Home

[DutchBrit]

Agree with you all completely. If they're even considering changing the name they've lost the plot.

I don't understand the excessive attachment to what is actually a rather unimaginative name: it only makes any sort of sense if the focus of the park is a studio. So if they were to think of changing or developing the theme in some other sort of way, then surely changing the name would be entirely logical?

Did anyone really care when Eurodisney became Disneyland Paris? It's what's actually in the park(s) that matters, not what the sign says above the entrance.

[DGRavenswood]

I don't understand the excessive attachment to what is actually a rather unimaginative name: it only makes any sort of sense if the focus of the park is a studio. So if they were to think of changing or developing the theme in some other sort of way, then surely changing the name would be entirely logical?

Did anyone really care when Eurodisney became Disneyland Paris? It's what's actually in the park(s) that matters, not what the sign says above the entrance.

Agreed! If they change the name to something less specific, they'll be able to drop any trace of the pretense left that we're in a real working movie studio (that never really worked out well, did it?) and can concentrate on building quality environments with a broader scope.

[CafeFantasia]

Yep, I agree with David.

It's funny because my least favourite attractions at Walt Disney Studios Park are all the ones that pretend to take you behind-the-scenes. Changing the name of the park would enable them to either demolish or re-theme these attractions:

• Flying Carpets Over Agrabah
• Art of Disney Animation
• Studio Tram Tour
• Armageddon

When guests visit a Disney theme park, they don't want to go behind the magic, and have it all dissected and explained to them. They want to experience the magic; full Disney magic.

[Anthony]

I don't think the quality of the park should be judged by the media backlash it created... theme parks in general have a lower media profile here in Europe. Yet, WDS requires much more help to be turned into a quality park than DCA.

That was actually my point!

But surely it's not the name holding back development, it's money and intent. As others have said you can fit practically anything into a "Walt Disney Studios Park". I rather like the conceit that the current Front Lot could be the only true "movie studio" section, and once you step through the doors at the back of Studio 1 you're in a real world as seen through the movies. Into that you can fit Hollywood Boulevard, Pixar, Marvel, anything. Walking around the park should be as seamless as George walking through the scenes of CinéMagique, with one world backing onto another (as Toy Story Playland cuts straight to Ratatouille through the barrel tunnel). Backstage doesn't exist in that world.

The only name change I'd impose would be cutting it back to a neater Disney Studios Park (sorry Walt).

[pussinboots]

The great thing about Disney parks and Disneyland Paris in particular is that they are carefully, cleverly, painstakingly laid out from the get-go, in stark contrast to other parks which grow organically and spend much time explaining why that Victorian haunted house is sitting in the new pirates-themed section, et cetera. Much like movies, which use timing and acts, Disney parks can be laid out to make every ride and experience unfold itself precisely when it needs to.

Well, Disney now has the mother of all messy organic parks and its name is, but will not remain, the Walt Disney Studios. What a hopeless mess.

I still think the park has two raisons d'être and they are the Art of Disney Animation and CinéMagique. Change the name and concept and you've lost even that. CinéMagique makes for a classy exhibition in the otherwise lurid studios museum, but it will be an odd misfit in Disney's Adventure Park or whatever we can expect.

So yes, I agree with Anthony... Short of bulldozing the park, I would choose to draw a "real world" line somewhere at the end of Studio 1 and retain the name.

[DGRavenswood]

The thing is, walking into movies is what you'll end up doing in any Disney park in these synergy days.

And you can even keep a substantial part of the park dedicated to movies and moviemaking, like Hollywoodland (or whatever it'll end up being called) at DCA. It would even be possible to fit both CinéMagique and Art of Animation (as well as Tram Tour, if we have to) in that hypothetical land with some clever planning.

(As a side note, I'd actually keep the "Walt" of all things; if they'd take a similar approach as – again – DCA and tie a good part of it strongly into Walt's own history, it could make for a compelling angle. But we're getting into armchair imagineering here and that's not really the point of this discussion, I suppose.)

It's true that the name isn't the problem and changing it isn't absolutely necessary. But if it ends up getting us a worthy second gate, I'm not going to complain.

[Riebi]

Sometimes in the light of the morning things are bit clearer to me. And so...isnt it.intersting, that we discuss.about a.name knowing that the problems is the lack of a coherent park and not the studio-theme? And maybe the main problem will always.be just money. giving the park a totally new theme? Well...wasn t that 'the third park in a future far far away?

So back on earth...wat is.possible for a studio park with problems in the.coherent part of the theme.and.the.deepness of theming.and story? I dont think they take the invest of bulldozing big parts of the studios to create something new.

[ed-uk]

Now I maybe getting myself confused because I'm somebody who things it was a wonder that Disney built a second park at DLP, when I think of the resorts terrible financial history, even if Disney had planed to build a second park in the first place and had no choice. But how is the park not coherent, it is true the park has moved away from the original plan, taking us behind the scenes of a pretend, working movie studios with a Stunt show, Tram Tour and the Art of Disney Animation etc, to a movie theme park where we get the chance to ride the movies on Crushes Coaster, Cars and Toy Story Playland. These two themes do work together and can, in my opinion sit along side each other. The trouble I have is not the name of the park which I like, it's the lack of placemaking, movie sets and more rides. I could spend a whole day in Disneyland without going on many  rides and just enjoy the atmosphere and explore the park. I can't do that in WDS. I love the Front Lot and Studio 1 but I couldn't spend a whole day wondering around it. Disney are moving in the right direction with Hollywood Boulevard and TSPL for themeing and attention to detail, not so keen on the rides in TSPL, but it's fun to walk around.

[Josh]

But surely it's not the name holding back development, it's money and intent. As others have said you can fit practically anything into a "Walt Disney Studios Park". I rather like the conceit that the current Front Lot could be the only true "movie studio" section, and once you step through the doors at the back of Studio 1 you're in a real world as seen through the movies. Into that you can fit Hollywood Boulevard, Pixar, Marvel, anything. Walking around the park should be as seamless as George walking through the scenes of CinéMagique, with one world backing onto another (as Toy Story Playland cuts straight to Ratatouille through the barrel tunnel). Backstage doesn't exist in that world.

I wouldn't actually mind that if they actually made that into the story of the park. If that's what they're going to do, then they'll have to change Studio 1's interior so that it transitions guests from a Studio into a place where films become real. At the moment, the park is just a film studio in Hollywood, and I've never thought that ToT and the rides in Toon Studio don't make sense.

[ed-uk]

I can't imagine a complete revamp of the WDS but that's not because of lack of vision but rather lack of money. And the collection of rides in the park aren't that unusual, they just reflect  how popular Pixar and Playhouse Disney (Mickey Mouse) are with the public. TOT is one of Disney's iconic rides and I can not imagine them adapting it to a Pixar themed Studios. If a Marvel themed area does come, again it only reflects how popular and lucrative the Marvel franchise is for Disney, just like Pixar.

[CentralPlazaPerson]

Personally, I think the new guest who goes for a weekend and probably never comes back for another 5/6 years doesn't really care about transitions of theme etc, they just want to go on a good ride. Then you have me, the die hard DLRP fan who hates seeing the park being changed because it fits the "new Disney" look. I just feel with these changes the studios will lose the magic it had.

[Riebi]

I think the problem of the studios and maybe of the village and other parts of the resort is, that they start things and then stey stop it the half way. the gave us a Hollywood bvd. but not a complete placemaking of the whole area. they gave us toon studio, but without something that put the parts together. We have even a really grey floor at toon studio entrance. they put tspl at one end.and they gave us a barell to a parisian street. maybe that will be a propper theme switching in some.yeas. at the moment we do not have a special toon studio spitit. then they gave us some silly changes. they changed the name of.rendezvous des stars to restaurant. they changed the backlot theme of the backlot express to blockbuster. one theme, the pirates, are based on an attraction in this wonderful park next door. the glory times of the other theme, hsm, was in the last stade while they changed it. now we have a restaurant with an old theme and a theme of an attraction of disneyland park. ...
Maybe they could.simply tell us more about th e master plan behind all that things. something like the blue cellar. because at the moment I just see a love for patchworking and nothing that keeps the patches that well together except " was in a movie somewher". And also universal hasnt such a low standard anymore :lol:

[CafeFantasia]

Yesterday I posted this interesting graphic of what it would look like if you took Walt Disney Studios Park and put it on the land that Disney California Adventure occupies. It gives you a really clear view of how small Walt Disney Studios Park really is:



Keywords: DCA, Disney California Adventure, Expansion, Development, Re-opening, Expanded, Walt Disney Studios Park, WDSP, Disneyland Paris, DLP, Theme Parks, New Rides, Future Attractions

[dmmosh69]

this just might be in my head but i always thourhg that part of the problem for the studios was its weired shape

it expands into a V, starting small then the further up you go the more space there is, compared to other parks where you can have near 360 degree area of rides then expansion area this seems very unusual and i see as part of the problem and also why it is so quick to get around.

i also agree with what ed-uk staed above, i wouldnt mind at if the park was seperated off into its different areas of backlot, animation, riding the movies etc but with the sapce disney park has to seperate it all out (i know this will neverf happen)

i do quite like tram tour but i understand peoples lack o flove for it and i do see it just getting smaller and smaller and think that they should just replace it instead of letting it limp on

[Whoknew?]

They should finally stop these small additions with a completely different theme all the time. Else the could rename the park eventually to "Disney Patchwork Park". Although I'm looking forward to the ratatouille ride, I'm absolutely no fan of all these small themed areas. the need to take a look at the big picture. Recently i went to DCA and just saw how this park has a great layout and compared to WDS you can't tell that cars land was just recently opened. At WDS you can clearly tell which patch of land was added as there are no connections between them. they need a master plan and i hope they do have one.