Frontierland Expansion Rumor

[lebeau]

Imagine you completely hate the thought of meet & greets and you never desire to interact with a costumed critter or flowery princess. Personally, I fall into this camp and will not spend one second of my time waiting in line to meet any character.* Regardless of whether you will enjoy these M&Gs, to complain about them is sort of crazy. For every person who sits in line to make birthday cards with a princess, there is one less person standing in line for Splash Mountain or clogging up the walkways with their 8-wheeled commando stroller. The new FLE (including PH if it comes to fruition) will be a sponge to absorb families with young daughters, allowing them to "do their thing," while making space in the park for the rest of us to do ours.

WWoHP has guests waiting to get into a gift shop (Olivander's) that allows TWENTY people at a time, only one of whom actually gets to interact with the shopkeeper. Interactive Meet and Greets have the potential to completely mesmerize an entire demographic, and those not in the target audience should go right ahead and enjoy the rest of the park, enjoying the crowd alleviation that the new attractions will provide, even if the attractions themselves are not for them.

You make two excellent points.

A lot of people around here just can't see past what they want to see how what they are getting will benefit everyone.

One other thing, there's already lots of stuff at MK and the resort as a whole to appeal to boys, teens, adults and every other demo. How many things are there for little girls that don't cost an arm and a leg?

I think if you count them up, you'll be surprised how few there actually are.

 

[imagineer boy]

I've said this on a couple of threads about the FLE, but I'll say it again here. I find when most people start complaining about something not being for "everybody" they are usually complaining because it's not for them.

Not exactly. I don't think they should've built a ton of trill rides in the FLE for young adults like me to enjoy. But it would've been nice to have some dark rides that all age groups including mine could enjoy rather than stuff just for kids. Like an advanced dark ride based off of Mary Poppins or somthing like that.

 

[lebeau]

Not exactly. I don't think they should've built a ton of trill rides in the FLE for young adults like me to enjoy. But it would've been nice to have some dark rides that all age groups including mine could enjoy rather than stuff just for kids. Like an advanced dark ride based off of Mary Poppins or somthing like that.

I agree it would have been nice. It probably also would have been a lot more expensive.

Also, don't forget that there will be room for Disney to fill out those dark rides at a later date.

(I realize given Disney's track record, this seems unlikely.)

 

[lebeau]

I decided to start a new post for this thought.

It seems that a lot of people just object to M&Gs on principle. I have no idea why we are spending so much time and energy debating the value of M&Gs. (Other than that is what these forums are for, of course).

Whether you like them or not (and obviously a lot of you do not), M&Gs are here to stay. They are insanely popular. Disney loves them because they are cost effective and they can sell autograph books, pens and Photopass. Guests are constantly demanding more, more, more.

So there's really no point railing against the evils of M&Gs or coming up with bizarre conspiracy theories to explain their popularity. Contrary to what you might think, they are not hurting anything.

There's no point waxing nostalgic for the days when characters roamed the parks freely (often followed by unruly mobs). Those days are gone and they aren't coming back.

The popularity of character interactions is on the rise. So if it's not your thing you may as well just get over it and let everyone else have their fun. Enjoy the shorter lines for rides while others crowd the lines for M&Gs you have no interest in.

 

[Krack]

I like the idea of DAK getting dark rides. I agree, they are needed there.

I'm guessing the cost of multiple B & C ticket dark rides is somewhat larger than the cost of the M&Gs in FLE.

My guess is they could completely rebuild Snow Whites Scary Adventures from the ground up for the same price one of these interactive M&Gs will cost - certainly if they are going to look like the one in the Animation Building at DCA. I don't think they are that expensive. I'm not proposing new "Haunted Mansion" level rides, I'm saying they need more Peter Pan/Snow White level rides.

 

[wizards8507]

Round of applause for lebeau for kicking *butt* and taking names regarding the meet and greets on this and other threads. Unfortunately, in about five or six posts a new round of people who didn't read the entire (or any of the) thread will come and say the exact same things that have been so eloquently refuted (if I may say so) by lebeau and myself. Thus, I suppose, is the life of a message board junkie who has nothing to do at work on a Friday in July.

*sigh*

 

[lebeau]

Round of applause for lebeau for kicking *butt* and taking names regarding the meet and greets on this and other threads. Unfortunately, in about five or six posts a new round of people who didn't read the entire (or any of the) thread will come and say the exact same things that have been so eloquently refuted (if I may say so) by lebeau and myself. Thus, I suppose, is the life of a message board junkie who has nothing to do at work on a Friday in July.

*sigh*

A high five and a heavy sigh back atcha!

thank goodness I have a job where I can spend time on worthwhile endeavors such as this. :lookaroun

 

[jakeman]

A high five and a heavy sigh back atcha!

thank goodness I have a job where I can spend time on worthwhile endeavors such as this. :lookaroun

Yep...

Screw you budget projections! I've got interweb posting to do!

 

[wizards8507]

A high five and a heavy sigh back atcha!

thank goodness I have a job where I can spend time on worthwhile endeavors such as this. :lookaroun

Haha I'm an intern blending into obscurity at the largest fast food enterprise in the world. What's your excuse?

 

[lebeau]

Haha I'm an intern blending into obscurity at the largest fast food enterprise in the world. What's your excuse?

I'm just another office drone with a Disney fixation (or obsession if you ask my wife.)

 

[WDWFigment]

I've said this on a couple of threads about the FLE, but I'll say it again here. I find when most people start complaining about something not being for "everybody" they are usually complaining because it's not for them.

Hope this wasn't directed at me (if so, I didn't state my point very eloquently) as I agree completely. Well said and succinctly put!

Not me, I think they should replace these planned meet & greets with B and C ticket darkrides that everyone can enjoy (like the rest of Fantasyland). One well-themed Meet & Greet spot (not unlike the Animation Building) is enough, imo.

EDIT: The first thing I would have done with the money is plant four dark rides in the Animal Kingdom (ones featuring animals, of course, the Lion King, Bambi, Mr. Toad, etc) - that's the park that really needs it.

As to your first point, if every single attraction must be something everyone can enjoy (as you're inferring), the only thing that would ever be built is tame dark rides. Everest? Gone. Tower of Terror? Gone. Soarin'? Gone. (Heck, people get motion sickness and have fears of heights, so not everyone can enjoy it!) Haunted Mansion? Gone.

I could go on, but I think you get the point. Is that really what you want? I hope not. Rather, it seems you want attractions that appeal to you, personally.

What you deem as "enough," to me, seems arbitrary and based upon your own prejudices. From the posts of yours that I've seen, you are seldom objective. Objectively, hour plus lines at many M&G locations indicates that demand necessitates more. Wait, I forgot that marketing is the sole cause of these lines and thus if marketing were changed, so to would guest demand.

As to your second point regarding dark rides at DAK, I whole-heartedly agree. This is a park with a surplus of shows and character interaction, and a serious void of dark rides. Those would also be my first additions to the park when considering what it needs from an objective standpoint.

My guess is they could completely rebuild Snow Whites Scary Adventures from the ground up for the same price one of these interactive M&Gs will cost - certainly if they are going to look like the one in the Animation Building at DCA. I don't think they are that expensive. I'm not proposing new "Haunted Mansion" level rides, I'm saying they need more Peter Pan/Snow White level rides.

With the way WDI wastes money on R&D, I'm betting the dark ride would be quite a bit more. Maybe not. In any case, the demand is there for the new M&Gs.

 

[Evil Genius]

A high five and a heavy sigh back atcha!

thank goodness I have a job where I can spend time on worthwhile endeavors such as this. :lookaroun

You sound like me! But work tends to be nocturnal so that's why I can be around here to much to debate facts and rumors we have no control over...lol

Save for when I'm not in a lesson or knee deep in a script...which is where I should be now...:lookaroun

 

[Krack]

As to your first point, if every single attraction must be something everyone can enjoy (as you're inferring), the only thing that would ever be built is tame dark rides. Everest? Gone. Tower of Terror? Gone. Soarin'? Gone. (Heck, people get motion sickness and have fears of heights, so not everyone can enjoy it!) Haunted Mansion? Gone.

I could go on, but I think you get the point. Is that really what you want? I hope not. Rather, it seems you want attractions that appeal to you, personally.

That's a mighty fine strawman you just created. No one (not one person) has expressed this opinion ("every single attraction must be something everyone can enjoy"), yet you've brought it up several times so I assume it's acceptance as the opposing point of view must be very important to your argument. Are there people saying to remove Everest? No. Tower of Terror? No. Soarin'? No. Haunted Mansion? No. Dumbo (which appeals primarily to small children and which I personally dislike)? No. MILF (another attraction for children I don't like)? No. Peter Pan? No. SGE? Of course, it's terrible, but I digress ...

There is a massive difference between an interactive M&G (as proposed for FLE) and a ride like say, the Tower of Terror. Here it is ... a young child can not experience the M&Gs (such as the one where you make a birthday card with a Princess) without some form of adult (or at least a teenager) accompanying them. In other words, if a 5 year old is coloring with Belle, an adult is going to be there too. If you accept this, then my point is simple, an adult (particularly a male) is far more likely to find some form of enjoyment from a Peter Pan style dark ride than watching their kid coloring with a face character. Why build something that only the child is likely to enjoy (my opinion), when you can build something both the adult and the child is likely to enjoy (at least on some level)? Couple this with the notion that these M&Gs will appeal far more to girls than boys (again, my opinion) and they become a poor allocation of resources.

On the other hand, an adult does not need to be accompanied by a 5 year old in order to ride the Tower of Terror. Nobody is forcing the 5 year old onto the scary Tower of Terror; he's most likely not even allowed to ride it. In fact, an adult does not even have to have a young child in his party in order to attend WDW.

What you deem as "enough," to me, seems arbitrary and based upon your own prejudices. From the posts of yours that I've seen, you are seldom objective.

I refuse to precede every sentence I type with "in my opinion ..." simply because I have a point of view that others might disagree with. Everyone can assume that the points of view I express are mine, just as I assume that the points of views expressed by others is theirs.

Wait, I forgot that marketing is the sole cause of these lines and thus if marketing were changed, so to would guest demand.

You're the one who challenged me to "trace" the history of WDW commercials. I noticed you left it alone after I did.

 

[Evil Genius]

There is a massive difference between an interactive M&G (as proposed for FLE) and a ride like say, the Tower of Terror. Here it is ... a young child can not experience the M&Gs (such as the one where you make a birthday card with a Princess) without some form of adult (or at least a teenager) accompanying them. In other words, if a 5 year old is coloring with Belle, an adult is going to be there too. If you accept this, then my point is simple, an adult (particularly a male) is far more likely to find some form of enjoyment from a Peter Pan style dark ride than watching their kid coloring with a face character. Why build something that only the child is likely to enjoy (my opinion), when you can build something both the adult and the child is likely to enjoy (at least on some level)? Couple this with the notion that these M&Gs will appeal far more to girls than boys (again, my opinion) and they become a poor allocation of resources.

I know I can't speak for all parents...fathers in particular...but as for myself being able to watch as my daughters experience something magical that is meant just for them is quite often more trilling than any coaster or dark ride. To be able to experience it through their eyes...their sense of wonderment...it's an incredible moment for me as a parent.

I liken it to the first time we took our girls to WDW and the moment we stepped out from under the train station and found Snow White outside Exposition Hall...my then five-year-old daughter rushed up to her (once it was her turn)...throw her arms around her neck and state "I can't believe it's really you."...I'm not ashamed to admit even as a grown man it brought tears to my eyes.

That's what I see these Meet n Greets providing. The next evolution of the magic.

 

[lebeau]

There is a massive difference between an interactive M&G (as proposed for FLE) and a ride like say, the Tower of Terror. Here it is ... a young child can not experience the M&Gs (such as the one where you make a birthday card with a Princess) without some form of adult (or at least a teenager) accompanying them. In other words, if a 5 year old is coloring with Belle, an adult is going to be there too. If you accept this, then my point is simple, an adult (particularly a male) is far more likely to find some form of enjoyment from a Peter Pan style dark ride than watching their kid coloring with a face character. Why build something that only the child is likely to enjoy (my opinion), when you can build something both the adult and the child is likely to enjoy (at least on some level)? Couple this with the notion that these M&Gs will appeal far more to girls than boys (again, my opinion) and they become a poor allocation of resources.

On the other hand, an adult does not need to be accompanied by a 5 year old in order to ride the Tower of Terror. Nobody is forcing the 5 year old onto the scary Tower of Terror; he's most likely not even allowed to ride it. In fact, an adult does not even have to have a young child in his party in order to attend WDW.

Well, I'm going to give you very high marks for originality. I have debated FLE in a lot of threads and I have not heard this argument yet. Bravo, sir! Bravo!

:sohappy:

Let me say that I am truly touched by your concern for my enjoyment when my children force me to accompany them on an experience that will clearly give me a bad case of "girl cooties". Quietly, I am dying inside when my children's faces light up in wonder at meeting their favorite princess. It is a nightmare scenerio that few understand.

Clearly, I would prefer that Disney built more scary thrill rides that my children can't ride. That way, I will not be forced to accompany them on anything.

I believe you've really tapped into the dreams of Walt himself when he envisioned small children (5-year-olds) being sent off by their parents to experience the wonders of his park all by themselves.

 

[mickey2008.1]

:brick: *sigh*

Lasseter clearly explained the FLE is being designed as a place for people with young children. A place where they could enjoy the Disney magic in a simpler, less crowded atmosphere. The fantasyland that was, and of which nobody claimed was too girly, will still exist. There will just be a new area that acts as a refuge for parents and their young children. This has been explained here numerous times. Is it that hard? :shrug::shrug::shrug::shrug:

No where in my post do I say anything about FLE. I was refering that frontirel/adventureland expansion should appeal to everyone. Is it that hard to read?

 

[lebeau]

I know I can't speak for all parents...fathers in particular...but as for myself being able to watch as my daughters experience something magical that is meant just for them is quite often more trilling than any coaster or dark ride. To be able to experience it through their eyes...their sense of wonderment...it's an incredible moment for me as a parent.

I liken it to the first time we took our girls to WDW and the moment we stepped out from under the train station and found Snow White outside Exposition Hall...my then five-year-old daughter rushed up to her (once it was her turn)...throw her arms around her neck and state "I can't believe it's really you."...I'm not ashamed to admit even as a grown man it brought tears to my eyes.

That's what I see these Meet n Greets providing. The next evolution of the magic.

:sohappy:

I guess you have to experience it yourself to understand.

 

[Krack]

I believe you've really tapped into the dreams of Walt himself when he envisioned small children (5-year-olds) being sent off by their parents to experience the wonders of his park all by themselves.

I, a mid-30s male, have attended the Magic Kingdom both in groups with young children and in adults-only groups. When I am with adults, we generally hit the Fantasyland darkrides once (typically with complaints from the males, especially IASW) and then spend the rest of the day touring the rest of the park (including both tame - Tiki Room, Buzz Lightyear - and "thrilling" - BTMR, Space Mountain - attractions). When I am with young children, typically the vast majority of the day is spent in Fantasyland. The darkrides are experienced multiple times, as well as the carousel, Autopia, maybe the Tiki Room or the Country Bears. It's okay, but I admit, it's not my favorite way to spend a day. Sometimes, if there are enough adults to go around, by the afternoon, the group has split where the women and children stay in Fantasyland and the men go hit the thrill rides at least once.

This is all a pre-amble to my point that, if I had to sit through these M&Gs for hours on end, I'd be pulling my hair out. I don't find anything appealing about them at all - and I'm not asking for them to design an attraction for me - all I ask is that it have a Peter Pan or Snow White level of appeal for adults. I don't think that's too much to ask. I could even see building one of these M&G areas and cycling the princesses in and out throughout the day. But more than one? I think it's a poor allocation of resources.

 

[WDWFigment]

That's a mighty fine strawman you just created. No one (not one person) has expressed this opinion ("every single attraction must be something everyone can enjoy"), yet you've brought it up several times so I assume it's acceptance as the opposing point of view must be very important to your argument. Are there people saying to remove Everest? No. Tower of Terror? No. Soarin'? No. Haunted Mansion? No. Dumbo (which appeals primarily to small children and which I personally dislike)? No. MILF (another attraction for children I don't like)? No. Peter Pan? No. SGE? Of course, it's terrible, but I digress ...

There is a massive difference between an interactive M&G (as proposed for FLE) and a ride like say, the Tower of Terror. Here it is ... a young child can not experience the M&Gs (such as the one where you make a birthday card with a Princess) without some form of adult (or at least a teenager) accompanying them. In other words, if a 5 year old is coloring with Belle, an adult is going to be there too. If you accept this, then my point is simple, an adult (particularly a male) is far more likely to find some form of enjoyment from a Peter Pan style dark ride than watching their kid coloring with a face character. Why build something that only the child is likely to enjoy (my opinion), when you can build something both the adult and the child is likely to enjoy (at least on some level)? Couple this with the notion that these M&Gs will appeal far more to girls than boys (again, my opinion) and they become a poor allocation of resources.

On the other hand, an adult does not need to be accompanied by a 5 year old in order to ride the Tower of Terror. Nobody is forcing the 5 year old onto the scary Tower of Terror; he's most likely not even allowed to ride it. In fact, an adult does not even have to have a young child in his party in order to attend WDW.



I refuse to precede every sentence I type with "in my opinion ..." simply because I have a point of view that others might disagree with. Everyone can assume that the points of view I express are mine, just as I assume that the points of views expressed by others is theirs.



You're the one who challenged me to "trace" the history of WDW commercials. I noticed you left it alone after I did.

I will let lebeau and others respond to your other points as he is only stealing time from work whereas I have taken far too much time from studying that I really should be doing, but I didn't know I was personally obligated to come in and refute your presentation of a few commercials, especially when several other posters pointed out several you neglected because they didn't suit your argument. I notice you didn't respond to my other points about what else might have "caused" the supposed proliferation in demand for character M&Gs.

Perhaps if you articulated your position better, my counterpoint wouldn't have been a strawman (why is it that people around here always seem to flex their intellectual brawn by indicating the precise name of the perceived logical fallacy in another's argument?). When you contend that an expansion should "[contain attractions] everyone can enjoy (like the rest of Fantasyland). One well-themed Meet & Greet spot (not unlike the Animation Building) is enough, imo" the inferences that follow, to me at least, are exactly those that I stated in my previous post.

Sorry if I misrepresented your argument; that was not my intention.

 

[headhoncho34]

I, a mid-30s male, have attended the Magic Kingdom both in groups with young children and in adults-only groups. When I am with adults, we generally hit the Fantasyland darkrides once (typically with complaints from the males, especially IASW) and then spend the rest of the day touring the rest of the park (including both tame - Tiki Room, Buzz Lightyear - and "thrilling" - BTMR, Space Mountain - attractions). When I am with young children, typically the vast majority of the day is spent in Fantasyland. The darkrides are experienced multiple times, as well as the carousel, Autopia, maybe the Tiki Room or the Country Bears. It's okay, but I admit, it's not my favorite way to spend a day. Sometimes, if there are enough adults to go around, by the afternoon, the group has split where the women and children stay in Fantasyland and the men go hit the thrill rides at least once.

This is all a pre-amble to my point that, if I had to sit through these M&Gs for hours on end, I'd be pulling my hair out. I don't find anything appealing about them at all - and I'm not asking for them to design an attraction for me - all I ask is that it have a Peter Pan or Snow White level of appeal for adults. I don't think that's too much to ask. I could even see building one of these M&G areas and cycling the princesses in and out throughout the day. But more than one? I think it's a poor allocation of resources.

Who Knows? But an insider came on this thread and said that something is being added into the mix of the FLE that will please almost everyone on these forums. Do you have any idea what that is?