DHS New Villains Show Coming to Disney’s Hollywood Studios in Summer 2025

[LittleBuford]

So with the reception this show is getting so far, to the extent it serves as a proof of concept for Villains Land…how are we feeling about that project now?

The issue is with the execution, not the concept.

 

[ᗩLᘿᑕ ֊ᗩζᗩᗰ]

So with the reception this show is getting so far, to the extent it serves as a proof of concept for Villains Land…how are we feeling about that project now?

Apparently the Youtube rubes love it. And it is better than McQueen.

But to your point and to any armchair of this moving to MK once Villains land kicks off... I want the Villains, villainous.

'Though I found the execution and concept beyond stupid (as expected) if this is to be a hint of MK's offerings, if this land uses some contrived misunderstood villains backstory with silly attractions, consider it DOA. Disney can't afford to goof this up. Perhaps this is "what we get" wanting a Villains land in the saccharin sweet kiddy Kingdom of Magic.

 

[plutofan15]

I don't want my niece and nephews anywhere near this. Glorifying Villains is not in our family's playbook of raising children. The whole point is to cheer for whichever one we like the most. Fantasmic is a much better use of Villains, you know, because they're BAD and we want them all to lose.

Um, I wasn't joking. My nephews in particular are very young and incredibly impressionable. They don't understand the difference between cheering for people ironically (or whatever you would call this) and actually celebrating people.

I don't begrudge people who feel differently, but for the particular people in my family, this is a no. It's just too dang confusing for them.

Also, I stand by what I said about Villains not being something to celebrate. I'm not saying it's satanism (not sure where that came from), but I do think it's a misguided approach to theme park content featuring Villains. If they end up actually making a Villains Land, I want the Villains there to actually be VILLAINS, not tragic, misunderstood anti-heroes. It would be so much more satisfying to defeat Maleficent than root for her. And I don't want some stupid "Resistance vs First Order" role-playing in there either. Just put me in a cauldron, carried by bats, and let my watch Prince Philip take that dragon down (and yes, I'm referencing Dragon Tower from Beastly Kingdom).

To get back to THIS show:
Cruella de Vil is an insane, dog-murdering psychopath. How am I supposed to explain to my five-year-old nephew why the rest of the theatre is applauding for her? He won't get it. Maleficent is literally the mistress of evil, who is so offended by not being invited to the party (because she's evil, implying she has done terrible things), that she conspires to kill Aurora. Yayyyyyyyy. She's definitely misunderstood (/s). At least Captain Hook is a pirate and somewhat silly. I hope he wins every show.

It seems like some people here let their devotion to the "Villains" franchise blind them to the wrong-headedness of this approach.

And I mean, the show isn't even good.

"Well, your honor, it all started when I was a little child. I saw a show at Disney World where the audience had to choose their favorite villain. Up until that point, I truly believed that villains and their actions were absolutely wrong. But after seeing this show about fictional characters, especially the one that was nearly 65 years old and had a make believe character making coats from puppy pelts. After seeing that show, I then believed that these "villains" were actually good people and were truly life models. It was then and there when I made my mind that some day I would break into a pet shelter and make this coat you see before you today. You see, your honor, it is not my fault but it is indeed the actions of the Walt Disney Company that drove me to my life of crime."

 

[LittleBuford]

I want the Villains, villainous.

From what I can tell (I’ve only watched snippets), the villains here are villainous. The show doesn’t seek to redeem them in the manner of the films Maleficent or Cruella; they’re “misunderstood” only according to their own twisted interpretation of things.

 

[Comped]

L.Sad that the two best shows in the park (not counting Muppets 3D) are the >35 year old Indiana Jones show and the thrown together Frozen Singalong. After seeing Untrainable Dragon, it has only strengthen my feeling that Disney needs to revisit their plans for a larger, Broadway style, in park theater for a more significant stage production in park.

25 years ago this would have been a shoe-in. Now not so much, for reasons I've talked about in this thread (namely ops hates spending money on entertainment because they can't spend it on rides or thing that make real, not paper, money). That show in particular I thought was going to be Uni attempting to invest in more Disney style shows right around when it opened in Beijing, but now not so much.

 

[solidyne]

I think your expectations were way too high to begin with.

If looked at the marketing material the magic mirror was really promoted as the centerpiece of this show.

Nothing about this show was giving broadway musical level in any shape or form. It seems more like a test to see how receptive guests are to the Villains in some capacity or another.

Versus the Little Mermaid where they would go into extreme detail about the puppets, performers and etc.

"Hey, we have a new show for you. It sucks, but don't worry. It was supposed to suck. Isn't that great?"

Who produced this bomb? Chester and Hester?

 

[HauntedPirate]

"Well, your honor, it all started when I was a little child. I saw a show at Disney World where the audience had to choose their favorite villain. Up until that point, I truly believed that villains and their actions were absolutely wrong. But after seeing this show about fictional characters, especially the one that was nearly 65 years old and had a make believe character making coats from puppy pelts. After seeing that show, I then believed that these "villains" were actually good people and were truly life models. It was then and there when I made my mind that some day I would break into a pet shelter and make this coat you see before you today. You see, your honor, it is not my fault but it is indeed the actions of the Walt Disney Company that drove me to my life of crime."

And, from that, we'll also get: "Live, from Cell Block C! It's Inmate 4372965286's Disney World Villainous Insider Podcast!"

 

[Purduevian]

Obviously you do what is right for you and your family... but some things don't really line up for me..

It's not that simple. And you don't know my nephews.

Why am I even wasting their time? Let's just go on Star Tours again.

Star tours is an odd one if you are avoiding rooting for bad people... Through the lens of the movie, there are obviously "good guys" but those "good guys" kill a LOT of innocent people.

Not the children in MY family. I'm not speaking in generalities; I'm talking about MY nephews! And they wouldn't get it! I don't know that they're representative of the rest of mankind's children, but I imagine they are not THAT unusual.

Fantasmic? Any dark ride? Every film with a traditional villain?

I guess this corresponds with Disney's shift away from traditional villains. Villains aren't just evil anymore. If they're around at all, there's always an element of "Well, they might actually have a point!"

Disney has (almost) always had deeper villains than just evil. I would argue Captain Hook (1953) was actually the first one... It's pretty clear that Pan and the lost boys play war games all the time with the native Americans, presumably they used to do the same thing with the pirates... Pan took it too far and cut off Hook's hand and fed it to Tik Tok Crock.

The first truly comedic Disney villain was all the way back in 1940 with Honest John

 

[mattpeto]

Shocker. Some of you are way too predictable.

People here hating the show while they watch it from their iPhone.

Maybe it’s not good, but I’ll be curious on GSAT numbers.

 

[Disgruntled Walt]

You wrote "Glorifying Villains is not in our family's playbook of raising children." Whether you intended anything by it or not, such a statement comes across as expressing a more general (and somewhat judgemental) ethical stance that goes beyond your own family.

It comes across that way to you, perhaps, but I have repeatedly said that I am specifically talking about my family. I think that taking this tack of glorifying Villains is a shortsighted and wrong-headed means of utilizing the characters, but I'm not being judgmental in saying that. I think it's much more effective to have Villains be Villainous.

What about the lower tier Disney Villains like Edgar from The Aristocats and Madame Mim from Sword in the Stone? Compared to other Disney Villains, they're the tamest and least evil compared to the likes of Maleficent, Hades, and Ursula.

View attachment 860050

They should have put Edgar in the show! Poor guy just wanted some money Every Villain with a speaking role in this show (again, with the exception of Captain Hook) is legitimately evil, and I wouldn't be comfortable applauding for.

Do you avoid Pirates of the Caribbean too? If not, why?

PotC is (especially now) a sanitized version of what pirates are (and most kid-focused pirate media is as well). When kids want to play pirate, they don't pretend to kidnap women and hold them for ransom (or anything else like that). They have swordfights and search for buried treasure.

How do you sanitize Cruella De Vil in the same way? Maleficent? They went with who is most popular, but not with who makes the most sense for a show about "misunderstood" Villains. Those two are not misunderstood; they're just evil.

 

[Tha Realest]

Obviously you do what is right for you and your family... but some things don't really line up for me..

Star tours is an odd one if you are avoiding rooting for bad people... Through the lens of the movie, there are obviously "good guys" but those "good guys" kill a LOT of innocent people.

If you’ve watched Andor, the “Good Germans” on the Death Star would’ve just orchestrated an uprising so they could strip mine a planet, and then destroyed an entire planet to punish Leia (Alderaan). Destroy in the Death Star in ANH helped stop far more destruction.*

* Though it’s unclear why they would go through the trouble of spending years and years building a mobile battle station when they could do the same thing to a planet by programming a bunch of droid controlled ships to go kamikaze style at a planet while in hyperspace.

 

[Tha Realest]

It’s not a proof of concept.

By many accounts this is being viewed as a test run in terms of how to present the Villajns in the new land and see how they are recieved by audiences. That’s been mentioned a few times on the Disney Dish podcast. So in that sense, yes, it very much is a proof of concept.

 

[LittleBuford]

I think that taking this tack of glorifying Villains is a shortsighted and wrong-headed means of utilizing the characters, but I'm not being judgmental in saying that. I think it's much more effective to have Villains be Villainous.

I’m very confused by your stance. Here you seem to be complaining that the villains aren’t evil enough in the show, whereas before, you seemed to be saying that you don’t think children should be encouraged to applaud characters for being evil.

When kids want to play pirate, they don't pretend to kidnap women and hold them for ransom (or anything else like that). They have swordfights and search for buried treasure.

If kids can make that distinction in relation to pirates, why wouldn’t they be able to make it in relation to villains?

 

[solidyne]

[...] People here hating the show while they watch it from their iPhone. [...]

Fair enough. That's particularly true with regard to audio and other elements. However, one need not be physically present to know that "glass" does not rhyme with "mask." Nor does "rise" with "villainized."

By many accounts this is being viewed as a test run in terms of how to present the Villajns in the new land and see how they are recieved by audiences. That’s been mentioned a few times on the Disney Dish podcast. So in that sense, yes, it very much is a proof of concept.

If the intended audience are shrieking 20-somethings, relishing their delayed adulthood by fantasizing about being the "badass" villains of their childhood, then they've hit their mark.

I will say I like the indeterminacy of voting for a "winner," though "most misunderstood" as an honor falls flat. It'd be more fun if they just chose the "most evil."

I also think the bumbling villains work the best in this "humanizing" mode. The truly evil ones ought just to stay evil.

 

[DisneyHead123]

Disney has (almost) always had deeper villains than just evil. I would argue Captain Hook (1953) was actually the first one... It's pretty clear that Pan and the lost boys play war games all the time with the native Americans, presumably they used to do the same thing with the pirates... Pan took it too far and cut off Hook's hand and fed it to Tik Tok Crock.

I dunno, I think people just forget the details of the old movies. Captain Hook is pretty cartoon evil, down to the handlebar mustache. He casually shoots a singing pirate who annoys him (children’s movies were different in the 50s…) and tries to drown not one but two little girls, one of whom he taunts during the process about not going to the “happy hunting ground”. He puts a bomb in a treehouse full of kids. Like I said, different times.

 

[Cliff]

I know this is a horrible thought in 2025 and I'm not supposed to think or say this out loud but:

I miss not seeing Dr. Facelier in this show. He is one of my favorite Disney villains and I think that not having him there is a shame.

Sorry to Burbank's "Stories Matter" team. I know what I'm saying is considered "wrong-think" in today's social battles but I was hoping against hope that he would be shown on stage in a prominent way. Maybe in time, our over-the-top, extreme, off-the-charts, social sensitivities will cool down enough for us all to enjoy this character again.

Or maybe in ten years, society's INTENSE emotional fragility will be even WORSE than it is today??? I sure hope not.

Question for all: Is anybody relieved or feels safer that Dr Facelier is "not" represented in the show? Does anybody feel triggered if they had seen him on stage? I'm just curious to get the opposite opinion from anybody who "IS" offended by him being there. If so, please explain.

It seems that Burbank's sensitivity experts have "you" specifically on their minds.

 

[Ayla]

The issue is with the execution, not the concept.

There are issues with both. Trying to re-write these villains (in this particular show) as misunderstood, sympathetic characters is certainly eyebrow raising.

 

[LittleBuford]

I also think the bumbling villains work the best in this "humanizing" mode. The truly evil ones ought just to stay evil.

I’m genuinely puzzled that you and others don’t think the show is representing them as evil. The “misunderstood” concept is being played for laughs, not to humanise them. It’s a camp musical in which Cruella justifies her grisly haute couture by exclaiming, “Great artists are always misunderstood!” No-one is meant to come away thinking, “Poor woman—she has a point”; we’re meant to have the same reaction as when Ursula in The Little Mermaid self-pityingly declares herself to be wasting away.

 

[lazyboy97o]

By many accounts this is being viewed as a test run in terms of how to present the Villajns in the new land and see how they are recieved by audiences. That’s been mentioned a few times on the Disney Dish podcast. So in that sense, yes, it very much is a proof of concept.

You don’t test something after it’s been approved for funding. There is a process and the conceptual design intent is set when a land is approved to proceed into actual construction and announced as coming. Live Entertainment is also very distinct from attraction development.

 

[Jedi14]

I know this is a horrible thought in 2025 and I'm not supposed to think or say this out loud but:

I miss not seeing Dr. Facelier in this show. He is one of my favorite Disney villains and I think that not having him there is a shame.

Sorry to Burbank's "Stories Matter" team. I know what I'm saying is considered "wrong-think" in today's social battles but I was hoping against hope that he would be shown on stage in a prominent way. Maybe in time, our over-the-top, extreme, off-the-charts, social sensitivities will cool down enough for us all to enjoy this character again.

Or maybe in ten years, society's INTENSE emotional fragility will be even WORSE than it is today??? I sure hope not.

Question for all: Is anybody relieved or feels safer that Dr Facelier is "not" represented in the show? Does anybody feel triggered if they had seen him on stage? I'm just curious to get the opposite opinion from anybody who "IS" offended by him being there. If so, please explain.

It seems that Burbank's sensitivity experts have "you" specifically on their minds.

He is in this show.