MK Cars-Themed Attractions at Magic Kingdom

[rle4lunch]

This was a kicked around concept for TL 98 in California. Instead they got an incredibly brief portion of off-road track and some ASIMO figures planted about.

I've always pointed out mag-lev technology to replace this. IT's literally the FUTURE! and pretty cool tech.

 

[JD80]

As far as Speedway being another or a defunct ride due to the Cars' rides, consider:

1. We're still waiting to see how DL's conversion of their Speedway to EVs goes.

2. There was almost announced a refurb of Speedway to...

View attachment 862480

I think they are waiting to see how TRON Ares does.

 

[SamusAranX]

I think they are waiting to see how TRON Ares does.

s y n e r g y

 

[truecoat]

When cars is no longer a thing, they will repeat the same...

25 years from now when cars become sentient, they'll demand the removal of the caricatures of the offensive Carsland and Piston Peak from the parks.

 

[Chi84]

The Disney leadership you continue to defend have been ignoring basic business practices for years.

There are many people who are nostalgic about older attractions and don’t want them removed because they are a significant part of their Disney memories.

But I really doubt Tom Sawyer Island and the Riverboat are popular attractions with people who visit now. If they were, they would help with Disney’s capacity problem by drawing crowds. There would be no reason to remove them.

I don’t think it would be a sensible business decision to keep underutilized attractions in operation. I know others disagree on the basis they feel it’s a part of what makes Disney special.

 

[Tha Realest]

I think they are waiting to see how TRON Ares does.

Oh man I hope they have a Plan B

 

[JD80]

Oh man I hope they have a Plan B

I mean they won't be doing anything with this space for years anyway.

 

[Dreamer19]

There are many people who are nostalgic about older attractions and don’t want them removed because they are a significant part of their Disney memories.

But I really doubt Tom Sawyer Island and the Riverboat are popular attractions with people who visit now. If they were, they would help with Disney’s capacity problem by drawing crowds. There would be no reason to remove them.

I don’t think it would be a sensible business decision to keep underutilized attractions in operation. I know others disagree on the basis they feel it’s a part of what makes Disney special.

I don’t want to speak for others, but I feel as though the majority of those who are upset with this decision are more disappointed with the lack of creativity and heart behind it.

I am aware that both ROA and TSI are not wildly popular attractions, overflowing with guests. That isn’t the point. One might suggest these areas serve a greater purpose than that. that they were designed with a sense of timelessness, rather than the lowest common denominator.

Additionally, I would argue that if Disney leadership hadn’t spent the last decade dividing their audience and cratering their main IPs, they wouldn’t be cost cutting by destroying instead of expanding and appealing to that lowest common denominator.

 

[Chi84]

I don’t want to speak for others, but I feel as though the majority of those who are upset with this decision are more disappointed with the lack of creativity and heart behind it.

I am aware that both ROA and TSI are not wildly popular attractions, overflowing with guests. That isn’t the point. One might suggest these areas serve a greater purpose than that. that they were designed with a sense of timelessness, rather than the lowest common denominator.

Additionally, I would argue that if Disney leadership hadn’t spent the last decade dividing their audience and cratering their main IPs, they wouldn’t be cost cutting by destroying instead of expanding and appealing to that lowest common denominator.

I understand but I don’t agree with your designation of “lowest common denominator.”

People have different tastes and like different attractions. I wouldn’t agree with “lack of creativity and heart” either. At the end of the day Disney is there to entertain its current audience. I’ll wait until I see the changes.

 

[thomas998]

I think they have concluded (and I think I agree with them) that the whole conceit behind Cars is amazingly flexible and timeless. Even if kids no longer know who Lightning McQueen is, the concept of anthropomorphic cars can remain inherently entertaining. Add to that the hope that this attraction also has inherently appealing natural features (rockwork, waterfalls, forests) plus whatever mild thrill the ride vehicles themselves provide, you can make the argument that this will be a fun attraction with a very long shelf life regardless of the IP.

It reminds me a little of how inherently entertaining Splash Mountain was - and nobody had to be a die-hard Song of the South fan to enjoy it.

But they didn't call it Splash Mountain land... it fit into an area called Frontierland... It simply would make more sense if they stuck with more generic lands and not base this one on one particular movie franchise. Frankly Carsland would make a lot more sense in Hollywood Studios. I think DL was right when they stuck the Cars rides in California Adventure.

 

[FettFan]

As far as Speedway being another or a defunct ride due to the Cars' rides, consider:

1. We're still waiting to see how DL's conversion of their Speedway to EVs goes.

2. There was almost announced a refurb of Speedway to...

View attachment 862480

Aye I remember that floating around some years ago when the speedway received a Christmas LED overlay.

 

[TheMaxRebo]

But they didn't call it Splash Mountain land... it fit into an area called Frontierland... It simply would make more sense if they stuck with more generic lands and not base this one on one particular movie franchise. Frankly Carsland would make a lot more sense in Hollywood Studios. I think DL was right when they stuck the Cars rides in California Adventure.

Are they officially calling the area Cars Land though or is that just for reference for the construction project and once complete the map will just have the Piston Peak attraction on it (and the smaller attraction) as items in Frontierland?

 

[Dreamer19]

I understand but I don’t agree with your designation of “lowest common denominator.”

People have different tastes and like different attractions. I wouldn’t agree with “lack of creativity and heart” either. At the end of the day Disney is there to entertain its current audience. I’ll wait until I see the changes.

I appreciate the call out. I am not here to insult or demean.

Having close ties to the company, I do not appreciate the current direction and have strong feelings about it. I also understand that there are a range of differing tastes and that my opinion isn’t necessarily the correct one.

That being said, having worked for the company for ten years in multiple areas and having drank the Koolaid, I began to see a decline that even by bias couldn’t ignore. Disney is supposed to be the absolute standard for entertainment, guest services and theming.

Can you honestly say they still are?

 

[Gusey]

But they didn't call it Splash Mountain land... it fit into an area called Frontierland... It simply would make more sense if they stuck with more generic lands and not base this one on one particular movie franchise. Frankly Carsland would make a lot more sense in Hollywood Studios. I think DL was right when they stuck the Cars rides in California Adventure.

But, they aren't making Cars Land, they're making a large-scale Cars attraction in Frontierland. They're theming it to American National Parks, specifically The Rockys, with Frontierland emphasizing more on American wilderness than the Wild West.

 

[FettFan]

For what it's worth, I think Imagineering IS doing the best the can here in making lemonade out of some lemons. It's not ideal but it's not terrible. I just wish it wasn't a single IP deal. Seems reasonable enough to expand that theme to support multiple IPs or non IPs. Crazy notion, I know.

They could have turned TSI into another Camp Minnie-Mickey with a Pocahontas show and character meets.

 

[el_super]

I don’t want to speak for others, but I feel as though the majority of those who are upset with this decision are more disappointed with the lack of creativity and heart behind it.

What? Wouldn't envisioning a land of make-believe, where cars are like people, be more creative than planting some trees and calling it a wilderness?

I am aware that both ROA and TSI are not wildly popular attractions, overflowing with guests. That isn’t the point.

Absolutely, 100%, the point of it. They have to build AND maintain spaces that people are willing to spend money to visit. If you want trees, water and real wilderness, you can have it elsewhere.

 

[eddie104]

How is that a scapegoat?

Some posters on here are constantly looking to throw the Imagineers under the bus for Bob Iger’s reckless decisions.

Every little project that doesn’t turn out right folks tend to point fingers at the creatives behind them.

Instead of saying maybe their hands were tied or the budget wasn’t managed appropriately.

 

[Chi84]

I appreciate the call out. I am not here to insult or demean.

Having close ties to the company, I do not appreciate the current direction and have strong feelings about it. I also understand that there are a range of differing tastes and that my opinion isn’t necessarily the correct one.

That being said, having worked for the company for ten years in multiple areas and having drank the Koolaid, I began to see a decline that even by bias couldn’t ignore. Disney is supposed to be the absolute standard for entertainment, guest services and theming.

Can you honestly say they still are?

There is a definite decline in all those things. Unfortunately current management has a new definition of what Disney is “supposed to be.”

I don’t agree with them but I’m seeing a sustained decline in customer service everywhere, not just at Disney. And I’m not sure our fast-paced society even notices.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

I don’t think it would be a sensible business decision to keep underutilized attractions in operation.

Typing this from Tom Sawyer island - can you give an example or properly utilized attractions? Is there a specific number of daily visitors?

If Disneyland thought it made business sense to keep the island and boats - why doesn’t WDW?

 

[Andrew C]

Typing this from Tom Sawyer island - can you give an example or properly utilized attractions? Is there a specific number of daily visitors?

If Disneyland thought it made business sense to keep the island and boats - why doesn’t WDW?

I feel like Disney and others insist on putting numbers and metrics on everything. Sometimes, it is just about the atmosphere that something brings to an area to make a better experience. It can be integral of the land without even knowing it..or forgetting that you once knew this to be the case. When it comes to Frontierland, that is what RoA and TSI are to me.