Casper Gutman
Well-Known Member
You can always tell a development at WDW is brilliant when the defenders get to the ad hominem attacks.
-
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
TrainsOfDisney
Well-Known Member
That and “the general public will like it” really sells it doesn’t it?
Casper Gutman
Well-Known Member
So according to the last two pages the people who hate this decision are the ones who visit WDW too much and the ones who don’t visit WDW enough.
DarkMetroid567
Well-Known Member
I would normally agree with a comment like this but when the arguments get so prolonged and snarky I kinda get it lol. The people on these forums are enough to drive any man insane
Casper Gutman
Well-Known Member
“I can’t be held responsible for my actions, someone said something I disagree with!”
Very popular stance these days.
MickMinn22
Active Member
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.
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.
TrainsOfDisney
Well-Known Member
Yeah…. I get that. Most of the “reasons” given for the destruction of the river can be applied to the castle but your point is correct, the castle is the center of the park and probably the only thing required for a castle park to be a castle park.
I keep an eye online and it looks like they’re draining the river, have started working quickly to take down props, and have removed the portion of the wall that said Tom hearts Becky
Anatj9na
And I think that is the sad part that sums it up. We have reached a point where an icon is conflated with theme and dedication.
And I think that is the sad part that sums it up. We have reached a point where an icon is conflated with theme and dedication.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
The entirety of Liberty Square and Frontierland are designed around the Rivers of America. It’s the primarily element of the two lands’ spatial organization. “Castle parks” aren’t actually designed around the castle, but the hub (which pre-dates the castle). It’s the castle’s placement on the central plaza that gives it prominence. Change the spatial organization of the park and that significance will change. Swap the castle with something else and that significance will change. How space is composed is a key component to how it is experienced, the same thing in different spatial contexts becomes a different experience. The castles aren’t inherently special but because they are sited at the central organizing element of the park. The comparison to the castles misses the source of significance. The Rivers of America is to Frontierland and Liberty Square what the hub is to the entire park.
Last edited:
harryk
Well-Known Member
Elimination of 2 attractions to add 3 attractions is still not an expansion. There is enough land to add 3 and keep current (although their destruction is in progress).
easyrowrdw
Well-Known Member
Yeah. I don't live close to Disney World, but it's my preferred Disney park because I think it's a better overall experience than Disneyland. I'm not comparing MK to Disneyland on this decision and I really don't care if MK is the same or different than Disneyland. I'm thinking about what I like and think is best for MK. And IMO they're destroying a key element of the park. So someone saying, "just go see it at another park" doesn't provide a lot of solace.
JohnD
Well-Known Member
Good point. They did that with Tiana. And plenty of opinions about Tiana. . . Those were on a different thread.
CoastalElite64
Well-Known Member
Please this. I respect people grieving but this is getting out of hand.
TrainsOfDisney
Well-Known Member
It’s lose lose. If you visit WDW only you are a lazy fan cause you won’t visit the other coast and you want them to be identical.
If you visit and are fans of both you are incapable of understanding that only Disneyland has any historical significance and Walt’s dead anyways. Hooray! Who would want his ideas to be around!
Dranth
Well-Known Member
Factually Disneyland is the park with historical significance when it comes to Walt, not MK and certainly not WDW. That doesn't mean WDW doesn't have its own history and cultural impact, but it is largely disconnected from Walt the person.
Also, I don't think anyone is saying they don't want his ideas around, but to believe he would not have adapted and changed as time went on is also naive.
Just to be clear, removing RoA, from an aesthetic standpoint, is a mistake. I FIRMLY believe that what we end up with will be a lesser product on that front, but eventually enough people will move on/pass away that what they are building is all anyone will know.
TrainsOfDisney
Well-Known Member
I feel like every castle park is and should be connected to Walt Disney.
But even if you want to break that link…. Disney was founded by both Walt and Roy - so the Magic Kingdom is the last park opened by one of the founders of the company. So it too, should have some historic significance.
Ayla
Well-Known Member
Well, you can always start one ~ when there is actual construction to discuss.
WorldExplorer
Well-Known Member
I think the "Walt would want" argument gets distorted.
It should be less "this was a thing Walt liked and Walt was an important person so we want to preserve it as a historical thing".
It should be more "Walt actually knew what the hell he was doing so his logic should be emulated and his choices and reasoning carefully considered".
Same with Muppet Vision and Jim Henson. Removing the Muppet thing he made and trying to put them somewhere else is not a bad idea because Henson's final work deserves to be forever enshrined and worshipped like an ancient talisman, but because he was a genius of his craft and knew how to do this better than anyone. Even if the people making the new thing are good, they won't be exceptional like Henson. It will not be as good. What they had was already made by the absolute best person for the job.
Ideas that came from Walt came from the father of theme parks; an absolute genius, someone who revolutionized two mediums in his relatively short life. He knew about atmosphere, he knew about design, he knew how to make things fun, he was brilliant. When he put things in the parks he knew what he was doing. Yes, even if he didn't specifically oversee the construction of this one, an idea that is his copied over somewhere else is still an idea that is his.
And if we're going to argue that what Walt made was good then but doesn't fit modern Disney, that says a hell of a lot more about modern Disney than it does about Walt.
Also, this "well go to Disneyland" thing is nonsense: this was in the park at its debut, it has been there for fifty four years. It's just as much a part of this park as Disneyland, it's totally reasonable to want to have it here.
It should be less "this was a thing Walt liked and Walt was an important person so we want to preserve it as a historical thing".
It should be more "Walt actually knew what the hell he was doing so his logic should be emulated and his choices and reasoning carefully considered".
Same with Muppet Vision and Jim Henson. Removing the Muppet thing he made and trying to put them somewhere else is not a bad idea because Henson's final work deserves to be forever enshrined and worshipped like an ancient talisman, but because he was a genius of his craft and knew how to do this better than anyone. Even if the people making the new thing are good, they won't be exceptional like Henson. It will not be as good. What they had was already made by the absolute best person for the job.
Ideas that came from Walt came from the father of theme parks; an absolute genius, someone who revolutionized two mediums in his relatively short life. He knew about atmosphere, he knew about design, he knew how to make things fun, he was brilliant. When he put things in the parks he knew what he was doing. Yes, even if he didn't specifically oversee the construction of this one, an idea that is his copied over somewhere else is still an idea that is his.
And if we're going to argue that what Walt made was good then but doesn't fit modern Disney, that says a hell of a lot more about modern Disney than it does about Walt.
Also, this "well go to Disneyland" thing is nonsense: this was in the park at its debut, it has been there for fifty four years. It's just as much a part of this park as Disneyland, it's totally reasonable to want to have it here.
Last edited: