News Cars-Themed Attractions at Magic Kingdom

Andy Whitfield

Active Member
OK I havent read all of the pages in this thread so if this has been discussed previously accept my apologies. I have no problem with the IP and the idea sounded good with another mountain range within the attraction. Destroying ROA to do this is a travesty. A podcast I listened to yesterday had suggested that Disney is surprised at the negative feedback they are getting on the demise of ROA. Dont know why they thought it would be anything else. Said podcast went on to say that this MIGHT be being reconsidered and that maybe portions of ROA might be preserved. I would like to see TSI utilized more, maybe as a family friendly play area that is a little quieter for families to relax, and have the Cars attraction back behind BTMRR and Tiana's Bayou/Splash. Do we think there is any chance to save ROA? Marie
I’m after a food parks podcast what do you listen to?
 

wannabeBelle

Well-Known Member
I’m after a food parks podcast what do you listen to?
Not near as many as I probably should, I'm afraid. I catch one every once in a while and there isnt anyone I follow faithfully in terms of a podcast. I do like to keep up with the trusted insiders on here as they tend to be pretty accurate and really awesome people as well which is always nice!! Marie
 

KDM31091

Well-Known Member
Its surprises me that so many wdw fans dont really seem to be in it for the attractions. Isnt attractions the main point?

its sad that the river is going. But the river aint a ride. they are adding new net attractions to the park. not getting rid of old attractions to do this expansion which is great.
Honestly, the park has steadily eroded attractions over the years that have not been replaced, so I'd argue this is really just a return to the level the park had in the past: Skyway - not replaced, Keelboats & Canoes - not replaced, Stitch - not replaced, Mickey and Minnie's houses - not replaced, Galaxy Palace Theater - not replaced, even if some of these were minor, that's 6+ things off the top of my head that used to exist as attractions and now do not.

If you assume SDMT replaced 20k leagues that takes care of that as far as the FL Expansion, and Ariel's dark ride could technically be considered a replacement for the missing Snow White dark ride. Otherwise, the park has had a lot more losses than gains over the years.

I find it startling that MK has (significantly) fewer attractions than DL.
 

Quietmouse

Active Member
Honestly, the park has steadily eroded attractions over the years that have not been replaced, so I'd argue this is really just a return to the level the park had in the past: Skyway - not replaced, Keelboats & Canoes - not replaced, Stitch - not replaced, Mickey and Minnie's houses - not replaced, Galaxy Palace Theater - not replaced, even if some of these were minor, that's 6+ things off the top of my head that used to exist as attractions and now do not.

If you assume SDMT replaced 20k leagues that takes care of that as far as the FL Expansion, and Ariel's dark ride could technically be considered a replacement for the missing Snow White dark ride. Otherwise, the park has had a lot more losses than gains over the years.

I find it startling that MK has (significantly) fewer attractions than DL.

To be fair though, Disneyland and wdw are in somewhat different boats.

It’s one thing if magic kingdom had Epcot…but we are dealing with 4 parks vs 2, and many skip DCA and just invest their time for Disney land.

So Disney land being the flag ship park, it doesn’t really have too much space to add attractions (nor the competition of 4 theme parks ), so it makes sense why Disney land has more than to do.

That said, it’s not always a good thing.

galaxy edge doesn’t really match where it should be in disney land. If anything it should be closest to tomorrow land but they are running out of space so they have to cram and wedge new lands where they probably shouldn’t.
 

Nickm2022

Active Member
What else is in the Car's expansion besides the two rides and the landscapes they bring. Restraunts, shops, etc? I also am curious how the new will blend in with the old the areas next to Big Thunder, Tianas, Bears, and the existing shops/pecos.
 

Quietmouse

Active Member
What else is in the Car's expansion besides the two rides and the landscapes they bring. Restraunts, shops, etc? I also am curious how the new will blend in with the old the areas next to Big Thunder, Tianas, Bears, and the existing shops/pecos.

My best guess is frontier land will be reimagined as a whole to reflect the modern 21st century of how we view americas west.

As it stands now, cars doesn’t make sense but if you change frontier lane to a more modern time then it does , especially since cars environment will reflect that of a national oark.
 

BuzzedPotatoHead89

Well-Known Member
That said, it’s not always a good thing.

galaxy edge doesn’t really match where it should be in disney land. If anything it should be closest to tomorrow land but they are running out of space so they have to cram and wedge new lands where they probably shouldn’t.
Yeah, I’ll take the backwoods transition from Frontierland or BC into Batuu over having Cartoon Cars whizzing around Haunted Mansion or TBA.
 

J4546

Well-Known Member
To be fair though, Disneyland and wdw are in somewhat different boats.

It’s one thing if magic kingdom had Epcot…but we are dealing with 4 parks vs 2, and many skip DCA and just invest their time for Disney land.

So Disney land being the flag ship park, it doesn’t really have too much space to add attractions (nor the competition of 4 theme parks ), so it makes sense why Disney land has more than to do.

That said, it’s not always a good thing.

galaxy edge doesn’t really match where it should be in disney land. If anything it should be closest to tomorrow land but they are running out of space so they have to cram and wedge new lands where they probably shouldn’t.
i dont think many people skip dca, its right there, and offers so much im sure most people probably go between both multiple times a day
 

Nickm2022

Active Member
My best guess is frontier land will be reimagined as a whole to reflect the modern 21st century of how we view americas west.

As it stands now, cars doesn’t make sense but if you change frontier lane to a more modern time then it does , especially since cars environment will reflect that of a national oark.
I agree. If they make the land a love letter to the America's Natural landscape and beauty I think it could work. My hope is they make Tiana's fit better and carry over the rock work of Big Thunder a little bit. I also am begging them to redo Pecos into litteritly anything.
 

phillip9698

Well-Known Member
Replacing the ROA doesn't make sense from a business perspective. It doesn't add to the guest experience or lead to new attractions. Marketing the Cars IP in the Magic Kingdom is what appeals to the MBAs and the logic of new attractions in Disney Parks.

Replacing the river does lead to new attractions. It keeps them from having to use more expansion space in the back of the park. So instead of a river and island few people want to experience we get a Cars area and some time in the future something else will go in the unused space that wasn’t used during this expansion.

I know people here are all about using as much expansion pad space as possible for every announcement, but that just isn’t going to happen!
 

Disstevefan1

Well-Known Member
MK will basically be OK,...it's their other three parks that WILL ABSOLUTEY suffer. (Disney hotels revenue WILL ABSOLUTELY suffer too. I think Universal Hotels will steal a good chunk of it)

For the first time ever,...Universal will now have it's own three day park/hotel "bubble" too.
I agree. I will add that MK will be OK for 2025 and keep the crown for most visited because of Universal intentionally limiting attendance to EPIC with the ticket packages.

When Universal allows folks to purchase single/multi day tickets to EPIC only the MK's crown may be in danger in my opinion.
 

wannabeBelle

Well-Known Member
Replacing the river does lead to new attractions. It keeps them from having to use more expansion space in the back of the park. So instead of a river and island few people want to experience we get a Cars area and some time in the future something else will go in the unused space that wasn’t used during this expansion.

I know people here are all about using as much expansion pad space as possible for every announcement, but that just isn’t going to happen!
Respectfully I disagree. There is enough area to expand and provide more capacity, not only by building a new attraction that will attract more people but by providing more area for people to explore. As previously pointed out in this thread, there is a ton of places that could be repurposed that are within the confines of the park that are underutilized or not used for guest facing attractions at all. We havent ever seen new attractions in the expansion pads because other attractions were built in existing spaces within the parks. I simply dont believe the two concepts are related. Marie
 
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.
I’m one of these people. You pay a premium to go to Disney and then to see a whole portion of the park is not used/under used is disappointing. Maybe an analogy, you pay a premium for a nice steak at a nice steakhouse. But you just cut off 20% of the steak and not eat it. Not a great analogy but somewhat how I feel and why I do think about under utilized space. I know Disney can do amazing things with this land which is why I want to see them grow and evolve it.

The river adds a lot of beauty to the area, I believe they can do more to make this area more useful and enjoyed by more guests while also having something beautiful there, new but beautiful.
 

Quietmouse

Active Member
Yeah, I’ll take the backwoods transition from Frontierland or BC into Batuu over having Cartoon Cars whizzing around Haunted Mansion or TBA.
They don’t, and its attendance numbers were greater than DHS and DAK I believe.

But whatever floats your riverboat (while you still have one 🙃).


DCA just have a lot of issues. I know they are trying to get it fixed but there’s no denying the theming is all over the place in that park…also, do California residents really want to visit a park that has so much of its theming based off California? Not sure what they were thinking with that.
 

BuzzedPotatoHead89

Well-Known Member
DCA just have a lot of issues. I know they are trying to get it fixed but there’s no denying the theming is all over the place in that park…also, do California residents really want to visit a park that has so much of its theming based off California? Not sure what they were thinking with that.
I don’t disagree there, but now we’re having a subjective qualitative discussion over DCA (is it a good park) vs. quantitive (how many visitors). The latter of which is provable in spite of its shortcomings.

But I think we’re veering off topic. Since I’m not sure what any of this has to do with MK’s RoA/Cars.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom