"When it's convenient" is the key part of this. I'm not immune to treating Disney as anything more than just a corporation. I think that there's obviously special interest there, and some of us think that there is or was something truly special, either under Walt, or some other unspecified time after. And that is what brings us all here.People love to acknowledge that when it’s convenient for them.
We all do it sometimes to be fair.
True but in this case Cars and Villians were both basically announced at the same time and even though individually neither one can be called a true land, combined they are designed, in my opinion, to be a completely separate island, if you will, not having anything to do with Frontier or Liberty Square. For sure an oddity as far as the normal way that Disney usually or originally was set up. I think that as much as I hated the loss of RoA scenery, I think that the outcome of that move will be a help in the crowd problem and really be a better use of that very valuable property, plus will be utilized and enjoyed by far more guests than were being entertained before. In the end, Disney is a business entity as much as we like to not acknowledge that.
Excellent observation! That fits right along the lines of what I was thinking, as well. A themed "PPNP Overlook Market" could replace the existing LS Market, and really open up that pathway.I do wonder if they can move the seating for Liberty Square Market into the old Liberty Belle entrance, just to open the pathway a bit better?
View attachment 914125
Certain folks on here can be extremely hypocritical especially when they have a certain narrative to spin.The fact that some of the same people who claim that only Disney's terminology is to be used for a swath of dirt, are also the same ones claiming that Disney always lets them down, is just a wild contradiction, to me. I'm an optimist
Villians 2030-31 (maybe)They are at 2 different stages I believe.
If they are spacing the projects a year apart - Tropical Americas 2027
Monsters 2028
Piston Peak 2029
You can read minds? Or is this the sort of disparaging comment about others that qualifies as “construction talk” because it’s about maintaining a safe space away from criticism of Disney?I can be critical when necessary but it isn’t something I look forwarded to doing every time I post here unlike some people.
You contradict yourself in this sentence - you are critical of “some people” who post on here. Unless that is one of the extremely necessary times?I can be critical when necessary but it isn’t something I look forwarded to doing every time I post here unlike some people.
I think that there is a healthy balance of optimism and criticism, and that middle ground should be more prevalent, but seems to be thrown out the window for some, in the age of social media influence.Certain folks on here can be extremely hypocritical especially when they have a certain narrative to spin.
I try to say as optimistic and positive as possible.
I’m not wasting my energy or time complaining and whining all day over things I can’t change.
I can be critical when necessary but it isn’t something I look forwarded to doing every time I post here unlike some people.
"The park means a lot to me in that it's something that will never be finished. Something that I can keep developing, keep plussing and adding to—it's alive. It will be a live, breathing thing that will need changes.
I wanted something live, something that could grow, something I could keep plussing with ideas, you see? The park is that. Not only can I add things but even the trees will keep growing; the thing will get more beautiful every year. And as I find what the public likes—and when a picture's finished and I put it out—I find out what they like, or they don't like, and I have to apply that to some other thing; I can't change that picture, so that's why I wanted that park."
Being critical of something or someone is more complicated in reality than simply applying an on/off switch.You contradict yourself in this sentence - you are critical of “some people” who post on here. Unless that is one of the extremely necessary times?
Especially in a thread that’s supposedly just about the facts of construction. Nothing negative about Disney was actually stated, but accurate information is being framed as a negative attack against both posters and Disney.I fail to see how @James Alucobond is spinning a narrative, accuracy may be pedantic, but is accuracy not important? Optimism does not require black and white thinking.
And yet "New Orleans Square" in Disneyland is not part of Frontierland, and is the given that official name of this "Square", in place of the term "land". What's different over there? Is it that it's an entirely larger themed area, not unlike Piston Peak? ... Big Thunder and Tiana's at MK are literally just themed rides with a terrain facade. If this was just that, I'd see your point, but it's actually an all-encompassing area, and that's why Disney themselves are using the term "Piston Peak National Park", and even putting the National Park sign where you enter this area, that unless it changes, includes a walk-through play area with the geysers and barrel bridges over water, 2 rides, an obligatory gift shop, and probably some type of quick service dining location.I fail to see how @James Alucobond is spinning a narrative, accuracy may be pedantic, but is accuracy not important? Optimism does not require black and white thinking.
It's an Area or Section of Frontierland. We've answered this already, Disney addressed it.
The Piston Peak National Park is a section of Frontierland much as New Orleans is a section, the Arizona Bluffs is a section or the North Woods is a section. There is no New Orleans land in Magic Kingdom, there is in Disneyland. There is no Carsland coming to Magic Kingdom, there is at DCA.
![]()
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
I don't mind the conversation because I think it is funny, but if anyone wants it to be over the way to do that is to stop digging in and returning to it.![]()
Oh, so I wasn't told multiple times that Disney has a history of under-delivering on what was promised, as a reason why there would not be 2 rides, regardless of the fact that there are 2 rides shown in the concept art and 2 rides were promised? I totally was told that by multiple people here, and some of the same people are circularly arguing about an arbitrary name that Disney officially uses to call their areas, which nobody is even arguing against that official terminology.Especially in a thread that’s supposedly just about the facts of construction. Nothing negative about Disney was actually stated, but accurate information is being framed as a negative attack against both posters and Disney.
You keep going on about and mischaracterizing it.This whole argument is beyond silly, at this point! I've even stopped calling even a mini land, as that's just too offensive for some people here, even though I never claimed that this was some kind of official Disney terminology.
You weren’t told it would happen. You were told that your inaccurate statements about the status and nature of the project are not reasons it couldn’t or wouldn’t happen.Oh, so I wasn't told multiple times that Disney has a history of under-delivering on what was promised, as a reason why there would not be 2 rides, regardless of the fact that there are 2 rides shown in the concept art? I totally was told that by multiple people here, and some of the same people are circularly arguing about an arbitrary name that Disney officially uses to call their areas, which nobody is even arguing against.
Again, you're being completely reductive and disingenuous about my words, and never once did I claim that 2 rides is the sole reason to call something a land. I was clearly asking for examples of the contrary, and also asking anyone what else to call it, since it fits multiple checkboxes of other lands, squares, islands, or whatever.I’m not attempting to gatekeep anything you’re doing. I only responded because you used the “land” moniker to make an assertion about the number of rides the area must have. I’m not even among the people who ever said the second ride would be cut. But you do you.![]()
And yet "New Orleans Square" in Disneyland is not part of Frontierland, and is the given that official name of this "Square", in place of the term "land". What's different over there? Is it that it's an entirely larger themed area, not unlike Piston Peak? ... Big Thunder and Tiana's at MK are literally just themed rides with a terrain facade. If this was just that, I'd see your point, but it's actually an all-encompassing area, and that's why Disney themselves are using the term "Piston Peak National Park", and even putting the National Park sign where you enter this area, that unless it changes, includes a walk-through play area with the geysers and barrel bridges over water, 2 rides, an obligatory gift shop, and probably some type of quick service dining location.
Again, nobody is arguing what Disney is officially calling the area of Piston Peak, but gatekeeping anyone from not using Disney's official terminology is pretty petty. Especially when it's completely surrounded by 3 (soon to be 4) separate lands, and is not called a Square or an Island, but a "National Park". We all know that it's technically officially part of Frontierland... but that doesn't change reality. One where the entrance to this not-land is going to be immediately in front of Haunted Mansion. Are you so stuck in official company terms that you forget that we use the same term "land" here in the real world for the ground beneath our feet, or any independent section on this earth? This whole argument is beyond silly, at this point! I've even stopped calling even a mini land, as that's just too offensive for some people here, even though I never claimed that this was some kind of official Disney terminology.
I've already claimed that I'm exiting your ongoing discussion of "It's officially Frontierland" / "Old Guy Yells At Clouds", and changed my terminology to "mini land", and then to just "area" or "land-shaped-area", just to appease anyone who is offended by not using Disney's terminology. Yet, it keeps being churned back around, anyway.You keep going on about and mischaracterizing it.
You weren’t told it would happen. You were told that your inaccurate statements about the status and nature of the project are not reasons it couldn’t or wouldn’t happen.
To which I responded that it wasn’t a full land, therefore rendering the question moot from the outset. I also gave you examples of full lands with only one ride, thereby rendering it doubly moot. Not sure what else needs to be said or why it has been followed up with multiple paragraphs of persecution complex. If you want to respond to the people who think the second ride will be cut (who aren’t me), you can easily do so separately.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.
Cool beans. I've never been under the impression that the official terminology was anything other than Piston Peak National Park being officially part of Frontierland, and I don't think that anyone takes an issue with what they're officially calling it.Again, I've only presented you with the official explanation and description from the company. You are free to refer to it however you wish.
If you are asking if Disney will present this area with its own separate boundaries on parks map like they do the squares, the answer still appears to be no. Part of the reason may be your expectations for its contents are perhaps too generous, there appears to be no quick service location. It really is just a section to house two rides.
Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.