thing to spoof but maybe it was commentary on Journey of Water not being thrilling enough?

I think the most verified speculation about the Moana ride involves the boat simulator patent that Disney applied for in 2022. Not sure how I feel about them going all-in on the simulation experiences, but if it’s a combination of a dark ride and a simulator that could be pretty cool.
 

Jrb1979

Well-Known Member
With this boat simulator with a screen and the rumored soarin clone for a Coco ride I feel it's too many screen based rides. Its funny how many complain about Universal having too many screen based rides, yet Disney does it and it's ok
 

Animaniac93-98

Well-Known Member
The move towards the natural west and away from 1950s "cowboys and Indians trope has been afoot for a decade or more.

WDW's Frontierland was never heavily focused on cowboys and Indians.

That would have been the case had Western River Expedition been built, but it wasn't.

WDW's Frontierland has always had a backwoods look and was more about what you do in the wilderness and see there, than any mythical figures or heroes. Canoeing, exploring caves, shooting targets, seeing a saloon show. That any attractions or restaurants had names of literary or film characters attached was more to give a point of reference to set the guests mindset in place. You never saw Mike Fink or Pecos Bill, and they were not the point. Even Big Thunder Mountain shows the folly of digging for gold in the wrong place.

Contrast that with Disneyland Paris, both in and out of the park. Lots of cowboy and western mythology there.
 

James Alucobond

Well-Known Member
Read your own comparison. Variably. And notice how those are in entire differently parks that complement the areas they are in. They don't directly compete with funny and grim ghosts in one and darker grim ghosts in the other.


If they opened a ghostly haunted house that are just the most grim-based ghosts across the park in an expansion...it would of course be awkward, as they belong with The Haunted Mansion.

That is more akin to Fantasyland and Villains.
It can be approached from a number of angles.

Why does one park get three lands based on various aspects of Americana (Main Street U.S.A., Liberty Square, Frontierland) even though they could conceivably be melded together or have some attractions moved between them?

Why do Aladdin and Moana go in Adventureland in spite of having a lot of overlap with Fantasyland as fantasy royalty?

Why can the same attraction be imported into different lands in different parks and still work with a bit of recontextualization?

As long as there is a discrete mission statement for the villain area and the attractions within fulfill it, it's fine. I agree that there are a lot of ways to mess it up, and I tend to agree that having it just be "dark Fantasyland" is one of them, but just because it is also rooted in fantasy does not mean it cannot be executed successfully.
 

celluloid

Well-Known Member
Why do Aladdin and Moana go in Adventureland in spite of having a lot of overlap with Fantasyland as fantasy royalty?
You are pointing out the declining by degrees I have now.
Tiana continues this situation. Homogenized.
If we just get a princess in Tomorrowland or Liberty Square, we can complete the fairytale in every land situation.
Welcome!
 
Last edited:

James Alucobond

Well-Known Member
You are pointing out the declining by degrees I have now.
Tiana continues this situation. Homogenized.
Welcome!
Yet you ignore that there are three opening day lands in the same park that successfully explore different aspects of Americana. There is no reason there cannot be two lands that successfully explore different aspects of fantasy and adventure beyond the existing mission statements of Fantasyland and Adventureland.
 

celluloid

Well-Known Member
Yet you ignore that there are three opening day lands in the same park that successfully explore different aspects of Americana.

No I am not. We already went over that.

Walt Disney specifically designed Disneyland to be Americana. Fantasyland too. Most families have read their children fairytales and in Walt's time. Most American Families had the adults remembering Mainstreet USA like Baby Boomers now would recall the 1950s/50s of a clean checkered diner now.
This is not even a subtle thing. Walt's words and you enter through Mainstreet USA.


The Entirety of Disneyland was always Americana. Even Adventureland and Fantasyland for their history with America's past and exploration. Later ToonTown with complete parody of it in cartoon style. Magic Kingdom modeled this, as have other castle parks. And then there has been a decline in the last couple decades. You can be fine with it. But it is what has happened.

You either ignored the recent discussions or are just arguing to argue.
 
Last edited:

James Alucobond

Well-Known Member
To review my back and forth with you, you posted a long list of attractions that you felt exemplified why a villain-only attraction would be suboptimal. I proposed an attraction format that I thought would work and was consistent with other attractions on property. You asked why that couldn't just go in Fantasyland. I have subsequently been arguing that many attractions could be moved between lands (including opening day ones, e.g. Hall of Presidents to Main Street U.S.A.) and that there is already slight thematic overlap between some lands, differentiated by the mission statement. Therefore, I don't see why a potential villain land and Fantasyland couldn't successfully coexist if executed properly. Sorry if you said something prior to that which you felt already addressed that before I jumped in.
 

celluloid

Well-Known Member
. Hall of Presidents to Main Street U.S.A.
That would be rough. The show prior to the Presidents roll call is mainly on forming our nation's origin and declaration and constitution. The only crossover, and maybe your confusion comes with there being a Great Moments of Mr. Lincoln at Disneyland.
Main Street USA would be the late 1800s and Early 1900s with a railroad station right there and automobiles slowly replacing horse buggies and drawn trollies. Lincoln by himself fits well the way Disneyland did it.(He died in the late 1800s of course)

When it was expanded to be the origin of our country and how that leadership came to be. Liberty Square made much more sense. They both happen to feature Lincoln giving his most famous address.
 

WowFactor

Well-Known Member
Excellent suggestion! Go ahead and make a “dark” corner of Fantasyland, but the attractions’ stories should essentially be more typical Fantasyland attractions - at least the way they used to be. Snow White’s Scary Adventures would have fit perfectly there. That boat has sailed, but Pinocchio’s Daring Journey as it exists in Disneyland would fit in a dark corner. Create a Hercules attraction where 90% of the time Herc is fighting underworld monsters. Or help the 101 dalmatians escape from DeVille Manor.

The classic formula works.

Could you even… dare I say it… bring back Toad!?
I agree! In fact my Villains Village project uses this premisse, and one of the rides is a rescue of the dalmatians 😊

Oh if you want to know more about the project here's the link

9BA4FDD5-9FD1-4721-ABEE-E6A4BD97F019.jpeg
 

fgmnt

Well-Known Member
100% opinion by me here, but I think if you want to sell management on making a phase 2 actually get made in the north/west portion of park grounds, you need to design a second entrance to the park that gets built alongside phase 1 in the shadow of phase 2. A northern bus plaza that all hotels run a bus to at all hours of the day, train station, shops, and a hub that can send you off to the new additions with passageways into Fantasyland.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom