Future Plans For WDW's Fantasyland

jpanimation · Post by **jpanimation** » Tue Sep 27, 2011 9:09 pm

Everything sounds good except the generic Storybook Circus area (they have too many Dumbo rides as it is) and Princess Fairytale Hall. Sounds like they didn't get enough budget to make anything of true substance with those.

Disney Duster · Post by **Disney Duster** » Tue Sep 27, 2011 9:33 pm

jpanimation wrote:Everything sounds good except the generic Storybook Circus area (they have too many Dumbo rides as it is) and Princess Fairytale Hall. Sounds like they didn't get enough budget to make anything of true substance with those.

They have enough money, the heads at Disney just wanna spend as little of it as possible!

Storybook Circus makes no sense. Honestly they should have kept the Dumbo space, put in Alice and Pinocchio rides/them worlds, and maybe fit in Cinderella or Aurora next to Snow White's mine cart ride.

DisneyAnimation88 · Post by **DisneyAnimation88** » Wed Sep 28, 2011 5:21 am

DisneyDuster wrote:They have enough money, the heads at Disney just wanna spend as little of it as possible!

For me that statement is ridiculous. I was at WDW two weeks ago and the size and scale of the expansion should be enough to make it clear that Disney are spending millions and millions on it. As much as I dislike them doing it, the recent deal to buy the rights to an Avatar themed area would also have cost Disney millions before the money they will have to spend to build that area. You might not like what they're doing with it Disney Duster but Disney are most certainly spending money and plenty of it at the moment.

Disney Duster · Post by **Disney Duster** » Wed Sep 28, 2011 12:42 pm

Then I suppose what I mean is better use of their money...but I think I mean they should still spend more money, because we're getting about one or two less attractions than the previous expansion plans (removed Tinker Bell and one of the princess houses, when those could be kept or changed into different/better attractions). A princess hall will take less money than a house like there was going to be.

DisneyAnimation88 · Post by **DisneyAnimation88** » Wed Sep 28, 2011 5:06 pm

Take into account that the Seven Dwarfs Mine Coaster probably costs as much as the Sleeping Beauty and Cinderella meet-and-greets combined, if not more then I don't think they've cut the budget for the expansion; from what I saw two weeks ago, the money so far has been well spent as the small bits that I saw looked spectacular even if they're not yet finished. Considering we might also be on the verge of another global recession, Disney will understandably be counting the pennies right now as every other major company will be.

Disney Duster · Post by **Disney Duster** » Sun Oct 02, 2011 9:01 am

I don't understand why the mine train coaster with one house would cost as much as two houses. Cinderella was gonna have both a house and a "show stage" or something. The coaster would really be as expensive as a whole house and stage area?

DisneyAnimation88 · Post by **DisneyAnimation88** » Sun Oct 02, 2011 9:39 am

Disney don't have a bottomless pit of money into which they can dip. The expansion has a budget and in the current economical climate I doubt Disney want to exceed that budget if they can help it. The decision to remove the Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty attractions was not purely a financial one, it was made because of concerns Disney had that both attractions would not appeal to a broad demographic of people, an entirely valid reason in my opinion as I had those concerns too. The Cinderella attraction wasn't a "stage show", it was essentially a fancy version of "Storytime with Belle" where the audience would sit down and listen to the story of the film. Considering the projected size of the coaster and the technology of it, I think it will definitely cost more than the two abandoned elaborate meet-and-greets. The Princess Hall is a means to an end as it will occupy the space vacated by "Snow White's Scary Adventure" so I would assume the money Disney will save there will balance out the cost of the coaster.

Disney Duster · Post by **Disney Duster** » Mon Oct 03, 2011 8:57 pm

No Cinderella was said to have a show stage and she was going to transform live. I don't remember any storytime with Belle thing. Disney should spend the money they would use on the stupid Avatar thing to build one other house and a new dark ride that replaces Snow White's Scary Adventure.

And even if they didn't do that, it doesn't matter if they don't have a bottomless pit of money, the Storybook Circus doesn't fit the theme well and is really just making non-fantasy characters be like Dumbo and its too much Dumbo and the Princess Hall will not be as good as the houses. Disney should use more money if it means building better attractions which the original plans actually did have better attractions than those at least.

DisneyAnimation88 · Post by **DisneyAnimation88** » Tue Oct 04, 2011 2:02 am

No it wasn't a stage show. You were to go into the chateau, watch Cinderella get transformed and then girls were supposed to help her learn to dance for the ball and boys were going to be made knights. Beauty and the Beast at DHS is a stage show. Finding Nemo at AK is a stage show. Cinderella's chateau would not have been a stage show.

DisneyDuster wrote:the Storybook Circus doesn't fit the theme well and is really just making non-fantasy characters be like Dumbo and its too much Dumbo and the Princess Hall will not be as good as the houses. Disney should use more money if it means building better attractions which the original plans actually did have better attractions than those at least.

The circus area is not part of Fantasyland, just like Mickey's Toontown Fair wasn't a part of Fantasyland so that point is irrelevent. Whether the old attractions were better is a matter of opinion; my tastes mean that I much prefer the current plans.

disneyprincess11 · Post by **disneyprincess11** » Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:51 pm

BREAKING NEWS:

It looks like the first fruits of New Fantasyland may be harvested in a matter of months. The new, second Dumbo the Flying Elephant attraction at the Storybook Circus area of New Fantasyland opens in early 2012, at which time the current Dumbo spinner closes and gets removed, refurbished, and installed adjacent to the new spinner. Also early in the year, after the opening of the new Dumbo spinner, the rethemed Barnstormer coaster reopens as The Great Goofini, and the new Fantasyland train station also opens at Storybook Circus.

http://www.mouseplanet.com/9759/Walt_Di ... date#dumbo

YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!

Big Disney Fan · Post by **Big Disney Fan** » Tue Oct 04, 2011 9:05 pm

disneyprincess11 wrote:BREAKING NEWS:
It looks like the first fruits of New Fantasyland may be harvested in a matter of months. The new, second Dumbo the Flying Elephant attraction at the Storybook Circus area of New Fantasyland opens in early 2012, at which time the current Dumbo spinner closes and gets removed, refurbished, and installed adjacent to the new spinner. Also early in the year, after the opening of the new Dumbo spinner, the rethemed Barnstormer coaster reopens as The Great Goofini, and the new Fantasyland train station also opens at Storybook Circus.
http://www.mouseplanet.com/9759/Walt_Di ... date#dumbo

YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!

Wouldn't they have to rush and close the current Dumbo ride to make this viable?

jpanimation · Post by **jpanimation** » Wed Oct 05, 2011 12:26 am

I assume they'll open the new one in the Storybook Circus area first, make sure that everything is working properly and then close the old one. That way capacity stays unaffected and Disney can just open the second one whenever it finishes it's refurb.

Big Disney Fan · Post by **Big Disney Fan** » Wed Oct 05, 2011 9:29 am

jpanimation wrote:I assume they'll open the new one in the Storybook Circus area first, make sure that everything is working properly and then close the old one. That way capacity stays unaffected and Disney can just open the second one whenever it finishes it's refurb.

But wouldn't it seem awkward to have only one ride open when there's supposed to be two?

Disney Duster · Post by **Disney Duster** » Wed Oct 05, 2011 8:28 pm

DisneyAnimation88 wrote:NWhether the old attractions were better is a matter of opinion; my tastes mean that I much prefer the current plans.

What is not opinion is what fits in Fantasyland more: the fantasy movies like Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty, not Mickey, Goofy, and circus characters.

And I said that Cinderella was going to have a "show stage" not stage show. I heard that, and the 3D model showed a very big show stage, so it may have actually meant there would be more than just what you say. But I did not say it was a stage show, but it had a show stage, I suppose the show being the transformation, dancing, and knighting.

Something I don't get is why the same people who didn't want Cinderella or Sleeping Beauty meet and greets said Belle also has a crappy girl-centric meet and greet, but Belle gets to have hers and two other Beauty and the Beast attractions. Wouldn't it make more sense to have only two Beauty and the Beast attractions and instead of Belle's story time have a Cinderella or Sleeping Beauty meet and greet?

DisneyAnimation88 · Post by **DisneyAnimation88** » Thu Oct 06, 2011 3:23 am

DisneyDuster wrote:What is not opinion is what fits in Fantasyland more: the fantasy movies like Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty, not Mickey, Goofy, and circus characters.

What don't you understand about this? The circus area is NOT a part of Fantasyland. I remember you made a huge fuss over Disney closing Mickey's Toontown Fair and said we should all protest. Well, the new circus area is replacing Toontown and is not a part of Fantasyland. The decision to get rid of the Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty attractions has NOTHING to do with the circus area so I really don't see how that point is relevent.

DisneyDuster wrote:Something I don't get is why the same people who didn't want Cinderella or Sleeping Beauty meet and greets said Belle also has a crappy girl-centric meet and greet, but Belle gets to have hers and two other Beauty and the Beast attractions. Wouldn't it make more sense to have only two Beauty and the Beast attractions and instead of Belle's story time have a Cinderella or Sleeping Beauty meet and greet?

I personally don't mind in the slightest because with the Belle meet-and-greet comes the interactive Be Our Guest restaurant and Gaston's Tavern, both of which look like places I will want to visit. Storytime with Belle has been at the Magic Kingdom for years so I actually don't mind them relocating it from the little corner it was in and expanding it. Perhaps Disney think that Beauty and the Beast is more popular than either Cinderella or Sleeping Beauty.

Disney Duster · Post by **Disney Duster** » Fri Oct 07, 2011 12:27 am

DisneyAnimation88 wrote:The decision to get rid of the Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty attractions has NOTHING to do with the circus area so I really don't see how that point is relevent.

So Disney had room to keep them but still didn't?!

DisneyAnimation88 wrote:I personally don't mind in the slightest because with the Belle meet-and-greet comes the interactive Be Our Guest restaurant and Gaston's Tavern, both of which look like places I will want to visit.

You don't actually need Belle's house to visit those places. Disney can easily choose to have those places there, Belle's storytime somewhere else, and Cinderella or Sleeping Beauty's house somewhere. Or even keep Belle's house and still have either Cinderella or Sleeping Beauty's house, or is that somehow not true?

DisneyJedi · Post by **DisneyJedi** » Fri Oct 07, 2011 12:49 am

DisneyAnimation88 wrote: ...Perhaps Disney think that Beauty and the Beast is more popular than either Cinderella or Sleeping Beauty.

What?! How?!

DisneyAnimation88 · Post by **DisneyAnimation88** » Fri Oct 07, 2011 6:24 am

DisneyDuster wrote:So Disney had room to keep them but still didn't?!

Not in the places they were meant to occupy as the Seven Dwarfs Mine Coaster is there. Disney have said that there is still room in the expansion to build more attractions in the future but I suppose their budget doesn't stretch to that right now.

DisneyDuster wrote:You don't actually need Belle's house to visit those places. Disney can easily choose to have those places there, Belle's storytime somewhere else, and Cinderella or Sleeping Beauty's house somewhere. Or even keep Belle's house and still have either Cinderella or Sleeping Beauty's house, or is that somehow not true?

Beauty and the Beast is basically a mini-land with the castle/restaurant, tavern and Belle's house, basically all of the most significant landmarks from the film. If there were no restaurant or tavern perhaps they would have gotten rid of the cottage but I can see why they kept it as it was already a popular attraction. Cinderella and Aurora's house could have conceivably still fitted in but the problem was not space it was APPEAL. I think a lot of people will agree that it is easy to see why they had those concerns so I'm not counting on seeing those meet-and-greets anytime soon.

DisneyJedi wrote:What?! How?!

Why not? I would say Beauty and the Beast is probably in the top three most popular Disney films with audiences (I think The Little Mermaid and The Lion King are most likely to be the other two) so it certainly seems possible to me that they would think that. All along the restaurant has been based around the ball room from Beauty and the Beast; why not set it in the ball room from Cinderella?

Disney Duster · Post by **Disney Duster** » Fri Oct 07, 2011 12:44 pm

Did the mine coaster stretch all the way to where Sleeping Beauty's cottage was going to be? I don't think so.

They could just make Beauty and the Beast a not as big land, and put some other attraction like the other princess ones somewhere around there where Belle's house was gonna go. Why does Beauty and the Beast get a much unfairly bigger area than any other film?

Recently in Tokyo Disneyland they built Cinderella's ballroom in the castle in an all new walk-through attraction. It attests to that film's popularity.

It is also impossible for every attraction to appeal to everyone. But if you plan something and tell people about it and you can still fit it in your park, why not? It'll still make tons of guests and money being princess-related.

DisneyAnimation88 · Post by **DisneyAnimation88** » Fri Oct 07, 2011 1:07 pm

I'm sure I've taken part in this conversation already.

DisneyDuster wrote:Why does Beauty and the Beast get a much unfairly bigger area than any other film?

Well, being that it's a hugely popular film maybe that played a part? Or maybe they're just trying to annoy you, after all you seem to be the only person Disney has to please these days.

DisneyDuster wrote:Recently in Tokyo Disneyland they built Cinderella's ballroom in the castle in an all new walk-through attraction. It attests to that film's popularity.

And if they really wanted to, they could do that at Cinderella's Castle in WDW. I'm not saying Cinderella isn't popular but if I'm being honest, I think Beauty and the Beast would be more popular with the majority of the general public who visit WDW who perhaps aren't great followers of the company.

DisneyDuster wrote:It is also impossible for every attraction to appeal to everyone. But if you plan something and tell people about it and you can still fit it in your park, why not? It'll still make tons of guests and money being princess-related.

Let me ask you something; if they had built the Sleeping Beauty meet-and-greet and you did it once and made a birthday card for Aurora...would you do it again? Everytime you visited the Magic Kingdom, would you make a card for Aurora? Or would you be more likely to ride a roller coaster? There are several things that Disney announced and never built; google Michael Eisner's "Disney Decade" and you will see what I mean.

Why put it in the park if you don't have complete faith in it or believe that you can create a better attraction in the future? True you can't appeal to everyone but the Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty meet-and-greets appealed only to a very specific demographic. If you can't see that then there really is no point in continuing this debate.

DVDizzy Forum

Latest Movie Reviews

🎬 DVDizzy Top Stories️️

Future Plans For WDW's Fantasyland