MK Cars-Themed Attractions at Magic Kingdom

[TrainsOfDisney]

I guess I don't see such a concrete mission to the Magic Kingdom that wouldn't enable Cars to fit the same way AK has more of a set and concrete goal

I don’t think that was the point anyone was making. Cars as an IP can absolutely fit in MK as a park.

The 2 issues at MK - adding modern cars to the middle of Frontierland, and ripping out a major design element that is part of every single castle park. Even the earliest maps of Disneyland featured the River and riverboat.

 

[Centauri Space Station]

I don’t think that was the point anyone was making. Cars as an IP can absolutely fit in MK as a park.

The 2 issues at MK - adding modern cars to the middle of Frontierland, and ripping out a major design element that is part of every single castle park. Even the earliest maps of Disneyland featured the River and riverboat.

True but MK atleast has the river and boat out front still

 

[Agent H]

True but MK atleast has the river and boat out front still

Do you mean the 7 seas lagoon? Cause no offense but I find that a weak argument

 

[lazyboy97o]

True but MK atleast has the river and boat out front still

Again, things elsewhere have no bearing on the spatial design of Frontierland. Lousy tile work in your kitchen isn’t somehow made better or less worse because you have good tile work in the bathroom.

 

[Centauri Space Station]

Do you mean the 7 seas lagoon? Cause no offense but I find that a weak argument

I do and that’s fair i just mean if DL lost ROA then they wouldn’t have any river or boats at the resort at all.

 

[UNCgolf]

I find it fascinating how many will defend AK to keep it's original mission statement and at the same time have no issues with removing ROA for an IP that doesn't fit MK.

Does anyone like this even exist, though?

Who has been supportive of Cars at MK while also defending DAK's theming?

 

[Disgruntled Walt]

I don’t think that was the point anyone was making. Cars as an IP can absolutely fit in MK as a park.

The 2 issues at MK - adding modern cars to the middle of Frontierland, and ripping out a major design element that is part of every single castle park. Even the earliest maps of Disneyland featured the River and riverboat.

I wouldn't have as much of a problem with a Cars Land tacked on the outside of Magic Kingdom. I'm not a fan of single-IP lands, especially in MK, but I can live with it. It's the fact that they are fundamentally changing one of the CORE lands of MK and eliminating a big part of what makes the park special—that's the bigger issue here.

 

[Fox&Hound]

Again, it is that the original AK plans had no stated reason whatsoever for why anything was placed anywhere. There was no announced region of the world, no announced village section, no unifying theme, etc. They weren't even pretending they cared anymore.

I said part of the parks, not the entire experience.

So what changed? Did someone put their foot down an demand thematic integrity? Not being silly, I truly do not know.

 

[Fox&Hound]

I don’t think that was the point anyone was making. Cars as an IP can absolutely fit in MK as a park.

The 2 issues at MK - adding modern cars to the middle of Frontierland, and ripping out a major design element that is part of every single castle park. Even the earliest maps of Disneyland featured the River and riverboat.

I think the point is that, whether we like it or not, they are changing the definition of Frontierland away from cowboys and indians and wild west and going in a different direction. I agree Cars does not fit with FL as we know it, but it may end up fitting with their newly defined FL.

 

[UNCgolf]

So what changed? Did someone put their foot down an demand thematic integrity? Not being silly, I truly do not know.

Bruce Vaughn was brought back to head Imagineering after the Moana/Zootopia concept -- maybe he pushed for a change?

I have no idea.

 

[James Alucobond]

Bruce Vaughn was brought back to head Imagineering after the Moana/Zootopia concept -- maybe he pushed for a change?

I have no idea.

Probably this? But that proposal in general had the feeling of being exclusively push from the higher-up IP proponents and none of the pull that you would normally see in response from someone downstream in Imagineering. It's a healthy push-pull dynamic that can sometimes still make things work in the era of IP mandates, but the AK announcement felt like an executive spoke directly to the concept artist. It was weird.

 

[Brer Panther]

And a Mayan temple with a creature based based on Mayan mythology doesn't represent central America, it's animals(yeti isn't a real animal either), and it's people?
Im not sure i follow how it's a different concept other than Indy being there vs us just going to the temple by ourselves (which is what we do in everest)

I'd probably be more okay with Indiana Jones if it wasn't replacing Dinosaur. I'd still raise an eyebrow at it being in Animal Kingdom but to remove something that fits the park with something that's about humans irks me.

Disney at some point will want to shoehorn something there that doesn’t belong,

I'd argue they're already doing that.

 

[UNCgolf]

I'd argue they're already doing that.

They definitely are to an extent, but it could be much worse.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

They definitely are to an extent, but it could be much worse.

Yes….. like modern cars in Frontierland! Haha

 

[Incomudro]

What? Even one of the main films (Crystal Skull) centers on a Mesoamerican artifact that sees him travel to Peru and explore the grave of a conquistador. Perhaps slightly more Inca-focused than Maya, but next door nonetheless.

They definitely are to an extent, but it could be much worse.

Don't worry... Present day Disney is on a quest to make things worse.