News Cars-Themed Attractions at Magic Kingdom

[phillip9698]

Actually not condescending at all.

You are right, telling people that you know what’s best for them and the only reason they don’t agree is because they are incapable of understanding you isn’t condescending at all.

This isn’t germ theory we are talking about here. It’s a river and island that fans have rejected for decades.

 

[JD80]

I had once thought it would be inconceivable that anyone would regard losing a *walk-through* attraction as being equal to gaining a *ride* attraction -- just an even swap! And the forums be quiet about that equivocation.

But I guess that's how you can trivialize getting 4 new rides in TSL and GE in place of a tour, a show, and mostly empty streets, and a playground. Shall we also count a lost food cart in the equation?

If Disney were to ever replace a *ride* attraction with a *walk-through* attraction, y'all would be marching on Glendale immolating yourselves.

They're not equatable. Until you want to score a point against Disney, it seems.

It's not worth it at this point. (edit: but as I write this post, apparently it is because it's long!)

Those that are lamenting the loss of RoA and TSI are validated in their feelings. It's not wrong to miss what was always there especially with nostalgia and everything else tied up in to it. This is a major change and some people don't like change.

However, because this opinion is mostly based on emotion, they are more likely than not to see those that are excited for this addition to be one monolithic block looking to take something away from them which makes conversation and discussion difficult. If you want true understanding it has to go both ways.

Now with that being said as a person who is very excited for this change, here are a few things in my brain as I read this conversation:

1. They have to nail this project. It's going to be right there in front of everyone. If it sucks, it's going to massively blow up in their face.
2. Some are disappointed about the loss of the Riverboat and claim, with good reason, that it's loss will be a loss of kinetic energy in the park. This is a great point, however it also ignores any additional kinetic energy from the attraction. Waterfalls, rivers/streams, cars and god knows what else may add to the kinetic energy of this area. If this is not in the same realm as the boat see #1.
3. Some are disappointed about the loss of water and it's natural beauty etc. This is also a legitimate concern both emotionally and objectively. However they are also ignoring the fact that the concept art (though it is just concept art) does show the design intent to add waterfalls, streams, and other water features throughout the land.
   
   Also, I'd like to point out that there is natural beauty in mountains and trees. Think Wilderness Lodge or anyone vacationing in the Rockies out in Colorado. It's beautiful out there.
   1. I have to also comment that when this is pointed out it is often handwaved away because "lol concept art, look at this other concept art from 10 years ago where there was something different". This is disingenuous and just adds to the nonsense.
4. Anyone still reading this? The last point is Expansion vs. Replacement. This argument is incredibly semantic and dumb. Especially since they are replacing two often ignored attractions with two modern attractions, additional shops and a whole lot more walking space that will be used.

One other thing to consider is that Carsland is probably the first steps in a whole lot of other future projects. Carsland allows for Villains and then whatever comes next (think areas where the laydown yards will be to the west).

Building a kiddie cars attractions allows for them to finally rip out the speedway (a replacement no one will argue is a bad thing). Ripping out the speedway then leads them to (hopefully) replacing/reimagining Tomorrowland by working on MiLF, Stitch, Speedway and giving Buzz a much needed facelift.

All long term plans that will probably change and get cancelled over and over, but I believe there is some kind of vision here and some pieces need to fall in to place first. Let's see who the new CEO will be in a year or two.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

This is a major change and some people don't like change.

“some people don’t like change” sounds like a pre-school teacher trying to be sugary sweet and saying “you simply can’t understand that this is the best thing”

 

[Incomudro]

It's not worth it at this point. (edit: but as I write this post, apparently it is because it's long!)

Those that are lamenting the loss of RoA and TSI are validated in their feelings. It's not wrong to miss what was always there especially with nostalgia and everything else tied up in to it. This is a major change and some people don't like change.

However, because this opinion is mostly based on emotion, they are more likely than not to see those that are excited for this addition to be one monolithic block looking to take something away from them which makes conversation and discussion difficult. If you want true understanding it has to go both ways.

Now with that being said as a person who is very excited for this change, here are a few things in my brain as I read this conversation:

1. They have to nail this project. It's going to be right there in front of everyone. If it sucks, it's going to massively blow up in their face.
2. Some are disappointed about the loss of the Riverboat and claim, with good reason, that it's loss will be a loss of kinetic energy in the park. This is a great point, however it also ignores any additional kinetic energy from the attraction. Waterfalls, rivers/streams, cars and god knows what else may add to the kinetic energy of this area. If this is not in the same realm as the boat see #1.
3. Some are disappointed about the loss of water and it's natural beauty etc. This is also a legitimate concern both emotionally and objectively. However they are also ignoring the fact that the concept art (though it is just concept art) does show the design intent to add waterfalls, streams, and other water features throughout the land.
   
   Also,I'd like to point out that there is natural beauty in mountains and trees. Think Wilderness Lodge or anyone vacationing in the Rockies out in Colorado. It's beautiful out there.
   1. I have to also comment that when this is pointed out it is often handwaved away because "lol concept art, look at this other concept art from 10 years ago where there was something different". This is disingenuous and just adds to the nonsense.
4. Anyone still reading this? The last point is Expansion vs. Replacement. This argument is incredibly semantic and dumb. Especially since they are replacing two often ignored attractions with two modern attractions, additional shops and a whole lot more walking space that will be used.

One other thing to consider is that Carsland is probably the first steps in a whole lot of other future projects. Carsland allows for Villains and then whatever comes next (think areas where the laydown yards will be to the west).

Building a kiddie cars attractions allows for them to finally rip out the speedway (a replacement no one will argue is a bad thing). Ripping out the speedway then leads them to (hopefully) replacing/reimagining Tomorrowland by working on MiLF, Stitch, Speedway and giving Buzz a much needed facelift.

All long term plans that will probably change and get cancelled over and over, but I believe there is some kind of vision here and some pieces need to fall in to place first. Let's see who the new CEO will be in a year or two.

"They have to nail this..."
Tiana's Bayou, and Galactic Star Cruiser have entered the chat.

 

[Incomudro]

“some people don’t like change” sounds like a pre-school teacher trying to be sugary sweet and saying “you simply can’t understand that this is the best thing”

Another line that annoys me.
I like change.
I don't like seeing beautiful things destroyed in the process.

 

[djkidkaz]

One thing people fail to mention is the ancillary upgrades the rest of the parks receiving new attractions will get. One thing I will say is that it appears when Disney is building a new attraction / land in a park they set aside money for the rest of the park to also receive minor upgrades and beautifying. They aren't just building Cars Land and Villains Land and that's it. There will be cosmetic upgrades all over the place with the expected increase in attendance. Lots of painting, pavement replacement, maintenance on things that have needed it for a long time, etc. We know Big Thunder is going down for a year and getting the whole track replaced while also most likely getting effects added to it that have been requested for a LONG time that other parks already have. Not to mention, what other attractions may see upgrades during this building time or even some of those smaller spaces like Stitchs Great Escape actually receiving some sort of attraction to help with crowds once Cars Land is done.

One thought is that over at Studios they have been very hesitant on mentioning where Monsters Inc is going. It has been mentioned on this site that there is another plan in place for Animation Courtyard if Monsters doesn't go there. If I was Disney and know that I have to announce Muppets closing and it's going to be a backlash, why not announce the Muppet closure while also announcing what the other plan is for Animation Courtyard? If the thought is lose Muppets but gain Monsters Inc Door Coaster which people have whined about wanting for decades AND something cool to replace Animation Courtyard which is a dead zone in the park, it helps people to visualize why the decision is made. For me, if the option is keep Muppets and gain Monsters Inc in Animation courtyard OR replace Muppets with Monsters Inc and build a log flume ride at Animation Courtyard then I'm all for saying goodbye to Muppets. Its a fine show and all, but my day isn't ruined if it isn't there.

 

[Ripken10]

Building a kiddie cars attractions allows for them to finally rip out the speedway (a replacement no one will argue is a bad thing). Ripping out the speedway then leads them to (hopefully) replacing/reimagining Tomorrowland by working on MiLF, Stitch, Speedway and giving Buzz a much needed facelift.

While I agree with a lot of what you said, this part is definitely not true. While there is a lot of people (especially on the message boards) that are always calling for its removal, there is a lot of people that will also be upset when they remove this attraction. It will go both ways here. And the new cars area doesn't look to give the same experience (not that it is a bad experience).

Probably the biggest reason I don't care as much about it will be the fact that by the time they do remove it, my kids will be old enough that it won't matter to me as much any more. Yes, there is other parks with similiar attractions, and it makes a lot of noise (even my wife said she doesn't like the attraction a lot...but loves doing with with the kids cause they love it so much) - but I would argue that somehow those similiar attractions never hit the same high note. My family has traveled to a lot of parks around the country, and done many of these similiar rides, but somehow it isn't as special. But a lot of that is nostalgia talking. I did it with my father, I am doing it with my son. It is an experience we never miss with every trip. It is not the best ride, but for some reason the kids end up with the biggest smile and the photo ends up in the vacation scrapbook (yes we still do those).

But as I said, I won't miss it as much, because by the time it happens my kids will be older and looking for a bigger thrill and not wanting to have to go on that "dumb" ride with their dad.

(long story short, we will have a 1,000 page thread again when they remove the tomorrowland speedway with people arguing both sides as usual - but I will be one just reading remembering all the great memories of that ride just like I feel now about TSI).

 

[Schmidt]

You are right, telling people that you know what’s best for them and the only reason they don’t agree is because they are incapable of understanding you isn’t condescending at all.

This isn’t germ theory we are talking about here. It’s a river and island that fans have rejected for decades.

Maybe it’s your hard core rigid perspective.
You are right it’s not rocket science so stop treating like it is.

 

[flynnibus]

Very similar, which is why I disagreed with the original statement that DLR “keeps expanding” when it’s clear it’s not doing that any more or less than WDW

This has to be the first time I've ever seen someone arguing the value of truck sized carnival rides and actual ground footprint as equals when comparing what will likely be E-ticket attractions. Talk about focusing on all the wrong things and getting absurd conclusions...

 

[trainplane3]

What I feel is there is certainly no "blessing of size" when it comes to the actual parks at WDW. I would say that the size of the whole resort is a "curse" as all it does is make the parks miles from each other. I can't understand why Disney is not expanding the parks they have, to at least make them as attraction dense as the Californian parks.

I think for me Disneyland California is a lot better proposition, 2 parks, close to each other with a high density of attractions existing and more to come over the next few years.

After seeing DL for the first time like 2 weeks ago, I walked away with a simple feeling. MK wishes it could be as good as DL (just the castle park) was. The density but also quality was there. Oh and the DL CMs gave me flashbacks to how WDW CMs were in the early 2000s. It quickly became apparent that DL is just a better MK because it has to do better to compete in it's location.

WDW doesn't care and will just do whatever is needed to get by because it's a "once in a lifetime" destination while DL is local, so WDW stuffing itself with E tickets instead of balancing itself with good density will never be a thing.

 

[Raineman]

This whole thread seems to be one big circular argument now. The people that are good with this change will never understand why the rest of us don't want the change. We keep telling them it's more about RoA and TSI providing a setting and atmosphere and relaxing kinetics, than it is about losing 2 attractions, but they keep focusing on attraction loss. They are completely missing the point, and are too stubborn to listen. I'm sure they'll be smugly standing there, clapping their hands, as that end of MK is turned into one big construction crater for years. It will be so nice walking thought Liberty Square and Frontierland, seeing construction walls the whole way, and hearing various loud construction tools and banging instead of the Liberty Belle whistle. So absolutely magical.

You are right, telling people that you know what’s best for them and the only reason they don’t agree is because they are incapable of understanding you isn’t condescending at all.

This isn’t germ theory we are talking about here. It’s a river and island that fans have rejected for decades.

Please point out where in my post I am telling anyone what's best for them, or saying that the only reason you don't agree is not understanding. Stop putting words into my mouth. And the second line in your post just illustrates how you don't understand. "Fans have rejected for decades" is simply not true. Just because an area/attraction isn't as busy as other ones doesn't mean it's been "rejected". And again, I ask-why does it matter to you where they put this Cars area? You have no stake in this.

 

[JD80]

“some people don’t like change” sounds like a pre-school teacher trying to be sugary sweet and saying “you simply can’t understand that this is the best thing”

Not sure why I deserve to be talked to like this. I hope your day gets better.

 

[Schmidt]

This has to be the first time I've ever seen someone arguing the value of truck sized carnival rides and actual ground footprint as equals when comparing what will likely be E-ticket attractions. Talk about focusing on all the wrong things and getting absurd conclusions...

And that’s my problem with the board.
It’s the sincerity of these faux arguments.

 

[JD80]

Another line that annoys me.
I like change.
I don't like seeing beautiful things destroyed in the process.

You can like change and still not like this. Some people don't like any change at all. This is not some monolithic statement.

 

[October82]

Sounds like you have a profound emotional attachment to this river. I like the river, but changing the aesthetic isn’t necessarily a bad thing if executed upon properly. I think this area will go along way in updating a park that feels tired at times, especially this area. Anyway just wanted to provide a different thought to the ultra negative echo chamber that occurs here from time to time.

Anyone posting on a Disney fan forum is emotionally attached to the Disney Parks.

The RoA is still extremely important to the design of Frontierland. Although aesthetics aren't objective in the same way mathematics is, they're also not arbitrary and Disney hasn't given much in the way of a reason to think "Cars" will be a tasteful update to Frontierland. That's not to say that such a thing isn't possible.

 

[CoasterCowboy67]

What I feel is there is certainly no "blessing of size" when it comes to the actual parks at WDW. I would say that the size of the whole resort is a "curse" as all it does is make the parks miles from each other. I can't understand why Disney is not expanding the parks they have, to at least make them as attraction dense as the Californian parks.

I think for me Disneyland California is a lot better proposition, 2 parks, close to each other with a high density of attractions existing and more to come over the next few years.

The blessing of size in FL is experienced in its feeling of escape and seclusion. You see very little (if any) “real world” reminders well into driving into the park. Instead, you have Magic Kingdom set behind an entire lagoon, making for what is perhaps the most dramatic and striking setting for a theme park anywhere

Meanwhile, you cross the street from the McDonalds, iHop and Tropicana Inn & Suites and you’re right in the middle of both California parks. Not to mention the area hotels and convention center you used from DCA that pulls you out of the little illusion it had to begin with

Size doesn’t need to mean only relentless expansion

 

[JD80]

While I agree with a lot of what you said, this part is definitely not true. While there is a lot of people (especially on the message boards) that are always calling for its removal, there is a lot of people that will also be upset when they remove this attraction. It will go both ways here. And the new cars area doesn't look to give the same experience (not that it is a bad experience).

Probably the biggest reason I don't care as much about it will be the fact that by the time they do remove it, my kids will be old enough that it won't matter to me as much any more. Yes, there is other parks with similiar attractions, and it makes a lot of noise (even my wife said she doesn't like the attraction a lot...but loves doing with with the kids cause they love it so much) - but I would argue that somehow those similiar attractions never hit the same high note. My family has traveled to a lot of parks around the country, and done many of these similiar rides, but somehow it isn't as special. But a lot of that is nostalgia talking. I did it with my father, I am doing it with my son. It is an experience we never miss with every trip. It is not the best ride, but for some reason the kids end up with the biggest smile and the photo ends up in the vacation scrapbook (yes we still do those).

But as I said, I won't miss it as much, because by the time it happens my kids will be older and looking for a bigger thrill and not wanting to have to go on that "dumb" ride with their dad.

(long story short, we will have a 1,000 page thread again when they remove the tomorrowland speedway with people arguing both sides as usual - but I will be one just reading remembering all the great memories of that ride just like I feel now about TSI).

Typically when someone says or writes "everyone agrees" or "no one will argue" they do not literally mean "everyone" and absolutely "no one".

The attraction makes CMs sick from working around the fumes for hours.

 

[Quietmouse]

What I feel is there is certainly no "blessing of size" when it comes to the actual parks at WDW. I would say that the size of the whole resort is a "curse" as all it does is make the parks miles from each other. I can't understand why Disney is not expanding the parks they have, to at least make them as attraction dense as the Californian parks.

I think for me Disneyland California is a lot better proposition, 2 parks, close to each other with a high density of attractions existing and more to come over the next few years.

Sure, but I will argue it has also created some muddled theming decisions as a result.

Galaxy edge should, at the very least, be adjacent to tomorrow land rather than tucked away above critter land/French quarters area. It’s in a weird spot that doesn’t really make sense?

Disney California adventure…what is the theme even ? The California theming makes sense (to an extent right ? ), radiator springs, Pixar pier, grizzly peak, that all is pretty cohesive and makes sense.

I could even argue that avengers campus slightly makes sense if you squint your eyes hard enough.…but the implementation of avatar land just seems very confusing. Slowly but surely the theme has gone from adventuring in California, to let’s slap whichever ip theme that sticks and make a land out of it.

You could argue and say, well that’s what the other Disney parks in Florida do, right?

Well kinda. Avatar in animal kingdom at least has some fabric that you can etch into the over arching theme of animal kingdom (alien animals are technically animals right?).

My overall opinion is that because Disney is running out of space in California they are forced to make decisions to make room for expansion sites with ips that are either located in the wrong spot (galaxy edge) or don’t fit the overall arching theme (avatar in a park about adventure in California).

 

[lazyboy97o]

The blessing of size in FL is experienced in its feeling of escape and seclusion. You see very little (if any) “real world” reminders well into driving into the park. Instead, you have Magic Kingdom set behind an entire lagoon, making for what is perhaps the most dramatic and striking setting for a theme park anywhere

Meanwhile, you cross the street from the McDonalds, iHop and Tropicana Inn & Suites and you’re right in the middle of both California parks. Not to mention the area hotels and convention center you used from DCA that pulls you out of the little illusion it had to begin with

Size doesn’t need to mean only relentless expansion

“Here in Florida we have something special we never enjoyed at Disneyland: the blessing of size. There's enough land here to hold all the ideas and plans we could possibly imagine.”

 

[Charlie The Chatbox Ghost]

So, in the span of less than a month, they've announced they're removing:

• Tom Sawyer's Island (Magic Kingdom)
• The Liberty Belle Riverboat (Magic Kingdom)
• The Red Car Trolley (Disney California Adventure)

Anyone noticing a trend with what attractions they seem to be sacrificing? It's all attractions that require little to no wait, have no IP attached, and have no ability to sell Lightning Lane+ or Virtual Queues. The attractions replacing these, Cars and Avengers, will 100% be VQ/LL+. It's all about maximizing profits and removing "free" experiences. Muppet*Vision 3D and the Hall of Presidents are also rumored to be on the chopping block, so it's very clear what Disney is doing.

I miss Eisner.