MK Cars-Themed Attractions at Magic Kingdom

[danlb_2000]

It's amusing that we still see comments in here talking about ROA/TSI being an underutilized space. Seems to me that the thousands of acres of undeveloped land on property is the ultimate in underutilized space.

Imagine how many more festival booths they could build at Epcot if they just filled in the World Showcase Lagoon. It's really only used 20 minutes out of each day for the nighttime show.

 

[Agent H]

Most of us are armchair imagineers - I know I’ve studied the business and operations of theme parks and entertainment businesses.

The magic kingdom is the worlds #1 most visited theme park. It has not been developed well. There is so much potential.

Did new fantasyland take the plot that was going to be used for fire mountain? Cause if not, a Villians attraction could be built there.

And then Moana by Adventureland. And the Main Street theatre. Let’s do that first please!

Fire mountain was supposed to go in the Adventureland expansion pad. Villains mountain was planned for the new fantasyland plot.

 

[LittleBuford]

I understand that you personally don’t like the jungle cruise but I would wonder why they would do that when there’s a perfectly good expansion area between it and pirates.

I would be devastated if they replaced it. Thankfully, it’s much too popular for there to be much chance of that.

 

[UNCgolf]

If they get rid of the Jungle Cruise AND the RoA, that would be awful. And I love the temple scene in MK's Jungle Cruise...it's really unique!

The temple scene may be the only part of the ride I really like.

I understand that you personally don’t like the jungle cruise but I would wonder why they would do that when there’s a perfectly good expansion area between it and pirates.

Well yes, I don't think they should be replacing anything until they've used their expansion pads. I'm not saying they should tear it up today. But if they're determined to replace something, Jungle Cruise would probably be the best option because of how much space it takes up. As I said, that land could likely be used for multiple attractions, shops, and dining and provide a major capacity increase for the park.

It would also have almost no effect on the Magic Kingdom's aesthetics etc. since Jungle Cruise is back in a corner and isn't even a major part of Adventureland, much less the whole park (unlike Rivers of America, which does have a major effect on multiple areas of the park).

 

[TheMaxRebo]

I personally would be completely on board with replacing Jungle Cruise; I don't think it's a good attraction and they could add so much (probably multiple rides, dining, and shopping) in its footprint. I'd want the one at Disneyland to remain as Walt's attraction, but would happily dump the MK version (assuming the replacement was actually good -- certainly not anything related to the Incredibles).

Jungle Cruise is one of my favorite attractions ... That I said I would understand why there could be benefits to using all that space for something else and agree with you - if the one at Disneyland stays and what they replace it with us good, then so be it

 

[Ayla]

It is a rite of passage for many Americans, and they will only go once. Doesn't mean they don't do other "once in a lifetime" trips.

"Once in a lifetime" is literally that.

 

[Ayla]

I would be devastated if they replaced it. Thankfully, it’s much too popular for there to be much chance of that.

So was Splash Mountain.

 

[Agent H]

I would be devastated if they replaced it. Thankfully, it’s much too popular for there to be much chance of that.

I agree wholeheartedly. It’s hilarious and the only ride (not counting the slide at typhoon lagoon) directly tied to the S.E.A.

 

[Andrew C]

"Once in a lifetime" is literally that.

I meant other once in a lifetime trips to different places.

 

[LittleBuford]

So was Splash Mountain.

Leaving aside the very specific circumstances surrounding that particular IP, there’s a world of difference between retheming a ride and replacing it entirely. Tiana’s Bayou Adventure, despite being a huge downgrade in my opinion, remains very popular according to the data gathered by @lentesta, presumably because of the broad appeal of the log-flume format itself. Disney presumably made that calculation (correctly, it seems) when they went ahead with the project.

Unless the Jungle Cruise loses popularity (which may well happen at some point in the future) or becomes more controversial (which seems less likely following the recent updates they made to it), Disney has little reason to remove it.

 

[Gusey]

The temple scene may be the only part of the ride I really like.



Well yes, I don't think they should be replacing anything until they've used their expansion pads. I'm not saying they should tear it up today. But if they're determined to replace something, Jungle Cruise would probably be the best option because of how much space it takes up. As I said, that land could likely be used for multiple attractions, shops, and dining and provide a major capacity increase for the park.

It would also have almost no effect on the Magic Kingdom's aesthetics etc. since Jungle Cruise is back in a corner and isn't even a major part of Adventureland, much less the whole park (unlike Rivers of America, which does have a major effect on multiple areas of the park).

Given it just had an update in 2021, which made it more timeless and less controversial, I doubt they're expecting to close it in the foreseeable future. RoA haven't been updated in decades, which was a telltale sign that Disney would be planning to remove them

 

[lentesta]

Jungle Cruise is one of my favorite attractions ... That I said I would understand why there could be benefits to using all that space for something else and agree with you - if the one at Disneyland stays and what they replace it with us good, then so be it

Agreed 100%.

 

[HauntedPirate]

Fire mountain was supposed to go in the Adventureland expansion pad. Villains mountain was planned for the new fantasyland plot.

 

[UNCgolf]

Given it just had an update in 2021, which made it more timeless and less controversial, I doubt they're expecting to close it in the foreseeable future. RoA haven't been updated in decades, which was a telltale sign that Disney would be planning to remove them

Oh I'm sure they don't have any plans to remove it. I'm only talking hypotheticals.

 

[J4546]

fire mountain would still be a great thing IMO, even more so now, because not many people saw the movie so it would almost be like a unique non ip based park land. A steam punk adventure land section would be amazing

 

[MisterPenguin]

With all this "just expand, not replace" talk, remember...

More attractions means more expense to run the operations of the park. More CMs to staff the attraction. More engineering hours for upkeep.

And if running the park's ops cost more... guess what Disney will do? Pass the cost to the guest.

And yes, I know that MK's attractions aren't providing enough capacity. So, apart from expanding, you can replace with a higher capacity attraction. You can do more crowd manipulation with surge pricing and reservations and blackouts. You can make the other parks more attractive by putting more attractions there.

Just can't keep expanding forever. Well you can, but ticket prices will rise proportionately.

 

[Bocabear]

Sadly with the current leadership and the IP Mandate a tear-out and replacement with the Incredibles is exactly what we would get...lol
Jungle Book, Moana, Tarzan... those would all fit, but they continue to try and show us that anything belongs anywhere.... Cartoon cars in Frontierland? Sure! Moana in Future World? Absolutely! Muppets in Liberty Square? Why not! Maybe they could remove the Jungle Cruise and add a splashy new Cinderella ride in it's place! Imagine how many princess dresses they could sell if Cinderella had an actual ride....

 

[SamusAranX]

With all this "just expand, not replace" talk, remember...

More attractions means more expense to run the operations of the park. More CMs to staff the attraction. More engineering hours for upkeep.

And if running the park's ops cost more... guess what Disney will do? Pass the cost to the guest.

And yes, I know that MK's attractions aren't providing enough capacity. So, apart from expanding, you can replace with a higher capacity attraction. You can do more crowd manipulation with surge pricing and reservations and blackouts. You can make the other parks more attractive by putting more attractions there.

Just can't keep expanding forever. Well you can, but ticket prices will rise proportionately.

They’re raising ticket prices regardless, let’s not be naive

 

[lazyboy97o]

With all this "just expand, not replace" talk, remember...

More attractions means more expense to run the operations of the park. More CMs to staff the attraction. More engineering hours for upkeep.

And if running the park's ops cost more... guess what Disney will do? Pass the cost to the guest.

And yes, I know that MK's attractions aren't providing enough capacity. So, apart from expanding, you can replace with a higher capacity attraction. You can do more crowd manipulation with surge pricing and reservations and blackouts. You can make the other parks more attractive by putting more attractions there.

Just can't keep expanding forever. Well you can, but ticket prices will rise proportionately.

This assumes no new demand.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

With all this "just expand, not replace" talk, remember...

More attractions means more expense to run the operations of the park. More CMs to staff the attraction. More engineering hours for upkeep.

Disneyland is able to do it.

Now the argument could be made that Disneyland Resort and WDW spread out the costs differently but if that’s the case WDW should have just closed and demolished studios if they didn’t want to continue operating 4 theme parks.