can someone connect the dots here - why was coco scrapped from beyond big thunder and why does that equal cars?
If I had to take a guess, I'd say merchandise from Cars is probably more lucrative?
Coco was a rich colorful beautiful movie with a touching original story that was an artistic masterpiece but Disney probably expects to sell more in Mater hats alone in the parks than they'd get from an entire collection themed to Miguel and Pixar's version of Día de Muertos.
That's not even touching on the actual toy cars aspect for die-cast, radio controlled, play-sets, etc.
Although the movies were never a re-watch for my son
(born a year after the release of Cars 2) the way others have been for him, my son's favorite "matchbox" style car was a Lightning McQueen I still have with about a quarter of the paint chipped off from all the mileage it got.
For movies that, IMHO, weren't really all that good or original story-wise* they provide infinite merchandising opportunities. Lasseter famously had his own wall of toy cars so I'm pretty sure that is the basis for the company being so enamored with the franchise.
Another thought is that since the movies were more about world-building with vehicles than story, they're also an easy thing to adapt to attractions since you just get in a car and ride around and see stuff and that's all you really need for a concept. You can pretty much go as big or as little as you want from there.
If you think about it, that works with Cars in a way it doesn't with say, a ride based on... Princess and the Frog, for instance.
*largely saved by good voice acting, some comedy and a lot of visual puns