DHS Monster Inc Land Coming to Disney's Hollywood Studios

[TrainsOfDisney]

But it was never dreamt up by Josh as that poster implied.

Never implied that…. I don’t think the original plans called for a giant visible warehouse to *be* the theming but I’m not sure.

It was also very much a joke…. And surprised anyone took it seriously but I mis read intent on this site as well.

The joke was…. The complaints lately (and good ones) is the visible warehouse buildings for guardians, tron, rise, and avatar. *lightbulb* the warehouse is the theming!!!!

And to be fair this was also done in the Eisner era with the soundstages at DHS, DCA, and Studios Paris.

 

[Casper Gutman]

Maybe I'm a simple man, but I'd like to walkthrough that setting and warehouse. I also like what they did with Rise.

Please tell us which type of land you'd prefer them to create.

Lands that understand and leverage the essence of an IP.

The premise of Monsters is “crazy creatures in familiar, even boring settings.” The appeal of the franchise lies in the character designs and the rich emotional interplay of the characters, not in the setting. This is why the property would be well suited for a dark ride or AA show and is not well suited for a large land or roller coaster. Both of the latter play strongly AGAINST the franchises strengths.

I think the truth is that a lot of people saw Monsters when they were young and hadn’t begun to really think critically about films and liked all the moving doors in the climax without considering the emotional elements that made the scene work and now they’re chasing that nostalgia.

 

[Casper Gutman]

What’s not true? This project has almost happened several times. It was fully and completely developed before Josh. For DCA and DHS.

He pulled it off the shelf, he didn’t come up with it.

It was his decision to pull it off the shelf and I criticized that along with you from the get go. It was an odd menu choice for DHS’s need. But it was never dreamt up by Josh as that poster implied.

Come on, Brian. None of my post is remotely about Josh or any particular exec, which is besides the point. It’s about your gross oversimplification of why people are “whining.”

 

[BrianLo]

Come on, Brian. None of my post is remotely about Josh or any particular exec, which is besides the point. It’s about your gross oversimplification of why people are “whining.”

Sorry, you had quoted my whole post and I misunderstood. The whining comment was admittedly too much of a silly dig on my part.

I’m actually not the enemy in this argument. Sometimes I just feel like we don’t need to be so hyperbolic about everything or we ruin the actual points worth criticizing.

Thing like Josh came up with hiding the ride in the laugh floor when there’s literally an existing Monsters Inc ride house in the laugh floor warehouse (I acknowledge that wasn’t your arguement, but it was what the real content of my post was supposed to be about).

Or silly things like Monsters isn’t popular because there isn’t a currently announced sequel.

It takes away from rather good points like coasters in boxes are way overdone. Or this is going to be a giant dead end for decades. Or the last thing DHS needs is a coaster. Or maybe they never actually carried through with this project several times for a reason…

If it’s not clear, I legitimately just didn’t understand your post when you said that’s not true and agree with you.

 

[lazyboy97o]

What’s not true? This project has almost happened several times. It was fully and completely developed before Josh. For DCA and DHS.

He pulled it off the shelf, he didn’t come up with it.

It was not “fully and completely developed”. Being on the verge of being approved and announced means only at most 25% of the design work has been completed and that can’t just be plopped down anywhere without at least restarting a good chunk of conceptual design. What was pulled off the shelf was the overall idea, not a specific design.

 

[Casper Gutman]

Sorry, you had quoted my whole post and I misunderstood. The whining comment was admittedly too much of a silly dig on my part.

I’m actually not the enemy in this argument. Sometimes I just feel like we don’t need to be so hyperbolic about everything or we ruin the actual points worth criticizing.

Thing like Josh came up with hiding the ride in the laugh floor when there’s literally an existing Monsters Inc ride house in the laugh floor warehouse (I acknowledge that wasn’t your arguement, but it was what the real content of my post was supposed to be about).

Or silly things like Monsters isn’t popular because there isn’t a currently announced sequel.

It takes away from rather good points like coasters in boxes are way overdone. Or this is going to be a giant dead end for decades. Or the last thing DHS needs is a coaster. Or maybe they never actually carried through with this project several times for a reason…

If it’s not clear, I legitimately just didn’t understand your post when you said that’s not true and agree with you.

No problem, you’re a great poster.

I will only quibble on one point - pointing out that Monsters and Cars don’t have greenlit sequels doesn’t mean the properties aren’t popular, but it DOES call into question the notion that the franchises are so red hot Disney MUST do whatever it takes to get them into the parks RIGHT NOW.

 

[BrianLo]

It was not “fully and completely developed”. Being on the verge of being approved and announced means only at most 25% of the design work has been completed and that can’t just be plopped down anywhere without at least restarting a good chunk of conceptual design. What was pulled off the shelf was the overall idea, not a specific design.

Yes, thank you for the clarification. I think I was just having a snappy retort to a joke that people start to take seriously after a while when various shades of it are repeated so often. The idea was developed.

I doubt any iteration of this was ever not going to be in a warehouse box. That’s what has always made this project so low yield and really was the (bad) selling feature of it.

 

[James Alucobond]

… but it DOES call into question the notion that the franchises are so red hot Disney MUST do whatever it takes to get them into the parks RIGHT NOW.

… Are people actually making that argument? I certainly haven’t seen Disney make that claim. They just want to attach semi-current IP to everything because they feel that makes things a safer bet with regard to popularity and interest.

 

[BrianLo]

No problem, you’re a great poster.

I will only quibble on one point - pointing out that Monsters and Cars don’t have greenlit sequels doesn’t mean the properties aren’t popular, but it DOES call into question the notion that the franchises are so red hot Disney MUST do whatever it takes to get them into the parks RIGHT NOW.

It does, and to this point, I think the real driver is the company was in a mad scramble to do anything and these were old ideas that could be carried through somewhat more expediently.

The company is terrible at vision and master planning.

Why Moana was passed on is the clear argument. I’m still confused on that. Sometimes it seems like project decisions are erratic and right time and place.

 

[Purduevian]

I'm assuming the logic for Monsters went something like this.

-Why LLMP sales for Slinky are crazy... can we put it on LLSP?
-No, unfortunately with weather unpredictability, we would have to give too many refunds on some days to make it worth it.
-Man, I wish we had something that popular but inside...

 

[Casper Gutman]

It does, and to this point, I think the real driver is the company was in a mad scramble to do anything and these were old ideas that could be carried through somewhat more expediently.

The company is terrible at vision and master planning.

Why Moana was passed on is the clear argument. I’m still confused on that. Sometimes it seems like project decisions are erratic and right time and place.

It does seem like a logical company with a silly IP mandate would be scrambling to build Moana, Stitch, and Inside Out attractions while also prioritizing Coco and Incredibles. It’s particularly odd how the company just seems completely uninterested in leveraging Inside Out.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

No problem, you’re a great poster.

I will only quibble on one point - pointing out that Monsters and Cars don’t have greenlit sequels doesn’t mean the properties aren’t popular, but it DOES call into question the notion that the franchises are so red hot Disney MUST do whatever it takes to get them into the parks RIGHT NOW.

Monsters Inc: Mike and Sully to the Rescue opened in 2006, Laugh Floor the following year. The TDL dark ride in 2009.

There was a bunch of Monsters Inc stuff added to the parks less than 10 years after the first movie came out, and then hardly anything beyond parade floats in the following 15 years.

This new project at this time is very much a case of utilizing existing proposals that have sat dormant for some time.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

It does seem like a logical company with a silly IP mandate would be scrambling to build Moana, Stitch, and Inside Out attractions while also prioritizing Coco and Incredibles. It’s particularly odd how the company just seems completely uninterested in leveraging Inside Out.

The most successful animated movie of all time has...a recycled flat ride moved from one area of DCA to another...

 

[Animaniac93-98]

Yes, there's a lot of nostalgia for the first Monsters Inc movie, but we're at the natural point of the product life cycle where lots of early-to-mid 2000s content has that, regardless of quality or initial success.

...which is why I'm proposing this idea be pulled off of WDI's shelf!

 

[Casper Gutman]

I like Monsters and if we were getting another Monsters film as part of the project I’d consider that a notable upside. But we’re not.

 

[WorldExplorer]

Yes, there's a lot of nostalgia for the first Monsters Inc movie, but we're at the natural point of the product life cycle where lots of early-to-mid 2000s content has that, regardless of quality or initial success.

...which is why I'm proposing this idea be pulled off of WDI's shelf!

View attachment 873656

Let's all be grateful they didn't plan any rides for Wish; given the way they've been handling that we probably would still get them built despite its total failure in every conceivable measure.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

Let's all be grateful they didn't plan any rides for Wish; given the way they've been handling that we probably would still get them built despite its total failure in every conceivable measure.

Careful! You’re not allowed to criticize that IP!!!

 

[Casper Gutman]

Let's all be grateful they didn't plan any rides for Wish; given the way they've been handling that we probably would still get them built despite its total failure in every conceivable measure.

Would it be a coaster? I’ll take a Wish dark ride.

 

[Jedi14]

I like Monsters and if we were getting another Monsters film as part of the project I’d consider that a notable upside. But we’re not.

We just had a show

 

[BrianLo]

It does seem like a logical company with a silly IP mandate would be scrambling to build Moana, Stitch, and Inside Out attractions while also prioritizing Coco and Incredibles. It’s particularly odd how the company just seems completely uninterested in leveraging Inside Out.

I’ll give them 14 more months leeway on Inside Out. I do think the company was completely caught off guard on Inside Out 2. A Frozen pants down moment of unexpected popularity.

Ditto for stitch. Which has had a bimodal generational return in a very unexpected way. It seems like that merch train kicked into high gear also in 2023/2024.

Moana and Coco though they’ve had metrics on for five years. Which speaks to the destruction of WDI.