Fantasyland too "girlie," Frontierland Could Be the Balancer

[Stu29573]

I did not mean that LITERALLY every single attraction in DL had a tie in. BUT, I have read a lot of historical accounts of Walt Disney's life and the development of the parks. I'm fairly certain that Walt developed Disneyland to, MOSTLY promote the Disney brand. Otherwise, it would just be another carnival, which we all know he was NOT fond of.

In the early days of the park, the Wonderful World of Disney show promoted Disneyland, while Disneyland promoted the shows on WWoD. It was a back and forth type of promotion/marketing. First of its kind.

To expect Disney to continue to "create" stories and attractions that have NO tie in is not consistent with the original goal of Walt Disney himself. There needs to be a balance, and I believe we've gotten a LOT of "original" stories/attractions in the recent past.

Actually, I don't see your point. Disneyland was a big part of the "Disney brand" and, therefore, telling stories that had not appeared in movies or on TV was seen as another creative outlet (and money maker) for the company. Yes, the TV show Disneyland was created to support the park, and, therefore, featured various parts of it, but that is an example of 2D product following 3D experience, not the other way around (something to think about when someone starts to bemoan the latest Disney movie based on an attraction. It was done from the beginning)

The point is that Disney didn't need or want the park to simply mimic what was being done on the big (or little) screen. If one looks at the original attractions, one can see that it was intended as an additional way to tell stories, and some of those stories were brand new and original to the park. Walt was even quoted as saying that he preferred telling his stories through the park because they could evolve and change. It was never "in the can" like a film would be.

For further study, I would suggest any of Jason Surrell's wonderful books, Bob Thomas' biography, The Disney "Treasures" DVD sets of Disneyland, Secrets, Stories, and Magic and Disneyland U.S.A. for starters...

[BrerGnat]

I was simply responding to the question of "why does every new attraction have to be based on a movie? " that was posed earlier.

My point was to show that THIS was the original plan for Disneyland theme park...to showcase Walt's movies, t.v. show themes, and other productions (i.e. animal documentaries).

I completely understand the concept that the more elaborate attractions were their OWN stories. I get that. My point was, Walt Disney did not set out to open a generic carnival type park. He set out to open a THEME park, the world's first, and he did.

THEME being the operative word here.

[Stu29573]

I was simply responding to the question of "why does every new attraction have to be based on a movie? " that was posed earlier.

My point was to show that THIS was the original plan for Disneyland theme park...to showcase Walt's movies, t.v. show themes, and other productions (i.e. animal documentaries).

I completely understand the concept that the more elaborate attractions were their OWN stories. I get that. My point was, Walt Disney did not set out to open a generic carnival type park. He set out to open a THEME park, the world's first, and he did.

THEME being the operative word here.

Ok, I understand you more now, and I agree to a point. However, my point is that not every new attraction should be themed to a movie and the "themes" in Disneyland were based on the "lands" (i.e. modern myths) as much as the movies and television shows.

[Mickey91]

I did not mean that LITERALLY every single attraction in DL had a tie in. BUT, I have read a lot of historical accounts of Walt Disney's life and the development of the parks. I'm fairly certain that Walt developed Disneyland to, MOSTLY promote the Disney brand. Otherwise, it would just be another carnival, which we all know he was NOT fond of.

In the early days of the park, the Wonderful World of Disney show promoted Disneyland, while Disneyland promoted the shows on WWoD. It was a back and forth type of promotion/marketing. First of its kind.

To expect Disney to continue to "create" stories and attractions that have NO tie in is not consistent with the original goal of Walt Disney himself. There needs to be a balance, and I believe we've gotten a LOT of "original" stories/attractions in the recent past.

The only one I can think of right off is Everest...But on the flip side:
Laugh Floor
Stitch's great escape
Living Seas with Nemo
Buzz Light Year Space Ranger Spin
Toy Story Midway Mania
All the new Fantasyland attractions

I think we are due for some originality.

[Ian]

I've researched the history of The Walt Disney Company extensively and yes ... one of Walt's main goals for Disneyland was to be a place where he could showcase his new movies and films.

But it was never his intention for every single ride and attraction to have a movie tie-in. You can see that just by looking at the vast majority of rides and attractions he had a hand in designing before he died. Virtually none of them outside of Fantasyland had any movie tie-in at all.

Walt was more about theme, so that's why you see attractions with generic movie themes like pirates or haunted houses or missions to outerspace or jungle cruises or even broader themes like It's a Small World or American history (a la Great Moments With Mr. Lincoln) or progress (a la the Carousel of Progress).

Even look at the attractions he did for the World's Fair. Not a one of them had the slightest thing to do with a Walt Disney film.

There's a great blog post over at the Re-Imagineering website that talks about this very thing. It's called "The Myth of the Story." PM me if you want a link to it or you can just Google "Imagineering The Myth of the Story" and it's the first article that comes up.

[Stu29573]

I've researched the history of The Walt Disney Company extensively and yes ... one of Walt's main goals for Disneyland was to be a place where he could showcase his new movies and films.

But it was never his intention for every single ride and attraction to have a movie tie-in. You can see that just by looking at the vast majority of rides and attractions he had a hand in designing before he died. Virtually none of them outside of Fantasyland had any movie tie-in at all.

Walt was more about theme, so that's why you see attractions with generic movie themes like pirates or haunted houses or missions to outerspace or jungle cruises or even broader themes like It's a Small World or American history (a la Great Moments With Mr. Lincoln) or progress (a la the Carousel of Progress).

Even look at the attractions he did for the World's Fair. Not a one of them had the slightest thing to do with a Walt Disney film.

There's a great blog post over at the Re-Imagineering website that talks about this very thing. It's called "The Myth of the Story." PM me if you want a link to it or you can just Google "Imagineering The Myth of the Story" and it's the first article that comes up.

Exactly, Ian. While there was synergy between the parks and the movies and tv shows, it was never meant to only be about the film product.

[BrerGnat]

But for all those attractions that ARE based on movies, there have been quite a few that are NOT.

By "recent" past, I mean in the past 10-15 years.

The majority of Animal Kingdom park does not have movie tie ins. Look at the list of attractions. In fact, one can argue that BECAUSE there weren't more obvious "Disney" tie ins, AK suffered as a result. People didn't "get it". You are dealing with the masses here. If they don't see Mickey mouse plastered all over the place, or can't tie an attraction to something obviously "Disney", it doesn't register on their radar.

Look at Alien Encounter, which WAS a brilliant attraction. Problem was, people didn't flock to it. They were confused as to what it was, and then the feedback about it being too intense, scary, and so obviously NOT something that belonged in the "Magic" Kingdom caused Disney to eventually shut it down. The addition of Stitch was, probably, the worst thing that has ever happened to an attraction in MY opinion. But, people LOVE it. It's far more popular than it used to be. THAT is why Disney tends to err on the side of "theme it to a movie" these days. People, in general, expect that. They want that.

You have to remember that back in the early days of the parks (even up into the 70's, when WDW was being built) it was a different culture in the U.S. Movies and entertainment generally revolved around more imagination, and kids of the time didn't sit glued to the t.v. and have every new movie on DVD within months of its theater release. They played outside; they made up games. They PLAYED "cowboys and Indians", "space man", and stuff like that. So, naturally, creating a theme park based on these sorts of themes worked BACK THEN.

These days, kids play imaginary games based on cartoon superheroes, video games, and movies. So, it stands to reason that the direction of theme park attraction development will follow the trends of the PRESENT.

Not that I like it. But, I understand it.

[Tekneek]

So, it stands to reason that the direction of theme park attraction development will follow the trends of the PRESENT.

So, sounds like this is a case of Disney chasing the whims of the public? Maybe the bigger problem is the inability of Disney to be one step ahead of the public. They need a visionary that can give them something the public does not yet know they want. The company was built on being a leader, not a follower.

[antngoof89]

So does anybody hope that they take some of this money that it sounds like they're gonna cut from the fantasyland budget and spend it on Epcot updates or Hollywood Studios?

I feel like adding a few rides to fantasyland is a great idea, but they should place money on the entire World, not just one park. Of course, the money is still gonna end up staying in Magic Kingdom no matter what they decided to do in the end.

[DizneyFreak2002]

So does anybody hope that they take some of this money that it sounds like they're gonna cut from the fantasyland budget and spend it on Epcot updates or Hollywood Studios?

I feel like adding a few rides to fantasyland is a great idea, but they should place money on the entire World, not just one park. Of course, the money is still gonna end up staying in Magic Kingdom no matter what they decided to do in the end.

Nope... Any money being saved at the moment from Pixie Hollow will be allocated into Fantasyland expansion one way or another...

[Mickey91]

The majority of Animal Kingdom park does not have movie tie ins. Look at the list of attractions. In fact, one can argue that BECAUSE there weren't more obvious "Disney" tie ins, AK suffered as a result. People didn't "get it". You are dealing with the masses here. If they don't see Mickey mouse plastered all over the place, or can't tie an attraction to something obviously "Disney", it doesn't register on their radar.

Look at Alien Encounter, which WAS a brilliant attraction. Problem was, people didn't flock to it. They were confused as to what it was, and then the feedback about it being too intense, scary, and so obviously NOT something that belonged in the "Magic" Kingdom caused Disney to eventually shut it down. The addition of Stitch was, probably, the worst thing that has ever happened to an attraction in MY opinion. But, people LOVE it. It's far more popular than it used to be. THAT is why Disney tends to err on the side of "theme it to a movie" these days. People, in general, expect that. They want that.

I think the biggest problem with Animal Kingdom is they rushed to open it. Even today, there isn't a whole lot to see that would require me to use an all day ticket. We do some of the rides and Festival of the Lion King but petting farm animals and riding rides that are in every amusement park in VA isn't why I drive 13 hours to WDW. It needs to be Disney themed and imagined, not necessarily themed from a movie. Some of my favorite rides at WDW are not tied to any movie or TV show. TTA, CoP, IASW, WDWRR, PoC, original Tiki Room,all of the ORIGINAL Future World attractions, World Show Case, it doesn't have to tie to a movie for people to get it, it just has to be original Disney quality and not something just thrown at us.

Alien Encounter's fate was probably more about location (MK) than people not "getting it". You don't expect something to be that terrifying in the MK. I bet it would have survived at DHS.

[Mickey91]

So does anybody hope that they take some of this money that it sounds like they're gonna cut from the fantasyland budget and spend it on Epcot updates or Hollywood Studios?

I feel like adding a few rides to fantasyland is a great idea, but they should place money on the entire World, not just one park. Of course, the money is still gonna end up staying in Magic Kingdom no matter what they decided to do in the end.

I certainly hope they don't "update" anything else at EPCOT. They have ruined everything they've touched so far.

[Figment78]

Hmmmm..... I love the idea of incorporating Woody's Roundup into Frontierland. But I'm biased because I think that the Toy Story movies are some of the best movies made in the last 15 years or so. (Not just animated).

I struggle with Tomorrowland too. I don't mind any of the attractions there - we actually enjoy all of them, including Stitch's great escape (I love stitch), but we enjoyed Alien Encounter too. It was a really well done psychological thrill ride. But I do think it was too scary for the Magic Kingdom masses and it received quite a beating in the public arena. However I DO think that Tomorrowland should continue to evolve. I know it's impossible to keep up with Tomorrow. But I think that's because it's hard to imagine what Tomorrow will bring. But if we, or Disney, could figure it out - it would really make Tomorrowland a hit.

And thus, since we are arm-chair imagineering... what is your wild imaginings for "tomorrow?" Yes, there is overlap in the idea of Tomorrowland and Future World, but that doesn't mean that Tomorrowland can't have a cool futuristic ride(s) too.

So what's "tomorrow"? Is it in transportation? Communication? What's the next technology? What's the new frontier?

Maybe some sort of ride that takes you through types of transportation and ends with you feeling like your "driving" in the sky (like a star tours simulator?) who knows.... I'm not an imagineer sort, more of a make someone elses ideas happen person...

What about communicating with people at other Disney parks around the world, with some translation software? I know that's more Epcot, but hey... Or how about "playing" against riders on TSMM in California?

Other thoughts?!??

[Tekneek]

The "speedway", should it stay, should have vehicles that take on more of the look and feel of future personal vehicles, maybe following the CityCar concept and certainly powering them in a non-fossil fuel way. Not that the raceway is about personal vehicles, but it shows a future vehicle and powers it in a new way.

[MidnTPK]

From the Orlando Sentinel's Daily Disney:

Disney says Fantasyland expansion plans are changing

Posted By Jason Garcia On August 12, 2010 @ 6:03 pm

Disney is redrawing the sweeping Fantasyland expansion plans it laid out last year, even as bulldozers clear land for the project inside the Magic Kingdom.

With the revisions, begun under new Walt Disney Parks and Resorts Chairman Tom Staggs, designers are attempting to rebalance the plans, which initially tilted heavily towards young girls by emphasizing attractions and experiences built around Disney’s stable of animated-movie princesses.

“We took a hard look at it amongst a number of us and said, ‘Can we make the appeal broader? Can we make it even better?’ “ Staggs said during an interview this week with the Orlando Sentinel.

The Fantasyland expansion is a critically important project for Disney. The Magic Kingdom, the busiest theme park in the world, now draws more than 17 million visitors a year and needs added capacity to ease pressure on crowds inside the park. The project, billed as the largest expansion in Magic Kingdom history, also comes as Disney World faces heightened competition from Universal Orlando, where the new Wizarding World of Harry Potter has drawn rave reviews — and enormous crowds — since opening in June.

Staggs declined to discuss specific changes to the Fantasyland plans, saying Disney would unveil them “in due course.”

The original plans called for a lavish indoor ride based on the movie The Little Mermaid, a trio of interactive princess character-greeting areas, an elaborately themed Beauty and the Beast restaurant, an expanded Dumbo attraction for young children, and a vaguely defined fairies-themed area.

Staggs said much of what was included in the original plans will be incorporated into the final product and that the changes are “improving it on the margin.” He characterized the revisions as part of any creative project’s natural evolution. As an example, Disney cited Hong Kong Disneyland, where early blueprints included an area dubbed “Glacier Peak” that was eventually replaced with a section themed around the company’s Toy Story film franchise.

“Our process is always iterative and always goes through changes as it goes along,” said Staggs, who was the Walt Disney Co.’s chief financial officer when he switched places with parks-and-resorts chief Jay Rasulo at the start of this year. Staggs added: “I believe one of my most important jobs is to make sure that I’m enabling and challenging our creative process to create the best possible result.”

Disney first announced the Fantasyland expansion plans 11 months ago, with Rasulo personally unveiling them during a convention in Anaheim, Calif., for a company-sponsored, $75-a-year fan club. Staggs is now running the theme-park division and Rasulo is CFO following an executive shuffle orchestrated by Disney President and Chief Executive Officer Bob Iger.

The Fantasyland construction is well underway: Yellow backhoes and mountains of dirt are visible behind temporary construction walls erected inside the Magic Kingdom.

But rumors have been building for weeks that changes were afoot, fueled by reports from a pair of well-known Disney bloggers, Jim Hill of Jim Hill Media and Al Lutz of MiceAge.com.

Company followers say there have been two pivotal developments since the Fantasyland plans were first announced: Staggs was installed as head of Walt Disney Parks and Resorts, and Universal opened the Wizarding World of Harry Potter.

Staggs, who has three young sons, is said to have expressed concerns that the initial plans for Fantasyland were too narrowly tailored to girls. The Wizarding World, meanwhile, has delivered impressive early returns for Universal Orlando since formally opening June 18.

The more than $200 million addition to Universal’s Islands of Adventure theme park powered the resort to a 2 percent attendance gain during the second quarter, its first quarterly increase in two years. Attendance at Disney World sank 2 percent during a similar period.

“I think Harry Potter helped” push Disney executives to revisit their approach with Fantasyland, said Lutz, of MiceAge.com. “I think it had an influence to say, ‘Hey, this is something that can be done on this level, and it’s not at a Disney property.’ “

Staggs said Wizarding World has not been a factor in Disney’s Fantasyland plans. “I don’t see evidence that somehow that has changed anyone’s direction or made them think differently,” he said.

But he said Disney is trying to broaden the project’s overall appeal. For instance, plans for three interactive princess meet-and-greets — where children could dance with Cinderella, celebrate Sleeping Beauty’s 16th birthday or play a role in a story with Belle of Beauty and the Beast — are being altered.

“One of the things that I thought the early design did fantastically was delivered on that princess experience. And that does tend to skew towards girls. … We’ve kept that intact — not exactly, necessarily, the way it was presented, but that appeal is there,” Staggs said. “I think we’ve added some things that aren’t just princess-focused, and that’s a good positive.”

Staggs said planners are also reviewing the Fantasyland expansion with an eye toward blending “aspirational rides” — rides that offer thrills or tension — with attractions designed for guests of all ages. And he said they want to ensure that the additions are flexible and can be updated or adapted over time.

The revisions are not expected to substantially alter the construction timetable; most of the Fantasyland additions are still scheduled to open in 2012 and 2013. Staggs said the project’s price tag will “not materially” change with the revisions, though a slight increase is likely because of certain additions. He would not provide specific figures.

Staggs said none of the changes should be interpreted as an indictment of the original Fantasyland expansion plans.

“We had a number of different people look at it and say, ‘Is it accomplishing what we want to from a guest experience standpoint? Is it accomplishing that in a way that is operationally great? Is it as broad as it can be in its appeal?’” he said. “The answer is, it largely did. But we thought we could continue to play with it and make it better.”