DHS Toy Story Land expansion announced for Disney's Hollywood Studios

[RobbinsDad]

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.

Come on now. How many Pixar movies are we at now - 17 and growing? Why should Disney pigeon-hole all of its Pixar IP to one "land"? Makes no sense from their standpoint.

 

[DDLand]

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.

I don't agree with everything you said here, but this is thought provoking and interesting. Thanks for the post.

Though the new mission of Disney Hollywood Studios is "putting you inside the movies." That's a surprisingly weak goal. Uninspired at best.

I hope they've articulated a more effective constitution. Maybe something along the lines of 1) Classic (Disney®) stories inspire individuals to unleash their own creativity. 2) Important lessons can be imparted by going on adventure. 3) Families come together as they enter exotic worlds that challenge their limits and imagination. 4) Selling merch is good for the bottom line.

I know for a fact #4 is a theme of the 3rd gate.

 

[MisterPenguin]

Your words.

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.

OK, I'm not going to defend its execution. I was answering someone who wondered why a TSL over a PL and I tried to contextualize it.

 

[MisterPenguin]

Come on now. How many Pixar movies are we at now - 17 and growing? Why should Disney pigeon-hole all of its Pixar IP to one "land"? Makes no sense from their standpoint.

Well, there's your Fifth Gate: Pixar Kingdom!

 

[wdwgreek]

Hollywood Studios is a victim of it own success. The studio/ backlot theme itself is not a bad if excited well. Rematch the 1989 opening special. MGM was an amazing idea, the interactive attractions like monster sound stage brought guests into production and let them learn how movies were made. The attractions and shows were at the time top notch, although now dated.... the backlot tour was a long extended attraction with multiple stops, show scenes and interesting things to look at and do. The parkways a smash hit. With the advent of DVDs and the internet people's interest in behind the scenes, how its done faded, the inability to keep actual productions being produced in park lost the see it live sparkle. MGM has some amazing rides, look at the GMR the detail and the concept is not ground breaking, ride into the movies have been sound since the fantasyland dakrides in Disneyland, but the Great Movie ride did it on such a grand scale. This too has started to pass, even literal gun fights and explosions are boring now, if the movies being references aen'tfom the last ten yeas people don't care, Humphrey who? Gene what? Sunset Boulevard is a beautiful thoroughfare with tower of terror being an immaculate weenie. But Toy story land, especially watered down TSL I fear will be such a mismatch to the rest of the park, even SWL will be detailed and immersive. Overall MGM/ DHS/ (whatever the future holds) will still bare the scares of its akward growth spurts and cultural shifts.

 

[doctornick]

Come on now. How many Pixar movies are we at now - 17 and growing? Why should Disney pigeon-hole all of its Pixar IP to one "land"? Makes no sense from their standpoint.

Well, there's no reason they would pingeonhole all of the movies into one land. They could put as few or as many as appropriate for the space. Other Pixar stuff could still be used elsewhere as well (e.g. Bug's Life in DAK, Nemo in DAK & Epcot, etc.).

 

[MrHappy]

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 agree with @MisterPenguin, creating a Pixar land with Monsters, Toy Story, Inside Out, Incredibles, Nemo, etc minimizes each great franchise and their potential, as well as creates a convoluted "land". It's like putting a fence around Indiana Jones Stunt Show and the new Star Wars land and calling it LucasVille. I'd rather each Pixar movie stand on it's own where appropriate and let it breathe. Wouldn't it be great for a Radiator Spring Cars ride to replace that track in MK, and maybe a Big Hero attraction in FW or Epcot, Rat in WS? And so on.

 

[djkidkaz]

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

Isn't that always though? When is the last time Disney built an attraction or land that was up to your standards and was on or under budget?

 

[marni1971]

Isn't that always though? When is the last time Disney built an attraction or land that was up to your standards and was on or under budget?

I've not ridden Mystic Manor or Shanghais pirates yet but they seem to have high standards.

New build in WDW? Tower of Terror. Honourable mention to Kilimanjaro.

I'll also add Horizons opened on time, had the highest standards, and came in 10 million under the original budget as required. So it's not unheard of.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

I've not ridden Mystic Manor or Shanghais pirates yet but they seem to have high standards.

New build in WDW? Tower of Terror. Honourable mention to Kilimanjaro.

I'll also add Horizons opened on time, had the highest standards, and came in 10 million under the original budget as required. So it's not unheard of.

Would you also say Radiator Springs Racers?

 

[marni1971]

Would you also say Radiator Springs Racers?

Probably. If we're in DL I'd have to also add Indy. But we're going back 20 odd years now.

 

[Mike S]

Come on now. How many Pixar movies are we at now - 17 and growing? Why should Disney pigeon-hole all of its Pixar IP to one "land"? Makes no sense from their standpoint.

Not every single one would get a ride or other big presence. Wall-E for example I feel would be fine with just bringing out the free roaming AA they made for meeting guests.

Well, there's no reason they would pingeonhole all of the movies into one land. They could put as few or as many as appropriate for the space. Other Pixar stuff could still be used elsewhere as well (e.g. Bug's Life in DAK, Nemo in DAK & Epcot, etc.).

Exactly. Bug's Life and Finding Nemo already have a presence elsewhere and wouldn't need to be in DHS unless they moved the musical.

I agree with @MisterPenguin, creating a Pixar land with Monsters, Toy Story, Inside Out, Incredibles, Nemo, etc minimizes each great franchise and their potential, as well as creates a convoluted "land". It's like putting a fence around Indiana Jones Stunt Show and the new Star Wars land and calling it LucasVille. I'd rather each Pixar movie stand on it's own where appropriate and let it breathe. Wouldn't it be great for a Radiator Spring Cars ride to replace that track in MK, and maybe a Big Hero attraction in FW or Epcot, Rat in WS? And so on.

That's not the spot for Cars, Big Hero is not Pixar, Rat would be fine as the main restaurant in Pixar Place.

 

[MrHappy]

That's not the spot for Cars, Big Hero is not Pixar, Rat would be fine as the main restaurant in Pixar Place.

Those were quick examples of how each movie franchise can play out more relevantly around the parks, certainly not very well thought out on my part. The strategy remains that just because a group of movies came from one studio doesn't mean they need to be placed into one (relatively little) area. Most park goers maybe unaware of the production company involved in the creation of the movie(s) and just see a mis-mosh of a land.

 

[DinoInstitute]

Most park goers maybe unaware of the production company involved in the creation of the movie(s) and just see a mis-mosh of a land.

Honestly I highly doubt that's the case. I could see people mixing up the modern ones like Brave or The Good Dinosaur with Zootopia or Wreck it Ralph, but I'm sure most guests would know what the "classic" Pixar films are and would understand them being in a Pixar land.

 

[Mike S]

Honestly I highly doubt that's the case. I could see people mixing up the modern ones like Brave or The Good Dinosaur with Zootopia or Wreck it Ralph, but I'm sure most guests would know what the "classic" Pixar films are and would understand them being in a Pixar land.

I'm not calling for Brave or Good Dinosaur to even appear there either.

 

[PizzaPlanet]

I'm not calling for Brave or Good Dinosaur to even appear there either.

If only you really were calling the shots for Pixar Place...

 

[doctornick]

My thought for a Pixar Place concept would be a modern urban landscape. Nominally, you would take cues from the actual Pixar Studios campus. You could easily fit in a number of Pixar properties that would blend together -- Incredibles ride based on Metroville, a Monsters Inc sub area with some monstrous puns and sight gags with a ride/show/Harry Hausen's food, a Ratatouille ride and/or restaurant (Remy's), Inside Out or Up could also be in the mix. This would be in addition to already existing TSM.

Would there be a good "theme" beyond something like, you are touring the Pixar facilities and it takes you into the movies themselves? No, not really, but architecturally it could be harmonious and work. And it would be far more flexible in the future than a single IP land like Toy Story Land.

 

[jt04]

My thought for a Pixar Place concept would be a modern urban landscape. Nominally, you would take cues from the actual Pixar Studios campus. You could easily fit in a number of Pixar properties that would blend together -- Incredibles ride based on Metroville, a Monsters Inc sub area with some monstrous puns and sight gags with a ride/show/Harry Hausen's food, a Ratatouille ride and/or restaurant (Remy's), Inside Out or Up could also be in the mix. This would be in addition to already existing TSM.

Would there be a good "theme" beyond something like, you are touring the Pixar facilities and it takes you into the movies themselves? No, not really, but architecturally it could be harmonious and work. And it would be far more flexible in the future than a single IP land like Toy Story Land.

Well said. And I still think the GMR will or at least or should set the stage for the park. The 'lands' will not be presented as working studios anymore apparently. But they can work as 'showcases' for Disney films. Just as World Showcase highlights nations. It doesn't even have to be overtly explained as it will work intuitively. Especially if the table is set by a reimagined GMR.

IMO.

 

[DDLand]

Honestly I highly doubt that's the case. I could see people mixing up the modern ones like Brave or The Good Dinosaur with Zootopia or Wreck it Ralph, but I'm sure most guests would know what the "classic" Pixar films are and would understand them being in a Pixar land.

Pixar is within a unique pantheon of movie studios that transcend their franchises and have become powerful brands in themselves. Disney and Marvel are two others. How many people say "I want to go see that new 20th Century movie?" Or "I try to go to every Universal movie?"

Odds are you haven't.

I do think recently they've been eroding some of that value with some of their sequels and misfires. Inside Out did reassure me somewhat.

Not that any of that makes it a good theme park land, but I agree 100%.

 

[Mike S]

Pixar is within a unique pantheon of movie studios that transcend their franchises and have become powerful brands in themselves. Disney and Marvel are two others. How many people say "I want to go see that new 20th Century movie?" Or "I try to go to every Universal movie?"

Odds are you haven't.

I do think recently they've been eroding some of that value with some of their sequels and misfires. Inside Out did reassure me somewhat.

Not that any of that makes it a good theme park land, but I agree 100%.

Add in the fact that Disney is actually going to be building "Marvel" Lands rather than "Iron Man Land," "Thor Land (Asgard)," etc.