Smiley/OCD
Well-Known Member
I can agree that when Warner LeRoy opened Great Adventure in 1974 here in NJ, it was a era of “firsts” THEME PARK, not an amusement park…
-
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
psherman42
Well-Known Member
That’s assuming it will look like Grizzly Peak.
Can you explain how Cars fit into Frontierland? I’ve been to Rocky Mountain National Park and don’t recall seeing any.
Cars does not fit into Frontierland. Try to justify it all you want but it doesn’t fit.
Or Communicore Hall.
This. I rarely went on the riverboat or to TSI, but I still enjoyed walking through Liberty Square and Frontierland and watching the boat and hearing the whistle. The view from Splash Mountain/Tianas was probably the best view in the park. I don’t see why it has to be replaced when they had room to expand and chose to rip it out for car shaped rock work.
MK was Walt’s final dream. Roy made sure it was built for that reason. The idea that one is Walt’s MK and the other is America’s is honestly silly. MK deserves to have its own history just as much as Disneyland does regardless of whether Walt actually stepped foot there or not. It doesn’t deserve to have its history shredded just because Walt died before it was completed.
Change is not what makes MK sacred. What makes it sacred is being able to step into a place that you enjoyed as a child and maybe if you’re lucky, sharing those experiences with your own children or grandchildren. Ripping out everything original takes that away.
I don’t think mentioning the monetary benefits for TWDC is the winning argument you think it is. Instead it just reiterates the idea that Disney doesn’t care about theme and atmosphere but makes decisions based solely on financial benefits.
Right? The general public would like anything. That doesn’t make it a good decision.
It is not a silly argument when the only argument people seem to be able to make in favor of Cars is that it’s a “better use of space”. Well, the majority of park guests aren’t going to CRT or BBB, so why not replace it with something that more people will enjoy? In front of the castle isn’t the only place to see the fireworks and they could move the stage show somewhere else.Man, got excited opening the thread seeing 6 pages in a day to catch up on thinking I missed an announcement or major construction update. Nope just the same back and forth that has been going on for the previous 700 pages
The one argument/topic I find very silly honestly is when people compare the river and the castle. It usually comes up in the sense of not many people use the castle therefore it can be removed as well (acknowledging I may not be doing the best job summarizing the argument here). This is a terrible argument in my mind. The castle is the icon and focal point of the park. It’s called a castle park not a river park. Yes to directly use the castle you have to pay a lot for both CRT and BBB. CRT inside is consistently booked from open to close meaning the “attraction” inside is at 100% capacity even with it’s crazy high cost and not great food (and this is from someone who had the best memory of his life at CRT getting engaged at dinner one night!). There are so do many more indirect uses of the castle compared to the river. It is the backdrop of stage shows which constantly have high attendance. It’s the structure most guests use for their vacation photos. It is the local point of the firework shows including the projection mapping.
As someone who is looking forward to these projects and even before the announcement of the ROA and TSI was looking for the them to be replaced, I have come to understand and appreciate a lot of the arguments made for keeping them or why so many enjoyed them. But when the argument then goes to compare the river to the castle in any way, I get lost. And maybe it’s just a hyperbole to prove a point but still.
Whether people realize it or not, the river is a central part of the park. If it wasn’t, why did they add one to every other castle park around the world?
I’ve literally never thought about RoA being replaced. Like not once have I walked through MK and thought, “wow, TSI and the river are wasted space.” But I have walked by Stitch’s Great Escape and Diamond Horseshoe and Tomorrowland Terrace and the speedway and thought what a waste of space. But somehow all of those are still standing but the river gets torn out for being a waste of space.
So even Six Flags can have a river, but the most visited theme park in the world can’t.
psherman42
Well-Known Member
Because you can enjoy Jungle Cruise from the outside? It is not even close to being the same as RoA.
Dranth
Well-Known Member
No it wasn't. EPCOT the city was the dream. MK was a way to get the funding, permission, state officials on board, etc. to build the thing he actually wanted.
psherman42
Well-Known Member
So that means it has no historical significance or deserves to be gutted for cheap IPs?
Disstevefan1
Well-Known Member
I apologize for disparaging 6 flags. Disney destroying MK has nothing to do with 6 flags.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
It wasn’t. No design work on the Magic Kingdom dates to Walt’s lifetime besides its general location within Disney World. Even during his lifetime he made comments about how he probably wouldn’t be that involved in the Florida park and would largely leave it up to the team at WED.
Casper Gutman
Well-Known Member
You relentlessly pretend Disney parks are nothing more then a disconnected series of attractions governed by no design principles or philosophy or any sense of aesthetic or narrative cohesion. It’s such a staggeringly narrow view of the parks.
Casper Gutman
Well-Known Member
WDW doesn’t need to be governed by Walt’s vision. It does need to be governed by SOMEONE’S vision, a vision that at the very least understands why things were built the way they were and removes them only in line with a new, cohesive plan.
Dranth
Well-Known Member
I don't follow.
Without even getting into how subjective IP can be or that part of the area was already IP, it can be true that MK was a means to an end while also not wanting it to be "gutted for cheap IP". MK can have a history that includes Walt but is its own thing without having to misrepresent what it was originally meant to be.
I think it would be safe to say MK was inspired by Walt. It was done by people that knew and worked for him in his memory but that is NOT the same as saying it was his final dream. It was the thing he had to do to get to the thing he REALLY wanted to do.
MK is not a museum, it was never meant to be a museum, it never will be a museum no matter how much some of us don't like it.
Disstevefan1
Well-Known Member
TrainsOfDisney
Well-Known Member
While a topic for another day… it could potentially be a museum one day and some could argue it always was.
Dranth
Well-Known Member
If I had my way we would have early/mid 90s MK with everything being maintained and in top shape. The only additions would be ones that made sense for their lands and be in actual expansion areas. However, that isn't the reality of a publicly traded company dealing with wildly changing interests, shrinking attention spans and increased competition from every direction for the limited time people have.
JMcMahonEsq
Well-Known Member
What type of insane statement is it that the most visited amusement park in the world has any potential at becoming a musuem?
And no, while personal opinions can vary, and there are morons who argue the world is flat, no one can argue WDW has always been a museum.
Chi84
Premium Member
Not if they look like that!
Raineman
Well-Known Member
I didn't realize there were special requirements for posting in this thread. Thanks for the heads up!For this thread:
James Alucobond
Well-Known Member
I wasn’t trying to justify it. I just said the comparison made no sense.
