• Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.You can use your Twitter or Facebook account to sign up, or register directly.

Rumor Muppets to Take Over The Hall of Presidents

GimpYancIent

Well-Known Member
The kinetic energy comment is a fair one, I would argue that a live music venue would help with that kinetic energy but your point is well taken.

As for HoP, I detest Trump but felt that the most recent version of HoP was the best version. Having said that, HoP is the most divisive attraction in Walt Disney World. They can go through all through the sensitivity updates they want, but unless the remove HoP they will have not fully addressed the issue.
1623716037324.png
 

owlsandcoffee

Well-Known Member
As for HoP, I detest Trump but felt that the most recent version of HoP was the best version. Having said that, HoP is the most divisive attraction in Walt Disney World. They can go through all through the sensitivity updates they want, but unless the remove HoP they will have not fully addressed the issue.
They just need to acknowledge some of the realities of these men. Jefferson even by the time's standards was rouuuuuugh. Brilliant, of course, but not a great guy. Beyond that, I agree on all fronts.
 

Magenta Panther

Well-Known Member
AGAIN - if TDO would simply get rid of the new-President-AA-gives-a-speech schtick, and just have Lincoln speak, that would pretty much solve the problem with emotional infants acting out against a robot. Plus, that way the new President AA would get shoved in the back and nobody would notice what a terrible likeness it is. Win-win!
 

MadTeacup

Well-Known Member
I think the legitimate question now is do people want to have political thoughts while on vacation at Disney World? Personally, I don't.
Exactly. As much as I respect this attraction, its origin, and its intent, the fact is that it still conjures up political thoughts. With the country currently as passionately divided as it over government, this attraction faces a very challenging issue - How to portray politicians without involving politics.
 

Rich Brownn

Well-Known Member
In terms of moving Speedway and Small World, there are very practical reasons for each.

Small World creates a massive chokepoint and has a very unappealing facade (by far the worst in the world), and wouldn't be all that difficult to move as it's essentially just a massive warehouse. Additionally, there is precedent for this, at one point in time, it was planned to move IASW in Tokyo, inevitably, that plan fell through, but the move was far less needed than WDW's move.

View attachment 563713

WDW's Speedway is extremely ugly and creates an undesirable spot in the park. Speedway attractions have recently been disappearing across the world. Tokyo lost theirs for the BatB expansion and Hong Kong lost theirs for the Marvel E-Ticket expansion and Shanghai never had a Speedway. So relocating it to Epcot would be a way of saving it from its inevitable demise, while also giving families with young kids another reason to visit Epcot.
When Small World was rehabbed a few years back, it was literally torn apart down to the floor. The only drawback to ours and tokyo's (versus, say, Disneyland's) is our has a unique setup where the building is actually flooded, where as Disneyland is literally a flume stuck in an open warehouse and is easier to move (as, of course, it did in 1965).
 

MadTeacup

Well-Known Member
AGAIN - if TDO would simply get rid of the new-President-AA-gives-a-speech schtick, and just have Lincoln speak, that would pretty much solve the problem with emotional infants acting out against a robot. Plus, that way the new President AA would get shoved in the back and nobody would notice what a terrible likeness it is. Win-win!
I'm pretty sure that approach has been considered. A change like that would likely have to take place a few years into a president's term and be publicized as a "new show." If not handled correctly, it would be viewed as if it had political intent. Somehow it would be twisted into a narrative about how Disney didn't want to allow a certain president to speak because they didn't agree with them over a certain matter.
 

Coaster Lover

Well-Known Member
In the Parks
No
Know how to pack the theater AND remove any political controversy while utilizing Disney's recent connections with Lin-Manuel? Instead of a presidential speech, just have all the Presidents sing a stirring four part, a capella, choral rendition of "Not Throwin' Away My Shot" from Hamilton... or maybe just have them sing The Wellerman... eitherway... instant classic!
 

GimpYancIent

Well-Known Member
Know how to pack the theater AND remove any political controversy while utilizing Disney's recent connections with Lin-Manuel? Instead of a presidential speech, just have all the Presidents sing a stirring four part, a capella, choral rendition of "Not Throwin' Away My Shot" from Hamilton... or maybe just have them sing The Wellerman... eitherway... instant classic!
Sorry "Hamilton" (the show) = political controversy also. So no. The Muppets do not bring political controversy, there are varying points of view as to whether such a move would enhance or detract the HoP but political controversy is not such a point.
 

Phicinfan

Well-Known Member
The argument is moving certain MK attractions to other parks where they would be of better use while simultaneously freeing up Magic Kingdom for more attraction options. MK is "seemingly" busting at the seams. The other parks can't make that claim.
Except MK is already over crowded and adding more draws won't fix that issue. Granted moving some of the rides to other parks needing more draw could help, but I don't see them just injecting more into MK when it is already easily reaching capacity.
The armchair theory is that by moving IASW, Monster's Laugh Floor, Speedway (possibly) etc, to other parks it allows MK to "properly" expand. Expansion is the goal not satisfying a specific age group. Besides, MK is already the "kiddie park". Losing a few attractions to make way for MORE broader family attractions with the sole purpose to gobble up guests seems like a no brainier. They don't have to be thrill rides. Relocating attractions to other parks would only serve to increase a park's ride count thus lessening the strain put on MK by dispersing guests to other parks. In theory, it's a win-win. In theory.
I would think expanding the other parks with NEW rides would pull more from MK than moving older popular rides from MK.
On the flip side of that argument there are individuals that feel relocation isn't a solution because it's either A) not feasible for "reasons" or that B) removal is blasphemous because it would alienate a specific age group, mess with a "classic" or some other such issue of which I don't fully understand. It's all armchair anyway - until it isn't.
Or they realize Disney won't eat the exorbitant cost of moving said ride AND pay for new attractions as well. Much cheaper to just place new rides in other lands.
So, about those Muppets taking over HoP!?
Oh please, Oh please....I would love a bit of levity in that attraction
 

MansionButler84

Well-Known Member
Sorry "Hamilton" (the show) = political controversy also. So no. The Muppets do not bring political controversy, there are varying points of view as to whether such a move would enhance or detract the HoP but political controversy is not such a point.
There’s nothing political about Hamilton. It is part of the arts, enjoyed by intellectual elites. Perhaps they should make HoP Ham-Style and only show it during Disney After Hours. Allow caviar in the theatre. We can eat without making a mess.
 

ppete1975

Well-Known Member
So on a recent podcast, we did our fantasy buildouts for MK through 2035...





So I went into greater detail on my podcast, but the issue I have with this area is that the original conceit of Liberty Square and Frontierland are incredibly difficult to expand upon without diluting the theme. As I said above the land is setup linearly both in time and geographic location. That conceit needs to go away to allow for modifications.

My suggestions for the area are as follows:

  • Eliminate the Liberty Square name
  • Kick the presidents out (my recommendation was a full fledged Great Moments in American History w/the Muppets, but I'd listen to other options)
  • Permanently dock the Riverboat near Splash/Tiana's Mountain and use it as a live music venue
  • Fill in part of the Rivers of America and/or build bridges to Tom Sawyer Island. This would allow for a more direct walking path between Big Thunder and The Haunted Mansion
  • While I wouldn't oppose eliminating Tom Sawyer Island entirely, I would keep the front island (closest to the main land) as an accessible by bridge option.
  • Frontierland would consist of Big Thunder, the front Tom Sawyer Island and whatever you want to put on the back Tom Sawyer Island (Western River Expedition? Restaurant?)
  • The horseshoe that extends from Haunted Mansion to Splash Mountain would become a new land that I'm calling Riverfront Square. Fans of Disney history will recognize the name from the proposed St. Louis Missouri park. I would lean into Americana / Mississippi River for theming and overhaul the four restaurants along that stretch to represent different types of American faire. Pecos Bill would become Tiana's, you can have BBQ, Seafood, Pizza, Comfort Food, whatever you want in the other restaurants. I also wouldn't oppose a new Pecos Bill on what is now Tom Sawyer Island.

I agree with everything you said. We made a rule that I couldn't move it's a small world (it's my go to solution for a lot of MK's problems) but we could eliminate the Speedway if we wanted to. I don't mind Speedway attractions, but historically they're an inefficient use of space. I'd welcome the Speedway if the land had layers of things on top of it (kind of like Disneyland, but even more efficient).

My suggestion was actually to double up on the Speedway. Re-design two intersecting tracks, one loading from the Tron side, one loading from the existing Speedway side. The Tron Side would carry the Tron aesthetic, and the opposite side would carry a Wreck it Ralph aesthetic. Both attractions enter through arcades (Flynn's and Litwacks) and have a short indoor portion. In that indoor portion, Flynn hacks the Tron vehicles, and the Sugar Rush vehicles "glitch". They join each other outside in a muddled intersecting "Theme" that could include an extended light canopy, elevation changes, etc.
or.... hear me out... expand the berm. I even drew you a bridge or tunnel... tunnel under or have a bridge that can allow the boat through (they have them in epcot). I am fine with removal of things that are no longer worth it... stitch is an example, and even though its historical and educational which i dont think should go away id be fine with hop leaving as I could personally care less about it (i also dont like the country bears but im afraid i could be killed for saying it can go).... but this idea that disney has to remove to build is way too prevalent. Yes in disneyland its an issue.. yes in MK they might have to build habitat somewhere else to make up for what they remove.. they might have to move a road or building but they own all of it. They might have to work with the environmental people but that is easily done. We dont need a 5th park, we dont need to remove anything.. (not that im against it... but can you imagine how more spread out MK would be if they made it bigger? Here are some to scale drawings ive done, that all have been drawn with surveyors... and yes im being a bit facetious
1623762935837.png
 

ppete1975

Well-Known Member
Except MK is already over crowded and adding more draws won't fix that issue. Granted moving some of the rides to other parks needing more draw could help, but I don't see them just injecting more into MK when it is already easily reaching capacity.

I would think expanding the other parks with NEW rides would pull more from MK than moving older popular rides from MK.

Or they realize Disney won't eat the exorbitant cost of moving said ride AND pay for new attractions as well. Much cheaper to just place new rides in other lands.

Oh please, Oh please....I would love a bit of levity in that attraction
i like how you think..
 
In the Parks
Yes
or.... hear me out... expand the berm. I even drew you a bridge or tunnel... tunnel under or have a bridge that can allow the boat through (they have them in epcot). I am fine with removal of things that are no longer worth it... stitch is an example, and even though its historical and educational which i dont think should go away id be fine with hop leaving as I could personally care less about it (i also dont like the country bears but im afraid i could be killed for saying it can go).... but this idea that disney has to remove to build is way too prevalent. Yes in disneyland its an issue.. yes in MK they might have to build habitat somewhere else to make up for what they remove.. they might have to move a road or building but they own all of it. They might have to work with the environmental people but that is easily done. We dont need a 5th park, we dont need to remove anything.. (not that im against it... but can you imagine how more spread out MK would be if they made it bigger? Here are some to scale drawings ive done, that all have been drawn with surveyors... and yes im being a bit facetious
View attachment 563939
TDO has been sketching out / re-imagineering plans for the entire property almost yearly, since before opening day. As technology and attendance change for the better, so do the updated plans. Moving the berm at the MK has always been considered the way to expand the park. In fact there is a model of the MK at the TD building (that is also updated yearly and as imagineers use it to showcase future plans). Believe it or not, moving IaSM has, for a long while, been favored by (former) management (drawings that I've seen would have a new (prettier) building built about 500 feet north, almost against the RR tracks, opening up space for bigger crowds and an additional attraction or two - and I think this is where glimpses of a possible HM restaurant came from). Another favorite of (former) management would involve moving the parade storage and infrastructure buildings from backstage west, across the canal, opening up enough space for several attractions, one of which had been proposed to be a copy of PoC Shanghai, leaving the older PoC building to house a new dark ride of some sort. These are obviously very expensive changes but as attendance grows beyond park capacity, eventually some of these plans have to become a reality (just my opinion, just my opinion).
 

ppete1975

Well-Known Member
TDO has been sketching out / re-imagineering plans for the entire property almost yearly, since before opening day. As technology and attendance change for the better, so do the updated plans. Moving the berm at the MK has always been considered the way to expand the park. In fact there is a model of the MK at the TD building (that is also updated yearly and as imagineers use it to showcase future plans). Believe it or not, moving IaSM has, for a long while, been favored by (former) management (drawings that I've seen would have a new (prettier) building built about 500 feet north, almost against the RR tracks, opening up space for bigger crowds and an additional attraction or two - and I think this is where glimpses of a possible HM restaurant came from). Another favorite of (former) management would involve moving the parade storage and infrastructure buildings from backstage west, across the canal, opening up enough space for several attractions, one of which had been proposed to be a copy of PoC Shanghai, leaving the older PoC building to house a new dark ride of some sort. These are obviously very expensive changes but as attendance grows beyond park capacity, eventually some of these plans have to become a reality (just my opinion, just my opinion).
this is what im talking about... those are the kinds of moves disney would make. Not move this ride to epcot kind of stuff.
Any chance we could get an outdoor portion to IASM (maybe covered some how) or a grander more disneyland front
 

UNCgolf

Well-Known Member
Another favorite of (former) management would involve moving the parade storage and infrastructure buildings from backstage west, across the canal, opening up enough space for several attractions, one of which had been proposed to be a copy of PoC Shanghai, leaving the older PoC building to house a new dark ride of some sort.

Dodged a bullet there.
 

UNCgolf

Well-Known Member
Honestly as long as the Disneyland version of POTC was kept, I would be more than happy if we received the Shanghai version.
It is fresh, new and a lot of fun...it is also a shorter ride than the current, but really beautiful.
Our current version of POTC is about the worst version in the world... The Cliff Notes version...

The WDW version isn't as good as the Disneyland version, but I still think it's better than the Shanghai version. I know a lot of people love it, but I'm not a very big fan. It has too many scenes that involve just watching a movie play on a screen; it feels like something Universal would have built 5-10 years ago. That doesn't really work for me.

That's not to say I wouldn't like to see them use the tech for a new ride at WDW at some point (especially if they did a better job incorporating the screens as part of physical sets), but I wouldn't want to clone their Pirates at the expense of the WDW version.
 

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

Top Bottom