If I could improve Walt Disney World....

[mharrington]

I'm still confused how at all that matters. Were Star Wars, Indiana Jones, the Muppets, Toy Story, A Bug's Life, Monsters Inc, etc. owned by Disney when rides were created based on them? Are the Twilight Zone, Aerosmith, and Avatar owned by Disney? I fail to see the problem.

No, they were not owned by Disney. My point is, Oswald was not owned by Disney at the time. They didn't rent him at the time or anything. They had nothing to do with him at all at the time. And besides, he has made limited appearances at the Disney parks. I'm just waiting for them to do a big splash. I want to see what, if anything, will be done in the parks before I were to do anything.

It's like what happened in the parks at the time of the debut of "Aladdin". According to David Koenig in his book "Mouse Under Glass" (the parts in brackets are mine)...

"Aladdin" was [initially] welcomed to [the Disney parks] not by an attraction but by a parade. Despite the studio's recent success [at the time], Disney wasn't taking any chances. Countless attractions had been developed for movies before their release, from "Tron" to "The Black Hole" to "D(i)ck Tracy", only to see the movies fail. "Generally it seems to be the kiss of death. We'd develop an attraction and it'd turn out to be a bad movie," [Tony] Baxter said. "Things that get prepared beforehand tend to be live entertainment. It's less commitment, it's only a parade, it's not permanent cement."

Another way to represent newer films at Disneyland without a major financial commitment was to update the Storybook Land canal boat ride with scenes from "Aladdin" and "The Little Mermaid". In 1994, the Seven Dwarfs' diamond mine was transformed into the Cave of Wonders and the tiny Mr. Toad structures gave way to the sands and spires of Agrabah. Naturally, some Disneyland diehards balked at replacing the charming old miniatures with streamlined fiberglass mosques. Although one Imagineer admitted that the Mr. Toad scene was excised because ["The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad"] was long forgotten, the official excuse--er, explanation--was that when Disneyland first opened, Mr. Toad's Wild Ride had a carnival tent facade . When Fantasyland was remodeled, the ride's entrance became Toad Hall, making the miniature Toad Hall in Storybook Land redundant. Nevertheless, the tiny Toad Hall was preserved backstage, and a little over a year later was resituated as the first new scene in years on the attraction's north shores, home of a languid patchwork quilt that may one day give way to a whole collage of scenes from other underrepresented movies.

I had to put a parentheses in the name of Tracy, so that it would not get censored.

I'm comparing Oswald to "Aladdin" because they used live shows or injections into other attractions to grow presence before they committed money to making real attractions (albeit something like the Magic Carpets ride in the Magic Kingdom, but still). I prefer not to take chances on a property that hasn't had a mainstream popularity yet.

 

[No Name]

No, they were not owned by Disney. My point is, Oswald was not owned by Disney at the time. They didn't rent him at the time or anything. They had nothing to do with him at all at the time. And besides, he has made limited appearances at the Disney parks. I'm just waiting for them to do a big splash. I want to see what, if anything, will be done in the parks before I were to do anything.

It's like what happened in the parks at the time of the debut of "Aladdin". According to David Koenig in his book "Mouse Under Glass" (the parts in brackets are mine)...

"Aladdin" was [initially] welcomed to [the Disney parks] not by an attraction but by a parade. Despite the studio's recent success [at the time], Disney wasn't taking any chances. Countless attractions had been developed for movies before their release, from "Tron" to "The Black Hole" to "D(i)ck Tracy", only to see the movies fail. "Generally it seems to be the kiss of death. We'd develop an attraction and it'd turn out to be a bad movie," [Tony] Baxter said. "Things that get prepared beforehand tend to be live entertainment. It's less commitment, it's only a parade, it's not permanent cement."

Another way to represent newer films at Disneyland without a major financial commitment was to update the Storybook Land canal boat ride with scenes from "Aladdin" and "The Little Mermaid". In 1994, the Seven Dwarfs' diamond mine was transformed into the Cave of Wonders and the tiny Mr. Toad structures gave way to the sands and spires of Agrabah. Naturally, some Disneyland diehards balked at replacing the charming old miniatures with streamlined fiberglass mosques. Although one Imagineer admitted that the Mr. Toad scene was excised because ["The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad"] was long forgotten, the official excuse--er, explanation--was that when Disneyland first opened, Mr. Toad's Wild Ride had a carnival tent facade . When Fantasyland was remodeled, the ride's entrance became Toad Hall, making the miniature Toad Hall in Storybook Land redundant. Nevertheless, the tiny Toad Hall was preserved backstage, and a little over a year later was resituated as the first new scene in years on the attraction's north shores, home of a languid patchwork quilt that may one day give way to a whole collage of scenes from other underrepresented movies.

I had to put a parentheses in the name of Tracy, so that it would not get censored.

I'm comparing Oswald to "Aladdin" because they used live shows or injections into other attractions to grow presence before they committed money to making real attractions (albeit something like the Magic Carpets ride in the Magic Kingdom, but still). I prefer not to take chances on a property that hasn't had a mainstream popularity yet.

I don't know what you mean by "at the time"... at what time?

But anyway, it's a moot point. Figment wasn't tethered in like you describe, bur he's one of the top-selling park characters. The top-rated attraction in the US is loosely based on a movie nobody cares about. There are just as many examples against what you're saying as there are for. If it's a solid ride that people connect with, it will be successful.

 

[spacemt354]

No, they were not owned by Disney. My point is, Oswald was not owned by Disney at the time. They didn't rent him at the time or anything. They had nothing to do with him at all at the time. And besides, he has made limited appearances at the Disney parks. I'm just waiting for them to do a big splash. I want to see what, if anything, will be done in the parks before I were to do anything.

It's like what happened in the parks at the time of the debut of "Aladdin". According to David Koenig in his book "Mouse Under Glass" (the parts in brackets are mine)...

"Aladdin" was [initially] welcomed to [the Disney parks] not by an attraction but by a parade. Despite the studio's recent success [at the time], Disney wasn't taking any chances. Countless attractions had been developed for movies before their release, from "Tron" to "The Black Hole" to "D(i)ck Tracy", only to see the movies fail. "Generally it seems to be the kiss of death. We'd develop an attraction and it'd turn out to be a bad movie," [Tony] Baxter said. "Things that get prepared beforehand tend to be live entertainment. It's less commitment, it's only a parade, it's not permanent cement."

Another way to represent newer films at Disneyland without a major financial commitment was to update the Storybook Land canal boat ride with scenes from "Aladdin" and "The Little Mermaid". In 1994, the Seven Dwarfs' diamond mine was transformed into the Cave of Wonders and the tiny Mr. Toad structures gave way to the sands and spires of Agrabah. Naturally, some Disneyland diehards balked at replacing the charming old miniatures with streamlined fiberglass mosques. Although one Imagineer admitted that the Mr. Toad scene was excised because ["The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad"] was long forgotten, the official excuse--er, explanation--was that when Disneyland first opened, Mr. Toad's Wild Ride had a carnival tent facade . When Fantasyland was remodeled, the ride's entrance became Toad Hall, making the miniature Toad Hall in Storybook Land redundant. Nevertheless, the tiny Toad Hall was preserved backstage, and a little over a year later was resituated as the first new scene in years on the attraction's north shores, home of a languid patchwork quilt that may one day give way to a whole collage of scenes from other underrepresented movies.

I had to put a parentheses in the name of Tracy, so that it would not get censored.

I'm comparing Oswald to "Aladdin" because they used live shows or injections into other attractions to grow presence before they committed money to making real attractions (albeit something like the Magic Carpets ride in the Magic Kingdom, but still). I prefer not to take chances on a property that hasn't had a mainstream popularity yet.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Le Passage Enchanté d'Aladdin in Disneyland Paris opened in 1993, and the Arabian Nights inspired sub-land itself was being designed while Aladdin was in production.

If talking about Oswald, that character is decades old - an attraction based off of him would be more similar to designing a Song of the South inspired ride decades after the mostly unheard of film it is based on, which has already happened.

 

[mharrington]

I don't know what you mean by "at the time"... at what time?

By "at the time", I meant the time of "Aladdin"'s release, in 1992.

The top-rated attraction in the US is loosely based on a movie nobody cares about.

What movie? What attraction?

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Le Passage Enchanté d'Aladdin in Disneyland Paris opened in 1993, and the Arabian Nights inspired sub-land itself was being designed while Aladdin was in production.

If talking about Oswald, that character is decades old - an attraction based off of him would be more similar to designing a Song of the South inspired ride decades after the mostly unheard of film it is based on, which has already happened.

At least the Oswald cartoons (the few ones existing, anyway) are relatively more readily available in the U.S. than "Song of the South". And they're not racially insensitive, either. But my concern with placing Oswald front and center in an attraction is that no one outside of Disney fans will know who he is. I think it's better to ease him into the parks before placing him front and center in an attraction.

 

[spacemt354]

By "at the time", I meant the time of "Aladdin"'s release, in 1992.



What movie? What attraction?



At least the Oswald cartoons (the few ones existing, anyway) are relatively more readily available in the U.S. than "Song of the South". And they're not racially insensitive, either. But my concern with placing Oswald front and center in an attraction is that no one outside of Disney fans will know who he is. I think it's better to ease him into the parks before placing him front and center in an attraction.

There are many examples of completely brand new characters entering parks and becoming fan favorites. Mystic Manor is a current and prime example of this. Nobody knew who Henry Mystic or Albert was beforehand...it was the ride itself that made it special.

Oswald isnt brand new, and wasnt he a character in the Epic Mickey game? He has a following in the niche disney fan community, akin to Figment, and we are always putting Figment into our armchair attractions so i dont see how Oswald would be any different in terms of prior average fan knowledge.

 

[mharrington]

Oswald isnt brand new, and wasnt he a character in the Epic Mickey game? He has a following in the niche disney fan community, akin to Figment, and we are always putting Figment into our armchair attractions so i dont see how Oswald would be any different in terms of prior average fan knowledge.

Maybe he has a following with fans, but what about the general audience (that is, those who are not serious fans)?

 

[spacemt354]

Maybe he has a following with fans, but what about the general audience (that is, those who are not serious fans)?

What does that matter though if the attraction is good?

Stitch is beloved, yet Stitch's Great Escape is panned.

Familiar characters don't always equate to good attractions and unfamiliar characters (to the general audience) should not be a death nail for an attraction (at least in my opinion it shouldn't be)

 

[No Name]

@mharrington let me ask you this: What kind of a following did Nick and Judy with the general audience before Zootopia came out? What kind of a following did Joy and Sadness have before Inside Out came out? What kind of following did Anna and Elsa have before Frozen came out? Those movies were successful from scratch.

Every franchise starts somewhere. I see no reason why it can't start in a theme park, as it has before.

 

[mharrington]

@mharrington let me ask you this: What kind of a following did Nick and Judy with the general audience before Zootopia came out? What kind of a following did Joy and Sadness have before Inside Out came out? What kind of following did Anna and Elsa have before Frozen came out? Those movies were successful from scratch.

Yes, but they were established in the movies. I'm fairly certain there's a reason why Oswald is not more aggressively displayed in the parks as of late. I'm not sure what it is, but there has to be a reason. Otherwise, they would have had him out more.

 

[No Name]

Yes, but they were established in the movies. I'm fairly certain there's a reason why Oswald is not more aggressively displayed in the parks as of late. I'm not sure what it is, but there has to be a reason. Otherwise, they would have had him out more.

Because a meet and greet is not a good first way to introduce a character. There's rarely story to a meet and greet, usually it purely builds off of your prior knowledge of the character. If you don't know that character, there's no context or value in taking a picture with them.

On the other hand, a movie or a theme park can tell a story and build a franchise. Those characters were unknown before the movie came out, yet they became hugely successful. In the same vein, a theme park character can be unknown before the attraction opens, and still become hugely successful. To your first sentence, why does it matter that a character is established in a movie vs. a theme park?

 

[mharrington]

Because a meet and greet is not a good first way to introduce a character. There's rarely story to a meet and greet, usually it purely builds off of your prior knowledge of the character. If you don't know the character, there's no context or value in taking a picture with them.

A theme park attraction can tell a story and therefore build a franchise. What do you mean by "Yes, but they were establish in the movies?" My point is that those characters were relatively unknown before their movies came out, yet they became hugely successful. In the same vein, a theme park ride character can be relatively unknown before the ride opens, and still become hugely successful.

But Oswald is not like, say, Figment. He is a cartoon character. He's been back with Disney for over a decade now, and there must be a reason why they haven't been more aggressive with him (i.e., making him part of a franchise (most likely Mickey and the gang, which makes the most sense)). Until they do, I'm being more cautious.

 

[No Name]

But Oswald is not like, say, Figment. He is a cartoon character. He's been back with Disney for over a decade now, and there must be a reason why they haven't been more aggressive with him (i.e., making him part of a franchise (most likely Mickey and the gang, which makes the most sense)). Until they do, I'm being more cautious.

Bob Iger showed pictures of him at D23 and said something like "aint it time for more Oswald?" He's also been in a popular videogame. But that's beside the entire point I've been trying to get across.

To answer your earlier question, Flight of Passage is the highest-rated attraction in the US, based on the forgotten blockbuster Avatar and not a single character from the movie.

 

[DisneyManOne]

I was recently introduced to the extremely catchy song that served as the main theme for Donald's 50th birthday celebrations in 1954. And it got me thinking...why can't Disney use that song to celebrate guests' birthdays in the parks? I mean, sure, "Happy Birthday to You" is finally in the public domain, but still, it'd be a nice little Disney touch for the celebration. Just replace some of the Donald-centric lyrics, and you've got yourself a hit. In fact, I even wrote some new lyrics myself...




"Happy, Happy Birthday to You" (New Variant)
Original Music & Lyrics by Michael and Patty Silversher
New Lyrics by DisneyManOne
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Chorus)
Happy Birthday! Happy Birthday!
Happy, Happy Birthday to you!
Happy Birthday! Happy Birthday!
Happy, Happy Birthday to you!

(Verse 1)
You're funny, you're charming
Our very good friend
Today's your birthday,
Best wishes we send.

You're full of surprises,
Crack everyone up.
Enjoy this special day
Full of laughter and love!

(Chorus)

(Verse 2)
Now Mickey and Minnie
Arrived with a cake.
Daisy and Donald
Brought Ludwig Von Drake.
Goofy and Pluto
And Chip and Dale too.
They sing out in chorus,
"Happy Birthday to you!"

(Chorus)

(Bridge)
There's a party (Party!)
A party today!
A once a year occasion.
A party (Party!)
Is commin' our way,
It's your birthday celebration!

Happy Birthday! Happy Birthday!
Happy, Happy Birthday to you!

(Verse 3)
We just wanna tell you in our own special way,
That you really know how to brighten our day.
We just wanna thank you for the joy that you bring,
So have a great birthday, now everyone sing!

(Key Change)

(Chorus 3 1/2 Times)

So, what do you guys think?

 

[mharrington]

I was recently introduced to the extremely catchy song that served as the main theme for Donald's 50th birthday celebrations in 1954. And it got me thinking...why can't Disney use that song to celebrate guests' birthdays in the parks? I mean, sure, "Happy Birthday to You" is finally in the public domain, but still, it'd be a nice little Disney touch for the celebration. Just replace some of the Donald-centric lyrics, and you've got yourself a hit. In fact, I even wrote some new lyrics myself...




"Happy, Happy Birthday to You" (New Variant)
Original Music & Lyrics by Michael and Patty Silversher
New Lyrics by DisneyManOne
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Chorus)
Happy Birthday! Happy Birthday!
Happy, Happy Birthday to you!
Happy Birthday! Happy Birthday!
Happy, Happy Birthday to you!

(Verse 1)
You're funny, you're charming
Our very good friend
Today's your birthday,
Best wishes we send.

You're full of surprises,
Crack everyone up.
Enjoy this special day
Full of laughter and love!

(Chorus)

(Verse 2)
Now Mickey and Minnie
Arrived with a cake.
Daisy and Donald
Brought Ludwig Von Drake.
Goofy and Pluto
And Chip and Dale too.
They sing out in chorus,
"Happy Birthday to you!"

(Chorus)

(Bridge)
There's a party (Party!)
A party today!
A once a year occasion.
A party (Party!)
Is commin' our way,
It's your birthday celebration!

Happy Birthday! Happy Birthday!
Happy, Happy Birthday to you!

(Verse 3)
We just wanna tell you in our own special way,
That you really know how to brighten our day.
We just wanna thank you for the joy that you bring,
So have a great birthday, now everyone sing!

(Key Change)

(Chorus 3 1/2 Times)

So, what do you guys think?

Actually, Donald's 50th birthday was in 1984. And that song already was recycled from a previous song on the record album Splashdance:


In fact, if memory serves (and I'm not entirely sure if it's true, but), I believe they used it during Mickey Mouse's 60th birthday in 1988. Anyway, why not just use the original version of the song?

 

[DisneyManOne]

Guys, I just had another idea. You know how I've had trouble with my idea of a Frozen sub-area in MK's Fantasyland? Well, I think I want to go all-in on Wonderland, and just turn that whole eastern side of Fantasyland (Mad Tea Party, Cosmic Ray's, Cheshire Cafe, Fairytale Garden, and maybe a few square inches of the Speedway space) into a full-on Wonderland sub-area.

Now, this brings me back to my London Triangle idea; because the idea of bringing Mr. Toad back is just too great. But, what if I got rid of the London Triangle idea, and just used one of the ride's spaces for a new Frozen attraction? It'd be Mr. Toad and Frozen, or heck, I could finally put a Pinocchio dark ride near Village Haus, jettisoning Robin Hood, and put Frozen where Mr. Toad would be. And I'm still adamant about moving "small world" up a few feet. I don't know, I'm honestly conflicted by this idea. This is why I'm putting it out there. What do you guys think should be of my London Triangle?

 

[DisneyManOne]

I've been thinking: I think I would like to forego the "London Triangle" and just do a few new rides. Besides, I want to differentiate MK's Fantasyland from Disneyland's for a few reasons. But despite this, I still want to represent Toad and Robin Hood in the parks, so I've decided to re-implement the "roaming characters" ideal that WDW once had. Now, various characters from the films represented in (or once represented in) Fantasyland can roam about the village. Of course, Mr. Toad and Robin Hood would be among the many friends you'd meet.

For the two rides, I'd have a new take on Frozen Ever After on the left-hand side, largely inspired by @Imagineerland's excellent Disneyland variant. But, as I still want "small world" to be Fantasyland's major boat ride, we'll now set off aboard sleighs for a wintery voyage through the kingdom of Arendelle. A small Frozen gift shop would sit at the exit, and a small wooden gazebo would play host to meet and greets with Anna, Elsa, Kristoff and Olaf. On the right-hand side would be a new version of Pinocchio's Daring Journey, fleshing out more of the story and featuring a couple new-scenes that Disneyland's version doesn't. Having Geppetto's toy shop and the Village Haus nearby would also help give Pinocchio more of a presence in the park.

What do you guys think?

 

[DisneyManOne]

Guys, I've done more thinking. I was just remembering what @spacemt354 said about moving "it's a small world"...

f anything, like in the Tokyo plans, I'd move it to the other side of the park - beyond the train brim of Storybook Circus, and I'd retheme that while I'm at it as I think that section of the park is pretty meh yet takes up a lot of space. You can keep Dumbo and the Barnstormer, but the Tea Cups could transition into your Wonderland, which would encompass the Pete's Silly Sideshow, Big Top Tent, etc.

I remember really enjoying his House Cup pitch for an updated Fantasyland (and I still enjoy reading it, particularly because it gives me intense nostalgic flashbacks to playing The Walt Disney World Explorer on the computer), and I recalled the idea of moving "small world" to the back half of Fantasyland, and theming the service bridge the railroad passes under so that it matches the iconic clock-tower facade. Honestly, that would be a better idea than just moving it back a couple inches. I didn't know why that was such a big deal, until I actually saw footage of the railroad going underneath the pass, and that made me realize that, yeah, that should be improved.

But, if I may be frank, how could we make it work? The area behind the track is a lake, fed from a river. How do we close off that bit where the river meets the lake? And on top of that, the railroad splits with one track going to the station, and the other to the roundhouse, so how would that affect the facade? Besides, I still want to have the queue and the track leading in and out of the building outside under a sheltered canopy, much like Paris' Small World. Of course, a path/ramp leading downwards towards the queue would help shield the cars heading backstage, but how high would the detail have to be on the bridge itself to shield cars coming in? I hope you don't mind the questions, Space, but I just want to know how it would work. I really do think this could work.

P.S. Will The House Cup come back for another series? That was quite an exciting competition.

 

[disneyforever101396]

If it was me....
Magic Kingdom
Adventureland
Expand the area into four sublands with a different IP: Aladdin, Jungle Book, Pirates, Indiana Jones
In the Aladdin sub area, keep the carpets and add a Aladdin walkthrough and a interactive Genie show using the same technology from Turtle Talk.
In the Jungle Book sub area, keep Jungle Cruise and bring back The Legend of The Jungle Book Show.
In the Pirates sub area, keep Pirates of The Caribbean and add a Pirate's stunt show and playground.
And in the Indiana Jones sub area, add Florida's own Indiana Jones Adventure and move Indiana Stunt Spectacular from DHS and rework for Adventureland.

Frontierland
Keep Big Thunder Mountain and Splash Mountain, get rid of Country Bear Jamboree, replace it with a show themed to Woody's Roundup, and add Western River Expedition. (I've read about it. It actually sounds pretty good.)

Liberty Square
Keep it the way it is.

Fantasyland
Expand Mickey's Philharmagic and randomize it to feature something new with each show
In each version the beginning stays the same: Beauty and the Beast and Fantasia
Version 1
Beauty and The Beast
Fantasia
The Little Mermaid
The Lion King
Peter Pan
Aladdin

Version 2
Lilo and Stitch
Zootopia
Hercules
Frozen

Version 3
Finding Nemo
Mulan
The Hunchback of Note Dame
Toy Story

Version 4
Wreck it Ralph
Tarzan
Big Hero 6
Wall-E

Version 5
Moana
The Jungle Book
Ratatouille
Tangled

Also, add a sub area themed to Alice in Wonderland, add the dark ride and a maze, keep Mad Tea Party.
Finally, add a Mary Poppins dark ride.

Tomorrowland

Remove Stitch's Great Escape, rework Alien Encounter and re theme it with Kim Possible. (I know. It's a old cartoon, but we need more nostalgia.)
Remover Laugh Floor and add a Interactive Wall-E show.
Update Buzz Lightyear's Space Ranger Spin
Add Tron-Cycle coaster
Rework Space Mountain and make it like the Paris version.

Entertainment

Keep Festival of Fantasy Parade
Add Paint the Night Parade
Add a new nighttime show that mixes fireworks, Fantasmic, and World of Color.

Soon, I'll give you a reworked Epcot, DHS, and AK.

 

[mharrington]

I'm thinking of reviving my Mickey's Mad/Fun House concept, but modify it somewhat. I want to set it up so that it can be replicated in other parks, such as in France and maybe Hong Kong. However, the problem is that I'm not sure how popular circuses are in the world, as compared to the United States.

The basic concept is that the Astounding Donaldo (AKA Donald Duck) is a master of symphonic seals, but one of them, a pup named Salty, goes missing and for some reason decides to hide in the titular location. It is up to the riders (and Donaldo) to hunt him down.

The location for this ride would for better or worse take over Pete's Silly Sideshow, thus taking away an ideal spot for meet-n-greets. Not that it's much a total loss, since it's just Disney characters seen frequently anyway, just dressed up in circus duds. Actually, there is a reason I've been thinking of this location, and it comes from this article from the Passport 2 Dreams blog, which criticizes the Magic Kingdom for its blunders throughout its history, one of which, in the author's opinion, was Mickey's Birthdayland/Starland/Toontown Fair. Near the end, it singles out the tents of the area in particular, which were retained from the transformation from Starland to Toontown Fair, and which were transformed into meet-n-greets and a shop, which were ostensibly retained for their alleged profitability:

By 2001 the Toontown tent complex had become the single most profitable structure per square foot at Magic Kingdom. Mickey was the anchor, pulling crowds into Toontown, then dispersing them through a variety of shops and photograph locations. This profitability would ensure that the tents would survive yet another round of renovations - Storybook Circus.

[...]

Despite the fact that the reasons for the success of those tents were being scattered to the winds, it was proclaimed by fiat that the tents must remain due to their profitability. What had previously been the Princess Tent was transformed into Pete's Silly Sideshow, a permanent venue for Mickey, Donald, Minnie and Daisy with a nicely done circus theme. The crowds never quite returned to their original levels. What had previously been a bustling store where Princess dresses and Mickey dolls flew off the shelves now seems nearly abandoned after nightfall. The Sideshow meet and greet has started closing early.

[...]

Now that the power of the circus tents is on the wane, it really would be a nice gesture to finally lose them and build a permanent ride in that spot. The three Storybook Circus tents take up about as much room as the Mermaid ride next door. The basic problem is that the use of tents, no matter how nicely you build them or how intricately you theme them, still evoke temporary structures and, by extension, cheapness. Cheap ideas and cheap aesthetics are what Birthdayland initiated, yet it must be said that the new Magician Mickey and Fairytale Hall attractions are far above its standard, leaving just those three tents as symbols of Birthdayland's enduring legacy.

Thus, this whole area will be the new spot for this new dark ride. The only problem is, as I've said before, I want to be able to duplicate this ride in other parks throughout the world, like Paris and maybe Hong Kong, but I don't know how popular circuses or circus elements are in the world.

It seems rather difficult to pull off beyond the Magic Kingdom without a circus-like land, and all there is in these parks in most cases is Dumbo.

 

[mharrington]

Another thing I thought of was to relocate the Magical Madcap Adventure concept to Storybook Circus, but the problem is there is already a Mickey meet-n-greet space on Main Street that is themed to a magician in a theater. This ride seems to be a logical extension of that meet-n-greet (and vice-versa), but the space for the ride cannot be found now that the fancy stage theater is about to be built over in the general area. I feel that the ride cannot really work anywhere else in the park.

What are your thoughts on this?