Discussion in 'Disney Rumors and News' started by rodkenrich, Sep 6, 2012.
Please see my topic from today with even more to be potentially getting on that list.
As I'm not yet allowed to post links, please search in the same folder for:
" Orlando: Why replace existing attractions vs. using new land ? "
Plus also look at (also in same folder)
" Hollywood Studios Expansion "
There has been no official announcement about this, but there have been a lot of rumors floating around that they are looking to get rid of LMA because it is to expensive to operate which really isn't surprising.
Log in or Sign up to hide this advert.
Kind of makes since unless they can make it more cost effective some how. I wonder if that goes for Disneyland Paris too?
I personally hope it is being replaced, I loved it the first time I saw it in DLP and liked it the second time I saw it in WDW. Then when I saw it again, for the third time, at DLP I was bored of it.
I still like it, but it may be kind o refurbished, i.e. other theme and/or jokes. The elements are still great. But still having exact same jokes ... even an attraction likes test track gets a make-over after some time ;-)
I view LMA as a big waste of space. I would like to see something (or things) in that space
I've also heard they may scrap part or all of the backlot tour as part of this expansion as well. It does seem kind of silly to have something called Pixar place only to have Toy Story represented in any real way. Everyone loves Pixar, very few enjoy LMA (they see it once and rarely return) so to me it only makes sense. Of course I also wouldn't mind seeing them do away with Indiana Jones to expand star wars into more than one ride as well to compete with Harry Potter land. Are you reading this Disney, I'm giving you gold here!!!
It's had it's time. I have seen it 3 times and that was enough for me. Waiting in that hot queue for an hour is not worth it.
I think cars land def needs to come to WDW, if getting rid of LMA is the way to do it, I'm in...
Oh my daughter will be so upset if t closes- she loves what she calls the "car show."
I dont think we have gone to see this show in maybe 2 years. Its a great show. I would rather have the old time tv houses back in that spot especially at xmas time when they were decorated.
I miss those houses. Does anyone have pics of them ?
Here's the thing. . .Disney is big on making announcements well in advance. If we haven't heard anything official yet, then I think it is unlikely that early 2013 is the planned date.
Do I foresee an expansion of Pixar Place at DHS? Yes, but I would imagine that they would make it public well prior to it actually happening.
lately they've been very slow at making announcements regarding show closings or other major changes. Take for example the Test Track Refurb, Big Thunder Refurb, and the rumored FoTLK closing/hiatus to make way for the Pandora construction.
The refurbs weren't officially announced until just before the attractions went down (although rumors were swirling for awhile of it's coming), and the FoTLK closing is swirling pretty hard in the Disney rumor mill for the beginning of the year, but nothing official yet from Disney.
Is that where they are going to put cars land??
Only rumors for now but yes, it would be where Cars Land could be for this is the only place where they have room to put it.
I hope so too, I've only seen it twice and both times I regretted it as soon as the show started and was pretty much bored through the whole show. Saying that, I'm a girly girl, I'd rather they replace it with a pretty little Tangled land. Maybe with "a nearby meadow or a hollow tree"? (Battering eyelashes and staring vacantly at nothing)
I miss them, too! The tour with the facades from movies was cool and the effect of the lights was so much better with houses than the streets of New York. Osborne lost its magic for me on the streets of New York. Bring back the houses!
This thread very quickly went from "zero" to "stop and breath"...
There are no confirmed anythings going to MGM...no cars, no massive lucasfilm development.
both things seem to be taken as a given around here by many...but they aren't even close and i'll give you reasons why:
1. the "feeder" theory. I'm fully onboard with this. I don't believe that the studios has ever been intended to be a "full day" park - and therefore these kinds of expansions don't make sense.
I'm not sure about animal kingdom...but studios and the waterparks definitely appear to be "feeders" as in they take in numbers early in the day and then quickly "feed" them to the larger, higher capacity, retail rich areas later in the day - MK, Epcot, and the downtown sticker-shocking district.
Maybe they didn't intend the studios to be that way at first...but they did throw it together in very quick fashion after the eisner takeover and once they stopped and looked at it - realized that they didn't want the kind of operation at another spot that they already had at EPCOT and MK - in terms of logistics and manpower.
With animal kingdom...i think they tried again...but got skiddish when they realized that they get killed on costs (because its them...the pentagon has similar problems) and slashed the budget and construction to stop the bleeding. The lukewarm reception that the park has always had pretty much sealed its fate to this point...and might have drug studios (maybe even pleasure island) down with it.
2. Don't think they want to spend more money.
Universal! Seaworld! harry potter! legoland! the sky is falling! disney must respond!
No...not really at all. their expansions are for their purposes alone and for new revenues...not to keep up with the Dr. Joneses.
Is and was how it will be.
The only side of the argument that i see is that they may accelerate a little or "float" concepts to see what kind of reception they get (cough...AVATAR...cough).
But look at what they did...spent about 400+ mil on fantasyland? an area that is packed in the most popular park on earth?
Why would they do that? In short: to fit more people and sell more crap.
It certainly doesn't fit the description of a "countermove" to anything the neighbors are doing. it was taking something that worked for 40 years and just blowing it up bigger.
Wouldn't a company that was "concerned" with losing business bump it somewhere else? like perhaps somewhere that was lagging?
That would be Animal Kingdom...followed by diminishing numbers at EPCOT (still can't quite get that...except that people are dumber by the day and "ain't into that learnin' crap")...and the little park that could: studios - where almost half the footprint is still dedicated to a failed east coast production concept that was shuttered and mothballed over ten years ago.
But they didn't...they built at magic kingdom...for many reasons...but not because they were worried about footsteps behind them.
So they just spent (still spending...as construction debt is financed) on that little development...and they have floated a $500 million dollar concept for AK (which i think will end up sleeping with the fishes...but thats for another day).
a billion dollars in a five year period- more or less. At a place that is where they make money for all the salaries at ESPN and the View - not spend it. (Annual reports and any business market analysis - wdw is purely about generating operating income that leads to profit for the whole she-bang...it is very much different than the other parks around the globe - especially Euro)
So here's where we need to "stop and breath"
There is no reason to put a 700 million dollar expansion (that draws people to california...which is what they value more longterm) to replace a stunt show in a park that just chugs along and doesn't need to be expanded.
Studios will not be a flagship park...if that were the plan...it might've come out in the last 24 years or so.
If the stunt show is too expense...they just bag it and leave the theater empty...something they have long done at studios and have had NO problem doing at WDW since 2000.
Separate names with a comma.