DisneylandForward

[Disney Irish]

What makes you say that? You’d have two new lands, a boat ride, keep Monsters Inc, and a coaster by using the seldomly used Hyperion plot.

Let me ask you, if Monsters Inc wasn't already there and it was something else, would that be the first location you'd think of to put the doors coaster? Or would you rather they build out Monstropolis with the doors coaster in the DLForward plots so its a fully realized land rather than trying to cram it into the Backlot?

My point in asking is because I think the only reason you're pushing for this is because Monsters Inc just happens to be there, rather than thinking its the best location for it.

 

[mickEblu]

Let me ask you, if Monsters Inc wasn't already there and it was something else, would that be the first location you'd think of to put the doors coaster? Or would you rather they build out Monstropolis with the doors coaster in the DLForward plots so its a fully realized land rather than trying to cram it into the Backlot?

My point in asking is because I think the only reason you're pushing for this is because Monsters Inc just happens to be there, rather than thinking its the best location for it.

Monsters Inc to me doesnt need a whole bunch of space. It’s about the characters and rides. The main appeal is not that’s its a cartooified city with Monsters. It’s about capitalizing on what’s already there and a fun coaster that being designed for DHS. What’s the difference between “cramming” Avatar back there or Monsters?

 

[Disney Irish]

Monsters Inc to me doesnt need a whole bunch of space. It’s about the characters and rides. The main appeal is not that’s its a cartooified city with Monsters. It’s about capitalizing on what’s already there and a fun coaster that being designed for DHS. What’s the difference between “cramming” Avatar back there or Monsters?

Difference is the land would be completely leveled for Avatar, versus having to build around Monsters Inc. To me razing the entire land is better than trying to cram things around the existing footprint of Monsters Inc.

I have no issues with bringing Monstropolis here, but I think it should be a completely new build from the ground up on a new plot of land rather than trying to save Monster Inc.

 

[mickEblu]

Difference is the land would be completely leveled for Avatar, versus having to build around Monsters Inc. To me razing the entire land is better than trying to cram things around the existing footprint of Monsters Inc.

I have no issues with bringing Monstropolis here, but I think it should be a completely new build from the ground up on a new plot of land rather than trying to save Monster Inc.

I think it would be easy to retheme the backlot as Monstropolis and it would flow nicely from Hollywood. Again, it is my opinion that the setting isn’t really the main selling point for the Monsters franchise. When it comes to the park for this IP the driver would be the characters and the rides and no matter what it would be a huge upgrade to what is there now so people would be happy. Especially if it came with a coaster.

 

[chadwpalm]

I have no issues with bringing Monstropolis here, but I think it should be a completely new build from the ground up on a new plot of land rather than trying to save Monster Inc.

I have to agree with this. The existing MI ride has a door section anyway. Would almost be redundant to me to have two attractions featuring doors.

I would be down for a reimagined dark ride....maybe theme it to Monsters University somehow.

 

[Disney Irish]

I think it would be easy to retheme the backlot as Monstropolis and it would flow nicely from Hollywood. Again, it is my opinion that the setting isn’t really the main selling point for the Monsters franchise. When it comes to the park for this IP the driver would be the characters and the rides and no matter what it would be a huge upgrade to what is there now so people would be happy. Especially if it came with a coaster.

Ok, so if the setting doesn't matter than it doesn't really need to be in the Backlot other than it just happens to be where the put the Monsters Inc ride almost two decades earlier. Now that they have plots of land where they can fully build out more stuff it doesn't need to be there. And they can make the land "flow" from the rest of DCA in a new plot.

 

[Disney Irish]

I have to agree with this. The existing MI ride has a door section anyway. Would almost be redundant to me to have two attractions featuring doors.

I would be down for a reimagined dark ride....maybe theme it to Monsters University somehow.

This was my point previously, it would be seen as redundant by many to have the doors section and then have the doors coaster right next door.

 

[mickEblu]

Ok, so if the setting doesn't matter than it doesn't really need to be in the Backlot other than it just happens to be where the put the Monsters Inc ride almost two decades earlier. Now that they have plots of land where they can fully build out more stuff it doesn't need to be there. And they can make the land "flow" from the rest of DCA in a new plot.

But why not put it there if it can work there and you can build around what exists?

 

[Disney Irish]

But why not put it there if it can work there and you can build around what exists?

Because to be honest Monsters Inc is a almost 20 year old retread of an attraction and needs to be replaced anyways. I rather they demo it and reuse the land for something else like Avatar. Build Monstropolis into a new plot in DLForward.

 

[mickEblu]

I have to agree with this. The existing MI ride has a door section anyway. Would almost be redundant to me to have two attractions featuring doors.

I would be down for a reimagined dark ride....maybe theme it to Monsters University somehow.

How does this differ from going through Radiator Springs in RSR in Cars Land? When someone pointed that example here for the first time I couldn’t help but find it a little weird but it’s in no way any reason to not move forward with a project.

 

[MistaDee]

What makes you say that? You’d have two new lands, a boat ride, keep Monsters Inc, and a coaster by using the seldomly used Hyperion plot.

I mean from a design perspective it's incredibly awkward

What could be a wide open space in the center of the plot instead has crowds snaking around the old Superstar Limo building. Will be very disappointed if they try to go this direction

 

[chadwpalm]

How does this differ from going through Radiator Springs in RSR in Cars Land? When someone pointed that example here for the first time I couldn’t help but find it a little weird but it’s in no way any reason to not move forward with a project.

It's a fair point.....but unless you have some sort of sentimental attachment to the current attraction, why not just start from the ground up and then you don't have to worry about trying to make things physically fit. Mike & Sully has been around for nearly 20 years and its layout and vehicles (and even some of the reused animatronics) was based on a previous attraction anyway, so I wouldn't mind something fresh that can better compliment a door coaster.

I also wouldn't mind some animatronics where the mouths actually move. Just sayin'.

 

[mickEblu]

It's a fair point.....but unless you have some sort of sentimental attachment to the current attraction, why not just start from the ground up and then you don't have to worry about trying to make things physically fit. Mike & Sully has been around for nearly 20 years and its layout and vehicles (and even some of the reused animatronics) was based on a previous attraction anyway, so I wouldn't mind something fresh that can better compliment a door coaster.

I also wouldn't mind some animatronics where the mouths actually move. Just sayin'.

That’s the funny thing, I have no sentimental attachment to Monsters Inc whatsoever hahah. I just like to play in the DCA armchair imagineer sandbox and i feel like Disney working around Monsters Inc and turning the backlot into Monstropolis would be a smart business move for them as well as win for us fans if it came with the coaster. With that said, it’s more the fallout that concerns me. So in this case where would Avatar go? How long would it have to be delayed if it was going in Simba? Would it now be part of the third gate? It could very well be the reason Monstropolis wasn’t considered for DCA in the first place.

 

[Disney Irish]

That’s the funny thing, I have no sentimental attachment to Monsters Inc whatsoever hahah. I just like to play in the DCA armchair imagineer sandbox and i feel like Disney working around Monsters Inc and turning the backlot into Monstropolis would be a smart business move for them as well as win for us fans if it came with the coaster. With that said, it’s more the fallout that concerns me. So in this case where would Avatar go? How long would it have to be delayed if it was going in Simba? Would it now be part of the third gate? It could very well be the reason Monstropolis wasn’t considered for DCA in the first place.

If you're playing armchair Imagineer then you get more bang for your buck (and design) with a clean plot of land than you do trying to work around an awkward building in the middle of the land.

 

[mickEblu]

If you're playing armchair Imagineer then you get more bang for your buck (and design) with a clean plot of land than you do trying to work around an awkward building in the middle of the land.

Nope, disagree

 

[Disney Irish]

Nope, disagree

So you don't think you get a better land and more flexible design by having a clean plot of land versus having to build around existing buildings? That doesn't jive with many opinions I've seen over the years, most would like a clean slate rather than trying to have to design something around existing structures that can limit what you do.

 

[mickEblu]

So you don't think you get a better land and more flexible design by having a clean plot of land versus having to build around existing buildings? That doesn't jive with many opinions I've seen over the years, most would like a clean slate rather than trying to have to design something around existing structures that can limit what you do.

I’ve explained my reasoning ad nauseum.

 

[Disney Irish]

I’ve explained my reasoning ad nauseum.

I think its more "I want the Door Coaster at all costs!" than you actually thinking its a better design choice. As several here have said its a better design choice to raze the entire land and start from scratch than just trying to shove things in just because a 20 year old substandard attraction of the same IP exists in the plot of land.

 

[mickEblu]

I think its more "I want the Door Coaster at all costs!" than you actually thinking its a better design choice. As several here have said its a better design choice to raze the entire land and start from scratch than just trying to shove things in just because a 20 year old substandard attraction of the same IP exists in the plot of land.

Think whatever you want dude.

 

[Disney Irish]

Think whatever you want dude.

You can't tell me that you'd be upset if Disney next week said in a blog post -

"We've decided that after years of guest enjoyment that similar to the land coming to Hollywood Studios as one of the first projects of DisneylandForward we're building Monstropolis into the new section of California Adventure being built on the former Simba parking lot. This will include the much talked about Doors Coasters with new scenes for a unique experience. This however means that as part of our expansion we'll need to say goodbye to Monsters Inc. Mike and Sully to the Rescue in the Hollywood Backlot as we make way for the new Avatar experience that we previously announced."

You'd be upset with that because its not going in the Backlot?