News Tron coaster coming to the Magic Kingdom

[matt9112]

TRON and Ratatouille were panic additions. Something relatively quick and cheap that could be dropped in to add some capacity. Exceptions to the franchise mandate because they existed.

Nothing quick about those two rides mate.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Nothing quick about those two rides mate.

“Relatively” is the the key word. Both are also incredibly expensive. Reusing attractions without modifications let them effectively skip a small portion of the early design phase.

 

[Incomudro]

I think it's more so a why? Why build it? The IP is so antiquated and weak. Leading into weaker merch volume. Its also not a ride that sets itself apart...its interior will also forever be compared to that ride next to the golf ball by average guests.

The only reason to build it is cost....its a cheap shoe in. Its unimaginative (as its a clone) cheap (relative here because its a clone) and technically adds capacity to MK albeit way less than MK needs.

Because it's beautiful, and it adds a much needed ride/new attraction to Tommorowland which could really use it.

 

[corran horn]

You certainly don't have to have ever seen a TRON movie or care a fig about TRON to think the ride is beautiful and/or exciting.

This is obviously TRON in WDW because it's a clone, but I'm not sure TRON is any more or less relevant than when they built it in Shanghai in 2016. (at least 5+ years after TRON Legacy)

 

[lazyboy97o]

You certainly don't have to have ever seen a TRON movie or care a fig about TRON to think the ride is beautiful and/or exciting.

This is obviously TRON in WDW because it's a clone, but I'm not sure TRON is any more or less relevant than when they built it in Shanghai in 2016. (at least 5+ years after TRON Legacy)

The attraction lineup of Shanghai Disneyland was determined before the release of TRON: Legacy when Disney was convinced it was their next big franchise.

 

[TikibirdLand]

Whos they? Definitely not me. Avatars IP is still weak compared to most BUT it is far more relevant than tron. (Rides aside tron imho is even weaker than avatar) BUT avatar land is unique and has an amazing headliner. Heck its second ride sucks but they dosen't detract from the land as a whole. Its a rich immersive environment. To me avatar land is proof unique and exciting lands can be made without an IP. Sure it does have an IP but the IP dosen't carry the land.

Pandora was a bit weak in immersiveness -- at least for me and my family. FoP is great but could really slot in in just about any park by itself (kinda like Star Tours/Body Wars). The boat ride is meh; it has the only real Avatar in the whole land. We didn't find ourselves lingering and looking at all the bio-diversity (and there was a lot, both real and fantasy). I felt like I needed a guide to help me with what I was seeing. At least with Potter-land, we have the books and movies to help us with the back-story. Kinda needed that for Pandora as well.

 

[Clamman73]

Todays update

 

[Casper Gutman]

Because it's beautiful, and it adds a much needed ride/new attraction to Tommorowland which could really use it.

It isn’t visible from most of Tomorrowland, where it is visible it often looks like an unthemed warehouse with a fancy canopy (it wasn’t designed for WDW sight lines), and it essentially duplicates the classic ride directly next to it.

 

[Rich Brownn]

Its no secret they build multi million dollar rides BEFORE the guarenteed success of a movie....said no one ever. To be fair they have made movies after rides but not generally on purpose. As in they did not build the ride knowing they are now going to make film or video of it.

They built and entire park around an icon based on an unreleased movie (which flopped by the way). Yup, Disneyland says hello

 

[lazyboy97o]

They built and entire park around an icon based on an unreleased movie (which flopped by the way). Yup, Disneyland says hello

No, they did not. Disneyland always had a castle and for most of its development and even sometimes after opening it was just Fantasyland Castle.

 

[Incomudro]

It isn’t visible from most of Tomorrowland, where it is visible it often looks like an unthemed warehouse with a fancy canopy (it wasn’t designed for WDW sight lines), and it essentially duplicates the classic ride directly next to it.

Where it is or is not visible from has nothing to do with whether it is beautiful or not.
Site lines change depending upon where a person is standing.
As for essentially duplicating Space Mountain, well... In the sense that they represent a modern look at an enclosed coaster, yeah.
But Tron is far newer, the seating position is completely different, and there is an outdoor portion to the ride.
Those differentiate it more than enough for me.

 

[JoeCamel]

Where it is or is not visible from has nothing to do with whether it is beautiful or not.
Site lines change depending upon where a person is standing.
As for essentially duplicating Space Mountain, well... In the sense that they represent a modern look at an enclosed coaster, yeah.
But Tron is far newer, the seating position is completely different, and there is an outdoor portion to the ride.
Those differentiate it more than enough for me.

Let's see, tron seating uncomfortable for some sm seating is uncomfortable for many. Yep it is another sm situation

 

[mikejs78]

That's not remotely what I'm saying. Changing the canopy or the placement or many other things is about making it nicer. My complaint isn't really about the canopy; it's that Disney just shoehorned it in there without actually caring about the overall design of the area and how the ride fits in that space.

They should have designed something to fit where it is. The canopy that exists in Shanghai isn't going to look anywhere near as nice at the Magic Kingdom as it does in Shanghai because it was never designed to only be visible from right in front of the building; it was designed to be visible from a distance. It's going to lose a lot of what makes it impressive in Shanghai. Either put TRON in a different place (or park) where the canopy works as intended, or design something that will actually fit the space they chose for it at the MK.

The fact that we all know Disney was never going to do that isn't an excuse for Disney -- it's an acknowledgement of how different their priorities are now.

It's that this specific design of TRON is supposed to be visible from far away, and since it's not, the design no longer makes sense.

The canopy doesn't really work in that location so ideally something else should be done instead to maximize the ride and make it look better.

simply saying that the ride as designed is nowhere near as effective/impressive as it is in Shanghai, and instead of changing the facade to fit the area and maximize the effectiveness, they just left it as is. It doesn't really make sense in the location.

it's certainly less impressive up close based on photos and videos

So you are making all these judgements on an unfinished build. And comparing it unfavorably to something you haven't seen in person but only have seen on a medium which, while valuable, is known to not always depict the scale and grandness of things accurately.

Got it.

 

[Vinnie Mac]

Also, I didn't say it doesn't look good at all, but it's certainly less impressive up close based on photos and videos (I haven't been to Shanghai). It was designed to attract from afar and that's where it looks the best. I think it's going to look out of scale at the MK.

Now hold on, when did we start trusting photos and videos to fully capture how big the scale of a structure feels? Most things look and feel bigger in person than they do on camera, we know this, any human being who has taken a picture or video before knows this.

 

[UNCgolf]

So you are making all these judgements on an unfinished build. And comparing it unfavorably to something you haven't seen in person but only have seen on a medium which, while valuable, is known to not always depict the scale and grandness of things accurately.

Got it.

The fact that it's unfinished is irrelevant. We know where it is. We know what it's going to look like.

You're either being disingenuous or deliberately obtuse. Everything I said about the design and the location is a fact, not an opinion. Whether it looks good to you is subjective, sure, but it's an objective fact that Disney cloned a ride and dropped it into a plot without doing any design changes to make it fit the new location.

Your argument would only make sense if it wasn't a clone and we were just going off concept art.

 

[Casper Gutman]

So you are making all these judgements on an unfinished build. And comparing it unfavorably to something you haven't seen in person but only have seen on a medium which, while valuable, is known to not always depict the scale and grandness of things accurately.

Got it.

You can see the structure in MK. Its right there, and its not going to change much. Its a seemingly randomly placed warehouse with a canopy. It doesn't seem like anyone gave much thought to sightlines before they dragged-and-dropped.

Honestly, the "how dare you judge it based on available evidence and not the finished product" line works for something like GotG but not for a hastily reproduced clone like Tron.

 

[UNCgolf]

The Haunted Mansion is a great example of what I'm talking about (and it's certainly not the only one) regarding the way Disney operated in the past.

They didn't just rebuild the one from Disneyland at the Magic Kingdom because the styles didn't match. Instead, they designed a whole new facade so that it would properly fit into its surroundings. Star Tours is another example of building something new specifically to fit into Disney-MGM instead of just copying what existed at Disneyland.

That's what's missing with TRON; they didn't bother making any changes to improve the fit in its new location.

 

[mikejs78]

The fact that it's unfinished is irrelevant. We know where it is. We know what it's going to look like.

You're either being disingenuous or deliberately obtuse. Everything I said about the design and the location is a fact, not an opinion. Whether it looks good to you is subjective, sure, but it's an objective fact that Disney cloned a ride and dropped it into a plot without doing any design changes to make it fit the new location.

Your argument would only make sense if it wasn't a clone and we were just going off concept art.

You can see the structure in MK. Its right there, and its not going to change much. Its a seemingly randomly placed warehouse with a canopy. It doesn't seem like anyone gave much thought to sightlines before they dragged-and-dropped.

Honestly, the "how dare you judge it based on available evidence and not the finished product" line works for something like GotG but not for a hastily reproduced clone like Tron.

But he made the argument that it wouldn't be as grand as Shanghai. The problem with that is that is a subjective statement. It is a face that they didn't change anything. It is not a fact that it won't look as impressive. That is a subjective judgement, and I find that hard to take seriously when one hasn't seen the original to begin with, and also hasn't seen the finished product.

 

[UNCgolf]

But he made the argument that it wouldn't be as grand as Shanghai. The problem with that is that is a subjective statement. It is a face that they didn't change anything. It is not a fact that it won't look as impressive. That is a subjective judgement, and I find that hard to take seriously when one hasn't seen the original to begin with, and also hasn't seen the finished product.

Sure, the part about not looking as grand is subjective -- that's why I generally prefaced those statements with "I think". But again, it's not like there's no reason to think that. We know what it looks like in Shanghai and how it's situated, and we know those things about the MK version as well.

It's not difficult to synthesize that information and have a strong educated guess about how it will appear. I think it's pretty obvious that the design in Shanghai was meant to work as a centerpiece with your eyes drawn to it from everywhere, and it's not going to function like that at the Magic Kingdom. That means the design for the MK is inherently flawed, even if people still like how it looks. It's not built/designed for the space it inhabits at the MK.

 

[Club Cooloholic]

The attraction lineup of Shanghai Disneyland was determined before the release of TRON: Legacy when Disney was convinced it was their next big franchise.

It could have been. Tron Legacy was fantastic. Best use of 3D yet.