Toy Story Land expansion announced for Disney's Hollywood Studios

[marni1971]

But, it wouldn't be a "themed" land, would it? Other than the theme of "Pixar Studio", right?

Which would be a themed land.

The MI coaster would not have looked like an office block. For example.

 

[danlb_2000]

Is it possible that if part of TSL is finished (let's say the saucers and QS) but Slinky is still under construction, that they could still open parts of this land by the end of 2017 and the remainder in 2018? Not sure if this is something Disney has done in the past or if it's all or nothing.

It would be possible, but at the moment it appear that the rides are moving along quite well, but not much has been done on the land in between the rides and TSMM which would have to be complete to open the rides. I don't think we are going to run into a scenario where the rest of the land is complete but work is still happening on the rides.

 

[DinoInstitute]

It would be possible, but at the moment it appear that the rides are moving along quite well, but not much has been done on the land in between the rides and TSMM which would have to be complete to open the rides. I don't think we are going to run into a scenario where the rest of the land is complete but work is still happening on the rides.

Not that I'm saying I think it will happen, but a scenario in which I could see this is if they really want to get started on a GMR replacement, and want to have at least something be there to make up for it's loss. So then they could put more effort into getting one of the rides and the shops/food open quicker and take longer on other ride. Again, I doubt this would actually be the case but it would make some sense that way.

 

[danlb_2000]

They did this with the new Fantasyland. 7DMT was still in construction when the new land officially opened.

The difference there was the Mine Ride was not part of the original plan so couldn't start construction with everything else. Both TSL rides started at the same time and neither is very complex.

 

[DinoInstitute]

Yes, I get that all the attractions would be gathered together. I'm not at all confused that everyone who advocates a Pixar Land is envisioning that all the Pixar-based attractions would be localized into one specific geographic area that can be called a "land."

But, it wouldn't be a "themed" land, would it? Other than the theme of "Pixar Studio", right?

Pixar Studio is a theme. And also they wouldn't even have to keep that theme though for there to be a Pixar land (like on the current TSL plot that would close off Pixar Place). I could definitely see a New Fantasyland style area that takes the different environments from movies that go together well very beautifully and well themed (Like how there's the BatB area next to LM for example). Transitioning from the South American landscape with an Up attraction, to a similarly outdoorsy themed Bugs Life area, which then can transition to a Toy Story area that shares the size of a tiny thing theming, etc, all together in one Pixar land. I don't know if I clearly got across what I'm envisioning at all but it could have been something really cool.

 

[MisterPenguin]

Pixar Studio is a theme. And also they wouldn't even have to keep that theme though for there to be a Pixar land (like on the current TSL plot that would close off Pixar Place). I could definitely see a New Fantasyland style area that takes the different environments from movies that go together well very beautifully and well themed (Like how there's the BatB area next to LM for example). Transitioning from the South American landscape with an Up attraction, to a similarly outdoorsy themed Bugs Life area, which then can transition to a Toy Story area that shares the size of a tiny thing theming, etc, all together in one Pixar land. I don't know if I clearly got across what I'm envisioning at all but it could have been something really cool.

So, you would have different 'lands' in Pixar Land like MK has it's seven six lands?

 

[DinoInstitute]

So, you would have different 'lands' in Pixar Land like MK has it's seven six lands?

No, what I was saying was more NFL style with different themed environments living together next to each other, but all in one self contained land.

 

[MisterPenguin]

No, what I was saying was more NFL style with different themed environments living together next to each other, but all in one self contained land.

Yeah, but isn't NFL criticized for doing exactly that and not having a coherent theme throughout?

 

[DinoInstitute]

Yeah, but isn't NFL criticized for doing exactly that and not having a coherent theme throughout?

If so I haven't heard that before. The criticisms of NFL as far as I understand basically stem from the fact that none of the rides are real e-tickets despite it being such a big expansion.

 

[marni1971]

Yeah, but isn't NFL criticized for doing exactly that and not having a coherent theme throughout?

Nah. NFL looks lovely and does have a coherent theme. The content vs price was the issue.

 

[MisterPenguin]

Nah. NFL looks lovely and does have a coherent theme. The content vs price was the issue.

Ah. Thanks.

 

[EPCOTCenterLover]

If any park has to be MK 2.0, it should be an expansion of the Studios. Certainly not EPCOT or DAK.

 

[Slowjack]

Yes, I get that all the attractions would be gathered together. I'm not at all confused that everyone who advocates a Pixar Land is envisioning that all the Pixar-based attractions would be localized into one specific geographic area that can be called a "land."

But, it wouldn't be a "themed" land, would it? Other than the theme of "Pixar Studio", right?

I get what you are saying. Pixar films are so diverse that putting Pixar attractions together doesn't necessarily result in coherence. To be honest, a Pixar Land could have fit in well with the original "working studio" concept of the back half of the park. With the shift away from that idea, putting some Pixar rides together doesn't offer any theme benefits. I guess the closest Disney has gotten to this is the original part of Fantasyland, which ties a lot of different rides together using nothing more than castle walls.

 

[MagicHappens1971]

While a Pixar Land could be made that is wonderful, the problem is that the Pixar Movies do not exist in the same world (fan theories notwithstanding).

A land with rides for A Bug's Life, Toy Story, and Inside Out will leave you wondering if you're the size of a bug, toy, or human. A land with rides for WALL*E, Brave, and Up will leave you wondering if you're in the past, present, or future. Sure, you can cherry pick a few that 'go together', but you'll wind up with someone crying that their favorite isn't included because of some artificial commitment to a thematic land.

And so, a Pixar Land will have to forego a unified theme except for a big Pixar Animation sign. Now, can a really nice 'land' be made from that? Yes. Will it be Magic Kingdom 2? Oh, most definitely. Even worse. MK divides their rides into thematic lands: fantasy here, adventure here, sci-fi here. A Pixar Land will either have to re-create that approach and be exactly like MK, or, just a jumble of movie facades as you pass each IP-based ride.

Now, is there something wrong with a MK2? I don't know. There's a whole bunch of people decrying that that might be the fate of Epcot 2.0 and it makes them mad. Are they OK with a MK2 established in DHS under the banner of "Pixar Land"? We'll see...

But to answer your question, the reason why WDW probably didn't go with a Pixar Land is because they're catching up with the Harry Potter and Cars Lands. And those lands get huge praises and crowds. And so, they are committing themselves into creating areas of parks (i.e. "Lands") with full immersion dedicated to one IP, not a bunch of disparate IPs that come from one studio. Toy Story, Star Wars, and Avatar are part of that craze.

They could've built a replica of the Pixar Studios and incorporated all of the different Pixar movies they wanted to represent somehow.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Pixar Studio is a theme. And also they wouldn't even have to keep that theme though for there to be a Pixar land (like on the current TSL plot that would close off Pixar Place). I could definitely see a New Fantasyland style area that takes the different environments from movies that go together well very beautifully and well themed (Like how there's the BatB area next to LM for example). Transitioning from the South American landscape with an Up attraction, to a similarly outdoorsy themed Bugs Life area, which then can transition to a Toy Story area that shares the size of a tiny thing theming, etc, all together in one Pixar land. I don't know if I clearly got across what I'm envisioning at all but it could have been something really cool.

A good theme has restrictions. There is no point to a theme if everything and anything can fit.

 

[MisterPenguin]

They could've built a replica of the Pixar Studios and incorporated all of the different Pixar movies they wanted to represent somehow.

Yes, it's themed after a movie studio. Either by looking like a movie studio or clumping together similar IPs into micro-lands.

This doesn't have to be binary with a false dichotomy, namely "it's a theme park" v. "it's not really a themed park at all." There is a middle ground: "It is a theme park... but a weakly themed park."

The idea of a studio as an organizing theme has already been done by Disney and Universal. And compared to more heavily themed parks... they rank lower in "theme" (even though their individual attractions may be better). Creating mini-lands with movies that fit together is MK-lite, and again, would rank lower than a MK or IoA that could create large distinct areas properly called a "Land."

If WDW had decided to build a Pixar Land within DHS... I wouldn't be complaining. But for those advocating for it (or mourning it will not come to pass) should recognize that they're asking for a park with a lower level of theming.

And this brings us back to the question posed: Why did WDW go with a Toy Story Land which leverages one IP rather than a Pixar Place which could have featured lots of IPs? Because the trend now is a heavily-themed single-IP completely-immersive Lands, like Potter, and Cars. Disney and Universal get rewarded with huge numbers and high praise for that type of Land. And they think they've struck gold and are replicating that model as quickly as they can.

A "Pixar Land" does not fit that mold. It's been done before and it's called Hollywood Studios or Universal Studios. And one could imagine how one would have created DHS or US or a Pixar Land in such a fabulous way that a studio-theme with many IPs would outshine any single-IP Land, but that's not how Disney is exercising their creativity right now. It's a laser beam focus on single-IP Lands.

 

[rioriz]

Yes, it's themed after a movie studio. Either by looking like a movie studio or clumping together similar IPs into micro-lands.

This doesn't have to be binary with a false dichotomy, namely "it's a theme park" v. "it's not really a themed park at all." There is a middle ground: "It is a theme park... but a weakly themed park."

The idea of a studio as an organizing theme has already been done by Disney and Universal. And compared to more heavily themed parks... they rank lower in "theme" (even though their individual attractions may be better). Creating mini-lands with movies that fit together is MK-lite, and again, would rank lower than a MK or IoA that could create large distinct areas properly called a "Land."

If WDW had decided to build a Pixar Land within DHS... I wouldn't be complaining. But for those advocating for it (or mourning it will not come to pass) should recognize that they're asking for a park with a lower level of theming.

And this brings us back to the question posed: Why did WDW go with a Toy Story Land which leverages one IP rather than a Pixar Place which could have featured lots of IPs? Because the trend now is a heavily-themed single-IP completely-immersive Lands, like Potter, and Cars. Disney and Universal get rewarded with huge numbers and high praise for that type of Land. And they think they've struck gold and are replicating that model as quickly as they can.

A "Pixar Land" does not fit that mold. It's been done before and it's called Hollywood Studios or Universal Studios. And one could imagine how one would have created DHS or US or a Pixar Land in such a fabulous way that a studio-theme with many IPs would outshine any single-IP Land, but that's not how Disney is exercising their creativity right now. It's a laser beam focus on single-IP Lands.

well yes and no

DHS future will continue to be hodge podge single IP rides with two IP lands within it, for now

only AK will be for the most part lands with single IP (or themes) lands with attractions built around them.

 

[Mike S]

Yes, it's themed after a movie studio. Either by looking like a movie studio or clumping together similar IPs into micro-lands.

This doesn't have to be binary with a false dichotomy, namely "it's a theme park" v. "it's not really a themed park at all." There is a middle ground: "It is a theme park... but a weakly themed park."

The idea of a studio as an organizing theme has already been done by Disney and Universal. And compared to more heavily themed parks... they rank lower in "theme" (even though their individual attractions may be better). Creating mini-lands with movies that fit together is MK-lite, and again, would rank lower than a MK or IoA that could create large distinct areas properly called a "Land."

If WDW had decided to build a Pixar Land within DHS... I wouldn't be complaining. But for those advocating for it (or mourning it will not come to pass) should recognize that they're asking for a park with a lower level of theming.

And this brings us back to the question posed: Why did WDW go with a Toy Story Land which leverages one IP rather than a Pixar Place which could have featured lots of IPs? Because the trend now is a heavily-themed single-IP completely-immersive Lands, like Potter, and Cars. Disney and Universal get rewarded with huge numbers and high praise for that type of Land. And they think they've struck gold and are replicating that model as quickly as they can.

A "Pixar Land" does not fit that mold. It's been done before and it's called Hollywood Studios or Universal Studios. And one could imagine how one would have created DHS or US or a Pixar Land in such a fabulous way that a studio-theme with many IPs would outshine any single-IP Land, but that's not how Disney is exercising their creativity right now. It's a laser beam focus on single-IP Lands.

Except TSL isn't on the level of Cars, Harry Potter, Avatar, etc. It's the DinoRama of single IP lands and not highly immersive at all.

 

[MisterPenguin]

Except TSL isn't on the level of Cars, Harry Potter, Avatar, etc. It's the DinoRama of single IP lands and not highly immersive at all.

Whether it's done well or poorly, that's a different issue from the why's of doing it that way in the first place.

 

[Mike S]

Whether it's done well or poorly, that's a different issue from the why's of doing it that way in the first place.

Your words.

Because the trend now is a heavily-themed single-IP completely-immersive Lands, like Potter, and Cars.

They're failing spectacularly at following this particular trend with TSL. It's not highly themed nor is it completely immersive. We've seen other lands like it before to know this.

It's cheap (by Disney standards) and lazy.