News 'Beyond Big Thunder Mountain' Blue Sky concept revealed for Magic Kingdom

[MisterPenguin]

There are a few plottings being sent around.

The pre-phase 1 work is beginning W and NW of BTMRR... water management and facilities work.

I anticipate we'll see access to phase 1 between TBA and BTMRR, around the mountain, and then back to existing FL via a boardwalk along the river. Phase 2 - if it were to happen - would then arch N and NE, clipping a bit of ROA, and connecting to LS around HM.

The "14 acre" site they're already overpromoting (and likely overpromising) is the maximum border they can get from W of BTMM all the way around to HM. We'll see.

Josh told people the water permit was done and, I think, soon to be submitted.

When @danlb_2000 posts it, we'll see the scope of the land.

 

[Basil of Baker Street]

Brayden has reported the following, again and I have stressed this before but no one seems to read it. I am not saying Brayden is credible I’m just posting this here as he has gotten things right in the past.

- Frontierland gone turned into Bayou (separate land from desert)
- Desert land features Radiator Springs Racers
- Big Thunder Mountain worked into the new desert land
- Rivers of America on the chopping block
- WDW Railroad will be effected in some way
- Tom Sayer Island is gone and is turned into a Woody Roundup Attraction
- Villians Land behind Haunted Mansion with at least 1 e ticket and 1 d ticket
- Country Bears opening in August
- Haunted Mansion Restaurant cancelled

Some of this seems plausible.

I may be in the minority but I feel Toy Story has enough at WDW. No more please.

 

[mattpeto]

I may be in the minority but I feel Toy Story has enough at WDW. No more please.

I'm okay if they expand TSL, but that's it.

 

[James Alucobond]

I may be in the minority but I feel Toy Story has enough at WDW. No more please.

It has a dedicated land, so … yes. I think most would agree since that’s a distinction only Star Wars and Avatar also enjoy at WDW.

 

[Basil of Baker Street]

I'm okay if they expand TSL, but that's it.

Im playing catch up on this topic and at least seeing I'm not alone. RoA and TSI should have all be incorporated into a Princess and the Frog Land. What a wasted opportunity.

 

[Advisable Joseph]

The "14 acre" site they're already overpromoting (and likely overpromising) is the maximum border they can get from W of BTMM all the way around to HM. We'll see.

This is starting from Caribbean Way, in the back stage area, and not Maple Road farther south as reports of the water permit indicated, almost where Frontierland and Adventureland meet, correct?

 

[DisneyDodo]

Before I start this post I want to apologize to you that I'm quoting your post from earlier today and using it as my example. It's just that I see so many people on here bring up this subject and get mad at Disney for this idea that they are rarely opening things or refreshing them in the four Walt Disney World parks as frequently as they should. It's just plain wrong.

Weeks ago I got this idea to do a deep dive on the history of the parks in Orlando after reading a post on here in some thread about how Universal is always opening things and Epic Universe this and Epic Universe that, and how Disney World could never compete and doesn't give their fans enough. Side note: I am VERY excited for Epic Universe and love both Universal and Disney, just wanted to say that.

So anyway, I started looking on Google for easy articles or sites that have ALL the history of Disney World and Universal Orlando parks to get to the bottom of this. It's not as easy to find, so I decided to go through each and just make my own spreadsheets with almost EVERY year and EVERY park to really be able to have them side by side and compare this debate. I will attach the PDF's here for anyone interested to be able to download them and save them!

The only years I didn't do (yet) were 1971-1979. I started with the good ol' year of 1980! I was doing this research and putting together these spreadsheets during my days at work, when I had time to spare. It has taken me a little over a week, so please spare me if there might be spelling errors or a couple things might be wrong or missing. But, by my nature, I was very stringent on getting everything right so I think it's good, but I welcome anyone to check my work and let me know if something seems off with an opening year!

So I started in 1980, and based on my research, Walt Disney World has NOT had something new in their four theme parks, from 1980 to 2024 a total of 5 times. So out of 44 years only 5 of those years something new wasn't brought to the parks.

When I say something new what I mean is:
-A ride (new or retheme or replacement)
-A show (new or retheme or replacement)
-A firework show (new or replacement)
-A parade (new or replacement)

I understand some people might not want to count something like a new firework show or parade in this. So if I take out the years where only a new firework show or parade were introduced then since 1980- in those 44 years, 7 of them nothing came to the parks.

Also, since 2010 when Islands of Adventure opened The Wizarding World of Harry Potter, there's only been ONE year that Disney hadn't opened something in one of their four parks. That was 2013. Part of this research I was very intrigued at looking at the years since 2010 because it's always a topic of discussion in these forums that Universal Orlando has been embarrassing WDW since then with always opening something and Disney leaving us hanging. Which is again, just plain wrong.

Now of course, bias and opinion comes HUGELY into play here if whoever is reading this post thinks that something opened by either WDW or Universal Orlando is good or worthy. I am not denying that some people might look at this and just be like, for example: "well Frozen Ever After is a bad ride, so who cares that they opened that in 2016." This still doesn't change the fact that WDW did indeed open something.

Ok sorry about the rambling. So to explain the spreadsheets here so it's easy for anyone to understand them (for whoever is still reading this post and is interested lol)
We got the individual years on the left and then going across the top are the parks with their own spaces.
Anything in Bold means it was something brand new. Not a replacement.
Anything in Italic's means it's a firework show.

So enjoy for whoever is interested! And I hope this maybe helps us here on these forums realize that Disney World actually has been consistently giving us fans something almost every year and this notion that they're not is just kind of silly and wrong.

It’s important to note that WDW has always had more theme parks than UOR (currently by a 2:1 ratio). Expectations should be set on a theme park level, not a resort level (especially in the case of WDW, where the theme parks are spread out and hopping between them is so time-consuming).

IOW it’s possible for both resorts to build the same amount of stuff over a given time period, yet each of the Uni parks improves while the Disney parks deteriorate. Because in Disney’s case, the per-park investment would be half.

 

[Advisable Joseph]

A little more information via Robert Niles from the media event at Walt Disney Imagineering.

"Iger said that Disney will be filing permits, presumably with the Southwest Florida Water Management District, for construction preparation on a site west of Frontierland. A graphic shown by Iger showed a work area that spans both the waterway connecting the Rivers of America with the Seven Seas Lagoon as well as Floridian Place, north of Maple Road."

Disney confirms two major expansion projects in Florida

www.themeparkinsider.com

With this in mind, could Disney build west of Floridian Way, the smaller road, in order to get out of the 100-year floodplain just west of the canal? How do you think they would get guests across that road?

 

[SpectreJordan]

The idea of yet another Toy Story attraction is hilarious. They already have an entire land at DHS plus another Toy Story attraction in Tomorrowland.

I guess I wouldn't put it past Disney, but that really doesn't seem realistic.

If they do this, then it feels like there'll be more Toy Story attractions than there is attractions with Mickey & the gang in them.

I wonder if they're thinking about making the TS cast a secondary set of mascots?

 

[SpectreJordan]

I really hope the claim that they're gonna put another Toy Story ride in Frontierland is false. If they want to build a Woody ride, put it in Toy Story Land.

As far as Cars Land goes, I'm not a huge fan of the idea of single-IP lands in the Magic Kingdom, it just feels weird to me, but I'd like to see Cars Land in Hollywood Studios. If not Radiator Springs Racers, I'd settle for a fun dark ride (not a trackless one, though, please).

Monsters as in Monsters Inc.? If so, huzzah! I love that movie.

I agree with Radiator Springs itself coming to MK. The ride could work if it's a part of a more "realistic" Route 66 land, that would fit the Americana theme of MK well. But I think that would disappoint casual parkgoers who want to go to the town from the movie.

 

[Pi on my Cake]

If they do this, then it feels like there'll be more Toy Story attractions than there is attractions with Mickey & the gang in them.

I wonder if they're thinking about making the TS cast a secondary set of mascots?

They already are essentially Pixar's mascots. And Pixar is one of the largest pillars of Disney's film business. Honestly kind of surprised they don't treat Woody as a secondary mascot

Still though, anything larger than an A or B-Ticket would be silly imo when there's a whole Toy Story Land. But something like a Woodys Roundup flat ride or playground fits Frontierland well enough that I'd be ok with it even if I'd prefer either original ideas or IPs that aren't represented already

 

[SpectreJordan]

Villains at DHS would make sense as they have been try to have premium events at that park for a long time. The Halloween parties at MK sell out almost every event, you could do something with Villians at DHS for Halloween and increase event capacity by doing a Villians party on opposite nights, then go right into Jingle Bam parties running opposite MVMCP.

There's pros & cons to having it in either park.

A lot of people like the idea of the villains having their own land with MK as a contrast to Fantasyland. You can have a story about the villains being "banished" to the back of the park & them trying to escape into the rest of the park. Downside, depending on who you ask, is that the land would probably be geared more towards kids. & you'd lose out on a separate Halloween event.

Meanwhile, I can see DHS slowly becoming the "adult" park with more thrill rides & what not; this way the villain rides could be a bit more thrilling. A Villain land could play into this as that park's dark version of Fantasyland, but you lose out on the direct contrast that having it in MK would have. At DHS, it could make sense to have villains from outside of the Disney Animation library; Pixar villains like Randall or Syndrome, Alien, Predator, finally having a roaming Darth Vader, etc... But then that takes away from the idea that is all the classic Disney villains together.

 

[SpectreJordan]

They already are essentially Pixar's mascots. And Pixar is one of the largest pillars of Disney's film business. Honestly kind of surprised they don't treat Woody as a secondary mascot

Still though, anything larger than an A or B-Ticket would be silly imo when there's a whole Toy Story Land. But something like a Woodys Roundup flat ride or playground fits Frontierland well enough that I'd be ok with it even if I'd prefer either original ideas or IPs that aren't represented already

If we're getting a western attraction & it has to be IP, then it should be based on old characters that are basically American legends at this point. The Lone Ranger or Zorro could be awesome E-tickets.

Yeah, they don't have active franchises, but the names are still super recognizable & I think they have good merch possibilities too.

 

[𝐌𝖆𝖓 𝖎𝖓 𝐖𝖊𝖇]

If we're getting a western attraction & it has to be IP, then it should be based on old characters that are basically American legends at this point. The Lone Ranger or Zorro could be awesome E-tickets.

Yeah, they don't have active franchises, but the names are still super recognizable & I think they have good merch possibilities too.

A Zorro stunt show would be epic!

 

[doctornick]

A Zorro stunt show would be epic!

Wasn't there a new Zorro show being developed for D+?

 

[neo999955]

If we're getting a western attraction & it has to be IP, then it should be based on old characters that are basically American legends at this point. The Lone Ranger or Zorro could be awesome E-tickets.

Yeah, they don't have active franchises, but the names are still super recognizable & I think they have good merch possibilities too.

I’m in my mid-30s and I don’t really know either of those properties. I doubt most people younger than me would either. They may be classics, but I don’t think they’ve survived in relevancy enough for modern-day attractions.

 

[TheCoasterNerd]

I’m in my mid-30s and I don’t really know either of those properties. I doubt most people younger than me would either. They may be classics, but I don’t think they’ve survived in relevancy enough for modern-day attractions.

I'm 14, 15 in a month, and I've only ever heard of Zorro via the Disneyland Band performing the theme song. I've never seen the Lone Ranger, but I have heard of it. If they were to build a land relating to them, I'd probably watch them to prepare for it, but yeah it's not really anything GP under, idk, 50, will connect to, and probably even some mega-fans such as myself wouldn't be able to relate to it. I want what they build to be a non-ip land or a land loosely based on IP but of course that isn't gonna happen. I think best case scenario is Villains Land as it could fit the rockwork of BTMRR and blend into the ghostly architecture of HM, but again I know that likely isn't the case.

 

[Incomudro]

I’m in my mid-30s and I don’t really know either of those properties. I doubt most people younger than me would either. They may be classics, but I don’t think they’ve survived in relevancy enough for modern-day attractions.

I'm 60, and I wouldn't want them.
They were old when I was a kid.

 

[𝐌𝖆𝖓 𝖎𝖓 𝐖𝖊𝖇]

I'm 60, and I wouldn't want them.
They were old when I was a kid.

I watched Zorro on TV as a kid in the 90s. It was on a basic cable channel or programming block. I don't think it's left the public consciousness. Plus there's the revival series on Disney+ coming soon for newer generations to watch.

 

[Incomudro]

I watched Zorro on TV as a kid in the 90s. It was on a basic cable channel or programming block. I don't think it's left the public consciousness. Plus there's the revival series on Disney+ coming soon for newer generations to watch.

I remember the remake as well with Catherine Zeta Jones.
Still, I really don't think too many people - particularly younger people are interested in Zorro.