News Cars-Themed Attractions at Magic Kingdom

WaltWiz1901

Well-Known Member
I don't get it when to me Cars Land in DCA is more popular and iconic than Galaxy's Edge. Galaxy's Edge got two same lands in the domestic parks but they don't want to do the same with Cars. I get that they want to keep something unique especially to DCA but doing that with an IP franchise shouldn't be.
Because building it again on the other side of the country would eliminate/lessen one of the, if not the, main draw(s) to DCA for most, and things like Avengers Campus and Pixar Pier don't seem like the sorts to have proverbial feet big enough to fill in the massive shoes left propping the park up (at least in their current states)
Galaxy's Edge didn't need two lands, should of kept it WDW exclusive.
Or make each Star Wars land unique to the park it's in - in other words, have the DL land set on a different planet and maybe in a different trilogy from WDW's (and vice versa).

Betting you Imagineering would've done that had they designed the two lands under management whose chief focus wasn't on chasing the Wizarding World
 
Last edited:

Bocabear

Well-Known Member
Because building it again on the other side of the country would eliminate one of the, if not the, main draw(s) to DCA for most, and things like Avengers Campus and Pixar Pier don't seem like the sorts to have proverbial feet big enough to fill in the massive shoes left propping the park up (at least in their current states)

Or make each Star Wars land unique from each other - in other words, have the DL land set on a different planet and maybe in a different trilogy than WDW's (and vice versa).

Betting you Imagineering would've done that had they designed the two lands under management whose chief focus wasn't on chasing the Wizarding World
That actually would have been a great move and would have been more like what The Wizarding World was doing.... instead I think it was more of a savings on plans and creative... Just make adjustments and build the same thing twice... The real head scratcher to me was setting it on a planet that was unknown...
 
This is all boilerplate stuff again that happens with pretty much every water management request. A lot of times the applicant will submit an incomplete application just to get the ball rolling and then have dialogue between the State and the Lead Agency (in this case CFTOD) on how to proceed. The Lead Agency will have their own attorneys and engineers doing a concurrent review for signoff and that’s why they would’ve asked for an extension.
 

Casper Gutman

Well-Known Member
Box office sure makes it look like they should have announced the Moana Adventureland ride that was heavily rumored. That would have been actually adding capacity without removing anything, however, so it probably isn’t as attractive even given the strength of the IP.

Actually, that’s an interesting point - if Cars is such a dynamite IP, why are the films dead? Disney loves sequels, even hastily made ones like Moana 2, and unlike other Pixar products Cars sequels don’t really need to be particularly high quality, so why isn’t Cars 4 at least in production?
 

Advisable Joseph

Well-Known Member
This is all boilerplate stuff again that happens with pretty much every water management request. A lot of times the applicant will submit an incomplete application just to get the ball rolling and then have dialogue between the State and the Lead Agency (in this case CFTOD) on how to proceed. The Lead Agency will have their own attorneys and engineers doing a concurrent review for signoff and that’s why they would’ve asked for an extension.
The RAI (PDF) requests:

Please explore practicable design modifications to reduce or eliminate adverse impacts to
wetland functions. This application does not sufficiently demonstrate that the applicant has
adequately pursued site plan alternatives that eliminate and/or reduce impacts to wetland
functions. Please submit supporting documentation to show how elimination and reduction
was achieved. [Section 10.2.1, Volume I]

Is this normal? I haven't found this sort of language in the other few Disney water management permit applications I looked at for context.

EDIT: Typo
 
Last edited:

rle4lunch

Well-Known Member
Box office sure makes it look like they should have announced the Moana Adventureland ride that was heavily rumored. That would have been actually adding capacity without removing anything, however, so it probably isn’t as attractive even given the strength of the IP.

Actually, that’s an interesting point - if Cars is such a dynamite IP, why are the films dead? Disney loves sequels, even hastily made ones like Moana 2, and unlike other Pixar products Cars sequels don’t really need to be particularly high quality, so why isn’t Cars 4 at least in production?

They're waiting to do the live action remake...:banghead:
 

MisterPenguin

President of Animal Kingdom
Premium Member
Actually, that’s an interesting point - if Cars is such a dynamite IP, why are the films dead? Disney loves sequels, even hastily made ones like Moana 2, and unlike other Pixar products Cars sequels don’t really need to be particularly high quality, so why isn’t Cars 4 at least in production?
Because Cars 2 was bad. Low scores from critics and audience. (And it was bad. This duster ain't defending it.)

So, bad, that it depressed the Box Office of Cars 3 which got good reviews, but Cars 2 scared people away.

People have been saying, of which I personally don't have any evidence or first hand knowledge, that Cars is still doing very well in the merch department.

Also... Cars keeps showing up in parades and projections. And there was a Cars show in DHS*.

Now with the new Piston Peak Land, it wouldn't surprise me if Cars 4 was in development.

*That's MGM, btw, in case you didn't recognize it.
 

TheRealSkull

Well-Known Member
Because Cars 2 was bad. Low scores from critics and audience. (And it was bad. This duster ain't defending it.)

So, bad, that it depressed the Box Office of Cars 3 which got good reviews, but Cars 2 scared people away.

People have been saying, of which I personally don't have any evidence or first hand knowledge, that Cars is still doing very well in the merch department.

Also... Cars keeps showing up in parades and projections. And there was a Cars show in DHS*.

Now with the new Piston Peak Land, it wouldn't surprise me if Cars 4 was in development.

*That's MGM, btw, in case you didn't recognize it.
Apparently Cars 4 was leaked at D23 Brazil in a survey:
1733418698851.png
 
The RAI (PDF) requests:



Is this normal? I haven't found this sort of language in the other few Disney water management permit applications I looked at for context.

EDIT: Typo
It would be consistent with them submitting an incomplete application just for the purposes of getting things moving. The keyword there is "explore." They're asking them to prepare an Alternatives Analysis or some kind of Storm Water Report to see if there's anywhere else the water can go. It's not an argument against the concept, but rather against the completeness of the application. If they were trying to prejudicially disqualify the project, the language would be a lot more loaded, eg "the application fails to demonstrate" etc. Even then there would be remedies. In a lot of states doing a Stormwater Report is a requirement of these applications, but in Florida I believe your Stormwater Master Plan, which Disney and CFTOD submit every year, covers the potential uses so it's not required for every submittal.
 

Nickm2022

Well-Known Member
I think they can just reapply, and have to start the process over, but I’m not sure either.
That's my assumption, but wanted to check. I didn't know if it's like court where you can only file once and that's it or you can just keep applying til it gets through. Especially after the Reedy Creek disbandment. Either way I actually am optimistic that Cars will get done rather quickly since there's only one small show building and most of it is theming outdoor stuff.
 

MisterPenguin

President of Animal Kingdom
Premium Member
What's the likelihood the permits get denied? Not sure how permits really work hence why I ask, and what would happen next?
Unlikely.

Disney wants to do as much as they want for as little cost as possible.

Florida looks at the proposal and says, "Do better."

Disney resubmits a 'better' proposal.

Florida looks at it and says, "Still do better."

Disney resubmits a 'more better' proposal.

Florida looks at it and says, "Fine."
 

peter11435

Well-Known Member
That's my assumption, but wanted to check. I didn't know if it's like court where you can only file once and that's it or you can just keep applying til it gets through. Especially after the Reedy Creek disbandment. Either way I actually am optimistic that Cars will get done rather quickly since there's only one small show building and most of it is theming outdoor stuff.
Not sure why you think cars only has one small show building.
 

Mr. Sullivan

Well-Known Member
And no, a "rally race" would be an incredibly boring ride concept with or without eyes on the cars - and would be just as out of place stuck by Haunted Mansion, Big Thunder, and the rest of Frontierland.
It’s no more out of place than Splash (a ride meant to be based around Georgia) was and Tiana’s (a ride set in Louisiana) is.

Its very clear the purpose here is that Frontierland stops being explicitly visually themed to the wild west aesthetic with the random water ride outlier and instead begins to encompass all of the areas in which America expanded in the years of the frontier.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom