Toy Story Land expansion announced for Disney's Hollywood Studios

[Goofyernmost]

Don't know if I agree there though. A lot people buy stuff in WDW or other theme parks that they could get cheaper elsewhere. A lot of spending is spur of the moment, especially for children.

I agree that they buy it but they didn't travel there for that purpose. It's something they do when they are there to see things like Carsland. And to stop the kids from whining the entire trip. Forced purchases almost!

 

[Next Big Thing]

I surely do… I would love to have them surprise me and do it in 3 years...

Toy Story Land? lol, i'd expect 2018 at the absolute latest, very possibly sooner. Not sure where you're getting 5 years from.

 

[doctornick]

Toy Story Land? lol, i'd expect 2018 at the absolute latest, very possibly sooner. Not sure where you're getting 5 years from.

Indeed, some have suggested 2018 but even that seems particularly pessimistic. This will be build off stage and is relatively simple. TSPL in Paris and Hong Kong were built in about a year and even though the coaster is more complex, it isn't that complicated.

I'd be pretty surprised if it's not done some time by the end of 2017. We'll see other Pixar stuff added in the 2018-19 timeframe and then Star Wars by 2021.

 

[Bolt]

Toy Story Land? lol, i'd expect 2018 at the absolute latest, very possibly sooner. Not sure where you're getting 5 years from.

Because everyone uses Avatar as a unit of measure because they assume all announcements now include a two year stall.

 

[Next Big Thing]

Indeed, some have suggested 2018 but even that seems particularly pessimistic. This will be build off stage and is relatively simple. TSPL in Paris and Hong Kong were built in about a year and even though the coaster is more complex, it isn't that complicated.

I'd be pretty surprised if it's not done some time by the end of 2017. We'll see other Pixar stuff added in the 2018-19 timeframe and then Star Wars by 2021.

I'd be a bit surprised if it isn't there for 2017 too, especially given TS4 is coming out that summer.

Because everyone uses Avatar as a unit of measure because they assume all announcements now include a two year stall.

Which is silly, because Avatar was a special case where there was literally no R&D done at time of announcement.

 

[erider]

I have never seen anyone complain that MK has at least 10 rides based on Disney movies, why should three lands based on Pixar movies be a problem?

I'm just not a fan of the Pixar additions to the Disney theme parks so far. They look too cartoony and plasticy in my opinion. In the MK I also much prefer the style of Haunted Mansion or Pirates instead of Little Mermaid and Winny the Pooh. Carsland in DCA has impressive rockwork on the outside, but the dark ride part is also too cartoony in my opinion.

 

[G00fyDad]

You will be 48, your wife 51, your daughter 27 and your son 18 by the time the land is done...

Yeah. We got the idea from your other post. We'll be geriatric before it is finished. We'll still go and we'll still love it.

 

[G00fyDad]

Why? I mean, I'm not even sure what you mean by "doing as well" -- no matter what, the land likely won't be as well received simply because it is the "copy" but it would certainly be popular especially among the younger skewing guests that go to WDW. Cars still has a significant presence in terms of merchandise around and the new movie will bring it to the limelight for new youngsters.

But there's no reason why they can't make a DHS area some version or Radiator Springs (or at least part of the town). That's the iconic aspect of the movies and where people want to "visit".

My point is that if you want a Carsland then the 3rd movie will probably have to do well. Otherwise (in my opinion) Disney may decide to use another IP to help boost numbers. They could put out a generic non-IP land and it would probably do well, but they are going to go for a land that has a bigger draw at the box office. Example, Avatarland. It killed at the box office. Again, this is just my opinion. I have no firsthand knowledge or anything.

 

[Turtle]

Carsland in DCA has impressive rockwork on the outside, but the dark ride part is also too cartoony in my opinion.

Maybe it's because it's a cartoon.

 

[Bocabear]

I'd be a bit surprised if it isn't there for 2017 too, especially given TS4 is coming out that summer.


Which is silly, because Avatar was a special case where there was literally no R&D done at time of announcement.

Oh PLease! I am sure they had full blueprints before they ever made an announcement that they were building the land...they may have refined them, but it was not off the cuff.
And look at a google earth image of the park....there is an unbelievable amount of demolition that has to happen before they can even think about building. Disneyland Paris didn't have to tear down a half dozen buildings to begin construction.

 

[Texas84]

My parents have been going to Disney parks for 50 years. So, yeah...

 

[doctornick]

My point is that if you want a Carsland then the 3rd movie will probably have to do well. Otherwise (in my opinion) Disney may decide to use another IP to help boost numbers. They could put out a generic non-IP land and it would probably do well, but they are going to go for a land that has a bigger draw at the box office. Example, Avatarland. It killed at the box office. Again, this is just my opinion. I have no firsthand knowledge or anything.

Cars 3 is probably not going to be released until 2018 or 2019. I suspect that work will begin on a Cars attraction/land prior to that time (FWIW, work began on Cars Land in DCA before Cars 2 was released). I don't think that Cars 3 would need to be a box office success to justify the land given the financial success of Cars and Cars 2 and the amount of merchandise the franchise moves.

 

[sshindel]

I'm just not a fan of the Pixar additions to the Disney theme parks so far. They look too cartoony and plasticy in my opinion. In the MK I also much prefer the style of Haunted Mansion or Pirates instead of Little Mermaid and Winny the Pooh. Carsland in DCA has impressive rockwork on the outside, but the dark ride part is also too cartoony in my opinion.

So, you like the style of the attractions that are not based on cartoons because they are not cartoony, but don't like the attractions that are based on cartoons because they are cartoony.

I guess Pooh could have been a bit more realistic...

 

[danlb_2000]

Oh PLease! I am sure they had full blueprints before they ever made an announcement that they were building the land...they may have refined them, but it was not off the cuff.
And look at a google earth image of the park....there is an unbelievable amount of demolition that has to happen before they can even think about building. Disneyland Paris didn't have to tear down a half dozen buildings to begin construction.

The initial announcement about Avatar wasn't really about "Avatarland" but instead was about the partnership between Lightstorm and Disney to develop Avatar attractions. I am sure they had some blue sky ideas , but I don't think they had any detailed plans at that point.

I wouldn't call the amount of demolition "un-believable". They are very simple buildings back there, some are just trailers, so once they are cleared out they could demolish them in a very short period of time.

 

[azox]

I'd be a bit surprised if it isn't there for 2017 too, especially given TS4 is coming out that summer.


Which is silly, because Avatar was a special case where there was literally no R&D done at time of announcement.

It would be great to hear 2017, but I have to wonder why didn't they give an estimated date for the project if it would be that soon. What if we compare it to the new fantasyland announcement? When they showed the concept art for new fantasyland, did they also announce the year it would be ready?

 

[twebber55]

The initial announcement about Avatar wasn't really about "Avatarland" but instead was about the partnership between Lightstorm and Disney to develop Avatar attractions. I am sure they had some blue sky ideas , but I don't think they had any detailed plans at that point.

I wouldn't call the amount of demolition "un-believable". They are very simple buildings back there, some are just trailers, so once they are cleared out they could demolish them in a very short period of time.

i agree
the people who think this will take 5 years to do are complaining for the sake of complaining
no way this takes 5 year
the key is actual construction start time and maybe 2/3 years after that
most large scale projects take three years once construction has started

 

[roj2323]

i agree
the people who think this will take 5 years to do are complaining for the sake of complaining
no way this takes 5 year
the key is actual construction start time and maybe 2/3 years after that
most large scale projects take three years once construction has started

I would estimate 18-24 months once the demolition is completed. Demo should take around 3 months given Disney's methods of going slow and being methodical about material recycling.

 

[Bairstow]

The initial announcement about Avatar wasn't really about "Avatarland" but instead was about the partnership between Lightstorm and Disney to develop Avatar attractions. I am sure they had some blue sky ideas , but I don't think they had any detailed plans at that point.

Did they even have blue sky ideas? I thought I read that the Avatar announcement came as a nearly-complete shock to everyone outside of corporate management, WDI included.

 

[jt04]

i agree
the people who think this will take 5 years to do are complaining for the sake of complaining
no way this takes 5 yeara
the key is actual construction start time and maybe 2/3 years after that
most large scale projects take three years once construction has started

I would guess they are targeting 2018 since Pandora will be 2017 and DAK 2.0 and Epcot adds are 2016. Seems like we are entering a phase of new attractions every year for the future.

 

[RayTheFirefly]

Oh PLease! I am sure they had full blueprints before they ever made an announcement that they were building the land...they may have refined them, but it was not off the cuff.
And look at a google earth image of the park....there is an unbelievable amount of demolition that has to happen before they can even think about building. Disneyland Paris didn't have to tear down a half dozen buildings to begin construction.

Demolition is actually usually the fastest, easiest part of construction. Those buildings are pretty simple and will be backstage, so I don't think that's really an issue here.