News Monster Inc Land Coming to Disney's Hollywood Studios

[MisterPenguin]

I know the history of "phase 2" expansions is a sad and sorry story.

But Villains isn't "blue sky."

Not according to Josh. And yes, I can hear the guffawing.

But he said specifically that all that was being presented was not blue sky. And with Villains, something was already in progress.

What something?

Top something. <shrug>

He was vague.

 

[celluloid]

I know the history of "phase 2" expansions is a sad and sorry story.

But Villains isn't "blue sky."

Not according to Josh. And yes, I can hear the guffawing.

But he said specifically that all that was being presented was not blue sky. And with Villains, something was already in progress.

What something?

Top something. <shrug>

He was vague.

And we all know, Disney never cans anything in progress.

You can hear the guffawing because talk is cheap.

 

[BrianLo]

I know I side eternally optimistic here, but this gives me more flashbacks to Pandora circa 2013 or Galaxies Edge circa 2015.

I think Villains is committed, but that also doesn’t mean it looks like the concept art.

This has executive legacy project written all over it. Something fairly drastic would need to occur for them to not carry through with some iteration of it. Which I wouldn’t have supported until he brought it to the stage a second time with committed language.

I also personally think it’s on a 2029 timeframe.

 

[Casper Gutman]

Bro, did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed this morning? You doing okay? I always admire your posts: your eloquence and perspective. But this negativity does not suit your usual witty self. It could be good, you know.

I’m hopeful about the Dinoland replacement. The rest of the announcements are very weak and represent a lot of modern Disney’s very worst impulses. The recent preoccupation with coasters is one of these. It springs from a desire to funnel guests through an attraction as quickly as possible, story and mood and other classic Disney qualities be darned, to get them back in the stores and restaurants. It’s also a move away from rides without restrictions - family rides. The lack of such rides is Universal’s biggest failing, but the shift is even more notable at WDW because its reputation was built on such rides. Villains Land is an exciting concept because of the range of unique possibilities for mood and story, not because it presents an opportunity for a coaster through rock work.

 

[RSoxNo1]

Come on. Counting Villains rides is a cheat. That land has as much chance of happening as if it hasn’t been mentioned.

If everything else gets built it’s a net addition of MAYBE one attraction, depending on the location of Monsters. If you want to give Disney the benefit of the doubt and count only “rides,” it might be an addition of three rides, one of them (the second Cars attraction, which is far from guaranteed) likely a flat.

Before the announcements, reliable insiders were reporting that we were getting ADDITIONAL capacity in the form of major Coco and Moana rides at MK, possible additional capacity from an AK Lion King attraction, and keeping Rivers of America and Muppets. The D23 announcements were really quite awful.

I'll put money on the line that Villains land gets built. It could take until 2031, but it will get built with at least two attractions.

Tell that to Muppets Movieland. Africa. Israel. Etc etc.

I'm still waiting for Jay Rasulo's promise to let us watch Cinderella change into her dress.

 

[BrianLo]

I’m hopeful about the Dinoland replacement. The rest of the announcements are very weak and represent a lot of modern Disney’s very worst impulses. The recent preoccupation with coasters is one of these. It springs from a desire to funnel guests through an attraction as quickly as possible, story and mood and other classic Disney qualities be darned, to get them back in the stores and restaurants. It’s also a move away from rides without restrictions - family rides. The lack of such rides is Universal’s biggest failing, but the shift is even more notable at WDW because its reputation was built on such rides. Villains Land is an exciting concept because of the range of unique possibilities for mood and story, not because it presents an opportunity for a coaster through rock work.

I disagree with a lot of the conversation, but the spread of attractions is certainly odd. Really wasn’t expecting WDW to come out with 2.5 coastery rides (I’m adding a half for cars). It kind of feels like all the options were taken independently.

I don’t think it’s company wide philosophical change though. Arguably WDW could have most benefited from virtually all three of the main ride proposal for DCA and there was a strong argument DCA could receive a coaster of some form.

The stand out ride that is more wish fulfillment than actually thinking about what the park needs is this Monsters Coaster.

Now that also said, we don’t need two more animated films occupying splash-likes either at WDW.

 

[Mr. Sullivan]

Again, the “rumors” were encouraging because they ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE RESORT NEEDS CAPACITY.

I’m disappointed in the announcements because, outside of Dinoland, they’re awful. They’re removing beloved attractions for underwhelming replacements, Disney’s pattern for three decades.

How do you know they’re underwhelming if they’re not open? If you’re not allowing someone to say that Cars will yield high capacity on the basis that we haven’t seen it yet, then how can you determine quality if nothing’s been built.

I get you’re disappointed that the rumors you heard didn’t turn out to be reality, but we’re really not in any position to speaking definitively of anything when none of it exists yet.

 

[Mr. Sullivan]

and there was a strong argument DCA could receive a coaster of some form.

It should because the one they’ve got is horrible

 

[Starship824]

When you expand the time horizon a bit, even if they build Villains land and Cars land land with 2 rides each, it will still be a net loss of 1 attraction. At one time, the RoA had: 2 riverboats, canoes, keel boats, and TSI.

So we're counting attractions that closed 40 years ago in capacity now?

 

[celluloid]

So we're counting attractions that closed 40 years ago in capacity now?

Net Gain is not the same as capacity. Mike Fink Keelboats and Canoes(and some shuttered MK venues and attractions) closed less than 40 years ago without replacement.

 

[Starship824]

Net Gain is not the same as capacity. Mike Fink Keelboats and Canoes(and some shuttered MK venues and attractions) closed less than 40 years ago without replacement.

Oh so 20+ years ago

 

[celluloid]

Oh so 20+ years ago

If nothing has replaced the count since doesn't that just make it worse?
You can also add Stitch and other venues if you want?


There is the reason the resorts right now are always playing blue sky dream big catch up. It is decades of neglect in comparison of what they should have been getting over time.


Or we can jump over to EPCOT.

Or point out the entertainment venues cut and minor things.

 

[FigmentJedi]

No, it was not. Disneyland was going to have a castle long before it was decided to name it Sleeping Beauty Castle. Naming it for Snow White was kicked around but it was also often just the Fantasyland Castle, even after the park opened.

Which should be self evident just from how Sleeping Beauty Castle doesn't even look like the castle from Sleeping Beauty.

 

[EricsBiscuit]

So we're counting attractions that closed 40 years ago in capacity now?

It’s the same reason New Fantasyland is a wash. This is from someone who actually enjoys it. We lost the skyway (technically 2 attractions), Snow White, and 20k. It makes perfect sense to do so. Just because a ride closed long ago without replacement doesn’t mean that we should forgive Disney for it. Look at 20k. Closed and a true replacement didn’t open for 20 years! Shameful.

 

[ᗩLᘿᑕ ✨ ᗩζᗩᗰ]

It’s the same reason New Fantasyland is a wash. This is from someone who actually enjoys it. We lost the skyway (technically 2 attractions), Snow White, and 20k. It makes perfect sense to do so. Just because a ride closed long ago without replacement doesn’t mean that we should forgive Disney for it. Look at 20k. Closed and a true replacement didn’t open for 20 years! Shameful.

A true replacement has yet to open. I'll never forgive them for 20K!

 

[lazyboy97o]

Oh so 20+ years ago

So when does lost capacity stop counting?

The Magic Kingdom was designed to handle 10 million visitors a year. It now sees double that. That venues and experiences were not replaced shows how not only has the park not kept up with demand, in certain metrics a worst guest experience has been pursued. The world’s busiest theme park has less dining capacity today than it did 30 years ago, and dining is something that makes money. But sure, snuggly laugh about how better capacity metrics that Disney was and is able to deliver elsewhere somehow magically don’t count.

 

[mysto]

The world’s busiest theme park has less dining capacity today than it did 30 years ago, and dining is something that makes money.

Not only that but it contributes to that guest experience you mention that they may be ignoring. Snagging a sought after reservation or even a trailside favorite like a Dole Whip is part of the fun. Maybe the profit margins aren't as high as they'd like, but a variety of *quality* food makes the outing worthwhile and lightens the mood of guests. Maybe that's just me.

 

[mysto]

What do you think the second Cars ride is, exactly?

Grand Theft Stroller.

There's no line, plus the thrill of possibly being ejected from the park and charged.

 

[ToTBellHop]

When you expand the time horizon a bit, even if they build Villains land and Cars land land with 2 rides each, it will still be a net loss of 1 attraction. At one time, the RoA had: 2 riverboats, canoes, keel boats, and TSI.

I still lament the loss of a beautiful swamp for TRON. Those gators forgive but they’ll never forget.

 

[LittleBuford]

Which should be self evident just from how Sleeping Beauty Castle doesn't even look like the castle from Sleeping Beauty.

Though to be fair, neither does Cinderella Castle (which was designed to be named as such from the outset) look like the castle from Cinderella.