Originally Posted By Hista98 There are several reasons why this is a bad idea. The biggest is that it prevents the potential growth and expansion the land could have as any and all future rides have to be based on the movie. If they are going to do a land and want there to be a strong movie sense they should also allow it to incorpurate other themes as well. Like Carsland should change it's name to something more generic. Like route 66 or high dessert. This allows the carsland theme to exist but also allows room for other ride ideas to find a place as well. this way they aren't limited to themeing all the rides and shops to one movie. It also can create confusion as guests would wonder why one movie gets a whole land but others don't as wel las in a disney flagship park the land jjust looks tacky and out of place. I could see them working better in second gates like dca or DHS fine but not in MK or DL. Another big problem is long time appeal. When desiging a land it's good to make sure it will have long lasting appeal. But with a movie thats no guarentee. lets say in 10 years if cars isn't popular any more then disney has a problem of having a whole land no one is interested in. which they then have to go back and completley close and retheme the entire land to something else. But if it was a more genric theme they could save money by simpley gutting the rides based on the movie and replacing them with other attractions that keep in the theme. If you have an entire land based on a film though then this isn't possible, as you can't have a land be called Carsland and have no rides based on it. it would cost tons to replace the whole land at this point rather then a few outdated rides. It's sad that disney these days is focusing more on there hip now movies rather then long term entertianment. I don't see cars being popular in 10 years. Even Toy Stor isn't that big anymore (although the sequal will help) Wierd too how if its a genric land name they don't mind putting rides in that break the theme. But if it's based on a movie. They wouldn't dare... HMMMM?? anyway i'm done
Originally Posted By trekkeruss <<Carsland should change it's name to something more generic.>> Carsland isn't generic enough?! <,When desiging a land it's good to make sure it will have long lasting appeal. But with a movie thats no guarentee. lets say in 10 years if cars isn't popular any more then disney has a problem of having a whole land no one is interested in. which they then have to go back and completley close and retheme the entire land to something else.>. The appeal of a movie has nothing to do with whether or not a theme park attraction (or land) is successful. The attraction merely needs to tell its own story, be fun, detailed, etc. In other words, it needs to be well imagineered. Take Splash Mountain, for instance. The vast majority of guests have never seen Song Of The South, and yet it's one of the most popular attractions at DL, WDW, and TDL.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 They really should call it Radiator Springs. That should satisfy Lasseter (because that's a direct reference to Cars, the movie), and it allows them to make it a more "Route 66 desert in the heyday of Route 66"-themed place. That would allow both Cars-specific attractions/theming, and attractions/theming not specific to Cars.
Originally Posted By Bellella It seems to me that the whole idea of Carsland/Radiator Springs is a bit too much. I mean, is it really necessary to add a whole new chunk to DCA? They're already building a whole new bunch of stuff in the part already built, including the Little Mermaid ride (finally!). Should they really take up more space with Carsland? They've already got A Bug's Land, a whole section based on one movie. And all the rides in there are geared more for little kids than anyone else. Is that what Carsland is going to be like?
Originally Posted By trekkeruss <<I mean, is it really necessary to add a whole new chunk to DCA?>> Sorry, but how anyone could complain about adding new rides and attractions is beyond my comprehension.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << Sorry, but how anyone could complain about adding new rides and attractions is beyond my comprehension. >> By that token, no one should ever complain about DCA. It was a bunch of new rides and attractions, right? If Disney parks were all about barfing up new rides and attractions willy nilly, why not just go the Six Flags route and put up a bunch of steel coasters and spin 'n pukes? It would be much cheaper that way.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA I'm afraid that DCA is always going to feel a bit cobbled together. 'California' isn't a terrible theme for a theme park, in fact, it has loads of potential (cue: 8 year old arguments). Unfortunately what got built in 2001, just wasn't enough. Then, the 'California' theme was quickly shuffled out the door (goodbye 'Eureka!' parade *sob*), and it became another 'Disney/MGM Studios' type of park -- where stuff is just thrown in. In my opinion 'Movie Studio' as a theme for a theme park is about as easy as it gets. Even the name is up for grabs at this point. 'Disney's California Adventure' is generic beyond generic, and rumors are that it's going to change. Walt Disney's California Adventure -- ah! That's the ticket. As someone who finds the 'Cars' movie boring as toast, I'm not at all excited about an entire land devoted to that movie/ franchise.
Originally Posted By Hista98 The appeal of a movie has nothing to do with whether or not a theme park attraction (or land) is successful. The attraction merely needs to tell its own story, be fun, detailed, etc. In other words, it needs to be well imagineered. Take Splash Mountain, for instance. The vast majority of guests have never seen Song Of The South, and yet it's one of the most popular attractions at DL, WDW, and TDL. Yes but it's popular because of the drops, honestly you could remove all the charecters and no one would really care. the lines would be just as long
Originally Posted By donnyaz I would hold off giving land names at all at DCA.I think most people dont really know them anyways.
Originally Posted By jmuboy I'm all for CarsLand. I think it has GREAT ride and theme concepts. A mega e-ticket, return of the flying sauces, new family ride in the from of a flat ride we have never seen from Disney. Personally, really excited. Now, I would PREFER the area to be called Route 66 so that NON Cars the movie themes woud work better in the area. And the Rpute 66 name better suits the CA theme of the park.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss <<<< Sorry, but how anyone could complain about adding new rides and attractions is beyond my comprehension. >> By that token, no one should ever complain about DCA. It was a bunch of new rides and attractions, right? If Disney parks were all about barfing up new rides and attractions willy nilly, why not just go the Six Flags route and put up a bunch of steel coasters and spin 'n pukes? It would be much cheaper that way.>> It's different to complain after the work is done. DCA deserves some criticism because it was not great work. That's fair. But Carsland is barely off the drawing boards, and IMHO, the OP is mostly complaining because he didn't "get" the movie...his criticisms are clearly clouded by his own preconceptions. The one criticism that is fair, is that Carland has little if nothing to do with California...assuming the C in DCA still stands for the state. Perhaps it could just be called DCA. Kinda like how EPCOT is now just Epcot.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << IMHO, the OP is mostly complaining because he didn't "get" the movie...his criticisms are clearly clouded by his own preconceptions. >> Preconceptions that were achieved by observing 50+ years of Disney park design. Tacking on movie-themed lands is really unprecedented in Disney park master planning up until the last several years.
Originally Posted By SleepingBeauty82 I always thought it should be called Radiator Springs. I thought "Carsland" was so lame when I heard it. I'm excited for it. DCA is nice but it could definitely use some new rides and shows.
Originally Posted By Faline I think most of us would agree that Carsland or Cars Land or whatever the spelling is, is an unfortunate name. They probably couldn't go with the Radiator Springs moniker because the fictional town is not located in California... Having said that, I love the concept art and the racing attraction and I think this has great potential to just be a blast.
Originally Posted By di-tard4life yeah radiator springs land would of been better..but the fact that they have "bugsland" and the route 66 already there, and hollywood backlot already is taken..i think with the new "Cars land" they needed to do something that had to do with that movie and what better way then to add a new land,and add new rides that incorporate that theme. i think it will be fun and a new and exciting adventure for everyone!
Originally Posted By DyGDisney I'm looking forward to Carsland -- but agree the names not great. Route 66 would be a GREAT name for that area, but there's already one in Bugs Land?? Where in Bugs Land is it? Haven't been to that part of the park in awhile.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt “The biggest is that it prevents the potential growth and expansion the land could have as any and all future rides have to be based on the movie. If they are going to do a land and want there to be a strong movie sense they should also allow it to incorpurate other themes as well.” I think as new technology and ride systems are built they can be adapted to fit the land’s storyline accordingly. In that sense, I do not think that theming a land to a film is so bad. I do dislike the practice in general because I prefer original concepts rather than expanding existing franchises. “Another big problem is long time appeal. When desiging a land it's good to make sure it will have long lasting appeal. But with a movie thats no guarentee. lets say in 10 years if cars isn't popular any more then disney has a problem of having a whole land no one is interested in. which they then have to go back and completley close and retheme the entire land to something else.” That pretty much sums up Tomorrowland at DLR, TDL, and WDW. This has been a major dilemma for those lands since the first Tomorrowland back in 1955. It will be interesting to see how these movie/character based lands age. If Toontown is any indication, it does not look very promising. “ It's sad that disney these days is focusing more on there hip now movies rather then long term entertianment.” It really is unfortunate on several levels. Of course, that has been talked to death already. “ I don't see cars being popular in 10 years. Even Toy Stor isn't that big anymore (although the sequal will help) “ Did you know that Toy Story is getting a land at HKDL? It will be called… Toy Story Land. <a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_OO7WbmARD08/SknnXPW-ziI/AAAAAAAARwc/tgYZr-b21Hs/s1600-h/41110789.jpg" target="_blank">http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_OO7W...0789.jpg</a>
Originally Posted By Hista98 I did hear that and think it will be a huge mistake. BTW the thing that confuses me the most about carsland is that they are rebuilding two of disney's biggest mechanicle nightmare rides. Both the flying saucers and test track where constantly having mechanicle problems and where or are closed mor eoften then they are open. So I don't get why they are rebuilding these when it seems like it would lead to more major headaces and problems. plus a ride like test track seems really expensive. How are they going to be able to run it without a sponser.
Originally Posted By Princessjenn5795 <<So I don't get why they are rebuilding these when it seems like it would lead to more major headaces and problems. plus a ride like test track seems really expensive. How are they going to be able to run it without a sponser.>> Probably because Test Track is one of the most popular rides and WDW. People LOVE that ride. Plus, since they are updating it a bit, thye will probably have some of the original kinks worked out. I am pretty excited about CarsLand (although I agree that the name is pretty lame). More importantly, my son is really excited about it.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Well, RSR should be very different than Test Track. All the rumor says is that it will have "Test Track technology" and it's not even clear if the technology will be identical, or updated, or if the rumor constitutes a misnomer to begin with. And technology, or a ride system, is only a means to an end. The "meat" of RSR should be in the story and the visuals. Pirates used, essentially, the technology/ride system developed for iasw, but obviously it's a very different experience. Dinosaur at DAK uses not only the ride system but the same layout as Indy, and obviously it's a very different experience. RSR will probably be as different from Test Track as Indy is from Dinosaur.
