News Cars-Themed Attractions at Magic Kingdom

[DCLcruiser]

@wdwmagic can we split this thread into a TSI/ROA thread and a Cars ride thread?

 

[Yellow Strap]

Hypothetically, I can imagine that ... stockholders ... are asking ... publicly and privately ... why the parks attractions pipeline was allowed to go empty. Hypothetically. Because tf do I know?

So if you're an exec, that starts a ticking clock that you need to address.

So...hypothetically...Get more stuff built now and do what you need to do to address that

 

[el_super]

Parks need water features. The pitiful moats around Cinderella Castle won't cut it.

You can't even see the water from most of Liberty Square.

 

[Epcot82Guy]

I guess I am not seeing how this can be anything significant attraction-wise. This doesn't look like an E-ticket at all. There just isn't space. This area is not all that I much larger than Space Mountain. Jungle Cruise, Kali, even the Hub are all notably larger. And, they need to add walkways, significant rockwork, queue and a second attraction all in that space.

Obviously there are creative ways, but I'm thinking 7dMT is about the size and scale we are talking here. I guess that RSR/CarsLand does not make to me.

 

[DisneyRoxMySox]

View attachment 809039
People really underestimate how important the water is to the overall feel of the area. The areas I dashed with yellow are expendable- nice to have, but not needed. The green loop is what is really important- you could even cut it in half if you wanted to (the half marked with stars is what I feel needs to stay at the very least). The water makes the area feel larger, it keeps the air cooler, it creates scenic and beautiful views that immerse you in the area, it adds kinetic energy- we don't need Tom Sawyer Island, but we NEED the rivers. Parks need water features. The pitiful moats around Cinderella Castle won't cut it.

I’m willing to bet that 99% of the people on these boards upset would be just fine with this design. I know I would be.

 

[Kamikaze]

I'm not sure where you get that from. First off, the princess are far more relevant to a large range of girls. And they're also an iconic part of Disney in general. But if you read what I said, cars could absolutely become a classic ride. It's going to end up how great of a ride it turns out to be. Splash wasn't a great ride because of it's source material. I didn't say they shouldn't do a Cars ride. Is there better ips to put in the magic kingdom? Yea, I'd say so.

You said the IP is only popular with 4-7 year old boys. Thats the same(ish) demo they target Princesses to, but I don't think you'd ever make the argument that they shouldn't do any Princess stuff.

But like you said, its not the IP thats the problem, its the placement.

 

[Charlie The Chatbox Ghost]

You can't even see the water from most of Liberty Square.

Do you mean now, or in the Cars concept art? Because now you can see water from most places in Liberty Square. Only way to not see the water is being inside a building or facing the opposite way.

 

[Bluehill]

They just need to keep the first river circle of RoA, loosing RoA is such a huge loss to theming and the theming of this entire area!

What if they push cars and villains up further. Then the river will circle the island, or even remove the island for fountains.

Also just merge the yellow and purple shown in the pic and have that as villains and move cars to Hollywood, for a wider Pixar area with Toy Story and Monsters.

 

[MerlinTheGoat]

@wdwmagic can we split this thread into a TSI/ROA thread and a Cars ride thread?

No, don't do this. Splitting the thread up will lead to the same sort of echo chamber that Tiana was allowed to have when it was split into two threads. And discourage the extremely well warranted criticism.

 

[Lou Filerman]

You say that, but you're actually wrong -- most people do care about it even if they don't consciously realize it because it's an integral part of the design of a large part of the park.

When the waterfront is gone from LS/FL, people are going to dislike it. They may not even be able to place a finger on why, but they're going to think the area feels wrong now, and it's because that whole section of the park was designed to have a waterfront.

That doesn't mean Tom Sawyer Island itself needs to stay (I don't think it does) but eliminating the waterfront entirely is going to really screw up that section of the park and people are absolutely going to notice it, even if it's solely a subconscious feeling, and it's going to negatively affect their experience.

It's similar to if they filled in the World Showcase Lagoon and put a bunch of buildings there. It would really mess up the World Showcase, because the whole loop is designed with a waterfront in mind.

You have zero knowledge of what any other person will think of this new area. Zero. You are basing that off your own feelings. You speak for no one but yourself.

 

[Clyde Birdbrain]

They cannot leave Liberty Square and Frontierland as-is now. That may already be in the works, but those areas have to be fundamentally redesigned once this change happens since they are eliminating the waterfront.

We don't know what the right side of Frontierland will look like. The concept art is too blurry. There may be waterfalls coming off the new mountain, new building facades, mines and mining equipment, etc. We could end up with more Frontierland theming than the current waterfront.

 

[UNCgolf]

You have zero knowledge of what any other person will think of this new area. Zero. You are basing that off your own feelings. You speak for no one but yourself.

No I'm not. It's a well-established principle of design with loads of evidence.

It has nothing to do with individual thoughts about what's being done.

That doesn't mean Disney can't redesign other existing areas to make it work (and it seems like that may be the plan with dumping Liberty Square), though.

 

[lentesta]

... is there a sense Moana was kept in the back pocket since that’s an easier sell even during more tight budgetary times?

100%.

A few podcasts ago I was wondering about where Moana was in all of this, and whether we'd see anything at all. And someone in the company emailed me to say "You know Moana has never left the top 5 of Disney+ streaming titles, right?"

Coming out of this D23 we've seen most, but probably not all, of the first 5 years of a 10-year plan.

 

[Charlie The Chatbox Ghost]

We don't know what the right side of Frontierland will look like. The concept art is too blurry. There may be waterfalls coming off the new mountain, new building facades, mines and mining equipment, etc. We could end up with more Frontierland theming than the current waterfront.

This is what I'm hoping for. I know there's no changing the plans, but at the very least, I hope Disney sees the concerns about the waterfront/theming and makes sure to not only keep some water (at the very least so the walkway on the water doesn't feel so cramped) but also make sure to have plenty of waterfalls and new themed areas.

 

[UNCgolf]

We don't know what the right side of Frontierland will look like. The concept art is too blurry. There may be waterfalls coming off the new mountain, new building facades, mines and mining equipment, etc. We could end up with more Frontierland theming than the current waterfront.

It's definitely possible they could do something to make Frontierland work better -- I don't see how they can make it congruous with Liberty Square, though. But it sounds like they're planning to dump Liberty Square anyways, in which case they could potentially design a new area that doesn't have the same issues.

 

[el_super]

Do you mean now,

Now:

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

www.google.com

Can you point to water here?

 

[fatzingers27]

I'm fine with this, makes more sense than trying to expand past the train-tracks at this time. Fills in what was essentially dead space in the park, and I think the mountains/waterfalls/trees will be just as nice to walk by as the river. Regardless of how TBA turned out ride-wise, its exterior is pretty spectacular.

 

[Quietmouse]

What would be a cool concept is if Disney started implementing boutique resorts within the confines of the lands.

For instance, if they were to somehow include a faux mountain resort with a bunch of attached wooden log cabins where guests can stay at it might help restore some of that kinetic energy that was lost

 

[RoysCabin]

Disney used to be the best at giving people what they didn’t know they wanted (feature-length animated films, multi-plane animation, a theme park, attractions like Tower of Terror etc.). Now all they do is give the masses what they think they want.

Doing the above is hard. Doing the above consistently is even harder, but it’s what made Disney, Disney. But I guess the risk of continuing that strategy is just too risky for the shareholders.

This is honestly a key point right now: Disney has been in a very reactive stance for a long, long time now with regards to the parks, rather than a proactive one.

Upfront, let's acknowledge that this isn't the first time that's been the case! The late 80s saw the announcement of Universal Orlando, plus Eisner noticing thing like the success of the Church St. clubs in the city proper, which led to the pushes for MGM Studios and Pleasure Island. It's part of business, sometimes you lead and sometimes you react to shifts in the marketplace.

But really, since Potter at Universal it's been a huge game of trying to do what "the other guys" are doing, and the rise of streaming services and the "content for content's sake" model has only contributed further to this need to force as many properties wherever they can possibly go, without much thought to whether it's something that's really upping the theme park industry overall. This has been the reality since the "IP mandate" went in place, and it's only becoming less thoughtful about placement, theme, and the other things that once made Disney theme parks feel transcendent.

Joe Rohde, I believe, once made an Instagram post where he talked about what separates truly great themed entertainment from something that's just "fun" - "fun" is a wonderful thing, but it's also something you can have anywhere; a simple plastic toy can be fun, after all, and you can get a yo-yo or something for a few bucks. But if you want me to spend multiple thousands of dollars on a "themed experience", you need to offer more than that - if I can just have "fun" at home, then I need a deeper reason why I'd be willing to part with my hard-earned money to travel to muggy Florida and spend time in the environment you've created.

That impetus to spend the money and go to the theme parks is partly generated by the rides, yes, but the rides are more often the direct source of fun; what sets a great theme park apart is, though, is the attention to detail and the small, sometimes barely perceptible choices (sight lines, kinetics, color palettes, music, tactile choices for surfaces, layouts, costuming, construction materials, something as simple as period appropriate lighting fixtures, etc.) that transport you to a different place and a different frame of mind. Once you've got that, you can sell people on just about anything your park will offer, like original ride concepts or things that don't involve "just slap that character's face on it so it'll sell." I kind of point to something like the Guardians coaster for this: lots of fun, for sure, but not something particularly transportive.

I mean, I live in New Jersey: if all I want is just some fun involving theme park rides, I can drive a pretty short distance down to Six Flags. And that CAN be fun! Many people are coaster enthusiasts, after all! But Six Flags also isn't demanding nearly as much of my money as Disney does, which is why I hold Disney to a much, much higher standard than I do a regional coaster park.

Like, I don't know; like I said before, I'm a 39 year old man, telling me "Get excited, it's Cars!" or "Get hyped, it's Zootopia!" means basically nothing to me - I like some of these films just fine, but they're films, I can watch them any time I want if I so choose without having to spend thousands to see animatronics of the characters, or even just drawings of them on some rides. If this announcement had been "we're going to shift what 'Frontierland' means, and change it to include the natural beauty of more of the American West, recreating a slice of the Rockies here in Florida", that'd be something evocative and transporting to me...and if a given IP suited that area, well, ok, I guess that could work, but that's clearly not what's being done, here. It's more "one day we'll crack the code Universal did with Potter, just watch us, investors!", and while there are times it can be fun, increasingly it's just boring.

 

[orky8]

The crux of the issue: people weren't utilizing this desperately needed space. Either it's not as needed as people want to think, or the burdens to utilizing it were too high. Either way the result is the same.

No, the crux of the issue is current management doesn't understand that underutilized space is critically important to have. You need E ticket thrills AND relaxing hideaways for a theme park, especially the most visited one in the world, to prevent it from feeling oppressive. Even if most people never set foot on the Liberty Belle when visiting MK, almost everyone at the park, even if not consciously, appreciated the ambience it provided.