News Cars-Themed Attractions at Magic Kingdom

[TrainsOfDisney]

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.

Last year I was there for the first day of Halloween and the lightning lane was using parts of the old splash queue- lightning lane equals $$$.

 

[JD80]

I’m not really asking either question - I’m pointing out that it isn’t crazy to think HM could be on the chopping block. Modern Disney is a company focused on brand synergy - not on capacity utilization or even park merchandise sales.

It’s not bad faith to ask what the loss of the RoA for other classic park attractions.

Any attraction could be on the chopping block if guests stop going on it. That's the whole point of a theme park or amusement park - offer experiences people want to partake in. If the experiences stop being attractive, then you replace them.

 

[October82]

The original comparison was not that 4K videos were better than the real thing. The original point was that 70 years ago people didn't have access to 4K videos or access to cheap travel across the globe so one way to imagine yourself in the deep unexplored jungle was Jungle Cruise.

Now people have access to 4K videos, travel blogs and all assortment of entertainment options that allow them to imagine being in the unexplored Jungle (not to mention accessible travel options) which defeats the purpose of the original Jungle Cruise.

[citation needed]

Historically, access to information about “exotic parts of the world” actually increased cultural awareness of them rather than the opposite. There’s a whole lot of social criticism that should come up here, but at its root, things work exactly the opposite of the way you suggest.

Adventureland exists in large part because video increase awareness in the popular zeitgeist. People didn’t go - oh, I’ve seen this on TV so I’m not interested in it. They became *aware* of it and Disney offered a different way to experience it.

 

[Andrew C]

offer experiences people want to partake in

Almost all park guests partake in RoA...

 

[October82]

Any attraction could be on the chopping block if guests stop going on it. That's the whole point of a theme park or amusement park - offer experiences people want to partake in. If the experiences stop being attractive, then you replace them.

Attractions go on the chopping block for all sorts of reasons.

The claim I’m responding to is that it’s not a serious argument that HM and PotC could be on the chopping block. As you seem to agree, they already are.

 

[MisterPenguin]

Will they bring back the mule rides?

 

[CoasterCowboy67]

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.

No, sorry. What no one cares about is whether an area was previously “set aside” or designated anything. Why? Because it means nothing. Expansion into an area that just didn’t happen to be previously designated for expansion is still an expansion. Please don’t try to introduce yet another artificial / arbitrary metric

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.

What’s truly foolish is not saying an expansion is an expansion because it wasn’t called an expansion plot beforehand. What are we doing here — calling the 8-ball pocket in a game of pool or it doesn’t count? It is the definition of splitting hairs to not credit Disney for carving out additional space for guests that they didn’t use before. Guardians absolutely does that, unequivocally

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.

Count is not the only measure, but it’s far more objective measure than “feeling” or “anchor” or “nostalgia” or whatever is being used here. The logical gymnastics here are:

• Replacing a 3D show, 3 flat rides, a kids train, and playground with 1 attraction at one park is “OK! The gold standard of expansion!”
• Replacing a boat ride and island playground with 2 attractions, one E-ticket, is “Terrible! They aren’t increasing capacity!”

Again, this is the double standard. At least be consistent and judge DLR as harshly as you’re doing with WDW on ROA

 

[Bocabear]

I would love an honest voice from any of the old guard imagineers left that really understood the medium to say that yes this is a great idea and will not impact the overall feel of the park...It will integrate beautifully and will not spoil what we love about this park... Tony Baxter? Joe Rohde?...Not sure how many of the old guard are left , but Tony Baxter understands the medium, the style and the feel of the parks... If he says this is a great idea and it's going to be beautiful based on studying the plans and knowing the work of those on the team..... Then I might feel better about it.... But the team that plopped Tron next to Space Mountain, Moana in Future World, THe Polyday Inn on Seven Seas Lagoon, The Riviera, Communicore hall, etc... That team doesn't have my confidence....

 

[Incomudro]

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

The size of WDW is also due to the fact that you have multiple parks.
Staying on property - particularly in a resort served by monorail or boat - and park hopping is quite an amazing experience.
It really is a whole world in there.

 

[wannabeBelle]

I would love an honest voice from any of the old guard imagineers left that really understood the medium to say that yes this is a great idea and will not impact the overall feel of the park...It will integrate beautifully and will not spoil what we love about this park... Tony Baxter? Joe Rohde?...Not sure how many of the old guard are left , but Tony Baxter understands the medium, the style and the feel of the parks... If he says this is a great idea and it's going to be beautiful based on studying the plans and knowing the work of those on the team..... Then I might feel better about it.... But the team that plopped Tron next to Space Mountain, Moana in Future World, THe Polyday Inn on Seven Seas Lagoon, The Riviera, Communicore hall, etc... That team doesn't have my confidence....

And that I think sums up the feeling so many of us have. Disney hasnt managed to cover themselves with glory and accolades for a lot of their more recent additions/changes. I'm sure that there have always been items that didnt exactly wow people but to take out something that is so awesome as RoA to put in something that "MIGHT" be better is an awfully big gamble for us. Also once it is done, there is a good chance that if it doesnt work it wont be that easy or inexpensive to go back to the aesthetic we have now. As I have said I dont have a problem with the Cars IP per se, but I think the placement could be better. Put it behind TBA and BTMRR on the expansion pads, increase the footprint of the park, increase the capacity both in square footage and the amount of people who will want to come to see the new areas, and keep the original Ro A and the charm of that area, with the blend of the frontier going into the mountain areas. A great compromise and one that I thinks serves everyone. Marie

 

[Schmidt]

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

He is actually on point.

Think about things you loved as a kid. Things that were super popular.
Baseball cards, sports, etc... All of these have gone through different phases of popularity.

Very few people collect sports cards anymore. Its the worst investment to make. Card collecting is Stan

No, sorry. What no one cares about is whether an area was previously “set aside” or designated anything. Why? Because it means nothing. Expansion into an area that just didn’t happen to be previously designated for expansion is still an expansion. Please don’t try to introduce yet another artificial / arbitrary metric

What’s truly foolish is not saying an expansion is an expansion because it wasn’t called an expansion plot beforehand. What are we doing here — calling the 8-ball pocket in a game of pool or it doesn’t count? It is the definition of splitting hairs to not credit Disney for carving out additional space for guests that they didn’t use before. Guardians absolutely does that, unequivocally

Count is not the only measure, but it’s far more objective measure than “feeling” or “anchor” or “nostalgia” or whatever is being used here. The logical gymnastics here are:

• Replacing a 3D show, 3 flat rides, a kids train, and playground with 1 attraction at one park is “OK! The gold standard of expansion!”
• Replacing a boat ride and island playground with 2 attractions, one E-ticket, is “Terrible! They aren’t increasing capacity!”

Again, this is the double standard. At least be consistent and judge DLR as harshly as you’re doing with WDW on ROA

Isn’t cars getting a major e ticket?
I also remember at D23 Josh mentioning Villains is also getting 2 major attractions and restaurants.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

Isn’t cars getting a major e ticket?

Major E ticket is yet to be determined but 2 attractions yes. We aren’t giving up ROA for Villians though.

 

[flynnibus]

No, sorry. What no one cares about is whether an area was previously “set aside” or designated anything. Why? Because it means nothing. Expansion into an area that just didn’t happen to be previously designated for expansion is still an expansion. Please don’t try to introduce yet another artificial / arbitrary metric

This is not arbitrary - it's literally taken from the master planning of the parks themselves. It is you who is focusing on an absolute literal use of the word and chose to ignore it's long accepted use in this context. It's why your comments have caused friction because you are literally using the language in a way foreign to the topic.

The fact Cosmic Rewind needs a bigger building than Energy does not magically make the ride into a 'New Park Expansion' -- there is no practical interpretation of that... yet you alone insist it is.

 

[el_super]

Adventureland exists in large part because video increase awareness in the popular zeitgeist.

Adventureland was created at a time that far off jungle locales were still considered exotic, dangerous, and different enough to solicit wonder.

It's not necessarily that YouTube videos replace the experience of going to these places, but that the idea of a far off place being dangerous and exotic ... isn't the case anymore. They are easily accessible in that you can get a fair amount of real information about them in 30 minutes or less.

So why go see a fake version at a Disney park?

That's not even touching on the idea that calling someone else's home exotic for entertainment value isn't really something the kids today will accept at a social level.

 

[Andrew C]

So why go see a fake version at a Disney park?

Because fantasy can still be fun?

 

[CoasterCowboy67]

Isn’t cars getting a major e ticket?
I also remember at D23 Josh mentioning Villains is also getting 2 major attractions and restaurants.

Exactly, it is. The 5 attractions at Bugs Land closed in 2018, the WEB Slingers D-ticket opened in 2021, and now, in 2024 (…6 years after they closed down 5 attractions) they tell us about the other 2 attractions coming but no date in sight.

And DLR is doing it right with expansions?

 

[JD80]

Attractions go on the chopping block for all sorts of reasons.

The claim I’m responding to is that it’s not a serious argument that HM and PotC could be on the chopping block. As you seem to agree, they already are.

These are two very different statements here, and you seem to be trying to words in my mouth which I don't appreciate.

HM and POTC being on the chopping block is not a serious argument at all, in fact it's laughable.

 

[el_super]

Because fantasy can still be fun?

Exactly. And how do you tie in more fantasy on your jungle river cruise? Add IP.

 

[Bocabear]

Adventureland was created at a time that far off jungle locales were still considered exotic, dangerous, and different enough to solicit wonder.

It's not necessarily that YouTube videos replace the experience of going to these places, but that the idea of a far off place being dangerous and exotic ... isn't the case anymore. They are easily accessible in that you can get a fair amount of real information about them in 30 minutes or less.

So why go see a fake version at a Disney park?

That's not even touching on the idea that calling someone else's home exotic for entertainment value isn't really something the kids today will accept at a social level.

So basically any theming or romanticization of any other part of the world is now off the table? Anyplace is exotic to someone who has never been there... and calling someplace exotic is not an insult. So nothing wrong with calling a southeast Asian jungle "exotic"... These are stylized versions of places...Never meant to be literal... but meant to evoke a feeling of time and place. I think kids of today are fine with seeing exotic and different places that don't look like their hometown as setting in a fantasy theme park.....

 

[Andrew C]

Exactly. And how do you tie in more fantasy on your jungle river cruise? Add IP.

Honestly not quite sure how to respond to that...we are on such opposite ends of the spectrum.