It's a lot more complicated than connecting the exit to the shop etc.
Yep. You have made a great argument that Small World would be a nice way to connect Future World and World's Showcase. How much real estate does Small World take up??
Well, seeing as how they already have an entire BATB section in another park it really would not make sense to put a BATB ride somewhere other than there.
It would be a good idea in theory but they would never do it.
Definitely agree.
I would think that if they did a ride in Epcot it would be a clone of Tokyo's which is based on the animated version so no Emma Watson.
There has to be a ride in the first place for B&tB to be getting "another ride." There is none. Not a single one anywhere in the world (yet). The IPs presence in WDW imo is, quite frankly, crap. None of it does it full justice. The Tokyo ride looks and sounds incredible. Rat just looks "OK."
The B&tB area in Magic Kingdom is the equivalent of if Universal built Hogsmeade with no Forbidden Journey and instead a Great Hall restaurant was inside Hogwarts. Oh, and the two roller coasters wouldn't be there either. Ollivander's still gets built though so there's that.
This is exactly what I've considered...it makes the most sense. If they must keep that garbage princess fairytale hall, they might as well tear down Village Haus and the connecting restrooms and shoehorn the Beauty and the Beast ride there.
Why would they? Why would they spend all that money when the movies already made them money? When the movies already represented multiple times across property?
Ageee with Marni here..... BatB ride could, with some clever rework of the restrooms by Gaston's tavern, be addded to the back of new Fantadyland if they really wanted to add it. I think BatB in MK and Rat Epcot is best plan. But seems BatB as of today isn't on the radar .... yet. Now adding both go a long way to help round out offerings at both parks( assuming you have resigned yourself to more characters at Epcot. )
I am obviously not in the know, but I was thinking about something as I was reading this thread, and when I read your post it almost felt like it supported my random thought. Sure, Bob loves IP, and sure Beauty and the Beast is making a ton of money. But on that same thought...they now have the successful animated movie and they already have a successful live action movie. A ride wouldn't increase by a very large amount any profits in the movie sector of their business, and even merchandise it might not have that much of an effect. But if they built a ride for another IP - isn't there more possibilities there for tie ins. Take Rat - now I may be talking crazy (would need to rewatch the film maybe) but could there be more possibilities for this to be a sequel or live action. If you build a ride, and it is popular, the public might be more interested if such a movie came up, increasing those profits. Same with merchandise - it is not (as far as I know) a popular movie for merchandise, but if you create a ride...(could you imagine management thinking, built a ride, and we might have our first hit live action Pixar movie)
Yes. Folks are giving them too much credit suggesting they opted for Rat because BatB is represented elsewhere. My understanding is that when BatB was predicted to hit $100m in its first weekend and earn $700m total, they opted for the cheaper, quicker-to-build Rat due to a contrived time constraint (my personal theory is that they picked it to help with Star Wars crowds and have tabled the Mickey LPS). The stage show at DHS would then get its planned, and very necessary upgrades. Now that BatB is a global phenomenon, perhaps priorities will change, but I admit it would take a lot of shifting and money--not only the pricier ride for Epcot with a new ride system, but they'd also have the commence the Mickey LPS at the same time. One must not ignore the operational issues at DHS if GMR closes that could be avoided by instead building an LPS a mile northeast.
It is planned to stay.
