News Cars-Themed Attractions at Magic Kingdom

October82

Well-Known Member
You are being dismissive just for the sake of being dismissive. Back marketing speak? Come on. Give this a minute to develop.
Permits are already being filed. This isn’t going to develop in any direction better than what has been shown.

As so many are apt to remind, Disney is a corporation with a profit motive. What they say on stage or in a press statement is marketing speak designed to keep customers spending money. It’s not a commitment to delivering a high quality product or an indication that they take design seriously.
 

October82

Well-Known Member
The entire Disney business does operate with this kind of thinking in mind.

Disney Imagineering, Pixar, Disney Feature Animation, Lucas Studios, Marvel, etc.

I would qualify this and say that creatives understand how to use cultural motifs, architectural elements, and design details in ways that allow for suspension of disbelief. The same is done in quality animation and live action film making.

It’s not that PotC ever explicitly explains the time travel or supernatural aspects, it’s that they’re implied by the design of the experience. This is something Disney Parks largely don’t do anymore - “book report” attractions are the default since they are more straightforwardly synergistic with the rest of the business model.
 

James Alucobond

Well-Known Member
Even if this is true, Disney is emphasizing the 1850s more than all this other detail about a flood and reopening. This is an 1850s mine, and next door is a 1920s band being formed. Decades time jump, which Cars is only continuing

I appreciate the detail, the point still stands Tiana is a time jump and Cars will be another
I honestly don’t know what the original argument was. I was just correcting the time period of Big Thunder. Frontierland has always had a bit of a smattering, with Tom Sawyer in the 1840s, Big Thunder in the 1890s, Splash somewhere in Reconstruction (~1860-1900), and Country Bears possibly occurring in the 1920s working forward from the 1898 founding, assuming it’s meant to be interpreted that way.
 

erasure fan1

Well-Known Member
Is there an example of a good ride that failed because it was put in the wrong area?
So just throw standards out the window? No one ride is going to fail because it didn't fit a theme. People pay 5, 6, 8, 10 grand on a vacation to Disney. No one is going to say, sorry I'm not riding frozen because it doesn't take place in Norway! You pay top dollar to be there, if they throw a bare framed coaster like at SeaWorld in the middle of animal kingdom, it's going to be popular, I guarantee it doesn't fail. But that doesn't make it the right decision. Heck, if they put 7D mine train in animal kingdom its still popular and doesn't "fail". They are devaluing the brand by becoming just another hodge podge of rides in a park. And time will tell if the prices they are asking will be worth it for the quality being given. They've already lost our yearly trips, and I doubt I'm the only one.
 
Last edited:

Bocabear

Well-Known Member
I think the bigger leap here is from a human world to a purely cartoon world...to me that leap is more jarring than anything else...With the amount of realism and detail in Big Thunder and Tiana, along with the entire riverefront, to then all of the sudden be in a landscape of stylized car parts inhabited by living automobiles it pretty terrible....
 

October82

Well-Known Member
So just throw standards out the window? No one ride is going to fail because it didn't fit a theme. People pay 5, 6, 8, 10 grand on a vacation to Disney. No one is going to say, sorry I'm not riding frozen because it doesn't take place in Norway! You pay top dollar be there, if they throw a bare framed coaster like at SeaWorld in the middle of animal kingdom, it's going to be popular, I guarantee it doesn't fail. But that doesn't make it the right decision. Heck, if they put 7D mine train in animal kingdom it’s still popular and doesn't "fail". They are devaluing the brand by becoming just another hodge podge of rides in a park. And time will tell if the prices they are asking will be worth it for the quality being given. They've already lost our yearly trips, and I doubt I'm not the only one.
Just to expand on this a bit - Disney Parks were always more than the sum of their parts. That was the Disney parks brand and it’s what made them different from Universal and even regional amusement parks.

It’s also possible for the parks to be less than the sum of their parts.
 

CoasterCowboy67

Well-Known Member
I think the bigger leap here is from a human world to a purely cartoon world...to me that leap is more jarring than anything else...With the amount of realism and detail in Big Thunder and Tiana, along with the entire riverefront, to then all of the sudden be in a landscape of stylized car parts inhabited by living automobiles it pretty terrible....
Tiana’s source material is an animated film, as is Cars. The Cars proposal isn’t Toon Lagoon where it literally all looks like a cartoon. They seem to be using real trees and water. The landscape will mesh really well
 

CoasterCowboy67

Well-Known Member
I honestly don’t know what the original argument was. I was just correcting the time period of Big Thunder. Frontierland has always had a bit of a smattering, with Tom Sawyer in the 1840s, Big Thunder in the 1890s, Splash somewhere in Reconstruction (~1860-1900), and Country Bears possibly occurring in the 1920s working forward from the 1898 founding, assuming it’s meant to be interpreted that way.
That was the original argument — that even if you’re a purist on Frontierland and that it must have a time component, the land already stretches over decades and Cars would be an extension not inconsistent with the largest gap in the land today (1840s to 1920s = 1920s to 2000s)

Still — D23 made clear they are embracing a geographic interpretation of the Frontier (the American west) that jives with what most see it as anyway
 

Bocabear

Well-Known Member
Tiana’s source material is an animated film, as is Cars. The Cars proposal isn’t Toon Lagoon where it literally all looks like a cartoon. They seem to be using real trees and water. The landscape will mesh really well
I don't think anthropomorphic car-people and stylized car part mountains and features will be a really good mesh with the realism they were attempting with Big Thunder... nor will any of that mesh with any part of the riverfront area that currently exists now... Again, a human based world...based on human history as a background, to a nonsensical Automobile inhabited world of car parts masquerading as nature doesn't seem at all like a fit...except there are trees and rocks... Just a bad and strange move all around... If only there were a theme park based on films, all types, where this sort of shift would make perfect sense......
 

James Alucobond

Well-Known Member
That was the original argument — that even if you’re a purist on Frontierland and that it must have a time component, the land already stretches over decades and Cars would be an extension not inconsistent with the largest gap in the land today (1840s to 1920s = 1920s to 2000s)
The issue is that certain things can coexist without clear anachronism to a modern viewer whereas others cannot. Transportation is one of those things that frequently cannot. Most people have an innate sense that, say, chariots generally didn’t coexist with Conestoga wagons, or that horse-drawn carriages generally didn’t coexist with modern automobiles. You can get away with hitching posts, steamboats, and wagons overlapping a bit with the earliest cars, but most people realize something is afoot when you throw modern ATVs into that mix.
 

MickeyLuv'r

Well-Known Member
And what’s your point? The land is still undeveloped. I said National Parks was part of that, which is a fact as you just shared
I was answering no you the question at the end of your post. The rest was mostly just sharing facts about federal land. Many people think federal land = NPS, but NPS only manages a small percent of federal land.

A larger percent is controlled by the Bureau of Land Management, and a good chunk of that land is reserved for mining: past, present, future. Mining is very important to our economy. (Americans should know how important it is. IMO.)

Our government sold off our helium stockpile reserves, for example, and I would be willing to bet most Americans have no idea. Helium is a non-renewable resource. It is used for a number of medical procedures like MRI's.

If anyone thinks federal land all looks like the Grand Canyon or the Everglades, that would be rather incomplete. You are correct to say a large portion of the American West is undeveloped land, but you also suggested Eastern states lack National Parks, and that NPS are not urban. That's also not quite accurate, because some 20% of DC is NPS land, for example. When many people think of NPS, they don't always think of our many urban parks, urban historic locations, or monuments. A good chunk of NPS properties are places like Ellis Island and Alexander Hamilton's house.

Please forgive me if I have mischaracterized your post in any way.
 

Schmidt

Well-Known Member
Permits are already being filed. This isn’t going to develop in any direction better than what has been shown.

As so many are apt to remind, Disney is a corporation with a profit motive. What they say on stage or in a press statement is marketing speak designed to keep customers spending money. It’s not a commitment to delivering a high quality product or an indication that they take design seriously.
You are talking in tongues and making an argument that you want to make.
If we get what was shown, I would be thrilled!!!

I love SW/Tron/Pandora/ GOG. I love the new stuff they have put out. Here is a shocker too, my girls love the Tiana ride.
I get their are technical issues though.

Epcot transformation? Not so much, but the imagineering lead and team are not the same team that was there over a year ago.

I wonder sometimes if “fans” in here are even fans anymore. Sometimes you out grow stuff.
 

MickeyLuv'r

Well-Known Member
So just throw standards out the window? No one ride is going to fail because it didn't fit a theme. People pay 5, 6, 8, 10 grand on a vacation to Disney. No one is going to say, sorry I'm not riding frozen because it doesn't take place in Norway! You pay top dollar be there, if they throw a bare framed coaster like at SeaWorld in the middle of animal kingdom, it's going to be popular, I guarantee it doesn't fail.
Well now, they did close Primeval Whirl, and it was never a big hit while it was open. Yet it is a ride that has done well in other locations.

It is also fair to say Dumbo lost popularity after it was relocated, and that was a fairly short distance relocation. Part of the appeal it held originally was the view of Fantasyland and the castle while riding.

The appeal of the carousel is very much the location. If it was moved to a spot out by Rafiki's Planet Watch, I doubt it would get many riders. Move it to just about any other location, and it would lose appeal.
 

October82

Well-Known Member
You are talking in tongues and making an argument that you want to make.
If we get what was shown, I would be thrilled!!!

I love SW/Tron/Pandora/ GOG. I love the new stuff they have put out. Here is a shocker too, my girls love the Tiana ride.
I get their are technical issues though.

Epcot transformation? Not so much, but the imagineering lead and team are not the same team that was there over a year ago.

I wonder sometimes if “fans” in here are even fans anymore. Sometimes you out grow stuff.
Marketing is the science of convincing people to buy products that they don’t want or need.

If you enjoy the product that Disney is selling, good for you. But you shouldn’t suggest people are wrong to discuss the decline in the quality of the product or point out the bait and switch between what the marketers say and what the product is.
 

TrainsOfDisney

Well-Known Member
I wonder sometimes if “fans” in here are even fans anymore. Sometimes you out grow stuff.
I wonder if “fans” realize this is a discussion board where we discuss positives and negative of the past, present, and future.

Now I did question if I had outgrown Disney and just became jaded when I didn’t like any Disney fireworks shows, then I saw Wondrous Journeys and realized that no, the current Florida shows just totally suck haha (exaggeration of course ;)
 

October82

Well-Known Member
At the end of the day, it is magic kingdom.
It’s the kids/family park. I’ll be alright if, and it’s a big if, it all comes together aesthetically. I can look past the cartoon characters.
Disney parks have never been kids parks. It’s pretty telling that your view is that you can look past the aspects that take away from them.

You shouldn’t have to. Not having to is practically the founding principle of Disney Theme Parks.
 

October82

Well-Known Member
I wonder if “fans” realize this is a discussion board where we discuss positives and negative of the past, present, and future.

Now I did question if I had outgrown Disney and just became jaded when I didn’t like any Disney fireworks shows, then I saw Wondrous Journeys and realized that no, the current Florida shows just totally suck haha (exaggeration of course ;)
Really not sure where this idea came from that you can’t recognize the flaws in things you enjoy.

Disney isn’t paying us, we pay them. If you don’t like something about the product you should be critical of it and not spend money on it. You shouldn’t defend it just cause it’s a brand you’ve liked things from in the past.
 

TrainsOfDisney

Well-Known Member
the land already stretches over decades and Cars would be an extension not inconsistent with the largest gap in the land today (1840s to 1920s = 1920s to 2000s)
That’s not how themed areas work - if you establish a land as 1840s-1920’s that doesn’t mean you can double the time span.

I would also argue that everything in the current Magic Kingdom is “vintage” - even Tomorrowland is a retro / vintage look.

Outside of Tomorrowland - I don’t think there is anything post 1920’s-1940’s
 

el_super

Well-Known Member
They are devaluing the brand by becoming just another hodge podge of rides in a park. And time will tell if the prices they are asking will be worth it for the quality being given. They've already lost our yearly trips, and I doubt I'm not the only one.

They're not really doing anything with theme that Walt and company didn't do 70 years ago.

They will be fine.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom