News Cars-Themed Attractions at Magic Kingdom

[el_super]

Disney’s second biggest film of the year is a love letter to gun violence and shoot outs occasionally punctuated by Fox-era Marvel film callbacks and Ryan Reynolds jokes.

They're not going to put a sign on the fort that says FRONTIERLAND... rated R for violence.

 

[October82]

Frontierland? Adventureland? The concept of Frontierland and Adventureland are as old now, as the time gap between their original era and the time they were put into the parks. The Jungle Cruise comes from a time where the only real jungle exploration one could do, back in the 1950s, involved either being a millionaire (ha!) or browsing the pages of National Geographic. Today, you can search for any jungle river in the world and get a 4k tour on YouTube within seconds. That's why Disney is turning away from these concepts: they are far too accessible. They aren't novel or exciting anymore. Disney has to lean into IP because it's the kind of content that people can only get from Disney.

You'd have to be a very special kind of person to equate a 4K video on YouTube with visiting South America, Asia, or Africa. Or even visiting a theme park recreation of them.

Not saying that person doesn't exist - I'm sure they do - but they're not driving WDW's marketshare.

 

[Ayla]

I was just talking in generalities-I should have added "most" or "majority" to what I said. Maybe I shouldn't have included millennials in there, but certainly the youngest generations will have less attachment in general that the older generations. People in their teens and early 20s will know what Cars is, but will have little to no knowledge of who Tom Sawyer is or what a steamboat is.

If that is true, then our education system truly is abysmal.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

Today, you can search for any jungle river in the world and get a 4k tour on YouTube within seconds. That's why Disney is turning away from these concepts: they are far too accessible. They aren't novel or exciting anymore

How about going off-roading in a 4-wheel drive?

 

[easyrowrdw]

Isn’t it a combination of cars and villains land ?

Cars land is supposed to feature 2 attractions and villains land is rumored to feature one coaster and one type of dark (boat ? ) ride.

Say bare minimum 4 attractions, that still outweighed the boat (1 attraction) going in a circle and visiting an island with nothing really to do (2nd attraction).

There is a lot to do on the island. There are actually multiple attractions on the island.

If they are able to implement some hidden trails that guests can access to create a faux hiking experience and some hideaway spots that kids can play and burn energy, I think the loss of the island and the boat will be, at the very least, mitigated.

That would be cool. I hope they don't destroy the river and island, but they seem pretty set to. So now I hope they at least try to incorporate things like this. I suspect I'll be disappointed though.

 

[Schmidt]

But if they are easily able to add without replacing, why would they simply replace? Replacing old with new removes that balance that guests have been enjoying for decades.

They shouldn't just simply replace. We are drawing alot of conclusions about why this is being done and what is best for this park. I'm spitballing a bit , but maybe these 2 lands/attractions are part of a bigger picture on the future of the MK. Maybe the plan was always to to start with the island and build out. Maybe there are logistical issues that we aren't attuned to. etc.etc.etc. I've been at WDWMAGIC since the beginning. This rumor of demolishing ROA and TSI has been around as long as this site. It's funny that people didn't seem phased by this then.

My point is I have no idea why they are doing what they are doing, but neither does anyone else.

 

[Dear Prudence]

I don’t know, the society we live in now, and how we view diversity, acceptance and gun violence definitely does not fly within the realm of shoot outs lol.

Yes our world is more sugar coated now, but that’s the reality of the times.

Oh yeah, I don't doubt that the way that we view guns and gun violence snuffed out shoot outs at Frontierland (and I am not saying that's a bad thing), but people seem to forget the "WILD West" was actually incredibly diverse. Most cowboys weren't white. I've thought it interesting in recent years that pointing that out is considered part of the "revisionist" western genre when it's actually closer to reality.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

This rumor of demolishing ROA and TSI has been around as long as this site. It's funny that people didn't seem phased by this then.

So has a 5th gate and expansion of the monorail.

 

[el_super]

Not saying that person doesn't exist - I'm sure they do - but they're not driving WDW's marketshare.

Not today... but they will be in 10 to 20 years.

 

[October82]

Not today... but they will be in 10 to 20 years.

No, they won't be.

 

[Raineman]

If there are more and more E-Ticket rides for people to ride, the losers will be the A through C tier attractions that get used as filler. Think of it more like a top-10 list. People will prioritize their top ten attractions, and everything else has to fight for the scraps.

To be honest, I would have thought COP was next on the chopping block, but it sounds like Hall of Presidents is. After those two I would think Buzz and maybe even Pooh are coming up on the list too.



They will need to solve for that.




Frontierland? Adventureland? The concept of Frontierland and Adventureland are as old now, as the time gap between their original era and the time they were put into the parks. The Jungle Cruise comes from a time where the only real jungle exploration one could do, back in the 1950s, involved either being a millionaire (ha!) or browsing the pages of National Geographic. Today, you can search for any jungle river in the world and get a 4k tour on YouTube within seconds. That's why Disney is turning away from these concepts: they are far too accessible. They aren't novel or exciting anymore. Disney has to lean into IP because it's the kind of content that people can only get from Disney.




You have to replace aging attractions that don't attract people. It's a fundamental fact of being a theme park operated in a capitalist country. If a ride/show/attraction isn't pulling it's weight, the resources devoted to keeping it up and running should be diverted elsewhere. This will be the fact of it, until you find a way to evolve our society away from using money.

-If Disney is leaning into IP, and that's their focus going forward, then the original intent and vision of Disney theme parks is disappearing and will become unrecognizable. It has never been a place to showcase IP only, and should never be. And to your other point-sure, people can go to YouTube and see things that some attractions are based on. But watching a video is nowhere near being able to experience it in person, and attractions like that at Disney give you a general feeling of how it might be if you did visit.
- In regards to your comment about aging attractions not attracting people. If we still had the old ticket system, where guests are paying for each ride they take, then this would be valid. Under that system, if attraction A is making twice as much as attraction B, then B has to be considered for replacement. But under the current system, the revenue is based on gate, food sales and merch sales. Whether an attraction is busy or not makes no difference to the bottom line. And diverting maintenance costs to a busier attraction-that doesn't make the company more money either; the net amount spent on maintenance remains the same.

 

[el_super]

No, they won't be.

I mean one can definitely make the case that the old west as a theme was played out in the 1970s when Big Thunder replaced the mine train.

Pop culture changed and opinions about the old west did too. Assign that to whatever reason you want.

It's weird to think that pop culture won't keep changing as the generations come and go. The kids LOVE YouTube and Twitch and they're not watching travel videos.

If not today already, in ten years Walt Disney World's biggest competitor will be home entertainment.

-If Disney is leaning into IP, and that's their focus going forward, then the original intent and vision of Disney theme parks is disappearing and will become unrecognizable.

The original intent was to be a place families can enjoy together. If the kids are bored with the rides grandpa grew up with, the original intent was already lost.

But watching a video is nowhere near being able to experience it in person, and attractions like that at Disney give you a general feeling of how it might be if you did visit.

But it's NOT the real thing. That's the point: you can get a more authentic experience watching an amateur travel bloggers videos of the Mekong Delta on YouTube, than you can get riding a boat past animatronic animals.

Nevermind that travel is far more accessible now than it was in the 1950s. YouTube is free, but flying across the world is just as expensive as going to WDW now.

Whether an attraction is busy or not makes no difference to the bottom line.

Of course it does. They still have to pay cash to the operators and maintenance team, and their support teams as well. Supporting 80 attractions is going to be more expensive than supporting 60 attractions with the same turnstile counts and it cannot be justified.

 

[flynnibus]

Surely you must be in favor of losing a river, boat, and island playground for what will likely be E-ticket attractions in Cars?

I enjoy calling out double standards

When talking 'expansion pads' - no one cares about literal ground coverage sq ft which seemed to be your criteria. Expansion pads are areas that have been earmarked and SET ASIDE for intended future growth of the customer attractions. Not just the literal footprints of attractions. What matters in this context is the use or loss of these areas that were previously set aside - not worrying about the boundaries of prior attractions shifting.

These expansion pads are not 1:1 for an attraction, but they are distinct units that have minimums in terms of viability. Giving up 5% of an expansion area to another use is not the same as giving up enough of the area that it no longer becomes viable for new additional uses. No one would consider a new backstage use that reduced an expansion pad's use by minimial impacts as 'giving up' or 'using the expansion pad' unless it materially limited the potential of it's use. Example: A new road/path that gives up some margin, but doesn't prevent the area to be used for future attractions.

Additionally, no one considers expansion of ground foot print into areas that weren't explicitly set aside as future growth spots as 'giving up' or 'using expansion pads'. People do not consider Cosmic Rewind as taking up expansion pads because the area the attraction expanded into was not set aside for planned growth. It's growth in footprint did not displace other spots that had already been earmarked for planned use. When Soarin added a 3rd theatre it was not 'using an expansion pad' because it was built in backstage areas never intended for on-stage. Same way with Rewind... the new structures are not in areas that were set aside for planned growth.

So all this chatter about 'what is expansion' or not simply because a building plot was bigger is just foolish. It's disingenuous to the real conversation about the park's long term plan. Attraction "volume" is hard to quantify with just 1, or 2 dimensions... because attractions vary so much.. but it should be obvious that really is what is in question here... not split hairs over building a new structure backstage and thus calling that 'expansion'. Foolish.

Then let's talk about Bugs Land attractions.. Yes, technically Bugs land had 5 attractions plus the theatre. But we all know that literal count is not very telling because 1 was a water pad, and the 4 were all very small attractions all tailored to the same young child demographic. No one would rationally take the attraction count of tomorrowland.. at 7.. and say bugs land was 85% of what tomorrowland was because it only had one less attraction. Counts are not very telling, especially when the attractions in question are of a cluster setup for a specific demographic. To equate two major attractions being added, and then saying 'but bugsland really had 6... so that's still 4 less' is absurd. It's disingenuous to all the things we all realistically know matter. That scale and variety are also part of the conversation.

So all that said, your comparison post does include real things - but is totally misleading and practically meaningless.

Cosmic Rewind was not a park expansion, it was an attraction replacement with a bigger building.
Encantó is not a park expansion in the same sense as DisneyForward... but is growth in other terms, while still being a 1 in, 1 out situation.
Cars you call a replacement - but we know it's much more than a 1:1 replacement. You don't count TSI on the same footing as a major E-Ticket. Plus TSI is unique due to the anchor factor the ROA has on a major quadrant of the park.
You labeled Remo, Tron, and Mickeys Railraid as expansion pad uses. Only Remy was an expansion pad use. Tron and MRR were both expansions because they added new attractions, but both managed to repurpose and squeeze in spots that were not originally earmarked for planned growth.

Its hard to talk full list here because so many of the new projects we don't know what their real impact will be. But we do know Disney is not shying away from retiring and replacing older attractions and areas they want to repurpose.

 

[JD80]

I think alot of people agree that will never happen, at least not in our lifetime. Those are flagship attractions that have been constantly busy for decades.

Of course they are yet people seem to like to say, "If they can take away RoA they can take away HM!!" It's a ridiculous statement from unserious people.

 

[October82]

I mean one can definitely make the case that the old west as a theme was played out in the 1970s when Big Thunder replaced the mine train.

Pop culture changed and opinions about the old west did too. Assign that to whatever reason you want.

It's weird to think that pop culture won't keep changing as the generations come and go. The kids LOVE YouTube and Twitch and they're not watching travel videos.

If not today already, in ten years Walt Disney World's biggest competitor will be home entertainment.

People said the same things about VHS and video games - pop culture trends change, but people’s desire to spend time in real environments with other people doesn’t. Why? In short - because we are social animals and hardwired for it. Kids spend time on twitch because it’s a social media platform that allows them to connect with others who have a shared interest. People like us spend time on WDWmagic for the same reason.

That doesn’t mean we can’t enjoy videos of far off places or find value in a video game take (or even a VR experience of them) but it does mean that there’s no world in which people prefer 4K YouTube videos to the real world. Not today and not in 10, 20, or 100 years time.

 

[JD80]

Can I ask what you mean when you mention capacity? If you simply mean that the Cars attractions will handle more people than TSI/Liberty Belle, you're right. But that doesn't necessarily mean that the park will get more guests,

Theme parks continuously need to add new attractions and experiences in order to maintain or grow the number of guests.

 

[October82]

Of course they are yet people seem to like to say, "If they can take away RoA they can take away HM!!" It's a ridiculous statement from unserious people.

What do you think is the business case for the HM long term?

To make this more concrete - Although it’s a well done experience, Disneyland’s version spends about half the year as a nightmare before Christmas attraction. I don’t think the parallels are exact, but it’s clear that Disney sees value in at least one IP overlay of it.

 

[Disstevefan1]

What do you think is the business case for the HM long term?

To make this more concrete - Although it’s a well done experience, Disneyland’s version spends about half the year as a nightmare before Christmas attraction. I don’t think the parallels are exact, but it’s clear that Disney sees value in at least one IP overlay of it.

They will probably bulldoze it to put in a Moana or Tiana attraction

 

[JD80]

What do you think is the business case for the HM long term?

To make this more concrete - Although it’s a well done experience, Disneyland’s version spends about half the year as a nightmare before Christmas attraction. I don’t think the parallels are exact, but it’s clear that Disney sees value in at least one IP overlay of it.

Not sure what you mean. Haunted Mansion pulls guests to the park, pulls guests into the attraction and pulls people in to buying merch. Significantly.

When it stops doing that, it'll be a candidate to go.

 

[October82]

Not sure what you mean. Haunted Mansion pulls guests to the park, pulls guests into the attraction and pulls people in to buying merch. Significantly.

When it stops doing that, it'll be a candidate to go.

I gave an exact example of what I mean. Yes, HM does those things but it seems Nightmare Before Christmas is even better at all of them - or at least DLR management thinks so.

So what’s keeping HM around today?