wm49rs
A naughty bit o' crumpet
Agreed. And considering the entire reference by JH was that the idea had been sent to "committee," the entire idea seems to remain very blue sky, or at worst a trial balloon....
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Pixie Hollow To Replace Swiss Family Treehouse?
- Thread starter #OccupyBeastlyKingdom
- Start date
Agreed. And considering the entire reference by JH was that the idea had been sent to "committee," the entire idea seems to remain very blue sky, or at worst a trial balloon....
The Empress Lilly
Well-Known Member
Good God, this, yes. Almost hidden to the public consciousness the MK is being cartoonified. The entire park's theme is changed, to an extent that maybe surpasses the change of theme in Future World, but far less understood or even noticed.
As of this month, you no longer transit from FL to LS through a Bavarian Alpine town to a colonial Eastcoast seaport of similar age and style but through Rapunzel's village. A complete laugh. A sad destruction of a triumph of WED thematic transition. But the fans rejoice and celebrate it as a return of quality theming and placemaking.
Personally i wouldnt object to the demise of SFT. I understand that many people would think it a classic attraction but i feel that it is well past its prime and never gets busy ( undoubtedly about to be proved wrong on that ).Whether or not Pixie hollow should go in there is another matter.I would like to see the Faries relocated to AK in a specific meet and greet area.
jt04
Well-Known Member
I have a feeling it will either be Adventureland or DAK as to where Tink will land. Interesting dilemma for the purists amongst us of which I tend to side. Still, a secluded PH in Adventureland does not seem to be so bad IMO. Really do not want to see PH at DAK.
Goofyernmost
Well-Known Member
That would make no sense at all. The park was in Anaheim, CA. Small population without the ability to support itself, much less promote movies to such a small number of people. The return wouldn't have been enough to make it worthwhile, at the time.
No, I believe that, to Walt, this was a toy. It was a fun way to transfer fantasy into reality. The movies were more of a way to promote Disneyland, certainly not the other way around. He used it to transfer his cinematic creativity into 3 dimensional creativity. Somewhere deep inside he knew that people would like it (kind of an understatement at this point) and he certainly hoped that it would, but really none of us can crawl into the mind of that man. What would he think, what would he do? I don't think he even knew what his next step would be until he got to it.
Virtual Toad
Well-Known Member
Repeated for emphasis. As WED's original design is diluted and dismantled, the MK slips slowly but surely away from theme park status and risks becoming just another amusement park.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
I agree. There is an episode of the Walt Disney anthology series about the film and Walt is clearly quite enamored with the Treehouse set that was built. Like how he sent the postcard expressing his desire to have the Matterhorn, he too wanted his own Treehouse.
Tim Lohr
Well-Known Member
I don't know that it was cold calculated move, or simply how things evolved, but they've never been shy about self promotion
They named the Disneyland castle after "Sleeping Beauty" because they had just released that film, they would shoot scenes for Davy Crockett on the streets of Frontierland, Adventureland sort of coexisted with their true life nature films, and back when they would rerelease the animated features in theaters every 7 years, having a bunch rides themed to those films was a great way cross promote the films and the park
But I definitely think Walt Disney help pioneer the idea of "corporate synergy", he just did it back at a time when people were less suspicions and cynical about it, but I think he was also a lot more tactful about implementing it than the current management
Tim Lohr
Well-Known Member
I don't think Horizons was built to be a temporary attraction either... but it turned out to be one
Tim Lohr
Well-Known Member
Well I think they may have painted themselves into a corner a little bit with the Magic Kingdom, by taking it's themed lands and building other parks and hotels based on the same themes
Liked the original WDW, Eero Saarinen, version of Tomorrowland, was all about future living and transportation, but then they built Epcot's Future World down the street which had the same basic look and concept on a much grander scale, and suddenly Tomorrowland wasn't quite as impressive anymore. So they had to reinvent Tomorrowland to differentiate it from Future World
Fantasyland was based on characters from their films, then they built the Studio Park, and filled it up with their movie characters as well, they even have show there called "Fantasmic" so they've had to make Fantasyland much more fantastical, and they have a bunch of hotels themed to 1900's America, so they've made Main Street a little more glamorous...
And now that they have the very naturalistic Animal Kingdom, I can sort of see them wanting to make Adventureland a "magical place" full of pirate treasure and pixies... I don't know how much I like it, but I can kinda see the rationale behind it
BrightImagine
Well-Known Member
I think the ship has sailed for something truly substantial with the Disney Fairies in WDW. My daughter was kind of fixated for a while... So I've read all the books (and I mean all), seen all the movies, get the magazine. It is a shame because it's such a well-developed and interesting world. And it's not as "girly" as some would assume.
I think the first movie deserved a theatrical release... But I feel like the quality has waned in the past 2-3 years. Gail Carson Levine hasn't written a book recently and I don't know if she will again. And Pixie Hollow Games and Secret of the Wings just didn't seem to have the emotional center of the first three movies. I think it's because the Disney Fairies didn't end up taking off with the tweens originally hoped for... Thus no more Gail Carson Levine. Instead of being something for girls who have outgrown princesses... It's just something else for the same very young age group.
But I digress... What I am trying to say is that if there is any interest in more Disney Fairies for the MK, it's not going to be on the level of if it had been proposed 4 years ago... Disney Fairies just isn't treated in the same way. At this point I'd be happy just to get some of the additional fairy characters back into the M&G that used to appear in Toontown.
Just wanted to add my opinion because it doesn't seem like there are many around here who are familiar with Disney Fairies. P.s. Peter Pan says pixie dust, but Gail Carson Levine says fairy dust.
I think the first movie deserved a theatrical release... But I feel like the quality has waned in the past 2-3 years. Gail Carson Levine hasn't written a book recently and I don't know if she will again. And Pixie Hollow Games and Secret of the Wings just didn't seem to have the emotional center of the first three movies. I think it's because the Disney Fairies didn't end up taking off with the tweens originally hoped for... Thus no more Gail Carson Levine. Instead of being something for girls who have outgrown princesses... It's just something else for the same very young age group.
But I digress... What I am trying to say is that if there is any interest in more Disney Fairies for the MK, it's not going to be on the level of if it had been proposed 4 years ago... Disney Fairies just isn't treated in the same way. At this point I'd be happy just to get some of the additional fairy characters back into the M&G that used to appear in Toontown.
Just wanted to add my opinion because it doesn't seem like there are many around here who are familiar with Disney Fairies. P.s. Peter Pan says pixie dust, but Gail Carson Levine says fairy dust.
Timekeeper
Well-Known Member
Exactly how are we defining the word "temporary" with respect to theme park attractions? 
Jim Chandler
Well-Known Member
I have read all of the posts and can see the different perspectives. As for movies being promoted in the park, many movies came after the parks ride. POTC, Haunted House, Tower of Terror, just to name a couple. They also have had movies before rides like Keel Boats, MTWR, SFRT, as examples. The rides and the movies are used as a way to promote DISNEY and only Disney. I agree with one who said WD created synergy or was one of the early proponents of it. Disney is this big circle of ideas. Some of these ideas start out as movies other rides and some not all spawn the other. What we all need to understand they are all stories and/or adventures.
There is nothing wrong with synergy but what is put where is important to keeping the different lands concepts clean and clear. The issue is one person's adventure is another's fantasy. Is POTC or B&B adventures or fantasy? Is one fantasy because it is a cartoon and the other an adventure because it uses real actors?????? They both have some basis in reality.
There is nothing wrong with synergy but what is put where is important to keeping the different lands concepts clean and clear. The issue is one person's adventure is another's fantasy. Is POTC or B&B adventures or fantasy? Is one fantasy because it is a cartoon and the other an adventure because it uses real actors?????? They both have some basis in reality.
Genie of the Lamp
Well-Known Member
Speaking of SFRT, I see in the OTPN did a general MK Update photo posts today and it shows that SFRT is getting some work done to it:
http://www.orlandoparksnews.com/2013/03/magic-kingdom-general-update-march-2013_20.html
(Scroll down 21 pics and you'll see some pics there)
http://www.orlandoparksnews.com/2013/03/magic-kingdom-general-update-march-2013_20.html
(Scroll down 21 pics and you'll see some pics there)
aladdin2007
Well-Known Member
Remember everyone wdw71 said this is not happening, back on page 1, I think he would have said otherwise if it even had a chance. So we can 
for now.
for now.
jt04
Well-Known Member
Probably measuring for curtains.
unkadug
Follower of "Saget"The Cult
I tend to agree...there is enough land to the east of SWT between Main Street and back to the backstage area of JC to put a Pixie Hollow.
Yensid1974
Well-Known Member
That piece of land is not really viable for anything as far as an expansion unless they remove some of the waterways there. In addition, it would need to have new walls/barriers installed to block the back side of Crystal Palace-the backstage area-the JC boat storage area. A lot of work would need to be done and I doubt they would do it for something as small as that.
unkadug
Follower of "Saget"The Cult
That's all minor construction compared to trying to create new land out of the surrounding swampland.
Besides...waterways can be bridged easily.
John
Well-Known Member
jt I seriously dont want to come across attacking you at every chance I get but I cant let this slide....you said that you tend to side with the purist. How can you say that? When you accept everything Disney does when it comes to WDW and defend it to your death. Anyone who considers themself a WDW purist would never agree with just about anything that has been done to the parks for the past 20 yrs......just sayin'