Would You Like To See The Cars Land Sci-fi Drive-In Be Resurrected?

[TROR]

This isn’t about how “creative” WDI would have been with one project vs. the other. This is about how imaginative the finished product is to experience. Who cares if the idea for a southwestern town populated with cars originated in a Pixar meeting or a WDI meeting?

There’s this big chip on the shoulders of Disney fans out there that fuels this dislike for IP based attractions / lands. Maybe it’s caused by bitterness from some actual imagineers who are bummed that they have to bring to life popular movie IPs rather than create their own? I don’t know.

But in the end, I judge a theme park designer on their creativity using concrete/steel/paint/math/tech, not their creativity in “new story” generating.

They couldn’t have been as creative with the original idea? All of the good parts of Cars Land would’ve been in Car Land plus more.

 

[britain]

They couldn’t have been as creative with the original idea? All of the good parts of Cars Land would’ve been in Car Land plus more.

In theory, sure, but the best part of Carsland is the full realization of a town and its surrounding natural environment that previously only existed in an animated movie.

If they could do all that AND have Herbie Corner or whatever, fine I guess. Though they risk those generic Car Land elements spoiling the Radiator Springs immersion.

Just like they could (almost did) put the Millennium Falcon in Tomorrowland. It’s a nice try, but do better.

 

[TROR]

In theory, sure, but the best part of Carsland is the full realization of a town and its surrounding natural environment that previously only existed in an animated movie.

If they could do all that AND have Herbie Corner or whatever, fine I guess. Though they risk those generic Car Land elements spoiling the Radiator Springs immersion.

Just like they could (almost did) put the Millennium Falcon in Tomorrowland. It’s a nice try, but do better.

But that’s not the best part of Cars Land. Immersion is not the goal of a theme park. Storytelling is.

 

[britain]

But that’s not the best part of Cars Land. Immersion is not the goal of a theme park. Storytelling is.

I hear you, but think that over some more. What’s the story that Car Land would have been able to tell better than Carsland?

If anything, the more immersive, the more specific the details and the less contradictory the designs, more you feel that you are in a story. The more “catch-all” the theme, the less immersive, and the less transported you are into a narrative.

Maybe I’m misunderstanding. Must sleep!

 

[TROR]

I hear you, but think that over some more. What’s the story that Car Land would have been able to tell better than Carsland?

If anything, the more immersive, the more specific the details and the less contradictory the designs, more you feel that you are in a story. The more “catch-all” the theme, the less immersive, and the less transported you are into a narrative.

Must sleep!

Car Land would more effectively tell the story of midcentury car culture of California.

 

[britain]

Car Land would more effectively tell the story of midcentury car culture of California.

And that’s what I mean by DCA 1.0, and not imaginative.

I really must sleep, I’m coming off as mean.

 

[TROR]

And that’s what I mean by DCA 1.0, and not imaginative.

I really must sleep, I’m coming off as mean.

Our disagreement here is that you think DCA 1.0 was bad because of its ideas and I think DCA 1.0 was bad because of its budget. California's history is a great theme for a park and perfectly complements Disneyland across the way.

Just because we're talking about Car Land, here's two quick pictures showing its overview (concept art and model), the latter of which is apparently not online anywhere and I had to grab from the second Imagineering book.

If you actually look on the wall behind Kevin Rafferty, you can see how much better of a layout Car Land would've had. Instead of a single street with everything on it, there would've been more to explore and allow the guest to really get swallowed by the land. Even the entrance just feels more natural than a sudden street starting off the parade route. There's also some concept art on that back wall for Car Land that I can't find anywhere else.

 

[Kram Sacul]

I hate shoehorning IPs everywhere but I'm pretty happy with how Carsland turned out.

 

[Californian Elitist]

This isn’t about how “creative” WDI would have been with one project vs. the other. This is about how imaginative the finished product is to experience. Who cares if the idea for a southwestern town populated with cars originated in a Pixar meeting or a WDI meeting?

There’s this big chip on the shoulders of Disney fans out there that fuels this dislike for IP based attractions / lands. Maybe it’s caused by bitterness from some actual imagineers who are bummed that they have to bring to life popular movie IPs rather than create their own? I don’t know.

But in the end, I judge a theme park designer on their creativity using concrete/steel/paint/math/tech, not their creativity in “new story” generating.

What does a Pixar meeting have to do with this?

I know what it’s about, imagination. And my point still stands.

 

[Californian Elitist]

Our disagreement here is that you think DCA 1.0 was bad because of its ideas and I think DCA 1.0 was bad because of its budget. California's history is a great theme for a park and perfectly complements Disneyland across the way.

Just because we're talking about Car Land, here's two quick pictures showing its overview (concept art and model), the latter of which is apparently not online anywhere and I had to grab from the second Imagineering book.

View attachment 375305

View attachment 375306

If you actually look on the wall behind Kevin Rafferty, you can see how much better of a layout Car Land would've had. Instead of a single street with everything on it, there would've been more to explore and allow the guest to really get swallowed by the land. Even the entrance just feels more natural than a sudden street starting off the parade route. There's also some concept art on that back wall for Car Land that I can't find anywhere else.

Let me help you out...

This is the drive-in (the whole point of this thread) that we were supposed to get, but instead we got Flo’s...

Here are bonus photos of what could have been the Goofy road trip attraction:

And extra bonus, an L.A. Times article explaining what Car Land would have been, once again, had Lasseter kept his big mouth shut:

Redirect Notice

www.google.com

One long street versus what looks like an entire town. *sigh*

Reading about the concept and looking at these photos, it’s quite obvious to me that Car Land would have been the better choice and would have had more potential for growth and change. Cars Land doesn’t have much room for expansion and growth because anything that goes there must be related to the movie Cars or else it won’t make sense.

 

[Phroobar]

There still is an expansion pad for the carsland drive in theater behind Luigi's. IIRC it was to feature drive in commercials similar to the scifi dine-in but cars themed. Kind of like the ones at the end of the movie.

 

[EPCOTCenterLover]

Were you all looking for this?

 

[truecoat]

There still is an expansion pad for the carsland drive in theater behind Luigi's. IIRC it was to feature drive in commercials similar to the scifi dine-in but cars themed. Kind of like the ones at the end of the movie.

Is the area in red the one you are talking about? Disregard the arrow.

 

[Phroobar]

Is the area in red the one you are talking about? Disregard the arrow.

View attachment 375398

That's the place.

 

[Rich T]

I love Cars Land. I love the whole world of Cars; it's warm, funny and full of awful puns. This is one case where I don't mind a movie being replicated as accurately as possible because the result was lovely (and warm, funny and full of awful puns.) It looks enough like a real small southwestern town that non-fans can enjoy the relaxing vibe and nice view while tuning out the fantasy aspects. It works both ways, which is unique. Seriously, I would have nearly zero interest in a land that celebrated real California Car Culture. Because real California Car Culture is all over the place in real California. I go to Disney to...y'know, visit worlds of Yesterday, Tomorrow and Fantasy. Cars Land is fantasy.

Regarding the Drive In: No. The concept never really appealed to me, because my family and I like to talk to each other during meals, and the less noisy and distracting the surroundings, the better. Also, Flo's is one of my favorite restaurants in the whole resort, and I wouldn't like to see business taken away from it; it seems to handle the crowds well. Another eatery isn't necessary.

I do wish they'd do something more interesting with the Filmore area, and I wouldn't mind seeing a compact Autopia style ride (with Cars character vehicles) installed where Rollicking Roadsters now sits. That way Disney can bulldoze Autopia without taking away that particular ride experience.

 

[truecoat]

That's the place.

This is the same plot of land rumored to be for a small attraction at one point. It's interesting that they haven't moved on that Drive in by now. It's been 7 years and DCA is lacking in sit down restaurants.

 

[britain]

What does a Pixar meeting have to do with this?

I know what it’s about, imagination. And my point still stands.

Meaning Radiator Springs is an imaginative concept - a great place for a movie and a great place for a theme park. Just because the movie came first and WDI is "copying/pasting" what Pixar invented doesn't make Radiator Springs not imaginative.

The Millennium Falcon was designed by Joe Johnston back in 1976. Does that make the experience of going on Smuggler's Run in just a few days NOT imaginative? Neverland was dreamed up by James M. Barrie in 1904. How horribly unimaginative of WDI to take you on a trip to Neverland via Shanghai Disneyland in 2015.

There's a difference between 'new' and 'imaginative'.

 

[Rich T]

Let me help you out...

View attachment 375309

View attachment 375310

This is the drive-in (the whole point of this thread) that we were supposed to get, but instead we got Flo’s...

View attachment 375311
Here are bonus photos of what could have been the Goofy road trip attraction:

View attachment 375315

View attachment 375314

And extra bonus, an L.A. Times article explaining what Car Land would have been, once again, had Lasseter kept his big mouth shut:

Redirect Notice

www.google.com

One long street versus what looks like an entire town. *sigh*

Reading about the concept and looking at these photos, it’s quite obvious to me that Car Land would have been the better choice and would have had more potential for growth and change. Cars Land doesn’t have much room for expansion and growth because anything that goes there must be related to the movie Cars or else it won’t make sense.

I agree with a lot (probably most) of your views about DLR, but I just don't like those concept drawings for a Car Culture land; much of this looks like all the worst DCA 1.0 ideas multiplied by 4. It's like Superstar Limo brought outdoors.

BUT, as much as I love Cars Land, I'm okay with the idea of a future compromise: The main street of Radiator Springs could someday be transformed into a non-Cars related little town focused around car culture. The mountain range and the area around RSR up to and including Flo's can stay as-is; that would be plenty of representation for the Cars franchise (maybe even move Mater's ride to the Luigi site).

 

[SuddenStorm]

Big boo to all of this...

There’s nothing special about a recreation of a fictional place in a movie for what’s supposed to be a themed land at a Disney park. Nothing special at all. Radiator Springs was already laid out, the Imagineers didn’t have to do anything when designing and choosing things to go in and placement. How is that special?

Couldn’t care less about the Cadillac mountain range. It’s beautiful to look at, sure, but again, it’s a replica of what has already been created in a movie.

Even worse.... the land's main ride literally just takes you through the land you just walked through and various other scenes direct from the film.

 

[Rich T]

Even worse.... the land's main ride literally just takes you through the land you just walked through and various other scenes direct from the film.

Where else are they going to take you? OH MY GOSH Peter Pan's Flight takes me to NEVERLAND???? Alice takes me to a TEA PARTY when I just walked past one outside? A Cars dark ride HAS to take you through Radiator Springs. There's no other iconic location in the entire franchise to go!

Seriously, I'm okay walking through a life-size functioning Radiator Springs and then riding through a scaled-down version actually populated by believably "living" cars. It's just a theme park.