-
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 Piston Peak and Villains Land Construction Thread
- Thread starter Disgruntled Walt
- Start date
TrainsOfDisney
Well-Known Member
I think they were referring to the studios park - which was at one time - very low rated. My initial comparison was the large water feature being added to the studios / adventure park. But I added the even more direct comparison of theming being added to rivers of America in the Paris Disneyland parc.
It gets a little complex - which is why I love it!
TrainsOfDisney
Well-Known Member
Yes… it’s the geological features that most of us were sad to lose. Diverse geology is important too.
AidenRodriguez731
Well-Known Member
We can compare them but to compare their situations as if they are doing things for a similar effect is disingenuous as one park desperately needs the capacity more than the other.
TrainsOfDisney
Well-Known Member
A park that is desperate for capacity would want to keep and plus what they have PLUS build more.
AidenRodriguez731
Well-Known Member
You cannot add infinitely on a park practically. They took someplace that was not used enough to justify 11 acres of prime real estate in a swamp land and are getting 4 attractions out of it plus the shopping and dining
tparris
Well-Known Member
As much as I hate what’s happening to Frontierland this makes sense. I think for multiple reasons they should never have gotten rid of TSI or at the very least they should have kept the RoA even if it needed to be shortened… but you cannot in good faith claim that those areas were popular among the majority of guests, many of whom are visiting for the first time.
Bocabear
Well-Known Member
I don't believe you can judge those things on "popularity"... is the waterway in front of Tomorrowland Popular? How about the waterway in front of the Crystal Palace? How popular is that with first time visitors.... What do first time vistors think of the green space at the back of Tomorrowland....is that popular?
It was part of the fabric of the park... the central feature the amusements and attractions were gathered around... It also created some open space which allowed the air to move... opened it up...and gave the area a beautiful natural background... are we going to start judging the popularity of each tree and bench?
jah4955
Well-Known Member
Rivers of America never coming back b/c Disney "crossed the Rubicon" River.
(I'm not tying to be funny)...the outrage from the closure/absolute destruction gives me the hope that Disney will "step things up" more than they would have otherwise....we'll see....
Last edited:
James Alucobond
Well-Known Member
Do you honestly think these things are comparable? The waterways around the hub are not staffed by humans, are not circumnavigated by an expensive steam ship, do not lead to difficult-to-reach islands with extremely sparsely attended attractions that must also be staffed, and do not impede direct pedestrian access to large swathes of land. The person you quoted isn't even saying they like the decision, just that they understand why this is unique compared to all of the other completely unrelated things you listed.
Bocabear
Well-Known Member
I always considered the ROA as part of the fabric of the park, not necessarily an attraction itself... Transportation on the river has come and gone... Canoes, Keel boats....much like the waterways in the HUB....which once were circumnavigated by Swan Boats.... Thank God when they decided to take the boats out of service, they didn't also fill the water system in... The ROA was more than the sum of it's parts... They could have reached the back portion of the park by narrowing parts of the river....and if it was just about TSI and the Liberty Belle, they could have taken those out of service and still left that wide chunk of water facing Frontierland...as far as what will be there when construction is complete it is still an unknown... a cartoon map view, and a vague piece of concept art....
James Alucobond
Well-Known Member
Again, we know, I'm just saying that the comparison you made wasn't great because filling in the moat doesn't really get you anything of note, whereas filling in the Rivers has all sorts of infrastructural and operational implications. No one is saying that the tradeoffs are worth it, just that it's a totally different situation.
TrainsOfDisney
Well-Known Member
I’m honestly saying this with kindness - almost every post you make doesn’t address the situation but dismisses it because you say it’s a bad comparison.
I’m sure apple farmers themselves argue that you can’t compare a Rhode Island Greening with a Baldwin but at some point you have to be able to compare things and discuss them.
James Alucobond
Well-Known Member
It was an inappropriate response to the post he originally quoted because the user wasn't suggesting that all scenic areas of the park should, could, or would be removed. He was instead discussing reasons why this specific area makes some degree of business sense to redevelop more than other areas even if he doesn't agree with it structurally, narratively, or emotionally.
I don't know what else you wanted me to address when the point I was trying to make was that he didn't address the post he quoted in the first place.
truecoat
Well-Known Member
It wasn't wearing any pants.
Bocabear
Well-Known Member
WHat I was reacting to was the reference to popularity if the river was not there, so it should go... my response was that the ROA, like many other scenic parts of the park that exist purely for placemaking and beauty, don't necessarily have to be "popular"...or shouldn't have to just be popular.... The comparison was made to the waterways around the hub that also once hosted an attraction...but in that case they left the waterway for the aesthetic beauty rather than fill the area with an additional ring of shops and a tilt-a-whirl... I know we both have the same opinion of the end result... Going down the rabbit hole of "popularity" leads to assessing every single detail and assigning a popularity scale to it... Which could lead to the loss of all the park charm eventually.... I don't see a whole lot of people in the Swiss Family Robinson Treehouse...but like the ROA, it is more than just an attraction... Placemaking should matter.... even though they could probably fit another eggroll stand and a spinner in that spot....
TrainsOfDisney
Well-Known Member
What’s the popularity of the dragon topiary? Could easily fit in a themed bar. Don’t worry… the bar can be called “dragon topiary” as a subtle reference to the theming that used to exist.
Bocabear
Well-Known Member
EXACTLY!!!! lol
James Alucobond
Well-Known Member
That isn't what was said. The poster simply said he understands why this space would get attention. That doesn't mean the river "had to go". You're choosing to read it that way, but there are many things that could have been done here to optimize the original geography, which the poster even says he would have preferred. It was just a factual statement that TSI and the surrounding attractions were poorly utilized; it otherwise generally agrees with your assertion that this is potentially a big blow to the park.
... No, it couldn't, which is why the comparison was so inapt.
TrainsOfDisney
Well-Known Member
you can choose to look at things from different perspectives. I wouldn’t say that’s a factual statement.
I really do wish I could watch surveillance footage from meeting rooms at WDI and see what plans existed that would have kept the rivers and in what way and how close we got to keeping them. Someone will one day right about it…. After Disney is no more or nda’s have expired haha