MK Cars-Themed Attractions at Magic Kingdom

[wdwmagic]

If the river is going to under Vahle's direction then he should be going with it.

I really doubt this is happening due to Vahle. Something as major as this would be D'Amaro and possibly Iger.

 

[Fox&Hound]

I

This is a gross oversimplification. Most notably, Disney’s uniquely awful tangle of reservation systems such as LL heavily incentivizes the company to build and promote a very specific type of attraction to the detriment of any others.

You also fail to account for how Disney is very capable of driving guests in the direction they desire - they don’t WANT guests on RoA or Muppets because those attractions aren’t tied to their money-generating reservation system, so both are downplayed and even hidden. Muppets recently had its entire area aggressively redesigned and redecorated to make it LESS eye-catching and to emphasize the attraction LESS.

The time element is also key - both doomed attractions are very, very time-consuming by modern Disney standards, with Tom Sawyer Island in particular designed to entertain guests for hours. Disney doesn’t want guests entertained for hours or even for Muppets’ 20 minutes, they want them in shops or restaurants or spending money to acquire a LL reservation for the next sub-2-minute attraction.

I agree. Getting traffic to TSI is as simple as putting something there people want: rare character meet and greet, unique snack/drink at a reopened Pollys, etc

Disney creates the narrative and uses “data” to rationalize their decisions.

 

[Agent H]

I really doubt this is happening due to Vahle. Something as major as this would be D'Amaro and possibly Iger.

Oh how the mighty have fallen.

 

[dmc493]

When it comes to large(r) projects what kind of decision making does Vahle have

 

[Jrb1979]

It’s become a shrine/museum to Walt. Anything outside of what can be perceived as Walt’s vision will be attacked.

But they completely ignore that Walt stated he didn’t want Disneyland to be a museum, it should be changing with the times.

That's not true at all. IMO most would be more accepting of these new attractions coming if those in charge continued with the theme of each park. That's where the disconnect comes from.

 

[Captain Barbossa]

See ya in another year!

 

[Charlie The Chatbox Ghost]

It is entirely because of a desire to monetize every single attraction in the park IMO. If it doesn’t sell LLs it is doomed. However this mentality of squeezing every penny out of guests will only work for so long. At some point it becomes cost prohibitive compared to many other vacations. They are losing the balance.

I wonder if there’s any chance of going back to the old style of parks where not everything needed to be a big E-Ticket with premium lightning lanes and virtual queues and all that. I don’t get how Disney gets busier the more expensive it is

 

[Agent H]

I wonder if there’s any chance of going back to the old style of parks where not everything needed to be a big E-Ticket with premium lightning lanes and virtual queues and all that. I don’t get how Disney gets busier the more expensive it is

It really depends on whether or not you think future management is going to be a drastic change or not. Personally I’m betting no.

 

[Charlie The Chatbox Ghost]

That's not true at all. IMO most would be more accepting of these new attractions coming if those in charge continued with the theme of each park. That's where the disconnect comes from.

Exactly. Most changes nowadays don’t connect to the theme of the individual park. What does Coco have to do with California Adventure? What does Guardians of the Galaxy have to do with Epcot? What does Indiana Jones or Encanto have to do with Animal Kingdom? Or even Pandora for that matter? (Joe Rohde’s explanation was a stretch).

The parks are, as some former Imagineers have stated, “mixtapes” now. There’s no rhyme or reason to changes anymore. Sometimes you’ll get something that kinda works, but usually it’s just “this is a profitable trendy IP, we’re gonna put it somewhere fast and cheap.”

 

[Charlie The Chatbox Ghost]

It really depends on whether or not you think future management is going to be a drastic change or not. Personally I’m betting no.

Yep. I imagine all potential Iger successors are people trained to be like him. You’re not gonna get a creative person in charge without a shareholder ousting.

 

[Agent H]

Yep. I imagine all potential Iger successors are people trained to be like him. You’re not gonna get a creative person in charge without a shareholder ousting.

I don’t think we need a creative person. Remember Eisner? He had a lot of good ideas but also a lot of bad ones. What we need is someone who gets the right people and lets them do their job. Iger tended to do that as long as your project fit within the popular ip mandate. Of course chapak came in and mucked it all up and now iger seems unwilling to do that.

 

[Charlie The Chatbox Ghost]

I don’t think we need a creative person. Remember Eisner? He had a lot of good ideas but also a lot of bad ones. What we need is someone who gets the right people and lets them do their job. Iger tended to do that as long as your project fit within the popular ip mandate. Of course chapak came in and mucked it all up and now iger seems unwilling to do that.

Chapek was just doing what Iger started. Iger was still there the whole time, Chapek ended up being a fall guy.

Eisner only got bad when Wells died and he went unchecked. Having a creative/business duo like Walt & Roy and Eisner & Wells results in great things. It’s no coincidence that the two greatest periods in the companies history was when the company had those two duos. But when the duos got split (Walt and Wells dying), the one left (Roy and Eisner) tried to do it without them and it didn’t work.

You can have an Iger successor work if you pair them with someone creative. Bruce Vaughn would be a good pick for the “creative”, or heck, Pete Docter, since he’s a huge parks fan. Typing it out I think Docter + a business person to budget things would be awesome

 

[Agent H]

Chapek was just doing what Iger started. Iger was still there the whole time, Chapek ended up being a fall guy.

Eisner only got bad when Wells died and he went unchecked. Having a creative/business duo like Walt & Roy and Eisner & Wells results in great things. It’s no coincidence that the two greatest periods in the companies history was when the company had those two duos. But when the duos got split (Walt and Wells dying), the one left (Roy and Eisner) tried to do it without them and it didn’t work.

You can have an Iger successor work if you pair them with someone creative. Bruce Vaughn would be a good pick for the “creative”, or heck, Pete Docter, since he’s a huge parks fan. Typing it out I think Docter + a business person to budget things would be awesome

Good point. I think Bruce Vaughn should be made head of parks and resorts and the head of imagineering should be Scott throwbridge. As for chapak he should have had it easy but he fumbled the ball hard. I’d never seen someone who felt so much like he didn’t get Disney at the time.

 

[Moth]

Another thought I had on the topic of Frontierland's theming- Disney is attempting to modernize the Frontier theme, by changing it from America of the 50s's fascination with cowboys and the wild west to America of the modern day's fascination with national parks and the natural beauty of America. But ironically enough, that theme is gonna be pretty outdated soon since the national parks are potentially... going the way of the Rivers of America, so to speak.

Don't worry! They'll be used to make paper for the updated park maps for Frontierland and the instruction manuals for the McQueen RC cars they're gonna sell!



Does anyone know if Disney internally realizes the negativity this project is getting, even outside of crazies and wackadoos like us?



Also, insane theory on "RoA was a sacrifice to save something else", but what ride was penned for a Pixar film-infused overhaul by everyone, even insiders, only to suddenly have it all backed down and have that ride and character attached to said ride deemed safe?

We know higher ups want more Pixar in Florida, and the ROA is simply a means to an end to get more Pixar into WDW, especially at the main park which only has two low-regard Pixar attractions that are (likely) getting the boot in the next decade? Yeah, I'm crazy, I'm tinfoil hatting this, the ROA was the sacrificial lamb to get the Pixar-loaded gun away from Imagination. Follow the money!

 

[SplashJacket]

You want negativity? Read the comments on social media posts. Official and non official.

It’s not just here.

Not trying to be snarky but look at the comments on literally any social media post for literally any company. Always so much negativity. It doesn’t help that Disney became a politicized target.

Social Media is not a reflection of actual thought on the individual level.

 

[Stripes]

From Bill Zanetti (Professor at the University of Central Florida):

I have edited some of Bill’s posts for clarity.

“Keeping the rivers open as is would eventually flood the utilidoors. Something has to be done. Major riverbed maintenance, maybe even full replacement, is required. So all the company is doing here is trying to solve some ops issues and get a good ROI.”

“There’s too much potential for overflow in addition to some issues in the actual retaining walls that need replacing and asbestos removal. Happy to go into it more but it was explained to me by an urban planner / industrial engineer so it gets detailed.”

“The utilidoors literally are up against the retaining wall in Frontierland and they’re littered with asbestos. It’s a huge deal.”

“I don’t have a duck in this fight. I’m just telling you what I’ve been told by some EXTREMELY high up people within the company. You are acting like I’m some kind of corporate shill. If you can’t take my word for it, then you’ll have to go talk to someone at CFTOD that has been in water management for at least 15 years. They’ll confirm that WDW’s flood control systems have been pushed to their limits for a very long time now and major changes have been implemented to deal with a lot of development around property. I don’t know how detailed they’ll be about the RoA, but I’m sure they will talk about it at least a little and explain to you that ANY major bodies of water create issues in that area. The utilidoors are at risk and this project with the new proposed drainage systems and retention ponds would partially alleviate some of that risk.

I will also tell you that the powers at be didn’t take removing the RoA lightly. They brainstormed multiple solutions that didn’t go as far and this is the one that made the most economic sense. There are plenty of other ways to fix the problems at hand… but no one wants to spend that much to fix it. We’re talking almost a billion dollars here. Try to convince any company to spend that much on something without any visible ROI. Good luck!”

 

[Jrb1979]

From Bill Zanetti (Professor at the University of Central Florida):

I have edited some of Bill’s posts for clarity.

“Keeping the rivers open as is would eventually flood the utilidoors. Something has to be done. Major riverbed maintenance, maybe even full replacement, is required. So all the company is doing here is trying to solve some ops issues and get a good ROI.”

“There’s too much potential for overflow in addition to some issues in the actual retaining walls that need replacing and asbestos removal. Happy to go into it more but it was explained to me by an urban planner / industrial engineer so it gets detailed.”

“The utilidoors literally are up against the retaining wall in Frontierland and they’re littered with asbestos. It’s a huge deal.”

“I don’t have a duck in this fight. I’m just telling you what I’ve been told by some EXTREMELY high up people within the company. You are acting like I’m some kind of corporate shill. If you can’t take my word for it, then you’ll have to go talk to someone at CFTOD that has been in water management for at least 15 years. They’ll confirm that WDW’s flood control systems have been pushed to their limits for a very long time now and major changes have been implemented to deal with a lot of development around property. I don’t know how detailed they’ll be about the RoA, but I’m sure they will talk about it at least a little and explain to you that ANY major bodies of water create issues in that area. The utilidoors are at risk and this project with the new proposed drainage systems and retention ponds would partially alleviate some of that risk.

I will also tell you that the powers at be didn’t take removing the RoA lightly. They brainstormed multiple solutions that didn’t go as far and this is the one that made the most economic sense. There are plenty of other ways to fix the problems at hand… but no one wants to spend that much to fix it. We’re talking almost a billion dollars here. Try to convince any company to spend that much on something without any visible ROI. Good luck!”

That makes sense and it makes removing ROA a little better. It doesn't change that Cars doesn't fit Frontierland.

 

[Charlie The Chatbox Ghost]

Also, insane theory on "RoA was a sacrifice to save something else", but what ride was penned for a Pixar film-infused overhaul by everyone, even insiders, only to suddenly have it all backed down and have that ride and character attached to said ride deemed safe?

I could name you not a ride, but a show, across from the Rivers of America that was penned for a Pixar-film infused overhaul by everyone, even insiders, only to suddenly have it all backed down and have the characters attached to the attraction deemed safe!

Honestly though, I doubt that the Woody’s Round Up show would’ve done much in the long run compared to what ended up happening… and in the Woody timeline, the rivers likely still would’ve been lost for Cars since a marionette show themed to a bad-show-within-a-good-movie is boring as hell, putting two Pixar attractions in Frontierland instead of just one. So maybe the Rivers were a sacrifice for Imagination and not whoever I’m talking about!

 

[LittleBuford]

From Bill Zanetti (Professor at the University of Central Florida):

I have edited some of Bill’s posts for clarity.

“Keeping the rivers open as is would eventually flood the utilidoors. Something has to be done. Major riverbed maintenance, maybe even full replacement, is required. So all the company is doing here is trying to solve some ops issues and get a good ROI.”

“There’s too much potential for overflow in addition to some issues in the actual retaining walls that need replacing and asbestos removal. Happy to go into it more but it was explained to me by an urban planner / industrial engineer so it gets detailed.”

“The utilidoors literally are up against the retaining wall in Frontierland and they’re littered with asbestos. It’s a huge deal.”

“I don’t have a duck in this fight. I’m just telling you what I’ve been told by some EXTREMELY high up people within the company. You are acting like I’m some kind of corporate shill. If you can’t take my word for it, then you’ll have to go talk to someone at CFTOD that has been in water management for at least 15 years. They’ll confirm that WDW’s flood control systems have been pushed to their limits for a very long time now and major changes have been implemented to deal with a lot of development around property. I don’t know how detailed they’ll be about the RoA, but I’m sure they will talk about it at least a little and explain to you that ANY major bodies of water create issues in that area. The utilidoors are at risk and this project with the new proposed drainage systems and retention ponds would partially alleviate some of that risk.

I will also tell you that the powers at be didn’t take removing the RoA lightly. They brainstormed multiple solutions that didn’t go as far and this is the one that made the most economic sense. There are plenty of other ways to fix the problems at hand… but no one wants to spend that much to fix it. We’re talking almost a billion dollars here. Try to convince any company to spend that much on something without any visible ROI. Good luck!”

I have no idea if any of this is true. If it is, I see no reason why they couldn’t redirect the funds they’re spending on Cars Land to fixing the (supposed) issues with the Rivers of America. Whatever the circumstances, they’re making a choice—and it’s a bad one in my opinion.

 

[Charlie The Chatbox Ghost]

I have no idea if any of this is true. If it is, I see no reason why they couldn’t redirect the funds they’re spending on Cars Land to fixing the (supposed) issues with the Rivers of America. Whatever the circumstances, they’re making a choice—and it’s a bad one in my opinion.

Will, like Bill says at the end of the last quote- convincing the company to spend a billion dollars fixing the rivers when there would be next to no return on investment would’ve been a Herculean task. Cars going there makes fixing the rivers cheaper and they’ll make a nice profit between LLs and merch. Not a fan of Cars going in the RoA, but if Bill is speaking the truth, I get it.