Can the Cars Franchise Fit Frontierland?
Walt Disney World has announced two all-new Cars attractions in a reimagined area of Magic Kingdom. Despite Radiator Springs Racers and its land being hugely popular at Disneyland, the fan response was relatively restrained at D23–and this was before we knew what the rides were replacing. (Updated February 18, 2025.)
To be sure, the response was not negative–there were still plenty of cheers and it’s not like guests were booing. But as compared to Villains Land at Magic Kingdom, the reaction was more muted, especially considering its scale and scope. There are any number of possible unremarkable reasons for this, from the awkward way the news was shared via Tow Mater making the announcement via a video call to the stilted script.
To the latter point, Parks Chairman Josh D’Amaro attempted to describe Frontierland as being a land about “keeping your eyes on the horizon … believing in yourself, carving your own path, and striving toward success. That goes for miners in the mountains, bears from the country, a princess from the bayou, or a racecar from the big city.” This and the accompanying fan reaction has made us wonder: is the Cars franchise thematically-fitting for Frontierland at Magic Kingdom?
February 18, 2025 Update: Now that Walt Disney World has the green light to replace Rivers of America and Tom Sawyer Island with Cars Land, we thought it’d be a good time to revisit this topic. Previously, many fans were in denial about this project, or holding out hope that the State of Florida would deny permits due to the environmental impact, etc.
Now that the last big roadblock has been removed and Walt Disney World has put out construction bidding indicated that construction will begin on March 1, 2025, all hope that the plans will be derailed or altered to retain the waterfront promenade is gone (or should be). The project is accelerating as announced, without further delay. There’s still time to enjoy the serene scenery of the Rivers of America, but it does not seem that Walt Disney World will change course at this point.
As such, many of those who were disappointed about the plan to completely fill in the Rivers of America and demolish Tom Sawyer Island might want to come to terms with the decision. That includes us, for what it’s worth, and we still strongly believe this is a shortsighted mistake that sacrifices too much of the distinct character and charm of Magic Kingdom, and one of the park’s most iconic features.
Nevertheless, it’s happening. And even though we don’t love the idea, we do think there’s a great opportunity for Imagineers to make lemonade out of lemons and pull off the impossible. So if you could use a little optimism, this commentary might be just what you need…
Before we attempt to answer that titular question, let’s quickly bring you up to speed on these Magic Kingdom additions. According to Disney, these Cars attractions will be set outside of Radiator Springs, as the franchise heads west into exciting new frontiers. On this adventure, guests will be able to experience not one but two exciting new Cars-themed attractions.
In other words, the marquee attraction is not a clone of Radiator Springs from Disney California Adventure. It’s a new story and setting that goes beyond what was established in the Cars film franchise. Same goes for the secondary ride–it’s not Mater’s Junkyard Jamboree or Luigi’s Rollickin’ Roadsters.
One of the two all-new Cars attractions will invite you on a thrilling rally race through the mountains. Take on wild terrain as you race across the landscape climbing mountain trails, dodging geysers and — Mater’s favorite — splashing through mud holes. The second attraction will be geared towards them and will be fun for the whole family.
Work on this new Cars Land area of Frontierland will begin in early 2025.
Let’s turn to the titular question, which is the thematic appropriateness of Cars in Frontierland.
Starting with the positives, the first is the natural world that the Cars inhabit. The reimagined area appears that it’ll feature beautiful buttes, rushing rapids, cool canyons, and a variety of other stunning landscapes that feel inspired by the vistas of Utah, California, Arizona, Oregon, Washington, and other areas of the American West.
In the last decade-plus, Imagineering has demonstrated it’s at the top of its game with rockwork. Cars Land, Star Wars: Galaxy’s Edge, Moana’s Journey of Water, Pandora – World of Avatar, New Fantasyland, and Fantasy Springs all come to mind as exemplars. No matter what you think of these lands as a whole, the “natural” environments are undeniably awesome.
Most of this is attributable to Imagineer Zsolt Hormay. That’s a name more Disney fans should know–he should be a future Disney Legend. He does not miss, and if he’s helming the rockwork team behind the Cars land at Magic Kingdom, it’ll look great. Even if it’s different from DCA (and it will be), it’ll still look fantastic. I look forward to sitting in my rocking chair near Country Bear Musical Jamboree and gazing out across the snow-capped peaks.
Then there’s the not-so-natural world. It’s more difficult to get a read on this from the concept art, but it appears there’s the architecture itself and then an added layer of RSN broadcast stuff. And of course, there are the talking cars with eyes, which are not indigenous to any of the places in the American West that I’ve visited.
The architecture is reminiscent of classic style of ‘Parkitecture’ or National Park Service rustic. This design combines natural materials, such as whole logs and rocks, and appears as if it’s built by hand. The goal was design to blend into landscapes instead of imposing upon them.
You’ll see exemplars of Parkitecture throughout the Western National Parks, in entrance gateways, visitor centers, in-park hotels, and other infrastructure. The concept art above reminds me of Yosemite National Park, which isn’t particularly surprising since Imagineers have drawn on it (and Sequoia National Park) in the past for areas of DCA.
Speaking of which, what also jumps out to me about the concept art is that it looks like Imagineering is repeating a mistake made over 20 years ago with the opening of Disney’s California Adventure. In particular, I’m talking about what was then known as the Grizzly Peak Recreation Area.
According to the land’s original backstory, it was developed as a mine in the 1800s after a chance discovery of gold. The mine was later abandoned and the land sold to the government in the 1950s. As white-water rafting increased in popularity in the 1980s, a group of young entrepreneurs purchased the land to establish the Grizzly River Rafting Company, which would be an extreme sports facility.
Ironically enough, it was the massive DCA overhaul and expansion that brought Cars Land to the park that changed this. Although Grizzly Peak was largely good, a placemaking project scrubbed it of the extreme sports look. That was a modest improvement, and one that also removed the very late 1990s, X-Games quality.
As a replacement, Imagineering added placemaking details that made Grizzly Peak look more like one of California’s beautiful National Parks. What was done to Grizzly Peak was excellent, but the more ‘extreme’ changes came to adjacent Condor Flats, which was transformed into Grizzly Peak Airfield. (I actually liked the high desert and Age of Aviation theme–just not the 1990s repurposing portion.)
In any case, Grizzly Peak went from being weathered with a layer of already-dated 1990s extreme sports on top of it to a classic 1950s style. Along with Cars Land and Buena Vista Street, Grizzly Peak is probably the best area of present-day Disney California Adventure. But in fairness, I’m a huge fan of U.S. National Parks, and love the calming atmosphere of this area. The bypass behind Grizzly River Run is one of my favorite areas in any Disney park.
Back when reviewing Disney California Adventure 2.0 back in 2012, I wrote the following about a replacement I’d like to see for Redwood Creek Challenge Trail: “a well-done family dark ride allowing guests to board a 1955 Pontiac Station Wagon and drive through vignettes of places inspired by California’s National Parks.”
To be honest, I don’t even remember writing that. Reading it now, it sounds very specific–but I don’t recall there ever being a rumor of such an attraction. (The long-running rumor/wishful thinking is adding the Country Bears to Grizzly River Run.) But that’s not the point. Rather, it’s that I’ve wanted a classic car ride through U.S. National Park-like settings for a while.
Looking at the concept art released at the D23 Expo for the headliner Cars attraction, it looks like I’ll partially get my wish. But at the same time, that they’re going to make the same mistake as DCA 1.0, which was undone a decade ago for a cleaner and more timeless concept.
It just makes me wonder–is no one still around from when Imagineering did such a great job with placemaking on the Grizzly Peak and Condor Flats refresh? Why go down the road of extreme sports again? It didn’t work the first time and it doesn’t feel appropriate for the ambiance of Frontierland…or even Magic Kingdom as a whole, for that matter.
This is especially the case given that the environments themselves in the main Cars ride look like a U.S. National Park. And in fact, Piston Peak National Park is one of the settings of the Cars cinematic universe, combining Yosemite and Yellowstone National Parks. It appears in Planes: Fire & Rescue rather than the core film franchise, but it would still be a perfect backdrop for the Magic Kingdom land.
An area themed to Piston Peak National Park could easily pass for what the Western National Parks looked like prior to the Mission 66 project! For those who are unfamiliar with it, Mission 66 was a bold post-war proposal to spend $1 billion over 10 years to modernize the U.S. National Parks following an era of explosive growth in visitors after World War II.
It came during an automotive boom in the United States, with rapidly increasing numbers of cars clogging up National Park roads. Updating vehicle infrastructure was a major priority of Mission 66, as many roads were built for horse-drawn vehicles and often unpaved. Promotional materials for Mission 66 emphasized the romanticism of family road trip vacations, and the National Park Service even partnered with oil and automotive companies to promote Mission 66.
Americans now look back fondly on that halcyon era of the National Parks, seeing classic cars in rustic settings and often around wildlife. (It’s actually quite controversial among conservationists. One of my ‘favorite’ anecdotes is how the NPS rangers used to put out piles of trash to attract bears so guests could watch them eat. Crazy times.)
Point being, all of this sounds pitch perfect for a Cars ride that’s similar to the concept art released by Disney. It could be set in Piston Peak National Park and feel right at home amidst both the settlement side of Frontierland and Big Thunder. All that would need to change is a bit of the Cars window-dressing, as the scenic environments are already appropriate–right down to the dirt roads.
Instead of featuring off-road rally racers, they could use classic cars from the 1950s. As opposed to a bunch of banners and modern-looking broadcasting equipment from RSN, they could feature signage evoking a bygone era of the U.S. National Parks.
This all wouldn’t be a perfect fit for the “thrilling” nature of the attraction (I don’t think there’s much off-road racing of 1955 Pontiac station wagons), but who cares? It would be a perfect fit for Frontierland.
From my perspective, that’s what matters much more. Frontierland is themed to the Old West. That’s a defined era with a set time period, albeit a debatable one over which historians quibble. Regardless, there is no one who claims that rally car racers are part of the Old West.
At the absolute latest, Magic Kingdom’s Frontierland ends sometime around the late 1800s to early 1900s–and the latter dates are only to accommodate Tiana’s Bayou Adventure. Still several decades too early for rally racers.
Even if it weren’t, they just feel at odds with the atmosphere of Magic Kingdom’s Frontierland as it currently exists, which is what I suspect many fans take issue with. (This is also my perspective on Tomorrowland Speedway–that the vibe is off-putting, regardless of thematic appropriateness.)
You could also argue–successfully, in my opinion–that the American frontier is as much a spirit as it is an era. That sense of rugged individualism, manifest destiny, big folklore, and western exploration–all of it is as much an ethos as it is an era.
As America gets older and the 1800s are further in the rearview mirror, the case could be made that the bygone era of the U.S. National Parks and the Mission 66 boom are all part of that spirit. It was a different time in America, but one that embodied a similar sentiment as the “go west, young man” age.
In fact, the America of today is further removed from that automotive boom and heyday of the western ‘Great American Road Trip’ than Walt Disney was from the Old West when he dreamt up the concept of Frontierland. At least as far as the passage of time is concerned, the middle of the last century is already older than the Old West was in the 1950s.
At least, that’s my perspective. Thematic purists will likely be far less forgiving, arguing that any cars (lowercase or uppercase) do not belong in a land with “frontier” in the name. There are also those who will argue that talking cars with eyes are wholly inappropriate for this portion of the park.
But for me, the U.S. National Parks around the Mission 66 boom are a quintessential era of the Western United States and the American spirit that could fit fine in Frontierland. Talking cars with eyes don’t bother me in the least, especially since this is Magic Kingdom and not World Showcase or Animal Kingdom, which are more grounded in reality.
Magic Kingdom’s lands are always imbued with a sense of fantasy. If we can have singing bears that tell jokes, we can have cars with eyes that tell jokes. (With that said, I don’t hope the sightlines are such that we don’t see these car-eyes from Haunted Mansion or Hall of Presidents.)
Then again, I’m also a realist about it, and also know there’s no way on earth Walt Disney World is adding more stuff themed to cowboys and indians. If it’s going to exist into the future, Frontierland is always going to be about the frontier spirit of America rather than that particular era. That’s just the truth of the matter. It’s always going to be a compromise, and classic cars (and Cars) in a 1950s National Park setting is one that I can completely get on board with. Extreme sports off-road rally racers…not so much.
Ultimately, I’m accepting of Cars in Frontierland so long as the environments are clearly inspired by the National Parks of the American West, the layer of Cars themed design on top of that marries Parkitecture with classic 1950s vehicles, there’s kinetic energy via water and other placemaking, and the sightlines work. Thematic purists may still scoff at this, but I think most reasonable fans or the average guest will find that a bygone area of Yosemite or Yellowstone National Parks passes the Frontierland smell test.
An area and attractions themed to Piston Peak National Park evokes the era and atmosphere they’d expect to see in a rustic land themed to the frontier, even if it’s no longer set in the precise era as it was in 1955 or 1971. Things change over the course of 50+ years, and a shifting of that setting makes sense. For me, this is still quintessential Americana–the kind that belongs in a Disney theme park–as the U.S. National Parks are America’s Best Idea. They deserve to be celebrated, even if in fantasy-form, at Walt Disney World.
What will make a lot less sense is if there are loud and modern cars zooming through the land, which will make it feel more like the 1990s. And also, not the U.S. National Parks of the American West, since off-road rally racing is not something you can do on those public lands. So to answer the titular question, my personal take is that Cars can fit in Frontierland–and quite well, if done right. The unanswered question from the concept art is whether they’ll pull the elements of the franchise that fit, or those that don’t.
Planning a Walt Disney World trip? Learn about hotels on our Walt Disney World Hotels Reviews page. For where to eat, read our Walt Disney World Restaurant Reviews. To save money on tickets or determine which type to buy, read our Tips for Saving Money on Walt Disney World Tickets post. Our What to Pack for Disney Trips post takes a unique look at clever items to take. For what to do and when to do it, our Walt Disney World Ride Guides will help. For comprehensive advice, the best place to start is our Walt Disney World Trip Planning Guide for everything you need to know!
YOUR THOUGHTS
Do you think the Cars franchise is capable of fitting thematically into Frontierland? Do you think the concept art as shared so far actually does work with the ambiance and spirit of Frontierland? Would it be better if Imagineers leaned more into the look of the 1950s, dropping the extreme sports angle and RSN broadcasting stuff? Otherwise, what’s your reaction to Cars rides coming to Magic Kingdom? Do you agree or disagree with our assessments? Any questions we can help you answer? Hearing your feedback–even when you disagree with us–is both interesting to us and helpful to other readers, so please share your thoughts below in the comments!
If Frontierland is widely accepted as “Old West”, Cars would be no more out of place than Splash Mountain. It’s only half-right (geographically but not era appropriate) the same as Splash was (era appropriate but not geographically). So the land was already pretty thematically compromised at that point. I think it’s fine if done well.
The original lands in California and Florida reflected the television and movies that Disney (and others) produced at the time. Just scroll through the older movies on Disney+ and that’s what they all are. Davy Crockett fits in with Frontierland, possessed cars do not.
On the other hand, when was the last time Disney made a show about that? It’s been a long while since people have really wanted movies about Cowboys and Native Americans fighting?
On the other other hand, I’ve never made it through one of the Cars movies and the boat ride and island are nice way to relax and get away from the overcrowded park for just a little bit.
Really seems like at this point they should have just built that 5th park instead of a Target
Tom, one question will megaton have the opportunity to toddle around Tom sawyers island before it closes?
I like your point about how we are as far removed from the 1950s as Walt was from the Old West. Frontierland seeks to provide children with an experience of American adventure. Mark Twain’s literature obviously served that purpose, and continues to do so for children today. The same is true of the saloon, the old-west town, and mining (and mine trains).Unfortunately, kids today probably do not identify with Twain’s stories as much as they used to. But filtering something through the lens of an IP they know and love has a better shot. The off-roading adventure of “cars” through geysers and rugged western landscapes can provide children with the same sense of adventure and love for American and the American landscape that is Frontierland’s purpose.
We adults should not impose our notions of what vibes best with the American frontier on children. I think that was the original genius of Walt. You see it in other classic attractions. Adults might say that the Haunted Mansion has clashing atmospheres, going from spooky to fun as the ride progresses. (There are similar thematic juxtapositions in Pirates.) But I think that appeals best to children. It exposes the child to the elements of horror (the Haunted House) or the pirate’s life, but in a way accessible to the mind of the child. And it is still entertaining to the adult.
Disney fans seem to want the parks shot through with thematic integrity and intelligence in the manner of high literature. They want Dante or Shakespeare. But those works have never and will never appeal to children. Disney World should be Treasure Island, the Adventures of Tom Sawyer, etc. It’s the difference between Dickens’ Christmas Carol and the Muppets version. Adults can enjoy the latter, but kids can’t really access the former.
Give the park back to the kids. Meet them where they are at, and they will learn all the lessons we are trying to teach. But if we insist on purity despite the changing times and how childhood has changed, then the parks will become mausoleums for adults.
Very good point and very well written. I was a castmember in MK West (Frontierland & Adventureland) in the 90s. I couldn’t agree more with you on this point. Walt wanted the parks to entertain kids of all ages (which means adults who have the joy of a child’s heart as well). He wanted the parks to continue to change and evolve over time. It is way past the time for change for Frontierland at MK. I can’t wait to see what the Imagineers do to refresh this area of my favorite place on earth. Thank you for your words of wisdom.
John, this is quite possibly one of the best responses I’ve read since learning about the RoA/Tom Sawyer reimagining. Although I’m devastated that we’ll lose RoA and still think an offroading Cars experience would be outlandish in this area, I’m a little more open-minded after reading your thoughtful insight. Thank you for helping me to see beyond my own selfish views of the destruction of my favorite area in the park. At this point, I just wish the Imagineering team would flip-flop the plans for Cars and Villains. Villains would mesh well between Haunted Mansion and Tiana’s Bayou Adventure.
My grade-school-aged kids are horrified by this change, which isn’t being made “for the kids” but for Disney execs. It’s not adults who run around and gleefully explore Tom Sawyer Island; it’s kids.
My 2 cents would be this. A new cars attraction and a meandering river-type family attraction incorporating the Mark Twain riverboat as part of an entry/exit. This would maybe thread the needle between what exists now and the new frontier land. Idk.
I know that Iger wants to flood the parks with IP, but Cars do not belong there in Frontier Land. If they must re-do the island and river, I wish he would unleash the Imagineers and let them develop some unique “Frontier” themed rides. Perhaps a partial dark ride through a ghost town, a river ride through the same. They could put Cars into the Imagination area of Epcot easier than almost anywhere in the Magic Kingdom.
Maybe I’m just cursed with pedantry (I can never resist pointing out that there are no Native Americans in Peter Pan because Neverland is not in America; what there are instead are imaginary Indians as pictured by British Edwardian schoolchildren) but if that’s my curse then I’ll go with it once more:
The Frontier of both Frontierland and history is not a style, nor a time period. It was a legally defined boundary that set a limit to the jurisdiction of the states. Beyond it was federal territory governed only by federal law– and since, by Constitutional design, criminal law belongs mostly to the states (even more so in the 19th century than now) that made the land beyond the Frontier almost lawless. For a family to settle beyond the Frontier meant settling beyond the reach of even the 19th century version of infrastructure. For a town to form out there meant no higher authority than the local town council other than the occasional wandering federal marshall.
It wasn’t about cowboys and indians, though that was one dimension of the conflicts and challenges there. It meant an obligatory self-reliance beyond anything a modern person–including a person driving along Route 66 in the 1950s– ever faces. That’s the source of the American mythology that arose around the “Wild West” and it has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the time period was more recent to the 1950s than the 1950s are to us. It has to do with the distinctive features of a period in history that will never be repeated unless we eventually colonize other planets (and likely not even then, since times and our view of the law have changed).
Like Tom, I love the National Parks and the equally unique American tradition of driving to them. I do it every alternate summer– the others go to Disney World. But that tradition has little or nothing to do with the Frontier, or Frontierland (it’s possible to value two different features of Americana without needing to combine them.) And the Cars franchise does not belong there.
“The Frontier of both Frontierland and history is not a style, nor a time period. It was a legally defined boundary that set a limit to the jurisdiction of the states.”
This contends that Frontierland is legally-defined, which is an exceedingly difficult argument to make. Frontierland flows from American conceptions of the Old West, which were largely informed by pop culture…which were in turn informed by the law and the actual time period.
You can argue that further diluting the concept of the land for Cars is a bridge too far, and that’s fine. But claiming there are legal boundaries on Disney’s Frontierland is a bit of a leap.
My point is not that Disney should be limited by the legalities but rather that the legalities gave rise to a unique cultural moment in history that is not replicated by any other period, and that unique cultural moment is in turn the origin of the mythology that surrounds it. It would be just as unique if it were only a week ago, or two thousand years ago, and the 1950s were not the same even when viewed from an equal distance in time.
(An oddity: in general, I find myself less concerned with thematic integrity than you often are. For whatever reason, in this particular case I seem to be the purist. I don’t know if that turnaround means anything, but it’s an interesting twist– and I do hope you know that disagreement will have nothing to do with my remaining a fan of your blog.)
No, the Cars franchise doesn’t belong in Frontierland (since there weren’t any cars on the frontier).
If this were anything other than a terrible idea, D’Amaro would have come clean about it at D23. Instead, he hid the fact that this intended expansion means the destruction of the heart of Frontierland.
People often say, “This is what Walt would”–“or wouldn’t”–“have done,” but in this case we already know what Walt did. He choose to celebrate our nation’s pioneer spirit and the history of the American West. It was part of how he showcased his love of America. Now D’Amaro and the rest of the current regime are choosing to do the opposite. They are choosing to gut a Walt-designed part of the park, to essentially remove Frontierland from the Magic Kingdom. Never in the history of Disneyland or WDW has Walt’s design been as fundamentally altered as this. This decision is unprecedented.
Tom, I think your heart is in the right place on this — that deep down you know how bad this is — but accepting this fiasco or trying to make it less bad isn’t making lemonade out of lemons. It isn’t even putting lipstick on a pig. It’s tolerating the destruction of the most aesthetically pleasing land in America’s greatest theme park (or at least the greatest this side of Disneyland). This needs to be stopped.
I already have a separate article arguing that removing the Rivers of America is a mistake. That remains my opinion on that.
But I also think there’s no stopping this. You’re right that they obviously knew there would be backlash to this change. They’re going to go through with it, anyway.
Lemonade out of lemons indeed. That’s where I am at. We don’t go to Tom Sawyer’s Island at DRL or MK as often now that our son is older and don’t need that space to run freely as when he was a toddler. Wonderful memories made there RoA is such a visual respite so I will be sad to see that go as well. I really like the idea of taking a spin in the family truckster a la 50s National Parks versus the current concept art of the 90s vibe.
Disney is becoming more like a carnival operator than a creative engine to bring comprehensive, themed park experiences to guests. Gave up my AP two years ago. Check in here to see if I need to revisit my choice. Nope.
I actually think Cars land is a deliberate attempt to move away from the Old West theme. Times have changed not as many people have a romantic nostalgic view of the frontier. There have been many stark and brutal Westerns in the last few years that deconstructed it for one. Also as an Idigenous person it is offensive to see one of the most genocidal eras of American history glorified in a theme park. I suspect Cars land is a way of re theming the area while avoiding the accusations of wokeism that happened with Splash Mountain.
Totally agree. I’m just glad we aren’t going to lose Big Thunder, but I think Disney is ready for the Frontierland of the past to be gone from memory. And to be perfectly honest, RSR is one of the best rides Disney has ever put out, so if this is 1/2 as good it’ll be a huge win. I’m a bit surprised to see all of the water go as it was so pretty but, I get it. I do agree with Tom that the “racing” aspect with the cameras and stuff seems out of place. But we went to Durango in April, and it reminds me of this type of environment… and then we drive a couple hours and were in Moab… which pretty much looks like BTM. So I think it’s realistic. I also enjoy the peace of the National parks and hope they go that route vs a loud and crazy engine revving situation. (Think of the sound when you go past Hagrids coaster… constant engine revving). But, knowing how obsessed my kids were with cars when they were little (15 years ago!!) I think this will be a huge hit.
I think it’s a terrible location. There is no way that “cars” fit into frontierland!
As they always have said, they have room to grow…..grow somewhere else!
Tom
I don’t believe that this concept will work in the proposed/planned area.
Flat out.
Most notably, at the expense of the existing features and attractions.
It’s not about the nostalgia and sentiment, although that would be gone, as well.
You do give a very compelling vision of how it might shoehorn into the area. Additionally, there are many different comments, here, that offer additional constructive support, but it seems to be in the context of resignation of what “they’re going to do, anyway”.
The concept, like DCA is great, or a very unique feature that differs. Regardless, again, I’m asking ” what are they thinking?” But I don’t get the big bucks to do so, so what do I know? Lol.
There is no way Cars belongs in Frontierland. Getting rid of Tom Sawyer Island and the river will destroy Frontierland so they might as well change that section’s name. The adventure of Cars sounds great and exciting but not for Magic Kingdom.
First: The definition of frontier “the extreme limit of settled land beyond which lies wilderness.”
Second: The total enjoyment of Yellowstone Park, Yosemite and the Grand Canyon is NATURE! Not cars. Not driving around or racing around through these natural wonders. No one will get the feeling of the true beauty of a National Park by going to Disney’s new planned Cars section.
Third: Guests need Frontierland as an escape from the craziness and heat of the park. Tom Sawyer Island is relaxing, and stress free.
Fourth: Adding to Tom Sawyer Island with more fun things to do without electricity – such as slides, more bridges, high wooden pathways up in the trees, pirate things in the caves, lookouts along the river, a scavenger hunt – all can add to the enjoyment of the island. Have Aunt Polly’s restaurant open more often and maybe add a tavern. Sitting in rocking chairs overlooking the river with a Dole Whip ice cream or a frozen cocktail would be enjoyable for the guests.
Fifth: Add character meet and greets – from “Tiana” on the Liberty Belle. Add to the theme of Tiana’s movie, playing music from the movie. Not everyone can go on Tiana’s ride, or they may not care for that type of ride – bring the theme of that ride to the Liberty Belle. Sell New Orlean’s drinks, beignets, other popular treats, and lots of Tiana items.
This area can be an exciting section of Magic Kingdom and relaxing at the same time. It can inspire guests to spend more money while relaxing. Best of all – it will NOT cost millions of dollars or destroy a beautiful part of the park. Yet it will bring pleasure to the guests.
Joyce, I had to post a response to this because it deserved one. I don’t know how quickly you came up with these 5 things (specifically 4 and 5), but you’re brilliant. They could have docked the riverboat and had it as a restaurant if they had to take some of the river for the land. I did Tom’s 3 international parks on one trip and saw a rope climbing experience. It was one of my favorite things in Shanghai. They could EASILY replicate this in the trees. Why not EXPERIENCE Swiss Family Treehouse by having platforms and ropeswings, slides, etc? I’m not a fan of the changes chosen, but am looking forward to a new ride.
I’d like to start by quoting Foxxy from Passpor2Dreams:
“It’s generally understood by stateside Disney fans that Disneyland and Magic Kingdom are themed to “fantasy”. That is, admittedly, an odd distinction given the fact that one of them sits 50 feet away from a theme park where the main draw is an area populated with living, talking cars. In reality, Disneyland and Magic Kingdom offer one area dedicated to fantasy: Fantasyland, and a variety of areas that draw on historical periods in whimsical ways to various degrees. However, a certain level of historical verisimilitude underlies these parks, because they are intended in some degree to be educational. Main Street may be a romanticized version of what a turn of the century town looked like, but it many ways it’s also pretty accurate. Disneyland’s dedication speaks of “hard facts which have created America”, Magic Kingdom’s of ‘age relives fond memories of the past’.”
I’m sorry, but Grizzly Peak ≠Frontierland. If this was being built “beyond Big Thunder,” I really wouldn’t have a problem with it. To be honest, I find it disconcerting that this is the BEST CASE realistic scenario that an armchair-Imagineer like yourself could come up with, which means it will probably end up being worse. (How much worse, I don’t know, but I don’t doubt the rock work will look great.) But you’re right, Americana is to a large degree what MK/DL are about, and the National Parks are absolutely Americana. They could’ve turned this idea into a whole new land. It would’ve fit the whole “hard facts which have created America” and ”age relives fond memories of the past” thing. But the National Parks are not the Wild West, and I don’t care if the general public doesn’t know or care. (Sure, Yellowstone NP was established during the Old West but the vibe/era/architecture you’re talking about came decades later.) And of course, the Wild West does not include cars and you didn’t really have an answer to that objection. You basically said, “Eh, it just doesn’t bother me that much. The West is more of an idea. And if you disagree, you’re a purist who wants Magic Kingdom to be hyper-literal like Animal Kingdom is. Be reasonable. Most people don’t think about it that hard.” Ok, then there’s not much to argue about. I guess it depends on where one draws the lines on literalism/whimsy/etc. You write, “If we can have singing bears that tell jokes, we can have cars with eyes that tell jokes.” Yes, but not in the same land. Bears, you won’t be surprised to learn, existed in the Old West.
We’ve already seen one MK/DL land (Tomorrowland) degenerate into an incoherent mess. (The similarly modernist Future World suffered a similar fate.) That happened for several reasons but one of them is that a “good enough” mentality took over, and there was no desire to maintain the thematic and aesthetic coherence of the land. More traditionally themed lands like Frontierland are somewhat inoculated against this fate but not completely.
My answer for cars in the frontier is that it’s no longer the Wild West–that the timeline for the land can shift with the passage of time as we’re further removed from that era.
I’m not dismissive of thematic purists and certainly wouldn’t use that “and if you disagree…” line. I wouldn’t implore them to ‘be reasonable’ for anyone’s sake but their own. And I say that only because I’ve been one of them, and I know it’s a recipe for constant disappointment.
I would readily concede that all of this is lemonade out of lemons.
“the Wild West does not include cars and you didn’t really have an answer to that objection”
This is true only if you ignore that Tom makes the point that the “spirit” of the Frontier does not have to be the “Wild West”, and obviously isn’t the Wild West in these National Park themed plans. He plainly says that nobody claims rally car races are part of the Old West. You obviously don’t like the idea that the fantasy conception of the Frontier can move forward in time, but that’s the answer to the objection: it’s simply not the Wild West in this reconceptualization, or not only that. Perhaps it would be more “traditionally themed” and thematically coherent with your own vision of Frontierland if Disney were (for operational and infrastructure reasons) to tear down the Rivers and replace it with John Ford’s Tombstone Valley and a thinly disguised John Wayne leading us on a harrowing stagecoach ride through a stark (but beautiful) desert vista. But that would not match modern children’s dreams (ie fantasies) of the Frontier, and it’s not remotely realistic to think that would happen today and people would be even unhappier about the loss of the waterfront. That vision of the Frontier too is from the 1950s (and not the “real” Old West, but the Hollywood version of it) and it coheres to the “traditional theme” here. But it would be a catastrophic boondoggle. If you can suggest a modern fantasy vision of the Old West that is beloved by children (and adults) today and that fits your vision of what is “coherent”, I would love to hear it. Disneyland was based on fantasy – all theme parks are – in the broader sense of dreaming, imagining and love of fictional worlds in their favourite stories. What’s the sense of a coherent vision of a Frontier that that only a handful are charmed by or dream about? I share your love of Frontierland in its original conception; I am charmed by the 1950s Disney live action movies too (more Treasure Island and 20,000 Leagues than Fess Parker though). And by John Ford’s 1940s and 1950s movies. But that’s not what my kids care about, or even most adults of my generation. But I believe they mostly will be by a beautifully themed National Park vista. It’s a loss for you and for me and for Tom; it’s probably a net gain for most.
It’s also worth pointing out, at the risk of stating the obvious, that this is being built in Florida. I am a huge fan of the open road and up until last year, when I spent a week driving across the West, had never spent a single day of my 40+ years simply exploring the landscape of anything west of Dallas. I knew that I was missing a lot, but words and pictures simply can’t prepare you for the beauty of seeing it in person. And if any entity can bottle that experience up, it’s Imagineering.
How many visitors to WDW will never have occasion to travel west of the Mississippi in their lifetime? To them, this may be just as much a land of fantasy and imagination as the Old West itself. The Cars tie-in is obvious because of the setting of the movie, but is almost beside the point. No different than New Orleans Square at Disneyland being a snapshot for Angelenos who may never make it to New Orleans, or the France pavilion at Epcot giving a taste of what it might be like for someone who never goes to Paris, the bottom line for me is that Disney is sacrificing something iconic from American history but replacing it with something else that also checks the box of being identifiably “American” and unlikely to have been experienced by the vast majority of park guests. I’ll take that trade.
I love your comment here Brian. Really excellent point.
This makes a lot sense. Thank you for walking us through your reasoning, Tom, because I wasn’t sure that it could.
My first take was that the first film sets up the interstate system as the “End of the West/Frontier,” so anything more modern than the era of the Fabulous Hudson Hornet would likely be out of place. The road rallies of pre-WW1 (and immediately post-WW2) might work, especially because you could have it stretch all over the Western half of the country from a hundred years ago. Using the National Parks’ motifs to stick it in that same pre-interstate era would work just as well, and maybe better since they’re far more well known than the 1908 New York to Paris Race and other non-modern road rallies.
I still regret not getting an era appropriate Condor Flats; if DCA had been originally designed by Imaginners, a Disney take on The Right Stuff could have been fantastic.
This would have been the perfect opportunity for them to break away from IP and just do something original to make a better fit. I love your ideas regarding the national park vibes, and the concept art at least fits that theme. But why make it Cars at all?
My other concern here is that they’re taking away an area where kids had the freedom to run out their energy (I would spend HOURS on DLR’s Tom Sawyer Island when I was growing up, a huge relief to my mom who would just find a shady bench somewhere and rest her feet while I did my thing) and seemingly replacing it with a thrill ride. A slower ride with ride vehicles harkening back to wagons or buggies where we could all sit back and enjoy the amazing scenery they’re clearly planning to build would have been both a better fit for the frontier theme and more inclusive to the younger kids who are losing their playground for all of this.
“But why make it Cars at all?”
This is probably rhetorical, but the answer is merchandise. Cars is an absolute cash cow for toys. (Now watch, they’ll pull a Toy Story Land and not build a single gift shop.)
I totally agree about the play areas, and it’s wild to me that we’re losing 2 more of those as a result of these D23 projects. To this day, I still don’t understand why Toy Story Land didn’t recycle the HISTK play area. It’s sad to see more of these fall by the wayside. Along with shade, every park needs spaces like this for kids to burn off steam.
Rumour – which I can believe – is that exes felt there needed to be a very family friendly, warm IP for young children as a counter to Villains Land. Cars was obvious for this. It also is very good demographically for boys whereas a lot of younger Disney IP works predominately for girls. And shifts loads of merchandise!
Re: Loss of play areas, it wouldn’t surprise me if Disney is methodically phasing those out because they don’t want to be held legally responsible for any injuries that might occur. If kids can run around and climb, some of them are going to fall, and while the vast majority of parents would take that in stride, there are probably just enough that would try to sue Disney to make the legal department cautious.
I’m a GenX kid that did enjoy TSI in the 70s & 80s (also, I was a castmember in 1990 &91 in Frontierland). I have noticed over the past 30 years that TSI and the canoes in the Rivers of America have become a dead area of the park. My kids as well as most (now 24) had no interest in TSI because there was no ride and no tech. Kids today expect technology driven shows and attractions because that is what past generations have been pushing for decades to get the people in the parks. Disney cannot continue to afford dead areas in their parks, (as this is some of the most valuable land on earth) because at the end of the day it is still a business and has always been from the inception of Walt’s business model. It’s sad to see our childhood play area disappear but according to Walt’s original master plan..the parks will continue to grow, evolve and change with the times inorder to entertain kids of all ages into the future. This is what he wanted!
Tom, I’d be curious of what your vision of “Beyond Beyond Big Thunder” would look like in an ideal state? The reason I ask this is because, for me, after looking at the map after the whole RoA thing was announced, I’m starting to think that once Villains is done, MK is going to be almost as bounded by infrastructure as was mentioned for DHS in the Monstropolis discussion.
Just doing some cut and paste playing with the map after the RoA changes were announced, if you try to overlay any land today including support and ride buildings, etc), it takes up a lot of space north of the riverboat maintenance canal up to Floridian Way. Once Villains is done, there might be some space east of it and just north of the Fantasyland ride buildings, but Floridian Way is a pretty solid barrier. And not that they can’t relocate that road, but I’d imagine that drives up the cost significantly. Going West of Big Thunder and Tiana’s Mountain would require relocating a ton of existing support infrastructure – again, not impossible, but again driving up the cost. Add to your point in the permits thread that some of these pads seem destined for hotel-related amenities, and I’m just not seeing how easily MK expands further here without significant infrastructure outlays on top of what’s normally included in expansion.
Just curious how you see the map, and how you’d think of Beyond Beyond Big Thunder.
There’s space for expansion in Adventureland and the groundwork is being laid with these plans for major redevelopments of much/most of Tomorrowland. Beyond that, they can build showbuildings beyond the berm if necessary. (I’d assume Villains Land will have this as an expansion option.) I don’t really think Magic Kingdom needs more than that–it’s already the WDW park with the most robust ride roster.
My ‘ideal’ version of Beyond Big Thunder would’ve retain the lower guest-facing portion of the Rivers of America, but eliminated the dead ends at BTMRR and HM. That would’ve still upset fans, but it needed to happen–and I think it’s a fair compromise. I love Villains Land and Cars Land makes sense from a strategic perspective, so I’m not necessarily averse to that, either. I just think this is too bold.
I felt we were losing Frontierland when The Tiana retheming of Splash Mountain took place, being that the Princess and the Frog is set in the 1920s…in New Orleans. The swamps & bayous of Louisiana, even today, are very much country… but not frontier.
Then we lose the shooting gallery. Nice for the D23 club members, but I loved that place when I was a kid, and even as an adult, taking me back to a childhood when it was still okay to play cowboys and Indians.
Sorry, Cars is in no way part of the Frontier. Part of the West, yes, and the vistas and theming are a nice part of its film legacy. As disappointed as I am with losing Rivers of America and Tom Sawyer Island, it was faux nature, and Disney still does great work with faux nature. There’s still a decent possibility for some impressive faux nature, and good shade areas, to come out of this.
A Cars themed play area would be great for kids. Our then 6-year-old loved the HISTKs play area in Hollywood, and the Winnie the Pooh play area that existed before the Mine Train took it over. So, fingers crossed that although much will be lost, that there will be some nice gains out of it. I’m a guy who whenever we go to the Smokies is a sucker for every waterfall, running river, or trickling creek. I love the little creeks and small waterfalls, for example, that feed into the lazy rivers at Typhoon Lagoon and Blizzard Beach. I’m still in mourning over the loss of the water feature at the Poly’s lobby.
So, I can see the terrain fitting in well with Frontierland, but I am truly dubious about the rides themselves. They will never be “frontier”, but they can be Western. I love our national parks, but I don’t view theme as frontier, save in their preservation of that era. The idea of giving at least part of this area a national parks vibe is a good one.
Justice for Planes: Fire and Rescue! Our four year old was a big fan a year or two ago so we’ve watched that one more than we care to admit and we’d be on board with that theming!! In our opinions, it’s a better film than the Cars and original Planes movies!
Also, re: the comment above demanding bullet point summaries instead of Tom’s analysis and thoughts- NOPE! That’s *literally* why we come here, for thoughtful, thorough and honest feedback and analysis.