MK Cars-Themed Attractions at Magic Kingdom

Animaniac93-98

Animaniac93-98

Well-Known Member
Casper Gutman said:
I dunno, I sorta think if leveraging lucrative IPs was my driving priority, I’d have greenlit the Moana attraction and found space for a major Stitch ride.
Click to expand...

Moana would have been the more obvious choice to me, but consider how almost all the heavy hitter IPs, and current franchises and characters (as shown on @BrianLo 's chart) are already represented on property:

Frozen
Star Wars
Toy Story
Marvel (with limitations)
Avatar
Princesses
Pooh
Moana (the walkthrough at EPCOT)
Villains
TRON
Encanto
Zootopia
Nemo

What's really left besides Cars, Stitch and Incredibles? Wreck-It-Ralph? Big Hero 6? What could be shoehorned into Frontierland the easiest? They said we were getting Coco until we weren't.

I suppose Jebediah Springfield's Frontier Conquest would have been a more cromulent choice...
 
Last edited:
Charlie The Chatbox Ghost

Charlie The Chatbox Ghost

Well-Known Member
Animaniac93-98 said:
Since Disney arbitrarily subdivided Future World into new lands, I have no problem with people calling the Cars area it's own land. Especially when Disney is purposefully making it a self-contained experience
Click to expand...
By that definition, is there a Beauty and the Beast land at MK, since there's an attraction and two restaurants all next to each other?

Disney is saying that Cars are a part of Frontierland, not their own land. And honestly it should stay that way, castle parks shouldn't have single IP lands. Galaxy's Edge at Disneyland was such a bad choice for that space, it should've gone in DCA and that area of DL's river loop could've been expansions of Fantasyland or Frontierland, or something new entirely that could house multiple IPs. But I know asking for shared spaces in parks nowadays is like asking for original non-IP attractions- it's not gonna happen, but it'd be nice!
 
Raineman

Raineman

Well-Known Member
Animaniac93-98 said:
Moana would have been the more obvious choice to me, but consider how almost all the heavy hitter IPs and characters (as shown on @BrianLo 's chart) are already represented on property:

Frozen
Star Wars
Toy Story
Marvel (with limitations)
Avatar
Princesses
Pooh
Moana (the walkthrough at EPCOT)
Villains
TRON
Encanto
Zootopia
Nemo

What's really left besides Cars, Stitch and Incredibles? Wreck-It-Ralph? Big Hero 6? What could be shoehorned into Frontierland the easiest? They said we were getting Coco until we weren't.

I suppose Jebediah Springfield's Frontier Conquest would have been a more cromulent choice...
Click to expand...
I've been waiting years to have Unnecessary Surgery Land at MK, or maybe Searing Gas Pain Land.
 
Casper Gutman

Casper Gutman

Well-Known Member
Animaniac93-98 said:
Moana would have been the more obvious choice to me, but consider how almost all the heavy hitter IPs and characters (as shown on @BrianLo 's chart) are already represented on property:

Frozen
Star Wars
Toy Story
Marvel (with limitations)
Avatar
Princesses
Pooh
Moana (the walkthrough at EPCOT)
Villains
TRON
Encanto
Zootopia
Nemo

What's really left besides Cars, Stitch and Incredibles? Wreck-It-Ralph? Big Hero 6? What could be shoehorned into Frontierland the easiest? They said we were getting Coco until we weren't.

I suppose Jebediah Springfield's Frontier Conquest would have been a more cromulent choice...
Click to expand...
Coco has a sequel coming and is much more critically acclaimed.

I’d also challenge the idea that Moana is meaningfully represented. Some of the IPs there are only very weakly represented.

It’s also worth noting that the guys down the road have demonstrated that you can make a lot of money by not limiting each IP to one land or attraction each.
 
Charlie The Chatbox Ghost

Charlie The Chatbox Ghost

Well-Known Member
Animaniac93-98 said:
Moana would have been the more obvious choice to me, but consider how almost all the heavy hitter IPs and characters (as shown on @BrianLo 's chart) are already represented on property:

Frozen
Star Wars
Toy Story
Marvel (with limitations)
Avatar
Princesses
Pooh
Moana (the walkthrough at EPCOT)
Villains
TRON
Encanto
Zootopia
Nemo

What's really left besides Cars, Stitch and Incredibles? Wreck-It-Ralph? Big Hero 6? What could be shoehorned into Frontierland the easiest? They said we were getting Coco until we weren't.

I suppose Jebediah Springfield's Frontier Conquest would have been a more cromulent choice...
Click to expand...
A Coco expansion would've fit "beyond Big Thunder" perfectly- it fits Frontierland, it's a progression of the journey starting in Liberty Square westward, it's a relevant IP with a sequel on the way, it could've added a stage show to MK (which needs more high capacity, low wait attractions) and it would've brought actually good Mexican food to MK. Then they could've replaced Pecos Bill's with a Hungry Bear Barbecue Jamboree & Mile Long Bar... or more realistically, Tiana's Palace.

Also, I'm shocked to hear that Tron is a "heavy-hitter". Is it just because of the ride being popular?
 
C

celluloid

Well-Known Member
I mean, grandkids to grandparents can enjoy a lot of attractions, but if are heaviest point is saying, "I think my grandkids will enjoy it." In terms of a property replacing a classic Disney attraction...and said is based on Cars and it's Plane Spinoff from nearly two decades ago...
I don't think that states much faith. I hope all enjoy it. But Cars fans are not thick in the grandchildren age. It would be like saying in the 1970s that you hope your grandkids love the new Davy Crocketland taking over Mainstreet USA.
 
Charlie The Chatbox Ghost

Charlie The Chatbox Ghost

Well-Known Member
Animaniac93-98 said:
Disney would say it is if they built it now IMO
Click to expand...
Honestly, probably. Then again, Tokyo got a BatB expansion of Fantasyland that iirc is almost half the size of Fantasyland, but it's still just considered a part of it. Who know what Disney's definition of a land is now, because it's certainly not consistent. The Muppets took up all of Grand Avenue Park, but it wasn't considered a Muppets land. Monsters Inc takes the same footprint, and now it's a Monsters Inc. land. (What's gonna happen to Grand Avenue? I assume Baseline Tap House will just get sucked into Commissary Lane?) They build a Cars area with the same number of attractions as their Monsters Inc land, but it's not a land, it's just a part of Frontierland (which is the right call imo). I think Disney just draws land boundaries based on how they're feeling that day.
 
Animaniac93-98

Animaniac93-98

Well-Known Member
Charlie The Chatbox Ghost said:
Honestly, probably. Then again, Tokyo got a BatB expansion of Fantasyland that iirc is almost half the size of Fantasyland, but it's still just considered a part of it. Who know what Disney's definition of a land is now, because it's certainly not consistent. The Muppets took up all of Grand Avenue Park, but it wasn't considered a Muppets land. Monsters Inc takes the same footprint, and now it's a Monsters Inc. land. (What's gonna happen to Grand Avenue? I assume Baseline Tap House will just get sucked into Commissary Lane?) They build a Cars area with the same number of attractions as their Monsters Inc land, but it's not a land, it's just a part of Frontierland (which is the right call imo). I think Disney just draws land boundaries based on how they're feeling that day.
Click to expand...

The criteria for what Disney considers to be a "land" is increasingly vague and nonsensical.
 
Gusey

Gusey

Well-Known Member
Raineman said:
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.
Click to expand...
Just to say, I'm fine with people grieving the loss of the RoA and understand why they are upset. Also, I'm very aware that you aren't one of those that is saying that the parks are going to die. But whilst there are some users on here saying that people shouldn't care or be emotionally invested in the closure of the RoA, Liberty Belle and TSI, there are the same amount of users saying that those of us who are in favor of the project are not smart enough to understand why the loss of RoA is such a big deal and that the parks are ruined forever. That's what I'm taking issue with, the extremity of other users who are so adament that this is a bad thing that they make those who like it feel like they're idiots for liking something they don't
 
Gusey

Gusey

Well-Known Member
Purduevian said:
Not counting Knots, greenfield village, Efteling, or Santa Claus Land
Click to expand...
Well, to be more specific first major theme park in the US, with international coverage thanks to the TV series leading up to it. Plus, besides Knotts and Efteling, I hadn't heard of the others, and the others are more recently due to an increase interest in theme parks, rather than international coverage

Casper Gutman said:
Being “first” isn’t what makes something historically and culturally relevant and it certainly isn’t what makes something art.
Click to expand...
You asked for my opinion. You don't have to agree with it but it doesn't mean it's dismissed. I also never said that Disneyland being the first made it art. To answer your art question, I said that the theming of an attraction can be considered art, but other parks have started to reach the same amount of theming and art that matches what Disney does
 

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

Back
Top Bottom