News Cars-Themed Attractions at Magic Kingdom

Disney Analyst

Well-Known Member
A lot of people point to the removal of ROA being less about the island, or even the boat ride, and more about the atmosphere and placemaking it creates. I also believe a lot of people find this distasteful as this has always been a quintessential part of the castle parks.

I do want to be a bit optimistic and say, I hope what they build continues the placemaking and atmosphere. Just because the river is gone, does not have to mean that concept goes with it. If this area maintains places to wander into, hidden crevices, quiet areas, it could still achieve what ROA did, while adding more beloved attractions at the same time.

Time will tell, but the dice have been rolled and now we have to hope it doesn't land on snake eyes.
 

MrPromey

Well-Known Member
To me the problem isn't specifically IPs, it's the way they are being used. It feels like Imagineering is being given the hotest IPs, being told which parts of the park are underperforming and being told to just make it work. Look at the descriptions of Encanto and Indy for AK. It's clear that they are forcing an animal element into them to make them "fit" into the park instead of doing something that is a more natural fit for the park, even using other IPs. These sorts of decision seem to tie the hands of the Imagineering and it makes it difficult to do the very careful, well thought out design work that made Disney what it is today.
 

Incomudro

Well-Known Member
A lot of people point to the removal of ROA being less about the island, or even the boat ride, and more about the atmosphere and placemaking it creates. I also believe a lot of people find this distasteful as this has always been a quintessential part of the castle parks.

I do want to be a bit optimistic and say, I hope what they build continues the placemaking and atmosphere. Just because the river is gone, does not have to mean that concept goes with it. If this area maintains places to wander into, hidden crevices, quiet areas, it could still achieve what ROA did, while adding more beloved attractions at the same time.

Time will tell, but the dice have been rolled and now we have to hope it doesn't land on snake eyes.
Conceivably that could be true.
But there is little reason for me to believe Disney will actually do that.
 

MisterPenguin

President of Animal Kingdom
Premium Member
Another thing about this that I think a lot of the cheerleaders are missing. For a significant percentage of our limited natural lifespan on this Earth, MK will be a huge ugly pit. They didn't have to choose this.
ORR... people don't cheer things they don't know enough about yet because they're reasonable and not the rabid monomaniacal boosters you paint them out to be.
 

Quietmouse

Active Member
Poll question:

If this ride was not attached to the cars ip, but was rather called “mickeys off road racing”, and the cars were skinned to be old classic looking cars with the same racing wilderness theme would there be less back lash?

Or is this all to do with getting rid of the boat and river ?
 

Disney Analyst

Well-Known Member
Conceivably that could be true.
But there is little reason for me to believe Disney will actually do that.

Absolutely could go the other way, but Josh did mention something about places to explore, so it sounded to me like they'd be including some concepts from TSI into this new area.

Disneyland Paris does something kinda like this, with their Adventureland, as their island is strictly for Big Thunder.
 

the_rich

Well-Known Member
Does this look like a massive waterfall coming from the peak to anyone else? It's giving me grizzly peak vibes.
 

Attachments

  • 1000004301.png
    1000004301.png
    354.8 KB · Views: 37

RSoxNo1

Well-Known Member
Does having attractions based on movies really add that much to the bottom line? Like if that Cars ride opens tomorrow what percentage increase would they see over sales of cars plushies and blu-rays or whatever?

To me it’s a really backward way of thinking about things that’s stuck in the 80s. Like by the time The guardians of the galaxy attraction opened the series was done and James Gunn has gone on to greener pastures. In a few years it’s just going to be “that coaster based on an old movie” and will just end up dated like the Ellen adventure every passing year.

Same with Star Wars land they tied it so heavily to the sequel trilogy which A) No one was all that crazy about and B)was already OVER by the time the land opened and now they have this land junking up the property that they really don’t know what to do with. It’s telling that the Star Wars hotel was closed and the galaxy’s edge for Paris was quietly cancelled and replaced with lion king.
Personally I think it's short sighted and probably isn't much more than a year one marketing push. They're also never capitalizing on these things in a timely manner for the impact to be that substantial. What's more likely is that they're managing expectations here. Guests expect their movies to be represented in the parks.

Personally, I think the IP mandate was determined by executives in board rooms and not creatives. If you'll allow some self promotion, I wrote this 9 years ago:

 

MisterPenguin

President of Animal Kingdom
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.
As mentioned above, the space that RoA is on is 'zoned' for development, whereas the forest beyond ROA isn't development-ready either geographically or permit-wise.

Also, there's a question of how to get to that forested area (Beyond Big Thunder Mountain. You have things in the way: TBA, BTM, RoA, HM, and IaSW.)

One of them has to dramatically change in order to access the BBTM. (I would have built a better IaSW in Epcot and raze the current one in MK.)
 

Incomudro

Well-Known Member
Absolutely could go the other way, but Josh did mention something about places to explore, so it sounded to me like they'd be including some concepts from TSI into this new area.

Disneyland Paris does something kinda like this, with their Adventureland, as their island is strictly for Big Thunder.
Yeah, I just don't buy the current Disney speak of "places to explore" anymore.
What does that mean to them now?
It's so deliberately vague.
A dead end with an Easter Egg in it?
Something you can scan with a phone?
 

Purduevian

Well-Known Member
Yeah, I just don't buy the current Disney speak of "places to explore" anymore.
What does that mean to them now?
It's so deliberately vague.
A dead end with an Easter Egg in it?
Something you can scan with a phone?
Its a land of exploration and adventure... maybe we should just rename it to Adventureland! Heck maybe we should rename the whole park to Disney's Adventure World Orlando.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom