MK Cars-Themed Attractions at Magic Kingdom

DLR92

DLR92

Well-Known Member
Disgruntled Walt said:
I've had the day to think about this, and here are my rambling thoughts:

  1. I think this replacing the ROA is incredibly stupid. We will look back derisively on this for, well, 50+ years most likely. Ask me when I'm 78 years old, and I'll still think replacing the ROA is stupid.
  2. BLESSING OF SIZE. Do it all. Just do it somewhere else. Spend the money, make the land suitable (as the company was capable of doing in 1966), and EXPAND YOUR FREAKING PARKS WITHOUT REPLACING STUFF.
  3. I'm 28 years old, and I have nephews who are 7, 5, and 3, and all of us think Westerns are AWESOME! And Cowboys VS Indians is an authentic part of American history.
  4. The "fun map" released today is deliberately intended to assuage the fears of people who thought the water would be gone. It's NOT JUST ABOUT WATER. This looks like a very nice area on this map. But it doesn't belong right there.
  5. People really are twisting themselves up trying to defend this. But can anyone say it wouldn't be better if they had expanded the park? @Mr. Sullivan you're a reasonable fellow, can you answer this? Wouldn't it be better if they built both of these expansions outside the footprint of the park? Why can't it be this way?
Click to expand...
Management in Florida is too cheap to try to expand out the boundaries of the park.
 
Captain Barbossa

Captain Barbossa

Well-Known Member
MisterPenguin said:
It's super easy, barely an inconvenience.
Click to expand...
IMG_1178.jpeg
 
S

sndral

Well-Known Member
I’ve circled what I believe to be the common elements of the 2 pieces of concept ‘art’ - the purple circle in the new art includes a waterfall that wasn’t depicted in the original. The orange area Mt. looks to have shrunk in the new art. The geyser that’s at the entry was not in the original pic & the entry has a building where there was track before.
Visually, the first version hinted at water in front of Frontierland whereas the new version clearly shows a river & there’s a new waterway/creek along the cars ride track that runs in front of BTMR as well as a new waterway going through the middle of the new land behind the geyser.
IMG_0312.jpeg
 
eddie104

eddie104

Well-Known Member
Finally caught up.

My opinion is still the same.

I’m glad Disney has gone the lengths to clarify several things for this huge project.

It’s gonna look so beautiful if actually built to specifications laid out in the blog post.

Also love the fact that Disney is thinking about sightlines and maintaining those as that is what they are known for.

Cars was never my first choice for the MK and I was very resistant to that particular IP being used. Now I’m still not happy about that completely but will learn to deal with it.
 
Mr. Sullivan

Mr. Sullivan

Well-Known Member
Disgruntled Walt said:
I've had the day to think about this, and here are my rambling thoughts:

  1. I think this replacing the ROA is incredibly stupid. We will look back derisively on this for, well, 50+ years most likely. Ask me when I'm 78 years old, and I'll still think replacing the ROA is stupid.
  2. BLESSING OF SIZE. Do it all. Just do it somewhere else. Spend the money, make the land suitable (as the company was capable of doing in 1966), and EXPAND YOUR FREAKING PARKS WITHOUT REPLACING STUFF.
  3. I'm 28 years old, and I have nephews who are 7, 5, and 3, and all of us think Westerns are AWESOME! And Cowboys VS Indians is an authentic part of American history.
  4. The "fun map" released today is deliberately intended to assuage the fears of people who thought the water would be gone. It's NOT JUST ABOUT WATER. This looks like a very nice area on this map. But it doesn't belong right there.
  5. People really are twisting themselves up trying to defend this. But can anyone say it wouldn't be better if they had expanded the park? @Mr. Sullivan you're a reasonable fellow, can you answer this? Wouldn't it be better if they built both of these expansions outside the footprint of the park? Why can't it be this way?
Click to expand...
Looking at things from completely outside of my own personal opinions, I would agree it would have been better as an expansion beyond the existing park because as I said, I’m still not sold on Cars.

That said, I don’t think it would have been better to do it as expansion while also not doing anything to address Frontierland. I feel and have long felt that Magic Kingdom’s Frontierland has been in need of dire assistance for decades. Very little about it works, especially in comparison to the vastly superior versions elsewhere.
Why it can’t be that way I don’t really know. I don’t know what motivates Disney to make their decisions. I can take some guesses, but I also know that I could guess 1 million things and there would be 1 million other things that I have no idea about that goes into what choice they make.

I could absolutely get behind Cars and Villains all being completely outside the existing park as their own thing. But I would nonetheless still support a transformation of Frontierland, and that includes replacing the river.

I agree there needs to be some water, but I would rather the water be a facet of a newly reimiagined take on the area than be a part of the existing River. I think the land is incredibly outdated and to be so large, they don’t do very much with it. I do not see a way to do what I feel needs to be done in Frontierland while also leaving the river as is.

My disagreements with Disney on this is their chosen IP. I do not disagree with the decisions to change Frontierland and change the River into something else. That is why I defend the concept. I am neither defending or disparaging the chosen IP completely because I have yet to see how it works or doesn’t work. I don’t have enough information. But I am overall skeptical of that specific choice. They’re going to have to justify that to me even though I agree with her decision to do something else with the river.

I know that that isn’t really a popular school of thought among parts of the parks fandom. In the past, I have been quite hostile to those who are upset. And that was wrong of me to do, because yes I can understand why losing the River hurts others even if it does not hurt me.

That said though, I don’t think that hurt should at the same time lead to someone completely closing themselves off to a valid wider discussion about elements of this that could be a positive for the park. I also don’t think that hurt should make anyone hand down a final verdict while we’re still years away from this opening. When this gets open and we can all see it and experience it and those folks still really hate it than I do consider that fair. Not everyone is going to like everything.

However, I do feel that even when one may not like something that does not preclude them from having a seat at the table and acknowledging some points that maybe bristle against how they feel but also maybe have some merit to them.

I don’t believe that any particular side of this question is definitively right or definitively wrong. I believe there have been points worth considering in favor of this and against this. And I think that a lot of this discussion could be made a lot easier on everyone if everyone was more willing to hear what the other has to say and consider points of view that may be don’t align with their own. And that includes myself. I have been guilty of not doing that.

At the end of the day, we’re all still talking about concepts. We have nothing tangible to really base a definitive feeling off of. There may be people who are in this thread defending this now, but when this opens, they may hate it. There may be people in this thread, who hate the idea now, but when this opens, they may really enjoy it. We really can’t know until it’s here.

So at the moment, yes I am very open to explaining why I think a transformation of Frontierland is a good idea. I am also open to hearing genuine discussions about why one thinks its not (I will not be entertainintng the behavior some of chosen to conduct themselves with as they do it though. That discussion needs to be respectful or I don’t want to have it. That’s not aimed at you, it’s about other folks here).

However, I am not going to sit here and say it with any degree of certainty that this particular idea is the correct way to do it. I don’t have enough information to say that. I can only say what about the concepts and ideas I support and what I am unsure about.
 
Last edited:
Disney Analyst

Disney Analyst

Well-Known Member
Architectural Guinea Pig said:
View attachment 862231
There are many points from this video that make a lot of sense, especially with the fact that even since the beginning the land isn't just cowboys and Indians- adding this area is literally just expanding the story of America and the Frontier. There doesn't need to be a single, unified theme- Adventureland is the proof of that.
Click to expand...

Good points.

And if singing and dancing animals have always been welcome, why not some Anthropomorphic cars?
 
Tha Realest

Tha Realest

Well-Known Member
Clyde Birdbrain said:
I think it needs to be connected for mosquito control, right? I recently watched a great video about how they got rid of the mosquitoes at WDW in the 1960s by digging canals and creating a massive drainage system.
Click to expand...
I recently watched the same video. It was well done!

But hey, maybe the current crop of Imagjneers know water management better than the administrators of the Panama Canal.
 
Gusey

Gusey

Well-Known Member
Disgruntled Walt said:
I've had the day to think about this, and here are my rambling thoughts:
  1. People really are twisting themselves up trying to defend this. But can anyone say it wouldn't be better if they had expanded the park? @Mr. Sullivan you're a reasonable fellow, can you answer this? Wouldn't it be better if they built both of these expansions outside the footprint of the park? Why can't it be this way?
Click to expand...
I've always been a defender of this project, because I believe it will be a better use of space than RoA and TSI. Currently, the only reason I visit Frontierland is BTM and TBA, and then I use Frontierland as a walkway to Haunted Mansion. The Cars attractions, and later Villains, will give me a reason to bother staying in this section of the park. In terms of why the replacement is better than expansion, I go back to the original question from before Cars was announced and we knew something was going Beyond Big Thunder: How would we actually be able to access the piece of land? By removing RoA and TSI, they're able to make multiple new pathways connecting BTM, Villains and HM to each other, and giving us 2 attractions in the space that more people will actually experience. Cars on its own may not be a net gain, but it is also not a net loss.
 
Gusey

Gusey

Well-Known Member
MisterPenguin said:
Which was my point. It's highlighting the "play area" which isn't terminology I would use for a kiddie ride.
Click to expand...

HauntedPirate said:
I'm curious why people keep saying, "attractions". There is only one announced, thus far, with a phase 2 "family friendly attraction" "to be announced later". ✂️
Click to expand...
Reiterating what the media have been told about the 2nd attraction:
"The Ranger Headquarters building will serve as the queue for the attraction" If its just a play area, why would it have a queue? Surely it will be more than that, either a ride or a show, more likely a ride
 
Brer Panther

Brer Panther

Well-Known Member
Sir_Cliff said:
Bob Iger hates dinosaurs?

Is the 'no dinosaur mandate' the new 'IP mandate'?
Click to expand...
It was supposed to be a joke about how Disney replaced Universe of Energy and scrapped all those dinosaur animatronics, and is now going to get rid of Dinoland and presumably scrap all THOSE dinosaur animatronics too.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom