MK Cars-Themed Attractions at Magic Kingdom

[HMF]

How does Disneyland run more attractions (including an intact RoA) than MK then? With fewer annual visitors?

Mostly because they know they would have a riot on their hands if they tried to get rid of the river at Disneyland.

 

[𝐌𝖆𝖓 𝖎𝖓 𝐖𝖊𝖇]

The irony to me is if they were just doing a “National parks” area in Frontierland with the waterfalls and geysers but without the anthropomorphic Cars then it would actually IMHO be a decent idea. I don’t even mind pivoting Frontierland to be a more broad “exploring American wilderness” kind of concept. It’s just that Cars is incongruous to this all.

With some waterfront thankfully remaining, I’m mostly just bothered with using Cars at this point. If they were using Humphrey the Bear or Chip & Dale (maybe Rescue Rangers?) or Pocahontas in that area instead, I’d actually be pretty down with it. I don’t think that the riverboat and TSI are so sacrosanct that they need to stay forever, but I just don’t think this plan is an improvement

But why the issue with Cars? It's perhaps LESS square-peg-round-holeing than some of the more recent IP integrations. Piston Peak (a Cars adjacent property)

 

[Dreamer19]

But why the issue with Cars? It's perhaps LESS square-peg-round-holeing than some of the more recent IP integrations. Piston Peak (a Cars adjacent property)

Does it always have to be IP? Can’t they take chances?

There is a fantastic ride at Hong Kong Disneyland called Big Grizzly Mountain Runaway Mine Cars. It is one of the best rides I’ve ever ridden at a Disney Park, it’s got a wholesome-yet-fun story and beyond all of that, it’s ORIGINAL.

When I worked at Shanghai Disney, I rode the backstage bus with an Imagineer and I found out that he had worked on that ride and to hear the love and effort and imagination put in….

THAT is what I want from Disney.

 

[HMF]

Does it always have to be IP? Can’t they take chances?

Not as long as Iger is CEO.

 

[𝐌𝖆𝖓 𝖎𝖓 𝐖𝖊𝖇]

Does it always have to be IP? Can’t they take chances?

There is a fantastic ride at Hong Kong Disneyland called Big Grizzly Mountain Runaway Mine Cars. It is one of the best rides I’ve ever ridden at a Disney Park, it’s got a wholesome-yet-fun story and beyond all of that, it’s ORIGINAL.

When I worked at Shanghai Disney, I rode the backstage bus with an Imagineer and I found out that he had worked on that ride and to hear the love and effort and imagination put in….

THAT is what I want from Disney.

I'd prefer that they not of course but that also wasn't the question asked. My question in particular was why is Cars so bad, what makes it such a hangup for some people? Genuinely curious.

 

[Dreamer19]

I'd prefer that they not of course but that also wasn't the question asked. My question in particular was why is Cars so bad, what makes it such a hangup for people? Genuinely curious.

Cars is a great property and I think it works really well in DCA, where they had the space. At MK in the location they’re putting it, I don’t think it works at all. I cringe thinking of how it’ll clash….similar to the Big Blue Box at Epcot.

If they hide them from view it’ll be better, but still very strange. Theres a hundred other things they could put in between the frontier and the “bayou” that would make more sense.

 

[𝐌𝖆𝖓 𝖎𝖓 𝐖𝖊𝖇]

Cars is a great property and I think it works really well in DCA, where they had the space.

So it's not the IP? It's the location?

Can you elaborate on why you think it'll clash? It's borrowing elements from Fronterland's past, TSI bridges, ROA water features, etc. If the IP itself, how is it any more or less fantastical than other anthropomorphised characters already featured in MK?

 

[doctornick]

But why the issue with Cars? It's perhaps LESS square-peg-round-holeing than some of the more recent IP integrations. Piston Peak (a Cars adjacent property)

Because if you trying to emphasize the beauty and majesty of the national parks and nature, putting the emphasis on mechanical modern vehicles - specifically ones that require some level of destruction of nature to make the paths/roads they drive on - isn't a good way to do that. I don't have any problem with Cars as a property used well - I would have been happy with Cars Land in DHS or some variation of using them there - but Frontierland isn't the right place. I might even be okay with putting Cars in MK in a separate corner/land detached from the other parts of MK but I think this is a poor choice for how to use that IP in WDW.

If they wanted a national parks theme and they wanted that location, I think that using something like Chip & Dale or Humphrey the Bear would be a better way to do it.

 

[doctornick]

When do you see them expanding instead of replacing deadwood? They have very little unused capacity because they have had very little alternatives. Expanding like they are now requires major reworking of the larger resort.

The point is not density - but just the basic common sense that just because you have land doesn’t make expanding your operations somehow the obvious choice.

At Disneyland? Star Wars was basically all new land (yes, the petting zoo went away but that was a tiny part of the footprint). MMRR was new. The 2 additional Marvel rides are going on currently unused land. Coco appears to not be replacing any other attractions.

DLR sometimes replaces as well of course but the ratio of "addition" to "replacement" is much better than at WDW in the Iger era.

 

[Dreamer19]

So it's not the IP? It's the location?

Can you elaborate on why you think it'll clash? It's borrowing elements from Fronterland's past, TSI bridges, ROA water features, etc. If the IP itself, how is it anymore or less fantastical than other anthropomorphised characters already featured in MK?

Yeah, it isn’t the IP. I honestly have so many thoughts about what goes where at Disney Parks over the last decade that I don’t know that anyone would want to hear it.

Not a Universal shill by any means, but I can point to something like Epic Universe and know instantly that they got theming right. Everything has its place.

Ten years from now, if they wedge a Fast & The Furious attraction into Nintendo Land or Isle Of Berk, believe me, I will make comments.

 

[𝐌𝖆𝖓 𝖎𝖓 𝐖𝖊𝖇]

Because if you trying to emphasize the beauty and majesty of the national parks and nature, putting the emphasis on mechanical modern vehicles - specifically ones that require some level of destruction of nature to make the paths/roads they drive on - isn't a good way to do that. I don't have any problem with Cars as a property used well - I would have been happy with Cars Land in DHS or some variation of using them there - but Frontierland isn't the right place. I might even be okay with putting Cars in MK in a separate corner/land detached from the other parts of MK but I think this is a poor choice for how to use that IP in WDW.

If they wanted a national parks theme and they wanted that location, I think that using something like Chip & Dale or Humphrey the Bear would be a better way to do it.

Sure to some degree, but the IP represents the era of the late 1950s and 60s, which marked a significant boom in road trip vacations, including those through iconic drives like Route 66 and with day trips to the Grand Canyon and National Parks. The idea of the IP here and tieing in with Piston Peak (an IP-adjacent property) only serves to better solidify that concept. I dare say the use is smarter here than Tiana in Frontierland. Though to your point with regards to Humpery and Chip & Dale... these characters would fit in nicely and probably should be featured in the "land" as well.

 

[DisneyHead123]

So it's not the IP? It's the location?

Can you elaborate on why you think it'll clash? It's borrowing elements from Fronterland's past, TSI bridges, ROA water features, etc. If the IP itself, how is it anymore or less fantastical than other anthropomorphised characters already featured in MK?

I think part of it is that the audience for Cars, to my mind, tends to skew young. So it would be a little like having a Doc McStuffins land (or maybe Hotwheels land, if that was a Disney IP)… my guess is that the appeal for the Cars IP is a bit less universal. Like I said, I think it would be great for something like Tomorrowland Speedway (I mean aside from the fact that Cars isn’t set in the future, but is a speedway particularly futuristic anyways?) but not as a heart-of-the-park centerpiece.

 

[𝐌𝖆𝖓 𝖎𝖓 𝐖𝖊𝖇]

I think part of it is that the audience for Cars, to my mind, tends to skew young.

Exactly. The IP was featured on Pull-ups. So it's the perfect vehicle for a Magic Kingdom attraction - the defacto "kiddy" park.

To be fair, I'm almost certain people poo-pooed the idea of Cars in California Adventure too and look how that turned out. It's certainly universally-loved there.

Full disclosure: I was for this concept from the beginning. Only until recently did I have even more faith in the project showing how they've best managed to save a sliver or ROA and some of TSI's exploration features. And I do think the IP works well here. And it's not a cloned attraction!!! But I'm biased. It is nice to get a pulse on what others think pro or against. I just hope as fans we're not moving the goal post.

 

[HMF]

To be fair, I'm almost certain people poo-pooed the idea of Cars in California Adventure too and look how that turned out. It's certainly universally-loved there.

To be fair, It really only works so well in DCA is because when it opened that park was a joke.

Disney California Adventure

Failure, Success, and Back to Failure

vocal.media

 

[DisneyHead123]

Exactly. The IP was featured on Pull-ups. So it's the perfect vehicle for a Magic Kingdom attraction - the defacto "kiddy" park. To be fair, I'm almost certain people poo-pooed the idea of Cars in California Adventure too and look how that turned out. It's certainly universally loved there.

I definitely see that perspective but to my mind the most “kiddy” parts of the park should not make up the core framework. Or if they do they should have crossover appeal. Like the castle - it’s appealing to princess loving preschoolers, but castles are also something adults tour Europe to see.

I’m not entirely convinced that a scenic Cars backdrop will be a little meh, but I’m skeptical. We’ll see how the final product looks.

 

[𝐌𝖆𝖓 𝖎𝖓 𝐖𝖊𝖇]

I definitely see that perspective but to my mind the most “kiddy” parts of the park should not make up the core framework.

That's my beef with Villains in MK. So I get where you're coming from. But I just don't have an issue with this IP in MK.

 

[flynnibus]

I know that if Disney had been more responsible with their businesses, they might have had the money to build a fifth gate. Or perhaps they could have just expanded beyond the railroad as they had in DL for Galaxy’s Edge.

Again what does any of this have to do with floating deadwood? You’re missing the point… you’re saying spend money to avoid replacing what they want gone… and ignoring the permanent change of expanded ops. Stop dreaming and pretend it’s your money and think it through.

 

[flynnibus]

Mostly because they know they would have a riot on their hands if they tried to get rid of the river at Disneyland.

People said same thing about the fort…
People said the same thing before they cut the river
People decried the lack of show scene improvements along the river… and the PC changes

Yet all that went through and really no one missed a beat except in online fan drama

 

[flynnibus]

At Disneyland? Star Wars was basically all new land (yes, the petting zoo went away but that was a tiny part of the footprint). MMRR was new. The 2 additional Marvel rides are going on currently unused land. Coco appears to not be replacing any other attractions.

DLR sometimes replaces as well of course but the ratio of "addition" to "replacement" is much better than at WDW in the Iger era.

Every one of those is spots that had stuff removed. Just not necessarily directly 1:1. The entire company is on an expansion kick… so obviously the latest projects are a bit skewed… but the point is expansion is not the default… for the reasons fans love to ignore because they think like fans, not operators.

 

[flynnibus]

And it actually fit the theme of DCA.

The original idea did… not radiator springs or what was built. It was given a pass because it’s done so well… no one cares that Arizona isn’t really California…. Nor anything really about DCA’s vision.