More thrill rides.

[smotw]

MORE THRILL RIDES!!!

Don't you guys think that Magic Kingdon could have some more thrill atractions? Maybe another roller-coaster on Tomorrowland, or on Adventureland, areas that seems to be a wonderfull place to have a thrill ride, as Liberty Square and Fantasiland are great the way they are and Frontierland already have two great rides (Splash Montain and Big Thunder Montain Railrod).
Building a major atraction on advertureland would be a great way to atract people to this area of the park as Jungle cruise doesn't seem to atract a great amount of people as it used to on the past.

 

[markymark]

Whilst I enjot thrill rides, I am really not sure that MK is the place for them. I would love to see SM updated to be like the one in DLP, but other than that I personally think it'd be best to keep the thrill rides away from MK.

 

[WDW-Imagineer]

I fully agree with Marky. While I believe thrill rides have their place in all amusement parks and that they are a staple to them, Magic Kingdom is not necessarily the place for them. While it does have the 3 mountains, I think those are more than enough. If Disney were to add perhaps another Pirates of the Caribbean or Jungle Cruise (lower attendance "thrill rides"), I would not mind that too much. Its the addition of other mountains, alien encounters, and buzz lightyears that start to ruin the image of Magic Kingdom and bring it a step closer to turning into an IOA.

 

[ToTBellHop]

Disneyland has four mountains...let's get Fire Mountain...it'd be off near Splash and Thunder, so it'd really look like a mountain range over there...I think it'd be kewl.

 

[General Grizz]

OK - Here's what I think about "thrill rides" and "popular attractions" on a land by land basis.

1) MAIN STREET USA - ...Uh...no...
2) ADVENTURELAND - It has a Fastpass attraction AND Pirates of the Carribbean. OKAY...This is still fair game...as there is room here for a thrill attraction.
3) FRONTIERLAND - OK..It has TWO HIGHLY popular thrill rides, not to mention the quite populated Country Bear Jamboree...a Fire Mountain would not thematically blend in. And that area is conjested as is....FM would not be a good idea. I mean, 3 mountains in one land...another on the other side of the park..so that has something to do with it.
4) LIBERTY SQUATE - Not fit for a thrill ride. Haunted Mansion and Hall of Presidents, the two main attractions, are quite popular (since Bush was added)...and a different type of "storytelling" would have to take place for an E-Ticket.
5) FANTASYLAND - OK...Well...there is the lagoon and the Villain Mountain idea...however...this would highly disturb the peacefull atmosphere...unless the lagoon is covered off.
6) MICKEY'S TOONTOWN FAIR - It is basically for children...and it even has a "thrill ride" - the Barnstormer.
7) TOMORROWLAND - THREE major attractions there...or 3 if you would count Carousel of Progress ...Buzz Lightyear, AE, and Space Mountain. So...sure...another "thrill" could be placed in there...where the Galaxy Palace is...or TimeKeeper if it is BETTER....but I would still prefer a new type of storytellin.

So that sums it up. I would go instead of ideas like Mountains or Roller Coasters to a more innovated, new experience. It would REALLY add more magic...I would focus more on MGM for this type of attraction. And EPCOT doesn't need many more...except I would argue that Matterhorn still isn't a bad idea.

 

[ToTBellHop]

Fire Mountain was proposed for Adventureland...it would not make sense in Frontierland. The Magic Kingdom needs a mountain that no other Magic Kingdom has, and it is overdue for a new one...been 9 years...I would like to see both Matterhorn and a Soarin' ride at Epcot...and a completely redone Body Wars...

 

[General Grizz]

There used to be "Soarin' through a DNA Chain" a few years ago... Now THAT was fun!!

 

[WDW-Imagineer]

Originally posted by DogsRule!
Fire Mountain was proposed for Adventureland...it would not make sense in Frontierland. The Magic Kingdom needs a mountain that no other Magic Kingdom has, and it is overdue for a new one...been 9 years...I would like to see both Matterhorn and a Soarin' ride at Epcot...and a completely redone Body Wars...

I don't think MK needs another mountain, but I do agree with you that Epcot should get Matterhorn. That would be a great addition to World Showcase... Switzerland Pavillion with the Matterhorn as the main attraction.

 

[ToTBellHop]

how many people complain about Disneyland having four mountains?

 

[General Grizz]

AND the original Tiki Room! :lol:

oh, yeah...

Four Mountains and a basketball court...

 

[Beauty and the]

I don't think Mk needs a thrill ride, the happiest kingdom on earth is a wonderful family place that doesn't need rides that exclude many people for what ever reason. If there are going to be more thrill rides put them into Epcot or even MGM, even though I think MGM has enough alredy. I don't think they should go in Animal Kingdom as I think the peacful tranquil setting doesn't need to be disturbed by people screaming.

 

[General Grizz]

Yep...Ak is already getting one for Beastly...and EPCOT for MSpace...so we already have 2 coming our way shortly...not that I need them...

 

[ToTBellHop]

I think we can all agree that Animal Kingdom needs SOMETHING...and nature isn't always peaceful...for example, a ride about a comet slamming into Earth 65 million years ago should be violent...it all depends on what you are trying to show. I just hope Beastly Kingdom is not another one-ride land...by the way..thrill rides don't have to exclude people...I don't know of many people excluded by Splash or Big Thunder...I know there are exceptions...but for each attraction, there are some people who will not ride...
Kyle

 

[WDW-Imagineer]

Originally posted by DogsRule!
I think we can all agree that Animal Kingdom needs SOMETHING...and nature isn't always peaceful...for example, a ride about a comet slamming into Earth 65 million years ago should be violent...it all depends on what you are trying to show. I just hope Beastly Kingdom is not another one-ride land...by the way..thrill rides don't have to exclude people...I don't know of many people excluded by Splash or Big Thunder...I know there are exceptions...but for each attraction, there are some people who will not ride...
Kyle

Your kind of losing the point of AK, much like many people lose the point of Epcot. The point of these parks isn't to get your adrenaline flowing, its to learn. Now I believe a few thrill rides are necessary to keep a certain amount of people coming to the parks. If they didn't have thrill rides, it would be like going to a Discovery Channel or History Channel Theme Park (which myself would enjoy, but I don't think to many other people would like).

Anyway, these parks are here to teach you something about different cultures, different species, and the world we live in. That is the main goal. The secondary objectives of these parks is to make sure people have a good time. While I believe some thrill rides are necessary to the parks' survival, I would hate to see these parks turn into thrill ride parks. Disney can beat other "thrill ride parks" (IOA, etc.) easily with half the number of roller coasters. I just think Disney should take it slow when building these thrill rides and make sure they actually give the people something other than a thrill. I'd rather wait 5 years for a well themed, thoughtout, and executed thrill ride than have simply just-another-roller-coaster built in like 6 months.

 

[ToTBellHop]

Beastly Kingdom has been in planning for soooooooooooooo long...how can it not be good? By the way--even though Dinosaur is a thrill ride, I think you learn stuff through it. It displays dinosaurs in action, gives you their names, and makes the whole process fun. I think that's better than what any zoo can do. Same with Kilimanjaro Safaris--there is a small amount of thrill but the whole time they are teaching you about poaching and showing you the victims. Kali displays the problems of deforestation. The lands themselves, of course, introduce us to the cultures of countries where these animals live. Please also keep in mind that people have wanted Beastly for QUITE some time, and when you are talking about imaginary animals, there is very little science involved. There isn't much they can teach us, so it becomes a land where you just have a good time. They honestly need to step away from basing Reign of Fire on the movie--that'd make for an uninteresting ride. So here's the deal...NO ONE SEE THIS MOVIE, and we won't have to deal with plot-summary of a ride :lol: Although...I'm not excited about this movie at all, and considering the fact that they haven't advertised for it, anyone who does not keep up with disney is clueless about it...it should make about $100...AK isn't a movie park...BE ORIGINAL! The only teaching I could see is the history of mythology, which would make for a kewl show and...I'm SURE disney can think of some good family rides with unicorns and say...Pete's Dragon. Is Soarin' a family ride? I, obviously, have not ridden it...but you could fly with Elliot...
Kyle

 

[Mikemc]

I agree that magic kingdom is a grat place although dated . It is still the magic kingdom and there is always something special about it. The last time we arrived at the park they were just lighting the christmas tree. There has always been something about the place that makes you feel at home however busy it is. If Disney wants to compete with IOA (I think they should go for it ) They should build "Mickeys Thrill Park" to include some of the best ride technology money can buy.

PS The name is just an idea LOL:lol: :lol: :lol: :drevil:

 

[General Grizz]

Magic Kingdom seems to be, somehow, everyone's "home"...

 

[Beauty and the]

Originally posted by Mikemc
If Disney wants to compete with IOA (I think they should go for it ) They should build "Mickeys Thrill Park" to include some of the best ride technology money can buy.

Do Disney need to compete with IOA? IMO there is no contest IOA contains a couple of decent well themed rides with thrill rides thown in to attract a teenage population.

 

[WDW-Imagineer]

Disney doesn't need to compete with IOA. The 2001 attendance figures show that Disneyland in California beat IOA... so did all 4 parks in Florida. If a park across the county can beat IOA, why should the parks that are 20 minutes from it worry about beating them? Sure it has more "thrill rides"... but in my book, a well thoughout and nicely themed ride can beat the fastest, tallest, and longest ride everytime.

 

[smotw]

Thrill rides with nice thems.

Well, I supose Disney Imagineers wouldn't start any project without a very good them. Just stay in front of Cinderela's Castel and look arround and all you will see are well themed atractions. Magic Kingdon have three excelent examples of it. Building another mountain, perhaps on Adventureland, would be a gret way to bring in more tourists. We can't forget that a Splash Montain always brings more people to the park than an enchanted Tiky room.