TrainsOfDisney
Well-Known Member
Vs. what?@lentesta is correct, building on ROA is the lower cost option
Vs. what?@lentesta is correct, building on ROA is the lower cost option
Fantastic perspective.
"I remember when my family started going to Disney, it felt like there were *so many* lesser-known secrets to discover that kept us coming back. Interactive card games & scavenger hunts, pin trading, Hidden Mickeys, little museums & exhibits, beautiful secluded spots to chill out.
No, that stuff isn't all must-do for the family there for one day trying to max out their number of attractions-ridden. But the obscure things were *why* my family often desired more days at the parks, and kept coming back. Because there were little treasures to stumble upon too. [...]
It gives you a sense of agency and identity in a theme park to know that you can discover the things *you* like to do and enjoy the experience in a way that's different to others. When everything is a super must-do attraction with a 120-minute wait, there are no hidden gems.
In terms of hidden gems, Tom Sawyer Island & The Riverboat were the pinnacle of that idea to me. Some people have said "you never ride them," but I do. Every time. Because when I go to a theme park, I'm not just interested in rides—I'm interested in atmosphere, beauty, discovery..."
Just to clarify (not attempting to change your opinion), I was only using Lightning and Mater as examples. It doesn’t matter to me who the Cars are. IMO anthropomorphic vehicles from a world of anthropomorphic vehicles are completely misplaced in Frontierland, just as they would be at Animal Kingdom or the Wilderness Lodge.I’m right there with you. As much as I like the franchise, mater is my least favorite character in many ways. If you could have seen my reaction to the initial news I was completely against Mater in FL as we know it. However this won’t be FL as we know it and everything we’ve seen from the Cars franchise on screen and in the parks (including AOA) says this will have theming and cohesiveness.
I don’t think (based on the concept art) that Mater will be that integral to the ride. He and McQueen appear to be commentating the rallye from their position at the finish line for Radiator Springs Network (RSN). Maybe you’ll hear his voice on the ride vehicle but I don’t think he’ll be intruding on some of the other natural areas of the land.
Ironically the challenges with Star Wars may be what’s leading to this also. By building this “front and center” as opposed to a land expansion around the backside of the park that can easily be avoided this becomes a visual focal point of interest and one folks must pass. From a design perspective this recenters the “balance of power” in the park in the same way Carsland and BvS did for DCA 2.0.The over all Star Wars theme park expansion is pretty close to a failure. In California it didn’t increase attendance and Rise usually has the same wait times as Indy - which means it’s good, but not the must ride.
They don’t have to. Thats not the pointHow would they even know if they're new???
Those numbers include everything, same as they include the revenue of the brands before Disney bought them. (Cars includes when it was Pixar owned, Star Wars when it was Lucas, etc)Disney Princesses as a brand didn't start until 2000, and I doubt the number of total revenue is including each individual princesses' merch sales from 1937-2000.
But yeah, I agree, the placement is the main issue here. I personally can live with Cars, but I can't live with the loss of the only major water feature remaining in MK.
Well color me surprised. I also just remembered that Frozen isn't included in the Princess brand, so that's probably why the number is smaller than expected lol.Those numbers include everything, same as they include the revenue of the brands before Disney bought them. (Cars includes when it was Pixar owned, Star Wars when it was Lucas, etc)
First, he clearly said internally. It would also make sense, however. There are utility lines that exist there, it's already a constructed environment, etc. Where they would be expanding beyond big thunder is mostly untouched (obviously with the caveat of plenty of water management canals surrounding it).No way it’s less expensive than existing expansion pad development. Why you keep twisting things is beyond me.
The over all Star Wars theme park expansion is pretty close to a failure. In California it didn’t increase attendance and Rise usually has the same wait times as Indy - which means it’s good, but not the must ride.
In Florida the resort was a complete failure - the land did drive attendance at DHS so there was some success there.
In Paris, the Star Wars expansion was cancelled and replaced with Lion King (unless the 2 were at one point going to exist side by side.
Also, I just noticed in your plan that Villains isn't using any of the back half of the river- so why not put Cars there? I feel like if Cars is taking the front half, then Villains is taking the back half.
The over all Star Wars theme park expansion is pretty close to a failure. In California it didn’t increase attendance and Rise usually has the same wait times as Indy - which means it’s good, but not the must ride.
In Florida the resort was a complete failure - the land did drive attendance at DHS so there was some success there.
In Paris, the Star Wars expansion was cancelled and replaced with Lion King (unless the 2 were at one point going to exist side by side.
This clearly would have made the most sense if they didn't want to expand past the RR tracks. You can keep a heavily shortened river, keep the island (or make it a peninsula) and retheme it while you are there. It would still necessitate docking the boat but at least you would have the LB there.Yeah, who cares about the back half of the river? The point is the river should exist in the front part next to Liberty Sq and the Frontierland town. Once you are north of HM, fill in away IMHO.
Link?Just watched his vlog. He’s 100% right.
Does that mean its not a completely done deal or...It’s not over yet either.
my apologies if I come off that way - just pointing out an observation. I’m pretty sure you are older than me so hopefully I’m not an old man
Almost positive it's the latter.Does that mean its not a completely done deal or...
Are you saying there are still more shoes to drop?
... Because it sounds like you're telling us to take cover.
It's not over in the sense of "there's still a chance the rivers may stay in some form" or "it's going to get a lot worse and we're going to lose more iconic attractions"?I knew this was being considered since 2016. I didn’t think they’d be daft enough to approve it.
It’s not over yet either.
At Disneyland they're always slammed (which I loooove)
Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.