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

whiterhino42

Active Member
Would also be kinda weird to have two water rides next to each other on the same side of the park.

Though in theory I’d love something like GRR at WDW somewhere. Kali is so short and pales on comparison to GRR and Popeyes at universal
Rapid rides are ny favorite and Kali is terrible. It's so quick...it's like get on get soaked get off.
 

whiterhino42

Active Member
Bear with me because this is quite left field speculation.

If we think of the point of view of a Disney exec they want to maximize guest spending at the most popular park on the planet. So they likely want to go big with this expansion. The new expansion would have multiple paid lightning lane attractions, shops, food locations, meet and greets etc.

If it’s a mystery IP that doesn’t fit well in Magic Kingdom, but could potentially be quite the draw and check boxes for a massive land then it’s probably not the traditional Disney or Pixar animation franchises. Which would make me think Lucasfilm or Marvel or even Fox owned franchises would be there.

Except that Star Wars and Marvel have had quite a few studios misses recently and already have their own dedicated areas. So what property could fit? Lord of the Rings.

But Disney doesn’t own Lord of the Rings! Ah yes my dear reader they do not. But Warner Bros is desperate for cash and has not been doing well. Disney also announced a partnership with Warner Bros with respect to streaming rights this week. With the new lord of the rings movies down the pipeline and past Disney efforts to acquire the property, this could make sense. The possibilities of a lord of the rings land would be endless and could possibly give Universal quite the run for its money.

I know wild speculation but maybe it’s a bold move to reinvigorate the Walt Disney company with yet another merger or at least partnership and this is one of the pieces of the puzzle. I would still reserve this for a dark horse speculation however.
Just no to Lord of the Rings
 

Bocabear

Well-Known Member
I agree with you but they could look at it as a defensive move. Especially with the very few big IPs that are left such as Lord of the Rings. They would rather get it than make the same mistake they did with Harry Potter and let it go to Universal. Imagine universal does get the rights and they open their new park in England with full fledged Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings lands. I would be very nervous for Disneyland Paris.
While all this IP grab is going on, the most exciting thing Universal is doing with Epic Universe is going back to their old IP and doing a Classic Universal Monsters land...All nostalgia...The only way they are going to counter that (if they care to) is for Disney to create a true Disney Villains land...If done well, It would probably be the most popular of the new additions to the parks they have ever done...But they would have to really do it the right way with multiple attractions, Spectacular settings, added dining and retail...It could be amazing and all Disney created content...Villains are in every Disney movie ever made, so you would have fans of the old and more recent villains... A whole Dark Kingdom...
 

WDWFREAK53

Well-Known Member
I think this is the most likely IP if this all turns out to be true. I wouldn’t like it but I can absolutely see Iger pushing for it.

Edit: Ah that’s right Black Panther himself can’t be used since he is represented at Universal. Wakanda without Black Panther would be pretty dumb. So dumb Iger would probably do it.

Yeah...that would be like building a Star Wars Land and making it so you can't have Darth Vader in it.
 

aladdin2007

Well-Known Member
I think this is the most likely IP if this all turns out to be true. I wouldn’t like it but I can absolutely see Iger pushing for it.

Edit: Ah that’s right Black Panther himself can’t be used since he is represented at Universal. Wakanda without Black Panther would be pretty dumb. So dumb Iger would probably do it.
agree but why was d'amaro mentioning it so much then awhile back....one cant help but wonder. If anything was ill fitting for MK it would certainly be that. And they seem to be doing everything the opposite of what they should be doing so I wouldn't put it past them in some form.
 

rd805

Well-Known Member
agree but why was d'amaro mentioning it so much then awhile back....one cant help but wonder. If anything was ill fitting for MK it would certainly be that. And they seem to be doing everything the opposite of what they should be doing so I wouldn't put it past them in some form.
Those early rumors were more Epcot based if i remember correctly. Wakanda = Tech, maybe a bridge to the former Futureworld. Also the WoL Pavilion has a weird semi-resemblance to Wakanda architecture. It was one of the older rumors I was almost able to wrap my head around lol.
 

wdwfan4ver

Well-Known Member
The mystery IP that won't fit in at MK is....

SPRINGFIELD.

They will just use cranes to get all of The Simpsons stuff from Universal over to beyond Big Thunder when that contract is up.

The new weenie for this area will be giant nuclear plant smokestacks and a massive Lard Lad on top of a donut shop.
Disney may not have to wait till the end of the contract. Theme park stop mentioned rumors that Universal closing down Springfield before the end of contract with the closing being as early as later this year or next year. The problem is a time frame hasn't been set.

The rumor for USF is Springfield getting replaced by Pokemon. The only catch with the early closing Simpsons permanently is Lost content has no attraction at all.
 

James Alucobond

Well-Known Member
Exactly. Cars land doesn't fit but a speedway has been there since day 1? 😄 I would support a Cars land if the speedway goes with it.
Cars as an attraction somewhere in the park is fine, but Magic Kingdom shouldn't have single-IP lands, in my opinion. Honestly, none of them should have it, but if they're going to keep doing that, containing the damage to Hollywood Studios is ideal (and Pandora, I guess).
 

yensidtlaw1969

Well-Known Member
Exactly. Cars land doesn't fit but a speedway has been there since day 1? 😄 I would support a Cars land if the speedway goes with it.
If TRON had been built behind Big Thunder people would be just as quick to say it doesn't fit. Not because it doesn't fit in MK, but because it doesn't fit in that part of MK.

Not particularly a fan of the Speedway myself, for the record. Disney could and should do much better by both that plot of land and the audience the Speedway serves.

Once again it seems to bear repeating, Cars Land is not in consideration for MK expansion.
 

neo999955

Well-Known Member
In the Parks
No
Cars as an attraction somewhere in the park is fine, but Magic Kingdom shouldn't have single-IP lands, in my opinion. Honestly, none of them should have it, but if they're going to keep doing that, containing the damage to Hollywood Studios is ideal (and Pandora, I guess).
I know a lot of people don't like, but I really enjoy a large single-IP land. They are often my favorite part of a park, because I love being that immersed. I agree it shouldn't be the only thing built or even the majority. But when done right, I think it's really special. I really love Galaxy's Edge and Pandora - even though I think both could use some extra investment/live entertainment.

When I visited Avengers land in Cali, I was supremely disappointed, however. Like anything, it's how you do it.
 

Coaster Lover

Well-Known Member
In the Parks
No
Disney should make peace with Mel Brooks... then convert the Star Cruiser to "Space Balls", build a "Blazing Saddles" land behind Big Thunder Mountain, and a "Young Frankenstein" land in DHS to compete with Epic Universe's "Dark Universe" (yes, I realize that there are countless reasons why this will never happen and should never happen).
 

Sectorkeeper71

Well-Known Member
Cars as an attraction somewhere in the park is fine, but Magic Kingdom shouldn't have single-IP lands, in my opinion. Honestly, none of them should have it, but if they're going to keep doing that, containing the damage to Hollywood Studios is ideal (and Pandora, I guess).
Single IP lands should only work with very specific franchises imo. Things like Star Wars and Harry Potter are a no brainer because they’re cultural phenomenons. Even Toy Story and frozen have tons of staying power.

I’ve always argued with pandora that it shows that non IP lands could work to this day, because I don’t think avatar has that same cultural impact as the above. It’s popular because it’s well done, not because people have this love for the property like Star Wars or potter
 

UNCgolf

Well-Known Member
I know a lot of people don't like, but I really enjoy a large single-IP land. They are often my favorite part of a park, because I love being that immersed. I agree it shouldn't be the only thing built or even the majority. But when done right, I think it's really special. I really love Galaxy's Edge and Pandora - even though I think both could use some extra investment/live entertainment.

When I visited Avengers land in Cali, I was supremely disappointed, however. Like anything, it's how you do it.

I think the problem with single IP lands is that there aren't that many IPs that are really conducive to one, especially from a business perspective. It needs to be popular enough for the IP itself to be a draw, but it also needs to have an interesting/unique setting that makes a whole land work. Plus, there needs to be enough in the IP to support multiple attractions, shops, and restaurants.

Harry Potter works there, and Star Wars kind of works (it's a bit weaker on the setting part, especially as built, but the props help a lot). Pandora is a bit iffy on the popularity part -- obviously the movies have been incredibly successful, but it doesn't seem to have that much cultural penetration beyond the movies themselves -- but the setting works on its own even without any interest or knowledge of the IP.

Avengers Campus fails on the setting part, and I don't know that an interesting way to build that land even exists. Seems like it would always feel kind of generic.
 
Last edited:

Sectorkeeper71

Well-Known Member
I think the problem with single IP lands is that there aren't that many IPs that are really conducive to one, especially from a business perspective. It needs to be popular enough for the IP itself to be a draw, but it also needs to have an interesting/unique setting that makes a whole land work. Plus, there needs to be enough in the IP to ideally support multiple attractions, shops, and restaurants.

Harry Potter works there, and Star Wars kind of works (it's a bit weaker on the setting part, especially as built, but the props help a lot). Pandora is a bit iffy on the popularity part -- obviously the movies have been incredibly successful, but it doesn't seem to have that much cultural penetration beyond the movies themselves -- but the setting works on its own even without any interest or knowledge of the IP.

Avengers Campus fails on the setting part, and I don't know that an interesting way to build that land even exists. Seems like it would always feel kind of generic.
I kinda like super hero island at universal in that it doesn’t try to have a realistic place setting, but comic book quirkiness. Granted Disney is trying to make lands based off their movie IP, but I think you’ll run into the issue with setting as you always said
 

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

Back
Top Bottom