MK Cars-Themed Attractions at Magic Kingdom

[lazyboy97o]

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

It’s not an issue of smarts, but concern and interest that has been actively and openly expressed. If you largely see theme parks as a collection of amusements then you’re not going to understand concerns about things like spatial organization and narrative placemaking. You can know that there might be something to it and appreciate that designers [at times] work hard on it but ultimately not really care. If you don’t care then you don’t care but what’s constantly perplexing is people declaring they don’t care and getting mad when that is acknowledged.

 

[Chi84]

Not really. They post because they are emotionally attached.

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?

Do you consider theme parks to be works of art?

I disagree.

Because it’s a perfect vacation spot for our multi generational family - something for everyone.

No.

 

[MisterPenguin]

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

That's a semantic problem common amongst us humans as we try to classify things that don't have distinct boundaries.

For example: What makes a planet a planet? Sorry, Pluto, you lose out of the edge case.

Or, what makes a continent a continent? There are seven, right? Oh wait... Europe and Asia are clearly one giant land mass. And when does an island become so big that it's no longer an island, but a continent?

Or, at what size does a pebble become a rock, and a rock become a boulder?

So, what makes a theme park land a land? The number of rides? The number of non-ride attractions plus rides? Seclusion from the rest of the park? We can see what Disney has done in the past and use that to make up rules and criteria, but then what happens when Disney makes a secluded land with only one ride (like Zootopia in Shanghai)?

It's like looking at all the Disney Princesses and trying to figure out which animated princesses make the cut and which don't and arguing endlessly about it when, in fact, the only criteria the company uses is marketing synergy. Oops.

In the end, Disney will use "land" when it wants to even if it doesn't seem to fit their previous usage of the word "land." And it will avoid "land" even tho we may think it fits based on Disney's previous usage of "land."

It's a land if and only if Disney says it is.

 

[flynnibus]

The Disney parks only exist because of niche interests in trains and miniatures.

Yet even those were his interests… it’s not what he built for public consumption…. So not relevant to the train of thought.

The other poster was right… a mass market product like a theme park needs mass market appeal

 

[flynnibus]

How would you react if, in a couple of decades, the Mushroom Kingdom does not hit with the newer generations, and they rip it out and replace it with something newer that does not give you the same feels? Can you honestly say that you will be OK with that and welcome the replacement?

Most people will say yes if they are entertained by the replacement.

The suggestion something should stay the same because of one customer’s feelings is rediculous

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

Yet even those were his interests… it’s not what he built for public consumption….

How was it different?

 

[Disstevefan1]

I fully expect WDW to celebrate its 75 and 100 birthdays.

Its very easy for me to say this as I most likely will not be here to see the 75th and for sure not see the 100th.

 

[Casper Gutman]

I disagree.

I’m not sure you get to tell other posters what they are or aren’t emotionally attached to…

No.

Are comics art? Popular films? Video games?

Can any element of the built environment- say, a cathedral - be considered art?

What is your definition of “art?”

 

[flynnibus]

How was it different?

Disneyland wasn’t a park to celebrate miniatures and model trains

Don’t confuse tools with the end product

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

Disneyland wasn’t a park to celebrate miniatures and model trains

Don’t confuse tools with the end product

My question was…. How was it different?

 

[lazyboy97o]

Yet even those were his interests… it’s not what he built for public consumption…. So not relevant to the train of thought.

The other poster was right… a mass market product like a theme park needs mass market appeal

He created the mass market appeal based on his personal interests.

 

[Charlie The Chatbox Ghost]

I’d add to the above that the Coco/Moana/Villains plan we heard about before D23 made more financial sense and would have been genuinely exciting.

Yep. It'd have been all actual expansion, with mostly nothing being lost. I imagine Coco likely would've gone on the back half of the RoA, making it a short loop like at DL, Villains would've been beyond the berm, and Moana would go on the Fire Mountain expansion pad.

Honestly, I think I gave Moana/Coco more room than needed in this image, so you could probably fit even more stuff in those plots. Or in the case of Moana, make the one ride with the Shanghai Pirates ride system so it's a huge show building, lol.

Surely this plan wouldn't have saved much more money, no? They're still doing a ton of construction on land that'll likely need to be retreated for development (I imagine that 50+ years of water has not been kind to the land around the rivers), just inside the berm instead of outside it. And not using the Fire Mountain expansion pad for Moana is just... an awful business decision? Moana prints money, why would you not want to make a big Individual Lightning Lane required ride? How is a walkthrough water fountain exhibit a better use of the IP? Am I going insane?

 

[flynnibus]

Disney should definitely build Ham radioland instead… it would crush in that market…

 

[flynnibus]

They're still doing a ton of construction on land that'll likely need to be retreated for development (I imagine that 50+ years of water has not been kind to the land around the rivers), just inside the berm instead of outside it

Huh?

The RoA is a concrete lined basin

The entire property was undeveloped swamp before they touched it.

 

[Smiley/OCD]

Maybe we could start using "subland'!

Storybook Circus Subland of Fantasyland.

Cars' Piston Peaks Subland of Frontierland.

Piston Peak…a subsidiary of Frontierland…a division of TWDC…

 

[Charlie The Chatbox Ghost]

Disney Super Fans: There shouldn't be attractions based on IPs!!!

Also Disney Super Fans: Lemme tell you, Disney, how to do IP attractions and lands correctly!!!

For real though, IP attractions can be done well, and anyone saying there shouldn't be anything based on IPs is probably trolling or somehow forgot that the original Disneyland had "IP" in it on opening day (albeit all contained to Fantasyland).

IMO, the best combo is non-IP lands that can fit a number of IPs in them, like the original lands you see at castle parks. That makes it easy to switch things out and keep the parks fresh, instead of building a few lands based on specific IPs and praying they're evergreen. The original/supposed MK plan to put Coco in Frontierland, Moana in Adventureland, and then the new land being Villains all fits that idea well. If someday Coco or Moana aren't relevant, you can swap them out for something else that fits Frontierland/Adventureland. And Villains will always be evergreen, so there's no worry there.

 

[Smiley/OCD]

I wasn't stating that, I was pointing out that was the last made-up definition and that there hasn't been a definition from Disney as to what makes up a land. The only way we know what is considered a land by Disney is when they tell us and when the maps have a section labelled as a land

WOW…all along I thought social media was the downfall of society…I didn’t realize it was semantics.

 

[ᗩLᘿᑕ ֊ᗩζᗩᗰ]

WOW…all along I thought social media was the downfall of society…I didn’t realize it was semantics.

Semantics: the downfall of forums.

 

[Moth]

View attachment 869827
For real though, IP attractions can be done well, and anyone saying there shouldn't be anything based on IPs is probably trolling or somehow forgot that the original Disneyland had "IP" in it on opening day (albeit all contained to Fantasyland).

IMO, the best combo is non-IP lands that can fit a number of IPs in them, like the original lands you see at castle parks. That makes it easy to switch things out and keep the parks fresh, instead of building a few lands based on specific IPs and praying they're evergreen. The original/supposed MK plan to put Coco in Frontierland, Moana in Adventureland, and then the new land being Villains all fits that idea well. If someday Coco or Moana aren't relevant, you can swap them out for something else that fits Frontierland/Adventureland. And Villains will always be evergreen, so there's no worry there.

 

[Smiley/OCD]

Probably correct... but now you're talking degrees.

Cars are still loud - goto RSR and you see the same and they only go a fraction of the speed.

Tires+Ground+wind noise.. it's every neighbors nightmare.

THAT + the fact I’ve never seen or heard a silent (or quiet) off road vehicle…