TrainsOfDisney
Well-Known Member
But Villians doesn’t require piston peak to be built.
I continue to wonder if Encanto was going to go in the piston peak spot in the original “beyond” plan or was it going to connect coco and Villians?
-
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
I continue to wonder if Encanto was going to go in the piston peak spot in the original “beyond” plan or was it going to connect coco and Villians?
el_super
Well-Known Member
It's the truth. They can't just infinitely expand the park. They can't keep attractions and areas around as museum pieces, and hope that the audience is willing to pay for continually running these rides and attractions they don't want. They can't just keep assuming people will be willing to walk miles past the main entrance to get to the newest, best rides.
They are taking an informed approach. They tried to do an update of the island/river at Disneyland... multiple times. They know exactly what their money bought them in utilization and guest satisfaction. They decided that spending the money on fixing the river and island at WDW wasn't worth the money, and that a larger scale project and new attractions would be a better use of their money. They're absolutely right.
Everything they do should be about money. You can, if you want, choose not to look at it that way. They routinely do things that cost them money but emphasize guest satisfaction and brand loyalty. They often go out of their way to preserve and celebrate their history. There are just limits to that. You can't run a theme park full of museum pieces unless you can keep people paying the high entry prices. And high entry prices are justified by new expansions and attractions.
Far better to have a park that changes and adapts than none at all.
When the river was built, Big Thunder wasn't there. Tiana's wasn't there. Villain's Land wasn't being planned. Today's Imagineers have the knowledge of how the river exists today and what they want to do in the future, so of course any new project is going to be better integrated than what has organically sprung up over 50+ years.
It's been indicated to us that what is the current lay-down yards beyond the RR berm was an expansion pad that could have been accessed by some sort of path by the Frontierland RR station.
Also, IaSW could have been sacrificed instead of RoA to access the back end of RoA and that lay-down yard expansion pad.
So, no, RoA didn't have to go.
It's going because the powers that be wanted it to go. There was no necessity about it.
Also, IaSW could have been sacrificed instead of RoA to access the back end of RoA and that lay-down yard expansion pad.
So, no, RoA didn't have to go.
It's going because the powers that be wanted it to go. There was no necessity about it.
JD80
Well-Known Member
I always tell my clients I can do anything for them it just requires time and money. That time and money may or may not be worth it.
That being said, keeping the front of ROA but putting something behind it doesn't make sense from a lot of different perspectives.
easyrowrdw
Well-Known Member
Who's the person who always suggests Small World should move to Epcot? This would've been the time!
Last edited:
JD80
Well-Known Member
I've always said that would be a good solution. That show building is prime real estate in Fantasyland and it's huge.
el_super
Well-Known Member
They fixed DCA by adding Cars Land and doubling down on IP attractions. They will do the same with WDS. Some of these rules and design standards just don't seem all that important in the long term. At least not with the paying customers.
I don't recall Walt putting "the park should suffer for the art" on the dedication plaque of Disneyland.
He broke and bent the rules (that he supposedly created) all the time. He did what made sense for the park, and what he personally enjoyed, and they called it art later.
AidenRodriguez731
Well-Known Member
I think IASW still should go (it was 1 out of the 2 attractions I thought would be best gone from its current location) But I 100% agree it should be moved to WS with a better facade. With this current plan, I would turn that whole section where IASW was into a Tangled area with a new tangled boat ride + maybeeee the Snuggly Duckling (possibly also replacing Pinnochios) to brighten up that area and make it less just stone and into more of a foresty area with nice wooden accents.
The new Tangled area could connect through a cave (similar to how the Tangled tower in the movie is surrounded by rockwork) to the new villians land.
solidyne
Well-Known Member
mattpeto
Well-Known Member
Unless they can stick it behind the American Pavilion (and make backstage changes obviously) I have no idea where they can put it. But I'm all for it.
EDIT: I don't want it taking a potential country pavilion expansion spot, hope one day we get some more countries.
AidenRodriguez731
Well-Known Member
IaSW also has good guest satisfaction ratings and is usually at a 20-30 minute wait while being considered a classic by many. ROA had none of that going for it. It didn't have the high capacity that IASW does, not the beloved status by the average park goer, and it wasn't part of an existing land area that already has a good amount of attractions. Doing this allowed them to actually expand the park with 4 new attractions, which taking out small world would have only given them the 2 or made a dead end or an unreasonable walking distance around the entire ROA for little to no reason. This was 100% the better move and its not even close.
I think the laydown yards might still be eventually used as expansion (Coco would be perfect) and then to me, the ROA change would be so beneficial to the park for me that I would be doing the Mickey Mouse hot dog dance on top of its grave
German Pavilion.
AidenRodriguez731
Well-Known Member
I would put it in the beginning of world showcase but I know thats not popular due to obstructing the initial view of the lagoon so... I'm not 100% sure on where to put it.
Agent H
Well-Known Member
Maybe it’s not feasible because of sinkholes or something but the land where the odyssey pavilion sits seems like it could be a good spot.
WorldExplorer
Well-Known Member
I would bet a giant amount of money that there is no way in hell Disney would ever relocate Small World.
First off people keep acting like that's a regular thing they do and I am not aware of a single instance in like fourty years.
Second, all arguments that can be aimed at TSI and the Riverboat can be aimed directly at Small World. Low wait times regularly, IP-less, prime real estate, and the REAL one is in Disneyland so just go over there. It's a smaller foot print, but still very valuable, underutilized space.
If Disney killed WDW's Small World it would just kill it and replace it with something else.
And we would be assured that we should be okay with that.
First off people keep acting like that's a regular thing they do and I am not aware of a single instance in like fourty years.
Second, all arguments that can be aimed at TSI and the Riverboat can be aimed directly at Small World. Low wait times regularly, IP-less, prime real estate, and the REAL one is in Disneyland so just go over there. It's a smaller foot print, but still very valuable, underutilized space.
If Disney killed WDW's Small World it would just kill it and replace it with something else.
And we would be assured that we should be okay with that.
AidenRodriguez731
Well-Known Member
Actually a good idea, idk if the sinkhole has been explitclty confirmed yet though
el_super
Well-Known Member
Let me be the first then: I think this will look better and be a better fit.
I like the idea of "Frontierland" being a mountain town. Akin to something you could see in Alaska. Facing the steep rock peaks with small streams running through it. Isolated in the true wilderness, instead of just some open flat prairie fort. Also sort of excuses not having a railroad connected to the main town.
The river provided an open vista, but it wasn't space that could be occupied unless you were on the boat. Your views and enjoyment of it was controlled. You couldn't really enjoy the river itself... just the view it provided. I think a tree covered forest will provide a more engaging space by being an area where you can get in and explore on your own. I think the caves and mountains will provide a pretty similar experience to the current island, except being more accessible of course.
I think this will be a massive improvement over what was there before.
SpectroBro
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- Yes
Move it to the Speedway spot. Tomorrowland Speedway will just seem even more worn out once the Cars attraction is open.
AidenRodriguez731
Well-Known Member
They did relocate Festival of the Lion King, Fliks Flyers, and Dumbo all in the last 40 years. It's not quite the same but I imagine it not be only moved but improved upon. like a Small World 2.0.
Also small world has often had a 20-30 minute wait when i was at the parks. This is with a capacity of 2,700-3,000 riders per hour. The Riverboat has a capacity each trip of 450 maximum and takes 20 minutes. meaning it can make AT BEST half the capacity. With the area it taking up being 14 acres instead of the roughly 1 acre for small world. It is a RIDICULOUS comparison when the riverboat never really even has a wait while Small World still has a decent wait with insane capacity and takes up not even 1/10 of the space???
I know we are in Fantasyland but can we make a little more sense right now? Be so for real.
el_super
Well-Known Member
What if, the audience just sincerely doesn't want to be lectured to while on vacation?
Would it have been a better thing for Disney to just keep EPCOT as this static museum piece until the audience stopped coming and they could close and bulldoze it for MAGIC KINGDOM 2: ELECTRIC BOOGALOO?
Parks have to change and adapt or they die. It seems some here think it would be a better thing for them to just die off and be replaced entirely to maintain their artistic cohesion.