lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
It’s like Journey of Water all over again with people telling themselves what they want it to be when Disney has already indicated otherwise.
-
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
Captain Neo
Well-Known Member
Clearly not enough. The version of the guardians that’s in Epcot will never be a thing again it was just a moment in time like Back to the future. In 5 years the theme of the attraction will be as dated as Captain EO is now
And you completely misunderstood what I wrote about Star Wars.
Advisable Joseph
Well-Known Member
Is this based on insider info, or just inferences based on what we know?
Captain Neo
Well-Known Member
Just like they did with Star Wars Galactic Cruiser!
Advisable Joseph
Well-Known Member
Should I search this site, or his podcasts?
bwr827
Well-Known Member
All these construction experts in this thread who can draw colourful shapes on an overhead image.
the_rich
Well-Known Member
I believe he said somewhere earlier in this thread that they have a plan for the expansion bbt. If they would've put cars and villains there it would've blocked any more expansion in the area.
UNCgolf
Well-Known Member
Although I disagree to an extent (I think it's pretty easy to see the water from the majority of Liberty Square), my point was really that you know it's there and it's an integral part of the design of the area. I don't think you have to be specifically looking at it or even seeing it -- again, the World Showcase is similar. You're not really seeing the water from any of the pavilions, and even if you're walking around it, it's just kind of there to the side whereas everything to really look at is away from the water on the right.
But I don't think many people would disagree that the World Showcase would be fundamentally altered if the lagoon was filled in.
That said, I think I do think it's easier for Disney to change the existing FL/LS waterfront area to account for the changes than it would be to fix the World Showcase if the lagoon was eliminated. It could end up being a moot issue at the Magic Kingdom once they've finished whatever they have planned, especially since there have been indications that Liberty Square as a whole will be overhauled.
Last edited:
Quietmouse
Well-Known Member
With villains and cars taking over the River, and what ever lies bbt…could magic kingdom become almost too big ? It’s already nearing a 2 day park based off how busy it is…adding cars, villains and any more potential land could easily put magic kingdom in a 3 day park territory.
phillip9698
Well-Known Member
Both.
A couple insiders here have hinted already (they aren’t doing it loudly though) and some on other boards as well.
It’s also just history and sense. Whenever new plans are teased for any park, the wishful park planners always pull out google maps and start spraying colors everywhere, using up as much expansion pad space as possible. But that almost never comes to fruition. Disney nor Universal wants to use 100% of their available space at once, they have to hold it for the future.
It is going to pain people to hear this but just know…………..there are expansion pads at each of these parks that you will not live to see put in use. Sorry.
the_rich
Well-Known Member
I mean it's always been more than one day for me..I'll be at wdw in 10 days. One day in each park plus the Halloween party on my ak day.
UNCgolf
Well-Known Member
It's not really 70 years, though -- especially not in terms of merchandising. It's probably more like 15-20 years realistically, considering there were only 3 Disney princesses until Ariel in 1989, and they weren't really pumping out a ton of merchandise until this century.
Still a head start, but saying 70 years feels misleading.
TrainsOfDisney
Well-Known Member
That’s only painful since they are ignoring those and using this! Haha
Charlie The Chatbox Ghost
Well-Known Member
It’s interesting that you frame the “moral superiority” of people who aren’t happy with the loss of RoA/TSI as being upset purely because of politics/Walts beliefs or hatred against Imagineers. Most people in this thread and on Twitter have been expressing that they’re majorly upset with the loss of the atmosphere- the “park” part of “theme park”. We don’t hate Imagineers, they are told what to do by corporate, they don’t have a say in what stays or goes. I’ve already talked about why dozens of times. The people screaming “Woke Disney hates America” are a small minority of fans who are just screaming to fuel the culture war. They don’t represent the fandom as a whole, like how the Save Splash crowd don’t represent everyone who liked Splash.
Also you call the parks “slop” at the end there- so you’re agreeing this Cars situation is not great?
Chi84
Premium Member
There are many Disney fans here, especially the older ones, who are very nostalgic about the original parks and are having an understandably difficult time with all these changes.
When people are that passionate about something they tend to get upset and say the kind of things you quoted.
It’ll die down as it always does. Change is hard.
Animaniac93-98
Well-Known Member
Disney theme parks are holistic experiences. They represent the sum of their parts, and are not judged only for a handful of aspects. Everything that engages your senses over the course of your visit contributes to your enjoyment. Not just rides, shows or food, but everything in between that you come into contact with or glance from a distance. Even the things you don't see or are unaware of impact your visit, because they occupy someone else's time and energy.
Disney has spent decades whittling down their theme parks into a set number of activities, based on metrics and averages. They then took that data and built entire theme parks based on it, only to find out they were unsuccessful. Disney has spent billions trying to correct their own mistakes because it turns out theme parks can't be measured merely by the numerical sum of what can be seen. 7.4 attractions in a day is meaningless if the environments they're placed in, the burdens and expenses guests must endure to see them, or operations are all lackluster. Worse still if you're a customer who cannot visit all those 7.4 attractions because of physical limitations or a lack of interest.
Walt Disney Studios Park was a park with nothing but IP. Had more than 7.4 attractions, some of which were good, but it was still the least visited Disney theme park that now Disney is sinking enormous sums of money in to make it more appealing. Some of that money is going into a massive lake, new pavement and landscaping because it turns out, people like when theme parks look like parks. It's what Universal is boasting about when discussing Celestial Park.
Disney fans love the dopamine effect that comes with new attraction announcements, but they often don't realize what goes away until it's too late. This isn't a concern with losing Tom Sawyer Island and the Riverboat specifically, it's about a disregard for operations, attraction variety and placemaking entirely in and effort to maximize marketing. It's the Paul Pressler mindset that wanted to replace attractions with gift shops and killed unique stores in favor of generic Pooh plush and t-shirts, taken to a new extreme. Now whole buildings and lands are being overhauled to be "more Disney", while forgetting what made those spaces "Disney" in the first place.
A low capacity kiddie ride and a noisy thrill attraction are not what this specific acreage of the park needed. Tom Sawyer Island was a place for kids to run around, while still holding appeal to adults much more than subsequent play areas built in Disney's theme parks. The Riverboat was a relaxing ride that did not require reservations to see and was popular with older guests who cannot do more intense rides. Both attractions could also be seen by those not experiencing them which added to the overall ambience of the park. It's possible the new Cars ride will do the same, but again, it's something that's being worked into an area that was built from scratch to have this specific river as a focal point and backdrop. Replacing that and a half century of natural tree growth instead of just building the ride somewhere else is incredibly short sighted, and probably not the best use of resources either.
But maybe the new metric for Disney theme park success isn't a guest seeing 7.4 attractions in a day, it's a goal for 7.4 lightning lane sales per guest. Driven by a management team risk adverse and focused on consumer product sales and streaming data who still don't understand their product, assets or customers. The Magic Kingdom has been the world's most popular theme park for decades because of things like the RoA and everything else created for and around it. It was put there for a reason, and appreciated as a result.
Disney has spent decades whittling down their theme parks into a set number of activities, based on metrics and averages. They then took that data and built entire theme parks based on it, only to find out they were unsuccessful. Disney has spent billions trying to correct their own mistakes because it turns out theme parks can't be measured merely by the numerical sum of what can be seen. 7.4 attractions in a day is meaningless if the environments they're placed in, the burdens and expenses guests must endure to see them, or operations are all lackluster. Worse still if you're a customer who cannot visit all those 7.4 attractions because of physical limitations or a lack of interest.
Walt Disney Studios Park was a park with nothing but IP. Had more than 7.4 attractions, some of which were good, but it was still the least visited Disney theme park that now Disney is sinking enormous sums of money in to make it more appealing. Some of that money is going into a massive lake, new pavement and landscaping because it turns out, people like when theme parks look like parks. It's what Universal is boasting about when discussing Celestial Park.
Disney fans love the dopamine effect that comes with new attraction announcements, but they often don't realize what goes away until it's too late. This isn't a concern with losing Tom Sawyer Island and the Riverboat specifically, it's about a disregard for operations, attraction variety and placemaking entirely in and effort to maximize marketing. It's the Paul Pressler mindset that wanted to replace attractions with gift shops and killed unique stores in favor of generic Pooh plush and t-shirts, taken to a new extreme. Now whole buildings and lands are being overhauled to be "more Disney", while forgetting what made those spaces "Disney" in the first place.
A low capacity kiddie ride and a noisy thrill attraction are not what this specific acreage of the park needed. Tom Sawyer Island was a place for kids to run around, while still holding appeal to adults much more than subsequent play areas built in Disney's theme parks. The Riverboat was a relaxing ride that did not require reservations to see and was popular with older guests who cannot do more intense rides. Both attractions could also be seen by those not experiencing them which added to the overall ambience of the park. It's possible the new Cars ride will do the same, but again, it's something that's being worked into an area that was built from scratch to have this specific river as a focal point and backdrop. Replacing that and a half century of natural tree growth instead of just building the ride somewhere else is incredibly short sighted, and probably not the best use of resources either.
But maybe the new metric for Disney theme park success isn't a guest seeing 7.4 attractions in a day, it's a goal for 7.4 lightning lane sales per guest. Driven by a management team risk adverse and focused on consumer product sales and streaming data who still don't understand their product, assets or customers. The Magic Kingdom has been the world's most popular theme park for decades because of things like the RoA and everything else created for and around it. It was put there for a reason, and appreciated as a result.
BenJacobs
Well-Known Member
My main gripe with all of this is the Cars IP.
In my opinion, everything in Magic Kingdom should be whimsical (fun, not too serious), and removed from the modern real world. So I don’t think Star Wars or Marvel fit, as they are too serious, real-world, and/or political.
Cars is fairly whimsical, but it’s essentially set in a version of the modern real world. I really love the first Cars film, and the land in California looks great, it would just be better to have it in Hollywood Studios.
If it were a more suitable property, I’d be much more in favour. For example, it could be a Pocahontas themed river rapids.
In my opinion, everything in Magic Kingdom should be whimsical (fun, not too serious), and removed from the modern real world. So I don’t think Star Wars or Marvel fit, as they are too serious, real-world, and/or political.
Cars is fairly whimsical, but it’s essentially set in a version of the modern real world. I really love the first Cars film, and the land in California looks great, it would just be better to have it in Hollywood Studios.
If it were a more suitable property, I’d be much more in favour. For example, it could be a Pocahontas themed river rapids.
Dizknee_Phreek
Well-Known Member
The irony here is that they had the perfect opportunity to shove Cars into Epcot with the TT retheme. But nope...Cars goes to MK
