Magic Kingdom Expansion

[KingNemesis]

It does look generally stunning but I feel the house was an after though (I know it was planned) But the animatronics in there seem completely separate from the rest of the ride, I know I might be nitpicking and might just be the camera's view but yeah.. looks great

 

[Plastic Person]

It looks... fine? Very well crafted and all, and better in the light of avoiding you know who down the road. However, it's almost too quaint, and not only in terms of the thrill of the ride. Magic Kingdom is busier each year, and yet apparently the overall capacity of this barely hits 1200 guests per hour? Given that this is the park's first major E-ticket ride since Splash Mountain in 1992 (discounting various replacements and rethemes), it feels like they're sending things backwards.

 

[JAMMY_Jaunts]

It does look generally stunning but I feel the house was an after though (I know it was planned) But the animatronics in there seem completely separate from the rest of the ride, I know I might be nitpicking and might just be the camera's view but yeah.. looks great

Apparently the animatronics in the house scene at the end of the ride are the old animatronics from the old Snow White dark ride which may explain why the difference in detail is apparent. I must say though, I love the witch model at the end however I feel the back of the train will miss out on this as it shoots by too fast.

 

[KingNemesis]

It does look generally stunning but I feel the house was an after though (I know it was planned) But the animatronics in there seem completely separate from the rest of the ride, I know I might be nitpicking and might just be the camera's view but yeah.. looks great

Apparently the animatronics in the house scene at the end of the ride are the old animatronics from the old Snow White dark ride which may explain why the difference in detail is apparent. I must say though, I love the witch model at the end however I feel the back of the train will miss out on this as it shoots by too fast.

Yeah that was my thought. It does zoom past pretty fast

 

[EuroSatch]

I'd say it's desgined to be more of a kids-family coaster rather than a family coaster aimed to be slightly more thrilling ala Expedition Everest or even say Thirteen. For that it seems pretty much spot on. The park already has BTM don't forget so it needed a slightly different appeal to that. The indoor section just looks amazing!

I agree with Rob on this one, enthusiasts tend to look at all coasters as though it was designed for their demographic, as Rob says this ride is for kids and it's perfect for that. I do however agree with Dan that the dark ride section could have been a tad longer if you want to find a fault with it.

Which is why I will always defend Big Thunder Mountain as a great ride for what it is attempting to do - which is not compete with Colorado Adventure but in fact make it a more accessible experience to a younger audience

 

[Dave]

I'd say it's desgined to be more of a kids-family coaster rather than a family coaster aimed to be slightly more thrilling ala Expedition Everest or even say Thirteen. For that it seems pretty much spot on. The park already has BTM don't forget so it needed a slightly different appeal to that. The indoor section just looks amazing!

I agree with Rob on this one, enthusiasts tend to look at all coasters as though it was designed for their demographic, as Rob says this ride is for kids and it's perfect for that. I do however agree with Dan that the dark ride section could have been a tad longer if you want to find a fault with it.

Which is why I will always defend Big Thunder Mountain as a great ride for what it is attempting to do - which is not compete with Colorado Adventure but in fact make it a more accessible experience to a younger audience

If Jeol hadn't broken the thanks button i would be thanking this post

 

[BigAl]

I wish we had such "lackluster" attractions like that in the UK.

 

[Sam]

It looks... fine? Very well crafted and all, and better in the light of avoiding you know who down the road. However, it's almost too quaint, and not only in terms of the thrill of the ride. Magic Kingdom is busier each year, and yet apparently the overall capacity of this barely hits 1200 guests per hour? Given that this is the park's first major E-ticket ride since Splash Mountain in 1992 (discounting various replacements and rethemes), it feels like they're sending things backwards.

Nailed it.

It's very good, yes, but it's Disney treading water. They're not pushing any boundaries here. I'm sure there will instantly be the predictable responses to this post of 'But it's not always about pushing boundaries! This is just good old-fashioned fun!'

But it's simply not good enough to rest on your laurels like this when Universal are pushing the boundaries with every attraction they build, and wiping the floor with WDW at the moment. They're spending far too much on a children's ride too. These are the sort of sums that you should be spending on a ride that'll amaze older children, teenagers and adults like the Harry Potter rides at Universal. You don't have to spend anywhere near this much to amaze young children. Great looking ride, but very poor value for money, and completely overshadowed by what is going up down the road.

 

[Dave]

Why is spending on childrens rides a bad thing? Don't forget this is part of an area refurbishment that also included a dark ride and a huge new dining experience. It's not a stand alone investment.

 

[Sam]

Why is spending on childrens rides a bad thing?

I already said in my last post, because it's unneeded. You can spend a lot less and keep young children delighted (look at how cheap Gadget's Go Coaster is compared to Disney's family-thrill rides). This is the sort of money you need to spend the keep older children and adults entertained, as Universal are doing. Spending this much on a ride for little kids is like giving a child an iPad, when they'd be just as happy with a wooden train set.

 

[Dave]

Why is spending on childrens rides a bad thing?

I already said in my last post, because it's unneeded. You can spend a lot less and keep young children delighted (look at how cheap Gadget's Go Coaster is compared to Disney's family-thrill rides). This is the sort of money you need to spend the keep older children and adults entertained, as Universal are doing. Spending this much on a ride for little kids is like giving a child an iPad, when they'd be just as happy with a wooden train set.

They have Goofy's coaster which is the same level as Gadgets Go coaster, this is meant to be for slightly older children but still entertain adults which it does.

Disney run more parks than universal in Florida (and i agree they need to look at something big, somewhere in their parks) and most visitors buy park hoppers so not all their installations need to be a huge E-ticket like HP as one E-ticket pulls guests to all parks. This was part of an area refurb, it's basically the Disney equivalent of CBeebies land.

 

[CGM]

Why is spending on childrens rides a bad thing?

I already said in my last post, because it's unneeded. You can spend a lot less and keep young children delighted (look at how cheap Gadget's Go Coaster is compared to Disney's family-thrill rides). This is the sort of money you need to spend the keep older children and adults entertained, as Universal are doing. Spending this much on a ride for little kids is like giving a child an iPad, when they'd be just as happy with a wooden train set.

Don't underestimate children, they're much more perceptive than they're given credit for. At a young age, if a ride experience is good enough, it can stay with you for life. In this respect, it's often more important to get it right.

Some of my earliest memories are of rides at Disneyland and Universal. I'm sure that those memories wouldn't have stayed with me if the rides had just been lightly themed kiddie coasters.

In many ways it's been a neglected area in ride development. New generations of children are growing up with the internet, social media, tablets and smart phones. There's also developments such as widespread virtual reality on the horizon. Children will soon expect more from rides than the current crop offers. I think it's good to see Disney producing something fresh.

Anyway, Disneyland should always be for kids in some capacity. If you want huge, multimedia cutting edge thrill machines, go to EPCOT or Studios.

 

[Rowe]

As far as I'm aware, the ride is not meant to be an E ticket attraction and rather be a D Ticket attraction. It obviously isn't meant to be up there with the big attractions line up like Space Mountain or Big Thunder and nobody from Disney has never said so, nor is it intended to be comparable to the likes of what Universal are doing; it is family oriented only.

As for any thoughts on the investment itself, I have absolutely no qualms with the refurbishment's plans to re-invest that area of Fantasyland and love that Disney are giving children and their families new positive experiences based on films that they have, more than likely, grown up watching. The roller coaster is a nice step up from the former Snow White Scary Adventures and Pinocchio's Daring Journey, both basic and charming dark rides, alongside Under the Sea to an extent and also gives young children a chance to build up from Barnstormer to Big Thunder Mountain when they're visiting the Magic Kingdom.

Whilst a couple of members do discredit it for costing too much and being unnecessary, it's unfair to suggest that the younger generations don't need such a well themed attraction to entertain them. The high quality will surely make many children's experiences at the Magic Kingdom much more memorable, what with the addition of the interactive queue elements and lifelike animatronic Dwarfs, alongside any details from the film such as the cottage, waterfalls and animal carvings which look just lovely; it shows that the Imagineers aren't missing tricks with wanting guests to believe they've stepped into the film.

As the final piece in the Fantasyland expansion, it honestly looks to be a great investment for the families overall and a lovely tribute to the original film alongside Scary Adventures.

Also, since the expansion is now over, maybe now we can let Disney get on with making a high quality investment that'll rival Universal's Wizarding World expansion with an orientation for the older family and adult market than believing this was their plan all along? Yes?

 

[EuroSatch]

It should also be remembered that Disney do not need to be concerned with the popularity of Universal. In fact, it can only benefit them in the long run as the Florida parks are viewed by most as a destination holiday and not a 1-2 day visit. The more the area has to offer, the more visitors will come to Orlando and spend 2-3 weeks there, and inevitably visit Disney as well as Universal

 

[jon81uk]

Yep Disney don't need to compete with Universal, Harry Potter is bringing more people into Florida who will visit both resorts as no-one will pass up on Disney. Although no Americans will really spend 2-3 weeks in Florida as they don't get enough annual leave to be able to!

And to the question that why are Disney investing in a Children's ride, they aren't, this is a family ride. Barnstormer, Dumbo and similar are kids but I think most attractions at the Magic Kingdom are designed for everyone to ride together and all enjoy (as Walt intended).

The main problem I have with New Fantasyland is the Little Mermaid Voyage as it is a clone of a DCA ride and not a very good one to start with.