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

[Goofyernmost]

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.

Really, you are going to nitpick that deeply that you feel that the two parks are even closely comparable? Disney became a reality because of movies, live action and animation. Some are geared toward a younger set, defining morals and trying to teach younger humans about the goods and evils of life with an ending story about how good will overcome evil and live happily ever after and the more mature based Hollywood movie genre! Except for a difference in target and purpose all the parks are based on movies!

 

[mharrington]

Really, you are going to nitpick that deeply that you feel that the two parks are even closely comparable? Disney became a reality because of movies, live action and animation. Some are geared toward a younger set, defining morals and trying to teach younger humans about the goods and evils of life with an ending story about how good will overcome evil and live happily ever after and the more mature based Hollywood movie genre! Except for a difference in target and purpose all the parks are based on movies!

I'm nitpicking based on other people complaining about allegedly putting stuff in the "wrong" park or park land, such as Frozen in Epcot instead of the Studios, or The Princess and the Frog in Frontierland instead of, say, Fantasyland.

 

[Goofyernmost]

I'm nitpicking based on other people complaining about allegedly putting stuff in the "wrong" park or park land, such as Frozen in Epcot instead of the Studios, or The Princess and the Frog in Frontierland instead of, say, Fantasyland.

OK, I understand that but frankly the bigger problem with the P and the F is that it shouldn't be replacing a tribute to the Uncle Remus story line. Calling it offensive because of the depiction in Song of the South is just another way to cancel Black History by the public that doesn't take the time to find out what any of this is about. If they feel solid that Br'er Rabbit and the gang need to move it is for all the wrong reasons, because Song of the South is not part of Uncle Remus, the inside story line of the previously existing "Uncle Remus is a collection of animal stories, songs, and oral folklore collected from southern black Americans". So sure, lets hurry up and white wash yet another thing. In other words Splash Mountain is being change for some reason less praise worthy than they are spinning it. To me that is far more offensive they any other thing that Disney has talked about changing and not because P&F doesn't fit in Frontierland.

 

[mharrington]

OK, I understand that but frankly the bigger problem with the P and the F is that it shouldn't be replacing a tribute to the Uncle Remus story line. Calling it offensive because of the depiction in Song of the South is just another way to cancel Black History by the public that doesn't take the time to find out what any of this is about. If they feel solid that Br'er Rabbit and the gang need to move it is for all the wrong reasons, because Song of the South is not part of Uncle Remus, the inside story line of the previously existing "Uncle Remus is a collection of animal stories, songs, and oral folklore collected from southern black Americans". So sure, lets hurry up and white wash yet another thing. In other words Splash Mountain is being change for some reason less praise worthy than they are spinning it. To me that is far more offensive they any other thing that Disney has talked about changing and not because P&F doesn't fit in Frontierland.

But even Song of the South doesn't really geographically fit the theme of Frontierland, being set in Georgia. According to Passport 2 Dreams, it is one of the top ten design blunders of the Magic Kingdom. They try and fit it in, sure, by changing the color of the mountain slightly and changing the music to make it sound more like bluegrass, but such changes can only help so much.

How is this geographically inappropriate, you ask? Well, there is (or was) a deliberate progression from Liberty Square to Frontierland that Splash Mountain had disrupted. Here's what the article from Passport 2 Dreams has to say:

Liberty Square sweeps from upper New England (The Haunted Mansion) down through Philadelphia and Virginia (The Hall of Presidents) before heading west and transitioning to Frontierland at St. Louis (The Diamond Horseshoe). It then proceeds through the frontier territories, perhaps Kansas and Colorado, before arriving at cowboy vernacular architecture (Pecos Bill Cafe), then heading direct for the great Southwest pueblo architecture and monument valley (Big Thunder Mountain). This means that Splash Mountain's "deep south" is inserted directly into the section of the progression which once had a unified southwest and desert rock look. Lots of trees and an orange-red color help ease the intrusion, but an intrusion it indeed is.

So the problem is bigger than just political correctness, it's also a matter of geographical correctness.

 

[Goofyernmost]

But even Song of the South doesn't really geographically fit the theme of Frontierland, being set in Georgia. According to Passport 2 Dreams, it is one of the top ten design blunders of the Magic Kingdom. They try and fit it in, sure, by changing the color of the mountain slightly and changing the music to make it sound more like bluegrass, but such changes can only help so much.

How is this geographically inappropriate, you ask? Well, there is (or was) a deliberate progression from Liberty Square to Frontierland that Splash Mountain had disrupted. Here's what the article from Passport 2 Dreams has to say:

Liberty Square sweeps from upper New England (The Haunted Mansion) down through Philadelphia and Virginia (The Hall of Presidents) before heading west and transitioning to Frontierland at St. Louis (The Diamond Horseshoe). It then proceeds through the frontier territories, perhaps Kansas and Colorado, before arriving at cowboy vernacular architecture (Pecos Bill Cafe), then heading direct for the great Southwest pueblo architecture and monument valley (Big Thunder Mountain). This means that Splash Mountain's "deep south" is inserted directly into the section of the progression which once had a unified southwest and desert rock look. Lots of trees and an orange-red color help ease the intrusion, but an intrusion it indeed is.

So the problem is bigger than just political correctness, it's also a matter of geographical correctness.

I didn't ask and that whole thing is just the thing I have been talking about. The detail and the angst concerning the locations and the makeup of attractions in what is nothing more then an amusement park defined as a themed location is so ridiculous that it defies explanation. I enjoy the attractions and do not give a single damn about what sequence or neat little package they are placed in. Why should I? Nothing in there is real, nothing matters once you are inside the attraction, it could be on the moon. I never once went on the subs and thought for a single minute that we were 20K Leagues under the sea. It is just a bunch of insignificant garbage. Nothing in our personal lives are lined up in neat little rows that can only exist if it falls in line with our expectations. All anything has to be is high quality and entertaining. If that is in place it doesn't matter what spot on the planet that it is situated. To me and, at a ventured guess, have to say the majority of the visitors do not give a rats behind about where anything is located, they just want to be able to see it. There is a limit to how many "lands" Disney can add in the parks. So where else would Splash be put? Since this is getting more and more off reality, I am going to end my participation with this post.

 

[mharrington]

I didn't ask and that whole thing is just the thing I have been talking about. The detail and the angst concerning the locations and the makeup of attractions in what is nothing more then an amusement park defined as a themed location is so ridiculous that it defies explanation. I enjoy the attractions and do not give a single damn about what sequence or neat little package they are placed in. Why should I? Nothing in there is real, nothing matters once you are inside the attraction, it could be on the moon. I never once went on the subs and thought for a single minute that we were 20K Leagues under the sea. It is just a bunch of insignificant garbage. Nothing in our personal lives are lined up in neat little rows that can only exist if it falls in line with our expectations. All anything has to be is high quality and entertaining. If that is in place it doesn't matter what spot on the planet that it is situated. To me and, at a ventured guess, have to say the majority of the visitors do not give a rats behind about where anything is located, they just want to be able to see it. There is a limit to how many "lands" Disney can add in the parks. So where else would Splash be put? Since this is getting more and more off reality, I am going to end my participation with this post.

I just think that people here should relax a little. Maybe Disney does know what it's doing when putting Frozen in Norway or replacing Splash Mountain.

 

[mharrington]

I brought this topic up mainly to find out why some park lands (such as World Showcase or Frontierland) are required to follow certain "rules" by the purists when it comes to attraction placement and other park lands (such as Fantasyland or the entirety of the Studios) don't have to follow those same rules. That's kind of inconsistent, don't you think?

 

[lazyboy97o]

I brought this topic up mainly to find out why some park lands (such as World Showcase or Frontierland) are required to follow certain "rules" by the purists when it comes to attraction placement and other park lands (such as Fantasyland or the entirety of the Studios) don't have to follow those same rules. That's kind of inconsistent, don't you think?

Different stories have different rules. Harry Potter looking at the camera and breaking the fourth wall would be weird but that doesn’t mean it can’t be done or doesn’t work in other stories.

 

[wm49rs]

I brought this topic up mainly to find out why some park lands (such as World Showcase or Frontierland) are required to follow certain "rules" by the purists when it comes to attraction placement and other park lands (such as Fantasyland or the entirety of the Studios) don't have to follow those same rules. That's kind of inconsistent, don't you think?

No, you keep bringing this topic up, over and over. Just as you keep bumping your own threads....

 

[mharrington]

Different stories have different rules. Harry Potter looking at the camera and breaking the fourth wall would be weird but that doesn’t mean it can’t be done or doesn’t work in other stories.

How is it, though, that Fantasyland and the Studios are pretty much rule-free and as such, all movie-based rides should just go either of those places?

 

[mharrington]

Incidentally, here's a shot of the Germanic-looking Pinocchio's Village Haus in Fantasyland...

...and here is similar architecture for the Germany Pavilion:

How is it that it's okay to accept unreality in one (i.e., Fantasyland), but that the other (i.e., World Showcase), by virtue of being about world culture, must not allow fantasy elements in it? The two locales don't look all that dissimilar to one another.

 

[mharrington]

Sorry for bumping up an old thread, but I wanted to address something else that has come up recently that possibly ties into this topic, and I decided to just bump up this old thread rather than start a new one from scratch.

The closure of Tarzan's Treehouse in Disneyland to retheme it to something related to "Encanto" (possibly Antonio's treehouse) has sparked another debate about how well it fits into Adventureland, with some saying it fits well enough (if not perfectly) and others arguing that it doesn't really fit in Adventureland at all. Sure, it's set in a Colombian jungle, but it's really not about "adventure" at all. It's about a family living in a magical house that just happens to be set near a jungle, which, again, is not a key part of the story.

Based on the debate as to whether or not it fits in Adventureland, I asked where else something related to "Encanto" could go if not Adventureland, and at least one person suggested having it go in, you guessed it, Fantasyland, because of the fantastical powers of the house and the family that lives there. Apparently, the only reason it's in Adventureland and not Fantasyland is because "fantasy" is (with one exception) restricted to Europe, while "adventure" apparently equals "exotic" or "jungle".

I argued then that "Encanto" in Adventureland would be less egregious than, say, "The Princess and the Frog" in Frontierland.

 

[Married5Times]

"Encanto" in Adventureland would be less egregious than, say, "The Princess and the Frog" in Frontierland.

as for background setting, sure. But as to central themes Encanto has nothing to do with adventure. The two share dense vegetation/jungle-like environments and that is it.

 

[mharrington]

as for background setting, sure. But as to central themes Encanto has nothing to do with adventure. The two share dense vegetation/jungle-like environments and that is it.

So you're saying it should only go in Adventureland if it does have to do with, well, "adventure"?

How is it that some lands require more "rules" (i.e., Frontierland, Adventureland, Tomorrowland) than others (i.e., Fantasyland)? I'm guessing Fantasyland is the Disney parks equivalent of "It's magic, we don't have to explain it". Is that true?

 

[cloudboy]

Old Disney vs New Disney.

Pre 2003/2004, there was a clear distinction in the parks. By now many people never experienced it, so it makes not sense any more. But before then, the only place Disney animation had a real presence was in FantasyLand. This was because the old rides were seen as experiences in themselves, not as marketing material. Studios was for the then starting to flourish live action material, and World Showcase was very much about other real place lands. Back then it was a lot less common for people to hop on a plane to go to Europe even, so these "exotic locations" were a real experience.

Then, Jack Sparrow suddenly appeared in the Pirates of the Caribbean. Ever since then, the rides stopped being designed as experiences, and now as merchandising for features and movies. It had slowly eroded since. So the argument is moot. Lots of things you mentioned were already put in the wrong location. At this point ther is more wrong than right. So you don't really have any correct examples left to compare to.

 

[WondersOfLife]

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.

I don't know why I'm so surprised time and time again how people just are not able to grasp the simple concept of a THEME park.

Yes, Fantasyland is Magic Kingdom's cartoon IP dumping ground. It needs it. Also, Fantasyland was smartly designed not to engage around "it's magic, we don't explain it," but rather it being a castle courtyard of fairytale stories with even more adventures behind it in the expansion. It is a showcase of animated Disney movies. That is literally the theme of the land.

Hollywood Studios WOULDN'T be the equivalent if they ever kept the original THEMING that made the park what it quite literally was, an inside look at a working motion picture studio. Nowadays, the park is just a great big mess, so yes, we can just plop anything down there. It doesn't matter anymore. And that is the sad part.

EPCOT is still in the process (but very deep in the process) of turning into just another dumping ground. Ask Disney to put Frozen Ever After in Norway back in 1989 and it would make absolutely zero sense whatsoever. Nowadays? Who the hell cares.

Magic Kingdom still has a lot of integrity left... But the purest park in its original form is Animal Kingdom today.


Your question should be re-phrased to "What is wrong with constantly shoving IP-related cash grabs into parks that originally didn't need or revolve around having a cartoon character at every turn?"

 

[WondersOfLife]

How is it that some lands require more "rules" (i.e., Frontierland, Adventureland, Tomorrowland) than others (i.e., Fantasyland)?

Because Fantasyland was literally designed by Walt himself to be a showcase of a bunch of Disney animated films.

Adventureland, Tomorrowland, and Frontierland were much more than that when they were originally designed and conceived. And they were genius, AND they were successful enough to stand on their own without IP shove-ins.

Same with Epcot.

I don't understand what is so complicated about this understanding.

 

[cloudboy]

Here's a different way to think about it.

Besides It's a Small World, which really isn't a story, and Winnie the Pooh (a recent add), everything in It's a Small World is based on a classic fairy tale.

To that effect, yes Princess and the Frog belongs in FantasyLand as well.

 

[mharrington]

I don't know why I'm so surprised time and time again how people just are not able to grasp the simple concept of a THEME park.

Yes, Fantasyland is Magic Kingdom's cartoon IP dumping ground. It needs it. Also, Fantasyland was smartly designed not to engage around "it's magic, we don't explain it," but rather it being a castle courtyard of fairytale stories with even more adventures behind it in the expansion. It is a showcase of animated Disney movies. That is literally the theme of the land.

Hollywood Studios WOULDN'T be the equivalent if they ever kept the original THEMING that made the park what it quite literally was, an inside look at a working motion picture studio. Nowadays, the park is just a great big mess, so yes, we can just plop anything down there. It doesn't matter anymore. And that is the sad part.

EPCOT is still in the process (but very deep in the process) of turning into just another dumping ground. Ask Disney to put Frozen Ever After in Norway back in 1989 and it would make absolutely zero sense whatsoever. Nowadays? Who the hell cares.

Magic Kingdom still has a lot of integrity left... But the purest park in its original form is Animal Kingdom today.

Well, even the Animal Kingdom's attractions can blur the line between which kingdom is Animal and which is Magic, with the Finding Nemo stage show and even Everest. And do you really think Pandora has anything to do with the natural world?

Your question should be re-phrased to "What is wrong with constantly shoving IP-related cash grabs into parks that originally didn't need or revolve around having a cartoon character at every turn?"

Actually, what I should have re-phrased the question to is "Are the fans the only ones who still ask 'What would Walt do?'"

Here's a different way to think about it.

Besides It's a Small World, which really isn't a story, and Winnie the Pooh (a recent add), everything in It's a Small World is based on a classic fairy tale.

To that effect, yes Princess and the Frog belongs in FantasyLand as well.

How could "The Princess and the Frog" fit in Fantasyland? It's not set in Europe, it's set in New Orleans. That certainly doesn't fit in a castle courtyard.

You also say that everything in Small World is based on a fairy tale. Does that mean that the Pixar films are fairy tales? Or "The Three Caballeros" in Mexico? Or "The Lion King" in Africa?

Or is perhaps world peace itself a fairy tale?

 

[Goofyernmost]

Because Fantasyland was literally designed by Walt himself to be a showcase of a bunch of Disney animated films.

Adventureland, Tomorrowland, and Frontierland were much more than that when they were originally designed and conceived. And they were genius, AND they were successful enough to stand on their own without IP shove-ins.

Same with Epcot.

I don't understand what is so complicated about this understanding.

What I don't understand is why people cannot realize that those stories in Fantasyland were IP's. Disney didn't create Peter Pan or Cinderella or Snow White and more. He created a story line, polished up for entertainment purposes that for some reason people call non-IP when nothing could be further from the truth. There are outside IP's and there are a few inside created IP's but all were a form of Intellectual Properties. Why can't people just get past that foolishness of defining the origin and just appreciate the Disney spin which is pretty much all Disney ever did. Mickey Mouse and his other character friends where all creations and you would get pretty tired of seeing nothing but them. Star Wars, Toy Story, Muppets, Marvel, Guardians and Tron, just to name a few are now Disney spins. Why not use them in whatever story line or genre the story fits in. The land really shouldn't matter, it is the quality of the entertainment that is important in my opinion.