disney4life2008
Well-Known Member
Honestly tron would have been a game changer for Hollywood studios.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Toy Story Land Already Disappointing?
- Thread starter Chef Mickey
- Start date
Launchpad McQuack
Well-Known Member
I get what you're saying, but it's not aimed at "us" (adults). Right now, there are two actual rides that smaller kids can do at DHS, and it's about to go down to one for a while. Especially when you take into account that the upcoming Star Wars attractions will probably have restrictive height requirements, the park really needs more stuff for a) little kids and b) people who don't like "thrills".
Ideally, these holes would be filled with well-themed dark rides, but that's not what we'll be getting.
Princess Kaylee
Well-Known Member
I imagine it will be very much like Cars Land in California Adventure. It will have heavy theming and a few family friendly rides. The roller coaster will be the main attraction. I'm going to give it a chance, I'm sure it will be adorable.
correcaminos
Well-Known Member
I'm not really upset if this isn't a huge thrill coaster. We have RnR and that's a good one. Not great, but pretty good and not for little little kids. Same with Tower of Terror. Star Tours is not for all kids which leaves TSM, and shows. That's it. Granted I just want more rides in general for people there. Our trip last month was pathetic.
And that's the problem.
If they argument is that DHS needs more "family" attractions without height restrictions, don't do a coaster (even if not super thrilling) and a spinner (lazy).
You know, The Great Movie Ride had no height restriction and was fun for the whole family. It certainly was when I was a kid. Perhaps they didn't need to completely kill that and could have ALSO built Mickey. A re imagined GMH and a Mickey ride would be an additional 2 family rides in addition to the 2 they could have built for Toy Story Land (not necessarily what is currently being greenlit).
danlb_2000
Premium Member
It is not a clone, the rides where will be unique to this land.
Goofyernmost
Well-Known Member
This just out! To satisfy the seemingly unquestionable belief that some have that heart stopping thrill rides are absolutely required to constitute even vaguely interesting, Disney announced that the power linear motors of the ride will be programed to randomly fire off a burst of energy that will propel the Slinky over the top of the buildings and hopefully landing safely on World Drive. There is no telling how often or when this might happen. All survivors will receive two unlimited Fastpasses for the rest of the day. Non-survivors will have the satisfaction of knowing that the last few moments of the ride and their lives were literally heart stopping.
Goofyernmost
Well-Known Member
It seems to me that Star Wars will be a very sufficient game changer for DHS. Tron will be a game changer in MK though.
You're confusing me with someone else. If you read my posts, I am not advocating thrill rides or anything "heart stopping" to satisfy that land. Lackluster can mean a lot of things other than not enough thrill.
My favorite ride at Disney World is the Haunted Mansion. My second favorite is probably Spaceship Earth. My favorite shows include Carousel of Progress and The American Adventure.
I want epic theming and the incredible "Disney-ness" that used to be so prevalent in their NON thrilling themes. Disney is actually seemingly moving toward a more thrilling experience, see Tron and GotG. I'd RATHER have an updated Universe of Energy than a Guardians Rollercoaster.
Yes, I'm that guy...not what you confuse me to be because I expressed concerns about TSL being "lackluster" which it WILL be if it consists of a kiddy coaster, a spinner, and an extension to TSMM.
I am not the only one who thinks this that also doesn't care about thrill.
Disney could have zero thrill rides and I'd love it the same, but their attractions have to be Disney. Spinners are for carnivals.
KCheatle
Well-Known Member
IMHO, Toy Story Land is a nice addition to a park. However, I think people's opinions about it will be largely influenced by the fact that its going in HS instead of, for example, MK. HS is in such disrepair that people are going to take out their frustrations on Toy Story Land being "insufficient" until Star Wars is completed, and the Mickey ride is up and running. And, even after all of these are done, I still wouldn't be surprised to hear grumblings about HS because I believe the park will still feel incomplete/inadequate. If they added Toy Story Land to MK at the back of FLE, I think people would love it. It would be a nice addition to a park not lacking in activities. But, since it's being added to HS, I think people will inevitably feel disappointed because it will not in actuality add all that much to a park that is in desperate need of some significant additions.
Personally I never thought the IP was a viable option for a full land. Nice for a ride or two but when Toy Story has more ride presence in the parks than Mickey and Co that IMHO is absurd and indicative of something very wrong within the company.
No one IP should have that much power; unless it's a mouse. Lasseter is a swell dude and seems very personable but his influence on the parks, at least with Toy Story seem a bit bullish. The recently announced "Pixar Pier" shows just how much leverage this guy can wield. I'm not knocking Toy Story land per say; HS certainly needed more "lands" but why Toy Story; an IP that's already shoved into the parks?
Why not a Pixar land or another Pixar IP, one with limited exposure perfect for developing. I think Toy Story is a great franchise, a great trilogy (that greatness may come to pass) but personally I feel like it's worn out it's welcome.
Is Toy Storyland already a disappointment? In my eyes it is. A whip-spinner and a weak sauce coaster that has been budget cut twice isn't exactly something a "land" should aspire to showcase. Theme will help sure but do we really need more Toy Story? Ancient astronaut theorists say yes! This parkgoer... says no!
No one IP should have that much power; unless it's a mouse. Lasseter is a swell dude and seems very personable but his influence on the parks, at least with Toy Story seem a bit bullish. The recently announced "Pixar Pier" shows just how much leverage this guy can wield. I'm not knocking Toy Story land per say; HS certainly needed more "lands" but why Toy Story; an IP that's already shoved into the parks?
Why not a Pixar land or another Pixar IP, one with limited exposure perfect for developing. I think Toy Story is a great franchise, a great trilogy (that greatness may come to pass) but personally I feel like it's worn out it's welcome.
Is Toy Storyland already a disappointment? In my eyes it is. A whip-spinner and a weak sauce coaster that has been budget cut twice isn't exactly something a "land" should aspire to showcase. Theme will help sure but do we really need more Toy Story? Ancient astronaut theorists say yes! This parkgoer... says no!
Last edited:
Goofyernmost
Well-Known Member
Sorry, yours was just a jumping off point. I didn't mean to imply that you were. Just a sarcastic, and what I thought was humorous post. Guess I was wrong. I keep forgetting how serious some take their Disney Parks. At what point do we realize that a land called Toy Story Land... will not be all up in the luster category. Those aren't strictly "kiddie rides" but, design it is supposed to be as impressive as your own back yard cause that is what it is trying to convey.
Is taking the parks seriously something you see as surprising? I've spent over a year of my life at Disney, went as a child where attachment and nostalgia are formed, and am a large Disney shareholder.
I kind of have good reasons to actually love the parks and be emotional about them. Family, friends, and life's truly meaningful events are not the only things people devote strong emotions to or have strong opinions about, but of course they are more important. True enough, nothing really matters if you are philosophical enough, but the parks are among the many things that matter to me, yes. There can be more than just a few things you're emotional about, even if it's sort of silly.
So if Disney doesn't put what I see as 100% effort or 100% funds into something like TSL, I have an opinion and it does connect with me on an emotional level.
I thought that was true of all of us, particularly someone that has almost 50,000 posts on a Disney forum. You do get it, I assume.
ford91exploder
Resident Curmudgeon
Exactly E ticket does not equal 'Thrill Ride' If I want thrills I'll go to a coaster park, I want the immersive Disney experience when at Disney.
I don't want the half baked stuff we see so often these days at WDW which is little better than Six Flags quality.
Goofyernmost
Well-Known Member
My first trip was in 1983 with my children in tow. I have gone 46 times since then. In 2008 I went with my grandchildren in tow. Don't talk to me about family, friends and memories. I been actively collecting them for 34 years. I know all about nostalgia, I know all about remember things from my youth, my childrens youth, my wife and others that have passed on since that day. What I don't go along with is the thought that everything must be lined in gold to be any good. TSL is a basic land and it is themed to be a kids back yard. What part of that do we not recognize. It is a land that two years ago wasn't even being talked about and now it will be a land with three attractions. When it is done I will bet that it is themed sufficiently to be a good experience. Things don't need to be gaudy to be fun. SWL will have all kinds of bells and whistles. The WDW of 1983 had some shiny stuff, but, it also had some painfully simple things that people enjoyed. Mr. Toad for example. 100% effort doesn't mean that everything has to be in gold. Everything has it's own limits of what it needs to be to get a story told. We are getting a bunch of stuff, I mean a huge bunch of stuff that will be new. In that selection some will be knock your socks off fancy, some will be toned down and less impressive. That is the way Disney parks have been since the first one.
Instead of being hopeful and excited about the billions of dollars that are being spent for our amusement, all I am seeing is (whine) it's not fancy enough, (whine) it's not done to my liking and painted in goldleaf. (whine) there are only two or three rides in the land (like there should be more for some reason) We've gotten nothing for the past 10 years and now all of a sudden the place is in a shambles, but, it is almost worse as far as complaints are concerned as it was when absolutely nothing was being done. Change is not a bad thing. It is what is needed to feel alive. If you just want to make repeated trips to a museum then maybe a living theme park is not the right place to be. However, even museums have different displays. Memories are wonderful but that is focusing on the past. I personally would rather keep my memories up in my memory banks and experience new things so I can make new memories.
So basically, you agree with me.
_caleb
Well-Known Member
I can see how you might be let down if you were expecting Toy Story Land to be bigger or have more. But I think it'd be a good idea to wait and see the finished product before we declare it a disappointment. Lasseter made Cars Land is pretty awesome. I think he'll deliver with Toy Story Land.
Goofyernmost
Well-Known Member
In a sense I do, but, you seemed to me to be saying that there was some kind of level indicator that determines what 100% is. I am saying that 100% can be and is all over the chart. There is no standard of money spent or number of AA's or number of screens or painted scenery that defines 100%. It is just a personal opinion and I am saying that personal opinion can very much affect the enjoyment that one gets out of the parks. That is to bad, because instead of looking at something and objectively saying that was fun and I enjoyed it, one starts to judge it by the money spent or the number of possibly unnecessary props that it contains. From what I see, and bear in mind I no longer have any kids in tow, there isn't much in that land that will make me swoon, but, even now I feel that I understand the concept, the story that is being conveyed and that the amount of theming that I think they will be using will be just the right amount. The right amount that isn't overwhelming and gaudy, but, tells the story. I think TSL will be that, exposed coaster and all. It is the way it is supposed to be because no kid has a highly themed toy coaster, and if they did what would it be themed to reflect.
disney4life2008
Well-Known Member
I do agree with that. But I am not sure MK needed a game changer but it should disperse crowds