The Spirited 11th Hour ...

[wdisney9000]

And which one of those things is it not? It is your expectations that make it less then you think it should be. And, for heavens sake, what the hell difference does it make if Mermaid is a Clone? If you haven't traveled to California to experience it, it is better then fine and only some wild, out of the butt theory/ridiculous secret desire, makes the clone part have any negativity at all. If you look around you, especially in Fantasyland all you see are clones. Well, except 7DMT, but, that isn't scary enough to get ones adrenaline pumping, so it's not good enough. I know we are talking about Fantasyland, but, for just a moment let's get real!

Im talking about Staggs saying "more ineractive and more immersive than ever before". How can that be true if two of the three rides in NFL are something weve already seen?

 

[Mike S]

No, but the entire forest area, leading up to the cottage, the magic mirror, the well-done AAs, they are more interactive and immersive than Disney had previously done, at least in it's US parks (I say this because I have no personal experience outside of the US parks).

No, though it does help with capacity, and the water is nice, but the fact that it exists in it's own Circus Themed mini-land sure is pretty immersive. The tent waiting area is more interactive than a queue had been previously. The new train station, water area, all of this placemaking is far beyond what had previously been done for any Dumbo attraction, or Fantasyland attraction.


The fact that it is a clone (of the inside ride experience, not of the entire attraction) has no bearing on it's quality. It is by leaps and bounds the best, most immersive Fantasyland-style dark ride (again, knowingly speaking only of US parks because YouTube is not equivalent, so I have no experience based facts to judge against). The entire area surrounding it is both immersive and interactive as well. Interactive queue elements, fully immersed in the story of Little Mermaid from the moment you walk to the area.
Of course, this doesn't count the interesting (and short) mix of family coaster with dark-ride elements that add another entire element to Fantasyland.


In my opinion, the claims they made were a bit overhyped for what ended up, but not massively so. My personal expectations going into New Fanstasyland were met quite well. Yours seemingly where not. Either way I dont blaim(?) anything on setting massively unrealized expectations. They added a large footprint of enjoyable attractions, dining, shopping, and place-making to Fantasyland. They did so in immersive and interactive ways, much more so than what existed in Fantasyland previously.

I realize that there is a large group of people that did not like New Fantasyland because of personal reasons, they don't have young children, they wanted a longer roller-coaster, they like what Comcast did up the street better. That is fine, opinions are ok. But to say that they didn't deliver anything to back feels very incorrect to me.

Even just considering the US parks I'd put Alice in Wonderland way above Mermaid.

The last paragraph says it all.... "I'm not going to sit through a kids show voluntarily... I'd rather it have been a dark ride". This is all about you isn't it. The devil to the kids... you want it to be different! To bad... life isn't like that and you are not the majority, so, what you see is what you get.

And kids wouldn't have enjoyed a dark ride better as well?

 

[Disneyhead'71]

And which one of those things is it not? It is your expectations that make it less then you think it should be. And, for heavens sake, what the hell difference does it make if Mermaid is a Clone? If you haven't traveled to California to experience it, it is better then fine and only some wild, out of the butt theory/ridiculous secret desire, makes the clone part have any negativity at all. If you look around you, especially in Fantasyland all you see are clones. Well, except 7DMT, but, that isn't scary enough to get ones adrenaline pumping, so it's not good enough. I know we are talking about Fantasyland, but, for just a moment let's get real!

OK, for the 7000th time, no one is saying the 7DMT isn't scary enough. "Too short" does not equal "needs 7 loops and a launch".

 

[wdisney9000]

To bad... life isn't like that and you are not the majority, so, what you see is what you get.

This isnt life, its a fantasy based theme park. I do agree with "what you see is what you get" and you obviously dont mind being told your going to see one thing, bu are presented with something far less. Its too bad you excuse and defend such behavior because thats the very reason that Disney will continue to do whatever is "good enough", because they know it will be defended.

 

[MKCP 1985]

Why would anyone expect an (E ticket) type ride in Fantasyland? The majority of it's audience are just as happy with something that goes around in circles. Yes, it is for the whole family, but, to clarify MK is for the whole family, not each land. There is something in MK for everyone INCLUDING children. WDW isn't just for adults either.

Spoiler

I always feel the need to repeat that there is no such thing as an "E Ticket" ride anymore. And even if there was, we, the guest, didn't assign that label when it did exist. A quality ride that people like now determines what is considered a draw. If anyone can look at the line at 7DMT and say that it doesn't fit that description is just letting their desires outweigh reality. With just a little thought it should be obvious that if "E" did still exist, Disney would be calling it an "E" because of the extra income it would generate.

In your post, the definition of "E-Ticket" seems to vary from "thrill ride" (as in, why expect a "thrill ride" in Fantasyland?) to "income generator" such as 7 Dwarfs Mine Train - and "Its a Small World" was an E-ticket, to prove your point as it is no thrill ride by modern definition. http://www.yesterland.com/abcde.html

So to answer the question of why not to have an E-Ticket type thrill ride in Fantasyland? My answer would be "because each time a thrill ride has been added at the Magic Kingdom, it improved the park experience for many people. Space Mountain was added to Tomorrowland. Big Thunder and later Splash Mountain were added to Frontierland. At Disneyland, Indiana Jones was added to Adventureland. None of those were opening day attractions and all are without question some of the most popular attractions at either park.

Now, to tie this into the SPIRIT of the thread and not be argument simply for argument's sake, I would say most everyone who visits the Magic Kingdom spends some time in Fantasyland and not just the crowd content to go in circles. If the new leadership of the Imagineering department might be tasked with considering new Fantasyland attractions to be added years from now, I would be hopeful and optimistic that the voice of Walt Disney World fans who want more than to go in circles might be heard and a thematically appropriate attraction might be considered.

Just because some might view the Fantasyland area of the Magic Kingdom as having been the equivalent of the petting zoo to the entire zoo for the past almost-50 years doesn't mean it has to be that way forever.

 

[Disneyhead'71]

Fantasyland had 2 E-Tickets on opening day (IASW and 20K Leagues). Neither were/are "thrill" rides.

 

[ford91exploder]

OK, for the 7000th time, no one is saying the 7DMT isn't scary enough. "Too short" does not equal "needs 7 loops and a launch".

Exactly - Too short means ride needs to be longer with 2-3 additional show scenes. It was never MEANT to be an extreme coaster it was supposed to be a ride through the Dwarfs mine

 

[sshindel]

Even just considering the US parks I'd put Alice in Wonderland way above Mermaid.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Alice in Wonderland use static "Animated Figures" instead of animatronics?

I'm not saying one is better than the other, mostly because it has been quite some time since I've been on it I wanted to clarify. I guess I could not be lazy and go out and watch the YouTube, but work meetings and all that...

While Mermaid does indeed have some static figures, it also has some of the more complicated animatronic figures that Disney has made in a while (which is also a commentary on the quality of the figures Disney had been putting out for quite some time).

 

[wdisney9000]

Exactly - Too short means ride needs to be longer with 2-3 additional show scenes. It was never MEANT to be an extreme coaster it was supposed to be a ride through the Dwarfs mine

I thought 7DMT was a "re-telling" of the story form the dwarves point of view? After riding many times, Im still not sure what their point of view is.

 

[Cesar R M]

How many times did Disney remind everybody that this was the largest expansion in MK history? Even though they never called it "potter swatter", you can bet your bottom dollar they thought it would be enough to compete. And Beasts castle is the absolute worst execution of forced perspective I have ever seen. I dont even think it qualifies. Heres A comment from Staggs for the press release of NFL:

"We’re thrilled to take guests beyond the walls of Cinderella Castle to discover new worlds featuring iconic Disney characters and stories in ways that are more imaginative, more interactive and more immersive than ever before.” -

What exactly in NFL more "interactive and immersive" than ever before? The cardboard cutouts that parents hold up in Belles Cottage? The SECOND spinner for Dumbo? The CLONE of Litlle Mermaid? In your opinion, is it ok for them to make such claims without anything to back it up? Im not saying NFL is bad. But you cant honestly say that they did not severely over-hype it. You cant blaim its short comings on high fan expectations.

Maybe they mean the new interactive queues?
Theres a lot of toys, games..etc.. but not that I would call fully "interactive" (compared to.. say.. the Potter wands)

 

[StageFrenzy]

I thought 7DMT was a "re-telling" of the story form the dwarves point of view? After riding many times, Im still not sure what their point of view is.

Their point of view is short.

 

[Mike S]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Alice in Wonderland use static "Animated Figures" instead of animatronics?

I'm not saying one is better than the other, mostly because it has been quite some time since I've been on it I wanted to clarify. I guess I could not be lazy and go out and watch the YouTube, but work meetings and all that...

While Mermaid does indeed have some static figures, it also has some of the more complicated animatronic figures that Disney has made in a while (which is also a commentary on the quality of the figures Disney had been putting out for quite some time).

Mermaid definitely has better AA's but where it fails is in the pacing and in some places set design. All the exposed lighting in the load area and final scene, the exposed parts of Under the Sea which are still pretty visible (I don't know why but I remember the added black lights being much more effective when I saw them in Disneyland) and even the entrance to Ursalas lair where no attempt was made to hide anything. Finally the rushed ending after leaving her lair. All these things work against it.

I thought 7DMT was a "re-telling" of the story form the dwarves point of view? After riding many times, Im still not sure what their point of view is.

That's probably what it was when it was still the green track version.

 

[Cesar R M]

No, but the entire forest area, leading up to the cottage, the magic mirror, the well-done AAs, they are more interactive and immersive than Disney had previously done, at least in it's US parks (I say this because I have no personal experience outside of the US parks).

No, though it does help with capacity, and the water is nice, but the fact that it exists in it's own Circus Themed mini-land sure is pretty immersive. The tent waiting area is more interactive than a queue had been previously. The new train station, water area, all of this placemaking is far beyond what had previously been done for any Dumbo attraction, or Fantasyland attraction.


The fact that it is a clone (of the inside ride experience, not of the entire attraction) has no bearing on it's quality. It is by leaps and bounds the best, most immersive Fantasyland-style dark ride (again, knowingly speaking only of US parks because YouTube is not equivalent, so I have no experience based facts to judge against). The entire area surrounding it is both immersive and interactive as well. Interactive queue elements, fully immersed in the story of Little Mermaid from the moment you walk to the area.
Of course, this doesn't count the interesting (and short) mix of family coaster with dark-ride elements that add another entire element to Fantasyland.


In my opinion, the claims they made were a bit overhyped for what ended up, but not massively so. My personal expectations going into New Fanstasyland were met quite well. Yours seemingly where not. Either way I dont blaim(?) anything on setting massively unrealized expectations. They added a large footprint of enjoyable attractions, dining, shopping, and place-making to Fantasyland. They did so in immersive and interactive ways, much more so than what existed in Fantasyland previously.

I realize that there is a large group of people that did not like New Fantasyland because of personal reasons, they don't have young children, they wanted a longer roller-coaster, they like what Comcast did up the street better. That is fine, opinions are ok. But to say that they didn't deliver anything to back feels very incorrect to me.

This post almost read like a PR made by Disney Parks

Just saying, what interactive parts are in the Little Mermaid queue?
The AA bird?

 

[Cesar R M]

I just quoted this part to save space. You make fair points and I dont disagree. NFL is nice, I enjoy it or what it is. Im glad they built it. I was speaking more about how I truly thought Disney would unveil something better, thats all. Considering how long the entire project took, I really thought we would be in for something half as good as they were hyping. I went in with reasonable expectations. I left feeling it was a nice addition, but nothing more. Our first time seeing it we rode Little Mermaid, looked around the circus for about 20 minutes and we were done. Nothing in NFL makes me want to go there as soon as we enter MK. For being the biggest expansion in its history, it should have that "something", but it does not (for me at least). I quoted @Goofyernmost to reply that I did indeed feel they over hyped and under delivered. FWIW, I have yet to visit Potter at Uni and am in no rush. However, just from looking at videos/pictures and considering budget, time frame, theme and immersiveness...I think they beat disney at their game. They beat them to a bloody pulp

You really need to get to Uni.
I was skeptic at first but yeah, both whole areas are fantastic!

 

[AEfx]

This was and continues to be a terrible idea.

That article just highlights the absolute silliness of the objections to the whole matter - from the framing of the post as "oh we are taking away natives lands!" to the fact that it doesn't seem aware that it's basically proving the point when it lists each thing that is going when so much of it has been derelict, unused, and/or unseen for years. Disneyland is not a museum. If Walt had lived this stuff would have been razed many years ago. He knew a little about this thing called "progress"...

 

[The Empress Lilly]

The last paragraph says it all.... "I'm not going to sit through a kids show voluntarily... I'd rather it have been a dark ride". This is all about you isn't it. The devil to the kids... you want it to be different! To bad... life isn't like that and you are not the majority, so, what you see is what you get.

How many 'kids only' attractions did WDW have, say, for the first half of it's existence? Zero?

And how many 'kids only' zones are there all over America, and playgrounds and supermarket rides and kiddie areas in junk food places?

"You're dead if you aim only for kids. Adults are only kids grown up, anyway."

 

[Andrew C]

How many 'kids only' attractions did WDW have, say, for the first half of it's existence? Zero?

It somewhat depends on what you consider a kids only attraction...in my opinion...

 

[The Empress Lilly]

That article just highlights the absolute silliness of the objections to the whole matter - from the framing of the post as "oh we are taking away natives lands!" to the fact that it doesn't seem aware that it's basically proving the point when it lists each thing that is going when so much of it has been derelict, unused, and/or unseen for years. Disneyland is not a museum. If Walt had lived this stuff would have been razed many years ago. He knew a little about this thing called "progress"...

Frontierland and the rivers area has changed so much over the years already. Last I looked, DL isn't exactly razing Walt's Dancing Indians Show for this.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

How many 'kids only' attractions did WDW have, say, for the first half of it's existence? Zero?

And how many 'kids only' zones are there all over America, and playgrounds and supermarket rides and kiddie areas in junk food places?

Don't forget the stroller parking! How did WDW survive without them for 30 years?

 

[The Empress Lilly]

Fantasyland had 2 E-Tickets on opening day (IASW and 20K Leagues). Neither were/are "thrill" rides.

Indeed. The whole of Disney World opened without a single thrill ride.

Why? Because it was thought that the Florida park would attract a 55+ audience and they had no use for thrill rides.

The MK was build by middle aged men for middle aged men. It remains strange how a park once associated with the fantasy worlds of old men (cowboys, fire trucks, astronauts, steam trains, steam ships, Huckleberry Finn, pirates, tree huts, race cars, tiki, country music, forts, Jules Verne) came to be associated with the fantasy world of little girls. So much so until eventually the park had to be rebuild into a playground for small girls.