News Cars-Themed Attractions at Magic Kingdom

[Quietmouse]

You want even lower height restrictions for nintendo world? They are already incredibly low on two rides. No one should market any theme park to a 3 year old anyway. A 3 year old wont remember anything, doesnt fully appreciate what they experiencing and really hates queueing and the long days. They are often miserable at theme parks and end up having more fun at the pool back at their hotel. Theme parks really should be marketed at 5 year olds and over. Sure provide some rides and experiences for under 5s (which EPIC is doing) but its the 5 and over crowd who parks should be focusing on. And nintendo world is aimed perfectly at 5 years olds with two of its three rides. The only worry with nintendo world is the donkey kong ride height restriction may be too low limiting the rides thrill factor for some. And this nintendo world is already starting with phase 2 expansion.

And the reason this looks different is the quality and immersion looks through the roof. The 4 worlds are all looking as immersive as Star wars Galaxy, but with much better rides. It remains to be seen if this is true or not. But the info we have so far seems to suggest it will be.

disneyworld responding with 1 equivalent themed new land (villians) 5 years later is not enough of a response from disney. Tropical americas sounds ok but it doesnt look like their rides will be high enough quality with one just a reimagine of an existing ride. But i may be wrong here. Cars land whilst a good addition doesnt look to be the same level either.

I’m just saying the fact of the matter is, you can look at the stroller parking as an example of this, is Disney is a huge destination for parents with young children. It’s one of the most accessible collection of theme parks. You can easily take a 2 - 3 year old to Disney world and still manage to have a great time.

Universal clearly caters to a different age range and target demographic. Which is completely okay. That way my point - people look at it as epic vs Disney. The reality is that these 2 major players are like Walmart and target. They are both successful by catering to their target audience.

 

[Disstevefan1]

I’m just saying the fact of the matter is, you can look at the stroller parking as an example of this, is Disney is a huge destination for parents with young children. It’s one of the most accessible collection of theme parks. You can easily take a 2 - 3 year old to Disney world and still manage to have a great time.

Universal clearly caters to a different age range and target demographic. Which is completely okay. That way my point - people look at it as epic vs Disney. The reality is that these 2 major players are like Walmart and target. They are both successful by catering to their target audience.

The kids loved Tom Sawyer island.
Now for them, all there will be is a silly flat ride in the cars mini land.

 

[celluloid]

The seas comes close - a restaurant, a ride, a show, and lots of exhibits to look at.

Close indeed.

 

[Two Ears]

No, theme and ambience are the hallmarks of Disney parks. Otherwise it's just a glorified Six Flags.

Theme and ambience within rides is the main reason most people go.

if it was just pretty areas with restaurants and characters but no rides then disneyworld would close for business within 3 months.

no one goes to disneyworld to see the tangled toilets as pretty as they are. They go to ride seven dwarfs mine ride. A fairly simple and short ride technically but with some minor thrills and amazing immersion that has most people singing hi ho as they ride through and out the mountian.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

if it was just pretty areas with restaurants and characters but no rides then disneyworld would close for business within 3 months.

Epcot was pretty close to that for many years

 

[JSouth25]

Theme and ambience within rides is the main reason most people go.

if it was just pretty areas with restaurants and characters but no rides then disneyworld would close for business within 3 months.

no one goes to disneyworld to see the tangled toilets as pretty as they are. They go to ride seven dwarfs mine ride. A fairly simple and short ride technically but with some minor thrills and amazing immersion that has most people singing hi ho as they ride through and out the mountian.

Theming within the rides is important for sure, but the theming outside of the rides is just as important, that’s what has set Disney apart for so many years. Being immersed into another world as soon as soon you walk through the gates, walking down the small American town vibes of Main Street USA and seeing a castle at the end of the path, then getting the choice between walking into a land of adventure, frontier, fantasy, or tomorrow. This feeling of immersion begins just as soon as you enter the park, and elements like the Rivers help contribute to making you feel like you’re in another world, that’s why people go to Disney parks.

 

[Two Ears]

I'm not sure what you think an attraction consists of, but both the Liberty Belle and TSI are attractions, which will be replaced by two Cars attractions, resulting in 0 net attraction gain for MK. Even if you just focus on rides specifically and not attractions in general, it's only a net increase of one (add 2 Cars rides, subtract the Liberty Belle ride). Now, if they kept ROA and TSI intact, and added the Cars attractions on an expansion pad, it would be a net gain of 2. Attractions are a big part of the WDW experience, but so is theming, atmosphere and setting, which is what TSI and ROA provide to that whole quarter of the park. If we start removing that for more rides, then MK will become more of an amusement park and less of a theme park.

Yes you are right they are taking away two attractions. But the amount of people who use those two each day is only a small fraction of the typical theme park rides. So from a people eating perspective its really like two new attractions are being added even if technically it is not. Apologies for not adding this nuance,

 

[October82]

Do we know if Car's is a new ride system by any chance?

I'd also like to say I agree and am upset that Car's is replacing ROA but it's clear Disney is dead set on this. What they are not dead set on is the location of Monsters at Hollywood Studios and think if we are going to campaign about keeping something safe, then let's campaign for Muppets to stay given that it's something Disney is still debating instead of campaigning for something they have already decided.

It seems to be an outdoor "trackless dark ride" system from Dynamic Attractions.

 

[October82]

Yes you are right they are taking away two attractions. But the amount of people who use those two each day is only a small fraction of the typical theme park rides. So from a people eating perspective its really like two new attractions are being added even if technically it is not. Apologies for not adding this nuance,

I'd wager all guests who visit MK experience the RoA. "Play and explore" areas are common features of theme parks from both Disney and their competitors because they serve families at low operational costs. The riverboat is also a relatively high capacity attraction that sees plenty of guests. I wouldn't say a plurality or majority of guests but far from a 'small fraction'.

 

[Two Ears]

Theming within the rides is important for sure, but the theming outside of the rides is just as important, that’s what has set Disney apart for so many years. Being immersed into another world as soon as soon you walk through the gates, walking down the small American town vibes of Main Street USA and seeing a castle at the end of the path, then getting the choice between walking into a land of adventure, frontier, fantasy, or tomorrow. This feeling of immersion begins just as soon as you enter the park, and elements like the Rivers help contribute to making you feel like you’re in another world, that’s why people go to Disney parks.

I would say this immersion is what people love about disneyworld. Its not what makes them go. Its the immersive rides that make them go

this statement ofcourse is being a bit simplistic. In reality both are important to make people go. I just think immersive rides are far more important then immersive lands.

 

[Earlie the Pearlie]

I would say this immersion is what people love about disneyworld. Its not what makes them go. Its the immersive rides that make them go

this statement ofcourse is being a bit simplistic. In reality both are important to make people go. I just think immersive rides are far more important then immersive lands.

This is getting theoretical, but I’d argue that immersive lands can prove to be an even bigger draw than rides. The two Harry Potter lands are huge marketing draws, and while the rides are fantastic, I don’t think that they’d be major draws on their own (except for Hagrids, which was added much later). On the contrary, the lands themselves are incredible pieces of themed entertainment and would be marketable even if the rides were awful. In fact, the fact that Diagon Alley is so popular in spite of its E-Ticket (which is widely agreed upon to be good but not mindblowing) proves this point. But I digress!

 

[Disone]

He's one of the least reliable sources imaginable. The thumbnails of his videos alone should be evidence not to take him seriously.

Agree. Additionally with one half of the river were to remain it would likely have to be the top half, as that is the half that has the spur that allows For the riverboat to leave the park for maintenance.

 

[Two Ears]

This is getting theoretical, but I’d argue that immersive lands can prove to be an even bigger draw than rides. The two Harry Potter lands are huge marketing draws, and while the rides are fantastic, I don’t think that they’d be major draws on their own (except for Hagrids, which was added much later). On the contrary, the lands themselves are incredible pieces of themed entertainment and would be marketable even if the rides were awful. In fact, the fact that Diagon Alley is so popular in spite its E-Ticket (which is widely agreed upon to be good but not mindblowing) proves this point. But I digress!

You may be right although forbidden journey is an awesome ride as well and gringrotts is pretty solid.

if immersive lands was the main thing people want then surely animal kingdom would be the most visted park. Its by far the prettiest and most immersive in my books (and has the best restaurants). But instead its the least visited because it doesnt have enough rides.

 

[lentesta]

So box office means quality as some are arguing? Clearly the bastion of award winning animation, Alvin and the Chipmunks. The minions movies are pretty bad story-wise and still make bank.

I think the thinking is “a lot of people are willing to spend their money to see these things. Maybe we should try them in a park.”

 

[V_L_Raptor]

It's not being marketed as a Cars Land though, it's marketed as 2 new attractions for Frontierland. Currently, Frontierland will still exist between Big Thunder and the Froniterland Trading Post/New DVC Lounge, it's just expanding the walkable area by turning Tom Sawyer Island and the Rivers of America into 2 Cars attractions

Specifically, it's "Front-Tire Land."

 

[Disone]

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.

Um no! They didn't use those plots of land in the first 50 + years why the concern to conserve them now. I cannot support that statement.

A "responsibility" you say?

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

Thank you!

 

[Disone]

It amazes me how we have people on this thread that sound like they work for Disney or are Disney shareholders when they give their opinion on why they think it's a good idea to move forward with this. Who, outside of Disney/shareholders cares about "efficient use of space" and "maximizing ROI" and all of that? Why should the average guest care if there is an area that is "underutilized"? How does that affect a guests experience? We all know why Disney is doing this, but it is stunning how many people support it based almost solely on Disney's financial interests-it makes them sound like corporate bootlickers. Newsflash to those people-Disney doesn't care if you agree with them.

Worth a re-post

 

[Starship824]

He's one of the least reliable sources imaginable. The thumbnails of his videos alone should be evidence not to take him seriously.

He did get the name of the Tropical Americas village correct. I don't think he's gotten really anything else right, but he got that one thing lol.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

Agree. Additionally with one half of the river were to remain it would likely have to be the top half, as that is the half that has the spur that allows For the riverboat to leave the park for maintenance.

Well… like in my map above you can keep a spur to the canal. Or you can close the loop and the riverboat is maintained within the park like it’s done at DL, DLP, and Tokyo.

 

[Disone]

Well… like in my map above you can keep a spur to the canal. Or you can close the loop and the riverboat is maintained within the park like it’s done at DL, DLP, and Tokyo.

And catching up with this thread I have missed the post with the map you reference. I guess I just have a preference for keeping a northern loop. It's slightly larger, And due to not being such an almost the perfect circle the southern loop is, the North loop feels more like a river.

But I would be glad if they kept either portion with a running riverboat.