News Cars-Themed Attractions at Magic Kingdom

EeyoreFan#24

EeyoreFan#24

Well-Known Member
Never heard about the desert party. Sounded interesting, but after looking it up, not so much. $50 is a little steep for the offering. Also, being in the middle of the day sounds like it could easily clunk up operations.
 
Stripes

Stripes

Premium Member
EricsBiscuit said:
The land planning decisions are only “flawed” if you are as cheap and unimaginative as modern Disney. I don’t think WDP in the 60’s could have fathomed how terrible their future leadership would be.
Click to expand...
The company has hired a record number of Imagineers, at no small cost, to expand the parks around the world, but especially Disneyland and Walt Disney World. None of these new attractions are duplicates. I wouldn’t call that “cheap” or “unimaginative.” One certainly couldn’t say the same for most of the opening day attractions at Magic Kingdom, most of which were basically duplicates of Walt’s prior creations at Disneyland. And in the case of the Rivers of America, a poor imitation of Disneyland’s, in my opinion.

The Walt Disney Company is a publicly traded company with a fiduciary duty to shareholders. Think of the cost of refurbishing the river, refurbishing the Liberty Belle, reshaping the river and all of the engineering and construction costs involved, as well as turning marginally unsuitable land into suitable land for building a new theme park expansion that reportedly has significant changes in elevation. All of this would take a significant amount of time, delaying the addition of any capacity expansions. All of this cost in order to preserve and maintain attractions that attract hardly any guests and bring in virtually zero revenue.

It’s not about being cheap. It’s about being responsible with the shareholders’ money.
 
Last edited:
Disone

Disone

Well-Known Member
Stripes said:
The company has hired a record number of Imagineers, at no small cost, to expand the parks around the world, but especially Disneyland and Walt Disney World. None of these new attractions are duplicates. I wouldn’t call that “cheap” or “unimaginative.” One certainly couldn’t say the same for most of the opening day attractions at Magic Kingdom, most of which were basically duplicates of Walt’s prior creations at Disneyland. And in the case of the Rivers of America, a poor imitation of Disneyland’s, in my opinion.

The Walt Disney Company is a publicly traded company with a fiduciary duty to shareholders. Think of the cost of refurbishing the river, refurbishing the Liberty Belle, reshaping the river and all of the engineering and construction costs involved, as well as turning marginally unsuitable land into suitable land for building a new theme park expansion that reportedly has significant changes in elevation. All of this would take a significant amount of time, delaying the addition of any capacity expansions. All of this cost in order to preserve and maintain attractions that attract hardly any guests and bring in virtually zero revenue.

It’s not about being cheap. It’s about being responsible with the shareholders’ money.
Click to expand...
Hummmm. I don't believe anyone on this forum needs a reminder that the Walt Disney company is a publicly traded company with a financial responsibility to its shareholders. This seemed unnecessary....

How many imagineers have they hired? What is the cost?

Your statement is so matter of fact that I'm guessing you are in the know? So let's talk specifics.

What is the time frame difference between claiming marginally suitable land and completely deconstructing the rivers of America, leveling it out for construction and then building the new attraction on top of it?

What is the cost difference between the two options?

It must be significant cost reductions to help validate removing the last meaningful body of water within the Magic Kingdom.
 
Last edited:
Raineman

Raineman

Well-Known Member
Some of the people in this thread must be burner accounts for Disney bean counters/park ops, because all they seem to bring up are attraction capacity and their "facts" about ridership data. Citing "facts" with no sources is just a different version of "trust me, bro". And let's extend their logic to other attractions-what is the capacity/ridership data for CoP? I have rarely ever seen long lines for it, or even seen more than half-filled seating areas inside-they must be well under the ridership needed to make it a lucrative attraction, so I guess we just bulldoze it, then, right? I don't have any sources for that "fact", I'm just going by what I've seen with my own eyes, because I guess that's all that's required.
 
mkt

mkt

When a paradise is lost go straight to Disney™
Premium Member
DonniePeverley said:
Most of them local free loading annual pass holders.
Click to expand...
I did a staycation last weekend.

Stayed onsite at a deluxe resort, ate every meal onsite at Disney owned restaurants, rode minnie van, and paid for lightning lane. All for a party of three.

The total time spent on property was 36 hours.

Ignoring our APs, we spent approximately $1200 for 36 hours of Disney.

Not bad for freeloaders.
 
C

CoasterCowboy67

Well-Known Member
Raineman said:
Some of the people in this thread must be burner accounts for Disney bean counters/park ops, because all they seem to bring up are attraction capacity and their "facts" about ridership data. Citing "facts" with no sources is just a different version of "trust me, bro". And let's extend their logic to other attractions-what is the capacity/ridership data for CoP? I have rarely ever seen long lines for it, or even seen more than half-filled seating areas inside-they must be well under the ridership needed to make it a lucrative attraction, so I guess we just bulldoze it, then, right? I don't have any sources for that "fact", I'm just going by what I've seen with my own eyes, because I guess that's all that's required.
Click to expand...
And exactly what evidence has been provided to the contrary? Or are the Universal Park Ops burner accounts also struggling to provide data indicating the riverboat / TSI are some kind of massive people eaters that Disney woke up one morning and decided to eliminate because they just felt like it?

Disney has all of this data, and still decided what they did. Wild idea, but could they have seen low engagement and ridership in their data and I don’t know, decided it was in guests best interest to repurpose the space for something people would use more?
 
Raineman

Raineman

Well-Known Member
CoasterCowboy67 said:
And exactly what evidence has been provided to the contrary? Or are the Universal Park Ops burner accounts also struggling to provide data indicating the riverboat / TSI are some kind of massive people eaters that Disney woke up one morning and decided to eliminate because they just felt like it?

Disney has all of this data, and still decided what they did. Wild idea, but could they have seen low engagement and ridership in their data and I don’t know, decided it was in guests best interest to repurpose the space for something people would use more?
Click to expand...
That's irrelevant to the point of my post. My point was that people are trying to justify their agreement of the replacement of TSI/RoA by speaking on specific facts and data that they have no sources for, and expect people to believe them. It makes no difference about any evidence to the contrary. My post had nothing to do with my opinion on the decision Disney made. If I disagreed with the decision, I could come up with "Liberty Belle ridership has operated at 75% capacity in 2024. This number is real, and it's why it should stay", even though I have no basis for stating those numbers.
 
Starship824

Starship824

Well-Known Member
In the Parks
No
Stripes said:
The company has hired a record number of Imagineers, at no small cost, to expand the parks around the world, but especially Disneyland and Walt Disney World. None of these new attractions are duplicates. I wouldn’t call that “cheap” or “unimaginative.” One certainly couldn’t say the same for most of the opening day attractions at Magic Kingdom, most of which were basically duplicates of Walt’s prior creations at Disneyland. And in the case of the Rivers of America, a poor imitation of Disneyland’s, in my opinion.

The Walt Disney Company is a publicly traded company with a fiduciary duty to shareholders. Think of the cost of refurbishing the river, refurbishing the Liberty Belle, reshaping the river and all of the engineering and construction costs involved, as well as turning marginally unsuitable land into suitable land for building a new theme park expansion that reportedly has significant changes in elevation. All of this would take a significant amount of time, delaying the addition of any capacity expansions. All of this cost in order to preserve and maintain attractions that attract hardly any guests and bring in virtually zero revenue.

It’s not about being cheap. It’s about being responsible with the shareholders’ money.
Click to expand...
And that's the problem, Disney parks shouldn't be this penny pinching money making machine, not everything needs to be the biggest and best thing that makes tons of the money. Some things like the rivers of America need to stay. Chapek was just a penny pincher and look where that got us.
 
C

CoasterCowboy67

Well-Known Member
Raineman said:
That's irrelevant to the point of my post. My point was that people are trying to justify their agreement of the replacement of TSI/RoA by speaking on specific facts and data that they have no sources for, and expect people to believe them. It makes no difference about any evidence to the contrary. My post had nothing to do with my opinion on the decision Disney made. If I disagreed with the decision, I could come up with "Liberty Belle ridership has operated at 75% capacity in 2024. This number is real, and it's why it should stay", even though I have no basis for stating those numbers.
Click to expand...
It’s very relevant because people are doing the same for the opposite side, and alleging facts / data to support keeping the riverboat and TSI because of supposed frequent usage and high theoretical capacity. We’ve had 200+ pages here on that. The pot can’t call the kettle black
 
LittleBuford

LittleBuford

Well-Known Member
Even as someone who wants the river to be saved, I don’t think it’s productive to claim that the riverboat is especially popular. There’s no doubt the planned Cars-themed replacement would attract and serve a far higher number of guests. That still doesn’t justify the loss of the river in my opinion.
 
Disstevefan1

Disstevefan1

Well-Known Member
WDW has the blessing of size and chooses to destroy existing attractions instead of actually expanding on undeveloped land that they have plenty of.

Meanwhile Disneyland is ACTUALLY EXPANDING the park with the Disneyland forward.

In my opinion, in FL they put up DVCs super fast, but work in theme parks goes very slow.

In my opinion, the Disneyland forward work will be done before (whatever they are trying to do) in WDW.

Does Iger have motives we don't know about? Its interesting to think about.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom