I've been referring to the Fantasyland attractions how I've known them for my entire life, post 1983, as much more elaborate than your average carnival dark ride. Maybe back in 55 they were a bit more comparable but now the atmosphere and theming of even the flats take them to a completely a different level.
You just made me recall an episode from long ago in my college days. I had a friend who performed in a drum and bugle corps, and who strongly objected to it being referred to as a "marching band," considering that to be derogatory to the elevated experience he enjoyed.
I referred to some classic Disney animation as an animated movie, and he ribbed me about it, saying it was just a cartoon. To me, the Disney classics were far elevated from the field of mass consumer, usually cheaply produced cartoon shorts, and deserved a different identity. I ticked him off by pointing to a framed photo of him performing and saying "nice marching band," but he finally understood.
We were both right. He performed in a band that marched while providing a far more elevated experience. The animated Disney movies were cartoons that existed at an elevated level deserving of distinction. I think that may be what's going on here.
I've said elsewhere that my preference for the classic Fantasyland rides is partly rooted in how they harken back to the vintage carnival dark rides, only elevated into a new category. They are contained in a tiny footprint, and have ride paths reminiscent of the portable carnival editions that had to load on a truck or train. I find nostalgic delight in that, but with the great divide between the Disney versions and their carnival roots it's understandable if anyone prefers to consider them in a different class.
In other words, like my college friend and I, I think you're both right. They reflect their carnival roots, but exist at a different level that deserves distinction.
If you can't tell, Practical Pig is a libra (who doesn't believe in astrology).
