Fantasyland Philosophy

Skyway

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
I was listening to John Lasseter's D23 press conference on the "Inside the Magic" podcast, and was quite impressed with his philosophy about MK's Fantasyland expansion. He acknowledges the expansion is designed to correct a big problem:

"The smallest visitors wait in the longest lines for the shortest rides."

Most of all, I was impressed that a Disney official would publicly admit such a fault, and a serious one at that.

I was also impressed that Disney decided to take drastic (and expensive) steps to correct that problem. While cynics would argue that the new Fantasyland is designed to drive Princess merchandise, there are many other (and cheaper) ways they could have achieved that goal without improving the guest experience.

And the guest they are specifically aiming to please is a small child (and their frustration-prone parents).

Everyone throws around the Walt quote "a place where parents and children can have fun together". But even with the MK being the most family-friendly Disney theme park, it really neglects children between the ages of about 1-6.

An adult can find enjoyment from POTC or Hall of Presidents. Teens love Haunted Mansion and Space Mountain. Grade school kids can appreciate Big Thunder Mountain and Splash Mountain.

But there really is only a small handful of attractions young children can visit--- and even fewer of those that a child would CHOOSE to ride.

Other than the Fantasyland rides (which Lasseter correctly acknowledges are short with long lines), most toddlers are really limited to TSI, Riverboat, CBJ, JC, Flying Carpets and AstroOrbiter (also slow-loaders), TTA, Buzz, and the Railroad.

That means parents with small children are also limited to those handful of attractions (baby swaps or unusually brave children aside).

Some have argued that the New Fantasyland really doesn't appeal to anyone over the age of 6. Based on Lasseter's comments, that's the audience they intentionally targeted.

As a parent of toddlers, the queues for Dumbo, Pan, and Pooh are nothing short of sheer hell. And yet we must endure the 30-60 minute waits in the blazing heat, while standing still for minutes at a time trying to prevent fights and kicking other guests' ankles, for a ride that lasts one or two minutes, because our options are limited.

Other than TLM (which will be a wonderfully high-capacity people-eater in a fast-moving, air-conditioned queue), most teens and adults will probably bypass the New Fantasyland in order to visit the other attractions they can ride.

But I think parents with small kids will have a great time *together* wandering at their own slow pace through the princess cottages and walkways. Hopefully the water and shade trees will keep happiness up and temper-tantrums down. Instead of World War III breaking out during their one trip on Dumbo, kids may get to ride the elephant multiple times during a visit with an enjoyable wait. If the new area adds only 45 minutes of new activities for toddlers, that's 45 minutes they don't get right now.

Some have suggested adding some Disneyland clones, like Alice in Wonderland or Pinnochio. But those, along with Storybook Land and Casey Jr are also "for the smallest people with the longest lines for the shortest rides."

Although the New Fantasyland may not contain mind-twisting thrill rides, or even attractions that appeal to most MK visitors, it appears that the tranquil atmosphere will put the "park" back in "theme park".
 

ttalovebug

Active Member
I must say I completely agree with you. Great post. And it seems that the more JL speaks, the more I like what I hear. He actually cares.
 

CastleBound

Well-Known Member
Finally a voice of reason amid all the "Fantasyland will only be for princesses and girls" mumblings. Thank you. :)

Exactly what I was thinking! Just because it is princesses doesn't mean boys won't enjoy it. I was young when the Disney movies in the late 80's and 90's were released and they all dealt with princesses and I loved hem all! haha I admit it. I love those movies and always will! So if little kids, girls or boys, enjoy any animated Disney movies than they will love the new fantasyland.
 

jt04

Well-Known Member
Finally a voice of reason amid all the "Fantasyland will only be for princesses and girls" mumblings. Thank you. :)

Ahem :wave:

I recognized what Disney was doing when I first saw the blueprint. Of course the OP said it better.

Thanks OP!

And everytime someone critisizes the new plan I think I'll copy and paste it as a response.
 

RadioHead

Member
FINALLY! The message I've been trying to relay this whole time, has finnaly been noticed!

I feel that we all are (except a few supporters here) being unreasonably selfish! Really, think just for a second is there ALOT really intended for children ages 1-6? No. Mostly everything is intended for ages 7-21. Remember why Walt built Disneyland? So that EVERYONE can enjoy his theme park, don't matter if your 3 or 93, you'll still have something to enjoy. An I'm grateful that there's something just for the really young ones, and Disney went all out with the design and the theming Instead of going an easy and cheaper route (remember people 300-500 million dollars don't grow on tree's.). Plus with TLM dark ride, and eventually other attractions down the line. I think that's great, and something that Walt would approve in a heartbeat:animwink:
 

Exprcoofto

New Member
Nice post. However, I am a teen and will certainly want to check out this land, even if not participating in the princess attractions, but just for the looks. (but majority won't) If Pixie Hollow is not 100% finalized I hope we see some sort of an attraction for everyone.
 

The Empress Lilly

Well-Known Member
Remember why Walt built Disneyland? So that EVERYONE can enjoy his theme park, don't matter if your 3 or 93, you'll still have something to enjoy.
If I may improve on that a bit: the inspiration for Disneyland was Walt's wish to have a place where he and his daughters could have fun together. Instead of the children having fun, and the parents sitting on a bench watching them have it.


The new FL is precisely contrary to this philosophy: the children can entertain themselves with colouring cards, the parents sit on a bench watching them having fun. :shrug:
 

The Empress Lilly

Well-Known Member
To be honest, I've never thought Disneyworld is an appropriate place for toddlers. Long lines, unforgivable climate, lots of walking about.

If a child needs a stroller, it had better not be brought to Disney.


Alas, I realize this is no longer feasible. Disney, in the public imagination, is a place where you bring your toddler. The actual experience for toddlers for the past fifty years has been mostly underwhelming. Not all that much fun for the very, very young.

Currently, the park is being rebuild to make it conform to the public image of it: Toddlerland. Alladdin spinners, playgrounds, and the new FL childcare activity centres.

Pity. WDW becomes less interesting to adults, and loses the street credibility for slightly older children. If I were a twelve year old boy, and my family were to drive me to the Magic Toddlerkingdom, I'd lie about it to my friends.
 

SWatsi

Member
These are all very good points.

Can understand some of the disappointment. Okay, okay, It may be the opportunity to add even more to the park. But count me very pleased that WDW is getting something new. Not long since people were still skeptical that anything was going to be announced.
 

Figment632

New Member
"The smallest visitors wait in the longest lines for the shortest rides."

Check the Soarin line out


An adult can find enjoyment from POTC or Hall of Presidents. Teens love Haunted Mansion and Space Mountain. Grade school kids can appreciate Big Thunder Mountain and Splash Mountain.

Most small kids I see love POTC :shrug:

But there really is only a small handful of attractions young children can visit--- and even fewer of those that a child would CHOOSE to ride.

Other than the Fantasyland rides (which Lasseter correctly acknowledges are short with long lines), most toddlers are really limited to TSI, Riverboat, CBJ, JC, Flying Carpets and AstroOrbiter (also slow-loaders), TTA, Buzz, and the Railroad.

What about MILF, SGE, Enchanted Tiki Room.

As a parent of toddlers, the queues for Dumbo, Pan, and Pooh are nothing short of sheer hell. And yet we must endure the 30-60 minute waits in the blazing heat, while standing still for minutes at a time trying to prevent fights and kicking other guests' ankles, for a ride that lasts one or two minutes, because our options are limited.

Well you could always get a Fast Pass for Pan or Pooh :shrug:

Other than TLM (which will be a wonderfully high-capacity people-eater in a fast-moving, air-conditioned queue), most teens and adults will probably bypass the New Fantasyland in order to visit the other attractions they can ride.

I dont agree with this because its not everyday WDW adds a new land most people will check it out.

Some have suggested adding some Disneyland clones, like Alice in Wonderland or Pinnochio. But those, along with Storybook Land and Casey Jr are also "for the smallest people with the longest lines for the shortest rides."QUOTE]

But if all these there are even more rides to diminish the waits for all the others :shrug:
 

luvlifeinfl

New Member
I see both points of view. What we all need to do is find common ground to be able to enjoy this together.

I truely enjoy hearing the positive points, but it makes me sadden to hear the negitive. It seems no matter what is changed, added or removed we just cannot make everyone happy.

My self I am glad to see the change made, considering I no longer have toddles I would just enjoy walking through the new FL area when completed. Right now I have no desire to go through there my kids (both girls are 10 & 19.

It also makes me ponder the thought that I think Walt would be pleased that their is creativity still be being done in his parks.

Also look at it this way the rides that we put in that park in 1971 could still be there, they could have chose to not try to maintain the parks and we could all be complianing that the parks are a complete dump and I am paying 75.00 for what.

Again, I think Disney is always trying to find ways to make every age group happy.
 

MousDad

New Member
I'll echo what I said from the day the plans were leaked. This is the kind of expansion MK needs to emerge from stagnation. And to be doing it while holding to the thematic mastery of the signature land of the park is in itself very satisfying to watch.

Besides, I'm an adult with no girls, and I will have great interest in TLM and the new restaurant, and probably the new coaster.

Modern WDI has a pretty good track record of making every area of a park appeal to the broad spectrum of guest, even if the core area is geared toward a certain portion.
 

Cindy'sBruno

Active Member
imho, how can someone say that mk is not a place for toddlers? my dh and i took our three month old along with other family members who had a twelve month old and there was no screaming, no fussing. wdw isnt a place for toddlers, when their parents refuse to be on the childs schedule. :) you choose nights with extra magic hours, you go back to the room for a nap, you go to the baby centers for feeding, you walk at their pace and not your own. :) the new fl expansion is not going to let parents sit back and watch there children enjoy they will be a part of the magic as well. imho, what parent would not enjoy watching there one or two year old having a blast doing this? :) like i said mho.
 

El Guapo

New Member
Toddlers at WDW

I have to disagree with an earlier poster. We brought our daughter when she was 17 months old, and my son when he was 15 months old. We are going at xmas for what will be my daughter's 4th visit (and she just turned 7).

Every time, they have had a blast, and we have enjoyed it with them. We get there early (because we are always there at peak season), plan our day well with breaks and use of fastpasses, and never push too hard to "do it all". I agree that there is only so much for toddlers to do, but it has certainly filled our days! And each time, there is more for the kids to do as they get bigger. And they LOVE the character interaction.

If a family could only afford to go once, I would say to wait until the kids are a bit older. But otherwise, I think taking toddlers is a great idea.
 

EPCOT Explorer

New Member
Good post, I agree for the most part :D


And, this is enjoyable for adults too. I'm greatly looking forward to wandering around, exploring, and admiring the Disney Showmanship.


WS for MK.:king:
 

yankspy

Well-Known Member
If I may improve on that a bit: the inspiration for Disneyland was Walt's wish to have a place where he and his daughters could have fun together. Instead of the children having fun, and the parents sitting on a bench watching them have it.


The new FL is precisely contrary to this philosophy: the children can entertain themselves with colouring cards, the parents sit on a bench watching them having fun. :shrug:
What about WDW as a whole. It is still a family fun place. Some of the latest editions have proven that. Soarin, Everest, etc.
 

Lucky

Well-Known Member
I agree too. Even if the expansion would appeal only to families with young kids - and I think that's totally false - what would be so bad about that?

They need to appeal to all demographics (revenue from families with toddlers helps pay for things like the Space Mt. upgrade), and I think the mix of attractions will still have about the right balance, in targeting different ages and family profiles.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom