Changes to Peter Pan's Flight at Magic Kingdom

MerlinTheGoat

MerlinTheGoat

Well-Known Member
Animaniac93-98 said:
One wonders why in the 90s when they added extra seating to Toad, Dumbo and Snow White they didn't do the same for Peter Pan.
Click to expand...
I'm curious if there's a weight capacity concern with the existing structure. Or perhaps a spacial limitation with certain turns and/or scenery. DL's version of Pan never got the double row update either, despite the version at Paris being very similar and having double row seating (though I think a subtly larger show building along with a much newer track). Tokyo original Pan was previously a clone of WDW's. And while they did overhaul the scenery a few years ago, Tokyo didn't add double row seats either.

Aside from the likely case of the usual neglect towards WDW attractions, TWDC may also be kicking the can down the road regarding messing with the track or vehicles in order to avoid having to adhere to modern safety regulations. They could perhaps conceivably make alterations to some of the scenery without much fuss. But if they mess with the track or vehicles, that could possibly open up a can of worms wherein they are legally forced to make much more extensive alterations to the entire building and everything within to adhere to codes.
 
Animaniac93-98

Animaniac93-98

Well-Known Member
MerlinTheGoat said:
I'm curious if there's a weight capacity concern with the existing structure. Or perhaps a spacial limitation with certain turns and/or scenery. DL's version of Pan never got the double row update either, despite the version at Paris being very similar and having double row seating (though I think a subtly larger show building along with a much newer track). Tokyo original Pan was previously a clone of WDW's. And while they did overhaul the scenery a few years ago, Tokyo didn't add double row seats either.

Aside from the likely case of the usual neglect towards WDW attractions, TWDC may also be kicking the can down the road regarding messing with the track or vehicles in order to avoid having to adhere to modern safety regulations. They could perhaps conceivably make alterations to some of the scenery without much fuss. But if they mess with the track or vehicles, that could possibly open up a can of worms wherein they are legally forced to make much more extensive alterations to the entire building and everything within to adhere to codes.
Click to expand...

Disneyland did widen their vehicles though some years ago, but I also think it's a case of the weight or turn of larger vehicles that would be a concern.

Still would have been a worthwhile investment in the long run.
 
MerlinTheGoat

MerlinTheGoat

Well-Known Member
eddie104 said:
Seriously we’re comparing a decades old attraction to something built recently?

Be for real for a second and think about why this post might come off as a little silly.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's particularly silly to expect an archaic and neglected ride to receive at least some solid updates over the years. Especially when the ride has other also old cousins across the world that have received more love and attention by comparison. There's also a reason why WDW's gets picked on more than Disneyland's version for instance. Their Pan is technically an older ride, but has received multiple major updates over the decades, especially its initial 1983 overhaul.

I don't even really want a clone of Shanghai's version. I still think the best overall version right now is the one at Paris (except for the London flyover). But WDW's is a mess right now and really could use some major updates. Just bringing it up to 1980s standards would be a huge improvement.
 
Tha Realest

Tha Realest

Well-Known Member
DonniePeverley said:
Utter nonsense.

Why not update this ?
Click to expand...
Because updating this attraction would have a negligible / nonexistent increase in likely capacity, and, if anything, make an already popular ride that much more popular.

Why spend money and time tinkering with perfectly fine attractions (HM, Pirates, Peter Pan) when they should desperately be seeking to expand or do something with unused spaces (JII, Play Pavilion, Stitch, etc).
 
Bocabear

Bocabear

Well-Known Member
I think the smartest thing would be to abandon the current Pan and build a whole new 21st Century PPF over in the "waste Of Real Estate" that is the circus tents and splash pad....us the current PPF until the new one is completed and then open the new ride and shutter the old to repurpose as a Tangled ride or something similar...
 
The Leader of the Club

The Leader of the Club

Well-Known Member
Bocabear said:
I think the smartest thing would be to abandon the current Pan and build a whole new 21st Century PPF over in the "waste Of Real Estate" that is the circus tents and splash pad....us the current PPF until the new one is completed and then open the new ride and shutter the old to repurpose as a Tangled ride or something similar...
Click to expand...
I agree that Peter Pan is too popular of an IP to be crammed in that little space. But I don’t think you can put something as big as Tangled in there without disappointing people, especially now that we’ve seen Tokyo’s. My pitch for this space has always been to bring over Pinocchio’s Daring Journey or Mr. Toad.

As for the Circus, I think it has value as a place to meet the Fab 5 in MK. If you lose that, then Disney has to find new spaces to convert into Meet & Greets for Donald, Daisy, and Goofy.
 
Bocabear

Bocabear

Well-Known Member
The Leader of the Club said:
I agree that Peter Pan is too popular of an IP to be crammed in that little space. But I don’t think you can put something as big as Tangled in there without disappointing people, especially now that we’ve seen Tokyo’s. My pitch for this space has always been to bring over Pinocchio’s Daring Journey or Mr. Toad.

As for the Circus, I think it has value as a place to meet the Fab 5 in MK. If you lose that, then Disney has to find new spaces to convert into Meet & Greets for Donald, Daisy, and Goofy.
Click to expand...
Why? They met at Town Square for decades.... Why give up a large premium space for a great attraction? The Tomorrowland Terrace is almost always closed.... Put them there for Meet and Greet...or the old Galaxy Theater space.
And yes Pinocchios Daring Journey is a smaller footprint....
Yes, people will want the large Tokyo Tangled attraction, but people wanted the Tokyo Winnie The Pooh ride too,...that didn't stop them from putting a lesser version in the MK...lol
We've got the tower and the restrooms right there...unless they boot Small World to World Showcase which will never happen, there is a chance to do something related to Tangled adjacent to the Tangled Toilets.....
But I do agree the Peter Pan attraction footprint in miniscule by today's attraction standards
 
Last edited:
DonniePeverley

DonniePeverley

Well-Known Member
Tha Realest said:
Because updating this attraction would have a negligible / nonexistent increase in likely capacity, and, if anything, make an already popular ride that much more popular.

Why spend money and time tinkering with perfectly fine attractions (HM, Pirates, Peter Pan) when they should desperately be seeking to expand or do something with unused spaces (JII, Play Pavilion, Stitch, etc).
Click to expand...

So there is no point in updating any attraction by that logic.
 
Delta-7

Delta-7

Active Member
This doesn’t seem long enough to add projection effects to the London and Neverland scenes like at Disneyland. Their 2015 refurbishment in which those were added lasted five months. *Sigh* really hope we’re not stuck with streamer waterfalls, aging tiles representing the sea, and that spinning moon for the foreseeable future.
 
Last edited:

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

Back
Top Bottom