JD80
Premium Member
That’s the big problem with all of these expansions- they are replacing just for Bobs ego I think. Nothing else makes sense.
You know this is a weird thing to say, right?
That’s the big problem with all of these expansions- they are replacing just for Bobs ego I think. Nothing else makes sense.
No. It’s pretty accurate.You know this is a weird thing to say, right?
Tell that to Epcot.You know this is a weird thing to say, right?
I don’t think Disney replacing the river is ego, though persisting despite many signs that they shouldn’t (many failed proposals to florida gov and general unpopularity of the change) I can see how that would be ego.No. It’s pretty accurate.
Im not at all a shill for the company, but i do think the logistical challenges of the area in terms of guest flow are something that does get put aside in terms of importance.I don’t think Disney replacing the river is ego, though persisting despite many signs that they shouldn’t (many failed proposals to florida gov and general unpopularity of the change) I can see how that would be ego.
You can remove as much or as little as you want. The idea that a small piece of water isn’t worth saving is odd to me, not sure why it’s all or nothing.I mean, I wish they could keep a section. But when I think about how to get people in and out of the new areas without removing so much it isnt even worth having, im kind of at a loss.
You can remove as much or as little as you want. The idea that a small piece of water isn’t worth saving is odd to me, not sure why it’s all or nothing.
The crowd flow issues are extremely exaggerated. Disneyland is a much smaller park with more meandering pathways and they have figured out how to make it work. The annual attendance is pretty much the same. (On the grand scale of things 17.2 vs. 17.7).I’m of the opinion that I at least somewhat get where they are coming from. I feel like the amount of guest flow of FOUR GROUND UP attractions added to the magic kingdom, the most popular theme park in the world, will only make the guest problem way crazier.
I mean, let's say the keep a small section with the boat dock and a bit to the left and right, would that even look good with cars behind it? That water would be land locked and I don't think they have any infrastructure to keep it moving or clean atm cause it's connected to the lagoon. so they gotta build that or do something to prevent stagnant swamp waterYou can remove as much or as little as you want. The idea that a small piece of water isn’t worth saving is odd to me, not sure why it’s all or nothing.
The persistence definitely is, and we’ve seen it in other changes they’ve recently made. The fact that they aren’t willing to compromise even a little when they see massive pushback speaks volumes. As always, they reap what they sowI don’t think Disney replacing the river is ego, though persisting despite many signs that they shouldn’t (many failed proposals to florida gov and general unpopularity of the change) I can see how that would be ego.
I guess that depends on what we think compromise is. Because like, you could argue the Muppets RnR is a compromise.The persistence definitely is, and we’ve seen it in other changes they’ve recently made. The fact that they aren’t willing to compromise even a little when they see massive pushback speaks volumes. As always, they reap what they sow.
Thats my thing. I think we see that they will try to do the "right thing" if they can be convinced it's viable and a smarter decision.I’m of the opinion that I at least somewhat get where they are coming from. I feel like the amount of guest flow of FOUR GROUND UP attractions added to the magic kingdom, the most popular theme park in the world, will only make the guest problem way crazier. I kidna get them thinking they need all the new guest pathway space they can get. Because they kinda do. I just kidna wish they found a way to at least save some of the river space. With a small strip of water in between, piston peak could look really nice.
At this point I’ve accepted that we are losing what we are losing, so I’m trying to at least see SOME bright side in this. Would rather do that than be angry and stuff for a few years. That’s me though. I do respect and rock with y’all fighting for the integrity of wdw and that. I’ve just kinda given in for this specific case.
Im guessing part of why they want to do it this way is to use the existing infrastructure in the river and on the island. The power, sewage, water and possibly gas lines(for aunt polly's).Looking thru the concept art, isn't there any way they can overlay the already installed plumbing to fill/empty ROA to accommodate the new ride? It seems there's going to be a decent amount of kinetic water from the waterfall and little stream/river thing...
Killing Muppetvision and RnR (two beloved attractions) is hardly a compromise. Country Bears I will give you.I guess that depends on what we think compromise is. Because like, you could argue the Muppets RnR is a compromise.
Country Bears redo is a compromise too.
But, and I'm not saying this is you at all, some ppl consider compromise as Disney just not doing something.
We have to figure out what is a feasible compromise here Given all the factors. Just how much harder and more expensive is it to keep some river? If that can be determined, compromise can be suggested in good faith.
I don't really think they are Killing RnR. Aerosmith never should have lasted as long as they did. It's a great coaster and band updates never happening has always struck me as odd.Killing Muppetvision and RnR (two beloved attractions) is hardly a compromise. Country Bears I will give you.
A reasonable compromise for TBA would have been retaining some of the America Sings critters. A reasonable compromise for this would be keeping the front loop of the river, developing the back as villains and Northwest of Big Thunder as the Cars land.
Ill give you the america sings critters. I'm baffled by that one.Killing Muppetvision and RnR (two beloved attractions) is hardly a compromise. Country Bears I will give you.
A reasonable compromise for TBA would have been retaining some of the America Sings critters. A reasonable compromise for this would be keeping the front loop of the river, developing the back as villains and Northwest of Big Thunder as the Cars land.
Perhaps it's to do with maintenance of keeping up with the River and the Boat that they find now too cost that they don't want to.. What I would like to know is why Fountain of Nations is so unimportant to insignificant with Epcot and The World Showcase now that it had to go the very first thing actually!.... a Fountain isn't in the way of retransforming a park hub into a greenery park space. Maintenance over Fountain of Nations?? They just gave away their Bellagio history now over to Epic!You can remove as much or as little as you want. The idea that a small piece of water isn’t worth saving is odd to me, not sure why it’s all or nothing.
They're not killing RnR just retheming it. Is anyone really in that ride for Aerosmith specifically? If so...you don't need a roller coaster to listen to Aerosmith.Killing Muppetvision and RnR (two beloved attractions) is hardly a compromise. Country Bears I will give you.
A reasonable compromise for TBA would have been retaining some of the America Sings critters. A reasonable compromise for this would be keeping the front loop of the river, developing the back as villains and Northwest of Big Thunder as the Cars land.
Well yeah… they don’t want to pay for daily parades in all the parks either. Or equity actors doing streemosphere, etc.Perhaps it's to do with maintenance of keeping up with the River and the Boat that they find now too cost that they don't want to..
Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.