bwr827
Well-Known Member
Or… while folks are getting their kicks at the shiny new Epic, WDW can get the job done.
Or… they’ll be happy to see visitors spend a little more time at their three other parks while Frontierland gets majorly plussed up.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News Cars-Themed Attractions at Magic Kingdom
- Thread starter wdwmagic
- Start date
Or… they’ll be happy to see visitors spend a little more time at their three other parks while Frontierland gets majorly plussed up.
MrPromey
Well-Known Member
At least they can't pick us up and dump us in the water features like they could if they were playing RCT or RCT2!
gustaftp
Well-Known Member
Where is this idea coming from that "guests no longer frequent" these areas, or are you just assuming this to be true? What did data look like 5, 10, 20, 40 years ago?
rd805
Well-Known Member
Common sense -- the River is huge and has a slow moving boat that while offers tranquility, doesn't soak up guests nor interest.
TSI has not been very popular in terms of number of people venturing over for a long, long, long time. The people that do it, enjoy it - but it doesn't get the traffic that something new & exciting would.
October82
Well-Known Member
Areas equivalent to TSI have been included in parks built by both Disney and their competitors for decades. This includes in Adventure Land at Shanghai Disneyland. These companies don't include these spaces without good business and design reasons for doing so.
Although it's true that Cars is a more marketable property and that a Cars attraction is likely to see more guests than TSI itself, this sort of decision is not made because attractions designed to serve specific demographics at low cost are somehow underperforming expectations. None of us have access to guest numbers or satisfaction surveys, but I would be shocked if something like TSI has actually seen significant decline in recent years relative to its cost to operate. @gustaftp is right that it isn't 'common sense' to claim otherwise.
On that point, there's a desire to frame controversial decisions made because of changes to the company's business model - Disney is a company that markets IPs, not one that thinks of itself as running theme parks - as obviously rational. The reality is that areas like the ROA and TSI are about the role they serve in creating a cohesive experience in MK's Frontierland and, in the process, providing inexpensive spaces and attractions for families and smaller children. They're not D-ticket attractions and the Cars D-ticket won't serve the same role.
Last edited:
MrPromey
Well-Known Member
7DMT is a good semi-recent example.
That one certainly has one side that is better than the other.
So does the more recent Moana walk-through in terms of guest facing areas.
Beacon Joe
Well-Known Member
Fair point!
Love it but to much like DCA imo. My personal idea was for a DL forward expansion to DCA to be this where it's Lilo and Stitch and an Inside Out dark ride and if there was a way to connect Big Hero 6 to add that too.
Virtual Toad
Well-Known Member
I love the PacNW, even lived there for a couple of years in my youth. Recreating it in the middle of the Florida swamp will result in something that might look like the Pacific Northwest, but in the heat and humidity of Central Florida, it will still feel like... a Florida swamp.
That's one of the reasons ROA and TSI worked so well at WDW. They fit perfectly with the natural look and feel of a park in Central Florida, similar to how Dollywood fits its natural surroundings.
The other major issue is that filling in all that space and removing the broad vistas will make the park feel smaller. The same sense of grandeur that once defined the central core of Future World will be destroyed forever. It's repeating the same mistake they made at Epcot, and once they do this there's no going back.
Placemaking and storytelling need room to breathe. So do the guests. Early WDW designers understood this. The current regime does not.
This is another short-sighted shoehorn of a project being put where it doesn't belong. Our family loves Cars (and Cars Land at DL), but from a design perspective, we love what WDW is supposed to stand for even more. So IP or no IP, this move is a gargantuan mistake. Especially when less destructive options are available.
MrPromey
Well-Known Member
I don't think having an IP in and of itself is the problem.
The issue with modern Disney is that rather than Imagineering picking appropriate IP that ties into something (or going with something original of their own creation - either way) for a new attraction, management tells them what IP they want used and where the attraction needs to go and then it's up to them to figure out how to come up with some way to make sense of that.
In this case, I don't think I'd feel much differently about these changes if it were for a ride using generic jeep-style antonymous self driving vehicles doing the same thing but I'm confident they wouldn't fill in Rivers of America to plop this kind of ride in if it didn't have a cars tie-in.
I'm guessing if ROA had to go and Imagineering were tasked simply with a replacement that fit the theme of Frontierland, we'd be getting something entirely different that wouldn't involve modern-styled looking vehicles at all.
Thematically, if they were to pull from an existing Disney IP, there are more appropriate ones but they wouldn't move as much merch and since this is only about money and corporate centergy and likely extending the merchandising life of a franchise that's had way more success with it's merch than fan or critical favor concerning the actual movies that merch is based on, we get Cars here.
What do you think?
Do you believe we'd be getting this kind of ride in this spot without this particular IP?
Like most, I also don't have anything specifically against Cars. Looking at the park as a guest who's paying to be there rather than an executive looking to "maximize value" and "fully utilize space", I just don't agree that location is the appropriate place.
Last edited:
TrainsOfDisney
Well-Known Member
I would say they do - a large body of water, with an island, that has canoes going around it, and large sailing ships parked on it - is ROA design wise.
That is not what I have heard from anyone. One insider says this entire project is happening because of Iger period.
danlb_2000
Premium Member
I would bet 99% of guests to the park walk by the river and have their visit positively impacted by it.
RSoxNo1
Well-Known Member
I think it's very reasonable to say that the aesthetics of the river add to the ambiance of the park. I haven't visited Tom Sawyer Island in decades, but I still appreciate the Rivers of America. With that said, I'm taking a wait and see approach here. The ambiance and kinetic energy of the new land could be just as good (albeit different) with a bigger attraction draw as well.
I'm a little sick of the fan crutch that Disney World has the "Blessing of size". We have all lost things in the parks that carry precious memories. When they replace things with something inferior, that's the time to complain. That same group also complains that the parks are stale.
As for logical areas of expansion for the Magic Kingdom, Tom Sawyer Island is absolutely at or near the top of the list. I've long been a proponent of relocating it's a small world and removing the Speedway because of how valuable that real estate is. Tom Sawyer Island is just as valuable and largely underutilized from a capacity standpoint.
Raineman
Well-Known Member
It amazes me how we have people on this thread that sound like they work for Disney or are Disney shareholders when they give their opinion on why they think it's a good idea to move forward with this. Who, outside of Disney/shareholders cares about "efficient use of space" and "maximizing ROI" and all of that? Why should the average guest care if there is an area that is "underutilized"? How does that affect a guests experience? We all know why Disney is doing this, but it is stunning how many people support it based almost solely on Disney's financial interests-it makes them sound like corporate bootlickers. Newsflash to those people-Disney doesn't care if you agree with them.
rd805
Well-Known Member
Not at all -
I want new attractions. I want better attractions. I go to Disney for the ATTRACTIONS.
I like the look of the land they designed, the idea that Frontierland is evolving and is more than an old-timey-western feel, and I like that underutilized space is in plans to be re-developed to a new thrill ride as well as a smaller ride for families. I can run around outside in the woods anytime I want - but i go to Disney for rides.
JSouth25
Member
LOL, exactly my thoughts, I felt like I was losing my mind seeing some of those comments. It’s one thing if you’re genuinely excited for the change as a guest, that’s great, but if all you’re talking about is how the space is underutilized and using all this corporate speak, that’s when I shake my head.
TrainsOfDisney
Well-Known Member
With animatronic chickens! I think not!!!!
rd805
Well-Known Member
If ppl are on these boards - they are fans of the parks, and already have a better understanding of how theme parks operate & how expansion can occur. Making fun of people who understand what space is under-utilized, is a silly argument on a theme park forum.
rd805
Well-Known Member
fair lolWith animatronic chickens! I think not!!!!
