MK Cars-Themed Attractions at Magic Kingdom

[mlayton144]

MK or WDW in general most likely would not exist if were not for Walt having an idea and vision for it. That history shouldn’t just be dismissed. I don’t expect it to be a museum, and just because I think RoA should have been preserved doesn’t mean I think it should be. I’ve yet to see anyone give a logical explanation for how Cars fits into Frontierland, the only thing people seem to be able to come up with is “it’s under utilized space” so it has to go.

So customers would have been dissatisfied and stopped coming if they kept the River? People would have been unhappy if they kept the River and put this somewhere else? The ONLY WAY Disney would have made money with a Cars project at WDW was to gut RoA? That is ridiculous. They have so much land to expand the park and could have saved the river (if DLR could do it, so could WDW) but instead are choosing to take the easy approach and gut it.

Disney would have made money with or without this replacement. And all you’re doing with this post is pointing out that Disney makes its decisions based primarily on monetary benefit, rather than developing areas that actually fit the theme of the area that they are going into. I understand they are a business, but money should not be the only reason behind decision making.

Saying it’s detailed and cohesive is also making a big assumption when we actually have no idea of how this is going to turn out. We’ve gotten very little concept art of what this area will actually be. And even if we had more, concept art can change from design to execution so we have no way of knowing what will actually happen. But you’re right, people will still come and thats all Disney cares about.

You have it backwards, people show a company interest in a product by showing up.
Of course they could have kept it but don’t think it was a wise use of resources. They could have also built a 5 mile long people mover to get guests to Animal kingdom lodge but decided not to. You want them to cater to you and those with the same nostalgia, and that’s fine but you shouldn’t be surprised given the lack of enthusiasm/visitation by paying customers we saw the last weeks of TSIs existence.

 

[plutofan15]

It looks very thrown together at the last minute…. Hardly detailed and cohesive and certainly not cohesive with the rest of the area unless there is more to it than the art.

 

[AidenRodriguez731]

You relentlessly pretend Disney parks are nothing more then a disconnected series of attractions governed by no design principles or philosophy or any sense of aesthetic or narrative cohesion. It’s such a staggeringly narrow view of the parks.

I appreciate you make a post claiming how you noticed a divide about people generalizing people on each side of the argument and then go right to generalizing me by strawmanning my entire argument and completely misreading my point. I'm not sure if its out of arrogance or ignorance but either way, I would hope for a little more discretion than trying to cast a net 2x the size of Manhattan.

 

[AidenRodriguez731]

I apologize for disparaging 6 flags. Disney destroying MK has nothing to do with 6 flags.

MK isn't destroyed. It's becoming better for me and my family than its ever been and I'm not a huge fan of 6 flags in general

 

[AidenRodriguez731]

Because you can enjoy Jungle Cruise from the outside? It is not even close to being the same as RoA.

You can enjoy the same river that Jungle Cruise is on from the Castle, Treehouse, and around the bridges to all of the lands. This water would cool off this area as well based on what other posters were talking about. You also could not enjoy most of ROA from "outside" as half of it would be mostly blocked by TSI

 

[AidenRodriguez731]

That’s assuming it will look like Grizzly Peak.


Can you explain how Cars fit into Frontierland? I’ve been to Rocky Mountain National Park and don’t recall seeing any.

Cars does not fit into Frontierland. Try to justify it all you want but it doesn’t fit.


Or Communicore Hall.


This. I rarely went on the riverboat or to TSI, but I still enjoyed walking through Liberty Square and Frontierland and watching the boat and hearing the whistle. The view from Splash Mountain/Tianas was probably the best view in the park. I don’t see why it has to be replaced when they had room to expand and chose to rip it out for car shaped rock work.


MK was Walt’s final dream. Roy made sure it was built for that reason. The idea that one is Walt’s MK and the other is America’s is honestly silly. MK deserves to have its own history just as much as Disneyland does regardless of whether Walt actually stepped foot there or not. It doesn’t deserve to have its history shredded just because Walt died before it was completed.

Change is not what makes MK sacred. What makes it sacred is being able to step into a place that you enjoyed as a child and maybe if you’re lucky, sharing those experiences with your own children or grandchildren. Ripping out everything original takes that away.


I don’t think mentioning the monetary benefits for TWDC is the winning argument you think it is. Instead it just reiterates the idea that Disney doesn’t care about theme and atmosphere but makes decisions based solely on financial benefits.


Right? The general public would like anything. That doesn’t make it a good decision.

It is not a silly argument when the only argument people seem to be able to make in favor of Cars is that it’s a “better use of space”. Well, the majority of park guests aren’t going to CRT or BBB, so why not replace it with something that more people will enjoy? In front of the castle isn’t the only place to see the fireworks and they could move the stage show somewhere else.

Whether people realize it or not, the river is a central part of the park. If it wasn’t, why did they add one to every other castle park around the world?

I’ve literally never thought about RoA being replaced. Like not once have I walked through MK and thought, “wow, TSI and the river are wasted space.” But I have walked by Stitch’s Great Escape and Diamond Horseshoe and Tomorrowland Terrace and the speedway and thought what a waste of space. But somehow all of those are still standing but the river gets torn out for being a waste of space.


So even Six Flags can have a river, but the most visited theme park in the world can’t.

MK STILL HAS A RIVER. And yes there is less space to have rotting attractions in the most visited theme park in the world.

 

[psherman42]

You have it backwards, people show a company interest in a product by showing up.
Of course they could have kept it but don’t think it was a wise use of resources. They could have also built a 5 mile long people mover to get guests to Animal kingdom lodge but decided not to. You want them to cater to you and those with the same nostalgia, and that’s fine but you shouldn’t be surprised given the lack of enthusiasm/visitation by paying customers we saw the last weeks of TSIs existence.

But it is a wise use of resources to stick a cars attraction in Frontierland? I’m not even that upset about TSI. I’m mostly upset about the loss of the river. If they announced this expansion and it started at TSI preserving the entire front of the river along the walkway, I probably would be okay. But there is no way whatever they stick there will match the ambience that the river provided, especially when most of the area will probably be taken up by an attraction so you can’t *really enjoy it unless you’re on the ride.

I also don’t expect to be catered to, but it would be nice if they didn’t just take any IP and shoehorn it into an area where it doesn’t belong, while simultaneously paving over the only real part of MK that feels like a park in favor of concrete. Like I said, people would have visited and enjoyed the new cars area regardless of where they put it, it wasn’t contingent on them destroying RoA.

 

[Casper Gutman]

I appreciate you make a post claiming how you noticed a divide about people generalizing people on each side of the argument and then go right to generalizing me by strawmanning my entire argument and completely misreading my point. I'm not sure if its out of arrogance or ignorance but either way, I would hope for a little more discretion than trying to cast a net 2x the size of Manhattan.

You have espoused this opinion consistently. It’s a valid one, as I wrote, but not one anyone is obligated to accept. I don’t know if it’s one you sincerely believe or if it’s one you’ve adopted to argue against posters you don’t like, but frankly that doesn’t matter.

I’d also point out that quite a few of the more defensive posters here love to launch ad hominem attacks and treat opponents with condescension at the same time they are very quick to claim victimhood.

 

[psherman42]

You can enjoy the same river that Jungle Cruise is on from the Castle, Treehouse, and around the bridges to all of the lands. This water would cool off this area as well based on what other posters were talking about. You also could not enjoy most of ROA from "outside" as half of it would be mostly blocked by TSI

Yeah, you’re right. I’m not enjoying RoA because it’s blocked by TSI.

That small moat by the castle and bridges can’t possibly be the same as the river to you. Maybe if they hadn’t gotten rid of it for the hub expansion, but now? That’s kind of laughable.

 

[AidenRodriguez731]

But it is a wise use of resources to stick a cars attraction in Frontierland? I’m not even that upset about TSI. I’m mostly upset about the loss of the river. If they announced this expansion and it started at TSI preserving the entire front of the river along the walkway, I probably would be okay. But there is no way whatever they stick there will match the ambience that the river provided, especially when most of the area will probably be taken up by an attraction so you can’t *really enjoy it unless you’re on the ride.

I also don’t expect to be catered to, but it would be nice if they didn’t just take any IP and shoehorn it into an area where it doesn’t belong, while simultaneously paving over the only real part of MK that feels like a park in favor of concrete. Like I said, people would have visited and enjoyed the new cars area regardless of where they put it, it wasn’t contingent on them destroying RoA.

It's not preservering the entire front of the river but the new concept art clearly shows a river/rapids portion, waterfalls, and geysers.

 

[Casper Gutman]

You can enjoy the same river that Jungle Cruise is on from the Castle, Treehouse, and around the bridges to all of the lands. This water would cool off this area as well based on what other posters were talking about. You also could not enjoy most of ROA from "outside" as half of it would be mostly blocked by TSI

This very obviously unserious position - pretending the Jungle Cruise River and RoA are equivalent - is an example of the “each element taken in isolation with no consideration of its place in the larger whole” philosophy taken to an absurd extreme.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I appreciate you make a post claiming how you noticed a divide about people generalizing people on each side of the argument and then go right to generalizing me by strawmanning my entire argument and completely misreading my point. I'm not sure if its out of arrogance or ignorance but either way, I would hope for a little more discretion than trying to cast a net 2x the size of Manhattan.

MK STILL HAS A RIVER. And yes there is less space to have rotting attractions in the most visited theme park in the world.

Which is it? A river elsewhere is completely meaningless unless the park is just a collection of elements.

 

[AidenRodriguez731]

Yeah, you’re right. I’m not enjoying RoA because it’s blocked by TSI.

That small moat by the castle and bridges can’t possibly be the same as the river to you. Maybe if they hadn’t gotten rid of it for the hub expansion, but now? That’s kind of laughable.

I didn't say you couldn't enjoy the ROA. I said that half of it is not visible for most guests which is true. The moat around the castle and through Adventure land isn't at the same grand scale as ROA but it keeps water in the parks and with the addition of the water around Piston Peak, should still keep the aesthetics and the park cooling.

 

[Casper Gutman]

I didn't say you couldn't enjoy the ROA. I said that half of it is not visible for most guests which is true. The moat around the castle and through Adventure land isn't at the same grand scale as ROA but it keeps water in the parks and with the addition of the water around Piston Peak, should still keep the aesthetics and the park cooling.

Restrooms “keep water in the park.”

 

[AidenRodriguez731]

This very obviously unserious position - pretending the Jungle Cruise River and RoA are equivalent - is an example of the “each element taken in isolation with no consideration of its place in the larger whole” philosophy taken to an absurd extreme.

The river that actually goes through and makes a mark on every land in the park. Every land will still benefit from a river being the parks after this change. I did not say they are the same, just that you can still enjoy a river around the parks.

 

[psherman42]

It's not preservering the entire front of the river but the new concept art clearly shows a river/rapids portion, waterfalls, and geysers.

That cartoon map can hardly be considered concept art when all the water was probably exaggerated. That space isn’t that big if they plan to out the villains area being it. Water features have gotten cut from concept art before too. There was also supposed to be a fountain in the center of World Celebration. There was concept art of new Fantasyland showing some sort of water fall next to Beast’s castle. A few geysers will not make up for the loss of the river.

 

[AidenRodriguez731]

Restrooms “keep water in the park.”

Okay are we so far gone that we're comparing restrooms to the waterways, waterfalls, and geysers shown because if so, I think you spent too much time in one.

 

[lazyboy97o]

You have it backwards, people show a company interest in a product by showing up.
Of course they could have kept it but don’t think it was a wise use of resources. They could have also built a 5 mile long people mover to get guests to Animal kingdom lodge but decided not to. You want them to cater to you and those with the same nostalgia, and that’s fine but you shouldn’t be surprised given the lack of enthusiasm/visitation by paying customers we saw the last weeks of TSIs existence.

The best thing Disney could do in terms of cost and mass appeal is fill in the area and build an outdoor roller coaster on the site. If you don’t want that then you just want them to cater to you.

 

[psherman42]

I didn't say you couldn't enjoy the ROA. I said that half of it is not visible for most guests which is true. The moat around the castle and through Adventure land isn't at the same grand scale as ROA but it keeps water in the parks and with the addition of the water around Piston Peak, should still keep the aesthetics and the park cooling.

We don’t actually know there will be water in Piston Peak.

 

[mlayton144]

But it is a wise use of resources to stick a cars attraction in Frontierland? I’m not even that upset about TSI. I’m mostly upset about the loss of the river. If they announced this expansion and it started at TSI preserving the entire front of the river along the walkway, I probably would be okay. But there is no way whatever they stick there will match the ambience that the river provided, especially when most of the area will probably be taken up by an attraction so you can’t *really enjoy it unless you’re on the ride.

I also don’t expect to be catered to, but it would be nice if they didn’t just take any IP and shoehorn it into an area where it doesn’t belong, while simultaneously paving over the only real part of MK that feels like a park in favor of concrete. Like I said, people would have visited and enjoyed the new cars area regardless of where they put it, it wasn’t contingent on them destroying RoA.

I guess we will just have to see the finished product - I think it has potential , unfortunately we have to wait