Disney will probably develop the land on the other side of the train tracks just east of SBC and north of TRON sometime in the future. Its a pool of water now, but they can relocate that and create and underpass linking that giant piece of land and it big enough for its own toontown
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Shouldn't Storybook Circus be its own land and not part of Fantasyland?
- Thread starter mharrington
- Start date
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
You think Disney is going to tunnel down into an area that is current a retention pond? If they were planning on using the land they wouldn’t have expanded the pond.
Considering that Mickey and Minnie's Runaway Railway is being added to Disneyland's Toontown and that it's already at the Studios in Florida, if they do use that space, I doubt it will be for another Toontown.
100% this!! I have always said MMRR would have been a much better fit at MK than DHS. I think California got it right placing their version in DL.
yensidtlaw1969
Well-Known Member
And here I am thinking both that MMRR is the right fit for Studios (though it should have been built in the Animation Courtyard) and that it would have been a better fit at DCA, since Toontown features a distinctly different interpretation of Mickey . . .
I also think that it's true that both DCA and Studios are in need of more and new attractions WAY more than Magic Kingdom and Disneyland are . . . at least in the shorter term.
WondersOfLife
Blink, blink. Breathe, breathe. Day in, day out.
I also would have preferred it to take over the Main Street Theater, TBH. An actual attraction on Main Street would have been cool.
I think it is, too. But, as you said, not in the location they chose. The original Toontown with Roger Rabbit idea that they were going to do originally would have been great as well.
However, since that doesn't exist, I wish it had gone into Storybook Circus instead..
(For the record, I would have also been fine without the attraction at all. It's not that great.)
I agree that DCA & DHS are in need of more attractions, however I feel Mickey is most associated with the castle parks. That's why Toontown's removal from the MK was such a loss. We lost his and Minnie's home. A lot of ppl come to the MK wanting to see them & where they live. The average guest won't care that on the ride it's a different interpretation of him. In their eyes it's still Mickey and they got to visit his home and his attraction. Plus there was no way Disney would create a ride based on their most popular character and not place it in Walt's original park. Just a few of my thoughts.
doctornick
Well-Known Member
Should have included a clone of the DL Pinocchio ride in one of the tents.
To the OP's point, yes, I would agree that Storybook Circus should be it's own land, separate from Fantasyland.
owlsandcoffee
Well-Known Member
Fair, fair. Part of me likes that DL has different rides than MK though.
To be fair, Mickey and Minnie's homes in Florida were never really their actual homes, but their vacation homes. Disneyland is where they truly live. Actually, right now at least, you can't even go into Mickey and Minnie's homes in California either. At least, I don't think you can.
I'm not sure how it would work, considering that "Pinocchio" is clearly set in a Germanic Italy, while Storybook Circus is clearly set in an American Midwestern-looking farmland-like area. I think they made the right call at Disneyland to put the Pinocchio ride in Fantasyland proper instead of the never-built Dumbo's Circusland.
Djsfantasi
Well-Known Member
I miss Toontown at WDW
CaptainAmerica
Premium Member
I mean. It really is, for all intents and purposes. That's as much of a "land entrance" as you'll ever see.
UNCgolf
Well-Known Member
It's always bothered me that those signs specifically say "entrance".
It sounds like you're being welcomed to the entrance rather than the actual land.
MickeyLuv'r
Well-Known Member
I always thought the houses were an abomination because the style of the houses didn't fit with everything else. On top of that, they lacked interactive elements. If they were going to add the houses, then they should have been more like the Pooh queue, or Universal's Seuss playground/splash area.
I also find the MMRR version of the characters ugly and jarring. To me, they aren't styled so much as needlessly crude and ugly. They remind me of Nickelodeon's Ren and Stimpy. Mind, the way Ren and Stimpy were drawn was a fit, because the it fit the characters' crude/rude personalities/stories.
Mickey should not look crude, because that is not his personality. In cartooning, angles and ugly have meaning. Villains have angles and are ugly.
So again, I ask: without any sarcasm, how does a Midwestern-looking train station and barn fit in Fantasyland? For reference, here is a shot of the train station again:
Compare this station with other Fantasyland stations in Paris...
...and Hong Kong, both of which fit in relatively better:
Compare this station with other Fantasyland stations in Paris...
...and Hong Kong, both of which fit in relatively better:
owlsandcoffee
Well-Known Member
I would've liked one akin to Paris's, but I think that for the theming of a small rural town (which is what SC is) it works well.
Heppenheimer
Well-Known Member
Is my memory correct that Fantasyland at the Magic Kingdom never even had a train station until Mickey's Birthdayland opened? If so, the station would have opened as part of a completely separate land.
Last edited:
owlsandcoffee
Well-Known Member
Animaniac93-98
Well-Known Member
Yup. Which means there was no "Fantasyland" RR station until 2012.
