Kind of makes you think it was intentionally *designed* not to be super packed/busy. Apparently that means it’s “unpopular” and no-one likes it.
-
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
Kind of makes you think it was intentionally *designed* not to be super packed/busy. Apparently that means it’s “unpopular” and no-one likes it.
DarkMetroid567
Well-Known Member
People holding on to the past and fearing change, using context as justification for rejecting change
Just look up the average town hall or community meeting on an apartment development, like in San Francisco. You’ll find that it sounds a lot like this discussion.
DCLcruiser
Well-Known Member
Sorry, I updated my last post, as I confused you with the other poster.
I just don't think TSI is fantasy. Maybe it was cool in the 70s and 80s. I've never been eager to go as a kid of the late 80s/early 90s.
doctornick
Well-Known Member
Um, Splash?
George Carpenter
New Member
I'm glad they left lots of room for future expansion. Villains could definitely grow which is something that few other lands can do.
eddie104
Well-Known Member
Let’s be honest the ROA and Tom Sawyer Island we’re pretty much a blank canvas for Disney to work with.
Most people are lamenting the loss of serenity and relief in a crowded park like the MK.
Unfortunately Disney does not see it that way and whether utilize it for something most guests will use.
I’m not saying those areas were of waste of space but if you want more capacity you need to use the areas you current have to their fullest potential especially an area that’s 95% empty land.
Most people are lamenting the loss of serenity and relief in a crowded park like the MK.
Unfortunately Disney does not see it that way and whether utilize it for something most guests will use.
I’m not saying those areas were of waste of space but if you want more capacity you need to use the areas you current have to their fullest potential especially an area that’s 95% empty land.
If the Epcot re-do had worked, I would have given them the benefit of the doubt with this one. However, the disaster of that - along with all the new resort hotel towers invading sight lines, the shilling of IP where it does not belong, the Las Vegas attention to surface glitz - has showed me that Disney has lost its way. When money is NOT dictated by the stock market, you get the artistry of Tokyo Disney. When the stock market rules you get a frontierland of rocks and no water. Symbolic.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
While building out the other side of the path would create a stronger pedestrian experience, it would do so in isolation and in contradiction to the story. Frontierland doesn’t have a lot of chronological separation from Main Street, USA. The shootout on Main Street is a classic western trope. But Frontierland wasn’t telling an urban story like Main Street, USA. Even with these new attractions, it’s still supposed to be telling a story of great expanses of land. Adding a second block creates a very urban typology.
DCLcruiser
Well-Known Member
I like Frontierland. I like BTMR. I just don't think national parks are on the same level as TSI/RoA. Even as a kid in the 90s I never had any interest in TSI.
Last edited:
SteamboatJoe
Well-Known Member
To be honest, I care more about the riverboat than the island itself.
Beacon Joe
Well-Known Member
Kind of makes you think it was intentionally *designed* not to be super packed/busy. Apparently that means it’s “unpopular” and no-one likes it.
I've sort of suspected that's why they often didn't run the keel boats.
"There is no merchandising or calculable ROI on TSI." --> "Let's not run the keel boats every day because why would we shunt guests to a location with no ROI." --> People can rarely get on boats to TSI --> "See, nobody goes to TSI." --> Kill it and pave it over for gift shops"
el_super
Well-Known Member
Kind of makes you think it was intentionally *designed* not to be super packed/busy. Apparently that means it’s “unpopular” and no-one likes it.
The crux of the issue: people weren't utilizing this desperately needed space. Either it's not as needed as people want to think, or the burdens to utilizing it were too high. Either way the result is the same.
Splash wasn't popular because of the IP.
UNCgolf
Well-Known Member
Eh, AirBNB and other corporate investment schemes are as much, if not more, to blame for this.
More importantly, this is a theme park, not a city.
Sir_Cliff
Well-Known Member
Maybe it's just me, but don't roads and cars kind of take the charm and romance out of the wilderness? Do people really go to the real wilderness and wish that there were more roads and the sound of cars whizzing by? If so, I guess Disney is creating that fantasy for them.
V_L_Raptor
Well-Known Member
Give it time. Eventually they'll decide those waterfalls are as difficult to maintain as the old Tomorrowland ones, and they'll be taken out of service. Why build something to maintain it, after all?
No worries. Everyone has different interests. I’m a kid of the late 80s and I loved it…but then I’ve always had a passion for American history and read the books in high school.
I also love the Cars franchise (which seems to put me in the minority around here). Radiator Springs Racers is my favorite ride at Disneyland Resort. I’m also not opposed to cloning. I’d love to have a version of it in Florida. But we could have gotten that without blowing up a quarter of the park…
AdventureHasAName
Well-Known Member
Place this ride in Test Track, Pixar Land, Tomorrowland Speedway, or almost any one of the World Showcase countries ("Cars around Italy/Germany/America") and there would be almost no complaints.
