MK Cars-Themed Attractions at Magic Kingdom

UNCgolf

UNCgolf

Well-Known Member
Agent H said:
3 of those are great attractions. That’s why.
Click to expand...

Being a great attraction doesn't make something an E ticket, though. It's about scale etc. more than just being good -- I think Navi River Journey is a great attraction relative to its scale, but it's not an E ticket. I also think Jungle Cruise is not a very good attraction but it's still an E ticket.
 
Agent H

Agent H

Well-Known Member
UNCgolf said:
Being a great attraction doesn't make something an E ticket, though. It's about scale etc. more than just being good -- I think Navi River Journey is a great attraction relative to its scale, but it's not an E ticket. I also think Jungle Cruise is not a very good attraction but it's still an E ticket.
Click to expand...
I could have phrased that better. I believe 3 of them are objectively e-tickets. I think the jungle cruise is a great attraction but I don’t think it’s an e-ticket.
 
UNCgolf

UNCgolf

Well-Known Member
Agent H said:
I could have phrased that better. I believe 3 of them are objectively e-tickets. I think the jungle cruise is a great attraction but I don’t think it’s an e-ticket.
Click to expand...

I don't think any of those four have the overall scale to be E tickets -- Star Tours maybe when it opened, but not now. PPF and Tanged are C tickets IMO and 7DMT I suppose is a D just because it's a coaster. Tangled could be a D or E if it was about twice as long as it is, though. The original plans for 7DMT probably could have been an E too.

But... maybe I'm just spoiled from being a kid when most of the E tickets at WDW were long (at least 7-8 minutes) and full of AAs and elaborate sets, so that's what I think of as an E. There aren't as many of those now, so the line is probably shifting.
 
Last edited:
WaltWiz1901

WaltWiz1901

Well-Known Member
UNCgolf said:
That's a bizarre list of E tickets even using their own defined criteria; they list rides that don't meet their definition and don't list some that do.

Although their criteria is wildly subjective anyways, beyond just pointing at wait times.
Click to expand...
the omission of "it's a small world" - one of the legacy E-tickets - is what got me the most. it seems to check off at least two of the proverbial boxes for the author's criteria, yet it's not listed

and all Frozen Ever After and Peter Pan's Flight being on there proves is that demand and wait times are not adequate enough factors in determining what an E-ticket attraction is; it's all about the scale and scope of the attraction
also recall him classifying Hong Kong's Wandering Oaken coaster as an E too...well before we saw what it actually was
UNCgolf said:
Tangled could be a D or E if it was about twice as long as it is, though.
Click to expand...
already is a D-ticket attraction in scope (and classified as such internally)
 
UNCgolf

UNCgolf

Well-Known Member
WaltWiz1901 said:
already is a D-ticket attraction in scope (and classified as such internally)
Click to expand...

It's just not long enough to be a D as a dark ride to me. What's there is definitely D ticket quality (if not E), but it needs to be at least 2-3 minutes longer than it is -- it's what, 4 and a half minutes long, and the first minute is basically just looking at the tower outside? It's in the same boat as Na'vi River Journey IMO, in that the quality is high but the length is lacking.

That's obviously subjective, though, and if Disney classifies Tangled as a D internally, then so be it.

I think my personal, obviously subjective list of what feels like an E ticket in scope, scale, etc. at WDW would be different from most people's. I'd definitely classify some attractions as a D that other people (and I'm sure Disney) consider E tickets. And not because of like/dislike; there are some attractions I don't think are especially good that I'd still put in the E category (Jungle Cruise and Cosmic Rewind, e.g.).
 
Last edited:
Lord Fozzinator

Lord Fozzinator

Well-Known Member
In the Parks
No
Disney I’m giving you an idea so please, for the love of god, listen. Keep a portion of the ROA. I think it is pretty likely that the water around Big Thunder is staying but more of the water can be kept. I think the river should extend to at least the DVC lounge if not a bit farther.

In the concept art, it is shown that there is a snowy rock formation and Disney, buddy old pal, make this an area for a waterfall. Having the melting ice go down the mountain and form several waterfalls that feed into the remaining river. Have mist machines going while you’re at it. This would make this beautiful and would partially make up for the loss of the majority of the river.
 
Disstevefan1

Disstevefan1

Well-Known Member
Lord Fozzinator said:
Disney I’m giving you an idea so please, for the love of god, listen. Keep a portion of the ROA. I think it is pretty likely that the water around Big Thunder is staying but more of the water can be kept. I think the river should extend to at least the DVC lounge if not a bit farther.

In the concept art, it is shown that there is a snowy rock formation and Disney, buddy old pal, make this an area for a waterfall. Having the melting ice go down the mountain and form several waterfalls that feed into the remaining river. Have mist machines going while you’re at it. This would make this beautiful and would partially make up for the loss of the majority of the river.
Click to expand...
It’s over. They will attempt to build this, realize the budget won’t allow what they wanted to to, the project will get “scope cut” and we will end up with a glorified dirtless dirt track.
 
lazyboy97o

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Lord Fozzinator said:
The land was very unstable and was basically a swamp. It took them a couple years alone to make the ground stable enough for construction to even begin on the ride.
Click to expand...
No, they started site work well before design work was complete because they could. They had to shift and expand ponds, but there was no intensive ground stabilization project. TRON even has a basement.
 
KDM31091

KDM31091

Well-Known Member
I hope others are right and some amount of water is staying, but the last time I looked at permits it sure didn't seem that way, other than a tiny sliver alongside the edge of the park where it feeds into the Seven Seas Lagoon, but nothing that guests would even see from the park. I think a great compromise is to keep maybe 20% of the river, dock the boat, and leave it as a scenic sitting/relaxing area. Of course, that wouldn't sell DVC, or LLs, or anything else, and would purely be an investment in the park experience for no monetary gain, so I doubt they do it.
 
lazyboy97o

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
KDM31091 said:
I hope others are right and some amount of water is staying, but the last time I looked at permits it sure didn't seem that way, other than a tiny sliver alongside the edge of the park where it feeds into the Seven Seas Lagoon, but nothing that guests would even see from the park. I think a great compromise is to keep maybe 20% of the river, dock the boat, and leave it as a scenic sitting/relaxing area. Of course, that wouldn't sell DVC, or LLs, or anything else, and would purely be an investment in the park experience for no monetary gain, so I doubt they do it.
Click to expand...
The permit drawings are for water management and don’t include any actual details. Any new water features would most likely be isolated and not part of the water management system. They’d be like a fountain or swimming pool.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom