MK Piston Peak and Villains Land Construction Thread

[Ayla]

View attachment 913693
View attachment 913694

Shops and pathways in no way point to a second attraction.

 

[GordoInTheParks]

Shops and pathways in no way point to a second attraction.

Sorry, what? Not only are there what looks like ride vehicles around this building, but there were two attractions announced for the land.

Coincidentally, this is the only section of the Piston Peak area that has changed in its layout or location from the initial concept art, and now shows an empty fenced area and possibly smaller building, with 2 entrances to the "park" instead of 1.

 

[MisterPenguin]

What land do you know has only one attraction? Even the Harry Potter land at Epic has the circus as a placeholder until they get their 2nd "E-ticket" built.

Piston Peak is not a ride, it's a land that the Rally Racers ride is on! I'm calling it a mini land. You can call it whatever you want, but if it's not a ride, then what is it? I just made an entire post about the semantics of this. It will not only have a second ride, but the same (or similar) barrel bridges and possibly other features from TSI will be used as a way to walk around a certain part of the land, or whatever word you would like to replace with land.

The problem here is that you're taking what TWDC has done before and trying to deduce 'rules' based on that.

But that's not how Disney parks work. When the original DL was built, guests didn't walk around deciding to call a certain area "Tomorrowland" or "Fantasy Land."

That came from Disney himself.

And so, if TWDC wants to change the rules, they can. E.g., building a new theme park based on World's Fairs. Or building a park that doesn't have a hub and spoke design. They can do as they please, even if regular guests or super-fans are confused, or don't like it, or it sets off their OCD, or would have done it a different way (oh hai! armchair imagineers!)

So if TWDC wants to build a fully walled-off land based on one IP (as with SWL:GE)... they can, and they did, despite that's not how Walt did it.

And if they want to create mini-lands they can.

And if they want to remove a ride from Frontierland and put a new ride in its place and consider it still as part of Frontierland, they can. (At no time did any Disney marketing call Piston Peak a "land" or "mini-land.")

Because they can.

An example of this is Disney Princesses. It hurts the brain to figure out what make a princess or even a non-princess (oh hai! Mulan!) part of the club. Or how a 3D animation from Pixar (oh hai! Merida) can be part of the club. The answer is simple: TWDC says it is. All based on marketing and nothing else.

Go ahead and contradict Disney's appellations in your head canon. Just be prepared to be corrected if you say it out loud.

 

[GordoInTheParks]

The problem here is that you're taking what TWDC has done before and trying to deduce 'rules' based on that.

But that's not how Disney parks work. When the original DL was built, guests didn't walk around deciding to call a certain area "Tomorrowland" or "Fantasy Land."

That came from Disney himself.

And so, if TWDC wants to change the rules, they can. E.g., building a new theme park based on World's Fairs. Or building a park that doesn't have a hub and spoke design. They can do as they please, even if regular guests or super-fans are confused, or don't like it, or it sets off their OCD, or would have done it a different way (oh hai! armchair imagineers!)

So if TWDC wants to build a fully walled-off land based on one IP (as with SWL:GE)... they can, and they did, despite that's not how Walt did it.

And if they want to create mini-lands they can.

And if they want to remove a ride from Frontierland and put a new ride in its place and consider it still as part of Frontierland, they can. (At no time did any Disney marketing call Piston Peak a "land" or "mini-land.")

Because they can.

An example of this is Disney Princesses. It hurts the brain to figure out what make a princess or even a non-princess (oh hai! Mulan!) part of the club. Or how a 3D animation from Pixar (oh hai! Meredith) can be part of the club. The answer is simple: TWDC says it is. All based on marketing and nothing else.

Go ahead and contradict Disney's appellations in your head canon. Just be prepared to be corrected if you say it out loud.

While I agree with most everything you just said, Disney (the company) can call whatever they want a land or not, and I don't work for them, so I can call the same area whatever the heck I want, as well. Hope this helps!

 

[GordoInTheParks]

Going forward, I will just call Piston Peak an "area" here to avoid confusion, since some people will not even except the term "mini land", which it fundamentally IS. I've been aware that it's not its own larger land, and has been officially called a part of Frontierland by the Disney company, since the area was announced.

I'll still call it a mini land to the people that are close to me, because I know that they don't care how the company refers to it, when reality is contradicted. It's such a useless conversation of semantics for me, and one that I actually have no interest in. I really thought that I'd make that clear a few posts ago, but I guess there's really not much else to talk about right now. I'll count it as a win for sparking conversation in a thread that someone just said was "dead", but any other responses about whether or not this area is a land or not will be met with a quote of this.

 

[Fox&Hound]

I truly hope there is a second ride in this cars area. I just don’t have high hopes. Fingers crossed…

I am still most excited to see how the water/river returns…

 

[danlb_2000]

I never said that anything would prevent them from removing the ride. I'm saying that there's no way that it will happen, as the land is clearly designed with the space for the second attraction, and that space is not just going to be left without anything there. They simply aren't going to open a land with one single attraction, mainly because there's no reason NOT to have a 2nd one, and the fact that it would be a PR nightmare to do so. Also, I think that talking about removing the thing that's been announced and is in the concept art, is just so completely hypothetical thing to even entertain, at this moment. The 2nd attraction won't shape the land like the main one. It will either be in a show building or be a flat ride, so it's kind of an irrelevant topic, on whether or not they build a model of the land itself.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

 

[eddie104]

I just don’t have high hopes

I’m so confused as to why this is.

 

[GordoInTheParks]

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

OK, they will cancel the 2nd attraction, even though there's been no announcement of that yet, because that's what Disney always does. The company is always taking shortcuts, never lives up to the hype, and definitely hasn't learned anything from the past. Am I doing it right?... Is this what helps YOU sleep at night?

 

[danlb_2000]

OK, they will cancel the 2nd attraction, even though there's been no announcement of that yet, because that's what Disney always does. The company is always taking shortcuts, never lives up to the hype, and definitely hasn't learned anything from the past. Am I doing it right?... Is this what helps YOU sleep at night?

Nobody is saying they ARE going to cancel it, but it's naive to belive that they wouldn't. If the ecomony takes a major hit it's an easy cut to reduce the cost of the project.

 

[GordoInTheParks]

Nobody is saying they ARE going to cancel it, but it's naive to belive that they wouldn't. If the ecomony takes a major hit it's an easy cut to reduce the cost of the project.

Well, sure. There's always a chance that the economy takes a nose-dive that we can't pull out of, or we go into another pandemic of some sort, within the next couple of years, but until that happens, I just don't think that we will see them cutting out planned attractions, and unless you know something about the future that I don't, I will just assume that they will stick to their plans.

 

[eddie104]

Okay guys we need stick to construction on this thread.

Let’s keep the discussion minimal if not related to the topic at hand.

 

[BrianLo]

Storybook Circus is another example of a mini land within Fantasyland, just like Piston Peak will be a mini land. We can play this semantics game all day, but if you have a better term, please let me know, and I will use that. Otherwise, I'll just call Piston Peak a mini land, since that's what it is.

An area or section of Frontierland. It has been fairly defined by Disney.

Piston Peak National Park Tell Story of Cars at Frontierland

Learn how Piston Peak National Park will continue the storytelling tradition in Frontierland as we get ready for Cars at Magic Kingdom.

disneyparksblog.com

New Cars Attractions Coming to Magic Kingdom

Read all about the exciting new Cars attractions coming to Magic Kingdom, as announced by Josh D'Amaro at the D23 Event.

disneyparksblog.com

I do think that's a different market than what's in the US, though, and I was genuinely not thinking of overseas parks, but I'll happily take that info into account.

Getting into the weeds I think that is what you are missing. We have a number of what we actually consider minilands: Lion King, Zootopia, Mystic Point, Grizzly Gulch, Spiderman. They are sort of but not entirely a newer concept. A number of single attraction lands have existed over the years at WDW. Epcot always got by, by calling them pavilions. Theatre of the Stars was annexed and added into Sunset Blvd. Camp Minnie and Mickey operated a single attraction. Asia briefly. Safari village one and Oasis none.

Though a miniland does not by definition have one attraction. Toy Story Playland and formerly Bugs Land at DCA were grouped into minilands. Toontown has shaken off that mantra.

On the contrary: RnRC is a good example of another sub-section of Sunset Blvd, but not itself a mini land. As was Ratatouille over in WDSP, which was still considered part of the Worlds of Pixar. Both were or are single attraction areas or sections.


Of course, it’s quite nice they are choosing to do two this time. But that’s in and of itself a change from more recent precedent.

 

[Goofyernmost]

It’s not really about how you see it. Disney has told us it’s Frontierland. They’ve reinforced that many, many times now. Disney said Piston Peak is not a land, it’s part of Frontierland, and that is that. You don’t really get to change Disney’s official word on things because it doesn’t fit your vibe unless you plan on living in a made up reality.

You don't seem to understand what I am saying. I don't give a rats butt what Disney has randomly named it. It has nothing to do with what the original Frontierland was designed to be. That isn't even the reason. You and I should be allowed to define, in our minds, how we perceive and process things that are all fantasy. I don't have to see it the way you or Disney have named it. They have been sneaky wrong on a lot of definitions. The moral of the story is if your perception allows you to call Cars part of Frontierland than that is allowable and since I do not see the original concept of Frontierland as being packed full of cars off-roading that is allowable as well. Modern frontier, perhaps but I am not ready to alter my vision of what was the real frontier.

As far as "living in a made up reality", if WDW isn't the very definition of a made up reality, I don't know what is!

 

[James Alucobond]

You don't seem to understand what I am saying. I don't give a rats butt what Disney has randomly named it. It has nothing to do with what the original Frontierland was designed to be. That isn't even the reason. You and I should be allowed to define, in our minds, how we perceive and process things that are all fantasy. I don't have to see it the way you or Disney have named it. They have been sneaky wrong on a lot of definitions. The moral of the story is if your perception allows you to call Cars part of Frontierland than that is allowable and since I do not see the original concept of Frontierland as being packed full of cars off-roading that is allowable as well. Modern frontier, perhaps but I am not ready to alter my vision of what was the real frontier.

As far as "living in a made up reality", if WDW isn't the very definition of a made up reality, I don't know what is!

Presumably, people come to this board to get accurate information and updates, so again, how you uniquely perceive it beyond the bounds of what it officially is remains irrelevant to absolutely everyone but you. The original reason the discussion came up at all was to justify why the area "must" have at least two attractions. That's not even a requirement for a land to begin with, but if it were, Disney's official designation would be important. Your headcanon would not be.

 

[EricsBiscuit]

Nobody is saying they ARE going to cancel it, but it's naive to belive that they wouldn't. If the ecomony takes a major hit it's an easy cut to reduce the cost of the project.

Sorry but I disagree. They’re not canceling a second attraction because of a theoretical, short term, potential dip in the economy. These rides take years to build. They are only cutting if they are seriously in the red, which they are not and will not be anytime soon.

 

[Gusey]

You don't seem to understand what I am saying. I don't give a rats butt what Disney has randomly named it. It has nothing to do with what the original Frontierland was designed to be. That isn't even the reason. You and I should be allowed to define, in our minds, how we perceive and process things that are all fantasy. I don't have to see it the way you or Disney have named it. They have been sneaky wrong on a lot of definitions. The moral of the story is if your perception allows you to call Cars part of Frontierland than that is allowable and since I do not see the original concept of Frontierland as being packed full of cars off-roading that is allowable as well. Modern frontier, perhaps but I am not ready to alter my vision of what was the real frontier.

As far as "living in a made up reality", if WDW isn't the very definition of a made up reality, I don't know what is!

But, going by what they have stated something is does set expectations. If they said a Cars Land, we'd be expecting something similar to Radiator Springs with 3 rides, and multiple dining establishments and shops. What they've actually announced is Piston Peak will be an addition to Frontierland with 2 rides, so we should only expect 2 rides at the moment unless they later update us. We don't even know for definite if there will be a shop or anywhere to eat in Piston Peak, as they don't need to add restaurants to a land that already has them

 

[eddie104]

But, going by what they have stated something is does set expectations. If they said a Cars Land, we'd be expecting something similar to Radiator Springs with 3 rides, and multiple dining establishments and shops. What they've actually announced is Piston Peak will be an addition to Frontierland with 2 rides, so we should only expect 2 rides at the moment unless they later update us. We don't even know for definite if there will be a shop or anywhere to eat in Piston Peak, as they don't need to add restaurants to a land that already has them

They would be foolish to not add a least a quick service location.

 

[Gusey]

They would be foolish to not add a least a quick service location.

A snack stand I can see, but they haven't confirmed anything and the permits (to bring it back to construction) didn't show any clear buildings for what could be a extra dining within the Piston Peak area. All I can think is that between Pecos Bill's, Columbia House & Liberty Square Market as Quick Service, and Liberty Tree & Diamond Horseshoe as Table Service, is there enough dining in that area to last until you get to Villains Land that they don't need much in between? I supposed if the area next to Haunted Mansion is some kind of dining, that's another restaurant surrounding Piston Peak?

 

[eddie104]

A snack stand I can see

At the bare minimum because they have the potential to make a lot of money if they can come up with some unique items for the menu.