Hollywood Studios expansion news!

Taylor

Taylor

Well-Known Member
jdmdisney99 said:
Possibilities are endless for DHS, it is run by a MOVIE company. Disney could bring in rights like Charlie Chaplin and I wouldn't mind if they did something great. But first they should expand with what they have starting with Star Wars/Lucas Land, moving on to Pixar Place, then I think they should add another classic Hollywood section, and finally they should add Marvel Land. :D
Click to expand...
A marvel land will not come to WDW UNI has theme park rights for marvel :(
 
flynnibus

flynnibus

Premium Member
danlb_2000 said:
An "Insider" doesn't have to work at Disney, they just have to have inside information that is not available to the general public. A number of the trusted insiders here do not work for Disney.
Click to expand...

well that's just it. Having insider information, does not make you an insider. Else, anyone reading these threads would be an insider :) 'Insider' by it's root, means being inside the organization. But it's typical that true insiders leak their info to others to be their front-man. Al Lutz, Jim Hill, etc are not insiders even tho they leak information that otherwise would only be known within the organization.

Most of the key info people here are not insiders themselves - they just have access to insiders who are willing to share info with them.
 
jdmdisney99

jdmdisney99

Well-Known Member
flynnibus said:
well that's just it. Having insider information, does not make you an insider. Else, anyone reading these threads would be an insider :) 'Insider' by it's root, means being inside the organization. But it's typical that true insiders leak their info to others to be their front-man. Al Lutz, Jim Hill, etc are not insiders even tho they leak information that otherwise would only be known within the organization.

Most of the key info people here are not insiders themselves - they just have access to insiders who are willing to share info with them.
Click to expand...
That was like a Jack Sparrow moment. :confused:
 
DocMcHulk

DocMcHulk

Well-Known Member
danlb_2000 said:
I can't see Lucasfilm parting with the rights to Star Wars so I think this would mean Disney is attemping to buy Lucasfilm outright.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I didnt phrase my question properly. That is what I meant to say.

Ironically, when i was driving home form work on Friday, i thought to myself, "why doesnt Dsiney try to buy LucusFilm"
 
alphac2005

alphac2005

Well-Known Member
flynnibus said:
well that's just it. Having insider information, does not make you an insider. Else, anyone reading these threads would be an insider :) 'Insider' by it's root, means being inside the organization. But it's typical that true insiders leak their info to others to be their front-man. Al Lutz, Jim Hill, etc are not insiders even tho they leak information that otherwise would only be known within the organization.

Most of the key info people here are not insiders themselves - they just have access to insiders who are willing to share info with them.
Click to expand...

Excellent post and accurate. I'd like to take it a little further, as Lutz and Hill are different than our people with knowledge on the forum. Lutz and Hill have access, but they're essentially being controlled by puppet masters creating an agenda.

The sources that we have on the forum, some of them are actual insiders, as they are within the organization with direct knowledge of the goings on, and other sources on here have their information culled from being so well networked. True insiders are few and far between.

I'll take the crew with knowledge here any day, as it generally is unbiased and not serving an agenda. Lutz clearly carries George Kalogridis' water nowadays and Hill acts as an apologist for TDO and spins what great they've done with <INSERT SARCASM HERE!>.
 
D

dvitali

Active Member
ttroyer210 said:
A marvel land will not come to WDW UNI has theme park rights for marvel :(
Click to expand...
This weekend at the New York comic con both marvel and DC hinted about changes to their characters that skirt any legal problem both company having.With heirs of Superman (all black costume, no under pant for Superman, armor and name change for Superboy). For Marvel Universal may have the rights to white Peter Parker Spider-Man but they do not own the right to the African-American /Ultimate Universe /differ all black costume / differ powers /Miles Stanish Superior Spider-man. There also changes in the works for the other characters that Marvel that lease out to other company's , but can change the look and name until all rights revert back to Disney/Marvel.
 
The MaD Hatter

The MaD Hatter

Well-Known Member
Although Marvel certainly offers a rich superhero universe with lots of potential for rides/attractions, WDW could circumvent the UNI rights issue by building a superhero ride themed to The Incredibles. Since DHS is more about entertainment in general rather than just television/movies nowadays, this could fit perfectly at the Studios. It would certainly fit the park's theme better than Cars Land or a Monster's Inc coaster (although I'd like to see both of these too ;)).
 
PrincessAlice89

PrincessAlice89

New Member
Honestly at this point ANYTHING happening at DHS would be a huge step up. DHS has a special place in my heart, since both my grandparents worked there, and so did I for a time. But nowadays, when I think about going to the parks, Studios never comes to mind. I get bored so easily there, because i've seen/done everything a million times. (well except Fantasmic! I never get bored with Fantasmic)
 
danlb_2000

danlb_2000

Premium Member
flynnibus said:
well that's just it. Having insider information, does not make you an insider. Else, anyone reading these threads would be an insider :) 'Insider' by it's root, means being inside the organization. But it's typical that true insiders leak their info to others to be their front-man. Al Lutz, Jim Hill, etc are not insiders even tho they leak information that otherwise would only be known within the organization.

Most of the key info people here are not insiders themselves - they just have access to insiders who are willing to share info with them.
Click to expand...

There are different definitions of "insider" but it doesn't necessarily mean the person is part of the organization. For example the term "Insider Trading" is often applied to employees of a company,especailly executives, but if an employee of Disney told me some private information that would effect the stock price and I sold my stock based on that information I could be charged with insider trading.
 
flynnibus

flynnibus

Premium Member
danlb_2000 said:
There are different definitions of "insider" but it doesn't necessarily mean the person is part of the organization. For example the term "Insider Trading" is often applied to employees of a company,especailly executives, but if an employee of Disney told me some private information that would effect the stock price and I sold my stock based on that information I could be charged with insider trading.
Click to expand...

Insider trading is trading with insider information - not a crime limited only to those who are actually insiders. It's a term used to describe trading (by anyone) who is misusing privileged information. It doesn't have any limits on the person's actual position. So it's a fallacy to try to use it's openness, to try to define what an insider is.

Having insider information, doesn't make you an insider... just like insider trading isn't limited to just those who are actually a part of the organization.

Remember.. simple Litmus Test. If the label only applied to having the information.. you yourself would now an insider by reading this forum. Do you consider yourself an insider because you knew pre-release information?

Much of the posters you are thinking of would be considered 'connected people'. They have connections to actual insiders who share things with them and they relay it here. An actual CM.. or person working on the projects.. those would be an insider. Knowing someone who is an insider who tells you something, that you repeat.. does not make you an insider. No matter how often you do it, or how reliably you do it.
 
T

twebber55

Well-Known Member
the one thing on this whole im an insider thing is this...this is a large company i dont think anyone really has the complete story of any of these things....i think our insiders do a good job of piecing info together and they typically wait to make sure they are right but no one on here knows the whole story

in other words i believe what they say but also take things with a grain of salt
 
danlb_2000

danlb_2000

Premium Member
flynnibus said:
Insider trading is trading with insider information - not a crime limited only to those who are actually insiders. It's a term used to describe trading (by anyone) who is misusing privileged information. It doesn't have any limits on the person's actual position. So it's a fallacy to try to use it's openness, to try to define what an insider is.

Having insider information, doesn't make you an insider... just like insider trading isn't limited to just those who are actually a part of the organization.

Remember.. simple Litmus Test. If the label only applied to having the information.. you yourself would now an insider by reading this forum. Do you consider yourself an insider because you knew pre-release information?

Much of the posters you are thinking of would be considered 'connected people'. They have connections to actual insiders who share things with them and they relay it here. An actual CM.. or person working on the projects.. those would be an insider. Knowing someone who is an insider who tells you something, that you repeat.. does not make you an insider. No matter how often you do it, or how reliably you do it.
Click to expand...

No, because once it's posted in this form it's public knowledge, every person in the world who has internet access has access to the information. If Lee, for example, told me something in private then I would consider my self and insider, even though the information would have been handed down a couple times.
 
flynnibus

flynnibus

Premium Member
danlb_2000 said:
. If Lee, for example, told me something in private then I would consider my self and insider, even though the information would have been handed down a couple times.
Click to expand...

Here's why your interpretation is wrong.. That would make being an insider some transient thing based purely on the information.

Example....

Lee tells you on Monday. So by your def. you are are insider... Until Wednesday when Disney makes the announcement and what he told you is now public knowledge. So you would not consider yourself an insider on Sunday or after Tuesday... But for Monday and Tuesday you would label yourself an insider..

Or conversely.. If you consider lee an insider because he knows something today. What about next week and he knows nothing secret anymore. Is he no longer an insider?

It's not some real time status that changes daily

It's a term used to describe someone inside an org.. Hence the word 'insider'... Having something not publicly known is simply having 'inside knowledge'. That is something you know, not something you are.
 
danlb_2000

danlb_2000

Premium Member
flynnibus said:
Here's why your interpretation is wrong.. That would make being an insider some transient thing based purely on the information.

Example....

Lee tells you on Monday. So by your def. you are are insider... Until Wednesday when Disney makes the announcement and what he told you is now public knowledge. So you would not consider yourself an insider on Sunday or after Tuesday... But for Monday and Tuesday you would label yourself an insider..

Or conversely.. If you consider lee an insider because he knows something today. What about next week and he knows nothing secret anymore. Is he no longer an insider?

It's not some real time status that changes daily

It's a term used to describe someone inside an org.. Hence the word 'insider'... Having something not publicly known is simply having 'inside knowledge'. That is something you know, not something you are.
Click to expand...

That is one narrow definition, but there are others.

Here is one of the Webster's definitions of Insider:

"a person who is in a position of power or has access to confidential information"

From Dictionary.com:


"a person belonging to a limited circle of persons who understand the actual facts in a situation or share private knowledge"


From Answers.com:
"One who has special knowledge or access to confidential information"

From InvestorWords.com:
"An individual who has access to confidential company information."

None of these definitions require that the person actually be a part of the orginization in question, just that they have access to information that is not available to the public.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom