News Monster Inc Land Coming to Disney's Hollywood Studios

[lazyboy97o]

Unless it has been done for both locations, at least to the point of being able to make a decision on its ultimate location, and before the full design is done.

I genuinely hope not as it would be irresponsible. Location is information you do need fairly early in design. It would mean one of two things: they approved and announced even earlier than they normally do in the process, or they spent money developing two different designs way beyond when they should have decided on a location. One of the biggest obstacles to cost and timelines is indecision and such scenarios would mean they’re indulging even more.

 

[CoasterFan27]

I genuinely hope not as it would be irresponsible. Location is information you do need fairly early in design. It would mean one of two things: they approved and announced even earlier than they normally do in the process, or they spent money developing two different designs way beyond when they should have decided on a location. One of the biggest obstacles to cost and timelines is indecision and such scenarios would mean they’re indulging even more.

That's just not right. Sometimes two options are equal and you need further design work to understand the differences.

Real life example if you don't believe me, look at any major highways planning documents and you'll often see multiple routes considered and designed enough to understand impacts etc.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I am fairly convinced that at the moment, only a very small group of people know the location, and typically, they are high ranking and those people don't talk.

Which has always been the way it actually is

There are lower level people who have to know in order to do actual design work.

…and then there’s the Orlandites…who fail to look outside their windows and notice they’re in Orlando and the Fortune 500 isn’t coming to claim them

 

[Fido Chuckwagon]

We don’t do the animal trails at AK often but I recall they’re mostly outdoors too.

How's AK attendance looking in the summer these days? Not pretty good...

 

[lazyboy97o]

That's just not right. Sometimes two options are equal and you need further design work to understand the differences.

Real life example if you don't believe me, look at any major highways planning documents and you'll often see multiple routes considered and designed enough to understand impacts etc.

Yes, you do that work early in the process and it should be before you make a decision.

Highways are not exactly shining examples of efficiency but they are also a public process. Those planning documents are just that, planning documents, not construction documents capable of getting a project built.

 

[TimeDuck]

Heard Fast & Furious: Supercharged might be permanently closed, do we think Monstropolis could fit there?

 

[CoasterFan27]

Yes, you do that work early in the process and it should be before you make a decision.

Highways are not exactly shining examples of efficiency but they are also a public process. Those planning documents are just that, planning documents, not construction documents capable of getting a project built.

Mhmm. Who said Disney is a shining example of efficiency In any case it's inefficient to decide blindly between two options and hope for the best when you're spending millions.

The idea that a business facing a choice between two things should just "know"/guess is a bit naive and I can't imagine you'd choose a car that way if you could take a little time to do a test drive of each.

Continuing design work into two options lets them make a more informed choice which can save time and money overall. Even if ultimately it might come down to an executive pointing at the option they prefer over facts...

Considering the conflicting information I expect this might be happening. Or it should just be there's no information to go on and everyone's just getting excited over what bus drivers and cashiers are saying. It is a bit curious that other site being so overtly confident in their predictions but I don't know if they have a history of making loud but wrong statements on the past.

 

[Disstevefan1]

 

[bwr827]

The big lie that Disney spins is this stuff as expansion when its actually "destroy and replace".

Folks who defend Disney, say destroying Muppets is an "increase in capacity" as more folks will go in the Monsters ride than attended Muppets.

By my math, if they kept Muppets AND ADDED Monsters in an unused area, THAT is an expansion and would literally increase capacity as you have folks still enjoying Muppets AND folks going on Monsters.

I defend Disney quite a bit, at least compared to the Shenzis and Banzais (and a few Eds) around this forum.

Of course the expansion is significantly reduced when they’re replacing a less-utilized attraction instead of building fresh. No one disagrees with that.

We would all prefer fresh expansions. But if we only get some (Villains), we accept it.

I’d prefer both fresh expansions and replacement of outdated museum pieces, but I also realize many people love those museum pieces and the park is not only for me.

 

[TimeDuck]

Maybe it's just the lack of exposure to the Tokyo parks but people don't seem to acknowledge enough how much Disney domestically hurts themselves by not continuing to keep "outdated" attractions in proper working order.

They're essentially playing whack-a-mole in WDW, by the time they ever get around to actually greenlighting and building something, 10 more things have aged and deteriorated enough that they all need to be replaced, and the vicious cycle continues.

Sure the Tokyo audience is different but I'd argue it's pretty similar to the Disneyland audience. And hell even Disneyland is guilty of this, just look at the state of Launch Bay/tomorrowland. If WDW invested more in maintenance it would pay dividends down the road for allowing them to actually grow the parks that need growth.

I would more easily buy the argument for Muppets Courtyard if Animation Courtyard wasn't essentially a completely abandoned no man's land in the middle of the theme park. If Monstropolis for some reason HAS to be in Muppet Courtyard, I'd much rather them just table that and immediately focus on whatever they have to do to raze AC to the ground and fix it.

 

[Disstevefan1]

I defend Disney quite a bit, at least compared to the Shenzis and Banzais (and a few Eds) around this forum.

Of course the expansion is significantly reduced when they’re replacing a less-utilized attraction instead of building fresh. No one disagrees with that.

We would all prefer fresh expansions. But if we only get some (Villains), we accept it.

I’d prefer both fresh expansions and replacement of outdated museum pieces, but I also realize many people love those museum pieces and the park is not only for me.

If I was in charge ( I am not, but the discussion is fun) -
Leave ROA alone and just add Villains beyond thunder mountain and start that work now.
Add Monsters where the launch bay is and leave Muppets alone.
The AK work is fine I guess; although I would have preferred to have not lost Dinosaur.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Mhmm. Who said Disney is a shining example of efficiency In any case it's inefficient to decide blindly between two options and hope for the best when you're spending millions.

The idea that a business facing a choice between two things should just "know"/guess is a bit naive and I can't imagine you'd choose a car that way if you could take a little time to do a test drive of each.

Continuing design work into two options lets them make a more informed choice which can save time and money overall. Even if ultimately it might come down to an executive pointing at the option they prefer over facts...

Considering the conflicting information I expect this might be happening. Or it should just be there's no information to go on and everyone's just getting excited over what bus drivers and cashiers are saying. It is a bit curious that other site being so overtly confident in their predictions but I don't know if they have a history of making loud but wrong statements on the past.

I have absolutely no idea to what you are responding. I said nothing about deciding blindly or that design work should not be done on options. There are discrete phases of design where certain work is accomplished and different parties are responsible for accomplishing that work. This was not presented as Blue Sky project, it was announced as an approved project that is moving forward. Location should be known when a project gets the official green light to proceed.

 

[gorillaball]

...like all the Pixar things in a contiguous area...in which case they could take advantage of this next construction project and start reorganizing the park in a sensical way... Perhaps Little Mermaid show should move to the Sounds Dangerous Superstar Television complex to allow Animation Courtyard to become a complete Pixar Studios area of Minilands....

I really don't get the thought process of Pixar needing to be together (and this isn't just you, I see it frequently). Why do I care who the film studio is when walking around a theme park? Do I need Coco to be next to Toy Story to make sense to me from a theming perspective? - not in any sort of way and actually quite the opposite. Brave meets Dory, why? Confused is me.

 

[ToTBellHop]

Heard Fast & Furious: Supercharged might be permanently closed, do we think Monstropolis could fit there?

No but I have a friend who was notified his office in Tucson is closing. I do not think that’s a coincidence.

 

[Surferboy567]

No but I have a friend who was notified his office in Tucson is closing. I do not think that’s a coincidence.

That must be where the “family” is off on their mission incredible news.

 

[castlecake2.0]

Random thoughts of the day - If the suits were concerned about monetizing the Muppets space, two free ideas:
Walk-around Ghost of Christmas Present meet and greet
Gonzo’s Spectacle of Dancing Lights.

Ive suggested this previously, make that area the Christmas corner for the holidays. Muppet carol sing along, reopen Studio1 and make it the holiday shopping destination for the park, have crazy decorations everywhere etc.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

There are discrete phases of design where certain work is accomplished and different parties are responsible for accomplishing that work. This was not presented as Blue Sky project, it was announced as an approved project that is moving forward. Location should be known when a project gets the official green light to proceed.

The line between Blue Sky and “moving forward” is extremely thin.

 

[Bocabear]

I really don't get the thought process of Pixar needing to be together (and this isn't just you, I see it frequently). Why do I care who the film studio is when walking around a theme park? Do I need Coco to be next to Toy Story to make sense to me from a theming perspective? - not in any sort of way and actually quite the opposite. Brave meets Dory, why? Confused is me.

I guess I still think of the park as a Studios Park...at one point they began a Pixar Studios section... then things got a bit muddled. I was just thinking some sort of organization in the park would be nice....a sort of flow or loose narrative...Which was always a hallmark of Disney Theme parks... not just random attractions... If they are building minilands around the park, why not organize them a bit with Pixar ips, classic Disney Animation, ...and then Live Action... So it feels more thought out...not just random attractions...
And I think Disney does want you to care about the branding...
If you don't, that's cool...you don't have to....

 

[GhostHost1000]

No but I have a friend who was notified his office in Tucson is closing. I do not think that’s a coincidence.

Dang that’s gonna be a long coaster track

 

[Brer Panther]

Muppets Now though is TERRIBLE.

I invite anyone who thought the ABC series was bad to try sitting through Muppets Now.

The only good thing we got from it was Joe the Legal Weasel.