Why Hollywood Studios is being rebuilt

[Nemo14]

I always expose the upper expanse of my buttocks. White and pale so any signature really stands out. However, many CMs and guests seem to think this is "inappropriate" whatever that means.

Pictures or it didn't happen.

 

[lebeau]

That may be true but it's certainly a tenuous proposition. In 2011 Universal saw a 29% increase in annual attendance to Disney's 1% that same year. Islands of Adventure had a 1.7 million visitor uptick to DW's 363k. Last year Uni was up 2.5% to DW's combined 2.2%. Is Universal going to sink DW? Absolutely not. Is it stealing a significant number of visitors that could/would be going to DW? I would say yes.

And I would agree. But I'm not sure a thrill park is the answer. In fact, I'm pretty sure it's not.

Should Disney build thrill rides? Yes. But a park that is dedicated primarily or exclusively to thrill rides? No way. The base that makes Disney World one of the most popular vacation destinations in the world would not be interested in such a park. And a significant number of thrill park fans wouldn't be interested because it's Disney.

 

[WDWFREAK53]

But all of them lack in execution to some degree. I don't think slapping on an IP would have made any of those attractions a bigger draw.

Well...no but if the IP started out during the brainstorming process/storyboarding then they might. A rollercoaster on Hoth flying around AT-ATs or a Speeder bike coaster would be more popular than a runaway train with a brief encounter with a Yeti.

EDIT: Plus...look at merchandising. I think most would agree that Tower of Terror is a better attraction than Star Tours...but what gift shop makes more money? Just having a great attraction does not mean that the company is benefitting from them on all fronts.

 

[Taylor]

Pictures or it didn't happen.

Photo evidence

 

[Goofyernmost]

Pictures or it didn't happen.

Eeewwwwww! In this case I will take someones word...Pictures are not necessary!

 

[Nemo14]

Eeewwwwww! In this case I will take someones word...Pictures are not necessary!

Would that make you a party pooper?

 

[lebeau]

This is an interesting theory. I'll have to think about it. Do you have a post where you explain how they were under served?

Somewhere

I'll sum up. For a long time, there was very little HP merch avaialble. They had the books and the movies. There were a few items available for purchase here and there. But most weren't any good and were not widely available. There were a few videogames, but that was about it.

Star Wars has had tons of toys, merch, books, movies, cartoons and you name it for decades. Even LotR had more merch, the books, and various adaptations. Star Trek, James Bond, all the major franchises have had more goodies available than HP fans.

 

[Fractal514]

Well...no but if the IP started out during the brainstorming process/storyboarding then they might. A rollercoaster on Hoth flying around AT-ATs or a Speeder bike coaster would be more popular than a runaway train with a brief encounter with a Yeti.

I think you are making a fatal mistake that many fans of any particular film/book/show make. You're only looking at the advantage of an IP, not the disadvantage. Just as you might be drawn to a Star Wars ride based largely on the IP, someone who isn't fond of the movies, or who is familiar only with the new trilogy and thinks them kiddie fodder, might not be inclined to visit.

Compare this to Expedition Everest which has no real preconcieved notions. While it has not inherent draw based on the IP, it also has no inherent flaw either.

I think the biggest place where I worry about this ignoring the negative of an IP is evidenced by Avatar. Yes it was the biggest money maker of all time, but it is also considered a big punching bag by folks who don't like "that type of movie" or 3-D in general.

 

[danlb_2000]

And I would agree. But I'm not sure a thrill park is the answer. In fact, I'm pretty sure it's not.

Should Disney build thrill rides? Yes. But a park that is dedicated primarily or exclusively to thrill rides? No way. The base that makes Disney World one of the most popular vacation destinations in the world would not be interested in such a park. And a significant number of thrill park fans wouldn't be interested because it's Disney.

I would agree with this mainly because to remain competitive in the thrill business you have to continously build new and more thirlling attractions. The only economical way to do that is with lightly themed rides. I would much rather see Disney spend thier money on a couple highly themed rides that will remain relevant for years, then putting in lightly themed high thrill rides that will be obsolete in a year or two.

 

[Ignohippo]

Disney isn't building a thrill park either. If they thought they needed one, they would have built it. The lack of such a park indicates they disagree with you.

No, Disney has just chosen to try to be everything to everyone.

They have the thrill rides, just not enough of them to keep up with the park down the highway. Each park has a niche, and DHS is uniquely positioned to be WDW's thrill park.

Doing so would go a long way towards the erosion they're currently seeing with families choosing to spend less time on-property.

 

[Ignohippo]

And I would agree. But I'm not sure a thrill park is the answer. In fact, I'm pretty sure it's not.

Should Disney build thrill rides? Yes. But a park that is dedicated primarily or exclusively to thrill rides? No way. The base that makes Disney World one of the most popular vacation destinations in the world would not be interested in such a park. And a significant number of thrill park fans wouldn't be interested because it's Disney.

No one said anything about it being dedicated primarily or exclusively to thrill rides.

Every park needs to appeal to each demographic. I was only stating that it's a demographic that is currently underserved at WDW and adding more thrill rides to DHS (and making that its niche) would go a long way.

 

[Ignohippo]

As a super nerd, I must say you're missing a key point. Full disclosure, I love LoTR and SW. I loved SW when I was 8 and the movie came out. I saw it 44 times, first run over the the course of 60 weeks and only quit spending all my money on it when the nearest drive through to our house finally quit showing it. I then spent all my money on toys. I fell in love with LoTR when I was 13 or 14 and it became my favorite book series. I re-read it once a decade and dearly loved the movies. However, it is a bit more adult, nuanced, and slower paced so I never wanted Gandalf underwear, 12 different plastic Aragorns, or Liv Tyler wall paper (OK, I'm lying about that, but my wife may see this post). I think HP, SW, LoTR really stand out as 3 ips that lend themselves to theme park lands, have large followings, and, if done correctly, the lands will draw people for decades. And they'd all move a crapload of merchandise......And we'd all eat at all the related eateries......And they'd all sell a crapload of theme park tickets (crapload is an official accounting term for "a lot"). Tangential side note: A good way to annoy your wife is to take the ring out of Lord of the Rings Risk, put it on a chain, and hide it under your shirt. Whenever she starts talking, go nuts with a terrible Gollum impersonation saying "My precious" over and over, or so I've been told.

I'm sorry, I missed it. What was the point I was missing? I'm lost.

 

[George]

I'm sorry, I missed it. What was the point I was missing? I'm lost.

You argued that SW was much more popular than LoTR and to support that argument you mentioned LoTR toys weren't very common in stores, etc. I think the two franchises are actually both very popular and the fact that young kids are a demo that is more into SW than LoTR is why merchandising is the way it is. I then used my youthful experiences with both franchises to bolster my point. If SW is more popular than LoTR I don't think it is light years more popular, just a bit. I have friends who would argue that LoTR is way more popular because they hated the more recent SW movies and I've argued the other side with them. Doesn't really matter, except I could see @twebber55's poll having validity. Regardless, I hope Disney builds some more SW stuff and I hope it kicks butt.

 

[PrincessNelly_NJ]

I really wish people would stop comparing Uni and Disney World. They are not the same, they cater to different crowds, and both provide different experiences. Disney is a fun for everyone park, they aim at giving everyone the "i feel like Im 5 all over again" feeling. While Uni is about the older kids and adult looking for thrills. I always find it funny when people take their 2 years old to Uni and then complain that Uni isn't for small children. Im truly glad that plans for HS are in the works but I'll be very sad to see Sci-fi replaced, even if it was done over CARS themed....

 

[George]

Ahh...the old "19th hole" signature.

I should note that I tastefully used the phrase "upper expanse".....

 

[George]

I really wish people would stop comparing Uni and Disney World. They are not the same, they cater to different crowds, and both provide different experiences. Disney is a fun for everyone park, they aim at giving everyone the "i feel like Im 5 all over again" feeling. While Uni is about the older kids and adult looking for thrills. I always find it funny when people take their 2 years old to Uni and then complain that Uni isn't for small children. Im truly glad that plans for HS are in the works but I'll be very sad to see Sci-fi replaced, even if it was done over CARS themed....

Hard not to compare. They both offer world class rides that feature details and effects you won't find elsewhere. They do employ different marketing tactics and have different styles, but if you drew a Venn diagram with people interested in Uni in one circle and people interested in Disney in the other there would be a crapload (defined earlier) of overlap.

 

[Luigi]

Hopefully the new Cars ride will be close to E-ticket, but I can see (in a small way) why they don't want to replicate RSR in DHS. They just spent millions on refurbing Test Track and then they will stick a similar ride in another park. Granted the theming is different, but this may also be part of their thinking.
I personally think they should scrap the idea of Carsland in DHS and do a similar sized Monstopolis land.

 

[WDWFREAK53]

I think you are making a fatal mistake that many fans of any particular film/book/show make. You're only looking at the advantage of an IP, not the disadvantage. Just as you might be drawn to a Star Wars ride based largely on the IP, someone who isn't fond of the movies, or who is familiar only with the new trilogy and thinks them kiddie fodder, might not be inclined to visit.

Compare this to Expedition Everest which has no real preconcieved notions. While it has not inherent draw based on the IP, it also has no inherent flaw either.

I think the biggest place where I worry about this ignoring the negative of an IP is evidenced by Avatar. Yes it was the biggest money maker of all time, but it is also considered a big punching bag by folks who don't like "that type of movie" or 3-D in general.

I completely agree with what you are saying...which is why they can't "go on the cheap" with this IP because it needs to be a draw for the majority. Even people that don't like Harry Potter or Spider-Man still leave those attractions happy.

Devoting an entire park to Star Wars is a bad idea. Devoting a "land" to Star Wars isn't so bad when you consider where this is being placed. It's not going into Epcot, DAK, or MK...it's going into a park that focuses on movies and moviemaking. The biggest franchise in movie history deserves its place in this park. An entire "land" maybe a little much...but a mini-land is perfect. Two attractions, a restaurant, and gift shop. Done. You don't need a full park or half of a park.

Much like Carsland...I don't think it's needed (and I feel that Carsland at DCA is amazing!). One more attraction in Pixar Place and call it a day. You have Pizza Planet (redo it to be more like the movie), add in the Monsters Coaster...and perhaps a sit-down restaurant themed to Ratatouille.

Personally, I'd love to see the park completely reimagined. Have different lands based on film genres...with the Great Movie Ride as the central focal point that showcases all of them.

 

[PrincessNelly_NJ]

Hard not to compare. They both offer world class rides that feature details and effects you won't find elsewhere. They do employ different marketing tactics and have different styles, but if you drew a Venn diagram with people interested in Uni in one circle and people interested in Disney in the other there would be a crapload (defined earlier) of overlap.

Define world class rides? Because why Id say Disney rides are unique and themed wonderfully, I wouldn't say world class. Many families that head to disney with small child aren't going to Uni just yet. People maybe interested but many people are still going to Disney without heading to Uni. People never compare Disney and Six Flags, so why compare Uni and Disney?

 

[danlb_2000]

I really wish people would stop comparing Uni and Disney World. They are not the same, they cater to different crowds, and both provide different experiences. Disney is a fun for everyone park, they aim at giving everyone the "i feel like Im 5 all over again" feeling. While Uni is about the older kids and adult looking for thrills. I always find it funny when people take their 2 years old to Uni and then complain that Uni isn't for small children. Im truly glad that plans for HS are in the works but I'll be very sad to see Sci-fi replaced, even if it was done over CARS themed....

You are unlikely to get your wish, it's a very popular topic of conversion here and rightly so. You might no want to compare them, but there is a large group of people that they are both competing to attract and since people's vacation time has praticle limits one can draw people away from the other. What Uni does impacts Disney and visa-versa.