News Monster Inc Land Coming to Disney's Hollywood Studios

Disstevefan1

Disstevefan1

Well-Known Member
Charlie The Chatbox Ghost said:
Just in case anyone was keeping track of things: Tom just publicly called the closure of MuppetVision a "short-sighted mistake" and said we should "hold fire under Disney's feet" until they do something like put MuppetVision in the Sunset Showcase, so to anyone thinking he'd defend the decision, it's on the contrary!
Click to expand...
Good for Tom! Thanks for telling us.
I missed that. Where did he say that?
 
Casper Gutman

Casper Gutman

Well-Known Member
Brer Oswald said:
Fully agree. People are trying to argue that Monsters Inc is not popular, let alone less popular than the Muppets which...is just a blatant lie 😂 . It sucks to lose Muppetvision, but it's in such a weird spot to begin with. It's positioned in a dead end like an E-ticket would be, but people obviously don't flock to it like that. They also aren't going full erasure campaign like they did with an extremely popular attraction they just replaced, so I'm not so sure I understand the dramatics from Muppet fans. If anything, they should be more upset that the RNRC retheme will be lazy.
Click to expand...
As an IP, Muppets are a lot more popular then Song of the South. And anyone who is a big “fan” of SotS (not Splash, which hasn’t been erased, but SotS) probably has some… interesting opinions.
 
C

celluloid

Well-Known Member
lazyboy97o said:
Disney undertook a very thorough pre-emptive remediation process starting back at the turn of the century. Even if there is still asbestos in the building it it would be a reason to keep the building, not one for demolition.


It is not. Disney generally stopped using asbestos by the mid-to-late 70s.
Click to expand...
Space Mt had it and it was removed in the 2011 massive refurb while they were in there
 
Casper Gutman

Casper Gutman

Well-Known Member
Mr. Sullivan said:
I’m also not understanding some people here and on Twitter taking the perspective of losing non-capacity attractions that little ones and non-ride fans can enjoy. They said in the announcement that the land is getting a new show and the concept also seems to suggest that MILF is moving over. So not only are we replacing a non-capacity show for another non-capacity show we are potentially gaining another non-capacity show in this park, both of which feature characters that I think the little ones might like more than the Muppets.
Click to expand...
MILF is not moving over. We have insiders making that clear. And the “show” is incredibly vague and very likely not to happen. Even if it does, Monsters isn’t very well suited to a stage show and there is absolutely no chance - none - it will be as clever or enjoyable as MV3D.
 
lazyboy97o

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
DarkMetroid567 said:
You’re right that it’s not true it’s a capacity addition, but the rationalization itself is correct. Popular things tend to eat more people away from other attractions.
Click to expand...
That’s also not how it works and is also not correct. If you’re pulling people away you’re also pulling people in. The park lacks capacity. It desperately needs capacity that doesn’t induce more demand. It needs pressure relief, not maintenance.
 
SplashJacket

SplashJacket

Well-Known Member
Indy_UK said:
If it’s any consolation in regards to RnRc, the retheme can’t be any worse than what they did the RnRc in Paris with Flight Force.

when you look at it, Monsters Inc going where it is, will give the biggest return for the lowest amount of capital spending which I am absolutely fine with if it’s done well and makes sense. ( I think it makes sense)
Click to expand...
Hot take, Flight Force is a substantial improvement over Paris’s old RnRc, and Flight Force is an improvement over DHS’s RnRc
 
JohnD

JohnD

Well-Known Member
Disstevefan1 said:
Totally agree! Tiana is (at the very least) still a fun log flume because it was a overlay.

ToT's replacement, assuming it wont get bulldozed and be an overlay, will still be a fun attraction.

Disney is gonna do what Disney's gonna do!
Click to expand...
I think you missed his point. Its already engagimg. Why change it? What differemcw does it make if ToT uses a CBS IP vs HM which has its own story without an IP if both engage the guest?
 
Mr. Sullivan

Mr. Sullivan

Well-Known Member
DavidDL said:
Excuse me? Sole purpose? I think it was Walt himself who said something to the effect of, "We didn't go into Disneyland just with the idea of making money"
Click to expand...
It wasn’t his sole purpose, no, but you’re buying into a very fictionalized idea of who Walt Disney was if you think one of his largest motivations in life wasn’t money. Creative, sure, but the man was a hardcore capitalist.
 
N

Nevermore525

Well-Known Member
JohnD said:
I think you missed his point. Its already engagimg. Why change it? What differemcw does it make if ToT uses a CBS IP vs HM which has its own story without an IP if both engage the guest?
Click to expand...
The difference, at least to Disney, is that HM is an original IP created by them.

While I wouldn’t personally change ToT, it’s not that hard to see them doing it to make the attractions all something they have direct ownership of the content in some capacity (unless another company is footing the bill).
 
lazyboy97o

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Mr. Sullivan said:
It wasn’t his sole purpose, no, but you’re buying into a very fictionalized idea of who Walt Disney was if you think one of his largest motivations in life wasn’t money. Creative, sure, but the man was a hardcore capitalist.
Click to expand...
Being a capitalist hasn’t always meant trying to be Gordon Gekko cranked up to 11. The contemporary notion of corporate purpose and maximizing shareholder value would be completely foreign to most businessmen who died in the 60s.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom