There's a lot of talk these days about CARS LAND (and Bug's Land) and why it shouldn't be this or why it shouldn't be that... or maybe the name is lousy. It's been argued that they don't really belong in a park about California.
So far, there have been three lands built or planned, based on an existing film:
-Mermaid Lagoon / Triton's Kingdom (Tokyo Disney Sea) -- an entire land based on the Little Mermaid. Flounder has a kiddie coaster, Ariel has her grotto and playground, and Sebastian had a Calypso Kitchen at one point.
-A Bug's Land (California Adventure) -- land made just for kids which takes up a chunk of Bountiful Farm. A sub section titled Flik's Fun Faire is where all the kiddie stuff can be found.
-Cars Land (California Adventure) -- land basically based off of Radiator Springs and Route 66. Three attractions planned so far.
Out of those three, only one land truly belongs: Mermaid Lagoon. It's part of Tokyo Disney SEA. The land fits. The attractions within leave a lot to be desired but the theming at least is well done.
But what is it about A Bug's Land and Cars Land that split the die hard fans? Is it because it's Pixar? And by Pixar, I mean.... is it because the movies themselves are too modern?
The films that Disney has done with traditional hand drawn animation has always been fairy tale in nature; creating an amazing canvas of a world that many would like to visit. Cars Land is basically Route 66. A Bug's Land is basically an enlarged world, and not even a properly done one at that.
Then I was thinking about what 2D Disney classics would make good lands. There are two that are perfect candidates: NEVERLAND and WONDERLAND. None fit into DCA but would make amazing lands themselves in other "kingdom" parks.
Neverland could contain:
-Captain Hook's Pirate Ship
-Peter Pan's Flight
Wonderland could contain
-Alice in Wonderland
-Mad Tea Party
-Mad Hatter shop
-Queen of Hearts Banquet Hall
-Alice's Curious Labyrnth
-March Hare Refreshments
These attractions I've listed already exist in various parks, but somehow... never have they been built up into its own massive land. The reason being: it's not necessary. It's overkill. It's almost too easy. Right?
But why, I ask, would a propertly like Alice in Wonderland, where countless ideas could be had for a wonderful land not ever happen while A Bug's Land and Cars Land does? Where's the creativeness of WDI?
Why couldn't Cars Land involve all of Disney's car properties? Why couldn't A Bug's Land include the other roster of bugs in Disney films? Is Jiminy Cricket and Cri-Kee not CG or modern enough?
So yah... i dunno why i started this thread. I suppose I got bored and wanted to discuss what's on my mind. How do you really feel about lands based on film properties? Are you opposed to it if it's based on classic Disney? Or do you agree with me that it's never necessary to go all out on one movie for one land?