Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt ^^ Agree 100%. I went the year after it opened and I thought that it felt rushed into development, not clearly thought out, and at odds with itself. The biggest letdown was The Great Movie Ride, which at the time was meant to rival Spaceship Earth as the latest and greatest in Disney showmanship. I think the park could have ended up like DCA; light on attractions and substance at the start, but carefully groomed into something stellar over time. As it turned out the place was mobbed from the beginning and Disney started adding and things in an extremely haphazard manner to increase capacity quickly. Still, even with all those shortcomings, it's better than Disney other studio theme park.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I really enjoyed the Great Movie Ride when it was new and fresh and everything worked. While it certainly wasn't on a par with Spaceship Earth, Pirates, or Haunted Mansion, it was very good. I enjoyed the Backlot Tour,though I preferred the walk-though portion to the tram portion. I particularly liked the special effects portion with the water tank and when we could walk through the sets. I probably enjoyed seeing the sets up close than I would have enjoyed seeing a live shoot from a distance. I thought Indy was a very enjoyable show, and still do although I only see it once every several visits so it remains somewhat fresh each time I see it. I thought the Monster Sound Show was very good and have been disappointed with everything in that building since. I really like the Little Mermaid show, enjoying a show with good effects without resorting to the ubiquitous 3-D. I thought the shopping on Hollywood Blvd and Sunset Blvd was very good in the beginning, offering some unique merchandise. Even though it has now been homogenized like all other Disney shopping, it is still pretty decent. I still really enjoy the Writers Stop shop... a very unique shop for WDW. I've not liked the recent changes to Sid Cahunega's... sure, I never bought much there, but I always viewed it more as an attraction than a place to buy stuff. Yes, the design of the park has always been a problem. There are some places where you "just can't get there from here", although now that I have been to the park for 20 years and know of some passages that are not very obvious, it is not as bad as it used to be. Since we always visited in the off-season, crowding has never been a problem for me. The park certainly has its faults, but in the beginning it at least had a vision of what it wanted to be. That counts for a lot, and it is mostly gone now.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>I probably enjoyed seeing the sets up close than I would have enjoyed seeing a live shoot from a distance.<< I agree! Even though I've visited Disney parks countless times since then, I still have distinct memories of the 101 Dalmatians sets that were on display right when the live-action movie came out. It was exciting to see, and a unique persepective. Seeing a real shoot may have been fun, but getting to see everything at eye level was really neat >>I still really enjoy the Writers Stop shop... a very unique shop for WDW.<< I've walked past this place dozens of times, without ever realizing it was more than a facade. I read some articles online about it about a month ago, and it's definitely on my to-do list for my next trip. Rumor has it that it might be the location for the park's Starbucks, but I hope they can find another location for it; it seems like something closer to the park entrance and/or easier to find would be a more obvious choice
Originally Posted By sjhym333 I was on loan from Ops to Imagineering for the Disney-MGM Studios project. My first office was in a trailer in the parking lot. I worked for one of the top Imagineers and was passed along to several show producers as various projects progressed. I don't think there is an attraction that was there on opening day that I wasn't involved in at some point. You can still see some of my handy work at the Great Movie Ride in a couple of the scenes. I am in more inline with Jim in that even while it was being built I kept thinking that there has to be more then this. One day I was walking through the park several months before opening with a show producer and Bob Weiss who was in charge of the project. I knew Bob some, but not very well. In the middle of our conversation I asked Bob if he was concerned about crowds after the park opened and he said, No, they felt the park had enough to do for the number of guests expected. I also remember there were a lot of discussions about pricing of the Studios. Even in Imagineering the s feeling was that the Studios was not a full day experience. The decision to charge the same as the other two parks came from Burbank. We were all a little surprised. After opening I remember standing in front of the Great Movie Ride (which was supposed to be sponsored by Sears btw) and the lines for the Tram Tour, Animation, GMR and Indiana Jones all met there. It was a mess. The decision to open to street behind the GMR came quickly to give some relief to the crowds. Every day seemed to be a wake up and see what changes we are going to make today kind of experience. It was stressful but exciting at the same time. I think the stores on Hollywood Blvd were great when the park opened and now I just bypass them completely. The GMR, which was the centerpiece attraction (and I have fond memories working on before opening) never delivered the way it was meant to. The tours were good but suffered from a sense of reality because there was never any production to tie anything to. The three problems that I see with the Studios are: 1) Poor Layout - It is better today, terrible when the park opened, but it is not a pleasant place to get around in at times. The park really needs someone to come in with a vision and fix the place. As much as I hate the idea in some ways, the Studios could benefit from looking at Islands of Adventure and deliver a Pixar area, a Star Wars area and so on. Oh and by the way...it is DISNEY for gosh sake, why not tip their hat to the wealth of Disney films out there. Has always seemed silly to me to have a Studio that opened more tied to other companies work. You don't want to update Fantasyland? Dip into your animated features of the last 20 years and do something at the Studios with them 2) Aging - Surprisingly the Studios suffers from some of the same problems that EPCOT and Tomorrowland suffer from. Movies can and do age the park. Yeah, there are some classics in there but some of the current offerings date the park more then help. The GMR needs a nice redo. Lose the gangster and bank robber storyline, lose Aliens, shorten the Indy scenes and give it a nice updating. It's Not a Working Studios - You are not a working studios. It is a great time to redefine the park and come to terms the problems that building a faux working studio has created for Disney. It is a theme park, time to do what Disney can do well, build attractions and theme the heck out of the place.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I love the Oz-Munchkin scene in the GMR... it is one of the most elaborate and well-done in any Disney dark ride. The problem with many of the films presented in the GMR is that while they were popular and considered classics in their time, are virtually unknown today except by film buffs. I understand the tributes to Busby Berkely, John Wayne, James Cagney, Bogart/Casablanca, etc but how many people are even aware of those films today? The GMR should be redone with films that have proven popular over time and will likely remain that way. Ironically many of those films are Disney animated films. Disney has done an outstanding job of keeping them alive and popular with their theme parks and re-releases on VHS/DVD/Blu Ray etc. It has always amazed me that the only Disney animation presented in the GMR is one of Disney's least popular... Fantasia. Keep Oz and perhaps Mary Poppins in the GMR and get rid of the rest. Put in Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, Beauty and the Beast, Little Mermaid, Lion King, and Star Wars (unless they build a Star Wars Land) and Pirates. Consider other live action like Old Yeller, Pollyana and Parent Trap. Not sure what I'd do with the Pixar films... I think your idea of a separate Pixar Land would be the best for them.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>It has always amazed me that the only Disney animation presented in the GMR is one of Disney's least popular... Fantasia.<< From my understanding, that scene wasn't originally part of the attraction. That room was supposed to be the tornado that transports us to Oz, featuring an AA of Mrs Gulch on a bicycle. sjhym, since you were involved with the attraction's development, can you confirm this? And while I think that the scenes could stand some updating, I would really prefer to see it remain focused on live action films (possibly entirely). I really like how the original attraction isn't tied to the traditional Disney brands (though I guess it is tied to a lot of MGM's classics), and truly aims to showcase great pieces of cinema. If they changed it into a ride-through parade of Disney cartoons, I feel like the overall experience would really lose some of its grandeur and spectacle. At that point, it's just another ride that showcases the same characters that you can find in any show or parade on property
Originally Posted By plpeters70 <<Dip into your animated features of the last 20 years and do something at the Studios with them>> I've always thought they had missed an opportunity by not creating a second "Fantasyland" type area instead of the Animation Courtyard. The tour was great back in the day, but that area would have been even better if they had also designed some additional classic dark rides for some of the films that never got made into Fantasyland rides. Would have given The Studios more for the smaller set to do - as well as entertain the adults; just like Fantasyland does.
Originally Posted By Yookeroo "Put in Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, Beauty and the Beast, Little Mermaid, Lion King, and Star Wars (unless they build a Star Wars Land) and Pirates." I think the GMR is pretty mediocre (except for Oz), but I really don't like this idea. These movies are already very well represented at the resort.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<These movies are already very well represented at the resort.>> I certainly agree with that. The problem is finding SOMETHING that people recognize and want to see. If you are going to continue to present movies that many have never heard of or at least don't presently care about, you need to give them more than largely static vignettes. You have to make the displays so compelling that people don't really care if they know anything about the source material. That is the way Disney USED to design attraction, but they don't seem to do that much anymore.
Originally Posted By sjhym333 "From my understanding, that scene wasn't originally part of the attraction. That room was supposed to be the tornado that transports us to Oz, featuring an AA of Mrs Gulch on a bicycle. sjhym, since you were involved with the attraction's development, can you confirm this?" Not an AA Figure but a movie of Mrs Gulch riding her bike and then turning into the Witch, we ran this for less then a week during early CM/Construction previews. Disney's contract with Turner (who owned the rights to the Wizard of Oz) was that Disney could only use so many minutes in the attraction. The tornado scene took it over that amount of time and Turner wanted A LOT of money for the extra time. It was Eisner who decided to put in Mickey and the Sorcerers Apprentice.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA The problem with 'The Great Movie Ride' is that conceptually, it doesn't really make any sense. Stepping into a movie? Why do we want to do that? In a theme park attraction? And once there -- what are we supposed to be doing? Watching a 1930s 'gangster' movie and we're in the middle of a crossfire. Or in a 'Western' with John Wayne and Clint Eastwood (in totally different movies as they never appeared in a movie together) and then the we're in the middle of a shoot out. I'm sure hundreds of Imagineers worked very hard on this attraction, but it just never worked for me. The concept was flawed, so the payoff isn't there. And the presentation doesn't make sense either. Why not go chronologically? Starting with silent movies and ending with the current Chuck Workman medley of movies? And finally -- having the cast members jump off the ride and perform -- oy vey! I've been involved in Community Theatre my whole adult life and even I cringed. Oh, by the way, I don't really care of 'The Great Movie Ride' And, it suffers from the same 'out dated' feeling that 'The Universe of Energy' suffers from. Thanks everybody! G'night!
Originally Posted By sjhym333 I worked on the GMR with Imagineering, though I had no say in the planning. I may be able to shed some light. I think the idea of the attraction was more about genre's rather than specific movies. Yes you get to see specific movies but when you think about it, it shows musicals, sci-fi, gangsters, westerns, classic love, fantasy. I agree that as a whole the attraction doesn't hit all the right notes and too much is turned over to the silly CM leaving the vehicle, which was to give you the feeling that you were in a movie. But it still doesn't work well. When the Studios opened, CM's had to audition to be a gangster or bank robber. People were "cast" in those roles and they worked with the shows director (who was on staff for about 6 months after opening) who directed those CM's in their roles. Then two things happened. Disney didn't want to pay for a director and the unions got involved about the performance part of the role and so Disney decided to just make it a normal spieling role. There are a lot of interesting things about the GMR. All the figures were approved by family members or the executor of the estates involved. Before opening I met most of the family members of most of the figures including John Wayne's family and Liza Minnelli. The John Wayne hat and guns came from the family who donated them to Disney. They loved the figure and were moved to see their dad. Very cool. James Cagney's maid and butler were his executors (there was a court fight about this with his family I believe) and they loved the figure, though his family tried to get approval of the figure, they had no legal standing. Both Julie Andrews and Dick Van Dyke came out for the Mary Poppins scene. Very very nice people. Even a couple of the munchkins came out to see the Oz scene. The first time that the ride vehicles came out of the backstage area into the attraction, the first vehicle hit and took out a chunk of the loading platform which was 2 inches too wide for the vehicle to pull into. The system is the same that was use for the Universe of Energy and runs on batteries not electricity. When the vehicles stop for longer periods of time (especially in the finale movie) the batteries are charged by plates on the floor and under the vehicle. The Busby Berkeley rotating fountain was wonderful when it worked. The water made the figures too heavy which in turn put amazing wear on the motor system that rotated it. Disney tried to make it stationary first and blow lots of bubbles but ended up putting up the scrim that is there today with a projection that fades and reveals the fountain. It is a shame, the fountain when it worked was rather cool. The attention to detail in the attraction is amazing but still for me it doesn't really do what the attraction was meant to do. It is not a true Disney classic AA Attraction, though it should have been.
Originally Posted By sjhym333 And I have told this story before. The Clint Eastwood figure was built without his approval on Frank Well's say so. Before park previews the show producer called Frank several times about getting the approval from Eastwood to use the figure. When it didn't come before previews, the figure was covered with a black plastic garbage bag (I kid you not) until approval was given. That only happened when Wells rode the attraction before opening and saw the covered figure, got off the ride and called Eastwood from his cell (I was standing there...amazing) who gave his verbal ok then written ok later in the day. Some day I will tell the story about Michael Eisner calling my house in the middle of the night to discuss one of the projects I was working on at the Disney-MGM Studios
Originally Posted By FerretAfros With all the small things that have changed through the years, I'm sad that I don't remember visiting when GMR was brand new. It sounds like there was some great stuff going on then. Even when I visited in the mid-90's I remember the bubbles in the Busby Berkley scene and the CM's acting being much better than what's presented now >>All the figures were approved by family members or the executor of the estates involved.<< Makes me wonder what Sigourney Weaver had to say about her AA! I couldn't help but think of her during the video when the AA programmer talked about how he studied all the actors to make sure they had the most lifelike movements possible : ) >>Some day I will tell the story about Michael Eisner calling my house in the middle of the night to discuss one of the projects I was working on at the Disney-MGM Studios<< You're such a tease!
Originally Posted By Dreamerica The movie studio park is my least favorite Disney Park ever built and i could care less if i never saw the place again.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "Some day I will tell the story about Michael Eisner calling my house in the middle of the night to discuss one of the projects I was working on at the Disney-MGM Studios" Go on.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Some day I will tell the story about Michael Eisner calling my house in the middle of the night to discuss one of the projects I was working on at the Disney-MGM Studios>> I was called at home one night by Pete Werner, founder and owner of the DIS boards. Does that count? He wanted me to cool my posting style so that he wouldn't have to ban me. At the time I was a very popular member there, but was master of the double entendre (you may remember my early years here). He thought I "crossed the line" too often and wanted me to stop. I was young and stupid so I didn't. And was banned... three times. I assumed the last time was permanent, so I came here. If you wish I had never shown up at LP, blame Pete, not me! LOL
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA sjhym333, no disrespect intended. I completely understand that many people worked tirelessly on 'The Great Movie Ride'. And it seems like, within that concept of 'Great Movie Scenes' and 'Major Animatronic Scenes' is an attraction that could have worked. But for some reason, it feels only 2/3rds realized. And again, to me, it's the concept. Going into the movies is something that I've never really wanted to do. The concept has worked in movies 'Purple Rose of Cairo' comes to mind where it worked well, 'The Last Action Hero' was sort of weird, and 'Pleasantville' although the inhabitants were in a TV show, it's a similar concept which worked really well. Maybe someone can enlighten me. Getting up out of my seat and stepping into the movie screen. I just don't get it.
Originally Posted By sjhym333 I agree with you. Despite all the hard work and such it really isn't a great attraction
Originally Posted By Yookeroo "Stepping into a movie? Why do we want to do that? In a theme park attraction?" Why not? I have no problem with the concept. "And finally -- having the cast members jump off the ride and perform -- oy vey! I've been involved in Community Theatre my whole adult life and even I cringed." I'm totally with you here. I cringe when that crap starts. It's really awful. Maybe they could make it work in So Cal with its huge pool of (out of work) actors. Maybe.
