The new Fantasyland- What would Walt think?

[MaxPower]

There's been a lot of talk about what the possible "new and revised" plans for the Fantasyland expansion will be.

It made me wonder about the initial announcement about the Fantasyland expansion and What would Walt think?

It's amazing how the original Imagineers in California had to come up with ideas for attractions in Disneyland that were NOT based on movies.

Jungle Cruise, Pirates, Haunted Mansion, Big Thunder Mountain, Country Bears, Tiki Room, etc.

Are today's imagineers even allowed to create an attraction idea that is truly original and does not tie into an existing Disney product?

That's what the Fantasyland expansion needs- something truly original that would appeal to boys, girls and (gasp) entire families, including adults.

Any suggestions?

[Ian]

I don't think Disney considers MK a place for non-character tie-in attractions anymore. If you look, all the new attractions that aren't anchored by Disney characters (Test Track, Mission Space, Expedition Everest, LMA Stunt Show, etc.) have all gone into the other parks.

I can't help but wonder, though, how Disney has lost sight of the fact that ... far and away ... their best and most popular attractions pretty much all contain non-Disney characters.

[ANG]

I never really thought about it. Hmm

[brownie]

Disney was the first movie company to begin licensing its characters. Walt Disney did it to bring in some needed cash.

It's hard to judge this. I think the fact that the park has kept changing would be appreciated, and the use of synergy would not have been a problem for Walt Disney.

Epcot didn't even feature costumed characters when it first opened, so there isn't a background for that park to involve the Disney characters in the attractions. You can see it starting to change, though (The Seas with Nemo and Friends, Gran Fiesta Tour.)

I think the more important factor is the story behind the ride. Great stories, whether it's a movie or not, typically lead to great attractions.

[PopeCharming]

I appreciate your point....a lot of the new rides seem to tie into existing properties, rather than forging new ones. Stitch Encounter, Monsters Inc. Laugh Floor, The Seas with Nemo, are but a few of the examples we could level.

But I think its important to remember that many of Disneyland's initial attractions were designed to promote, either directly or indirectly, existing properties. Frontierland began life as a haven for Davy Crockett fanatics, and while there may not have been a Davy Crockett attraction (or maybe there was, my knowledge of Disneyland history is rusty), it had plenty of stands to sell toy rifles and coonskin caps. In a similar manner, Adventureland owed a great deal to the Disney nature documentaries. And, of course, Peter Pan's Flight, the Mad Tea Party, and Mr. Toad's WIld Ride were released even closer to 1955 than Monsters Inc., Toy Story, and Finding Nemo are to 2010!

But this is nit-picking. There are a number of aspects of striking originality in theme park attractions- Figment, the Carousel of Progress family, the Kitchen Kaberat crew, the safari storyline in Animal Kingdom. I do hope we'll see more attractions along those lines.

[angua85]

But I think its important to remember that many of Disneyland's initial attractions were designed to promote, either directly or indirectly, existing properties.

Lets not forgot the submarine ride promoted 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, the Swiss Family Robinson Treehouse promoted (of course) the movie of the same name. Steamboat Willie might have been a driver for the paddlewheel boat on the lagoon, and so on.

[Stu29573]

Lets not forgot the submarine ride promoted 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, the Swiss Family Robinson Treehouse promoted (of course) the movie of the same name. Steamboat Willie might have been a driver for the paddlewheel boat on the lagoon, and so on.

Actually, the original submarine ride at Disneyland wasn't tied into 20,000 Leagues, but was more a salute to the sub that first went under the North Pole (as was seen in the original ride). It was only when the ride was duplicated at WDW that it changed to a 20,000 Leagues. Saying that the Mark Twain was based on Steamboat Willie is also a stretch, if only for the fact that the boat in the cartoon was cargo boat, not a showboat (but more that that, Walt, who actually personally paid to have the boat built, never tied it in). The Swiss Family treehouse was, of course, from the movie. However, of the three atrractions, only the Mark Twain was in the park on opening day, the others came years later...:mickey:

[Imagineer1981]

I think Walt would be pleased that the parks are ever evolving, ever changing.

I do think he would be upset at the lack of perfection and the lack of leadership. Walt would want the Imagineers to push the limits, no matter the cost, as well as the Animators. PIXAR??? really? PIXAR should be Disney, if Walt were alive, PIXAR wouldn't exist, it would have been the natural evolution of Disney films. John Lassiter (sorry for spelling) is very much like Disney, pushing story over profits. Our company had the license to Wall-E product, and when the products didn't sell that well, people asked John why they didn't make the movie more marketable for merchandise, and he said the merchandise money meant NOTHING to him, he only cared about doing a great story!