• The new WDWMAGIC iOS app is here!
    Stay up to date with the latest Disney news, photos, and discussions right from your iPhone. The app is free to download and gives you quick access to news articles, forums, photo galleries, park hours, weather and Lightning Lane pricing. Learn More
  • 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

easyrowrdw

Well-Known Member
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.
Who's the person who always suggests Small World should move to Epcot? This would've been the time!
 
Last edited:

el_super

Well-Known Member
Again, I point to their least attended park as a perfect example of what happens when Disney fails to comprehend this, despite having lots of rides and IP on paper.

They fixed DCA by adding Cars Land and doubling down on IP attractions. They will do the same with WDS. Some of these rules and design standards just don't seem all that important in the long term. At least not with the paying customers.

The spatial organization of the park is just as important as any of the actual buildings or landscaping that exist within it

I don't recall Walt putting "the park should suffer for the art" on the dedication plaque of Disneyland.

He broke and bent the rules (that he supposedly created) all the time. He did what made sense for the park, and what he personally enjoyed, and they called it art later.
 

AidenRodriguez731

Well-Known Member
I've always said that would be a good solution. That show building is prime real estate in Fantasyland and it's huge.
I think IASW still should go (it was 1 out of the 2 attractions I thought would be best gone from its current location) But I 100% agree it should be moved to WS with a better facade. With this current plan, I would turn that whole section where IASW was into a Tangled area with a new tangled boat ride + maybeeee the Snuggly Duckling (possibly also replacing Pinnochios) to brighten up that area and make it less just stone and into more of a foresty area with nice wooden accents.

The new Tangled area could connect through a cave (similar to how the Tangled tower in the movie is surrounded by rockwork) to the new villians land.
 

mattpeto

Well-Known Member
Who's the person who always suggest Small World should move to Epcot? This would've been the time!
Unless they can stick it behind the American Pavilion (and make backstage changes obviously) I have no idea where they can put it. But I'm all for it.

EDIT: I don't want it taking a potential country pavilion expansion spot, hope one day we get some more countries.
 

AidenRodriguez731

Well-Known Member
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.
IaSW also has good guest satisfaction ratings and is usually at a 20-30 minute wait while being considered a classic by many. ROA had none of that going for it. It didn't have the high capacity that IASW does, not the beloved status by the average park goer, and it wasn't part of an existing land area that already has a good amount of attractions. Doing this allowed them to actually expand the park with 4 new attractions, which taking out small world would have only given them the 2 or made a dead end or an unreasonable walking distance around the entire ROA for little to no reason. This was 100% the better move and its not even close.

I think the laydown yards might still be eventually used as expansion (Coco would be perfect) and then to me, the ROA change would be so beneficial to the park for me that I would be doing the Mickey Mouse hot dog dance on top of its grave
 

AidenRodriguez731

Well-Known Member
Unless they can stick it behind the American Pavilion (and make backstage changes obviously) I have no idea where they can put it. But I'm all for it.

EDIT: I don't want it taking a potential country pavilion expansion spot, hope one day we get some more countries.
I would put it in the beginning of world showcase but I know thats not popular due to obstructing the initial view of the lagoon so... I'm not 100% sure on where to put it.
 

WorldExplorer

Well-Known Member
I would bet a giant amount of money that there is no way in hell Disney would ever relocate Small World.

First off people keep acting like that's a regular thing they do and I am not aware of a single instance in like fourty years.

Second, all arguments that can be aimed at TSI and the Riverboat can be aimed directly at Small World. Low wait times regularly, IP-less, prime real estate, and the REAL one is in Disneyland so just go over there. It's a smaller foot print, but still very valuable, underutilized space.

If Disney killed WDW's Small World it would just kill it and replace it with something else.

And we would be assured that we should be okay with that.
 

el_super

Well-Known Member
I have yet to hear even fans of this idea say “I think this will look so much better” or “Thematically this is really a better fit”.

Let me be the first then: I think this will look better and be a better fit.

I like the idea of "Frontierland" being a mountain town. Akin to something you could see in Alaska. Facing the steep rock peaks with small streams running through it. Isolated in the true wilderness, instead of just some open flat prairie fort. Also sort of excuses not having a railroad connected to the main town.

The river provided an open vista, but it wasn't space that could be occupied unless you were on the boat. Your views and enjoyment of it was controlled. You couldn't really enjoy the river itself... just the view it provided. I think a tree covered forest will provide a more engaging space by being an area where you can get in and explore on your own. I think the caves and mountains will provide a pretty similar experience to the current island, except being more accessible of course.

I think this will be a massive improvement over what was there before.
 

AidenRodriguez731

Well-Known Member
I would bet a giant amount of money that there is no way in hell Disney would ever relocate Small World.

First off people keep acting like that's a regular thing they do and I am not aware of a single instance in like fourty years.

Second, all arguments that can be aimed at TSI and the Riverboat can be aimed directly at Small World. Low wait times regularly, IP-less, prime real estate, and the REAL one is in Disneyland so just go over there. It's a smaller foot print, but still very valuable, underutilized space.

If Disney killed WDW's Small World it would just kill it and replace it with something else.

And we would be assured that we should be okay with that.
They did relocate Festival of the Lion King, Fliks Flyers, and Dumbo all in the last 40 years. It's not quite the same but I imagine it not be only moved but improved upon. like a Small World 2.0.

Also small world has often had a 20-30 minute wait when i was at the parks. This is with a capacity of 2,700-3,000 riders per hour. The Riverboat has a capacity each trip of 450 maximum and takes 20 minutes. meaning it can make AT BEST half the capacity. With the area it taking up being 14 acres instead of the roughly 1 acre for small world. It is a RIDICULOUS comparison when the riverboat never really even has a wait while Small World still has a decent wait with insane capacity and takes up not even 1/10 of the space???


I know we are in Fantasyland but can we make a little more sense right now? Be so for real.
 

el_super

Well-Known Member
And yet, energy harvesting and consumption is far more prescient today than it was in 1982, meaning that an updated Universe of Energy still would have a place in Epcot.

What if, the audience just sincerely doesn't want to be lectured to while on vacation?

Would it have been a better thing for Disney to just keep EPCOT as this static museum piece until the audience stopped coming and they could close and bulldoze it for MAGIC KINGDOM 2: ELECTRIC BOOGALOO?

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.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
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.

 

TrainsOfDisney

Well-Known Member
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

Premium Member
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.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom