Staggs says changes to Fantasyland...

[lebeau]

Considering the name change of Rapunzel to Tangled and the link to the poor box office #s for Princess and the Frog, Disney is very cognicent about Female leads being sold to boys. What they fail to realize is that the Disney name itself has those negative connotations to some boys, so it may be a situation where any franchise that logically fits into Fantasyland is still going to be a tough sell to the male demographic.

Excatly! This is why (imo) they shouldn't go chasing after the boy demo too heavily in FLE. If they did, they'd just have to slap Cars or Toy Story everywhere.

One more pet peeve: My daughter would spend a lot more money on Toy Story merch if they would make more Jessie toys!

 

[ToTBellHop]

It seems like if the princesses are going to dance, it will be in a much less costly environment.

I expect more adventure is a safe bet.

can we replace all of the princesses with a Justin Bieber animatronic and then spend the rest of the budget on a thrill ride or 3?

 

[lebeau]

can we replace all of the princesses with a Justin Bieber animatronic and then spend the rest of the budget on a thrill ride or 3?

No. No, we can't. :drevil:

 

[SeaCastle]

I don't understand your hostility to any changes in the FLE. Would you rather he coloring with Aurora rather than on a ride?

Also, how about you going on the record with what you "know" the new Fantasyland will look like? It'll be interesting to compare to the forthcoming announcements. Oh, and no broad generalizations either. We all know your ploy to never sound wrong, and it's getting old. There's no shame in admitting your wrong.

And again, a huge thanks to Lee and juan.:wave:

juan has told us absolutely nothing. It is disturbing that some folks here think he has. Scarey really. Very very scarey.



Could you ask specific questions. Then I can give specific answers. Staggs did not go public for the fun of it. The mischief makers caused him to. Now they are doing the same thing from the opposite side. It is a tactic.

Well, there's two questions right there. One is asking you if you'd rather be coloring with Aurora than experiencing a ride. The other is what you *know* is coming to the new Fantasyland. Want me to be any more specific?

A tactic...really? Maybe the radiation is getting to me because I'm not wearing tin foil mouse ears but are you serious?

I'm getting the sense that Lee and juan (who, by the way, is providing more legitimate information than you can ever hope to provide) are losing the will to post information here whilst you're calling them liars and accuse them of posting information with some kind of devious agenda. I don't know about you, but I kind of like hearing insider information. :shrug:

 

[Grizzly Hall 71]

can we replace all of the princesses with a Justin Bieber animatronic and then spend the rest of the budget on a thrill ride or 3?

Everyone wins here .


But you know that Disney does not like to design thrill rides.

 

[Gomer]

Considering the name change of Rapunzel to Tangled and the link to the poor box office #s for Princess and the Frog, Disney is very cognicent about Female leads being sold to boys. What they fail to realize is that the Disney name itself has those negative connotations to some boys, so it may be a situation where any franchise that logically fits into Fantasyland is still going to be a tough sell to the male demographic.

I don't believe that the Tangled name change was due so much to gender concerns as it was to adding an edginess to the marketing of the film. Disney is going after the Shrek audience with that.

Current trends in animated movies are skewing towards edgy humor that appeals to children, adults, and the more modern child with a more adult sense of humor. Disney's movies are traditionally more restrained and that doesn't sell anymore. You can blame Princess and the Frog on that, as well as most of their other relative failures going all the way back into the late 90's. Disney knows that their product is not as good as it used to be. That's why they are entrusting Pixar with making their tentpole pictures. Pixar has found away around turning every movie into a Shrek, by concentrating on good writing and good stories. Tangled is the flip side of that coin, aiming for a more modern feel.

 

[castevens]

Everyone wins here .


But you know that Disney does not like to design thrill rides.

Uh oh, I think you're on pace to hit 1,000 today

 

[Hakunamatata]

I don't believe that the Tangled name change was due so much to gender concerns as it was to adding an edginess to the marketing of the film. Disney is going after the Shrek audience with that.

Current trends in animated movies are skewing towards edgy humor that appeals to children, adults, and the more modern child with a more adult sense of humor. Disney's movies are traditionally more restrained and that doesn't sell anymore. You can blame Princess and the Frog on that, as well as most of their other relative failures going all the way back into the late 90's. Disney knows that their product is not as good as it used to be. That's why they are entrusting Pixar with making their tentpole pictures. Pixar has found away around turning every movie into a Shrek, by concentrating on good writing and good stories. Tangled is the flip side of that coin, aiming for a more modern feel.

I think Tangled has a real chance of really falling flat. My kids have seen the trailer a number of times this summer and their response was non typical of Disney movies. There was no excitement. No "I cant wait for that movie to come out". Basically, "Next trailer please". I think there is a real good chance of this movie going the way of Home on the Range.

 

[UberPlannerMom]

OK here- I am very confused about the whole Alice is so boyish thing. I mean you think a talking catepillar, who turns into a butterfly by the way, is boyish? And a queen who shouts off with her head while her king is a bumbling idiot is boyish? Sounds more like an overly strong girl in there. How about those playing card soldiers... who paint flowers? Speaking of flowers let's not forget the scene with the singing flowers. Are there some male things in the movie? Yep. Are there more than in say Beauty and the Beast? No. Sorry, there just isn't. And it definitely isn't more male than Peter Pan. Come on people... the reason pan is so often played by a woman is because a boying woman looks a lot more like a boy who never grew up than any man does! Muscles and chest hair kind of give a guy away as having grown up.... so does a beer paunch for that matter!

As for some of those things you think aren't thrilling Grizzly... did you ever actually watch those movies?

I mean, did you miss the whole second half of Pinocchio? The escape from Pleasure Island and being eaten by a whale before setting most of the raft on fire in order to be sneezed out which results in huge crazy waves seems pretty thrilling to me! Actually if they ever decided to redo Splash Mountain (due to the NAACP I am sure) then I could see them doing the inside scenes as that of the story of Pinocchio and then the final drop being the sneeze! I don't want them to change it I am just saying it would probably work.

And Sword in the Stone is filled with a great many exciting scenes. I love the scenes where they are fish or birds. Actually, I wouldn't mind a small coaster based upon being a bird in the movie ( a retheme of barnstormer perhaps)... So much of Sword in the Stone is wonderful. And my son agrees with me!

To the person who brought up the Black Cauldron... would it surprise you to learn that that is one of my 4 year olds favorite movies? Odd right? There is something about a little boy being the main protagonist that sits well with him (which also applies to Sword in the Stone.) Add in a magical pig and he is all over it! :lol:

 

[ToTBellHop]

OK here- I am very confused about the whole Alice is so boyish thing. I mean you think a talking catepillar, who turns into a butterfly by the way, is boyish? And a queen who shouts off with her head while her king is a bumbling idiot is boyish? Sounds more like an overly strong girl in there. How about those playing card soldiers... who paint flowers? Speaking of flowers let's not forget the scene with the singing flowers. Are there some male things in the movie? Yep. Are there more than in say Beauty and the Beast? No. Sorry, there just isn't. And it definitely isn't more male than Peter Pan. Come on people... the reason pan is so often played by a woman is because a boying woman looks a lot more like a boy who never grew up than any man does! Muscles and chest hair kind of give a guy away as having grown up.... so does a beer paunch for that matter!

As for some of those things you think aren't thrilling Grizzly... did you ever actually watch those movies?

I mean, did you miss the whole second half of Pinocchio? The escape from Pleasure Island and being eaten by a whale before setting most of the raft on fire in order to be sneezed out which results in huge crazy waves seems pretty thrilling to me! Actually if they ever decided to redo Splash Mountain (due to the NAACP I am sure) then I could see them doing the inside scenes as that of the story of Pinocchio and then the final drop being the sneeze! I don't want them to change it I am just saying it would probably work.

And Sword in the Stone is filled with a great many exciting scenes. I love the scenes where they are fish or birds. Actually, I wouldn't mind a small coaster based upon being a bird in the movie ( a retheme of barnstormer perhaps)... So much of Sword in the Stone is wonderful. And my son agrees with me!

To the person who brought up the Black Cauldron... would it surprise you to learn that that is one of my 4 year olds favorite movies? Odd right? There is something about a little boy being the main protagonist that sits well with him (which also applies to Sword in the Stone.) Add in a magical pig and he is all over it! :lol:

I always preferred the movies with male leads when I was a little kid. Beauty and the Beast made me go "ick!" (except for when Beast was around and roaring) and I was 6 when it came out. Roughly the target age for Fantasyland (not saying I don't still love Fantasyland, but I love it b/c it makes me feel like I'm 6). I only became interested in BatB and Little Mermaid when I was a pre-teen and realized girls were actually okay.

Look at the rides currently in Fantasyland. Peter Pan is boy friendly, as is Pooh and PhilharMagic. Snow White wouldn't be if it weren't for the fact that they barely even show Snow White. It's more about the witch. Spinning rides that can make you vomit are boy friendly. "it's a small world" is a friend to no one. And there is your land. I think that is the inherent problem with the original FLE--it wasn't very family friendly, which most of the other rides in the Magic Kingdom are. There are not very many families that ONLY have little girls, so it was a design flaw. Snow White worked for my family b/c my sisters liked Snow White and my brother and I liked the evil trees, gators, and the Evil Queen (getting gloriously struck by lightning, I might add). I would have had no use for dancing princesses.

 

[UberPlannerMom]

I always preferred the movies with male leads when I was a little kid. Beauty and the Beast made me go "ick!" (except for when Beast was around and roaring) and I was 6 when it came out. Roughly the target age for Fantasyland (not saying I don't still love Fantasyland, but I love it b/c it makes me feel like I'm 6). I only became interested in BatB and Little Mermaid when I was a pre-teen and realized girls were actually okay.

You are making me feel like my 4 year old is advanced in a few areas that make me uncomfortable... cause he asked for a princess meal this trip so he can kiss the pretty girls. :lookaroun

 

[David S.]

I think it's important to note that a vast number (likely a majority) of visitors to WDW are not quite the Disney fanatics that many that frequent these forums are.

Therefore, when it comes to attractions, there are a huge number of park goers who will have absolutely no idea who Casey Jr is. In fact, there are going to be a huge number that likely have never seen many of the older films or are in any way familiar with all of the Disney minutia that so many here obsess over.

I count myself among this group. I'm a theme park enthusiast - I have a love of WDW because (1) it is still the premier theme park resort, as a whole, in the world and (2) I have extremely fond memories of my visits there with my family as I grew up. Aside from Bambi and Beauty and the Beast, I had never seen the vast majority of the Disney catalog of movies until I had children. I've still never seen Dumbo or Pinocchio and, frankly, have no real compelling interest to do so.

So what the hell am I getting at? What I'm getting at is that any new attractions need to be appealing to, and resonant with, even the most casual guests. Unless it's an extremely well known Disney character or property - either through a film/show or an existing park attraction - there's no way they are going to create something major around it. Anyone clamoring for a Casey Jr ride needs to ask themselves who the heck even knows that character? Until I started frequenting these boards, I sure as heck didn't.

A Casey Jr. quick service spot, on the other hand, makes perfect sense. It's something that no one really needs to understand but fits in with the Dumbo theme and is a nice nod to the Disney fanatic who will likely wet their pants about it and then go buy more DVC points or book a Disney cruise while ramming a Dole Whip in their face.

I'm sorry you have no interest in Dumbo and Pinocchio because they are two of the greatest films ever made, IMO (not just among animated films, but ANY films!) And despite how they may at times be marketed, they are FAR from "kiddie films", and watching the "Making Ofs" and listening to the commentary tracks on their DVDs clearly illustrates this. I give them both my HIGHEST recommendation!

Just because you apparently aren't a big Disney animation fan, a lot of people know and love these characters, even in the mainstream! (especially children and the young at heart, who are among the biggest fans of Fantasyland.)

Pinocchio was released on DVD and BD as recently as 2009 as part of Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment's "Platinum Edition" series, and it sold well. The Platinum series consisted of the 13 Animated Classics that were chosen for the product line by virtue of being the 13 biggest sellers on home video among the animated classics. Other Disney Animated Classics (DAC's) released as part of that line were (in order of original theatrical release) Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Pinocchio, Bambi, Cinderella, Peter Pan, Lady and the Tramp, Sleeping Beauty, 101 Dalmatians, The Jungle Book, The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, and The Kion King.

So I think you underestimate the impact and awareness of Pinocchio, including among the general public!

As for Casey Junior, his film, Dumbo, has always been a strong seller on home video as well, and narrowly missed being a part of the Platinums. Dumbo is being re-released in the US on DVD and BD in 2011 (it's already out in most of the world), which would be perfect timing for awareness of the characters from that film to be peaking when the FLE opens - even among children and their families who are more "mainstream" and less "hardcore" in their Disney knowledge!

 

[Grizzly Hall 71]

OK here- I am very confused about the whole Alice is so boyish thing. I mean you think a talking catepillar, who turns into a butterfly by the way, is boyish? And a queen who shouts off with her head while her king is a bumbling idiot is boyish? Sounds more like an overly strong girl in there. How about those playing card soldiers... who paint flowers? Speaking of flowers let's not forget the scene with the singing flowers. Are there some male things in the movie? Yep. Are there more than in say Beauty and the Beast? No. Sorry, there just isn't. And it definitely isn't more male than Peter Pan. Come on people... the reason pan is so often played by a woman is because a boying woman looks a lot more like a boy who never grew up than any man does! Muscles and chest hair kind of give a guy away as having grown up.... so does a beer paunch for that matter!

As for some of those things you think aren't thrilling Grizzly... did you ever actually watch those movies?

I mean, did you miss the whole second half of Pinocchio? The escape from Pleasure Island and being eaten by a whale before setting most of the raft on fire in order to be sneezed out which results in huge crazy waves seems pretty thrilling to me! Actually if they ever decided to redo Splash Mountain (due to the NAACP I am sure) then I could see them doing the inside scenes as that of the story of Pinocchio and then the final drop being the sneeze! I don't want them to change it I am just saying it would probably work.

And Sword in the Stone is filled with a great many exciting scenes. I love the scenes where they are fish or birds. Actually, I wouldn't mind a small coaster based upon being a bird in the movie ( a retheme of barnstormer perhaps)... So much of Sword in the Stone is wonderful. And my son agrees with me!

To the person who brought up the Black Cauldron... would it surprise you to learn that that is one of my 4 year olds favorite movies? Odd right? There is something about a little boy being the main protagonist that sits well with him (which also applies to Sword in the Stone.) Add in a magical pig and he is all over it! :lol:

Pinnochio wouldn't fit the theme of Frontierland.

And yes I have and no those scenes weren't thrilling. It's a Disney movie, it was going to end happy regardless! That's the thing boys oust Disney because of this stuff. Sure Alice may not be boy centric but a ride is going to appeal to either gender because they are rides.

Alice is an aspirational and thrilling tale. I put money that's the new ride.

 

[lebeau]

And yes I have and no those scenes weren't thrilling. It's a Disney movie, it was going to end happy regardless! That's the thing boys oust Disney because of this stuff.

Yes, and most movies that appeal to boys usually end so tragically...

 

[ToTBellHop]

Pinnochio wouldn't fit the theme of Frontierland.

And yes I have and no those scenes weren't thrilling. It's a Disney movie, it was going to end happy regardless! That's the thing boys oust Disney because of this stuff. Sure Alice may not be boy centric but a ride is going to appeal to either gender because they are rides.

Alice is an aspirational and thrilling tale. I put money that's the new ride.

It's too bad you will have reached 1000 posts before Disney announces what the new ride (s) is/are, so you won't be able to come on here to gloat if AiW is truly the ride. You are placing far too much of your own pride in what Disney will build. This is just a discussion of possibilities. It almost sounds as though you are completely obsessed with AiW and have been devastated by the fact that the franchise is largely ignored at WDW outside of a simpe tea cup ride (which ignores the film's lead and focuses, instead, on the boy-friendly Mad Hatter and March Hare).

And boys like Shrek and most of the Pixar films. All of them end "happily ever after," which is fine. What is important is that there is a lot of excitement during the films. Ending a film happily is simply a mark of a family-friendly film. Imagine the car ride home if Quasimodo had actually died like he's supposed to (based upon the book)...

 

[tman2000]

I thought the princess and the frog was well animated, and the premise was nice, it was just horribly executed.

I mean, Prince Naveen just sort of decided out of the blue that he was in love with Tiana.

Look at Aladdin: there were three or four slower-paced 'character development' scenes to really show he and Jasmine 'should' be in love. And not that it was believable anyway.

I'm not trying to judge a kids movie by adult standards, but quality is quality when it comes to storytelling. P&F just didn't have it. I was barely aware of who shadow man was and why he did what he did.

Contrast with Jafar who suffered an insufferable sultan as his boss at least in a scene or two.

Disney keeps looking for a magic bullet. I think films like Enchanted are good places to start, but they need to get in touch with feel good quality again. Like Pixar (and Enchanted even).

They should stop it with the marketing mentality (treasure planet, Lilo and stitch, Atlantis). I liked those films, but they weren't very good in comparison to the classics.

It's hard to make good quality stuff, but money and resources should go towards quality and not gimmicks. Shrek 1 had 'soul' and the awful sequels have been riding off that.

So, concerning FLE, I think all that really can be done is to use it as vehicle to relaunch old classics, not new gimmicks

I'd much rather see a beautifully modern animated Cinderella with a new musical score and themes a little more grown up and modern, while rejecting the modern a bit - than some new tinkerbell backpack and pajamas seller.

Disney would make more money in the long run by maintaining a lead in the industry if they focused on quality at the loss of a year or two of 'pajamas profits'.

Parents will say: "Yeah, we saw Megamind instead of XXXXXXX Disney film, two years later we only watch the XXXXXXX DVD and can't wait to meet X at MK."

 

[UberPlannerMom]

Pinnochio wouldn't fit the theme of Frontierland.

Honestly, Song of the SOUTH isn't right for frontierland either, but we all suspend our disbelief and just enjoy it for what it is!

 

[ToTBellHop]

Honestly, Song of the SOUTH isn't right for frontierland either, but we all suspend our disbelief and just enjoy it for what it is!

Very true. In general, fantastic attractions are always right at home in my book. The Tower of Terror didn't REALLY fit into the 1994 Disney-MGM Studios based upon making movies, but we let it slide b/c the ride was fantastic. Is it truly a haunted hotel or is it a movie set for a thriller? Who knows or cares? It's a fantastic ride.

 

[David S.]

I still don't understand the obsession with Matterhorn and never will. First, by current standards that ride is cheesy as hell. Second, we already have a modern version of it called Expedition Everest. So please, never mention the Matterhorn again.

I LOVE the Matterhorn, and while the theming is similar to Everest, as a coaster enthusiast, the FEEL of the ride is literally as different as night and day! And I like it for my taste much more than "modern" loop-oriented coasters like Kraken and Kumba. I LIKE my coasters on the rough side, it doesn't have those restrictive shoulder harnesses, and it has a perfect inversion count of ZERO! For me, Matterhorn = Good Times!

We'll probably end up with some Pooh stupidity which only really appeals to pre-verbal toddlers.

Pooh is one of my favorite movies and sets of characters, and I'm far from a pre-verbal toddler! It's cute and charming and appeals both to the young AND young at heart. I know plenty of adults who love Pooh! There's even been philosophy books written using the characters to explain things! (The Tao Of Pooh and The Te Of Piglet)

That said, since Pooh already has a really solid dark ride, I'd rather get the Alice dark ride and/or the Pinocchio dark ride (which seems less likely based on the clues.

As for others who are saying Alice is too "girly", I disagree. She isn't as "girly" as the princesses, and I enjoy the princess movies and I'm a male!

Much of the appeal of Alice comes from the madcap and colorful supporting characters, which to me are neither overtly "male" or "female" in their appeal, therefore making them something EVERYONE can enjoy! (even those with an aversion to things "girly" or "butch")

 

[_Scar]

I thought the princess and the frog was well animated, and the premise was nice, it was just horribly executed.


I mean, Prince Naveen just sort of decided out of the blue that he was in love with Tiana.

Look at Aladdin: there were three or four slower-paced 'character development' scenes to really show he and Jasmine 'should' be in love. And not that it was believable anyway.

I'm not trying to judge a kids movie by adult standards, but quality is quality when it comes to storytelling. P&F just didn't have it. I was barely aware of who shadow man was and why he did what he did.

Contrast with Jafar who suffered an insufferable sultan as his boss at least in a scene or two.

Disney keeps looking for a magic bullet. I think films like Enchanted are good places to start, but they need to get in touch with feel good quality again. Like Pixar (and Enchanted even).

They should stop it with the marketing mentality (treasure planet, Lilo and stitch, Atlantis). I liked those films, but they weren't very good in comparison to the classics.

It's hard to make good quality stuff, but money and resources should go towards quality and not gimmicks. Shrek 1 had 'soul' and the awful sequels have been riding off that.

So, concerning FLE, I think all that really can be done is to use it as vehicle to relaunch old classics, not new gimmicks

I'd much rather see a beautifully modern animated Cinderella with a new musical score and themes a little more grown up and modern, while rejecting the modern a bit - than some new tinkerbell backpack and pajamas seller.

Disney would make more money in the long run by maintaining a lead in the industry if they focused on quality at the loss of a year or two of 'pajamas profits'.

Parents will say: "Yeah, we saw Megamind instead of XXXXXXX Disney film, two years later we only watch the XXXXXXX DVD and can't wait to meet X at MK."

It was not executed well? What? The movie that is Time's movie of the year? What? It's a critically acclaimed movie.

Naveen falls in love with Tiana after he realizes she's everything he ever wanted. Especially after he sees how passionate she is about working for her dream.

Should be in love? Or almost exactly the opposite? Did you watch Aladdin?

Facilier did it for the power. He had his own song sequence. IMO the best song of the movie. How did you forget about him?

Both Jafar and Facilier (and Scar, Radcliffe, Shan-Yu) want power. Facilier is a poor man.

Because PatF wasn't a feel good? I mean, opinions aside, how do you not see it was a feel good animated movie?

Marketing mentality? Atlantis and Stitch in the same category? Not quite getting what you're trying to say here. Atlantis was not marketable at all. Stitch is. There's a reason why you see Stitch across the world. People love him.

Pixar has been doing quality for over a decade and making a ton. They also helped Princess and the Frog's storlyine.

Relaunch old classics? If they're really classics (which they are) it will be mighty hard for them to be forgotten.

So, let me get this straight, you want them to reanimate Cinderella instead of moving forward with new projects? BTW, Cinderella is one of the most beautifully animated movies ever. They should not try and redo it whatsoever.

They have and are maintaining a led in the industry and within the past year there has been consistent quality starting from Bolt. And WDC doesn't need to worry about its financial situation.

Megamind looks like the stupidest movie ever. So do most Dreamworks films imo