Magic Kingdom 50th Anniversary Plans

[peter11435]

That may not be a lot in the grad scheme of a ride budget, but it's still enough money being saved for Disney to pick one ride over another solely on that basis.

Simply not true.

 

[Donaldfan1934]

Because the requirements/building codes/etc of a building in Florida are differerent than Shanghai. So the building, track, etc, have to be redesigned to match the location. And you can't just "tweak" it. Change one measurement, it may affect many other measurements that then have to be adjusted,.which then affect others... So a redesign is necessary.

Like I said in the above post, I get that some things would need to be reworked to
match requirements, building codes, etc. in the new location, but I am surprised to hear that measurement adjustments across the would be budgeted as a ground up redesign.

 

[peter11435]

Like I said in the above post, I get that some things would need to be reworked to
match requirements, building codes, etc. in the new location, but I am surprised to hear that measurement adjustments across the would be budgeted as a ground up redesign.

It’s not just measurement adjustments though. Building materials will be different. Structural steel design will be entirely different.

Take a look at the construction of the Ratatouille ride at Epcot compared to the Ratatouille ride in Paris. Entirely different methods of construction for the buildings.

 

[Pi on my Cake]

Like I said in the above post, I get that some things would need to be reworked to
match requirements, building codes, etc. in the new location, but I am surprised to hear that measurement adjustments across the would be budgeted as a ground up redesign.

Honestly, starting the design from scratch for nearly everything but the basic, general track layout, ride vehicles, and certain show elements would probably be easier and quicker than adjusting the current design from Shanghai

 

[Donaldfan1934]

There’s no such thing as an exact clone even if it appears to be. Building codes, ada requirements and a number of other regulations and requirements will ensure that very little will be an exact clone from a design and engineering standpoint.

In hindsight, my phrasing in that post kind of contradicts itself, so let me put it this way. I understand how there are major regulatory aspects that need to be changed, but it's not like they're starting completely from scratch as they would an original attraction or even a significantly altered clone. Therefore, this attraction should be somewhat less costly from a design perspective than either of the other two options. Does what I'm saying make better sense now?

 

[Donaldfan1934]

Honestly, starting the design from scratch for nearly everything but the basic, general track layout, ride vehicles, and certain show elements would probably be easier and quicker than adjusting the current design from Shanghai

Yes, but isn't it those basic elements that bring down the cost a bit even if it's by 10-20 million like you mentioned earlier? I appreciate learning more about the construction and design process from those of you here who are experienced in those areas, but technicalities aside, my main point here is that Disney green lit this attraction over others since the basic design elements make the overall cost relatively cheaper. And those elements do matter because if they didn't, Disney wouldn't be able to split the developement cost for shared projects between two or more resorts like they do.

 

[Pi on my Cake]

Yes, but isn't it those basic elements that bring down the cost a bit even if it's by 10-20 million like you mentioned earlier? I appreciate learning more about the construction and design process from those of you here who are experienced in those areas, but technicalities aside, my main point here is that Disney green lit this attraction over others since the basic design elements make the overall cost relatively cheaper. And those elements do matter because if they didn't, Disney wouldn't be able to split the developement cost for shared projects between two or more resorts like they do.

I still think that cost is minimal enough that some usual budget cuts to any other project would make it just as cost efficient. Replace one animatronic with a screen of cut 15 seconds or so of ride time and you make up the difference without any significant detriment to the final experience.

Rides are, I'm sure, sometimes cloned or built concurrently because that cuts down cost even if just by a relatively small amount. But the main reason is that there is already an audience of people wanting it brought to American who will probably never see it in China. Whereas a brand new ride isn't a proven successful hit. Giving people something they already want and are asking for is the safe bet.

10-20 Mil to a company like Disney could be made up by cutting out one of the three or so daily dance party parade showings. Its not like cloning cuts the price in half or something. Imagineers wouldn't let that small an amount stop them if their idea was wamted more than Tron by Bob or general audiences.

Of course, I'm not an insider. And I have very little real world experience outside of school in engineering. So, maybe I'm wrong. But based on my knowledge of Disney and engineering, this is what i believe to be true.

 

[Pi on my Cake]

Yes, but isn't it those basic elements that bring down the cost a bit even if it's by 10-20 million like you mentioned earlier? I appreciate learning more about the construction and design process from those of you here who are experienced in those areas, but technicalities aside, my main point here is that Disney green lit this attraction over others since the basic design elements make the overall cost relatively cheaper. And those elements do matter because if they didn't, Disney wouldn't be able to split the developement cost for shared projects between two or more resorts like they do.

Where the big difference would be is ride system development. Tron Lightcylce Coaster I basically just a regular coaster with a fancy seat.

But things like Indiana Jones Adventure, Flight of Passage, Shanghai Pirates, GotG Coaster... If not outright cloning those rides, copying ride systems that are complex and innovative like that I would assume could cut down more like 50-100 Mil

 

[doctornick]

A new classic "mountain" range such as in Adventureland would have been a great 50th gift instead of tron, but they took the cheaper route.

I really think the missed opportunity was in not building some version of Western River Expedition in Frontierland for the 50th. Would have been a great nod to the history of the park, would have been eaten up by fans, and a higher capacity more family friendly ride would really help out in that corner of the park. It just would have been... right. Oh well. Maybe for the 75th.

Not that I would have complained with adventureland getting it's own "mountain". Something like Fire Mountain (or even Indiana Jones or Journey to the Center of the Earth) would have also been a good idea to help spread thrill rides around the park.

I'm looking forward to Tron, but it doesn't seem like the ideal need for the park. At least not as the only new attraction for the 50th.

 

[TTA94]

I hope MKs Tron is not a exact clone and it ends up being the better, hopefully longer, version. Not going to hold my breath on that though lol. I will be irritated if they axe the nighttime lighted canopy.

 

[999th Happy Haunt]

WRE would have been the ultimate 50th gift, but I’m sure I’ll still enjoy Tron

 

[TTA94]

@marni1971 Do you know of anything in the works for Rivers of Light by the 50th? Sadly it still doesn’t appear to be very popular.

 

[marni1971]

@marni1971 Do you know of anything in the works for Rivers of Light by the 50th? Sadly it still doesn’t appear to be very popular.

I’ve not heard of anything.

 

[Indy_UK]

I’m still more than excited that Tron is coming to WDW. It’s going to be insanely popular.

I hope long term it’s an IP do go back to or reboot for the movies

 

[MisterPenguin]

I hope MKs Tron is not a exact clone and it ends up being the better, hopefully longer, version. Not going to hold my breath on that though lol. I will be irritated if they axe the nighttime lighted canopy.

Insiders say we're getting the canopy.

 

[jrhwdw]

I hope MKs Tron is not a exact clone and it ends up being the better, hopefully longer, version. Not going to hold my breath on that though lol. I will be irritated if they axe the nighttime lighted canopy.

So will I!

 

[doctornick]

I hope MKs Tron is not a exact clone and it ends up being the better, hopefully longer, version. Not going to hold my breath on that though lol. I will be irritated if they axe the nighttime lighted canopy.

One simple difference I'd like to see is to have our cycles be colored yellow and have the "opponent" cycles that you see later in the ride be blue. That would be more consistent with the first movie (where the bad guys were blue) and I think the yellow would pop more during the outdoor portion.

To expand on that, I really think that Disney missed out by not making Tron double tracked with each track being a different color and having people "race" - think Matterhorn - as part of the ride. Not only would be visually impressive, but would improve capacity.

 

[PorterRedkey]

To expand on that, I really think that Disney missed out by not making Tron double tracked with each track being a different color and having people "race" - think Matterhorn - as part of the ride. Not only would be visually impressive, but would improve capacity.

Couldn't agree more. I have been saying this since I heard they were building this in SDL. Like you said, twice the capacity. Plus it could simulate the storyline of the movies with near misses. Not only that but each side could be different. 2 different ride experiences in one new E-ticket attraction.
Such a missed opportunity, sadly that ship has sailed.

The version we are getting should be fun, short, but fun. I wonder if the money would have been better spent on an Adventureland E-ticket instead.

 

[Jones14]

One simple difference I'd like to see is to have our cycles be colored yellow and have the "opponent" cycles that you see later in the ride be blue. That would be more consistent with the first movie (where the bad guys were blue) and I think the yellow would pop more during the outdoor portion.

To expand on that, I really think that Disney missed out by not making Tron double tracked with each track being a different color and having people "race" - think Matterhorn - as part of the ride. Not only would be visually impressive, but would improve capacity.

While I think that would be cool, it would take up a MASSIVE amount of space, and that showbuilding is already large to begin with. I’m also not sure that capacity would be much better than it will be, since the current version already utilizes two load stations. I doubt they would have double load stations for each side if they had two tracks, so it would probably end up having similar throughout.

 

[Donaldfan1934]

I still think that cost is minimal enough that some usual budget cuts to any other project would make it just as cost efficient. Replace one animatronic with a screen of cut 15 seconds or so of ride time and you make up the difference without any significant detriment to the final experience.

Rides are, I'm sure, sometimes cloned or built concurrently because that cuts down cost even if just by a relatively small amount. But the main reason is that there is already an audience of people wanting it brought to American who will probably never see it in China. Whereas a brand new ride isn't a proven successful hit. Giving people something they already want and are asking for is the safe bet.

10-20 Mil to a company like Disney could be made up by cutting out one of the three or so daily dance party parade showings. Its not like cloning cuts the price in half or something. Imagineers wouldn't let that small an amount stop them if their idea was wamted more than Tron by Bob or general audiences.

Of course, I'm not an insider. And I have very little real world experience outside of school in engineering. So, maybe I'm wrong. But based on my knowledge of Disney and engineering, this is what i believe to be true.

Where the big difference would be is ride system development. Tron Lightcylce Coaster I basically just a regular coaster with a fancy seat.

But things like Indiana Jones Adventure, Flight of Passage, Shanghai Pirates, GotG Coaster... If not outright cloning those rides, copying ride systems that are complex and innovative like that I would assume could cut down more like 50-100 Mil

You opinion on how cost would work may be educated, but was the audience of fans wanting it brought to America really large enough to justify building it? Sure, maybe before Test Track was refurbished and maybe even before it opened at SDL below the expectations Disney set for it, but I highly that's the case now. Does Disney honestly believe that fans would rather have this attraction over Indiana Jones Adventure or a ride similar to Shanghai Pirates (aka the ride that actually ended up being the signature attraction of SDL) if given the choice? If they do, not only are they missing out on saving 50-100 million assuming your cost estimarions are accurate, but they're completely out of touch with both the needs of their parks and desires of their fanbase.