MK Cars-Themed Attractions at Magic Kingdom

SoFloMagic

Well-Known Member
I get the vibe that no one in the marketing team or imagineering really love this idea but are stuck with it and trying to spin it as positively as possible.
I think they saw the hate online and wanted to explain their work.

They explained 90% of the things people were complaining about, but many disney fans just love to bash their decisions.
 

CoastalElite64

Active Member
It will look something like this.
C02A7430-5927-4D24-92B2-19F74EA78294-640x480.jpeg
 

doctornick

Well-Known Member
I think it definitely did. Note the bridge by the mountain. You can even see hints of a boardwalk, just like the cartoon. The stream is so tiny, however, that it’s obscured by its surroundings.

What bridge? The one with cars on it in the middle of the concept art? There absolutely is water there, but that's in the middle of the Cars area, not next to current Frontierland/Liberty Square. In front of CBJ there is only trees in the original concept art.
 

SoFloMagic

Well-Known Member
We went last year and thought TSI was still pretty well maintained - simple animatronics were working, the guns all worked and made noise, etc

Now I think it is "dated" in not a modern attraction and definitely not ADA compliant, but it was in solid shape
I think the thing is that its clearly for children and 99% of children will like cars land more. So then its just disney vs people with nostalgia and they can't win that fight because change=bad to that crowd.
 

LittleBuford

Well-Known Member
What bridge? The one with cars on it in the middle of the concept art? There absolutely is water there, but that's in the middle of the Cars area, not next to current Frontierland/Liberty Square. In front of CBJ there is only trees in the original concept art.
Towards the bottom left corner of the original concept art, you can see a bridge crossing over what looks like a strip of water that divides the new Cars area from the rest of Frontierland.
 

JD80

Well-Known Member
Please. We have 3 years to analyze every pixel. By Christmas, we will be criticizing the river for not having enough fish pictured. Pretty sure I see a Sea Bass! Time for another WDI research trip so we get the correct species installed.

I wonder what will last longer. Over analyzing the barstools in GEO-82 or whether or not the color of the water in the cartoon art matches what the water color is in real life.
 

Charlie The Chatbox Ghost

Well-Known Member
This whole post, if accurate and it pans out, does indeed alleviate a lot of concerns
The only way it wouldn't be accurate is if Disney was lying to media (possible) or if they scale back what they said (also possible). That said, it could be exactly what they're saying, and still not work. We'll have to see. I'm more optimistic but I'm still not sold.
*Tears down totally normal trees that've been part of the park for over 50 years*

" It's gotta be based on animated films because that's just what you do in Magic Kingdom."

No, no it's not!
It sounds stupid but I didn't even realize they're gonna be tearing down 50+ year old trees. Is there any way to save a tree that old, or is it impossible to move without killing it? I don't know much about moving trees, I know the Liberty Tree was moved when it was pretty mature but idk if that's a unique case or not.

Maybe Disney could save all the trees and reuse them for the new build? It'd probably be cheaper than buying fully mature trees, no?
 

Charlie The Chatbox Ghost

Well-Known Member
I’d never heard the term before it came up in this thread. Wikipedia takes me to this:


According to Jim Korkis, “The company wanted those bears to be from the North Woods to better fit into the theme of the North Woods of Bear Country, and later, Critter Country.”


I think people forget how fast and loose even the great Imagineers of the past played with the thematic logic of their creations. As long as something is well done, most people won’t mind if it doesn’t quite make sense.
1748975575560.png


Lol
 

mickEblu

Well-Known Member
I think it definitely did. Note the bridge by the mountain. You can even see hints of a boardwalk, just like the cartoon. The stream is so tiny, however, that it’s obscured by its surroundings.

Why are you convinced that the streams or rivers weren’t designed to be larger and that they only appear larger because of the new concept art style? Can’t it be both? Also why are you taking the original vague concept art as gospel?
 
Last edited:

Charlie The Chatbox Ghost

Well-Known Member
I think it definitely did. Note the bridge by the mountain. You can even see hints of a boardwalk, just like the cartoon. The stream is so tiny, however, that it’s obscured by its surroundings.
Mentioning the boardwalk, I think they might've implied it's staying? My notes are all based on what TC reported back, so when he said Disney said "the boardwalk would stay" I thought he just meant during construction to help with parade traffic flow. I guess there's a very real possibility that the construction will not touch the mainland side shore of the rivers, essentially just plopping it down on the island and then expanding the land a bit, making the river a little narrower.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom