James Alucobond
Well-Known Member
No. Because race cars. It’s not hard to understand why it doesn’t work.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News 'Beyond Big Thunder Mountain' Blue Sky concept revealed for Magic Kingdom
- Thread starter wdwmagic
- Start date
Delta-7
Active Member
I’m just not into the idea of cloning a ride that is already ten years old as part of an expansion that might not open until the next decade. Besides, we’ve seen how the frequent rains of Florida affect Test Track. Also hasn’t it been implied a few times on here that the solidity of this RSR rumor is questionable?
TheRealSkull
Well-Known Member
" Because race cars" isn't a valid justification for denying an expansion. You could say Tron doesn't fit into Magic Kingdom by saying "because electric motorcycles." Cars also goes beyond the idea of racing. A huge part of it is the Americana Route 66 desert culture.
There's also a thing called modifying an existing ride and improving upon the technology to accommodate those circumstances. Disney would find a way to make it work, whether it be an indoor version or come up with a new ride system that can accommodate the rain. Whether it is questionable or not, this point stands for anything they put back there to accommodate Florida.
James Alucobond
Well-Known Member
It is an expansion that is meant to stand next to Frontierland. Part of the theme is the time period (which is broad but definitely not broad enough to cover modern race cars even when taken to its farthest extreme). Your justification is literally just “nice rockwork could look cool next to Big Thunder”.
TheRealSkull
Well-Known Member
I literally mentioned Route 66 American Car Culture too. Also maybe the Desert Land rumor is true and that certainly would be broad enough to justify Mounument Valley in the Magic Kingdom.
WaltWiz1901
Well-Known Member
Seeing this discussion on to clone or not to clone leaves me thinking that the arguments that Disney is losing their way or isn't doing anything fresh and original are rendered moot when the desired solution seems to be just copy-pasting pre-existing builds into whatever space there is available for expansion, because who needs to build truly new and cool attractions to draw guests to our new additional space when we can simply take those cool attractions giving another park an identity of its own and plop them down here instead?
Suggesting that WDI should bring a 1:1 clone of [X unique attraction] over to Y (usually WDW), without any consideration to the identity of each park/resort or adding something new to balance it out (and ignoring the possible exclusivity clauses that could be put in place by the OLC or LegCo or what have you for a specific attraction when it's originally built), is baby's first Imagineering pitch.
For the record, I'm not entirely against putting one attraction in more than one park, but it is miles more important that that is not the only thing being done to add to a park's lineup
Not to mention that is not why Walt called the resort "Disney World" in the first place
Suggesting that WDI should bring a 1:1 clone of [X unique attraction] over to Y (usually WDW), without any consideration to the identity of each park/resort or adding something new to balance it out (and ignoring the possible exclusivity clauses that could be put in place by the OLC or LegCo or what have you for a specific attraction when it's originally built), is baby's first Imagineering pitch.
For the record, I'm not entirely against putting one attraction in more than one park, but it is miles more important that that is not the only thing being done to add to a park's lineup
...um, no, it would not. The unique experiences are what draw most guests into (wanting to) expand(ing) their horizons, and chances are higher that they would already be satisfied with having [X] in their local resort than they would be seeking it out elsewhere.
Not to mention that is not why Walt called the resort "Disney World" in the first place
Last edited:
_caleb
Well-Known Member
doctornick
Well-Known Member
In terms of visual style it would fit in MK, but as a concept/theme it is terrible. Talking cars? Modern times? Single IP land? Doesn’t really work.
TheRealSkull
Well-Known Member
I'm new but have been reading these threads for nine years at this point. I'm more so talking about the overall majority general reaction. I was reading WDWMagic forums and many others that hardly complained of the cloning of Galaxy's Edge. More people were happy and applauded Disney that Galaxy's Edge was being brought to both coasts, and the 2015 D23 reaction proves so when Iger announced "We are building two." And those are hard-core fans. And to this day, I don't see much complaints going around.
But whenever something to the extent of RSR or Cars Land being cloned in Florida is brought up or honestly anything similar like Tron or Avatar, immediately everyone joined in saying that there needed to be new experiences etc...
My point is, where is the consistency? Props to @steelcitymagic for his point though.
peter11435
Well-Known Member
3 of the castle parks already have single IP lands. So I don’t think they really intend to keep that concept out of MK and not make it 4.
doctornick
Well-Known Member
The biggest difference IMHO is that WDW has the overall space - and a perfect park - to not have to do that at MK. I’m not even as hard core as some but it would just seem shortsighted to do something like Cars Land at MK where it would stick out.
I think the Toy Story Lands at other castle parks are even worse though. But at least they are somewhat more understandable due to them being in resorts with only one park.
TheRealSkull
Well-Known Member
Single IP lands are just something you are gonna have to get used to. It's where we are headed.
Sounds like you might be concerned with the transition from Frontierland to Cars. Talking cars can be no different from talking animals or monsters. I also don't see why modern times is a problem considering Cars Land is a modern fantasy.
SilentWindODoom
Well-Known Member
With a raised cliff to the left of the railroad, one could get the distant cliffs and closer ridges without seeing a car or sign of modern frontier from the old frontier.
I would imagine it would be like Storybook Circus. New Fantasyland and Storybook Circus could be considered "lands", but the station is in Fantasyland. It's all one land. It wouldn't be Card Land. It would be the Western expansion of Frontierland.
Thematically, a Western wilderness and the exploration of such fits the idea of Frontier. Talking cars don't seem more ridiculous than talking bears, skeletons, or tikis. Or the entire concept of beasts and monsters. It's funny seeing for years people complaining about movie IP rides being put in the Studios making it a second Magic Kingdom while now we're getting complains about putting that same thing in Magic Kingdom.
Now, I'd love to see something great with Coco and definitely Villains. I do not prefer Cars Land to be cloned over the teased thing. Some manner of Western River Expedition would also be better, obviously. Not that that's a thing, but I'm just saying, Cars is not a priority for me and barely a wish above me thinking it would be cool to visit and that being easier if it was in Orlando. I'm just disagreeing with it being a Cosmic Rewind type fit, which a number seem to argue it is worse than.
999th Happy Haunt
Well-Known Member
Then it’s not even frontierland anymore
𝕴𝖒𝖆𝖌𝖎𝖓𝖊𝖊𝖗97
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- No
It makes as much sense as Galaxy's Edge in Disneyland beyond Frontierland. If they added RSR it wouldn't be part of Frontierland. There would be a transition.
That said, I think this is not a great idea. The ride system is not ideal for outdoors in Florida. If it were indoors, it wouldn't matter where you put it. So they could just put it in DHS. But I still think they wouldn't use the same ride system as Test Track when they're going to relaunch Test Track in the near future already.
That said, I think this is not a great idea. The ride system is not ideal for outdoors in Florida. If it were indoors, it wouldn't matter where you put it. So they could just put it in DHS. But I still think they wouldn't use the same ride system as Test Track when they're going to relaunch Test Track in the near future already.
Chef idea Mickey`=
Well-Known Member
Let me rephrase and remove never.. my point was to me current Magic Kingdom doesn't have the splendor that a Disneyland park has. My opinion
Chef idea Mickey`=
Well-Known Member
Exactly
, it was ignored because at the time everyone hyped it would be an iconic more classic Star Wars and with Avatar been a phenomenon all hype was it would be a win win!
Chef idea Mickey`=
Well-Known Member
What I can't grab hold is everyone is all about it can't, it's the same ride system, but what about ROR, MRR, and Ratatouille! Plus several other same ride systems different themed IP or attraction story.
Delta-7
Active Member
It's more that people don't want another outdoor E-ticket ride that has to shut every time it rains (Test Track is the first example). And knowing FL's weather....