DHS CARS LAND

[Pumbaa1222]

Eaxctly, at the very least Fantasyland's stories mostly take place in Western Europe and allow for easier transitions.

Can't say that about Andy's Room, Radiator Springs, or Monstropolis. They're too radically different for one area alone.

"Disney" and "Pixar" are not themes onto themselves.

Except that all those stories take place in USA? And all involve inanimate/imaginary creatures that live among us in their own world? I'm sorry, I'm still not seeing how these don't/can't tie together in a cohesive storyline? "A Hollywood that never was"

Will it be as immersive as DCA's Carsland or Potterland? No, but I don't think the "land" has to be to tell a story if the attractions themselves are the attraction. People complain that FLE is incredibly immersive with no substance. This could be just the opposite.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I think the studio theme "doesn't work" because in DHS, the actual studio part was a working production facility that was never intended to be guest area in the way that it's used now; it's a movie studio masquerading as a theme park. In WDSP, my understanding (never been) is that park was built on the shoestringiest of budgets, hence the plain ugly buildings and lack of placemaking. The studio theme hasn't been given a fair shake, IMO.

If you had built DHS intending it to be 100% a theme park, with Hollywood and Sunset Blvds the same and once you're past the GMR stepping into different studio lands with little "vignettes" from individual movies like the Fantasyland Expansion, I think it would have worked.

The issue though is how these vignettes are established. Are they still sets where these films were "filmed" or do we enter the world of these films? If we enter the world of these films, then why is the world being forced to include other unrelated worlds? Universal Studios (excluding Hollywood) has the New York and Hollywood sets with relavant attractions but then moves into more dedicated lands not pushed together. In Florida we see Springfield and Kustyland being removed from World Expo because that grouping never really made sense once The Simpsons Ride opened. The Simpsons and Men in Black really don't make any sense together and they wouldn't make better sense if they were both made by the same studio.

This is the problem with the separate studios idea as discussed. Star Wars is its own universe and should not be shoved into an experience with Indiana Jones because both were made by Lucasfilm. If these two are going to be totally separate experiences, then there is no need to forcibly label them as a whole. The other option is to acknowledge production, but that is what remains so criticized, the faking of production. The same goes for Pixar.

Will it be as immersive as DCA's Carsland or Potterland? No, but I don't think the "land" has to be to tell a story if the attractions themselves are the attraction. People complain that FLE is incredibly immersive with no substance. This could be just the opposite.

Are there any good examples of a thriving park where the attractions truly outweigh a meh experience holding them together? That is the current condition of the park. It's individual rides are already rather well regarded.

 

[Pumbaa1222]

Are there any good examples of a thriving park where the attractions truly outweigh a meh experience holding them together? That is the current condition of the park. It's individual rides are already rather well regarded.

Yes, all of Magic Kingdom.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Yes, all of Magic Kingdom.

The cardinal realms of the Magic Kingdom are meh experiences? Is that why the pattern has been so often repeated?

 

[spacemt354]

The cardinal realms of the Magic Kingdom are meh experiences? Is that why the pattern has been so often repeated?

Comparatively to the other Magic Kingdom layouts, the Florida version is the most generic. Yet nevertheless, the Florida version of the Magic Kingdom continues to lead the park attendance worldwide. While the cardinal realms of the magic kingdom are present in Florida, the other versions around the world possess more unique features and, imo more immersive lands (though NFL has been quite impressive)

 

[FigmentJedi]

It's possible to work the Pixar movies except for Cars and the upcoming The Good Dinosaur into one universe if you go by the connect the dots game the internet has been playing for years. Problem is an issue of scope or scale as you get a lot of range in the settings in Pixar's films and that's why just calling a land Pixar Place and putting the stuff there doesn't work all that cohesively and you just get a backlot effect.

 

[RandySavage]

In an ideal world, designing from the ground up, I can agree with many of Lazyboy's points. In practicality, I agree with the "Creator-based Lands" approach to DHS. It is the most cost-effective and realistic way to take what is at DHS and to give it a better semblance of organization and theme. This could be the Great Conceit of the Hollywood-based park: themed areas may be based on Great Film-makers (which could then be sub-divided into the fictional worlds created by those film-makers or left as the "Studios" where these movies were made). Another pitfall of "strictly-theme-ing" lands in DHS (e.g. Tatooine vs Lucasland) is that it fully erases any distinction between DHS and MK (which is more Hollywood-based now than ever).

To expand on the USO analogy: what if Men-in-Black were instead a "Futurama"-based ride. That area, coupled with Springfield, would flow nicely as they have the similar feel of Groening-inspired creations, despite time/space differences. One might group them together as GroeningLand, or just call them Springfield and Futurama. On a map, its just semantics.

And despite the obvious clear differences among them (time & space), Indiana Jones and Star Wars are filmic cousins: stylistically, tonally, cast-wise, etc.,. It might even be easier to imagine Indiana Jones and Star Wars sharing the same "land" than Star Trek and Star Wars.

The Pixar Films, the Jim Henson properties, the classic Disney animated Fairytales, the Universal monster movies, etc. are all filmic cousins, as well. This is why there is an opportunity to mix them together within theme parks (as with everything, it would come down to execution). I think there are plenty of ways existing areas of DHS can be creatively re-vamped to link the properties within more compelling environments, many variants of which have been brought up at WDWMagic. E.g., one could envision Mos Eisley transitioning into Cairo, linking two sub-areas of a Lucasfilm based-land. The Pixar Library would be easier to group in a land, as all but Brave and Wall-E, take place in quasi-contemporary, similarly-stylized worlds.

 

[MarkTwain]

In an ideal world, designing from the ground up, I can agree with many of Lazyboy's points. In practicality, I agree with the "Creator-based Lands" approach to DHS. It is the most cost-effective and realistic way to take what is at DHS and to give it a better semblance of organization and theme. This could be the Great Conceit of the Hollywood-based park: themed areas may be based on Great Film-makers (which could then be sub-divided into the fictional worlds created by those film-makers or left as the "Studios" where these movies were made). Another pitfall of "strictly-theme-ing" lands in DHS (e.g. Tatooine vs Lucasland) is that it fully erases any distinction between DHS and MK (which is more Hollywood-based now than ever).

To expand on the USO analogy: what if Men-in-Black were instead a "Futurama"-based ride. That area, coupled with Springfield, would flow nicely as they have the similar feel of Groening-inspired creations, despite time/space differences. One might group them together as GroeningLand, or just call them Springfield and Futurama. On a map, its just semantics.

And despite the obvious clear differences among them (time & space), Indiana Jones and Star Wars are filmic cousins: stylistically, tonally, cast-wise, etc.,. It might even be easier to imagine Indiana Jones and Star Wars sharing the same "land" than Star Trek and Star Wars.

The Pixar Films, the Jim Henson properties, the classic Disney animated Fairytales, the Universal monster movies, etc. are all filmic cousins, as well. This is why there is an opportunity to mix them together within theme parks (as with everything, it would come down to execution). I think there are plenty of ways existing areas of DHS can be creatively re-vamped to link the properties within more compelling environments, many variants of which have been brought up at WDWMagic. E.g., one could envision Mos Eisley transitioning into Cairo, linking two sub-areas of a Lucasfilm based-land. The Pixar Library would be easier to group in a land, as all but Brave and Wall-E, take place in quasi-contemporary, similarly-stylized worlds.

I've avoided this discussion so far but this most closely matches my view. I agree that idealistically, disparate worlds shouldn't be unified by the banner of their franchise, but there's no denying that it at least acts as an effective organizing scheme in the public consciousness. There's also the [major] perk that it might keep franchises locally oriented around a single land instead of encroaching on other themed environments.

In other words: if one accepts the (unfortunate) reality that Disney will continue to insist upon building franchise-themed attractions, I would rather they build all their Pixar attractions in a Pixar land than in Epcot or Tomorrowland, Muppets in a Muppet land instead of on Main Street, etc.

 

[lazyboy97o]

In other words: if one accepts the (unfortunate) reality that Disney will continue to insist upon building franchise-themed attractions, I would rather they build all their Pixar attractions in a Pixar land than in Epcot or Tomorrowland, etc., Muppets in a Muppet land instead of on Main Street, etc.

This does not really address the issue. What then gets built in the rest of the Resort? The number of Disney branded films has shrunk and they sit in the shadows of Lucasfilm, [Marvel,] and Pixar. All this does is prevent the existing places from being sullied (and left to stagnate) by shoving the offenders all together into a non-place that is already disliked for being a non-place. The loss of place caused by franchise attractions is not in the use of franchises, much less ones from any particular producers, but in the metrics of the decision making.

 

[doctornick]

In an ideal world, designing from the ground up, I can agree with many of Lazyboy's points. In practicality, I agree with the "Creator-based Lands" approach to DHS. It is the most cost-effective and realistic way to take what is at DHS and to give it a better semblance of organization and theme. This could be the Great Conceit of the Hollywood-based park: themed areas may be based on Great Film-makers (which could then be sub-divided into the fictional worlds created by those film-makers or left as the "Studios" where these movies were made). Another pitfall of "strictly-theme-ing" lands in DHS (e.g. Tatooine vs Lucasland) is that it fully erases any distinction between DHS and MK (which is more Hollywood-based now than ever).

I think you've hit the nail here.

Alternatively, I would suggest that instead of a "studio" segregation by production company, an alternative could be to make lands based on "genre" like "Action/Adventure", "Comedy", "Drama", etc. though it would be tough and extensive to remake DHS that way. But it would be another manner of segregating the park into themes that reflect the entertainment industry.

 

[jt04]

In an ideal world, designing from the ground up, I can agree with many of Lazyboy's points. In practicality, I agree with the "Creator-based Lands" approach to DHS. It is the most cost-effective and realistic way to take what is at DHS and to give it a better semblance of organization and theme. This could be the Great Conceit of the Hollywood-based park: themed areas may be based on Great Film-makers (which could then be sub-divided into the fictional worlds created by those film-makers or left as the "Studios" where these movies were made). Another pitfall of "strictly-theme-ing" lands in DHS (e.g. Tatooine vs Lucasland) is that it fully erases any distinction between DHS and MK (which is more Hollywood-based now than ever).

To expand on the USO analogy: what if Men-in-Black were instead a "Futurama"-based ride. That area, coupled with Springfield, would flow nicely as they have the similar feel of Groening-inspired creations, despite time/space differences. One might group them together as GroeningLand, or just call them Springfield and Futurama. On a map, its just semantics.

And despite the obvious clear differences among them (time & space), Indiana Jones and Star Wars are filmic cousins: stylistically, tonally, cast-wise, etc.,. It might even be easier to imagine Indiana Jones and Star Wars sharing the same "land" than Star Trek and Star Wars.

The Pixar Films, the Jim Henson properties, the classic Disney animated Fairytales, the Universal monster movies, etc. are all filmic cousins, as well. This is why there is an opportunity to mix them together within theme parks (as with everything, it would come down to execution). I think there are plenty of ways existing areas of DHS can be creatively re-vamped to link the properties within more compelling environments, many variants of which have been brought up at WDWMagic. E.g., one could envision Mos Eisley transitioning into Cairo, linking two sub-areas of a Lucasfilm based-land. The Pixar Library would be easier to group in a land, as all but Brave and Wall-E, take place in quasi-contemporary, similarly-stylized worlds.

I really think transporting guests to a fictionalized Pixar campus could work as a way to tie the Pixar specific properties together.

Of course Yoda was imagined out of the Henson 'universe' so a transitional attraction/motif could be possible there.

I think you have made the perfect case for your ideas for "Creator-based lands". Pixar, though seems like a better fit as a studio-based land because it functions more like an enterprise you might find in silicon valley rather than a traditional studio. A new age corporate campus like setting might work.

 

[Skibum1970]

This does not really address the issue. What then gets built in the rest of the Resort? The number of Disney branded films has shrunk and they sit in the shadows of Lucasfilm, [Marvel,] and Pixar. All this does is prevent the existing places from being sullied (and left to stagnate) by shoving the offenders all together into a non-place that is already disliked for being a non-place. The loss of place caused by franchise attractions is not in the use of franchises, much less ones from any particular producers, but in the metrics of the decision making.

Personally, I would love Disney to go back outside the box and create rides that aren't always sourced in a movie. The Haunted Mansion, POTC, and other rides did not need a movie to build from. In fact, those are considered better rides than some that were based on movies (I'm looking at you former ride known as Snow White's Scary Adventures). They started this in Animal Kingdom and need to continue. The Mystic Manor ride is amazing and doesn't need a movie backstory.

 

[RandySavage]

^ Absolutely. One of the chief WDW development guidelines ought to be to try to make each park as distinct as possible vs. the One-Stop-Shopping for the Most Currently-Popular Disney Brands trajectory they are on (e.g., Pirates, Nemo, Mermaid attractions across multiple parks). DHS' distinction in this guideline is obviously movie-based experiences. IMO, original attractions ought to predominate MK, EPCOT and Animal Kingdom (with room for exceptions).

Just as film developed from theater, "theme park" has grown (out of film) into its own artistic medium (as opposed to an extension of film). Limiting theme park development to franchise-based attractions is stifling to the art form, akin to Hollywood saying "No more original movies - only sequels and re-makes from now on. It's what the people want!"

 

[RandySavage]

Alternatively, I would suggest that instead of a "studio" segregation by production company, an alternative could be to make lands based on "genre" like "Action/Adventure", "Comedy", "Drama", etc. though it would be tough and extensive to remake DHS that way. But it would be another manner of segregating the park into themes that reflect the entertainment industry.

I like this approach, but with genre-based lands, you do end up with something pretty close to MK in feel (as the Western, Pulp Adventure, Sci Fi and Animated Fairytale genres all have their own lands in MK). I drafted a DHS revision concept plan that dovetails both this approach and the creator-based land approach, with Muppets representing the Comedy genre and other non-MK represented film genres (like Film Noir, High Fantasy and Superhero) given lands:
http://idealbuildout.blogspot.com/2012/08/illustrative-plan-dhs.html

 

[Wikkler]

I like this approach, but with genre-based lands, you do end up with something pretty close to MK in feel (as the Western, Pulp Adventure, Sci Fi and Animated Fairytale genres all have their own lands in MK). I drafted a DHS revision concept plan that dovetails both this approach and the creator-based land approach, with Muppets representing the Comedy genre and other non-MK represented film genres (like Film Noir, High Fantasy and Superhero) given lands:
http://idealbuildout.blogspot.com/2012/08/illustrative-plan-dhs.html

It's..... beautiful

 

[stlphil]

What already exists, what people say is not working, is the studio theme. It all undermines the creation of immersive places because they must tinged with the acknowledgement of their fakeness. It's just a slight limitation to the no-man's-land concept of the general studio park concept.

Exactly.

For example, I've seen suggestions that the DL Indy ride be added to the current stunt show to create a mini land. Horrible idea. These attractions just wouldn't work together because the stunt show would torpedo a lot of the immersiveness of the ride because the whole point of the show essentially says that Indy is fake.

Similarly, Star Tours doesn't have quite the same impact at DHS as it does at DL, because once you get just past the impressive facade it clearly makes the point that it isn't real, that it's just a set.

This all made some sense when the park really had a working studio component, but today it is only excess baggage.

 

[stlphil]

The issue though is how these vignettes are established. Are they still sets where these films were "filmed" or do we enter the world of these films? If we enter the world of these films, then why is the world being forced to include other unrelated worlds? Universal Studios (excluding Hollywood) has the New York and Hollywood sets with relavant attractions but then moves into more dedicated lands not pushed together. In Florida we see Springfield and Kustyland being removed from World Expo because that grouping never really made sense once The Simpsons Ride opened. The Simpsons and Men in Black really don't make any sense together and they wouldn't make better sense if they were both made by the same studio.

This is the problem with the separate studios idea as discussed. Star Wars is its own universe and should not be shoved into an experience with Indiana Jones because both were made by Lucasfilm. If these two are going to be totally separate experiences, then there is no need to forcibly label them as a whole. The other option is to acknowledge production, but that is what remains so criticized, the faking of production. The same goes for Pixar.


Are there any good examples of a thriving park where the attractions truly outweigh a meh experience holding them together? That is the current condition of the park. It's individual rides are already rather well regarded.

Agreed.

You can't put the Genie back in the bottle. For better or for worse (mostly better), Potter land and Cars land have set the new standard for transformative change to a park. Great attractions alone will not do. Neither will great theming alone (see FLE). People now expect both, because they have seen what is possible, and anything less won't measure up. (I'm talking transformative change here, I'm not saying that you can't add individual great attractions or theming to plus a park.)

The original name for DHS was The Disney MGM Studios Theme Park. The "Theme Park" part of the moniker carries a certain responsibility. Specific studio named sections of a park are not themes, they are just containers.

 

[RandySavage]

Exactly.

For example, I've seen suggestions that the DL Indy ride be added to the current stunt show to create a mini land. Horrible idea. These attractions just wouldn't work together because the stunt show would torpedo a lot of the immersiveness of the ride because the whole point of the show essentially says that Indy is fake.

Similarly, Star Tours doesn't have quite the same impact at DHS as it does at DL, because once you get just past the impressive facade it clearly makes the point that it isn't real, that it's just a set.

This all made some sense when the park really had a working studio component, but today it is only excess baggage.

It's a good point. The relatively inexpensive and easy fix is to re-skin and re-script as necessary (if the decision is to go "entering film worlds" (i.e. Wizarding World)). For example, Star Tours queue would get 360 degree trees/ATAT and an exterior that looks like a space port. The Indy Stunt show is totally re-scripted and re-dressed so as to become a "real time" theatrical experience in Indy's world, rather than a "Cut, check the gate" movie-making showcase.

 

[Fox&Hound]

I'm sorry...but Indy could really go. I know it eats crowds but it has been there F-0-R-E-V-E-R (yup, said just like from "The Sandlot") =)

I'm not even a huge Star Wars fan but even I know that they could scrap Indy and fill it with more than enough ideas from Star Wars

 

[GoofGoof]

Personally, I would love Disney to go back outside the box and create rides that aren't always sourced in a movie. The Haunted Mansion, POTC, and other rides did not need a movie to build from. In fact, those are considered better rides than some that were based on movies (I'm looking at you former ride known as Snow White's Scary Adventures). They started this in Animal Kingdom and need to continue. The Mystic Manor ride is amazing and doesn't need a movie backstory.

So true. Unfortunately, when the boy wizard moved in down the street that ship set sail. All we ever hear is "what will Disney do to counter Potter" or "Avatar isn't a strong enough franchise to have its own land, how about Lord of the Rings instead" or the most popular now "Star Wars is the only hope Disney has to counter Potter". Yes, it is a new hope. Both fans and people in the industry seem to feel the only way to build a truly immersive land is to theme it after an existing movie franchise. I think it stems mostly from how successful Universal was at marketing Potter. Everyone knows the movies so its a smoothe process to advertise the rides and land. Something as original as Mystic Manor may actually be a superior ride, but is much more difficult to sell to the public as a reason to visit a park.

Somewhere down the line parks started building new rides and marketing them as a reason to visit parks. Now it seems like everything new has to be capable of being the only reason someone will visit a park. How many times do you hear people say "FLE is nice, but there isn't enough substance to make people want to visit WDW". What happened to building rides just to add to the appeal of a park? Now it seems everyone want the new attractions to be the big draw.

It would probably actually be much easier to build rides not based on movies. Look how restrictive some of the limits put on Potterland were to make sure it stayed true to the films. Starting with a blank slate allows the ride to have its own story instead of trying to fit the story around the ride.