[ADP]

It's been almost 3 years now since DHS was renamed and rebranded. Attractions have been added and updated since the announcement like Pixar Place (announced before the rebranding), American Idol, Block Party Bash, Disney Channel Rocks, Star Tours 2, and changing of the park signage.

In your opinion, has enough been done towards the rebranding of the park or are things moving too slowly? As Disney fans we probably want to see it move much faster, but realistically (keeping budgets in mind) have things been moving fast enough? Do you still get a classic Hollywood/Disney feeling when you're in the park, or have the new attractions/changes made you feel like you are in the Hollywood of today?

My personal feelings are it has moved slowly and you could argue some of the changes don't really add to the Hollywood of today feel. When you make a major change like a new theme park name and rebranding the expectation is big changes are coming sooner rather than later. I'm not seeing that right now. Hopefully, more is coming to add to the rebranding. So, Meg Crofton if you are reading this please jump start the rebranding efforts of DHS.

What do you think? Are things moving in the right direction, and are they moving fast enough?

[QuickGold]

Actually, I thought the re-branding was a reactive move, not a proactive.

Meaning, I felt the name change was necessary because the park's vision had really changed years earlier and the new name reflected the contemporary state of the Studios. (I hope that makes sense)

[darthstich]

QuickGold, on 02 November 2010 - 10:58 AM, said:

Actually, I thought the re-branding was a reactive move, not a proactive.

Meaning, I felt the name change was necessary because the park's vision had really changed years earlier and the new name reflected the contemporary state of the Studios. (I hope that makes sense)

That made sense to me, and i agree. The changes were already made and so the name changes too

[ADP]

True, I understand where you are coming from. I guess the Hollywood of yesteryear and the Hollywood of today are a matter of perspective. When I think of the Hollywood of today I'm thinking of very recent movies and shows. The GMR seems like an attraction based on the Hollywood of yesteryear. Again, my perspective.

[QuickGold]

ADP, on 02 November 2010 - 07:43 PM, said:

True, I understand where you are coming from. I guess the Hollywood of yesteryear and the Hollywood of today are a matter of perspective. When I think of the Hollywood of today I'm thinking of very recent movies and shows. The GMR seems like an attraction based on the Hollywood of yesteryear. Again, my perspective.

I get what you're saying but I think the name change was more about "we're not doing any movie/tv production anymore" more than anything else. The new name allows the Studios to have attractions like AIE or remove production without compromising the parks' original mission.

[Jeanine]

QuickGold, on 03 November 2010 - 10:46 AM, said:

I get what you're saying but I think the name change was more about "we're not doing any movie/tv production anymore" more than anything else. The new name allows the Studios to have attractions like AIE or remove production without compromising the parks' original mission.

Actually, I don't think the name change avoids compromising the park's original mission, as much as it signals a total abandonment of the original mission. I agree however, that the more generic catch-all name allows them to justify crow-baring pretty much anything they want in there without being overtly egregious, much as they did with DCA.

Frankly, I kind of feel that the fairly generic "Disney's Hollywood Studios" is just a step up from "Disney's Entertainment Park," or the more honest "Disney's Park O'Synergy."

[MJMcBride]

I still think they screwed up the name

they should have called it Disney Hochberg Studios

[COH#1fan]

They should have left it alone is what they should have done. They should have kept it an actual working studio complete with working traditional animation studio. What, they felt it would have cost them more money to run an actual movie and television studio? I call foul. This is just yet another pointless corporate decision that, let's face it, just wasn't very smart.

[QuickGold]

Jeanine, on 04 November 2010 - 04:20 AM, said:

Actually, I don't think the name change avoids compromising the park's original mission, as much as it signals a total abandonment of the original mission.

Sorry for the confusion, that's what I meant. The new name allows them to remove the constrains of pretending to be a working film studio, which they hadn't been since 2003 or so.

[QuickGold]

MJMcBride, on 04 November 2010 - 09:59 AM, said:

I still think they screwed up the name

they should have called it Disney Hochberg Studios

My petition is sitting on Iger's desk from what I can tell

[MJMcBride]

QuickGold, on 04 November 2010 - 10:41 AM, said:

My petition is sitting on Iger's desk from what I can tell

i'm with you my man

[Ignohippo]

As I understand it, the name change was because the contract with MGM had run out – nothing more. This really wasn't an attempt to "rebrand" the park. If they were looking at distancing themselves from the park's original mission, "Studios" would certainly have disappeared from the name. I don't think the fact that it isn't an active studio anymore had anything at all to do with the name change. It was just simply a legal necessity.

I'm just glad they chose not to call it "Disney Pixar Studios" as they were close to doing. As much as I love Pixar and it's attractions in the park, there's a heck of a lot more you can do with the "Hollywood" theme. Besides, how would Star Wars, etc. Have made sense in a park named Disney Pixar Studios?

[QuickGold]

Ignohippo, on 12 November 2010 - 09:43 AM, said:

As I understand it, the name change was because the contract with MGM had run out – nothing more. This really wasn't an attempt to "rebrand" the park. If they were looking at distancing themselves from the park's original mission, "Studios" would certainly have disappeared from the name. I don't think the fact that it isn't an active studio anymore had anything at all to do with the name change. It was just simply a legal necessity.

I'm just glad they chose not to call it "Disney Pixar Studios" as they were close to doing. As much as I love Pixar and it's attractions in the park, there's a heck of a lot more you can do with the "Hollywood" theme. Besides, how would Star Wars, etc. Have made sense in a park named Disney Pixar Studios?

You're right about the contract ending being a major component. Not like Disney brass woke up one day and decided to change the name arbitrarily. But the necessity to change the park name due to the expiring contract was the right time for Disney to decide to abandon the idea entirely of this park being a working movie park anymore. Kind of like, they killed two birds with one stone.

[DisneyFreak1228]

First of all, holy crap. I can't believe my login STILL works.

Second of all, while the rebranding was necessary in order to reflect the new state of the park, most of us will still refer to it as MGM or simply Studios, basically completely ignoring the Hollywood lol

Just my two cents, continue along your business while I slip back into obscurity

-Leslie

[QuickGold]

DisneyFreak1228, on 11 January 2011 - 06:57 AM, said:

First of all, holy crap. I can't believe my login STILL works.

Second of all, while the rebranding was necessary in order to reflect the new state of the park, most of us will still refer to it as MGM or simply Studios, basically completely ignoring the Hollywood lol

Just my two cents, continue along your business while I slip back into obscurity

-Leslie

Wow, blast from the past! Welcome back Leslie