DHS Monster Inc Land Coming to Disney's Hollywood Studios

[jah4955]

You are making A LOT of assumptions here. Let’s imagine the theater is getting a full new film. What do you think are the odds it will be as good as Muppets? If it’s on the level of Zootopia, has the park increased or decreased in quality with the replacement of Muppets?

How about this?

Whereas, for the first several decades Muppets were predominantly monsters, and

Whereas, "Monsters Inc." went from getting terrified screams to laughs, and

Whereas, its implicit since they're not scaring anymore that they don't care that kids know they're real (that was always my conclusion since 2001).

Therefore it can be plausible that the Monsters invited The Muppets to do a show in their theater (and it happens to be MV3D), to "help with their energy crisis."

I know .....this is a "Gonzo" pipe dream...as it seems they already gutted the theater

 

[Casper Gutman]

I know this demonstrates my sheer uncouthness. But I like Country Bears, Mermaid and Villains.

Country Bears is better then I expected - for two thirds of its runtime. The entire thing falls apart at the end, when the new infantilized Disney can’t figure out what to do with Al and the IP mandate forces the use of a wholly inappropriate song on the finale. In the whole it’s fine to good but it lacks any of the original’s bite and is not as well written. As for the other two, Villains has a very cool set and Mermaid has great music, but both are very poorly written and Villains, with its minuscule cast, feels cheap and temporary.

DCL has been putting out some wicked productions. However, I can see how the clearly worse new animated film might be the most prognostic.



It was self imposed for sure. But the boss was fired for it.

That’s not why he was fired. Chapek has to stop being a scapegoat. Besides the streaming failures, he was just an extension of Iger.

External actors came into play and threatened them to increase investment with sheer disregard. We’re just still living in the downstream consequence era of Chapek, the Pandemic and Peltz and Co.

The problem isn’t one of the last five days, it stretches back decades. And Chapek and the reaction to the Pandemic are mistakes Disney made.

I’m not sure I think they are that purely negative on Muppets. They are bringing in a compensatory overlay, over an E ticket, and recently made them an after hours seasonal show headliner.

A significant body of fans like the Muppets, and Disney is happy to take their money while offering the cheapest product possible -a quick and dirty overlay of a totally inappropriate ride, for instance. But for a lot of interconnected reasons, from ego to personal preference, Disney management doesn’t like the Muppets.

I think you are looking a tad too hard for pure malice. Yea, I’m sure Iger thinks they are low tier on his IP popularity list, but then WDI has tenantship of the Muppets and that somewhat balances out the scales.

I still maintain a better run company that actually takes care of their shows would have already updated MV3D’s film. Even if that wasn’t the main drive here.

 

[BrianLo]

That’s not why he was fired. Chapek has to stop being a scapegoat. Besides the streaming failures, he was just an extension of Iger.

Of course not the only or remotely main reason. The main reason was he lost the plot and hitched the company exclusively to an unrealistic subscriber number. But he was setting the strategic direction of experiences for a while. That’s about the only venture I’m confident was fully handed over in totality, in part because Iger was so ambivalent about that portfolio. We know Chapek was a micromanager.

I don’t think D’amaro or Iger had much involvement over parks total investment decisions made in 2021/22 - and that’s exactly what we are still downstream of for major projects (not) opening today.

Whether you follow me or not, they were investing heavily in the back half of 2010’s and they are investing heavily in the back half of 2020’s. So if that wasn’t Chapek in the middle, I’m not sure what the common factor was. I do also believe Iger is not the same executive he was in the late 2000’s. I won’t say he loves experiences, nor values the sheer artform, but I think he has changed his buisness view on them tremendously. I don’t think he’s just saying that to appease whomever, because Wall Street doesn’t actually value Experiences, because long term investment isn’t valued.

 

[mattpeto]

The issue isn’t so much that the project is “wasting space.” MGM has plenty of space. The problem is twofold - the project makes poor use of space in multiple ways and seems very certain to fail at “placemaking” because of this and the sprawl, out of proportion to what the project demands or can meaningfully use, highlights how unnecessary it was to kill Muppets.

The artful use of space to create areas that FEEL right, that FEEL like someplace else, is a huge part of the theme park art. A land like Diagon uses space in a much more thoughtful, artful, meaningful way then one like TSL and that’s a big reason Universal’s land FEELS like a lived in city while MGM’s FEELS like an amusement park area. I’m no expert in the field and others here can surely articulate this more skillfully then I can, but whether a space is big or small, it needs to be organized in certain ways to create the desired effect among guests. The failure to use space well is why SWl feels empty and dead in many places or why the EPCOT hub now feels like a disorganized maze. Monsters is marrying a well-made (though by no means perfect) urban area designed by long gone Imagineers with a vast, vast concrete sprawl punctuated by a warehouse, all with one way in or out. And again, that mismatch of areas coupled with the voluminous amount of nothing around the show building vividly illustrates how arbitrary the closure of Muppets was.

It will be a net gain on capacity for some guests - not for guests with young children or disabled guests or elderly guests or unusually shaped guests. Disney NEVER used to build these attractions and it’s a big part of what made them special. Now it’s a majority of what they build.

You are making A LOT of assumptions here. Let’s imagine the theater is getting a full new film. What do you think are the odds it will be as good as Muppets? If it’s on the level of Zootopia, has the park increased or decreased in quality with the replacement of Muppets?

I don’t count formal meet n’ greets as a particular positive. It’s also not an addition - the Monsters have had dedicated spots in the Studios before.

The playground is another sign that Disney has lost its way. The rush to build play areas is a byproduct of Disney’s obsession with building major attractions families can’t ride together - they’re a stark betrayal of Walt’s original vision for the parks.

As for upgraded dining - I would be very surprised if Pizzarizzo doesn’t just get a new name and keep a very similar menu. If you’re a big fan of sushi - theme park sushi for timid eaters - sure, it’s an upgrade. Otherwise, the changes in dining will likely be a lateral move.

This is the kind of wishful thinking that can be so annoying. It’s equalivent to the desperate claims that Disney was just saving the dead space of Animation Courtyard for something grand and new - a claim we heard for 20 years that has now been definitively proven to be nonsense. Again, MGM has plenty of space. What they are building here is a massive dead end that makes poor use of space.

And replacing Star Tours would make the park weaker.

I’m definitely more optimistic about the new area but appreciate your post and your perspective.

No idea if the show will be comparable to MV3D but it’s a high bar for sure.

 

[Agent H]

On the topic of the playground I really hate to sound nit-picky I really do but the sulley slide seems like a really weird touch. In the world of monsterpolis why would a slide be painted to look like him? We don’t have slides themed to energy company ceos in our world. It’s completely non-diegetic. (Yes I’m aware no such thing has been confirmed to be happening)

 

[MisterPenguin]

On the topic of the playground I really hate to sound nit-picky. I really do but the sully slide seems like a really weird touch. In the world of monsterpolis why would a slide be painted to look like him? We don’t have slides themed to energy company ceos in our world. It’s completely non-diegetic. (Yes I’m aware no such thing has been confirmed to be happening)

It was imagineers hired from the Great Adventure lay-offs.

 

[WorldExplorer]

The humor issue is a big one for me - Disney World used to be funny, and a lot of that rested on the willingness to poke fun at the Disney corporation, albeit in relatively safe ways. Think back to Cranium Command or Robin Williams in Animation or David Letterman introducing the Sound show or… the Muppets. Some of that was the spirit of the self-referential, post-modern 90s (boy, do I miss that) but a lot is modern Disney’s drive to aim everything at a distracted 5-year-old.

I agree on Disney not being funny, but disagree on the cause; mocking themselves is a rubber stamp they still apply liberally. In Zoogether you have Nick rolling his eyes at the musical number (I hate that joke with a burning passion I cannot understate) and a meta comment about how Giselle can't sing because fo legal reasons. The Epcot preview center mocked the Otherworld Showcase concept (and I've been told the ride mocks old Epcot being destroyed but I can't find it and never went on). That stupid Incredicoaster intro mocks how dumb of an idea it is. I've heard painfully unfunny things about Deadpool over in Disneyland...

They're just not funny. Edit: I want to clarify that while I don't like self deprecating humor, in this context "they're not funny" means the people writing these jokes, not that kind of joke.

The thing is, these jokes aren't jokes so much as they're the equivilant of being self deprecating because of low self esteem. They're not there to make you laugh. They're there to preemptively mock something they think will get mocked so they can say "look, we get you!" and when you say "Wait...why isn't the singing character singing/this coaster concept is dumb/etc." someone can chime in to say "They acknowledge that in the show/ride!". Which isn't actually a refutation of the complaint, but for some ungodly reason we have decided creatives get a pass for making crap so long as they say "haha, yeah, I really made crap, didn't I?" at some point. Anyway, if your so called joke isn't there to make people laugh but instead just to exist as a barrier against criticism, why bother cooking up something actually funny when just saying it's dumb will work just as well and take less effort?

Then there's the oversaturation element; if your skipper makes a joke about gift shops in a trip that has otherwise been void of self deprecating, it's funny partially because it's unexpected and it lends itself to Jungle Cruise being off kilter. If you get jokes like that regularly, it loses a lot of its punch. Disney does these things in all their media now, not just the parks, it's expected and rote, practically white noise.

Modern creatives also have a deathly fear of being called cheesy, which doesn't play well with comedy. It cuts off funny ideas before they can grow, and leaves anything slightly out there (or just any form of wordplay) with the same rubber stamp mockery immediately after, ruining the joke. With something like Muppets a lot of it was still silly. Now you don't get the fun and the funny, just the cynicism, because the cynicism is less likely to be called goofy and god forbid someone thinks you made something goofy.

They're not funny, they're not in an enviorment conductive to being funny, and we as a society have been giving painfully unfunny jokes a pass.


I miss when I could go into Country Bears or the preshow for Dinosaur and wait for the moment where someone burst out laughing. It always happened.

 

[Jedi14]

On the topic of the playground I really hate to sound nit-picky. I really do but the sully slide seems like a really weird touch. In the world of monsterpolis why would a slide be painted to look like him? We don’t have slides themed to energy company ceos in our world. It’s completely non-diegetic. (Yes I’m aware no such thing has been confirmed to be happening)

We know in universe that scarers are basically athletes in the monster world, so I think in universe, famous athlete turned CEO of the most influential energy company in the city, James P. Sullivan, son of other athlete, Bill Sullivan, getting a themed slide isn’t too much of a suspension of disbelief.

 

[Mr. Sullivan]

In the world of monsterpolis why would a slide be painted to look like him?

For the same reason in the real world we have birthday party slides themed to the Titanic. Sometimes familiarity and fame trumps appropriateness.

 

[HoustonHorn]

The issue isn’t so much that the project is “wasting space.” MGM has plenty of space. The problem is twofold - the project makes poor use of space in multiple ways and seems very certain to fail at “placemaking” because of this and the sprawl, out of proportion to what the project demands or can meaningfully use, highlights how unnecessary it was to kill Muppets.

The artful use of space to create areas that FEEL right, that FEEL like someplace else, is a huge part of the theme park art. A land like Diagon uses space in a much more thoughtful, artful, meaningful way then one like TSL and that’s a big reason Universal’s land FEELS like a lived in city while MGM’s FEELS like an amusement park area. I’m no expert in the field and others here can surely articulate this more skillfully then I can, but whether a space is big or small, it needs to be organized in certain ways to create the desired effect among guests. The failure to use space well is why SWl feels empty and dead in many places or why the EPCOT hub now feels like a disorganized maze. Monsters is marrying a well-made (though by no means perfect) urban area designed by long gone Imagineers with a vast, vast concrete sprawl punctuated by a warehouse, all with one way in or out. And again, that mismatch of areas coupled with the voluminous amount of nothing around the show building vividly illustrates how arbitrary the closure of Muppets was.

That was my biggest takeaway from my Uni trip this Thanksgiving - the placemaking is truly outstanding. I hadn't been since the original HP land opened, so it was my first time at IOA and, obviously, Epic. The two HP lands were breathtaking in their scale and detail. And all four portals at Epic were as well. It really felt like you were walking into Berk...or Super Mario Bros...or a Parisian wizarding world...or a dark village filled with mystical creatures and people.

TSL's placemaking pales in comparison. I actually like SWGE more than most, but I can recognize its flaws.

But here's the deal - Disney has show an inability or unwillingness to compete on placemaking, but THEY DON'T HAVE TO. While I preferred the coasters at Uni, I can't stand their interactive shooters (Mario Kart and the Minion abomination), and their whole "put you in front of a screen for a scene then move you to the next screen" is absolutely unenjoyable. I will take CoP, iasw, Pirates, Jungle/Jingle Cruise, HM and others over most Uni rides every day.

That's why I mourn MV3D - I have no confidence that whatever takes over that space is going to be equal quality, much less an improvement. I'm excited for the addition in the door coaster - but I wish it was an addition Beyond Muppet Courtyard and didn't result in the loss of MV3D.

 

[jah4955]

That was my biggest takeaway from my Uni trip this Thanksgiving - the placemaking is truly outstanding. I hadn't been since the original HP land opened, so it was my first time at IOA and, obviously, Epic. The two HP lands were breathtaking in their scale and detail. And all four portals at Epic were as well. It really felt like you were walking into Berk...or Super Mario Bros...or a Parisian wizarding world...or a dark village filled with mystical creatures and people.

TSL's placemaking pales in comparison. I actually like SWGE more than most, but I can recognize its flaws.

But here's the deal - Disney has show an inability or unwillingness to compete on placemaking, but THEY DON'T HAVE TO. While I preferred the coasters at Uni, I can't stand their interactive shooters (Mario Kart and the Minion abomination), and their whole "put you in front of a screen for a scene then move you to the next screen" is absolutely unenjoyable. I will take CoP, iasw, Pirates, Jungle/Jingle Cruise, HM and others over most Uni rides every day.

That's why I mourn MV3D - I have no confidence that whatever takes over that space is going to be equal quality, much less an improvement. I'm excited for the addition in the door coaster - but I wish it was an addition Beyond Muppet Courtyard and didn't result in the loss of MV3D.

Here's hoping they (pleasantly) surprise us all.

 

[Casper Gutman]

For the same reason in the real world we have birthday party slides themed to the Titanic. Sometimes familiarity and fame trumps appropriateness.

Sully is a working class guy who’s very respected in his field, not a celebrity.

Of course, this is the sort of thing that wouldn’t be a problem if Disney was building a general Pixar Place instead of a single IP land for a property that can’t really support it.

 

[Mr. Sullivan]

Sully is a working class guy who’s very respected in his field, not a celebrity.

Of course, this is the sort of thing that wouldn’t be a problem if Disney was building a general Pixar Place instead of a single IP land for a property that can’t really support it.

I wouldn't say that's a good characterization of Sully personally. He is absolutely a celebrity in Monsters Inc.

Someone said great above. He is this world's version of a pro-athlete. Magazine covers, television commercials (being highlighted as the company's mascot of sorts in said commercial), and then when we follow them on the street, he is further treated that way.

This land is also set post-Monsters Inc, presumably mid or post Monsters at Work, a show that absolutely continues to emphasize that in the world of Monstropolis, Sully is a celebrity.

 

[Casper Gutman]

I wouldn't say that's a good characterization of Sully personally. He is absolutely a celebrity in Monsters Inc.

Someone said great above. He is this world's version of a pro-athlete. Magazine covers, television commercials (being highlighted as the company's mascot of sorts in said commercial), and then when we follow them on the street, he is further treated that way.

This land is also set post-Monsters Inc, presumably mid or post Monsters at Work, a show that absolutely continues to emphasize that in the world of Monstropolis, Sully is a celebrity.

If Sully is a “celebrity,” that completely negates the point of Monsters University. Sully is well-respected in his community and a leader in his field of employment, but he should not be a “celebrity.” I haven’t seen Monsters At Work, but if that’s the direction the franchise went, it completely lost the plot.

 

[Timothy_Q]

On the topic of the playground I really hate to sound nit-picky. I really do but the sulley slide seems like a really weird touch. In the world of monsterpolis why would a slide be painted to look like him? We don’t have slides themed to energy company ceos in our world. It’s completely non-diegetic. (Yes I’m aware no such thing has been confirmed to be happening)

The Sulley slide is from an outdated concept art

 

[BrianLo]

If Sully is a “celebrity,” that completely negates the point of Monsters University. Sully is well-respected in his community and a leader in his field of employment, but he should not be a “celebrity.” I haven’t seen Monsters At Work, but if that’s the direction the franchise went, it completely lost the plot.

He becomes the company CEO and is credited with discovering the new energy source. More of a prominent community figure than Celebrity, which Mike more leans into. They are "celebrities" within the field.

 

[Agent H]

For the same reason in the real world we have birthday party slides themed to the Titanic. Sometimes familiarity and fame trumps appropriateness.

perhaps I’m misunderstanding you but I’m not sure what the connection is here. The titanic is a ship. Sulley is a person. The issue with a titanic slide is that it would probably come off as insensitive. The issue with a sulley slide is that as far I know in the real world no one designs slides to look like real people. If some people do it’s certainly not normal enough to warrant representation in a monsters incorporated land where sulley is a real person.

 

[Agent H]

The Sulley slide is from an outdated concept art

I know but people are speculating about a playground and the spot in the updated concept art where people are speculating the playground could go has something that looks it like it be the sulley slide.

Just so we’re clear I know that doesn’t confirm anything and I hope they don’t go that route.

 

[lazyboy97o]

On the topic of the playground I really hate to sound nit-picky I really do but the sulley slide seems like a really weird touch. In the world of monsterpolis why would a slide be painted to look like him? We don’t have slides themed to energy company ceos in our world. It’s completely non-diegetic. (Yes I’m aware no such thing has been confirmed to be happening)

This is one of the issues with the franchise mandate and choosing to build based on metrics unrelated to guest experience. The themed experience is not very strong and there is concern that people will not recognize the reference, so themed decor is a crutch to make sure people know the reference and can say they saw the reference. It’s similar to the rat motifs in the ornament around the Ratatouille rides, which make absolutely no sense in the context of the movie, only in the context of viewing the movie.

 

[lazyboy97o]

At its core, I hear where you're at and I don't disagree completely.

I still can't wrap my head around people saying this is a "waste of space", when it's taking literally building out on a parking lot and expanding the boundaries of the park. That's where I think some of the opinion here may be bias-influenced: the project is taking away a forum favorite (and personally one of my mine too) and therefore it can't be a positive when it's all complete.

When the entire land opens, it will be a net-gain on capacity and a true expansion of the park. Monstropolis will have a theater show with a meet & greet area, a playground, upgraded dining and finally a new roller coaster in the land.

Yes it's pushed out quite far and I'm confused why that's a bad thing? Maybe they are doing that for sightlines or future expansion (potentially towards Star Tours).

Expansion is not inherently a good use of space. It’s like adding a room to house that has empty rooms. And doing so by building the new room away from the house and attaching it with a big hallway that will complicate future additions.

There’s a ton of space between the two attractions and nothing to fill it in. The park needs greater density. In a universe with portal technology you don’t need the non-place of an industrial district leading to a massive warehouse.

One of the big myths of the fan community is that the parks are built out along these decade long plans and they’re just not. It is very much an ad hoc process. Even when there are attempts at such projects (Evolving Epcot) they are hit with the changing priorities that come from a variety of places, including executive musical chairs. Actually building out new expansion pads would require significant work that shouldn’t be put off for future expansions to address.