• The new WDWMAGIC iOS app is here!
    Stay up to date with the latest Disney news, photos, and discussions right from your iPhone. The app is free to download and gives you quick access to news articles, forums, photo galleries, park hours, weather and Lightning Lane pricing. Learn More
  • 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

J

James Alucobond

Well-Known Member
ᗩLᘿᑕ ֊ᗩζᗩᗰ said:
They've nearly approached that anyway. semantics. Though, if they were to only swap out that second cars attraction for another IP or just offered more in the area it wouldn't feel like a single-IP land. I wish they would.
Click to expand...
It's still a key distinction even if it's a semantic one. TRON and its planned parallel Speedway redo with separate shop would also not have been a "land", nor are Cinderella's Castle + Royal Table + Bibbidi Bobbidi + Charming's Carousel (not to mention the planned Tremaine manor).
 
E

easyrowrdw

Well-Known Member
ᗩLᘿᑕ ֊ᗩζᗩᗰ said:
MK is swapping out attractions that averaged a combined total of less than 7,000 guests a day with attractions that are expected to average 20,000 guests a day. A considerable net gain along with the more obvious food, footpath gains/loop. That's an expansion in my mind.
Click to expand...
More people might use the new land. More people probably visit Galaxy’s Edge than all the stuff it replaced. More probably ride Guardians than Ellen or Railway than Movie Ride. But that doesn’t mean they’re not replacements. They are. So is Cars land. Some say it’s a good replacement; some say it’s not. But it’s still a replacement.
 
peter11435

peter11435

Well-Known Member
easyrowrdw said:
More people might use the new land. More people probably visit Galaxy’s Edge than all the stuff it replaced. More probably ride Guardians than Ellen or Railway than Movie Ride. But that doesn’t mean they’re not replacements. They are. So is Cars land. Some say it’s a good replacement; some say it’s not. But it’s still a replacement.
Click to expand...
Just because something is a replacement does not mean it can’t also be an expansion.
 
Disney Analyst

Disney Analyst

Well-Known Member
easyrowrdw said:
More people might use the new land. More people probably visit Galaxy’s Edge than all the stuff it replaced. More probably ride Guardians than Ellen or Railway than Movie Ride. But that doesn’t mean they’re not replacements. They are. So is Cars land. Some say it’s a good replacement; some say it’s not. But it’s still a replacement.
Click to expand...

Sure if we want to get into semantics.

But in some of those cases (hello Ellen), leaving attractions that are past their prime is not very useful, and replacing was a smart choice.

But something can be a replacement, and seen as an expansion if it gets far more use, and gives guests something they will seek out and book trips for.
 
E

easyrowrdw

Well-Known Member
peter11435 said:
Just because something is a replacement does not mean it can’t also be an expansion.
Click to expand...
I guess it depends on how much one enjoys semantic word play. Two beautiful attractions are being destroyed to make way for Cars land. Net gains in foot traffic and dining (as if that’s what Liberty Belle and TSI were about) is the Disney legalese argument to try to distract from what is being lost. IMO, of course.
Disney Analyst said:
Sure if we want to get into semantics.

But in some of those cases (hello Ellen), leaving attractions that are past their prime is not very useful, and replacing was a smart choice.

But something can be a replacement, and seen as an expansion if it gets far more use, and gives guests something they will seek out and book trips for.
Click to expand...
I think calling replacements expansion is the semantics argument.
 
peter11435

peter11435

Well-Known Member
easyrowrdw said:
I guess it depends on how much one enjoys semantic word play. Two beautiful attractions are being destroyed to make way for Cars land. Net gains in foot traffic and dining (as if that’s what Liberty Belle and TSI were about) is the Disney legalese argument to try to distract from what is being lost. IMO, of course.

I think calling replacements expansion is the semantics argument.
Click to expand...
It’s not word play. You’re just not being honest with yourself.

Two attractions are being destroyed. They are being destroyed so they can be replaced by 4 attractions. 4 Attractions that will have higher capacities and far higher utilization and popularity. It will also include Significant increases in walkable areas as well as multiple additional new food/beverage and merchandise locations. That is an expansion.
 
Chi84

Chi84

Premium Member
easyrowrdw said:
I guess it depends on how much one enjoys semantic word play. Two beautiful attractions are being destroyed to make way for Cars land. Net gains in foot traffic and dining (as if that’s what Liberty Belle and TSI were about) is the Disney legalese argument to try to distract from what is being lost. IMO, of course.

I think calling replacements expansion is the semantics argument.
Click to expand...
I don’t know. The water was pretty but weren’t the attractions underutilized? We visit often and I can’t remember the last time we even considered going on either of them.
 
E

easyrowrdw

Well-Known Member
peter11435 said:
It’s not word play. You’re just not being honest with yourself.

Two attractions are being destroyed. They are being destroyed so they can be replaced by 4 attractions. 4 Attractions that will have higher capacities and far higher utilization and popularity. It will also include Significant increases in walkable areas as well as multiple additional new food/beverage and merchandise locations. That is an expansion.
Click to expand...
What are the 4 attractions?
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom