Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>Yet it ended with ambitious plans for the Experimental Prototype Community of Tomorrow. I love Mickey and the gang as much as anyone, but enough already.<< I agree. There's really no potential for folks in WDW not realizing that Disney's roots go back to the cartoons, specifically Mickey. They've done a good job of squeezing not-so-hidden-Mickeys into the décor in every way imaginable, and getting the characters as much face time as possible. The real legacy of Disney to me is the grand vision to think outside the box and give people things they didn't know they wanted; the characters were a big step in making that possible, but the overreliance on them in recent years makes me wonder what vision the company has today IMO, the Studios park probably does (did?) the best job of balancing Disney-branded content with a diverse portfolio of other content. There were enough familiar things to draw you in, yet enough new (or at least non-Disney) things to make it feel like a real meaningful experience. This park has become somewhat of a catch-all for things that don't quite fit anywhere else, so I'll be curious to see if that balance is maintained with whatever eventually replaces the tour
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Epcot, if implemented as Walt envisioned, would have undoubtedly been a failure. Americans are independent cusses and don't like that much regulation. Disney even bailed out of Celebration (Epcot-lite-lite-lite) after awhile.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt Yes it would have probably been unsustainable, but that isn't the point I'm trying to make here. Disney is more than a collection of character brands. Well at least it used to be.
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORWEN: I have a message for you from Mickey Mouse, doctor. He wants you to turn in your mouse ears.
Originally Posted By mrkthompsn Walt didn't want to tell you this, but it actually all started with Walt wanting to escape the grips of his father Elias.
Originally Posted By phruby Jim Hill's latest podcast says that Disney Hollywood Studios (DHS) will be rebranded and called Disney Hollywood Adventure (DHA). He says you can expect an expansion of pixar stuff such as a indoor version of Radiator Springs Racers and WDS's Toy Story land. There will be some Frozen sing along stuff in the Beauty&Beast theater and of course Star Wars land. What do you think of the new name?
Originally Posted By dagobert I prefer Studios over Adventure, but I can live with it. TSPL doesn't make any sense in terms of setting to be in WDSP and it doesn't make any sense n Orlando. But I guess DHS needs more rides for kids. And I have to admit that RC Racer is a lot of fun. Why isn't WDI bringing Ratatouille from Paris to WDW? Or Monsters Inc from Tokyo? I'm looking forward to the SW land.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "Or Monsters Inc from Tokyo?" If Tokyo's roughly the same as DCA's version they won't be missing much Dagobert, although I guess the park could use a C ticket attraction or two.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip the TDL version is very different from that at DCA. I don't know that it is necessarily much better. I suppose the whole flashlight thing gives it interactivity, but I found it rather pointless and to some extent annoying. I also didn't see any scene I liked nearly as much as the "Doors Room" in DCA. YMMV <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhHxy83XIdw">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...xy83XIdw</a>
Originally Posted By FerretAfros A whole flock of important people were seen in the Pixar Place area yesterday, including Tom Staggs, John Lasseter, George Kalogridis, and Cathy Mangum, so there definitely seems to be some weight to the rumored changes. I'm not sure what it will be, but the park desperately needs additional attractions (especially now that the tram tour is closing), so anything will help at this point As for the name, I agree that it should change, but I'm not sure that Disney's Hollywood Adventure is the best fit. It's an awkward name for an awkward park, but I just don't think it does an especially good job of describing the park to someone who isn't familiar with it
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "It's an awkward name for an awkward park..." No more awkward than "Disney-MGM Studios".
Originally Posted By FerretAfros ^^I think that Disney-MGM Studios was a relatively clear name. "Studios" let you know that it's related to movies and filmmaking, while "MGM" made it clear that the focus would be on the golden age of Hollywood; and obviously Disney owned and operated the park, and had their own elements (and lots of Touchstone and Miramax movies) that they wanted to include along the way Disney's Hollywood Adventure (or more likely, Disney Hollywood Adventure) is a lot more meaningless. The park isn't in Hollywood, CA or Hollywood, FL, and there's no real adventurous components (the Indy stunt show? TOT?). I guess the Disney name fits since it's become their IP dumping ground for things that don't fit elsewhere, but it hardly says anything about the park More importantly, I don't think they really know what they want the park to be. I think that having a clear vision for the park moving forward would help guide its name, since right now it's just a mishmash of things that don't belong elsewhere. A Star Wars land is all but confirmed, but I'm not sure that it will help the park gain a cohesive identity; I'm also not sure that the rumored addition(s) to Pixar Place will help straighten it out either (though the attraction capacity is desperately needed, so I won't complain too much)
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA The whole conceit of the park was a mess from the start. A stunt show with a 'director' A backlot tour of a made-up backlot that people thought would become 'Hollywood East' If they repeated it enough times. With the exception of the Streetmosphere characters, it's never really held together for me.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "More importantly, I don't think they really know what they want the park to be." I don't know Ferret... to me the new name sounds like they DO know what they want it to be - less of a park about filmmaking and more of a park about Hollywood. If that's the case then it will be a welcome change since the movie making aspect of "studio parks" lacks repeatability (at least for me). Like you said, they weren't following the park's original scheme anyway, so maybe this refocus will give the place the cohesion that it needs.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "More importantly, I don't think they really know what they want the park to be." I don't know Ferret... to me the new name sounds like they DO know what they want it to be - less of a park about filmmaking and more of a park about Hollywood. If that's the case then it will be a welcome change since the movie making aspect of "studio parks" lacks repeatability (at least for me). Like you said, they weren't following the park's original scheme anyway, so maybe this refocus will give the place the cohesion that it needs.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "More importantly, I don't think they really know what they want the park to be." I don't know Ferret... to me the new name sounds like they DO know what they want it to be - less of a park about filmmaking and more of a park about Hollywood. If that's the case then it will be a welcome change since the movie making aspect of "studio parks" lacks repeatability (at least for me). Like you said, they weren't following the park's original scheme anyway, so maybe this refocus will give the place the cohesion that it needs.
Originally Posted By Yookeroo "Disney's Hollywood Adventure (or more likely, Disney Hollywood Adventure) is a lot more meaningless. The park isn't in Hollywood, CA" Didn't DCA catch a lot of criticism for being a park about California that was in California? Why does DHA need to be in Hollywood? Regardless, "Hollywood" does mean more than the physical location of actual Hollywood.
