-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News Disney Not Renewing Great Movie Ride Sponsorship Deal with TCM ; Attraction to Close
- Thread starter The Visionary Soul
- Start date
DinoInstitute
Well-Known Member
TCM doesn't own the theater, it's the TCL Chinese Theater. And I don't really think they care about free advertising, it's a nice and well done icon. It would cost a lot to replace it anyway.
Mike S
Well-Known Member
Oooooooooh... My bad
Animaniac93-98
Well-Known Member
Hi @danlb_2000! Thanks so much for the map, it really helps to put things into perspective for me.
I love The Great Movie ride so much. It's one of a kind and I really enjoy the actors and skits, so I totally hate the idea of losing such a gem.
If Disney can find a new spot for the new Mickey attraction than that's great. The Mickey Mouse ride deserves to have it's own identity and something entirely new.
Thanks so much for the video, Dan! I can totally see how this can work.
Like, a Mickey Mouse throughout the years kind of thing. The ride starts out with retro Mickey and how he got his start and then goes on to show his transformation over the years and into the future. They can just call it "The Great Mickey Ride" or something. LOL.
But, this theme has a cool historical museum kind of vibe to it and that may not translate into the fun over the top experience that we associate with Mickey and could very well be an inferior experience to The Great Movie Ride.
Again, the new ride needs to have it's own identity -keeping the theater may just confuse and upset people.
Plus, there is going to be lots of issues with the old and fragile building. The workers may uncover asbestos or mold or something worse to deal with like over at the Poly ceremonial house -- when they could just tear it all down and start fresh with a modern green energy efficient state of the art building. This will be easier for the Imagineers and all the workers.
I totally agree with you! I guess it all depends on who Disney is trying to appeal to.
And, given the current trend with the Muppets coming to Liberty Square and Frozen in Norway -- one can easily guess which direction they're headed toward. We'll see.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
While production has fled Hollywood, the people themselves have not. Disney and Universal were trying to ship the whole process to Florida and in Disney's case it would have required letting tours walk right through.
Phil12
Well-Known Member
Regardless of the ownership, the Chinese Theater needs to go along with the hand prints. Disney could open an historic park in which they could put the Chinese Theater, CBJ, CoP and other past their prime attractions.
It's not a well done icon. It's way too small. We need something big and spectacular to demonstrate the breathtaking advances and growth of the WDC from little cartoon production company to mammoth Dow Jones company that it is today!
Goofyernmost
Well-Known Member
I have to ask... at what point in time was the Great Movie Ride not based on movies? When did Disney not have non-related lands in the same park? (i.e. Adventure, Frontier, Tomorrow, etc, lands with IP's that were not owned or acquired by the company with the possible exception of GMR which had a strong connection to MGM Remember them?)? It seems that in order to even have GMR they had to share a park name with MGM.
MayorLionheart
Active Member
I can guarantee you the park's new name will not be Disney's Hollywood Adventure. They will likely axe any Hollywood reference from the park's name. Its main two lands, Toy Story and Star Wars, are movies produced by non-Hollywood film companies. It just wouldn't work or make sense. I am thinking Disney's Cinematic Adventure.
GoofGoof
Premium Member
I think his point was that the original MGM Studios park was supposed to be an active studio park showing you behind the scenes views of how movies are made and the history of movie making. It was actually a copy of Universal's studio park in Hollywood. GMR was a perfect anchor for that park. The Universal model he is referring to Disney copying currently is the IOA model. Different lands based purely on IPs. It's not about having unrelated lands in the same park like MK, but rather having lands based on IPs. Maybe there isn't much difference, but the MK lands outside of Fantasyland were based on non-IP rides like Pirates, HM, the 3 mountains, etc... The lands had a theme like Frontier or Adventure or Tomorrow and the rides had to fit into the theme. In the IOA model the lands are IPs themselves: Jurassic Park, Harry Potter, Marvel Super Heroes...etc
What I think we are losing is 4 unique parks. A MK park, a studio park, a zoo/theme park and EPCOT. If all of these plans really happen they are moving DHS and EPCOT more towards the IOA model of IP lands. We will still have a unique experience in AK at least (even if you think Pandora is a little out of place).
Biff215
Well-Known Member
I doubt they'll run into any of the issues you suggested. It's hardly an old snd fragile building, and the rumored mold issues over at Maelstrom shouldn't apply here.
Even if they run into minor issues, current Disney management still seems to prefer this over building new. Is it faster? Not necessarily. Is it cheaper? Not significantly. As Dan has pointed out, expanding the parks in any way costs additional money in staffing and maintenance. Over the long term, this saves money and seems to be driving most of the recent decisions.
Sad and unacceptable especially in parks that desperately need added capacity and ride options, and DHS is the poster child.
TheOrangeBird01
Well-Known Member
I don't particularly like the name Disney's Hollywood Adventure, but I'll take that any day over Cinematic Adventure ...
That it isn't.
MayorLionheart
Active Member
HAHA- Let's hope the Imagineers can top us allI don't particularly like the name Disney's Hollywood Adventure, but I'll take that any day over Cinematic Adventure ...
You'll be disappointed to know it seems like it's staying. Thankfully.
Last edited:
V_L_Raptor
Well-Known Member
Until recently, that might've meant comping park admission, and... well...
Goofyernmost
Well-Known Member
OK, I understand that part and agree, however, the part that no one seems to get is that those attractions like Pirate and HM are parts of the past culture and have over the years become iconic and highly popular now. The public accepted that back then and they became a must see and must do because the culture at the time accepted that. I sincerely don't believe that is possible today. Yes, we as long time fans still think that something like that would work, but, we are no longer the majority and theme parks cannot be built for a minority.
The company no longer has the faith and trust of the public concerning things that Walt is building because Walt is no longer building anything and those that followed simply did not have the touch to carry it on. Also we have to realize that even we seem unable to recognize innovative things that we so strongly advocate. All the negative talk about Pandora, for example, without even seeing it is a prime example of that. It is different then we are used to so automatically it isn't any good or it doesn't fit. In my opinion what "fits" changes with time. We can embrace it and enjoy new things or we can reject them, out of hand, just on principle. We are the losers in that case.
We can also ask ourselves if we are the ones that have stymied the creativity of modern imagineers and executives because we can no longer see the good or the reasons for that creativity. It really started, in my mind, back in 1997 when they created a spectacular 25th Anniversary Castle Cake that got nothing but hated by so many of us. Not me! We were upset because a plastic cake, which I can only imagine that amount of engineering and creativity and money that went into that project, replaced a plastic castle as if it were a real thing. The fun and whimsy of that creation was treated as if it were some sacrilege and assault to nature. As far as that goes, even the hand and wand was something that livened up Epcot and made it look like a fun place to be, to everyone except us. We were stuck in the past and unable to appreciate any effort to create and lighten the mood. I hated the Hat, but, not because of it's creation, which was nothing short of amazing, but, because the mistake they made was it's location and the decision to just leave it there when it was just supposed to be a special thing like the castle cake.
In other words, I think we are getting what we deserve. We have fought change and creativity at every turn and because of that we have lost most of the highly creative talent in the company along with an executive branch that knows that nothing they do will be looked upon positively, so why not just let it ride, take their bonuses and not worry about it. I'm pretty sure that is what most of us would do if we were in such a thankless position where the only reward is money.
KDM31091
Well-Known Member
I completely agree. The "4 unique parks" thing seems to be living on borrowed time, especially Epcot and the Studios. Over time I think they will become more and more similar (at least Future World in Epcot). The lands being IP themselves seems to work out well for IOA, so maybe Disney is noticing that. The original concept of Future World in Epcot, for better or for worse, is dead and it's clear they don't know what to do with it, so I'm not surprised with the Universe of Energy rumors.
Animal Kingdom will probably remain somewhat unique. Pandora isn't really the best fit, but at least they are adding something new to AK.
danlb_2000
Premium Member
Disney has put new rides in far older building at WDW, and what leads you to believe the building is "fragile"? If there is asbestos in the building (don't know if there is or isn't), demolition doesn't make it any easier since it would still have to be carefully removed before demolition could start. Anything thing that could improve energy efficiency could easily be retro-fitted.