Muppets move to Rock ‘n’ Roller Coaster, Monsters Inc. take over their area at Disney's Hollywood Studios

Well USH is building a F&F coaster, so…

And Epic Universe...

We've heard rumors of Lord of the Rings themed area for a while now. Also more Nintendo properties may end up at the rest of the Universal parks soon, like Legend of Zelda. But that's Universal...

What's new or unused from Disney that could fit well in a theme park? Villains and Coco are on their way. But what else? They better get busy creating new properties.

Paramount should license out their IP

Top Gun universe!!

sirloindude:

...eroding theme cohesiveness.

I don't get this sentiment. DHS has a Star Wars area, Toy Story, Sunset Blvd., and now Monsters Inc. Each of those is cohesive and rich in detail. Kinda like Magic Kingdom has Fantasyland, Tomorrowland, Adventureland and Frontierland. How is it different?

sirloindude:
See also: my criticism of the Marvel restaurant onboard the Disney Wish. Stuck out like a sore thumb compared to the elegance of the other parts of the ship.

Does it though? The kids clubs have a similar vibe, as does Hyperspace Lounge. And where else can you have this moment? :)

sirloindude:

...eroding theme cohesiveness.

I share this opinion to an extent. I don't like that Islands of Adventure is no longer a collection of themed islands due to Hogsmeade and King Kong and wish Disney would at least keep Epcot and Magic Kingdom closer to their original concepts.

Magic Kingdom is a series of magical lands, so even if they're different, they fit the overall concept. Hollywood Studios is still supposed to be a studio complex.

I think Batuu is very well done, don't get me wrong, and Toy Story Land is one of my favorite areas of any of the parks. I enjoy both very much. I'm just saying that overall, it just seems like a park that's part old Hollywood and part movie studio, plus two magical lands. Now, maybe with Monsters Inc. and the continuing evolution, it will blend more over time, but at least for now, it clashes.

As to your point about the Marvel restaurant, yes, it still clashes. The other two restaurants both have a certain elegance to them. The Marvel one feels pretty industrial by comparison. Hyperspace Lounge would also be jarring if it weren't so secluded, but its replacement on the Treasure and the Destiny with the Haunted Mansion lounge tells me that maybe it's not getting the best reviews. I could be wrong, but I would think it would be a better thematic fit for the Destiny than the Haunted Mansion, and yet they went, to my great excitement, with the latter.

Again, my criticism is more with how the parts fit into the whole. Batuu and especially Rise of the Resistance are absolutely brilliant. Worlds of Marvel is a clever idea. How they fit into their respective locations, though, be they parks or ships, is where I take issue. I feel that much of Disney's design history involved taking overall concepts and fitting IP into them where they make sense (Buzz Lightyear's Space Ranger Spin, the Frozen ride at Epcot, etc.). Now it comes off like the inclusion of the IP is the biggest consideration and whether it's an appropriate fit or not is a lower priority than it used to be.

How does Avatar world fit into Animal Kingdom?

The movies are sci-fi action adventures at their core.

It’s also a movie where the entire point of the movie is to learn to live in harmony and respect of the natural world, which is AK’s mission statement.

sirloindude:

The issue is that it's coming off as if it's a requirement for everything going forward, and unless you're really careful, you run the risk of eroding theme cohesiveness.

Disney has a long history of taking a high-level view to additions and keeping things cohesive, even with extended sight lines.

but it’s a fair criticism of Hollywood Studios to say that there’s not much of a cohesive theme there anymore

Theme cohesion to me has certainly decreased at WDW. Magic Kingdom has always been an assortment of IP's slotted into different lands, so theme cohesion there has to be judged by the individual lands. Some of the lands have had some dilution of cohesion, Tomorrowland being the one that comes to mind the most, with the insertion of Buzz and Monsters. Tron may also be a hit or miss insertion, but the original idea of Tomorrow land reminded me of a mini future world from Epcot, but lately it seems more like Spaceland, or something to that effect, well except for those Monsters. Maybe cohesion drift as opposed to lack of cohesion?

Which brings me to Epcot, the biggest offender of lack of cohesion, or cohesion drift, or whatever you want to call it. I always have said that one place I want to visit in my time machine is 1982 Epcot. I want to see Future World as it was originally conceived, the original world showcase, and the atmosphere of progress and future improvements that park represented. Epcot now is a hodge podge of random IP's stuck into rides, we have Guardians, Nemo, Figment, Remy, Frozen, The Three Caballeros, and whoever else. I still maintain that the world showcase should contains zero IP and focus on being strictly nonfictional representations of the various countries. Future world is a harder one, 40 some odd years ago there were new ideas and advancements and things that were easy to showcase, and build attractions based on. New energy sources, robotics, advancements in science, etc. Now it feels like technological advancements are mostly in software and at the microprocessor level, robotics are here, clean energy is here. Advancements now are much harder to build and maintain attractions around, and things are moving much faster so that an attraction becomes dated very quickly. These are all things we have discussed here, so where does that leave future world or what should it become, i'm not really sure. But Epcot is certainly departed drastically from its original design and has become very broken up and lost all it's cohesion.

DHS, or MGM, or whatever, I would say this park was very cohesive in the idea of development of movies, or movie related stuff, but it was always very disjointed attractions maybe? Opening day was a huge backstage tour, even though it wasn't a real backstage. The movie ride, some casting type attractions, and whatever else. But overall I feel like the place was meant to feel like a movie studio, and Disney certainly put a ton of resources into making Orlando become "Hollywood East". Over the years this park had a ton of random IP shoehorned into it in different disjointed worlds, and now it just feels like a bunch of attractions scattered around an abandon movie studio backlot. Certainly, huge loss of cohesion here as well.

Then you have Animal Kingdom, which has always had a degree of IP, but stuff that seemed like it belonged there for the most part. Dinoland was always a bit of a disaster and felt sort of cheap compared to the rest of the park. Animal Kingdom is a great park though because animals and nature never get old or dated or feel like it needs a major refresh. Avatar is a bit of a stretch for this park, but its still mainly land and nature focused so I'll give it a pass. This park I feel is the truest to its original conception along with the Magic Kingdom besides Tomorrowland.

Has Disney lost cohesion, yes, has Disney needed to change and adapt, yes. I still feel that Disney's best work are its non IP attractions. Space Mountain, Jungle Cruise, Mission Space, Test Track, Soarin, etc.

I thought Avatar was just a remake of Dances with Wolves. LOL

eightdotthree:

I don't like that Islands of Adventure is no longer a collection of themed islands due to Hogsmeade and King Kong

They are still a collection of themed islands, just much smaller themed islands, but I know what you are saying, and yes, I wish they would make larger more cohesive islands as it was when they were opened. I would be fine with absorbing the remainder of the lost continent into harry potter, although that was the best opening island. I would also love to see toontown completely redone into something new, but don't get rid of the log flume, just retheme to fit, and get rid of those heinous restraints.

sirloindude:

Hollywood Studios is still supposed to be a studio complex.

But according to whom? There's not a single soundstage or production facility there.

As to your point about the Marvel restaurant, yes, it still clashes. The other two restaurants both have a certain elegance to them.

Again, who makes that rule? It's a family-compatible cruise line intended to serve every generation. The variety of the venues is what makes it interesting. My 14-year-old thinks that 1924 is lame. I think Arendelle is too loud and chaotic. Even among bars, The Rose is dramatically different from Keg & Compass. It seems like you're calling for homogeny in the theme, which to me would be pretty boring. Also, I've heard the same complaint about the Animator's Palate restaurants on the original four ships. Guess which one is favorite to my kid?

TheMillenniumRider:
I want to see Future World as it was originally conceived...

Look up 80's science fiction, and that's what it was like.

It's weird to me to make callbacks to Disney's earlier history as far as the parks go, because things have so dramatically changed. When Disneyland opened, the company had a handful of animated films, and everything else they had to make up. Those "themes" became theme park tropes that were duplicated everywhere, especially the old west/frontier thing. Today, the company owns most of the biggest cultural phenomena from the movies, and it's the basis for their storytelling in the parks. If people didn't dig it, the parks wouldn't be so crowded.

I get the sentiment about wanting original things made just for the parks. Illuminations was a great show, and the jukebox spectaculars that have followed are meh. But I still lose my mind when I ride Rise, because short of cosplaying, it's the closest I'll ever be to being in that universe. Leveraging what they own works. And sure, people get nostalgic about things like Poseidon's Fury at IoA, and it was a cool show, but I'm not attached to it the way I am to attractions based on eight films.

They are still a collection of themed islands, just much smaller themed islands

Judging by the videos online the park we wish we had is Universal Bejing, which looks to be the present IOA but with the cohesion and budget of original IOA.

I do find it interesting how much going in on the portal theme at Epic, because Universal will not be able to easily add another IP or switch gears, it will be like original Epcot.

I do find it interesting that the Paris 2nd gate is completely losing its Studio name and reflecting its real identity before DHS.

The Tolkien estate has been very not into Theme Park licensing, but hey where getting a Naruto land in France. Dune would be awesome in Middle East.

Jeff:

When Disneyland opened, the company had a handful of animated films, and everything else they had to make up. Those "themes" became theme park tropes that were duplicated everywhere, especially the old west/frontier thing.

Well, to be fair the old west was originally a thing at Knott's, this is one of the things that Disney copied, which is a rarity in their universe.

Jeff:

But according to whom? There's not a single soundstage or production facility there.

The name of the park itself.

Also, nothing official has come out as far as a completely different thematic direction for the park. The fact that it retains the Hollywood Studios name, and has for so long, tells me that there's not really an eagerness to abandon it, let alone a decided-upon direction for what the new idea would be.

With Monsters, Inc. getting a section now, one could almost contend that the two Pixar sections still fit with the original theme, sort of like Pixar Studios lands.

Hindsight is always twenty-twenty, but I'd contend that what would've been a cool idea would've been to maybe mix Marvel, Star Wars, and Avatar into a park given the collective sci-fi nature of the three. Imagine a park with Rise of the Resistance, Cosmic Rewind, and Flight of Passage all together. It may have caused a tear in the space time continuum.

That would then have allowed Animal Kingdom to instead get a new land based on a different region of the world (American West? Arctic? Australian Outback?), and Hollywood Studios could've gotten Cars. You'd then have five world-class parks, all with cohesive themes, instead of four with one in particular being a hodgepodge of ideas.

Jeff:
Again, who makes that rule? It's a family-compatible cruise line intended to serve every generation. The variety of the venues is what makes it interesting. My 14-year-old thinks that 1924 is lame. I think Arendelle is too loud and chaotic. Even among bars, The Rose is dramatically different from Keg & Compass. It seems like you're calling for homogeny in the theme, which to me would be pretty boring. Also, I've heard the same complaint about the Animator's Palate restaurants on the original four ships. Guess which one is favorite to my kid?

Valid points, and I almost made the Animator's Palate one myself. However, who makes that decision? The consumer who wants a different experience.

Look, I'll own that I'm likely in the minority on the Marvel restaurant, although I found it eerily coincidental that another guest at a nearby table, on the last day of the cruise I had on the Wish, had the same question I did about if dinging the Marvel restaurant on the survey affected the service staff. I'm concerned about the implications of that because 1) not everybody is going to then run upstairs and ask for the survey to be reset, and 2) if they don't, crew members on the Wish are at a disadvantage because of the higher risk of getting hit with a negative review to their counterparts on the other ships.

Marvel is clearly a moneymaker, or else I doubt it would've been included on the ship. I'm just saying that as a consumer, I didn't find the restaurant itself to be of the caliber I expect from one of the cruise ship restaurants in terms of design. Animator's Palate, for all of its faults, still has a certain elegance to it. Worlds of Marvel felt industrial. Even if I give a pass on the dinner show, it still just felt industrial and lacking in the "classiness" that every other restaurant on the three ships I've sailed possessed.

To your point on the bars and lounges, I expect differences there, but prior at least to the Wish, the lounges and event spaces were usually lumped together by style, so all the adult night clubs and such were placed together on deck four aft, at least on the Dream and Fantasy. Also, I place the night clubs in a separate category because they're mostly avoidable, whereas you're going to eat in the Marvel restaurant whether you want to or not. I'm glad we had just one meal in there vs. two scheduled ones each in the other two, but I'd have been a bit bummed if my rotation had been different.

To admit my own bias, I feel like Marvel and Star Wars are the two branches of the Disney entertainment portfolio that come off as merchandise-first franchises, whereas the Animation Studios and Pixar seemed more story-first in their offerings. That their respective worlds in the parks don't seem to be proper fits, at least in the US, furthers this opinion of mine. It just seems like the direction given for those properties is to just throw them wherever there's an empty lot, and it's not important if it makes sense in the overall design philosophy or not. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's how it feels to me.

Jeff:

Look up 80's science fiction, and that's what it was like.

It's weird to me to make callbacks to Disney's earlier history as far as the parks go, because things have so dramatically changed. When Disneyland opened, the company had a handful of animated films, and everything else they had to make up. Those "themes" became theme park tropes that were duplicated everywhere, especially the old west/frontier thing. Today, the company owns most of the biggest cultural phenomena from the movies, and it's the basis for their storytelling in the parks. If people didn't dig it, the parks wouldn't be so crowded.

I get the sentiment about wanting original things made just for the parks. Illuminations was a great show, and the jukebox spectaculars that have followed are meh. But I still lose my mind when I ride Rise, because short of cosplaying, it's the closest I'll ever be to being in that universe. Leveraging what they own works. And sure, people get nostalgic about things like Poseidon's Fury at IoA, and it was a cool show, but I'm not attached to it the way I am to attractions based on eight films.

Again, the issue is not with IP. The issue is with including IP no matter what. I agree that it would be foolish to squander IP, but especially in Walt Disney World where they have an absurd amount of open land and exceptional crowds, one wonders if they could've just spent a bit more done an extra park to include some of the IPs that otherwise don't mesh well with their host parks. I get that California is trickier due to space constraints, but Florida? I just think another approach might have worked better. I know that the parks not named Magic Kingdom all needed some boosts, but even then, there were IP opportunities out there (Cars Land in Hollywood Studios was a missed opportunity) that could've worked well without compromising overall design philosophy.

Does Universal studios Florida have any working film or TV production anymore? Seems that has slowly exited away there as well.

It still gets used. Just not to the extent that it was/intended to be.

Twas all downhill after Nick studio closed.

Yea. I remember visiting both Universal Studios and Disney MGM studios in the early 90s and they both seemed to be fairly thriving as active production studios.

RIP PizzeRizzo.