News Cars-Themed Attractions at Magic Kingdom

[Gusey]

Even if Disney decided to build a new restaurant on the island, which would be a new and different use, it would not require everything else to be made accessible. Getting to the island has already been solved in California, the rafts are already flat and rather level loading. Accessible routes only have to be provided between accessible areas. Different types of facilities have different scoping requirements, so even if there was a decision to make everything more accessible what that entails would vary across the entire complex. You’re muddling and overstating the requirements to create the image of an undue burden.

100% get what you are saying and the ADA is definitely fare from perfect. If Disney did decide to make a new restaurant on Tom Sawyer Island (like others have suggested), they at least should have to add an accessible route from the dock to the restaurant, add an accessible dining area in the restaurant and convert the rafts at MK to be like Disneyland's, right? That's what I'm saying would be an investment Disney might not be willing to spend on

 

[lazyboy97o]

100% get what you are saying and the ADA is definitely fare from perfect. If Disney did decide to make a new restaurant on Tom Sawyer Island (like others have suggested), they at least should have to add an accessible route from the dock to the restaurant, add an accessible dining area in the restaurant and convert the rafts at MK to be like Disneyland's, right? That's what I'm saying would be an investment Disney might not be willing to spend on

You are making the very same bad argument that people who don’t want to provide accessibility make. You are overstating the costs associated with providing access. Just the operational needs of a restaurant is going to require elements that get you most of the way to being wheelchair accessible. The investment would not be too great.

 

[Gusey]

You are making the very same bad argument that people who don’t want to provide accessibility make. You are overstating the costs associated with providing access. Just the operational needs of a restaurant is going to require elements that get you most of the way to being wheelchair accessible. The investment would not be too great.

Well accessibility in the restaurant itself would obviously be incorporated in the design of the restaurant. The extra investment would be for the new rafts and the accessible route on the island. It just goes back to the question of how much was Disney willing to update the island or was it just easier for them to close it and replace it with another attraction

 

[DisneyHead123]

Even based on what we have, I could use the aesthetics card to its advantage, at least in terms of concept and choice. I believe Frontierland is the land that inevitably needed an update in its aesthetics, even if they wanted to preserve the original concept (it doesn’t feel on par with the visual appeal presented in the new lands; it doesn’t give me enough fantasy). And remembering how in the 2010s Instagram was flooded with 'aesthetic' photos of Carsland, I can see why they chose to bring the concept to MK. When I saw the concept art, the only thing my eyes focused on was the proposed visual work rather than the IP, the ride system, or the coherence with the rest of the land; it felt fresh, and I felt the same about the other lands in development. They’re something I would want to post on IG or TikTok.

I have my doubts, but I will say this is a fair argument. If they pull it off they pull it off, and then Disney gets a merch income generator while park goers get a great land. Again, the source material of Cars makes me have doubts - lots of doubts - but who knows.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Well accessibility in the restaurant itself would obviously be incorporated in the design of the restaurant. The extra investment would be for the new rafts and the accessible route on the island. It just goes back to the question of how much was Disney willing to update the island or was it just easier for them to close it and replace it with another attraction

That’s an investment that would still be required. They have to get things like supplies to the restaurant and trash out. They’re not going to swim it across and carry it by hand. They’d use something larger and more efficient than a person, something with wheels. Which means they’d already be investing in new rafts or modifications. It also means that they’d already be investing in paths with gradual slopes, minimal cross slopes and a more uniform surface.

Of course Disney decided it was easier. The Rivers have had a target on them for awhile. But it’s not because of the accessibility boogeyman. It’s weird that you don’t recognize that you keep trying to make the bogus argument used by bad actors work.

 

[Gusey]

Of course Disney decided it was easier. The Rivers have had a target on them for awhile. But it’s not because of the accessibility boogeyman. It’s weird that you don’t recognize that you keep trying to make the bogus argument used by bad actors work.

Because I'm not making a bogus argument? Let's agree to disagree at this point. All I've been saying is that accessibility could be a potential reason for Tom Sawyer Island's closing, amongst other reasons. Only Disney knows their reasons for closing the island, but it's going to be multitude of factors, not just "Disney hates the past and Americana"

 

[Schmidt]

OK so I have no facts. That is a fact.

In my opinion, in today's Disney does nothing at the theme parks unless the finance committee shows how it will either reduce costs or make money (or both) over time.

Disney's movie business on the other hand....

In my opinion, in todays Disney, as a company, the guest experience at the parks is not a consideration.
Thank goodness Disney has many cast members that take it upon themselves to try to make our visit magical.

Your response is not related to what I said at all.

In case you didn’t read the first time here is my response again.

“ honestly believe this to be factually inaccurate. I don’t know in what world that removing, filling in a river, putting up an e ticket level attraction is cheaper than maintaining a river. It’s not like the new ride won’t have operational expenses.

This addition isn’t a cost cutting measure.”

Now read what you wrote and tell me how they are related. Stop trying to spin!

 

[Disstevefan1]

Your response is not related to what I said at all.

In case you didn’t read the first time here is my response again.

“ honestly believe this to be factually inaccurate. I don’t know in what world that removing, filling in a river, putting up an e ticket level attraction is cheaper than maintaining a river. It’s not like the new ride won’t have operational expenses.

This addition isn’t a cost cutting measure.”

Now read what you wrote and tell me how they are related. Stop trying to spin!

No spin here, I agree with you destroying ROA and adding cars can't be cheaper than maintaining it.

In my opinion, the finance committee spins a story about how much money they save by destroying and replacing in a existing space instead of expanding into undeveloped land and how much money they can make by putting an attraction in that space and sell LLs for it.

Its all in the spreadsheets.

Do I agree with the destruction of ROA, TSI and the loss of the riverboat? No of course not.

 

[ToTBellHop]

Losing ROA is a leg amputation without anesthesia.

There will be anesthesia.

$5.99 each

$49.99 per 20 oz.

 

[Disstevefan1]

There will be anesthesia.
View attachment 817052
$5.99 each
View attachment 817051
$49.99 per 20 oz.

Oh boy! Great idea! I am going to start collecting ROA water NOW to sell on Ebay

Ah, ROA water 2024, an excellent year!

 

[Mr. Sullivan]

I have my doubts, but I will say this is a fair argument. If they pull it off they pull it off, and then Disney gets a merch income generator while park goers get a great land. Again, the source material of Cars makes me have doubts - lots of doubts - but who knows.

I too don’t really think Cars is the best choice here but I’m personally treating that as a whole separate thing from the aesthetics. I believe this really could be beautiful if done right. We are not getting the same land that is at DCA no, but I think it’s a nice indication that they can ring something beautiful out of a property that isn’t inherently beautiful in and of itself.

Like the post you were responding to mentioned, Frontierland has been due an overhaul. It aesthetically has aged a lot and doesn’t have the same energy and spirit that the other lands in the park do.

I am absolutely not sold yet on the chosen IP and will not be sold until it’s done. But I don’t think getting rid of the Rivers is inherently a poor choice as long as what goes on top of it is also pretty and gives the land some much needed rejuvenated energy. It’s long been a tired part of the park.

If they screw it up, I’ll be the first to say it was a mistake. But in concept, this isn’t the horrible idea that many are making it out to be. Replacing the River with something new that is also pretty but injects some needed life into the land while also giving MK something unique to it (which it desperately needs). The IP is a big question mark though, and I agree with that fear/critique wholeheartedly. They gotta sell me and many others on that.

But I can’t get behind the idea that we’re losing something pretty to gain something ugly because that remains to be seen.

 

[DisneyHead123]

I too don’t really think Cars is the best choice here but I’m personally treating that as a whole separate thing from the aesthetics. I believe this really could be beautiful if done right. We are not getting the same land that is at DCA no, but I think it’s a nice indication that they can ring something beautiful out of a property that isn’t inherently beautiful in and of itself.

Like the post you were responding to mentioned, Frontierland has been due an overhaul. It aesthetically has aged a lot and doesn’t have the same energy and spirit that the other lands in the park do.

I am absolutely not sold yet on the chosen IP and will not be sold until it’s done. But I don’t think getting rid of the Rivers is inherently a poor choice as long as what goes on top of it is also pretty and gives the land some much needed rejuvenated energy. It’s long been a tired part of the park.

If they screw it up, I’ll be the first to say it was a mistake. But in concept, this isn’t the horrible idea that many are making it out to be. Replacing the River with something new that is also pretty but injects some needed life into the land while also giving MK something unique to it (which it desperately needs). The IP is a big question mark though, and I agree with that fear/critique wholeheartedly. They gotta sell me and many others on that.

But I can’t get behind the idea that we’re losing something pretty to gain something ugly because that remains to be seen.

Funnily enough, I think I’m biased against this IP because I’m the target audience, lol. Or at least my family is. Hotwheels are something I clean up about twice a day until I give up and let my living room be chaos. Quite frankly I’m kinda sick of looking at them and don’t particularly want to pay to go to a Disney park to see more of them. If it would bring some kind of magic into my son’s life, sure, but in reality I think he’d be happier going to Target and just buying a giant Hotwheels set.

I agree that it’s not impossible to make this IP work. I also think it’s important to note that Disney has struggled with presumably “easier” IPs in the recent past though. Plenty of people have been unhappy with Tiana, Star Wars, and Toy Story in the parks. Those should probably have been easier to assimilate in a charming manner - so what are the chances that they beat the odds to make Cars something really immersive and appealing? Again, I don’t think it’s impossible, but I would feel much better if they had chosen a safer project for this area. New Orleans Square would have been my first pick but Coco would be pretty promising as well. I don’t think Cars will be awful but my best guess is that it ends up being a 5 out of 10. We’ll see though.

 

[Mr. Sullivan]

Funnily enough, I think I’m biased against this IP because I’m the target audience, lol. Or at least my family is. Hotwheels are something I clean up about twice a day until I give up and let my living room be chaos. Quite frankly I’m kinda sick of looking at them and don’t particularly want to pay to go to a Disney park to see more of them. If it would bring some kind of magic into my son’s life, sure, but in reality I think he’d be happier going to Target and just buying a giant Hotwheels set.

I agree that it’s not impossible to make this IP work. I also think it’s important to note that Disney has struggled with presumably “easier” IPs in the recent past though. Plenty of people have been unhappy with Tiana, Star Wars, and Toy Story in the parks. Those should probably have been easier to assimilate in a charming manner - so what are the chances that they beat the odds to make Cars something really immersive and appealing? Again, I don’t think it’s impossible, but I would feel much better if they had chosen a safer project for this area. New Orleans Square would have been my first pick but Coco would be pretty promising as well. I don’t think Cars will be awful but my best guess is that it ends up being a 5 out of 10. We’ll see though.

That’s a fair question to ask! While I like Tiana’s and Galaxy’s Edge (I like the attractions of Toy Story Land but the land itself I don’t much care for), you’re right in that they didn’t earn the sort of universal acclaim that some other projects have.

I guess I am less nervous that it will turn out badly because they created something great with Cars once for one, and two they already have another land that they can model this off of (Grizzly Peak). If they marry the aesthetic beauty of Grizzly Peak with the charm and attention to detail of Cars Land I think that it’ll be fine.

The only part I’m concerned about is what steps they take (or don’t take) to actually achieve the conceptual justification of Cars in this area. That part is what they’re gonna have to sell me on. If they can successfully story wise justify it then I’ll be on board with the IP. At the moment, I’m just on board with the core concept of overhauling Frontierland into something more unique and wider in scope.

 

[DisneyHead123]

That’s a fair question to ask! While I like Tiana’s and Galaxy’s Edge (I like the attractions of Toy Story Land but the land itself I don’t much care for), you’re right in that they didn’t earn the sort of universal acclaim that some other projects have.

I guess I am less nervous that it will turn out badly because they created something great with Cars once for one, and two they already have another land that they can model this off of (Grizzly Peak). If they marry the aesthetic beauty of Grizzly Peak with the charm and attention to detail of Cars Land I think that it’ll be fine.

The only part I’m concerned about is what steps they take (or don’t take) to actually achieve the conceptual justification of Cars in this area. That part is what they’re gonna have to sell me on. If they can successfully story wise justify it then I’ll be on board with the IP. At the moment, I’m just on board with the core concept of overhauling Frontierland into something more unique and wider in scope.

You’re significantly more optimistic than I am but, again, we’ll see! I differ in that I don’t feel Frontierland needed an overhaul, but have some common ground in that I am not 100% opposed to it on principle alone. As I’ve said before, my standard is that whatever replaces what they demolish should be a clear improvement, not a downgrade or even a lateral move.

 

[& 9 thanks Jerry!]

Keep the river, and we can have boats, cars, and trains all interacting, criss-crossing through tunnels and over bridges.

That is Walt-ish, but that is expensive (and creative) and, so, will not happen.

Is this a good time to work on this adventure in the first place? The future can may be less expensive because of living costs. However, Disney is still so very exciting for everyone!

 

[Animaniac93-98]

The Rivers have had a target on them for awhile.

Which for a park with a long history of abandoned attraction and guest space makes it remarkable that its lasted this long.

It would have been very easy for Disney to shut down the whole island, not just Aunt Polly's, and let it sit there.

That its stayed open would suggest it has some value and gets some use. The Island is not open all day and night, which cuts down on staffing. It doesn't have elaborate effects that require constant upkeep or energy to use. It gives people a place to go to during mid-day crowds and the park doesn't have other play areas for older kids, or many walk throughs that different generations can enjoy together.

 

[UNCgolf]

I think this concept would be better if it wasn't a Cars attraction -- not because I am opposed to Cars in general, but because it feels like it's going to really limit what this specific planned ride can offer. A themed outdoor ride through beautiful scenery with some interesting show scenes could be a fantastic attraction, but adding the Cars IP removes a lot of options.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

I think this concept would be better if it wasn't a Cars attraction -- not because I am opposed to Cars in general, but because it feels like it's going to really limit what this specific planned ride can offer. A themed outdoor ride through beautiful scenery with some interesting show scenes could be a fantastic attraction, but adding the Cars IP removes a lot of options.

This is a side effect of the IP mandate. An idea that has potential on paper becomes restricted by the in universe logic of the source material. In this case, a world without humans or their history and a wilderness shaped like car parts.

 

[TomboyJanet]

So is their thinking here "Route 66 is so old now it's part of the old west?" Are the 1960s now considered the old west era? I just can't begin to understand the thought process. It's like six flags putting batman in it's wild west area. I don't even understand how they will stifle the noise enough to not make the old west area sound like a tourist attraction on a freeway.

The atmosphere was perfect before, as the Haunted Mansion here is "Hudson river style" it sat on a river of America. The Liberty Belle seemed to tour all kinds of old Americana historic feelings. This also is the superior TSI with the fort.

No matter how many times I look at the low rez renderings, I can't seem to understand what the area around CBJ is going to look like. I see it there but it looks like nothing else near it that doesn't look like a vague AI mash. I mean the smart thing to do would be to build buildings across from it to at least create a downtown western town area but no....they gotta put some bland things that I can't tell if they are snowy mountains or the comet ice from the old Star Tours, after falling in the river somehow.

I prob posted in this thread before but I can't find it, and I always mix up where I complained.

 

[TomboyJanet]

I think this concept would be better if it wasn't a Cars attraction -- not because I am opposed to Cars in general, but because it feels like it's going to really limit what this specific planned ride can offer. A themed outdoor ride through beautiful scenery with some interesting show scenes could be a fantastic attraction, but adding the Cars IP removes a lot of options.

I agree. I think the problem is Disney doesn't have modern wild west ip that actually worked, at least the problem in the limited minds of the current team. I would have gone with Western River If I had to choose. That thing SERIOUSLY needs to be made. A boat ride with bandits and dynamite and canyons and stuff that's not something you can really find. Knott's comes close with Timber Mountain, and there was once a bugs bunny ride like that in Six Flags Over Texas I think, but I can't think of anything else. There is no reason why they shouldn't build it except for their current obsession with IP. Disney used to stand above Universal because it created original attractions without IP needed, but still created an atmosphere all of their own. The S.E.A. Thing was so promising but where did they take it?