Talk:Disney's Hollywood Studios/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

more on the name change

in the current article, it says "this information is temporary...". The information shouldn't be removed, but rewritten to include the history of the MGM-Disney name and name change. Not temporary at all, in my opinion.

more on the name change

in the current article, it says "this information is temporary...". The information shouldn't be removed, but rewritten to include the history of the MGM-Disney name and name change. Not temporary at all, in my opinion.SpikeJones 14:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

The information will be incorporated into the article when the name change occurs. I never said this information is temporary, I said this section is temporary - which it is. --Speedway 18:57, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Name-change claims are pure speculation unsupported by facts

In the interest of transparency and good faith, below is my reasoning for deleting the name-change section from the article. I realize this topic is a source of endless fascination among Disney theme park fans.

The following section is temporary as, although relevant at present, it will cease to be relevant when the subject of the section has commenced.
  • This sounds out of place for an encyclopedia and it's worded very awkwardly
[1] The future of the park's name was uncertain, as the contract allowing the usage of the "MGM" name is said to expire in Summer 2005. With MGM being sold to a group led by Sony as of April 8, 2005, it is not expected that that this group will renew the park name contract. A sign of this pending transition is that many merchandise and other material already refer to the park as Walt Disney Studios. It was expected the Disney-MGM Studios would become the Walt Disney Studios on January 1, 2006. However, no such renaming happened that day.
  • The linked URL is dead (and it likely wouldn't meet WP:VERIFY criteria)
  • The future of the park's name was uncertain — speculation not supported by any facts and there's no attribution for the claim that the name-use contract expired in 2005
  • it is not expected that this group will renew the park name contract — more speculation
  • A sign of this pending transition is that many merchandise and other material already refer to the park as Walt Disney Studios — more speculation; there are other, more mundane explanations for the generic label on park merchandise (e.g., they are the same items sold at the company headquarters in California)
  • Disney is contractually prohibited from using the Disney-MGM Studios name in certain marketing contexts like the free vacation-planning kit; in those instances the park is called The Disney Studios
  • It was expected the Disney-MGM Studios would become the Walt Disney Studios on January 1, 2006 — more speculation and since the "expected" change did not occur why is this information relevant to the article?
Signage around the park proclaiming it as the Disney-MGM Studios has either been quieted down, or removed altogether. MGM has never allowed Disney to use the name in publicity material, but many signs around the park are already heralding the park as the Walt Disney Studios. The MGM archway, featuring Mickey Mouse and the park logo, over the entrance to Mickey Avenue had signage removed in during October, suggesting to many that change was very imminent, but it has since been restored. There is a Walt Disney Studios Park in Paris, and rumours of a Walt Disney Studios park to open in the Hong Kong Disneyland Resort within the next decade.
  • Signage around the park proclaiming it as the Disney-MGM Studios has either been quieted down, or removed altogether — more speculation and since the name above the park's entrance turnstiles and on millions of guidemaps given to guests still reads Disney-MGM Studios I see no evidence that anything has been "quieted down"
  • MGM has never allowed Disney to use the name in publicity material — not true; Walt Disney World press releases and publicity photos have referred to the park as the Disney-MGM Studios since the day it opened though there are limits on Disney's use of the name, as mentioned above
  • many signs around the park are already heralding the park as the Walt Disney Studios — really? where? provide a fair-use photo if that's the case
  • The MGM archway ... had signage removed in during October, suggesting to many that change was very imminent, but it has since been restored — more speculation and again, since nothing ultimately was changed, what relevance does it have to the article?
  • The fact that the Walt Disney Studios park in France already co-exists with the Disney-MGM Studios suggests there's no connection to any possible name change

I've seen numerous fan-website references to "the contract" and its supposed expiration or extension but never with any attribution. I've never seen anything that claimed to be an excerpt of the contract's actual language or a reproduction of the document itself. Nor have I seen anyone making claims about it say that he or she has been directly involved with its creation, revision or enforcement.

All the name-change claims from the removed text feel like unverifiable speculation as defined by WP:NOT. —Whoville 14:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Water Tower on Disney Channel

Does anyone remember the end of "MMC" and "Adventures in Wonderland" when they would have the lit Disney-MGM water tower on the screen? 206.211.69.253 17:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

You're All Wrong, and i've got to say

That, no, this themepark is involved with mgm for good, these are not true. i'm deleting Them.

Name change question

Question: I hear that the contract for the use of MGM in the name of this theme park will expire at the end of June 2005. If what I hear is correct, at that time, the park will be renamed Disney Studios.

When that occurs, do we create a new Disney Studios page and change this one to a redirect?--David Fell 11:18, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

We'll decide that when it becomes necessary. We have enough arguments here without going out of our way to find them :) →Raul654 11:44, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
The park's name will either become the Disney Studios or Walt Disney Studios Florida - a sister park to Walt Disney Studios Paris. When an official announcement has been made, Disney-MGM Studios will be moved to an article with the correct announced name of the park. Speedway 16:37, 13 April 2005 (UTC)

I also wanted to just state that when Disney-MGM Studios is renamed to Walt Disney Studios, I will be moving the article Walt Disney Studios Park to Walt Disney Studios Paris, and Disney-MGM Studios to Walt Disney Studios Florida to differentiate. Thanks. --Speedway 15:46, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

You should make Walt Disney Studios Park a disambiguation page when that happens. --Evanwohrman 01:32, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
Good idea. --Speedway 10:27, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Name change to DISNEY-PIXAR STUDIOS

* There is a rumor that the park may be renamed Disney-PIXAR Studios. (from MousePlanet) Obviously, if there is a name change, as we've stated previously here there and elsewhere, this article would be moved to the new name Disney-PIXAR Studios, but only after there is an official announcement, and maybe not even then. Rumors mentioned on blogs, even relatively well-respected info-wise Disney blogs, is not enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Sad, but true. Thoughts/comments? SpikeJones 20:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

"Tigger punch incedent"

Should there be any mention of the recent tigger punch incedent —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.188.166.1 (talk) 00:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

The tigger incident is already covered indepth under Incidents at Disney parks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SpikeJones (talk • contribs) 03:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

THERE IS NO MORE MICKEY AVENUE ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Mike41691 (talk) 17:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to ask a very stupid question ... if what you say is true, and I have no doubt that it is, why not edit the article yourself to reflect that instead of SHOUTING on the talk page and moving your statement to the top of said page? --McDoobAU93 (talk) 20:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to disscuss it first before i would change it, because if i would change something that was correct, some idiot would change it back. Mike41691 (talk) 02:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

If you have verifiable proof, be bold and make the change. If other editors verify the change is accurate, then they will support you and make sure it stays that way. If we work together, the project succeeds. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 16:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking on a current Studios map, I see no Mickey Avenue. Instead of screaming about it, why not present a little evidence and just change it? I'll do it. --blm07 04:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Eh, I tried. Didn't see that separate section below, so someone else can help merge them maybe? --blm07 04:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It's fixed ... let me know what you think. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 17:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Disney's Hollywood Studios

Now that the name change is official, a lot of this discussion can go away. That said, we do need to make sure that any references to the likely re-theming of Mickey Avenue to Pixar (alternately Pixar Place, Pixar Studios, etc.) be mentioned in that context only--that it is likely, but not confirmed yet. I'm sure that announcement won't be made until closer to Toy Story Mania's opening date next spring.

As to when to move the article, it should wait until the name change actually occurs, i.e. January 2008, based on the announcement. Until that time, the park is still called the Disney-MGM Studios.

Lastly, can someone archive all the old name-change discussions, as (a) they are old and (b) they are now moot points? I'm learning my way around Wikipedia, but still don't know how to do certain things. Thanks.

McDoobAU93 18:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please change the page title from Disney-MGM Studios to Disney's Hollywood Studios? --Erik16 (talk) 05:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Somebody will move the page on January 7th, 2008, to coincide with Disney's official name switch. To do so sooner (while still an accurate change in anticipating future events) would be a bit premature. SpikeJones (talk) 14:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Anyone can move the page, but I agree that it's too early. I don't think it's a big deal to move the page over so soon. --blm07 18:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Way, way too early to move the page, considering the article itself says that Disney isn't changing the name until the first week of January. SpikeJones (talk) 14:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
You're right, moving the page over now was too early. I was simply going around and changing the park's title on various pages to prepare for the name change...and thank you to everybody who helped! DisneyParksFan (talk) 18:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Changing all the text references "in preparation for..." now is also way too early. Wait until January 7th/8th when Disney starts using the name themselves first. Yes, I know that Samantha Brown has already used it in a TV show with Disney staffers, but that was, I'm sure, an editorial decision for a 2007/2008 program that is edited only once. SpikeJones (talk) 20:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I guess what I did could be considered too early. But I only did it after the company was already referring to the park as 'Disney's Hollywoood Studios' threw various media references, like the Walt Disney World Website. Jan 7/8 is most likely when the park will acutally display the name is the park. DisneyParksFan (talk) 21:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Infobox inclusion of park rename

There is no need to indicate in the infobox that the park opened under a different name. This fact is already covered in the article text, and it is inconsistent with how other renamed items that have infoboxes in their articles are handled. SpikeJones (talk) 16:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, it should be there as it should match other Disney related articles. It shows it in the Epcot article and explains it in the opening paragraph too and noboby else is complaining about it either. Mike41691 (talk) 23:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
The material in the infobox should be short and to the point. Today the park's name is Disney's Hollywood Studios and it opened on May 1, 1989. Information about the park's evolution, including the name change, should be handled within the body of the article, where it can be discussed with more depth and context. —Whoville (talk) 00:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I think it doesn't need to be in the infobox. The information is in the opening sentence, which is just fine. That goes for the other articles too. --blm07 00:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing out that the Epcot article was also incorrect; it has since been updated. Cheers!SpikeJones (talk) 03:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Star Tours 2

I heard there replacign star tours with star tours 2 is this true anybody got soem news on this

The internet rumor mill continues to suggest a new version of the ride is on the way. The latest information comes from an interview with Anthony Daniels where he was quoted as saying he had already finished filming his segments for the new attraction. The most likely window for the appearance of ST 2 would be 2009, which (a) would be the park's 20th anniversary year and (b) a good way to counter the upcoming Wizarding World of Harry Potter at Islands of Adventure.
Keep in mind, this is all rumor. Until we get something verifiable, let's keep the discussion of the attraction in the talk pages. Opinions (or verified/published info)?
McDoobAU93 03:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Abc Theatre to be gone

Looks like sounds dangerous will be removed also with the building connected right next to it to amke room for a new attraction. So goodbye sounds dangerous Hopefull it wll be a chronicle s of Narnia attraction and not a wlakthrough a ride

Keep in mind that the ABC Theatre and the Sounds Dangerous theatre are actually two different buildings. The Hollywood Studios announcement said a new show was coming to the park to replace the current High School Musical Pep Rally, but did not say if it would literally replace it (i.e., another outdoor show) or would take place elsewhere in the park. The rumor sites have said that some work has taken place in the ABC Theatre lately, so maybe it's to get it ready for the new show. We'll see in the coming months.
McDoobAU93 03:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Power Rangers?

Where did the Power Rangers come from in this article? I know that Disney bought the show from Saban, but this is ridiculous. 71.111.232.40 20:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

There are a few people out there who believe that the listing of every meet-n-greet opportunity (and other non-attractions at the parks) that are listed on official park literature needs to be included here. SpikeJones 00:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
To be fair, it is noteworthy that Disney-MGM Studios has imported characters from outside its own intellectual property, as the other WDW parks use only Disney characters. I think the various items about in-park characters could be re-written and grouped together to merely mention them, not necessarily to say when/where they appear in the park. --McDoobAU93 14:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Pixar Place

It looks like Pixar Place is the winner. If you look at the bottom of the Toy Story Mania attraction page on Walt Disney World's website (link in main article), it lists the attraction's location as "Pixar Place." That said, other attractions in the same area that are to remain open (the "Journey Into Narnia" movie exhibit and the "One Man's Dream" exhibit and theatre) are still shown as being on Mickey Avenue. We shouldn't rename the section until such time as Disney itself changes the name, but at least right now they're giving us a heads-up as to what it's going to be. --McDoobAU93 23:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Link use of Disney's Hollywood Studios

I've noticed people starting to change Disney-MGM Studios links to Disney's Hollywood Studios, I think this is a good idea since it's almost official and there are many more links to change. --blm07 18:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

They've started to use it on the Disney website here. I saw someone change it and reverted earlier, but then checked and saw that on the website, so yeah we might as well start changing links. I fixed a couple and will look for more later. Phydend (talk) 19:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

the Name Change section

The section begins with In 1988, MGM/UA filed a lawsuit against The Walt Disney Company claiming Disney violated a 1985 licensing agreement by operating a working movie and television studio at the Florida resort. In 1989, the theme park opened adjacent to the production facilities as the Disney-MGM Studios. First, the section needs a better lead-in, along the lines of Disney's Hollywood Studios opened in 1989 as Disney-MGM Studios. before leading to the 1988 reference. As for that portion, is the paragraph saying that there were studios at the resort before the park existed, or that the park's studios were built and working first before the rest of the park opened -- causing the lawsuit? There should be some explantatory text as to why MGM would file the lawsuit in the first place. Anyone with slightly more info or knows a way to restructure that opening paragraph would be most kind. SpikeJones (talk) 18:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd argue that the first paragraph of the entire article covers the Disney's Hollywood Studios opened in 1989 as Disney-MGM Studios information. Why repeat the same information later on?
And yes, the details about MGM's lawsuit mean that Disney had working production facilities before the theme park opened. I think everything was part of the same master plan; the non-public studios just happened to open first. MGM's complaint was that it believed it had given Disney the right to use the MGM name for a theme park and that when Disney chose to open actual production facilities under the MGM name it was a violation of the original agreement. —Whoville (talk) 18:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Me likey your changes. Thanks. I still think the the theme park opened adjacent to the production facilities sentence is vague, but what is there now is overall mucho better.SpikeJones (talk) 20:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

American Idol

Now that the attraction has been announced, it's being listed in the Backlot section of the park. Since it is next door to Sounds Dangerous!, that makes sense, but considering how much "Hollywood" factors into Idol (as in, "the Hollywood round"), what's the possibility of this show being annexed into Hollywood Boulevard? Any thoughts? --McDoobAU93 (talk) 22:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your question, but this is not a Disney forum for discussion of park changes. You may find answers to your questions over on any of the Disney fan-related sites out there. (that said, to answer your question directly, the name of the park itself is the reference you're looking for) SpikeJones (talk) 22:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the point of the question was whether the attraction needs to be tied into any given section of the park within the context of this article. Since verifiability is key, the only verifiable facts are that Disney is constructing an American Idol attraction and that it's planned to open at the end of 2008. Therefore, should we tie the attraction to an area of the park that we cannot verify it will be in?
Further, we do not know the name of the attraction. Yes, it is tied to American Idol, but we don't know if it's going to be called that, or if Disney will embellish it a bit, like "American Idol Live!" or something like that. So, why did we change the article to say the name of the attraction was "American Idol" when we don't know that? The way the sentence was written (to say that Idol is inspiring the attraction) was more verifiable.McDoobAU93 (talk) 23:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Apologies if your post was interpreted as a park-related question instead of as an article-related question. You weren't clear with what you were trying to say. The theatre that the attraction is said to be going in is already tied to a specific area of the park. That said, the crappy interactive map on the Disney website has a line right in the middle of the two buildings where Backlot and Hollywood Blvd meet, so it could go either way. Here's the kicker: the official press release doesn't say where the attraction would be going. I agree, it also doesn't say what the attraction will be called. What did we do when EE was in the process of being built? How was that handled on the AK page? SpikeJones (talk) 01:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I took a look at Disney's map online, as well as thinking back a bit. Echo Lake used to be a section of the park, and that's where Superstar Television and Monster Sound Show (now Sounds Dangerous) were located. The Backlot section didn't start until you got to Star Tours and Indiana Jones. Disney annexed SD into Backlot, but it still shows the ATAS Hall of Fame on Hollywood Boulevard, and the Hall of Fame is between SD and the new AI theatre. Therefore, I have decided to be bold and move it to Hollywood Boulevard. Admittedly, this is no more or less definitive than what has been said so far. I'll check my most recent guidemap at home and see what it says, too. But right now, I'd wager dollars to donuts it's on Hollywood Boulevard, just because of the whole "Hollywood round" thing. As to Expedition Everest, I think even from Day 1 Disney said it would be in Asia, and really thematically it would be the only possible answer to the question, since it was adjacent to the other Asia attractions and a bridge away from DinoLand USA. I do not recall what Wikipedia had on it, as I didn't start contributing until well after it opened. Personally, I'm an advocate for a "future attractions" section, especially when the actual section the attraction is slated for is unclear. Thanks for the input, Spike! McDoobAU93 (talk) 01:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I think you're reading too much into the "Hollywood" aspect of AI meaning that it should be put into the HB section of the park. Randy Jackson's line could be "You're going to Hollywood Studios, Dawg!" just as easily as anything else. I do find it odd that DHS has moved the Backlot up into the Echo Lake area, but that's a discussion for elsewhere. I think that until the specific location is clarified officially that the AI attraction should be pulled from a specific section of the park in the article and placed in its own area. I hate to create a "future attractions" section, as that leads to people placing rumors and other junk into the article. We all knew were EE was going, especially as the land clearing took place first - that made it easy to include it in the AK article in a specific section. Ooh, decisions, decisions. SpikeJones (talk) 03:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Orlando vs LBV vs Bay Lake

Moved to[2] Malpass93 (talk) 20:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Bolding of original name of the theme park.

Please stop the reverting the bolding of the original name of this theme park. It common practice to bold historical / alternative names of articles. Examples include Houdini, the movie Se7en, the city Saint Petersburgor the theme park Gilroy Gardens. There is no reason not to bold Disney-MGM Studios in the opening paragraph. 04:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

See, providing examples in the discussion page is a much better way of handling this than saying "Bold of original name makes article better", which is what you had originally posted as an edit summary. If this is supposed to be WP policy, then in the articles I spot-checked earlier for places/facilities that had notable name changes, it is not one that is consistently implemented. If it is not a WP policy, then while there was nothing wrong with your addition of the bolding, there is also nothing wrong with my removing it. C'est la vie, yadda yadda. SpikeJones (talk) 05:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

What's The Official Logo?

What's the official logo: the one with Mickey in the 'o' in 'Studios' or the one without him?68DANNY2 (talk) 20:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I think they're both "official" in the sense that Disney designed them. However, I'd probably lean towards the "Mickey-less" logo for readability's sake. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I'll see if I can find a 'Mickey-less' logo so both of them can be posted as the logo. 68DANNY2 (talk) 21:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

PIXAR Place or PIXAR Studios

According to WDWmagic.com (http://www.wdwmagic.com/toystorymania.htm) there is a picture of a sign saying PIXAR Studios not PIXAR Place. What is the correct name of the area in the back of the park? Mike41691 (talk) 02:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Just because there is a sign in that vicinity that says "Pixar Studios", that doesn't mean that area isn't called "Pixar Place". And as a reminder, we can't use postings on message boards as valid, citable references here. SpikeJones (talk) 03:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
We have a verifiable source, Disney itself, stating that the area is called "Pixar Place." This of course does not say that they couldn't change their mind when we get closer to the opening of the attraction and the area, but as it stands now, the area is being called Pixar Place. The included citation in the article links to the attraction's official web page. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 11:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Pixar Place replacing Mickey Avenue?

The beginning of the Pixar Place section says, 'Pixar Place (previously Mickey Avenue)...' Does this mean that Pixar Place is replacing Mickey Avenue?? My understanding was that part of Mickey Avenue was being made into Pixar Place. 68DANNY2 (talk) 16:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I went back and revised it to the way it was before. Officially, the area is still called Mickey Avenue, per the current park maps. This probably will change when the new maps showing Toy Story Mania! start appearing in May or June, and even then only the section immediately around TSM may change. The only thing that we know for sure is that TSM is in Pixar Place, as Disney says it is on its website (see the reference in this section of the article for link). The same website shows TSM's two nearest neighbors, the Studio Backlot Tour and the One Man's Dream exhibit, as being on Mickey Avenue (the Narnia exhibit is not listed right now, pending its "Prince Caspian" update).
I've spoken with Cast Members who have said that Pixar Place will have multiple attractions, but I'm not adding that here pending verifiability. The way it reads now is the way the park is now; Pixar Place will exist when TSM opens, and that is currently shown as "late May" on the website. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 17:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The American Idol Experience Location

I’ve been looking at the Disney’s Hollywood Studios map on the official homepage, which is shown below, to see where the new American Idol attraction would be. When I was looking at the map, I remembered that the attraction is going to be in the ABC Theatre. The ABC Theatre is on two lots; Hollywood Boulevard and the Streets Of America. Sounds Dangerous is the only attraction in the theatre that is on the Streets Of America; the rest of it is on Hollywood Boulevard. That said, the American Idol attraction is going to be on Hollywood Boulevard. I think that the attraction should be mentioned in the article, since it has been confirmed that this will be a future attraction. Until one of us finds out what its name will be, I feel that it should be referred to ‘the attraction that is based on the Fox reality show, American Idol’ in the article. If anyone disagrees with me, please post your comments. Also, unless another map is updated, I feel that the park map shown below should be the one used when finding the location of DHS attractions. 68DANNY2 (talk) 18:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

File:DHS Map.jpg
This is the map that I based the attraction's location on.

Pixar Place & Mickey Avenue

Mickey Avenue is not becoming Pixar Place. They are two seperate lots. I checked the DHS website today and the only attraction that is part of Pixar Place is Toy Story Midway Mania! If you go here, you will see that Pixar Place begins as soon as you walk past Walt Disney: One Man's Dream Attraction. Also, on WDW Magic, it says that there is a rumor going around saying that Soundstage One will be the next extension to Pixar Place. Can someone verify this? Thanks! 24.151.137.19 (talk) 17:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

There are rumors of a spinning coaster to occupy Soundstage 1, possibly a clone of Crush's Coaster from Walt Disney Studios Paris, or the same ride rethemed to another Pixar property, like "Cars." Target opening date of late 2009 or 2010 ... again, this is rumor, so it shouldn't go into the article yet. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 21:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

THERE IS NO MORE MICKEY AVENUE! ! !

Mickey Avenue is being replaced by Pixar Place! I am a Cast Member at Walt Disney World and I saw the current park map of Disney's Hollywood Studios that is issued to guests. These are the locations of every current ride.

Hollywood Boulevard

1. The Great Movie Ride

Echo Lake

2. Sounds Dangerous-Starring Drew Carey | 3. Indiana Jones Epic Stunt Spectacular! | 4. Star Tours

Streets of America

5. Muppet*Vision 3-D | 6. Honey, I Shrunk the Kids Movie Set Adventure | 7. Lights, Motors, Action! Extreme Stunt Show | 8. Studio Backlot Tour

Pixar Place

9. Toy Story Midway Mania!

Animation Courtyard

10. Journey into Narnia: Prince Caspian | 11. Walt Disney: One Man's Dream | 12. Voyage of the Little Mermaid | 13. The Magic of Disney Animation | 14. Playhouse Disney-Live on Stage!

Sunset Boulevard

15. Beauty and the Beast-Live on Stage | 16. Rock 'n' Roller Coaster Starring Aerosmith | 17. The Twilight Zone Tower of Terror | 18. Fantasmic

Sometimes you can't trust the website because they dont update it as quicker as they do at the parks and park maps.Mike41691 (talk) 21:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe that this should be changed to this.Mike41691 (talk) 02:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Pixar Place = Pixar Studios?

I recently (August '08) visited the Studios, and saw that the gate to enter "Pixar Place" says "Pixar Studios". So does that mean I should add a sentence about that fact? See my picture on the Pixar Place section. Malpass93 (talk) 11:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC).

No. The sign is merely for placesetting, not a representation of the name of the area.SpikeJones (talk) 13:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
While the picture itself is probably OK, there's really no need to mention the difference. Much like the square studio arch marks the entrance to the Animation Courtyard section, not the "Disney's Hollywood Studios" section. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 16:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, then. Malpass93 (talk) 18:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Big Hidden Mickey

I was rummaging through my closet and found a 1989 guide map for the park (I did first visit the park two weeks after it opened to the public, and it shows Star Tours as "coming in 1990"). It shows the park's giant Hidden Mickey rather well. I can scan it to add to the article, and will lower the resolution on it, but I am not sure how the copyright tag should be applied. Any guidance would be appreciated. Thanks. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 16:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Name of park when first opened

I had an idea that when the park first opened it was just called "MGM Studios" rather than "Disney-MGM Studios". Am I wrong about that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.15.11 (talk) 14:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I have a park guide map from when the park first opened in May 1989 ... its name was "Disney-MGM Studios." The working title way back before that was "The Disney-MGM Studio Tour," I think. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 05:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

WP FILMS?

I've started a discussion at Talk:Star Tours regarding the appropriateness of these tags. I've no problems with leaving the tags in place until consensus is reached. I've also asked the Films project itself if it even wants these articles within their scope. In hindsight, tags for Hollywood Studios and similar parks (like Universal Studios Florida and Hollywood) may well be appropriate as they did, indeed, have (or, in Universal's cases, still have) film production facilities. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 14:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

If you read the wikiproject that added 'em all, it says to feel free to remove any that were added in error. Tagging USF doesn't make sense, as it was never a film production studio. Tagging DHS is questionable, depending on what films were shot there. Tagging USH is fine as it is a production facility. Star Tours could go either way. I just think it was an overly-aggressive tagging robot (similar to the overly-aggressive orphan re-linking campaign someone has decided to take on themselves recently, without any regard for whether their suggestions make sense or not). SpikeJones (talk) 15:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the early opinion at WP:FILMS is that they don't really want them. One commenter said they took a very conservative approach to what is considered within their scope. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 19:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Backlot Theatre

Regarding this text: The Hunchback of Notre Dame musical stage show, based on the 1996 animated musical film of the same name, was performed in the now-vacant Backlot Theatre, which is being renovated for an as-yet unannounced project." That was completed some time ago, and is now called the "Premiere Theater". It was mainly just a renovation to enclose it, and is used for special events. It is not generally listed on the maps as it is not a generally open attraction. This official link mentions it and points out the location: http://disneyyouthgroups.disney.go.com/wdyp/detail/detailPage?page=DSN_Venue_DetailPage - Any objections to an update? Doconeill (talk) 13:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit made. Doconeill (talk) 01:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

High School Musical live show replaced & Playhouse Disney show change

The High School Musical show has been replaced with Disney Channel Rocks!, a show similar to the HSM one, but with music from multiple Disney Channel properties including Camp Rock (1 and 2), Sonny with a Chance, as well as the High School Musical films.

Playhouse Disney Live is currently closed and will re-open on March 4 as Disney Junior - Live on Stage.

Usrnme2112 (talk) 09:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Mickey Avenue

I am getting confused about this. Two my understanding, the lands are as on the previous page. But Mickey Avenue and Commissary Lane are parts of other lands, even if not lands in and of themselves. The former being part of Animation Courtyard; the latter as part of Streets of America. Could someone confirm that this is right. If so, I can adapt the page to reflect this.--TimothyJacobson (talk) 14:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Mickey Avenue connects the Animation Courtyard to Pixar Place; Commissary Lane connects Streets of America to Hollywood Boulevard. I don't know that either can really be considered "part of" another section of the park. Powers T 20:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
On the Article page it says: "Mickey Avenue, a sub-section of Animation Courtyard, is home to a walk-through exhibit..." Is this thus incorrect?--TimothyJacobson (talk) 12:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
There would have to be clear boundaries between sections of the park in order for one to say definitively that it is right or wrong. Powers T 15:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

New picture

Can someone download a new pic of the mickey hat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.130.253.13 (talk) 21:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Echo Lake

Regarding: Starting in 2015, the Echo Lake area will undergo major redevelopment into the long-rumored Star Wars area.
There have been rumors for some time about this, but it has yet to be officially confirmed by a reliable source.
WafaDagda (talk) 06:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Sounds interesting, but Wikipedia does not deal in rumors. If/when a reliable source appears stating that Disney fully intends to redevelop this area and what theme the area will be redeveloped into, then we can add it ... but not before. --McDoobAU93 13:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Muppet Courtyard

Should we include information about the original plans for this area, like The Great Muppet Movie Ride? I've got sources (1 & 2, to name a few). Looking for any input (Jedi94, I figure you might have an opinion). Elisfkc (talk) 20:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes! That'd be perfect and I'd be all for it. The original plans long ago called for a whole Muppet Studios area anyway, with themed restaurants as well. The information on this is out there so it's definitely acceptable to include this and expand on the section, especially since it looks like it's more or less finally being realized. ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 03:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
@Jedi94: ok, see my sandbox. Feel free to work on it. Elisfkc (talk) 04:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
@Jedi94: looks good to me. Elisfkc (talk) 23:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
adding it now. Elisfkc (talk) 00:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Cool. Good work! ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 01:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

No mention of WCW under live events

Didnt this place use to be the main area that World Championship Wrestling used to stage live events of its Monday Nitro and Saturday Night shows?

Im watching an old episode right now and it looks to be filmed in the backlot near the park entrance in a pre fabricated arena their

And WCW Saturday Night used one of the sound stages

Im seeing no mention of it here but their are signs all around saying Disney MGM Studios ....so unless their are two places with the name

Tony Spike (talk) 03:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

@Tony Spike: never heard of that. Provide some sources. Elisfkc (talk) 03:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
@Elisfkc: Really? very well if you insist then
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WCW_Disney_tapings
one would assume all the sources you want are right their
oh ....and here is a picture https://uproxx.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/wcw-disney-mgm-studios-nitro.png?w=650&h=487
good enough?
Tony Spike (talk) 21:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
@Tony Spike: sorry if that sounded mean or anything, I meant it more out of curiosity. I had no idea that this was a thing/happened. As for the mention, maybe a sentence or two with a link to WCW Disney tapings? I know that Jedi94 watches over this page and also seems to be very protective of it, like me. Maybe he can help out with this as well. Elisfkc (talk) 21:35, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
@Elisfkc: no, no its fine, i was just a little taken aback someone had asked for sources after i had said i was watching one their shows from their is all .....found it a bit strange considering ..ya know ...google, but is fine lol,
i think at least a mention/link would be a good idea i mean this all boils down to me watching the show, wanting more info on the actual studios themselves, and finding WCW not mentioned at all despite my (and many thanks to the WWE Network making them available) knowledge of the taping's, i was mostly curious if they were the same place and i think others might be too lol
dosnt need to be overly informative or anything they were not their ALL the time Tony Spike (talk) 21:46, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Other shows filmed at MGM/Disney Hollywood studios.

During the 90's Tim Allen's Home Improvement and Ed McMahon's Star Search were also filmed at the Orlando studios.

Home Improvement: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0101120/locations

Star Search: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Search

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Disney's Hollywood Studios. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Disney's Hollywood Studios. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Disney%27s_Hollywood_Studios/Archive_1&oldid=1124546159"