News Cars-Themed Attractions at Magic Kingdom

[Haymarket2008]

Another thing that WDI will have to deliver on: making this "New Frontierland" have depth.

Say what you want about the viability of Rivers of America and Tom Sawyer Island, having little features like Beacon Joe sitting on his porch, Old Scratch's Mystery Mine, etc. goes a LONG way in placemaking.

They have an opportunity to make the "berm" of this Cars area reminiscent of the berm of Grizzly Peak throughout DCA, but I fear that natural beauty will be replaced with rocks shaped like pistons and car hoods. Hopefully there will be a differentiation.

 

[celluloid]

They have an opportunity to make the "berm" of this Cars area reminiscent of the berm of Grizzly Peak throughout DCA, but I fear that natural beauty will be replaced with rocks shaped like pistons and car hoods. Hopefully there will be a diifferentiation.

Differential actually.

 

[Bocabear]

Frontierland is currently a watered down mess...Seems like Frontierland will disappear completely and it will just be a non-descript "Old Timey" section of the park leading up to Tiana's Bayou, followed by a completely out of place Big Thunder... the decisions made moving forward seem to be busting the ideas and themes of it's current lands... I am assuming none of the theme lands will be safe moving forward.

 

[Mireille]

My knee-jerk reaction is I hate this. I give ZERO about Cars, I haven't even ever seen any of the Cars movies. But I'm 51, I don't have kids and Disney World, Magic Kingdom in particular, is for kids and kids seem to love Cars. I'll miss TSI and RoA, but I can't honestly remember the last time, if ever, I actually rode on the riverboat and in the ~30 days in my life I spent any time in MK, I went to TSI like... 4 times max. I will miss seeing it, though. I will miss the idea of a part of the park being set aside for just being rather than standing in a line. And maybe Cars is good, maybe I oughta watch it.. I've heard Cars 2 is absolute garbage, though, particularly the phrase "Cars 2 makes Cars 3 look like Cars 1" comes to mind. My remaining concern is I don't really think MK should have entire lands dedicated to a single IP. I actually don't like it in general and as neat as Pandora and Batuu are, I think the entire land with one IP is kind of lazy and limiting.

I was there last week, went to Magic Kingdom on 2 days knowing full well this MAY (but might not be) my last visit to go on the Liberty Belle or go to TSI. Did I do either of those things? I did not. I guess that says something.

 

[JD80]

Man this thread is toxic.

 

[Quietmouse]

Frontierland is currently a watered down mess...Seems like Frontierland will disappear completely and it will just be a non-descript "Old Timey" section of the park leading up to Tiana's Bayou, followed by a completely out of place Big Thunder... the decisions made moving forward seem to be busting the ideas and themes of it's current lands... I am assuming none of the theme lands will be safe moving forward.

It’s easily the most controversial land outside of liberty square.

 

[FettFan]

It’s easily the most controversial land outside of liberty square.

I miss the days when the most controversial thing in a Disney park was Martin Short using cartoon sperm to explain how he was conceived.

 

[el_super]

The answer isn't the world is less full of adventure and wonder than it used to be, or that people today are enlightened by the existence of Youtube in a way that the people of the 1950s weren't, but that theme parks are a fundamentally different kind of experience from a virtual experience, reading a book, or watching a movie. Going to a theme park isn't, and wasn't, a substitute for going on a real African jungle cruise, visiting a "real" haunted house, or exploring the frontier. And it isn't the same as reading about those things in a book or watching it on a laptop screen either. None of these are substitutes for each other.

Oh no doubt there is still value in a physical experience. At least for now. But that doesn't really help to explain why one type of experience (IP) is preferred over another (non-IP). Or that a reality based experience (like a jungle river or Mississippi steam boat) isn't preferred over something more fantastical. Accessibility to information, changing social standards and even just the overabundance of media could all play into this... but it's hard to deny it hasn't already happened. That shift in the audience started way back in the 1960s.

 

[bmr1591]

Zip will return one day. Probably with new leadership and once execs realize the loud minority don't pay them money.

 

[Raineman]

Oh no doubt there is still value in a physical experience. At least for now. But that doesn't really help to explain why one type of experience (IP) is preferred over another (non-IP). Or that a reality based experience (like a jungle river or Mississippi steam boat) isn't preferred over something more fantastical. Accessibility to information, changing social standards and even just the overabundance of media could all play into this... but it's hard to deny it hasn't already happened. That shift in the audience started way back in the 1960s.

What is your basis for saying that IP experiences are preferred over non-IP? If that statement were true, then attractions like Haunted Mansion, Jungle Cruise, Space Mountain, Big Thunder, Expedition Everest, Spaceship Earth, Kilimanjaro Safaris, would never be as busy as Peter Pan's Flight, Monsters Inc. Laugh Floor, Buzz Lightyear, Frozen, TBA, 7 Dwarfs Mine Train, Tower Of Terror, Slinky Dog-which is not true at all. The non-IP attractions are consistently the busiest attractions in the parks, and at the very least have have the same guest numbers as the IP attractions.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

Or that a reality based experience (like a jungle river or Mississippi steam boat) isn't preferred over something more fantastical.

Pandora is preferred over the animal trails correct? So remove all animals from DAK?

 

[bmr1591]

What is your basis for saying that IP experiences are preferred over non-IP? If that statement were true, then attractions like Haunted Mansion, Jungle Cruise, Space Mountain, Expedition Everest, Spaceship Earth, Kilimanjaro Safaris, would never be as busy as Peter Pan's Flight, Monsters Inc. Laugh Floor, Buzz Lightyear, Frozen, TBA, 7 Dwarfs Mine Train, Tower Of Terror, Slinky Dog-which is not true at all. The non-IP attractions are consistently the busiest attractions in the parks, and at the very least have have the same guest numbers as the IP attractions.

In all fairness, many of those have massive history at Disney parks and are their own IP due to their history. When a family visits Magic Kingdom, they want to do these because of the history behind them.

But if a family is coming to Disney, they expect to see the characters their kids watch and they watched growing up in the rides and in M&Gs. There's certainly room for non-IP attractions, and I think Disney misses the mark by not creating any, but families are visiting with more expectation to be immersed in Disney stories, not a random ride that has nothing to do with Disney.

 

[el_super]

What is your basis for saying that IP experiences are preferred over non-IP?

Literally 60 years of history.

The non-IP attractions are consistently the busiest attractions in the parks, and at the very least have have the same guest numbers as the IP attractions.

What are the busiest attractions in the park today? Tron? Flight of Passage? Star Wars? Frozen?

If anything you said were true, Disney wouldn't be removing the non-IP stuff so successfully for decades now.

 

[JD80]

Oh no doubt there is still value in a physical experience. At least for now. But that doesn't really help to explain why one type of experience (IP) is preferred over another (non-IP). Or that a reality based experience (like a jungle river or Mississippi steam boat) isn't preferred over something more fantastical. Accessibility to information, changing social standards and even just the overabundance of media could all play into this... but it's hard to deny it hasn't already happened. That shift in the audience started way back in the 1960s.

Evidence is not far away just look at the highest performing movies in the last few years. They are all existing IP. Not just Disney movies: Mario, Avatar, Inside Out, Deadpool, Top Gun, Barbie etc.

People like to explore existing worlds, it's why EPIC will be very popular.

Edit: tagging @Raineman as a reply to their post.

 

[JD80]

Pandora is preferred over the animal trails correct? So remove all animals from DAK?

This is a bad faith argument and you should feel bad for typing it.

 

[lazyboy97o]

In all fairness, many of those have massive history at Disney parks and are their own IP due to their history. When a family visits Magic Kingdom, they want to do these because of the history behind them.

But if a family is coming to Disney, they expect to see the characters their kids watch and they watched growing up in the rides and in M&Gs. There's certainly room for non-IP attractions, and I think Disney misses the mark by not creating any, but families are visiting with more expectation to be immersed in Disney stories, not a random ride that has nothing to do with Disney.

And yet they don’t turn on a Disney movie only expecting Mickey Mouse or Elsa…

The Nondescript Coaster Themed Like India or Whatever also remains one of the best returns on investment to open during the tenure of the Bobs. The franchise mandate was not some cold calculated business decision as it contradicted the then ongoing business success. It was a personal decision by someone who didn’t understand the business and wanted to be rid of it.

 

[Chef idea Mickey`=]

They have an opportunity to make the "berm" of this Cars area reminiscent of the berm of Grizzly Peak throughout DCA, but I fear that natural beauty will be replaced with rocks shaped like pistons and car hoods. Hopefully there will be a differentiation.

It's funny to me how just weeks or months ago I was envisioning Cars Land Beyond Big Thunder and the Ornament Valley backdropping far in the distance. Mickey Views had high positives of Cars Land making It's place known here in Magic Kingdom and even shared an imagineering model of what looked like Ornament Valley from Cars Land except this version didn't have the car hooded roof tops.

Seeing that aspect I suspected was very smart because they were looking to make it make itself with the Frontierland Big Thunder landscape therefore hide any elements of it Cars from distant viewpoints.

Forwarding now into now what shocks me the most of the entire concept arts we've got would be that ginormous piston statue mountain topper which aside alone from everything else that screams Cars. Would that be Beyond Big Thunder is one thing but now knowing the potential location seeing it would dwarf right next to Country Bears shoot!

 

[JD80]

And yet they don’t turn on a Disney movie only expecting Mickey Mouse or Elsa…

The Nondescript Coaster Themed Like India or Whatever also remains one of the best returns on investment to open during the tenure of the Bobs. The franchise mandate was not some cold calculated business decision as it contradicted the then ongoing business success. It was a personal decision by someone who didn’t understand the business and wanted to be rid of it.

If you were a business executive in charge of developing a new land/ride would you risk $500M on an existing popular IP with metric for merch, ratings and sales or would you risk it on a new non existing IP where you have a higher risk if missing?

 

[Raineman]

In all fairness, many of those have massive history at Disney parks and are their own IP due to their history. When a family visits Magic Kingdom, they want to do these because of the history behind them.

But if a family is coming to Disney, they expect to see the characters their kids watch and they watched growing up in the rides and in M&Gs. There's certainly room for non-IP attractions, and I think Disney misses the mark by not creating any, but families are visiting with more expectation to be immersed in Disney stories, not a random ride that has nothing to do with Disney.

When most people refer to IP attractions currently, they refer to attractions that were based on current existing IP at the time. And I agree that families want to see IP in the parks-there has always been IP in the parks-but that balance between IP and non-IP still needs to be there. If not, then Disney will be alienating a significant chunk of their fanbase that don't want every inch of the park dedicated to IP. Keep that balance, and everyone is happy. Also, I think alot of people would be surprised at how many young kids really enjoy the non-IP based attractions. My daughter was 8 the first time we visited, and grew up with Wall-E and Frozen etc, as her favorite Disney content, and she still loved Haunted Mansion, Jungle Cruise, Spaceship earth, Carousel Of Progress, etc.

 

[Dizknee_Phreek]

If you were a business executive in charge of developing a new land/ride would you risk $500M on an existing popular IP with metric for merch, ratings and sales or would you risk it on a new non existing IP where you have a higher risk if missing?

Depends on if you're a numbers guy or a creative guy. Thank goodness Walt wasn't a numbers guy and built beautiful, imaginative parks that have (so far) stood the test of time. He took big risks and they paid off... usually. But his risk taking made him the household name it is still to this day. Of course his numbers guy kept things in check, but he ultimately wasn't running the show. Iger is a numbers guy running the show. That's not a great thing for a creative based company. We need another team like Walt/Roy or Eisner/Wells. Someone at the helm to take big risks with a right hand man to keep the checkbook balanced.