What do you think about this one

[GeorgeY]

I don't usually post on this board, but I was at Disney/MGM the other day and in line for Rock n Roller Coaster I heard this from this guy (A guest) that just talked like he was in the know:

The Sorcerers Hat is going to be the new icon for the park, the Great Movie ride is going away, and the building is going to be demolished, and turned into a mountain with the hollywood sign on it. Inside the mountain would be Soarin Over California (From California Adventure, the same exact ride.)

I have heard the rumor of taking the great movie ride away, but not the rest. Has anyone else heard this?

Also remember I have no idea who this guy was, they could be just reporting a rumor they heard.


I have ridden Soarin and it is a really good ride so it would be a good additon just IMO.
George

 

[HBK]

Not something easily discounted.....I don't know about the time frame of a replacement for GMR....but I think it's un-deniable that the Hat was placed where it was to take the attention off of GMR.

 

[Another Voice]

Don't discount this rumor yet. There are several plans, but nothing's really firm yet.

 

[Disenchanted9k]

Why would they get rid of the GMR? Does it have to do with the theme of the park changing?

 

[larworth]

Yes, we know they want to get rid of the theatre facade, and the Hollywood sign makes sense. We also know they are looking to get a Soaring version into WDW.

However, would they really just put an exact copy of the ride here. I thought they would at least come up with a new film that would tie into whatever location it was place into. Yes, I know Hollywood is in CA, but this seems a stretch.

I've also assumed that whatever replace GMR would try to reuse as much of the existing infrastructure as possible. From the description of Soarin it would seem an odd fit into a building that had an actual linear ride layout.

If dwindling interest is the issue for GMR, can't they find a way to leave a cost effective version in place for those that still enjoy it and build Soaring somewhere else on the property. Why not add another ride to the portfolio rather than net zero addition.

 

[Mr. Bildo]

I just took the Backstage Magic tour and our tour guide told us that the hat is there for the Walt 100th B-Day celebration only. He said that they are rotating which park gets their "celebrations". For example, the 25th anniversary, they decorated the castle like a big cake, or for the year 2000 celebration they dressed up the Epcot ball. Same principle with the hat. They felt that MGM would fit best for the occassion, i.e. entertainment industry.

-Bill

 

[wdwguide]

If you look at
this photo, (might have to click on the "Aerial Photo" tab), you'll see that the show building is really next to the facade, and the facade itself is quite small. Unless they made it one of those 2-D things, I don't see how a mountain would fit in there.
Soarin would be a nice addition to either park at WDW, although I'd prefer it at the Animal Kingdom or Epcot.

UPDATE: Looks like the board is messing with the mapquest URLs today. Sorry

 

[Another Voice]

The answer to all of your questions, larworth, is money. The rights to all those films featured in ‘The Great Movie Ride’ cost Disney money and Mr. Eisner is getting sensitive these days about paying other studios to hype their movies when his aren’t doing so well.

‘Great Moments at The Movies’ (which is the attractions proper name, BTW) was built like a soundstage to facilitate changes to the show. The original concept was that different sections of the show’s sets would be replaced to highlight newer movies and to keep the attraction interesting & up to date. Of course, none of the concepts ever got a budget approved so none of the scenes have been changed, but the building itself is nothing but a big warehouse. ‘Soaring’ should fit although I’m not sure about the height.

There are several concepts for a new film that would use the ‘Soaring’ ride system, but the problem is once again money. Why spend a million on a new show when you can spin the Hollywood and California angel in a few press releases? It is interesting to note that there are no shots of Hollywood in ‘Soaring Over California’: the Hollywood sign is trademarked and Disney cut that segment of the film rather than pay the licensing fees.

The only way a new film will be produced is if a sponsor picks up the tab or if the Oriental Land company comes through with an order for Tokyo Disneyland.

 

[All Aboard]

Guide, your link worked fine. All I had to do was click on the aerial photo tab and then scroll south once. Yes, the facade contains the initial queue, a small adjacent addition contains the theater queue, and the large rectangle building contains the GMR. Sure looks like they could whack the facade without doing anything to the ride.

 

[larworth]

AV

The answer to all of your questions, larworth, is money.

Yes, I knew it would cost less today to just take out GMR and insert Soarin. I was just thinking about the longterm best use of funds. I know they don't worry much about that anymore.

Now, I hadn't thought about the movie fees. I assumed that since everything was already in place how much could it cost to continue to run this attraction. Take out the live action stuff, reduce capacity, a few effects as needed to reduce operating costs to an appropriate level. Yes, it would be a little more lame, but I bet it would still have an audience. I nice cool ride in the heat of the day if nothing else. From what I hear there are still people who take the river ride in Mexico.

I thought the least expensive part of Soaring would be throwing up a new exterior building to house things. the money should be in the ride and show systems. Just seemed that for a modest extra spend they could end up with two attractions instead of one. However, if the movie fees are really that big I guess I can see where my low cost option won't work.

 

[Another Voice]

I think the rights fees are a fair amount of cash, but the real issue is company pride. Eisner has always dreamed that the park would celebrate HIS movies, not movies in general. That wasn’t the designer’s intent, but it’s been slowly creeping into the park. Even the ‘Twilight Zone Tower of Terror’ rights started when Disney was negotiating to buy CBS. If the ride was built today, I’m sure it would be themed to ‘The Sixth Sense’ or ‘Scary Movie’ somehow.

New attraction development is being driven by the marketing department now. Only attractions that can be hyped to the gills even have a shot at getting a brief review. I’m sure you heard about the ‘Villains’ ride that was also supposed to replace ‘The Great Movie Ride’. While it was really high on the synergy scale – it wasn’t going to be easy to advertise as “hip, edgy and new”. Ride through attractions just are vewied as thrilling enough. ‘Soaring’ has the advantage of a semi-unique ride system.

“Rumors” are that Studio clone is the least liked concept at WDI. They would much rather create as new ride to anchor a new continent at Animal Kingdom or a country at Epcot. But it’s the money that matters and so far no company has stepped forward to fund anything.

 

[Safari Steve]

1. GMR isn't the only attraction to be built to accomodate change readily. In fact, most show buildings at WDW are basically warehouses with easily changeable interiors.
2. The attraction was first invisioned as an Epcot pavillion entitled 'Inside Entertainment'. The idea grew and expanded into the original concept for the studios park, with the premiere attraction entitled "Great Moments at the Movies", the "proper" name, and the actual name of the attraction that opened in 1989 in the central show building at the Disney-MGM Studios is 'The Great Movie Ride: a spectacular journey INTO the movies!' Blizzard Beach was originally called "Disney's Alpine Resort and Water Park", but the proper name is "Blizzard Beach". Maybe I'm just a little punchey, and I do apologize for splitting hairs, but there is a distinct difference between "original working title" and "proper name".

 

[Another Voice]

The “proper name” bit was just an aside to see if anyone would notice. The attraction was developed and was supposed to open as ‘Great Moments At The Movies’ until one day Mr. Eisner and his son (the one that gave the world ‘Splash Mountain’ according to the lore) came to visit WDI. After stopping to look at some of the work, the son asked “is that 'Movie Moments' thing like a ride or what?”. Eisner figured that if his son was confused by the attraction’s title, the general public was going to be completely dumbfounded. He ordered a “better name” for the attraction.

This happened after Eisner had ordered the movie ‘Basil of Baker Street’ re-titled as ‘The Great Mouse Detective’ because he couldn’t figure out what Baker Street was. That move was so widely ridiculed inside the company that an internal joke memo renaming all of the Disney classics was leaked and published in the LA Times (‘Bambi’ became ‘The Little Orphan Deer’ and ‘Pinocchio’ became ‘The Puppet That Lied’). As both a joke and as satire, someone decided to suggest the center piece attraction at the studios be given absolute dumbest, numbskull, son-proof name possible and came up with ‘The Great Movie Ride’. Everyone was horrified when Mr. Eisner LOVED the name and it stuck. Ever since that moment WDI has been very, very careful.

This is how great art is created.

And Mr. Safari, you’re absolutely correct about most show building being little more than warehouses. Almost all of the Epcot pavilions were built using this same concept since the attractions were supposed to be replaced every ten years. And both the ride systems used in ‘Energy/Great Movie’ and ‘Indiana Jones/Dinosaur’ were developed to support this concept. Personally, I’d like to see a revamped Movie ride go into the show building than a clone of ‘Soaring’.

 

[DC7800]

Somehow, it seems odd to me that Disney would have to pay rights fees at the GMR to promote somebody else's movies. Most studios should love all the "free" advertising they can get! I have to wonder how many video tapes of GMR featured movies have later been purchased by guests; for one, it's the only reason I have John Wayne's Searchers.

I'm sure it does get expensive under current agreements, but certainly there must be a way to keep a GMR at a reasonable cost (with new scenes) and add a Soarin' attraction

 

[Safari Steve]

Personally, I totally agree with the rationale for renaming GMR. Guests DO get VERY confused, and concise naming certainly can help. Safari Village was recently renamed Discovery Island for that very reason, guests couldn't find the safari in safari village, and complained at GR that the safari was "closed" or "hidden". I can't tell you how many times a day people ask "What kind of ride is this, is it a rollercoaster, or a water ride?" at the Swiss Family Treehouse. For one thing, it's name clearly spells out that it's a Tree House, PLUS the freakin' tree is right there in broad daylight (usually with other people climbing the darn thing in plain view...)
On the topic of easily changeable attractions, some others that lend themselves to this: It's a Small World, The Haunted Mansion, Fantasyland Dark Rides, Buzz Lightyear, Space Mountain, Pirates of the Caribbean, and the Tiki Room.

 

[Another Voice]

Mr. Safari – while personally I like the more theatrical names for attractions, I completely agree with you about the geographic names. Safari Village always struck me as a bad name for a place that neither looks like a village nor is connected to the safari. WED/WDI used to have people who did nothing but work on nomenclature and there was even a full book published internally about all of the place names (and their significance) for every location at WDW.

Of course, the “stupid guest” factor is always going to be there. I spent many summers working the Canoes out here at Disneyland. “We didn’t know we had to paddle, we just want to go around the water” was the usual line about half way through the trip – after reading the sign, being handled an oar, after listening to the instruction spiel and after watching everyone else in the canoe paddle for about ten minutes. I’m surprised there haven’t been more drownings in the park.

 

[doubletrouble_vb]

Just out of curiousity here...why wouldn't Disney put in its own movies into the Great Movie ride? At this point they should have a fair selection. You'd have to change the name from the Great Movie Ride to something like the Touchstone Movie ride but I'd actually like to see it.

And I agree...this is a great place to go and sit for a while (and yes I DO ride Mexico for the same reason!).

 

[YoHo]

So, you'd rather see the parent trap then Casablance?


I understand the cost issue, but If you still Want to maintain the legitamacy of the Theme of that Park, I think you have to put in movies that really meant something. Disney does a good job by sticking With Mary Poppins, certainly a movie worthy of being in that exhibit.

 

[doubletrouble_vb]

How bout the Waterboy? Armageddon, The Sixth Sense, Starship Troopers, Duece Bigalow, 3 Men and a Baby, Dead Poets, Pearl Harbor, Pretty Woman ... incidentally I'm laughing here but the point is Disney has a greater selection of movies than just those made under the disney name.

Actually...the Great SciFi Movie ride would be wonderful if they did it right.

 

[Another Voice]

The original concept of the Disney/MGM Studios was to celebrate ALL movies, not just Disney’s. At the time, Disney’s live action films & television were still working up to speed and it was felt that the studio’s name & library alone wasn’t a strong enough pull to compete against Universal. That’s why all the money was spent to get the MGM name and logo. And why all the money was spent on the non-Disney movies. Remember, the non-Disney films include the two biggest series of all time: ‘Star Wars’ and ‘Indiana Jones’, so adding ‘Casablanca’, ‘The Searchers’ and ‘The David Letterman Show’ wasn’t so far off field.

It was also hoped that keeping down the “Disney level” would entice more adults to the park, and entice other studios to use the production facilities. The place was really built as a working studio and it was expected to have several productions going on at any one time. That’s one of the reasons the initial attraction count so low. The space was reserved for actual film production, and the productions and television show taping were supposed to be attractions in their own right. It would be like the park had three or four ‘Millionaire: PLAY IT!’ shows – only these would be real shows instead of the made-up theme park versions.

But Florida never took off as a production center (even Universal struggles to book production) and so the “real” shows never materialized. Also, Eisner’s interest in the park changed over time. He’s not really interested in the parks by themselves anymore – they only serve to fund other enterprises or to hype his other endeavors (re: synergy). It’s been made very clear that the studio is only to showcase DISNEY product and the “old movies” have to go sooner or later. That, however, would require money so it’s not happening all the quickly.

One day, someone will write a book about the late-80’s spate between Disney and Universal. It was a feud of epic proportions – filled with backhand deals and dirty politics - that would read just like ‘Barbarians at the Gate’. Maybe if I get a month off…..