Replacement for Tomorrowland Speedway?

[Daveeeeed]

I never said that everything has to be catered to the very young children. I said it gives me a headache to deal with it, but I get it.

I do think since Theme is important, that roller coasters just thematically work better in HS. I just can't envision a Hulk style roller coaster in MK due to the way the park is designed, but that is just my opinion. However, I didn't read anywhere where anyone said it does. That doesn't mean that thrill rides don't belong at all.

What I really said is that I would be sad to see a family attraction removed for one that is not inclusive to all.

I also don't think the other parks are great examples entirely because they are themed differently since many are single park setups. Disney World is unique in Disney in that it has 4 parks. Each one with a unique theme and purpose, so there is more room to play with in regards to what each parks is designed to reach and market to.

Mostly, I don't think that one large thrill ride will solve the crowding problem at all. Maybe two or three D levels, but not one large door stopper.

That's true. Thanks for the clarification!

 

[Daveeeeed]

Don't be too hard on @21stamps. He is a valued contributor here. I don't think he is trying to "make you look like an idiot".

Not all rides need to be thrilling for adults, like RnR or ToT. Some kids can handle that, but other kids work up to those rides.

Walt was more about a family experiencing a Tiki Bird serenade, an adventure with Snow White, Mr. Toad goes to hell etc...
Even the Matterhorn was mild enough for the younger kids.

1 ride, that's all I'm saying.

I mainly like rides based on the theme etc. not really huge into coasters as much as I am for a good ride on The Haunted Mansion, or Splash , but I do enjoy them, and I see that it could work great at the MK.

To your other point I would argue that 21Stamps is more of a troll than anything if you have seen what she does.

 

[Buried20KLeague]

Yeah, from what I've seen it is too short of an experience and not much in the way of story in the queue?

The story is that you're on the blue team, racing against the orange. The que really isn't all that long to build the story, but I think it tries.

There is a VERY cool effect that allows you to watch the launch while in the que though.

It was too short as far as I was concerned, for sure. I should have timed it but didn't think about it.

It seems like they also could have varied the "ending" too. It's just CGI on a screen. Seems they could have made 3 or 4 options easily and with little added expense.

Overall I loved the attraction. Sitting in front at night was incredible. And the visuals and kinetics it gave the area is second to none. I wouldn't call it perfect... I reserve that term for Jack Sparrow's attraction across the park.

 

[DDLand]

Yeah, from what I've seen it is too short of an experience and not much in the way of story in the queue?

The story is rather simplistic and it's far from the most ambitious attempt at conveying a plot, but it does work.

Essentially Shanghai's Tomorrowland has been chosen as the site of a gateway into the world of Tron. You're being uploaded to play the games (that can end rather poorly). You have to beat team Orange. The problem arises in the fact that Team Orange are all beasts at the game and you're hopelessly outmatched. Your team, Team Blue, has been vanquished by your opponents time and again (further rubbed in by a helpful video in the queue showing a compilation of your team's greatest fails).

You should be getting a little nervous as you board your Lightcycle. The odds aren't on your side.

After a short and calm ride you enter the room to prepare for syncing into the world of Tron. A countdown ensues and you suddenly are launched at high speeds outside. The idea behind this section is you're syncing into the world of Tron and all along the outdoor canopy arrows are flashing directing you to your ultimate destination. Let's just say you enter the computer realm with style. One of the coolest moments; especially at night.

After the outdoor portion you slow down and enter a small dark room which then opens up to the game room. You are officially in the Realm of Tron.

Things start heating up rather quickly. To win the game you have to go through several rings before Team Orange does. At first it's a close call, but slowly and surely you start beating Team Orange. Before long Orange Lightcycles (made possible with projections and a nifty trick lifted from the whitewall tires at Radiator Springs Racer, only this time the mirror image are your competitors with Orange rims projected on) start exploding all around you. You narrowly make it through each ring knocking Team Orange out. I think it's 8 rings, but someone who has been more recently can verify that.

You finally end your game by speeding through the last ring and entering a cool mirror tunnel for a return to Shanghai Tomorrowland.

At that point everyone bursts out laughing or just asking what the heck just happened (at least that's my best interpretation of it). The reaction was always great. My first ride I got to sit right in the front so it was just me facing a track dead ahead before being launched. I was terrified, but oh my gosh what a ride. It really is just mind blowing.

As to length, it could be longer and I would take it in a hearbeat, but it doesn't need to be. I think it stands up fine at this length and should quickly become Magic Kingdom's premier ride (especially if Mine Train has anything to say about it ).

The story is something to knock it on. It isn't nearly as ambitious or as great at storytelling as Battle for the Sunken Treasure, but is still quite the rush with a cool vibe. A good attraction.

@Buried20KLeague Credit to you for catching my misuse of "Yellow" instead of Orange. In retrospect you having just been there I should have jumped on that sooner. You live and learn...

Edit: @SteamboatJoe, here's the premise and a synopsis of the ride I wrote. You may have seen this, but in case you haven't.

 

[Buried20KLeague]

The story is rather simplistic and it's far from the most ambitious attempt at conveying a plot, but it does work.

Essentially Shanghai's Tomorrowland has been chosen as the site of a gateway into the world of Tron. You're being uploaded to play the games (that can end rather poorly). You have to beat team Yellow. The problem arises in the fact that Team Yellow are all beasts at the game and you're hopelessly outmatched. Your team, Team Blue, has been vanquished by your opponents time and again (further rubbed in by a helpful video in the queue showing a compilation of your team's greatest fails).

You should be getting a little nervous as you board your Lightcycle. The odds aren't on your side.

After a short and calm ride you enter the room to prepare for syncing into the world of Tron. A countdown ensues and you suddenly are launched at high speeds outside. The idea behind this section is you're syncing into the world of Tron and all along the outdoor canopy arrows are flashing directing you to your ultimate destination. Let's just say you enter the computer realm with style. One of the coolest moments; especially at night.

After the outdoor portion you slow down and enter a small dark room which then opens up to the game room. You are officially in the world of Tron.

Things start heating up rather quickly. To win the game you have to go through several rings before Team Yellow does. At first it's a close call, but slowly and surely you start beating Team Yellow. Before long Yellow Lightcycles (made possible with projections and a nifty trick lifted from the whitewall tires at Radiator Springs Racer, only this time the mirror image are your competitors with yellow rims projected on) start exploding all around you. You narrowly make it through each ring knocking Team Yellow out. I think it's 8 rings, but someone who has been more recently can verify that.

You finally end your game by speeding through the last ring and entering a cool mirror tunnel for a return to Shanghai Tomorrowland.

At that point everyone bursts out laughing or just asking what the heck just happened (at least that's my best interpretation of it). The reaction was always great. My first ride I got to sit right in the front so it was just me facing a track dead ahead before being launched. I was terrified, but oh my gosh what a ride. It really is just mind blowing.

As to length, it could be longer and I would take it in a hearbeat, but it doesn't need to be. I think it stands up fine at this length and should quickly become Magic Kingdom's premier ride (especially if Mine Train has anything to say about it ).

The story is something to knock it on. It isn't nearly as ambitious or as great at storytelling as Battle for the Sunken Treasure, but is still quite the rush with a cool vibe. A good attraction.

WOW. You got a lot more out of the "story" than I did!!!

Did they call the other team yellow?? I never saw anything but orange.

 

[peter11435]

MK rides do not exclude the average height 4 or 5 year old. That was exactly my point.

I stress average bc I have a younger sister who is not even 5'1 at age 32.. she took awhile to meet height requirements at amusement parks.lol

The point is that you seem to be saying that low height requirements are ok but higher ones are not. If your reasoning against 48" height requirements at MK is that the park should be designed for families of all ages to experience attractions together, then I don't understand why 40" or 44" would be ok. Why is it ok to exclude some but not others.

 

[Daveeeeed]

I know @21stamps posts, I don't remember any of your post except the ones where you made fun of @21stamps for stating her opinion about thrill rides in MK.
It was your reaction to another member's opinion that makes be think of you as a troll. You attacked another member for their opinion, that is a troll to me. You may disagree.

It's not just an opinion, through and through she has been able to come up with nonsensical stances, and has derailed at least a half dozen threads for the very bad. Also people have accused her of stalking, but whatever.

 

[PorterRedkey]

It's not just an opinion, through and through she has been able to come up with nonsensical stances, and has derailed at least a half dozen threads for the very bad. Also people have accused her of stalking, but whatever

Do you have an example for your claim? She just has opinions like the rest of us. Why so much hate?

 

[21stamps]

Do you have an example for your claim? She just has opinions like the rest of us. Why so much hate?

Thanks for the defense, truly.
But I've learned to just let people rant if they feel the need to.lol.

The point is that you seem to be saying that low height requirements are ok but higher ones are not. If your reasoning against 48" height requirements at MK is that the park should be designed for families of all ages to experience attractions together, then I don't understand why 40" or 44" would be ok. Why is it ok to exclude some but not others.

Again, age. There's no other reason.

 

[21stamps]

So you are ok with excluding those under a certain age from family experiences?

I still just don't understand the logic.

Because logically an infant can not go on a roller coaster.

I'm a late 70s 80s kid.. back when no one cared about child safety.. we didn't wear helmets, we didn't have car seats past age 2, and the rollercoasters had a single bar that "protected us" from flying out.
Even back then though, infants could not go on coasters..lol. I think the infants/ toddlers are ok with that.

 

[wishiwere@wdw]

So 44 is ok but 48 is not?

While I get where both of you are coming from, I can absolutely 100% assure that yes, there is a BIG difference between 44 and 48" and as a father of 4, it's heart breaking when the 5 year old can ride Everest with his siblings and dad but can't ride Primevil Whirl as that is 48". It happens to be a period of growth for most kids and getting to 48" requires quite a bit more time for many vs 44.

 

[FigmentForver96]

While I get where both of you are coming from, I can absolutely 100% assure that yes, there is a BIG difference between 44 and 48" and as a father of 4, it's heart breaking when the 5 year old can ride Everest with his siblings and dad but can't ride Primevil Whirl as that is 48". It happens to be a period of growth for most kids and getting to 48" requires quite a bit more time for many vs 44.

Then come back. It is not Disneys job to have one bar for all of their rides so Little Jan can ride. Jan can come back another time, and for those who can only go one time, then it's just unfortunate.

 

[FigmentForver96]

When they have built themselves as an Inclusive Family Theme Park, then yes, it is their job..or at the very least, should be their mission to do that.
Put 48" requirements in MK, and it's not longer an all around Family Park with Family Attractions. There's a difference between family rides and kiddie rides. That's what people aren't looking at.

Family as in all kinds of families. Very naive to think that a family consists of small children because you have them. Either way it's time to end this conversation. You do this all the time and it's ridiculous.

 

[Daveeeeed]

Family as in all kinds of families. Very naive to think that a family consists of small children because you have them. Either way it's time to end this conversation. You do this all the time and it's ridiculous.

Thank you!

 

[wishiwere@wdw]

Then come back. It is not Disneys job to have one bar for all of their rides so Little Jan can ride. Jan can come back another time, and for those who can only go one time, then it's just unfortunate.

Wow. Ok. Thanks. I'll let you know where to send your financial contributions .

Seriously though, no kidding. I've obviously been there in this situation 3 previous times with my older kids. If anybody gets it, I do. However, my point was that in the MK, I really don't think this situation should come up like it does elsewhere. Or any castle park for the matter. 44 is one thing but after that it truly does start to split up families.

All that said, this is a forum and it's my opinion. Just sharing from my own personal experiences which would mean that all of us are sharing opinions.

 

[PorterRedkey]

When they have built themselves as an Inclusive Family Theme Park, then yes, it is their job..or at the very least, should be their mission to do that.
Put 48" requirements in MK, and it's not longer an all around Family Park with Family Attractions. There's a difference between family rides and kiddie rides. That's what people aren't looking at.

I don't think one 48" ride at MK would make the park less family friendly, depending on the attraction.
To be honest I thought Space Mountain already had a 48" requirement. To me, raising the Space Mtn ride height from 44" to 48" would not change the park from a family park to a "thrill park". So with that logic, a new ride with a 48" height requirement would also NOT turn MK into a thrill park.

 

[Daveeeeed]

Family-meaning enjoyable to ALL ages (in reason). I have been to Disney World twice with my child. I have been to Disney World 30 something times without a child.
Space Mountain has always appealed to me, and it has nothing to do with being a mother or what height requirements it has.

You still don't get it though... the only ones affected by this are families with small children or that has family members who do not like coasters. I know a ton of people who don't like Peter Pan does that mean it should not be in the parks? If you don't like it then don't ride it... it's one ride. It would be another story if they were building 4, and the best part is it isn't even rumoured to be a 48" coaster.

 

[peter11435]

Because logically an infant can not go on a roller coaster.

I'm a late 70s 80s kid.. back when no one cared about child safety.. we didn't wear helmets, we didn't have car seats past age 2, and the rollercoasters had a single bar that "protected us" from flying out.
Even back then though, infants could not go on coasters..lol. I think the infants/ toddlers are ok with that.

Obviously infants can't ride roller coasters. However, 40 and 44 inch height requirements exclude far more than just infants. There are plenty of 3, 4, and 5 year olds that don't meet them. But that is not the point which you are clearly missing.

If you want MK to be for families, where families can enjoy the same attractions together, then why are you ok with any height requirements? Obviously higher height requirements exclude more, but neither achieves your desire of the park having attractions that can be enjoyed by everyone.





.

 

[Daveeeeed]

I realize that you're young, but not every conversation is an argument. People can have a discussion without attempting insults.

You talk about "digging holes". It's a Disney forum, this thread is about a classic family attraction, and what could replace it.

Lighten up, not everything has to be dramatic.

Ironic how you are complaining that little kids can't ride coasters with a 48" height requirement, yet you hold the fact that I am a high schooler against me.
Also nice that you deleted that

 

[peter11435]

I just deleted that. I'm not holding your age against you. I will say that when I was your age I probably wanted thrill rides in MK too.

We have different view points on what that park has always been, that's ok. Different viewpoints don't automatically mean arguments. Have a great evening.

For the record, I do not want thrill rides in the magic kingdom.