More closures confirmed for Disney's Hollywood Studios

[UpAllNight]

I definitely cannot agree. Building a coaster like that is pretty straight forward. The theming and artistic details in a project like TSL are what takes a lot of extra time. All those places where you see the TSL coaster going down into ditches are places where they are going to have to build themed rock/earth works. All of the themed buildings will have to be built on site. There is also going to need to be landscaping and maybe more rockwork to hide the things outside of this land.

It's a fair point regarding the landscaping on the coaster and I'm coming round to the complexity of it when I've considered it a bit more - I kind of expected a ditch but I'm hoping you're right on the themed rock work. Regarding the artistic details though we have seen what Uni have done with the very impressive (and huge) Kong Fascade in a relatively small time...Disney could still work faster in this one. I think it's pretty urgent.

 

[Brad Bishop]

Disneyland took 12 months.
Empire State Building took 18 months.
WDW was 3-4 years.

Wasn't New Fantasyland about 3 years?

You can argue about regulations being tougher and all that. Somehow other places, like Universal, seem to get things done, though. I think you can make a pretty strong argument that it's a management/bureaucratic problem, though.

 

[danlb_2000]

It's a fair point regarding the landscaping on the coaster and I'm coming round to the complexity of it when I've considered it a bit more - I kind of expected a ditch but I'm hoping you're right on the themed rock work. Regarding the artistic details though we have seen what Uni have done with the very impressive (and huge) Kong Fascade in a relatively small time...Disney could still work faster in this one. I think it's pretty urgent.

Kong will have taken about 2 years by the time it opens. Disney could have TSL done in under 2 years if they really want to, I am thinking 2 - 2.5 years is realistic, but it will probably turn out to be > 2.5 years.

 

[Disneyhead'71]

IMHO, building this...
View attachment 127043

Is much easier then building this:

View attachment 127044

There is a little more to Mako than just the coaster. They are retheming the entire sharks area with rock/coral work, and a sunken ship.

 

[Jon81uk]

Good for them. I assume they believe this type of investment will help turns things around for them.

Well Disney don't seem interested in building big thrilling roller coasters so SeaWorld and Busch Gardens have that area of the market to claim for themselves

 

[Mikejakester]

Disney is more Bureaucratic. That's about the only real explanation for the long wait times and budgets. It's like the government. They also have this "we can get away with it" kind of attitude. Where theme parks like Sea World and Universal are usually playing catch up, Disney in their minds will always say " They will wait for us cuz we are Disney", and sadly, that's true. lol

 

[MonorailLover]

There is a little more to Mako than just the coaster. They are retheming the entire sharks area with rock/coral work, and a sunken ship.

While I agree they're retheming, I believe Mako was built by a third party roller coaster builder, and they just received the pieces. All I'm getting at is maybe that'll occur with TSL, but most of TSL will probably be In-house built. I give Seaworld credit for surviving Blackfish, and for rejigging their business plan, but the retheming doesn't Pail in comparison to what's going to happen to HS, IMHO.

 

[ford91exploder]

But its been repeated here so often that it has become fact, and when it turns out that it is built in a different area, then 2 things will happen... 1) clearly the design is in flux and it was moved from the initial plan and 2) the imagineers or the Disney corp will be labeled as bumbling fools.



Is this when I have to point out it is a business, and spreading expenses, and stock buyback are part of operating a business. When you walk into a McDonalds, do you get upset because they don't serve ethnic food? No, because when you walked into McDonalds you should have known what to expect. If you look at TDO as what it is, you find yourself a lot less disappointed. The interesting thing is our outrage at certain things must be funny to them, since they view their business as what it is... not what we wished it would be.

(This is where someone quote me, and reply with a Universal can do it statement)

No the experience at Mickey D's is you expect mediocre food served hot and quickly, More than once I've walked out after placing and paying for my order at one of my local Mickey D's when It's taken them 15+ minutes with no one else on line to deliver my order because management at that store is too cheap to have quarter pounders ready to serve.

 

[raven]

I will wait for quality...Avatar looks ground breaking, immersive, using extraordinarily innovative theming and hopefully technology...

...which will have a 1-year warranty like E:E

Toy Story looks 'busy' in the concept art but there's a lot of basic level theming there and some buildings.

Which has always been the case with Disney concept art. The art isn't as much as a concept as it is a "tease" to get people interested. But more than often the finish product looks much less entertaining.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

Bureaucratic delays upset me as well. When Disney was a small company with Walt and Roy in indisputable charge, things certainly seemed to have happened faster. Perhaps too fast given the awful state of Disneyland the day it opened. Similarly, when a very sparse Disney MGM Studios opened in 1989, it was almost a joke. Today, the bloggers would be all over it, complaining that it's barely a "land" like Adventureland or Tomorrowland, much less a park.

Today, we are both less patient and more demanding of the final product. We want great stuff done quickly. Other companies seem more nimble, but one has to try to recall how long it took for all the Harry Potter stuff to be completed after Uni worked out the deal with Rowling. As I recall, that also took years to final completion, with steps being done along the way. One might argue that Disney can afford to be more deliberate in order to build something truly iconic and long-lasting. Who knows? Yet the slow pace bothers me as well.

I think, also, the Fantasyland expansion was not mind-blowing. I'm afraid - for Disney - of other expansions being at that level. The best of it, for me, is the restaurant.

I have to keep reminding myself about the first time I went to WDW - with expectations similar to Great Adventure - that I wasn't blown away by most of the individual attractions - but I was by the overall experience. Back then I used to say, "They must brainwash you, because I don't know why I want to go back so badly."

It's the magic, stupid!

 

[Andrew C]

I think, also, the Fantasyland expansion was not mind-blowing. I'm afraid - for Disney - of other expansions being at that level. The best of it, for me, is the restaurant.

I don't think anyone can argue that the land itself isn't beautiful....well, I am sure some could actually....

The point about the attractions lacking is the most valid issue with this expansion that people bring up, to me at least.

 

[flynnibus]

Rebuilding is the same as replacing. They aren't adding at all.

There is no point in leaving dead wood on the tree. Leaving SOA would be pointless. The Backlot was a joke. The other attractions being impacted are pretty much due for replacement too. The argument about adding vs replacing is kind of petty when the things being sacrificed should be removed anyways.

I would sympathize if things being removed were a negative... but these are parts of the park that NEEDED to go.

This isn't simply adding attractions to a park - this is going to be a redefining of the park that should finally get rid of most of the 'we are studio' sham.

 

[flynnibus]

I was just discussing this with my mother-can you imagine the poor, uninformed soul that decided while in Orlando on business to give one of the parks a visit, and went to HS based on 20 year-old memories, and then paid $100 to essentially see everything in ~4 hours? (at least one of which naturally spent waiting for Midway Mania)

A bit of schadenfreude, but I'd be so amused...

Again.. if you cherry pick what you see.. you will miss out on most of DHS and whine about how there is little to do. The same thing would happen at IOA before HP as well... or AK for that matter.

Meanwhile, a lifer like me spent a full day there in Dec and still didn't do everything the park offered. This tired argument over 'enough to do' is really about 'enough things *I* think I want to do'. It's about enough of a certain type of attraction.. not lack of attractions.

 

[Ralphlaw]

I don't think anyone can argue that the land itself isn't beautiful....well, I am sure some could actually....

The point about the attractions lacking is the most valid issue with this expansion that people bring up, to me at least.

I think the Fantasyland expansion is very nice, but also wrapped in Princesses and things to do for the younger kids. Little Mermaid, Belle's story time, and double Dumbo tie into that demographic, and succeeds dramatically in that way. The Dwarf Train is incredibly well themed, but not much more thrilling than Goofy's Barnstormer. As an adult, I like the mine train, the theming, and Gaston's Tavern. High end dining is also a nice addition to MK overall.

My biggest question: What are the archways there for? Yeah it separates the area a bit, but I really don't see what aesthetic purpose or other function they serve.

My biggest complaint: What happened to the pork shanks at Gaston's? We went there our first night and settled for stew. Those shanks were nearly as good as the turkey legs. Woe descended.

 

[Ralphlaw]

Disneyland took 12 months.
Empire State Building took 18 months.
WDW was 3-4 years.

Wasn't New Fantasyland about 3 years?

You can argue about regulations being tougher and all that. Somehow other places, like Universal, seem to get things done, though. I think you can make a pretty strong argument that it's a management/bureaucratic problem, though.

Excellent point. I think another difference was the desperation factor. For the Empire State building and Disneyland, the investors were desperate to get the money coming in. Margins were tight, and bankers were breathing down their necks. Now, Disney can be more deliberate because they're rolling in money. I also think/hope that extra care is being spent to avoid breakdowns, to avoid the need for maintenance and frequent refurbs, and to give flexibility for future adaptations and plussings.

The original work to get WDW up and running was staggering, yet they did not have to work around guests. It was nothing but construction crews, which made the job easier. With Fantasyland, much of the work was done at night, and safety for wandering guests surely slowed things down a bit. You can't as easily back in a crane or have a concrete convoy when 10,000 guests are standing around. In 1970, working around the guests was a non-factor.

 

[Jon81uk]

My biggest question: What are the archways there for? Yeah it separates the area a bit, but I really don't see what aesthetic purpose or other function they serve.

The theme is meant to be that the original Fantasyland is in the castle grounds, but the expansion is in the forest, with Beasts Castle far away from Cinderellas and of course the Circus out away from the castle grounds too.

 

[Ralphlaw]

The theme is meant to be that the original Fantasyland is in the castle grounds, but the expansion is in the forest, with Beasts Castle far away from Cinderellas and of course the Circus out away from the castle grounds too.

Okay? Not sure it works, but okay.

 

[Brad Bishop]

The theme is meant to be that the original Fantasyland is in the castle grounds, but the expansion is in the forest, with Beasts Castle far away from Cinderellas and of course the Circus out away from the castle grounds too.

I get that but I also agree that it's kind of odd. Not horrible and it sort of makes sense but it's a little odd.

If it were an actual castle wall with a gate in the middle it'd feel better. That might not be better for foot traffic, though.

One part that bugs me is:

I've, on more than one occasion, veered to the right and ended up in that little section because it seems like it should go right through but it doesn't.

 

[JohnD]

Back to closures...

 

[Jon81uk]

I get that but I also agree that it's kind of odd. Not horrible and it sort of makes sense but it's a little odd.

If it were an actual castle wall with a gate in the middle it'd feel better. That might not be better for foot traffic, though.

One part that bugs me is:
View attachment 127267
I've, on more than one occasion, veered to the right and ended up in that little section because it seems like it should go right through but it doesn't.

I haven't visited the park in six years so not experienced it but that is a very very strange section, maybe it was intended for meet & greets or something?