MK Cars-Themed Attractions at Magic Kingdom

[Agent H]

Actually a good idea, idk if the sinkhole has been explitclty confirmed yet though

Anyone who knows better feel free to correct me but I believe it’s true that the sinkhole that at one time was blamed for the closure of horizons is actually somewhere around the odyssey.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Anyone who knows better feel free to correct me but I believe it’s true that the sinkhole that at one time was blamed for the closure of horizons is actually somewhere around the odyssey.

There is no sinkhole.

Sinkholes of Orange County, Florida , 2008

Map of This map was created by FCIT and represents reported sinkhole events in Orange County based on data gathered by the Florida Geological Survey (FGS) and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). " This dataset represents a set of...

fcit.usf.edu

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

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.

I’m against the loss of the riverboat and will not accept any reason for its removal but in no way do I think that losing the rivers and liberty Belle = death to magic kingdom.

Likewise it’s silly to think that keeping the rivers and liberty Belle = death to magic kingdom.

MK will continue to do well regardless.

Which is actually a reason this expansion is more of a head scratcher - DHS needs all of this way more than MK!

 

[Chi84]

Why hit the ignore button? I mean what's the point of coming on line to a place where people exchange ideas, thoughts, discussions, and then decide, well I don't like 1 thing that 1 person had to say, and rather than discuss it, just hit ignore? Listen Train posts a ton on the board, somethings I find i agree with, some not. Just because in this one instance i think he did the equivalent of saying 2+2=5 doesn't mean i don't find interest in what he posts, or the threads in general. It seems lazy to just ignore things/posts you don't happen to like or disagree with.

Anyone on the board can decide what to respond to and what not to on their own. If you have to hide content that you don't agree with, you might as well not read the board at all, and just talk to yourself.

Of course all that’s true. I just meant rather than letting the discussion get so low that you’re throwing around the words “inane,” “insane,” “bollocks,” “complete stupidity” etc. But I guess that counts as discussion now.

 

[AidenRodriguez731]

I’m against the loss of the riverboat and will not accept any reason for its removal but in no way do I think that losing the rivers and liberty Belle = death to magic kingdom.

Likewise it’s silly to think that keeping the rivers and liberty Belle = death to magic kingdom.

MK will continue to do well regardless.

Which is actually a reason this expansion is more of a head scratcher - DHS needs all of this way more than MK!

DHS definitely needs the capacity but MK could use it to as I said before to better respread out the park. Now I may be really on the copium on this one but I sincerely think that where there's smoke, there's some fire considering Disney and Universal making a deal out of Marvel. With that, I think Disney wanted to keep AC as the expansion plot as HS doesn't have a ton of room for expansion unlike a lot of the other parks. AC and the surrounding builds atleast from my basic view could easily support a Marvel land + maybe another mini/medium sized land.

 

[el_super]

MK will continue to do well regardless.

Which is actually a reason this expansion is more of a head scratcher - DHS needs all of this way more than MK!

I don't really disagree that other areas need more attention... even areas in MK like the speedway.

But I do still think that the river and island as a theme park concept is just done in general. In that regard I think the alternative would have been to just close the river and let it rot for years while they worked on other areas, so the idea that they closed it only when they were ready to put a decent amount of money into a replacement is still the preferable option.

Weighed against the economic climate and how the parks are doing (or at least were doing up to the announcement), it might make sense to take on these bigger, more expensive replacement projects now, and tackle the smaller scale projects later when money is tight.

 

[lazyboy97o]

DHS definitely needs the capacity but MK could use it to as I said before to better respread out the park. Now I may be really on the copium on this one but I sincerely think that where there's smoke, there's some fire considering Disney and Universal making a deal out of Marvel. With that, I think Disney wanted to keep AC as the expansion plot as HS doesn't have a ton of room for expansion unlike a lot of the other parks. AC and the surrounding builds atleast from my basic view could easily support a Marvel land + maybe another mini/medium sized land.

Magic Kingdom needs capacity to deal with its current visitation. Enticing more visitation isn’t going to fix that.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

But I do still think that the river and island as a theme park concept is just done in general.

the island as it was is a bit tricky - I can certainly understand shrinking it like Disneyland. People were still riding the rafts and spending time over there - and an area to explore is a positive for any theme park.

But the riverboat is still a concept that people enjoy at theme parks - and enjoy in general. It also sets the scene and adds kinetic energy like the steam trains and Main Street vehicles do.

 

[MisterPenguin]

Who's the person who always suggests Small World should move to Epcot? This would've been the time!

IaSW also has good guest satisfaction ratings and is usually at a 20-30 minute wait while being considered a classic by many.

I've proposed several times on these boards over the years to raze IaSW to get to the beyond-the-berm expansion pad.

But not to get rid of it completely, but to build a better version in EPCOT, which could have been plussed in so many ways, starting with the industrial ceiling of the warehouse.

 

[Epcot82Guy]

I've proposed several times on these boards over the years to raze IaSW to get to the beyond-the-berm expansion pad.

But not to get rid of it completely, but to build a better version in EPCOT, which could have been plussed in so many ways, starting with the industrial ceiling of the warehouse.

While I know this would never happen - and there isn't a great location for it at EPCOT, I would be totally for this. Seems like it could have allowed for a much different version of what we're getting that could have both preserved more of what people want and still allowed all the new things coming in.

 

[psherman42]

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.

Did I say they could infinitely expand the park? No. But they DO have more space to expand and could have (and should have) used it instead of paving over RoA. Thinking they could and should have left the river also does not mean that I expect the park to be a museum either. And justifying decisions by saying guests shouldn’t have to walk “miles” to get to the newest attractions is a pretty poor argument. So they should just replace everything instead of using the land they have so guests don’t need to walk? And how about updating things like Stitch which has been empty for years, or the Speedway which also plenty of guests complain about? There are so many other places that deserved attention (not even just at MK but at other parks too) before decimating one of the central features of every castle park around the world. At a certain point they should also just build a fifth gate. But Disney doesn’t want to commit to that, but instead continue to replace things and share bluesky ideas for future expansions so they can get away with cutting them later because of budget cuts.

You can rationalize or support any wild idea if your only requirement is that it’ll make the company more money. Say someday they decide to pave over World Showcase Lagoon for more attractions. Or drained Crescent Lake for a new DVC resort? After all, isn’t all that water just wasted space? That would be fine because it’ll make the company more money? Money should be the number one driver at the expense of theming and storytelling, which is what Disney is supposed to be known for? You continue to go on about how this is great because it’ll make the company more money, but have yet to say this actually makes sense thematically for Frontierland.

I understand that parks need to change, and for the most part, I have supported the changes made, but there needs to be a balance between changing something just for the sake of change while also prioritizing actual theming and storytelling. The only park that seems to honor their history is DLR, the company doesn’t seem to care at all about the history/theming of WDW. Everything is expendable and they’ll shoehorn as many IPs into spaces that don’t belong as they can. Name one example of them “going out of their way” to preserve history.

This replacement could have gone anywhere. They could have put it in DHS which still needs more attractions and Launch Bay is a joke. That also would have improved guest satisfaction. I doubt if they put this somewhere else would have said, “this is great but it should have replaced RoA.”

 

[James Alucobond]

If Small World ever moved to EPCOT, the most sensible location would be somewhere near the entrance to WS, like the originally planned American Adventure location. I’m not really a fan of removing it from the castle park, though. My totally-not-happening thought would be to move it to Tomorrowland in the Speedway plot surrounded by water as the transition to Fantasyland, which at least sort of works thematically. An accompanying revival of Mary Blair throughout Tomorrowland would also be fun.

 

[Casper Gutman]

If you have to pretend that the removal of RoA was necessary to build Villains even after being repeatedly told it wasn’t that’s a pretty good indication you know removing RoA is a mistake.

 

[el_super]

Did I say they could infinitely expand the park? No. But they DO have more space to expand and could have (and should have) used it instead of paving over RoA. Thinking they could and should have left the river also does not mean that I expect the park to be a museum either.

But at the same time, you keep advocating for keeping rides and attractions in the park operating, and maintained, when guests don't want to ride them and don't want to pay for them. What's the point of keeping an attraction that only a small group of fans want?

You can rationalize or support any wild idea if your only requirement is that it’ll make the company more money.

I'm saying it will make more money, because people will genuinely like it more than what is there now was there before.

The only park that seems to honor their history is DLR, the company doesn’t seem to care at all about the history/theming of WDW. Everything is expendable and they’ll shoehorn as many IPs into spaces that don’t belong as they can. Name one example of them “going out of their way” to preserve history.

If historic preservation is what drives your enjoyment of theme parks, then yeah, just go to Disneyland.
As far as preserving history, they did just spend money to re-do the Country Bears. Not sure if that was a wise use of money, but here we are.

This replacement could have gone anywhere. They could have put it in DHS which still needs more attractions and Launch Bay is a joke. That also would have improved guest satisfaction. I doubt if they put this somewhere else would have said, “this is great but it should have replaced RoA.”

If they decided to put Cars somewhere else, they would still need to close the river and island. Isn't it better that it's being replaced rather than just left to rot?

 

[Epcot82Guy]

If Small World ever moved to EPCOT, the most sensible location would be somewhere near the entrance to WS, like the originally planned American Adventure location. I’m not really a fan of removing it from the castle park, though. My totally-not-happening thought would be to move it to Tomorrowland in the Speedway plot surrounded by water as the transition to Fantasyland, which at least sort of works thematically. An accompanying revival of Mary Blair throughout Tomorrowland would also be fun.

I actually really like that idea.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

when guests don't want to ride them and don't want to pay for them.

Not that any of us know… but have the attendance numbers changed drastically for the riverboat or island?

 

[EPCOTCenterLover]

I'm all for new great attractions that draw crowds on the Big Thunder side of the park- but unless you want an endless sea of people to constantly be your sightline, guests need relaxed visual spaces like what ROA/TSI accomplished. There has to be a good balance. As an IP, though I like the idea of the main ride, Cars does not fit there. And I like the movies.

 

[TheMaxRebo]

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?

They would have had to do some pretty significant infrastructure change to enable sufficient access.

I agree they didn't have to close the entire river but they must have felt this was the best way to do it based on a lot of information (including a lot we don't have access to) and, yes, to generate more income. But it is still part of the same project

No way they would do *just* Piston Peak

 

[el_super]

Not that any of us know… but have the attendance numbers changed drastically for the riverboat or island?

Well since July 7th... yeah.

 

[TheMaxRebo]

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.

Not necessary but *some* infrastructure change was needed and they obviously felt this was best way to do things. I don't think they just decided willy nilly to axe the river - there are a lot of tangential benefits beyond Piston Peak