MK Cars-Themed Attractions at Magic Kingdom

UNCgolf

Well-Known Member
Well, the latest concept art for the updates to Adventureland at Tokyo Disneyland has them getting ride of the Jungle Cruise, so maybe that will be next to go in Florida as well

I personally would be completely on board with replacing Jungle Cruise; I don't think it's a good attraction and they could add so much (probably multiple rides, dining, and shopping) in its footprint. I'd want the one at Disneyland to remain as Walt's attraction, but would happily dump the MK version (assuming the replacement was actually good -- certainly not anything related to the Incredibles).
 
Last edited:

Disgruntled Walt

Well-Known Member
In the Parks
No
I personally would be completely on board with replacing Jungle Cruise; I don't think it's a good attraction and they could add so much (probably multiple rides, dining, and shopping) in its footprint. I'd want the one at Disneyland to remain as Walt's attraction, but would happily dump the MK version (assuming the replacement was actually good).
If they get rid of the Jungle Cruise AND the RoA, that would be awful. And I love the temple scene in MK's Jungle Cruise...it's really unique!
 

Agent H

Well-Known Member
I personally would be completely on board with replacing Jungle Cruise; I don't think it's a good attraction and they could add so much (probably multiple rides, dining, and shopping) in its footprint. I'd want the one at Disneyland to remain as Walt's attraction, but would happily dump the MK version (assuming the replacement was actually good).
I understand that you personally don’t like the jungle cruise but I would wonder why they would do that when there’s a perfectly good expansion area between it and pirates.
 

danlb_2000

Premium Member
It's amusing that we still see comments in here talking about ROA/TSI being an underutilized space. Seems to me that the thousands of acres of undeveloped land on property is the ultimate in underutilized space.

Imagine how many more festival booths they could build at Epcot if they just filled in the World Showcase Lagoon. It's really only used 20 minutes out of each day for the nighttime show.
 

Agent H

Well-Known Member
Most of us are armchair imagineers - I know I’ve studied the business and operations of theme parks and entertainment businesses.

The magic kingdom is the worlds #1 most visited theme park. It has not been developed well. There is so much potential.

Did new fantasyland take the plot that was going to be used for fire mountain? Cause if not, a Villians attraction could be built there.

And then Moana by Adventureland. And the Main Street theatre. Let’s do that first please!
Fire mountain was supposed to go in the Adventureland expansion pad. Villains mountain was planned for the new fantasyland plot.
 

UNCgolf

Well-Known Member
If they get rid of the Jungle Cruise AND the RoA, that would be awful. And I love the temple scene in MK's Jungle Cruise...it's really unique!

The temple scene may be the only part of the ride I really like.

I understand that you personally don’t like the jungle cruise but I would wonder why they would do that when there’s a perfectly good expansion area between it and pirates.

Well yes, I don't think they should be replacing anything until they've used their expansion pads. I'm not saying they should tear it up today. But if they're determined to replace something, Jungle Cruise would probably be the best option because of how much space it takes up. As I said, that land could likely be used for multiple attractions, shops, and dining and provide a major capacity increase for the park.

It would also have almost no effect on the Magic Kingdom's aesthetics etc. since Jungle Cruise is back in a corner and isn't even a major part of Adventureland, much less the whole park (unlike Rivers of America, which does have a major effect on multiple areas of the park).
 

TheMaxRebo

Well-Known Member
I personally would be completely on board with replacing Jungle Cruise; I don't think it's a good attraction and they could add so much (probably multiple rides, dining, and shopping) in its footprint. I'd want the one at Disneyland to remain as Walt's attraction, but would happily dump the MK version (assuming the replacement was actually good -- certainly not anything related to the Incredibles).

Jungle Cruise is one of my favorite attractions ... That I said I would understand why there could be benefits to using all that space for something else and agree with you - if the one at Disneyland stays and what they replace it with us good, then so be it
 

LittleBuford

Well-Known Member
So was Splash Mountain. 🤷‍♀️
Leaving aside the very specific circumstances surrounding that particular IP, there’s a world of difference between retheming a ride and replacing it entirely. Tiana’s Bayou Adventure, despite being a huge downgrade in my opinion, remains very popular according to the data gathered by @lentesta, presumably because of the broad appeal of the log-flume format itself. Disney presumably made that calculation (correctly, it seems) when they went ahead with the project.

Unless the Jungle Cruise loses popularity (which may well happen at some point in the future) or becomes more controversial (which seems less likely following the recent updates they made to it), Disney has little reason to remove it.
 

Gusey

Well-Known Member
The temple scene may be the only part of the ride I really like.



Well yes, I don't think they should be replacing anything until they've used their expansion pads. I'm not saying they should tear it up today. But if they're determined to replace something, Jungle Cruise would probably be the best option because of how much space it takes up. As I said, that land could likely be used for multiple attractions, shops, and dining and provide a major capacity increase for the park.

It would also have almost no effect on the Magic Kingdom's aesthetics etc. since Jungle Cruise is back in a corner and isn't even a major part of Adventureland, much less the whole park (unlike Rivers of America, which does have a major effect on multiple areas of the park).
Given it just had an update in 2021, which made it more timeless and less controversial, I doubt they're expecting to close it in the foreseeable future. RoA haven't been updated in decades, which was a telltale sign that Disney would be planning to remove them
 

HauntedPirate

Park nostalgist
Premium Member
Fire mountain was supposed to go in the Adventureland expansion pad. Villains mountain was planned for the new fantasyland plot.
Fake Surprised Season 8 GIF by Friends
 

UNCgolf

Well-Known Member
Given it just had an update in 2021, which made it more timeless and less controversial, I doubt they're expecting to close it in the foreseeable future. RoA haven't been updated in decades, which was a telltale sign that Disney would be planning to remove them

Oh I'm sure they don't have any plans to remove it. I'm only talking hypotheticals.
 

J4546

Well-Known Member
fire mountain would still be a great thing IMO, even more so now, because not many people saw the movie so it would almost be like a unique non ip based park land. A steam punk adventure land section would be amazing
 

MisterPenguin

President of Animal Kingdom
Premium Member
With all this "just expand, not replace" talk, remember...

More attractions means more expense to run the operations of the park. More CMs to staff the attraction. More engineering hours for upkeep.

And if running the park's ops cost more... guess what Disney will do? Pass the cost to the guest.

And yes, I know that MK's attractions aren't providing enough capacity. So, apart from expanding, you can replace with a higher capacity attraction. You can do more crowd manipulation with surge pricing and reservations and blackouts. You can make the other parks more attractive by putting more attractions there.

Just can't keep expanding forever. Well you can, but ticket prices will rise proportionately.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom