New Video From DisneyParks- Finding New Fantasyland

[menamechris]

A marketing departments job is to sell the product and bring in the guests. It doesn't matter how they do it. You think this is bad? Seriously. Look at Kings Dominion and their Planet Snoopy announcement. This is what ALL marketing departments do. Hype hype hype. If they came out and said "Oh come and see the dull boring Fantasyland Expansion or not" I'd probably be selling my stock. Not to mention a bunch of people would be losing their jobs.

What is Kings Dominion?

A marketing department's job is to walk that line of generating excitment, while keeping the potential customer's expectations realistic. This is especially critical with a place like Disney where, regardless of what they may say, they need repeat guests.

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

The pictures of the enchanted forest section and BOG look amazing. The detail work in the castle walls, the trees and landscaping being added, the details on the ground like wagon wheel tracks and hoof prints. The parts of storybook circus that were open in June when I was there were pretty solid too.

I probably appreciate small details more than the average person who is just counting the number of rides and whether they are E ticket.

I never said I didn't like BOG, and the new walls/forest areas . . . I think that stuff looks great. But I do think that Mermaid's queue looks horrible out of place and just plain doesn't match with Belle's stuff. Belle's castle/village, excellent, Mermaid's castle . . . yeah, looks like a rundown fort on an abandoned desert island.

Anyway, I would like to think I am a "details guy", and I sure poured over the photos of Circusland. I was disappointed that the outside of Dumbo's queue doesn't have all the banners and stuff on it that was in the concept art. The area looks nice, but if you look at the lights/landscaping . . . it doesn't try to recreate a place like Radiator Springs, probably because a real circus would look kind of run-down. The reason why they went with the Circus theme was supposedly because of the gift shop in the tent, which was number 2 behind the Emporium, so they felt they needed to keep this theme. The idea of a "Circusland" has been floating around for decades, I like the Dumbo nostalgia, but for a whole "sub-land" there isn't a whole lot to get excited about, IMHO, though little kids love the new queue.

FLE is really composed of three mini-lands (IMHO), BoG/Enchanted Tales w/Belle, Mermaid, and Circusland. Each with their own theme, and I think that as a whole the whole land is a little disjointed, especially since you've got the old Fantasyland as well.

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

A marketing departments job is to sell the product and bring in the guests. It doesn't matter how they do it. You think this is bad? Seriously. Look at Kings Dominion and their Planet Snoopy announcement. This is what ALL marketing departments do. Hype hype hype. If they came out and said "Oh come and see the dull boring Fantasyland Expansion or not" I'd probably be selling my stock. Not to mention a bunch of people would be losing their jobs.

Well . . . a lot more marketing campaigns fizzle than you'd realize. Believability is part of the equation, if you make unbelievable claims and don't showcase the product, then you turn customers away, so a marketing campaign gone wrong is sometimes worse than no marketing at all.

The problem with Disney's ad is that you see nothing, zero, zip of the new Fantasyland. It is almost an attempt at a viral marketing type thing where you get potential customers whipped up into a frenzy all trying to figure out what this mystical new place is. Only, Disney's new ad is kinda confusing. And you don't want somebody looking at the mysterious map of FLE and then be disappointed with the real product. WDW isn't about tricking families into a once in a lifetime vacation, they're working hard to get the folks who come back every 3-5 years, look at all of the DVC units they've built.

I see what they are trying to do with the mystery angle, but given how photogenic most Disney parks are, most potential guests would want to see the "goods" before making reservations. Surely, we will see these commercials, and they will be much more effective than what they have put out.

Also . . . they've got a "Finding Fantasyland" website, but I would guess that most interested fans would know about boards like this one that have hundreds, if not thousands, of over-the-wall shots, behind the scenes videos, and commentary. Advertising is about knowing your target audience, not sure that they'd bring in any more interested parties with this.

 

[spacemt354]

Mermaid's castle . . . yeah, looks like a rundown fort on an abandoned desert island.

FLE is really composed of three mini-lands (IMHO), BoG/Enchanted Tales w/Belle, Mermaid, and Circusland. Each with their own theme, and I think that as a whole the whole land is a little disjointed, especially since you've got the old Fantasyland as well.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I really don't understand the harsh criticism for Eric's Castle. I'm a details guy myself and I don't see what's wrong with it. I think it looks fantastic.

And just my two cents. I don't see how the land is disjointed either. There is the mini-land of Storybook circus, a separate theme with it's own separate signage. Then there is the extension of the castle wall which encompasses the medival fair aspect of fantasyland. On the other side of the castle grounds lies the forest (a setting typical in most fairytales set in medival times) with the 7DMT and the enchanted tales with belle. Off in the distance is the beast's castle and around the bend from the mine train is mermaid. From the medival fair part of fantasyland, Eric's Castle will not be visible. It's all supposed to be part of the reveal as you round the bend of the mine train.

But again, everyone has their own views and I can understand some bias for certain places. But in a sense you are technically getting more attractions in the FLE then you are in Carsland. I know to some that is blasphemy because the FLE doesn't have an "E-ticket" but for me the ticket rankings don't exist anymore, so I don't know why we still catagorize attractions as such. Heck if the "E-ticket" is the supposed to describe the "best" attractions then for me the Peoplemover is an E-ticket because I ride it all the time. The E-ticket designation is very subjective and people are always going to have their favorites. But I'm going to try to look at the expansion with a glass half full perspective. I'm gonna ride Mermaid with an open mind, I'm going to absorb the details of the land, and based on the pictures that have been posted, I can't wait for the opportunity to do so.

 

[lazyboy97o]

This is part of what is wrong with Disney, ridiculous backstories. This is not a detail or theming. It is ridiculous fluff to try and explain something that really does not need explanation. Though it is not as bad as the whole Prince Charming Regal Carousel nonsense.

But in a sense you are technically getting more attractions in the FLE then you are in Carsland.

While there may be more attractions, a term that has been stretched over the years with the worst case probably being City Hall at Hong Kong Disneyland, most people are talking about ride. Fantasyland is adding two, because a duplicate spinner does not count as a new ride in my book. Barnstormer has retained the big part of its name, its track and vehicles, it was rethemed, not new. CarsLand added three new attractions.

 

[Timothy_Q]

This is part of what is wrong with Disney, ridiculous backstories. This is not a detail or theming. It is ridiculous fluff to try and explain something that really does not need explanation. Though it is not as bad as the whole Prince Charming Regal Carousel nonsense.

Is this sarcasm or are you really complaining that Disney takes the time and effort to create elaborate backstories to all of their rides and lands?
You can always visit Six Flags where no backstory will ever inconvenience you

 

[lazyboy97o]

Is this sarcasm or are you really complaining that Disney takes the time and effort to create elaborate backstories to all of their rides and lands?
You can always visit Six Flags where no backstory will ever inconvenience you

No, I am being dead serious. The obsession with convaluted backstories is a wasteful problem at Disney. What is the back story of Main Street, USA or New Orleans Square? Or maybe Hollywood and Sunset Boulevards? There is no need for some ridiculous story to make it work because the place communicates its identity clear through the use of "theming." A backstory for Fantasyland is just as unnecessary.

 

[GoofGoof]

No, I am being dead serious. The obsession with convaluted backstories is a wasteful problem at Disney. What is the back story of Main Street, USA or New Orleans Square? Or maybe Hollywood and Sunset Boulevards? There is no need for some ridiculous story to make it work because the place communicates its identity clear through the use of "theming." A backstory for Fantasyland is just as unnecessary.

For me the theming and backstory add to the experience. To escape from reality and actually enter a truly immersive environment. It's one of Disneys strengths in my opinion. The enchanted forest is supposed to be the area beyond the castle court yard. You leave through the back gates and enter the forest. The ground appears to be dirt paths with wagon wheel tracks and hoof prints. You come up to belles house with the castle in the background and the village with Gastons tavern. The mini mountain with the mine train should fit in well once built. I agree with the other poster that LM is a little more of a stretch to fit in. You are supposed to have come to the coast and there's the castle and cliffs.

The circus area is separate and is all themed to dumbo and the circus train. I think it fits really well. If you built just the rides in generic buildings with no theming of the area it would not be as good.

 

[spacemt354]

No, I am being dead serious. The obsession with convaluted backstories is a wasteful problem at Disney.

Saying that backstories are a wasteful problem at Disney is foolish in my opinion, because that "problem" is what sets Disney apart from everyone else. The backstories are what make Tower of Terror, Expedition Everest, and basically all Disney attractions so special. You can't tell me those attractions would evoke the same emotions and thrill without the backstories. Even extinct attractions like 20K, Alien Encounter, and Horizons had amazing backstories that went hand and hand with their respective themes. There's a backstory behind Carsland as well. All you have to do is watch the movies.

And to your point before, Main Street does have a backstory (and probably all the other places you listed too) but I found a video of Main Street which details its backstory. The Main Street story goes from about 4:45 till around 20 mins, then it goes into the Fantasyland story.

 

[lazyboy97o]

For me the theming and backstory add to the experience. To escape from reality and actually enter a truly immersive environment. It's one of Disneys strengths in my opinion.

Theme and backstory are not one in the same and theme is not dependent on a backstory. What you describe about Fantasyland is the conceptual narrative that works within the Land's greater theme. The backstory is this nonsense about a curse that has hidden this area from us. The concept of Fantasyland as multiple zones is not the backstory and will easily be read, especially since portals have been built to clearly communicate the change.

Saying that backstories are a wasteful problem at Disney is foolish in my opinion, because that "problem" is what sets Disney apart from everyone else. The backstories are what make Tower of Terror, Expedition Everest, and basically all Disney attractions so special. You can't tell me those attractions would evoke the same emotions and thrill without the backstories. Even extinct attractions like 20K, Alien Encounter, and Horizons had amazing backstories that went hand and hand with their respective themes. There's a backstory behind Carsland as well. All you have to do is watch the movies.

Again, backstory is not the same as the story or theme. Alien Encounter told you straight up what was happening. Same for the other attractions you list. Now Asia does have threads throughout such as the portraits of the royal couple, but these are part of the detailing that establish a place as real.

And to your point before, Main Street does have a backstory (and probably all the other places you listed too) but I found a video of Main Street which details its backstory. The Main Street story goes from about 4:45 till around 20 mins, then it goes into the Fantasyland story.

Frankly, I am not in the mood to listen to Mr. Mongello but I bet he too confuses backstory with theme, just as he confuses decoration and theme, and ornament and detail.

 

[Timothy_Q]

@lazyboy97o

I think you need to find a real problem to complain about.

 

[sshindel]

I think that this video is a marketing campaign, not a backstory for the entire land from here to eternity. Something to introduce FLE to the masses with a bit of a flourish. Nothing more. 5 years from now, no one will be speaking of "the curse that blocked it from view". They are probably going to put on a little show on the grand opening date, something that will make the news departments at local news stations, and then it will be history. It's marketing.

 

[lazyboy97o]

@lazyboy97o

I think you need to find a real problem to complain about.

I have plenty I could complain about, but this is a Disney message board and thus I complain about Disney. I do not see theme parks as trivial nothingness. Meaning is a big part of why Disney has so successfully resonated with audiences and become not just popular entertainment but a piece of Americana.

 

[Timothy_Q]

I do not see theme parks as trivial nothingness. Meaning is a big part of why Disney has so successfully resonated with audiences and become not just popular entertainment but a piece of Americana.

Exactly. Because they care for themeing, storytelling and backstories more than any other park.

 

[FigmentJedi]

Again, backstory is not the same as the story or theme. Alien Encounter told you straight up what was happening. Same for the other attractions you list. Now Asia does have threads throughout such as the portraits of the royal couple, but these are part of the detailing that establish a place as real.

However, Alien Encounter was (and still remains seeing as there's still X-S Tech references around) a part of the larger Tomorrowland storyline.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Exactly. Because they care for themeing, storytelling and backstories more than any other park.

All of which was successful before the advent of the contemporary backstory.

However, Alien Encounter was (and still remains seeing as there's still X-S Tech references around) a part of the larger Tomorrowland storyline.

Yes, but do they really have any meaning beyond those who know that X-S Tech was once the fictional company at the center of a now extinct attraction? Are the failings of the land due to content or the lack of the retention of these story arcs which have been abandoned?

I think a good example may be Typhoon Lagoon. The backstory has the whole place connected to Pleasure Island. But Pleasure Island as a piece of that story died years before the clubs closed. Does that really affect the basic concept of Typhoon Lagoon as this tropical facility that has was swept up by a hurricane? Sure, the metadetails such as naming and other choices give fans something to brag about, but they are not necessary to the execution of the concept and have lost meaning over the years as an external (Pleasure Island) faded away. Now instead of being a stand alone concept, Typhoon Lagoon has all of these metadetails that no longer actually reference anything relevant. The Pleasure Island related details of Typhoon Lagoon no longer enhance the story, as they only work if you know the non-story external history of the abandoned and now gone Pleasure Island story, one must break from the story to known the story.

 

[FigmentJedi]

Yes, but do they really have any meaning beyond those who know that X-S Tech was once the fictional company at the center of a now extinct attraction? Are the failings of the land due to content or the lack of the retention of these story arcs which have been abandoned?

I think a good example may be Typhoon Lagoon. The backstory has the whole place connected to Pleasure Island. But Pleasure Island as a piece of that story died years before the clubs closed. Does that really affect the basic concept of Typhoon Lagoon as this tropical facility that has was swept up by a hurricane? Sure, the metadetails such as naming and other choices give fans something to brag about, but they are not necessary to the execution of the concept and have lost meaning over the years as an external (Pleasure Island) faded away. Now instead of being a stand alone concept, Typhoon Lagoon has all of these metadetails that no longer actually reference anything relevant. The Pleasure Island related details of Typhoon Lagoon no longer enhance the story, as they only work if you know the non-story external history of the abandoned and now gone Pleasure Island story, one must break from the story to known the story.

So? I don't mind older references remaining in. Adds depth to the settings when it's done right. That there's more out there that we may not be seeing by implying settings and locations beyond the veil of the "Disney World" that we can see.

Of course, I'm someone who enjoys playing the connection game and loves to entertain the idea that through all these various tidbits that exist throughout parks and other Disney media that Indiana Jones (or at least his Disneyverse counterpart) co-exists with a ton of the pulp adventure stuff Disney has done. He's tied to the stories of S.E.A., Jungle Cruise and the Adventurer's Club stuff within the parks. Jungle Cruise can also be connected to Tarzan through the visual references present in the television series with Dumont's trading post and boats looking awfully familiar. Tarzan has ties to Atlantis the Lost Empire (through TV show villain Queen La having an Atlantis inspired design to follow Burroughs describing her and Opar as an Atlantean colony) and John Carter (Burroughs himself showed up in "author met the character then wrote the book" story on a clipshow episode of the Tarzan series and an Atlantis "travel guide" describes Burroughs as a frequent visitor beloved by the locals). And finally, Atlantis has tie-ins to Gargoyles as one of the episodes of the rejected TV show would have been a crossover and Gargoyles creator Greg Weisman still considers that story canon and material for comics should he get the chance to do that again.

It's fun to overthink things.

 

[lazyboy97o]

So? I don't mind older references remaining in. Adds depth to the settings when it's done right. That there's more out there that we may not be seeing by implying settings and locations beyond the veil of the "Disney World" that we can see.

But how is the remnant working? Does it create a layer to the story of change and addition or only add to the narrative of the history of a fake place? Is it something the characters of the world would know and understand?

It's fun to overthink things.

Overthinking is good. One of the great aspects of the Disney theme parks is the ability to apply thought and see so much more. The problem with the contemporary backstory is the ridiculousness to which basic thinking is stretched. A space in themed entertainment should communicate itself clearly and easily.

 

[ctxak98]

Walt created MainStreet right?...so techincally backstories have been around for a long time. I think its what wanted. To me personally the backstory is a part of the actual story! not seperate things. I think you may be a tad overthinking things. Sure some may say its a waste of time for backstory but then thats basically what All prequels to a trilogy do. they create the part of the story that helps us figure out how everything connects. Like lord of the rings and star wars. I dont think those backstorys are wasteful.

 

[GoofGoof]

Theme and backstory are not one in the same and theme is not dependent on a backstory. What you describe about Fantasyland is the conceptual narrative that works within the Land's greater theme. The backstory is this nonsense about a curse that has hidden this area from us. The concept of Fantasyland as multiple zones is not the backstory and will easily be read, especially since portals have been built to clearly communicate the change.

Sorry. Your interpretation is a little different then mine. What you are describing as backstory is just a marketing campaign. 6 months after the land opens nobody will know about or care about the marketing campaign. The curse has nithing to do with the land itself. In my opinion the theme is the actual structures, walls, streets, ground. A good themed land has all components fitting in with the theme. Totally immersive. The backstory helps to set the theme and explains why something exists in the first place. For enchanted forest the backstory is that the forest exists beyond the walls of the castle courtyard and contains forest dwellers and a village and a few castles. The theming in the area is the castle walls themselves, the village, the buildings, the trash cans. You can have a well themed area where everything goes together but has no backstory as to why. When I was talking about good theming and backstory that is what I meant. Most Disney areas/reorts have a theme and a backstory.

It seems like a lot of people have a problem with the ad campaign. What did you want them to do? Make an ad that says we spent half a billion dollars but we don't really think it is anything special since there is no E ticket ride and it's not as good as Potter. Of course they are going to hype it up. For a lot of people it will be impressive and they should advertise it. Not everyone spends hours in a WDW forum listening to all the reasons the FLE that hasn't even opened yet is a failure.