ToTBellHop
Well-Known Member
Yes, but with modifications usually. Mermaid recently.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Possible Frontierland expansion
- Thread starter doctornick
- Start date
Capsin4
Well-Known Member
True. I was thinking of bears and wilderness and lost site of the apparently time period and it being Inuit. Unfortunately, not enough people care about L&C or even know enough about them.
I don't mind Buzz in TL. Actually, I'm confused about what the purpose/vision of TL is supposed to be now. To me, the original concept sounds a lot like what Future World was originally so I can see tooning it up with Buzz could annoy. I guess Woody would do the same thing to FL, which, for me anyway, is one of the few areas (along with AL) that feel even somewhat immersive in MK. I'd hate to lose TSI and the river boat, especially for toons.
asianway
Well-Known Member
Wikkler
Well-Known Member
The idea of the utopian future is gone from both the American public and TWDC. The most cohesive Tomorrowland WDI can do currently is the "New Tomorrowland" of 1995.
Capsin4
Well-Known Member
Yep!
Unplugged
Well-Known Member
Agree completely. I browsed around Google Earth for a bit and Frontierland definitely seems like a poor choice, unless they planned on some big water way changing efforts or a really small attraction. There are other areas that would be cheaper to develop, considering almost anywhere they built would be outside the railway in some form like PoTC, Splash Mtn, & Space Mtn.
This could be an interesting thread if there is indeed something in the future.
I think the best argument for building in Frontierland would be if it resolves the dead end at BTMRR. It's the only part of the park that has such a location, which is exacerbated during parade times. Since a lot of recent work at MK has dealt with better crowd control (Hub, Main Street Bypass, even the Tangled toilet area), it wouldn't totally surprise me if that played a role.
ToTBellHop
Well-Known Member
Yes. Like they did recently in Hong Kong.
Captain Neo
Well-Known Member
If their is a Frontierland overhaul planned (which I don't believe) its probably a re-themed version of that raft ride Shanghai is getting. Probably with a giant bear attacking or something.
FigmentJedi
Well-Known Member
I've had an Armchair Imagineering idea for Animal Kingdom in my head the longest time for a water ride based around the Fearsome Critters of lumberjack folklore, culminating in an encounter with a Hodag.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fearsome_critters
Could work just as well for Frontierland.
Matt_Black
Well-Known Member
Total aside, when people write "New Frontierland" in this thread, my mind goes to the Kennedy speech or the DC Comic (which was heavily inspired by the Kennedy speech which is featured in the DVD animated adaptation).
mahnamahna101
Well-Known Member
Theming it to Tom Sawyer/Huck Finn or Lewis/Clark makes more sense tbh. Another generic 'wild mountain' wouldn't be the best addition... especially when Frontierland is the one area of the park that doesn't need something with a height requirement.
It's days like these where Tomorrowland or Adventureland should be getting an overhaul/expansion. Both of those are so clear-cut/obvious.
Adventureland
- Overhaul Jungle Cruise (rework ride path)/Tiki Room
- Rework infrastructure to allow new guest path
- Expansion behind POTC/JC
- PeopleMover/CoP/Space/Buzz overhauls
- Stitch replacement
- Laugh Floor replacement (expands into MSUSA parking lot)
- New attraction between Space/CoP, on top of CoP
- Speedway/Cosmic Rays space used for Fantasyland, space behind Speedway/Space used for Tomorrowland
mahnamahna101
Well-Known Member
Adventureland has a sizable expansion pad behind Jungle Cruise. And if they removed Jungle Cruise completely (Animal Kingdom makes MK's JC seem pointless), they could considerably increase Adventureland. Removing JC is extremely unlikely, so a reworked ride path to allow for expansion is more likely. You could fit 3-4 attractions (Mount Prometheus could fit 2, Agrabah could have a show and the relocated Magic Carpets)
The Speedway doesn't 'prohibit' expansion... if TDO was willing to close Mr. Toad, Horizons, WoM and SWSA, the Speedway's fair game lol. They could easily give Speedway the wrecking ball. Then Fantasyland gets most of the old Speedway/Cosmic Rays, while Tomorrowland gets a huge expansion behind Speedway/Space. Could even be a fully-enclosed space port (mini-land),
Tomorrowland also has the parking lot and the space between CoP/Space along with the possibility of a 2nd/3rd level on top of CoP.
Frontierland: 1-2
Adventureland: 3-4 (relocated Magic Carpets included)
Tomorrowland: 4-5
It has the least amount of space to work with... unless they use the expansion pad and part of TSI.
gmajew
Premium Member
Very well sad but I actually would like to see the speedway stay in the tomorrowland area and not go to fantasyland. Use both pads and really make tomorrowland specials. Our fantasyland is already pretty good with rides at this time.
DisneyJunkie
Well-Known Member
As long as they don't put in a "Hester & Jester's Dino-Rama" type kiddie area into Frontierland, I'm ok with them doing away with Tom Sawyer Island and re-using that space. I'm just not sure what kind of E-ticket attraction they could put in there that isn't a water ride (there's already Splash Mtn) or an exciting train/stage coach ride (there's already BTTM).
lobelia
Well-Known Member
If you can get FP+ reservations close together. If not your going to dry off waiting in the stand-by line.
mikeymouse
Well-Known Member
Think about World of Motion. It was an attraction about the invention of the wheel. Nothing about a movie or cartoon. It was one of the greatest attractions ever built! Horizons ditto.
ToTBellHop
Well-Known Member
I know. I'm saying IP-based is not necessarily bad. Although it has grown tiring that everything is IP-driven. But the company has a CEO at the helm who has aggressively sought out new IPs so it's no surprise with that leadership.
This post is going to be way too long. I'm just warning everyone ahead of time. If you want the Reader's Digest version of what my long-winded point is, just skip to my very last paragraph.
Horizons and World of Motion were literally the first two WDW attractions I ever experienced. No joke. They were wonderful, fun, whimsical, and hold a special place in my heart for many reasons.
But, as painful as this is for me to concede, they simply weren't popular. They were quite literally walk-on rides for most of the day, and it wasn't just for the fact that they were people eaters. You don't know how hard I wished that they were more popular or that Disney could find a way to justify keeping two attractions that just didn't hold the interest of the "general public." Maybe it was the location. Maybe it was the fact that there were too many of that type of attraction in Epcot (WoM, Horizons, Spaceship Earth, and to some degree American Adventure and Imagination shared similarities with them in one way or another).
WoM and Horizons were unfortunate victims. They were two of the less popular rides in a park that was struggling to adapt to the change in culture in the late 90s. Disney did what it thought it had to do, and while I loathe the decision to close those two attractions, I reluctantly admit I totally understand it. Test Track is widely popular (I understand that lower capacity plays a role in line length, but it's still a very fun attraction and for its time was quite innovative, and people generally enjoy it). Mission Space is an underrated attraction; nowhere else have I experienced the thrill of takeoff in a space shuttle or a quasi-zero-g environment. It's a one-of-a-kind theme park attraction. It has its flaws, like flying along the Mars surface, which is inconsistent with the theme and feel of the first half of the ride. But that first half conjures the magic of space flight, and it's a rather seminal moment to be floating in simulated zero-G as you pan around and see the Earth from space.
I wish we didn't have to lose two amazing attractions in the process, but they were beloved by a cult following that was simply too small. Maybe Disney could have advertised them more, pushed them more, but I honestly doubt it. The "masses" simply didn't love those attractions anymore. It was a changing culture at the time. Disney wouldn't stay in business if they kept around only the attractions that have small cult followings.
It's a minor miracle that Carousel of Progress and American Adventure have managed to survive this long, really. I feel that the days of charming, slow attractions that "make you think" are coming to an end. American Adventure, Spaceship Earth, Living with the Land, American Adventure ... they're the last of a dying breed. It's terribly tragic, but I honestly don't think there's any way around it. While there are those of us who have a deep passion for those attractions (that would be me), there aren't enough of us for Disney to build new attractions that are little more than studies on pop culture like so many of the attractions I mentioned above are.
I don't blame Disney. It's not their fault. When Universal is cranking out thrills and getting all the attention, what else can Disney do? You can't change the cultural landscape. You have to adapt. Sometimes you make mistakes when trying to anticipate what will be loved by the majority, but you have to try to make attractions that you hope will play the right chords.
So what does that mean? Well, it doesn't mean that every attraction needs to be based on a franchise. Disney, to some extent, understands that (Expedition Everest, Misson Space, Test Track, Soarin). But when Universal has two parks in which nearly every last attraction is themed to TV and film properties (think about it for a moment), it's hard not to notice the success of a land like Wizarding World. That land is probably 2 to 3 times more popular than it would be had it been themed to generic "magic and wizardry." Adding the Harry Potter name to it instantly drives up demand by a very large ratio.
So when Disney decides to build an attraction that has no franchise tie-in, they're in an awfully precarious position. What if that attraction fails? Everyone will cry that they should have just made a Star Wars land instead of a Space land, or Indiana Jones instead of "Adventure to the Lost Temple"
We're lucky that there are still so many of those types of attractions left at WDW, because it could be far worse. You don't see too many people complaining that Universal built two parks that consist of nearly 100% franchise-based attractions. And with good reason: Tying an attraction to a franchise doesn't have to make the attraction automatically bad. Cars Land could easily have been themed to the car culture of the 1950s. But that's exactly what the movie Cars was themed to, and so by extension, that's what the land is now themed to. Just like Wizarding World could have been a generic Wizardland, Cars Land adds in something that the masses love while still allowing someone who's never seen the Cars movie to enjoy that land. People who grew up in the 50s can walk into Cars Land and "get it". They can still feel nostalgic for Route 66, the music, the setting, the roadside-attraction feel of that land. It manages to pull off a double victory in that regard, just like Wizarding World does.
TL;DR:
So if Disney decides to theme a new Frontierland attraction to a franchise, I won't blame them. I'll live with it. The attraction can still be great. Sleeping Beauty Castle at Disneyland was originally a generic castle, but Walt and his people understood the potential economic value of synergy, and thus Sleeping Beauty was shoehorned in there. If layering in a franchise on top of an already-good idea for an attraction causes the "masses" to take more notice of that attraction (like Harry Potter in Wizarding World rather than a generic Wizardland), then it's win-win for everyone. It's all about execution. Even if I don't care about the particular franchise that Disney chooses, at least I get a new attraction that's fun. The success of that attraction will encourage Disney to spend more money, I'll be happy I get to enjoy a new e-ticket, and the lemmings will be happy that they get to flock to an attraction based on that popular franchise. Because it's those lemmings that drive the theme park money machine, not the World-of-Motion-loving Disney fanatics like you or me. When Disney (or Universal) finds a way to please both the lemmings AND those of us with finer sensibilities, we all win. If franchises are what it takes these days to get $2.8B approvals, then I'll live with that over the alternative.