I hate those "what should be closed" threads. Nothing should ever be closed unless it is dangerous or no longer works at all. Seriously, It shouldn't even be in our fantasy. What would you like to see added should be the question!
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
With 47 Sq. Miles, Why Do You Think Anything Needs To Be Closed.
- Thread starter Goofyernmost
- Start date
Chef Mickey
Well-Known Member
Nothing should be closed or unused.
Flippin'Flounder
Well-Known Member
Tomorrowland Speedway
-MK is running out of space, and it takes up a large amount.
-Ruins the atmosphere of Tomorrowland and Fantasyland.
-The fumes are terrible.
Kali River Rapids
-It's a terrible raft ride, and they aren't going to have 2 in the same park, so unless it closes, it's all we'll have
-There's a very large area of land blocked by it that could be used for expansion.
Dinorama
-Sound pollution
-It's the only spot available for a Dinoland expansion.
-MK is running out of space, and it takes up a large amount.
-Ruins the atmosphere of Tomorrowland and Fantasyland.
-The fumes are terrible.
Kali River Rapids
-It's a terrible raft ride, and they aren't going to have 2 in the same park, so unless it closes, it's all we'll have
-There's a very large area of land blocked by it that could be used for expansion.
Dinorama
-Sound pollution
-It's the only spot available for a Dinoland expansion.
ThwompChomp
New Member
47 square miles, not acres 
47 acres is less than a tenth of a square mile!
I don't think anything should be closed unless it's unsafe or they already have plans set for something better to take its place.
47 acres is less than a tenth of a square mile!I don't think anything should be closed unless it's unsafe or they already have plans set for something better to take its place.
Good catch, of course, I meant 47 square miles. Most understood but I will alter the title.47 square miles, not acres
I don't think anything should be closed unless it's unsafe or they already have plans set for something better to take its place.
The point of this was that there is no reason to close anything. Add to it. They have an area that is huge all they need to do is build more not take away. Many people do not see the problems that you seem to think there are.
Wendy Pleakley
Well-Known Member
Maybe in the case of something like "Sounds Dangerous". That attraction was embarrassing to have open at the end, and it's not a large space that would lend itself to anything new.
I agree in general though. Close only in the case of replacement. The Wonders of Life pavilion being used for festival stuff instead of attractions is sad.
I agree in general though. Close only in the case of replacement. The Wonders of Life pavilion being used for festival stuff instead of attractions is sad.
danlb_2000
Premium Member
I don't entirely agree with this. If an attraction is not popular, or has low capacity, it might make economic sense to replace it with something else. Personally I liked LMA at DHS but I have no problem seeing it sacrificed for Star Wars Land. Whether Disney is actually closing things because there is a sold business case for it, or just because they are being cheap, is a totally different discussion.
I also think there are rare cases when something needs to be removed for themeing reasons. The one example I can think of is the Maliboomer at DCA. If was removed and not replaced because it really didn't fit in well and really wasn't a Disney quality ride.
You share the same opinion of "Sounds Dangerous" that many people do. I cannot deny that, but, that is because, in my opinion those people missed the point completely. The idea was to show you that you could still imagine the story even without seeing it. The sound effects along with dialog painted the picture with out actually having the picture. It is the exact theory that Radio used successfully for many years with their comedy, drama's and soaps. They talked and added sound effects and you were able to fill in the blanks with your own imagination. To me it was one of the most original ideas that anyone had ever had, unfortunately it flew over the heads of the masses. To bad... I saw, liked and participated in the original sound show and still was able to see the cleverness of the "dangerous" show. I wish it were still there.
Last edited:
Wendy Pleakley
Well-Known Member
Oh, I got the point but it just felt so outdated. The headphones were cheap and the sound was awful. There was no upkeep, such as adding modern headsets with good sound.
In contrast, those little sound booths at Rafiki's Planet Watch were well done.
I wouldn't argue that in the least. That is one of the meanings of "and it still worked". Many of the attractions that people seem to call out the loudest about are strictly personal dislikes. Other people do like them, many in fact, they just don't for whatever reason they have. So, we should deprive others of things that they like because we, individually, don't like a particular thing. Sorry, that is just plain self centered. Now if Disney feels that the attraction is a bust, no one goes to it, it's collecting cobwebs and isn't a classic show, then there is no reason to keep it going as long as they have something to replace it with. Otherwise just add to the park. Once an attraction is gone it is usually gone forever. Case in point... I personally hated Toad, but, many still loved it. I would never have asked for it to be shut down because I didn't like it. But, that is what happens with most things that we talk about on the boards.
Good one, sadly though most of the reasons that anyone in the public want something shut down is number 4 and unfortunately that was just a gag answer (I hope).
Minthorne
Well-Known Member
Good one, sadly though most of the reasons that anyone in the public want something shut down is number 4 and unfortunately that was just a gag answer (I hope).
Yes a gag response. It's my modis operandi.
But as for the attraction - Well I hate it - but I wouldn't want the original Flight to the Moon back either
In the end I guess trying to resist change is futile. Disney World is like much of life, and as the song "No Time At All" from 'Pippin' tells us:
The only thing to be sure of mate, is there's nothing to be sure of!
I can understand, well, not I can't really, someone hating that attraction, but, that was my point exactly. Just because we hate something as an individual doesn't mean that we should call for it to be closed down. Many people do like it. I also heard so many times about Flight to the Moon/Mars as being missed and at the same time I am reading about people that hate screens, yet, there was a screen attraction years and years ago right there in the middle of Disneyland and World that everyone wishes we still had. So again, never call for anything to be eliminated, call for more to be built.Yes a gag response. It's my modis operandi.
But as for the attraction - Well I hate it - but I wouldn't want the original Flight to the Moon back either
In the end I guess trying to resist change is futile. Disney World is like much of life, and as the song "No Time At All" from 'Pippin' tells us:
The only thing to be sure of mate, is there's nothing to be sure of!
PS. Also be thankful that technology has improved what we experience with the use of screens. Just think of how much more interesting Mission(s) would have been with todays screens.
yaksplat
Well-Known Member
I hate the fumes from the speedway. They're pretty obnoxious if the air is still. My kids have gone on much faster and fun go karts at home and have no interest in what the speedway offers. They do however love stitch's great escape and want to go on that every single opportunity that they get.
I'm there for them mostly, so I let them make the call on what they want to go on.
I'm there for them mostly, so I let them make the call on what they want to go on.
morningstar
Well-Known Member
Could they double the size of the Magic Kingdom? Maybe. Should they? Probably not. It would become a giant maze of pathways too big to practically walk around. They can't expand indefinitely without breaking the hub-and-spoke model. At some point, the way to add more without taking anything away is to open another gate. That's of course a big decision that won't be taken lightly.
I'm in favor of closing old and unpopular attractions to make way for new ones, but not beloved "classics", even if they have low attendance. Of course, we have to be reasonable about what we designate as such. We can't declare the whole park a historical landmark.
I'm actually amazed when I look at the satellite image of Disney World how full it is. There is a small swath of green around the Magic Kingdom, but a lot has been paved over with hotels and water parks and more. There's still more land, but you can't look at it as unlimited anymore.
I'm in favor of closing old and unpopular attractions to make way for new ones, but not beloved "classics", even if they have low attendance. Of course, we have to be reasonable about what we designate as such. We can't declare the whole park a historical landmark.
I'm actually amazed when I look at the satellite image of Disney World how full it is. There is a small swath of green around the Magic Kingdom, but a lot has been paved over with hotels and water parks and more. There's still more land, but you can't look at it as unlimited anymore.
I believe that roughly 1/4 to 1/3 of the total land has been set aside for nature preservation, please correct me if I am wrong.