MK Cars-Themed Attractions at Magic Kingdom

ToTBellHop

ToTBellHop

Well-Known Member
ᗩLᘿᑕ ֊ᗩζᗩᗰ said:
You only need look at the capacity of a simple spinner ride and the likes of Radiator Spring Racers to know this will be a substantial improvement over a riverboat that was rarely at capacity or an island visited by more squirrels than guests. Letting nostalgia cloud your judgement doesn't mean the concept isn't good for the park and it's guests. Look at logistically.
Click to expand...
I would like to the see the SSATs (squirrel satisfaction) before commenting further.

And no one is thinking of the ducks. No one.
 
D

DisneyHead123

Well-Known Member
Raineman said:
611 pages in, and I still see the same people repeating the same ridiculous talking points: "waste of space", "underutilized space", "good business move", etc, etc. Unless you're a Disney employee or own Disney stock, why do you care about that? What impact does that have on your park experience? If you're someone that says "I love Cars, looking forward to this area" or "I am excited for something new at MK", then I can respect that, because you are giving an opinion based on your enjoyment of the parks. The average guest shouldn't care about whats "best for business" for Disney.
Click to expand...

I think it depends on what the reason is. I agree that helping Disney’s bottom line isn’t a concern for park goers. That said, I do think things like spreading out crowds, increasing capacity, even just adding IP that a lot of people will really enjoy can benefit everyone. (I mean hey, it doesn’t always have to be about me, if something is going to make millions of hearts happy then great, right?) That’s why I have mixed feelings on this one. There are certainly good things about it but at the end of the day I still feel they’re replacing something iconic with something that, while fun, is still talking cars admired mostly by young children.
 
𝐌𝖆𝖓 𝖎𝖓 𝐖𝖊𝖇

𝐌𝖆𝖓 𝖎𝖓 𝐖𝖊𝖇

Long-Forgotten
Premium Member
DisneyHead123 said:
I think it depends on what the reason is. I agree that helping Disney’s bottom line isn’t a concern for park goers. That said, I do think things like spreading out crowds, increasing capacity, even just adding IP that a lot of people will really enjoy can benefit everyone. (I mean hey, it doesn’t always have to be about me, if something is going to make millions of hearts happy then great, right?) That’s why I have mixed feelings on this one. There are certainly good things about it but at the end of the day I still feel they’re replacing something iconic with something that, while fun, is still talking cars admired mostly by young children.
Click to expand...
That is a fair assessment.
 
Casper Gutman

Casper Gutman

Well-Known Member
A lot of posters are desperate to constrain their thinking along the false lines Disney is pushing. Here are some key truths:

Disney has enormous amounts of control over where guests go.

Disney World has huge amounts of available space.

If Disney World removes an attraction to build a new one, it is because Disney WANTS to remove the attraction.

Expanding capacity without removing capacity is the best way to have more capacity.

The Florida parks are full of ABANDONED spaces that are detrimental to the experience of the park.

Theme parks NEED “underutilized” space.

Theme park rides ARE IPs.

The attractions that built Disney Resorts’ popularity and made it an integral part of the zeitgeist were park-original IPs.

Business executives are not omniscient. They are not even wise.

These statements are all truth. Disney and certain posters would like to spin and gaslight them away. Don’t let them.
 
Casper Gutman

Casper Gutman

Well-Known Member
There is an incredibly powerful impulse among humans - and it is amplified in Americans - to imagine that everything is and always will be “normal” and that change never happens. Therefore, if something is happening, it must be OK simply by virtue of it happening. Even if a few years and a lot of gradual changes ago the thing would have been unthinkable, even if it would have once caused fury or despair, even if the individual specifically condemned the unthinkable thing. And since everything is always normal, anyone who says it isn’t is clearly crazy and possibly nefarious.

I am talking, of course, about Disney removing Muppets and Rivers of America.
 
Last edited:
Casper Gutman

Casper Gutman

Well-Known Member
Chi84 said:
It seems people are desperate to establish their positions as truth or have their opinions validated by others.

Calling an opinion fact or truth doesn’t make it such. It’s okay to disagree without getting so heated.
Click to expand...
None of what I wrote is really debatable (except, perhaps that executives aren’t wise or that abandoned spaces are detrimental). At most, one might quibble with some adjective choices. Now, the conclusions one draws from all that might differ. But if a position relies on dismissing the truth, it is not a tenable position.
 
lazyboy97o

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Chi84 said:
But if people haven’t been visiting those attractions when headliners go down, what makes you think they will start doing it now?

I suppose Disney could have revamped those two attractions to make them more exciting but my guess is they didn’t think it would help. They were allowed to decline because of lack of use, not the other way around.

It’s hard to reconcile what I read here with what’s being said on the other threads as to what kind of capacity MK needs.

The parks were designed in a different age when the pace of life was more relaxed. Whether Disney’s decisions drove changes in guests’ expectations or guests’ changing expectations led to Disney’s decisions is an open debate that will likely never be agreed upon.
Click to expand...
Magic Kingdom is the park best able to handle downtime. But again, the nature of the attractions was such that there wouldn’t be a notable difference in wait times even when being utilized as an alternative. There are certain attractions that you want to have available for people to use on the next cycle.

Disney just built Journey of Water at Epcot. There’s no reason that type of updated interactive experience would not have worked at Magic Kingdom, even on Tom Sawyer Island. Some better signage would also probably help.

I feel the need to reiterate that the Magic Kingdom, the world’s most visited theme park, has abandoned dining space and still has less dining capacity than it did in 1993. There is no lack of demand or need for dining at Magic Kingdom. It is something that directly generates revenue and the need is plainly clear to anyone who visits. Despite that, Disney has convinced themselves it is not needed. People keep assuming some deeply rational, just business basis that does not exist.
 
Chi84

Chi84

Premium Member
lazyboy97o said:
Magic Kingdom is the park best able to handle downtime. But again, the nature of the attractions was such that there wouldn’t be a notable difference in wait times even when being utilized as an alternative. There are certain attractions that you want to have available for people to use on the next cycle.

Disney just built Journey of Water at Epcot. There’s no reason that type of updated interactive experience would not have worked at Magic Kingdom, even on Tom Sawyer Island. Some better signage would also probably help.

I feel the need to reiterate that the Magic Kingdom, the world’s most visited theme park, has abandoned dining space and still has less dining capacity than it did in 1993. There is no lack of demand or need for dining at Magic Kingdom. It is something that directly generates revenue and the need is plainly clear to anyone who visits. Despite that, Disney has convinced themselves it is not needed. People keep assuming some deeply rational, just business basis that does not exist.
Click to expand...
I didn’t say their decisions were just or deeply rational, only that there are reasons for what they decide to do.
 
ToTBellHop

ToTBellHop

Well-Known Member
truecoat said:
Six. It goes around the track for an hour and there's only one car..
Click to expand...
1749580720484.gif
 
D

doctornick

Well-Known Member
Raineman said:
611 pages in, and I still see the same people repeating the same ridiculous talking points: "waste of space", "underutilized space", "good business move", etc, etc. Unless you're a Disney employee or own Disney stock, why do you care about that? What impact does that have on your park experience? If you're someone that says "I love Cars, looking forward to this area" or "I am excited for something new at MK", then I can respect that, because you are giving an opinion based on your enjoyment of the parks. The average guest shouldn't care about whats "best for business" for Disney.
Click to expand...

While I don't necessarily agree with the planned changes to MK (for me, my main complaint is based more on the IP used rather than the execution; I think something more harmonious with Frontierland like Chip & Dale or Humphrey the Bear would be appropriate over Cars), I think there is some clear objective upside for all guests. Having a better guest flow with the new walking paths being the biggest improvement especially with a greater presence of parades. I also think that, for better or worse, more overall guests will get more overall enjoyment from the Cars attractions than they do from the Liberty Belle/TSI.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom