Pixie Hollow To Replace Swiss Family Treehouse?

Genie of the Lamp

Well-Known Member
By some of the logic here, the solution to supposedly alienating one gender is to re-purpose an attraction so that it alienates the other. Might just be me but that makes no sense.

The SFT is an attraction that is gender neutral and perfect for the whole family, if you don't like then that's fine but gearing it more towards girls is not going to make it more popular if families with young boys are going to avoid it entirely because it carries no appeal to them. If they have to re-purpose it then do so with a theme that appeals to everyone, regardless of age or gender.

Well said Frank!:) If I were the head of Disney, I would keep in mind when making a ride, movie,etc. I would want the target market/demographic to be described in one word: "Universal". I understand that some rides/movies lean towards one focus group more than others and that's fine, but they should not be the entire focus for the whole itself. The best thing to do is to make it as relateable/enjoyable to the most guests possible and go from there.
 

aladdin2007

Well-Known Member
Here's just a thought..... Possibly a more realistic one, or more financially feasable one.

Instead of Avatar, Why not put Pixie Hollow in DAK? You could totally out a themed Tinkerbelle land where Camp Minnie-Mickey is. Much easier IMO.

THIS!!!!! Best post of the day!! :) Though it should be a side attraction/area, not in place of a grander one avatar themed or whatever else.
 

Cliff Racer

Member
Just don't think SFR translates to today's audience. I understand the nostalgic attachment some have but it just is not relevant to a younger generation. I was all for PH in the FLE. And would love another expansion of FLE towards the north. I just do not think that is in the cards. The MK really does need some attractions for young girls and this seems to be a reasonable solution to that idea. Especially considering the potential of the Swan Boats.

JMHO. It is not like I have any influence over such decisions.
There just isn't any room there for Swanboats in that area unless you plan on ripping most all of the trees out (which it sounds like you are when you mention turning that third of Adventureland into the English countryside.) This would be terrible for the Jungle Cruise, which needs them to help hide the rest of the park. I'd like a little boatride, Swans or not, but I'd like it to be similar to the DL Storyboats, maybe even with a Casey Jr. Doing that would put it firmly in Fantasyland, which is where this belongs anyway.

Setting everything else aside I really do like the attraction as it is. It lets you walk through at your own pace, giving you a great view of that area of the park, there's no obnoxious line (which is good for those of us who don't get the opportunity to visit Fall/early Spring after the crowds have died down.) The Magic Kingdom needs more things that you can just do, you know. Finally, I don't really care about boys vs. girls or whatever but Pixie Hollow is something that skews extremely young by Disney standards. I don't even think teenaged guests would know what it is unless they have a younger sister whereas most people should at least know the recent Disney films or get the broad concepts other aspects of the park are based on.

I suppose I should note that I am in my mid-twenties, have seen SFR but don't regard it as a childhood staple or anything, and don't hold the attraction up as a must keep in the way some people do for some things.
 

jt04

Well-Known Member
There just isn't any room there for Swanboats in that area unless you plan on ripping most all of the trees out (which it sounds like you are when you mention turning that third of Adventureland into the English countryside.) This would be terrible for the Jungle Cruise, which needs them to help hide the rest of the park. I'd like a little boatride, Swans or not, but I'd like it to be similar to the DL Storyboats, maybe even with a Casey Jr. Doing that would put it firmly in Fantasyland, which is where this belongs anyway.

Setting everything else aside I really do like the attraction as it is. It lets you walk through at your own pace, giving you a great view of that area of the park, there's no obnoxious line (which is good for those of us who don't get the opportunity to visit Fall/early Spring after the crowds have died down.) The Magic Kingdom needs more things that you can just do, you know. Finally, I don't really care about boys vs. girls or whatever but Pixie Hollow is something that skews extremely young by Disney standards. I don't even think teenaged guests would know what it is unless they have a younger sister whereas most people should at least know the recent Disney films or get the broad concepts other aspects of the park are based on.

I suppose I should note that I am in my mid-twenties, have seen SFR but don't regard it as a childhood staple or anything, and don't hold the attraction up as a must keep in the way some people do for some things.

I am not thinking they should literally attach the SFR area to the hub just create some sightlines. The pad behind the tree offers plenty of potential for a PH which has a small footprint. And the swan boats did not interfere with the JC before. It was not my idea, I am just responding to the rumor and the need for the MK to have more girl-centric offerings.

Been fun today but gotta go.
 

NoChesterHester

Well-Known Member
Just so I understand this correctly... The Blue Sky discussion is to replace a perfectly functional walk through attraction based on a classic movie that is currently irrelevant in modern pop culture with an area based on a more currently irrelevant straight to DVD animated franchise aimed at a very specific gender and age group?

What could go wrong?
 

Ignohippo

Well-Known Member
Gawd. They missed the perfect place for this by not putting Pixie Hollow across from Peter Pan where the Tangled bathrooms are now. They could have put the bathrooms in and still had room for the Pixies.

Would have been a perfect fit.
 

Captain Chaos

Well-Known Member
Gawd. They missed the perfect place for this by not putting Pixie Hollow across from Peter Pan where the Tangled bathrooms are now. They could have put the bathrooms in and still had room for the Pixies.

Would have been a perfect fit.
They could have forgone the entire circus area and made a Neverland land with a new, modern Peter Pan attraction along with Pixie Hollow... That would have been so much better than the circus area...
 

Cliff Racer

Member
Why would Disney mess with what is probably Fantasyland's most popular attraction (based on lines?) if you could fit PH in across from Peter Pan, sure, but I thought that there was some important backstage thing there (Small World building?.) PH would have worked best where it was originally envisioned.
 

WDW1974

Well-Known Member
Wow, your post stands at 37 likes. :)

I have never, ever seen a post get this many likes before. Awesome, there is yet hope for Disney and mankind!

It is disgusting. I am ashamed of @Lee, the biggest 'likes' on this entire board. Not to mention the biggest Disney hater there is. You should hear what he says when he isn't typing!!!

And what a dumb and misplaced rumour. Someone out in the Lifestyler community is desperate for attention and tosses out a very bad rumour and people here, many actually sane, give it attention. And start plotting out scenarios where it could make sense?!?!?

Yeah, I think I'm going back to a MAGIC-free Sunday.

I'll see you all a little later ... btw, has anyone spotted George Kalogridis yet? Has Disney announced one tenant either their own or third party for TATWFKaDD (The Area That Was Formerly Known as Downtown Disney)? Anything else 'leaked' yet (like what happens on Walking Dead tonight or the Gay Lost?)
 

jt04

Well-Known Member
Just so I understand this correctly... The Blue Sky discussion is to replace a perfectly functional walk through attraction based on a classic movie that is currently irrelevant in modern pop culture with an area based on a more currently irrelevant straight to DVD animated franchise aimed at a very specific gender and age group?

What could go wrong?

Pretty sure few children have heard or care about SFR. In the age of interactivity said walkthrough is B-O-R-I-N-G!
 

pixargal

Well-Known Member
Pretty sure few children have heard or care about SFR. In the age of interactivity said walkthrough is B-O-R-I-N-G!
This would be a great opportunity to introduce them to the classics. It is a wonderful book and even the movie is good, albeit a little dated. Buy the movie and watch it during family night. My son loved it and it has given him the background to really enjoy the treehouse.
 

hiptwinmama

Well-Known Member
Just so I understand this correctly... The Blue Sky discussion is to replace a perfectly functional walk through attraction based on a classic movie that is currently irrelevant in modern pop culture with an area based on a more currently irrelevant straight to DVD animated franchise aimed at a very specific gender and age group?

What could go wrong?

I think a lot of people are missing the point, Tink and Friends move a lot of merchandise. Just one more way for them to sell more merchandise and for more photopass options.
 

lebeau

Well-Known Member
I'll see you all a little later ... btw, has anyone spotted George Kalogridis yet? Has Disney announced one tenant either their own or third party for TATFWKaDD (The Area That Was Formerly Known as Downtown Disney)? Anything else 'leaked' yet (like what happens on Walking Dead tonight or the Gay Lost?)

Spoilers for tonight's Walking Dead:

Andrea does something stupid.
 

Hedwig's Keeper

Active Member
Awful idea. Better idea: reboot SFR in a new film, mixing the family warmth
of the original, with today's POTC film style adventures. Bingo, instant relevance.

I agree. While probably not every classic Disney movie should be remade, SFR could find a nice niche among family audiences. It would actually be super interesting if they made it as a sort of spinoff from POTC.
 

aladdin2007

Well-Known Member
Sad part about this thread is it will probably give TDO and the number crunchers ideas,,,,oh perfect we can sell more tink junk if we change the treehouse to pixies what a great idea,,,,hurl. I hope George and Staggs put their foot down on that idea, though TDO can probably do whatever they want with the tree.
 

luv

Well-Known Member
Here's just a thought..... Possibly a more realistic one, or more financially feasable one.

Instead of Avatar, Why not put Pixie Hollow in DAK? You could totally out a themed Tinkerbelle land where Camp Minnie-Mickey is. Much easier IMO.
Aaag! Please, no. Stick them anywhere else you want...the SWSA spot would be my choice...but please not in my beloved AK.

Rather see them in Adventureland.

Please. Thank you.
 

PhotoDave219

Well-Known Member
Aaag! Please, no. Stick them anywhere else you want...the SWSA spot would be my choice...but please not in my beloved AK.

Rather see them in Adventureland.

Please. Thank you.

Well, based on management's reluctance to do anything that involves spending a buck, They'll do nothing IMO.

They'll fall back on "guest feedback" and say that they dont need to do anything because their (flawed) survey methods say theyre doing everything right.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom