MK Cars-Themed Attractions at Magic Kingdom

[lazyboy97o]

What makes it insane. Parts of the Magic Kingdom certainly qualify - Hall of Presidents being the most obvious. The steam train and riverboat were also museum quality pieces as is the horse drawn trolley (when it runs).

On opening day Tomorrowland has science museum style attractions - now it’s just COP that would count.

Also historic music is played daily - I don’t know anywhere else that offers both ragtime piano and barber shop quartet music on a daily basis.

if you have reasons that it can’t be called a museum I would be interested in hearing why.

Even on the side of museums, the definition of a museum isn’t something that is static and unchanging. The best museums continue to expand their collections. They rotate through collections, and expand collections. They host different events and temporary exhibits. Even history sites and buildings aren’t unchanging. Historic buildings that are museums will sometimes be renovated to shift their focus on different time periods and activities that have occurred there, at times in ways that definitely don’t go unnoticed.

Also, the TEA attendance report is theme parks and museums. That’s not some weird accident.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

As for Star Wars, I don't think the idea of the hotel was bad, but the implementation certainly didn't work and at the price they were asking, it was beyond ridiculous.

But no matter what it was bad for shareholders.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

I mean i could go through historical definitions of museums, but the stupidity of the argument is just boring.

I don’t think there is any reason you need to continue calling my thoughts and ideas stupid and insane. I would kindly ask you to stop.

The legal definition in the state of Florida is not the same world-wide since for profit museums do exist.

And I could see the possibility of the Disney Parks being operated as a non-profit - I wish parts of Disneyland has stayed in the family so they could be part of the Disney Family Museum!

Also - google refers to Walt Disney Presents as a museum - you better report them! Haha.

“History museum on the life of Walt Disney featuring photos, models, sketches & a short documentary.”

 

[JMcMahonEsq]

I don’t think there is any reason you need to continue calling my thoughts and ideas stupid and insane. I would kindly ask you to stop.

The legal definition in the state of Florida is not the same world-wide since for profit museums do exist.

And I could see the possibility of the Disney Parks being operated as a non-profit - I wish parts of Disneyland has stayed in the family so they could be part of the Disney Family Museum!

Also - google refers to Walt Disney Presents as a museum - you better report them! Haha.

“History museum on the life of Walt Disney featuring photos, models, sketches & a short documentary.”

Inane or insane statements will continue to be called such. Personal opinions are one thing, but absolute bollocks deserved to be called out.

Such as the legal definition in Florida, not being relevant to someone's statement that they could see WDW....which is in Florida. I don't care what you wish for, or what museums can be in other places. WDW is in Florida.

As to the statement that you could see Disney Parks being operated as a non-profit. Honestly the flat earther argument has more validity than that statement.

 

[Chi84]

Inane or insane statements will continue to be called such. Personal opinions are one thing, but absolute bollocks deserved to be called out.

Such as the legal definition in Florida, not being relevant to someone's statement that they could see WDW....which is in Florida. I don't care what you wish for, or what museums can be in other places. WDW is in Florida.

As to the statement that you could see Disney Parks being operated as a non-profit. Honestly the flat earther argument has more validity than that statement.

Why argue if you have such a low opinion of what’s being said? The “ignore” button works better.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

As to the statement that you could see Disney Parks being operated as a non-profit. Honestly the flat earther argument has more validity than that statement.

Many tourist attractions operate as non-profits including the Henry ford which inspired Disneyland.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Inane or insane statements will continue to be called such. Personal opinions are one thing, but absolute bollocks deserved to be called out.

Such as the legal definition in Florida, not being relevant to someone's statement that they could see WDW....which is in Florida. I don't care what you wish for, or what museums can be in other places. WDW is in Florida.

As to the statement that you could see Disney Parks being operated as a non-profit. Honestly the flat earther argument has more validity than that statement.

What’s stupid is thinking Florida’s statutory definitions are somehow relevant to a concept that exists beyond and untethered to Florida.

 

[el_super]

I don’t think mentioning the monetary benefits for TWDC is the winning argument you think it is. Instead it just reiterates the idea that Disney doesn’t care about theme and atmosphere but makes decisions based solely on financial benefits.

Of course it is. Disney only benefits financially by keeping their customers happy and coming back. They know that and they work towards decisions that will keep them spending on admissions.

Cars absolutely will do that. New attractions usually do, but something that is designed as a massive new addition with all the detailing and cohesion thought out in advanced is what the audience is looking for. Bringing up the thrill elements on a new ride system is just icing on the cake.

If there was a way to keep the river, and continue making money off that, I'm sure Disney would choose the cheaper route and NOT develop the land. They are spending the money because they have to. Because the audience at large doesn't want the river any longer. They have no need for it.

Disney only wins here by making the larger audience happy.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

If there was a way to keep the river, and continue making money off that, I'm sure Disney would choose the cheaper route and NOT develop the land.

is the argument that California needs Fantasmic for guest flow (which in turn makes money) ? Cause I see that angle.

I guess it’s good that Disneyland is so crowded and needs F! - if it saved the rivers.

 

[flynnibus]

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".

Sorry - this is a central flaw of the WWWD mentality. It presumes what Walt did before, should always carry forward. 'emulating' him is the exact opposite of what Walt did.. he ran from duplicating his own work and choices. He focused on moving forward and wasn't shy from literally leaving what he had done to pursue his next vision.

That's what was dooming the company through the 70s... by always trying to analyze everything through their Walt analog, they locked themselves into what Walt had already considered and done.. and when the world was changing or they faced things Walt hadn't... they didn't know what to do or failed to advance. It's why the company got stale and their cultural significance faltered as they failed to adapt.

What one must do is understand his reasoning and learn from it - not strive to emulate him.. because then you trap yourself into only repeating what was previously done. Learning means to take the principals an apply them to new scenarios and being able to self-assess and adapt. You study and learn from his rational and then apply it to your time and place.

What Walt did that many could not do it is pivot and not be shy about experimenting and learning from it.

You can't be a visionary and progressive if you always apply the rules or standards taken from a different context.

 

[plutofan15]

When I read through this thread, why do I get the feeling that I am trapped in a Stealers Wheel song??

 

[el_super]

is the argument that California needs Fantasmic for guest flow (which in turn makes money) ? Cause I see that angle.

I guess it’s good that Disneyland is so crowded and needs F! - if it saved the rivers.

Absolutely. Fantasmic gives people a reason to stay in the park later. More time in the park means more meals and snacks sold.

 

[flynnibus]

Disney (now more than ever) is always on the forefront of political correctness and. environmental issues…I’m just wondering how the company is justifying off roading in a national park? I know they always look to send the RIGHT message…is this it? Just wondering…

"stay on the trails" -- enough said

Disney isn't going to be showboating people cutting their own trails or tearing up terrain.

 

[Disstevefan1]

As to the statement that you could see Disney Parks being operated as a non-profit.

Disney's movie business operates as a non-profit

Disney's theme park business must make money to finance Disney's movie business

 

[James Alucobond]

Disney's movie business operates as a non-profit

Said on the day Lilo & Stitch surpassed $1 billion.

 

[Disstevefan1]

Said on the day Lilo & Stitch surpassed $1 billion.

The winky means it was a joke, its in my signature.

I have to hand it to Disney when they turn something that was going to be on Disney+ (a pure cost) into a 1B money maker at the box office - Good show Disney!

Seriously, I do think Disney's movie business will be in the black for 2025 when you add everything up; winners making up for the losers.

 

[mlayton144]

Of course it is. Disney only benefits financially by keeping their customers happy and coming back. They know that and they work towards decisions that will keep them spending on admissions.

Cars absolutely will do that. New attractions usually do, but something that is designed as a massive new addition with all the detailing and cohesion thought out in advanced is what the audience is looking for. Bringing up the thrill elements on a new ride system is just icing on the cake.

If there was a way to keep the river, and continue making money off that, I'm sure Disney would choose the cheaper route and NOT develop the land. They are spending the money because they have to. Because the audience at large doesn't want the river any longer. They have no need for it.

Disney only wins here by making the larger audience happy.

This

 

[psherman42]

I don't follow.

Without even getting into how subjective IP can be or that part of the area was already IP, it can be true that MK was a means to an end while also not wanting it to be "gutted for cheap IP". MK can have a history that includes Walt but is its own thing without having to misrepresent what it was originally meant to be.

I think it would be safe to say MK was inspired by Walt. It was done by people that knew and worked for him in his memory but that is NOT the same as saying it was his final dream. It was the thing he had to do to get to the thing he REALLY wanted to do.

MK is not a museum, it was never meant to be a museum, it never will be a museum no matter how much some of us don't like it.

MK or WDW in general most likely would not exist if were not for Walt having an idea and vision for it. That history shouldn’t just be dismissed. I don’t expect it to be a museum, and just because I think RoA should have been preserved doesn’t mean I think it should be. I’ve yet to see anyone give a logical explanation for how Cars fits into Frontierland, the only thing people seem to be able to come up with is “it’s under utilized space” so it has to go.

Of course it is. Disney only benefits financially by keeping their customers happy and coming back. They know that and they work towards decisions that will keep them spending on admissions.

Cars absolutely will do that. New attractions usually do, but something that is designed as a massive new addition with all the detailing and cohesion thought out in advanced is what the audience is looking for. Bringing up the thrill elements on a new ride system is just icing on the cake.

If there was a way to keep the river, and continue making money off that, I'm sure Disney would choose the cheaper route and NOT develop the land. They are spending the money because they have to. Because the audience at large doesn't want the river any longer. They have no need for it.

Disney only wins here by making the larger audience happy.

So customers would have been dissatisfied and stopped coming if they kept the River? People would have been unhappy if they kept the River and put this somewhere else? The ONLY WAY Disney would have made money with a Cars project at WDW was to gut RoA? That is ridiculous. They have so much land to expand the park and could have saved the river (if DLR could do it, so could WDW) but instead are choosing to take the easy approach and gut it.

Disney would have made money with or without this replacement. And all you’re doing with this post is pointing out that Disney makes its decisions based primarily on monetary benefit, rather than developing areas that actually fit the theme of the area that they are going into. I understand they are a business, but money should not be the only reason behind decision making.

Saying it’s detailed and cohesive is also making a big assumption when we actually have no idea of how this is going to turn out. We’ve gotten very little concept art of what this area will actually be. And even if we had more, concept art can change from design to execution so we have no way of knowing what will actually happen. But you’re right, people will still come and thats all Disney cares about.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

Saying it’s detailed and cohesive is also making a big assumption when we actually have no idea of how this is going to turn out.

It looks very thrown together at the last minute…. Hardly detailed and cohesive and certainly not cohesive with the rest of the area unless there is more to it than the art.

 

[EPCOTCenterLover]

Here's what I say- If You Can't go to Tom Sawyer Island, Go Here Instead.
It's not the Magic Kingdom, but it doesn't pretend to be.