MK Cars-Themed Attractions at Magic Kingdom

[flynnibus]

Just because an attraction is "old" doesn't mean it's not giving the "brand-new" feel to anyone who experiences it for the first time, especially children

People aren't harping that it's 'old' as the issue - They are pointing out that the kind of experience is dated in that it's not what consumers today are seeking and even the young today are conditioned to expect so much more. The references don't resonate. The experience lacks. The customers are not attracted to it.

Yes, 'playing outside' will never be dated.. but this isn't a situation where people have nothing and need to make the most of what they have at their disposal.. this is the world's most popular theme park. The pressures of time, expense, things to do.. all go against the classic just taking a break and explore. Disney's park commando experience contributes to the death of things that are intended to just be taking time to wander and explore.

The situation... the attraction itself.. the gap between the source material and current customers.. and customer expectations.. all contribute to the lack of use.

It's old in the sense it doesn't necessarily fit the customer of today the same as it did decades ago. It's old in the sense it no longer is current.

 

[Disstevefan1]

When we ride the riverboat, explore TSI and the fort, we are stepping back in time, something we cannot do in normal life.
Cars land will be a dirt track, something I can go up the road and experience.

Its sad but it is what it is.

 

[jah4955]

Disney's park commando experience contributes to the death of things that are intended to just be taking time to wander and explore.

I don't disagree. 99% of my personal Disney fandom ("bias") is precisely because of my "wander and explore" childhood experiences at WDW from the early 80's thru (to a lesser degree) the late 90's. Just the thought of the, current "park commando" of today fills me with anxious feelings. My understanding of a vacation was always that it's supposed to be about relaxation .... renewal .."re-creation." But it now seems a WDW vacation could become a most-stressful experience; it not only requires meticulous planning efforts down to some of the smallest details, but a most-stressful adherence to a very strict schedule in order to feel like you get the most bang for your buck...."go...go...GO!" It's the bigger reason why I don't foresee returning for the foreseeable future, no matter how amazing future offerings become.

 

[Rhinocerous]

People aren't harping that it's 'old' as the issue - They are pointing out that the kind of experience is dated in that it's not what consumers today are seeking and even the young today are conditioned to expect so much more. The references don't resonate. The experience lacks. The customers are not attracted to it.

Yes, 'playing outside' will never be dated.. but this isn't a situation where people have nothing and need to make the most of what they have at their disposal.. this is the world's most popular theme park. The pressures of time, expense, things to do.. all go against the classic just taking a break and explore. Disney's park commando experience contributes to the death of things that are intended to just be taking time to wander and explore.

The situation... the attraction itself.. the gap between the source material and current customers.. and customer expectations.. all contribute to the lack of use.

It's old in the sense it doesn't necessarily fit the customer of today the same as it did decades ago. It's old in the sense it no longer is current.

If we are strictly talking about adults, you may have an argument. (I don't entirely agree, but that's a separate conversation.) Kids are a totally different animal.

Children need a place to decompress. Especially if the rest of the day is spent as a 'park commando'. They can't just rush from place to place, rigidly following a schedule or an opportunity all day. They simply aren't built for it. And if you are fixated on how much every minute at the World is costing you, spending an hour exploring a quiet area of the park is a lot more appealing than schlepping back to the room for part of your day's admission.

The solution is not to replace, but to update. IP is largely immaterial in this case. Kids still play outside. The island feels stagnant and outdated? Refurb and refresh. Add activities that will appeal to the youth of 2025. It doesn't have to be all screenz.

Disney isn't doing that, because new Lightning Lanes and merch sales will bring more profit in the long run, but let's not pretend this was the only option.

 

[flynnibus]

If we are strictly talking about adults, you may have an argument. (I don't entirely agree, but that's a separate conversation.) Kids are a totally different animal.

Children need a place to decompress. Especially if the rest of the day is spent as a 'park commando'. They can't just rush from place to place, rigidly following a schedule or an opportunity all day. They simply aren't built for it.

But kids don't make your schedule, set your reservations, or feel the burden of paying for the trip. Disney has built this model that conditions you not to eat when you are hungry.. but to decide months in advance at 1:30 you will eat at this spot.. You don't decide "lets ride space mountain!" someone already decided at 4:20, you are supposed to ride space mountain. That time inbetween? You can adlib.. but you know you have a commitment.. so if you were to head to TSI for instance, the exploration is going to be cut off. Now instead of playing a game, a parent rushes their kid through each portion to 'finish' before their time runs out.

The dad doesn't want to spend $500 for the day to watch their kid play with a rock... just like people who end up watching their kid enjoy the hotel pool instead of wanting to go do all the other stuff they've already paid for.

And I don't care what you think kids need or not - we're talking about what Disney has setup. You can try to ignore most of Disney's model, but you're going to be getting a vastly inferior experience while paying the same amount. People aren't going to do that in the long run.

Disney's model shapes and influences consumer behavior. From the marketing, to the structure, to the constraints.

The solution is not to replace, but to update. IP is largely immaterial in this case. Kids still play outside. The island feels stagnant and outdated? Refurb and refresh. Add activities that will appeal to the youth of 2025. It doesn't have to be all screenz.

Have you noticed the lack of play areas around the parks in general compared to 15yrs ago? This isn't just a TSI issue. And IP is still relevant.. because kid's don't drive the boat. Someone has to do decide they can even go there.. and parents like to engage and lead their kids as well.

 

[TheMaxRebo]

I don't disagree. 99% of my personal Disney fandom ("bias") is precisely because of my "wander and explore" childhood experiences at WDW from the early 80's thru (to a lesser degree) the late 90's. Just the thought of the, current "park commando" of today fills me with anxious feelings. My understanding of a vacation was always that it's supposed to be about relaxation .... renewal .."re-creation." But it now seems a WDW vacation could become a most-stressful experience; it not only requires meticulous planning efforts down to some of the smallest details, but a most-stressful adherence to a very strict schedule in order to feel like you get the most bang for your buck...."go...go...GO!" It's the bigger reason why I don't foresee returning for the foreseeable future, no matter how amazing future offerings become.

I really disagree with needing to have a meticulous schedule and strict adherence to it. I actually think the majority of the time if you plan things out to the minute it will be a disaster as if you get off by just a bit it throws everything off

You definitely have to have some sort of plan, I figure out what parks to start with most days, some of where we want to eat, and what of a couple of "must dos" for each family member and ensure they get done.

But we definitely take things as they come and adjust ideas based on how things are going and how people are feeling.

Like I said, it needs some planning, but most vacations do - at least ours do (I hate sitting still and "relaxing" - that stresses me out as I am thinking about all the other stuff we could be doing lol ). It is different than like a beach holiday or something - more like visiting a city

 

[Rhinocerous]

But kids don't make your schedule, set your reservations, or feel the burden of paying for the trip. Disney has built this model that conditions you not to eat when you are hungry.. but to decide months in advance at 1:30 you will eat at this spot.. You don't decide "lets ride space mountain!" someone already decided at 4:20, you are supposed to ride space mountain. That time inbetween? You can adlib.. but you know you have a commitment.. so if you were to head to TSI for instance, the exploration is going to be cut off. Now instead of playing a game, a parent rushes their kid through each portion to 'finish' before their time runs out.

The dad doesn't want to spend $500 for the day to watch their kid play with a rock... just like people who end up watching their kid enjoy the hotel pool instead of wanting to go do all the other stuff they've already paid for.

And I don't care what you think kids need or not - we're talking about what Disney has setup. You can try to ignore most of Disney's model, but you're going to be getting a vastly inferior experience while paying the same amount. People aren't going to do that in the long run.

Disney's model shapes and influences consumer behavior. From the marketing, to the structure, to the constraints.



Have you noticed the lack of play areas around the parks in general compared to 15yrs ago? This isn't just a TSI issue. And IP is still relevant.. because kid's don't drive the boat. Someone has to do decide they can even go there.. and parents like to engage and lead their kids as well.

I will not make an assumption about whether or not you have children. I can tell you that I do have a child. When she was little, I tried to plan a full day. I drove the boat. And then my daughter started dropping the anchor.

She was not and is not a badly behaved child, but she had a breaking point. Allowances had to be made. Sometimes plans change. Did I enjoy having to leave Hollywood Studios early to take a nap, only to literally run back so our Fantasmic! dining package wasn't wasted? I assure you that I did not. But that's how the day went. Life had other plans, as it frequently does. Kids, especially young ones, don't care how much you paid to be there. Can you force them to follow your schedule? Yes, probably. That results in a miserable time for everyone involved.

I will charitably say that you've missed the point regarding the IP of Tom Sawyer Island. If they had improved the experience and advertised the experience, the IP doesn't matter. You think Mom and Dad are going to read the map and say "wow, that sounds like something Junior would really enjoy, but I hated those books in high school, so back in line for Buzz?" And if the IP is such a turn off, change it. Mark Twain is not and never was the selling point.

As for your argument that we shouldn't want play areas and quiet spots because Disney has decided they don't want them, so get with the program... I don't even know where to begin with that. I'm not going to suck it up and fall merrily in lockstep because the company has tried to social engineer me into more profitable behavior. I don't care what the Board likes. I don't care what the shareholders like. I care about the experience that I, the guest, am paying for.

 

[flynnibus]

I will not make an assumption about whether or not you have children. I can tell you that I do have a child. When she was little, I tried to plan a full day. I drove the boat. And then my daughter started dropping the anchor.

I can tell you I raised three children - including WDW vacations with all three many times - and they are all grown adults now. I am not talking out of my rear.

I will charitably say that you've missed the point regarding the IP of Tom Sawyer Island. If they had improved the experience and advertised the experience, the IP doesn't matter. You think Mom and Dad are going to read the map and say "wow, that sounds like something Junior would really enjoy, but I hated those books in high school, so back in line for Buzz?" And if the IP is such a turn off, change it. Mark Twain is not and never was the selling point.

Wow, you love strawmans don't you? None of that is what I said.

The point of IP is to be a draw - Tom Sawyer as a theme isn't working as a draw. It's not going to get any better either as the relevance of it falls further and further away from current generations. I never said anything about it being vile or revolting to people. Instead I said parents want to engage with their kids as well.. not just set them off and pick them up later. That means the IP should be amenable to them as well.

But TSI isn't going away because of Tom Sawyer. It is going away because it wasn't carrying it's weight vs the missed opportunity costs of the space.

You believe it could have been enhanced and turned around... well, Disney agreed it should change, but they chose to replace the entire concept with something else instead of plussing.

As for your argument that we shouldn't want play areas and quiet spots because Disney has decided they don't want them, so get with the program...

Again, you make stuff up vs what was said. Where did I say or suggest get with the program? I simply pointed out the reality of what has been Disney's park design when it comes to play spaces. Most havebeen REMOVED, not added. That's the truth you need to get with... acknowledging Disney doesn't agree with your take.

 

[Chi84]

I'm not saying it hasn't been said before...just that I haven't seen it said before. Best demonstrated with an example: TSI opened 1973. 52 years later, in 2025, someone born, say, in 2015, experiences TSI for the first time and has one of the best experiences of their lives. The fact TSI is vastly older than their parents had no bearing, good or bad, on this kid's positive experience in 2025. For the rest of of that kid's life, lets say another 80 years into the future, TSI will be part of their story, their nostalgia. If TSI didn't close and that kid started a family, they would be eager to introduce their children to TSI in hopes they experience the same thrill they did from their own childhood. And, if they do end up having a similar experience, those children could start the cycle all over again ... into a hypothetical perpetuity.

Four generations of my family have enjoyed TSI, but now we'll never know if a fifth would have.

Just because an attraction is "old" doesn't mean it's not giving the "brand-new" feel to anyone who experiences it for the first time, especially children. To offer a much-more-common parallel: every parent, regardless of generation, that I've ever spoken with that does the "Santa Claus Christmas Present" tradition says they do so year after year to see the wonder on their young childrens' faces on Christmas morning, while also being reminded of their own childhood nostalgia. With some people's logic, Santa Claus should have been all-but-forgotten, at-best, several decades ago. I understand the need to always have something "actually new" to maximize attendance, and I realize there may have been several other reasons for the closure of TSI, but throwing-out something simply because it's "old" doesn't fly.

Santa Claus is vastly more popular with children than TSI for obvious reasons. If Disney handed out tons of expensive presents on the island I'm sure it would have had better attendance.

My children were born in 1984 and 1988 and experienced TSI when they were children. In fact, we started taking them to WDW for annual 7 to 10 day visits ever since they were a year old and WDW was not as big as it is now so we did TSI every visit.

When they were old enough to decide for themselves what they wanted to do at MK, neither of them ever mentioned TSI. It's just not as great an attraction for everyone as people want to make it out to be. It was a big hit with your kids but not mine. When I told my daughter that WDW is removing Rivers of America, she had no reaction one way or the other.

On the other hand, they absolutely love the Haunted Mansion and Spaceship Earth and were disappointed by Figment's Journey into what the hell. Maybe not as many people loved TSI and the Riverboat as people believe - that could have factored into Disney's decision.

 

[jah4955]

Santa Claus is vastly more popular with children than TSI for obvious reasons. If Disney handed out tons of expensive presents on the island I'm sure it would have had better attendance.

My children were born in 1984 and 1988 and experienced TSI when they were children. In fact, we started taking them to WDW for annual 7 to 10 day visits ever since they were a year old and WDW was not as big as it is now so we did TSI every visit.

When they were old enough to decide for themselves what they wanted to do at MK, neither of them ever mentioned TSI. It's just not as great an attraction for everyone as people want to make it out to be. It was a big hit with your kids but not mine. When I told my daughter that WDW is removing Rivers of America, she had no reaction one way or the other.

On the other hand, they absolutely love the Haunted Mansion and Spaceship Earth and were disappointed by Figment's Journey into what the hell. Maybe not as many people loved TSI and the Riverboat as people believe - that could have factored into Disney's decision.

I don't disagree here either. Everyone's different which is part of the beauty of it. Definitely acknowledge Santa Claus is to TSI as the universe is to a grain of sand. But by now I thoroughly established how much I liked that grain of sand lol!

 

[Agent H]

I can tell you I raised three children - including WDW vacations with all three many times - and they are all grown adults now. I am not talking out of my rear.


Wow, you love strawmans don't you? None of that is what I said.

The point of IP is to be a draw - Tom Sawyer as a theme isn't working as a draw. It's not going to get any better either as the relevance of it falls further and further away from current generations. I never said anything about it being vile or revolting to people. Instead I said parents want to engage with their kids as well.. not just set them off and pick them up later. That means the IP should be amenable to them as well.

But TSI isn't going away because of Tom Sawyer. It is going away because it wasn't carrying it's weight vs the missed opportunity costs of the space.

All the unused space behind the rivers isn’t pulling it’s weight either.

 

[ToTBellHop]

I can tell you I raised three children - including WDW vacations with all three many times - and they are all grown adults now. I am not talking out of my rear.


Wow, you love strawmans don't you? None of that is what I said.

The point of IP is to be a draw - Tom Sawyer as a theme isn't working as a draw. It's not going to get any better either as the relevance of it falls further and further away from current generations. I never said anything about it being vile or revolting to people. Instead I said parents want to engage with their kids as well.. not just set them off and pick them up later. That means the IP should be amenable to them as well.

But TSI isn't going away because of Tom Sawyer. It is going away because it wasn't carrying it's weight vs the missed opportunity costs of the space.

You believe it could have been enhanced and turned around... well, Disney agreed it should change, but they chose to replace the entire concept with something else instead of plussing.


Again, you make stuff up vs what was said. Where did I say or suggest get with the program? I simply pointed out the reality of what has been Disney's park design when it comes to play spaces. Most havebeen REMOVED, not added. That's the truth you need to get with... acknowledging Disney doesn't agree with your take.

The odd thing is: they do still build playgrounds. They just put in a new one at Epcot for F&G this year and are designing a new one for DAK and one for DHS. I’m not actually sure why they are placed in some parks but not others. I actually think New Frontierland will have one, too. Yet, they removed the one by TBA. After building one for Dumbo.

There doesn’t seem to be a hard and fast rule. Perhaps it’s just the designer’s vision.

 

[flynnibus]

All the unused space behind the rivers isn’t pulling it’s weight either.

Nor was it any burden to leave as it was... the same can't be said for TSI.

I do wish people would get over the "expand not replace" stuff. It's already been covered -- Start respecting that things don't exist for free.

 

[ToTBellHop]

Nor was it any burden to leave as it was... the same can't be said for TSI.

I do wish people would get over the "expand not replace" stuff. It's already been covered -- Start respecting that things don't exist for free.

Plus, they wanted to expand but TSI was making expansion very challenging and costly. If Haunted Mansion was where TSI was, they would have found a way to expand without removing it. But, Tom’s derelict caves weren’t worth that expense.

 

[flynnibus]

The odd thing is: they do still build playgrounds. They just put in a new one at Epcot for F&G this year and are designing a new one for DAK and one for DHS. I’m not actually sure why they are placed in some parks but not others. I actually think New Frontierland will have one, too. Yet, they removed the one by TBA. After building one for Dumbo.

There doesn’t seem to be a hard and fast rule. Perhaps it’s just the designer’s vision.

They are still a shadow of themselves in terms of how many there were.. usually taken out without any 1:1 replacement too. I don't know the strategy they are taking, but they seem far less common. Part of it could be ADA concerns too which took a bit bite out of many climbing/play areas in other venues.

Regardless, even with it there, people weren't using TSI enough.

 

[Incomudro]

I'm not saying it hasn't been said before...just that I haven't seen it said before. Best demonstrated with an example: TSI opened 1973. 52 years later, in 2025, someone born, say, in 2015, experiences TSI for the first time and has one of the best experiences of their lives. The fact TSI is vastly older than their parents had no bearing, good or bad, on this kid's positive experience in 2025. For the rest of of that kid's life, lets say another 80 years into the future, TSI will be part of their story, their nostalgia. If TSI didn't close and that kid started a family, they would be eager to introduce their children to TSI in hopes they experience the same thrill they did from their own childhood. And, if they do end up having a similar experience, those children could start the cycle all over again ... into a hypothetical perpetuity.

Four generations of my family have enjoyed TSI, but now we'll never know if a fifth would have.

Just because an attraction is "old" doesn't mean it's not giving the "brand-new" feel to anyone who experiences it for the first time, especially children. To offer a much-more-common parallel: every parent, regardless of generation, that I've ever spoken with that does the "Santa Claus Christmas Present" tradition says they do so year after year to see the wonder on their young childrens' faces on Christmas morning, while also being reminded of their own childhood nostalgia. With some people's logic, Santa Claus should have been all-but-forgotten, at-best, several decades ago. I understand the need to always have something "actually new" to maximize attendance, and I realize there may have been several other reasons for the closure of TSI, but throwing-out something simply because it's "old" doesn't fly.

Yes, THIS.
My son's (twins) are 23, so certainly young - and they have nostalgia for the rides they have ridden.
That includes Splash, Jungle Cruise - which we rode one night and it was only our family of four on the boat, this skipper gave our sons the opportunity to take turns steering the boat, Haunted Mansion etc.
While young, they are also approaching the age to raise families and I know they would love to share what they loved with their children when that time comes.
Unfortunately they won't be able to in some cases - and that includes Rock n RollerCoaster.
The idea that the young want constant change is unfounded.

 

[James Alucobond]

The odd thing is: they do still build playgrounds. They just put in a new one at Epcot for F&G this year and are designing a new one for DAK and one for DHS. I’m not actually sure why they are placed in some parks but not others. I actually think New Frontierland will have one, too. Yet, they removed the one by TBA. After building one for Dumbo.

To be fair, the one for Splash was kinda gross.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

But kids don't make your schedule, set your reservations, or feel the burden of paying for the trip. Disney has built this model that conditions you not to eat when you are hungry.. but to decide months in advance at 1:30 you will eat at this spot.. You don't decide "lets ride space mountain!" someone already decided at 4:20, you are supposed to ride space mountain. That time inbetween? You can adlib.. but you know you have a commitment.. so if you were to head to TSI for instance, the exploration is going to be cut off. Now instead of playing a game, a parent rushes their kid through each portion to 'finish' before their time runs out.

The dad doesn't want to spend $500 for the day to watch their kid play with a rock... just like people who end up watching their kid enjoy the hotel pool instead of wanting to go do all the other stuff they've already paid for.

Ugh, you are describing everything I don't like about WDW these days. Give me a few relaxing days in Disneyland Paris over this any time!

As people are saying, life often doesn't work the way Disney is setting up their system to suggest it should and I personally don't think this justifies getting rid of more relaxed experiences. Still, this planning of everything months in advance that began to creep in with FastPass+ is a plague on the parks.

 

[Brer Panther]

Regarding whether or not the theme of Tom Sawyer's Island is the reason it wasn't more popular... honestly, I still think a good chunk of the reason is because people found it too hard to get to (you HAD take a raft to and from it). If it were Moana's Island or Encanto Island, I doubt attendance would've been much higher.

 

[mickEblu]

I think TSI works better at Disneyland with all the locals. My kids ask to go there often and sometimes we oblige because to us MK’s it doesn’t really matter what rides we get on. TSI at DL is a diversion. A way to add some variety to your visits every so often. With all that said, I’m sure Disney views it as underutilized/ expendable and that worries me.