Toy Story Land expansion announced for Disney's Hollywood Studios

[marni1971]

How do you theme around "UP, Monsters, The Incredibles, Cars, Toy Story and Ratatouille"? .

Pixar Blvd?

Remember not long ago a fully fleshed out Pixar Place was planned.

 

[Thanks phoenicians]

Pixar Blvd?

Remember not long ago a fully fleshed out Pixar Place was planned.

Sigh... What could've been. Clearly saving Pixar for the 5th gate

 

[Cliff Racer]

Pixar Blvd?

Remember not long ago a fully fleshed out Pixar Place was planned.

That would have been fine if DHS was keeping the Hollywood theme, but as far as I can tell they are doing their best to move away from that in the back end of the park. Even then that would mostly be real world architecture with a Wall-E waving to you on it. I think the Toy Story Land drawings first showcased in this thread look a lot more whimsical and Disneyesque than a mish-mash land. Of course newer drawings don't look nearly as good.

 

[marni1971]

That would have been fine if DHS was keeping the Hollywood theme, but as far as I can tell they are doing their best to move away from that in the back end of the park. Even then that would mostly be real world architecture with a Wall-E waving to you on it..

The MI Coaster building was rather whimsical. More than just a square stage building.

Or it would have been.

 

[Goingdown13]

So, are you providing those two rides as proof of your third statement?

Big Thunder mountain as well. Everest is 44 and rock n roller coaster is 48 are you willing to say those two are leaps and bounds more exciting than the rest?

Edit: A question mark instead of an accidental .

 

[Variable]

Big Thunder mountain as well. Everest is 44 and rock n roller coaster is 48 are you willing to say those two are leaps and bounds more exciting than the rest?

Edit: A question mark instead of an accidental .

Ah, ok.

Yes, I'm willing to say Everest and rock are more intense than the others. (Leaps and bounds is so absurdly undefinable, good luck with that)

Certainly this is supported by decades of industry research and experience on pax safety. They don't have height requirements for no reason. It's possible a 'tall for their age' youngster is not emotionally ready for more intense rides, but that's in the parents hands.

Heck there are adults not emotionally ready for its a small world. They constantly talk about being freaked out etc around here.

No height requirements results in different kind of ride in the theme park/amusement park world.

How is this even arguable?

 

[Daveeeeed]

Height requirements are there so a little kid won't slip out of a ride not really because of intensity. Although generally they coincide because more thrilling usually means more movement, so you have to be taller.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Height requirements are there so a little kid won't slip out of a ride not really because of intensity. Although generally they coincide because more thrilling usually means more movement, so you have to be taller.

No ride is just given a random restraint and then whoever can squirm out is excluded. It's a very serious matter that is directly tied to intensity of the ride experience.

 

[Daveeeeed]

No ride is just given a random restraint and then whoever can squirm out is excluded. It's a very serious matter that is directly tied to intensity of the ride experience.

That's not what I meant at all, they way you responded makes you look like a fool, do you really think I think that??? I wasn't trying to be rude, but you clearly feel like it. It is a very serious issue, but heights that can safely ride are rarely excluded because of thrill level, it happens, but rarely. Kali River Rapids was able to lower the height restriction simply by making a restraint that allowed a lower height to ride safely. Of course thrill is looked at, but can you really compare Primeval Whirl to Rock n' Rollercoaster? Height requirements are meant for the safety of the person riding almost in every way. Look at Soarin'. Seatbelt rides like Star Tours, Tot, and Test Track don't just happen to be 40. Do you seriously think Tot is less thrilling than Space Mountain? And if a ride has more movement than another, but is basically the same then yes, but it is usually not due to thrill, but the safety of the actual person riding it.

 

[lazyboy97o]

That's not what I meant at all, they way you responded makes you look like a fool, do you really think I think that??? I wasn't trying to be rude, but you clearly feel like it. It is a very serious issue, but heights that can safely ride are rarely excluded because of thrill level, it happens, but rarely. Kali River Rapids was able to lower the height restriction simply by making a restraint that allowed a lower height to ride safely. Of course thrill is looked at, but can you really compare Primeval Whirl to Rock n' Rollercoaster? Height requirements are meant for the safety of the person riding almost in every way. Look at Soarin'. Seatbelt rides like Star Tours, Tot, and Test Track don't just happen to be 40. Do you seriously think Tot is less thrilling than Space Mountain? And if a ride has more movement than another, but is basically the same then yes, but it is usually not due to thrill, but the safety of the actual person riding it.

Seeing as you're still not making a consistent, cogent point, it is hard to figure out what you think. It seems you are simply trying to tie intensity into a false correlation with personal, visceral thrill. How certain movements impact the body is a major factor. These impacts are not always readily apparent in the time during and immediately after a ride. Yes, it is about safety but you seem to be getting to that conclusion in a convoluted and backwards manner while heavily discounting a paramount concern.

 

[Variable]

That's not what I meant at all, they way you responded makes you look like a fool, do you really think I think that??? I wasn't trying to be rude, but you clearly feel like it. It is a very serious issue, but heights that can safely ride are rarely excluded because of thrill level, it happens, but rarely. Kali River Rapids was able to lower the height restriction simply by making a restraint that allowed a lower height to ride safely. Of course thrill is looked at, but can you really compare Primeval Whirl to Rock n' Rollercoaster? Height requirements are meant for the safety of the person riding almost in every way. Look at Soarin'. Seatbelt rides like Star Tours, Tot, and Test Track don't just happen to be 40. Do you seriously think Tot is less thrilling than Space Mountain? And if a ride has more movement than another, but is basically the same then yes, but it is usually not due to thrill, but the safety of the actual person riding it.

Problem is David you're kind of arguing against yourself. Words like intensity have, I'm pretty sure, somewhat of an industry accepted measure. There is no lack of study of the human factors involved within the ride industry.

On one hand you kind of dismiss all of this "bars are just there to keep kids from slipping out" on the other you Acknowledge that they exist for more important reasons.

Note as well that non restricted rides do NOT (edit) simply, universally, allow children to ride alone. In these cases the restraint is a biological unit, an OLDER more capable person.

You're a little too fixated perhaps on constantly comparing various rides' "thrill quotient" if you will, which is totally subjective. Sure thrill gets tossed around, but it's not quite the ultimate decider you're sort of positioning it as.

 

[MKeeler]

How do you theme around "UP, Monsters, The Incredibles, Cars, Toy Story and Ratatouille"? That doesn't sound like a themed land at all. Although single franchise lands are kind of a bad idea I give Toy Story a pass just because of how neat everything looks with the giant children's toys. Whatever Toy Story stuff I see in the parks, be it parade floats, attractions or the theming outside of TSMM has always looked brilliant.

As mentioned the way you theme those properties together is as "Pixar Studios". It's what makes me a little sad that Disney has chosen the path that they are undertaking for DHS. The easiest way to give DHS a cohesive identity was to refocus as Disney's Hollywood Studios, i.e. Lucasfilm, Muppets, Pixar, Disney and Marvel to the extent they can. The way you keep everything from being just a soundstage or generic building is to take the old Disney approach to the characters: the characters are real and employees of their particular studio. You could even go so far as to say each studio has a window into its respective individual worlds. So at Lucasfilm you would be able to enter into fully realized Star Wars environments, as well as Indiana Jones and Willow, etc. At Pixar Studios, you can visit Radiator Springs just as easily as Monstropolis. It's also why a fully formed Toon Town and or Maroon/Toon Studios would have been a welcome addition.

I understand why they are taking the approach that they are. I just am a little wistful for what they could have done.

 

[Daveeeeed]

Let me rephrase myself then @lazyboy97o Attractions have height requirements for the safety of all guests. Height requirements are based upon what the restraints are designed for, while keeping you safe on the attraction. If a toddler is to go in Peter Pan sitting down like an adult withou lap sitting it would fall out. If you are on Expedition Everest and are under the height requirement you may be thrown out of the vehicle. Odds are it won't happen, but the restraints' designer determines what the minimum height is for the restraint for an attraction. And the restraint needed for what the attraction does is determined. It isn't just thrill level that determines what type of restraint is needed, and along it the height requirement, there are many many reasons. One being it's range of motion, does it go upside down? Could you slip out of it if you are too small? Is there a large drop? Does it spin? Does it lean? And all of these are different for different scenarios. Kilimanjaro Safaris doesn't have seat belts, or a height requirement yet it's bumpy at times. Primeval Whirl is far, far, far less thrilling than Crush's Coaster yet it is the same type of ride, and it has a 48 inch height requirement compared to Crush's 42, that is mostly in part due to Crush's individual lap bars that are more snug to allow a smaller child to ride. Primeval Whirl'/ height requirement is so high because the restraint is much more lose than other Crush, so thrill is again not playing here. This, and almost every other attraction is evidence that height requirements are mainly derived of the restraint that is safe to use. Of course if something is more thrilling, as in the height requirement is not sufficient for the adventure, like Indy compared to Dinasaur. But it isn't because it has more G's, it is because that the restraint will not work for someone under a certain height if it has more range of motions etc. and sometimes in the case of PW and Crush a different restraint can be used for a much more thrilling experience and on top of it can lower the height requirement, while still being safe.

They try to use the lowest height requirement restraint that is safe for a ride type. I don't know how you don't think I know that, but it doesn't necessarily have to do with thrill, instead it has to do with the person being safe in what a ride vehicle does.

Edit: Updated.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Let me rephrase myself then @lazyboy97o Attractions have height requirements for the safety of all guests. Height requirements are based upon what the restraints are designed for, while keeping you safe on the attraction. If a toddler is to go in Peter Pan sitting down like an adult withou lap sitting it would fall out. If you are on Expedition Everest and are under the height requirement you may be thrown out of the vehicle. Odds are it won't happen, but the restraints' designer determines what the minimum height is for the restraint for an attraction. And the restraint needed for what the attraction does is determined. It isn't just thrill level that determines what type of restraint is needed, and along it the height requirement, there are many many reasons. One being it's range of motion, does it go upside down? Could you slip out of it if you are too small? Is there a large drop? Does it spin? Does it lean? And all of these are different for different scenarios. Kilimanjaro Safaris doesn't have seat belts, or a height requirement yet it's bumpy at times. Primeval Whirl is far, far, far less thrilling than Crush's Coaster yet it is the same type of ride, and it has a 48 inch height requirement compared to Crush's 42, that is mostly in part due to Crush's individual lap bars that are more snug to allow a smaller child to ride. Primeval Whirl'/ height requirement is so high because the restraint is much more lose than other Crush, so thrill is again not playing here. This, and almost every other attraction is evidence that height requirements are mainly derived of the restraint that is safe to use. Of course if something is more thrilling, as in the height requirement is not sufficient for the adventure, like Indy compared to Dinasaur. But it isn't because it has more G's, it is because that the restraint will not work for someone under a certain height if it has more range of motions etc. and sometimes in the case of PW and Crush a different restraint can be used for a much more thrilling experience to lower the height requirement.

That's not how it works. You're going backwards and assuming some sort of non existent constant for the restraint systems while putting way to much emphasis on immediate visceral reactions. Different ride systems can support multiple restraint types and the exact same restraint system can very much be represented across a variety of heigh restrictions. Your position makes neither of these facts possible.

 

[Daveeeeed]

That's not how it works. You're going backwards and assuming some sort of non existent constant for the restraint systems while putting way to much emphasis on immediate visceral reactions. Different ride systems can support multiple restraint types and the exact same restraint system can very much be represented across a variety of heigh restrictions. Your position makes neither of these facts possible.

please reread my post, I added some stuff in the time you were writing. Restraints are designed for certain heights, which those restraints can only go on certain vehicles, and they have to be safe. It's not as simple as that, but that is the bulk of it.

 

[lazyboy97o]

please reread my post, I added some stuff in the time you were writing. Restraints are designed for certain heights, which those restraints can only go on certain vehicles, and they have to be safe.

You're completely skipping over why restraints are built to a minimum height . Then ignoring that the minimum height does not have to be the same for all rides using the exact same restraint. Safety is far more than just strapping someone down. How bodies move through a ride is far more important and forces you might barely notice could be very damaging to a young child who could easily be kept in the seat. Rides can and do have height requirements that exceed the minimum the restraint can hold, a situation which would never exist according to your factors.

 

[Daveeeeed]

You're completely skipping over why restraints are built to a minimum height . Then ignoring that the minimum height does not have to be the same for all rides using the exact same restraint. Safety is far more than just strapping someone down. How bodies move through a ride is far more important and forces you might barely notice could be very damaging to a young child who could easily be kept in the seat. Rides can and do have height requirements that exceed the minimum the restraint can hold, a situation which would never exist according to your factors.

Of course it's not all the same. You know I know that so why are we having this discussion? I don't disagree with you. I am just saying that an attraction has a restraint that has a height requirement that goes along with it, but it cannot work for everything. Seatbelts work on the Tower of Terror, it could have a 44 inch height requirement, but clearly at some point they decided (in whichever way they do it) 40 inches was sufficient, even though attractions that are far less thrilling have even higher height requirements. Please don't come back saying I missed something, or no rides are given random restraints like you already have, because of course that is not what I meant, I shouldn't have to go into more details, this is not worth an argument over, I simply shared my knowledge and then you kind of took offense.

 

[Mike S]

As mentioned the way you theme those properties together is as "Pixar Studios". It's what makes me a little sad that Disney has chosen the path that they are undertaking for DHS. The easiest way to give DHS a cohesive identity was to refocus as Disney's Hollywood Studios, i.e. Lucasfilm, Muppets, Pixar, Disney and Marvel to the extent they can. The way you keep everything from being just a soundstage or generic building is to take the old Disney approach to the characters: the characters are real and employees of their particular studio. You could even go so far as to say each studio has a window into its respective individual worlds. So at Lucasfilm you would be able to enter into fully realized Star Wars environments, as well as Indiana Jones and Willow, etc. At Pixar Studios, you can visit Radiator Springs just as easily as Monstropolis. It's also why a fully formed Toon Town and or Maroon/Toon Studios would have been a welcome addition.

I understand why they are taking the approach that they are. I just am a little wistful for what they could have done.

Lucasfilm Lot, Pixar Place, Muppets Courtyard, Toontown, and "Superhero Studios" because they can't use "Marvel." That sounds like a great park.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Of course it's not all the same. You know I know that so why are we having this discussion? I don't disagree with you. I am just saying that an attraction has a restraint that has a height requirement that goes along with it, but it cannot work for everything. Seatbelts work on the Tower of Terror, it could have a 44 inch height requirement, but clearly at some point they decided (in whichever way they do it) 40 inches was sufficient, even though attractions that are far less thrilling have even higher height requirements. Please don't come back saying I missed something, or no rides are given random restraints like you already have, because of course that is not what I meant, I shouldn't have to go into more details, this is not worth an argument over, I simply shared my knowledge and then you kind of took offense.

You shared knowledge that is very incomplete and I have been trying to explain to why it was lacking and is contradictory. You're at the right conclusion, safety, but completed messed up as to how the outcome is achieved. You're assigning far too much value to the end condition (the final restraint used) and you're own reaction while ignoring the how and why of the situations. You keep talking about "less thrilling" rides with higher requirements while repeatedly rebuffing the reasons why such situations occur because they do not conform to your base of limited assumptions that consider only the final product.

Since you've mentioned in several times, Primeval Whirl is not some weird outlier. The Wild Mouse is an old, very popular type of ride made by several manufacturers. They all tend to have seemingly high restrictions. This is not because none of the many manufacturers are unable to design a restraint that can hold a smaller person. You may see such rides as mildly thrilling but a rider does not entirely perceive the actual impact of the various forces acting on your body.

 

[Phroobar]

Lucasfilm Lot, Pixar Place, Muppets Courtyard, Toontown, and "Superhero Studios" because they can't use "Marvel." That sounds like a great park.

It's better than shows we saw in 80's at Disneyland, four rides and a half hearted tram ride no where as good as USH version.