Was it a cost differential? What is the cost of a new engine versus razing RoA and filling 11 acres with new attractions?
-
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
- Thread starter wdwmagic
- Start date
EeyoreFan#24
Well-Known Member
They also could have known there was no plan to reuse the riverboat and the boiler could be resold in relatively new condition or use a cheaper model.
Maybe they were just managing the reputational risk and letting finance take a secondary position. There's a bunch of reasons that could be looked at either way depending on your view.
Maybe they were just managing the reputational risk and letting finance take a secondary position. There's a bunch of reasons that could be looked at either way depending on your view.
TrainsOfDisney
Well-Known Member
Oh no…. I’m not suggesting Disney would have used it as a sunk cost issue (though I wish they would have!).
I was saying if the riverboat was no longer an attraction the company wished to operate, there was no need to invest in it to continue to operate it.
I know the locomotives were evaluated at around the same time - with the Lilly Belle significantly delayed while they decided if they wanted to continue investing them.
Of course…. John Lassiter was involved during that time.
Not sure what that has to do with anything... And not sure If I want to know. Ignorance being bliss and all. All this talk... Did anyone consider that they still plan to reuse the Riverboat elsewhere? Not saying that's the case, just another wrinkle to possibly add to the discussion.
TrainsOfDisney
Well-Known Member
Nothing bad haha. He is a huge fan of trains - he owns his own steam railroad, the same gauge as the Disney trains that operate at his vineyard.
He’s also a Disney Parks nerd in general - and I’m guessing he’s a reason we still have the rivers in California.
EricsBiscuit
Well-Known Member
Yes and Disney gave him the rare honor of operating his locomotive on the DLRR! Crazy
TrainsOfDisney
Well-Known Member
I wish I could have been there that day!!!! Talk about “rare mileage”!!!!
flynnibus
Premium Member
Because they are still a 365 day a year operation and years is... YEARS?
I can't believe you are arguing why they didn't let an attraction sit broken for years...
TrainsOfDisney
Well-Known Member
Wasn’t exactly my point but I don’t think I’m doing a good job explaining it.
flynnibus
Premium Member
Knowing you plan on sunsetting something isn't the same as deciding 'we gotta STOP NOW'. Deciding something is deadman walking doesn't mean they are opposed to maintaining something. It just means they know it's got an exit planned and they would manage their choices appropriately.
Remember, we're talking something that was a roadmap that was likely 5-10 years away... and likely not a hard target yet. Doing nothing and letting it sit and rot for so long wouldn't be a good look and not really a viable option if they knew the change wasn't in the short term.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Keeping the boat operating didn’t require the expense of a completely new boiler and continuing steam operations. Even if the boiler was completely unusable, they could have converted the boat to a different, cheaper and easier to operate propulsion method.
TrainsOfDisney
Well-Known Member
But there’s also a difference between regular maintenance and a brand new boiler.
My thinking is heavily influenced from the tourist railroad industry - a new boiler is a crazy high expense. Heck even the 15 year boiler inspection requirement is a major expense for heritage railroad operations.
Maybe to Disney a new boiler was a sensible financial decision for only 5-15 years of potential operation.
Or maybe….. there were plans to keep it like in California.
These aren’t final decisions that are made by only 1 person and plans are fluid and can change.
Last edited:
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Disney really doesn’t plan that far out. They didn’t have a roadmap at the time planning for the eventual closure. But, they did feel there was enough utilization to pick the most expense choice when it came to their options for keeping the attraction operating.
OrlandoRising
Well-Known Member
No, I don't consider any criticism of changes to be baseless. But I expect an argument beyond emotional/nostalgia-driven appeals or platitudes about what Walt would've done.
As another poster said, you seem to be setting up a straw man here by saying that anyone who doesn't agree with you is telling you to "step in line and love every change," because this is not a binary choice.
My thoughts on single-IP lands in castle parks: Why not? There's no reasonable rule, nor should there be, that the castle parks must retain the exact parameters from 70 years ago. Their designs and offerings have evolved with new iterations -- I don't see why if Disneyland Paris changed the formula by having Discoveryland instead of Tomorrowland in 1992 that the castle parks can't include single-IP lands now, and they already have in Shanghai and Hong Kong.
All that matters to me is the execution.
TrainsOfDisney
Well-Known Member
The lands are the same though… space mountain, Autopia, Star tours, big counter service with a stage, circle vision.
That’s very different from Toy Story Land in Hong Kong.
Casper Gutman
Well-Known Member
What is the “vision,” the unifying principles, of the Magic Kingdom that is currently being built? What gives it coherence?
If Disney built a full-size single-IP land in EPCOT, say where Wonders of Life is now - would that effect the sense of the overall park?
Gusey
Well-Known Member
Like on the scale of the Seas with Nemo and Friends?
For me, I can see the issue with single-IP lands in castle parks as Castle parks tend to have "category"lands, where an IP-based attraction has to fit in the overally theme of the land: Adventure, Wilderness, Fantasy, Future. But there is always a possibility to expand the castle parks to include new themes, even if that is through single-IPs. Luckily for WDW, and the thread we're on now, MK isn't getting any single-IP lands, and hasn't had one since Mickey's Toontown Fair was technically just themed to the Mickey and Friends IP, and the addition of Cars to Frontierland and a Villains-themed land means we're not likely to get a single-IP land at the MK for a long time
Casper Gutman
Well-Known Member
You seem to be confused about the difference between “pavilion,” the organizing principle for the Worlds-Fair -inspired EPCOT, and “land.”
HMF
Well-Known Member
I have been opposed to entire IP-based EPCOT Pavilions since day one. Though I will now admit Inside Out might be the only way to revive Wonders Of Life.