Disstevefan1
Well-Known Member
How with cars you get 4 news rides? The Cars area only has two rides.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News Cars-Themed Attractions at Magic Kingdom
- Thread starter wdwmagic
- Start date
Horizons '83
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- No
I don't think the MK theatre was a dumb idea, it was a much needed people eater and added capacity.
Bocabear
Well-Known Member
The DCA Radiator Springs is pretty amazing... they got everything right...along with a location that was familiar and a place you wanted to visit. I never saw planes...so I have no idea about Piston Peak... it doesn't feel familiar... doesn't look as vast and impressive as Radiator Springs... And with IP I don't know that "originality" is a better factor when trying to use a known franchise...that is the point of using IP... I would love complete originality not attached to IP... if it is IP, then it should at least evoke the locations from the source material... Like a Snow White ride set in Texas Hill Country or Beauty and The Beast set in Fiji...
DisneyHead123
Well-Known Member
I think you’re reading too much into it, personally. If it’s supposed to be sarcasm it comes off as way too earnest, to the point where no one is going to get that it’s sarcasm. Also unlikely someone who works for Disney would be making snarky comments about Disney. Probably just someone who didn’t pick up on the fact that Disney Adult isn’t synonymous with Disney Fan, in terms of tone.
Quietmouse
Well-Known Member
I think the point being is thar Disney has a track record of announcing projects but backtracking later and having projects disappear.
Not necessarily saying this will happens with cars but until shovels are physically hitting the ground it does create a degree of uncertainty due to Disney’s past.
Disstevefan1
Well-Known Member
Please, please, please let this be the case for the destruction of ROA and the Muppets!!
TheRealSkull
Well-Known Member
Ngl, I had wish they built Radiator Springs with a bigger Ornament Valley with the same ride system they are proposing currently. It could have started in Ornament Valley, but the cars could have entered a tunnel and be transported to the mountainous frontier.
This way we get the best of both worlds. Radiator Springs and what they are proposing now. And all built actually beyond Big Thunder. Now that would be a killer transition.
Ghost93
Well-Known Member
Planes is replacing Peter Pan's Flight, not Tom Sawyer.
Schmidt
Well-Known Member
If you spend time on YouTube and wdwmagic trying to get an idea of who that silent majority is, it’s 40-50 yr old males. Not saying we don’t have a point, but I think some of us let nostalgia play a bigger part than it should. The truth is if they execute on Cars, people won’t complain. Remember Pandora? There was a freaking “Never Pandorans” movement for a while there. Once again not saying people are wrong or right but fans sometimes are fanatical. My point is I ain’t Monday Morning quarterbacking this thing. I’ll wait to judge. I can see this working out if Disney wants it too. Maybe I’m being naive but there have been some consistent positive changes happening behind the scenes and I’ll remain cautiously optimistic for now.
Disstevefan1
Well-Known Member
We have seen in the past very loud minorities can force a change.
I hope it happens here.
wannabeBelle
Well-Known Member
I just got done discussing this with a friend, I just simply dont believe that the best choice we have is an either/or solution. Why cant we expand the boundaries of the park? As others have pointed out these are expansion pads that havent been used in 50 years, are we waiting for anything in particular? This also has the added plus of not having a crater of construction in the middle of MK just being an eyesore for a few years. If built behind BTMRR and Tiana's/Splash, that would be minimized. I do think TSI is good for redevelopment and needs to be looked at. I dont think that destroying the ROA is necessary or wise, regardless of how fabulous an attraction would be going in there, simply because it doesnt NEED to be taken away to accommodate the new attraction. Marie
Horizons '83
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- No
Understood, guess I was just commenting on the twitter user. I will say that this project is pretty baked in already with permits already filed, this thing is moving ahead, doubt there will be any change because of some backlash from the minority of their fanbase.
James Alucobond
Well-Known Member
Three of those projects were COVID cancellations and the other had land suitability issues, so I'm not sure what they have to do with the Cars proposal, which has no similar known issues. It's just fans complaining, as they have done with literally every project for at least the past quarter century, to varying degrees of course.
el_super
Well-Known Member
Cost. It's not cost effective to keep expanding out the park if there are areas of the park that are not utilized. Think about the money that has to go into keeping the ROA and TSI open today.l The Cast Members needed to staff these areas and maintain them. And all the auxiliary cast members needed to support those Cast Members. It all adds up pretty quick and it's all costs that have to be handed down to the guests in the form of price increases on admission tickets.
It really is a question of guests wanting to pay for attractions and experiences they won't utilize and whether they will be supportive of continual price increases to pay for it. Democracy in action. No different than TV ratings really.
danlb_2000
Premium Member
I have a hard time believing this. The fact that the concept art and permits were released after D23 indicates that they knew there would be blowback. Also, this isn't just about find a place for the Cars attraction, there is clearly a large decision being made here to eliminate under performing attractions and to re-shape what Frontierland is.
Charlie The Chatbox Ghost
Well-Known Member
Always worth noting: the origin of the term "Disney adult" was from a woman (a Karen, if you will) who was mad that childless adults were having a good day at Disney while she was having an awful time with her kids. Just inherently a bitter term that is used by someone who's mad that other people enjoy something that's not conventionally "mature"!
That said, the term has evolved to pretty much mean "someone who has made Disney their personality/loves everything the Disney company does", so I think there's a difference between "Disney adult" and "adults who like Disney". I would argue that most of us here aren't Disney adults with how much we complain about the company, lmao
bwr827
Well-Known Member
Are you saying it started with Katiebug?
wannabeBelle
Well-Known Member
Yes, I agree cost is certainly a factor. Also I agree about TSI. I am all in favor of a change for that. I had advocated for a retheme for Tiana's area on TSI to include a charming dark ride, as well as a sit down restaurant with a quick service location for beignets!! I dont think we need to lose the ROA is my biggest point. Also is it more cost effective to increase the footprint of the park and have more space for the rest of time versus working within a landlocked area, even if the transition might be easier? As you said this is Democracy in action. If people dont like it, this will be a HUGE hit to the world's most popular theme park. With the new resorts and theme park opening up the road, I dont think Disney can afford to get this wrong. Disney may not agree with me, but I dont see any reason to not look outside the current park boundaries. Cost (within reason) should not be the primary driver for that. What serves the park and guests most should be the primary concern. Marie
Charlie The Chatbox Ghost
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure who that is, but if that's the woman who wrote the article then yes. I forgot to mention she wrote an article on some news site/blog about it where she coined the term.
el_super
Well-Known Member
Keeping operating costs in check, does ultimately serve the park and the guests. If more people utilized the ROA, they wouldn't need to replace it. If enough people used it, they wouldn't be able to remove it even if they wanted to.