The Park Formerly Known as Disney's Hollywood Studios? Yep ...

steamboatjosh

steamboatjosh

Well-Known Member
Disney's Hollywood Adventure Park

Add in Star Wars Land

You don't need to bring in a whole Cars Land. Just expand Pixar Place, add in the main attraction from Cars Land (Radiator Springs Racers) plus 2 or 3 more Pixar-themed rides (preferably The Incredibles, Wall-E, and Monsters Inc.)

Now that The Muppets are pretty popular again they could add a Muppets ride to their area of the park.

Then just find a way to add somewhat of a cohesive theme to the area that contains Rock'N'Rollercoaster, TOT, Fantasmic! and bam you will have a new and improved park.
 
DinoInstitute

DinoInstitute

Well-Known Member
steamboatjosh said:
Disney's Hollywood Adventure Park

Add in Star Wars Land

You don't need to bring in a whole Cars Land. Just expand Pixar Place, add in the main attraction from Cars Land (Radiator Springs Racers) plus 2 or 3 more Pixar-themed rides (preferably The Incredibles, Wall-E, and Monsters Inc.)

Now that The Muppets are pretty popular again they could add a Muppets ride to their area of the park.

Then just find a way to add somewhat of a cohesive theme to the area that contains Rock'N'Rollercoaster, TOT, Fantasmic! and bam you will have a new and improved park.
Click to expand...
I feel that RSR wouldn't be the same without the rest of the land. And I think the Muppets are really not as popular/not going to get anything.

Other than that I agree with you though. I really like the name DHA.
 
GoofGoof

GoofGoof

Premium Member
peter11435 said:
It was previously the Disney-MGM Studios.
Click to expand...

It technically was, but that name was also redundant too. It is a little more understandable since it had MGM in the name so they wanted to be clear it was still a Disney park. Most people just called it MGM or MGM Studios anyway. Technically Animal Kingdom is Disney's Animal Kingdom too, but it's commonly called Animal Kingdom. The way I look at it is if you have Walt Disney World as the name of the entire resort complex it's redundant to name the individual parks Disney's XYZ.
 
DinoInstitute

DinoInstitute

Well-Known Member
GoofGoof said:
It technically was, but that name was also redundant too. It is a little more understandable since it had MGM in the name so they wanted to be clear it was still a Disney park. Most people just called it MGM or MGM Studios anyway. Technically Animal Kingdom is Disney's Animal Kingdom too, but it's commonly called Animal Kingdom. The way I look at it is if you have Walt Disney World as the name of the entire resort complex it's redundant to name the individual parks Disney's XYZ.
Click to expand...
I think maybe they do that to differentiate them from other things/places, as DAK and DHS are the official names, but without the D's, they are Animal Kingdom and Hollywood Studios, which are so general that it can be many things. Perhaps my logic is too screwy but hopefully you get what I'm saying?:p
 
GoofGoof

GoofGoof

Premium Member
IDInstitute said:
I think maybe they do that to differentiate them from other things/places, as DAK and DHS are the official names, but without the D's, they are Animal Kingdom and Hollywood Studios, which are so general that it can be many things. Perhaps my logic is too screwy but hopefully you get what I'm saying?:p
Click to expand...

Probably. I think even the resorts are called Disney's Boardwalk Inn or Disney's Contemporary Resort. It's all redundant in my mind. They aren't really going to change any of it for me though;)

I'm sure the new name will be Disney's Hollywood Kingdom or Disney's Movie Kingdom or Disney's Movie Park.
 
S

Seafury31

New Member
As stated previously, the name is not important. keep it simple. it is the content that the kids will remember. Keep them entertained and the parents will follow. It is agreed that new content is needed and with the new Pixar movies in development and additional Star Wars movies in concept mode, they should be preparing for them both. They will need to start with an overall plan / layout and begin by building one land at a time. No need to revamp it all overnight. Unfortunately, it is a numbers thing, and as you all have shown, you continue to visit the parks and stay at the resorts. They are business people and are inclined to keep as is as long as the attendance numbers remain. DCA did not get into remodel mode until attendance and $ spent per visitor dropped drastically. They knew they had to react. Unfortunately, because they ignored for so long, they were forced to spend alot to get it up to date. Believe me, Disney monitors the consumer, and watches the websites and knows what is going on, but still they look at the numbers and bottom line and will now flinch until the numbers drop at a relatively strong rate. Disney has the talent and imagineers that have great ideas, just need the executives to open their fists and let the dollars fall.
 
ToTBellHop

ToTBellHop

Well-Known Member
IDInstitute said:
I think maybe they do that to differentiate them from other things/places, as DAK and DHS are the official names, but without the D's, they are Animal Kingdom and Hollywood Studios, which are so general that it can be many things. Perhaps my logic is too screwy but hopefully you get what I'm saying?:p
Click to expand...
But then why not Disney's Magic Kingdom? Only Epcot is unique enough that there is nothing else remotely similar. At least until it becomes Disney's Kaleidoscope of Future Showcase Park.
 
JohnD

JohnD

Well-Known Member
GoofGoof said:
It technically was, but that name was also redundant too. It is a little more understandable since it had MGM in the name so they wanted to be clear it was still a Disney park. Most people just called it MGM or MGM Studios anyway. Technically Animal Kingdom is Disney's Animal Kingdom too, but it's commonly called Animal Kingdom. The way I look at it is if you have Walt Disney World as the name of the entire resort complex it's redundant to name the individual parks Disney's XYZ.
Click to expand...

"Magic Kingdom" and "Epcot" are trademarked. No need to put "Disney's" in front of those. But "Animal Kingdom" and "Hollywood Studios" are too generic to be trademarked. So, they put "Disney's" in front of them to trademark the whole name.
 
S

Seafury31

New Member
Capsin4 said:
I don't get people being upset with them going when the vast majority of Disney movies have been lifted from books and fairytales. I get that their stylized characters are their own and stand out from other versions.


I've never gotten the issue people have with using outside or acquired IP. It's not like Disney's never used material that wasn't completely original. They may have cornered the best "looks" for their characters, but the majority of disney animation movies are from or inspired by books/fairy tales/legends.

Heck, Iger supposedly got the idea to buy Pixar when he was watching a parade in 2005 and realized none of the characters created in the previous 10 years had been created by Disney.
Click to expand...
 
S

Seafury31

New Member
BTW, Igar bought Pixar because the Pixar contract was about 1 or two movies away from expiring. And renewing the contract would have cost a boat load of money
 
steamboatjosh

steamboatjosh

Well-Known Member
IDInstitute said:
I feel that RSR wouldn't be the same without the rest of the land. And I think the Muppets are really not as popular/not going to get anything.

Other than that I agree with you though. I really like the name DHA.
Click to expand...

It doesn't even necessarily need to be Radiator Springs Racers. Keep that version unique to Cars Land and make the Florida version Piston Cup Racers or something. It would be perfect to put into Lights, Motors, Action!
 
DinoInstitute

DinoInstitute

Well-Known Member
I always kind of thought a cheap way to do it would be make the cars at LMA Cars 2, ehem, spy cars, give it a bit of a story and have them drive around doing stunts while being, ehem, spy cars
 

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

Back
Top Bottom