The Miscellaneous Thought Thread

Rich T

Well-Known Member
There really is no cohesion to the land. What do Peter Pan, Rapunzel, and Anna and Elsa have in common other than being popular Disney characters with the Japanese? The land has no focus and exists solely to introduce major IP's into Disney Sea.
But one could say the exact same about any Castle park’s Fantasyland. The connecting theme is proximity to water, and the land is located where it doesn’t detract at all from the rest of the park. If any guest has no interest in animated IPs, they can ignore it completely.

The park already has a Little Mermaid land, Toy Story Mania, Finding Nemo and Aladdin attractions, and its own original cartoon characters in the Sinbad ride. Nothing is being broken.

Honestly, I think this looks amazing. The only downside I can think of is if it leads to reskinning classic TDS rides with animated characters in the future (as has been done with Nemo, but the original Stormrider was not a well-liked ride). That would a shame. But there are far worse things that can happen to a park than having a beautiful new land based on three popular animated films opening in a previously unused area in order to add capacity. This is no awful Dino-Rama or Pixar Pier, and it blows MK’s underwhelming “New Fantasyland” out of the… water.
 
Last edited:

Rich T

Well-Known Member
Fantasyland is a Bavarian village…
Except when it’s Wonderland, Storybookland, or Small World Mall (whatever it’s called). There’s a classic American Carousel in the center… right by that sword in the anvil… And, cool, an American Circus from the 1930’s has rolled into town. Honk honk goes the monorail as it cruises over what used to be Extra Autopia and Motorboat Snooze.

And I mean this all as a compliment: I ADORE DL’s Fantasyland. 😃 It is fun and charming beyond belief!

I don’t like Fantasy Springs as much as DL FL from what I can see, but I do like it. I mean, man… this is so far, far away from stinking… 😃
 

mickEblu

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
But wouldn't the overarching theme of the land just be "fantasy" like FL, with each of the sections/areas just being mini-lands within that overarching theme?

I think the difference is Fantasyland fits perfectly within the context of Disneyland. Fantasy Springs at TDS not so much
 

Disney Irish

Premium Member
I think the difference is Fantasyland fits perfectly within the context of Disneyland. Fantasy Springs at TDS not so much
My honest opinion the only reason why we're ok with FL in any castle park is because its tradition, and has a huge nostalgia factor. But if it was being done today I honestly believe many would have an issue with it, especially about the IP.

Anyways I don't see how it doesn't work, especially since all the properties being used have a connection to the water or sea in one way or another. Making it fit within the context of the park.
 

mickEblu

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
My honest opinion the only reason why we're ok with FL in any castle park is because its tradition, and has a huge nostalgia factor. But if it was being done today I honestly believe many would have an issue with it, especially about the IP.

I don't see how it doesn't work, especially since all the properties being used have a connection to the water or sea in one way or another. Making it fit within the context of the park.

While I agree that can certainly be a factor when it comes to certain subjects I disagree it has anything to do with this. The original lands at Disneyland consisted of portals to lands that contained broad themes. As far as aesthetics, the land went from medieval to a Bavarian village theme but it’s always been mostly consistent with a few exceptions that get a pass for being in a land called “Fantasy” Land.

Anyway, don’t get me wrong Fantasy Springs coming to DL Forward would almost be a best case scenario IMO when you consider what other likely candidates are out there.
 

Disney Irish

Premium Member
While I agree that can certainly be a factor when it comes to certain subjects I disagree it has anything to do with this. The original lands at Disneyland consisted of portals to lands that contained broad themes. As far as aesthetics, the land went from medieval to a Bavarian village theme but it’s always been mostly consistent with a few exceptions that get a pass for being in a land called “Fantasy” Land.

Anyway, don’t get me wrong Fantasy Springs coming to DL Forward would almost be a best case scenario IMO when you consider what other likely candidates are out there.
I've never been, but I just don't see how this is really any different. As Fantasy Springs is a portal into a land with this broad theme of "Fantasy" with mini-lands that take guests further into those stories. All within the context of the Park's overarching theme of water/nautical/etc. Anyways just my opinion.

I would hope if they bring this here it would be with variations in IP and look/feel, though Frozen is probably a given.
 

Consumer

Well-Known Member
My honest opinion the only reason why we're ok with FL in any castle park is because its tradition, and has a huge nostalgia factor. But if it was being done today I honestly believe many would have an issue with it, especially about the IP.

Anyways I don't see how it doesn't work, especially since all the properties being used have a connection to the water or sea in one way or another. Making it fit within the context of the park.
Peter Pan I can accept easily, and maybe Arendelle as it sits on a fjord, but I have a harder time accepting Tangled, even though the kingdom sits on an island.

Reading the Disney Parks Blog post, the impression I'm getting is that this a magical spring that serves as a portal to other worlds, similar to the Wood Between the Worlds in Narnia. If that's right, that definitely makes a lot more sense and is far easier to understand, even if it is a little contrived.
 

Rich T

Well-Known Member
I think the difference is Fantasyland fits perfectly within the context of Disneyland. Fantasy Springs at TDS not so much
I would say DL’s Fantasyland fits perfectly to us because that’s what DL’s Fsntasyland IS. We’ve always known it like this (except for those of us who also knew the original Medieval Tournament version), and so it feels comfortable and wonderful.

If you just think of the Mt. Prometheus lagoon main body of TDS, Fantasy Springs is a jarring contrast… BUT, the park is also the hyper-cartoony Mermaid Lagoon and Mysterious Isand’s steampunk hideaway. FS definitely pushes at the boundaries of what DisneySea, as a whole, is. But it is playing by the park’s theme-rules, and I have a feeling the new addition will thrive and soon feel like it’s always been there.

Or not. 😄 But I like what I’m seeing (truth be told, I’d gladly have omitted Tangled and replaced it with Moana).
 
Last edited:

mickEblu

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
My honest opinion the only reason why we're ok with FL in any castle park is because its tradition, and has a huge nostalgia factor. But if it was being done today I honestly believe many would have an issue with it, especially about the IP.

This take brings up an interesting conversation because there are a few factors at play. When Fantasyland opened in 1955 it was an original and had been never been done before. If an exact copy of DL’s Fantasyland were to open at another park today it would be viewed with a different lens obviously but people wouldn’t have an issue with the fact that there was multiple IP as long as the land was called Fantasyland at a castle park. Or in other words a land with a broad theme and unifying aesthetic that fit within the context of the park it’s in.

If an exact copy of DL’s Fantasyland were to open at a castle at a park today (assuming it’s even possible) with modern IP replacing the dark and flat rides I think it would be huge hit. Maybe not right out the gate as people would be expecting at least one huge E ticket but once the dust settles I have no doubt it would be one of the most packed places in the park. A 1983 Fantasyland with modern IP would be the best land the company has built in years. Adding one E ticket would take it over the top.
 

Disney Irish

Premium Member
This take brings up an interesting conversation because there are a few factors at play. When Fantasyland opened in 1955 it was an original and had been never been done before. If an exact copy of DL’s Fantasyland were to open at another park today it would be viewed with a different lens obviously but people wouldn’t have an issue with the fact that there was multiple IP as long as the land was called Fantasyland at a castle park. Or in other words a land with a broad theme and unifying aesthetic that fit within the context of the park it’s in.

If an exact copy of DL’s Fantasyland were to open at a castle at a park today (assuming it’s even possible) with modern IP replacing the dark and flat rides I think it would be huge hit. Maybe not right out the gate as people would be expecting at least one huge E ticket but once the dust settles I have no doubt it would be one of the most packed places in the park. A 1983 Fantasyland with modern IP would be the best land the company has built in years. Adding one E ticket would take it over the top.
I have no doubt it would be a hit with the general public. But I'm talking about the Parks fans on sites like this who complain at the drop of a hat about nothing original anytime anything new involving IP being added to the Parks is brought up.
 

mickEblu

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
I have no doubt it would be a hit with the general public. But I'm talking about the Parks fans on sites like this who complain at the drop of a hat about nothing original anytime anything new involving IP being added to the Parks is brought up.

I disagree as long as it’s part of Fantasyland at a castle park. It’s part of the brand and expectation. Did we expect a single IP Fantasyland when it opened at Shanghai 8 years ago?
 

Disney Irish

Premium Member
I disagree as long as it’s part of Fantasyland at a castle park. It’s part of the brand and expectation.
Sure no fans would complain....

But by that extension modern guests really have the same expectation for any land in any Disney Park. They expect to see Disney IP within every land, not just FL. But I digress as we've moved beyond what we were talking about.
 

Consumer

Well-Known Member
I believe Fantasy Springs fits TDS better than Pandora fits Animal kingdom, better than Galaxy’s Edge fits Disneyland, and better than Pixar Pier and Avenger’s Campus fit DCA… or Planet Earth for that matter…
Probably. But my complaint isn’t “does it fit the theme?” and more just “what is the theme?” Yes, they’re all fantasy IPs, but is that the only tying thread?
 

mickEblu

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
I would say DL’s Fantasyland fits perfectly to us because that’s what DL’s Fsntasyland IS. We’ve always known it like this (except for those of us who also knew the original Medieval Tournament version), and so it feels comfortable and wonderful.

If you just think of the Mt. Prometheus lagoon main body of TDS, Fantasy Springs is a jarring contrast… BUT, the park is also the hyper-cartoony Mermaid Lagoon and Mysterious Isand’s steampunk hideaway. FS definitely pushes at the boundaries of what DisneySea, as a whole, is. But it is playing by the park’s theme-rules, and I have a feeling the new addition will thrive and soon feel like it’s always been there.

Or not. 😄 But I like what I’m seeing (truth be told, I’d gladly have omitted Tangled and replaced it with Moana).

So nothing to do with the fact that the original and majority of lands at Disneyland are basically portals to lands that are broadly themed and "Fantasy" is a broad theme where the chosen IP work perfectly fine? The fact that that it has a unifying Bavarian Village aesthetic is just icing on the cake.

So you disagree that Fantasyland works much better in the context of Disneyland than Fantasy Springs does at TDS? That's the point I was making. I wasn't saying TDS pre- FantasySprings is perfect in that regard. When I read Consumers original post the first two things I thought of was Mermaid Lagoon (which I believe opened with the park) and the big Woody Face. To @Consumer s point, Fantasy Springs is the biggest departure yet. Woody Face is part of an attraction that makes sense on American waterfront even if it was placed for the same reasons as the Fantasy Springs IP. Can we start saying FS yet? Im tired of typing it out. And Mermaid Lagoon, as cartoony as it is, is at least one clear theme. A Fantasyland with the three different aesthetics just comes across very clearly as a way to get more IP into the park without much thought about what the theme is or how it ties into the rest of the park.

Anyway, I don't think it's big deal as I prioritize fun, whimsy and aesthetics over hyperrealism or ironclad thematic integrity 10 times out of 10. It helps that I like all three of the IP they chose too.
 

Rich T

Well-Known Member
Probably. But my complaint isn’t “does it fit the theme?” and more just “what is the theme?” Yes, they’re all fantasy IPs, but is that the only tying thread?
The Theme: Animated films that are associated with ships and harbors (Tangled is a stretch there, for sure).
 

mickEblu

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
The Theme: Animated films that are associated with ships and harbors (Tangled is a stretch there, for sure).

Not sure that says more about me or the choice they made but I didn't even make that connection. “These” movies have boats" is a pretty weak unifying theme. lol.
 
Last edited:

Rich T

Well-Known Member
So nothing to do with the fact that the original and majority of lands at Disneyland are basically portals to lands that are broadly themed and "Fantasy" is a broad theme where the chosen IP work perfectly fine? The fact that that it has a unifying Bavarian Village aesthetic is just icing on the cake.
I’m looking at this from the other end: Can you imagine the reaction of park fans if Disney opened DLFL today, for the first time, as this crazy hodgepodge of elements that objectively barely fit together at all? We love it because it’s *Disneyland* to us and always has been. We accept the Monorail rumbling past Alice in Wonderland because that’s part of what Disneyland IS. Immersion Schmimersion—We’re in DL.

And remember that Fantasyland opened in 1955 featuring the Mickey Mouse Club. Because it was important to Walt to promote the tv show.
… So you disagree that Fantasyland works much better in the context of Disneyland than Fantasy Springs does at TDS? That's the point I was making….
No, I think DL’s Fantasyland works spectacularly well: It’s a big, crazy, wonderful kaleidoscope of so many fun experiences, sights and sounds from Disney animated classics—and guest appearances by a Swiss mountain and the 1964 World’s Fair—that, like Pinocchio becoming real, has become it’s Own Thing. There is no place on Earth like DLFL.

MK’s FL, by comparison, is dull as dirt (with some very nice individual elements).

I do think Fantasy Springs will be a huge plus for TDS, and ten years out people won’t be able to imagine the park without it, and the question of “does it fit” won’t matter, because it will have become a part of TDS’s identity.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom