[Question] Anyone concerned with Cars Land?

[DisneyDude2006]

So today I was able to come down and check out the Blue Sky cellar. Overall I was pretty impressed. I wish the video was longer. It looked amazing with the HD.

Anyway, one of my main worries is Car's Land. Now first, why can't they just call it "Radiator Springs"? I mean, that IS what the place is called in the movie.

Also, anyone else worried they're going to make the same mistake they did with Bug's Land? Bug's Land is a cool idea, but all the rides are way to kid oriented. I mean, at least with fantasyland attractions they appeal to kids and teens AND adults. However, Bug's land is pretty much only for children IMO. I know I've only been there twice in my life, and I never rode any of the rides.

With car's Land, I think there's great potential...but I'm worried the rides (except for the amazing sounding E-ticket) will be way to oriented toward kids and not teens and adults.

Anyone else share my fear? Obviously everything's still in the conceptual stage, but from what I've seen, I'm worried.

[Colin]

Re: Anyone concerned with Cars Land?

Yes, I'm a little worried that the ride may be geared towards kids, instead of a broader audience (maybe they'd get more people to go over to California Adventure if they did this ).

[OldSchoolMickey]

Re: Anyone concerned with Cars Land?

Nope, we're not worried or fearful about Cars Land.

We'll enjoy it however we can.

We don't HAVE to enjoy everything in the Park to have a good time...

Enjoy! (or at least try to)

[Aladdin]

Re: Anyone concerned with Cars Land?

Carsland so far, looks better designed, than the rest of the makeover. Paradise Pier doesn't get rid of the carney theme, and looks like 6 flags.

The new entrance looks more Sante Fe, than Hollywood, and no attraction for the new center of the hub, with Carthy Circle - THAT is a disappointment.

Ariel looks promising, but I'm doubtful it will have as beautiful a place for the fountains that were conquered by Tinkerbell.

Now for Carsland - The themeing looks just as wonderful as Bug'sland, BUT it has an attraction based on Test Track that's NOT just a little kiddie ride. Luigi's (floating hubcaps) also looks to have appeal besides just 4 year old. Mater's looks like a higher capacity than any of the Fliks Fun Fair rides, so that's good! So it doesn't look like Carsland will have some of the same problems that FFF has. That's a good thing.

[Aladdin]

Re: Anyone concerned with Cars Land?

Nope, we're not worried or fearful about Cars Land.

We'll enjoy it however we can.

We don't HAVE to enjoy everything in the Park to have a good time...

Enjoy! (or at least try to)

Well, Both DCA and DL should have a variety of attractions, which the entire family can enjoy together, BUT to say:

"We don't have to enjoy everything in the Park to have a good time"

sounds like an excuse to say that "it's ok for DCA to have some crappy off the shelf rides"

So i would NEVER agree with a statement like that.

[Legacy]

Re: Anyone concerned with Cars Land?

"We don't have to enjoy everything in the Park to have a good time"

sounds like an excuse to say that "it's ok for DCA to have some crappy off the shelf rides".

Exactly. That's why Disneyland succeeds. DCA and other theme parks succeed in part, but very, very few parks succeed in part and in whole.

[pianoman13]

Re: Anyone concerned with Cars Land?

I think Carsland will do fine financially...my problem with is that it's all on the movie "Cars" and that takes place in Arizona. Plus, the film was the weakest Pixar movie IMO... The land looks fantastic though, and I can't wait to ride radiator Springs racers and the flying tires ride...forgot the exact name.

[Missviolet]

Re: Anyone concerned with Cars Land?

I'm not a fan of the "CarsLand" title.... Since when do we name a whole land after one attraction?

[Mac Daddy]

Re: Anyone concerned with Cars Land?

I agree that "Radiator Springs" sounds a heck of a lot better than "Carsland." The name is much too klunky. It just sits there. Too generic. Too blech. It comes across as an inept title for a used auto lot.

"C'mon down to Carsland! We're at the Jamboree and the 73! Open til midnight, we'll see ya here!"

:botox:

I wonder if it's too late for Lasseter to change it.

[Club 33 Mike]

Re: Anyone concerned with Cars Land?

I cant think of ONE ride in Fantasyland that appeals to Adults by itself?

[brand42]

Re: Anyone concerned with Cars Land?

I cant think of ONE ride in Fantasyland that appeals to Adults by itself?

Matterhorn Bobsleds?

Regarding "Radiator Springs" vs. Carsland, perhaps they figure that people would just call it Carsland even if it were "Radiator Springs" and so why not just save them the trouble?

[TiggerGo]

Re: Anyone concerned with Cars Land?

BUT it has an attraction based on Test Track that's NOT just a little kiddie ride

Ohh so is that the E-Ticket of this land? I saw it in the pictures but didn't make the connection to Test Track. That should be a fun ride for all ages then.

[Datameister]

Re: Anyone concerned with Cars Land?

My concern with Cars Land is not in who it'll appeal to - I think Radiator Springs Racers will be enjoyable for thrill-seeking older folks, and possibly to younger kids as well. The other attractions seem to be aimed at slightly younger demographics. Seems like a nice mix to me.

The name, however, is DEFINITELY an issue. I really cannot understand how the marketing people can have so little faith in the human race. "Well, if we name it 'Radiator Springs', they'll have no idea what we're talking about, so they won't come to the park. But if we call it 'Cars Land', they'll know instantly that they have to come. It's kinda catchy anyway, doncha think?"

The other big issue with Cars Land is its theme. Been over this repeatedly...but Radiator Springs is more closely tied to Arizona than to California. Nothing about the film celebrates California particularly, and numerous aspects of the design and description point to a location in Arizona. If the park is going to be that explicit and call itself California Adventure, it needs to be about California. Cars simply is not about California. The justification that Cars celebrates Route 66 and Route 66 continued through California and thus all of Route 66 is fair game and no one'll know it's not California anyway - yeah, that justification? Doesn't cut it for me. It's a stretch.

I cant think of ONE ride in Fantasyland that appeals to Adults by itself?

And that's a flaw with Fantasyland. Doesn't justify doing other lands the same way - which is why I'm glad Cars Land won't suffer from that particular issue.

[Nautilus]

Re: Anyone concerned with Cars Land?

You should not be worried about Cars land, at all. The land is really the Disney Sea of the west coast; its really going to induce a lot of awes once one hits just inside it's entrance. The size and scope of it is unprecedented in the theme park industry. As for the major E-Ticket RSR's, its going to be the Indiana Jones of this decade. Its a thrill ride yes, but also a family dark ride and scenic tour all rolled into one package, just like POTC.

There is nothing to be worried about, especially this early on the project.

[Datameister]

Re: Anyone concerned with Cars Land?

You should not be worried about Cars land, at all. The land is really the Disney Sea of the west coast; its really going to induce a lot of awes once one hits just inside it's entrance. The size and scope of it is unprecedented in the theme park industry. As for the major E-Ticket RSR's, its going to be the Indiana Jones of this decade. Its a thrill ride yes, but also a family dark ride and scenic tour all rolled into one package, just like POTC.

There is nothing to be worried about, especially this early on the project.

Quality, size, scope, beauty, and widespread appeal are hardly in question here. It's gonna be amazing to look at and experience. But that doesn't mean there's flat out nothing to worry about. It just means that there's one heck of a lot to not worry about.

[Mojave]

Re: Anyone concerned with Cars Land?

The other big issue with Cars Land is its theme. Been over this repeatedly...but Radiator Springs is more closely tied to Arizona than to California. Nothing about the film celebrates California particularly, and numerous aspects of the design and description point to a location in Arizona. If the park is going to be that explicit and call itself California Adventure, it needs to be about California. Cars simply is not about California. The justification that Cars celebrates Route 66 and Route 66 continued through California and thus all of Route 66 is fair game and no one'll know it's not California anyway - yeah, that justification? Doesn't cut it for me. It's a stretch.

I know we've talked about this a bunch, but I'm nearly 100% sure that the town of Radiator Springs was based on the story of the town of Amboy, California. I know geographically, it is based on Peach Springs, Arizona, but the story should count for 50% and therefore make it totally fit California. IMHO

[OldSchoolMickey]

Re: Anyone concerned with Cars Land?

Well, Both DCA and DL should have a variety of attractions, which the entire family can enjoy together, BUT to say:

"We don't have to enjoy everything in the Park to have a good time"

sounds like an excuse to say that "it's ok for DCA to have some crappy off the shelf rides"

So i would NEVER agree with a statement like that.

That statement holds true for us in BOTH Parks, as well as non Disney Parks. You don't have to agree. It's OK.

We can (and do) fully enjoy DL without ever having to enter HITSA, Innoventions and Mad Hatter's Tea Party.

It's not an excuse to say that DL can have some crappy rides. We don't consider them crappy, just not to our liking.

Same with a few things at DCA.

Everything does not have to be perfect for us to enjoy the Parks.

We enjoy what we want, and don't whine about what we don't...

Until I own DL or DCA (which will never happen) and can make ALL of the decisions about the Parks, you'll never hear us complain about a ride or attraction to the point of insanity.

We let the fine folks at Disney decide what to put in and then we enjoy it.

Or not...

Either way, we'll still go to the Parks and have a Tiggerific time.

Our way.

[Datameister]

Re: Anyone concerned with Cars Land?

I know we've talked about this a bunch, but I'm nearly 100% sure that the town of Radiator Springs was based on the story of the town of Amboy, California. I know geographically, it is based on Peach Springs, Arizona, but the story should count for 50% and therefore make it totally fit California. IMHO

If you ask me, that works perfectly in contexts where the geographic location of the attraction, land, or (in this case) park is not so explicitly stated. Adventureland is typically the example I fall back on, since it represents such a diverse scattering of geographic regions in such a compact area, and there's no problem with it. But when the park calls itself California Adventure, I just can't 100% support adding something that's located in another state. I would say that yes, story counts for 50%. But that makes Cars Land 50% fit into DCA, not "totally."

Here's an analogy. Imagine Adventureland, except with the name "African Adventureland." Or "Amazonland." Or whatever you want. Something geographically specific. Then add an ancient Indian temple to the mix. Doesn't work. It's too blatantly contradictory.

I'm not suggesting, however, that DCA doesn't deserve Cars Land. What I'm saying is that Cars Land deserves to be surrounded by a better park to which it's more relevant.

EDIT:

We let the fine folks at Disney decide what to put in and then we enjoy it. Or not...Either way, we'll still go to the Parks and have a Tiggerific time.

If all the decisions made for the next 30 years fell into the "or not" category, would you still have a Tiggerific time then? Not saying that'll necessarily happen...just speaking hypothetically.

[Mojave]

Re: Anyone concerned with Cars Land?

If you ask me, that works perfectly in contexts where the geographic location of the attraction, land, or (in this case) park is not so explicitly stated. Adventureland is typically the example I fall back on, since it represents such a diverse scattering of geographic regions in such a compact area, and there's no problem with it. But when the park calls itself California Adventure, I just can't 100% support adding something that's located in another state. I would say that yes, story counts for 50%. But that makes Cars Land 50% fit into DCA, not "totally."

Here's an analogy. Imagine Adventureland, except with the name "African Adventureland." Or "Amazonland." Or whatever you want. Something geographically specific. Then add an ancient Indian temple to the mix. Doesn't work. It's too blatantly contradictory.

I'm not suggesting, however, that DCA doesn't deserve Cars Land. What I'm saying is that Cars Land deserves to be surrounded by a better park to which it's more relevant.

I'm all for removing "California" from the park's name. I mean, after all, bugs are worldwide and not specific to California either.

One note: Pirates of the Caribbean really has nothing to do with New Orleans, but it sure works well!

[MrLiver]

Re: Anyone concerned with Cars Land?

But when the park calls itself California Adventure, I just can't 100% support adding something that's located in another state.

Carsland doesn't actually exist - so how is it located in another state?

Think of it this way - there is no real Grizzly Peak and there is no Hollywood Pictures Backlot and there is no Paradise Pier located in California - but they are all based on ideas that evoke a feeling of California.

Carsland will evoke the feeling of California in exactly the same way. It may not exist in reality, but it will still evoke the same emotions.