TrainsOfDisney
Well-Known Member
What are the build times for the recent attractions?
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News Cars-Themed Attractions at Magic Kingdom
- Thread starter wdwmagic
- Start date
JSouth25
Member
I apologize if my post came off as rude. I understand talking about the logistics of this stuff, but I guess I’m just less focused on that stuff and moreso on the guest experience. I also think having things like the Rivers and Liberty Belle do so much for ambience more than anything, and that isn’t something that can be measured on a spreadsheet, and I’m worried that they’re not considering the atmosphere and magic that will be lost once it’s gone.
Disney has lost the ability to plan and estimate it's construction and projects costs. Everything they do now goes WAY,...WAY..over budget before it gets slashed HARD before they finally finish.
I don't know how much the budget was for the new Epcot park bench, LED light, planter, stage area and cafeteria building. But I was told by a friend that it was "ridicules" an "astronomical" waste for what was finally delivered. I was told they should be ashamed of themselves at what it cost.
Burbank and Glendale are severely broken today....
Last edited:
wannabeBelle
Well-Known Member
The space amount is absolutely related. If the expansion pads are utilized for the Cars addition the acreage number for the Frontierland area as well as MK as a whole will be larger. There is simply no getting around that. I am not proposing an either or solution for that. I am proposing to keep ROA and build this attraction.
As far as TSI, I dont have a problem re-theming that at all. I actually think that a family friendly play area/ quieter corner of the parks, perhaps even the area that was announced within the Cars expansion would be a great addition with a nice place for families to go and relax in the park. A playground area with maybe a few nods to TSI in the background could be really nice if done right. Now that would increase capacity by bringing in a new ride, giving a new area to explore as it has been changed, and adding more land into the most popular theme park in the world. This would seem like a win for everyone without sacrificing the ROA. As someone else pointed out, they have had these expansion pads for 50 years, if they dont use them now, what exactly are they waiting for? Marie
Delta-7
Active Member
Chiming in for the first time since this absolute supernova of information dropped last week.
I know that parks need to change. That's obviously why they're adding new things and replacing those that aren't up to speed anymore. I don't even need to start on Walt's quote of the parks always changing. But not all change is progress. It has to make sense from a wide perspective.
When this Cars land was announced at D23, I was very worried about the fact it was going in MK's Frontierland. Seeing Big Thunder Mountain in that first concept image made me afraid of the worst possible outcome. What I liked most about it though, was that this will be a completely new and different attraction, not just a value engineered cut and paste of Radiator Springs Racers. From the look and sound of it, the major ride by itself seems to be a very fun experience, even though the final product will certainly not be all what was conceptualized.
Since this was announced last week to be replacing Tom Sawyer Island and the Rivers of America, I fell into a world of depression, fear, and disbelief. I wasn't even fond of the rumors about the river getting shortened to just a donut around the main island, and the worst possible reality is here now. Trust me I know that the island may not pull in big crowds anymore, and the riverboat and river are maintenance nightmares. I'm also aware of the suitability issues of the land I thought they would use for this expansion, and possible problems with how the land would be accessed. Cars is an IP that sells really well, and while not the best fit for Magic Kingdom, would actually go nicely in the area north of BTM and the maintenance canal as a transition to the Pacific Northwest and modern times. But there's a bunch of stuff about thematic cohesion, ambience, and peacefulness that the island and river provide that many others have already brought up.
I understand that Cars could be a family friendly addition to offset Villains land, but - look around, much of the Magic Kingdom is just that! Dumbo, Buzz Lightyear, Mad Tea Party, Winnie The Pooh, SDMT, Little Mermaid, Peter Pan, the carousel, Small World, Country Bears, Tiki Room, Jungle Cruise, even the Magic Carpets. It's already here. With that in mind, if they really can't expand onto those existing pads in the back right now and keep the riverboat running, I think they could just keep the island, dock the riverboat and repurpose it for something else (not my favorite idea but here we are) and just replace the back half of the river with Villains land, leaving a circular river around the island and the stretch of it going past BTM and connecting to the backstage canal. You'd still have an area of the currently most attended theme park in the world where you can just relax or run around without the stress and loudness of the main park, and the part of the river closest to the pathways. An advantage of the smaller, not as popular rides at a Disney Park is they give depth to the attraction line up - they're extra things guests can experience while the major headliners are already packed.
I just can't imagine Magic Kingdom without the Rivers of America. Like many have said, it's a unique example of scenery, cohesion, and ambience. Ironically, it's being replaced by a mini land that, based on its location, doesn't help the thematic progression of Frontierland at all. I'm not trying to be a downer right here, but these are just my views on the subject. I hope that Cars and Villains land will turn out to be something decent at least.
I know that parks need to change. That's obviously why they're adding new things and replacing those that aren't up to speed anymore. I don't even need to start on Walt's quote of the parks always changing. But not all change is progress. It has to make sense from a wide perspective.
When this Cars land was announced at D23, I was very worried about the fact it was going in MK's Frontierland. Seeing Big Thunder Mountain in that first concept image made me afraid of the worst possible outcome. What I liked most about it though, was that this will be a completely new and different attraction, not just a value engineered cut and paste of Radiator Springs Racers. From the look and sound of it, the major ride by itself seems to be a very fun experience, even though the final product will certainly not be all what was conceptualized.
Since this was announced last week to be replacing Tom Sawyer Island and the Rivers of America, I fell into a world of depression, fear, and disbelief. I wasn't even fond of the rumors about the river getting shortened to just a donut around the main island, and the worst possible reality is here now. Trust me I know that the island may not pull in big crowds anymore, and the riverboat and river are maintenance nightmares. I'm also aware of the suitability issues of the land I thought they would use for this expansion, and possible problems with how the land would be accessed. Cars is an IP that sells really well, and while not the best fit for Magic Kingdom, would actually go nicely in the area north of BTM and the maintenance canal as a transition to the Pacific Northwest and modern times. But there's a bunch of stuff about thematic cohesion, ambience, and peacefulness that the island and river provide that many others have already brought up.
I understand that Cars could be a family friendly addition to offset Villains land, but - look around, much of the Magic Kingdom is just that! Dumbo, Buzz Lightyear, Mad Tea Party, Winnie The Pooh, SDMT, Little Mermaid, Peter Pan, the carousel, Small World, Country Bears, Tiki Room, Jungle Cruise, even the Magic Carpets. It's already here. With that in mind, if they really can't expand onto those existing pads in the back right now and keep the riverboat running, I think they could just keep the island, dock the riverboat and repurpose it for something else (not my favorite idea but here we are) and just replace the back half of the river with Villains land, leaving a circular river around the island and the stretch of it going past BTM and connecting to the backstage canal. You'd still have an area of the currently most attended theme park in the world where you can just relax or run around without the stress and loudness of the main park, and the part of the river closest to the pathways. An advantage of the smaller, not as popular rides at a Disney Park is they give depth to the attraction line up - they're extra things guests can experience while the major headliners are already packed.
I just can't imagine Magic Kingdom without the Rivers of America. Like many have said, it's a unique example of scenery, cohesion, and ambience. Ironically, it's being replaced by a mini land that, based on its location, doesn't help the thematic progression of Frontierland at all. I'm not trying to be a downer right here, but these are just my views on the subject. I hope that Cars and Villains land will turn out to be something decent at least.
Thanks phoenicians
Well-Known Member
Galaxy's Edge (probably best not Covid impacted analog) was a bit less than 3.5 years from when they closed some of the backlot attractions. Now if people want to argue that the time from announcement to completion has been 5+ years on some non-covid projects I wouldn't argue. From breaking ground to completion though I'd say somewhere around 3 years was the average pre-covid. Toy Story Land took a bit less than 3 years from announcement to completion but that land didn't really have much that was complex to build.
Disstevefan1
Well-Known Member
I think three re theme to Tiana went over 100 million.
TrainsOfDisney
Well-Known Member
That seems about right - if DAK starts early 2025 and opens 2027 (could be late 2027) that’s about 3 years to build a carousel and dark ride on pretty much clear land. With Indy keeping the structure and track - that should be similar to splash so 1.5 years.
I would think cars will take 3 years after they prep the land which could take 6 months? So if they start mid 2025 or late 2025 - attraction work starts early 2026 - it opens 2029.
That’s my estimate.
Thanks phoenicians
Well-Known Member
I think if the end up closing Rivers during Spring of 25 they could get this open by late 2028. The total land area with the rock work seems relatively small compared to Galaxy's Edge so I think they should at least beat that timeline despite it being somewhat complex having to fill in the river. I do think early 2029 is probably the safer bet though. The interesting thing will be whether or not this is done before Monsters.
Disney will have "active development" budgets to pay for office labor cost to make paintings and 3D printed models and hours and hours of endless project meetings. That stuff is small potatoes and all of that is what Josh calls "active development"...honestly the term is not that impressive at all. (Although he want's you to think it is)
When they start cutting GIANT checks to construction companies. THAT is where the money "really" starts to get spent. If Disney is doing well a few quarters in a row, Burbank will keep those construction crews working and pay their contractors, rental and labor hours. (maybe even overtime!) "IF" Disney hits losses or has a bad quarter or two, Burbank can say: "We aren't writing many checks in the next two months..." and construction slows down,...or even temporarily stops!
I used to ride the Monorail at Epcot just to see over the bomb-crater walls. I can't tell you how many dozens of times that...on a WEEKDAY,..I saw literally TWO or THREE workers walking that construction site with NOTHNIG happening. Why?...because the construction companies were NOT sending crews out to work! Disney was NOT paying them to work everyday because they were SAVING that quarter's money as to NOT take an ugly loss for the public books. Tron was the exact same thing too!
Burbank INCHED the project a little bit here,..a little bit there...bit by bit to absorb the cost over 5+ years. But again,...this "go/stop/slow/stop/go/stop/slow" pattern was based on FINANCE's desire in Burbank to "regulate" the speed of costs based on the company finances or each quarter.
What does this mean for the future? It means that if Disney is doing well and ALL divisions are profitable, then YES!,...the construction checks WILL flow and stuff will move fast!!. If Disney hits a bad quarter or is hit with big expenses like a lawsuit ruling or bad subscriber number or even falling stock,...then yes, these D23 announcements COULD EASILY grind to a halt and wait and wait and wait!
Does anybody know how Disney will be doing in Q3 2026? or Q2 2028? Nope!..but anything could happen.
This is what it means to be a "realistic" fan who holds "realistic" expectations. This is why I'm NOT a "Pixie Duster"
When they start cutting GIANT checks to construction companies. THAT is where the money "really" starts to get spent. If Disney is doing well a few quarters in a row, Burbank will keep those construction crews working and pay their contractors, rental and labor hours. (maybe even overtime!) "IF" Disney hits losses or has a bad quarter or two, Burbank can say: "We aren't writing many checks in the next two months..." and construction slows down,...or even temporarily stops!
I used to ride the Monorail at Epcot just to see over the bomb-crater walls. I can't tell you how many dozens of times that...on a WEEKDAY,..I saw literally TWO or THREE workers walking that construction site with NOTHNIG happening. Why?...because the construction companies were NOT sending crews out to work! Disney was NOT paying them to work everyday because they were SAVING that quarter's money as to NOT take an ugly loss for the public books. Tron was the exact same thing too!
Burbank INCHED the project a little bit here,..a little bit there...bit by bit to absorb the cost over 5+ years. But again,...this "go/stop/slow/stop/go/stop/slow" pattern was based on FINANCE's desire in Burbank to "regulate" the speed of costs based on the company finances or each quarter.
What does this mean for the future? It means that if Disney is doing well and ALL divisions are profitable, then YES!,...the construction checks WILL flow and stuff will move fast!!. If Disney hits a bad quarter or is hit with big expenses like a lawsuit ruling or bad subscriber number or even falling stock,...then yes, these D23 announcements COULD EASILY grind to a halt and wait and wait and wait!
Does anybody know how Disney will be doing in Q3 2026? or Q2 2028? Nope!..but anything could happen.
This is what it means to be a "realistic" fan who holds "realistic" expectations. This is why I'm NOT a "Pixie Duster"
Last edited:
bwr827
Well-Known Member
Have a glass of wine or something, maybe soak in a tub.
I’m quoting the wrong post from you but they’re all pretty repetitive today. Re: Epic, you continue to refer to the forced 3-day ticket “bubble”, ignoring that Universal announced weeks ago that they will be offering other ticket options.
Looking forward to these projects opening within the next 5 years!
ednamodedarling
Well-Known Member
My guess is ROA shuts down come January.
TrainsOfDisney
Well-Known Member
Quietmouse
Active Member
I still think this whole epic universe thing is being blown way out of proportion.
I would argue that if universal was opening up a universal kids park next to studios and island of adventure then that would have a bigger impact on Disney than epic.
Epic is still heavily concentrated on thrills, and rides that aren’t roller coasters are still very much focused on height requirements.
If your a parent with young kids, your main focus is two things: is it worth the cost (are the kids interest in the ip), and do they meet the height requirements?
Nintendo land is huge for epic, but again, the problem is that your still putting a limit toward what age can ride the rides by implementing a height requirement.
We have our kids watch disney movies from a young age, normally we start them on the classics and work our way up. Every 3 year old - 4 year old wants to meet Cinderella, Peter Pan, Alice, and then buzz and woody and so on and so forth. That’s not going to change, nor will the desire to go to disney world.
I am honestly super excited for epic, and can’t wait to visit one day. That being said, epic is still a teenage/adult oriented park. This demographic vs the demographic with the suburban mom with 3 kids who are in pre school is much different. Universal is never going to cater to this demographic and Disney will (probably) never cater to the demographic that universal serves (teen /young adult / adult ).
And guess what? That’s okay. They aren’t direct competitors in my eyes. They serve 2 completely core demographics and they are profitable by excelling at what they excel at.
With that said, stop with the epic nonsense. Of course it will have an immediate impact because people are excited to see a new theme park. It’s a rare thing to see in general in this day and age a new theme park rise, so of course there will be a buzz of excitement that might steal Disney world thunder for a short period of time.
But ultimately the point remains the same. Epic is still very much focused on catering to a demographic that is older. Almost half of the attractions being coasters and the other half having height requirements speak for itself.
I would argue that if universal was opening up a universal kids park next to studios and island of adventure then that would have a bigger impact on Disney than epic.
Epic is still heavily concentrated on thrills, and rides that aren’t roller coasters are still very much focused on height requirements.
If your a parent with young kids, your main focus is two things: is it worth the cost (are the kids interest in the ip), and do they meet the height requirements?
Nintendo land is huge for epic, but again, the problem is that your still putting a limit toward what age can ride the rides by implementing a height requirement.
We have our kids watch disney movies from a young age, normally we start them on the classics and work our way up. Every 3 year old - 4 year old wants to meet Cinderella, Peter Pan, Alice, and then buzz and woody and so on and so forth. That’s not going to change, nor will the desire to go to disney world.
I am honestly super excited for epic, and can’t wait to visit one day. That being said, epic is still a teenage/adult oriented park. This demographic vs the demographic with the suburban mom with 3 kids who are in pre school is much different. Universal is never going to cater to this demographic and Disney will (probably) never cater to the demographic that universal serves (teen /young adult / adult ).
And guess what? That’s okay. They aren’t direct competitors in my eyes. They serve 2 completely core demographics and they are profitable by excelling at what they excel at.
With that said, stop with the epic nonsense. Of course it will have an immediate impact because people are excited to see a new theme park. It’s a rare thing to see in general in this day and age a new theme park rise, so of course there will be a buzz of excitement that might steal Disney world thunder for a short period of time.
But ultimately the point remains the same. Epic is still very much focused on catering to a demographic that is older. Almost half of the attractions being coasters and the other half having height requirements speak for itself.
your post was well thought out and written.
EPIC is projected to be a huge disruptor though. For reasons you mentioned.
Even with the height requirement thing being a big current issue for Uni, and a bigger issue in the last ten years than it used to be:
let's reflect on what Disney has built more of in the last six to ten years than ever before?
Thrills and coasters.
Slinky
Guardians tower
incredicoaster
Guardians rewind
Indy retheme
Tron
Monsters Inc Coaster.
Splash to Tiana
Test Track
Cara thrill being the main replacement of ROA
Villians' focus on thrills.
Lion King Flume.
Their majority of new builds and rethemes, as well as announced plans have had a focus on thrills because that is what the audience is braver for than the past.
And it's in direct response because they know EPIC is a disruptor and competition.
BuzzedPotatoHead89
Well-Known Member
My guess is April 2025 at the latest since I think they’ll need the extra capacity until they presumably reopen an updated HoP, because I think it’s sticking around one more presidential term. Though presumably its facade, along with most of the neighboring Frontierland facades, around the former banks of the river from HM to TBA will get updates by the end of the decade to match a more modern mid-20th century national park vibe - akin to Route 66 meets Grizzly Peak.
But January 2025 is a good guess, too. Particularly if reaction continues to be tilt more against it. And they want to quickly move on from the negative focus.
MrPromey
Well-Known Member
Assuming they're that far along with actual engineering/architectural design and planning.
The concept art shown which appeared blue-sky with elements from non-Florida parks did not seem like a reliable indicator they're all that far along and of course, they provided no real details on the Villains Land but we'll see.
Reminder, from announcement to opening, World of Pandora was 7 years and that's obviously because it was a knee-jerk announcement made way too soon in an attempt to steal public attention from a competitor.
No way that would be the same situation this time, right?
V_L_Raptor
Well-Known Member
Once he’s CEO, it won’t matter. He can do or ignore whatever he wants. He wouldn’t have to prove a thing to anyone. He would be CEO.
TrainsOfDisney
Well-Known Member
I thought it would be obvious that I didn’t seriously expect the ceo of Disney to have to prove anything to me - if only!!! Haha
Sir_Cliff
Well-Known Member
I don't quite understand the argument that the land needs to be renamed from Frontierland to something generic and western; isn't that more or less what Frontierland is already? The time period has always been somewhat elastic, as proven by the Country Bears.
At any rate, Frontierland is far more open in terms of what fits thematically than any new land I can think of that Disney has built in the past 20 years. Tropical Americas is a minor miracle as it can encompass attractions based on a large swarth of a hemisphere, but when Disney builds lands these days they are tied to individual films or franchises. If Frontierland is too restrictive, then god help them in a few decades when they end up with parks full of lands themed only to Cars, Toy Story, Avatar, Marvel, etc.