Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 O-Sentinel Blog reports what some of us have been saying for months: namely the F-land project is in total flux beyond Mermaid attraction and B&B dining facility ... so don't get those crayons out just yet! <a href="http://thedailydisney.com/blog/2010/08/disney-parks-chief-fantasyland-expansion-plans-are-being-redrawn/" target="_blank">http://thedailydisney.com/blog...redrawn/</a> ~Staggs is a dude ... who actually thinks like ... dudes!~
Originally Posted By Disneymom443 I think it would be a good idea to widen their harizon. Think about doing things that boys would like too. Good for Staggs.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros You know, the parks did quite well under Eisner's leadership, and he never failed to think like a guy. It seems like many of the now 'classic' additions came in his time, and are truly genderless. Instead of playing to a specific demographic, folks should just make things that actually interest them, personally. It worked for Walt. It worked for Eisner (except when he opted for the Soap Opera Bistro in DCA for his wife and it closed within a year). It didn't work when Rasulo didn't do it. Hopefully Staggs is on the right track again.
Originally Posted By MousDad Kudos to our good friend Epcot Explorer, who was the first on the web to publicly reveal Disney's change of heart - waaaay before Al Lutz and Jim Hill, and amidst denials from big wigs at this site and other magical realms. And kudos to Tom Staggs, who appears to have passed this test with shining colors. Finally - an executive who it looks like will lead the parks in the right direction. Even though I still think he's an arrogant s.o.b., kudos to Iger for making the switch at the top of P&R. I'm feeling a good bit of satisfaction and optimism today. Disney: thanks for listening!! Of course, maybe I should wait to see the new plans until I get too fanboi, but that's a discussion for another day. I'm going to enjoy this victory.
Originally Posted By brotherdave Did I read that article right that they're not cutting costs on the project, but actually adding a bit more to re-imagine it??? Could this truly be the start of something better now for the Magic Kingdom?? >>“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.<< And what, pray-tell, are "aspirational rides"??? The description in the article doesn't answer anything!
Originally Posted By MinnieSummer This is really great news, especially if it is true that the budget isn't going down but may actually go up a little. YAY!
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost I actually think that being "princess" sensitive is a good business decision. If you keep the young ladies happy they will insist on returning for that feel good feeling. Guys...well they are guys...if there is a chance to legitimately act like a kid they're on board. You don't really need to talk them into much if Momma want to go...they will follow. We are basically a simple gender.
Originally Posted By bobbelee9 Boys just want to have fun. It's the mothers and grandmothers who worry about the last of "boy things"
Originally Posted By plpeters70 <<And what, pray-tell, are "aspirational rides"??? >> I think this is Disney-speak for the more thrilling rides that children of very young ages can "aspire" to ride when they get older. Pretty much all of the new Fantasyland that was shown in the plans could be accessed by any age group - though I can't imagine anyone over ten actually wanting to do much of it, other than maybe the Mermaid ride. Hopefully this will mean an addition of something a little more interesting to the adults in the group.
Originally Posted By MPierce Does this mean the new planters they were going to build in Fantasyland are now on hold? I'll just die if that's true!
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer So...can I say I told you so? There was no way that this was going to work, in this format. I don't know what to expect, however...Some ideas include having a general location for the M/Gs...maybe something with Casey, and I would hope for the Storybook canals. However, all that's just what's been floating around. Don't know what's true.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>Kudos to our good friend Epcot Explorer, who was the first on the web to publicly reveal Disney's change of heart - waaaay before Al Lutz and Jim Hill, and amidst denials from big wigs at this site and other magical realms.<<< You flatter me.
Originally Posted By SFH You could say that in the early days of Disneyland, Frontierland was basically boy-centric. Fantasyland was actually kind of neutral. Sure, there was Snow White and the castle and the for girls, but Peter Pan, Toad, and the carousel were mostly neutral. Main Street was for the grandparents. Adventureland (Jungle Cruise, essentially) was for everyone.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer So, letting the girlies have FLE is a good thing? I don't understand what you are implying...
Originally Posted By Disneymom443 Maybe that things need to more neutral. Or at least not so centerd to one (girl or boy)?
Originally Posted By SFH Fantasyland can appeal to everyone. In general with Disney parks, there is nothing wrong with having an attraction (or any other feature) that appeals mostly to girls, or mostly to boys, or mostly to teens, or mostly to adults. But there should definitely be a vareity, including some things likely to be fun for the entire family.
