Toy Story Land expansion announced for Disney's Hollywood Studios

[DinoInstitute]

I have no info but I'd agree from the pics it looks ready for construction now. I really do think that the entire land has gone back to the drawing board. I wouldn't even be surprised if the whole Andy's backyard theme has changed. Overall if we get this thing 6-12 months later but a much better quality i'd be ok.

As far as the whole opening things later goes, I agree with you, but honestly just open new attractions as they get built. They don't need to make it one big grand land opening. I think that would attract more locals over the next few years if new attractions open regularly rather than a bunch at once, and plus its likely better for capacity.

Honestly as long as a proper E Door Coaster comes in some form in happy

I don't know if anyone has tagged any insiders directly asking, but to any of them, is there any potential that they went back to the drawing board (like for significant changes)?

 

[Lord_Vader]

Agreed. I never understood why they didn't start demo since the ride was closed. As far as I understood, the closure was for cost savings, but if you're gonna close the ride, might as well start demo.

Demolition usually doesn't start because it is t budgeted, that is done as part of the new build budgets.

 

[Rutt]

As far as the whole opening things later goes, I agree with you, but honestly just open new attractions as they get built. They don't need to make it one big grand land opening. I think that would attract more locals over the next few years if new attractions open regularly rather than a bunch at once, and plus its likely better for capacity.

Honestly as long as a proper E Door Coaster comes in some form in happy

I don't know if anyone has tagged any insiders directly asking, but to any of them, is there any potential that they went back to the drawing board (like for significant changes)?

Im no insider but it does seem that things are changing. @marni1971 it may just be me but the general impression is that it's not for the better?

 

[Rutt]

That's what happens with rule by committee. The bigger the company the slower they move. No one is willing to take responsibility, so until the "group" decides it's OK, nothing happens. (strength in numbers)

This mentality is slowly killing any creativity left on this continent.

 

[Thanks phoenicians]

Im no insider but it does seem that things are changing. @marni1971 it may just be me but the general impression is that it's not for the better?

Don't know if it's better or worse but I do feel as though there has been a lack of info on this project.

 

[RSoxNo1]

I've been thinking this morning... Basically this is what I would do if I where to change it to a Pixar Land:

-Keep TSMM with the facade that it looks like the concept art has
-Can keep same ride concept that Aliens has (the MJJ thing), but theme it to Bugs Life. I think Bugs Life would be a clever fit for it, you can be sitting in little cardboard boxes (like in Flicks Flyers) while being pulled along by some contraption Flick designed (similar in style to the thing he built in the beginning of the movie for getting seeds). The little bug scouts or whatever they're called can be steering it's
-Some sort of Up boat ride with a giant Paradise Falls forced perspective facade in the distance. The story can be taking place after the movie, and Russel wants to get some sort of wilderness explorer badge. So, you enter the queue through the blimp, and the preshow can be Living Seas esque taking you on a blimp ride to Paradise Falls. Maybe throw in a mild drop in there, but nothing too intense (like Frozenstrom).
-The Monsters Inc door coaster (a must!). This can be a phase two thing, with the goal to get the flat ride and boat dark ride open first for capacity. This would be the main e-ticket of the land though once opened. A full elaborate queue going through the main lobby, the many halls, the trash compactor, the area with the scream extractor, even the locker room for fun Monster gags in the lockers and a creepy Randal animatronic. The ride part can be both intense and have show scenes (I could do a full elaborate write up but I think this is enough )
-Replace that main food area with a Pixar Studios esque brick building. Include a cafe style restaurant, merch, meet and greets, and a One Mans Dream style exhibit for Pixar.

I'd add a whip ride, be it A$$, Mater's Junkyard Jamboree, Big Hero 6 or another variant. I'd also add a trackless ride like Luigi's Rollicking Roadsters, the flying Saucers would be a more logical theme here. I'd love it if they had this continuously loading too like Aquatopia.

 

[RSoxNo1]

Pixar is not a theme.

-----

Since this seems to be something most don't understand, I'll start with a question. What makes a movie a Pixar film?

Well, it is created by Pixar, and the name Pixar (or Disney-Pixar) appears in advertising and on the movie itself. But Pixar is just a name. That wasn't the case in 1996, but 20 years later, it most certainly is. Could the average guest even tell you which computer animated movies were made by Disney and which by Pixar (apart from the obvious like Toy Story and Frozen)? To prove my point, I pose another question: what makes The Good Dinosaur a Pixar movie and Zootopia a Disney Animation movie? Why would Zootopia not belong in Pixar Land? Because it doesn't have the name Pixar stamped on it?

If the connecting feature of a land is the name and not the content, that is not good. That is poor design.

-----

Oh, but you are about to tell me there's a place called Fantasyland. I can't see the future, but I can see what you came back at @lazyboy97o with a number of pages back, and it is sure to happen to me. So I shall explain in advance. Fantasyland works because it takes you into a realm of fantasy. It is about the content of the land, not the name.

Furthermore, the land works because it is in contrast to Tomorrowland and Frontierland. Oh, did I forget Adventureland? Sorry. What I mean is that taking you into the world of fantasy isn't the strongest theme by itself, but it becomes a strong theme because the neighboring lands take you into vastly different worlds of yesterday, tomorrow, and adventure. If you don't like Star Wars land going to Disneyland Park, you have good reason. It may weaken the contrast of the park as a whole.

-----

So "Pixar Land" is a poor idea, I made that clear in the first large chunk of my post. Whatever they go with needs to be about the content of the land, not a name. And it should work in contrast with the rest of the park. I believe a Toy Story Land does that. The Toy Story Land vs. Star Wars Land we are getting looks like it'll provide contrast between a Six Flags and Disney level of quality, but alas, that is a seperate issue.

While asking you to agree may be a bit much, I hope you at least see my point. If you don't agree or have any objections, please explain. I'm open to what everyone has to say and would be glad to have a good discussion.

Pixar is a unifying theme as much as "Fantasy" is a unifying theme. A large enough Pixar Land can encompass multiple Pixar IP as mini lands.

 

[Rutt]

Pixar is a unifying theme as much as "Fantasy" is a unifying theme. A large enough Pixar Land can encompass multiple Pixar IP as mini lands.

I think if done right it could be. Imagine what could have been with a Lucas films area, PP and then a Disney studios area. So many cool options for varying ages there.

 

[lazyboy97o]

If you would bother to pay attention you would know that I never mentioned any problems. What I listed were things that had to be accomplished before anything could happen. None of it could even really begin until decisions were made about what they were going to do in those places. All of that, if they went slicker then greased lightening still take time to do. Little elves do not come into the offices at night and magically answer all the questions that need to be answered. So, just like if you decide to build a shed in your backyard, from the moment you think that you would like to do that, if you are going to do a good job that is safe and functional for your needs, you won't be starting it the next day. Planning is going to be necessary so it will take a while for the first of the construction to actually take place. That is on a tiny scale like a shed in your backyard, now imagine, if you can, something the scale of a land or two in WDW. Something that is going to cost hundreds of millions of dollars and must last and maintain for years to come and will be seen and experienced by millions of people. Think that might slow your start time up a little until all your i's are doted and your t's are crossed?

Roller coasters routinely go from start to open in 18 - 24 months. That is the big planning hurdle. There is nothing else that big or expensive in the project. Nothing that should put it past the $100 million mark, much less multiples of that.

 

[No Name]

I see your point, I just don't think it's the case. People know the difference between WDAS and Pixar more than your probably think, especially early Pixar. Every year there's a lot of people I know who don't particularly care about animated films in general that much at all, but always are interested in "What's this years Pixar movie?"

IMO it's the equivalent of saying Marvel studios or Lucasfilm are "just Disney" (well, maybe to a lesser extent, but you get my point). I mean, other than the fact that there was only one ride in the land, nobody seemed to think it weird that Pixar Place was a thing.

But anyway, you say a land should be about its content and not its name, why can't Pixar be the content?

Pixar is a unifying theme as much as "Fantasy" is a unifying theme. A large enough Pixar Land can encompass multiple Pixar IP as mini lands.

Fantasy is a unifying theme because fantasy describes something. It's not just a word, it describes what's in the land. Each ride feels like a fantastical journey. In tomorrowland, each ride should have a futuristic vibe. In frontierland, each ride should have a frontierish vibe. Sometimes that falters a bit and that's what leads to weaker lands.

Pixar is just a word. Perhaps I went too far before, so I must directly ask you, what says that Zootopia can't be part of a Pixar Land? What says that Big Hero 6 can't be part of it? Just a name? I'd like to do a test. Sit 100 people in front a screen and have them watch Big Hero 6, but without the words Disney or Pixar appearing at all. After the film, would they be able to tell which studio created it? If they can't tell, well then, why couldn't the movie fit in a Pixar Land?

Star Wars is their main movie that embodies the sci-fi/adventure genre, which makes it disntictly different from most of what Disney Animation and Pixar put out. Marvel is their main cluster of movies which embody super heroes and such. You can usually tell just by watching the movie if it's a superhero movie or not, although sometimes it gets close with plain sci-fi. People have argued that Big Hero 6 and GotG could work together in a superhero land, and I can't argue that. Onward... In a way, ToT represents the horror genre. Rock 'n' Rollercoaster is the odd child but it has a distinct rock n roll, music, gritty feel. A land of family movies would work in contrast to everything else in DHS.

And so yes, I'd be a supporter of a land that embodies family movies (ya know, movies that make you all warm and fuzzy inside). That is, if they can create a setting that a) doesn't just feel like a bunch of places thrown in a blender and b) works in contrast with the rest of the park. But Wreck It Ralph, Bolt, Chicken Little, Big Hero 6, Zootopia, Planes*, etc. would all fit such a land. They could certainly choose not to use any movies outside of Pixar. But if they're looking for a place to put a Zootopia ride, I wouldn't want them to avoid putting it in the land simply because it's made by the wrong studio.

Lastly, I must wonder, will Pixar even exist in 5 or 10 years? The next CEO could just combine it with WDAS. If you think I'm crazy, let me mention that our friend Spirit sees it as a strong possibility too.

*Okay, please, no Planes. On a side note, I wonder what studio most people would say that movie is created by.

 

[CanadianGordon]

I just want to honestly be amazed with wonder at a land devoted to Toy Story the next time I go. Apparently it is too much to ask for. I also want a Monsters Inc ride an Incredibles Ride as well. The park needs more coasters. If they have to be dark coasters, do it.

 

[DinoInstitute]

Pixar is just a word. Perhaps I went too far before, so I must ask you, what says that Zootopia can't be part of Pixar Land? What says that Big Hero 6 can't be part of Pixar Land? Why couldn't those movies have had the Pixar label on them?

Thats just a silly argument honestly. They couldn't be a part of a Pixar land because they aren't Pixar. That would be the theme, it's fine to not like it as a theme, but I'm not sure why you're stuck on it not being one.

But if they're looking for a place to put a Zootopia ride, I wouldn't want them to avoid putting it in the land simply because it's made by the wrong studio.

Not putting an attraction in a place where it doesn't fit the theme is a pretty sound logic if you ask me.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Thats just a silly argument honestly. They couldn't be a part of a Pixar land because they aren't Pixar. That would be the theme, it's fine to not like it as a theme, but I'm not sure why you're stuck on it not being one.

Because a theme is about story and not creator or ownership. Walt Disney Productions made Zorro and the PeopleMover but they don't have any story-based relationship with each other. The corporate name at the beginning of the film had nothing to do with its story. Disney has also changed the branding of films, Who Framed Roger Rabbit and The Nightmare Before Christmas were Touchstone films when they were released but are now Disney branded.

 

[Rich T]

I agree that a Pixar land that excludes other animation would be kinda backwards at this point. The word Pixar means nothing to the general public. When Disney was still doing hand-drawn features, there was a definite stylistic difference between Disney and Pixar. That difference has diminished to the point where it no longer matters; the two studios' recent products are nearly indistinguishable from each other. Zootopia could have been a Pixar film. Inside Out could have been Disney animation. John Lasseter is involved in both. The public can't tell the difference. Few would be excited about a "Pixar" land; they'd simply be drawn to the IPs themselves. Limiting it to Pixar shackles future development, especially if Disney Animation and Pixar each bring out a film in the same period and the Disney Animation film happens to be more suitable to theme park adaptation.

There should be a huge animation focus at the revamped park, but it should be open to all Disney-owned features.

 

[Thanks phoenicians]

Any news on why this went back to the drawing boards? I'd assume budget or just how ugly the land looks or a combination of both.

 

[SCOTLORR]

Any news on why this went back to the drawing boards? I'd assume budget or just how ugly the land looks or a combination of both.

Wait has it been confirmed that this is back on the drawing board? If it has I guess i missed it...

 

[DinoInstitute]

Because a theme is about story and not creator or ownership. Walt Disney Productions made Zorro and the PeopleMover but they don't have any story-based relationship with each other. The corporate name at the beginning of the film had nothing to do with its story. Disney has also changed the branding of films, Who Framed Roger Rabbit and The Nightmare Before Christmas were Touchstone films when they were released but are now Disney branded.

Theme can be whatever you want it to be. That's the beauty of a theme!

To give a scaled down comparison, if a kid has a birthday party and everything is decorated with Disney characters and stuff like that, wouldn't you say it's a Disney themed party? I don't think I would define the theme as "the story of boy turning 10 with his friends and family gathered". Similar thing here, there's no reason a land can't be Pixar themed.

I agree that a Pixar land that excludes other animation would be kinda backwards at this point. The word Pixar means nothing to the general public. When Disney was still doing hand-drawn features, there was a definite stylistic difference between Disney and Pixar. That difference has diminished to the point where it no longer matters; the two studios' recent products are nearly indistinguishable from each other. Zootopia could have been a Pixar film. Inside Out could have been Disney animation. John Lasseter is involved in both. The public can't tell the difference. Few would be excited about a "Pixar" land; they'd simply be drawn to the IPs themselves. Limiting it to Pixar shackles future development, especially if Disney Animation and Pixar each bring out a film in the same period and the Disney Animation film happens to be more suitable to theme park adaptation.

There should be a huge animation focus at the revamped park, but it should be open to all Disney-owned features.

Again, I don't think this is true. People know more about the studio a movie comes from than I think you're giving them credit for. Especially Pixar, it's an iconic animation company with distinctly famous movies.

And you realize there's already two different lands "Animation Courtyard" and "Pixar Place" in the park. It's not like this is a problem that could occur, it's already the case and is fine. Both can and should be expanded.

 

[DinoInstitute]

Any news on why this went back to the drawing boards? I'd assume budget or just how ugly the land looks or a combination of both.

Wait has it been confirmed that this is back on the drawing board? If it has I guess i missed it...

Honestly I'm starting to forget what's legitimate rumors and what's just fan talk/hope at this point

Could it be possible we get more details and a clearer picture at Destination D?

 

[Earl Sweatpants]

I feel like, when its all said and done, we'll still wind up with a TSL...just maybe a bit different than the original "concept art" would lead us to believe.

 

[Rich T]

n, I don't think this is true. People know more about the studio a movie comes from than I think you're giving them credit for. Especially Pixar, it's an iconic animation company with distinctly famous movies.

Naw, I think I'm pretty accurate on this one. Most of the public enjoy their entertainment on a very casual basis, don't read credits and simply enjoy a good film when it comes along and then get on with their lives.

In the past years, several things have happened to erase the boundary between "Pixar" and "Disney" beyond the flat-out purchase and John Lasseter producing for both studios:
1) Disney stopped producing hand-drawn films.
2) Disney's CGI films greatly improved in quality. Entering a new kind of "Golden Age," their best now equals Pixar's best.
3) Pixar's produced a few disappointments and a big bomb. Hey, it happens. They're still amazing.
4) Frozen and Zootopia became the two most successful non-sequel animated films in history.
5) Planes and Planes 2. Disney? Pixar? Pixney? Disnar? Pixneytoons?

There is really no reason to build a "Pixar" land at this point. It's just not gonna happen. All their characters are now Disney characters. The first Disney Infinity Game was 2/3 Pixar. Pixar characters are all over Magic Kingdom and Epcot. The general public doesn't care that one set of animators created Elsa and Judy Hopps while another created Woody and Bing Bong. Disney treats it all as one huge stable of animated characters. The idea for a Pixar Land made sense ten or fifteen years ago. Its time has passed.