MK Cars-Themed Attractions at Magic Kingdom

AidenRodriguez731

Well-Known Member
I think they could have maintained the river in their solution. Actually I know they could. We have seen examples. They chose not to.
Yeah they could have but I think the river was always doomed. Eventually spots would run out again. Let's say they took the behind Big Thunder mountain spot but wanted to do Coco later. Now people are saying "Mexico doesn't fit in the middle of Frontierland" It's much easier to have Coco and another attraction in that spot BEHIND the mountain, if they wanted to continue a deserty area. Plus no big show building in the middle of the area. So what can you build in the rivers? needs to be something without a huge show building and they found something.
 

DisneyHead123

Well-Known Member
One thing that strikes me about this change is the somewhat (somewhat) analogous situation in Animal Kingdom. Again, not perfectly parallel, but to my mind a decent comparison point. I think it’s noteworthy how much better received the latter has been. To my mind a big part of that was them bringing back Rohde (who people know headed up the iconic lands in AK), releasing information about all the work going into the design process, and emphasizing authenticity (a loaded concept, but used well in this case, I think.) I think the cutesy / IP driven Encanto (that’s not a dig, I like cute and I like IP) even got a pass because it was just one element of the land. There have been some complaints, yeah, but at nowhere near the same scale.

With Cars, on the other hand, I think people are just worried that all of the wrong things are happening here. There were rumors that it was a last minute decision vs. a carefully considered one (and that better fitting IP was tossed due to cost.) It’s not clear who’s heading up the design team or what their former work looks like. Even an amateur armchair designer can quickly see that cartoon Cars don’t seem like a particularly authentic fit for the area without some serious mental gymnastics.
 

CoastalElite64

Well-Known Member
Yeah they could have but I think the river was always doomed. Eventually spots would run out again. Let's say they took the behind Big Thunder mountain spot but wanted to do Coco later. Now people are saying "Mexico doesn't fit in the middle of Frontierland" It's much easier to have Coco and another attraction in that spot BEHIND the mountain, if they wanted to continue a deserty area. Plus no big show building in the middle of the area. So what can you build in the rivers? needs to be something without a huge show building and they found something.

Before the announcement I remember some fans complaining about Coco maybe going in Frontierland. I think Disney saw this and went with Cars to avoid outrage.
 

el_super

Well-Known Member
I'm sure everyone was saying the same thing back when it first closed in 2018 (I think?). And in 2019. And in 2020. And in 2021. And in 2022.

You can see where I'm going here, right?

Yeah. I think that just proves the river was a bigger drain on resources and a bigger problem that needed to be prioritized.
 

el_super

Well-Known Member
It actually does when it’s called Frontierland? But I guess since you say it doesn’t matter, that means you don’t have one. If they were going to gut one of the central parts of the park, they could have at least found an IP that actually belonged.

They absolutely should have ditched the theme for Frontierland but it seems they wanted to try to preserve some of their history. They do sometimes make mistakes.
 

psherman42

Well-Known Member
Yeah, and I think a big part of Pandora is being able to walk through it. This will largely be a blocked off area for a ride so any visuals will be viewed from a distance.
Yeah. People have mentioned how much space this will open up for guests to walk and rest and explore and I really think they’re overestimating how much open space there will be. And if there is a lot of open space, then that means the ride is likely smaller and probably underwhelming.
I don't think Cars Piston Peak would fit in the Stitch building.
Well, duh. But they could have either brought Stitch back or found a suitable alternative to replace it. Then worried about Frontierland later.
 

peter11435

Well-Known Member
If the rivers attractions were not being used by enough guests - they would have become seasonal attractions. Nothing was forcing Disney to open them each day.
The river was originally home to 4 water based attractions with 12 vehicles. You’re correct that they didn’t go seasonal but they cut that down to just 2 attractions with 1 riverboat and 3 rafts. Most days they only operated 2 rafts. They also cut back their hours significantly. Not opening until 11 and closing significantly earlier than necessary. The river attractions were not being used by enough guests even with their significantly reduced capacity and hours.
 

Incomudro

Well-Known Member
A problem for Disney. I realize that’s not our problem as guests. But why would you expect any company to spend money on something guests mostly aren’t using.

My 300 guests using a capacity of 1000 was an example. Although it’s actually very close to an accurate representation of the Riverboat.

They didn’t suddenly decide this was a problem. They’ve been looking at this problem for 30 years but never committed the funds to fix it until now.
Because guests come to the parks and spend money anyway.
Why destroy scenic areas just to wring more money out of them, and continue to destroy what made the park special?
 

peter11435

Well-Known Member
Then why didn't Disneyworld start out like that?
Why was it designed with all of the water - there used to be more of it around the castle, all of the scenic vistas?
Why wasn't it designed to be jammed with rides?
This has nothing to do with being jammed with rides. That wasn’t the point.

Even in 1971 they would have removed attractions if they weren’t popular enough to justify keeping them.

The point you were replying to was that Disney world exists to make money. Always has and always will. How has and will continue to evolve.
 

TheMaxRebo

Well-Known Member
Because guests come to the parks and spend money anyway.
Why destroy scenic areas just to wring more money out of them, and continue to destroy what made the park special?

Well they of course do want to make more money but they also want to make the parks more special to more people - just may be different people

Outside of boards like these the vast majority of people I know are very excited about this change.

The end product will show if the trade off for more guests was worth it or not ... But just b/c something changes doesn't mean it will be worse - it could be better, but time will tell
 

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

Back
Top Bottom