CoastalElite64
Active Member
Considering how much more advertising dollars go towards MK it should have a wider gap with DL. Now with Epic making a splash things will get shaky, it needed something big.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
MK Cars-Themed Attractions at Magic Kingdom
- Thread starter wdwmagic
- Start date
Joel
Well-Known Member
Even if there hasn't been any change to the amount of water planned, it's still interesting that they would choose to emphasize it so much more now (both in the art and the blog post). If it makes some people feel better thinking that it's purely a coincidence and not in any way a response to fan reaction, whatever.
TheMaxRebo
Well-Known Member
It seems like, based on at least what has been said in here, that the original plan did call for a lot of water (and definitely could see some in the original concept art).
Definitely possible they have increased it as plans further develop - also could just be they feel that aspect was underappreciated following the initial concept art premiere and they just wanted to further emphasize it now
Disgruntled Walt
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- No
Sure, but getting rid of the ROA to put in the Cars thing isn't going to move the needle on that.
Charlie The Chatbox Ghost
Well-Known Member
MuppetVision
Smoky
Active Member
I was talking about a central water feature, such as the ROA, fountain of nations, etc. Major pieces of an area that don't work without it. I have walked through Moana very briefly but it's hardly a main water feature as you have to walk through it to even see any water, it doesn't add to the kinetics or ambiance in appreciable way. Hasn't the water in Adventureland always been there as well? Pandora does have decent water elements I will give you that but it's hardly the focal point of the land. Also, that was almost a decade ago. Kind of sad we have to go back that far for any meaningful inclusions of water other than a tiny waterfall on Rise or the little fountain at Ratatouille. Eisner era Disney did water right.
Attachments
Advisable Joseph
Well-Known Member
I was suggesting a rationale for a small ride based on the Critter Country 500 at the ranger station: the Cars marvelling at the bears visiting with their
Or bears as cars....
This discussion brings up a huge question:
What "attractions" and/or "operational expenses" actually contribute to the financial success of the Magic Kingdom in 2025?
What "attractions" and/or "operational expenses" are "NOT" contributing to the Magic Kingdom's financial success?
We know that Pirates, Haunted Mansion, Tron and the castle are true "attractions" that draw people in. But what about:
The Rivers of America?
The railroad and train?
The Carousel of Progress?
Landscaping, flowers and gardens?
Live entertainment?
Tomorrowland Motor Speedway????
We can run down the entire list of elements and assign an "attraction strength" vs "operational cost" and start zapping and killing each thing one by one based entirely on each thing's "people magnet power".
But do we "really" want to do that? Is THIS the new financial value standard we want to apply? Do we now say:
"Disney's Carousel of Progress" is old, very few people go in there and today's younger modern audience is NOT impressed with it. The attraction is just a museum of what used to be but is now completely dead and irrelevant...and a waste of space and money. Those days are gone,....get over it"
If this "museum is bad" concept is the future of Burbank and Glendale's next generation of creatives?.....then I'm out. That is not what "Disney" has been during my life as a child from the 1970's to about 2020. (I started noticing a drastic down-slide in Burbank management starting around 2020)
If this concept is the future, then Disney has lost a long-time fan who has spent a TON of money on the brand in his life.
It's not me leaving Disney,....it's Disney swerving away and leaving me.
What "attractions" and/or "operational expenses" actually contribute to the financial success of the Magic Kingdom in 2025?
What "attractions" and/or "operational expenses" are "NOT" contributing to the Magic Kingdom's financial success?
We know that Pirates, Haunted Mansion, Tron and the castle are true "attractions" that draw people in. But what about:
The Rivers of America?
The railroad and train?
The Carousel of Progress?
Landscaping, flowers and gardens?
Live entertainment?
Tomorrowland Motor Speedway????
We can run down the entire list of elements and assign an "attraction strength" vs "operational cost" and start zapping and killing each thing one by one based entirely on each thing's "people magnet power".
But do we "really" want to do that? Is THIS the new financial value standard we want to apply? Do we now say:
"Disney's Carousel of Progress" is old, very few people go in there and today's younger modern audience is NOT impressed with it. The attraction is just a museum of what used to be but is now completely dead and irrelevant...and a waste of space and money. Those days are gone,....get over it"
If this "museum is bad" concept is the future of Burbank and Glendale's next generation of creatives?.....then I'm out. That is not what "Disney" has been during my life as a child from the 1970's to about 2020. (I started noticing a drastic down-slide in Burbank management starting around 2020)
If this concept is the future, then Disney has lost a long-time fan who has spent a TON of money on the brand in his life.
It's not me leaving Disney,....it's Disney swerving away and leaving me.
Last edited:
Gusey
Well-Known Member
Wait, Journey of Water doesn't have enough fir water for you? You say a central water feature like a fountain, or body of water, but the Adventureland treehouse water features, Ratatouille fountain and epcots front entrance fountain don't count?
flynnibus
Premium Member
Well it's not gonna hurt in that demographic... so you suggest do nothing and keep suffering?
el_super
Well-Known Member
Uhhmmm ok. 2020? wow.
Ensuring that attractions are desired and well attended, generate positive revenue and intent to return has basically been the business model since 1955. That Disney is in a financial position to keep things around for a history's sake (like the Tiki Room or Carousel of Progress) is an exception, not the rule.
Smoky
Active Member
You have to be IN the ride (or whatever you want to call it) to experience the water for Moana. And while the EPCOT entrance fountain is great, maintenance issues aside, my point is we should expect more out of Disney than a decent sized fountain at the entrance and a relatively minor fountain in France. Those are complimentary pieces not set pieces. I expect grand water features like what Universal did at Celestial Park or the fountain of nations. Adventureland's water features are nice too and I really like them, but with how Disney loves to destroy and replace our standards should be way higher.
flynnibus
Premium Member
Well I find it rather disingenuous to apply a criteria like "central water feature" -- when such a concept simply may not apply to everything. That's like saying "when was the last time Disney built an attraction around palm tress?!!?" - It's trying to apply something as it should be common or universal that isn't. If it doesn't fit the application, it shouldn't be there.
If you feel Disney needs more attractions with water themes... or you want to see more water in the parks.. or hate the removal of the FoN.. Ok, your opinions.. but I find the critque mentioned here pretty weak. I'd rather focus on things that fit. Water is often used as a filler/diversion of the eye. I don't need everywhere to be a pier or riverfront.
flynnibus
Premium Member
And you can be sure the company is doing that internally...
They just aren't motivated to action on everything at once because they aren't motivated to spend all that at once too.
The park has needs.. both in terms of attraction makeup, draw, revenue, and utilization... and products that aren't pulling their weight you can be sure are on a short list.
The difference is the hyperboyle you propose by inserting 'based entirely' in the statement. They aren't going to justify things purely on one element.. and there maybe reasons (like CoP's significance) to override a failing aspect.
But let's not fool ourselves.. the park is there to drive to a product to be consumed. If something isn't doing its part, dragging other elements down, or is falling behind in its goals, it's going to be scrutinized and possibly replaced. That's not evil thinking - that's just the reality of being a commercial product.
WorldExplorer
Well-Known Member
Modern Disney writers + Mater = Kill me
"We invited distinguished comedians from all over the world to come work with us. Unfortunately, none of them showed up. So instead I'd like to introduce you to the people removing Muppet Vision..."
Purduevian
Well-Known Member
There is also an opportunity cost going on. Getting rid of ROA also made it much easier and cheaper to utilize a large expansion plot for Villains. The only other ride/feature I can think of that is blocking an expansion pad is Pirates... but I'm pretty confident its pulling its own weight.
EDIT: I think speedway would be the next attraction taking up way too much space for it's "Value".
Dreamer19
Well-Known Member
I wonder… if the company wasn’t bleeding money financially, would they be making these terrible decisions?
SamusAranX
Well-Known Member
The problem with this they may find themselves in the “generation IP” spiral that Universal found itself in during the late aughts / early teens. With each new generation, different IPs may cross the gap, and others may just be yesterday’s fad. Is Disney willing to refurb, reskin and replace every 15 years? Or even less in some instances? That’s what made MK and DL and other Disney castle parks to an extent so unique; they contain timeless concepts, touchstones, original theme park creations, and yes some IPs that transcend the generations and remain with us. To me, Cars is a big risk in MK as who knows if in fifteen years it will be timeless and a touchstone like say Snow White or Peter Pan, or will be “mom and dads lame movie they liked as kids”.
Last edited:
Disney Analyst
Well-Known Member
I do wonder if part of the analysis for the removal of ROA at Magic Kingdom is since it will be maintained at Disneyland, this can help better differentiate the parks?
If you want the nostalgia hit, got to Disneyland. If you want a different castle experience, with a different style, go to Magic Kingdom.
Perhaps they think they can push business to both from the same markets? The more differentiated, the better for both parks.
If you want the nostalgia hit, got to Disneyland. If you want a different castle experience, with a different style, go to Magic Kingdom.
Perhaps they think they can push business to both from the same markets? The more differentiated, the better for both parks.
WaltWiz1901
Well-Known Member
more than anything, the most frustrating thing about this, besides the obvious, is that in a classic case of pretending to care about their obscure characters, instead of actually using Ranger Woodlore (or any other thematically appropriate classic Disney characters), they feel the "need" to make a Carsona out of him to match the direction they're going with...while the real Ranger Woodlore continues to linger in obscurity
why not restore and/or put out the rest of the Humphrey shorts someplace? In the Bag in particular is a top-tier cartoon and the most recent widely circulated master is unrestored, 4:3 letterboxed mush