• Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.You can use your Twitter or Facebook account to sign up, or register directly.

"It's fantasy (or a movie), we don't have to explain it"

mharrington

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
I've heard a few people say that something like Frozen Ever After and the upcoming Princess and the Frog ride (or Splash Mountain, for that matter) should have been put in Fantasyland or maybe Disney's Hollywood Studios, rather than the Norway pavilion and Frontierland respectively.

What I would like to know is, why is that? Is it because these rides require an explanation to be in Norway or Frontierland, but not in Fantasyland (land of make-believe) or the Studios (based on movies)? Some here said that they need to fit the themes of Norway or Frontierland in order to justify being put in those lands, whereas Fantasyland and the Studios, being areas not necessarily beholden to the real world, don't require explanation. It's almost as if Fantasyland and the Studios are the equivalent of the phrase, "It's magic, we don't have to explain it."

How is it acceptable to have an attraction in one land (or park), but not another? And how are Fantasyland and the Studios exempt from any "rules" of theming?

Just so you know, I have no objections about the Frozen ride being in Norway, though it remains to be seen how the Princess and the Frog ride fits in Frontierland.
 

CSJORDAN

Member
I am of the opinion that Frozen Ever After is NOT as egregious as many people make it out to be.. Frozen is Scandinavian in all aspects, from the fairy tale on.... now, my only gripe with Frozen is that it definitely deserved a bigger presence than the shoehorned ride that it got. A mini land at DHS (similar to what Tokyo/HK/Paris is getting at Studios certainly makes more sense, and gives it the presence it deserves rather than a budget cut retrofit.

Princess and the Frog.. just no. Great movie, fabulous soundtrack, but the circumstances surrounding it's announcement and replacing Splash felt extremely contrived given the moment. A bayou ride directly next to Big Thunder Mountain, Pecos Bills, and TSI? Absolutely no thematic consistency at all. It deserves a ride and/or show somewhere, but Frontierland is absolutely not that place, not even for a second. Again - Disney taking advantage of the times for budget cuts.
 

JIMINYCR

Well-Known Member
Well it comes down to who they are. The occasional Disney goer doesn’t care either way. They are there to enjoy the attractions and all that surrounds them. Their having fun with their kids and families is what matters. Details and whether something is exact is immaterial.
The Disney purists and hard core fans want everything exact and proper. They feel that because Walt was so demanding and looking for everything to fit exactly in its place then that’s how it should be. There’s no reason that Disney shouldn’t be held to THE standard of being real and exact in every detail. To them anything less is wrong. They see anything less as a utter and complete failure by those who came after Walt. The Disney of now can’t compare with yesterday’s Disney.
So how it is talked about , experienced and enjoyed depends on how it’s seen by each person.
Me… I can enjoy it all without getting wrapped up in those details and thinking about the smallest item that may not exactly fit. I do want Disney to have standards and things to be done right but there are some things that in the scheme of things isn’t worth fretting over.
 

mharrington

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
I am of the opinion that Frozen Ever After is NOT as egregious as many people make it out to be.. Frozen is Scandinavian in all aspects, from the fairy tale on.... now, my only gripe with Frozen is that it definitely deserved a bigger presence than the shoehorned ride that it got. A mini land at DHS (similar to what Tokyo/HK/Paris is getting at Studios certainly makes more sense, and gives it the presence it deserves rather than a budget cut retrofit.

How would "Frozen" fit the Studios theme? I don't remember any Scandinavian neighborhoods in Southern California. The closest is Solvang (a beautiful town, by the way), but that's about a hundred miles away.

But again, that seems to stress my point: the Studios, unlike the Norway Pavilion, does not have to make sense, simply because it's a movie, right?
 

mharrington

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
It just seems rather strange that something like anything added to, say, Frontierland or World Showcase has to fit the theme of those lands, while something added to Fantasyland or the Studios don't necessarily have to fit those themes.
 

UNCgolf

Well-Known Member
It just seems rather strange that something like anything added to, say, Frontierland or World Showcase has to fit the theme of those lands, while something added to Fantasyland or the Studios don't necessarily have to fit those themes.

Well the Studios original theme has already been thrown away with Toy Story Land and Galaxy's Edge, so basically anything would fit in that park now. You simply enter the world of the movie, so of course Frozen would fit there, as would any other IP. The fact that the front of the park is themed to Los Angeles is more or less irrelevant to the rest of the park now.

But World Showcase is a completely separate thing than the rest of WDW. They're supposed to be representing real places, so the rules are (or should be) more stringent there.
 

mharrington

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
Well the Studios original theme has already been thrown away with Toy Story Land and Galaxy's Edge, so basically anything would fit in that park now. You simply enter the world of the movie, so of course Frozen would fit there, as would any other IP. The fact that the front of the park is themed to Los Angeles is more or less irrelevant to the rest of the park now.

But as I have argued, the name at least should be changed as well, since it's no longer a functioning studio, and has ceased to be so for at least 25 years, maybe 30.

But World Showcase is a completely separate thing than the rest of WDW. They're supposed to be representing real places, so the rules are (or should be) more stringent there.

What about Frontierland, though? Does that not have to follow any rules, geographically speaking? Because the setting of Splash Mountain apparently makes mince of the carefully-structured westward expansion concept from New England (the Haunted Mansion) to the Southwest (Big Thunder).

Also, what about Fantasyland? Are they not supposed to follow any rules? Or does fantasy require no rules at all? Because it's all make-believe? I remember a promo of the old "Disneyland" TV show from 1956, which describes each of the lands of the park/show briefly. Fantasyland in particular is described as "a make-believe world where the only requirement for fun and happiness is your imagination." I take that to mean that fantasy, and by extension, Fantasyland, requires no rules (and thus, no explanation) at all. Is that true?
 
Last edited:

Cmdr_Crimson

Well-Known Member
How would "Frozen" fit the Studios theme? I don't remember any Scandinavian neighborhoods in Southern California. The closest is Solvang (a beautiful town, by the way), but that's about a hundred miles away.

But again, that seems to stress my point: the Studios, unlike the Norway Pavilion, does not have to make sense, simply because it's a movie, right?
I agree as it doesn't make sense with the sing a long show at DHS...I'm still trying to figure out that " Historians of Arendale" nonsense they are using for the show..
 

Robbiem

Well-Known Member
I think the studios are becoming a sort of movie magic kingdom entering via a Hollywood main st leading to movie based lands so something like a frozen land could fit.

Princess and the frog in Frontierland doesn’t really fit but neither did splash mountain where the south west suddenly turns i to georigia then back to the desert when you walk to big thunder. I dont think they would fit fantasyland either as it is European fairytale land. I actually think a bayou/New Orleans area would be a good fit for the studios and make the park a bit more unique in florida rather than magic Kingdom lite..ideally I’d do this and then turn splash into a version of the western river ride but it really would be living in fantasyland to think it would ever happen!
 

ohioguy

Well-Known Member
Considering the popularity of Frozen, it's probably the next IP that deserves its own "land" at the Studios. It's obvious this is the direction of that park, as noted above. Ideally, Avatar would have also been located at the Studios, though Animal Kingdom needed a draw for attendance. It really is a shame that Disney can't wrestle away its Marvel properties.
 

ohioguy

Well-Known Member
I think the studios are becoming a sort of movie magic kingdom entering via a Hollywood main st leading to movie based lands so something like a frozen land could fit.

Princess and the frog in Frontierland doesn’t really fit but neither did splash mountain where the south west suddenly turns i to georigia then back to the desert when you walk to big thunder. I dont think they would fit fantasyland either as it is European fairytale land. I actually think a bayou/New Orleans area would be a good fit for the studios and make the park a bit more unique in florida rather than magic Kingdom lite..ideally I’d do this and then turn splash into a version of the western river ride but it really would be living in fantasyland to think it would ever happen!
I'm interested in seeing where the new TV show takes Tiana... it looks like she may be heading into the frontier, and that will make the ride fit better thematically.
 

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
Well the Studios original theme has already been thrown away with Toy Story Land and Galaxy's Edge, so basically anything would fit in that park now. You simply enter the world of the movie, so of course Frozen would fit there, as would any other IP. The fact that the front of the park is themed to Los Angeles is more or less irrelevant to the rest of the park now.

But World Showcase is a completely separate thing than the rest of WDW. They're supposed to be representing real places, so the rules are (or should be) more stringent there.
Except those are movies. How do they not fit in Disney Studios park. What do movie studios create. When you buy a car do you insist on a tour of the building and procedure used to build that car or do you just want to see the end result of that process. Why is that any different than going to DHS to see that and be part of the end result of those studios. It was obvious that although interesting the first time through, the original Studios park did not have that strength to carry on. It was born out of a desire to beat Universal to the punch but even then, did not exceed the entertainment target. I know most of the terminally loyal Disney fans never went to Universal when it opened. I did, and although at the time both were interesting, Universal had far more staying power because people accepted Uni for what it was and unlike Disney Fans did not put it on the impossible requirement that wasn't sustainable. DHS, like Epcot, had to change to stay up with public demand. Minority worship was not going to sustain it no matter how much that minority wanted it to. I miss the old stuff too. I also miss my 1970 Buick Skylark, by far my most favorite car I ever owned, but technology, style and demand for something different and more modern won out eventually. I still miss my Skylark but I also enjoy the hell out of my present one. Change is good, it revitalizes our expectations and imagination. Nothing that never changes is alive and vibrant, it is just familiar.
 
Last edited:

mharrington

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
Except those are movies. How do they not fit in Disney Studios park. What do movie studios create. When you buy a car do you insist on a tour of the building and procedure used to build that car or do you just want to see the end result of that process. Why is that any different than going to DHS to see that and be part of the end result of those studios. It was obvious that although interesting the first time through, the original Studios park did not have that strength to carry on. It was born out of a desire to beat Universal to the punch but even then, did not exceed the entertainment target. I know most of the terminally loyal Disney fans never went to Universal when it opened. I did, and although at the time both were interesting, Universal had far more staying power because people accepted Uni for what it was and unlike Disney Fans did not put it on the impossibly requirement that wasn't sustainable. DHS, like Epcot, had to change to stay up with public demand. Minority worship was not going to sustain it no matter how much that minority wanted it to. I miss the old stuff too. I also miss my 1970 Buick Skylark, by far my most favorite car I ever owned, but technology, style and demand for something different and more modern won out eventually. I still miss my Skylark but I also enjoy the hell out of my present one. Change is good, it revitalizes our expectations and imagination. Nothing that never changes is alive and vibrant, it is just familiar.

At the very least, the Studios name should be changed, since it's no longer an actual studio.
 

mysto

Active Member
Norway, Star Wars, Avatar, even 1940s Hollywood are pretty specific themes.
Movie magic and Fantasy are general, vague, themes.

It would be nice for additions to strengthen theming in their area, but frequently we have to explain away the slight disturbances. I don't think words like "unacceptable" really apply, just sometimes "could be better".
 

GustoGummi

Member
Considering the popularity of Frozen, it's probably the next IP that deserves its own "land" at the Studios. It's obvious this is the direction of that park, as noted above. Ideally, Avatar would have also been located at the Studios, though Animal Kingdom needed a draw for attendance. It really is a shame that Disney can't wrestle away its Marvel properties.
After seeing what they've done at the other resorts we were spared from that mediocrity.
 

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
At the very least, the Studios name should be changed, since it's no longer an actual studio.
I understand what you are saying but Studio doesn't have to imply brick and mortar buildings where movies are made, it is also a general term for the origin of the finish product. They are interchangeable. It is putting way to fine a point on something so unimportant.
 

mharrington

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
I understand what you are saying but Studio doesn't have to imply brick and mortar buildings where movies are made, it is also a general term for the origin of the finish product. They are interchangeable. It is putting way to fine a point on something so unimportant.

When you go to a movie theater, is it to see a movie or a studio? I think most people would say "movie". There is a difference. "Studio" implies a place where movies are made, it doesn't imply movies themselves.

And doesn't Fantasyland have any thematic rules to follow as well?
 

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
When you go to a movie theater, is it to see a movie or a studio? I think most people would say "movie". There is a difference. "Studio" implies a place where movies are made, it doesn't imply movies themselves.

And doesn't Fantasyland have any thematic rules to follow as well?
The theme park puts you in the movie, that theater lets you watch it. If you are in a studio you are in the movie.
 

mharrington

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
The theme park puts you in the movie, that theater lets you watch it. If you are in a studio you are in the movie.

Technically, by that logic, wouldn't the Magic Kingdom be a studio, too, since many of the rides there are themed to movies, too? And speaking of, how is it that Splash Mountain/The Princess and the Frog requires justification for it being in Frontierland, while it requires no justification if it were in Fantasyland?

And I don't remember too many Disney history books calling "Snow White" the world's first full-length animated studio. It's the world's first full-length movie.

How is it that the Studios requires no explanation whatsoever when it comes to ride theme, but all the other parks do, as far as fans are concerned? And no, I don't think just the fact that they're movies is good enough.

If they're going to use the name of "Studios", then it should be used in the more literal sense. Even Universal Orlando still uses its facilities for filming once in a while, even if it's not anything worthwhile, like the Powerball or wrestling, so Universal wins the actual "studio" name theme battle by default.
 

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

Top Bottom