News Cars-Themed Attractions at Magic Kingdom

[Disone]

Well...apparently the masses want and expect more Disney characters, cartoons, movies and songs in Disney parks. This is what's been touted again and again - the "fanatics" here who don't want that are in a minority. The masses also wanted to be able to book LLs in advance just like FP+. The masses wanted a premium LL service like Universal. They also don't like outdated decor.

Disney is indeed giving the people exactly what they want. But you're saying they shouldn't do that? Or are you saying they should do that? I'm confused.

Wow. You're truly drinking the juice if you think every change Disney is currently doing is because that's what the masses want. Some... Maybe but only if it happens to line up with the financials.

 

[BrianLo]

The point has become obscured by some (disingenuous) interjections. Of course most rides feature vehicles that drive themselves... but usually, the vehicles aren't the entire point. An overwhelming majority of rides at WDW are a variation on a dark ride, which emphasizes storytelling and narrative through complicated, multi-media scene building. A few rides take a different approach - AK's Safari, for instance, relies on live animals for interest. Everything we've seen of Cars indicates it is going to be an outdoor trip through more Disney rockwork. The PR material so far has focused on the ride vehicles themselves, attempting to make the "off-roading" vehicles the focus of interest. I and others are arguing that being driven around a bumpy track isn't a substitute for more conventional dark-ride-esque storytelling. Indy or Dinosaur wouldn't be interesting if they were outside through rockwork, however cunningly devised.

It’s not a substitute. That’s why I keep calling it a half terrain roller coaster in disguise. It has far more in common with Big Thunder than Indy.

I personally think the plans to make a phoned in indoor exclusive version of Radiator Springs Racers sounded like a far worse concept. It sounds like you strongly disagree, which is completely fine. It’s the outdoor section of RSR that wows me more than the dark ride.

Placement decision aside; I like that this ride is different than the more common WDW menu.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

It’s the outdoor section of RSR that wows me more than the dark ride.

RSR is the complete package though, both impressive outdoor vistas and elaborate dark ride scenes. Both leisurely drive and thrilling climax. It took the formula set by Journey to the Center of the Earth and gave it a larger scale and satisfactory run time (I 100% prefer the theme of Journey...but it's too short, especially the ending). Not every Cars ride has to be that, though building something comparable in cost and scale while stopping short of the complete package seems like a missed opportunity. That's why I think having multiple rides/attractions sharing the same area would help. The 2nd Cars ride looks to be something small and off to the side and not necessarily integrated.

Comparing this new ride to Big Thunder is interesting, though it also asks the question why when BTMRR is right there.

 

[mickEblu]

The attraction aims to showcase the great outdoors from a Cars perspective, with guests actively participating in mountain-themed fun. It's comparable to our own activities like cave spelunking or rock climbing, but with Cars; they engage in off-roading and racing instead.

The name "rally race" is likely used for alliteration and marketing purposes, rather than being an exact representation of the experience. The attraction includes terrain changes, onboard audio commentary, and obstacles (sometimes other vehicles) to create an enjoyable experience. While speed is involved, it's not the primary focus. RSR's top speed was only 40 mph during its main race portion. It's also likely to have an indoor portion (though hasn't been confirmed) Chances are good that it'll feature elements seen in Piston Peak cartoon shorts. It's expected to have similar thrill levels to RSR.

Right. I’ve learned not to assume anything after I got off Mario Kart the first time wishing it was at least as fast as Mr. Toads Wild Ride. Haha

 

[mickEblu]

So has there been any indication that they re at least shifting there plans to just the upper half of the ROA or is the destruction of the entire ROA/ TSI moving full steam ahead? Sorry, didn’t mean to say full steam ahead. We’re using gasoline now to get around in Frontierland.

 

[Jedi14]

So has there been any indication that they re at least shifting there plans to just the upper half of the ROA or is the destruction of the entire ROA/ TSI moving full steam ahead? Sorry, didn’t mean to say full steam ahead. We’re using gasoline now to get around in Frontierland.

Isn’t the top half being used for Villains?

 

[mickEblu]

Isn’t the top half being used for Villains?

Some of it? They have enough room to do both AND keep the bottom half of the ROA.

 

[Rutt]

I get what you're saying, but the tech is ... a car driving. You're not supposed to be in awe of the self-driving system; you're supposed to feel like one of the vehicles from Cars is driving you around. This seems a sensible means to achieve that. Whether or not the attraction is successful will have a lot more to do with the setting, potential show scenes, indoor sections, and thrill factor than whether or not people still find self-driving technology impressive in a couple decades.

I feel like a lot of people seem to miss a lot of this.

The large majority of Disney park goers are NOT ride enthusiasts. They don't care if its cutting edge.

They're going to become a Car in one of their favorite childhood environments. They're going to see cool landscape and likely some.cool animatronics of the characters. They're going to be largely immersed.

AND it will likely still kick the butt of 99% of anything you'd find elsewhere.

It's like those complaining that there will be talking cars in MK. If hyper reality is your target, MK is probably not where you should start.

 

[UNCgolf]

Side note: The "Cars" branding on this attraction is entirely superfluous and largely irrelevant. The ride they intend to build would be nearly identical in appearance and appeal without it, and only exists to appease a group of morons who can't imagine rides without IP and gift shops. The guests are not so dumb they can't comprehend "car goes fast past mountain" without Pixar's name slapped on the marquee.

I don't know if it's irrelevant -- mainly because it limits what they can do with the scenery. A ride like this would be better served with animals scattered throughout, even if was simpler stuff like some bird figures perched on trees etc., but that's not possible with the Cars IP.

Unless they plan to ignore that part of the IP, I guess.

 

[osian]

Wow. You're truly drinking the juice if you think every change Disney is currently doing is because that's what the masses want. Some... Maybe but only if it happens to line up with the financials.

I was actually being sarcastic/ironic. That's why I started it with "apparently", because if a "fanatic" or "purist" moans about IP inclusion the inevitable response is that it's what the people want and expect from Disney parks. What I actually believe is that Disney does not care what people want, the company will do what it wants to do and condition people to want and expect it. It's manipulation, social engineering, or quite simply marketing.

Case in point, I just received a survey invitation about my recent visit to EPCOT. One of the sections was, on a scale of 1-10, how interested are you in a. Disney (I assume they mean the brand and its media rather than the parks), b. Pixar, c. Marvel, d. Star Wars.

I would imagine most people "don't mind" watching the output of these studios so will indicate some sort of interest. Disney will use those responses to justify the obsession with making every attraction in EPCOT an IP attraction. If Star Wars scores more highly on the interest level than any of the others, the next attraction in EPCOT will be Star Wars. The answers to those questions don't indicate what people *want*. Disney didn't ask them what they wanted.

Obviously I answered "not at all interested" to all of those.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

I don't know if it's irrelevant -- mainly because it limits what they can do with the scenery. A ride like this would be better served with animals scattered throughout, even if was simpler stuff like some bird figures perched on trees etc., but that's not possible with the Cars IP.

Unless they plan to ignore that part of the IP, I guess.

RSR has vegetation (faux and real) plus rockwork, but no animals. Not even ones shaped like Cars. I guess it would be more of the same here. I agree this new ride would be better with some kind of wildlife.

You don't notice it on RSR, but having no animals at all in an area that's allegedly about nature and wilderness (next to Tiana's Bayou and the Country Bears) makes the Cars IP an even poorer fit.

 

[BrianLo]

RSR is the complete package though, both impressive outdoor vistas and elaborate dark ride scenes. Both leisurely drive and thrilling climax. It took the formula set by Journey to the Center of the Earth and gave it a larger scale and satisfactory run time (I 100% prefer the theme of Journey...but it's too short, especially the ending). Not every Cars ride has to be that, though building something comparable in cost and scale while stopping short of the complete package seems like a missed opportunity. That's why I think having multiple rides/attractions sharing the same area would help. The 2nd Cars ride looks to be something small and off to the side and not necessarily integrated.

Comparing this new ride to Big Thunder is interesting, though it also asks the question why when BTMRR is right there.

No doubt, RSR is and will be better. As you know I was already opposed to cars even when we thought it was beyond big thunder. But I appreciate this attraction is not trying to just be a worse RSR. That’s really the one thing I actually like. So for me, the vehicle differentiation and ride feel helps tremendously. Ironically, it would in some ways have made sense to have had a role reversal and this had been in DCA, since this is clearly going for modern Yosemite.

As for Big Thunder, I noted this earlier that the projects feel approved in a vacuum since there’s another coaster destined to also be placed beside Big Thunder. Two picked projects further vying against a princess log flume, the possible selections for MK all felt a little redundant. Coco being the exception.

I think the logic really came down to “which project can replace SDMT, and which project can replace Tron for LLSP”

 

[MisterPenguin]

Some of it? They have enough room to do both AND keep the bottom half of the ROA.

If the combined new lands are as big as SWL (14 acres), the only way the upper half of RoA survives is if Villains extends past the train berm.

 

[Brer Panther]

I don't know if it's irrelevant -- mainly because it limits what they can do with the scenery. A ride like this would be better served with animals scattered throughout, even if was simpler stuff like some bird figures perched on trees etc., but that's not possible with the Cars IP.

Normal animals might actually exist in the Cars universe, actually... this background character has lawn flamingos that don't look like any type of vehicle...

You can also see normal birds (the same ones from the PIXAR short For the Birds) on a power line at one point in the first movie during the "Life is a Highway" scene. So...

 

[mickEblu]

If the combined new lands are as big as SWL (14 acres), the only way the upper half of RoA survives is if Villains extends past the train berm.

I think Villains should/ will be large but does the Cars ride/ land have to be 14 acres though? If they just keep it as a ride in Frontierland beyond Big Thunder?

Is it not possible to extend past the train berm?

You mean lower half of ROA right?

 

[MisterPenguin]

I think Villains should/ will be large but does the Cars ride/ land have to be 14 acres though? If they just keep it as a ride in Frontierland beyond Big Thunder?

Is it not possible to extend past the train berm?

You mean lower half of ROA right?

It was said by Josh or some Disney PR that it was as big as SWL, which is 14 acres.

All of RoA and the surrounding swamp up to the train berm is 14 acres, so...

It is possible to go past the berm. But the watershed permits only show lay-down yards past the berm.

Looking at a map, the Liberty Belle port is in the lower part of RoA, i.e., to the south. That's where Cars is definitely going.

To the north is the upper loop where where Villains is *likely* to go, as I surmise. But, it *could* be past the berm. We don't know for sure yet.

 

[ToTBellHop]

They just boxed in the speedway with Tron and dramatically limited what can be done in that spot.

It’s still large enough to fit something as big as IASW or Mansion.

 

[MisterPenguin]

It’s still large enough to fit something as big as IASW or Mansion.

OR... an electric vehicle version of Speedway with double helixes.

 

[GoofGoof]

OR... an electric vehicle version of Speedway with double helixes.

Or a DVC lounge and a quick service restaurant that is only open seasonally (3 weeks a year)

 

[GoofGoof]

It’s still large enough to fit something as big as IASW or Mansion.

If they ever get around to using star tours space for something else could they move the simulators there? Star Tours would be a great addition to Tomorrowland.