• The new WDWMAGIC iOS app is here!
    Stay up to date with the latest Disney news, photos, and discussions right from your iPhone. The app is free to download and gives you quick access to news articles, forums, photo galleries, park hours, weather and Lightning Lane pricing. Learn More
  • Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.

Enchanted Plot Holes with Belle

Animaniac93-98

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
You are right about one thing, though....Every day, it seems more and more like Disney does not care about anyone who is not part of a family with young children.

And this is probably the most disapointing thing about WDW these days, since an attitude of this kind dictates everything from what merchandise is sold in shops, what entertainment options are given budgets, what food is served in restaurants and so on.
 

SkipperButler

Active Member
A friend of mine explained the Beauty and the Beast section of New Fantasyland as this:

Enchanted Tales is at the front of NF and is meant to be experienced first. The time frame as you enter the cottage is sometime after the the end of the story. Guests enter Maurice's workshop where they are shown an enchanted mirror given to Maurice by the recently transformed Prince. This mirror allows Maurice to visit Belle in the castle anytime he wants. However, Maurice's helpers have also discovered that includes any "moment" in time too, and they go back to the day Belle and Beast fell in love. The Cast Members inside the castle are supposed to have been residents of the castle who were away when the spell was cast and have come back to help their friends.

As guests exit the experience they are still back in the day Belle and Beast fell in love, this allows for Gaston to still be alive and the Beast to be, well, a "beast" when you dine at the castle.

It's all very convoluted and actually takes a lot of explaining which makes me yearn for the simplicity of a Marc Davis scene, where you could understand the story in just a few seconds.

However, there are still a lot of guests who seem to really enjoy it, even if they don't read through these forums.;) And the couple of times I've been through it, I witnessed some teenaged girls totally flip out as they walk through the mirror. If Disney had wanted to cater to children specifically, they'd have saved themselves a lot of money by not creating the mirror, Madame Wardrobe, or Lumiere. They would have kept it in the same format as the storytime show that used to be where Merida is now.

Some people like it, some people hate it. Same can be said for almost any attraction in the park.
 

All Disney All The Time

Well-Known Member
This is wrong on so many levels. Disneyland and the Magic Kingdom have always been meant to appeal to just about everyone. If the MK was exclusively for families with young children, then why would they build thrill rides with height requirements or attractions like the Hall of Presidents?

Now you're just making up stuff up. Attendance and revenues at WDW for 2012 were slightly down from the previous year. New Fantasyland has performed below expectations in these areas as well, and it is well-known that resort bookings are also quite low. The record gains that domestic Parks & Resorts reported in the last fiscal year were entirely due to Disneyland, largely because the DCA overhaul, especially Cars Land, has led to a big increase in attendance. Disney stock may be doing well, but WDW is not the reason.

You are right about one thing, though....Every day, it seems more and more like Disney does not care about anyone who is not part of a family with young children.

"You are right about one thing, though....Every day, it seems more and more like Disney does not care about anyone who is not part of a family with young children."

It seems that way because it is that way. MK was not BUILT to cater to families with young children only. Your remarks about height requirements and the HoP proves that. BUT that was how many decades ago? I am speaking to what MK has become over the past decade, maybe even the past half a decade. It is now all about Princesses and fairies and in general that is catering to families with young children, and perhaps especially to young female children. They see the movie, they buy the BluRay, they head to the MK, they meet the Princesses and fairies and have their PhotoPass pics taken, they hit the gift shops and buy the Princess and fairy souvies and they go to Bobiddity for the makeover. They throw a Princess Meet and Greet meal or two in there also.

That's TODAY'S MK, that's why the new FL has what it has (Belle, Ariel and Rapunzel's tower overlooking new crappers) and that's all Belle's new, enhanced Meet and Greet is supposed to be. Another way to funnel young kids to another gift shop where they can demand that their parents get out the long green for yet more Princess stuff. It's all TInker Bell's Meet and Greet is too, pay for the PhotoPass pics and hit the gift shop to buy the little darlings all the fairy stuff. Obviously the Disney bean counters know exactly where and on what Mommy and Daddy's money is being spent on.

On another note, a coworker tried to book All Star Sports for the first full week of May, full. Then he tried All Star Movies, full. Finally got hooked up at All Star Music. Somebody is booking them there rooms.
 

Fantasmic

Well-Known Member
If Disney "cared" about what adults wanted then MK would be full of thrill rides on a par with Hershey. The MK is ALL about families with young children, meeting Princesses and fairies and buying their wares

Bull.
If this is so true, then why do childless couples visit MK? The MK is about leaving the real world behind and entering a place where anything is possible.
 

All Disney All The Time

Well-Known Member
Bull.
If this is so true, then why do childless couples visit MK? The MK is about leaving the real world behind and entering a place where anything is possible.
"Childless couples visit MK" because they want to, it's not like Disney is going to turn them away at the entrance, not sell them food, and not let them buy all the souvies they want. "Childless couples" can go and spend their money anywhere they like.
But that has absolutely nothing to do with what Disney has adopted as their "corporate attitude and approach" towards the MK, which clearly is: get the parents of young children to various and sundry Princess and fairy experiences and then into the gift shops to purchase the Princess and fairy stuff that the little darlings scream for.
When was the last time that Disney added something to the MK that the typical "childless couple" will stand in line an hour or more for? Splash Mountain?
 

StarWarsGirl

Well-Known Member
In the Parks
No
@Animaniac93-98 I have never been on this attraction and feel it would be a waste of my time, so I can't really answer your question, but I do appreciate your film references in your original post. ;) Now that I've had my laugh, I will go about my business. Move along...move along...you don't need to see my identification...
 

wm49rs

A naughty bit o' crumpet
Premium Member
Frankly, your anecdotal evidence is meaningless in the face of facts. The last two quarterly earnings reports for 2012 show that WDW attendance and resort bookings are down from the previous year.

I'm not arguing that things like princess merchandise aren't popular. However, Harry Potter merchandise has also been selling very well for Universal since WWOHP opened, and the merchandise in that land is not narrowly targeted toward young children. Indeed, Disney fans on these boards have been effusive in their praise for WWOHP merchandise; it's unique, appropriate for the land's theme, and very inclusive in terms of its appeal to different age groups. Disney has actually tried to replicate that success since WWOHP opened (i.e. LeFou's Brew/Red's Apple Freeze. I couldn't think of a specific merchandise example off the top of my head, but it's obvious that Disney copied the idea from Universal who has had enormous success selling Butterbeer). So, a business strategy that exclusively focuses on appealing to families with young children in order sell princess toys isn't the only way for the Magic Kingdom to be lucrative for Disney. Actually, in the long term, this narrow focus on the parents with toddlers demographic may prove to be detrimental to Disney. Unlike Universal, WDW has had the luxury of being able to coast on nostalgia and their past successes, but if this trend continues unabated I think there will come a time when the number of repeat visitors will become severely diminished. WDW will increasingly be seen as a one-time rite of passage, because of its history and past reputation alone, but people will not be interested in returning. Kids will begin to lose interest as they get older. As prices continue to rise, parents will see less and less value in returning to a place they think their kids have outgrown, and Disney will struggle to attract teens, young adults, and families with older children as first-time visitors.

I'm not just theorizing here; these effects may already be taking place. There is a very good chance that DCA will surpass Epcot as the third most-attended theme park in the US this year. It has been an impressive turnaround for a theme park that was one of the least visited Disney theme parks in the world a few years ago, and it wasn't accomplished by "targeting the children who will make their parents' lives miserable until they get out the credit card".

The bigger question here is why you keep bringing up Disney's stock price or your perceptions of WDW attendance/finances (some of which is incorrect) as a response to my negative opinion about one of their rides. Is that supposed to endear Disney's creative product to me? I don't choose to go to WDW just because they are a profitable business.

A proper and reasoned response; good words indeed. Unfortunately wasted in the end I'm afraid, but well done all the same....
 

StarWarsGirl

Well-Known Member
In the Parks
No
I would welcome one, because... lets face it... it's one of the few things in the MK that this childless person could enjoy. :rolleyes:
Oh, I'm sure there's more you can enjoy. Such as not having a screaming kid who needs a nap in the stroller...or having to wait an hour for Dumbo when you don't want to...or being able to get on Space Mountain without a rider switch pass...

Dole whip is one thing at MK I can't enjoy. Pineapple allergy. It sucks because everyone talks about it and I don't have a clue what it tastes like! I can have the orange version which is pretty good, though I usually get it swirled with Vanilla.
 

Ariel Savage

Active Member
haha. yes, I always thought it was weird how there are some Disney characters at the park that are forever stuck in the middle of their story: Beast's curse will never be broken, Ariel's tail means she has yet to make the deal with Ursula, Rapunzel's hair will never get shorn, etc. Yet, we only ever see some other characters after their happy ending: Tiana and Naveen human again, Aurora awake, Cinderella with both glass slippers (or does the blue dress mean we're seeing her ready for the ball and not yet married?). All silly things to think about, but fun nonetheless.
 

All Disney All The Time

Well-Known Member
Frankly, your anecdotal evidence is meaningless in the face of facts. The last two quarterly earnings reports for 2012 show that WDW attendance and resort bookings are down from the previous year.

I'm not arguing that things like princess merchandise aren't popular. However, Harry Potter merchandise has also been selling very well for Universal since WWOHP opened, and the merchandise in that land is not narrowly targeted toward young children. Indeed, Disney fans on these boards have been effusive in their praise for WWOHP merchandise; it's unique, appropriate for the land's theme, and very inclusive in terms of its appeal to different age groups. Disney has actually tried to replicate that success since WWOHP opened (i.e. LeFou's Brew/Red's Apple Freeze. I couldn't think of a specific merchandise example off the top of my head, but it's obvious that Disney copied the idea from Universal who has had enormous success selling Butterbeer). So, a business strategy that exclusively focuses on appealing to families with young children in order sell princess toys isn't the only way for the Magic Kingdom to be lucrative for Disney. Actually, in the long term, this narrow focus on the parents with toddlers demographic may prove to be detrimental to Disney. Unlike Universal, WDW has had the luxury of being able to coast on nostalgia and their past successes, but if this trend continues unabated I think there will come a time when the number of repeat visitors will become severely diminished. WDW will increasingly be seen as a one-time rite of passage, because of its history and past reputation alone, but people will not be interested in returning. Kids will begin to lose interest as they get older. As prices continue to rise, parents will see less and less value in returning to a place they think their kids have outgrown, and Disney will struggle to attract teens, young adults, and families with older children as first-time visitors.

I'm not just theorizing here; these effects may already be taking place. There is a very good chance that DCA will surpass Epcot as the third most-attended theme park in the US this year. It has been an impressive turnaround for a theme park that was one of the least visited Disney theme parks in the world a few years ago, and it wasn't accomplished by "targeting the children who will make their parents' lives miserable until they get out the credit card".

The bigger question here is why you keep bringing up Disney's stock price or your perceptions of WDW attendance/finances (some of which is incorrect) as a response to my negative opinion about one of their rides. Is that supposed to endear Disney's creative product to me? I don't choose to go to WDW just because they are a profitable business.
I stopped reading when you discounted my "anecdotal evidence" and came back with "Indeed, Disney fans on these boards have been effusive in their praise for WWOHP merchandise; . . . " Anecdotes be anecdotes.
 

Cmdr_Crimson

Well-Known Member
Well if everything in BatBland took place during the action of the movie that would make sense, but then we have details like the stained glass from the end of the movie in the restaurant and references to post BatB life in the cottage, so there's inconsistencies with that as you say.

Another thing that comes to mind is the Statue of Gaston...When the song comes up in the movie it is not there...However, If the events of this whole area is taken place after the film has been over..Gaston must have survived and lied to the village stating that he killed the Beast So at least he can put that statue of him dedicated to him as gift from him *Phew* to the village.....But then you also have to ask one other thing...How Prince Adam can go from Prince to Beast without any problems (Yes this also goes for Ariel and her Fin to feet issue)
 

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

Back
Top Bottom