MK Cars-Themed Attractions at Magic Kingdom

[Animaniac93-98]

...Does the average park guest?

Subconsciously on some levels, they probably do

If they didn't, they wouldn't spend large sums of money and travel great distances to visit them

Whether they can articulate it or not, they understand Disney parks are above the quality of comparable amusements.

 

[Raineman]

I'd like to think that whilst I'd be sad, I wouldn't begin spouting extreme claims that the parks are losing their soles and are dying because they're removing a ride I like. Probably the closest example for my generation is the closure of Dinosaur and Dinoland. I'm going to miss Dinosaur when it closes because it was one of the first non-coaster thrill rides I did, but understand why it's closing and am looking forward to seeing what they end up doing with Tropical Americas. Similarly, I'm looking forward to what they do with Piston Peak and Villains Land, and feel like ultimately it will be a better use of the land than an TSI, RoA and Liberty Belle ended up being in the last few years of its operation.

For the record, I have never said that the parks are gonna die because they are removing an attraction I like. Believe it or not, I understand why Disney is doing this, from their point of view. I know the average park guest is applauding this change, and that's who Disney needs to cater to, to keep making money. I get it. But, that doesn't mean I have to like it, or look forward to what comes next. It's almost like there's this dismissive mindset running through this thread that "the changes are coming, they're gonna be better, and you're just gonna have to swallow it, and we don't care how emotionally invested you were in what is getting removed and you're wrong for not waiting to embrace the change". We've all seen the concept art, we know the IP that this new area will be based on, and based on that, some of us can confidently say that there is no way we will like the new attractions better than we like ROA/TSI, and that seems to annoy some people here. And, I would also like to add that, personally, making this change in itself is not totally disagreeable-it's what they are replacing it with. If they took the Cars IP completely out of the equation, and just had this as the Pacific Northwest wilderness with an offroad ride through it, I would be ok with that. Anyway, rant over.

 

[Raineman]

That’s kind of how life works. Would you expect them to ignore their new customer base to make you happy?

I know that's how life works. But your comment does not address my question-would people that agree with the changes they are making still feel the same way if a change was made to something they are emotionally attached to in the parks?. It's easy to say "I'll always look forward to new things in the parks" when the things that are being replaced are not things that you like. And they don't have to make me happy, because I most likely won't ever be attending any of their theme parks again.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

It's almost like there's this dismissive mindset running through this thread that "the changes are coming, they're gonna be better, and you're just gonna have to swallow it, and we don't care how emotionally invested you were in what is getting removed and you're wrong for not waiting to embrace the change".

Yeah - that’s the part that makes me annoyed as well. Some even seem to hint that there is nothing worthwhile to the old Disney parks - and that soon nostalgia will be dead just like Walt and then we can have the parks that the “general public” want. That nostalgia is somehow holding things back.

I go to Disney parks because I like them, not because I hope they pave them over and build something new. Haha

 

[andre85]

It’s a very boring layout and there really isn’t much to explore. It’s very detailed, often beautiful, and the water feature is used well, but it’s just not interestingly arranged.

The guy who designed it also designed the rest of Animal Kingdom (obviously, I know he didn't do it alone). Perhaps what he was aiming for wasn't exactly what you were expecting, but I wouldn't say it's poorly laid out

 

[Disstevefan1]

That’s kind of how life works. Would you expect them to ignore their new customer base to make you happy?

They absolutely need to try to attract their new customer base as they are pricing out their old customer base.

 

[Raineman]

They absolutely need to try to attract their new customer base as they are pricing out their old customer base.

Ripping out classic attractions to replace them with something mediocre is just one of numerous reasons why I probably won't be back to WDW, and cost is certainly at the top of the list.

 

[Chi84]

I know that's how life works. But your comment does not address my question-would people that agree with the changes they are making still feel the same way if a change was made to something they are emotionally attached to in the parks?. It's easy to say "I'll always look forward to new things in the parks" when the things that are being replaced are not things that you like. And they don't have to make me happy, because I most likely won't ever be attending any of their theme parks again.

I’m not the right person to answer because I can’t imagine being emotionally attached to something like a theme park attraction. I’m not saying other people are wrong to feel that way but it’s outside my experience.

I would miss attractions like Pirates and Mansion but wouldn’t call it an emotional attachment.

 

[Casper Gutman]

There was a vision that built the Disney parks. It was both a conscious and unconscious vision on the part of the original designers and the generation that followed. It resonated with guests and was key to the often unarticulated sense that the parks meant something, that they had a soul.

Maybe that vision is obsolete. Maybe it’s no longer socially acceptable. Fine. But you cannot constructively change that vision without understanding what it was and, most importantly, without having a coherent vision with which to replace it.

Modern Disney has no such vision. They are actively hostile to the idea of having such a vision for reasons both personal and systemic. So something that once had coherence, a “soul,” is being dismantled bit by bit, with no understanding, and additions are being made almost at random.

This is not just shouting about IPs. A focus on IPs could be part of a coherent new plan. But the IPs would need to be tools wielded in pursuit of something more. And that something more just doesn’t exist.

So yes, the soul of the parks is being destroyed and that doesn’t just mean nostalgic elements are being removed.

 

[Casper Gutman]

...Does the average park guest?

Why would that matter?

But as others have pointed out, the Disney parks place in the cultural and historical life of the nation and the world indicates that at some level they do.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

I’m not the right person to answer because I can’t imagine being emotionally attached to something like a theme park attraction.

the majority of people can’t imagine wanting to post daily in a theme park forum and yet here we are!

 

[Disstevefan1]

I’m not the right person to answer because I can’t imagine being emotionally attached to something like a theme park attraction. I’m not saying other people are wrong to feel that way but it’s outside my experience.

I would miss attractions like Pirates and Mansion but wouldn’t call it an emotional attachment.

I do not think Pirates and Mansion would ever go away but I expect them to continue to change them over time for modern sensibilities until they are no longer recognizable.

I will be very sad when the close CoP....

I also think for my family its cost that will eventually make it impossible to visit WDW.

 

[Casper Gutman]

I’m not the right person to answer because I can’t imagine being emotionally attached to something like a theme park attraction. I’m not saying other people are wrong to feel that way but it’s outside my experience.

I would miss attractions like Pirates and Mansion but wouldn’t call it an emotional attachment.

I find this staggering.

If you aren’t emotionally attached to theme park attractions, why are you here?

Are you emotionally attached to any works of art? Films? Music?

 

[Raineman]

I’m not the right person to answer because I can’t imagine being emotionally attached to something like a theme park attraction. I’m not saying other people are wrong to feel that way but it’s outside my experience.

I would miss attractions like Pirates and Mansion but wouldn’t call it an emotional attachment.

When I say "emotional attachment", I'm not referring to the same kind of attachment as someone would have with a loved one-it's more like an attachment to an attraction/land that is a favorite, that you have been on many times, that you have lots of memories of with people you care about, that is part of your WDW tradition, that would make a WDW visit feel less fun if it was gone.

 

[Smiley/OCD]

There will never be another Walt, no, but I also don't think that it's accurate to say that he was a lone figure who just did whatever he wanted unchecked all the time. Walt was a part of a Eisner/Wells style relationship with Roy.

Walt gets all the credit, but Disneyland, and indeed the company as a whole, would've never become what it did if it was Walt alone. Walt was a genius in many ways, but he was also a fool in other ways. He had brilliant ideas, and he had really terrible ones. Thankfully for him, there was always someone there to keep him from doing too many dumb things, and helping him to do his brilliant things in a way that didn't completely destroy him.

To that extent, I agree with you that a duo would be the best case, because that's been when the company has been at it's best. Never has the company completely thrived under totally centralized leadership. There was not completely centralized leadership when Walt was alive. Everyone points to him as the says all ends all, but Roy was right there keeping him balanced and I think deserves just as much of the credit for the Disney we know today.

Yes, I think we would ALL agree that would be the way to go…but, unfortunately, in 2025, the narcissism is too great, the egos too huge and the pressure by modern BoD’s with outside corporate raiders breathing down the company’s necks, the obsession and need for instant ROI to achieve profitability is too great for this scenario to happen…trust me, I would LOVE to be completely WRONG about this!

 

[Chi84]

I find this staggering.

If you aren’t emotionally attached to theme park attractions, why are you here?

Are you emotionally attached to any works of art? Films? Music?

That’s kind of like asking why people who no longer like WDW post here. I actually love our vacations there and hope to continue that for awhile. I find the changes interesting and think my grandkids will enjoy the new cars attraction.

I am emotionally attached to works of art, some films and definitely music. I just don’t consider theme parks to be in that category.

 

[Purduevian]

I heard four rides too.

Coaster, E-Ticket dark ride, a flat and... Something I think a lot of people are gonna like if it pans out.

I'm assuming you are talking just Villains or Cars+ Villains?

I haven't really thought about how much space there is back there... but Everest is the largest coaster I can think of ROTR is the largest dark ride, and alien is the largest flat ride... They all comfortably fit on that plot with room to spare...

 

[Casper Gutman]

That’s kind of like asking why people who no longer like WDW post here.

Not really. They post because they are emotionally attached.

I actually love our vacations there and hope to continue that for awhile.

OK, but why vacation THERE if there’s no emotional attachment? Have your family vacations not created those attachments through shared experiences and association with memories?

I find the changes interesting and think my grandkids will enjoy the new cars attraction.

I am emotionally attached to works of art, some films and definitely music. I just don’t consider theme parks to be in that category.

Do you consider theme parks to be works of art?

 

[Gusey]

Do you consider the parks to be historically or culturally significant? Do you consider them works of art?

I consider Disneyland histroically and culturally significant because it was the first theme park. I also appreciate the theming to create immersive environments for the attractions. Yet, I also understand that things need to change to stay relevant, and that other parks in the past few years have been able to match Disney in terms of theming. For me, the most important factor is having fun at the parks. For me, that fun factor was non-existent with the Liberty Belle and most of TSI

 

[Casper Gutman]

I consider Disneyland histroically and culturally significant because it was the first theme park.

Being “first” isn’t what makes something historically and culturally relevant and it certainly isn’t what makes something art.