Cinderella's Chateau Discussion

[jt04]

False. Adventureland is a mess with the "Arabian Bazaar" plopped in the middle of colonial Africa.

But it was complete and that was my point. And still is technically under all the bells and whistles.

It could certainly be argued the aesthetics of a "bazaar" belong in Adventureland, while the cartooning aspect doesn't. I take it that is your take. It's going to take awhile to fix the mistakes of the previous CEO, but it is happening.

 

[SirGoofy]

It could certainly be argued the aesthetics of a "bazaar" belong in Adventureland, while the cartooning aspect doesn't. I take it that is your take. It's going to take awhile to fix the mistakes of the previous CEO, but it is happening.

The bazaar could fit, but certainly not in it's current location. That area was perfect the way it was, with the colonial Congo-like theming, and the desert feeling they threw in there really clashes with the rest of the land.

The cartooning bothers me as well, but of course everyone already knows that.:lol:

 

[Next Big Thing]

I honestly don't get why, when Cinderella already has her own freakin Castle, she needs her own Chateau as well, especially since there are several princesses not seeing any love from this expansion, most notably Snow White, the first Disney Princess.

 

[jt04]

The bazaar could fit, but certainly not in it's current location. That area was perfect the way it was, with the colonial Congo-like theming, and the desert feeling they threw in there really clashes with the rest of the land.

The cartooning bothers me as well, but of course everyone already knows that.:lol:

Doesn't Animal Kingdom create the same problem (or opportunity if you are a glass half full person) for AL that Future World creates for Tommorowland at WDW. In other words, the similar themes create or even require the MK versions to be more whimsical and geared towards a younger audience?

That is why I'm OK with Stitch in the Tiki Room or Buzz in Tomorrowland. Those fit and make sense. The magic carpets and MILF do not however :brick:IMO.

 

[Lee]

The bazaar could fit, but certainly not in it's current location. That area was perfect the way it was, with the colonial Congo-like theming, and the desert feeling they threw in there really clashes with the rest of the land.
The cartooning bothers me as well, but of course everyone already knows that.:lol:

In other words:

Bad:

Good:

 

[DisneyParksFan1]

Just throwing it out there, this expansion will NOT complete FYL. It will simply add to it. But the existing FYL still sucks. The facades suck, the attractions are extremely dated, and the theming ain't that creative.

 

[SirGoofy]

Doesn't Animal Kingdom create the same problem (or opportunity if you are a glass half full person) for AL that Future World creates for Tommorowland at WDW. In other words, the similar themes create or even require the MK versions to be more whimsical and geared towards a younger audience?

No, I don't agree. Should one or two of the attractions be for the kids? Sure why not. But the entire park is shifting towards that, and there's no reason for that. The park should still cater to all ages, rather than a small demographic. And on top of that, why must an attraction geared to the kids have to be a cartoon? My favorite attractions as a kid weren't familiar cartoons. They were rides that were original ideas. Like Figment and the like.

On top of that DAK and Epcot are more slanted to the "reality" side of things, giving AL and TL the opportunity to cater to the fantasy of the themes adventure and tomorrow. Meaning there's absolutely no requirement for them to be kiddy. Adults want some fantasy as well, but also don't want to be treated like they're five. Throwing them attractions like IJA in AL and something like Tron in TL would go a long way in helping the "kiddy only" reputation it's gained.

That is why I'm OK with Stitch in the Tiki Room or Buzz in Tomorrowland. Those fit and make sense. The magic carpets and MILF do not however :brick:IMO.

The ONLY reason I'd be okay with Stitch is because the show is better than UNM. But still the original Tiki Room appealed to kids, and would still appeal to them today.

Buzz is fine. And I even think Monsters are fine, it's just a crappy attraction.

 

[SirGoofy]

In other words:

Bad:

Good:

I seriously forgot how beautiful and wide open AL was.

 

[Lee]

I seriously forgot how beautiful and wide open AL was.

That's DL...but, yeah.
The theme is consistant.
Tiki Room outside the gate, no arabian bazaar, no spinner, awesome JC boathouse (thanks Eddie!) and of course Indy.

Perfection.

 

[SirGoofy]

That's DL...but, yeah.
The theme is consistant.
Tiki Room outside the gate, no arabian bazaar, no spinner, awesome JC boathouse (thanks Eddie!) and of course Indy.

Perfection.

D'oh! Tells you how long it's been since I've see WDW's AL without the dang spinner.:lol:

We need Indy and an upgrade to JC. Neither of which I have hope of happening anytime.

 

[jt04]

No, I don't agree. Should one or two of the attractions be for the kids? Sure why not. But the entire park is shifting towards that, and there's no reason for that. The park should still cater to all ages, rather than a small demographic. And on top of that, why must an attraction geared to the kids have to be a cartoon? My favorite attractions as a kid weren't familiar cartoons. They were rides that were original ideas. Like Figment and the like.

On top of that DAK and Epcot are more slanted to the "reality" side of things, giving AL and TL the opportunity to cater to the fantasy of the themes adventure and tomorrow. Meaning there's absolutely no requirement for them to be kiddy. Adults want some fantasy as well, but also don't want to be treated like they're five. Throwing them attractions like IJA in AL and something like Tron in TL would go a long way in helping the "kiddy only" reputation it's gained.



The ONLY reason I'd be okay with Stitch is because the show is better than UNM. But still the original Tiki Room appealed to kids, and would still appeal to them today.

Buzz is fine. And I even think Monsters are fine, it's just a crappy attraction.

I think we agree here. I just think the distinction between TL/FW and AL/AK should be rather apparent. But I'd be all for Tron and IJ as they would be great for the MK. They would be almost required to counter-balance the FLE. I never said everything should be geared to young children. But Fantasyland should be IMO.

 

[SirGoofy]

But Fantasyland should be IMO.

Sure, everything should be kiddie friendly. But I still don't see FLE as a good expansion. Nothing that's a majority of meet and greets is a good Disney expansion.

 

[SirGoofy]

Also, something that's only aimed at one demographic is never a good Disney expansion.

 

[Lee]

Sure, everything should be kiddie friendly. But I still don't see FLE as a good expansion. Nothing that's a majority of meet and greets is a good Disney expansion.

Also, something that's only aimed at one demographic is never a good Disney expansion.

For a good expansion, see: World, Wizarding.

 

[SirGoofy]

For a good expansion, see: World, Wizarding.

I plan on it. Many, many times this summer.

 

[jt04]

Sure, everything should be kiddie friendly. But I still don't see FLE as a good expansion. Nothing that's a majority of meet and greets is a good Disney expansion.

I think you will be in the minority here. The FLE will be an amazing success. I don't think I can overstate how much I think people will love it.

One last thought. I wouldn't mind MILF if they changed the name of TL to Sci Fi City. Backstory and a cohesive theme are second only to aesthetics. See the pictures Lee just posted as an example of not following that will established principle.

Those pictures speak volumes.

Later :wave:

 

[EPCOT Explorer]

http://tinyurl.com/yg86nfx


http://tinyurl.com/ykb7p7u

:lookaroun

 

[SirGoofy]

I think people will love it.

I don't. Sure, families with little girls will find it nice, but most people come to Disney for the rides. It'll be something that will be popular off the bat thanks to Disney's marketing, but I expect complaints after people show up to find one new ride.

 

[jt04]

I don't. Sure, families with little girls will find it nice, but most people come to Disney for the rides. It'll be something that will be popular off the bat thanks to Disney's marketing, but I expect complaints after people show up to find one new ride.

You couldn't possibly be more wrong. You are really missing the boat :lookaroun on this one. It will be an over the top success. Absolutely no doubt in my mind about that. None. Unless they start cutting stuff.

 

[Lee]

I don't. Sure, families with little girls will find it nice, but most people come to Disney for the rides. It'll be something that will be popular off the bat thanks to Disney's marketing, but I expect complaints after people show up to find one new ride.

Yep.
They're preaching to the choir. The folks who love the FLE will be the same people that would have been in MK, in Fantasyland, anyway. They will just have more to do.
It won't draw in guests that hadn't already been planning a visit.
Won't be much "Look, hun! They just added some nice new meet and greets at Magic Kingdom! Time to book a trip!"

Smarter move, as I have said, would have been to leave off the m&gs and spend that money on a big, signature E. That you could build a marketing campaign around, that would bring new guests through the turnstiles. Villian Village (with Villian Mtn.) would have been the smart move. That plus Mermaid and the BatB restaurant would have been a stroke of genius.