News Cars-Themed Attractions at Magic Kingdom

[JoeCamel]

Agreed. Autonomous vehicle technology has advanced leaps and bounds in recent years (automated shipping yards, while not this fast, coordinate dozens of Autonomous vehicles and are almost mesmerizing to watch). These vehicles will be in a predictable/routine pathway with no/minimal variables. Is it a risk? Sure, but any new ride system comes with risk. But I think if it's pulled off well, it could be one of the best rides on property!

Still not in the right location, but it should be a fun ride!

That was the argument for Kong too and see how that turned out

 

[Casper Gutman]

I don’t know man, I think it’s good to have new ride systems introduced every now and then. We shouldn’t be relying on the same stuff forever and ever. This is one of the rare times in recent memory Disney appears to actually be trying something new and unique and I feel that’s desperately needed in the parks at the moment.

“New” and “unique” attractions are needed, yes. Technologically ambitious ride systems that excite techy designers but don’t improve the ride experience for guests is not the way to do this. Storytelling using proven tech in clever ways with occasional incremental changes is the way to do this. Trackless systems, autonomous driving, etc… they’re good ONLY to the extent they help the story. When the system takes precedence over narrative and operations - say, when your system requires big, open rooms with perfectly flat floors or breaks down constantly - you’ve made a huge mistake.

 

[MrPromey]

That was the argument for Kong too and see how that turned out

Meh. Disney doesn't seem to lose much sleep over downtime on attractions, anymore.

They just need enough uptime to make sure the people with Premier LL passes, ILL, and VIP tours get a crack at it and if the rest miss out, I guess those folks'll learn to buy one of those options next time.

 

[Gusey]

“New” and “unique” attractions are needed, yes. Technologically ambitious ride systems that excite techy designers but don’t improve the ride experience for guests is not the way to do this. Storytelling using proven tech in clever ways with occasional incremental changes is the way to do this. Trackless systems, autonomous driving, etc… they’re good ONLY to the extent they help the story. When the system takes precedence over narrative and operations - say, when your system requires big, open rooms with perfectly flat floors or breaks down constantly - you’ve made a huge mistake.

Examples of "Technologically ambitious ride systems" that weren't "proven tech" when it opened:

• Matterhorn Bobslelds (first tubular steel continuous track rollercoaster in the world)
• The Enchanted Tiki Room (First use of audio animatronics at a Disney Park)
• Adventures Thru Inner Space (First use of the omnimover ride vehicle)
• Space Mountain at MK (first computer controlled rollercoaster in the world)
• Universe of Energy (Travelling Theater Cars that don't use a track)
• Space Mountain at DLP (first rollercoaster with onboard audio and first full-circuit launch coaster)
• Indiana Jones Adventure (First use of the EMV)
• Pooh's Hunny Hunt (First trackless dark ride)

 

[MrPromey]

“New” and “unique” attractions are needed, yes. Technologically ambitious ride systems that excite techy designers but don’t improve the ride experience for guests is not the way to do this. Storytelling using proven tech in clever ways with occasional incremental changes is the way to do this. Trackless systems, autonomous driving, etc… they’re good ONLY to the extent they help the story. When the system takes precedence over narrative and operations - say, when your system requires big, open rooms with perfectly flat floors or breaks down constantly - you’ve made a huge mistake.

As much as I've always appreciated Test Track, I feel it's a perfect early example of this problem.

The amount of trouble they had, the delays of getting it open, certain effects never fully working right or causing too much wear on the vehciles, the unexpected maintenance costs - were arguably not worth the final guest experience.

The final guest experience was fun - don't get me wrong - but I'm not sure the result was worth the work it took to get there and I think if they'd had it to do over knowing what they were walking into, they'd have made different choices back then and given how in the previous update, they worked to minimize or flat out remove some of that stuff, I'm guessing they, to some extent, gave up.

 

[yensid1967]

I thought that the Cars land was put on the shelf because of the complaining about demo of Rivers of America and Tom Sawyer Island? I said it before and I'm saying it again...Cars land, whether it be themed as All-Terrain Vehicles, belong in the MAGIC Kingdom...there are other areas that it could fit better...DHS!

 

[SoFloMagic]

It's gonna be hilarious when this closes down daily for a muddy track. But at least all the track rackers they'll need are gonna add some jobs.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

I can only think of a handful of rides at Magic Kingdom that are completely outdoors with uncovered ride vehicles, and none are major attractions that would ruin a guest's day if the weather turned bad they were skipped.

The riverboat has covered decks and Tom Sawyer Island has buildings and caves to explore. Splash and Big Thunder Mountains are a mix of indoor/outdoor. Jungle Cruise only has one indoor scene, but the boats have a canopy over them. The RR trains have open air cars, but a roof on them.

The speedway sometimes floods if the rain gets really bad, (Tomorrowland as a whole kind of does). Florida's climate impacts Test Track even though only one portion of the ride goes outside.

What happens if the track gets wet and water drainage will obviously be a large part of this ride's design.

 

[Fox&Hound]

We are a bunch of whiners on here. This could be good.
Remember it’s not that they built this ride and then said where could it go? Disney wants to get rid of Tom Sawyer’s island and they came up with this to fit that spot.

 

[MisterPenguin]

It's gonna be hilarious when this closes down daily for a muddy track. But at least all the track rackers they'll need are gonna add some jobs.

This has been brought up several times and debunked several times...

The track will not be sand.

The track will not be mud even though you go through shallow puddles and streams.

The track will be cement concrete.

Just like the track at Kilimanjaro Safaris.

The track at KS is not sand, nor mud. It is concrete.

 

[ᗩLᘿᑕ ✨ ᗩζᗩᗰ]

This has been brought up several times and debunked several times...

The track will not be sand.

The track will not be mud even though you go through shallow puddles and streams.

The track will be cement concrete.

Just like the track at Kilimanjaro Safaris.

The track at KS is not sand, nor mud. It is concrete.

Correct! Per Dynamic's sell sheet:

TERRAIN STYLES
• Sculpted cement
• Custom designed for desired experience
• Terrain changes
• Water features
• Variety of show package elements
• Themed sets

 

[SoFloMagic]

This has been brought up several times and debunked several times...

The track will not be sand.

The track will not be mud even though you go through shallow puddles and streams.

The track will be cement concrete.

Just like the track at Kilimanjaro Safaris.

The track at KS is not sand, nor mud. It is concrete.

So it's gonna radiator springs racers but with more hills and no slot in the middle?

 

[Casper Gutman]

We are a bunch of whiners on here. This could be good.
Remember it’s not that they built this ride and then said where could it go? Disney wants to get rid of Tom Sawyer’s island and they came up with this to fit that spot.

They didn’t come up with it to “fit the spot.” The franchise was mandated because of merch sales. Appropriateness for the location was an afterthought at best. There is little to no encouraging information about this rides development.

 

[Casper Gutman]

This has been brought up several times and debunked several times...

The track will not be sand.

The track will not be mud even though you go through shallow puddles and streams.

The track will be cement concrete.

Just like the track at Kilimanjaro Safaris.

The track at KS is not sand, nor mud. It is concrete.

Kilimanjaro Safari with no animals, just rockwork from a direct-to-video sequel.

Tomorrowland Speedway that you can’t drive.

Radiator Springs Racers without the dark ride elements.

It’s “missing the whole point” the ride.

 

[Schmidt]

“New” and “unique” attractions are needed, yes. Technologically ambitious ride systems that excite techy designers but don’t improve the ride experience for guests is not the way to do this. Storytelling using proven tech in clever ways with occasional incremental changes is the way to do this. Trackless systems, autonomous driving, etc… they’re good ONLY to the extent they help the story. When the system takes precedence over narrative and operations - say, when your system requires big, open rooms with perfectly flat floors or breaks down constantly - you’ve made a huge mistake.

You are coming to a lot of your own conclusions here! There is still so much we don’t know about this ride.

 

[Schmidt]

Kilimanjaro Safari with no animals, just rockwork from a direct-to-video sequel.

Tomorrowland Speedway that you can’t drive.

Radiator Springs Racers without the dark ride elements.

It’s “missing the whole point” the ride.

Do we know that there are no dark elements here. There seems to be be a couple of areas that this ride goes into caves or something.

 

[GoofGoof]

Yep, a real Cars Land would be much better at Hollywood. I don't know what is going through these people's heads. They did the same thing with Galaxy's Edge in theming it to something we've never seen. The Movie park should have Movie stuff in it. Tatooine would have been perfect, but instead we got... what is it even called Batu???

I disagree on Galaxy’s Edge. I have other issues with the land but not that it wasn’t a “movie set” land based on a location from an actual movie. I am perfectly fine with the concept that it is a land from the Star Wars Universe where the designers had the freedom to be creative and develop their own workable back story and make the land whatever they wanted. I much prefer a land or ride based on an IP vs a land or ride that is a direct copy of a movie.

Carsland works fine thematically at DCA (is the fictitious town really in Arizona vs CA? who knows, probably….but its a cartoon). I’m not sure it would fit perfectly at DHS except that the park has no real coherent theme anymore so anything probably goes. It works for IOA so I could get on board with just adding it in there as another movie franchise.

My biggest issue with this version of Carsland is what we are losing more than the land itself. The ride looks like it could be cool and might be really fun if done well, but even without the Cars IP an off road race through Frontierland is just bizarre. That land is set in a time before automobiles. The river fits perfectly. TSI fits perfectly. This plan does not.

 

[Starship824]

an off road race through Frontierland is just bizarre. That land is set in a time before automobiles. The river fits perfectly. TSI fits perfectly. This plan does not.

Exactly, if they really want to do this they should just rename the land and call it what it is like Western land or just call it Cars Land. Shoehorning this into frontierland was and still is a horrible idea.

 

[Coaster Lover]

That was the argument for Kong too and see how that turned out

I mean, that was 8 years ago. Back then 4K tvs were only just entering the main stream consumer market, Space X had never launched astronauts into space, and hoverboards (not the cool ones from BTTF but the lame two wheel, self balancing ones) were just getting popular. A lot has changed technologically in that time...

 

[GoofGoof]

We are a bunch of whiners on here.

It’s an iconic part of MK that’s been there since the park opened even though it’s not exactly a people eater anymore. Of course people were not going to be happy. If you want to see real whining go back to the threads when they changed the park specific napkins to generic Disney parks ones

This could be good.
Remember it’s not that they built this ride and then said where could it go? Disney wants to get rid of Tom Sawyer’s island and they came up with this to fit that spot.

I agree. The ride could be really good. Many people don’t like the location so they look to dump on the ride itself too. It’s perfectly acceptable to say I hate the location but I’ll reserve judgement on the ride itself until we see what it’s all about.

I am more disappointed with the loss of the river than TSI itself. I’d have less of an issue if this just replaced TSI or even better just the back half of TSI. They could have kept the river, permanently docked the river boat and maybe even build permanent bridges from both sides to connect to the new areas. Keep TSI stuff you see from the other side of the river and then build the mountains and cars stuff behind that. Maybe I’m oversimplifying it but that seems doable.