News Cars-Themed Attractions at Magic Kingdom

[James Alucobond]

I hate to sound like a broken record, but the main mountain as seen from Liberty Square will be in the shape of a piston. This is also a world where everything references cars, so presumably all the structures in this area will also have cars elements worked into them just as Cars Land does at DCA. Why, then, hide the cars with the big faces and mouths and, if they do, does it really make that big a difference?

The Piston profile looks much more muted and naturalistic in the overhead view than in the more animated-style concept artwork. What else do you suppose will be visible from anywhere else in existing Frontierland or Liberty Square? Within the Cars area, the main path and the upper level for the attraction path look to be more or less at ground level relative to the rest of Frontierland, with the lower paths below that. The trees, rockwork, and remaining surrounding buildings will presumably block all views into the land, plus all structures within the land are oriented inward. I think anything inside the desired perimeter that isn't Piston Peak and maybe the roofline of the lodge will be completely invisible from the Haunted Mansion all the way to Tiana's Bayou Adventure unless you approach from the new northern entrance (or can potentially peer in from on high in TBA or BTMRR).

 

[GinaD613]

Make your opinion count. Reach out if you want to stop the destruction of the Rivers of America!

Robert A. Iger
Chief Executive Officer
500 South Buena Vista Street
Burbank, CA 91521
robert.a.iger@disney.com
(818) 560-1000

Here’s my email. I’m hoping that my overestimate of 40,000 acres will prompt someone to reply, if only to correct me

Dear Mr. Iger,

I am a fellow Oceansider and longtime Disney fan. My first trip to WDW was in August 1974, and I have returned several times since, when finances permitted. I’m told I also do an excellent impression of Mickey Mouse.

I understand the Florida property encompasses roughly 40,000 acres, although some sections are not suitable for development. Nevertheless, surely Disney could add the highly anticipated Cars and Villains areas to the resort without demolishing the Rivers of America.

Not all Disney guests enjoy thrilling attractions as much as I do. For example, my dear husband found the initial dip on the Pirates of the Caribbean boat ride too intense for his liking. However, a motion-averse guest could still enjoy a “mild” attraction like the riverboat that circles Tom Sawyer Island. I doubt that the Cars rally race would serve as a substitute for the gentle riverboat.

While I understand that the tastes of the younger folks are geared more toward thrill rides (pun intended), Disney has always marketed the parks as enjoyable for all members of the family. This should include motion-averse guests of all ages.

Kindly reconsider your plans, and please locate the new Cars and Villains lands without sacrificing the Rivers of America and Tom Sawyer Island.

Very truly yours,
(name redacted for privacy)

 

[GinaD613]

I hate to be a broken record. Nobody is reading between the lines. Disney clearly wants to get rid of the RoA & TSI. Point blank, period. Do they have thousands of other acres they could build upon? Yes. Does the MK even have other expansion plots? Yes. Is Disney going to do either of those two things with this project? No.

Whether we like or not Cars is coming to Frontierland. I don’t necessarily have a problem with it and if it is executed well I think it will be a great addition to the Magic Kingdom. I will miss the ambience of the Riverboat, but do agree that the kinetics are much better at Disneyland and feel that this mini-land can also offer pretty good kinetics.

I can express my opinion and give Disney my input. Of course, it’s not my park, and not my decision. And so far no commission has designated MK or any part thereof a landmark.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

The Piston profile looks much more muted and naturalistic in the overhead view than in the more animated-style concept artwork. What else do you suppose will be visible from anywhere else in existing Frontierland or Liberty Square? Within the Cars area, the main path and the upper level for the attraction path look to be more or less at ground level relative to the rest of Frontierland, with the lower paths below that. The trees, rockwork, and remaining surrounding buildings will presumably block all views into the land, plus all structures within the land are oriented inward. I think anything inside the desired perimeter that isn't Piston Peak and maybe the roofline of the lodge will be completely invisible from the Haunted Mansion all the way to Tiana's Bayou Adventure unless you approach from the new northern entrance (or can potentially peer in from on high in TBA or BTMRR).

Sorry, I thought you meant that in general the cars wouldn't be visible outside of the rides within the new area rather than that they wouldn't be visible from the existing Frontierland/Liberty Square.

On that note, I would agree that you will probably just see rocks, trees, and some water from the existing Frontierland beyond Piston Peak. How much better that makes it is up for debate, but I would agree with you that the issue is not, for example, that Lightening McQueen will be parked across from The Golden Horseshoe.

 

[Cliff]

I hate to be a broken record. Nobody is reading between the lines. Disney clearly wants to get rid of the RoA & TSI. Point blank, period. Do they have thousands of other acres they could build upon? Yes. Does the MK even have other expansion plots? Yes. Is Disney going to do either of those two things with this project? No.

Whether we like or not Cars is coming to Frontierland. I don’t necessarily have a problem with it and if it is executed well I think it will be a great addition to the Magic Kingdom. I will miss the ambience of the Riverboat, but do agree that the kinetics are much better at Disneyland and feel that this mini-land can also offer pretty good kinetics.

Yes, we all know why Burbank hates Tom Sawyer's Island and Mark Twain and Fronteir land and American Adventure...etc.

The problem is that you really are not allowed to talk about that because it gets people upset and feelings get hurt. This forum is intended to be a space free of hurt feelings.

Not everbody has thick skin...so it's best NOT to discuss Burbank and the historic controversy of this period of American history. There are other Disney forums where this can be discussed more freely.

So,...let's resist and protest Disney's destruction of the Rivers of America, Tom Sawyer Island and the Liberty Bell using the OTHER dozen legitimate arguments on why it should stay.

Disney...do you "really" want a 5+ year "Epcot-style" BOMB CRATER in such a high profile area of Magic Kingom?? All while Epic Universe is swallowing up your guests during those 5 years?

Dont wall up MK!...leave the river and build Cars in an EMPTY area. Make MK look it's VERY BEST while Epic Universe is trying to eat your lunch!!!

An "ugly" MK will have a harder time competing against a brand new, shiny, sparkling Epic Universe!

 

[MagicHappens1971]

Don’t wall up MK!...leave the river and build Cars in an EMPTY area. Make MK look it's VERY BEST while Epic Universe is trying to eat your lunch!!!

An "ugly" MK will have a harder time competing against a brand new, shiny, sparkling Epic Universe!

I don’t really want to comment on most of your post but, Epic will never pull from MK. DAK, DHS, maybe. MK, never.

 

[Haymarket]

AFAIU Shanghai doesn’t have a ROA per say am I right?

They don't, but they do have quite a bit of water.

 

[phillip9698]

I'd say that almost nobody wants to cancel Fronteir Cars. It seems like it could be a lot of fun..just don't build it on top of the river. There is PLENTY of land to do this elsewhere.

We CAN have Cars...and....the Rivers of America,...at the same time, with no problems.

This would be a win/win situation for ALL fans and nobody loses anything. Disney...you won't need to wall-off a large chunk of Magic Kingdom for 3-5 years to build Cars. You can build Cars without dusturbing any guests at all!!

Disney,...you will make everybody happy and make more money that way!

Certainly not a win for everyone. Keeping the river and TSI and shifting Cars elsewhere just uses more prime real estate that could have been used in the future for another land. If an attraction is no longer relevant/frequented, replacement should be considered.

You don’t make more money by using up all your potential expansion plots to save attractions that guests no longer frequent! Management has a responsibility to keep as many of those plots free as they can for the future of the park, a future that may not come to fruition until 20 years from now.

 

[MrPromey]

... Management has a responsibility to keep as many of those plots free as they can for the future of the park, a future that may not come to fruition until 20 years from now.

A "responsibility" you say?

Do you honestly think anyone making decisions in current management today cares what happens at WDW in 20 years?

 

[aladdin2007]

End of the day, Burbank is running WDW like a bunch of accountants playing RCT3.

this, look at tiana as proof.

 

[Rosso11]

Here’s my email. I’m hoping that my overestimate of 40,000 acres will prompt someone to reply, if only to correct me

Dear Mr. Iger,

I am a fellow Oceansider and longtime Disney fan. My first trip to WDW was in August 1974, and I have returned several times since, when finances permitted. I’m told I also do an excellent impression of Mickey Mouse.

I understand the Florida property encompasses roughly 40,000 acres, although some sections are not suitable for development. Nevertheless, surely Disney could add the highly anticipated Cars and Villains areas to the resort without demolishing the Rivers of America.

Not all Disney guests enjoy thrilling attractions as much as I do. For example, my dear husband found the initial dip on the Pirates of the Caribbean boat ride too intense for his liking. However, a motion-averse guest could still enjoy a “mild” attraction like the riverboat that circles Tom Sawyer Island. I doubt that the Cars rally race would serve as a substitute for the gentle riverboat.

While I understand that the tastes of the younger folks are geared more toward thrill rides (pun intended), Disney has always marketed the parks as enjoyable for all members of the family. This should include motion-averse guests of all ages.

Kindly reconsider your plans, and please locate the new Cars and Villains lands without sacrificing the Rivers of America and Tom Sawyer Island.

Very truly yours,
(name redacted for privacy)

You need to email WDW President Jeff Vahle if you want to talk to the person who made this decision. This is well below Iger. Iger does not micromanage the parks the way Eisner did. Jeff makes all of these calls. It’s not Iger and it’s not even Josh. It’s Jeff. He’s also on social media. Send messages there. Comment on his posts. I have no idea why he gets no blame from most of the public. But he’s who you should be voicing your feelings to. The budgets come from Burbank but outside of the mandates from the west coast such as Galaxy’s Edge and Tiana, it’s Jeff who decides how the money is spent in WDW.

 

[Beacon Joe]

Disney...do you "really" want a 5+ year "Epcot-style" BOMB CRATER in such a high profile area of Magic Kingom?? All while Epic Universe is swallowing up your guests during those 5 years?

This consideration is one of the things that I find glaringly absent in discussions about this plan. Gaming it out from the perspective of Disney, it does seem odd that they are hell bent on repeating an Epcot "renovation" type of situation dragging on in the middle of their signature park while Epic Universe is getting rolling. Epcot was a pretty unpleasurable experience for years, and ultimately the company had nothing to show for it.

 

[Incomudro]

The Piston profile looks much more muted and naturalistic in the overhead view than in the more animated-style concept artwork. What else do you suppose will be visible from anywhere else in existing Frontierland or Liberty Square? Within the Cars area, the main path and the upper level for the attraction path look to be more or less at ground level relative to the rest of Frontierland, with the lower paths below that. The trees, rockwork, and remaining surrounding buildings will presumably block all views into the land, plus all structures within the land are oriented inward. I think anything inside the desired perimeter that isn't Piston Peak and maybe the roofline of the lodge will be completely invisible from the Haunted Mansion all the way to Tiana's Bayou Adventure unless you approach from the new northern entrance (or can potentially peer in from on high in TBA or BTMRR).

I agree with this.
I don't believe we are in any danger of seeing let alone hearing anthropomorphic faced cars from Frontierland, nor the queue to Haunted Mansion.

 

[Andrew M]

End of the day, Burbank is running WDW like a bunch of accountants playing RCT3.

I hope they don't figure out you can charge for the bathroom..

 

[bwr827]

This consideration is one of the things that I find glaringly absent in discussions about this plan. Gaming it out from the perspective of Disney, it does seem odd that they are hell bent on repeating an Epcot "renovation" type of situation dragging on in the middle of their signature park while Epic Universe is getting rolling. Epcot was a pretty unpleasurable experience for years, and ultimately the company had nothing to show for it.

Or… while folks are getting their kicks at the shiny new Epic, WDW can get the job done.

Or… they’ll be happy to see visitors spend a little more time at their three other parks while Frontierland gets majorly plussed up.

 

[MrPromey]

End of the day, Burbank is running WDW like a bunch of accountants playing RCT3.

At least they can't pick us up and dump us in the water features like they could if they were playing RCT or RCT2!

 

[gustaftp]

Certainly not a win for everyone. Keeping the river and TSI and shifting Cars elsewhere just uses more prime real estate that could have been used in the future for another land. If an attraction is no longer relevant/frequented, replacement should be considered.

You don’t make more money by using up all your potential expansion plots to save attractions that guests no longer frequent! Management has a responsibility to keep as many of those plots free as they can for the future of the park, a future that may not come to fruition until 20 years from now.

Where is this idea coming from that "guests no longer frequent" these areas, or are you just assuming this to be true? What did data look like 5, 10, 20, 40 years ago?

 

[rd805]

Where is this idea coming from that "guests no longer frequent" these areas, or are you just assuming this to be true? What did data look like 5, 10, 20, 40 years ago?

Common sense -- the River is huge and has a slow moving boat that while offers tranquility, doesn't soak up guests nor interest.

TSI has not been very popular in terms of number of people venturing over for a long, long, long time. The people that do it, enjoy it - but it doesn't get the traffic that something new & exciting would.

 

[October82]

Common sense -- the River is huge and has a slow moving boat that while offers tranquility, doesn't soak up guests nor interest.

TSI has not been very popular in terms of number of people venturing over for a long, long, long time. The people that do it, enjoy it - but it doesn't get the traffic that something new & exciting would.

Areas equivalent to TSI have been included in parks built by both Disney and their competitors for decades. This includes in Adventure Land at Shanghai Disneyland. These companies don't include these spaces without good business and design reasons for doing so.

Although it's true that Cars is a more marketable property and that a Cars attraction is likely to see more guests than TSI itself, this sort of decision is not made because attractions designed to serve specific demographics at low cost are somehow underperforming expectations. None of us have access to guest numbers or satisfaction surveys, but I would be shocked if something like TSI has actually seen significant decline in recent years relative to its cost to operate. @gustaftp is right that it isn't 'common sense' to claim otherwise.

On that point, there's a desire to frame controversial decisions made because of changes to the company's business model - Disney is a company that markets IPs, not one that thinks of itself as running theme parks - as obviously rational. The reality is that areas like the ROA and TSI are about the role they serve in creating a cohesive experience in MK's Frontierland and, in the process, providing inexpensive spaces and attractions for families and smaller children. They're not D-ticket attractions and the Cars D-ticket won't serve the same role.

 

[MrPromey]

This Cars proposal doesn’t have a good recent expansion analogy. Unlike other park additions, guests will be able to completely walk around it 360, so they have to put extra effort into making it look good from all angles. They can’t build half a mountain like Everest nor do we need to be so pessimistic so as to expect they’d build that.

Ratatouille from inside the park isn’t visible, and Guardians / Tron though not ideal are more futuristic looking rides that can get away with it. Yes they’re ugly, but I don’t find them that problematic as I would a similar looking show building in the middle of the wilderness. There is no way they do that

7DMT is a good semi-recent example.

That one certainly has one side that is better than the other.

So does the more recent Moana walk-through in terms of guest facing areas.