Originally Posted By gadzuux I've suggested this before, but here goes again. I think Peter Pan should be reimagined as a much more ambitious - and much larger - attraction in a new location. It's a proven crowdpleaser, even in it's current form. But there's certainly room for them to "step it up" and create something much grander, and also with greater capacity. In turn, this would also provide an opportunity for another new attraction in the current Pan spot. Perhaps a cinderella ride - she'd fit right into the neighborhood.
Originally Posted By Hista98 this would also provide an opportunity for another new attraction in the current Pan spot. Perhaps a cinderella ride - she'd fit right into the neighborhood. It would have to be an ariel based ride, meaning it would have to have the same system as pan, why?? a few reasons one the bvuilding is only really designed for this type of ride second there is more depth below the ride about 7 feet then on the walls and cielings, if they were to fill in the floor space to make it a ground based ride there would not be enough room with the walls to tell a convincing story. it would be like trying to build full size buildings in your bedroom the depth would be off.
Originally Posted By ImTempest gadzuux, I think that's a great idea, but there are elements of Peter Pan it would kill me to lose - 1) Exiting the nursery through the window and hearing Peter say "Here we go!" and 2) Flying over London and then over the island. If they promised to bring the ride over as it stands, with extra stuff added, that would work for me. And I think your idea to add Cinderella works perfectly.
Originally Posted By SFH Keep in mind that in the early/mid 1950s, Walt Disney Productions (the studio) was a publicly traded shareholder company. Walt Disney started WED Enterprises as a distinct company to create Disneyland. He either called that company (or planned on calling it) Walt Disney, Inc. at first, but Roy Disney, knowing he had a duty to WDP shareholders, objected... hence WED Enterprises. Disneyland (the place) was NOT a wholly owned part of Walt Disney Productions at first, so it wasn't like Walt could use any characters from Walt Disney Productions as he saw fit, without compensating the WDP (the shareholders). IIRC, about a third of Disneyland ownership was held by ABC. Oh, the irony. The limitations of dealing with a shareholder corporation (Walt Disney Productions) were not lost on Walt. Hence his PERSONAL company, Retlaw, which owned certain things like the Disneyland Railroad, the Disneyland Monorail, and Walt Disney's name and likeness. Walt Disney literally charged Walt Disney Productions for the use of his name and likeness, and retained the option to produce/direct a movie for another studio. THIS was the basis for a major fight between Walt and Roy. Eventually, most of Retlaw's assets were sold to WDP. WDP got full ownership of Disneyland and WED Enterprises. In the 1980s, WDP became The Walt Disney Company and WED Enterpises became "Walt Disney Imagineering".
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <so it wasn't like Walt could use any characters from Walt Disney Productions as he saw fit, without compensating the WDP (the shareholders). > How would that have worked, exactly? He wants to have a Snow White ride, so shareholders got an extra dividend? Or WED paid money to WDP? Any evidence of that, since there WAS of course a Snow White ride? (And a Peter Pan Ride, and a Dumbo ride, and a Mr. Toad Ride, and all those characters used in promo pieces, games, advertising, merch...)
