Toy Story Land expansion announced for Disney's Hollywood Studios

[Bairstow]

I think I've probably said this once or twice before, but I really really lament losing Pixar Place. From the art we've seen of Toy Story Land so far, it just doesn't look anywhere near as engaging to me. It just seems like building a clone of one of the Monsters, Inc. dark rides in the empty soundstages and adding a flat ride (or something along those lines) would have been a wiser investment.

Can't say I share the sentiment.
Any move away from the blocky, industrial look of the "studios" version of this park, red bricks or no, is a step in the right direction.

What exactly about the Pixar Place approach appealed to you?

 

[HMF]

Can't say I share the sentiment.
Any move away from the blocky, industrial look of the "studios" version of this park, red bricks or no, is a step in the right direction.

What exactly about the Pixar Place approach appealed to you?

I know why it appealed to me. It would have been a place to shove the Pixar properties so they wouldn't continue to pop up in uncomfortable places like Tomorrowland and Epcot.

 

[Ripken10]

I'm not convinced of that.

The movies that better translate to wholly immersive lands are ones where a unique "World" has been established. Harry Potter created a World, Star Wars a Universe, Pandora a World, Cars a world. Toy Story largely takes place in our reality other than Toys coming to life. Yes, they can make the area look like Andy's back yard but oversized props don't work as well as unique architecture or nature.

While I do agree with you, I also think that to a child, a large toy IS immersive to them. So for a young child, this is exactly what they are going for. IMO, and this is why I believe most of us (most of us, as much as we may believe we do) don't see the world the way a young child does. Again my opinion, but I see it similar to how a small child will play with a cardboard box and have just as much fun as they do with that expensive toy that was in the cardboard box.

 

[ToTBellHop]

While I do agree with you, I also think that to a child, a large toy IS immersive to them. So for a young child, this is exactly what they are going for. IMO, and this is why I believe most of us (most of us, as much as we may believe we do) don't see the world the way a young child does. Again my opinion, but I see it similar to how a small child will play with a cardboard box and have just as much fun as they do with that expensive toy that was in the cardboard box.

Indeed. And that child will love seeing the centerpiece ride in the area that he/she is not tall enough to ride.

 

[Bairstow]

Indeed. And that child will love seeing the centerpiece ride in the area that he/she is not tall enough to ride.

What's the rumored height requirement for Slinky dog? 39"?

 

[Andrew C]

What's the rumored height requirement for Slinky dog? 39"?

Seems like a 40" to me...so an average 4 year old should be able to ride. But nothing to back that up.

 

[Next Big Thing]

Indeed. And that child will love seeing the centerpiece ride in the area that he/she is not tall enough to ride.

Most children that are 4+ are tall enough to ride a 38-40" ride. My sister is only 7 and has been riding Space Mountain for 3 years.

 

[Kman101]

Indeed. And that child will love seeing the centerpiece ride in the area that he/she is not tall enough to ride.

And then next year they can ride. A child is only not tall enough for so long. I agree they need more rides for little ones though and that's one aspect where this land misses the mark.

 

[Andrew C]

I agree they need more rides for little ones though and that's one aspect where this land misses the mark.

well, if that happens, people will just go back to complaining that they are turning WDW into a toddler-land. lol

 

[Andrew C]

I would guess 38"- same as 7DMT- based on intensity, but it will all depend on the restraints. If it's 40"- thats same as BTMRR, Splash, Dinosaur, etc- all of which (ride-wise) are more intense than 7D and Slinky will be.

At 38"- if you're 4- then you're able to ride it- most 3 year olds will also- unless you just have tiny genetics.

My 4 year old is not yet 40 inches to be honest. Close. But not yet. Lol.

38 inches, yes.

 

[Kman101]

well, if that happens, people will just go back to complaining that they are turning WDW into a toddler-land. lol

Exactly. They can't win either way

 

[Goofnut1980]

I hope the outside of the building becomes larger than life, so we feel toy-sized when we walk thru the gates!

 

[ToTBellHop]

I would guess 38"- same as 7DMT- based on intensity, but it will all depend on the restraints. If it's 40"- thats same as BTMRR, Splash, Dinosaur, etc- all of which (ride-wise) are more intense than 7D and Slinky will be.

At 38"- if you're 4- then you're able to ride it- most 3 year olds will also- unless you just have tiny genetics.

When did you ride Slinky to make that assessment?

It's a coaster with two launches. How many Mack launched coasters have you ridden that are tamer than Big Thunder?

 

[Thanks phoenicians]

Any guess as to what the launch will be? 0-30 in 2 seconds or something?

 

[ToTBellHop]

*yawn* The tried and true "You haven't ridden it, so you can't form an opinion" comment.
So I am limited to the 7 Launch Coasters that Mack has created for comparison purposes? All of which are roughly 62mph with height requirements of 51" with multiple inversions- the only exception being Manta at 43mph/48".

So, according to you, since neither of us have ridden it, we have to compare it to other Mack Launch Coasters.
So it will be a 60mph launch coaster with inversions, and you need to be 51" to ride.

Or, I don't know- this is more of a junior coaster that will be a tamed down version of the 7 previous launch coasters they have built.

You know best. I'm sure they are completely reinventing the launched coaster for Disney so 3-year olds can ride.

 

[Thanks phoenicians]

FTFY

But yes, for the record- I believe this will be the slowest and smallest height requirement launch coaster in the world. Considering the lowest height requirement for any launch coaster from any of the major manufacturers (not just Mack) right now is 47"- and thats a Vekoma.

What about firechaser express at Dollywood? Minimum is 39" and I believe it's considered a launch. Don't know who the manufacturer is though.

 

[Andrew C]

That's almost exactly what I'm expecting. A 20 mph 2 second launch and a kiddie coaster right along those lines- and definitely less intense than BTMRR.

I am thinking it will be a bit faster than that, just looking at the track layout and some of the turns, banks, and dips included (or at least feel faster).

 

[PorterRedkey]

You know best. I'm sure they are completely reinventing the launched coaster for Disney so 3-year olds can ride.

How fast can the launch possible be when the track is so short? Mack doesn't have to "reinvent" their launch coaster, they can simply lower the launch speed. Manta in San Diego by MACK is a probably the best comparison to Slinky Dog. It is not very high and has 2 launches. However, the track length for Manta looks to be longer than SD.
Manta has a top speed of 43 mph, and it has a 48" height requirement. Manta's largest drop is 54'.
If Disney wants to have a lower height requirement to be lower than Manta they will need to do a few things different.

• SD will need to be slower than Manta.
• SD will not have as high/steep of a drop.
• SD may need a different restraint to accommodate shorter guests safely (if the 1st two actions don't so the trick).

 

[ToTBellHop]

How fast can the launch possible be when the track is so short? Mack doesn't have to "reinvent" their launch coaster, they can simply lower the launch speed. Manta in San Diego by MACK is a probably the best comparison to Slinky Dog. It is not very high and has 2 launches. However, the track length for Manta looks to be longer than SD.
Manta has a top speed of 43 mph, and it has a 48" height requirement. Manta's largest drop is 54'.
If Disney wants to have a lower height requirement to be lower than Manta they will need to do a few things different.

• SD will need to be slower than Manta.
• SD will not have as high/steep of a drop.
• SD may need a different restraint to accommodate shorter guests safely (if the 1st two actions don't so the trick).

And the peaks on Slinky look to be about 50' high. I would guess 35-40 mph.

 

[Kman101]

Why couldn't they have added, say, a Carousel to the land? Wasn't that one of the options for the land at one time or was that just a rumor? While I'm glad Slinky and AsSaucers aren't 3 and under specific I do think DHS needs a few other things for the smaller crowd to do. Not sure even a regular Pixar Place would have solved that problem though. Too bad they wasted Toy Story on a shooter ride when they had one already in Buzz. Toy Story could have been a great dark ride and filled a need for the park.

The park still needs more than the four rides they're getting.