MK Cars-Themed Attractions at Magic Kingdom

[thomas998]

It will be funny when the open up that off-road version of Radiator Springs Racers... it was one of the most trouble prone rides I've ever had the experience of seeing. And give the poor state of WDW imagineering I can only imagine that their version will be even more trouble prone... maybe it will be running 3 days a week... but I doubt it will even make an entire day without breaking down.

 

[FigmentFan82]

It can be done. Unfortunately, today’s TWDC lacks imagination.

They do not lack imagination. They lack the will to do something like that.

It’s been established on these boards that Disney has wanted the river gone for quite some time. It has nothing to do with imagination or will.

 

[donaldtoo]

Where does this full phase slot into the others? It has to go somewhere?

Also, Disney requires Revit starting in concept design. The modeling is occurring across the entire design process, not as an aside. It can’t be its own phase of its in all of the phases.

I guess we could go round and round on this all day.
Disney has its own policies and processes regarding design. I’m just relating how our firm viewed and treated the modeling process.
Most of our initial design was done with old school rough sketching, of course, and then, after partner approval, moved on to more formal sketching for initial client Approval. Sometimes a partner really felt the need to try to impress a client with even more initial design development. It varied from project to project on how that process played out.
I guess it doesn’t really matter anymore, as the firm is no defunct and I’m retired.
However, one of the partners still does schematic design, but only schematic design, just to keep himself busy. He contracts the technical aspect out to a former employee.
He’s a master, and can design and render like a crazy man. Even at his age, I’m convinced he’d blow all the present-day Imagineers out of the water.
Ahhh, yes…maybe I miss my old career…

 

[TheMaxRebo]

How could you “get” taking away ROA?

There is PLENTY of space to build this without destroying a key element of the park.

Because *something* need to be done to access the beyond Big Thunder and with this plan they are taking out a large area that is underutilized from a capacity standpoint and adding in multiple attractions from one of their top performing IP lines vs other options

What's not to "get"

 

[Andrew C]

they are taking out a large area that is underutilized from a capacity standpoint

Sometimes...a large area that is underutilized from a capacity standpoint should not be seen as a problem that needs to be fixed or an area that should be redeveloped. Sometimes, you want those areas. Or at least they should...

 

[Timothy_Q]

@lazyboy97o @donaldtoo

Can you guys take this design phases discussion to DMs?

These dozens of images are clogging up the thread with irrelevant stuff

 

[monothingie]

Because *something* need to be done to access the beyond Big Thunder and with this plan they are taking out a large area that is underutilized from a capacity standpoint and adding in multiple attractions from one of their top performing IP lines vs other options

What's not to "get"

If only there was access to the expansion pads via the HM or parallel to the WDWRR and BTMRR.

Oh wait…there is.

This is only being done to economize operating costs.

Stop pretending this is an engineering challenge.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I guess we could go round and round on this all day.
Disney has its own policies and processes regarding design. I’m just relating how our firm viewed and treated the modeling process.
Most of our initial design was done with old school rough sketching, of course, and then, after partner approval, moved on to more formal sketching for initial client Approval. Sometimes a partner really felt the need to try to impress a client with even more initial design development. It varied from project to project on how that process played out.
I guess it doesn’t really matter anymore, as the firm is no defunct and I’m retired.
However, one of the partners still does schematic design, but only schematic design, just to keep himself busy. He contracts the technical aspect out to a former employee.
He’s a master, and can design and render like a crazy man. Even at his age, I’m convinced he’d blow all the present-day Imagineers out of the water.
Ahhh, yes…maybe I miss my old career…

View attachment 847809View attachment 847810View attachment 847811View attachment 847812View attachment 847813View attachment 847814View attachment 847815View attachment 847816View attachment 847817View attachment 847818

Claimed it was patently false but then just said “damn the AIA” and that Disney has other process. You keep saying your firm did it but then ramble. I never said modeling isn’t part of the design process. You said it was a specific phase but despite being aspect multiple times still haven’t said where it would slot in between schematic design, design development and construction documentation.

 

[Epcot82Guy]

Because *something* need to be done to access the beyond Big Thunder and with this plan they are taking out a large area that is underutilized from a capacity standpoint and adding in multiple attractions from one of their top performing IP lines vs other options

What's not to "get"

There is also some level of audience concentration here. Disney does not view itself as having a problem attracting guests. As with many companies, when you have that luxury, you go after your top performing group. MK is the main star, and they want people who love current IPs they can merchandise. They stay in the hotels more, buy DVC more, buy merch more and don't get as upset when things change. They want Disney (franchise) fans who love their characters, food, etc. more than Disney Parks fans. That's not meant as an attack on anyone at all. There is a very real phenomenon that "people go to Disney Parks to see Disney characters" in the GP. It is also very, very true that's not at all what got the Parks to the fandom they have today. But, Disney is capitalizing on that, especially for MK.

I do think there are some valid criticisms of that approach, and it may prove short sighted in the long-run (especially as Disney struggles to create anything new). But, I think it's difficult to argue that audience focusing isn't part of this and other decisions happening in the company today as it relates to the Parks.

 

[lazyboy97o]

@lazyboy97o @donaldtoo

Can you guys take this design phases discussion to DMs?

These dozens of images are clogging up the thread with irrelevant stuff

No. I’m not posting a bunch of images nor have I asked for them. People often make erroneous claims about the status of projects based on incorrect assumptions about Disney’s design process.

 

[Bleed0range]

Its why I have come to terms that the Disney I grew up with and loved is a thing of the past. If Disney and majority of guests don't care about history or theme of the parks, why should I?

If Disneyland didn’t go out of their way to keep their ROA, then perhaps I’d feel differently but they did and they made it work. It feels like they just don’t care enough to retain a certain beauty of the park and part of its iconic identity.

I’m down for a cars ride, but the whole ROA in exchange?

They have all this land in Florida. Build it somewhere else. Build another park (to help alleviate congestion). But if you’re not going to do that why can’t you find some way to retain the ROA? To me it’s not even about the attraction as much as the parks identity and how it works in tandem with LS and HM.

It better be freaking amazing is all I’m saying.

 

[Streetway Again]

If only there was access to the expansion pads via the HM or parallel to the WDWRR and BTMRR.

Oh wait…there is.

This is only being done to economize operating costs.

Stop pretending this is an engineering challenge.

If you are talking about the hypothetical Bridge behind big Thunder near the railroad bridge leading to the new plots, i dunno if that would be truly fit to carry the amount of people going back there. Also all the people going one way in and out of an area the same exact way could be problematic for guest flow.

If its something else, please let me know. I’d like to hear what it is.

And i think, if you wanted to go around big thunder the front way, any pathway would have to cut into the river regardless. Also the same for going around mansion.

 

[Orange is the new Red]

You guys know how there's always one thing that puts you over the edge? The straw that broke the camel's back.

This one is mine. This is unforgivable. The justification of it fitting into the existing land is somehow worse than Chapek's of Cosmic Rewind ("Peter Quill visited EPCOT as a kid"). This is the greatest desecration of Magic Kingdom in its history, and keep in mind Cinderella Castle was once turned into a giant Pepto Bismol cake, and later covered in toilet paper.

The company that announced this is simply not the same company as the one that invented the theme park, and is not deserving of the legacy that got it to this place.

And yet you and all the other trolls will continue to bog down this site with your emotional vomit….or you could choose to leave!!! You guys hate Disney, so leave…. Yeah I know…fat chance.

 

[RobbinsDad]

This is where the naysayers to this project actually are losing me. I can understand not wanting the river to go (even if I disagree) and I can understand not loving it being Cars (I don’t either) but this idea specifically…I just really don’t understand how all of that is a bad thing.

Why do we need Frontierland to stay so locked into a certain time period or certain place when we could look so much wider and do so much more with it? It feels like every theme park on earth has their own spin on a Western style land, including other Disney parks. Changing one of them to have a broader scope and more varied interpretations of the word “frontier” is far from a bad idea.

I just don’t understand what it is about the current form of Magic Kingdom’s Frontierland that is so worthy of keeping as it is. If it were Disneyland or Paris, I’d understand, but this Frontierland could be so much better and look so much further than the same tired Western style that’s gotten so stale over the years.

Agreed. I am perturbed about losing the waterfront along Liberty Square. Would be more than happy to see the LB docked permanently on a small stretch of "river". I would shed no tears for the loss of TSI and the Old West motif. Give me a Frontierland focused on Rocky Mountain landscapes over that any day.

 

[lazyboy97o]

If you are talking about the hypothetical Bridge behind big Thunder near the railroad bridge leading to the new plots, i dunno if that would be truly fit to carry the amount of people going back there. Also all the people going one way in and out of an area the same exact way could be problematic for guest flow.

If its something else, please let me know. I’d like to hear what it is.

And i think, if you wanted to go around big thunder the front way, any pathway would have to cut into the river regardless.

How wide do you think a decent walkway actually needs to be?

 

[Disney Analyst]

I'm old enough to just start on Acceptance now.

Basically me. I’ve seen so many outrages over the years for decisions made, and yet most of them still played out, and the world continued on.

 

[Dranth]

Its why I have come to terms that the Disney I grew up with and loved is a thing of the past. If Disney and majority of guests don't care about history or theme of the parks, why should I?

I think you can care and push back while also understanding that time moves on and with it comes new generations who care about different things. Personally, I think removing RoA is one of the dumbest moves they have ever made but I think it is important to recognize that those of us who feel that way, while likely a majority on this board, are a minority overall.

They are removing one of the best features of MK

100% this.

From my end, I don't expect to go back after my trip next week unless there is a major shift in leadership.

Which is exactly what people who are fed up with management and truly believe they are making things worse should do.

 

[RosR9]

I'm assuming there are parts not visible here, hidden behind and inside that tall section.

At least this gives me hope there will be some substantial indoor sections of this

 

[Smoky]

This is where the naysayers to this project actually are losing me. I can understand not wanting the river to go (even if I disagree) and I can understand not loving it being Cars (I don’t either) but this idea specifically…I just really don’t understand how all of that is a bad thing.

Why do we need Frontierland to stay so locked into a certain time period or certain place when we could look so much wider and do so much more with it? It feels like every theme park on earth has their own spin on a Western style land, including other Disney parks. Changing one of them to have a broader scope and more varied interpretations of the word “frontier” is far from a bad idea.

I just don’t understand what it is about the current form of Magic Kingdom’s Frontierland that is so worthy of keeping as it is. If it were Disneyland or Paris, I’d understand, but this Frontierland could be so much better and look so much further than the same tired Western style that’s gotten so stale over the years.

Because if you want to go see Colorado... You can just go to Colorado. The whole point of Frontierland is that it's supposed to be an escape to a time and place that doesn't exist anymore. Changing it to a "western US land" isn't an escape, it's lame soulless modernism garbage and one reason why Disney Parks are in such bad shape because most of the current group of un-Imagineers are thinking along the same lines as you are. It'll inevitably be sterile and lack the soul and originalism of Frontierland which is the problem with virtually everything churned out by Disney in the last decade or so.

 

[JohnD]

I’m down for a cars ride, but the whole ROA in exchange?

Well, that's the question. Is it the "whole ROA"? When I look at the design schematics, clearly the lower half is filled in. It's unclear about the upper half. Still doesn't negate that argument that this isn't an "expansion" at all but a replacement. See @wdwmagic image below.