Cars Land After a Decade: How Are We Feeling?

[chriskbrown]

I was incredibly excited to go to Cars Land in 2016 for the first time. I was underwhelmed by the ride frankly (maybe because of the hype, maybe because we love the original Test Track so much) but the world is amazing, better at night. I wish they would export it to WDW at HS, but suspect it will never be done. From a sheer experience, it's as good as Disney has done on US soil.

Yet Galaxy's Edge is still better. The challenge is I have yet to experience Galaxy's edge on either cost when it has been anything less than just jammed packed. I suspect on a less crowded time the experience will really kick in - for now its an experience in human dodgeball. I did go through Galaxy's Edge last time in HS and it was just kind of packed and it feel more normal.

 

[Brer Oswald]

Pirates is a Small World clone.

 

[Californian Elitist]

I like the idea of "generic" lands that can house multiple attractions (IP included) and still make sense. I won't argue that IP-lands like Carsland/Hogsmede, etc. aren't works of art in their own right but they leave little room for expansion outside of those IPs in the future without demolishing the land entirely.

I would have kept things more "California-oriented" and themed a land, like @raven24 has mentioned, to the natural valleys/mountains of California and called it Route 66. With something like this, you have room for an IP like Cars, along with the ability to think up more original ideas and still have the land work within the "California Adventure" moniker. Move Autopia from Disneyland over to Route 66 (thus freeing up expansion space in DL), have it drive through caverns and cliffs and rename it "Autopia thru Nature's Wonderland". Re-imagine and re-work the old "Museum of the Weird" walk through attraction into one of those tacky/charming road side tourist traps that ends up being actually haunted, thus giving DCA back it's own haunted house. -and finally, yeah, build Radiator Springs Racers but keep the actual Radiator Springs inside the show building 'round back. Board a car to go visit Radiator Springs and prep for the big race on Route 66 instead of being in Radiator Springs the entire time.

-and it's as simple as that. If I remember correctly, where does Route 66 end in CA? Santa Monica pier, right? Route 66 right next to Paradise Pier? It was literally all laid out for Imagineers but they boxed themselves in with solely Cars. The land is a work of art and fun but I still feel like dedicating such a large chunk of land real-estate to a single IP may be a headache for them in the long term.

Yep. I still like Cars Land but it sucks knowing it’s contained to only the Cars films. What we have now will not change. There’s no room for creativity outside of the franchise and that’s lame.

 

[DanielBB8]

Where have you been. The generic California is already represented in Grizzly Peak river rapids (natural valleys/mountains of California).

Route 66 was hinted throughout DCA. Carsland took it a step further with it's own Cars version of Route 66. Instead of mere Route 66 signage as before, we got Cozy Cones that looks like the Wigwam.

Santa Monica pier is Paradise Pier, and now Pixar Pier and on and on. Everything is there with a Disney IP overlay as if that's wrong in a DISNEY theme park. A debate that continues on.

Let be honest, generic theming is dead. Customers want Disney in the theming. It's not lame to acknowledge that's where it'll eventually end up. It's actually the strength of Disney to acknowledge their movie IPs is where their creativity is at their pinnacle. It's otherwise a creative failure as what was the original DCA.

I still feel like dedicating such a large chunk of land real-estate to a single IP may be a headache for them in the long term.

Only on these forums. Only on these forums.

 

[Brer Oswald]

Where have you been. The generic California is already represented in Grizzly Peak river rapids (natural valleys/mountains of California).

Route 66 was hinted throughout DCA. Carsland took it a step further with it's own Cars version of Route 66. Instead of mere Route 66 signage as before, we got Cozy Cones that looks like the Wigwam.

Santa Monica pier is Paradise Pier, and now Pixar Pier and on and on. Everything is there with a Disney IP overlay as if that's wrong in a DISNEY theme park. A debate that continues on.

Let be honest, generic theming is dead. Customers want Disney in the theming. It's not lame to acknowledge that's where it'll eventually end up. It's actually the strength of Disney to acknowledge their movie IPs is where their creativity is at their pinnacle. It's otherwise a creative failure as what was the original DCA.



Only on these forums. Only on these forums.

It isn’t though. At least, not the newer films.

Disney’s creativity peaked from Mickey Mouse’s inception up until the late 60s. Movies, park attractions, whatever. It didn’t matter.

It had everything to do with Walt’s leadership style, and the drive that the old guard had. That’s why, through the 80s and 90s, we saw many great projects out of the parks. The old guard was still around in Imagineering, and they were able to train the newcomers.

If anything, Disney’s inability to create memorable and unique experiences with even their most lucrative properties is quite telling of their creative struggles. The old guys created a memorable and iconic attraction out of Wind and the Willows, with plywood flats no less. You’re telling me they can’t do the same with Mickey Mouse and Frozen?

 

[DavidDL]

Only on these forums. Only on these forums.

I think you may have missed the part where I said Cars Land was fun and a work of art in it's own right. For what it is, a Cars Land, it's spot on, a work of art and I certainly have fun when I'm in it. I don't even like the Cars franchise and even I bought in to the drum of the moment excitement and bought one of those lame Luigi's Flyin' Tires hats during CM previews.

Aside from my statement simply being my opinion (yes, I prefer generic theming for lands so that Imagineers have more creative freedom to include multiple attractions from, if need be, multiple IPs), I also don't think it was unreasonable. -and even though I'm not a super fan of the way singular themed lands are taking up all future expansion space, I accept this seems to be their mindset for now.

But think about it for a moment. Like, actually think about it. Carsland is a huge chunk of real-estate. Huge. Me, being of the mindset that someday, everything will be changed or replaced, needs to consider what the future looks like if the Cars brand starts to wane in popularity or otherwise fail because of some other external factor. Or if they simply want to build something new but no longer have the room to do so because they dedicated so much acreage to Cars alone. They'd have to knock it out. Tear it down. That's going to cost a lot of money and cause headaches as they try to figure out the logistics of making it work.

However, if Imagineering had simply stuck with something more generic for the theme and created a sort of generic, California type of valley/Route 66, they could have built their Cars attraction and had the freedom to expand into other attractions and yes, even Disney-movie brand IPs, that could fit into that area. I'm not against IP, I think they can be implemented fantastically. Look at something like Indiana Jones. It works in the greater scope of an "ADVENTURE"land. A land like that leaves all kinds of room for original AND IP work. We see it with Tiki Room, Jungle Cruise, Indiana Jones and Tarzan.

Something like the generic theme of "adventure" can be further expanded into other IP such as Moana, Black Panther, etc. But if you had just built "Indiana Jones-land" then suddenly you only have room for Indiana Jones attractions, food and merchandise and lose out on all those other wonderful ideas. Then what happens if some day, (Arceus forbid), it comes out that Harrison Ford did something highly inappropriate during his career and Disney wants nothing to do with him or his likeness?

Well, guess what, there's no way out other than to rip it all down, try and pick something else that's the flavor of the month and hope that stays popular enough to justify the price tag. Carsland likely will, but someday, it will have run it's course just like everything else in the parks or Imagineers will realize they don't have enough space to build something related to more popular IP that comes out next year.

I'm just trying to think logistically. I think something like Pixar Pier, while still a little bit "constraining", is actually a wide enough cast net to work. It makes sense that Disney would want to capitalize on their Pixar investment, it's a huge part of their studio releases. -and Pixar is going to keep making movies long after we're dead. So there's no shortage of attraction ideas or IPs they can edit into that land. New Pixar movie? New Pixar ride? Add it to Pixar Pier! Makes sense to me. But having an entire Carsland next to Pixar Pier is a little funny to me, as well-made as it is.

-and unfortunately, I think they just did a really crappy job with the pier overlay. Frankly, Pixar deserves better.

(...and original DCA was a "creative" failure because they didn't want to spend the money to actually create something worthwhile. Not because originality is dead. Tokyo DisneySea opened that same year and proved imagination and originality weren't dead. You can build something original and wonderful that will draw tourists in droves if you're willing to but the time and money behind it. But capitalizing on the success of an already-established hit seems is the way the company likes to go these days. -and it's okay to be a little disappointed in that.)

 

[DanielBB8]

I think you may have missed the part where I said Cars Land was fun and a work of art in it's own right. For what it is, a Cars Land, it's spot on, a work of art and I certainly have fun when I'm in it. I don't even like the Cars franchise and even I bought in to the drum of the moment excitement and bought one of those lame Luigi's Flyin' Tires hats during CM previews.

Aside from my statement simply being my opinion (yes, I prefer generic theming for lands so that Imagineers have more creative freedom to include multiple attractions from, if need be, multiple IPs), I also don't think it was unreasonable. -and even though I'm not a super fan of the way singular themed lands are taking up all future expansion space, I accept this seems to be their mindset for now.

But think about it for a moment. Like, actually think about it. Carsland is a huge chunk of real-estate. Huge. Me, being of the mindset that someday, everything will be changed or replaced, needs to consider what the future looks like if the Cars brand starts to wane in popularity or otherwise fail because of some other external factor. Or if they simply want to build something new but no longer have the room to do so because they dedicated so much acreage to Cars alone. They'd have to knock it out. Tear it down. That's going to cost a lot of money and cause headaches as they try to figure out the logistics of making it work.

However, if Imagineering had simply stuck with something more generic for the theme and created a sort of generic, California type of valley/Route 66, they could have built their Cars attraction and had the freedom to expand into other attractions and yes, even Disney-movie brand IPs, that could fit into that area. I'm not against IP, I think they can be implemented fantastically. Look at something like Indiana Jones. It works in the greater scope of an "ADVENTURE"land. A land like that leaves all kinds of room for original AND IP work. We see it with Tiki Room, Jungle Cruise, Indiana Jones and Tarzan.

Something like the generic theme of "adventure" can be further expanded into other IP such as Moana, Black Panther, etc. But if you had just built "Indiana Jones-land" then suddenly you only have room for Indiana Jones attractions, food and merchandise and lose out on all those other wonderful ideas. Then what happens if some day, (Arceus forbid), it comes out that Harrison Ford did something highly inappropriate during his career and Disney wants nothing to do with him or his likeness?

Well, guess what, there's no way out other than to rip it all down, try and pick something else that's the flavor of the month and hope that stays popular enough to justify the price tag. Carsland likely will, but someday, it will have run it's course just like everything else in the parks or Imagineers will realize they don't have enough space to build something related to more popular IP that comes out next year.

I'm just trying to think logistically. I think something like Pixar Pier, while still a little bit "constraining", is actually a wide enough cast net to work. It makes sense that Disney would want to capitalize on their Pixar investment, it's a huge part of their studio releases. -and Pixar is going to keep making movies long after we're dead. So there's no shortage of attraction ideas or IPs they can edit into that land. New Pixar movie? New Pixar ride? Add it to Pixar Pier! Makes sense to me. But having an entire Carsland next to Pixar Pier is a little funny to me, as well-made as it is.

-and unfortunately, I think they just did a really crappy job with the pier overlay. Frankly, Pixar deserves better.

I don't get why you think Carsland will be knocked down when it was perfectly designed. And for what reason? You don't say. You just assert it will happen.

And when we talk about generic land that is speculated it will be knocked down like Tomorrowland and it never happens, then what are the chances Carsland will be knocked down when it is still well maintained and perfectly designed. It represents the best of the West. Even if they want to dismantle Cars from the land, we are left with the western generic Route 66 theme. Then it fulfills what you want regardless.

 

[DanielBB8]

It isn’t though. At least, not the newer films.

Disney’s creativity peaked from Mickey Mouse’s inception up until the late 60s. Movies, park attractions, whatever. It didn’t matter.

It had everything to do with Walt’s leadership style, and the drive that the old guard had. That’s why, through the 80s and 90s, we saw many great projects out of the parks. The old guard was still around in Imagineering, and they were able to train the newcomers.

If anything, Disney’s inability to create memorable and unique experiences with even their most lucrative properties is quite telling of their creative struggles. The old guys created a memorable and iconic attraction out of Wind and the Willows, with plywood flats no less. You’re telling me they can’t do the same with Mickey Mouse and Frozen?

You're being selective with what you regard as creativity. The Eisner animated movie era, Pixar era, and Frozen era are all great IP.

I don't even agree with the last sentence. You'll pulling it out of thin air.

 

[DavidDL]

I don't get why you think Carsland will be knocked down when it was perfectly designed. And for what reason? You don't say. You just assert it will happen.

And when we talk about generic land that is speculated it will be knocked down like Tomorrowland and it never happens, then what are the chances Carsland will be knocked down when it is still well maintained and perfectly designed. It represents the best of the West. Even if they want to dismantle Cars from the land, we are left with the western generic Route 66 theme. Then it fulfills what you want regardless.

Actually, I do say.

For the same reason anything gets knocked down. Because it becomes irrelevant with time or something more popular comes along.

In 20 years, if the popularity of Cars has faded and a new, mega hit IP comes along, Disney is going to want to kill two birds with one stone. Look at the Country Bears. They had a movie, it didn't do hot. Popularity of the attraction started to fade. Meanwhile, Pooh sales were up. The answer? Disney had a land called "Critter Country" to provide them what they felt was an answer.

If that happens someday with Cars, they don't have a "generic" land to tweak. They just have 12 acres of Cars themed stuff they have to do away with. -and true, with some HEAVY -rebuilding, you could re-work Carsland into a more generic valley (removing the Cadillac fins from the mountain range, removing the landmarks, etc.). But if that may end up being the case some day anyways, why not just plan ahead for the future so you don't have to spend to do it over again? Like they already suffered with DCA?

I can't say for certainty it will happen, just going off their track record. I obviously can't predict the future. Cars is popular with merchandise sales with young boys because vroom, vroom, Cars go fast, which is part of why Disney was so willing to invest in it. The films aren't "timeless classics" or received quite the same way as other things like Snow White, Peter Pan, etc. They do "okay", critically.

So if those other classic attractions and timeless characters are being discussed for alteration to adjust with the times/modern audiences, etc., it stands to reason that Cars will eventually be a topic of discussion for Disney someday, too.

The Twilight Zone and the Tower of Terror are also a historic IP with a long-standing mark on pop-culture and an incredibly popular attraction. But even that attraction gave way to the all-mighty dollar and desire for Disney to cash in on the latest film coming out that summer, Guardians of the Galaxy, vol.2.

 

[Brer Oswald]

You're being selective with what you regard as creativity. The Eisner animated movie era, Pixar era, and Frozen era are all great IP.

I don't even agree with the last sentence. You'll pulling it out of thin air.

You’re free to believe whatever you want.

 

[DanielBB8]

Actually, I do say.

For the same reason anything gets knocked down. Because it becomes irrelevant with time or something more popular comes along.

In 20 years, if the popularity of Cars has faded and a new, mega hit IP comes along, Disney is going to want to kill two birds with one stone. Look at the Country Bears. They had a movie, it didn't do hot. Popularity of the attraction started to fade. Meanwhile, Pooh sales were up. The answer? Disney had a land called "Critter Country" to provide them what they felt was an answer.

If that happens someday with Cars, they don't have a "generic" land to tweak. They just have 12 acres of Cars themed stuff they have to do away with. -and true, with some HEAVY -rebuilding, you could re-work Carsland into a more generic valley (removing the Cadillac fins from the mountain range, removing the landmarks, etc.). But if that may end up being the case some day anyways, why not just plan ahead for the future so you don't have to spend to do it over again? Like they already suffered with DCA?

I can't say for certainty it will happen, just going off their track record. I obviously can't predict the future. Cars is popular with merchandise sales with young boys because vroom, vroom, Cars go fast, which is part of why Disney was so willing to invest in it. The films aren't "timeless classics" or received quite the same way as other things like Snow White, Peter Pan, etc. They do "okay", critically.

So if those other classic attractions and timeless characters are being discussed for alteration to adjust with the times/modern audiences, etc., it stands to reason that Cars will eventually be a topic of discussion for Disney someday, too.

The Twilight Zone and the Tower of Terror are also a historic IP with a long-standing mark on pop-culture and an incredibly popular attraction. But even that attraction gave way to the all-mighty dollar and desire for Disney to cash in on the latest film coming out that summer, Guardians of the Galaxy, vol.2.

What case are you making? I can't keep up with you. You at first said GENERIC. Then now you're saying the next HOT new mega hit IP will force the demolishing and replacement of Carsland. That hot new IP is going into Superheroes Land, leaving Carsland untouched.

The more you talk, the less sense you're making. Twilight Zone is repurposed into Guardians. So nothing will be demolished.

 

[DanielBB8]

You’re free to believe whatever you want.

So generous of you!!!

 

[DavidDL]

What case are you making? I can't keep up with you. You at first said GENERIC. Then now you're saying the next HOT new mega hit IP will force the demolishing and replacement of Carsland. That hot new IP is going into Superheroes Land, leaving Carsland untouched.

The more you talk, the less sense you're making. Twilight Zone is repurposed into Guardians. So nothing will be demolished.

I'm sorry if I'm not making my feelings clear. Let me start from the beginning. The point of this thread is to ask us how we each feel about Carsland, 10 years later.

My own, personal opinion about Carsland is that it is a well done Carsland. I think it's a work of art and a lot of fun. I enjoy it, even though I don't like the Cars movies. However, personally, I don't think building it was the right fit for Disney California Adventure. Why?

Firstly, because Radiator Springs is in Arizona. Carsland IS Radiator Springs so that disqualifies Carsland from making sense in Disney California Adventure, to me.

Secondly, because I personally feel like dedicating too much space to a single IP can be a mistake in the future. If something happens to that IP down the road (pun intended) or a newer one comes along they want to cash in on (as they have historically proven they will do, at the cost of popular attractions), then they will likely need to re-move or re-work said IP entirely because they dedicated so much space to it originally.

Which is why I like the idea of more "generic" lands. Because in a land like Tomorrowland, you can have Buzz Lightyear and Star Wars next to each other and things more or less don't get questioned. If Buzz Lightyear needs to go, you only have to remove Buzz Lightyear and you get to keep Tomorrowland. If something, someday, happens to Cars' popularity or Disney decides they need more space for other IP, they need to completely rework or remove Carsland. I'm not saying that's going to happen any time soon but looking back on the resort's history, it likely will, someday.

So I think they should have built a more generic land that better fits the California theme WITH a Cars-themed ride inside of it. That way, all that other space can be used for thinking about future growth.

I hope that makes more sense. -and it's just my opinion. You are welcome to yours!

 

[Californian Elitist]

@DavidDL You’re making perfect sense to me.

 

[DLR92]

I prefer the generic theming. I prefer the former Paradise Pier to the current Pixar Pier. I prefer the silly name pun of California Screamin’ to the lame “Incredicoaster”.

Carsland is well done land. Very immersive. But I question the popularity of Cars IP after the next decades.

 

[DanielBB8]

I'm sorry if I'm not making my feelings clear. Let me start from the beginning. The point of this thread is to ask us how we each feel about Carsland, 10 years later.

My own, personal opinion about Carsland is that it is a well done Carsland. I think it's a work of art and a lot of fun. I enjoy it, even though I don't like the Cars movies. However, personally, I don't think building it was the right fit for Disney California Adventure. Why?

Firstly, because Radiator Springs is in Arizona. Carsland IS Radiator Springs so that disqualifies Carsland from making sense in Disney California Adventure, to me.

Secondly, because I personally feel like dedicating too much space to a single IP can be a mistake in the future. If something happens to that IP down the road (pun intended) or a newer one comes along they want to cash in on (as they have historically proven they will do, at the cost of popular attractions), then they will likely need to re-move or re-work said IP entirely because they dedicated so much space to it originally.

Which is why I like the idea of more "generic" lands. Because in a land like Tomorrowland, you can have Buzz Lightyear and Star Wars next to each other and things more or less don't get questioned. If Buzz Lightyear needs to go, you only have to remove Buzz Lightyear and you get to keep Tomorrowland. If something, someday, happens to Cars' popularity or Disney decides they need more space for other IP, they need to completely rework or remove Carsland. I'm not saying that's going to happen any time soon but looking back on the resort's history, it likely will, someday.

So I think they should have built a more generic land that better fits the California theme WITH a Cars-themed ride inside of it. That way, all that other space can be used for thinking about future growth.

I hope that makes more sense. -and it's just my opinion. You are welcome to yours!

Well, 10 years later, I would still love Carsland. It is such a beautifully realized land and has the best rides in DCA. And it is quite funny to contrast it with the other generic lands in DCA that are the worst designed generic lands ever in a Disney theme park so the argument is completely odd to me. In comparison to Tomorrowland, which was a well designed land, but allowed to deteriorate to the point of no return and still remains.

To be fair, Superheroes Land replaced the demolished Bug's Land. So there's your example that you're trying to make. But everyone forgot about Bug's Land including me and you.

I can think of a many other rides or places at DCA that is due for a replacement instead of any Carsland attractions.
1. Showcase Theater.
2. Monsters Inc.
3. Goofy mouse coaster.
4. Animation Building.
5. Hyperion Theater.
6. Expansion Pad on the South East corner.
7. Grizzly Trails.

 

[PiratesMansion]

I do wonder if we'll get to the point that the Cars franchise is less popular and Disney moves back to a more old-school approach, where both real cars, real car culture, and Disney's Cars franchise can coexist harmoniously.

And if that happened, wonder if the fandom would be ok with it or if they would rip Disney apart for being out of theme.

Strange to think about.

 

[el_super]

Route 66 was hinted throughout DCA. Carsland took it a step further with it's own Cars version of Route 66. Instead of mere Route 66 signage as before...

 

[DavidDL]

..But everyone forgot about Bug's Land including me and you...

Please don't speak for me or put words in my mouth.

Flik's Fun Faire was never Imagineering's shining gem but "it's tough to be a bug!" was one of my favorite attractions in the park before we lost it. Additionally, walking through "a bugs land" towards the Tower of Terror was my favorite way to approach that attraction because the visual gags in "a bugs land" made you feel appropriately small on approach. -and the Tower, larger than life.

Also, this isn't an argument. It's me sharing my opinions and you sharing yours. Despite not having any "attractions", I love Pacific Wharf and that area, in general because I love the Bay-area aesthetic and felt it was captured well enough. My wife and I also spent our first anniversary in the Bay so it reminds us of that as well. Grizzly Peak is one of my favorite areas of the resort because of it's relaxing atmosphere, water and tree elements. Finally, Paradise Park and the nearby Boardwalk Pizza and Pasta outdoor dining area may very well be my favorite place to sit down and enjoy a meal in the resort (up there with Blue Bayou). You like what you like and I like what I do.

I am happy that in 10 years you will still love Carsland. But different folks, different strokes, you need to understand that. I enjoy walking though and climbing up the Grizzly Peak Challenge trail more than I enjoy Larry the Cable guy singing to me in a junkyard. That's just me. -and I'll say it again, I enjoy and have fun in Carsland. I just don't think it was the right creative, long term choice for Disney California Adventure. If you dropped a roller coaster in my backyard, I would have fun riding it while still being able to honestly say I don't think it belongs there.

 

[D.Silentu]

Excellent idea for a thread, though I remember what I was doing the day it opened and boy does it feel like I long time ago! I had a pass at the time and was there opening day. Before I add my thoughts to this thread, it’s only fair that I’m forthcoming with my opinions on the movies around which the land is based. Seeing Cars was the first time that I felt Pixar had lost their edge. Not to overcriticize a plot used by many movies, but I couldn’t get “Doc Hollywood” out of my mind during the viewing. The sequel seemed more of an elongated homage than a movie and the third one had a very questionable message.

So, not otherwise endeared to the source material, I was actually quite impressed on opening day. It really was a sight to see, along with Buena Vista Street, after a decade of being used to the park’s opening aesthetic. At last the park was getting the kind of quality that Disney built its name on. The scale cannot be overstated because things that size just don’t get built in Anaheim anymore. California Adventure still is lacking dark ride style attractions and Radiator Springs Racers went a great way to help fill that need. Beyond that, I really wish I could get more enthusiastic about it.

These days I ride ‘Racers’ every visit, and that about sums it up. I’ve never been to Flo’s and while I used to grab a snack at the cone motel, now I book it straight for the ride. I estimate I’ve been to the shops just once. Mater’s is a fun ride, but both incarnations of Luigi’s really haven’t been anything demanding my time. I’d hate to know how much the current version cost to deliver such a shallow experience.

I think Cars Land really looks fantastic as I’ve always been a fan of the desert with its odd charm. I’m just as enamored with the back path to the land as everyone else. The mountains give a sense of awe and place that, frankly, the Grizzly Peak only flirted with. I want to praise the neon night lighting, but the unfortunate truth is that California Adventure is not an evening park and I rarely get to see it. As a side note, I’d enjoy the return of nightime parties, or some after sunset draw to the park besides World Of Color.

I really want to acknowledge the effort that went into the land, but perhaps my opinion was handicapped from the start. The area gives the park a more Disney feel, but for me it has no staying power. I appreciate it more than I enjoy it, with the exception that it has one of the better rides at California Adventure.

The mountains and cliffs, while maybe a little exaggerated, have direct analogues to places here on earth (and ironically not in California).

I hear this often when this topic is discussed and while the landscape is not common to California, there are some examples to be found. I've found such landmarks to the east of Amboy.

I also think it's a little weird that you wait so long for the ride, to go inside and see a recreation of the town outside of the ride. Seems so strangely redundant.

I'm glad that I'm not the only one who thinks this bizarre. In the best Imagineering tradition, the queue for Radiator Springs Racers implies that you are heading out of town and once you are on ride you head further out still. Then you promptly head back to town? The dark ride portion is well done but redundant if you think about it. We can walk around Radiator Springs, why would we want to take a trip there if we've already been?