News Cars-Themed Attractions at Magic Kingdom

[Disstevefan1]

I think it comes down to who is making the decisions at any moment in time.

If Walt was making the decision, there is NO WAY ROA, TSI, the Riverboat is destroyed. He probably would have plussed the area and EXPANDED the park.

Roy, I think, would not have destroyed ROA, TSI, the Riverboat.

I think Eisner would not have destroyed ROA, TSI, the Riverboat.

Chapek would not have have destroyed ROA, TSI, the Riverboat, because he would not want to spend any money in that area of the park.

Todays leadership (or todays lack of leadership) goes along with the finance committee who have crunched the numbers and says the company can save costs and make money by destroying ROA, TSI, the Riverboat and replacing it with a Cars area.

 

[Brer Panther]

the comedian’s a bear!

No, he's-a not! He's-a wearing a neck-a-tie!

 

[Streetway]

No, he's-a not! He's-a wearing a neck-a-tie!

THAT WAS THE WRONG HERE!

 

[James Alucobond]

I think it comes down to who is making the decisions at any moment in time.

If Walt was making the decision, there is NO WAY ROA, TSI, the Riverboat is destroyed. He probably would have plussed the area and EXPANDED the park.

Roy, I think, would not have destroyed ROA, TSI, the Riverboat.

I think Eisner would not have destroyed ROA, TSI, the Riverboat.

Chapek would not have have destroyed ROA, TSI, the Riverboat, because he would not want to spend any money in that area of the park.

Todays leadership (or todays lack of leadership) goes along with the finance committee who have crunched the numbers and says the company can save costs and make money by destroying ROA, TSI, the Riverboat and replacing it with a Cars area.

Two of those people are dead, one is 82, and the other will end up being nothing but a weird footnote. You can make your point without invoking literal ghosts and acting as if you can divine their will.

 

[lazyboy97o]

The idea that the Magic Kingdom needs to lose the Rivers of America to remain relevant might make more sense if it wasn’t the world’s most visited theme park with a huge delta between it and its neighbors. Even better is that people often point to Magic Kingdom being the “classic Disney” park as a reason to explain that huge difference in visitation.

 

[Chef idea Mickey`=]

The Magic Kingdom is overdue in needing something for it to stand out as a Top Disney Park aside from what it already has and aside Fantasyland Expansion which isn't enough. If it was really that simple that your doing what your planning on doing to up notch this park completely to withhold it's own significance and popularity with a Villain's Land and a new take on a Cars Land then being bold about it at D23 than to hide and not announce it there but have it pop up later is telling. If change is needed, change is needed.. why the need to protection from boos if your going to go forward with this no matter what? Monster's Inc is a different story because different locations are being thought out.

 

[Disgruntled Walt]

Two of those people are dead, one is 82, and the other will end up being nothing but a weird footnote. You can make your point without invoking literal ghosts and acting as if you can divine their will.

For that matter, I don't think DiVine would get rid of the ROA if she were in charge!

 

[McMickeyWorld]

There seems to be this assumption on here recently that casual Disney fans, or younger Disney fans, or newer Disney fans have totally different desires for the parks than “true blue” type fans. This could be true, but I don’t think it should be assumed as a given.

I was talking about “Instagram aesthetics” recently in another comment (you know those hashtag type things you see like “Cottagecore”) and it really made me think about how the internet generation has a unique and pretty strong relationship with visuals. Design trends used to be something that you maybe saw in a book, or in person. Now there are inspiration boards, Pinterest boards, hashtags, photo shoots… I think design is more important than ever and reaches a broader audience than ever before. I think the average visitor probably has higher expectations for the parks than is sometimes assumed. That’s why the Cars thing seems so inexplicable to me - who is the target audience for this? Kids around 7 and under, sure, but they would enjoy it just as much in HS. Who is supposed to be enjoying the immersive experience of Mater in Frontier land though?

Even based on what we have, I could use the aesthetics card to its advantage, at least in terms of concept and choice. I believe Frontierland is the land that inevitably needed an update in its aesthetics, even if they wanted to preserve the original concept (it doesn’t feel on par with the visual appeal presented in the new lands; it doesn’t give me enough fantasy). And remembering how in the 2010s Instagram was flooded with 'aesthetic' photos of Carsland, I can see why they chose to bring the concept to MK. When I saw the concept art, the only thing my eyes focused on was the proposed visual work rather than the IP, the ride system, or the coherence with the rest of the land; it felt fresh, and I felt the same about the other lands in development. They’re something I would want to post on IG or TikTok.

 

[Gusey]

So you knew there wasn’t a requirement to update everything if something else was updated?

You are not offering a different viewpoint. Every time Disney makes a controversial decision in the parks someone almost always tries to claim it’s due to codes.

I'm going to rephrase what I'm saying. Imagine if Disney opened a brand new restaurant on Tom Sawyer Island and new places to explore. Then said everyone can enjoy it except for those in wheelchairs because you can't access it. That would be a PR disaster. If Disney decided to update Tom Sawyer Island, they'd need to create a new accessible way to get to the island and accessible routes around the island. That's a serious investment gamble into the island, especially as you don't know if the new updates will increase attendance on the island. Accessibility is a potential reason for TSI's closure

 

[Schmidt]

I think it comes down to who is making the decisions at any moment in time.

If Walt was making the decision, there is NO WAY ROA, TSI, the Riverboat is destroyed. He probably would have plussed the area and EXPANDED the park.

Roy, I think, would not have destroyed ROA, TSI, the Riverboat.

I think Eisner would not have destroyed ROA, TSI, the Riverboat.

Chapek would not have have destroyed ROA, TSI, the Riverboat, because he would not want to spend any money in that area of the park.

Todays leadership (or todays lack of leadership) goes along with the finance committee who have crunched the numbers and says the company can save costs and make money by destroying ROA, TSI, the Riverboat and replacing it with a Cars area.

I honestly believe this to be factually inaccurate. I don’t know in what world that removing, filling in a river, putting up an e ticket level attraction is cheaper than maintaining a river. It’s not like the new ride won’t have operational expenses.

This addition isn’t a cost cutting measure.

 

[Bocabear]

Even based on what we have, I could use the aesthetics card to its advantage, at least in terms of concept and choice. I believe Frontierland is the land that inevitably needed an update in its aesthetics, even if they wanted to preserve the original concept (it doesn’t feel on par with the visual appeal presented in the new lands; it doesn’t give me enough fantasy). And remembering how in the 2010s Instagram was flooded with 'aesthetic' photos of Carsland, I can see why they chose to bring the concept to MK. When I saw the concept art, the only thing my eyes focused on was the proposed visual work rather than the IP, the ride system, or the coherence with the rest of the land; it felt fresh, and I felt the same about the other lands in development. They’re something I would want to post on IG or TikTok.

but we are not getting Carsland from DCA...we are getting some other place no one has ever seen before...we are getting something akin to SWGE... a place not from the source material that is made up for convenience sake and despite that, it still doesn't fit within the framework of the park....and really doesn't belong in the Magic Kingdom... It is a DHS perfect fit tonally... This is like Moana in the middle of Futureworld... Might as well put The Simpsons on Main Street...or Spider Man Webslingers in Adventureland....

 

[McMickeyWorld]

but we are not getting Carsland from DCA...we are getting some other place no one has ever seen before...we are getting something akin to SWGE... a place not from the source material that is made up for convenience sake and despite that, it still doesn't fit within the framework of the park....and really doesn't belong in the Magic Kingdom... It is a DHS perfect fit tonally... This is like Moana in the middle of Futureworld... Might as well put The Simpsons on Main Street...or Spider Man Webslingers in Adventureland....

And it would have been an excellent expansion for DHS, but here we are

 

[Disstevefan1]

I honestly believe this to be factually inaccurate. I don’t know in what world that removing, filling in a river, putting up an e ticket level attraction is cheaper than maintaining a river. It’s not like the new ride won’t have operational expenses.

This addition isn’t a cost cutting measure.

OK so I have no facts. That is a fact.

In my opinion, in today's Disney does nothing at the theme parks unless the finance committee shows how it will either reduce costs or make money (or both) over time.

Disney's movie business on the other hand....

In my opinion, in todays Disney, as a company, the guest experience at the parks is not a consideration.
Thank goodness Disney has many cast members that take it upon themselves to try to make our visit magical.

 

[JD80]

but we are not getting Carsland from DCA...we are getting some other place no one has ever seen before...we are getting something akin to SWGE... a place not from the source material that is made up for convenience sake and despite that, it still doesn't fit within the framework of the park....and really doesn't belong in the Magic Kingdom... It is a DHS perfect fit tonally... This is like Moana in the middle of Futureworld... Might as well put The Simpsons on Main Street...or Spider Man Webslingers in Adventureland....

1) I don't think we can compare the robustness of "source material" of SW vs Cars. It's rather silly.
2) Ever setting in any story is made up for convenience sake.
3) Magic Kingdom's framework is magic, fantasy and adventure. Anything can fit in that assuming it's done well.

All your comparisons are hyperbole.

 

[Chef idea Mickey`=]

It is a DHS perfect fit tonally... This is like Moana in the middle of Futureworld...

And it would have been an excellent expansion for DHS, but here we are

DHS having an area Land with foliage and fresh cooling water should be priority! I don't know why it's so difficult to have two Original Cars Lands but two Star War's Galaxy's Edge is okay and no one is attacking that from the get go. At least Cars Land would of been more popular hit than Galaxy's Edge or Toy Story Land without a doubt. It's like Iger is hesitant on Frozen so fast for California because then what excuse would you had for Cars for so many years not to clone anywhere else. Also just because it's Cars doesn't mean it will feel Cars, it's not McQueen and frontier music isn't going to feel Cars because remember your leaving Ornament Valley.

This project looks like it was supposed to be for California Adventure and would been perfect next door to Grizzly's Peak and Cars Land and Radiator Spring's would been a knockout in popularity for DHS or especially Magic Kingdom Beyond Big Thunder with breathtaking sunsets and night time ambiences.

 

[Disstevefan1]

This is going to be a long 6 to 8 years.......

 

[JD80]

Cars Land with Radiator Spring's or the one for Magic Kingdom. Yes DHS having an area Land with foliage and fresh cooling water should be priority!

This project looks like it was supposed to be for California Adventure and would been perfect next door to Grizzly's Peak and Cars Land and Radiator Spring's would been a knockout in popularity for DHS or especially Magic Kingdom Beyond Big Thunder with breathtaking sunsets and night time ambiences.

Looks like it was supposed to be in Paris.

 

[Chef idea Mickey`=]

Looks like it was supposed to be in Paris.

The facades is Paris but then their Big Thunder is not in a corner it's in the middle of their river. Big Thunder is basically their TSI. If it was an expansion for Paris I don't see why the Original Cars Land wasn't brought as a third land next to Frozen and Lion King replacing the current Cars attraction. Even Cars can't go International but Frozen can but laughable not California.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I'm going to rephrase what I'm saying. Imagine if Disney opened a brand new restaurant on Tom Sawyer Island and new places to explore. Then said everyone can enjoy it except for those in wheelchairs because you can't access it. That would be a PR disaster. If Disney decided to update Tom Sawyer Island, they'd need to create a new accessible way to get to the island and accessible routes around the island. That's a serious investment gamble into the island, especially as you don't know if the new updates will increase attendance on the island. Accessibility is a potential reason for TSI's closure

The most generous response I can have to this is that my earlier assessment was correct and you have not read Chapter 2. The scoping requirements for a new and different use are different than the scoping requirements for alterations to existing conditions. The scoping requirements are different for restaurants than they are play areas and amusement attractions. The scoping requirements for accessible routes are not what you claim.

Even if Disney decided to build a new restaurant on the island, which would be a new and different use, it would not require everything else to be made accessible. Getting to the island has already been solved in California, the rafts are already flat and rather level loading. Accessible routes only have to be provided between accessible areas. Different types of facilities have different scoping requirements, so even if there was a decision to make everything more accessible what that entails would vary across the entire complex. You’re muddling and overstating the requirements to create the image of an undue burden.

 

[JMcMahonEsq]

OK so I have no facts. That is a fact.

In my opinion, in today's Disney does nothing at the theme parks unless the finance committee shows how it will either reduce costs or make money (or both) over time.

You mean like any other successful business?

I mean seriously, Disney is not a charity, a non profit, or some other philanthropic organization. Its a publicly traded company that is supposed to make money.

The only reason any good business makes any change/investment in operations is in either the short term or long term it will 1) reduce costs or 2) increase revenue. Even decisions/changes that a company makes that they think will "increase customer satisfaction", are not done with the goal of simply making people happy. That is the means to the companies end of a) customer retention; b) increased consumer base; c) increased existing customer spending, all of which translate to the goal of increasing revenue.