MAGICal DLP News, Rumours & Thoughts

[Mr. Sullivan]

I can't help but think this is a conscious jab at WDW. Was this approved before or after those responsible knew the MK RoA would be removed?

It’s not a jab.

It’s simply that, similar to the original Disneyland, DLP’s river is more integrated into the park and is more mixed use than Magic Kingdom’s was, which means they would have to sacrifice a lot more to get rid of it.

There’s a reason getting rid of MK’s river had been an idea going back to the Eisner days and yet they’ve done a lot of work to preserve the others as best they can. It was always the easiest one to do it too as it didn’t act as the base for lots of other things.

 

[ToTBellHop]

It appears Big Thunder closes for a couple weeks in July after Pirates reopens. Surprising timing.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

Always nice to see such care in restoring these details.

 

[The Empress Lilly]

It’s simply that, similar to the original Disneyland, DLP’s river is more integrated into the park and is more mixed use than Magic Kingdom’s was,

Is it though?

An unapproachable coaster on an island is scarcely more integrated than a hands-on two island exploration zone, with barrel bradges and cannons to shoot at Big Thunder trains.

The MK also had two steamboats, canoes and keelboats, once upon a time.

Not to mention, that the area from HM down to the Liberty Tree Tavern is designed as facing water. Hudson Valley, New England coastal town, Eastcoast colonial / Philadelphia-esque. They make as much sense without water as a dry Pirates of the Caribbean would.

Whereas DLP's Frontierland is inland architecture, Western, Southwestern, arid and desert.

 

[Mr. Sullivan]

Is it though?

Yes.

When I say integration and mixed use, I mean are river and it's associated things (the boat and the island) individual components of a wider space, or are they their own independent thing? Would removing the river and it's associated attractions necessitate major operational changes to the park?

At Disneyland, the river is also an entertainment venue hosting one of the most popular shows on property.

In Paris, they cannot get rid of it without closing or moving one of the most popular attractions at the entire resort. It would also tear apart Paris' Frontierland's storyline, which is the only one that has an an actual storyline tying all of the attractions in the land together.

Magic Kingdom's was isolated to itself. The river, the riverboat, and the island functioned as their own individual attractions and nothing else in the park was dependent upon either of them for functionality. It was a part of scenic design for Frontierland and Liberty Square, but making a change to that scenery does not change the functionality or operational capabilities of any surrounding attraction.

Therefore, it is much easier to remove it without disrupting other park elements than it would be to do so in Anaheim and Paris which depend on their rivers to do more than simply be the steamboat and a waterway. No matter what way you slice it, Magic Kingdom's river was simply not ever integrated into the park's wider operational needs the same it was at other castle parks, and that has always been a shortcoming of it that led to its eventual removal.

Tokyo's would also be pretty simple to get rid of this reason, and we know OLC has considered this before.

 

[nickys]

Is it though?

An unapproachable coaster on an island is scarcely more integrated than a hands-on two island exploration zone, with barrel bradges and cannons to shoot at Big Thunder trains.

The MK also had two steamboats, canoes and keelboats, once upon a time.

Not to mention, that the area from HM down to the Liberty Tree Tavern is designed as facing water. Hudson Valley, New England coastal town, Eastcoast colonial / Philadelphia-esque. They make as much sense without water as a dry Pirates of the Caribbean would.

Whereas DLP's Frontierland is inland architecture, Western, Southwestern, arid and desert.

DLP’s Frontierland has the Thunder Mesa backstory, with the town (OK, small village). It also has the small-holding farmhouse on the way up to the station. It has a much more developed story around it. And it also used to have the two riverboats.

 

[The Empress Lilly]

Yes.

When I say integration and mixed use, I mean are river and it's associated things (the boat and the island) individual components of a wider space, or are they their own independent thing? Would removing the river and it's associated attractions necessitate major operational changes to the park?

At Disneyland, the river is also an entertainment venue hosting one of the most popular shows on property.

In Paris, they cannot get rid of it without closing or moving one of the most popular attractions at the entire resort. It would also tear apart Paris' Frontierland's storyline, which is the only one that has an an actual storyline tying all of the attractions in the land together.

Magic Kingdom's was isolated to itself. The river, the riverboat, and the island functioned as their own individual attractions and nothing else in the park was dependent upon either of them for functionality. It was a part of scenic design for Frontierland and Liberty Square, but making a change to that scenery does not change the functionality or operational capabilities of any surrounding attraction.

Therefore, it is much easier to remove it without disrupting other park elements than it would be to do so in Anaheim and Paris which depend on their rivers to do more than simply be the steamboat and a waterway. No matter what way you slice it, Magic Kingdom's river was simply not ever integrated into the park's wider operational needs the same it was at other castle parks, and that has always been a shortcoming of it that led to its eventual removal.

Tokyo's would also be pretty simple to get rid of this reason, and we know OLC has considered this before.

Operationally, yes at DL Fantasmic would be difficult without the river. At DLP, Big Thunder doesn't need a river, just a perimeter. Thunder seems to function just fine in the MK with just one side in the water.

As for backstory, setting, integration. Thunder Mesa is roughly set in Nevada. Of all places. The desert. All of the river could be filled in with an arid landscape and the land would only make more sense. Meanwhile the story and setting of LS necessitates a large body of water.

Fuente del Oro is a hacienda, a semi-desert dwelling, operating large scale ranching. It very well started with Zorro performing stunts in the desert. It needs cows, not fish.
The Columbia Harbour House by contrast, needs, well, a harbour. It doesn’t even make sense without one. It sells the very food caught in the sea next to it. That’s the story. That's what its nautical theme tells you, as does the name and the food served here (when magagement can be bothered to pay attention). DLP isn't the only one with a story, what sets that one apart is just that it has a fully integrated backstory.

 

[nickys]

At DLP, Big Thunder doesn't need a river, just a perimeter. Thunder seems to function just fine in the MK with just one side in the water.

And DLP’s version is so much better than MK’s, and much of that is due to its setting.

DLP isn't the only one with a story, what sets that one apart is just that it has a fully integrated backstory.

And one that links the whole of Frontierland, including the fort and Phantom Manor. The river and riverboat(s) just adds to it.


RoA and TSI at MK had their own story, which was pretty much self contained. Big Thunder really didn’t need RoA. Liberty Square was enhanced by it, and a change of name for CHH seems possible, likely even.

That is no reason to destroy Frontierland at DLP by filling in the river, just because they’ve done so at MK.

 

[The Empress Lilly]

And DLP’s version is so much better than MK’s, and much of that is due to its setting.



And one that links the whole of Frontierland, including the fort and Phantom Manor. The river and riverboat(s) just adds to it.


RoA and TSI at MK had their own story, which was pretty much self contained. Big Thunder really didn’t need RoA. Liberty Square was enhanced by it, and a change of name for CHH seems possible, likely even.

That is no reason to destroy Frontierland at DLP by filling in the river, just because they’ve done so at MK.

God forbid they destroy the magnificent DLP Frontierland the way they did the MK lake district!

DLP Thunder is the most unique and artistically accomplished one. By personal taste, I slightly prefer the MK, but that could be as much owing to nostalgia as anything else. And time has not improved that one. We'll see what the future holds for that one, with the refurb and so much new uses for its surroundings.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

Operationally, yes at DL Fantasmic would be difficult without the river. At DLP, Big Thunder doesn't need a river, just a perimeter. Thunder seems to function just fine in the MK with just one side in the water.

As for backstory, setting, integration. Thunder Mesa is roughly set in Nevada. Of all places. The desert. All of the river could be filled in with an arid landscape and the land would only make more sense. Meanwhile the story and setting of LS necessitates a large body of water.

Fuente del Oro is a hacienda, a semi-desert dwelling, operating large scale ranching. It very well started with Zorro performing stunts in the desert. It needs cows, not fish.
The Columbia Harbour House by contrast, needs, well, a harbour. It doesn’t even make sense without one. It sells the very food caught in the sea next to it. That’s the story. That's what its nautical theme tells you, as does the name and the food served here (when magagement can be bothered to pay attention). DLP isn't the only one with a story, what sets that one apart is just that it has a fully integrated backstory.

View attachment 919073

Two things can be true at once. DLP's Frontierland can be appreciated for its explicit, formal backstory that defines the area, as can MK's equivalent through its implicit design language.

I just hate that we still have to debate why the river was integral to the design of Liberty Square and Frontierland in MK. As if that wasn't obvious from WED's efforts and a half century of park operations and documentation. Thinking of the area as underwhelming in its final years does not erase this fact. It's why some kind of substitute is being worked into its replacement.

 

[lazyboy97o]

And DLP’s version is so much better than MK’s, and much of that is due to its setting.



And one that links the whole of Frontierland, including the fort and Phantom Manor. The river and riverboat(s) just adds to it.


RoA and TSI at MK had their own story, which was pretty much self contained. Big Thunder really didn’t need RoA. Liberty Square was enhanced by it, and a change of name for CHH seems possible, likely even.

That is no reason to destroy Frontierland at DLP by filling in the river, just because they’ve done so at MK.

All of the reasons for destroying the river at the Magic Kingdom are true, and some more so, at Disneyland Paris.

 

[nickys]

All of the reasons for destroying the river at the Magic Kingdom are true, and some more so, at Disneyland Paris.

What reasons? You mean to use it as an expansion pad? But at DLP, Frontierland is built around 3 sides of the water area. If they use it for a new mini land it wrecks the Thunder Mesa story.

 

[lazyboy97o]

What reasons? You mean to use it as an expansion pad? But at DLP, Frontierland is built around 3 sides of the water area. If they use it for a new mini land it wrecks the Thunder Mesa story.

The story doesn’t matter for these types of decisions.

Guest areas of Frontierland are only on two sides with two dead ends at Phantom Manor and the Frontierland Theater. Removing the river could provide a loop.

The riverboat has low capacity and visitation versus some other attraction. There’s a whole southern island that is purely scenery with no operational use. That area south of Big Thunder Mountain could easily hold one or two sizable show buildings while a version of the Cars ride races around Big Thunder.

 

[cjkeating]

Guest areas of Frontierland are only on two sides with two dead ends at Phantom Manor and the Frontierland Theater. Removing the river could provide a loop.

This serves literally no purpose. Phantom Manor is intentionally designed as a dead end and this has caused no issue for 30 years.

The riverboat has low capacity and visitation versus some other attraction. There’s a whole southern island that is purely scenery with no operational use. That area south of Big Thunder Mountain could easily hold one or two sizable show buildings while a version of the Cars ride races around Big Thunder.

The riverboat I would say does very well for capacity. It is very popular (unlike dare I say in comparison to MK) and I think if DLP ever had a second boat again the daily throughput of the combined attraction would go up.

On a separate note I think we are talking about two very different issues here. MK Frontierland opened without Big Thunder or Splash Mountain and were both expansions to the land. DLP Frontierland has an unused expansion pad. Or two. And the rest of the lands also have expansion pads that do not require the closure of any current attraction that can be used before DLP needs to go anywhere near the river surrounding Big Thunder Mountain.

 

[marni1971]

Guest areas of Frontierland are only on two sides with two dead ends at Phantom Manor and the Frontierland Theater.

And?

There are dozens of dead ends in parks all over the world. Yet they don’t do any harm.

Yes, even DisneySea has them.

 

[wdrive]

Frontierland at Disneyland Paris is great and it would be a stupid decision to remove the river. Alas, I’d also say it’s a stupid decision to remove the river at WDW.

Frontierland being great as is won’t stop them from filling in Paris’ river should they want that space one day.

 

[nickys]

The story doesn’t matter for these types of decisions.

Guest areas of Frontierland are only on two sides with two dead ends at Phantom Manor and the Frontierland Theater. Removing the river could provide a loop.

The riverboat has low capacity and visitation versus some other attraction. There’s a whole southern island that is purely scenery with no operational use. That area south of Big Thunder Mountain could easily hold one or two sizable show buildings while a version of the Cars ride races around Big Thunder.

The view from Phantom Manor would be ruined for a start.

Plus there are guest areas on 3 sides of the water.

Phantom Manor on one side, the town and fort on the end and the entrance to Big Thunder and the path up to the station (with the home-stead which is part of the story) opposite PM.

It also seems to me there is room for a ride or two without filling in the water.

 

[wdrive]

The view from Phantom Manor would be ruined for a start.

Plus there are guest areas on 3 sides of the water.

Phantom Manor on one side, the town and fort on the end and the entrance to Big Thunder and the path up to the station (with the home-stead which is part of the story) opposite PM.

It also seems to me there is room for a ride or two without filling in the water.

I’m not sure anyone here is arguing that they particularly want it to happen. Just that it is a feasible option that may happen one day far off in the future.

I think we all know ruining a good view won’t stop them from doing things.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

I’m not sure anyone here is arguing that they particularly want it to happen. Just that it is a feasible option that may happen one day far off in the future.

I think we all know ruining a good view won’t stop them from doing things.

Yes, that's how I am reading the discussion. More along the lines of if they would do it at MK, there is no reason to think that preserving the integrity of the backstory for the land would stop them in Paris if they decided they really wanted the extra capacity. They found a way to justify cartoon cars racing around Frontierland in MK, so I am sure they could come up with some way to justify whatever they wanted to do in Paris.

Hopefully, it doesn't come to that, though.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

Yes, that's how I am reading the discussion. More along the lines of if they would do it at MK, there is no reason to think that preserving the integrity of the backstory for the land would stop them in Paris if they decided they really wanted the extra capacity. They found a way to justify cartoon cars racing around Frontierland in MK, so I am sure they could come up with some way to justify whatever they wanted to do in Paris.

Hopefully, it doesn't come to that, though.

The aversion to spending money at DLP in general is probably going to stop that from happening