Armchair Imagineering: A Proper “Studios” Park

There seems to be a broad consensus among theme park fans that Disney's worst results come about when it tries to poach Universal's fanbase by creating parks (and sometimes sections of parks) where the “theme” is: movies. The main reason for this consistent failure is, I think, that Disney is too wedded to the concept of “magic.” The thing that makes Universal Studios Hollywood unique is not which IPs it can lay claim to, but that it is entwined with a working film studio, and its centerpiece attraction (as well as various others over the years) is all about showing its guests, in some detail, how filmmaking works, how the illusions are created. Other Universal parks don't have this going for them, but some of the mojo rubs off on the brand.

But Disney won't do that, because for some reason the company hates admitting that what it does is artifice. Maybe the decision-makers actually don't think much of guests' imaginations,* so they assume they have to trick us into believing it's all really truly reeeeaaaaaaaaal or we can't be counted on to purchase Princess costumes and toy lightsabers. Whatever the reason, the “Studios” parks end up being dumping grounds for rides based on movies that don't fit the themes of a Kingdom-style park or Epcot or DisneySea, but they're still movies, so they totally work in a park where the theme is movies, right?

Right?

Does it even need to be said at this point that I disagree?

If Disney really wants to duke it out with Universal, it has to be willing to go all-in—to say not only “Aren't our movies awesome?” but also “And here's how we make them so.”

And then it has to do its rival one better by focusing on not just the most popular movies under its already vast and still-expanding umbrella, but those movies that best demonstrate “movie magic”—the ones that advance the artform in some significant way, the ones that enjoy not just box-office success but critical acclaim. By the same token, the company needs to be willing to highlight the differences in how the various studios it has absorbed tell their stories, instead of just blithely subsuming them under the homogenized banner of Disney-ness and pretending that Elsa, Spider-Man, Chewbacca, and Dory are all natural companions to each other.

This Armchair Imagineering post offers a rough idea of how they might do that in a hypothetical “studios” park.

In addition to this bold premise, I continue to champion the idea that there is a broad middle ground between the biggest bestest most elaborate thrill rides on one hand, and the humble character meet-and-greets on the other, and Disney needs to get back to offering more of that middle ground.

Intrigued yet?

The idea here is relatively simple: a theme park that really lives up to the name of Disney Studios. Each section of this park is devoted to one of the individual studios owned by Disney, with attractions and environments designed accordingly. It follows a hub-and-spoke layout, though the entry path—Red Carpet Lane—is not quite as long as Main Street. At the hub, guests find themselves with a semi-circle of studio gates to choose from. Each studio has at least one of each of the following attractions:

• A big-budget, elaborate ride (“E-ticket,” as these were called in the vernacular before I instituted my sweeping dictionary reforms).
• A smaller, less elaborate ride or escapist show.
• A presentation demonstrating certain aspects of filmmaking, with guest participation.
• A walkthrough exhibit of props or other memorabilia.
• A character meet-and-greet space.

Additionally, each section is arranged so that guests are gradually drawn into the fantastic worlds of the movies as they travel farther from the hub. Structures in the “front” of each studio resemble working moviemaking facilities and house the more educational attractions, while those toward the back are increasingly fantastic and house the more immersive attractions. Since the immersive rides are likely to be the most popular, this keeps people moving through the area and ensures that they will at least see the smaller attractions in passing.

Walt Disney Animation

The central studio is the original and most significant—Walt Disney Animation, the one that started it all and still represents the first thing most people think of when they hear “Disney.” In a mild spoof of the “kingdom” parks, its gate takes the form of a castle...but it is very obviously a backdrop, gorgeously sculpted and painted in the front but with a plain, flat back that people notice as soon as they walk through. The attractions here are focused on the art of animation—particularly traditional 2D animation—and the timeless, idealistic storytelling and appealing characters that give Disney films their perennial charm. The structures toward the front take their architectural cues from the actual Walt Disney Animation buildings in Burbank, CA:

Farther in, the building façades take on a swoopier, more exaggerated “fantasy” look, like a hybrid of Disneyland's Fantasyland and Toontown. The roofs are lined with forced-perspective models of iconic locales from Disney's animated works, such as the palace of Agrabah or Rapunzel's tower or the Honey Tree, as if the full-sized structures were just beyond.

It's actually much easier to think of the educational attractions for this area than the escapist ones. Traditional animation is a fascinatingly complex process, and nearly every step makes for good info-tainment. Something like the Walt Disney Animation attraction in California Adventure is pretty close to what I would do. The demonstration attractions could involve drawing and voice recording, while the exhibits could feature character maquettes, genuine background paintings and animation cels, and specialized equipment such as the multi-plane camera. Disney has produced so much animation work over the decades that the exhibits could be rotated frequently, keeping them from becoming stale.

This same abundance is exactly what makes it hard to decide upon subjects for the escapist attraction. Mickey's PhilharMagic might be a good choice for the secondary attraction, since it features a wide variety of animated characters, but for the big one, I'd want something more focused and original. Perhaps a roller coaster based on the action sequences in The Lion King? That's a movie that has never been tapped for a ride concept for some reason.

The meet-and-greet spot would have to be suitable for characters from a wide variety of settings—you can't expect Tarzan to feel at home in a castle, or Snow White to fit in at a row of London townhomes. Perhaps a simple stage could have a variety of backdrops and mobile set pieces, easily switched out in under a minute as different characters begin and end their sets.

Pixar Studios

Where there is Walt Disney Animation, can Pixar be far behind? Disney itself and the mainstream public seem to think that there is no meaningful distinction between the two, but we obviously know better. These two studios might be right next to each other in the park, but I enforce absolute separation between the IPs they showcase.

Just as Walt Disney Animation focuses primarily on the art of hand-drawn animation, Pixar Studios is all about computer animation. The entry gate, wrought-iron with a giant statue of Luxo Jr. on one side and Woody on the other, looks normal enough, but the buildings display computer and virtual-reality motifs, almost like some iterations of Tomorrowland. These become more pronounced deeper into the area, ultimately setting the scene for the area's big ride.

This ride, based on the movie WALL*E, is something like a cross between the PeopleMover and Space Mountain. Guests board “touring pods” that take them on a relaxing tour of the starship Axiom, complete with glimpses of the movie's robot characters as they get up to their shenanigans. At the climax, a magnetic launch shoots the pod into a enclosed, darkened roller coaster section, as if it had been ejected into space. The end of the ride is framed as a return to Earth, echoing the end of the film. It's more an impressionistic rendition of the second act of WALL*E than any sort of coherent narrative.

I'm not sure what to do for the secondary attraction, however. I've painted myself into a bit of a corner by focusing so hard on computer technology in the aesthetics of Pixar Studios. Either The Incredibles or Inside Out might work on the basis of visuals, and neither one has really been adequately explored in the parks yet, aye em aitch oh.

The character meet-and-greet is a fairly simple little nook for one-on-one interactions, but the real delight is being present during a shift change when a new character comes out. The back wall of the space is decorated as a large computer monitor labeled “Rendering Engine,” and LED screens display silhouettes and wire-frame models of the emerging character before they come out through a mist-filled doorway.

The hands-on/demonstration attraction is simply a permanent installation of “The Science Behind Pixar,” a traveling exhibit that I had the privilege to experience when it came to the L.A. Sciencenter last year. It's misnamed, since it's all about computer animation technology, not science, but it was an amazing look at all the specific programming processes that go into producing a CGI film. There were stations to practice defining the parameters of a character's model, adding textures to surfaces, lighting a scene, simulating fluid dynamics, and overall proving that CGI is not a simple automated process.

That just leaves the walkthrough exhibit, and here I'm a bit stymied again. CGI may be as complicated to produce as any other cinematic medium, but it doesn't involve anywhere near as many physical objects.

Lucasfilm

This studio, of course, boasts one of Disney's very favorite acquisitions—Star Wars!—but it also includes the Indiana Jones franchise, which I actually prefer.** Lucasfilm productions tend to be big-budget action extravaganzas, and while in the present day, the studio leans hard on CGI for its effects (just like everyone else), historically it was known for impressive special and practical effects. So I think this section of the park will echo that.

The buildings in this area look...not rundown, exactly, but maybe a little well-used. Lucasfilm came to prominence in the late Seventies and early Eighties, a period when the American economy was just lifting itself out of the pits and brown shag carpeting and feathered hair were both in fashion. So there's a certain low-grade scruffiness associated with the era, which carried over into the aesthetics of both Star Wars and Indiana Jones and would bring across the right vibe. Plus it suggests practical effects, i.e. people dealing with physical objects and getting their hands dirty (as opposed to the shiny computerized environment of Pixar).

There is no shortage of existing attraction concepts that could be scooped up and transplanted to such an area as-is, but I think people will expect the big ride to be Star Wars-based, and our commitment to showcasing practical effects here means none of the largely screen-based rides currently open or soon to debut will do the trick. Maybe something like Radiator Springs Racers, but with guests straddling their seats (“speeder bikes”) would work for a system, and the content could then involve traveling on the surface of an exotic planet, with plenty of animatronic figures (not necessarily audio-) of aliens, creatures, and droids to make it undeniably Star Wars.

Figuring out a lower-tier ride here is really troublesome, simply because Lucasfilm movies are so big and bombastic by nature. You just can't use the dark ride or carnival spinner model and have it seem remotely authentic. So I think this is a good place to drop in a live show...such as a stunt show! Maybe not quite as spectacular as the Indy stunt show in Orlando, but along similar lines, showing off more practical effects and in-person feats of physical prowess. Or if that would be too much, there's always room for another revival of the very first Lucasfilm production to have a presence in Disney parks...Captain EO!

The hands-on demonstration would have to involve puppeteering. Give kids a little Star Wars critter to operate while their parents take a zillion pictures. The walkthrough exhibit is just as easy to nail down—Lucasfilm generates a lot of absolutely iconic costumes and props. The meet-and-greet would be Star Wars again—the Indy franchise just doesn't have characters with the right kind of appeal besides Indy himself. I could see him as a walkaround character, however, or maybe he could do autographs after the stunt show.

Marvel Studios

Ah...the other of Disney's favorite acquisitions, with a focus even narrower than Lucasfilm. Outside of wild fan speculation, Star Wars and Indiana Jones are not part of the same continuity, whereas the entire point of the MCU is to produce a sprawling single plotline. It's a thoroughly 21^st Century franchise that has been jam-packed with digital effects from the word go, so that can be the category of “movie magic” tricks that gets the most play in this area.

The look of the buildings here is ultramodern, clean-lined yet with complicated details. There's a lot of smoked glass, chrome, and neon...but also a lot of primary colors, for this is where four-color superhero comics come to life. Because the MCU films mostly take place in a tweaked version of the real, modern world, there is no great distinction between the look of structures in the front and back halves of the area.

I am no great fan of screen-based attractions, but this would absolutely be the place for them. For the big ride, perhaps something akin to Universal Studios's “The Amazing Adventures of Spider-Man” ride (but with more than just Spidey, natch)—3-D motion-simulation with an immense screen providing the environment. Likewise, the smaller attraction could easily be a 3-D theater show à la Honey I Shrunk the Audience...maybe even using a similar framing device wherein the guests are attending a demonstration of cutting-edge inventions (only here, the threat comes from villains crashing the show to steal the tech).

Like Lucasfilm, the MCU involves a lot of slick-looking and instantly recognizable costumes, props, and set pieces, easily enough to fill a modest museum exhibit. The real fun here would be in the demonstration attraction, which would include demos of green screens and motion-capture—great opportunities for guests to get up in front of each other and act like idiots.

The meet-and-greet would, again, be pretty straightforward. Meet your favorite heroes! The MCU has a big enough cast that almost anyone can find someone to look up to, and it has absolutely no qualms about doing crossovers (unlike some Disney franchises I could name, Princess).

The last themed area I have in mind for this park isn't exactly a film company under the Disney banner—rather, it's a particular filmmaker the company works with often, whose style is absolutely unique and instantly recognizable...and who, incidentally, is immensely popular with certain age groups and subcultures.

Tim Burton Productions

It's not that if you've seen one of Burton's movies, you've seen them all...but if you've seen about three of them, the rest are unlikely to surprise you. Several movies he directed, produced, or both comes under Disney's aegis—The Nightmare Before Christmas, James and the Giant Peach, Alice in Wonderland, Frankenweenie, and now Dumbo. I don't imagine it would be too difficult to license others for theme park use.

That said, the works of Tim Burton are almost completely untried in a theme park setting. Haunted Mansion Holiday is the only such attraction I know of, and it's a seasonal thing. Quite a lot of his movies have a definite seasonal vibe—late autumn or winter, usually. Could we handle year-round Burton?

At least the area would have a strong visual design—probably the strongest of the five. Nigh-monochromatic palettes, off-kilter angles, spindly wrought-iron, gnarly trees, stripes and spirals, incongruous blocks of pastel suburban housing...no one can possibly deny that Burton's work, be it live-action or animated, has one of the most distinctive looks in Hollywood. The filmmaking techniques highlighted here would be a grab bag, including lighting, character design, and of course, stop-motion animation.

Anyway, although The Nightmare Before Christmas is definitely his most popular Disney-affined work, I really can't see that one having a strong year-round presence. I think Alice in Wonderland might be the best bet for the main attraction. Its animated, pure Disney counterpart is already a proven success in Disneyland, and I'm tempted to make the two rides Burton-flavored spoofs of the Alice dark ride and the Mad Tea Party and leave it at that, just because I can.

Actually, you know what? Let's put a pin in that Mad Tea Party concept. But I have an even better idea for the big ride, assuming the license can be obtained: Sleepy Hollow. And by big ride, I mean something in the vein of Pirates of the Caribbean or EPCOT Center 1.0—highly themed spectacles lasting a good fifteen minutes or more. Low-key thrills, but unbeatable atmosphere. The kind of ride we've sorely been needing more of for a long time.

And yeah, the more I think about it, the more I convince myself that a Burtonian Mad Tea Party would be a hilarious homage to one of the most famous Disney rides of all time. Give the cups and saucers lurid colors and severe outlines, play Danny Elfman music in the immediate area, and have plenty of “pixie dust” on hand, because teenagers don't know their limits.

For the demo/hands-on attraction, I'm thinking a workshop where guests can create their own short stop-motion clips using a variety of poseable figures, and maybe another where they get tips on creating kooky characters from a professional artist, not unlike the “how to draw” demonstration in California Adventure. The walkthrough exhibit would be rather different from the others—instead of a museum-style showing of props and costumes, it would be more like a labyrinth of recreated locations from Burton's films. Imagine making your way through the bizarre afterlives of Beetle Juice and Corpse Bride, or Willy Wonka's candy factory.

Now, if there is one major disadvantage of Tim Burton's recurring design motifs, it's that it has resulted in only a handful of individually recognizable characters. Is the pale, skinny young man in the suit with the wild dark hair Ichabod Crane, or Sweeney Todd, or perhaps Victor Van Dort? This is not to say there would be no point to a meet-and-greet spot, only that it would feature a slimmer roster of characters than you might assume.

So anyway, that's my idea for a Disney Studios Park that actually, you know, has a reason to exist. I feel like it could do with a lot more refinement, and there's certainly room to add more attractions past the minimum I designated. I didn't even address the issue of shopping and dining. But I hope it was an amusing read nonetheless.

* The Floridians just started nodding along.

** And the 1988 fantasy film Willow, which hardly anyone remembers anymore, more's the pity.