DHS What should they do with Animation Courtyard?

Fox&Hound

Well-Known Member
The park with Toy Story and MMRR as the centerpiece? “Mature” isn’t much of an identity anyway.
I just mean it has a lot of thrilling e-tickets already. I understand the variety they want to create in MK and it makes sense, but I could see them not going too far with villains because it will be too scary for the MK crowd. No one is skipping MK, it is the quintessential Disney park, but the other three need all the help they can get. I always felt like if you branded DHS the more teen/adult park and leaned in to that with villains they could really drum up their Halloween offerings and be a pull attendance wise for MK and their seasonal offerings.
 

Marc Davis Fan

Well-Known Member
Yes, the Muppets, famously “subdued.”

They dethemed the Muppets area and further discouraged foot traffic.

Yeah, as I said in my original post, I understand that their changing the fountain and removing the mural were disliked by many (though I don’t know if there was an impact on foot traffic). And I particularly empathize with people for whom the iconic fountain had treasured memories.

However, this was of course ancillary to my main point, which was that the updated MV3D marquee, Gonzo’s facades, and PizzaRizzo indicate that they can add a sufficiently cohesive theme to an area even without it being a massive, long-term project… and this gives me cautious optimism they could do the same with Animation Courtyard.

Replacing Launch Bay with a return of the Animation Academy or similar, and adding some animation-themed murals to buildings and banners to the lampposts, would allow the area to at least “make sense” again.

...and it looks like crap and at no point does it ever look like anything but Tower of Terror with stuff projected on it...

Perhaps, though what I was trying to get at was that they’re happy to use many non-flat surfaces for projection mapping, from ToT to the Chinese Theater to the Main Street facades to Cinderella Castle. So I doubt they’re saying “we’d really like to improve these ‘beige box’ warehouse-looking things in the center of the park, but their flatness makes them such fantastic projection surfaces that it would be too big of a sacrifice.”

That said, I agree with you that if the options are keeping vs removing the structures entirely, they could be keeping them for the projections—after all, they *added* to them to create more projection surface!

And IMHO, this is quite a shame, as it’s an example of missing the forest for the trees a la old-Universal: not thinking about the holistic impact of making an area unattractive / less thematically compelling because of some narrow purpose (similar to the HarmonioUS barges).
 

wdwfan4ver

Well-Known Member
It’s also truly shocking that universal corporate allowed fast and the furious: supercharged to operate for even a single day.
Shouldn't be a surprise because no theme park company is perfect considering Disney during the later Eisner years didn't always new good rides either such as Superstar Limo.

Superstar Limo was a pretty infamous ride and was one of the reasons why DCA 1.0 didn't do well.
 

Charlie The Chatbox Ghost

Well-Known Member
I just hope to spice it up, we get "Animation Domination Courtyard" at least.... The Bob's Burger QS idea is genius and Family Guy, despite an extremely edgy tone, is popular with the Gen Z audience that the recent WDW wave of announcements is trying to court.
In a way that doesn’t bode too well for the concept, all the “heavy hitters” of Disney-owned Fox animation really lend themselves better to restaurants or simulator rides than anything else. American Dad is the only one that I can think of a non-simulator idea for. You could have a Krusty themed coaster or flat ride but the park really doesn’t need another coaster.
  • Bob’s Burgers (QS) - Burgers and Fries
  • The Drunken Clam (TS) - Bar with New England Pub Food
  • Hank’s Backyard BBQ (QS) - Backyard BBQ themed food- hotdogs, ribs, kabobs, etc.
  • Futurama: Planet Express - Simulator ride, could parody (or reuse the bones of) Star Tours
  • Moe’s (QS) - Bar
  • The Simpsons Ride - Frankly the universal ride is the best way to do a Simpsons ride so you might as well just do a better, updated simulator.
  • American Dad: Containment Breach - Dark ride with shooter elements, themed to a containment breach at the CIA where guests have to shoot targets
    • Alternatively, give the park a water ride and give certain fans what they want by building the show’s Splash Mountain parody “Simpler Times Mountain” lmao (don’t actually do this)
Not the strongest concept but eh
 

Charlie The Chatbox Ghost

Well-Known Member
I also hope that if it is Zootopia, they have a different ride concept than Shanghai. That's way too close in execution to Runaway Railway.
this is the same company that built a new rollercoaster next to another rollercoaster in Magic Kingdom. I don’t think they’re concerned with varying ride experiences as much as they are varying brands and saving money on R&D.
 

networkpro

Well-Known Member
In the Parks
Yes
In a way that doesn’t bode too well for the concept, all the “heavy hitters” of Disney-owned Fox animation really lend themselves better to restaurants or simulator rides than anything else. American Dad is the only one that I can think of a non-simulator idea for. You could have a Krusty themed coaster or flat ride but the park really doesn’t need another coaster.
  • Bob’s Burgers (QS) - Burgers and Fries
  • The Drunken Clam (TS) - Bar with New England Pub Food
  • Hank’s Backyard BBQ (QS) - Backyard BBQ themed food- hotdogs, ribs, kabobs, etc.
  • Futurama: Planet Express - Simulator ride, could parody (or reuse the bones of) Star Tours
  • Moe’s (QS) - Bar
  • The Simpsons Ride - Frankly the universal ride is the best way to do a Simpsons ride so you might as well just do a better, updated simulator.
  • American Dad: Containment Breach - Dark ride with shooter elements, themed to a containment breach at the CIA where guests have to shoot targets
    • Alternatively, give the park a water ride and give certain fans what they want by building the show’s Splash Mountain parody “Simpler Times Mountain” lmao (don’t actually do this)
Not the strongest concept but eh

But I agree with your salient point: The former Fox animated franchises have a wider audience than current "Disney" animation.
 

Bocabear

Well-Known Member
But I agree with your salient point: The former Fox animated franchises have a wider audience than current "Disney" animation.
but they are not true Disney branded IP...Disney owns an enormous catalog of Disney branded IP they could use...and could be extremely successful....They sadly just keep banging the same IP over and over and over again....
Universal has launched their new park with an entire section themed to their classic ol IP of Universal Monsters...to much success... Disney has tons they can resurrect, but they have to want to....
Adding Simpsons or Bob's Burgers is not going to move the needle a bit in the Disney theme parks...especially because it has already been played out at Universal...
 

JackCH

Well-Known Member
but they are not true Disney branded IP...Disney owns an enormous catalog of Disney branded IP they could use...and could be extremely successful....They sadly just keep banging the same IP over and over and over again.....
Not sure I see that. What IP are they using over and over again?

Also, Villains will presumably include classic villains from classic films, especially Maleficent. Cars and MI, while being Pixar (which still has long history with Disney) at this point are older franchises they are highlighting. Monsters Inc in particular feels exactly like what you are talking about. Heck New Fantasyland was relatively recent and was centered on Beauty and the Beast, Snow White, and Mermaid. They also just did a new Mickey E-Ticket.

In fact, the only major case I can think of of using the same IP over and over again is Universal with Potter.
 

Tha Realest

Well-Known Member
You see, Fortnite guns are okay cause they make money. The Shootin Arcade and Fort Langhorn are bad because they don’t make money. It’s Igernomics 101!
I wish I could have been there the first time Pablo Hidalgo saw this:

IMG_0823.webp
 

rd805

Well-Known Member
Shouldn't be a surprise because no theme park company is perfect considering Disney during the later Eisner years didn't always new good rides either such as Superstar Limo.

Superstar Limo was a pretty infamous ride and was one of the reasons why DCA 1.0 didn't do well.
I still look back on this ride with fond memories -- it was one that our entire family of 5 did a handful of times. No waits, harmless celebrity sightings -- it wasn't amazing by any means, but it was absolutely a fun and silly dark ride.
 

Brer Panther

Well-Known Member
The real appeal of acquiring these properties would be for new films and Disney+ content
Universal tried to do a Rocky and Bullwinkle film in 2000 and it didn't work out so well (though that's probably less because the characters don't lend themselves to a full-length film and more because of the film's other problems). If Disney wanted to do something with Rocky and Bullwinkle, I think they'd be better off just doing a new show.
Rocky and Bullwinkle could perhaps find a home in Magic Kingdom or one of the wilderness-themed resorts.
Y'know, retheming Tiana's Bayou Adventure to a Rocky and Bullwinkle flume ride has potential... if they can make Cars fit in Frontierland, I think Rocky and Bullwinkle could hypothetically fit in there too.
What IP are they using over and over again?
We currently have two Frozen attractions, three Beauty and the Beast attractions (all three of which are shows), two Finding Nemo attractions, Buzz Lightyear in Tomorrowland plus a Toy Story land in Hollywood Studios, two Little Mermaid attractions... I'm sure I'm forgetting one.

And there are also rumors of another Moana attraction in the Magic Kingdom when we already have the Moana walkthrough thing in EPCOT, and the rumors of Animation Courtyard becoming Zootopia even though they're putting a Zootopia show in the Tree of Life.
 
Last edited:

FigmentFan82

Well-Known Member
Just my opinion, but I really feel WDW wants to do something fairly big with superheroes.
Let’s not forget that it’s not all of Marvel that is off limits, but I know many feel the ones they can use are not up to snuff. Fair enough, though I genuinely enjoy the Guardians films and the attraction, but unlike Moana or Little Mermaid, or BatB, I think multiple Guardians attractions would be weird and short sighted of access to other characters that could do well with an attraction. If not Marvel B-tier, I do genuinely believe Incredibles could anchor a superhero land. The 2 movies have a fairly rich and deep backstory of many superheroes and a 3rd film is on the way. I could very well see a superhero city, not unlike what they did for Zootopia in Shanghai. And just like with Guardians, which is not 100% part of the MCU cannon, they could create this Incredibles land to be on its own timeline so as not to contradict anything from the films.
Anywho, like I said, I feel like Disney wants some more superhero action in WDW, and I think DHS is the obvious place for that.
 

JackCH

Well-Known Member
We currently have two Frozen attractions, three Beauty and the Beast attractions (all three of which are shows), two Finding Nemo attractions, Buzz Lightyear in Tomorrowland plus a Toy Story land in Hollywood Studios, two Little Mermaid attractions... I'm sure I'm forgetting one.
I guess I just don't think of the shows in the same category as rides/lands. And honestly, all of those are major Disney franchises so is it really surprising that they would all have two things dedicated to them? Especially since none of them have more than one major thing dedicated to them. That doesn't feel like too much or "over and over" to me. Not like having three full-fledged Potter lands (which isn't bad! But just stating the point).
 

JackCH

Well-Known Member
Just my opinion, but I really feel WDW wants to do something fairly big with superheroes.
Let’s not forget that it’s not all of Marvel that is off limits, but I know many feel the ones they can use are not up to snuff. Fair enough, though I genuinely enjoy the Guardians films and the attraction, but unlike Moana or Little Mermaid, or BatB, I think multiple Guardians attractions would be weird and short sighted of access to other characters that could do well with an attraction. If not Marvel B-tier, I do genuinely believe Incredibles could anchor a superhero land. The 2 movies have a fairly rich and deep backstory of many superheroes and a 3rd film is on the way. I could very well see a superhero city, not unlike what they did for Zootopia in Shanghai. And just like with Guardians, which is not 100% part of the MCU cannon, they could create this Incredibles land to be on its own timeline so as not to contradict anything from the films.
Anywho, like I said, I feel like Disney wants some more superhero action in WDW, and I think DHS is the obvious place for that.
Many have said Incredibles, Big Hero 6, and Doctor Strange (who I believe they can use) would make a decent land.

And while I do not think Universal will ever fully "give the rights" to Disney, I do wonder if it is not outside the realm of possibility they could reach a smaller agreement to allow Disney to use some heroes in exchange for something from Disney (whether money or IP). Like maybe Disney could get permission just to use Iron Man or something.
 

Brer Panther

Well-Known Member
I guess I just don't think of the shows in the same category as rides/lands.
To each his own. I do.
Especially since none of them have more than one major thing dedicated to them.
It still feels redundant. If the Frozen sing-along were next to Frozen Ever After in EPCOT, I wouldn't have a problem. But do we really need the same franchise in two different parks?

It's not just me not liking Frozen, for what it's worth. I think it's weird that Tokyo Disney now has Peter Pan attractions in two different parks too.
 

JackCH

Well-Known Member
To each his own. I do.

It still feels redundant. If the Frozen sing-along were next to Frozen Ever After in EPCOT, I wouldn't have a problem. But do we really need the same franchise in two different parks?

It's not just me not liking Frozen, for what it's worth. I think it's weird that Tokyo Disney now has Peter Pan attractions in two different parks too.
That’s fair!
 

James Alucobond

Well-Known Member
Slavish devotion to things from the same film or studio sitting next to each other is part of what leads to the current IP-based fragmentation of the parks. An IP is not a theme. A studio is not a theme. The same IP can produce thematically incongruous things, like Buzz Lightyear and Woody.
 

Bocabear

Well-Known Member
I guess I just don't think of the shows in the same category as rides/lands. And honestly, all of those are major Disney franchises so is it really surprising that they would all have two things dedicated to them? Especially since none of them have more than one major thing dedicated to them. That doesn't feel like too much or "over and over" to me. Not like having three full-fledged Potter lands (which isn't bad! But just stating the point).
But the potter lands are locations that people actually want to visit...unlike Andy's Back Yard, or some planet no one ever heard of... The Potter integration is pretty amazing... I think I have seen way more than enough Toy Story, Frozen, and Cars... We are saturated for BATB and Mermaid as well...
 

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

Back
Top Bottom