DHS Disney Confirms Muppets Take Over Rock 'n' Roller Coaster at Hollywood Studios

[ᗩLᘿᑕ ֊ᗩζᗩᗰ]

Does anyone know how much the conversion of RNRC to Avengers at DLP cost? I would imagine there’s slim to no chance we get that level of change, but would be an interesting reference point.

~12 million, best guess before getting updated again. I'd ballpark the conversion for Muppets to be in the single digits unless they're going all out on a new queue.

 

[mysto]

I'm willing to don the old Sweetums costume, wear it in the booth, and babble some inane premise for a mere $50k per day. Re-theme complete in minutes! Are you listening Disney?

 

[lazyboy97o]

~12 million, best guess before getting updated again. I'd ballpark the conversion for Muppets to be in the single digits unless they're going all out on a new queue.

Way too low.

 

[14jessica]

There’s no reason this should close the ride for very long at all. In fact, if they really wanted to, they could do this without closing the ride for a single day. It’s new signage, new video, new audio, new merchandise, and anything on top of that is arguably just change for the sake of change.

If I were in charge I would have it done overnight partly just as proof of concept.

Are there any estimates around on how long it is actually likely to be closed for?

 

[JEANYLASER]

~12 million, best guess before getting updated again. I'd ballpark the conversion for Muppets to be in the single digits unless they're going all out on a new queue.

I think the same way I love the Muppets!

 

[Casper Gutman]

You’d think people who participate in a rumours forum would like that sort of thing. But we gotta get our veiled tribalism digs in, instead of acknowledging more transparency is generally what we all enjoy.

Announcements too early in the process, often accompanied by profoundly misleading concept art, are not transparency. They often amounts to deception.

And rumor sites like RUMORS. Ones with a basis in reality, but rumors nonetheless.

 

[Casper Gutman]

The problem is that decision makers at Disney don’t understand the Muppets. Several powerful ones likely resent them.

It would be a bit like trying to get a bunch of wealthy business school graduates to design and greenlight a Monty Python attraction. They won’t grasp the appeal in any meaningful way.

 

[BrianLo]

Announcements too early in the process, often accompanied by profoundly misleading concept art, are not transparency. They often amounts to deception.

I think this is all how you yourself frame it. “Deception” occurs irrespective of the timeframe it is announced. Deception often boils over in marketing at the 11th hour. The worlds first water theme park or the most immersive theme park on the planet, etc etc.

I would not be happier not knowing they plan to reuse the MV3D theatre or that the Muppets are moving to this coaster. I understand you fall under the spectrum they are not happening due to external circumstances. But I’m not sure where you feel we’re being purposefully duped by knowing about their current plans.

Which is different than they are making it up as they go along - absolutely they are - that’s how this usually works.

The only time I actively feel like I was really deceived was when they lied about the Shanghai budget overruns. I’m far more often deceived by the random posters claiming they are insiders and who scatter like cockroaches when the lights come on.

 

[KikoKea]

I'm hoping they'll axe the plywood-looking signs and do something innovative in there and it would be nice if the queue outside could be improved from the cattle pen look. The Miss Piggy fountain would look great out front, too. Guess the little kids are out of luck with anything Muppets, though.

 

[Casper Gutman]

I think this is all how you yourself frame it. “Deception” occurs irrespective of the timeframe it is announced. Deception often boils over in marketing at the 11th hour. The worlds first water theme park or the most immersive theme park on the planet, etc etc.

PR rhetoric is in no way, shape, or form the same as announcing a project and then showing art that has no relation to the final attraction. Calling Disneyland the happiest place on Earth is fine. Showing art for a Guardians of the Galaxy preshow full of effects and AAs that is never built is deception. That’s why you don’t announce anything until it’s ready to open.

 

[Marc Davis Fan]

I'm hoping they'll axe the plywood-looking signs and do something innovative in there and it would be nice if the queue outside could be improved from the cattle pen look. The Miss Piggy fountain would look great out front, too. Guess the little kids are out of luck with anything Muppets, though.

THIS!

Having Six Flags -esque cartoon-painted flats in a supposedly world-class immersive theme park is an embarrassment.

So is that outdoor switchback queue.

IMHO, fixing those two things would probably improve the RnRC experience more than anything else short of a complete redevelopment.

Even just screens or projectors (despite their being overused) in lieu of the flats, and a little garden with the Miss Piggy fountain in lieu of the present outdoor switchbacks, could work wonders.

My fingers are crossed, and I’m (very) mildly optimistic that these are obvious enough things to do…

 

[James Alucobond]

Showing art for a Guardians of the Galaxy preshow full of effects and AAs that is never built is deception. That’s why you don’t announce anything until it’s ready to open.

It is sharing of concept art. I can't remember a time that these things didn't have "artist concept only" in the corner. I think it's a bit far to call it deception. Movie trailers frequently contain footage cut from the final film, video game trailers and demos include scenarios or graphical fidelity that don't translate to the final game, tech product mockups don't always exactly match the final design, etc. You can feel whatever way you want about D23, the fan culture around it, and the fact that the design process is monetized and consequently more exposed as a result, but they have always been pretty clear about what they show being an early look into the process.

 

[SpectreJordan]

Still think they should have converted RNRC to some kind of scary IP and made all of Sunset a spooky area of the park. Sell some more Halloween Event tickets.

I’m glad the Muppets have another home at WDW but I really like this idea too.

Ghost Rider would’ve been an easy fit for this; but he doesn’t have any movies or anything rn for Disney to push & Disney isn’t really interested in having comic stuff in the parks.

 

[BrianLo]

That’s why you don’t announce anything until it’s ready to open.

I think we’re arguing semantics on which we disagree. I’m curious if this is really your preference?

I have a feeling we’d be even more unhappy with simply a list of closures right now. Or at least I would. I very much enjoy following along as things evolve and change. Even if not always for the better.

 

[Casper Gutman]

I think we’re arguing semantics on which we disagree. I’m curious if this is really your preference?

I have a feeling we’d be even more unhappy with simply a list of closures right now. Or at least I would. I very much enjoy following along as things evolve and change. Even if not always for the better.

The closures are something entirely separate. The idea that additions have to be matched by removals is entirely artificial and ONLY applies at Disney World - no other resort.

But yes - I would be happier knowing something was replacing Muppets and RoA but not knowing the details, because I genuinely think both replacement projects sound awful.

 

[Casper Gutman]

It is sharing of concept art. I can't remember a time that these things didn't have "artist concept only" in the corner. I think it's a bit far to call it deception. Movie trailers frequently contain footage cut from the final film, video game trailers and demos include scenarios or graphical fidelity that don't translate to the final game, tech product mockups don't always exactly match the final design, etc. You can feel whatever way you want about D23, the fan culture around it, and the fact that the design process is monetized and consequently more exposed as a result, but they have always been pretty clear about what they show being an early look into the process.

Movie studios have been successfully sued for including scenes in a trailer that aren’t in the film. The court ruled it false advertising.

There is a question of degree here. If you show concept art and then change minor details, that’s fair game. If you show a major scene with AAs and huge props that is integral to the attraction and then cut the whole thing for budget reasons and replace it with a TV monitor… that’s deception. Especially considering that it’s highly likely executives knew that scene was cut when the art was shown. They were seeking to benefit from a lie.

 

[Chi84]

Movie studios have been successfully sued for including scenes in a trailer that aren’t in the film. The court ruled it false advertising.

There is a question of degree here. If you show concept art and then change minor details, that’s fair game. If you show a major scene with AAs and huge props that is integral to the attraction and then cut the whole thing for budget reasons and replace it with a TV monitor… that’s deception. Especially considering that it’s highly likely executives knew that scene was cut when the art was shown. They were seeking to benefit from a lie.

It seems there would have to be a very significant omission.

Was there more than one case?

I only know of one where the court overturned the dismissal of a complaint alleging false advertising when a trailer featured a well-known actor who ended up not being in the film. It held the plaintiff’s case could proceed.

The court expressly stated that its holding was “limited to representations as to whether an actress or scene is in the movie, and nothing else.” This was to avoid potentially limitless claims based on trailers.

The parties settled the case before a final disposition.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Movie studios have been successfully sued for including scenes in a trailer that aren’t in the film. The court ruled it false advertising.

There is a question of degree here. If you show concept art and then change minor details, that’s fair game. If you show a major scene with AAs and huge props that is integral to the attraction and then cut the whole thing for budget reasons and replace it with a TV monitor… that’s deception. Especially considering that it’s highly likely executives knew that scene was cut when the art was shown. They were seeking to benefit from a lie.

So the famous first Disneyland fun map was deception for which Disney should have been held liable?

 

[Disney Analyst]

I'm hoping they'll axe the plywood-looking signs and do something innovative in there and it would be nice if the queue outside could be improved from the cattle pen look. The Miss Piggy fountain would look great out front, too. Guess the little kids are out of luck with anything Muppets, though.

I demand flying chickens.

 

[Casper Gutman]

So the famous first Disneyland fun map was deception for which Disney should have been held liable?

I’m not advocating for parks to be held liable for concept art, no. I was merely pointing out, in response to a specific claim regarding the matter, that recently a studio had settled a case for including a scene in the trailer that was not in the film.

A lot of things are and should be legally allowed in PR spin but that doesn’t mean some practices shouldn’t be frowned upon. I’d argue the recently released Cars “fun map,” while the format was almost certainly chosen to overemphasize certain elements, is significantly less objectionable then releasing “realistic” concept art focused entirely on a single scene - the only AA and physical set based scene in the attraction - and then entirely cutting that scene. While that practice isn’t and shouldn’t be grounds for a lawsuit, it certainly should profoundly effect how we judge a company’s honesty in the future.