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

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


  • Total voters
    89

TROR

Well-Known Member
For someone that claims they don't want the land based on IP you just got sold on a land based on IP.
1. My problem isn't that Cars Land is based on an IP, it's that it's the weaker of the two options when it comes to telling the story of car culture in California.
2. Car Land wouldn't have had Toad's Wild Ride as one of the attractions. It would've had that same feel (the same feel as Grease, as Back to the Future, etc.) because that's what midcentury car culture in California was. I'm sold on a land that replicates those same aesthetics, tone, and themes, not the same characters.
 

Californian Elitist

Well-Known Member
1. My problem isn't that Cars Land is based on an IP, it's that it's the weaker of the two options when it comes to telling the story of car culture in California.
2. Car Land would've have had Toad's Wild Ride as one of the attractions. It would've had that same feel (the same feel as Grease, as Back to the Future, etc.) because that's what midcentury car culture in California was. I'm sold on a land that replicates those same aesthetics, tone, and themes, not the same characters.

Yep.
 

Disney Irish

Premium Member
1. My problem isn't that Cars Land is based on an IP, it's that it's the weaker of the two options when it comes to telling the story of car culture in California.
2. Car Land would've have had Toad's Wild Ride as one of the attractions. It would've had that same feel (the same feel as Grease, as Back to the Future, etc.) because that's what midcentury car culture in California was. I'm sold on a land that replicates those same aesthetics, tone, and themes, not the same characters.
My problem with that is, most Californians don't care about the midcentury car culture in California anymore. You either lived it and will laugh at the attempt to try and capture what it was in a theme park, or you were born after it and don't really care. Its the same reason why most Californians don't care about a park dedicated to a state they already live in.
 

Disney Irish

Premium Member
But not as good! Since it wouldn't be Mel's Drive In, etc. etc.

I find this desire to go out of the way to avoid replicating something that appeared in a film to be actually shooting otherwise good design in the proverbial foot, so to speak.

I've got a big write up now on this subject... should I post it here, or take the dive and make a vlog?
Post it here.
 

TROR

Well-Known Member
My problem with that is, most Californians don't care about the midcentury car culture in California anymore. You either lived it and will laugh at the attempt to try and capture what it was in a theme park, or you were born after it and don't really care. Its the same reason why most Californians don't care about a park dedicated to a state they already live in.
The stupidity of this state's residents is its greatest hinderance to excellence.
 

britain

Well-Known Member
The Car Land concept art looks like it would have been a perfectly decent theme park land, and I’m sure we would have been happy with it if it had been built.


But it wouldn’t have captured what I like best (and anecdotally what many people like best) about the Carsland we got: The detailed recreation of Radiator Springs.

It’s interesting - I’m trying to think of an other IP that has as specific a location and that still approximates the size of a practical themed land. If I can find something comparable to Radiator Springs then I can make an analogy.

Hogwarts/Hogsmede is almost in the same ballpark, but the park version compresses a 10-20 square miles or so into a dozen acres. More importantly, while we have a rough expectation of where Hogwarts castle is in relation to Hogsmede, even the most dedicated Potter fans don’t know the locations of which stores are where in Hogsmede.

Star Wars’ most iconic locations are its vehicles (the insides of which its fans know MANY details) and its distinct “worn universe” vibe/style. There’s no particular 14 acres in the Star Wars movies that lend themselves perfectly to 14 acres of Star Wars Land. So a new town was invented, in the right style, with the right vehicles “visiting.”

The best example I can think of to use as my analogy is Back to the Future’s Hill Valley. Much like Radiator Springs in Cars, that town was practically another character in the movie. Like Lightning McQueen inched his way past each establishment as he hauled Bessie, Marty and Doc spend time (rimshot!) at or near the establishments in and around Courthouse Square. Even casual fans of both franchises have a pretty good handle on what goes where in their respective towns.

Now, my analogy...

Carsland, as ultimately built, is like if they built Hill Valley for a Back to the Future Land. And just like I get tickled pink seeing Filmore's right by Sarges, right by Doc Hudson’s, guests visiting Hill Valley would enjoy the malt shop, the Texaco, the movie theater, all where they’re supposed to be.

(Caveat - I don’t know which time period they’d go with for this hypothetical Hill Valley. Either the 50’s or the Future, but pick one and go with it.). The big E ticket would be inside the courthouse of course. But the real magic of this land would lie in the recreation of this town we had only known from a movie. (For the moment imagine it doesn't exist at the Universal backlot.)

Car Land, on the other hand, seems like it would be analogous to a “Time Travel Land”. See, broader theme! Not weighed down by a single IP with a limited shelf life of popularity! You’d still have your big, terrific E ticket inside the iconic Hill Valley Courthouse. And maybe the malt shop too, but what’s this where the Hill Valley movie theater should be? Bill and Ted’s San Dimas High School?! And next to that, parked on the sidewalk? Why the Doctor’s TARDIS of course (making an uncharacteristic visit outside of the UK). And look, see those scorch marks on the pavement? A Terminator must have appeared there!

All well and good for 20th century theme park design. But we’ve gotten better than that, in my opinion. I don’t want to see Goofy in a convertible going on a road trip while still within eye-shot of Lighting McQueen, anymore than I want to see San Dimas High next to the Hill Valley Courthouse.

In that Car Land concept art, I see Luigi’s, but what’s this big block of buildings right across from there? That’s not what should be across the street from the Casa Della Tires. It may be a swell attraction about mid century California car culture, but its placement is screwing up the illusion of actually being at Luigi’s. My brain will try to make explanations (Maybe this is a new franchise location for Casa Della Tires? Luigi’s West Coast campus?) and maybe the typical guest wouldn’t care.

Why make a generic “Marty’s” 50s diner (ironic name, in light of my Back to the Future analogy) when by building Flo’s instead, you still got a 50’s diner but you can ALSO make fans of the Cars movie happy?

Why break into pieces a fan fav fictional town that was practically served up for you on a plate, ready-made by the movie makers, and already perfectly designed for theme park use AND still be pretty darn near screen accurate? Why destroy the immersive illusion of one specific story only to tell a broader catch-all story with a diluted illusion and with contradictory story elements?

Just to be more “creative”?

--End Rant--
 
Last edited:

TROR

Well-Known Member
The Car Land concept art looks like it would have been a perfectly decent theme park land, and I’m sure we would have been happy with it if it had been built.


But it wouldn’t have captured what I like best (and anecdotally what many people like best) about the Carsland we got: The detailed recreation of Radiator Springs.

But I don't care about this and no one else should either. Theme parks are not about immersions. And that's where the rest of your argument falls flat. It doesn't matter how "immersive" the land they built is so long as it takes you out of the real world. This modern idea, thanks to Harry Potter, has taken the focus of storytelling away from theme parks. The original Imagineers were storytellers first and foremost and that's why we have such wonderful attractions as Pirates of the Caribbean in New Orleans Square. No, it doesn't make a lot of sense following your strict location rules, but it's better than anything in Cars Land, Pandora, and Harry Potter. Placing the focus on immersion over storytelling is killing what makes theme parks limitless.
 

Rich T

Well-Known Member
Pero why though? Why would Disney scale back Cars when the land IS Cars?

I just don’t see the point in adding generic car references when the land is very specifically centered around a movie. Would you expect to see a generic, space-related attraction in Galaxy’s Edge? Some random ride about landing on Mars? Or a random fantasy attraction in WWoHP? I don’t see it making sense.

The land will most likely be stagnant, unless they tear it down or continue to replace Luigi’s ride with another boring one. They’re not going to get rid of Racers. There seems to be no movement for Mater’s. The only changes we will most likely see with be new menu items, new merchandise, and holiday overlays.
Good points. Unless another mega-popular car-related IP comes along screaming for DCA inclusion, I guess Filmore, Lizzy and Sarge are safe. :)
 

Disney Irish

Premium Member
But I don't care about this and no one else should either. Theme parks are not about immersions. And that's where the rest of your argument falls flat. It doesn't matter how "immersive" the land they built is so long as it takes you out of the real world. This modern idea, thanks to Harry Potter, has taken the focus of storytelling away from theme parks.
To you, that is what a theme park is.

I'm sorry but you don't speak for the entire theme park going world. This is my problem with these discussions, it ends up somebody telling what the theme park experience should be for everyone else.

Theme parks mean different things to different people. As such the experiences that people want out of their theme parks are also different to different people. And modern theme park goers want more immersive experiences, they have voted with their wallets. You don't have to like it, but its what the guests pay for.
 

britain

Well-Known Member
But I don't care about this and no one else should either. Theme parks are not about immersions. And that's where the rest of your argument falls flat. It doesn't matter how "immersive" the land they built is so long as it takes you out of the real world. This modern idea, thanks to Harry Potter, has taken the focus of storytelling away from theme parks. The original Imagineers were storytellers first and foremost and that's why we have such wonderful attractions as Pirates of the Caribbean in New Orleans Square. No, it doesn't make a lot of sense following your strict location rules, but it's better than anything in Cars Land, Pandora, and Harry Potter. Placing the focus on immersion over storytelling is killing what makes theme parks limitless.


I was about to post an Obi Wan gif of "Well then you are lost!" but thought better of it. :)

I probably have a different understanding of what you mean by immersive and storytelling.

I'd say New Orleans Square is a great example of immersion rather than a great example of storytelling. Pirates of the Caribbean used to be an even stronger example of immersion before it became a specific "everyone is after Jack Sparrow" tale. I can't remember who (Tony Baxter? Marty Sklar?) who said this emphasis on storytelling has gone overboard during the past few decades. Compare the open ended "it means whatever you want it to mean" nature of the 1969 Haunted Mansion to the "There's some plot I'm supposed to follow here" nature of 1992 Phantom Manor, and the "there's definitely a plot here and I can rule out fan theories" nature of the 2019 Phantom Manor.

And again, I think you can tell stronger stories by being more immersive. I don't know how the Wizarding World lands would be able to tell stronger stories by having vaguer allusions and recreations of the specific places from the films/books.
 

TROR

Well-Known Member
To you, that is what a theme park is.

I'm sorry but you don't speak for the entire theme park going world. This is my problem with these discussions, it ends up somebody telling what the theme park experience should be for everyone else.

Theme parks mean different things to different people. As such the experiences that people want out of their theme parks are also different to different people. And modern theme park goers want more immersive experiences, they have voted with their wallets. You don't have to like it, but its what the guests pay for.
It's not to me, it's to the original crafters of Disneyland who effectively defined what we think of as a theme park.

I was about to post an Obi Wan gif of "Well then you are lost!" but thought better of it. :)

I probably have a different understanding of what you mean by immersive and storytelling.

I'd say New Orleans Square is a great example of immersion rather than a great example of storytelling. Pirates of the Caribbean used to be an even stronger example of immersion before it became a specific "everyone is after Jack Sparrow" tale. I can't remember who (Tony Baxter? Marty Sklar?) who said this emphasis on storytelling has gone overboard during the past few decades. Compare the open ended "it means whatever you want it to mean" nature of the 1969 Haunted Mansion to the "There's some plot I'm supposed to follow here" nature of 1992 Phantom Manor, and the "there's definitely a plot here and I can rule out fan theories" nature of the 2019 Phantom Manor.

And again, I think you can tell stronger stories by being more immersive. I don't know how the Wizarding World lands would be able to tell stronger stories by having vaguer allusions and recreations of the specific places from the films/books.
Oh, I certainly agree story telling has gone overboard but that's because they're making attempts to be immersive. Look at Mystic Manor and how it explains the ride vehicles to you and why they exist. That's so dumb. I don't need that told to me to make me enjoy the attraction. I don't need to be told why I'm riding in a caterpillar to enjoy the story of Alice in Wonderland. This hyper storytelling as of the late is a side effect of hyper immersion, not the other way around. Good storytelling creates good immersion, as seen with Pirates, but good immersion doesn't necessarily create good storytelling, as seen with Radiator Springs.
 

britain

Well-Known Member
And I'm totally cool with the wacky way Pirates goes from a grand New Orleans city building to a bayou right beyond the threshold of its front doors. It's part of the quirkiness that makes Disneyland unique. But every Pirates since then (other than copycat Tokyo) has deemed it more appropriate to start the story off with a fortress exterior that matches its fortress interior.
 

Rich T

Well-Known Member
Just as a side bit: Dollywood built a pretty sweet little hot-rod themed area. But that was all in support of a huge, mega-scary car-themed roller coaster. I like it better in Dollywood than I would have in DCA..
d1.jpg
d2.jpg
 

Disney Irish

Premium Member
And I'm totally cool with the wacky way Pirates goes from a grand New Orleans city building to a bayou right beyond the threshold of its front doors. It's part of the quirkiness that makes Disneyland unique. But every Pirates since then (other than copycat Tokyo) has deemed it more appropriate to start the story off with a fortress exterior that matches its fortress interior.
Exactly, they learned from their original incarnation of the attraction. They grew in the art form so to speak.
 

TROR

Well-Known Member
And I'm totally cool with the wacky way Pirates goes from a grand New Orleans city building to a bayou right beyond the threshold of its front doors. It's part of the quirkiness that makes Disneyland unique. But every Pirates since then (other than copycat Tokyo) has deemed it more appropriate to start the story off with a fortress exterior that matches its fortress interior.
Yet Disneyland's original incarnation is still the best of all that have been built due to its masterfully crafted storytelling of taking guests back through time with each act of the show.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom