The Spirited 11th Hour ...

[Katie G]

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?

There is a game you can play with scuttle's minion crabs. You tell them what to collect for scuttle and they are in a couple "windows" in the queue.

 

[doctornick]

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.

I agree totally with your post. My main complaint with the FLE is not what they did do -- which I think was generally quite good and certainly a huge improvement visually for FL/Toontown. -- is just that with all that space I would have liked to have seen another ride added. Even if it were just a smaller scale dark ride like a copy of Pinocchio in the circus area, it would have IMHO made a different on how well received the land was.

 

[lazyboy97o]

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).

Technology doesn't make an entertainment experience.

 

[Smiddimizer]

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"...

I have some reservations...but I won't cry you a river. It's the first area of the park based solely on an IP (even Toontown was unique). For better or worse that fundamentally changes the ethos of the park. "Fantasyland" "Tomorrowland" "Adventureland" "Star Wars Land". Star Wars isn't a theme, a place, or its own genre despite how hysterically overrated it is.

You know what, maybe I will: the forests were deliberately "unused" and were meant to convey a sense of open space, a wild frontier. I have a sad feeling that when the dust settles the RoA experience will be "nice" to look at....sort of like how FLE is "nice" to tie this in to the other conversation....but lacking the sense that you're in the middle of nowhere. That said I think there are ways in which the experience could be improved, and if they address some of the backstage/parking lot sightline issues, that'd be a blessing I guess.

I don't think Walt was keen on demolishing either. Except for some lacklustre Tomorrowland exhibits and maybe the midget autopia or something.

 

[ford91exploder]

Technology doesn't make an entertainment experience.

Technology ENABLES an entertainment experience

 

[BernardandBianca]

Their point of view is short.

How can it be anything else?

 

[Cesar R M]

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

Mentality change I bet.
Kids barely "walk" the park now.

 

[Cesar R M]

There is a game you can play with scuttle's minion crabs. You tell them what to collect for scuttle and they are in a couple "windows" in the queue.

Interestingly.. I never seen those screen work... ever..

 

[AEfx]

I have some reservations...but I won't cry you a river. It's the first area of the park based solely on an IP (even Toontown was unique). For better or worse that fundamentally changes the ethos of the park. "Fantasyland" "Tomorrowland" "Adventureland" "Star Wars Land". Star Wars isn't a theme, a place, or its own genre despite how hysterically overrated it is.

Not a Star Wars fan - eh? LOL. In any case, you can have reservations about what is replacing it, but that's far different from the sudden affection and outrage about a largely abandoned area that is being revitalized. (It's a lot like what happened with Maelstrom, most discussion you'll find from pre-closing announcement was complaining about the dumb film at the end - and that in general the attraction was among the worst guest satisfaction ratings of any attraction at WDW).

You know what, maybe I will: the forests were deliberately "unused" and were meant to convey a sense of open space, a wild frontier. I have a sad feeling that when the dust settles the RoA experience will be "nice" to look at....sort of like how FLE is "nice" to tie this in to the other conversation....but lacking the sense that you're in the middle of nowhere. That said I think there are ways in which the experience could be improved, and if they address some of the backstage/parking lot sightline issues, that'd be a blessing I guess.

That is some of the most prime theme park real estate in the known world - eventually, it was going to go.

I don't think Walt was keen on demolishing either. Except for some lacklustre Tomorrowland exhibits and maybe the midget autopia or something.

Look at a map of Disneyland when it opened and another from the time he died.

 

[Cesar R M]

and that it was among the worst guest satisfaction ratings of any attraction at WDW)

We will have to see if the frozenstrom is even worth the hype.
But I bet we will need to be ready to be disappointed.

 

[Nubs70]

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 view is... well, short. Much like the ride.

 

[AEfx]

We will have to see if the frozenstrom is even worth the hype.
But I bet we will need to be ready to be disappointed.

They could have just torn out the ride and expanded the Frozen M&G's, and it would have higher guest ratings than Maelstrom.

Those are just the facts, LOL...personally, I loved that creepy little ride, but it was at the bottom of the barrel in terms of guest satisfaction. I believe we even had a CM confirm that at one point, it was the absolute lowest.

 

[Goofyernmost]

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

This is nothing new. They have been beating them for years now. I have always thought that although they didn't have the guest numbers, the attractions were more detailed and exciting then anything that Disney had. The only reason why Disney is beating them in guests is because of the Disney name and the reputation that it is a family place to go.

Many things from a while back are done better... Terminator for one, and even ET. Spiderman was better, Men in black was better. The real topper was King Kong and Back to the Future. Even the ones they tore out like Jaws, was done with a more cutting edge. Even the minor ones. I thought that Shrek, especially the preshow, was hilarious. They have torn down more good shows then Disney is running currently.

 

[Mike S]

They could have just torn out the ride and expanded the Frozen M&G's, and it would have higher guest ratings than Maelstrom.

Those are just the facts, LOL...personally, I loved that creepy little ride, but it was at the bottom of the barrel in terms of guest satisfaction. I believe we even had a CM confirm that at one point, it was the absolute lowest.

Which is why it needed an update, and why there was a concept for one *sigh*

 

[Goofyernmost]

Why are you being so aggressive?

Is it not the majority to want to have experiences that I can share with the whole family? Naturally parks have places just for kids, but to claim that Fantasyland should be just for kids...I don't understand that logic whatsoever.

I can understand that because I didn't say that FL should be just for kids. It should, however, be things that both the parents and the children can do together. I believe a guy named Walter said those exact words at one time or the other. However, if people are disappointed that FL didn't have any heart stoppers included, well, there shouldn't be any, but, that for it's purpose the Mine Train is exactly what WED wanted to have in the parks.

I might point out though that just because of the nature of that it doesn't mean that the parents have to love what they are sharing, it just means that they can and that there are no attractions where they cannot join with the kids and experience it at the same time. If they are going to stick to that philosophy then FL should be the place where that is the way it is done and the other lands can have the more high spirited attractions that might not appeal to a youngster. In that case the child may be able to participate if they want or dare to but the parents can get their jolly's too.

What that means is as an adult there are many things in FL that I would not do on my own, however, there is nothing that I wouldn't be able to do. I can, however, if I want, share with them in real time. The whole story behind Walt's decision was that he was sitting on a park bench eating peanuts while his kids rode the carousel. What hasn't anyone asked why he wasn't with them on the carousel? He could have been, but, chose not to, then he proceeded to put a carousel in his own park, must be he felt that people could share that experience if they wanted.

 

[Goofyernmost]

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?

You are thinking too wide. He is talking about one park. How many millions have never seen "mermaid"? Just because you might have doesn't mean the whole world has! It has not been seen by far more people then have seen it. And he can say that because it is probably true in context. It is bigger and has more rides then it had before. Where is that wrong?

 

[Goofyernmost]

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.

I'm totally unsure about what your saying. I never said it was because of thrill vs. money draw. Everyone else says that. I'm saying that it is the measurement used by the "fans" to determine what they might consider an "E". That is wrong and you proved that point by sighting Small World. Never was there a more technologically starved, boring to tears attraction on the planet... but people liked it and that was why it was an "E". Today they can any letter in the alphabet in front of it and it's still going to be looked at by Disney as a worthwhile attraction and a home run hitter.

If I read you post correctly I think you have the concept reversed. Back in the day when all was pure and sweet in the world of Disney, the more popular the attraction (E) the more it costs to see it. Today you pay one amount and then you decide what you want to see with no further cost. I'm saying that if we still went by the old standard the Mine Train would, in the eyes of Disney, the very same Disney that makes that determination, an "E" ticket. That is why it is time to drop that entire premise and to judge attractions on their own merit not what someone with no clue decides is top notch or enjoyable to them and not necessarily the larger picture of what is desirable to the masses.

 

[Goofyernmost]

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."

Not what I said at all. But, for now I'm going to let it die, I'm tired of repeating myself.

 

[BrianLo]

Yeah, but the view guests get of it doesn't look like a storybook either. It looks like a tiny castle perched on a rock. As far as design goes, the Beast's castle concept just didn't pan out. Kinda like the giant off-center window in New Orleans Square at DL. It just doesn't work.

The big problem is that the scale is out of whack to what surrounds it (SDMT and Prince Eric's castle).

We should give them some credit though, the Mermaid facade is really excellent! The scale works quite well and isn't overbearingly large, small enough to fit the charm of fantasyland without being so small that it's laughable.

The Tokyo concept art would definitely have been the more appropriate look, but they were so committed to Belle's Cottage and the Village I think they panicked that it was too close proximity and needed to be "far away".

Maybe one day in the far future they will redo it, create a larger castle and set it further back on the show building.

 

[yensidtlaw1969]

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).

Alice uses both Animated Figures and Static Figures - by definition, an animated figure is not static.

That said, your point about Alice lacking genuine Animatronics is correct.

Mermaid does contain Animated Figures, Static Figures, and Animatronics. Sadly, basically all of the Ariel animatronics fail to capture the look of the character despite their technical complexity - you know who it's supposed to be, but she looks "off". That said, Ursula is assuredly impressive, and the Sebastian and Scuttle animatronics are nice as well.

In my own opinion, I would similarly rank Alice over Mermaid. Despite its lack of Animatronics, Alice captures the look, feel, and excitement of its film, and the somewhat recent addition of projection mapping to the ride seems to enhance all of those fronts.

Mermaid seems to make much less of an effort to retain the essence of its film, despite the level at which the individual components are executed. There's surprisingly little DNA from the movie in the Mermaid dark ride, if you really look at it, and what is there often is disjointed and presented in a way that falls flat. It doesn't take me away to the world of the movie, it makes me feel like I'm on a ride looking at a bunch of Little Mermaid-ish window displays (which I find ironic, because I feel the Little Mermaid window display at the Emporium does a wonderful job capturing the spirit of the movie).