• The new WDWMAGIC iOS app is here!
    Stay up to date with the latest Disney news, photos, and discussions right from your iPhone. The app is free to download and gives you quick access to news articles, forums, photo galleries, park hours, weather and Lightning Lane pricing. Learn More
  • Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.

DHS Monster Inc Land Coming to Disney's Hollywood Studios

BrianLo

Well-Known Member
Who is claiming the land couldn’t open in phases?

Casper Gutman when this was originally discussed. You never really agreed or disagreed at the time but Matt was also clearly never listening to your perspective.

Edit - Sorry, that actually wasn't you either now looking back, that was Peter.
 

eddie104

Well-Known Member
This is literally in response to me saying they’re spending more money than claimed.
I wasn’t referencing you specifically but an overall common narrative on here.

To get back on topic I wonder what upgrades we could possibly be getting after Josh reviewed the project.
 

ChewbaccaYourMum

Well-Known Member
I wasn’t referencing you specifically but an overall common narrative on here.

To get back on topic I wonder what upgrades we could possibly be getting after Josh reviewed the project.
Whether it's upgrades or were always in the plans, I hope there is a lot of moving parts in this land. Like Berk and the Potter lands. I want to see Monsters in the high windows, things in the low shop windows. It needs to feel alive and like a city once you walk in under that arch.
 

eddie104

Well-Known Member
Whether it's upgrades or were always in the plans, I hope there is a lot of moving parts in this land. Like Berk and the Potter lands. I want to see Monsters in the high windows, things in the low shop windows. It needs to feel alive and like a city once you walk in under that arch.
I agree.

With all the extensive work happening to the facades I hope they find a way add little cool elements and gags throughout the land.
 

BrianLo

Well-Known Member
Mostly cause it seems like such a terrible idea based on past phased openings.

That doesn’t mean Disney won’t do it though.

I have a hypothesis that they are trying to have something to market for every park annually. I don’t mind phasing IF no part of the phase is significantly slow rolled to save operational costs.

It’s a nice thought of course, but the number of random projects that have come out the woodwork basically just has me looking at D23 for late decade Epcot and DAK things to see if this remains true.
 

TrainsOfDisney

Well-Known Member
I don’t mind phasing IF no part of the phase is significantly slow rolled to save operational costs.
I just think it’s such a letdown to market a new land and then not have a really good attraction for people to experience until a year later.

But this is Disney - they add decor on a bridge and say “come see the brand new San fransokyo!” That is just an outdoor food court and a meet n greet. So what do I know! Ha.
 

rd805

Well-Known Member
Whether it's upgrades or were always in the plans, I hope there is a lot of moving parts in this land. Like Berk and the Potter lands. I want to see Monsters in the high windows, things in the low shop windows. It needs to feel alive and like a city once you walk in under that arch.

Disney doesn't really do that, but you're exactly right.
 

Goofyernmost

Premium Member
As big as it is, I notice it way less than Tron or backside of Galaxies Edge.
It just bothers me a little because I realize that Disney always wanted to hide the show buildings, I get that, but with everyone clambering for new, bigger, better, more thrilling rides, unless they built them underground it is necessary to have those visible buildings. We cannot have everything. We want high flying thrills we need to have higher show buildings that cannot be completely hidden.

I thought the same thing when they were building Soarin'. I noticed the building, glaringly, while it was being built and for a short time after it was completed. After that I never noticed it unless I thought about it and looked. Thinking about it came first. Heck, I had been going to Epcot since it opened and I never noticed that the two hotels, Swan and Dolphin were visible from inside Epcot until someone mentioned it and I looked. I guess I was to busy soaking in the stuff inside to pay any attention to what was not important or relevant to my experience.
 

Nickm2022

Well-Known Member
biggest issue w disney rn is lack of smaller rides that are not spinners. these rides are needed and need to be built again. But when it comes to monsters im fine with it being a big show building, plus at least this one is themed unlike GOTG or back of tron
 

_caleb

Well-Known Member
It just bothers me a little because I realize that Disney always wanted to hide the show buildings, I get that, but with everyone clambering for new, bigger, better, more thrilling rides, unless they built them underground it is necessary to have those visible buildings. We cannot have everything. We want high flying thrills we need to have higher show buildings that cannot be completely hidden.
Hiding buildings below grade would be one way to hide/minimize the intrusion of show buildings, but there are lots of ways. Camouflage, forced perspective, themed facades, barrier landscaping, etc., are all employed across the parks.

Disney pioneered some of these techniques for hiding show buildings (sometimes in plain sight!), so when they put less effort into it, we notice. If they can't find a way to reduce the visual intrusion of a big new attraction, they should rethink the attraction rather than give up on trying.
 

mattpeto

Well-Known Member
Casper Gutman when this was originally discussed. You never really agreed or disagreed at the time but Matt was also clearly never listening to your perspective.

Edit - Sorry, that actually wasn't you either now looking back, that was Peter.
Oh @BrianLo - I listened to their perspective. Come on man…

Lazyboy or Pete never said that the land couldn’t open in a phased opening. They insisted MV3D closed due to operational costs, not because of the other factors we beat to death.

I’ll leave the topic behind for now.

I am excited to see them work in the courtyard. I’ll be curious when Harryhausen’s exterior permits get filed, it might give us an a better idea when the land will open.
 

Casper Gutman

Well-Known Member
Casper Gutman when this was originally discussed. You never really agreed or disagreed at the time but Matt was also clearly never listening to your perspective.

Edit - Sorry, that actually wasn't you either now looking back, that was Peter.
My memory isn’t faultless, but I don’t recall saying that. Looking back, the closest thing I see is my stating an expectation that the theater would be closed for “three or four” years, which doesn’t seem like a wild claim . I’m happy to be corrected if I spoke more directly to phasing.

What I did do is repeatedly try to get Matt to state WHEN he felt the theatre would reopen, given his conviction that it would be as soon as humanly possible.

This is all besides the point - phased openings were never the key issue. The role of operational costs in closing the attraction was the point of debate.
 

mattpeto

Well-Known Member
My memory isn’t faultless, but I don’t recall saying that. Looking back, the closest thing I see is my stating an expectation that the theater would be closed for “three or four” years, which doesn’t seem like a wild claim . I’m happy to be corrected if I spoke more directly to phasing.

What I did do is repeatedly try to get Matt to state WHEN he felt the theatre would reopen, given his conviction that it would be as soon as humanly possible.

This is all besides the point - phased openings were never the key issue. The role of operational costs in closing the attraction was the point of debate.
Bless your heart Casper, I never claimed it would open as soon as humanly possible. I just said if it did, if would further validate my thesis made above.
 

BrianLo

Well-Known Member
My memory isn’t faultless, but I don’t recall saying that. Looking back, the closest thing I see is my stating an expectation that the theater would be closed for “three or four” years, which doesn’t seem like a wild claim . I’m happy to be corrected if I spoke more directly to phasing.

What I did do is repeatedly try to get Matt to state WHEN he felt the theatre would reopen, given his conviction that it would be as soon as humanly possible.

This is all besides the point - phased openings were never the key issue. The role of operational costs in closing the attraction was the point of debate.

And certainly neither is my memory!

We lacked clear evidence at the time (and still do). I think I at least answered your question that the only way I would be remotely satisfied was to see it open before Tropical Americas and really more adherent to the same interval they are allowing the turnover on the dining facilities there. Aka about 6 months ahead of Tropical Americas.

Next time I easily could see another operational decision again for the sake of money. Though, for what it’s worth, we seem to briefly be in mostly a more consumer focused line of decision making when it comes to timelines. I don’t know who deserves credit and if they are still in the role that matters.
 

Goofyernmost

Premium Member
Hiding buildings below grade would be one way to hide/minimize the intrusion of show buildings, but there are lots of ways. Camouflage, forced perspective, themed facades, barrier landscaping, etc., are all employed across the parks.

Disney pioneered some of these techniques for hiding show buildings (sometimes in plain sight!), so when they put less effort into it, we notice. If they can't find a way to reduce the visual intrusion of a big new attraction, they should rethink the attraction rather than give up on trying.
Yes, I know they pioneered the "hide the show building" set up. Please remember that the show buildings were usually never more than two stories high. In most of the land in WDW has a very high water table so going down just a few feet can be problematic. Remember Magic Kingdom is on the second floor. When things like Tron, a coaster that requires more height then the original parks dealt with, what does everyone expect is going to happen. They demanded and they got, but with what they got they have to deal with some of the realities of life. There is just so much they can do to hide large buildings required to house those attractions. It's getting to the point that those buildings would require a few hundred Giant Sequoias to hide them. Something has got to give or people have to accept the idea that the real world will, on occasion rear it's ugly head and make the best of it. For me, I don't even think about it and I seldom notice it. When I do notice I see it for a few seconds and then continue to enjoy the attractions in the park. In the meantime we can use reason and logic to understand that for every action there is a reaction and the bigger and higher the thrill requirement the harder it is to hide it. Not everything can be called a mountain. Wherever they could they made a mountain or the building wasn't detached in anyway from the entrance and therefore wasn't really standing out.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom