The Park Formerly Known as Disney's Hollywood Studios? Yep ...

cw1982

Well-Known Member
Just like the people who buy merch with the current year on it. Does anyone here know about people who buy that stuff yearly?

I started to buy an ornament with the year on it while I was down there in June, but in all fairness we're never there and the year thing would have stopped with the ornament for us. But if we were there every year, I can't see us wanting souvenirs from each trip, let alone dated ones.

I am glad I didn't bypass our first choice just because it didn't have the year on it. I'm pretty sure, given my latest update, I'll never forget what year dh and I went to wdw without kids ;)
 

morningstar

Well-Known Member
Why does everyone assume the name change would focus on dropping "Studios" instead of "Hollywood"? To me, adding Hollywood to the name was the most confusing and does not fit. It's not in Hollywood and most of the IP in the park was not made in Hollywood.

It has always had a Hollywood theme, even when it was MGM. The Chinese Theater that was the park's original icon is in Hollywood. I think the main walkway has always been Hollywood Boulevard. The Hollywood Brown Derby, Hollywood and Vine, and Mama Melrose have been around a long time I believe. They are named for Hollywood and/or streets in Hollywood. If some of the things there, like Pixar and Aerosmith, aren't really Hollywood natives, well, we know the park doesn't do well at having a cohesive theme.
 

morningstar

Well-Known Member
The "Hollywoodland" sign that existed years ago was there to promote housing development in the suburbs nearby. It had nothing to do with the entertainment business or fame. So calling DHS "Disney's Hollywoodland" literally sounds like "Disney's Suburban Housing Development".

a. Most people don't know that.
b. Whatever its original meaning, the Hollywoodland sign, later shortened to Hollywood, has become an emblem of the movie industry.
 

Disneykidder

Well-Known Member
I don't see why the name needs to be changed. There is still Hollywood n Vine and Tower of Terror area. There is still Backlot Tour, Indiana Jones, Starring Roles, Muppets Theatre...all Hollywoodish kind of names/things. o_O
 

Californian Elitist

Well-Known Member
a. Most people don't know that.
b. Whatever its original meaning, the Hollywoodland sign, later shortened to Hollywood, has become an emblem of the movie industry.

So just because people don't know certain facts, it's completely okay for Disney to take advantage of people's ignorance and build off of it?

Correct, Hollywood now represents the industry, not HOLLYWOODLAND, the name some posters here we're suggesting people use.
 

cookiee_munster

Well-Known Member
"Disney's Hollywood Adventure".

it most likely will be named this, or possibly floridian adventure. my only gripe about it is there's another park just down the road from disney with "adventure" in its name... isn't one of the reasons the studios name may be dropped may be to do with the similarly named universal studios?

wont disney want to steer clear of any kind of similarities regarding competitors?
 

note2001

Well-Known Member
So just because people don't know certain facts, it's completely okay for Disney to take advantage of people's ignorance and build off of it?

Correct, Hollywood now represents the industry, not HOLLYWOODLAND, the name some posters here we're suggesting people use.

Disney takes advantage of ignorance for marketing all the time. As one example, look at the success of Hanna Montana. Miley Cyrus wasn't anything special and certainly lacked the vocal chords and talent to be a musical sensation, yet Disney told us she had sold out shows in Europe (questionable by definition of "sold out" as the story is that the tickets were all given away through stations and contests) and was a huge sensation, so the back story was believable and the marketing campaign was a huge success.

Good marketing does not always mean ethical marketing.
 
Last edited:

Californian Elitist

Well-Known Member
Disney takes advantage of ignorance for marketing all the time. As one example, look at the success of Hanna Montana. Miley Cyrus wasn't anything special and certainly lacked the vocal chords and talent to be a musical sensation, yet Disney told us she had sold out shows in Europe (questionable by definition of "sold out" as the story is that the tickets were all given away through stations and contests) and was a huge sensation, so the back story was believable and the marketing campaign was a huge success.

Good marketing does not always mean ethical marketing.

We're not talking about television shows, not that the Hannah Montana example was a good one anyway.

Walt Disney was all about the details in terms of Disneyland. The parks should still be about the details, even the small ones, aka, naming a park based on Hollywood, "Hollywood", the industry, and not "Hollywoodland", the housing development.
 

note2001

Well-Known Member
We're not talking about television shows, not that the Hannah Montana example was a good one anyway.

Walt Disney was all about the details in terms of Disneyland. The parks should still be about the details, even the small ones, aka, naming a park based on Hollywood, "Hollywood", the industry, and not "Hollywoodland", the housing development.

Of course we're not talking about TV shows, we're talking about marketing, and it all falls under the same company. How about if we use the "nahtazu" campaign used to raise awareness in Disney's Animal Kingdom. AK is a zoo, a nice one, beautifully themed and with some amazing rides, but it still is a zoo and folks not looking to see animals often complain about the lack of things to do there. Successful marketing? Yes. Misleading, using ignorance to their advantage, I will argue yes as their market was to those who had not been to AK. Note, this campaign was dropped fairly fast, but the message still sticks.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom