What does "The Little Mermaid" have to do with California?

[LittleMerman]

I’m referring to the original post I responded to. You said Disney has a problem of making things “TOO themed.” To me, that sounds like you’re devaluing the value of something that’s well-themed. Now you’re talking about something else.

Absolutely not but there are some attractions with looser ties into the lands they're located in and that's okay. I mean we're talking about fantasy films for the most part but there's only so much room in Fantasyland so they have to go somewhere.

That's why I brought up Epic Universe - it's a looser theme so they can shoehorn just about any IP into that park and it'll make sense vs. a park like Animal Kingdom where people will analyze it bc it's more specific. The original thread asked how TLM fits into California... Well, it really doesn't but I enjoy the attraction and it doesn't bother me when I'm in DCA. I mean it's a mermaid which isn't even real. I wouldn't let it ruin my day or take away from the ride.

I feel like Disney needs a little more of the looser themed areas. Hollywood Studios seems to be working for that and the Fantasy Springs area in Tokyo looks amazing. Maybe then people won't freak out as much, even though I'm sure they will figure out a way to.

 

[Consumer]

No man is an island

Bro doesn't know about the Isle of Man

 

[Sharon&Susan]

I feel like Disney needs a little more of the looser themed areas.

You mean using broad concepts like "Adventure", "Frontier", "Tomorrow" , and even "Fantasy" as the theme of a land?

 

[Californian Elitist]

Absolutely not but there are some attractions with looser ties into the lands they're located in and that's okay. I mean we're talking about fantasy films for the most part but there's only so much room in Fantasyland so they have to go somewhere.

That's why I brought up Epic Universe - it's a looser theme so they can shoehorn just about any IP into that park and it'll make sense vs. a park like Animal Kingdom where people will analyze it bc it's more specific. The original thread asked how TLM fits into California... Well, it really doesn't but I enjoy the attraction and it doesn't bother me when I'm in DCA. I mean it's a mermaid which isn't even real. I wouldn't let it ruin my day or take away from the ride.

I feel like Disney needs a little more of the looser themed areas. Hollywood Studios seems to be working for that and the Fantasy Springs area in Tokyo looks amazing. Maybe then people won't freak out as much, even though I'm sure they will figure out a way to.

I don’t think anyone’s days/visits are ruined by Mermaid’s placement in DCA. The OP simply asked a legitimate question about placement. I don’t see anyone freaking out.

Disney already loosely places attractions in their lands, no matter the theme. If themes shouldn’t really matter in a theme park, there’s always amusement parks.

 

[LittleMerman]

You mean using broad concepts like "Adventure", "Frontier", "Tomorrow" , and even "Fantasy" as the theme of a land?

I don't consider Frontier or Tomorrow to be broad, not just anything would theoretically make sense in those lands. But we're not just talking about the words - it's a matter of culture that the Imagineers have already established for those spaces - architecture, color palettes, music, food, backstories. And there's also a matter of physical land. There's not room for any and every attraction in any given area. For instance, Frozen probably "belonged" in Fantasyland but Disney had multiple reasons for putting it in Norway in Epcot. Other factors included project budget, timeline, IP ties to the area, and appeal (or lack-thereof) to an existing attraction.

 

[PiratesMansion]

I don't consider Frontier or Tomorrow to be broad, not just anything would theoretically make sense in those lands. But we're not just talking about the words - it's a matter of culture that the Imagineers have already established for those spaces - architecture, color palettes, music, food, backstories. And there's also a matter of physical land. There's not room for any and every attraction in any given area. For instance, Frozen probably "belonged" in Fantasyland but Disney had multiple reasons for putting it in Norway in Epcot. Other factors included project budget, timeline, IP ties to the area, and appeal (or lack-thereof) to an existing attraction.

Disney's original areas generally are broad though. They are broad in that they avail themselves to anything that might fit within a large genre of stories.

Adventureland can house anything that suggests jungles, colonialism, a place that hasn't fully been conquered by civilization.

Fantasyland can house any fairy tale.

Frontierland can house anything in the wild west.

Tomorrowland can house anything futuristic.

There have been some changes that have limited these in scope over time (ex. Disneyland got much more specific about when and where Adventureland was set when they built Indiana Jones, though they didn't necessarily have to do so), but they are still broad enough to allow a variety of settings, stories, and attractions.

By contrast, Galaxy's Edge and Norway are, by definition, themed to more specific places. If it's not from Norway (i.e. Frozen), it doesn't fit (if the area had been called Scandinavia, perhaps we wouldn't be having this conversation about whether or not Frozen fits). If it's not within the specific timeline Disney limited itself to by creating Batuu and a very specific and overly elaborate backstory, it doesn't fit in Galaxy's Edge.

There's a clear difference between vaguely and specifically defined areas. That Disney has lowered its own standards should not excuse them, especially when they still largely claim to hold themselves to said standards despite clear evidence to the contrary.

 

[October82]

Absolutely not but there are some attractions with looser ties into the lands they're located in and that's okay. I mean we're talking about fantasy films for the most part but there's only so much room in Fantasyland so they have to go somewhere.

That's why I brought up Epic Universe - it's a looser theme so they can shoehorn just about any IP into that park and it'll make sense vs. a park like Animal Kingdom where people will analyze it bc it's more specific. The original thread asked how TLM fits into California... Well, it really doesn't but I enjoy the attraction and it doesn't bother me when I'm in DCA. I mean it's a mermaid which isn't even real. I wouldn't let it ruin my day or take away from the ride.

I feel like Disney needs a little more of the looser themed areas. Hollywood Studios seems to be working for that and the Fantasy Springs area in Tokyo looks amazing. Maybe then people won't freak out as much, even though I'm sure they will figure out a way to.

In what way does Epic Universe have a theme? What is it even supposed to be? At what point does the word become meaningless?

 

[LittleMerman]

Disney's original areas generally are broad though. They are broad in that they avail themselves to anything that might fit within a large genre of stories.

Adventureland can house anything that suggests jungles, colonialism, a place that hasn't fully been conquered by civilization.

Fantasyland can house any fairy tale.

Frontierland can house anything in the wild west.

Tomorrowland can house anything futuristic.

There have been some changes that have limited these in scope over time (ex. Disneyland got much more specific about when and where Adventureland was set when they built Indiana Jones, though they didn't necessarily have to do so), but they are still broad enough to allow a variety of settings, stories, and attractions.

By contrast, Galaxy's Edge and Norway are, by definition, themed to more specific places. If it's not from Norway (i.e. Frozen), it doesn't fit (if the area had been called Scandinavia, perhaps we wouldn't be having this conversation about whether or not Frozen fits). If it's not within the specific timeline Disney limited itself to by creating Batuu and a very specific and overly elaborate backstory, it doesn't fit in Galaxy's Edge.

There's a clear difference between vaguely and specifically defined areas. That Disney has lowered its own standards should not excuse them, especially when they still largely claim to hold themselves to said standards despite clear evidence to the contrary.

Right, obviously certain places are supposed to represent actual places, which are more specific, vs. broader concepts. But I don't consider Adventureland, Fantasyland, Frontierland, or Tomorrowland to be that broad for the reasons I wrote before. They have identities. For instance, you could argue that Frozen Ever After is about an adventure but it wouldn't culturally fit into Adventureland.

 

[LittleMerman]

In what way does Epic Universe have a theme? What is it even supposed to be? At what point does the word become meaningless?

Exactly, that's my point. It's more of a collection of random areas all grouped together. It doesn't restrict itself.

 

[October82]

Exactly, that's my point. It's more of a collection of random areas all grouped together. It doesn't restrict itself.

Disney theme parks work because they have (really had) cohesive identities - they weren't random areas grouped together. It's strange to suggest they should follow the Universal model that has always been less successful, both artistically and in the marketplace.

 

[LittleMerman]

Disney theme parks work because they have (really had) cohesive identities - they weren't random areas grouped together. It's strange to suggest they should follow the Universal model that has always been less successful, both artistically and in the marketplace.

There are plenty of places in Disney that aren't exactly cohesive. Look at what Hollywood Studios has become - it's one of the most popular of four WDW parks and it's a hodgepodge. My point was that not every park or land has to be so themed that it gets pigeonholed. They have plenty of that already but places like HS and the new Fantasy Springs in Tokyo will he just fine with looser ties.

Disney needs some kind of "fantasy" overflow... A lot of the fantastic IPs are being plopped wherever they can because not everything can fit into Fantasyland. That's where the beauty of something like Epic Universe comes in. It's another reason nobody can really think of a strong enough idea for a 5th gate. And it sounds like they're already thinking that way - the blue sky "Beyond Big Thunder" and Animal Kingdom expansions seem like mixed bags.

 

[Sharon&Susan]

That's where the beauty of something like Epic Universe comes in.

If your definition of broad means "being able to plop IPs down willy nilly" Epic Universe is not the answer. Epic Universe is at most only going to have 5 or 6 IPs represented at once thanks to its single IP land nature. It's never going to be as easy to plop down a new IP into EU as it is in DL, where you don't have to demolish an entire land in order to have a new franchise represented.

 

[October82]

There are plenty of places in Disney that aren't exactly cohesive. Look at what Hollywood Studios has become - it's one of the most popular of four WDW parks and it's a hodgepodge. My point was that not every park or land has to be so themed that it gets pigeonholed. They have plenty of that already but places like HS and the new Fantasy Springs in Tokyo will he just fine with looser ties.

There's a big difference between Hollywood Studios prior to the (non)expansion - and especially MGM studios - and the random assortments of brand promotion that Disney and Universal parks are becoming.

Disney needs some kind of "fantasy" overflow... A lot of the fantastic IPs are being plopped wherever they can because not everything can fit into Fantasyland.

All Disney parks are fantastical - they weren't always overflow for brand synergies, which is what they're becoming and what Epic Universe is. I'm sure there's still enjoyment to be found, but it's not a substitute for a theme. I don't really understand why people feel the need to defend it as such.

 

[Consumer]

I was thinking recently about how Disney could use a "fairy tale" park. I know some would say "that's what Disneyland is!" but no, I mean a park with lands dedicated to nursery rhymes, a winter wonderland (fill it with Frozen, Santa Claus, and Narnia), Arabian Nights (Aladdin, Sinbad), an enchanted forest (dwarfs, elfs, giants, trolls), a medieval village (Tangled), Fantasia, Wizard of Oz, and so forth. Obviously there would be overlap with Disneyland proper, but given the limited space of Disneyland, that's not a bad thing.

I also was thinking about Disney's need for a theme park dedicated to outer space. A place to drop Marvel's cosmic characters, for Galaxy's Edge, Pandora, as well as a land dedicated to more real world space exploration, Jules Verne ideals, and whatever else.

 

[LittleMerman]

I was thinking recently about how Disney could use a "fairy tale" park. I know some would say "that's what Disneyland is!" but no, I mean a park with lands dedicated to nursery rhymes, a winter wonderland (fill it with Frozen, Santa Claus, and Narnia), Arabian Nights (Aladdin, Sinbad), an enchanted forest (dwarfs, elfs, giants, trolls), a medieval village (Tangled), Fantasia, Wizard of Oz, and so forth. Obviously there would be overlap with Disneyland proper, but given the limited space of Disneyland, that's not a bad thing.

I also was thinking about Disney's need for a theme park dedicated to outer space. A place to drop Marvel's cosmic characters, for Galaxy's Edge, Pandora, as well as a land dedicated to more real world space exploration, Jules Verne ideals, and whatever else.

Exactly! They don't sound like the most exciting themes, but would make a lot of sense and could have some really fun and interesting IPs and attractions.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Exactly! They don't sound like the most exciting themes, but would make a lot of sense and could have some really fun and interesting IPs and attractions.

Or they could focus on good storytelling instead of just shoving stuff together.

 

[Consumer]

Exactly! They don't sound like the most exciting themes, but would make a lot of sense and could have some really fun and interesting IPs and attractions.

Except these concepts would still have overarching themes. Indiana Jones, for example, wouldn't belong in either of those parks.

 

[No Name]

What does Harry Potter have to do with islands?

The park was/is based on literature and Harry Potter is a popular book series. But I like the other answers better.

 

[LittleMerman]

Or they could focus on good storytelling instead of just shoving stuff together.

Really they should be doing that no matter where any placement is of an attraction.

 

[LittleMerman]

The park was/is based on literature and Harry Potter is a popular book series. But I like the other answers better.

It is?! Honestly didn't put that together and I've been multiple times That's pretty cool though.