DHS Monster Inc Land Coming to Disney's Hollywood Studios

[HMF]

I don't think Snow White's Enchanted Dream should be preserved as-is for all time since it was one of Kim Irvine's final projects before retiring.

With all respect to Kim Irvine. She does not really have the cultural significance Jim Henson did. Also her last job for the company was neutering the Disneyland Haunted Mansion's Attic scene.

 

[Casper Gutman]

It could also be the weak theming and awful aesthetics but sure lack of shade doesn't help.

Also the utterly atrocious layout.

 

[MisterPenguin]

Please don’t tell me they are turning the fine former MuppetVision theatre into a freakin’ meet n’ greet.

Is a M&G a "show"?

Because Disney said it will be a new show.

 

[HMF]

Is a M&G a "show"?

Because Disney said it will be a new show.

Disney's definition of "Attraction" has changed over the years. So who knows what they mean by "Show".

 

[Casper Gutman]

Think they’ll ever do anything with the large building in the middle of the park that features embarrassing Frozen karaoke (the performers try) and a TV cartoon clip show? Talk about “underutilized space.”

 

[Brer Panther]

Think they’ll ever do anything with the large building in the middle of the park that features embarrassing Frozen karaoke (the performers try) and a TV cartoon clip show? Talk about “underutilized space.”

I'm sure somebody is going to claim that the sing-along is too popular to remove, but somehow I doubt the Mickey Shorts Theater is more popular than MuppetVision was.

 

[MisterPenguin]

Disney's definition of "Attraction" has changed over the years. So who knows what they mean by "Show".

Everything that attracts people is an attraction. Even walk-thru elements. So, a *show* will be called an attraction. A M&G spot like Princess Hall will be called an attraction.

For this new Monstropolis land, there are two attractions: A coaster, and a new show.

The fact is, WDW has used the phrase "new show." Trying to equivocate "attraction" is completely irrelevant. Can you point to where a M&G has been called a *show*?

 

[JohnD]

Disney's definition of "Attraction" has changed over the years. So who knows what they mean by "Show".

I have seen clickbait sites use very broad definitions of "attraction.".

 

[Professortango1]

Huh. Hadn't thought of the Python/British humor connection. Now that you've said it I can definitely see it.

And I'd say that's why it feels dated. The show feels groundbreaking and absurdist for its day. I love Python, but there stuff certainly feels of a certain era. Muppets are a bit more modern, but the attraction felt very late 80's/early 90's. Being a child of that age, it certainly holds a lot of nostalgia for me, but I definitely felt the age of it when I took a friend on it a few years back.

 

[mattpeto]

I’m actually with @Casper Gutman on MV3D. Didn’t feel dated to me.

 

[easyrowrdw]

On my last trip I overheard a little kid say, “I love the Muppets,” as we walked into the theater. There were lots of laughs and kids shouting and pointing (at Bean) during the show. That kind of reaction didn’t happen at every show I saw but it was definitely the majority of the time.

 

[Charlie The Chatbox Ghost]

Everything that attracts people is an attraction. Even walk-thru elements. So, a *show* will be called an attraction. A M&G spot like Princess Hall will be called an attraction.

For this new Monstropolis land, there are two attractions: A coaster, and a new show.

The fact is, WDW has used the phrase "new show." Trying to equivocate "attraction" is completely irrelevant. Can you point to where a M&G has been called a *show*?

I agree, I’ve always used “attraction” as a catch all for anything to do or see in the park (that’s intentional). Then you break it down into rides (coasters, dark rides, trains and boats), shows (AA shows, stage shows), or entertainment (street performances, parades, fireworks). I guess walk throughs are their own singular category, haha

 

[LittleBuford]

I’d argue that, in almost any media, writing and presentation (mise en scene) is the only thing that can truly damage a work of art by being dated. Casablanca or Maltese Falcon feel more meaningfully up-to-date then any number of films from the 2010s.

Waldo was VERY early CGI, but he was designed and introduced into the story in such a way that the feeling of being “dated” was minimized. He’s very much of the Muppet world, a chaotic anachronism. If early CGI dates a film, the first Toy Story - and Monsters Inc - are more profoundly past their sell by them MV3D (all are still vibrant and relevant).

I suspect we’re quibbling over terminology rather than actually disagreeing with each other. “Dated” tends to have pejorative overtones, which may explain your resistance to the term. I think @BrianLo put it well by saying that the “material is timeless” even if it is clearly the product of a different age.

 

[CosmicDuck]

I understand the historical significance of it, but a theme park attraction should justify its own existence beyond historical value. I don't ride the Matterhorn because it's the first tubular steel coaster, I ride it because it is fun and well executed. I don't think Snow White's Enchanted Dream should be preserved as-is for all time since it was one of Kim Irvine's final projects before retiring. I loved TTBAB, but I wouldn't say it deserved to stay because it's the last project Kevin Spacey did with Disney parks.

Apples and oranges, I know. But Muppet Vision was dated. It was no longer pulling crowds nor drawing the same appreciation the attraction deserves. As people have shared here, many modern folks would see the show and shrug it off as a one and done.

If Disney is going to replace it with a show that draws better and garners more appreciation from guests, then I'm for that. It stinks that it will vanish from the earth, but that's a world I'm used to with live theatre. These magnificent pieces of art exist until they aren't pulling in the audiences required to offset the work/cost, then they vanish into the ether. 30+ years is a great run for a 3D film.

I understand your POV and under almost any other circumstance I would agree, but I actually think in the case of MV3D - Disney had a responsibility to preserve the show as a piece of irreplaceable art and history. And I'd even argue had the original attraction been built in Disneyland by Henson & crew, the company would agree with me. But because the executives running Walt Disney World for some reason have almost none of the same sense of preservation and legacy that Walt's original park has, they feel emboldened to continue to chip away at the edges of what makes those parks great. Not sure if you've had the chance to visit Disneyland, but you should stop by Great Moments with Mr Lincoln some time and count how many people you see seated on a regular basis. Yet there's a reason they're adding a rotating show to that theater and not replacing it.

MV3D was a singular piece of art from one of the greatest living artists of our time, it does not exist anywhere else in the world. It does not function as a painting which can be moved, or a simple digital recording which can live on a streaming service. I don't care if that theater had ten seats or ten thousand, there should always be a way for someone to come sit down and see the final work of Jim Henson. The same way I can fly to the Louvre and look at the Mona Lisa. The LEAST the company could do is move the dozen or so animatronics and a couple of the seats to the Center for Puppetry Arts but for some inexplicable reason they can not bring themselves to do that, and people should not be letting them off the hook for it. There's not a single other thing at Walt Disney World that carries this kind of historical significance in my opinion.

 

[Baloo124]

Everything that attracts people is an attraction.

I agree, I’ve always used “attraction” as a catch all for anything to do or see in the park (that’s intentional).

Restrooms as well. I can't imagine a scenario where someone goes into one of those unintentionally.

 

[The Mom]

Please stay on topic. Thank you.

 

[JMcMahonEsq]

Think they’ll ever do anything with the large building in the middle of the park that features embarrassing Frozen karaoke (the performers try) and a TV cartoon clip show? Talk about “underutilized space.”

Why would they want to do something else with the building as oppose to using it for a show in connection with its franchise which is one of the most successful in history. That sells merchandise like crazy, and is constantly filled up for every performance?

 

[Casper Gutman]

Why would they want to do something else with the building as oppose to using it for a show in connection with its franchise which is one of the most successful in history. That sells merchandise like crazy, and is constantly filled up for every performance?

Because the show is an embarrassment (I felt sorry for the excellent but stranded performers) and the theatre absolutely does not fill up?

 

[Bocabear]

Because the show is an embarrassment (I felt sorry for the excellent but stranded performers) and the theatre absolutely does not fill up?

I agree... It was meant as a bit of temporary filler and has somehow managed to stay... Almost as if Disney can't come up with any new show ideas.... So a cartoon clip show and a singalong become headliners....at a $179.00 admission price...
or the decades-old BATB show....that also is showing it's age... At this point, just start importing old shows from Disneyland... Their Snow White show was beautiful and very well done, Mickey and the Magical Map...etc. They seem to have a better grasp of entertainment on the West coast.....

 

[Jedi14]

Because the show is an embarrassment (I felt sorry for the excellent but stranded performers) and the theatre absolutely does not fill up?

It absolutely does.