MK Cars-Themed Attractions at Magic Kingdom

flynnibus

flynnibus

Premium Member
Raineman said:
How would you react if, in a couple of decades, the Mushroom Kingdom does not hit with the newer generations, and they rip it out and replace it with something newer that does not give you the same feels? Can you honestly say that you will be OK with that and welcome the replacement?
Click to expand...

Most people will say yes if they are entertained by the replacement.

The suggestion something should stay the same because of one customer’s feelings is rediculous
 
Charlie The Chatbox Ghost

Charlie The Chatbox Ghost

Well-Known Member
Casper Gutman said:
I’d add to the above that the Coco/Moana/Villains plan we heard about before D23 made more financial sense and would have been genuinely exciting.
Click to expand...
Yep. It'd have been all actual expansion, with mostly nothing being lost. I imagine Coco likely would've gone on the back half of the RoA, making it a short loop like at DL, Villains would've been beyond the berm, and Moana would go on the Fire Mountain expansion pad.
1752085398112.png

Honestly, I think I gave Moana/Coco more room than needed in this image, so you could probably fit even more stuff in those plots. Or in the case of Moana, make the one ride with the Shanghai Pirates ride system so it's a huge show building, lol.

Surely this plan wouldn't have saved much more money, no? They're still doing a ton of construction on land that'll likely need to be retreated for development (I imagine that 50+ years of water has not been kind to the land around the rivers), just inside the berm instead of outside it. And not using the Fire Mountain expansion pad for Moana is just... an awful business decision? Moana prints money, why would you not want to make a big Individual Lightning Lane required ride? How is a walkthrough water fountain exhibit a better use of the IP? Am I going insane?
 
flynnibus

flynnibus

Premium Member
Charlie The Chatbox Ghost said:
They're still doing a ton of construction on land that'll likely need to be retreated for development (I imagine that 50+ years of water has not been kind to the land around the rivers), just inside the berm instead of outside it
Click to expand...
Huh?

The RoA is a concrete lined basin

The entire property was undeveloped swamp before they touched it.
 
Last edited:
Charlie The Chatbox Ghost

Charlie The Chatbox Ghost

Well-Known Member
MisterPenguin said:
Disney Super Fans: There shouldn't be attractions based on IPs!!!

Also Disney Super Fans: Lemme tell you, Disney, how to do IP attractions and lands correctly!!!

;)
Click to expand...
1752085530333.png
;)
For real though, IP attractions can be done well, and anyone saying there shouldn't be anything based on IPs is probably trolling or somehow forgot that the original Disneyland had "IP" in it on opening day (albeit all contained to Fantasyland).

IMO, the best combo is non-IP lands that can fit a number of IPs in them, like the original lands you see at castle parks. That makes it easy to switch things out and keep the parks fresh, instead of building a few lands based on specific IPs and praying they're evergreen. The original/supposed MK plan to put Coco in Frontierland, Moana in Adventureland, and then the new land being Villains all fits that idea well. If someday Coco or Moana aren't relevant, you can swap them out for something else that fits Frontierland/Adventureland. And Villains will always be evergreen, so there's no worry there.
 
Smiley/OCD

Smiley/OCD

Well-Known Member
Gusey said:
I wasn't stating that, I was pointing out that was the last made-up definition and that there hasn't been a definition from Disney as to what makes up a land. The only way we know what is considered a land by Disney is when they tell us and when the maps have a section labelled as a land
Click to expand...
WOW…all along I thought social media was the downfall of society…I didn’t realize it was semantics.
 
Moth

Moth

Well-Known Member
Charlie The Chatbox Ghost said:
View attachment 869827;)
For real though, IP attractions can be done well, and anyone saying there shouldn't be anything based on IPs is probably trolling or somehow forgot that the original Disneyland had "IP" in it on opening day (albeit all contained to Fantasyland).

IMO, the best combo is non-IP lands that can fit a number of IPs in them, like the original lands you see at castle parks. That makes it easy to switch things out and keep the parks fresh, instead of building a few lands based on specific IPs and praying they're evergreen. The original/supposed MK plan to put Coco in Frontierland, Moana in Adventureland, and then the new land being Villains all fits that idea well. If someday Coco or Moana aren't relevant, you can swap them out for something else that fits Frontierland/Adventureland. And Villains will always be evergreen, so there's no worry there.
Click to expand...
Untitled266_20250415230312.jpg
 
Smiley/OCD

Smiley/OCD

Well-Known Member
flynnibus said:
Probably correct... but now you're talking degrees.

Cars are still loud - goto RSR and you see the same and they only go a fraction of the speed.

Tires+Ground+wind noise.. it's every neighbors nightmare.
Click to expand...
THAT + the fact I’ve never seen or heard a silent (or quiet) off road vehicle…
 
Chi84

Chi84

Premium Member
Casper Gutman said:
I’m not sure you get to tell other posters what they are or aren’t emotionally attached to…

Are comics art? Popular films? Video games?

Can any element of the built environment- say, a cathedral - be considered art?

What is your definition of “art?”
Click to expand...
Where did I tell other posters what they are or aren't emotionally attached to? I believe I was careful to limit my statements to my own thoughts and experiences. People are different and there's nothing wrong with that.

People can also like things for different reasons. Some are attracted to the nostalgia factor of WDW or perhaps because they consider it art and others (including me) are attracted to it simply because it's a fun vacation spot. Our family has a great time whenever we visit. I just don't think of it in terms of being an art form. If others do, it explains their emotional attachment but I don't feel the same way. I have no idea why you find that staggering.
 
Purduevian

Purduevian

Well-Known Member
Gusey said:
Well, to be more specific first major theme park in the US, with international coverage thanks to the TV series leading up to it. Plus, besides Knotts and Efteling, I hadn't heard of the others, and the others are more recently due to an increase interest in theme parks, rather than international coverage
Click to expand...
Look, I'm not trying to argue that DL doesn't have historical significance. Disneyland is clearly the most successful (until WDW came along), but historically it was not the first.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom