DisneyStudio's Disappointing?

[milo_vhw]

I visited DLP last month including the DisneyStudio’s. I think they are ok, but not more than that. When I read posts about the studios I see that there is a lot of negativity. Is it because you are disappointed in the park? Is it to small? Is the American version that much better? The lack of great rides? I personally had a good time. Only Armageddon wasn’t that much of a thrill (someone agrees?). Yes it is true that you’ve seen everything after a couple of hours but then you can go back to the Disneyland Park . My question is why does the Studio’s Park suck that much?

- Milo

[pussnboots]

Well, it's a query that's been taken apart and viewed under a microscope countless times, but...

It's the lack of layers, I think. At the Disneyland Park, there's always something to gasp at, something to explore, something to admire. You're in awe of everything before you, enjoying little hidden details and feeling proud for finding them... And oh, right, there are actually things to see and do.

The WDS however doesn't even attempt to take you into any kind of realm. Like a carnival, it consists mainly of detachable, portable, temporary-looking buildings spread out over something that looks like it could be a Wal-Mart parking lot. And it's proud of it, too, since the "studios" theme enables it to embrace the fakeness of it all.

It's kind of like... When a film director makes a film, he puts out just enough tangible decor on a set to make everything seem plausible on screen, with green screens here and there to fill out later in the CGI process. There's someone with a hose in front of a plastic brick wall, which will look like a rainy New York city in the film. Now, no one wants to be on the set, as everyone knows it's really just about the end result. No one will try to make a film set pleasant. Why would they anyway?
Now, the Disneyland Park is that film, shaped to perfection. The WDS is the shabby film set where coarse directors spill coffee all over the place.

What's to like? Oh right, CineMagique.

[milo_vhw]

Most of the time I agree with you Pussnboots, like that there’s not always something to gasp at. But what about the insides of the attractions? I could certainly marvel at their beauty. I think the insides are almost as good as in the Disneyland Park, which also changed throughout the years. Don’t you think that it will be a more ´Disney` place in a couple of years. I think it has to evolve just like the original park. Ok the Disneyland Park was much better when it opened (I visited in the first year ) then the Studio’s are now, but Disneyland Park keeps getting better just like the Studio’s will. And when you consider the Studio’s as an extra to the original theme park, and not as a theme park by itself, then it’s quite ok, don’t you think?

[Olivier]

I must admit my first visit at the WDS was a disappointment... but after visiting the park many many times I learned to appreciate it more.
Now I can even say I like this park very much. Why ?
- Cinémagique ! A fantastic movie, really!!!
- Animagique (yes! I love this show)
- Moteurs-Action! Stunt show spectacular!
- Front lot (nice architecture)
- Characters meet-and-greet
- Shows and streetmosphere (the current Cruella DeVil show is VERY funny!)
- Catastrophe Canyon
- RNRC
- the music !

However, the main problems are :
- they opened an unfinished park (that's what I first thought)
- It's small
- The comparision with the magnificient (and so close) Disneyland park

DLP and WDS is a bit like Beauty and the Beast, or Esmeralda and Quasimodo... Though in both exemples, the ugly one still has very good points.
Come back in a few years, I'm sure there's a bright future for the WDS !
(I know I'm optimistic)

[milo_vhw]

Originally Posted by Olivier

Come back in a few years, I'm sure there's a bright future for the WDS !
(I know I'm optimistic)

I totally agree with you Olivier! But does anyone know if the American version of the WDS had to cope with these problems? Why is this park so different from it's older brother? Besides from the butt ugly Sorcerers Hat I only hear positive things about Disney MGM Studios. Why isn't the European version not also an MGM Park ? Would it then be any better?

[Ian P]

The reason that the WDW Studios is far better than the Paris version is that it has a better layout and it is themed. There are trees everywhere, real street themesand areas where you feel like to are in a studios because there are sets and props.

It's not the lack of attractions so much the lack of atmosphere and actual outside theming.

Yes the WDW Studios was short on attractions when it opened but it had heart and soul, something that will be very hard to bring to the Paris park.

It needs greenery, trees, water, fountains, streets, sets, and it must be bigger.

Ian

[PragmaticIdealist]

Originally Posted by milo_vhw

I totally agree with you Olivier! But does anyone know if the American version of the WDS had to cope with these problems? Why is this park so different from it's older brother? Besides from the butt ugly Sorcerers Hat I only hear positive things about Disney MGM Studios. Why isn't the European version not also an MGM Park ? Would it then be any better?

As someone who has never visited Walt Disney Studios Paris, I can tell you the reason I am not interested.

The park is not a real studio, essentially. No movies have ever been shot there, and The Disney Channel productions are not terribly appealing; whereas, the Disney MGM Studios was designed as an actual working plant for motion picture and television production.

The only way the second gate in France will work is if the park stops pretending to be a motion picture studio and starts becoming more innovative with its concept.

[mickey2006]

Well, if/when Toon Studios opens at WDS that might make to park a bit more enjoyable even though the new attractions are supposed to be based on Pixar films. If Toon Studios opens, the area around the entrance to it might also be fixed up a bit (sort of like the monsters area at DCA).

I think that Disneyland Paris needs the matterhorn. That is the perfect park for it. Just think, during summer it could have have the painted snow and then during winter.. real snow Maybe someday.. maybe

[Zarniwoop]

Originally Posted by mickey2006

I think that Disneyland Paris needs the matterhorn. That is the perfect park for it. Just think, during summer it could have have the painted snow and then during winter.. real snow Maybe someday.. maybe

No.. bulldoze the Indy coaster and replace it with Tibetan village and Expedition Everest.

[Bacon]

I thought the offerings at the Studios were highly entertaining (save for Armagedon which I didn't see, and the tram tour which was laughably bad, and the parade which was abismal). The problems as I saw it were 1) Waaaaaay too small to be considered a full theme park, we did everything except Armagedon in a span of 4 hours, and 2) Completely lacking in visual appeal. Soundstage warehouses, asphalt, stick-like trees. It's the most uninspired architecture and "theming" since Disney Village.