MK Cars-Themed Attractions at Magic Kingdom

FettFan

Well-Known Member
And I don’t. But I also don’t doubt that Imagineers will do great with creating an aesthetic that is honorary of the rivers, island, and natural elements.

1752590893639.gif
 

Casper Gutman

Well-Known Member
How is this still being argued? The river had to be removed because it was underutilized. It was underutilized because it was unwanted. The customers, not Disney, turned away from those themes and stories years ago.
This has been refuted before, frequently and at length. So in the interest of brevity and at the risk of being ever so impolite… this is really dumb.
 

Ayla

Well-Known Member
I love the rivers. But it was not being used like other parks. Disneyland has Fantasmic on their river. Paris has Thunder on their island. It’s a beautiful area and I can’t fault that. However, I am more interested in geysers that look like Yellowstone or mountains like the Rocky Mountains. That’s just going to be my preference.
Then visit the real thing.
 

DisneyLeo18

Active Member
Why does a beautiful space that is absolutely integral to the aesthetic and storytelling of a third of the park and three of its biggest headliners need to be more “used?” Magic Kingdom did not lack expansion space. This position makes sense only if you have huge amounts of Disney stock.

Nah. Plenty of people (non stockholders like myself) are excited to see the rivers replaced with something new. So in the interest of brevity and at the risk of being ever so impolite… this is really dumb.
 

Tha Realest

Well-Known Member
Nah. Plenty of people (non stockholders like myself) are excited to see the rivers replaced with something new. So in the interest of brevity and at the risk of being ever so impolite… this is really dumb.
Oh this is a fun game.

Plenty of people aren’t personally affected by the aesthetic beauty of the expansive hub and the underutilized castle, and have never - and will never - eat at Cinderella’s Royal Table. Think of the extreme roller coaster that could go in that footprint!
 

The Empress Lilly

Well-Known Member
I love the rivers. But it was not being used like other parks. Disneyland has Fantasmic on their river. Paris has Thunder on their island. It’s a beautiful area and I can’t fault that. However, I am more interested in geysers that look like Yellowstone or mountains like the Rocky Mountains. That’s just going to be my preference.
The RoA and island serve a purpose greater than their direct attractions. They create a space, make FL/LS fade off into infinite space. They form the river to the Hudson Valley Haunted Mansion, are the accompanying water to the Northeastern colonial harbour town of the area between HM and HoP, are the wilderness necessary for any frontierland. They add beauty, kinetics, meaning, spatial organisation. And tranquility - not every square foot of a Disney park should be loud and in-your-face exciting - this is not Universal. This area doesn't need loud cars to be 'used', because it is already being used, used to create an atmosphere, a Disney one, a MK one.
 

Agent H

Well-Known Member
Having seen what they did at Disneyland, I'm guessing they knew it wasn't worth the cost. It would have been a lot of money, for not a lot of return. It makes sense that they would rather spend money on a new project that would have more lasting power over time, than continually shoveling money into their own oak island.
You say this like oak island isn’t an interesting place.
 

Smiley/OCD

Well-Known Member
It was poorly conveyed and he didn't stick the landing. Not ideal but probably should have been closer to: The American West has always been about looking toward the horizon, believing in yourself, and carving your own path. It’s the story of hopeful miners deep in the mountains, folksy bears in the Northwoods, a princess from the bayou stirring up new adventures, and a city slicker racecar longing to chase the open air—all driven by the same spirit. Trailblazers forging new paths in the Frontier.
Then he needs a new speechwriter…
 

Chi84

Premium Member
There is a thread that was started for people to express their feelings on the attractions being removed.
 

Smiley/OCD

Well-Known Member
How is this still being argued? The river had to be removed because it was underutilized. It was underutilized because it was unwanted. The customers, not Disney, turned away from those themes and stories years ago.

You can't keep expending a park with attractions and areas going unused and unwanted. The customers still have to pay for the upkeep of those areas they are not using. Continually expanding the park, and leaving the unused parts would just result in increasing admission costs. Customers don't want to pay for things they're not using.
Then maybe they should circle back and replace Stitch…
 

Disstevefan1

Well-Known Member
Having seen what they did at Disneyland, I'm guessing they knew it wasn't worth the cost. It would have been a lot of money, for not a lot of return. It makes sense that they would rather spend money on a new project that would have more lasting power over time, than continually shoveling money into their own oak island.
I agree, Disney's theme park business is all about MONEY.

Disney's movie business, not so much.

Side note - I do believe there was treasure on Oak Island at one time but I think its long gone now. That said I have watched every season of the curse of Oak Island because I am a dreamer and I hope they find treasure.

I also hope we will have the fountain of nations back in EPCOT, again, I am a dreamer....
 

Agent H

Well-Known Member
How is this still being argued? The river had to be removed because it was underutilized. It was underutilized because it was unwanted. The customers, not Disney, turned away from those themes and stories years ago.
Tom Sawyer island works just fine without knowledge of the ip. They have signs at every part of the island explaining its significance and backstory.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom