New Roundup Rodeo BBQ sit-down restaurant coming to TSL

[mattpeto]

The miserabs are insufferable around here. Go have a brownie or maybe even a lunch box tart, you might feel better.

 

[ToTBellHop]

The miserabs are insufferable around here. Go have a brownie or maybe even a lunch box tart, you might feel better.

Here comes the brigade to complain about the lunch box tarts and how much better Disney brownies were in 1996.

The chicken tenders were better. I grant them that. My life has been 7% less joyful since they switched to chickie nuggies.

 

[UNCgolf]

I understand the complaints about scale at TSL, but I don't think it's really the issue. It's basically everything else about the land that's awful. Yes, the giant static figures of characters mess up the scale, but even if the scale was consistent they'd still be a bad, lazy idea for theming. It's supposed to be themed like a child's backyard but it doesn't really look anything like a backyard, or really feel like anything other than a space with some Toy Story characters and other generic toy items scattered around randomly.

What's worse is the large amount of land used for very little content.

 

[celluloid]

It is like walking around an Value Resort that has a flat ride and a coaster in it.

The 90s Courtyard of Once Upon a Toy Store area fits right in at Toy Story Land.

 

[Epcot82Guy]

I agree. The idea is actually pretty good. The execution much less so. The character statues and plain build out on Saucers are the only things I really don't like. Otherwise, it's more lack/missing vs being actually bad.

 

[yensidtlaw1969]

The miserabs are insufferable around here. Go have a brownie or maybe even a lunch box tart, you might feel better.

Quick check - do you think thinking critically makes you miserable?

I don't understand this idea that just because someone's critical of the parks means they absolutely, couldn't possibly ever find enjoyment in them while they're there. The only reason we have such strong opinions is because we do enjoy them.

Despite loving the movie and its characters, I don't travel to WDW for Toy Story Land. But I'll ride Slinky when I'm at DHS. Maybe I'll grab a bite at Woody's Lunchbox. I'll break my wrist on Toy Story Mania. But I think most rational adults are able to allow themselves to enjoy something while also being critical of it, especially when it's worthy of critique.

This land clearly misses the mark in a lot of ways, and if you ask my opinion here then I'm going to give it to you. But it's not like I get up from my computer chair and stew about this for hours, and I doubt anyone else does either. It's possible to have strong opinions and enjoy your life.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

I understand the complaints about scale at TSL, but I don't think it's really the issue. It's basically everything else about the land that's awful. Yes, the giant static figures of characters mess up the scale, but even if the scale was consistent they'd still be a bad, lazy idea for theming. It's supposed to be themed like a child's backyard but it doesn't really look anything like a backyard, or really feel like anything other than a space with some Toy Story characters and other generic toy items scattered around randomly.

What's worse is the large amount of land used for very little content.

I completely agree with this. It's not about getting out the tape measure and comparing the scale of everything, it's just that overall the land seems a bit lazy. That's really my issue with the figures of the characters: it's the laziest idea they could have come up with for theming the ride, made lazier still by them not even bothering to keep the scale consistent between the items. Even mentioning something like the popsicle stick benches that bug me, I get that nobody's head is going to explode from the disparity of scale. Surely, though, they could have come up with something better-suited for the scale and surroundings? I think that, like with a lot of things, they just cut and pasted an idea they'd already used elsewhere.

I get that most people will wander through and not notice all of this or the poor use of space, but Disney is supposed to be the best at designing these things and this land really doesn't suggest that on any level. Again, I think of Tony Baxter talking about designing Big Thunder so it looked like the mountain was already there and the track was built over it rather than them having built a mountain around the track. With TSL, every time there was a creative issue they seemed to just shrug and ignore it.

 

[Phicinfan]

The issue isn’t just the meet and greets. Throughout the land the scale is not consistent.

Not to jump into this quagmire, but... As a kid you never played with GI Joes and little army men at the same time? The point is the kid doesn't care, he or she or they are using their imagination and the actual comparisons don't matter.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Not to jump into this quagmire, but... As a kid you never played with GI Joes and little army men at the same time? The point is the kid doesn't care, he or she or they are using their imagination and the actual comparisons don't matter.

Once again, that is not the issue.

 

[Phicinfan]

Once again, that is not the issue.

Sorry, the last three pages stated the issue was statues were one size and "people" in the toy land are another. How does this not address that?

 

[zakattack99]

The chicken tenders were better. I grant them that. My life has been 7% less joyful since they switched to chickie nuggies.

Have you tried the allergy friendly nugs/tenders? My daughter has milk/egg allergy so we have to ask for them and being a good father I "sample" my children's food you know to ensure they are only getting the best lol. Honestly some of the best I have had, you have to wait for them so they are cooked fresh but they just taste better I have always been impressed. Only down side is that because they have to cook them separate there is a wait time compared the normal chicken.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Sorry, the last three pages stated the issue was statues were one size and "people" in the toy land are another. How does this not address that?

Because the issue isn’t that different toys are different sizes. It’s that the relationship in sizes is inconsistent.

 

[Phicinfan]

Because the issue isn’t that different toys are different sizes. It’s that the relationship in sizes is inconsistent.

And I continue to argue I have had toys of multiple sizes and it didn't effect my imagination. I swear some here just want to criticize and not look at the big picture.

I had marvel action figures of the same type of multiple sizes...So? Good grief folks.

 

[lazyboy97o]

And I continue to argue I have had toys of multiple sizes and it didn't effect my imagination. I swear some here just want to criticize and not look at the big picture.

I had marvel action figures of the same type of multiple sizes...So? Good grief folks.

Again, that toys are different sizes is not the issue. If you built a play set for your 6” Marvel action figures your 12” Spider-Man isn’t going to fit. You might still play with both at the same time, but that 12” Spider-Man won’t magically shrink down to 6” nor is that a conceit of the Toy Story films.

 

[yensidtlaw1969]

And I continue to argue I have had toys of multiple sizes and it didn't effect my imagination. I swear some here just want to criticize and not look at the big picture.

I had marvel action figures of the same type of multiple sizes...So? Good grief folks.

Let's see if this helps - Here's a chart showing the Toy Story toys to scale with each other.

Woody, according to Pixar, is about 15 Inches Tall. Rex, as we can plainly see here and in the movie, is a bigger toy overall.

Here's a picture from Toy Story Land, where Rex stands on a Jenga Tower. A Jenga block is about 3 inches long. Rex is clearly much bigger than a Jenga block in the movies, but here he's too small to be the Rex we see in the movies, even though he's absolutely supposed to be:

Now, this is just one example, but Toy Story Land is FULL of scale issues like this. Since the whole idea they decided on is that we're supposed to be shrunk to the size of a Green Army Man, you'd think Disney would have paid attention to make things the right size relative to that. Instead, they didn't at all. Why? Because it was cheaper not to and they didn't think it mattered.

All of the problems in Toy Story Land - the lack of shade, benches, AC, sufficient seating at the Lunch Box, theming, capacity - come down to Disney being cheap and thinking it wouldn't matter. That it shows up even in elements like this just shows how deep the problem runs.

This land was designed as if they didn't care, and it shows.

 

[Patcheslee]

Not to jump into this quagmire, but... As a kid you never played with GI Joes and little army men at the same time? The point is the kid doesn't care, he or she or they are using their imagination and the actual comparisons don't matter.

I usually got into wrestling matches with my brothers over their GI Joe's dating Barbie and MicroMachines blended well with hot wheels.

 

[FerretAfros]

Yes, I very much agree with this. There's a very easy solution to the issues that the figures of the movie's characters raise: do something else! Figures of the characters would be literally the lazy first suggestion that someone with no experience in themed design would come up with. WDI should be able to come up with something better, and it's not like other oversized items don't present fun and interesting possibilities. It's generally not a great way to put guests in a character's world, anyway. Galaxy's Edge, for example, doesn't have random static statues of characters from Star Wars scattered around the place.

An interesting thing to ponder is how Snow White wasn't initially featured in her Fantasyland dark ride as the idea was that the rider was in Snow White's place and so it wouldn't make sense to see her. That ended up being a case where guest expectations eventually led them to abandon that initial conceit, but it does show a level of thoughtfulness about creating a consistent and believable experience that Toy Storyland doesn't right from the earliest days of Disneyland.

It seems that they settled on using oversized fiberglass character figures for the land because that's all there really is to reflect the notion of "Toy Story." Ultimately, theme parks are their best when they provide moody and evocative settings, rather than linear or character-driven storylines. But when you think of settings from the Toy Story films (particularly the earlier ones), they're largely unremarkable spaces for the suburban families that comprise WDW's key demographic: suburban house, suburban backyard, gas station, moving truck, etc.

Pizza Port is the one Toy Story setting that generates ongoing interest for a theme park, but it was quickly ruled out once WDI decided that the land would be at the scale of the toys, since the exciting aspects of it are all human-focused. This may have been a blessing in disguise, as Disney's 3 previous attempts to create this location for the parks (in MGM, DLP, and DL) have all been half-hearted attempts that fail to capture the energy and excitement of the movie scene.

A focus on environment rather than characters the same reason why Pandora and Mr. Toad's Wild Ride are perennially popular (despite being based on films that have largely left the cultural zeitgeist), while the brand new Avengers Campus at DCA generated lukewarm-at-best reviews (but is based on the hottest global film IP that's possibly ever been created). Pandora does a great job of capturing the mysterious atmosphere and awe-inspiring scenery from the film, without requiring any knowledge of the plot itself; Mr. Toad mirrors the zany madcap energy of a chase scene that was mostly created for the ride.

Meanwhile the Marvel films and comics are mostly character-driven, which just doesn't translate to a theme park environment, regardless of how many flavor-du-jour superheroes they parade through the land on a rotating basis. The land's setting as some sort of fictional community college for aspiring heroes simply isn't very interesting, which reflects the films themselves: while there are all sorts of cityscapes, high-tech labs, and fantastical vehicles, none of them have any deeper meaning than simple backgrounds. Even Galaxy's Edge ran into this problem, as the Star Wars franchise largely focuses on character relationships and good vs evil (despite a plethora of memorable locations and a distinct visual style), a flaw that was only highlighted when the entertainment budget was slashed prior to opening day.

There's an old story of WED designers in the 70's trying to create a dark ride based on the then-current Robin Hood animated film, but as development continued, the locations of key scenes began to feel repetitive and uninspiring: forest, forest, castle wall, forest, garden, forest. The concept was ultimately cancelled, not because of how popular the characters were but because it wasn't a good concept at its most fundamental level.

Similarly, when considering settings from the Toy Story franchise that are memorable, moody, or evocative, there really aren't many to choose from; worse yet, the films barely even have a distinctive visual style for the physical locations audiences associate with them. Other than the characters themselves, there's really nothing to indicate that this is Toy Story, rather than generic toys in a generic suburban setting. Even the land itself is littered with various toys and board games that have long existed outside the context of Toy Story. A major selling point for the films is that they occur in our world with toys we already own, which just isn't very fun for a theme park, which should transport guests somewhere new and exciting.

It's not only that the theme of Toy Story Land was poorly executed, it's that the theme itself was ill-conceived for a theme park land, and plopping character figures here and there is really all they could do with it. But even that was done poorly.

 

[Joel]

Quick check - do you think thinking critically makes you miserable?

I'm starting to think it highly correlates!

 

[yensidtlaw1969]

It seems that they settled on using oversized fiberglass character figures for the land because that's all there really is to reflect the notion of "Toy Story." Ultimately, theme parks are their best when they provide moody and evocative settings, rather than linear or character-driven storylines. But when you think of settings from the Toy Story films (particularly the earlier ones), they're largely unremarkable spaces for the suburban families that comprise WDW's key demographic: suburban house, suburban backyard, gas station, moving truck, etc.

Pizza Port is the one Toy Story setting that generates ongoing interest for a theme park, but it was quickly ruled out once WDI decided that the land would be at the scale of the toys, since the exciting aspects of it are all human-focused. This may have been a blessing in disguise, as Disney's 3 previous attempts to create this location for the parks (in MGM, DLP, and DL) have all been half-hearted attempts that fail to capture the energy and excitement of the movie scene.

A focus on environment rather than characters the same reason why Pandora and Mr. Toad's Wild Ride are perennially popular (despite being based on films that have largely left the cultural zeitgeist), while the brand new Avengers Campus at DCA generated lukewarm-at-best reviews (but is based on the hottest global film IP that's possibly ever been created). Pandora does a great job of capturing the mysterious atmosphere and awe-inspiring scenery from the film, without requiring any knowledge of the plot itself; Mr. Toad mirrors the zany madcap energy of a chase scene that was mostly created for the ride.

Meanwhile the Marvel films and comics are mostly character-driven, which just doesn't translate to a theme park environment, regardless of how many flavor-du-jour superheroes they parade through the land on a rotating basis. The land's setting as some sort of fictional community college for aspiring heroes simply isn't very interesting, which reflects the films themselves: while there are all sorts of cityscapes, high-tech labs, and fantastical vehicles, none of them have any deeper meaning than simple backgrounds. Even Galaxy's Edge ran into this problem, as the Star Wars franchise largely focuses on character relationships and good vs evil (despite a plethora of memorable locations and a distinct visual style), a flaw that was only highlighted when the entertainment budget was slashed prior to opening day.

There's an old story of WED designers in the 70's trying to create a dark ride based on the then-current Robin Hood animated film, but as development continued, the locations of key scenes began to feel repetitive and uninspiring: forest, forest, castle wall, forest, garden, forest. The concept was ultimately cancelled, not because of how popular the characters were but because it wasn't a good concept at its most fundamental level.

Similarly, when considering settings from the Toy Story franchise that are memorable, moody, or evocative, there really aren't many to choose from; worse yet, the films barely even have a distinctive visual style for the physical locations audiences associate with them. Other than the characters themselves, there's really nothing to indicate that this is Toy Story, rather than generic toys in a generic suburban setting. Even the land itself is littered with various toys and board games that have long existed outside the context of Toy Story. A major selling point for the films is that they occur in our world with toys we already own, which just isn't very fun for a theme park, which should transport guests somewhere new and exciting.

It's not only that the theme of Toy Story Land was poorly executed, it's that the theme itself was ill-conceived for a theme park land, and plopping character figures here and there is really all they could do with it. But even that was done poorly.

I'm pretty much totally with you until the end, where I start to diverge - I think the use of classic, Non-Toy Story Toys has the potential to be the most valuable asset of the land. There are so many toys that could thrill at larger-than-life scale - let us ride around in a Slot-Car. Let us walk through Barbie's Dreamhouse. Give us a giant Etch-a-Sketch that works when we turn the oversized knobs. A fort made out of Lincoln Logs to climb around in. Mega-size Legos you can stack. A giant Super Soaker that shoots water when enough people push the trigger. The world's largest Teddy Bear. The potential is crazy when you open the door to all sorts of toys, especially since so many of us have love for those already in addition to our love of the Toy Story characters. And anyone who hasn't seen Toy Story still has a love for some classic toy they wished they could play with at some giant size.

Make it that Andy's set up aaaall of his toys in the Backyard to create the ultimate Playset for Woody and Buzz, and we get to play in it with them. Turn over the whole Toy Box and spill everything out (and then have that be the showbuilding for some great Dark Ride!).

The best part is that you can reach across generations - fill it with toys old and new, so people of all ages can be brought back to their childhood and live it in a way they only dreamed they could with their toys at home. Then welcome the Toy Story toys into that space, deck it out in ways that make it look like Andy set it all up, and you've got a home run that the whole family will love. If I could race in a Hotwheels Car against my Grandpa in a Die-Cast Oldsmobile we'd both be in heaven.

It's like the people who designed Toy Story Land forgot that Toys are, like, inherently fun to play with. That they somehow missed that Giant versions could be even more fun. Instead we get a bunch of statues that are gated off and can't be played with . . .

 

[Patcheslee]

I'm pretty much totally with you until the end, where I start to diverge - I think the use of classic, Non-Toy Story Toys has the potential to be the most valuable asset of the land. There are so many toys that could thrill at larger-than-life scale - let us ride around in a Slot-Car. Let us walk through Barbie's Dreamhouse. Give us a giant Etch-a-Sketch that works when we turn the oversized knobs. A fort made out of Lincoln Logs to climb around in. Mega-size Legos you can stack. A giant Super Soaker that shoots water when enough people push the trigger. The world's largest Teddy Bear. The potential is crazy when you open the door to all sorts of toys, especially since so many of us have love for those already in addition to our love of the Toy Story characters. And anyone who hasn't seen Toy Story still has a love for some classic toy they wished they could play with at some giant size.

Make it that Andy's set up aaaall of his toys in the Backyard to create the ultimate Playset for Woody and Buzz, and we get to play in it with them. Turn over the whole Toy Box and spill everything out (and then have that be the showbuilding for some great Dark Ride!).

The best part is that you can reach across generations - fill it with toys old and new, so people of all ages can be brought back to their childhood and live it in a way they only dreamed they could with their toys at home. Then welcome the Toy Story toys into that space, deck it out in ways that make it look like Andy set it all up, and you've got a home run that the whole family will love. If I could race in a Hotwheels Car against my Grandpa in a Die-Cast Oldsmobile we'd both be in heaven.

It's like the people who designed Toy Story Land forgot that Toys are, like, inherently fun to play with. That they somehow missed that Giant versions could be even more fun. Instead we get a bunch of statues that are gated off and can't be played with . . .

DH watched the video for the Toy Story Hotel. His first comment was, why couldn't the pull this off in Toy Story Land? Also said it would be fun to stay in. Considering he won't stay at heavily themed hotels, that's one heck of an impression. We haven't been since 2019 but it was a quick ride Slinky and leave the area because it didn't seem to have much to it.