DHS Monster Inc Land Coming to Disney's Hollywood Studios

[Casper Gutman]

I mean, since 2017 WDW has gotten Pandora, RoTR, MMRR, Cosmic Rewind, Tron, and Rat. Your mileage may vary with these, but I think it’s a pretty stellar lineup.

I honestly think we need to have some optimism with changes to the parks, or we risk getting burnt out of this hobby we enjoy. I’m really upset that Muppets is closing, it’s my favorite attraction at WDW, but I’m not gonna let that taint my love of the rest of these parks. In the end of the day, it’s still a theme park. It’s a place where we go to forget about our troubles for a few days. If it stops being that, then maybe it’s time to find a new vacation spot.

It’s Disney’s responsibility to make the park a place in which we can “forget our troubles,” not the guest’s.

What you listed is a stellar record of spending, not results.

 

[Casper Gutman]

Nothing is sacred in my eyes. I have my own personal favorites that would get me riled up but ultimately could say good bye to anything.

If I were in charge of the Parks and I had bonuses tied to operations and P&L the only way I keep things going 30+ years is if I make money off of merch/LL and the IP and the attractions maintains a high percentage of its theoretical capacity consistently over time and the cost of maintaining it is reasonable.

You’d run a very efficient Six Flags.

 

[Jayspency]

But this is Disney we’re talking about. Their whole brand is based on Nostalgia.

This is why Disney's recent trend of removing classic attractions and replacing them with the current most popular thing worries me. The more they continue to focus on this trend the more I feel the parks will lose their identity and appeal.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

The Muppets were supposed to feel old when they were new. They’re a vaudeville troupe! That’s the charm.

Be Kind Rewind on YouTube has a great video explaining the character of Miss Piggy and how she's a throwback to Hollywood's golden age (what Disney MGM Studios was all about).

 

[James Alucobond]

This is why Disney's recent trend of removing classic attractions and replacing them with the current most popular thing worries me. The more they continue to focus on this trend the more I feel the parks will lose their identity and appeal.

Eh, pandering to nostalgia is a big part of the problem. In isolation, replacing just about anything is fine. Also in isolation, using Disney IP in a lot of places is fine, whether to appeal to nostalgic memories or showcase hot properties. What is problematic is when that becomes the sole goal, elevated above thematic integrity. Shoehorning in properties like Cars and Moana are definitely the most obvious resultant problems, but overindexing on nostalgia is detrimental too because it tends to become self-referential to such a degree that it’s more or less a fourth wall-breaking caricature of what someone thinks older Imagineers might have done even when IP isn’t involved.

 

[UNCgolf]

It’s Disney’s responsibility to make the park a place in which we can “forget our troubles,” not the guest’s.

What you listed is a stellar record of spending, not results.

Pandora is quite good; I enjoy that whole area and I've never even seen Avatar (and thus have zero connection to the IP).

I'm not as high overall on Flight of Passage as others, but that's because it's a simulator. I'm not sure a simulator could ever be a truly great attraction to me, but Flight of Passage is about as good a simulator as anyone could ever build. Na'vi River Journey is a fantastic C ticket, and better than other recent attractions like Ratatouille that were designed to be superior.

It's probably the only land they've built recently that doesn't really have any major problems (in terms of what was actually built -- of course it would be nice if it had another attraction).

 

[Animaniac93-98]

Na'vi River Journey is a fantastic C ticket, and better than other recent attractions like Ratatouille which were designed to be superior.

Rataouille was designed and built first, opening in 2014 at WDSP.

Opening the ride in WDW after Pandora, RotR and Runaway Railway made it look worse and showed how fast it aged.

 

[Agent H]

Resistance is very good when it should have been great

Legitimately wondering what you don’t like about rise.

MMRR is genuinely great.

Honestly there are days where I prefer it to rise of the resistance but it’s still very close overall.

 

[James Alucobond]

... made it look worse and showed how fast it aged.

Eh, disagree. It feels pretty right-sized for World Showcase and doesn't feel "aged" to me compared to its WDW contemporaries. It's just on a different scale, even if it was designed as something more high-profile for Paris.

 

[Charlie The Chatbox Ghost]

Meanwhile, we complain about how dated BatB is.

Princesses get a pass because they make that sweet sweet merchandise money!

 

[Agent H]

Meanwhile, we complain about how dated BatB is.

One has aged well. The other by almost all accounts hasn’t

 

[MisterPenguin]

One has aged well. The other by almost all accounts hasn’t

There are four BatB attractions...

 

[Agent H]

There are four BatB attractions...

That too. Honestly Hollywood Studios has 3 shows (well the mermaid one hasn’t opened yet) that could be replaced by IPs that don’t have rides already.

 

[Charlie The Chatbox Ghost]

At the risk of exposing my elitism (what a surprise!) guests are dumb. If you only build what guests think they want, you’ll ruin the parks - and guests will notice, although most won’t be able to articulate why they are less satisfied. Disneys restaurant menus are a great example of the destructive power of “catering to guests.” If Walt was preoccupied with giving consumers what they thought they wanted, he would never have made Snow White or Fantasia or built Disneyland.

Very true! I said this in another thread on the topic of live action remakes and I think it applies here:

Disney thinks they know what the fans want, but that's the issue- you can't go off what the audience wants, you have to TELL them what they want. Audiences as a whole are stupid- they don't know what they love until you give it to them. If they love something already and you keep giving it to them, they won't love it as much as you think they will. You have to keep doing actually new things, investing in new ideas. People had never heard of Stitch before when the film dropped in 2002 and it was a cultural phenomenon that is still beloved today. Meanwhile, in 2025, people already know who Stitch is- they'll see the remake, but the overall reception will not be as beloved as the original, even if the film does better financially. Not a single one of these remakes have been more universally loved than the originals. People might turn out to remakes and sequels more often in the short term, but they love original ideas more in the long term.

 

[Charlie The Chatbox Ghost]

This is why Disney's recent trend of removing classic attractions and replacing them with the current most popular thing worries me. The more they continue to focus on this trend the more I feel the parks will lose their identity and appeal.

They’re focusing on short term attendance and profits boosts instead of long term projects meant to be timeless and last decades. Imagine if Disney always cycled in the newest movie of theirs- the parks would just be a revolving door of brand advertising. No one would be attached to anything because it wouldn’t be timeless nor would it last. You don’t get legendary attractions like Pirates, Hanuted Mansion, or the Country Bears by only focusing on what’s currently popular. You have to take risks on new ideas or use proven winners (like The Lion King) that are timeless. Encanto might be popular now (and it’s already not as popular as it was in 2021) but in 10 years will people love it like they do the Renaissance films or even the Golden/Silver age films that have proven to have lasting popularity?

 

[The Leader of the Club]

Encanto might be popular now (and it’s already not as popular as it was in 2021) but in 10 years will people love it like they do the Renaissance films or even the Golden/Silver age films that have proven to have lasting popularity?

In fairness, a big reason why people love those older films is the promotion by Disney. Movies like Pinocchio or Alice in Wonderland only became classics because of Disney insisting that they were. They rereleased them in theaters and home video. They were given attractions at Disneyland and those characters were featured in parades and meet & greets. Jiminy Cricket and Tinkerbell especially became synonymous with the Disney brand because Walt chose to leverage them.

There’s no reason Encanto or any other movie can’t be a classic in 20-30 years, but Disney has to put in the work to make it so. The Madrigals need to be in Parades and nighttime spectaculars. Their music needs to be staples on the Disney Hits playlist. They need to keep making Halloween costumes and dolls. And yes, they need to have attractions in the parks.

 

[Incomudro]

Eh, pandering to nostalgia is a big part of the problem. In isolation, replacing just about anything is fine. Also in isolation, using Disney IP in a lot of places is fine, whether to appeal to nostalgic memories or showcase hot properties. What is problematic is when that becomes the sole goal, elevated above thematic integrity. Shoehorning in properties like Cars and Moana are definitely the most obvious resultant problems, but overindexing on nostalgia is detrimental too because it tends to become self-referential to such a degree that it’s more or less a fourth wall-breaking caricature of what someone thinks older Imagineers might have done even when IP isn’t involved.

But Disney to a large extent IS about nostalgia.
Certainly its classic films, and classic time in America.
Chip away at those more and more, and what have you got?

 

[Incomudro]

In fairness, a big reason why people love those older films is the promotion by Disney. Movies like Pinocchio or Alice in Wonderland only became classics because of Disney insisting that they were. They rereleased them in theaters and home video. They were given attractions at Disneyland and those characters were featured in parades and meet & greets. Jiminy Cricket and Tinkerbell especially became synonymous with the Disney brand because Walt chose to leverage them.

There’s no reason Encanto or any other movie can’t be a classic in 20-30 years, but Disney has to put in the work to make it so. The Madrigals need to be in Parades and nighttime spectaculars. Their music needs to be staples on the Disney Hits playlist. They need to keep making Halloween costumes and dolls. And yes, they need to have attractions in the parks.

Yes, there's a reason.
That's like saying Led Zeppelin, The Who, Rush, etc., weren't really better.

 

[Bocabear]

I like Encanto... I thought it was a sweet film... I don't think it needs a land... or a parade... I don't think it needs to be shoved down our throats... I liked the film...I liked the characters.... But I don't think it was more than that....
Sure one attraction about it could be fun... any more is unnecessary. I liked Coco too...Feel the same way...sweet film, visually pretty and some great cultural references... Feels like more could be done with this especially with a Mexican Pavilion in one of the theme parks where it would fit seamlessly...

 

[JD80]

I think the "old" issue that Muppet 3D has/had is that 3D is ubiquitous now.
So making a big thing about it in the show really dates it.
What I liked best about the show is that it's a mix of film, animatronics, and a live character.
If they could have kept those elements, but updated the film so as not to act like 3D is new it would have worked better for me.

I agree with this completely. If the new show has physical props, live elements and a good movie it'll be a hit. The whole aspect of "OH MY GOD IT'S 3D WOOOO OOOO!!" is eye rolling.