News Cars-Themed Attractions at Magic Kingdom

larryz

I'm Just A Tourist!
Premium Member
We can all write a 100 pages on this thread in 30 hours but no one will sign the petition below? Speaks volumes here…

Maybe it's the wording -- "save Rivers of America from being overshadowed by commercial endeavors..."

Puh-lease -- the whole MK is already an overshadowing commercial endeavor!

OBTW, there's this one and this one, too.
 
Last edited:

hopemax

Well-Known Member
Joe Rohde, I believe, once made an Instagram post where he talked about what separates truly great themed entertainment from something that's just "fun" - "fun" is a wonderful thing, but it's also something you can have anywhere; a simple plastic toy can be fun, after all, and you can get a yo-yo or something for a few bucks. But if you want me to spend multiple thousands of dollars on a "themed experience", you need to offer more than that - if I can just have "fun" at home, then I need a deeper reason why I'd be willing to part with my hard-earned money to travel to muggy Florida and spend time in the environment you've created.

That impetus to spend the money and go to the theme parks is partly generated by the rides, yes, but the rides are more often the direct source of fun; what sets a great theme park apart is, though, is the attention to detail and the small, sometimes barely perceptible choices (sight lines, kinetics, color palettes, music, tactile choices for surfaces, layouts, costuming, construction materials, something as simple as period appropriate lighting fixtures, etc.) that transport you to a different place and a different frame of mind. Once you've got that, you can sell people on just about anything your park will offer, like original ride concepts or things that don't involve "just slap that character's face on it so it'll sell." I kind of point to something like the Guardians coaster for this: lots of fun, for sure, but not something particularly transportive.
Unfortunately for those of us who believe this, Disney found the alternative option. Just keep the experience so painful that people will line up to throw money at it, to avoid the pain. As long as "being a good parent" relies on a family trip to WDW, they'll get away with it. And when they stop being able to get away with it, the people in charge of these decisions will be long gone.
 

DavidDL

Well-Known Member
Something that feels "off" to me about the reasoning for a Cars attraction in Frontierland is that it's supposed to be about exploring the "frontiers" of America, but stuff like the piston mountain make it feel more like a trip through the world of Cars, rather than our own.

It's sort of hard for me to explain. Because I know an area like Big Thunder Mountain isn't "real" and is an original creation loosely inspired by real world areas, too. But it still feels authentic enough in its design for me to think it could have been pulled from the real "American West". And something like Tiana's, despite being the opposite (a cartoon world filled with singing animals), still goes out of its way to make clear that it's an adventure that takes place in the bayous of New Orleans, Louisiana.

But something about bringing a piston-mountain range, etc. to Frontierland feels like those areas are floating between some sort of thematic uncanny valley, where it is neither fully committed to being a celebration of a real area, or that of one within the Cars universe. Like, it would be nice to just say that the snow-capped peaks and surrounding forest are us exploring or celebrating the Pacific Northwest. But then I see the Piston and am reminded, "Oh wait, this is just a Cars land."
 

lentesta

Premium Member
Here’s another question I have, and maybe @lentesta could help answer it. Wouldn’t it be less expensive to expand the footprint of FL and MK than demolishing what is there already and then building on top of TSI and ROA? It seems like Disney has plenty of space.

Internally, "over ROA" is viewed as significantly less expensive than green field development.
 

Charlie The Chatbox Ghost

Well-Known Member
Any chance they reverse course on the location of this new Cars land and move it beyond Big Thunder?
The crowd reaction should have said everything they needed to hear. At their fanboi convention, the room was crickets when it was announced, and has only gotten worse when they announced the location.
Next to no chance. We could try writing letters (there's a list of execs to contact regarding Muppetvision going around so that same group could be contacted about RoA), and even if all of Disney's fanboys outcried it wouldn't change the fact that Little Timmy will beg his parents to ride the Cars ride, causing them to spend another $50+ that they wouldn't with the free to access and experience TSI.

I'm starting to see the usual suspects on Twitter explain why it's a good thing to lose the atmosphere of the RoA/TSI and how Cars is going to have the same exact atmosphere (it won't if they're filling up the river entirely), so the momentum of people against the change is already dying. People are exhausted (myself included) from spending all day yesterday arguing for it. I'm going to write to Disney and make my point for at least keeping the water, but there's no chance anything will change at this point unless they lose "river filling budget" or something.
 

erasure fan1

Well-Known Member
You said the IP is only popular with 4-7 year old boys. Thats the same(ish) demo they target Princesses to, but I don't think you'd ever make the argument that they shouldn't do any Princess stuff.
You're right, I basically said that in the post. Disney princess is an iconic Disney brand. Of course I wouldn't say don't do princess stuff. Just as I didn't say don't do cars stuff. But let's not pretend that cars is anywhere on the same planet as the princess brand. But again, an ip won't guarantee a good ride and it won't mean it will be bad. It all comes down to if you think it fits in frontier land or if it would be better in another park. Personally. I would rather it go in a different park. That doesn't mean I wouldn't want the ride.
 

TrainsOfDisney

Well-Known Member
Disney considers people like us a fringe minority, and they know that the majority of the WDW crowd are casuals that will love anything Disney shoves down their throat.
The “majority of the WDW crowd” is going down…. So it would be wise for Disney to consider appealing to a diverse audience.
I don’t think (based on the concept art) that Mater will be that integral to the ride. He and McQueen appear to be commentating the rallye from their position at the finish line for Radiator Springs Network (RSN). Maybe you’ll hear his voice on the ride vehicle but I don’t think he’ll be intruding on some of the other natural areas of the land.
If any characters are part of the ride, mater will certainly be there. I have some fears this will end up being pretty similar to Snow White mine train in terms of execution.
So I subliminally love ROA and TSI, while not consciously caring about them?
In a way - yes. I can’t remember which imagineer said this but they basically said - nobody goes home and says “Disney world is amazing - there are 5 shades of white on the grand Floridian” but when they say “Disney world is amazing, there is something about the grand Floridian that is so special” - they are saying it without realizing it.
 

Charlie The Chatbox Ghost

Well-Known Member
I’m right there with you. As much as I like the franchise, mater is my least favorite character in many ways. If you could have seen my reaction to the initial news I was completely against Mater in FL as we know it. However this won’t be FL as we know it and everything we’ve seen from the Cars franchise on screen and in the parks (including AOA) says this will have theming and cohesiveness.

I don’t think (based on the concept art) that Mater will be that integral to the ride. He and McQueen appear to be commentating the rallye from their position at the finish line for Radiator Springs Network (RSN). Maybe you’ll hear his voice on the ride vehicle but I don’t think he’ll be intruding on some of the other natural areas of the land.
The bright side about the Cars characters not being super integral to the ride means that perhaps someday if the Cars IP is no longer popular, the ride itself can just be reskinned to something else/something original.
 

erasure fan1

Well-Known Member
In a way - yes. I can’t remember which imagineer said this but they basically said - nobody goes home and says “Disney world is amazing - there are 5 shades of white on the grand Floridian” but when they say “Disney world is amazing, there is something about the grand Floridian that is so special” - they are saying it without realizing it.
100%. I've heard that same sentiment from a lot of the Disney creatives. You might not know exactly why something hits you the way it does. But it's absolutely noticable when there is something missing. It's the thing that used to always separate Disney from the rest.
 

Kamikaze

Well-Known Member
You're right, I basically said that in the post. Disney princess is an iconic Disney brand. Of course I wouldn't say don't do princess stuff. Just as I didn't say don't do cars stuff. But let's not pretend that cars is anywhere on the same planet as the princess brand. But again, an ip won't guarantee a good ride and it won't mean it will be bad. It all comes down to if you think it fits in frontier land or if it would be better in another park. Personally. I would rather it go in a different park. That doesn't mean I wouldn't want the ride.

Disney Princesses, as a franchise, $45b. Cars, $21.5b. Princesses had a 70 year head start. There are also 21 movies vs 3 and 13 different princesses.

So yes, it kinda is 'on the same planet', if we're being completely honest.

Again, placement is the issue, as well as removing RoA. But the IP isn't the problem, and it isn't a 'not relevant' IP like you said.
 

Charlie The Chatbox Ghost

Well-Known Member

Disney Princesses, as a franchise, $45b. Cars, $21.5b. Princesses had a 70 year head start. There are also 21 movies vs 3 and 13 different princesses.

So yes, it kinda is 'on the same planet', if we're being completely honest.

Again, placement is the issue, as well as removing RoA. But the IP isn't the problem, and it isn't a dying IP like you said.
Disney Princesses as a brand didn't start until 2000, and I doubt the number of total revenue is including each individual princesses' merch sales from 1937-2000.

But yeah, I agree, the placement is the main issue here. I personally can live with Cars, but I can't live with the loss of the only major water feature remaining in MK.
 

orky8

Well-Known Member
Here is a look at Radiator Springs Racers overlayed on RoA for an idea of available space

View attachment 809091
Pretty sure your scale is off there. This is what I got when I did by best to align scale:

Screenshot 2024-08-13 at 3.26.01 PM.png
 

hopemax

Well-Known Member
Just have to be honest with yourself, petitions don't move the needle. The boat has sailed on this one as well, layyards are being built and permits being filed. We lost another one...
And the fact that it happened in this way is telling. No time for any objections to be raised outside the confines of Burbank, Glendale and LBV. No expectation of a positive reception. Somewhere in the distance, you can hear Bob Iger saying, "This had better work."

I think it will work as well as Galaxy' Edge. While not a failure, certainly not the ROI that Burbank imagined.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom