Toy Story Land expansion announced for Disney's Hollywood Studios

[ToTBellHop]

My issue with this project is that it doesn't seem it will meet its supposed purpose. It is purportedly a family land. DHS certainly needs that. But they are building one flat and a roller coaster likely to have a 40" height requirement. I fear it will suffer Stitch's fate. Wrong rides for the right audience. At least the soon-to-close "a bug's land" has good placemaking and appropriate kiddie rides. If this was going to be chock-full of flats and a kiddie coaster, I'd get it. But well-north of $100 million for this is nonsense. And using 10 acres is absurd.

For the record, I think e actual rides will be fun to ride. But I also think the newest coaster at my Six Flags looks fun. I expect a different caliber of attraction from Six Flags than I do from Disney, however.

I hope they can at least have consistent scale in our TSL. The Playlands fail in this area, which is surprising from WDI.

 

[Kman101]

So flat rides are more justified than a whip ride and coaster? If we got the playlands like Paris and Hong Kong folks would be ranting about that too and it would have been panned. It is a poor use of space, I agree with that. A third flat ride would have been nice and is needed. I appreciate them adding two rides I can go on and not feel out of place on.

 

[ToTBellHop]

So flat rides are more justified than a whip ride and coaster? If we got the playlands like Paris and Hong Kong folks would be ranting about that too and it would have been panned. It is a poor use of space, I agree with that. A third flat ride would have been nice and is needed. I appreciate them adding two rides I can go on and not feel out of place on.

A bunch of flat rides in five acres with immersive theming would be a welcome kiddie land, yes. They are building Star Wars Land for the grown ups.

I would have loved for us to get a full-fledged Pixar Land and Indy Land as envisioned two years ago, too. The ease with which this company burns through astronomical amounts of money is troubling.

 

[Castle Cake Apologist]

For the record, I think e actual rides will be fun to ride. But I also think the newest coaster at my Six Flags looks fun. I expect a different caliber of attraction from Six Flags than I do from Disney, however.

Exactly. I grew up in the Midwest and I absolutely adore our regional parks for what they are and I love riding the rides in them. I even have similar feelings for some of their rides as I do for rides at Disney... but I don't go Disney just for fun rides. I go to find myself completely lost in a different world. Granted, I'll be fair and admit that I'm basing my preliminary opinions of TSL on the concept art, but it just doesn't look that compelling.

I mean, consider the following: we've seen what these lands look like when they're finished, so the aesthetic isn't going to be that surprising. I've ridden Mater's, so other than a different skin on it, I've basically ridden the alien ride. Even people who haven't ridden its DCA twin can probably find a comparable ride experience at any number of regional parks or county fairs. The coaster I'm sure will be fun enough, but it appears all of the detail has been stripped from the budget, so now it's just a coaster. Disney released a concept ride through video as well, so we know what the coaster will be like, and it doesn't necessarily look like it's going to have a huge amount of thrills. Midway Mania is not a new experience, either. So, I guess I just don't know what there is to be excited about and I've yet to really see a compelling argument in its favor other than that DHS needs more family rides. Well, I certainly agree with that... but where is the imagination in this concept?

This is literally the company that invented the theme park, and this is the best they can give us for a family area based on one of the most successful and beloved film franchises in history?

I was excited for Pandora as soon as they started releasing concept art. I couldn't care less about the Star Wars films if I tried, but the concept art for that has me absolutely giddy to set foot in that land. I just don't get that feeling at all with the concept art for this. There is literally no thought put into these attractions, in my opinion They took an existing ride and changed the theme and then they chose a pretty generic looking roller coaster and slapped a Toy Story theme onto it.

I make these points so that it's clear that I'm not somebody who is constantly negative toward Disney. I have been a life long loyal fan and believe that the vast majority of their output is of the highest possible quality. Hell, I will have been an active member on these forums for sixteen years as of this Saturday! I obviously am somewhat fond of Disney, I don't have to be convinced of the value of WDW. I just really think that Imagineering is forced into some pretty ridiculous situations sometimes by management.

 

[ToTBellHop]

Exactly. I grew up in the Midwest and I absolutely adore our regional parks for what they are and I love riding the rides in them, and I even have similar feelings for some of their rides as I do for rides at Disney... but I don't go Disney just for fun rides. I go to find myself completely lost in a different world. Granted, I'll be fair and admit that I'm basing my preliminary opinions of TSL on the concept art, but it just doesn't look that compelling.

I mean, consider the following: we've seen what these lands look like when they're finished, so the aesthetic isn't going to be that surprising. I've ridden Mater's, so other than a different skin on it, I've basically ridden the alien ride. Even people who haven't ridden it's DCA can probably find a comparable ride at any number of regional parks. The coaster I'm sure will be fun enough, but it appears all of the detail has been stripped from the budget, so now it's just a coaster. Disney released a concept ride through video as well, so we know what the coaster will be like, and it doesn't necessarily look like it's going to have a huge amount of thrills. Midway Mania is not a new experience, either. So, I guess I just don't know what there is to be excited about and I've yet to really see a compelling argument in its favor other then DHS needs more family rides. Well, I certainly agree with that... but where is the imagination?

I was excited for Pandora as soon as they started releasing concept art. I couldn't care less about Star Wars if I tried, but the concept art for that has me absolutely giddy to set foot in that land. I just don't get that feeling at all with the concept art for this. There is literally no thought put into these attractions, in my opinion They took an existing ride and changed the theme and then they chose a pretty generic looking roller coaster and slapped a Toy Story theme onto it.

I make these points so that it's clear that I'm not somebody who is constantly negative toward Disney. I have been a life long loyal fan and believe that the vast majority of their output is of the highest possible quality. Hell, I will have been an active member on these forums for sixteen years as of this Saturday! I obviously am somewhat fond of Disney, I don't have to be convinced of the value of WDW. I just really think that Imagineering is forced into some pretty ridiculous situations sometimes by management.

Agreed. The Disney I grew up loving, if it was so hell-bent on another freaking Toy Story ride and needed it to be a roller coaster (I get it...the franchise prints money) would've built an indoor ride themed to Buzz's travels in space. Our version of Crush's Coaster.

Not this. I'm sure, taken in isolation, the coaster will be a fun enough diversion. When did "fun enough" become "enough for WDW"?

This is the company that built Space Mountain 42 years ago. Surely they can do better in 2017.

However, I still question the inclusion of the coaster altogether if it is meant to be a family-friendly land. They already have two thrill rides in the park that 4-year olds can ride (if brace enough). What purpose does another serve? If it is just to increase capacity, there are much more efficient uses for the space. Build an omnimover.

 

[Daveeeeed]

I feel like the only "skeleton" Coaster Disney has ever done that works is the California Screamin'. Screamin' looks very good throughout the land and fits thematically while being a very very good long Coaster. Slinky Dog Dash on the other hand does not look special at all and it is very short.

Toy Story Land will be a nice addition to the park (it will be better than Dino-Rama), but it isn't a very good addition.

I'm on my first Disneyland trip since yesterday, and it is so nice to have more rides in 2 parks than at all 4 Disney parks. Not to mention the waits are cut in half partly because of it.

Once again, WDW gets the short end of the stick.

But it isn't all doom and gloom... Hollywood Studios still has Tot (which by the way Gotg: MB is actually very fun... it just sticks out like a sore thumb except ironically in HollywoodLand as the buildings are tall so they block it) which was always the best one.


@marni1971 is the other new addition in Toy Story Land as a Phase 2?

 

[lazyboy97o]

I'm not even honestly sure that it could. What else can they do besides the tired "shrunk to the size of a toy in Andy's backyard" trope? Which can really only lend itself to oversized blades of grass and giant tinker toys.

This is why I said the term "immersion" is being misapplied. That trope is the immersion. If you are the size of a toy in a backyard, then toys and grass are bigger than they look to us. Being a children's toy means a lot of plastic and smooth surfaces. Immersion describes a level of attention (detail) but if your environment is one that is not engaging then no amount of immersion is going to fix that underlying problem. This is the whole problem with a studio lot setting because the setting is beige boxes and asphalt. You're attention to detail, no matter how great, is always focused on beige boxes and asphalt.

But they are building one flat and a roller coaster likely to have a 40" height requirement.

I still think there is a chance the heigh limit could be shockingly high. There is almost no variety in the height restriction among the Mack Launch Coasters.

 

[Daveeeeed]

Agreed. The Disney I grew up loving, if it was so hell-bent on another freaking Toy Story ride and needed it to be a roller coaster (I get it...the franchise prints money) would've built an indoor ride themed to Buzz's travels in space. Our version of Crush's Coaster.

Not this. I'm sure, taken in isolation, the coaster will be a fun enough diversion. When did "fun enough" become "enough for WDW"?

This is the company that built Space Mountain 42 years ago. Surely they can do better in 2017.

However, I still question the inclusion of the coaster altogether if it is meant to be a family-friendly land. They already have two thrill rides in the park that 4-year olds can ride (if brace enough). What purpose does another serve? If it is just to increase capacity, there are much more efficient uses for the space. Build an omnimover.

Crush's Coaster with a little more theming would be a superb ride to bring to the Studios. Obviously you would have to have trains and not just one cart loading at a time, but Crush reskinned to Buzz could work wonders.


Or a Woody's Roundup C-ticket

Or a Lincoln Logs Log Flume D-ticket

Sigh, but instead we end up with a C-ticket Coaster that looks uninteresting that probably cost them 3 times what it should have cost.

I feel so negative and I'm not usually this way... maybe because at Disneyland the resort actually has enough rides to satisfy demand. Anyway, I'm clearly more excited for Star Wars Land.

 

[Kman101]

A bunch of flat rides in five acres with immersive theming would be a welcome kiddie land, yes. They are building Star Wars Land for the grown ups.

I would have loved for us to get a full-fledged Pixar Land and Indy Land as envisioned two years ago, too. The ease with which this company burns through astronomical amounts of money is troubling.

Toy Story Land was clearly not meant for kiddies then. I've said it could have been better. I know there's a void to fill. Believe me I could armchair a lot of stuff and ideas that would be better.

So if Slinky was enclosed it's suddenly better? I agree they could have done better but I don't hate the concept. I'm not judging it based on what they could have done or what I personally want but what they're giving us.

I do understand where you're coming from though.

I'd much prefer a fleshed out Pixar Place, and Indy land, as I've said numerous times.

We're going in circles LOL.

 

[Castle Cake Apologist]

Wait. I just thought of something that has never really struck me as odd about the Toy Story Playlands, but now I can't unthink it.

If we're the size of toys in Andy's backyard, why are the other toys and the "grass" designed to be towering over us? Unless the grass isn't getting cut very often, it really shouldn't necessarily be that much larger than us if we are meant to be toy-sized. Unless we're very small toys. Are we ants?

 

[ToTBellHop]

Wait. I just thought of something that has never really struck me as odd about the Toy Story Playlands, but now I can't unthink it.

If we're the size of toys in Andy's backyard, why are the other toys and the "grass" designed to be towering over us? Unless the grass isn't getting cut very often, it really shouldn't necessarily be that much larger than us if we are meant to be toy-sized. Unless we're very small toys. Are we ants?

The scale is a complete fail. It is in the Playlands, too.

Personally, I don't think there should be any character figurines (basically making this an All-Star Resort land). If the conceit is that we are in the toy world, there should be appropriately-scaled place-settings and human-sized toy animatronics.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Wait. I just thought of something that has never really struck me as odd about the Toy Story Playlands, but now I can't unthink it.

If we're the size of toys in Andy's backyard, why are the other toys and the "grass" designed to be towering over us? Unless the grass isn't getting cut very often, it really shouldn't necessarily be that much larger than us if we are meant to be toy-sized. Unless we're very small toys. Are we ants?

This would be where the lands really fall short in immersion. As you already said, tall grass and large toys lack visual interest. The scale is therefore distorted to give the environment a sense of grandeur and interest. Woody's Round-Up is a concept much loved, but what would be the materials of such a toy setting? The textures and material richness of Frontierland (which is how immersion is achieved, but is not itself immersion) would be lost because the world is no longer built of those materials. The sets seen in Toy Story 2 appear to be a paper product. Even a fine, elaborate wood playset would loose its intricate textures as the scale increased.

 

[BlindChow]

They meant immersive land based on a hit Pixar property IMO. People have clung to them comparing it to Cars Land.

The actual quote is...

".. we take you into the world of Radiator Springs and that is exactly the level of immersion that we are aim for for Florida".

Bam! Leave it to danlb_2000 to bring facts to a vague assertion fight.

 

[Kman101]

Bam! Leave it to danlb_2000 to bring facts to a vague assertion fight.

LOL. You really don't like me do you?

I was well aware of what was said. I was interpreting it's meaning, suggesting a different way to take it, not trying to make it out to be something it wasn't.

 

[BlindChow]

That doesn't change the fact that the Toy Story Land aesthetic comes off as cheap. It looks more like over sized toy decorations and just doesn't translate well to a physical environment. The existing Toy Story Playlands don't offer any kind of immersive experience and are clearly just somewhat generic theme park rides meant to look like toys surrounded by more toys.

The same thing could've been said about DCA's Bug's Land. The concept art and rumors didn't do the land justice. There's quite a bit of amazing theming and detail there. I was impressed.

Now, I'm not saying the same will be true of TSL, but it isn't out of the realm of possibility...

 

[Castle Cake Apologist]

The same thing could've been said about DCA's Bug's Land. The concept art and rumors didn't do the land justice. There's quite a bit of amazing theming and detail there. I was impressed.

Now, I'm not saying the same will be true of TSL, but it isn't out of the realm of possibility...

I fully agree. I thought a bugs land was very well done, despite the relatively lower quality of the attractions within it.

I'm basing much of my conjecture on the fact that disney has already built two other Toy Story themed areas, just with a different attraction line-up. Those lands are pretty low quality. Based on the art that we've seen, I imagine this will be much of the same.

 

[wdisney9000]

Toy Story Land was clearly not meant for kiddies then. I've said it could have been better. I know there's a void to fill. Believe me I could armchair a lot of stuff and ideas that would be better.

So if Slinky was enclosed it's suddenly better? I agree they could have done better but I don't hate the concept. I'm not judging it based on what they could have done or what I personally want but what they're giving us.

I do understand where you're coming from though.

I'd much prefer a fleshed out Pixar Place, and Indy land, as I've said numerous times.

We're going in circles LOL.

All too often on these forms I see the same "acceptance with protest" attitude. It seems to be nothing more than a defense mechanism to deflect the truth that you simply do not like it, but perhaps you fear being vilified by the blindly loyal defenders of the Mouse who roam these halls to seek and destroy any dissent.

Fear not, they can cause you no harm. Only their keyboard will feel the pain as they smash those buttons furiously in an effort to silence you.

 

[Kman101]

I see the same thing and if it was directed at me, that's not the case for me, my posts should prove I don't really use a filter. I don't hate the concept. I can still like something and be critical of aspects of it in the same breath. I can also understand other's criticisms of it. But yes, I think some tip-toe around just saying they hate the concept instead they find things and present them as facts in an effort to "prove" it's bad.

I guess we could say I'm "torn" about the land. But I fully have admitted it's not what I'd have preferred. But it's what we're getting and I'm not going to lament "what if" they did something else.

 

[Kman101]

Bam! Leave it to danlb_2000 to bring facts to a vague assertion fight.

Did you see "IMO" or did you just want to try and stir it up? That post wasn't really called for.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

So if Slinky was enclosed it's suddenly better? I agree they could have done better but I don't hate the concept. I'm not judging it based on what they could have done or what I personally want but what they're giving us.

The way I read it, the idea of an enclosed Slinky isn't so much about making Slinky a better ride, it's about the aesthetic of the land itself. Many people have a gut-level negative reaction to exposed roller coaster track at Disney as a matter of principle. I don't know whether I agree or disagree, but I think that's the argument. I personally think that the Buzz Lightyear Hot Wheels scene in the original Toy Story is a better fit as a roller coaster in the land and would have worked well with exposed track, but that's obviously not in the cards.