News Cars-Themed Attractions at Magic Kingdom

C

CoasterCowboy67

Well-Known Member
Though I think it’s a beautiful design feature and will miss it, I’m not nostalgically wedded to ROA / TSI. I just don’t get why it’s being removed to add 2 more attractions to a park that has almost 3x as many as HS and AK to begin with.

The capacity argument feels naïve. You’ll have more people at MK spread over more rides (same queue times), but even less ability to feel like you experienced the park on your 1 trip every so often

The variety argument feels like a 1st world problem compared to HS and AK. Why are we solving for variety at MK when the others can’t even fill one day?

I would’ve made Villains the special thing that MK got, 2 net new attractions, and give HS and AK more net new attractions given they’re only getting replacements (TBD on what if anything Monsters is replacing)
 
B

basas

Well-Known Member
Dear Prudence said:
Thank you. And you are absolutely right, modern Disney would NEVER.

Exactly! The Mark Twain dialog changed and evolved. It's okay. And even even good for stuff TO change.

Walt hired Native people for Disneyland regularly. He invited the Nations of the Grand Canyon and their spiritual leaders to bless the Grand Canyon diorama. If it's inaccurate, fix that. He wasn't perfect and a lot of the media during his lifetime was problematic, but he still always showed respect for actual people. They hire cultural ambassadors for Epcot. Native Nations are sovereign domestic dependent nations, they could hire them the same way.
Click to expand...

Evolving is okay. Gutting and erasing…not okay. They’re doing the second…
 
UNCgolf

UNCgolf

Well-Known Member
lentesta said:
Sorry for the crude graphic.

Here's a chart showing the average ratings and 95% confidence interval, by age group, for the attractions we're discussing, from the Unofficial Guide/TouringPlans.com reader surveys.

View attachment 808942

These are the age groups we survey:
  • Pre-school children (up to age 5)
  • Grade school children (ages 6-12)
  • Teens (ages 13-19)
  • Young Adults (ages 20-30)
  • Over 30's (ages 30-64)
  • Seniors (ages 65+)
The horizontal line is the average rating for that attraction for that age group.
The vertical line is the 95% confidence interval for that age group.

A decent rule of thumb is that if the confidence intervals don't overlap, the result you're seeing is probably due to some underlying truth, and not (for example) random chance/noise in the sample/etc.

It's a 5-point scale, with 1 bad and 5 excellent. (Take that, DEFCON.)

Radiator Springs Racers is on the left in mint green.
Tom Sawyer Island is next in salmon pink.
The Liberty Square Riverboat is in baby blue.
Hall of Presidents is in lemonade yellow on the right.

Every age group except pre-schoolers rates Radiator Springs Racers substantially higher than any of the other attractions.

It's not close.

Teens prefer Radiator Springs by almost 1.4 points over the next-closest attraction in a 5-point scale.
Young Adults prefer Radiator Springs by almost 1.2 points.
Over 30's prefer Radiator Springs by almost a full point.
Seniors prefer Radiator Springs by almost half a point.

If you want the parks to make people happy, Cars is likely to do that way more than anything that's there now.
Click to expand...

I feel like this misses the point. Nothing you're saying here is wrong, but it's just kind of, well, irrelevant.

First of all, we aren't getting Radiator Springs Racers -- the new attraction is an unknown (although I'd be very surprised if it isn't pretty good at worst).

Second, there is room/options to build the Cars attraction without demolishing the existing area. That's the main issue. It's not an either/or proposition; Disney could have kept them all.

Personally, I don't have a major problem with eliminating TSI, just like I wouldn't have a major problem eliminating Jungle Cruise for something that better utilizes all that space. My main issue is with eliminating the waterfront, as that essentially requires a massive overhaul of the existing Liberty Square and Frontierland. They won't work as designed without the river there, but who knows if/when Disney will get around to fixing the new problem they're creating.
 
Last edited:
B

basas

Well-Known Member
lentesta said:
Sorry for the crude graphic.

Here's a chart showing the average ratings and 95% confidence interval, by age group, for the attractions we're discussing, from the Unofficial Guide/TouringPlans.com reader surveys.

View attachment 808942

These are the age groups we survey:
  • Pre-school children (up to age 5)
  • Grade school children (ages 6-12)
  • Teens (ages 13-19)
  • Young Adults (ages 20-30)
  • Over 30's (ages 30-64)
  • Seniors (ages 65+)
The horizontal line is the average rating for that attraction for that age group.
The vertical line is the 95% confidence interval for that age group.

A decent rule of thumb is that if the confidence intervals don't overlap, the result you're seeing is probably due to some underlying truth, and not (for example) random chance/noise in the sample/etc.

It's a 5-point scale, with 1 bad and 5 excellent. (Take that, DEFCON.)

Radiator Springs Racers is on the left in mint green.
Tom Sawyer Island is next in salmon pink.
The Liberty Square Riverboat is in baby blue.
Hall of Presidents is in lemonade yellow on the right.

Every age group except pre-schoolers rates Radiator Springs Racers substantially higher than any of the other attractions.

It's not close.

Teens prefer Radiator Springs by almost 1.4 points over the next-closest attraction in a 5-point scale.
Young Adults prefer Radiator Springs by almost 1.2 points.
Over 30's prefer Radiator Springs by almost a full point.
Seniors prefer Radiator Springs by almost half a point.

If you want the parks to make people happy, Cars is likely to do that way more than anything that's there now.
Click to expand...

If every attraction achieved perfect score, your grading wouldn’t work. Not every attraction can be the most popular ride in the park. Not every attraction can be a headliner. As mentioned, this particular decision didn’t need to be an either/or.
 
zachrupertdsn

zachrupertdsn

Well-Known Member
Grading John Deere GIF by JC Property Professionals


Can't wait!
 
lazyboy97o

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
UNCgolf said:
I have a bigger problem eliminating the waterfront that essentially requires a massive overhaul of the existing Liberty Square and Frontierland; they won't work as designed without the river there.
Click to expand...
For awhile now Disney has claimed to be doing these grand reimaginings but they’ve never really committed. If you truly believe that Frontierland needs a radical rethink then actually do it and redesign the whole thing around your new central idea. The new attraction though looks inward towards itself because the incongruity is known and will be reflected in the final experience.
 
UNCgolf

UNCgolf

Well-Known Member
lazyboy97o said:
For awhile now Disney has claimed to be doing these grand reimaginings but they’ve never really committed. If you truly believe that Frontierland needs a radical rethink then actually do it and redesign the whole thing around your new central idea. The new attraction though looks inward towards itself because the incongruity is known and will be reflected in the final experience.
Click to expand...

New Fantasyland, for all its faults, is probably the last time a reimagining actually felt complete. There weren't really any holes or empty/underutilized spaces left there.

Tomorrowland never really got off the ground, and what they did do was left half-done in pieces. EPCOT turned into a bit of a disaster.
 
TrainsOfDisney

TrainsOfDisney

Well-Known Member
lentesta said:
Sorry for the crude graphic.

Here's a chart showing the average ratings and 95% confidence interval, by age group, for the attractions we're discussing, from the Unofficial Guide/TouringPlans.com reader surveys.
Click to expand...
This is a strange post from you - but so was your political post justifying this decision. Not sure if you’re trying to please the company or what but it’s odd.

If I was given a survey and asked to rate the attractions at Disneyland - of course I’m rating Radiator Springs a 5 and things like the riverboat a 3-4. That in no way means I want them to tear out the riverboat and put in more cars at Disneyland.

That’s like asking people what did you like most, the salad, entree or dessert and then taking salads off the menu cause everyone rated the dessert higher - it’s supposed to be a balanced meal! Haha
 
Q

Quietmouse

Well-Known Member
Poll question, the cars theme ride seems interchangeable to where if cars ip becomes super stale they can just change it to whichever “Disney character racing”…because it seems like this is a racing trackless ride - so the cars theme idea could very well be interchangeable to whatever.


That being said if they knock the theming out of the park, and this wasn’t attached to a cars ip
Would you be happier ?
 
W

WDWhopper

Active Member
Ghost93 said:
People on this site are just very, very against change.
Click to expand...
I have no problem with change, I just don’t see any reason to remove iconic Disney attractions when there is enough land in Disney World to build three or four more theme parks. Wasn’t that the whole purpose Walt bought all the land? And another thing, Disneyland is much more landlocked and they have never removed their Rivers of America or Riverboat. Even with their land issues, they realize how iconic they are. It really irks me that Disney World, with 44 square miles of space will be the first to remove these iconic attractions and areas. WDW requires big thinking. This is small thinking.
 
MrPromey

MrPromey

Well-Known Member
The Chatbox Ghost said:
Many people already have explained why
* They add a scenic and quiet retreat
* They add a play area for small children, something MK has been losing more and more of
* The riverboat is a relaxing scenic ride for people of all ages and sizes
* They add beautiful scenic views from the mainland park and give it a sense of natural beauty- since, you know, it’s a PARK
* They work as a thematic transition from LS to Frontierland
* They make the areas adjacent to them feel more open/have breathing room- without them the Frontierland street will feel more claustrophobic and cramped
* Having TSI, the Riverboat, AND Cars adds more capacity than having only Cars

Sure, they’re not the most popular attractions. But they provide so much for the park that people don’t realize. Even if you don’t do them, you’re still getting something out of them.
Click to expand...
What I find funny is some of the people saying this should be ripped out are the same who were gushing over the announcement of the new Epcot spine and all the nature and greenery that was going to bring in and how it would create so much nice ambiance in that area of the park and be such a welcome relaxing thing even if it took that park being messed up for half a decade to get there and provided no actual new attraction or activity for guests in the process.

I guess Kate was right with what she suggested the Queen say.
🤷‍♂️
 
Last edited:
lentesta

lentesta

Premium Member
lazyboy97o said:
You keep trying to silo this and I don’t understand why. A new Cars attraction isn’t going to be rated worse if the Riverboat or Hall of Presidents still exists.

People’s overall assessment of the day may be worse though as a result of poor design.
Click to expand...

I prefer to replace Liberty Square with Cars and leave the area north of Big Thunder for another future expansion.

Those moves give us 3 new things (Cars, Villains, and the future land).

The other option seemed to be keeping LS and putting Cars in the area north of Big Thunder. That would give us 2 new things (Cars and Villains).

I think those are really the only two choices we get right now. I mean, sure, we could add more land for more things, but given what we know right now, those are the two choices.

So I value the future of that undeveloped land higher than I value what's in Liberty Square right now. Keeping in mind that the originals of these attractions still exist in Disneyland, I'm super comfortable saying that.
 
TrainsOfDisney

TrainsOfDisney

Well-Known Member
Quietmouse said:
That being said if they knock the theming out of the park, and this wasn’t attached to a cars ip
Would you be happier ?
Click to expand...
The cars ip isn’t the problem as the cars themselves are too modern.

If they could have done a vintage car ride through the frontier / west - place it in the 1920’s to go with Tiana - and then that naturally interacts with the bears and the riverboat - a similar attraction could work well.
 
Q

Quietmouse

Well-Known Member
WDWhopper said:
I have no problem with change, I just don’t see any reason to remove iconic Disney attractions when there is enough land in Disney World to build three or four more theme parks. Wasn’t that the whole purpose Walt bought all the land? And another thing, Disneyland is much more landlocked and they have never removed their Rivers of America or Riverboat. Even with their land issues, they realize how iconic they are. It really irks me that Disney World, with 44 square miles of space will be the first to remove these iconic attractions and areas. WDW requires big thinking. This is small thinking.
Click to expand...

My guess is that Disney world will be the first but wont be the last.

Disney land is very crunch on space, and logically it makes sense for them to do the same thing in order to create new land for attractions.

Again, I just have to imagine the operation expenses of the boat attraction and the island have to be a loss leader for Disney.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom