so are you saying TOT is a good ride but it would be better if it were disney?
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
DHS CARS LAND
- Thread starter whylightbulb
- Start date
agree i like going to wdw for a variety of reasons not just to see disney charaters
Pixiedustmaker
Well-Known Member
Well . . . Michael Eisner saw plans for Universal Studios when he worked at Paramount and the idea of a joint venture was pitched to Paramount with regards to a Uni studio park. When Eisner came to Disney he pushed the company to complete their studio park first, and both Universal and MGM Studios opened about within a year of each other.
So, I'd say that DHS opened with the attempt of competing with Universal first, rather than having its own unique vission.
So, DHS wasn't conceived purely, or even primarily, by Imagineering, but Eisner knew the details of a studio park and wanted Disney to beat Universal to the punch. Given this, I think the idealized talk of Hollywood is secondary to building a studio park which was in essence based on Universal's approach. DHS has a lot of Hollywood glitz, but I don't really get the land or pavillion vibe that you get from classic Disney parks.
Similarly, DCA was a half-hearted attempt to put in something into DLR's parking lot after promising Anaheim the second gate, it began as a strictly non-Disney park, with few Disney characters, and offering cheap thrills similar to Knotts.
NoChesterHester
Well-Known Member
The removal of characters from the non-castle parks is nothing more than a fanboy dream. It is never ever happening. Ever.
I'm not going to get my blood pressure up over the impossible.
I'm not going to get my blood pressure up over the impossible.
NoChesterHester
Well-Known Member
Agree. Regardless, the dedication statement for then MGM Studios is absolutely fantastic. It can easily serve as the guidance for the rudderless ship that is Hollywood Studios going forward.
Pixiedustmaker
Well-Known Member
In a way Eisern succeeded as DHS pulls in guests. To compete with Disney, Universal copied Disney's higher quality attractions and put in Potterland. The thing is that WDW has four theme parks, in addition to other offerings, and a big new land (I'm talking about bigger than NFL), will draw guests into the mouse trap.
DHS has a very lose theme, but it does draw in about 10 million guests a year. Can't see Burbank doing anything major with this park in the next ten years. If it was drawing in just six million like DCA, then yes, they might consider a bonafide expansion into the parking lot or across World Drive, but the Orlando theme park market is flush with tourists, more than ever before.
My guess is that, if DCA continues to draw the crowds through the end of this year, Burbank will conclude that the "major park makeover" route is a winning route. If so, the next one would, I think, be DAK. While DHS could certainly benefit from e, it's gotten new attractions relatively recently ( TsMM, ST2, and even AIE) in comparison to the nothing that s been done at DaK. Plus, DaK is already in line for Avatar, so it wouldn't take as much investment to turn it into a big makeover. Nighttime show, a dark ride, a few more animal attractions, a restaurant, plus Avatar, along with a few entertainment upgrades, and you're there. Spread it over 5 years and the annual investment wouldn't be too big to swallow.
doctornick
Well-Known Member
And Disney Studios (both animation and live action) with Mickey Ave and Animation Courtyard.
doctornick
Well-Known Member
I think we'd all like for that to be the case, but the situations are so dramatically different between DCA and DLR versus DHS/DAK and WDW -- all the WDW parks draw far better than DCA ever has (around 10M people a year), so the impetus to "fix" or "makeover" those parks is far less than with DCA. Or to put it another way, the upside to putting a ton of money to DHS/DAK is far less than the upside of DCA with its 6M annual guests.
The flip side is the argument that making DAK/DHS more full and complete will actual make more money by leading people to take longer vacations at WDW and potentially higher resort bookings and less need for discounting, etc. It might even prevent people from splitting vacations with Universal or other area alternatives or having vacations where WDW is avoided entirely.
While I'd be fine with that, I think DHS needs more of a "makeover" than DHS. DAK needs more "stuff", yes, and I agree with your ideas but DHS needs a "Project Sparkle" type change making the park more cohesive and to improve guest flow. Most of the "lands" there could use significant theming help.
Agree all around. I'm merely predicting that, if they do something big, it'll be DAK first. If it were my choice, it'd be DHS.
doctornick
Well-Known Member
Well, DHS has the lower attendance (not by much though), so that could be a driver for that park to be a focus. I do think they will be doing something for both parks in the near future, but I'm not convinced that it will be anything for DAK beyond Pandora (and maybe a night time parade or show).
I think the motivation for doing a big makeover at DHS would be that it could be used to introduce/push Disney IP (Star Wars, Pixar) and help drive merchandise sales of that stuff. I would expect that to be more beneficial to the company's bottom line than some generic Australia/South America type land at DAK.
Skibum1970
Well-Known Member
I would think DHS would be first as it is the older park with more need of upgrades. DAK still feels fresh and just needs a couple more attractions (not a total redo). I just got back from a trip to LA and went to DCA. The overall improvements were very nice. However, I am going to reverse course on one opinion and that is that a Lucasfilm land, complete with Indiana Jones ride and Star Wars ride(s) would be a much more suitable option than RSR. I liked RSR but the Indy ride in Disneyland was truly special. I'm not saying to copy Indy but just that the concepts would be better in Florida. A water coaster with heavy theming, speeder bike coaster, Indy dark ride, or other utilizations from the Lucas world.
I'll be happy with more rides, even RSR cloned, but would like to see Imagineering given some leeway on the Lucas ideas.
GoofGoof
Premium Member
DHS overhaul makes more sense if they are looking to increase the bottom line. DAK will have major appeal for many but no interest at all for some no matter how much they add.
Benpow
New Member
First things first lets get rid of that god awful hat! It serves no useful purpose and ruins a great entrance to the park. Then the backlot tour should be destroyed and turned into cars land or radiator springs. Also, streets of America are a waste of space. The only thing that should be saved is muppets. After this LMA must go. With this extra space this section of the park can be dedicated to a new themes land such as Star Wars etc. The Osborne spectacle of dancing lights could be moved to hollywood boulevard. The animation courtyard should then be destroyed to accommodate space for Pixar land where new e ticket rides from the Pixar movies are placed.Behind rock n roller coaster is also a parking lot that teams from the backlot tour turned around or parked. This should be converted into a larger g force records where music of all kinds is celebrated to accompany rr.
RSoxNo1
Well-Known Member
The problem there is, where do you create the distinction between "Stuff that belongs in Fantasyland" and "Stuff that belongs in the Animation Courtyard"?
Wikkler
Well-Known Member
It's simple.
If it takes place in Europe, put it in Fantasyland. Or not. Who cares?
If it is about Walt Disney, put it in Animation Courtyard. Or not. Who cares?
RSoxNo1
Well-Known Member
That's how you end up with a disjointed themed like Hollywood Studios.It's simple.
If it takes place in Europe, put it in Fantasyland. Or not. Who cares?
If it is about Walt Disney, put it in Animation Courtyard. Or not. Who cares?
The Empress Lilly
Well-Known Member
On the simplest level, I'd say the distinction is between from an internal perspective' or 'external perspective'. That is, if the attraction takes place within the fantasy realm, it's FL. If it is about the movie, about the people who make the movie instead of inhabit it, then AC.
On a deeper level, I wish the question wasn't 'where to put this'. But 'how can we develop this land and theme'.
The former leads to shoehorning in of rides, such as Splash in MK's Frontierland, when it is really only a good thematic fit for DL's Bear / Critter lands, for which it was designed.
The latter leads to rides that strenghten the land's theme, while the land's theme strenghtens the ride. Such as Jungle Cruise and the Treehouse, or the Safari, or the Great Movie ride.
The Empress Lilly
Well-Known Member
For my money:
3 and 4 are great.
2 kinda, somewhat. ish.
1 not so much.
And welcome to the forum! Good to see new members!