Pixie Hollow vs Wonderland

[jakeman]

I'd be astonished if it amounted to a single person.

Do you have marketing data for PH related merchandise?

DVD sales figures?

ROI projections?

Surveys with a statistical significance showing PH is unwelcome?

Or, like most everything else you post, just your opinion and a little anecdotial evidence?

I don't believe lebeau (apologies if I am speaking for you lebeau, please correct me if I am off base), fully supports PH as phase 2. I think he, as would I, like to see something else go there.

However, right now it is either PH or nothing. PH does have some positives to the general public that you and others are refusing to acknowledge. It also serves a purpose in crowd control outside of its borders in the rest of the park.

While this area may not interest you, or me, or any other Disney fans that look down their nose at Disney XD, Pixie Hollow, or anything produced after 2000, it does hold appeal for many people.

I would go there once for curiousities sake, but that is about it, but I am perfectly happy with PH alleviating the crowds in other areas of the parks.

You know what wouldn't do that? An empty plot of land, which is the other option right now.

 

[SoccerMickey]

The fanbase rarely reacts appropriately.

I agree again with what lebeau has stated. With DVD players, streaming video, iPads, and iPods all over the place, direct-to-video seems to be becoming a viable alternative to releasing media.

In the past direct-to-video did have the stigma of lesser quality, but it seems that is fading as we become a more on-demand society.

Time will tell.

When direct-to-video came out in the mid 90's, from Disney, the stigma was, in my opinion, rightfully deserved. All Disney produced was sequels with animation that did not match its original film's in terms of quality, nor attention to detail. What ultimately was worse was getting a quality story behind these sequels. I feel, these sequels played an awfully big part in killing Disney hand drawn animation as the general public, not us fans, couldn't tell the real difference between Aladdin and The Return of Jafar, and lumped them all under the name Disney.

I feel movies like Tinker Bell and the other Pixie movies coming out are the way Disney should have been managing their direct-to-video production arm all along. These movies don't try to be Peter Pan II but instead takes a character that already has a big fan base, creates a new world with new characters to meet, and ultimately adopt these new story lines as classic Disney. One criticism I have of the Pixie Hollow franchise films is that they are too centric on Tinker Bell. In order for this to be as popular as the Princesses the audience needs to learn how to identify with the supporting cast so they can then feel that Rosetta or Iridessa is their favorite character so that their merchandise can grow more.

 

[Krack]

Do you have marketing data for PH related merchandise?

DVD sales figures?

ROI projections?

Surveys with a statistical significance showing PH is unwelcome?

Or, like most everything else you post, just your opinion and a little anecdotial evidence?

Hey, if you think there's a portion of the populace that will not go to Walt Disney World unless it has a Pixie Hollow :shrug: good luck with that.

 

[lebeau]

I don't believe lebeau (apologies if I am speaking for you lebeau, please correct me if I am off base), fully supports PH as phase 2. I think he, as would I, like to see something else go there.

No worries. You're right on the money.

If they build PH, we'll go there. My oldest daughter likes Tink. But she doesn't love her. If I didn't have daughters, I'm not sure I'd even poke my head in to look around.

But I fully understand the importance of the franchise to the company and the reasons why it was planned for the parks. Anyone who's claiming they don't know how the idea got this far must not understand very much about the Disney company.

At this point, I'm just hoping they finish Phase 1. If there is a Phase 2, I don't really care what it is as long as it's well done. But belly aching because the chosen theme appeals to a different demo than you is just (dare I say it? I dare!) stupid.

 

[jakeman]

When direct-to-video came out in the mid 90's, from Disney, the stigma was, in my opinion, rightfully deserved. All Disney produced was sequels with animation that did not match its original film's in terms of quality, nor attention to detail. What ultimately was worse was getting a quality story behind these sequels. I feel, these sequels played an awfully big part in killing Disney hand drawn animation as the general public, not us fans, couldn't tell the real difference between Aladdin and The Return of Jafar, and lumped them all under the name Disney.

I feel movies like Tinker Bell and the other Pixie movies coming out are the way Disney should have been managing their direct-to-video production arm all along. These movies don't try to be Peter Pan II but instead takes a character that already has a big fan base, creates a new world with new characters to meet, and ultimately adopt these new story lines as classic Disney. One criticism I have of the Pixie Hollow franchise films is that they are too centric on Tinker Bell. In order for this to be as popular as the Princesses the audience needs to learn how to identify with the supporting cast so they can then feel that Rosetta or Iridessa is their favorite character so that their merchandise can grow more.

I agree completely.

Hopefully Disney has learned that when you make a sequel of poor quality and release it direct to video, it harms the reputation of the original, not bolster the reputation of the sequel.

I think most of the fans are traditionalist in the sense that the only valid animation is either cartoon shorts or feature animation.

I think the generation behind us will view it a little different.

Hey, if you think there's a portion of the populace that will not go to Walt Disney World unless it has a Pixie Hollow :shrug: good luck with that.

Point out where that was said.

 

[lebeau]

Hey, if you think there's a portion of the populace that will not go to Walt Disney World unless it has a Pixie Hollow :shrug: good luck with that.

If you think there aren't a lot of families who would be lured to WDW by the existence of a PH section, you're deluding yourself.

 

[Krack]

Originally Posted by Krack
Hey, if you think there's a portion of the populace that will not go to Walt Disney World unless it has a Pixie Hollow :shrug: good luck with that.

Point out where that was said.

Okay ...

Originally Posted by HM Spectre
2. I would be astonished to learn that the "I'm only bringing my kid to WDW if they have a Pixie Hollow area" demographic is more than the tiniest minority.

 

[Krack]

If you think there aren't a lot of families who would be lured to WDW by the existence of a PH section, you're deluding yourself.

Well, clearly the poll above demonstrates an avalanche of devotion to the Pixie Hollow franchise, particularly in comparison to something like the Alice in Wonderland story and characters.

 

[EmperorMilenko]

I'd take Wunderbarville over PH any day but lets face the facts. Girls LOVE the fairies and it can withstand the test of time. When I worked at the disney store for the holiday season this year....fairies were being restocked once an hour (i know as i was stockboy =P). Cars were being eaten up by boys and on the opposite wall was 1/4 princesses, 3/4 fairies and the fairies sold like they were goin outta style (which theyre not, any time in the near future) i say scrap the expansion and start with a fresh subject. lets start a poll on that one :lol:

 

[lebeau]

Well, clearly the poll above demonstrates an avalanche of devotion to the Pixie Hollow franchise, particularly in comparison to something like the Alice in Wonderland story and characters.

Oh come on! If you put any stock in the poll on this thread, I have a castle to sell you.

 

[jakeman]

First off, why are you quoting me when responding to someone else?

Second, I believe HM Spectre was stating that PH is not needed as a hook to get into MK, because MK itself is the hook.

All of us that are stating that PH isn't bad is on the premise that the other option is nothing, which seems to be the indication right now.

It is a franchise that would provide another reason for families to attend WDW. Would it be the sole reason? Probably not. I have a hard time believing that your average family vacations at Walt Disney World for one explict purpose.

It would potentially alleviate crowds in other areas of the park.

So far, you haven't presented a compelling reason why an empty plot of land is better than this.

Well, clearly the poll above demonstrates an avalanche of devotion to the Pixie Hollow franchise, particularly in comparison to something like the Alice in Wonderland story and characters.

Even if every member of this board took a family of 4 to Disney every year they would make up less than a tenth of a percent of the attendance at Disney. We are not representative of the general public.

 

[lebeau]

So far, you haven't presented a compelling reason why an empty plot of land is better than this.

That is because their only argument is PH = dumb. They are so consumed with this notion that they refuse to see reason or any of the possible upsides to a PH presence in the parks. All they know is they don't like fairies, princess or M&Gs, therefore they must be bad.

That is the extent of the anti-PH argument.

 

[HM Spectre]

So far, you haven't presented a compelling reason why an empty plot of land is better than this.

Not that I'd agree with having an empty plot vs. PH but I will say this to play devil's advocate... it's a lot easier justifying to executives that you'll be building something new and exciting on an empty plot of land than it would be to convince them (for the same project) to remove a fully-paid-for PH a few years after construction if it doesn't succeed.

 

[jakeman]

Not that I'd agree with having an empty plot vs. PH but I will say this to play devil's advocate... it's a lot easier justifying to executives that you'll be building something new and exciting on an empty plot of land than it would be to convince them (for the same project) to remove a fully-paid-for PH a few years after construction if it doesn't succeed.

That is a good point, but isn't that the safe thinking that we routinely condem Disney execs for around here all the time?

 

[lebeau]

Not that I'd agree with having an empty plot vs. PH but I will say this to play devil's advocate... it's a lot easier justifying to executives that you'll be building something new and exciting on an empty plot of land than it would be to convince them (for the same project) to remove a fully-paid-for PH a few years after construction if it doesn't succeed.

And easier still to say, "Let's convert an already built PH into Neverland, Wonderland, fill-in-the-blank...

 

[HM Spectre]

That is a good point, but isn't that the safe thinking that we routinely condem Disney execs for around here all the time?

Depends on how long they'd plan on leaving it open. I love risk taking in business because it pays off so well when it works, but it has to be a well thought out and calculated risk. Just because you're taking a chance on something doesn't mean you shouldn't know what your odds are backwards and forwards. If they're not doing PH because there's a chance it fails, then they're being way too safe and quite frankly, stupid. If they're not doing PH because they're realizing it doesn't have a good chance of success and they don't want to make a bet against bad odds, then I'll support them with whatever they decide.

Either way, the only way you can justify leaving open land like that is if there's a better use for it in the near future so either way, PH or no PH, they need to put their heads together and figure out the best option.

 

[HM Spectre]

And easier still to say, "Let's convert an already built PH into Neverland, Wonderland, fill-in-the-blank...

Down the road, absolutely, but if you're sitting there at the 3-5 year mark and the Pixies line has died down to the point where few people even care about PH aside from Tinkerbell, even a coversion is a tough sell to executives after a recent failure. If you're willing to scrap something you were so behind a few years ago that you dedicated millions to it, what's to say it wouldn't happen again with the next project and continue to just be a sinkhole for money?

That's what these guys are thinking about before they do upgrades like this (and why they get cold feet) because, right or wrong, if you make a big mistake once, you're usually not in a position to fix that mistake later. If the fresh eyes looking at PH thinks there's a high enough probability of failure with the PH project, they can and should find something better to do with the money. There's no reason to go down with someone else's ship if you don't have confidence in it.

 

[lebeau]

Down the road, absolutely, but if you're sitting there at the 3-5 year mark and the Pixies line has died down to the point where few people even care about PH aside from Tinkerbell, even a coversion is a tough sell to executives. If you're willing to scrap something you were so behind a few years ago that you dedicated millions to it, what's to say it wouldn't happen again with the next project and continue to just be a sinkhole for money?

That's what these guys are thinking about before they do upgrades like this (and why they get cold feet) because, right or wrong, if you make a big mistake once, you're usually not in a position to fix that mistake later. If the fresh eyes looking at PH thinks there's a high enough probability of failure with the PH project, they can and should find something better to do with the money. There's no reason to go down with someone else's ship if you don't have confidence in it.

Fair enough.

For the record, there is no indication that the re-evaluation of Phase 2 has anything to do with long-term expectations of the PH franchise. The stated reason for scrapping PH is that they are looking for ways to tweak the franchise and expand its base. So there's no point building when the source material is about to move in a new direction.

There's really no reason to think the Disney Fairies franchise will fail. If anything, it is growing year to year.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

So there's no point building when the source material is about to move in a new direction.

Especially when the plans now in 2010 would not be done until 2013!

Disney can plan all they want, but they can never be sure of what consequences a decision regarding a franchise will be like 3 or 5 years from now. Originally I thought Disney didn't want to build PH because of capacity/revenue reasons (eg. is there something else that handles crowds better and or generates more revenue?), but I forgot they were altering the franchise until reading this thread.

However, what they know now from years of experience is that people love Tink and they have designs made already for the smaller PH at DL. Which is probably why they will go ahead with some sort of Tink meet and greet.

 

[lebeau]

Especially when the plans now in 2010 would not be done until 2013!

Disney can plan all they want, but they can never be sure of what consequences a decision regarding a franchise will be like 3 or 5 years from now. Originally I thought Disney didn't want to build PH because of capacity/revenue reasons (eg. is there something else that handles crowds better and or generates more revenue?), but I forgot they were altering the franchise until reading this thread.

However, what they know now from years of experience is that people love Tink and they have designs made already for the smaller PH at DL. Which is probably why they will go ahead with some sort of Tink meet and greet.

That and the kids will riot if they can't see Tink. :fork: