MK Cars-Themed Attractions at Magic Kingdom

[peter11435]

He yanked out and replaced stuff at Disneyland, but he never had the opportunity to do so at Magic Kingdom where he had that blessing of size that Disneyland did not.

Maybe one can't expand endlessly but compared to Disneyland, even though Magic Kingdom is slightly larger it has significantly less number of attractions. I don't think it would have killed Disney to genuinely add in the case of the Magic Kingdom.

He would have still replaced things that were losing favor with the audience.

 

[peter11435]

Indeed. But, I’d argue that when Walt did it it was definitely “plussed”. To be generous, I, personally, don’t think that’s often the case these days.

And that’s a fair argument. There have certainly been some replacements that did not meet the standards of what came before. We will have to wait and see with this project.

Although that’s an argument for why they need to do better when they replace attractions. Not an argument for not replacing them at all. A park full of unpopular aging attractions is just as bad as a park full of less impressive new ones.

 

[SamusAranX]

He yanked out and replaced stuff at Disneyland, but he never had the opportunity to do so at Magic Kingdom where he had that blessing of size that Disneyland did not.

Maybe one can't expand endlessly but compared to Disneyland, even though Magic Kingdom is slightly larger it has significantly less number of attractions. I don't think it would have killed Disney to genuinely add in the case of the Magic Kingdom.

No it wouldn’t have; in fact it was the whole reason they established WDW in the first place. So they wouldn’t be boxed in like DL was.

 

[donaldtoo]

And that’s a fair argument. There have certainly been some replacements that did not meet the standards of what came before. We will have to wait and see with this project.

Although that’s an argument for why they need to do better when they replace attractions. Not an argument for not replacing them at all. A park full of unpopular aging attractions is just as bad as a park full of less impressive new ones.

And, that brings up another point…
If they’re gonna’ replace “unpopular” aging attractions with less impressive new ones, why bother spending the time and money to do so, in the first place…?
Makes zero sense.

 

[peter11435]

And, that brings up another point…
If they’re gonna’ replace “unpopular” aging attractions with less impressive new ones, why bother spending the time and money to do so, in the first place…?
Makes zero sense.

Just because it’s less impressive doesn’t mean it’s less popular.

World of Motion was undeniably more impressive, more interesting, and more artistic than any version of Test Track. But Test Track has consistently been more popular and a larger driver of park attendance than World of Motion ever was.

 

[Disone]

He would have still replaced things that were losing favor with the audience.

Hard to say really what he would and would not do. What's not hard to say is that I wouldn't do this.

To me it doesn't matter whether or not an attraction has a demand that exceeds its capacity. To an accountant that's the only thing that adds value to an attraction. But not to me.

There are other factors that add value to an attraction. Theme parks needs a balance of attractions and for me anyway, it's actually important that some of them are walk on that really exist more for an atmosphere than a ride count.

Make me thing of a I've heard, "If everything is an emergency then nothing is an emergency" In the theme park world, If you don't have the simple A and B ticket attractions it takes away the value of the D and E attractions.

If everything's a D or E ticket then nothing is.

This move is obviously very controversial. Less controversial would have been a genuine expansion without the elimination of ROA.

 

[peter11435]

Hard to say really what he would and would not do. What's not hard to say is that I wouldn't do this.

To me it doesn't matter whether or not an attraction has a demand that exceeds its capacity. To an accountant that's the only thing that adds value to an attraction. But not to me.

There are other factors that add value to an attraction. Theme parks needs a balance of attractions and for me anyway, it's actually important that some of them are walk on that really exist more for an atmosphere than a ride count.

Make me thing of a I've heard, "If everything is an emergency then nothing is an emergency" In the theme park world, If you don't have the simple A and B ticket attractions it takes away the value of the D and E attractions.

If everything's a D or E ticket then nothing is.

This move is obviously very controversial. Less controversial would have been a genuine expansion without the elimination of ROA.

It’s not just that demand doesn’t exceed capacity. It’s that demand is nowhere near capacity. Let’s say you’re paying to maintain and operate an attraction capable of accommodating 10,000 guests per day and only 2,000 guests are riding. Would you consider that a good use of your money? Now what if that same attraction also takes up the largest footprint in the entire park?

Theme parks absolutely need attractions that are nearly immediately available with little to no wait. (DHS suffers drastically from this problem) Thankfully the Magic Kingdom has several of these.

 

[donaldtoo]

Just because it’s less impressive doesn’t mean it’s less popular.

World of Motion was undeniably more impressive, more interesting, and more artistic than any version of Test Track. But Test Track has consistently been more popular and a larger driver of park attendance than World of Motion ever was.

Fair point. Sign of the times, I guess.
Seems people require more stimulation these days…and then many complain they’re “overstimulated”.
People crack me up…!!!!!

 

[donaldtoo]

Another funny (to me, anyway) thing is…
So many people (and obviously Disney, as well) say the space taken up by ROA/TSI can better be utilized for something else.
Yet, Disney took a huge chunk of “Future World” and turned it into a park…?!?!?!

 

[Disone]

It’s not just that demand doesn’t exceed capacity. It’s that demand is nowhere near capacity. Let’s say you’re paying to maintain and operate an attraction capable of accommodating 10,000 guests per day and only 2,000 guests are riding. Would you consider that a good use of your money? Now what if that same attraction also takes up the largest footprint in the entire park?

Theme parks absolutely need attractions that are nearly immediately available with little to no wait. (DHS suffers drastically from this problem) Thankfully the Magic Kingdom has several of these.

We agree on DHS. I was going to use that as an example but didn't want to get long-winded. (Failed, I know! lol)

Still Under your guidanc would rip out the carousel in progress. The tiki room. Mickey's Philharmagic, the Hall of Presidents, the Swiss Family Tree House.....

I don't think every individual part and every piece of real estate no matter how big or small needs to be a profit center. I like the look at things holistically. If the Magic Kingdom is making money it doesn't matter to me that the river boat is not. Making everything individual profit center is how we lose things. It's how we lost the water mice.... The they didn't make money by themselves so they were cut. Never mind that they looked great on the lakes. Same for water skiing on the lakes. It didn't make money by itself so it was cut. But these things added value to the resorts and added value to a Walt Disney World vacation. And Walt Disney World as a whole was making you money. But because those individual parts were not they were let go. I'm not a fan of that strategy.

So back to the Magic Kingdom. Bigger and small it doesn't add her to me the size of the real estate. Especially when you have as much land as Walt Disney World has ...... Atmospheric attractions are okay.

 

[Disstevefan1]

Another funny (to me, anyway) thing is…
So many people (and obviously Disney, as well) say the space taken up by ROA/TSI can better be utilized for something else.
Yet, Disney took a huge chunk of “Future World” and turned it into a park…?!?!?!

What a failure the renovation of future world turned out to be! Calling those unknown spaces in future world, park space, is generous in my mind.

I think they realized when it was coming up on 5 years, they needed to do “something” in order to “finish” whatever they were trying to do, and finally get the walls down, so we ended up with what we have now.

In my opinion a downgrade compared to what was there, especially the loss of the fountain of nations and now having that ugly planter with the forever broken in ground lighting that is now just non functional and is a tripping hazard.

To get back on topic, the new Cars land fun map concept looks better but I think it’s unknown what we will actually end up with when they proceed with the “scope cuts”.

 

[peter11435]

We agree on DHS. I was going to use that as an example but didn't want to get long-winded. (Failed, I know! lol)

Still Under your guidanc would rip out the carousel in progress. The tiki room. Mickey's Philharmagic, the Hall of Presidents, the Swiss Family Tree House.....

I don't think every individual part and every piece of real estate no matter how big or small needs to be a profit center. I like the look at things holistically. If the Magic Kingdom is making money it doesn't matter to me that the river boat is not. Making everything individual profit center is how we lose things. It's how we lost the water mice.... The they didn't make money by themselves so they were cut. Never mind that they looked great on the lakes. Same for water skiing on the lakes. It didn't make money by itself so it was cut. But these things added value to the resorts and added value to a Walt Disney World vacation. And Walt Disney World as a whole was making you money. But because those individual parts were not they were let go. I'm not a fan of that strategy.

So back to the Magic Kingdom. Bigger and small it doesn't add her to me the size of the real estate. Especially when you have as much land as Walt Disney World has ...... Atmospheric attractions are okay.

Most of those other attractions you listed are more popular and all take up significantly less real estate. More people experience the treeshouse every day than ride the riverboat and it takes up significantly less area and resources.

There is certainly value from the riverboat even for people who don’t ride it. But I think the end result of these changes will bring about more value for more guests.

 

[Incomudro]

What a failure the renovation of future world turned out to be! Calling those unknown spaces in future world, park space, is generous in my mind.

I think they realized when it was coming up on 5 years, they needed to do “something” in order to “finish” whatever they were trying to do, and finally get the walls down, so we ended up with what we have now.

In my opinion a downgrade compared to what was there, especially the loss of the fountain of nations and now having that ugly planter with the forever broken in ground lighting that is now just non functional and is a tripping hazard.

To get back on topic, the new Cars land fun map concept looks better but I think it’s unknown what we will actually end up with when they proceed with the “scope cuts”.

I'm hoping that the concept, plans, orders for materials etc., are so far along that there won't be cuts.
That the cuts have already been made.

 

[TheMaxRebo]

To get back on topic, the new Cars land fun map concept looks better but I think it’s unknown what we will actually end up with when they proceed with the “scope cuts”.

Definitely will come down to final execution - info think it any project will keep the scope/get extra budget if needed it will be this one as more than any other they have to get this one as right as possible and is basically Josh's legacy

 

[Chef idea Mickey`=]

I'm hoping that the concept, plans, orders for materials etc., are so far along that there won't be cuts.
That the cuts have already been made.

I think this is the last chance anyone would come to for concept art. Monster's Inc doesn't count because literally the only thing new to build is the Door Coaster Building. Tropical America's we know they won't screw the Encanto Casita, and the area is basically just decorating a new country vibe. This Cars Land is on the same scale even times more surplus than Epcot for replacing a true land from Walt. If this fails miserably or cheaply or scaled so significantly just like Epcot then that's it!

 

[solidyne]

[INSERT CLASSIC ATTRACTION HERE] was undeniably more impressive, more interesting, and more artistic than any version of [INSERT MODERN ATTRACTION HERE]. But [MODERN] has consistently been more popular and a larger driver of park attendance than [CLASSIC] ever was.

GIFY (generalized it for you)

So sad, so true. It's always been true in art that the truly fine work has a smaller audience than the lowest-common-denominator stuff, and that's OK, but there used to be those works (in music and film, for example) that were both critical and popular hits. Imagineering used to be able to straddle that line, but they seem to be drifting to the "demand side" of creation.

WDI [Edit: Disney], instead of giving us what you think we want, please give us what we didn't know we wanted! Surprise us!

(Hat tip to Casper, who has been making this argument a long time.)

 

[peter11435]

Imagineering used to be able to straddle that line, but they seem to be drifting to the "demand side" of creation.

WDI, instead of giving us what you think we want, please give us what we didn't know we wanted! Surprise us!

The problem is that currently it’s not up to WDI. WDI does not decide what gets built and where. WDI doesn’t decide what needs replaced and what doesn’t. And WDI doesn’t dictate the long term creative vision for development. The design and build what they are told to where they are told to do it.

 

[solidyne]

The problem is that currently it’s not up to WDI. WDI does not decide what gets built and where. WDI doesn’t decide what needs replaced and what doesn’t. And WDI doesn’t dictate the long term creative vision for development. The design and build what they are told to where they are told to do it.

True. I shall change "WDI" to "Disney."

 

[phillip9698]

No. It seems to me like the general consensus is that at least the lower island of TSI could/should have been preserved while RoA would be truncated with the Belle still running a loop past the Mansion and Big Thunder.

And who does this “general consensus” consist of? Who was polled?

 

[DisDude33]

WDI [Edit: Disney], instead of giving us what you think we want, please give us what we didn't know we wanted! Surprise us!

What if they are have been trying to do that but we keep complaining and making such a backlash that stuff keeps getting dumbed down into products no one wants?