• Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.You can use your Twitter or Facebook account to sign up, or register directly.

Are the Magic Kingdom and Hollywood Studios two sides of the same coin?

mharrington

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
EPCOT and Animal Kingdom each have their own identities, but apparently both the Magic Kingdom and Hollywood Studios have the same identity now: realms that are apparently not real (i.e., fantasy settings), even though the Studios was originally supposed to be a real working studio. It seems as though they both have a bunch of disparate lands that don't really seem to blend together, that the Magic Kingdom and Hollywood Studios are actually quite similar in spite of their differences.
 

ohioguy

Well-Known Member
The Magic Kingdom is simply Disneyland on steroids; it's thematic based on time and place ("Adventure", "Frontier"). The Studios apparently are headed in the direction of thematics based on dedicated IP for each "land" ("Toy Story", "Star Wars"). Attractions are based on these themes and placed accordingly.

The Studios are still more of a mish-mash, while Disney attempts to maintain the Magic Kingdom's strict divisions.
 

Cmdr_Crimson

Well-Known Member
At one point DCA was nothing but Epcot's Animal Studios considering the attractions were just Cloned and also brought to WDW..
SOARIN - brought to Epcot from DCA
Muppetvision - DHS
It's tough to be a Bug -AK
Tower if Terror- DHS
Grizzly Peak river rapids - similar to Kali at AK
Who wants to be a Milinonare play it -DHS
 

mharrington

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
When it comes right down to it, several Disneyland attractions (now and in the future) are in the Studios, not the Magic Kingdom, including:
-Star Tours
-Star Wars: Galaxy's Edge
-Mickey and Minnie's Runaway Railway
-Fantasmic

Yes, EPCOT used to have the 3D movies that were in Disneyland's Tomorrowland, but they're long gone from both parks now. Also, Dinosaur uses the technology from Disneyland's Indiana Jones ride, but the theme is different.

Both the Magic Kingdom and Hollywood Studios are the ones most beholden to movies, apparently, which is part of the reason why I believe that the Studios now is becoming an extension of the Magic Kingdom in some way.
 

mharrington

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
It's hard to find a distinction between any of the parks looking at the roster of additions in the last few years.
To be fair, EPCOT is in the midst of a huge overhaul that may or may not change its theme. But both the Magic Kingdom and Hollywood Studios apparently involve, in some way, shape or form, fantasy. The Magic Kingdom's entrance plaque clearly mentions that you are entering "a world of yesterday, tomorrow and fantasy," while Hollywood Studios is touted as "the Hollywood that never was - and always will be," which sounds rather oxymoronic, but apparently means that it's not nor is supposed to be a real Hollywood, but a fantasy Hollywood (i.e., a glitzy, glamorous Hollywood). Plus, both the Magic Kingdom and Hollywood Studios are the ones most beholden to IPs/movies.
 

Animaniac93-98

Well-Known Member
The Magic Kingdom is a tribute to Walt Disney's legacy and beliefs.

Hollywood Studios is a tribute to the corporate Disney brand and its subsidiaries.

Interesting that the older park with no Star Wars, Marvel and hardly any Pixar is still more popular.
 

Edward Jackson

Well-Known Member
EPCOT and Animal Kingdom each have their own identities, but apparently both the Magic Kingdom and Hollywood Studios have the same identity now: realms that are apparently not real (i.e., fantasy settings), even though the Studios was originally supposed to be a real working studio. It seems as though they both have a bunch of disparate lands that don't really seem to blend together, that the Magic Kingdom and Hollywood Studios are actually quite similar in spite of their differences.

Honestly I think you are really reaching with the comparisons of the Magic Kingdom and Disney Studios. I still feel you get a much different experience at each of the parks. You be you though and enjoy the discussion.
 

MickeyLuv'r

Well-Known Member
EPCOT and Animal Kingdom each have their own identities, but apparently both the Magic Kingdom and Hollywood Studios have the same identity now: realms that are apparently not real (i.e., fantasy settings), even though the Studios was originally supposed to be a real working studio. It seems as though they both have a bunch of disparate lands that don't really seem to blend together, that the Magic Kingdom and Hollywood Studios are actually quite similar in spite of their differences.
I'd say MK harkens back to the popular imagination games (many) American children used to play back when the park was built. I'm not sure what else to call them, but back in the 1960-1970's when children weren't playing board games, or games-with-rules (sports, jump rope), they played imagination games. In this era, children were mostly sent outside to play often with minimal supervision. They just had to stay like, in the yard or maybe in the neighborhood.

The common games were:
Wild West (Frontierland - or the wild parts of the USA),
Explorer (Adventureland - or wild parts of the world that aren't the USA, most often setting was jungle),
Space Adventure (Tomorrowland), and
Princess/Knight (Fantasyland).

Back then, Little House on the Prairie and Laura Ingalls Wilder's other books were very popular with girls, and most public school students read Twains' Tom Sawyer, Huck Finn or both. Wild West movies were also very common , like just about any John Wayne movie. So the girl's version of the game was more about pretending you were Laura. Boys' tended to go more for shootouts. Another version was to go in the woods and build two 'forts.'


Adventureland is somewhat played out in Up or Tarzan. Kids pretended to discover new places, new animals, or they just wanted to see the native habitat of all the animals they'd seen in the zoo. Like seeing elephants, lions, gorillas, crocs, or black panthers.

Princess/knight had a few different versions. For boys, swords were popular. For girls, it was often a game of dress-up.

Most of the above are long gone. The one other game I recall, that lasted a little longer was 'lava.' Lava = pretending the floor is lava. If you touch the floor, you're dead/out. Children play by trying to climb around a rec room: on tables, chairs, couches, toy boxes, crates, anything that will hold a child's weight.

OH, another popular game was seances and levitations, maybe combined with Ouija. Think Madame Leota for seances. To play Levitation, everyone gathered around the youngest child and tried to lift them using just 2 fingers (2 from each hand; 4 total). You pretended the littlest one was 'dead' and they had to stay stiff to make it work. Often the person lifted would be ticklish though and they'd squirm.

It was also...not unheard of for children to pretend they were part of Colonial America, and maybe a hero of the American Revolution. Colonial America was tough though because costumes were a bit tough to find/make.

I have no explanation for the lands of HS.....
 

mharrington

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
Honestly I think you are really reaching with the comparisons of the Magic Kingdom and Disney Studios. I still feel you get a much different experience at each of the parks. You be you though and enjoy the discussion.
I'm "reaching" because it seems easier for some on this site to accept movie-based rides more in the Magic Kingdom or the Studios than in, say, EPCOT (i.e., Frozen, Three Caballeros, Ratatouille, even Moana).
 

MickeyLuv'r

Well-Known Member
I'm "reaching" because it seems easier for some on this site to accept movie-based rides more in the Magic Kingdom or the Studios than in, say, EPCOT (i.e., Frozen, Three Caballeros, Ratatouille, even Moana).
I'm not sure I follow. MK has always had movie based rides. On opening day it had Peter Pan, Dumbo, Mad Tea Party, Snow White Swiss Family Robinson, and I'm not counting the opening day attractions that have since become movies (HM, CBJ, Jungle Cruise) or anything that was featured in the parades. Opening day also featured Mickey Mouse, though no Mickey based attraction.

Studios also opened with GMR and the Backlot Tour, which both featured assorted movies.

Epcot did not have any movie based attractions when it opened.

AK had Festival of the Lion King, ITtBaB, Pocahontas + Her Forest Friends, and Rafiki's Planet Watch. So it had 1 movie based attraction, 2 movie based shows, and well, I've never understood the naming of Rafiki's Plant Watch. It is named after a movie based character, but it is a train ride to the animal care facility/a petting zoo. It doesn't really have anything to do with Rafiki.

I can't speak for what anyone else has posted or why, but IMO, those 3 fit in AK because they all 3 had animals as main characters. The Pocahontas show largely featured animals, like a racoon (Meeko). Though the Pocahontas show is long gone because it wasn't a huge fan favorite.

Now if you look at the AK front gate, it DOES have several fictional characters. It has long been conjectured that one of the AK lands was supposed to be made of fictional animals, like dragons. There's EE, but it isn't based on a movie. I have never argued for or against Pandora being in AK, but I'm not sure would say either is 'animal-based,' though fictional animals are part of both attractions.
 

mharrington

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
I'm not sure I follow. MK has always had movie based rides. On opening day it had Peter Pan, Dumbo, Mad Tea Party, Snow White Swiss Family Robinson, and I'm not counting the opening day attractions that have since become movies (HM, CBJ, Jungle Cruise) or anything that was featured in the parades. Opening day also featured Mickey Mouse, though no Mickey based attraction.

Studios also opened with GMR and the Backlot Tour, which both featured assorted movies.

Epcot did not have any movie based attractions when it opened.

AK had Festival of the Lion King, ITtBaB, Pocahontas + Her Forest Friends, and Rafiki's Planet Watch. So it had 1 movie based attraction, 2 movie based shows, and well, I've never understood the naming of Rafiki's Plant Watch. It is named after a movie based character, but it is a train ride to the animal care facility/a petting zoo. It doesn't really have anything to do with Rafiki.

I can't speak for what anyone else has posted or why, but IMO, those 3 fit in AK because they all 3 had animals as main characters. The Pocahontas show largely featured animals, like a racoon (Meeko). Though the Pocahontas show is long gone because it wasn't a huge fan favorite.

Now if you look at the AK front gate, it DOES have several fictional characters. It has long been conjectured that one of the AK lands was supposed to be made of fictional animals, like dragons. There's EE, but it isn't based on a movie. I have never argued for or against Pandora being in AK, but I'm not sure would say either is 'animal-based,' though fictional animals are part of both attractions.

I'm focused on the context of today, not when the parks first opened.
 

90s

Member
DHS still is thematically tied to Hollywood. Sunset Blvd, and Hollywood Blvd are very much based off real things in California, some that no longer exists. It’s a bygone era with the brown derby, Sci fi and prime time cafe themed to the 50s. The Chinese Theatre, and shops all idealized versions of real places. This is a good article about that https://www.yesterland.com/replicas.html
 

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
I'm focused on the context of today, not when the parks first opened.
It seems that with the exception of Epcot, MK and DHS are not any different now then before except that DHS no longer pretends to be a working movie studio. It was born as a movie park though and MK was and still is strongly connected with movies. What, other than the name of specific movies, is different?
 

mharrington

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
It seems that with the exception of Epcot, MK and DHS are not any different now then before except that DHS no longer pretends to be a working movie studio. It was born as a movie park though and MK was and still is strongly connected with movies. What, other than the name of specific movies, is different?

It seems as though the Studios and the Magic Kingdom are more beholden to movies than ever. Also, many people seem to think that the movie-based attractions in EPCOT now seem to encroach on the theme of the park, particularly Frozen, which many people argue should have gone in the Magic Kingdom or the Studios, which, unlike EPCOT are not supposed to be about real places (even though sections of the Studios (i.e., Hollywood and Sunset Boulevards, Echo Lake) are all derivative of real places). EPCOT now in the midst of drastic changes, which will entail (in part) the total rename of Future World, so it will be interesting to see how the movie-based attractions will fit in EPCOT in now.
 

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
It seems as though the Studios and the Magic Kingdom are more beholden to movies than ever. Also, many people seem to think that the movie-based attractions in EPCOT now seem to encroach on the theme of the park, particularly Frozen, which many people argue should have gone in the Magic Kingdom or the Studios, which, unlike EPCOT are not supposed to be about real places (even though sections of the Studios (i.e., Hollywood and Sunset Boulevards, Echo Lake) are all derivative of real places). EPCOT now in the midst of drastic changes, which will entail (in part) the total rename of Future World, so it will be interesting to see how the movie-based attractions will fit in EPCOT in now.
The idea that Epcot isn't supposed to have it, is not part of the current or recent past Disney management. they gave it a try and did great except that the public didn't go to WDW to be given classes. The went to be entertained. That worked for a little while but the paying public did not continue to support it. The areas you mentioned in DHS were real places but they weren't in DHS because of their reality. They were there to completely support the making movies themes. (still movies) Remember Eisner's speech during the grand opening. "We welcome you to a Hollywood that never was—and always will be."

Having been a lover of the original EPCOT, I do miss the old Epcot, but I also realize that it had to change because in spite of what we feel, our numbers were not big enough to sustain the park. Epcot is slowly become an entertainment park. An entertainment park with different things to see and do. Frozen showed that they could draw more people to Epcot if they offered something that the majority wanted and that is the way they are going.

The rest of us have to understand and accept that EPCOT is dead. A few of the beautiful esthetic things are remaining and replaced because now that the gravestones have been removed it is a welcoming place, promising enjoyment. Just the way it is and, as a theme park, just the way it is supposed to be. I think it is just starting the transformation and it will take awhile, but as long as they can start to offer Guardians and 220 Restaurant, and things similar, it will once again start to pull in both young and old. For the first time in a long time I see a glimmer of hope for the place to become something other than a eat, drink, sniff flowers and puke location.

Epcot is in line to be not only the second park at WDW, but is becoming the fifth as well. Both Epcot and DHS are quickly becoming even better than MK and that is what they should have been doing for years. History is nice... in a museum! If only Disney Co. would have had the foresight to professionally film all the attractions they ever had they would sell a ton of memories. We could all get in line and relive the old days with a clear, sharp image and a connected memory. I still don't see why they didn't if for no other reason then to archive them.
 
Last edited:

mharrington

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
The idea that Epcot isn't supposed to have it, is not part of the current or recent past Disney management. they gave it a try and did great except that the public didn't go to WDW to be given classes. The went to be entertained. That worked for a little while but the paying public did not continue to support it. The areas you mentioned in DHS were real places but they weren't in DHS because of their reality. They were there to completely support the making movies themes. (still movies) Remember Eisner's speech during the grand opening. "We welcome you to a Hollywood that never was—and always will be."

Hence my comment earlier about how many have speculated that the Hollywood seen there is not supposed to be the real Hollywood, but a fantasy Hollywood.

Having been a lover of the original EPCOT, I do miss the old Epcot, but I also realize that it had to change because in spite of what we feel, our numbers were not big enough to sustain the park. Epcot is slowly become an entertainment park. An entertainment park with different things to see and do. Frozen showed that they could draw more people to Epcot if they offered something that the majority wanted and that is the way they are going.

The rest of us have to understand and accept that EPCOT is dead. A few of the beautiful esthetic things are remaining and replaced because now that the gravestones have been removed it is a welcoming place, promising enjoyment. Just the way it is and, as a theme park, just the way it is supposed to be. I think it is just starting the transformation and it will take awhile, but as long as they can start to offer Guardians and 220 Restaurant, and things similar, it will once again start to pull in both young and old. For the first time in a long time I see a glimmer of hope for the place to become something other than a eat, drink, sniff flowers and puke location.

I miss the old EPCOT, too, but I am willing to accept what they have there now, even Frozen, which many have argued goes against the theme of World Showcase in particular, which is to show off the cultures of real places, whereas Frozen, people argue, has no business being in EPCOT, because Arendelle is not a real place. It does have some connections to Scandinavia, but not necessarily to Norway in particular. If it was a tour of Norway featuring the Frozen characters, that would be one thing (and one that people might have accepted), but it's not. As such, Arendelle, people here and elsewhere (such as the Unofficial WDW Guide) argue, should not be in EPCOT, but in, say, either the Magic Kingdom (in Fantasyland, of course, being a fantasy (i.e., not real) setting and all) or the Studios (being based on a movie). I frankly don't know how it could have fit in the Studios without being too jarringly obtrusive.

In any case, being as EPCOT is in the midst of a transformation, which will entail the renaming/breaking up of Future World, it will be interesting to see where the park's theme as a whole will go now. I just wish/hope they do something with the Imagination pavilion.
 

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
Hence my comment earlier about how many have speculated that the Hollywood seen there is not supposed to be the real Hollywood, but a fantasy Hollywood.



I miss the old EPCOT, too, but I am willing to accept what they have there now, even Frozen, which many have argued goes against the theme of World Showcase in particular, which is to show off the cultures of real places, whereas Frozen, people argue, has no business being in EPCOT, because Arendelle is not a real place. It does have some connections to Scandinavia, but not necessarily to Norway in particular. If it was a tour of Norway featuring the Frozen characters, that would be one thing (and one that people might have accepted), but it's not. As such, Arendelle, people here and elsewhere (such as the Unofficial WDW Guide) argue, should not be in EPCOT, but in, say, either the Magic Kingdom (in Fantasyland, of course, being a fantasy (i.e., not real) setting and all) or the Studios (being based on a movie). I frankly don't know how it could have fit in the Studios without being too jarringly obtrusive.

In any case, being as EPCOT is in the midst of a transformation, which will entail the renaming/breaking up of Future World, it will be interesting to see where the park's theme as a whole will go now. I just wish/hope they do something with the Imagination pavilion.
First, the Hollywood seen there was a fantasy Hollywood and not the real one. That was the point of the "never was, and always will be" ending. It was the reality of what we were going to witness.

In Epcot, I actually see a stronger World Showcase. Let's face it any of the pavilions that didn't have an attraction along with it was a crashing bore. Japan, for example... this is what I envision when I think about it... Three or four people beating big drums with a bat and inside a bunch of Japanese Animae. I have been to Japan and what is in WS is not Japan as a whole. Very little culture shown that would tell us about Japanese life. The others featured food. So we know what German people and others eat. In other words they just became large themed restaurants. But, how accurate was their theming really?

Norway had a ride that left us with the vision of dirty Polar Bears and large oil rigs (possibly why the Bears were dirty). Frozen, though not representing Norway directly, at least fortified certain elements of the Nation and because of the architecture of the rest of the Pavilion we now have more people with a positive vision of the place because more people went to see it. It became way less boring then it previously was.

The purpose of a Worlds Fair is advertising. Making people be excited about a location and thus wanting to go there. It is a great idea but there is a reason that actual World Fairs usually only last one year and the best Pavilions entertained as well as displayed. You can look at the same thing only so many times before it is no longer worth the walk. In order for World Showcase to continue it has to continually change or it becomes too stagnant to maintain interest.
 
Last edited:

mharrington

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
Norway had a ride that left us with the vision of dirty Polar Bears and large oil rigs (possibly why the Bears were dirty). Frozen, though not representing Norway directly, at least fortified certain elements of the Nation and because of the architecture of the rest of the Pavilion we now have more people with a positive vision of the place because more people went to see it. It became way less boring then it previously was.

Why then do so many people think that Frozen in Norway is a betrayal of what World Showcase is all about? That it should have gone in either the Magic Kingdom or the Studios? Bob Sehlinger, author of the Unofficial WDW Guide, argues that Frozen in Norway represents "everything we hate about corporate Disney."
 

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
Why then do so many people think that Frozen in Norway is a betrayal of what World Showcase is all about? That it should have gone in either the Magic Kingdom or the Studios? Bob Sehlinger, author of the Unofficial WDW Guide, argues that Frozen in Norway represents "everything we hate about corporate Disney."
There aren't that many people, it is just a few that have felt anything about it at all. Even Norway isn't upset about it. It is a non-problem that is being made into one. A minority complaint about nothing. Probably in the range of 90% of visitors to WDW don't give two hoots about what nations are there and how they are represented. They go there to be entertained. Details about Norway are not even registered. They go and if they like what they saw they tell their friends and they go back and bring others with them. I bet they couldn't even find Norway on a map. Why, because they don't have too. They are not going there to learn about Norway or any other country, they are going there to be entertained. Period!
 

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

Top Bottom