MK Cars-Themed Attractions at Magic Kingdom

[CoastalElite64]

I think the vast majority of people will only visit one resort or the other, as such I am fine with cloning. My ideal would be that each park needs at least one signature land or group of attractions that are unique to it. To me, Carsland works as the signature for DCA and so I would rather it not be cloned. But other standalone attractions and stuff is fine.

For the general audience I agree. But for super fans that spend time on fan sites and learning Disney history I think they should visit both parks. But thats more worth it when there are more unique offerings.

 

[JackCH]

For the general audience I agree. But for super fans that spend time on fan sites and learning Disney history I think they should visit both parks. But thats more worth it when there are more unique offerings.

I agree to an extent (hence why I think there should be at least 1 signature thing unique to each park), but at the same time I consider myself a superfan, but I'm not sure if I'lll ever get to DL again (I went once as a kid)... I want to (very badly), but budget-wise as a teacher it is very hard to do and even harder to justify when WDW is an hour and a half away. And it seems like it is better if you are developing an incredible attraction or land to allow a much wider net of your audience get to experience it, rather than limit it to the relatively small percentage who will go to both.

That being said it seems they are moving away from cloning anyway.

 

[Castle Cake Apologist]

IP is the catch-all term for Disney branded stuffs, characters, movies, etc. Welcome to the forum! Though like college football teams, you have to pick a side now. It's the rules. Pro or against? You can't switch later. Keep in mind that whatever you choose, will alienate at least 50% right off the bat. No pressure.

So what's your thoughts on the Piston Peak Cars-themed area?

Imagine looking at life with absolutely no nuance. If IP is used, we want it to make sense. This doesn't seem at all difficult to grasp, but here we constantly are.

I'm in the camp that the constraint of only being allowed to design backwards from pre-selected film IP is hindering WDI creatively, but I also believe that IP can certainly be used effectively if it feels organic. Much of what they've produced lately doesn't feel organic to me.

 

[DisneyHead123]

I'm in the camp that the constant use of IP is hindering WDI creatively, but that IP can certainly be used effectively if it feels organic. Much of what they've produced lately doesn't feel organic to me.

I’ve said before, one thing I find interesting is the approach to IP in the parks vs. the resorts. To me it indicates that Disney has to see both sides of the issue in some sense, even if “seeing both sides” at an institutional level might mean having two groups of designers who aren’t in communication with each other but all work for Disney.

Whatever arguments could be made for shoehorning IP into the parks could also be made at the resorts. People come here expecting to see Disney, merch sales, drawing in crowds, etc. And yet at the resort level (and the most bougie cruise suites) they must see the counter arguments. Some would say a little too well, as the resorts have been accused of being too far towards the other extreme.

I am a fan of intensive theming, but I do want it to fit. I hope Disney maybe pauses to consider what their fan base is buying up when it comes to DVC. Riviera is an idealized, vague version of Europe (I guess France, technically, although it seems to borrow from other parts of Europe.) The Poly Tower is the soft watercolor version of being somewhere unspecified in the North or South Pacific. They could have made the Riviera “Belle’s Chateau” and the Poly Tower “Moana’s Paradise” or something, but they went pretty far in the other direction. Whatever their rationale was there, I hope they find a middle ground with the parks (and the resorts). Theming is essential and part of what makes Disney Disney. But theming should transport people to someplace that they really want to be. That doesn’t necessarily mean an idealized fairy tale (although it might) - the OG Animal Kingdom was successful in its commitment to realism because it was presented in a way that captured people’s imagination. But it does mean the place in question needs serious atmospheric charm. IP is great, but it doesn’t necessarily represent a world we all wish we could be transported to.

 

[Disone]

Which feeds my overall hypothesis. The people most vocal about things like this are either local or at least within driving distance of Orlando.

Of course local people just want the closest thing they can get to Disneyland because they are local, they can just head there whenever.

But a person who has to fly in, they should want truly unique parks.

IMO .... You got this backwards. Person who is flying in has probably not been to both DL and MK. So to them The copy is still unique because they haven't been to the other. For the local..... Why would they choose to go visit the other one if it's a copy.

 

[BrianLo]

Once again, this decision is the cheap and easy way to go and the park will be worse off and less memorable for it.

This was definitely not the cheap nor easy option.

The cheap decision would be a tree lined one-way corridor that wraps around backstage and eventually dumps you in a Villains land in one of their lay down yards. Forgoing Cars entirely.

Even truncating the river would be cheaper than what they are doing. Doing the majority of the construction back stage instead of onstage is easier.

None of this means it was the right decision.

 

[Mr. Sullivan]

Disney exec: "That is nice, but wouldn't it be nicer with a bit of "kachow" and "git 'er done"?"

Can I ask why you think TSI/ROA is integral to DL's identity, other than it being the location of Fantasmic?

Sorry, I’m just now getting to this but yes I can explain.

It’s got nothing to do with Walt and everything to do with how Disneyland itself is laid out. Unlike MK, the river is a part of multiple different lands that were all designed to interact with it. Frontierland, New Orleans Square, and Adventureland all three have a view of it and interact with it. All three lands were built with it in mind and it functions as a critical part of their visual identity.

This is not so in Magic Kingdom. In Magic Kingdom, the river is only impactful to Frontierland a part of Liberty Square (but not even that in it’s entirety). Instead of being a show piece for the entire west side of the park that that entire side of the park is built around, it’s tucked away on it’s own.

In the design of the park, they made it not be a focal point but rather just an element of one corner of the park. They did not build that side of the park around the river and it plays no role in any land other than the land it solely resides in. It is not a visual tying together of multiple places, it is one singular place.

The entire left side of Disneyland relies on the River. The park is designed in such a way that it is irreplaceable. That simply is not the case for MK. It’s loss there has no impact on anything other than Frontierland itself. From any other land it may as well have mot been there at all. I don’t know why they chose to do it that way, but they did. It’s one of a few layout choices made for Magic Kingdom that I think contributes to it not being as tight as Disneyland.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Sorry, I’m just now getting to this but yes I can explain.

It’s got nothing to do with Walt and everything to do with how Disneyland itself is laid out. Unlike MK, the river is a part of multiple different lands that were all designed to interact with it. Frontierland, New Orleans Square, and Adventureland all three have a view of it and interact with it. All three lands were built with it in mind and it functions as a critical part of their visual identity.

This is not so in Magic Kingdom. In Magic Kingdom, the river is only impactful to Frontierland a part of Liberty Square (but not even that in it’s entirety). Instead of being a show piece for the entire west side of the park that that entire side of the park is built around, it’s tucked away on it’s own.

In the design of the park, they made it not be a focal point but rather just an element of one corner of the park. They did not build that side of the park around the river and it plays no role in any land other than the land it solely resides in. It is not a visual tying together of multiple places, it is one singular place.

The entire left side of Disneyland relies on the River. The park is designed in such a way that it is irreplaceable. That simply is not the case for MK. It’s loss there has no impact on anything other than Frontierland itself. From any other land it may as well have mot been there at all. I don’t know why they chose to do it that way, but they did. It’s one of a few layout choices made for Magic Kingdom that I think contributes to it not being as tight as Disneyland.

You should check your development timelines. You’re ascribing initial intent to things done over time and ignoring where intent is and was clear.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

Sorry, I’m just now getting to this but yes I can explain.

It’s got nothing to do with Walt and everything to do with how Disneyland itself is laid out. Unlike MK, the river is a part of multiple different lands that were all designed to interact with it. Frontierland, New Orleans Square, and Adventureland all three have a view of it and interact with it. All three lands were built with it in mind and it functions as a critical part of their visual identity.

This is not so in Magic Kingdom. In Magic Kingdom, the river is only impactful to Frontierland a part of Liberty Square (but not even that in it’s entirety). Instead of being a show piece for the entire west side of the park that that entire side of the park is built around, it’s tucked away on it’s own.

In the design of the park, they made it not be a focal point but rather just an element of one corner of the park. They did not build that side of the park around the river and it plays no role in any land other than the land it solely resides in. It is not a visual tying together of multiple places, it is one singular place.

The entire left side of Disneyland relies on the River. The park is designed in such a way that it is irreplaceable. That simply is not the case for MK. It’s loss there has no impact on anything other than Frontierland itself. From any other land it may as well have mot been there at all. I don’t know why they chose to do it that way, but they did. It’s one of a few layout choices made for Magic Kingdom that I think contributes to it not being as tight as Disneyland.

The only way you could reach this conclusion is if you never went to MK prior to the year 2000, and know nothing of it's development prior to the opening of BTMRR in 1980.

This is the problem with so many MK takes. They're misinformed at best and only show a limited knowledge of the park's recent history. A growing problem now that it's over 50 years old and so much of it has been lost to time, poorly documented and distributed and often ignored, intentionally or not.

 

[Touchdown]

DL would have lost its river for GE if it wasn’t for Fantasmic. Thank you dining packages for doing something useful for once.

 

[JackCH]

The only way you could reach this conclusion is if you never went to MK prior to the year 2000, and know nothing of it's development prior to the opening of BTMRR in 1980.

This is the problem with so many MK takes. They're misinformed at best and only show a limited knowledge of the park's recent history. A growing problem now that it's over 50 years old and so much of it has been lost to time, poorly documented and distributed and often ignored, intentionally or not.

You can dispute the diachronic/development point he made, but I'm not sure it changes the synchronic point that right now the river is less integral to the design of MK than DL. So I'm not sure the point is entirely defeated even with this counter.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

You can dispute the diachronic/development point he made, but I'm not sure it changes the synchronic point that right now the river is less integral to the design of MK than DL. So I'm not sure the point is entirely defeated even with this counter.

The post I quoted was talking about the design intent of the park, which is why I objected to it.

Drawing false conclusions about the park's history is less up for debate.

 

[JackCH]

The post I quoted was talking about the design intent of the park, which is why I objected to it.

Drawing false conclusions about the park's history is less up for debate.

I just don't see that as his main point. Most of what he says is about what it currently is and he may have misattributed it to original intent vs what developed, which is fine for correcting, but that doesn't seem to be what he is mainly getting at.

 

[DisDude33]

The only way you could reach this conclusion is if you never went to MK prior to the year 2000, and know nothing of it's development prior to the opening of BTMRR in 1980.

Considering most people are unable to form solid long term memories before the age of 5 the youngest a person can be to remember MK before 2000 would be 30. I don’t know the exact numbers but I’d guess that 30 is the average age of people buying tickets to WDW if not maybe a little lower so it stands to reason that pre-2000 MK is not only long gone but even the memories of it are dying.

 

[lazyboy97o]

You can dispute the diachronic/development point he made, but I'm not sure it changes the synchronic point that right now the river is less integral to the design of MK than DL. So I'm not sure the point is entirely defeated even with this counter.

The river is still quite integral to the spatial design of the park because the lands were even more designed around the river bend and the vistas out beyond that were able to take advantage of the unique location of the park. It’s been allowed to rot because of the two factor punch of the view that Magic Kingdom is just an inferior Disneyland and any difference is an error, and the change from design to branding as being a signifier of being “Disney.”

 

[solidyne]

Considering most people are unable to form solid long term memories before the age of 5 the youngest a person can be to remember MK before 2000 would be 30. I don’t know the exact numbers but I’d guess that 30 is the average age of people buying tickets to WDW if not maybe a little lower so it stands to reason that pre-2000 MK is not only long gone but even the memories of it are dying.

Don't trust anyone under 30.

Just a joke, kids.

 

[DisDude33]

Don't trust anyone under 30.

Just a joke, kids.

That’s a fair point.

 

[EricsBiscuit]

Today I took quite a few photos of the RoA. Such a beautiful area. One thing most people don’t realize is just how many show scenes it has. It had me running from one side of the ship to the other like a basketball player to take photos of everything!

The river marker by the Haunted Mansion is called “Howling Dog Bend.”

 

[Agent H]

Today I took quite a few photos of the RoA. Such a beautiful area. One thing most people don’t realize is just how many show scenes it has. It had me running from one side of the ship to the other like a basketball player to take photos of everything! View attachment 864925View attachment 864927
The river marker by the Haunted Mansion is called “Howling Dog Bend.”
View attachment 864926View attachment 864928View attachment 864929View attachment 864930View attachment 864931View attachment 864932View attachment 864933View attachment 864934

Don’t forget trying to stay where you can hear the narrator!

 

[Baloo124]

It had me running from one side of the ship to the other like a basketball player to take photos of everything!

You took some really nice pictures. If only the area had this same type of enthusiasm we're seeing today for all the many years it was open, rather than the "It's Closing so it's popular again!" last minute trending hype, maybe it could have stuck around for years longer.

Either way, bring on the next chapter.