News 'Beyond Big Thunder Mountain' Blue Sky concept revealed for Magic Kingdom

UNCgolf

Well-Known Member
Anything Disney builds in the last 15 years has been 100 + million. A new stand selling churros and water probably costs them that. The Dwarfs’ mine train was supposed to be the E of New Fantasyland (even that’s debateable) with Mermaid supporting

Little Mermaid was supposed to be the headliner for NFL. 7DMT was a later addition because they decided one ride wasn't enough; it wasn't even part of the original plans.

Disney didn't build Little Mermaid (or spend the money they spent on it) with the intention for it to be a complementary walk-on attraction. It was a huge failure.

I agree that the Magic Kingdom needs more high capacity attractions that aren't in high demand, but Little Mermaid isn't something to emulate. It's a failed headliner rather than something intentionally designed as a secondary attraction -- that's not the way forward.
 
Last edited:

aladdin2007

Well-Known Member
It’s certainly possible, although I feel the parks have an abundance of restrooms and have never run into this issue.

I think the park reservation system plays/ed a part here. It does prevent Disney from having to build additional capacity… although we still see 4 hour waits on “sold out” days that are not nearly as crowded as phased closings pre-COVID. The bottom line is that all 4 parks need additional attractions, dining capacity and reopening shuttered spaces.
its not that it prevents them but its the way they designed and want it, so they don't have to.
and agree all the way that is the reality bottom line but they don't see it that way because its all ran by bean counters and accountants sadly, no vision anymore, no one steering the ship.
 

neo999955

Well-Known Member
In the Parks
No
I am genuinely shocked that Little Mermaid was initially conceived to be an E-ticket. To me, it's a C ticket that's less exciting that Peter Pan, Winnie, etc.

They must have known early on what they were building right? I hadn't been to Disney yet when this was announced/being built. Was the marketing/hype really overblown?
 

Dutch Inn '76

Well-Known Member
This is unfortunately is not the correct mindset. Magic Kingdom will ALWAYS be the most visited park. Nothing they ever add to another park will pull attendance from MK. They need to reopen existing capacity (like SGE) and expand the park, it needs the capacity. It’s that simple. We’re also talking about a multibillion dollar conglomerate, expanding in MK doesn’t mean they can’t expand in Epcot, or DAK.
This unfortunately is incorrect. The multibillion dollar conglomerate has to show a profit too; otherwise it'll be gobbled up by a bigger conglomerate that *will* show a profit.
 

Dutch Inn '76

Well-Known Member
This is a very black and white statement. What I said is true. They CAN afford to do it and show profitability. However they’re loosing billions on D+.
That's true. Black and white. TWDC is barely in the black, not doing well because of the D+ investment and ESPN's reduction in profits (and other things, but that's 1 & 2). Because of this, they can't go and spend billions (more) on theme parks. D+ might eventually look like a wise investment - but we're not there yet. It could work out, and start printing cash, or it could lead to the downfall of Disney itself. ...and that's life in a multi-billion dollar conglomerate.
 

TrojanUSC

Well-Known Member
I mean maybe in some Disney Parks blog post they might have described it as an E ticket. I don’t think anyone seriously ever considered it an E at any point.

When they were building it at DCA, it was touted that John Lasseter was heavily involved and it would be along the lines of the classic omnimover E-Tickets. It was so bad that they closed it nearly a year later to make changes. By the time it got to Florida I'm shocked people thought it'd be anything but a C-ticket
 

aladdin2007

Well-Known Member
I'm still fully convinced that they blew most of the budget on the animatronics and facade, then ran out of money by the time they were doing the penultimate scenes. The plywood cutout Ursula in the climax just screams that.
just thinking out loud but that is what worries me about tiana, all this outside redo and then maybe less substance inside...same with frozen, all that money they spent on redesigning the front of the pavilion and then ended up with a sparse ride inside,,,it just wasn't necessary that way. Comparing apples to oranges I know, but looking at this rainforest they are adding to splash and all the other changes I just hope they dont run out for the show/ride itself.
 

JD80

Well-Known Member
Even Be Our Guest, which opened to some acclaim, has fallen off. And I don't think the interior is especially impressive -- the West Wing is better, but the centerpiece ballroom doesn't really work because it feels like you're eating in a cafeteria.

I personally think NFL is still much better than Toy Story Land both from a content standpoint and a use of space/design standpoint, but it's a major disappointment nonetheless.

I haven't been to BOG since they changed it to a prefix menu. Lunch always had the cafeteria feel, but dinner was a lot better.
 

JD80

Well-Known Member
I completely disagree. A theater that can pull 1000-3000 guests off the streets per hour is huge. It wouldn't be a driver of attendance but it would be a big capacity boost. As @wdrive stated, Magic Kingdom needs non-headliner attractions that can accommodate a lot of guests. Something on par with Fantasy Springs addition coming to DisneySea would solve quite a few of Magic Kingdom's problems. That being said, it's not unrealistic to say that Beyond Big Thunder could essentially solve this problem as well.

I'm not disagreeing that it could potentially pull that many guests, what I am saying is that if there is limited ops/capex budgets dark rides or other attractions with consistent throughput are probably a better investments.
 

WaltWiz1901

Well-Known Member
Little Mermaid and Seven Dwarfs are E-tickets that ended up being D-tickets.
FTFY - both attractions were originally conceived on a bigger scope than what was ultimately built.

I shared the LPS Little Mermaid ride concept art earlier, but even Mine Train was a victim of value engineering, as early design schematics show that the layout was originally much longer and there would've been more show scenes beyond the one that's in the final ride.
 

BrianLo

Well-Known Member
Both Mermaid and SDMT were lifted attractions from other parks plans (DCA and SDL).

It's the classic problem that often things aren't conceived originally for WDW (often in recent history), which is odd, considering its prominence in the portfolio.

Heck, if we even go for a reverse situation like Frozen Ever After in HKDL, they expanded the track, the run time, the animatronics and the spacing of the show scenes. WDW just takes DCA's Little Mermaid that was shoehorned into an existing building. Even MMRR got reconfigured for DLR. But it seems since WDW has 'the space', they often don't through the effort of reconfiguring things for it.

Not that I think Tron or Ratatouille were horrible choices, but they are again puzzle pieces from other parks shoved into wherever they happen to fit. Tron ironically I think suffers way less sight line intrusions in MK, simply because it is tucked away.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom