Toy Story Land expansion announced for Disney's Hollywood Studios

[ToTBellHop]

We are tourists on a never ending quest to find fault with everything ever done at Disney since Walt died.

I get so tired of this argument. There are very few people here who complain about EVERYTHING. But everything has at least one person who doesn't like it.

Kind of like everything else in the world. I was shocked to find there are real people who don't like puppies, for example.

There's actually only one poster I can think of on these boards who has remained, continually complains, and also throws in proclamations of the downfall of Disney.

This land has been controversial from the start. If you are tired of people complaining, why click on it? You seem reasonably intellectual, so do you just enjoy being combative and reminding people how annoying and immature they are?

We are all members of a Walt Disney World fan community, are we not?

 

[danlb_2000]

So have we yet figured out what our role is in this land? Now that we've seen the model, it's clear that we're not toys, unless we're incredibly tiny ones. Are we insects? Bacteria?

You are you...

"In 2018, you’ll find yourself shrunk to the size of a toy to explore the world of Andy’s backyard with your favorite Toy Story characters"

Are there any rides where you play a role other then yourself?

 

[marni1971]

We are tourists on a never ending quest to find fault with everything ever done at Disney since Walt died.

EPCOT Center was brilliant. And that was 16 years after Walt died.

The Star Tours overlay and Mansion refurbishment were very good too.

 

[Goofyernmost]

I get so tired of this argument. There are very few people here who complain about EVERYTHING. But everything has at least one person who doesn't like it.

Kind of like everything else in the world. I was shocked to find there are real people who don't like puppies, for example.

There's actually only one poster I can think of on these boards who has remained, continually complains, and also throws in proclamations of the downfall of Disney.

This land has been controversial from the start. If you are tired of people complaining, why click on it? You seem reasonably intellectual, so do you just enjoy being combative and reminding people how annoying and immature they are?

We are all members of a Walt Disney World fan community, are we not?

Nope, not combative, just terminally sarcastic. It's hard to tell the difference in printed media, but, a sense of humor about Disney would be a healthy thing to have. That along with a healthy realization of the difference between fantasy and reality.

I actually questioned that size vs. reality idea about this land and you know what? Who the hell cares? If someone cannot muster up enough imagination to get enjoyment out of play acting with giant kid toys... that is their loss. I think it will just be fun. The rest of you serious to a fault nellies can be disappointed or angry to within an inch of your lives. It's not going to affect my enjoyment of my adult to child experiences. New humanity model... "let's not have a clue about anything, but, overthink the hell out of it".

The other thing to "over think" would be the fact that if what I said doesn't apply to you... I apparently wasn't talking to or about you. So that advice about moving on past it... seems like a good thing to do.

 

[Goofyernmost]

EPCOT Center was brilliant. And that was 16 years after Walt died.

The Star Tours overlay and Mansion refurbishment were very good too.

Yup, and apparently, with the exception of a select few, you, me and a few others EPCOT was also negatively judged, if not by words, then by action due to the declining attendance over time causing the jumble that we now have there. So two out of how many hundreds of things since then? I think my summary is fairly accurate. For many of us, if something was replaced that we really liked, then that replacement was automatically junk. Star Tours and Mansion wasn't replaced just plus'd. How did we react to the imagination change even through to 3.0? (that, of course, wasn't plus'd, it was minus'd and still minus'd later, but, better, just barely)

 

[Casper Gutman]

Yup, and apparently, with the exception of a select few, you, me and a few others EPCOT was also negatively judged, if not by words, then by action due to the declining attendance over time causing the jumble that we now have there. So two out of how many hundreds of things since then? I think my summary is fairly accurate. For many of us, if something was replaced that we really liked, then that replacement was automatically junk. Star Tours and Mansion wasn't replaced just plus'd. How did we react to the imagination change even through to 3.0? (that, of course, wasn't plus'd, it was minus'd and still minus'd later, but, better, just barely)

The great original EPCOT was not killed by declining attendance. I'm pretty sure Marni has addressed this before (if not, he can correct me). The declining attendance thing is a misrepresentation that has been propagated (not necessarily by you, I should note) to make management's disastrous decisions look inevitable and to displace the blame onto foolish guests whose minds have been rotted by a debased culture. In fact, EPCOT was killed by WDW execs making conscious but panicky and poorly-thought-out decisions based on internal politics and an egregious misreading of the theme park industry, the economic situation, and broader cultural change. And those initial bad decisions were then systematically compounded by two decades of awful choices linked to a broken corporate culture that failed to understand the parks in a meaningful way.

In my opinion, WDW has done many great things even after EPCOT opened. MGM, though it was too small at its debut, contained seeds of greatness, and Sunset Blvd and ToT are utter masterpieces. AK was and remains an excellent park, WDW's most coherent and immersive. I even like Dinoland! NFL was too tight and confined, but what is there is beautiful, and Mermaid is a fine dark ride that gets a bad rap.

People's attitudes to ride replacements are hard to judge because WDW has been so bad at them. I personally (and these are controversial opinions) think Buzz and Nemo are upgrades and Pooh is a lateral move that I'm fine with as long as Toad remains in DL. Every other replacement has been a disaster, and EPCOT in particular is so absurdly egregious that it overwhelms any minor improvements elsewhere.

 

[marni1971]

Yup, and apparently, with the exception of a select few, you, me and a few others EPCOT was also negatively judged, if not by words, then by action due to the declining attendance over time )

Ironically EPCOT Center's attendance rose through the 80s. Even today it hasn't returned to attendance figures seen during its first decade.

Amazing I know.

 

[Goofyernmost]

The great original EPCOT was killed by declining attendance. I'm pretty sure Marni has addressed this before (if not, he can correct me). The declining attendance thing is a misrepresentation that has been propagated (not necessarily by you, I should note) to make management's disastrous decisions look inevitable and to displace the blame onto foolish guests whose minds have been rotted by a debased culture. In fact, EPCOT was killed by WDW execs making conscious but panicky and poorly-thought-out decisions based on internal politics and an egregious misreading of the theme park industry, the economic situation, and broader cultural change. And those initial bad decisions were then systematically compounded by two decades of awful choices linked to a broken corporate culture that failed to understand the parks in a meaningful way.

In my opinion, WDW has done many great things even after EPCOT opened. MGM, though it was too small at its debut, contained seeds of greatness, and Sunset Blvd and ToT are utter masterpieces. AK was and remains an excellent park, WDW's most coherent and immersive. I even like Dinoland! NFL was too tight and confined, but what is there is beautiful, and Mermaid is a fine dark ride that gets a bad rap.

People's attitudes to ride replacements are hard to judge because WDW has been so bad at them. I personally (and these are controversial opinions) think Buzz and Nemo are upgrades and Pooh is a lateral move that I'm fine with as long as Toad remains in DL. Every other replacement has been a disaster, and EPCOT in particular is so absurdly egregious that it overwhelms any minor improvements elsewhere.

Can't say I agree with all of what you are saying, but, most of it I do agree with. Bad Rap, is the key phrase listed. That Bad Rap is exactly what I was commenting, sarcastically, on. I don't believe that anyone panicked about Epcot, but, the changes were because the cash register wasn't showing enough hits to not at least try and figure out why. Yes, it was a great park to many of us, but, we, alone, are not paying the bills. As a (dirty word coming up) business the bottom line is the total motivator. Without a bottom line that is living up to expectations, there is no incentive to keep it the same unless one is running a museum. If EPCOT had been holding up or even showing signs of increased performance it would still be the way it was right through to today. You don't see MK being altered all that much because it is holding up. Many of the attractions, as you know, have been there since basically the beginning. Not really changing, not really doing anything different, yet untouched by the slicing blade of corporate management. I suppose as outsiders it is easy for us to say, well, they are doing alright overall, so why not keep things the way they were? Because it cannot be sustained. That's not to say or even imply that what they did in the line of change helped either.

They are obligated to follow the money. That doesn't always set well with purists, but, it is a fact of financial life. Without that attitude, WDW could end up a 42 square mile swamp again. We tend to lose sight of things like that. In our quest to insist that everything live up to our personal measure of perfection, we could easily lose it all if we had our way. In my opinion the current management position is that we need more MK because that is holding strong where other areas are marginal and require a lot of effort to maintain that. Do we like that... heck no. We wants the redhead. We want it all to be exactly as we remembered things. Times change, people change, priorities change. It is really a life reality that we either adjust or die. In many ways a Theme Park is a living thing. We, as humans, are all basically alike with a few personality exceptions. That's the direction I see the parks moving. DHS died when it stopped being a working studio. It's mission and it's focus died that same day. Since then it has been floundering on life support and now has a chance for a transplant. The only thing they did wrong with that was wait way to long to schedule those surgeries.

Now we get... how is the size going to fit in with the fantasy. Which has always been in our court anyway. Disney can sell us tickets, but, we have to bring in our own imaginations. It's only up to Disney to provide "one little spark" then we have to take over from there. If we cannot do that... then we are the only ones standing between ourselves and enjoyment.

 

[rreading]

Ironically EPCOT Center's attendance rose through the 80s. Even today it hasn't returned to attendance figures seen during its first decade.

Amazing I know.

I would hope that, as the last bastion of EPCOT Center, and the core feature of the park, that SSE should be sacrosanct. However, there seem to be murmurings about a dramatic change. I suppose that were they to overhaul (remove) each last ideal of EPCOT Center, then SSE should go under the knife as well...but assuming that WDW continues to intend Epcot to maintain a modest impression of sophistication and history, it should be maintained.

So far as we know, does SSE maintain a guest satisfaction which should support its continued existence?

 

[Goofyernmost]

Ironically EPCOT Center's attendance rose through the 80s. Even today it hasn't returned to attendance figures seen during its first decade.

Amazing I know.

No, not amazing to me. The first decade is when it should have had the highest numbers. It was new, it was different and the public hadn't had a chance yet to determine if it was "their thing" or not. With only a couple of changes, not much happened until the 90's that's when the excitement had died off and people made choices as to where they wanted to spend their time.

We cannot on one hand say that Disney only thinks about money and then say that it was doing well. They may not be the brightest bulbs on the tree, but, they don't throw away profit for absolutely no reason. Instead of doing what they are doing now, they just made it into a giant bar to get the profits they felt they needed for the area and expense that it incurred. The money angle goes hand in hand with the motivation. If the money is still coming in at expected rates then they will not spend billions to fix something that isn't broken. They, by all our admissions are to damn frugal to do that. Of course, some bad management decisions were made in how they tried to fix the problem, but, trying to fix the problems were not the mistakes.

 

[Goofyernmost]

I would hope that, as the last bastion of EPCOT Center, and the core feature of the park, that SSE should be sacrosanct. However, there seem to be murmurings about a dramatic change. I suppose that were they to overhaul (remove) each last ideal of EPCOT Center, then SSE should go under the knife as well...but assuming that WDW continues to intend Epcot to maintain a modest impression of sophistication and history, it should be maintained.

So far as we know, does SSE maintain a guest satisfaction which should support its continued existence?

I don't think SSE is in any danger of drastic change. Some, yes, and needed, but, overall it is thought of as essential to the life of the park as a heart is to a human.

 

[Casper Gutman]

Can't say I agree with all of what you are saying, but, most of it I do agree with. Bad Rap, is the key phrase listed. That Bad Rap is exactly what I was commenting, sarcastically, on. I don't believe that anyone panicked about Epcot, but, the changes were because the cash register wasn't showing enough hits to not at least try and figure out why. Yes, it was a great park to many of us, but, we, alone, are not paying the bills. As a (dirty word coming up) business the bottom line is the total motivator. Without a bottom line that is living up to expectations, there is no incentive to keep it the same unless one is running a museum. If EPCOT had been holding up or even showing signs of increased performance it would still be the way it was right through to today. You don't see MK being altered all that much because it is holding up. Many of the attractions, as you know, have been there since basically the beginning. Not really changing, not really doing anything different, yet untouched by the slicing blade of corporate management. I suppose as outsiders it is easy for us to say, well, they are doing alright overall, so why not keep things the way they were? Because it cannot be sustained. That's not to say or even imply that what they did in the line of change helped either.

They are obligated to follow the money. That doesn't always set well with purists, but, it is a fact of financial life. Without that attitude, WDW could end up a 42 square mile swamp again. We tend to lose sight of things like that. In our quest to insist that everything live up to our personal measure of perfection, we could easily lose it all if we had our way. In my opinion the current management position is that we need more MK because that is holding strong where other areas are marginal and require a lot of effort to maintain that. Do we like that... heck no. We wants the redhead. We want it all to be exactly as we remembered things. Times change, people change, priorities change. It is really a life reality that we either adjust or die. In many ways a Theme Park is a living thing. We, as humans, are all basically alike with a few personality exceptions. That's the direction I see the parks moving. DHS died when it stopped being a working studio. It's mission and it's focus died that same day. Since then it has been floundering on life support and now has a chance for a transplant. The only thing they did wrong with that was wait way to long to schedule those surgeries.

Now we get... how is the size going to fit in with the fantasy. Which has always been in our court anyway. Disney can sell us tickets, but, we have to bring in our own imaginations. It's only up to Disney to provide "one little spark" then we have to take over from there. If we cannot do that... then we are the only ones standing between ourselves and enjoyment.

My primary difference with you here is that you give executives much more credit for making rational decisions based on a full examination of the facts and a clear understanding of their goals then I do. Like any closed, insular community, groups of corporate executives can propagate very bad ideas - they become echo chambers in which everyone parrots the same flawed ideas or in which minor issues are viewed as catastrophes and catastrophes as minor issues. This is frequently exacerbated by the fact that, at the highest decision-making levels, execs are surrounded by layers of yes-men and often not held responsible for their bad ideas.

Proof of this can be found in WDW's reaction to AK. AK opened but didn't boast attendance. Execs concluded attendance COULDN'T be boosted and existing fans had to be milked of every penny. The billion dollar boondoggle of MM+ and rampant price increases ensue. Then Uni opens HP and it becomes abundantly clear that WDW execs were profoundly wrong. Yet they cling to the idea for several more years until it becomes untenable. Billions and billions has been wasted, the long-term health of the parks has been damaged (perhaps irreparably) and Uni has gained huge amounts of ground on WDW - all because of a bad reading of a situation based on arrogance. And Iger is still safe and secure.

As Marni said, attendance in EPCOT was increasing. But Disney execs were panicking, largely because of a new, fleeting, hollow paradigm in pop culture. If you read the entertainment trade press at the time, it's laughable - every corporation was obsessed with being "edgy" and "in-your-face" and catering to the "MTV generation" (think Poochy). It's a great example of a moment when execs in multiple companies become obsessed with a new idea that was blown out of all reasonable proportion and failed to examine the assumptions that lay behind it. The preoccupation with "edginess" wasn't an idea that stemmed from a rational appraisal of market changes and a consideration of the long-term health of entertainment companies, it was a mass of groupthink and catchphrases that resulted in stupid decisions. And here was Disney, faced with "edgy," "in-your-face" Universal. Oh No! We have to cater to the teenage audience, the only one that matters!! Tear down that stodgy EPCOT and build some poorly-thought out new rides, quick! And all of this foolishness was tied to Eisner's weakening corporate position and a lot of other things going on within the company.

EPCOT was killed by bad executive decisions stemming from a deeply flawed corporate culture.

And as to MGM, it shows that the same situation persists. They ARE adding - as little as they feel they can get away with, while removing good attractions to save money, and with no concern for a unified theme. TSL is a big neon sign that the same stupidity that killed EPCOT and resulted in the stagnation of the parks for over a decade still drives decision-making.

 

[marni1971]

I don't think SSE is in any danger of drastic change. Some, yes, and needed, but, overall it is thought of as essential to the life of the park as a heart is to a human.

It certainly isn't sacrosanct. Just hope there still enough execs (of which there are many) who still treasure the current style of attraction.

I'd love to stop and chat some more but am enjoying a day at Seaworld

 

[wdrive]

We're toys. The scale is fluid because the scale among toys is fluid. Green Army Men should be the same height as Woody since they're both representations of adult males, but they're much smaller than Woody.

If such fluidic change in scale melts one's brain, then I certainly hope one stayed away from any M&Gs with Woody and GAM and discovered they're the same height!

When children play with toys with such disparate scales, they generally just don't care. "Mommy, why isn't Mr. Potato Head the size of a Green Army Man fist?"

The scale isn't fluid. Clearly in the movies Woody is taller than any Green Army Man. Disney bangs on and on about it's 'immersive environments' etc yet they clearly only care about that when it suits them.

Meet and greets are an entirely different cattle of fish.

 

[Goofyernmost]

My primary difference with you here is that you give executives much more credit for making rational decisions based on a full examination of the facts and a clear understanding of their goals then I do. Like any closed, insular community, groups of corporate executives can propagate very bad ideas - they become echo chambers in which everyone parrots the same flawed ideas or in which minor issues are viewed as catastrophes and catastrophes as minor issues. This is frequently exacerbated by the fact that, at the highest decision-making levels, execs are surrounded by layers of yes-men and often not held responsible for their bad ideas.

Proof of this can be found in WDW's reaction to AK. AK opened but didn't boast attendance. Execs concluded attendance COULDN'T be boosted and existing fans had to be milked of every penny. The billion dollar boondoggle of MM+ and rampant price increases ensue. Then Uni opens HP and it becomes abundantly clear that WDW execs were profoundly wrong. Yet they cling to the idea for several more years until it becomes untenable. Billions and billions has been wasted, the long-term health of the parks has been damaged (perhaps irreparably) and Uni has gained huge amounts of ground on WDW - all because of a bad reading of a situation based on arrogance. And Iger is still safe and secure.

As Marni said, attendance in EPCOT was increasing. But Disney execs were panicking, largely because of a new, fleeting, hollow paradigm in pop culture. If you read the entertainment trade press at the time, it's laughable - every corporation was obsessed with being "edgy" and "in-your-face" and catering to the "MTV generation" (think Poochy). It's a great example of a moment when execs in multiple companies become obsessed with a new idea that was blown out of all reasonable proportion and failed to examine the assumptions that lay behind it. The preoccupation with "edginess" wasn't an idea that stemmed from a rational appraisal of market changes and a consideration of the long-term health of entertainment companies, it was a mass of groupthink and catchphrases that resulted in stupid decisions. And here was Disney, faced with "edgy," "in-your-face" Universal. Oh No! We have to cater to the teenage audience, the only one that matters!! Tear down that stodgy EPCOT and build some poorly-thought out new rides, quick! And all of this foolishness was tied to Eisner's weakening corporate position and a lot of other things going on within the company.

EPCOT was killed by bad executive decisions stemming from a deeply flawed corporate culture.

And as to MGM, it shows that the same situation persists. They ARE adding - as little as they feel they can get away with, while removing good attractions to save money, and with no concern for a unified theme. TSL is a big neon sign that the same stupidity that killed EPCOT and resulted in the stagnation of the parks for over a decade still drives decision-making.

You may be right, I have no inside information about the decision process used at Disney. I do think that it is oversimplification to just blame it on bad management. The idea that something different was needed was generated from someplace, be it guest response or outside speculation. But, I still maintain that if EPCOT had been blowing the doors of in attendance, it would still be EPCOT Ctr. and not what it had/has become. But, I cannot prove that, so I will stop the resistance. (Disney related only. )

 

[Castle Cake Apologist]

You are you...

"In 2018, you’ll find yourself shrunk to the size of a toy to explore the world of Andy’s backyard with your favorite Toy Story characters"

Are there any rides where you play a role other then yourself?

Yet the other toys are literally towering over us. Even the green army men, who are relatively small toys, look like they will be much larger than us in the model.
The scale issues with the various Toy Story Lands aren't really a secret. It just all kind of looks like a nicer version of the All Star design philosophy with its oversized props and decorations instead of immersive place making.

Not to mention the convenient design trope that Andy seems to have a toy version of everything imaginable. It feels lazy to me. Obviously others are welcome to feel differently, but I'm of the opinion that Disney can do better than this and that this park deserves much more than it's getting.

I think it wouldn't be so disappointing if this wasn't nearly half of the park's makeover. If this was just a small part of a much grander project, it would be fine for what it is.

 

[twebber55]

Nope, not combative, just terminally sarcastic. It's hard to tell the difference in printed media, but, a sense of humor about Disney would be a healthy thing to have. That along with a healthy realization of the difference between fantasy and reality.

I actually questioned that size vs. reality idea about this land and you know what? Who the hell cares? If someone cannot muster up enough imagination to get enjoyment out of play acting with giant kid toys... that is their loss. I think it will just be fun. The rest of you serious to a fault nellies can be disappointed or angry to within an inch of your lives. It's not going to affect my enjoyment of my adult to child experiences. New humanity model... "let's not have a clue about anything, but, overthink the hell out of it".

The other thing to "over think" would be the fact that if what I said doesn't apply to you... I apparently wasn't talking to or about you. So that advice about moving on past it... seems like a good thing to do.

wow
totally agree
peoples sarcasm meter must be off today
thought it was funny

 

[MisterPenguin]

And scale among toys isn't "fluid." Toys come in all different sizes, but the scale between them is set. Woody is bigger than the Green Army Men, but he is always bigger by the same amount - the toys don't change sizes.

The scale isn't fluid. Clearly in the movies Woody is taller than any Green Army Man. Disney bangs on and on about it's 'immersive environments' etc yet they clearly only care about that when it suits them.

Meet and greets are an entirely different cattle of fish.

Obviously, you two think "fluid" means "constantly changing within the source material" and that's not what I meant, nor even what I claimed.

When I mentioned how the GAM and Woody are both toys of adult males and yet the toys are on dramatically different scales since the GAM are so much smaller than Woody, then that is an example of the fluidity of scale amongst the toys themselves. I never said that in the source material the GAM keep changing sizes in relation to Woody.

A child plays with toys that each have their own scale that is different from the other toys they play with. Children generally don't have a problem with that. They don't give much consideration that the adult men of the GAM are knee high to the adult male of a Woody doll. The child's sense of scale is fluid as they play with toys made on differing scales.

So, saying that I'm claiming that the scales in the movies keep changing is a gross misrepresentation of what I said.

Now, when we get to the park, consider the Meet and Greets. Now, @wdrive, you can say, that they're a different cattle of fish (whatever that means), but they're not. They're in the park. They exist. People interact with them. Adults and children. When they encounter Woody, they then aren't shocked that the GAM aren't two feet tall, but are also the same height as Woody. Because people don't care. They don't. They haven't complained about it.

Holding the 'land' to a standard where everything in the land has to be scaled exactly they way they are in the movie is a criteria that I would venture almost no one cares about. Sure, the two of you claim to care. And you'll turn your nose up to how poor a job Disney did with TSL because of that criterion. And you're welcome to hold it. Just don't be surprised when just about everyone else doesn't care.

 

[Casper Gutman]

Obviously, you two think "fluid" means "constantly changing within the source material" and that's not what I meant, nor even what I claimed.

When I mentioned how the GAM and Woody are both toys of adult males and yet the toys are on dramatically different scales since the GAM are so much smaller than Woody, then that is an example of the fluidity of scale amongst the toys themselves. I never said that in the source material the GAM keep changing sizes in relation to Woody.

A child plays with toys that each have their own scale that is different from the other toys they play with. Children generally don't have a problem with that. They don't give much consideration that the adult men of the GAM are knee high to the adult male of a Woody doll. The child's sense of scale is fluid as they play with toys made on differing scales.

So, saying that I'm claiming that the scales in the movies keep changing is a gross misrepresentation of what I said.

Now, when we get to the park, consider the Meet and Greets. Now, @wdrive, you can say, that they're a different cattle of fish (whatever that means), but they're not. They're in the park. They exist. People interact with them. Adults and children. When they encounter Woody, they then aren't shocked that the GAM aren't two feet tall, but are also the same height as Woody. Because people don't care. They don't. They haven't complained about it.

Holding the 'land' to a standard where everything in the land has to be scaled exactly they way they are in the movie is a criteria that I would venture almost no one cares about. Sure, the two of you claim to care. And you'll turn your nose up to how poor a job Disney did with TSL because of that criterion. And you're welcome to hold it. Just don't be surprised when just about everyone else doesn't care.

We were responding to what you said. "Fluid" has a particular meaning.

We all know that toys come in different sizes. The point is that they still have a set ratio one toy to the next. If Woody is three times as tall as a green army man, he will ALWAYS be three times as tall. And if the ratio of all the objects in TSL is random, guests will register this, even if they don't do so consciously. It will contribute to the sense that, as another poster pointed out, this is basically the theme park land version of the All Star Resorts - a largely random collection of props.

As to costumed characters - you're correct. Giant Mickeys who are almost as tall as Goofys has always been an area where guests have had to suspend disbelief, a situation necessitated by the physical size of the people inside the suits. That doesn't give Disney licence to just scrap the concept of scale altogether, especially not when building a major land in which they are not bound by the same limitations of human physicality.

One of the quintessential "behind-the-scenes" Disney park stories we've all heard, one that Disney itself frequently retells, is of the forced perspective on Main Street. It's a story that illustrates Walt's concern with minor details and the intricate artistry of the park. Forced perspective is a way to ensure that guests feel that the scale of the park is correct, something that the original Imagineers and their boss were pretty sure mattered. Most guests don't notice the forced perspective, but they FEEL that the scale is correct. I see no reason why perspective and scale suddenly stopped mattering in the intervening decades.

And all this talk of scale is not the reason I'll "turn my nose up" at TSL - its emblematic of the haphazard, shoddy, poorly-thought out, lazy, cost-cutting (while still spending far too much for far too little) tendencies made so evident by this new land.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Holding the 'land' to a standard where everything in the land has to be scaled exactly they way they are in the movie is a criteria that I would venture almost no one cares about. Sure, the two of you claim to care. And you'll turn your nose up to how poor a job Disney did with TSL because of that criterion. And you're welcome to hold it. Just don't be surprised when just about everyone else doesn't care.

Disney claimed to care. Cars Land is properly scaled to a world inhabited by cars.