MK Cars-Themed Attractions at Magic Kingdom

[TrainsOfDisney]

But did you ever ask "is it fun?"

Well that’s a whole different question. Maters junkyard and Luigi’s dancing cars are both fun to watch and ride. But plopping them into Frontierland may not be the best decision.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

Does the Lego store reference Liberty Belle by name? Or anything Disney? If not, I don't see how it could be a case for "showing support" so to speak. Cool display though.

Pretty sure all Lego stores do sell Disney merchandise but the riverboat is not Disney.

I did see the Lego riverboat on display at Downtown Disney.

 

[flynnibus]

Well that’s a whole different question. Maters junkyard and Luigi’s dancing cars are both fun to watch and ride. But plopping them into Frontierland may not be the best decision.

When we are talking just the attraction, I think its worth waiting to see how it pans out before judging the result. Creatives have made much more odd choices fit or at least be acceptable.. so I want to judge their work, not my presumption of their work.

 

[flynnibus]

Pretty sure all Lego stores do sell Disney merchandise but the riverboat is not Disney.

I did see the Lego riverboat on display at Downtown Disney.

It's just displayed because it's a new set (released at end of Apr).

 

[The Empress Lilly]

In other recent news….

My local LEGO store is showing some support for the Liberty Belle by having this currently in their front window.
Not her exactly, but still…..nice sentiment.

View attachment 866830

That looks even more like The Empress Lilly!

Speaking of WDW stupidly downgrading itself - the topic of this thread - let us not forget a previous chapter in WDW destroying its steamships as if they were hiding a nuclear programme:

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

When we are talking just the attraction, I think its worth waiting to see how it pans out before judging the result. Creatives have made much more odd choices fit or at least be acceptable.. so I want to judge their work, not my presumption of their work.

Well I’m not judging the result - I’m judging the concept. But I get what you’re saying.

Nothing will make it worth losing the riverboat in my eyes, but I am hoping it’s a good attraction.

 

[Casper Gutman]

OP did. No need to fight their battles for them

My conversation with Centauri was about good unique rides at WDW. They were able to name three built over the last 27 years. If you think that’s a winning case, make that argument. Don’t take personal swipes, because doing so - and making absurd claims of popularity equaling quality - sure makes it look like you can’t defend your position on the merits.

Disney doesn’t need you to fight their battles for them

 

[Dreamer19]

You ever think that poster has some personal issue to make him obsess and hem/haw over how bad they think WDW is? Especially since it’s the most popular theme park/resort destination on the entire planet for decades. If that’s a failure , I wonder what success would look like?

I don’t speak for that poster, but the Disney of today exists off of the good will earned by the Disney of yesterday.

 

[Casper Gutman]

You argue to argue, and insist that you’re right about everything you say.
WDW is the sum of all its parts. To claim it’s inferior in some way just doesn’t hold water.

I notice you still don’t try to engage with any actual arguments about the resort.

I discuss to discuss on a discussion board. Everyone here is posting opinions in which they believe.

Your last sentence is baffling. You don’t believe WDW is “inferior” (to what?) in any way?

 

[HMF]

I don’t speak for that poster, but the Disney of today exists off of the good will earned by the Disney of yesterday.

Absolutely!

 

[BrianLo]

You would like it very much.

If it were copied for WDW, most everyone here would consider it an E-ticket and it would sell lots of Lightning Lanes.

It's not the best, nor my favorite dark ride at TDR as @BrianLo says, but that resort is spoiled for selection

The only truly bad thing is actually the lack of legroom in the vehicles.

Indeed, I generally think it would be another half step down if it was duplicated. For me at least.

I realize my argument is entirely selfish, but as with both projects, I much prefer new original attractions.

 

[FettFan]

 

[Agent H]

What?

 

[Disgruntled Walt]

What?

It's what we all want to do to this replacement.

 

[Gusey]

It's what we all want to do to this replacement.

Not all of us

 

[mlayton144]

I dunno, do you have some “personal issues” that drives you to accept any overpriced garbage that gets shoveled your way lest you disappoint The Brand that is a defining part of your personality? I mean, as long as we’re attacking posters personally rather then debating ideas about the park…

Oh, and speaking of “personal issues,” equating popularity to quality is a sign of great sophistication and deep critical thought.

Most of these discussions have nothing to do with deep critical thought or sophistication. Yes popularity which = revenue = profit is a primary metric that businesses must use to know if they are hitting their objectives. Maybe they should cater to the self proclaimed sophisticated people like yourself and go bankrupt. Would I like them to keep the beautiful vista/aesthetic/vibe of the ROA yea, do I understand the logic and potential of what is replacing it yes I do. Seems to me The ROA from a logistics point of view is a barrier to guest flow to the new expansion area. It has to go, especially if 90% empty most days. If Piston Peak and Villains sucks, that will be another conversation

 

[mlayton144]

Not to be “so dramatic” but MK and Disneyland are virtually the same attendance wise.

Do you think it’s a good thing that MK has less live entertainment, less attractions and less dining options than DL? Considering it costs the same to get in to each park?

With respect, people don’t goto WDW just for magic kingdom. The majority go for a Disney vacation including the other 3 parks, dining , shopping, and the resorts in one big package. Disneyland park is pretty much the only reason people will step foot in Anaheim with so much else to do in the general region. Most would say the majority of those guests are day visitors who come for the day, then go home. I agree Disneyland Park is a true gem, but let’s recognize it for what it is and who it’s designed to cater to.

 

[Casper Gutman]

Most of these discussions have nothing to do with deep critical thought or sophistication.

You should read the boards a bit more. They can be quite insightful.

Yes popularity which = revenue = profit is a primary metric that businesses must use to know if they are hitting their objectives.

This isn’t what anyone was talking about and it’s not what you said. It’s also a gross oversimplification in a lot of ways.

Maybe they should cater to the self proclaimed sophisticated people like yourself and go bankrupt.

Yep, the Disney World of the mid-1990s. Famously unsuccessful.

Would I like them to keep the beautiful vista/aesthetic/vibe of the ROA yea, do I understand the logic and potential of what is replacing it yes I do. Seems to me The ROA from a logistics point of view is a barrier to guest flow to the new expansion area. It has to go, especially if 90% empty most days. If Piston Peak and Villains sucks, that will be another conversation

Always a reason that it isn’t Disney’s fault.

If only Disney had room to expand in other spots, perhaps even Beyond Thunder Mountain. Or if another Disney park had demonstrated how to add a major land above Frontierland while preserving the island and river. Or if Imagineers had presented lots of plans that would have preserved the RoA because of its importance to the park. But no, there’s no choice. It “has to go.”

 

[mlayton144]

You should read the boards a bit more. They can be quite insightful.

This isn’t what anyone was talking about and it’s not what you said. It’s also a gross oversimplification in a lot of ways.

Yep, the Disney World of the mid-1990s. Famously unsuccessful.

Always a reason that it isn’t Disney’s fault.

If only Disney had room to expand in other spots, perhaps even Beyond Thunder Mountain. Or if another Disney park had demonstrated how to add a major land above Frontierland while preserving the island and river. Or if Imagineers had presented lots of plans that would have preserved the RoA because of its importance to the park. But no, there’s no choice. It “has to go.”

Of course there is a choice , but how much money should they spend to keep that aesthetic and even further expand the park boundaries? Ive also heard of these “plans” but we are prob talking big money, easy to demand from the armchair they spend it when it’s not your money. Maybe the new aesthetic is as good or better. Like I said , TBD if this was the right move but something tells me it’s preordained you will criticize it no matter what happens.

 

[SamusAranX]

Most of these discussions have nothing to do with deep critical thought or sophistication. Yes popularity which = revenue = profit is a primary metric that businesses must use to know if they are hitting their objectives. Maybe they should cater to the self proclaimed sophisticated people like yourself and go bankrupt. Would I like them to keep the beautiful vista/aesthetic/vibe of the ROA yea, do I understand the logic and potential of what is replacing it yes I do. Seems to me The ROA from a logistics point of view is a barrier to guest flow to the new expansion area. It has to go, especially if 90% empty most days. If Piston Peak and Villains sucks, that will be another conversation

It is not a barrier. Anyone who has been to DLR knows this