MK Cars-Themed Attractions at Magic Kingdom

[Charlie The Chatbox Ghost]

Also, insane theory on "RoA was a sacrifice to save something else", but what ride was penned for a Pixar film-infused overhaul by everyone, even insiders, only to suddenly have it all backed down and have that ride and character attached to said ride deemed safe?

I could name you not a ride, but a show, across from the Rivers of America that was penned for a Pixar-film infused overhaul by everyone, even insiders, only to suddenly have it all backed down and have the characters attached to the attraction deemed safe!

Honestly though, I doubt that the Woody’s Round Up show would’ve done much in the long run compared to what ended up happening… and in the Woody timeline, the rivers likely still would’ve been lost for Cars since a marionette show themed to a bad-show-within-a-good-movie is boring as hell, putting two Pixar attractions in Frontierland instead of just one. So maybe the Rivers were a sacrifice for Imagination and not whoever I’m talking about!

 

[LittleBuford]

From Bill Zanetti (Professor at the University of Central Florida):

I have edited some of Bill’s posts for clarity.

“Keeping the rivers open as is would eventually flood the utilidoors. Something has to be done. Major riverbed maintenance, maybe even full replacement, is required. So all the company is doing here is trying to solve some ops issues and get a good ROI.”

“There’s too much potential for overflow in addition to some issues in the actual retaining walls that need replacing and asbestos removal. Happy to go into it more but it was explained to me by an urban planner / industrial engineer so it gets detailed.”

“The utilidoors literally are up against the retaining wall in Frontierland and they’re littered with asbestos. It’s a huge deal.”

“I don’t have a duck in this fight. I’m just telling you what I’ve been told by some EXTREMELY high up people within the company. You are acting like I’m some kind of corporate shill. If you can’t take my word for it, then you’ll have to go talk to someone at CFTOD that has been in water management for at least 15 years. They’ll confirm that WDW’s flood control systems have been pushed to their limits for a very long time now and major changes have been implemented to deal with a lot of development around property. I don’t know how detailed they’ll be about the RoA, but I’m sure they will talk about it at least a little and explain to you that ANY major bodies of water create issues in that area. The utilidoors are at risk and this project with the new proposed drainage systems and retention ponds would partially alleviate some of that risk.

I will also tell you that the powers at be didn’t take removing the RoA lightly. They brainstormed multiple solutions that didn’t go as far and this is the one that made the most economic sense. There are plenty of other ways to fix the problems at hand… but no one wants to spend that much to fix it. We’re talking almost a billion dollars here. Try to convince any company to spend that much on something without any visible ROI. Good luck!”

I have no idea if any of this is true. If it is, I see no reason why they couldn’t redirect the funds they’re spending on Cars Land to fixing the (supposed) issues with the Rivers of America. Whatever the circumstances, they’re making a choice—and it’s a bad one in my opinion.

 

[Charlie The Chatbox Ghost]

I have no idea if any of this is true. If it is, I see no reason why they couldn’t redirect the funds they’re spending on Cars Land to fixing the (supposed) issues with the Rivers of America. Whatever the circumstances, they’re making a choice—and it’s a bad one in my opinion.

Will, like Bill says at the end of the last quote- convincing the company to spend a billion dollars fixing the rivers when there would be next to no return on investment would’ve been a Herculean task. Cars going there makes fixing the rivers cheaper and they’ll make a nice profit between LLs and merch. Not a fan of Cars going in the RoA, but if Bill is speaking the truth, I get it.

 

[Agent H]

From Bill Zanetti (Professor at the University of Central Florida):

I have edited some of Bill’s posts for clarity.

“Keeping the rivers open as is would eventually flood the utilidoors. Something has to be done. Major riverbed maintenance, maybe even full replacement, is required. So all the company is doing here is trying to solve some ops issues and get a good ROI.”

“There’s too much potential for overflow in addition to some issues in the actual retaining walls that need replacing and asbestos removal. Happy to go into it more but it was explained to me by an urban planner / industrial engineer so it gets detailed.”

“The utilidoors literally are up against the retaining wall in Frontierland and they’re littered with asbestos. It’s a huge deal.”

“I don’t have a duck in this fight. I’m just telling you what I’ve been told by some EXTREMELY high up people within the company. You are acting like I’m some kind of corporate shill. If you can’t take my word for it, then you’ll have to go talk to someone at CFTOD that has been in water management for at least 15 years. They’ll confirm that WDW’s flood control systems have been pushed to their limits for a very long time now and major changes have been implemented to deal with a lot of development around property. I don’t know how detailed they’ll be about the RoA, but I’m sure they will talk about it at least a little and explain to you that ANY major bodies of water create issues in that area. The utilidoors are at risk and this project with the new proposed drainage systems and retention ponds would partially alleviate some of that risk.

I will also tell you that the powers at be didn’t take removing the RoA lightly. They brainstormed multiple solutions that didn’t go as far and this is the one that made the most economic sense. There are plenty of other ways to fix the problems at hand… but no one wants to spend that much to fix it. We’re talking almost a billion dollars here. Try to convince any company to spend that much on something without any visible ROI. Good luck!”

If they didn’t take this lightly then why didn’t they at least consider an ip that fits the area better? Again I point to @Moths sleepy hallow Idea.

 

[LittleBuford]

“It will be tough to see for the next 5-10 years, but I’ve been assured it will all be worth it, and the new water features will be much cleaner and feel a lot more fun.”

Those assurances mean very little to me in light of the inexcusable issues that have plagued Tiana’s Bayou Adventure from the moment it opened. What reason do we have to think that they’ll get it right this time?

 

[Moth]

I could name you not a ride, but a show, across from the Rivers of America that was penned for a Pixar-film infused overhaul by everyone, even insiders, only to suddenly have it all backed down and have the characters attached to the attraction deemed safe!

Honestly though, I doubt that the Woody’s Round Up show would’ve done much in the long run compared to what ended up happening… and in the Woody timeline, the rivers likely still would’ve been lost for Cars since a marionette show themed to a bad-show-within-a-good-movie is boring as hell, putting two Pixar attractions in Frontierland instead of just one. So maybe the Rivers were a sacrifice for Imagination and not whoever I’m talking about!

Oh right, Bears were meant to be taken over by Woody's Roundup.

Ugh. I think the Bears would've been a greater loss all things considered.

Maybe ROA was a sacrifice to stop several Pixar bullets at different resorts? It's weird I'm advocating against the use of Pixar bullets but am fully aware I want something with WALL-E in EPCOT. But meaning, thematics, that jazz.

Not Larry the Cable Guy in Frontierland. Or Owen Wilson.

I think me being grumpy is more to do with the Cars IP and less ROA going away. I think Disney CAN do something to fill in the hole left by the ROA, I just don't think Cars is the way to do so. It'd have to be something... ORIGINAL?!

 

[LittleBuford]

Will, like Bill says at the end of the last quote- convincing the company to spend a billion dollars fixing the rivers when there would be next to no return on investment would’ve been a Herculean task. Cars going there makes fixing the rivers cheaper and they’ll make a nice profit between LLs and merch. Not a fan of Cars going in the RoA, but if Bill is speaking the truth, I get it.

It would be a billion well spent. As I said, they’re making a choice. It may be the better choice in terms of profitability, but it certainly isn’t the better choice for the identity, look, and feel of the park.

 

[Stripes]

I have no idea if any of this is true. If it is, I see no reason why they couldn’t redirect the funds they’re spending on Cars Land to fixing the (supposed) issues with the Rivers of America. Whatever the circumstances, they’re making a choice—and it’s a bad one in my opinion.

This is somebody that would certainly have connections and has zero reason to lie.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/billzanetti

As for the decision, I think it comes down to the expected return on investment. See below.

I will also tell you that the powers at be didn’t take removing the RoA lightly. They brainstormed multiple solutions that didn’t go as far and this is the one that made the most economic sense. There are plenty of other ways to fix the problems at hand… but no one wants to spend that much to fix it. We’re talking almost a billion dollars here. Try to convince any company to spend that much on something without any visible ROI. Good luck!”

That makes sense and it makes removing ROA a little better. It doesn't change that Cars doesn't fit Frontierland.

I think it fits quite well given that you will not be able to see the cars from the main walkway in Frontierland and time progresses as you walk from Liberty Square (1700’s), into Frontierland (1800’s), past Tiana’s (1900’s), and into the frontier as it exists today with the Cars attractions.

It’s telling the story of America’s frontier spirit as we continue to innovate in order to more easily explore our “vast untamed wilderness.”

 

[Stripes]

To be clear, he’s referring to the new berm that will hide the Cars attractions from guests standing in Liberty Square and the existing Frontierland walkways.

 

[LittleBuford]

This is somebody that would certainly have connections and has zero reason to lie.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/billzanetti?utm_source=share&utm_campaign=share_via&utm_content=profile&utm_medium=ios_app

As for the decision, I think it comes down to the expected return on investment. See below.



I think it fits quite well given that you will not be able to see the cars from the main walkway in Frontierland and time progresses as you walk from Liberty Square (1700’s), into Frontierland (1800’s), past Tiana’s (1900’s), and into the frontier as it exists today with the Cars attractions.

As I said, whether it’s true or not doesn’t change how I feel about this. I realise some of you are looking forward to it, and I’m genuinely happy for you, but the whole thing leaves me extremely sad.

 

[mickEblu]

Will, like Bill says at the end of the last quote- convincing the company to spend a billion dollars fixing the rivers when there would be next to no return on investment would’ve been a Herculean task. Cars going there makes fixing the rivers cheaper and they’ll make a nice profit between LLs and merch. Not a fan of Cars going in the RoA, but if Bill is speaking the truth, I get it.

If they re saying a billion it would probably cost half that or less and they lose that on crappy movies every other month. God forbid they invest into their flagship park on something that doesn’t show direct ROI. They don’t understand or value their product. This is penny wise and pound foolish.

 

[mickEblu]

All our complaining got us a bigger pond! We did it! Lol no but seriously It’s as if they didn’t understand that people would be upset losing 95% of the water in that area until we complained. SMH

 

[DarkMetroid567]

I have no idea if any of this is true. If it is, I see no reason why they couldn’t redirect the funds they’re spending on Cars Land to fixing the (supposed) issues with the Rivers of America. Whatever the circumstances, they’re making a choice—and it’s a bad one in my opinion.

It just pushes the buck further back. The utilidoors in Frontierland get decently close to the river’s path — when I was a CM doing halloween treats at Splash I’d walk through and always wonder how big of an issue that posed. Water has a tendency of getting in places you don’t want it.

Not trying to be snarky but look at the comments on literally any social media post for literally any company. Always so much negativity. It doesn’t help that Disney became a politicized target.

Social Media is not a reflection of actual thought on the individual level.

Yeah — I am once asking everyone here to remember that this is a decently niche community. A lot of the people replying have accounts here or some other place where they ragepost about theme parks everyday.

Most people just aren’t @disneyparks reply guys. Because most people don’t care!

 

[LittleBuford]

If they re saying a billion it would probably cost half that or less and they lose that on crappy movies every other month. God forbid they invest into their flagship park on something that doesn’t show direct ROI. They don’t understand or value their product. This is penny wise and pound foolish.

I don’t think the financial argument is a good one, because the Cars Land option probably will end up making them more money. There are other factors they should be taking into account besides profit.

 

[LittleBuford]

It just pushes the buck further back. The utilidoors in Frontierland get decently close to the river’s path — even when I was a CM I was always wondering how big of an issue that posed. Water has a tendency of getting in places you don’t want it.

I’m not saying they shouldn’t fix it if there is an actual issue. On the contrary, they should.

 

[mickEblu]

I don’t think the financial argument is a good one, because the Cars Land option probably will end up making them more money. There are other factors they should be taking into account besides profit.

It’s high risk. You’re messing with an integral part of your flagship park. The Golden Goose. Just saying it’s interesting that they can continuously lose 250 billion plus on movies that had no business being greenlit but they can’t spend a half billion for something like this?

 

[LittleBuford]

It’s high risk. You’re messing with an integral part of your flagship park. The Golden Goose. Just saying it’s interesting that they can continuously lose 250 billion plus on movies that had no business being greenlit but they can’t spend a half billion for something like this?

As much as I love the Rivers of America, I don’t think replacing them with Cars Land is a high-risk strategy. I’ve no doubt the latter would bring in a lot of money.

 

[DarkMetroid567]

I’m not saying they shouldn’t fix it if there is an actual issue. On the contrary, they should.

Oh no, I know! I mean that they could fix it and still risk water leaks or structural issues down the line. Water sucks, and Florida land especially sucks (cough TRON cough)

 

[mickEblu]

As much as I love the Rivers of America, I don’t think replacing them with Cars Land is a high-risk strategy. I’ve no doubt the latter would bring in a lot of money.

So if this is no risk, doesn’t negatively impact their product/ brand and they’ll make more money why shouldn’t they do it?

 

[Stripes]

If they re saying a billion it would probably cost half that or less and they lose that on crappy movies every other month. God forbid they invest into their flagship park on something that doesn’t show direct ROI.

Totally different industry.

The film industry, by its nature, is driven by short-term profit maximization with high risk, but also high rewards. There is an inevitability and an expectation that most films will not be profitable.

By contrast, theme park investments are driven by long term revenue generation with ROIs that are far more predictable than a film.