News Disney Not Renewing Great Movie Ride Sponsorship Deal with TCM ; Attraction to Close

[DinoInstitute]

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.

Why would they axe any Hollywood reference? Literally the entire front half of the park is themed to being in Hollywood. And even though SW/TS may not have technically been produced in Hollywood, I doubt most people know that/care really- it's movies, and people connect a land of movies to Hollywood. I still think Hollywood Adventure is the most likely and sensible candidate.

Though, I did remember hearing someone throw out the name "Mickey's Movieland", and if a Mickey ride inside the theater does infact become the main thesis/icon attraction, I would like this as a name.

 

[elchippo]

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.

Right?! It was built in the late 80's. We knew asbestos was a bad thing by then.

 

[danlb_2000]

Right?! It was built in the late 80's. We knew asbestos was a bad thing by then.

Yes, but not against the law to use in buildings.

 

[Bocabear]

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.

I totally agree the Mickey Mouse Ride should have it's own identity and something entirely new...so why not just move it to the old Art Of Animation building and build an entirely new show building on that site... this would also separate DHS in half...one half celebrating Animation and the other half celebrating Action movies and more recent IPs. Next to the Art Of Animation Building could be the entrance to the expanded Pixar Place and Toy Story whatever they are calling it, Re-dress the buildings on the courtyard (little Mermaid Theater and the Disney Junior Theater) to early Hollywood with the Mickey and Walt statue from DCA prominently placed in the center of the courtyard and it all comes together...
Upgrade and refresh the great Movie Ride... Make it the bridge between the worlds of classic Hollywood, Animation, and modern action films... Then it all starts to make sense... doesn't it Siren?? All gain, no loss.

 

[Phil12]

You'll be disappointed to know it seems like it's staying. Thankfully.

It's been there for 27 years so I'm not disappointed it's staying. It could stay for another 27 years. But they still need a huge icon for the park. With the advent of the new SWL and TSL, the old Hollywood appurtenances will become less important.

It will be interesting to see what they use for the new park icon.

 

[ThisIsSimba1]

Great Muppet Movie Ride anyone?

**ducks**

Really though, always loved GMR, disappointed to hear about this, though happy it sounds like the Chinese Theater facade is staying put.

It's been there for 27 years so I'm not disappointed it's staying. It could stay for another 27 years. But they still need a huge icon for the park. With the advent of the new SWL and TSL, the old Hollywood appurtenances will become less important.

It will be interesting to see what they use for the new park icon.

Pretty sure they've been using ToT as the park icon in recent marketing. As long as it's not being changed the way it is in DCA, I don't see any reason for it to not continue to be.

 

[RoysCabin]

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.

I honestly can't see the argument that anybody involved is thinking about a "thankless" nature of things, given that they're not exactly paying very close attention to the "super fan" community, as it were.

Beyond that, I don't really see the argument that said fans have been against creativity, especially given how loudly many have cried out for more creativity in places like EPCOT. The wand, the castle cake, as you say yourself they were marketing ploys to hype up an event (Millenium celebration, 25th anniversary, etc.), and people were free to say "that's ugly" or "I hope that's only temporary" without it being some sort of condemnation of the overall creative process within the company. If critiques of marketing ploys had WDI and corporate throwing their hands up and saying "well, why do we even bother?!", then they really had very thin skin.

The larger critiques have really been a lack of creativity within the parks, given the current IP trend and the constant "overlay > new construction" practices. I can't think of many EPCOT fans, for example, who wouldn't be thrilled to see Ellen's Energy Adventure updated in a creative way, but the feeling is simply that "we'll gut it and slap a popular IP on it" isn't particularly creative...and that's not saying the potential ride can't be good, just that the thought process going into it is inherently limiting.

I'm sure there are some out there that treat any and all change as sacrilege, but is it not safe to say they are at most a vocal minority? Why would this drive decision making at corporate and WDI? The only thing driving corporate will be money, and the main thing driving WDI will be "what's corporate asking for now"; they're not taking note of the handful of fans who might even protest removing Stitch from Tomorrowland.

 

[RSoxNo1]

Right?! It was built in the late 80's. We knew asbestos was a bad thing by then.

If you call it Pixie Dust it's fine.

 

[Goofyernmost]

I honestly can't see the argument that anybody involved is thinking about a "thankless" nature of things, given that they're not exactly paying very close attention to the "super fan" community, as it were.

Beyond that, I don't really see the argument that said fans have been against creativity, especially given how loudly many have cried out for more creativity in places like EPCOT. The wand, the castle cake, as you say yourself they were marketing ploys to hype up an event (Millenium celebration, 25th anniversary, etc.), and people were free to say "that's ugly" or "I hope that's only temporary" without it being some sort of condemnation of the overall creative process within the company. If critiques of marketing ploys had WDI and corporate throwing their hands up and saying "well, why do we even bother?!", then they really had very thin skin.

The larger critiques have really been a lack of creativity within the parks, given the current IP trend and the constant "overlay > new construction" practices. I can't think of many EPCOT fans, for example, who wouldn't be thrilled to see Ellen's Energy Adventure updated in a creative way, but the feeling is simply that "we'll gut it and slap a popular IP on it" isn't particularly creative...and that's not saying the potential ride can't be good, just that the thought process going into it is inherently limiting.

I'm sure there are some out there that treat any and all change as sacrilege, but is it not safe to say they are at most a vocal minority? Why would this drive decision making at corporate and WDI? The only thing driving corporate will be money, and the main thing driving WDI will be "what's corporate asking for now"; they're not taking note of the handful of fans who might even protest removing Stitch from Tomorrowland.

I hate to be the provider of bad news, but, if by the phrase "Super Fan Base" you mean us, I have to throw some reality on you. We make a very small percentage of their total clientele. We spend a lot and have over the years, but, nothing like the first timer that gets sucked into everything. We may be the "super fan base" but our numbers are not big enough to create even a little concern from them other then anger. Why? Because we are the group that does everything in our power to criticize every thing that they do, make public statements about how the place has gone to hell in a hand basket and generally know our way around enough to avoid a lot of the big money charges that Disney puts out there. In short all we are is a minor burr under their saddle and are laughingly ignored because they know that we will go there no matter what. Let's face it we are hooked.

 

[deeevo]

I hate to be the provider of bad news, but, if by the phrase "Super Fan Base" you mean us, I have to throw some reality on you. We make a very small percentage of their total clientele. We spend a lot and have over the years, but, nothing like the first timer that gets sucked into everything. We may be the "super fan base" but our numbers are not big enough to create even a little concern from them other then anger. Why? Because we are the group that does everything in our power to criticize every thing that they do, make public statements about how the place has gone to hell in a hand basket and generally know our way around enough to avoid a lot of the big money charges that Disney puts out there. In short all we are is a minor burr under their saddle and are laughingly ignored because they know that we will go there no matter what. Let's face it we are hooked.

And we don't pay for water.

 

[RobidaFlats]

We may be the "super fan base" but our numbers are not big enough to create even a little concern from them other then anger. Why? Because we are the group that does everything in our power to criticize every thing that they do, make public statements about how the place has gone to hell in a hand basket...

Setting aside your hyperbole, I would imagine that many of those you describe as super fans who criticize things were at one point super fans who heaped praise upon the parks and extolled its virtues to any of their friends willing to listen.

I have no desire to get into it any further than offering this suggestion: Take a moment to ponder why the "praise group" turned into the "criticize group". Is it because they all became jaded and fitted with rear-view rose colored glasses? Is it because the direction of the parks veered away from what drew praise in the first place? There has to be a reason why a group of former promoters have become critics.

 

[GregIsNewAroundHere]

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.

There's only a few MGM movies portrayed in the GMR. Singin in the Rain and The Wizard of Oz I think are the only ones. Maybe Alien but I need to check.

 

[Buried20KLeague]

And we don't pay for water.

Some of us don't pay for soda, either.

 

[tribbleorlfl]

There's only a few MGM movies portrayed in the GMR. Singin in the Rain and The Wizard of Oz I think are the only ones. Maybe Alien but I need to check.

Fox

 

[Goofyernmost]

Setting aside your hyperbole, I would imagine that many of those you describe as super fans who criticize things were at one point super fans who heaped praise upon the parks and extolled its virtues to any of their friends willing to listen.

I have no desire to get into it any further than offering this suggestion: Take a moment to ponder why the "praise group" turned into the "criticize group". Is it because they all became jaded and fitted with rear-view rose colored glasses? Is it because the direction of the parks veered away from what drew praise in the first place? There has to be a reason why a group of former promoters have become critics.

I've already pondered it, but, no one likes my viewpoint on it. Collectively, we are living off old memories that usually are not real accurate especially if our first visit was as a kid. Our memories are jaded at that point. Also, we fail to understand that the more we see things the more we notice bad things that might have existed but we were so mesmerized by the bright lights and colors and music that we didn't initially notice them. We also, as humans, tend to remember things that made us feel good, the smell of popcorn, the music of an attraction, in other words the warm fuzzy's that we all want to experience over and over. The problem is that life isn't like that, so we go back and the old feeling doesn't always come back to us, so our first reaction is... we didn't change so must be Disney did. We didn't get overwhelmed by life, so Disney has changed or in some way been less exciting then it was. We are always living in the past and many of us are unable to project into the future because now isn't as warm and fuzzy to us as yesterday was, naturally, we think that things are not as good. Yet, millions of new people go there, for the first time, every year and they experience that good feeling that we once did many years ago. They don't think that things aren't what they once were, so they experience what we once did, emotion wise, but, don't anymore. For them the magic still exists. Are they supposed to believe that the magic isn't there because, we know what that was and they don't? It's all a matter of perspective and timing.

I don't know what they are going to do with the old GMR, the ride that I have ridden on every visit since the park opened. I don't know if I will like what replaces it. I don't know if it will take time for it to grow on me or maybe it never will, but, the world (real or Disney) doesn't revolve around me, so I will take what I can from it and enjoy what is there and not mourn what is no longer. Thing change or things die. When it gets to the point where I no longer enjoy going there, then I simply will stop going there. We all have that option.

 

[rnese]

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

Country Bear Jamboree!?!?
Carousel of Progress!?!?

 

[FigmentJedi]

Hi @Bocabear! Mickey Mouse is fun and vibrant and a bit zany sort of like the BAH.

The Chinese Theater is none of that -- it's classy, elegant and so sophisticated. So, the two themes just don't bode well together, this would totally clash. Theme is very important to me.

I know you want to hang on to the theater but sometimes we have to move forward. I was so sad when we lost that big tacky hat. I was also disappointed when we lost toon town but I understand it was for the better. I hope this helps, bocabear!

Toontown's actually really non-reflective of Disney's cartoons (Mickey and the gang living in a more average looking suburbia in color shorts), what with the goal of Toontown's design being to create a setting where Disney and WB characters to co-exist for Roger Rabbit. In fact, it's mostly based on the cartoons of Max Fleischer.

Passport2Dreams Old and New got into this on a piece looking at Storybook Circus and the Toontown lands.

http://passport2dreams.blogspot.com/2012/09/lightning-in-bottle-storybook-circus.html

 

[GoofGoof]

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.

We don't have to look any further than AK for a somewhat recent example of a park having a unique concept not at all based on IPs. It's certainly possible to still do. I think it comes down to creative laziness and a fear of failure. It's easier and safer to built SW land or Guardians of the Galaxy Land or Harry Potter phase 2 then a unique and original ride. You have a built in fan base so even if the ride is just so/so people will still like it because of the IP. A good example of a unique ride that is just so/so is Mission Space. Disney spent a lot of money on that ride and they haven't gotten the returns they hoped for. A Guardians replacement for Energy is much safer than a unique replacement. I guess you can blame this on park fan's negative attitudes, but this is happening in other creative areas like films and TV shows all the time. A sequel or spin off movie is much safer than a unique concept. I think it's more that Wall Street has bullied the heads of creative companies into taking the safer road as opposed to challenging themselves.

 

[Phil12]

We don't have to look any further than AK for a somewhat recent example of a park having a unique concept not at all based on IPs.

You must be visiting another AK of which I am not privy.

 

[GoofGoof]

You must be visiting another AK of which I am not privy.

Maybe. The one I go to has the following headliner rides not based on an IP: EE, Safari, Dinosaur and Kali River Rapids. There are also tons of minor attractions not based on IPs: the walking trails in Africa and Asia, the tree of life itself, Hambre Village area, conservation station, all of Dino land. The only attractions in the park based on IPs are the Nemo, Lion King and Bug shows. I would say it's pretty fair to say the park is not based on IPs.