News Cars-Themed Attractions at Magic Kingdom

Cliff

Well-Known Member
Said this earlier on the thread. I was there in April and rode it. Under used is probably a better term for it. Both the boat and island were nearly empty even for a busier spring day.

Either way the new land will be way more utilized than it currently is.
The castle has a restaurant. I have only eaten there one time since 1980. Statistically speaking, only a TINY percent of Magic Kingdom guests eat at that restaurant everyday. Less then .001% of park guests each day???

Tear that castle down and the yard in front. This will make way for a REAL attraction that Burbank can add to Genie+ and charge people for. Today, that land is "free" to walk around but it would benefit from a more highly attended and profitable attraction there instead. The restaurant profits pale in comparison to a REAL mega attraction that many thousands of guests could PAY for each day on Genie+ !!!

Disney also spends a TON of money (used to) on gardening and decorations. This daily investment is LOST because the parks scenery does not generate actual "measurable" revenue. In fact, this lost money "can" be diverted to new attractions that DO generate revenue and DO increase park attendance.

Scenery is NOT important anymore...it just means MORE "lost" money spent. "Ambience" cannot be added to Genie+ sales numbers.

Yeah,....maybe your are right. This is Burbank's way in 2024 :-(
 
The castle has a restaurant. I have only eaten there one time since 1980. Statistically speaking, only a TINY percent of Magic Kingdom guests eat at that restaurant everyday. Less then .001% of park guests each day???
I love your passion for the parks! You may be surprised but I have a similar strong passion and love for the parks. It’s funny you brought up CRT as I got engaged in the restaurant and go every other trip. I totally get the passion and point of your argument but you have to acknowledge the small % of people that go there do generate likely a high profit per guest for an over priced dinner (a price I’ve been suckered into paying many times haha) that does help them support the operations of the park that do not generate profit but are vital to the Disney difference like gardening and other items you mentioned.

My passion for the parks is in seeing them grow, change and evolve. Unlike many I still trust Disney and WDI to build a beautiful natural landscape that still fits the theme of the area, and also allows them to expand further.

I made my core Disney memory as a kid on TSI and at aunt Polly’s with my family but I’m still excited for the change.
 

Quietmouse

Well-Known Member
I can’t tell from the hypothetical land placement but won’t villains be connected to some type of river/water system ? There are rivers back there right ?
 

phillip9698

Well-Known Member
Less than 10 percent of MK's gate rides Space Mt. Your argument is beyond flawed.

And what percent goes to TSI? I bet it’s way below 10%.

I’m glad the company is finally doing something to differentiate these parks. Disneyland exists, if you want something closer to Walt’s original vision then go there. Let’s let the MK evolve for future generations.
 

Dizknee_Phreek

Well-Known Member
Audiences are trending toward more thrill rides and more personal experiences, and building giant rotating theaters doesn't hold interest any longer.
But Disney was never meant to be just a thrill ride park. It was always meant to have something to offer for everyone. This argument is also flawed in the fact that I remember way back in the 90s when certain attractions were consistently walk ons...Pirates, Haunted Mansion, Small World, Peoplemover, Jungle Cruise. Now, a lot of things can contribute to longer wait times (FP/LL, running less vehicles, etc) but would we consider any of these attractions unpopular today? It comes down to Disney CAN and should still have a mix of thrills and non-thrills. If people want to thrill seek and nothing else, there are plenty of other parks for that.
 

Quietmouse

Well-Known Member
But Disney was never meant to be just a thrill ride park. It was always meant to have something to offer for everyone. This argument is also flawed in the fact that I remember way back in the 90s when certain attractions were consistently walk ons...Pirates, Haunted Mansion, Small World, Peoplemover, Jungle Cruise. Now, a lot of things can contribute to longer wait times (FP/LL, running less vehicles, etc) but would we consider any of these attractions unpopular today? It comes down to Disney CAN and should still have a mix of thrills and non-thrills. If people want to thrill seek and nothing else, there are plenty of other parks for that.

Exactly.

Thrill rides are great.

But that means your excluding those that don’t meet height requirements, and excluding those with high blood pressure/spinal issues/ heart disease etc

Disney is celebrated for its ability to have the whole family from a 2 year old to 99 year old ride rides together.

If you take that aspect away from Disney than I promise you it will severely effect disneys attendance.
 

MrPromey

Well-Known Member
The castle has a restaurant. I have only eaten there one time since 1980. Statistically speaking, only a TINY percent of Magic Kingdom guests eat at that restaurant everyday. Less then .001% of park guests each day???

Tear that castle down and the yard in front. This will make way for a REAL attraction that Burbank can add to Genie+ and charge people for. Today, that land is "free" to walk around but it would benefit from a more highly attended and profitable attraction there instead. The restaurant profits pale in comparison to a REAL mega attraction that many thousands of guests could PAY for each day on Genie+ !!!

Disney also spends a TON of money (used to) on gardening and decorations. This daily investment is LOST because the parks scenery does not generate actual "measurable" revenue. In fact, this lost money "can" be diverted to new attractions that DO generate revenue and DO increase park attendance.

Scenery is NOT important anymore...it just means MORE "lost" money spent. "Ambience" cannot be added to Genie+ sales numbers.

Yeah,....maybe your are right. This is Burbank's way in 2024 :-(
You know, this discussion about utilized space has gotten me thinking.

I am more a fan of the place-making and scenery the island and rivers and ferry boat provide to the areas around them than the experience of being on them, myself but thinking of the island and boat and people talking about them being underutilized, they actually wouldn't work as intended if they were "fully" utilized.

Nobody wants to go over the barrel bridges in a slow moving line. Things like the caves and the water wheel house and the secret exit to the fort would not be fun if you were just in a continuous line going through them - it would all feel like a queue without an attraction at the end if the island were busy the way people seem to think it would have to be to justify it existing in their minds after this announcement.

To me, the rafts being the only way on or off always felt like an intended limiter.

Similarly, a ferry boat at maximum capacity would be like the ones going across Seven Seas lagoon. It wouldn't really be an attraction anymore and would be more like a form of transportation that didn't actually take people anywhere.

The people that do go on it for fun today would likely not enjoy it anymore that way if they couldn't freely walk round it and had to jockey for space on a railing with risk of losing their "good" spot if they decided to move around.

If the island were crawling with people, it would fail to fit its intended theme the way other parts of the park in certain sections of Fantasyland and Adventureland don't today by being overcrowded urban hellscapes that can be difficult to move through due to choke points, lines for food counters that spill into those spaces and with often nowhere to sit because people are already camping in what limited space there is.

When the park is even moderately busy by modern standards, most of Fantasyland and Adventureland don't feel "magical" or whimsical or exotic, they feel like stretches of themed shopping centers on black friday where people are trying to pass through as quickly as possible to get to the ride they're after because there is no atmosphere - just other people and strollers in your way everywhere.

I'm pretty sure we've all gotten to enjoy that experience of passing through one of these areas only to be brought to a stop due to some family standing in the middle of it all just talking with zero self-awareness, while blocking everyone around them who is trying to get past.

As they expand other parts of the park with attractions to get more people in, this becomes more and more of a problem on Main Street, too since all those people have to pass through that area which was never intended for that level of regular guest flow.*

It's weird to me that people are are so against the island in this discussion because it's not more like that. I get why Disney would like to see every inch of the park this way but I'm not sure why guests would. It's just one of the reasons I don't like going to the MK, today. To me, dealing with that nonstop isn't fun. It's stressful.


*Disney's solution to this is, of course, is to continue widening the gap of attractions in this park from the other three while more frequently using the bypass - an unthemed alleyway to move people more efficiently past Main Street instead of through it.

How magical, right?
 
Last edited:

Cliff

Well-Known Member
This IS Burbank's philosophy today.

Believe them when they literally tell it straight to you. Over and over and over again we see Burbank doing this to every division of the company. Why?...I can't imagine.

Kylo Ren.jpg
 
Last edited:

LittleBuford

Well-Known Member
Way to take what they said completely out of context by leaving out what they wrote preceding your quote...

I mean, we can all read what they posted.

And they made an excellent point. A shooting arcade modeled after the old west frontier in a frontier Town is a problem, but pushing Deadpool, which promotes of scene amounts of violence and inappropriate language to kids, is totally fine.

The hpocrisy is laughable to any intelligent and rational person.
Nope, never said that and I don't think that.

Sorry, I'm not a Christian either.

A BB gun shooting target range in Frontier land promotes a bad message about gun violence to kids.....but promoting uber-gun violent Deadpool to kids in Disney parks does NOT do any that?

Look,...make the laughing, bloody bullets movie for adults...but don't bring it into the parks while pretending to claim that you DON'T want to promote gun violence in society.

Burbank's "sensitivity" censors are a complete and utter joke....

And this "does" make perfect sense to you????
Oh, I understand the context of what was said perfectly well. The post belongs to a flourishing and very familiar genre here in these threads, its intent immediately revealed by the use of the term "problematic" (complete with scare quotes) and other giveaway words and expressions. Such posts are simply a vehicle for the airing of ideological grievances that are often little more than scaremongering and divisive conspiracy theories. Their authors lash out at fabled mobs of easily offended killjoys, all the while failing to recognise that they're the ones playing victim and taking umbrage.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
the castle is supposed to be in a park (thanks to the tree massacre it’s hard to tell that) - parks have castles. Central Park has had a castle since 1897.
The castles are supposed to be seen from Main Street, USA. What they do though is play with the design language. The castles are not medieval in their design, which are more clearly military in their design. Neuschwanstein, the model for Sleeping Beauty Castle, is a nineteenth century construct, an eclectic pastiche intended to invoke a romantic image and not a historical recreation. While Cinderella Castle is more diverse in its inspirations it is designed in a similar vein. The design sensibility of both the castles and Main Street, USA come from the same revivalist traditions that were common during the second half of the nineteenth century.

Main Streets were/are also typically organized around important civic structures. In earlier towns in the east this was more typically a church. In later towns of the Midwest it would be the train station and/or the court house. Because of the fashionability of revivalism it is even possible to find these various buildings sporting castle inspired designs and motifs. In the Magic Kingdoms we get the important structures of the train station and the storybook castle. The castle is a seeming contradiction that actually plays on a design language while very much using that design language.
 

LittleBuford

Well-Known Member
the castle is supposed to be in a park (thanks to the tree massacre it’s hard to tell that) - parks have castles. Central Park has had a castle since 1897.
The castle is meant to look like something from the pages of a fairytale, not a folly you would encounter in a city park. One doesn't need to rationalise its existence or placement; it's supposed to look surprising and fantastical in its position at the end of Main Street.
 

TrainsOfDisney

Well-Known Member
I can’t tell from the hypothetical land placement but won’t villains be connected to some type of river/water system ? There are rivers back there right ?
There are rivers back there. There won’t be soon if this plan keeps steaming ahead.
The people that do go on it for fun today would likely not enjoy it anymore that way if they couldn't freely walk round it and had to jockey for space on a railing with risk of losing their "good" spot if they decided to move around.
I’ve been on the riverboat at Disneyland when it was that crowded - they also have a live jazz band and Tiana on the riverboat frequently.

I remember many years ago when the Banjo Brothers would ride the Liberty Belle - they were cut many years ago sadly cause MK can’t afford banjo players - toooooo much money! Haha.
 

MrPromey

Well-Known Member
Well aware but curious as to why people are acting otherwise. It’s disingenuous.
I think they're making the point that Disney's more than happy to exploit it where they can and it's pretty obvious the only reason they're not doing it here is because they literally can't.

I don't agree with everything being argued and leaning into this discussion may be a shifting of the goal posts as it relates to Tom Sawyer's Island, Rivers of America, and the ferry boat but as an independent discussion, I can still see what they're saying.

... Again, not saying I think it has much bearing on the main point of this discussion.
 

TrainsOfDisney

Well-Known Member
The castle is meant to look like something from the pages of a fairytale, not a folly you would encounter in a city park. One doesn't need to rationalise its existence or placement; it's supposed to look surprising and fantastical in its position at the end of Main Street.
I disagree - the castle didn’t originally look surprising or fantastical at the end of Main Street - that is a modern WDW change.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom