• Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.You can use your Twitter or Facebook account to sign up, or register directly.

Toy Story Land expansion announced for Disney's Hollywood Studios

DisneyExpert

Well-Known Member
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.
 
Last edited:

twebber55

Well-Known Member
Advertisement
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

President of Animal Kingdom
Premium Member
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

Well-Known Member
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

Well-Known Member
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.
 

Jones14

Well-Known Member
I'd like to chime in and add that not everyone who is critical of Toy Story Land is necessarily critical because of the aesthetic. For example, I'm critical of the content of the rides themselves and the cuts that have been made to the land, but I thought that the original art looked pretty cute and interesting.

With that said, one can claim that it doesn't matter that the land's scale is all over the place, but that doesn't change the fact that the land's scale is all over the place.
 

sedati

Well-Known Member
Can confirm first hand that Slinky is on the track. Sorry no picture, but saw him today from Tower of Terror. Looked to be on the bunny hills after the second launch. I think this may have been a pull through as he didn't seem to be moving though I only had a second or so to process this.
Also, if you got to the far right corner of the land's entrance wall (the one with the large concept art) you can see through a crack that gives you a bit of a view at the first helix.
 

dodolitsky

Well-Known Member
Regarding TSL's scale inconsistencies:

I do agree that it would be ideal to have a land where everything were built to scale. Everything appearing to have grown by a consistent rate would definitely better foster the illusion that we are shrunk to the size of a toy. However, building everything to scale would be a much more complicated undertaking than many people on here seem to realize. In fact, in an outdoor land, the shrunk-to-a-toy illusion is just about impossible to implement - Disney has no control over the size of the clouds, for example. They theoretically could create thousands of tall, thick artificial blades of grass, but I'm not sure that would make for a very pleasing aesthetic. Perhaps Disney could have instead built an indoor land, themed to "under Andy's bed," but that would have been significantly more expensive (though I do think it could have been very cool). There would also still remain several scale inconsistencies, such as with the merchandise, food, and toilets (human-sized hot dogs and swimming pool toilets, anyone? :D). Another alternative would be to ditch the shrinking-theme and have the toys be toy-sized - while this would be much more authentic, it would make for a pretty lousy experience.

I think a lot of the negativity surrounding TSL's theming stems from the land's unenviable position of being sandwiched between two ultra-immersive lands in Pandora and SWGE. While those lands are meant to make you feel as if you were transported to a different place/time, I don't think it would be fair to hold TSL to those standards, as we certainly don't do so with the rest of WDW. We are supposed to be under the sea in the TLM and Nemo rides, yet nobody seems to mind that we have no trouble breathing and don't get wet. The ToT ride-vehicle is meant to imitate a service elevator, yet they contain rows of seats with seat belts. The list goes on...

I think the best way to relate to TSL is that it is simply a land built around the popular Toy Story IP. The idea that we are in Andy's backyard and shrunk to the size of toys is just meant to give some context to the land - this helps to explain why our favorite TS characters appear so large and why they are all outside. If you look at the land through this lens, the scale inconsistencies are a lot less troubling.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Regarding TSL's scale inconsistencies:

I do agree that it would be ideal to have a land where everything were built to scale. Everything appearing to have grown by a consistent rate would definitely better foster the illusion that we are shrunk to the size of a toy. However, building everything to scale would be a much more complicated undertaking than many people on here seem to realize. In fact, in an outdoor land, the shrunk-to-a-toy illusion is just about impossible to implement - Disney has no control over the size of the clouds, for example. They theoretically could create thousands of tall, thick artificial blades of grass, but I'm not sure that would make for a very pleasing aesthetic. Perhaps Disney could have instead built an indoor land, themed to "under Andy's bed," but that would have been significantly more expensive (though I do think it could have been very cool). There would also still remain several scale inconsistencies, such as with the merchandise, food, and toilets (human-sized hot dogs and swimming pool toilets, anyone? :D). Another alternative would be to ditch the shrinking-theme and have the toys be toy-sized - while this would be much more authentic, it would make for a pretty lousy experience.

I think a lot of the negativity surrounding TSL's theming stems from the land's unenviable position of being sandwiched between two ultra-immersive lands in Pandora and SWGE. While those lands are meant to make you feel as if you were transported to a different place/time, I don't think it would be fair to hold TSL to those standards, as we certainly don't do so with the rest of WDW. We are supposed to be under the sea in the TLM and Nemo rides, yet nobody seems to mind that we have no trouble breathing and don't get wet. The ToT ride-vehicle is meant to imitate a service elevator, yet they contain rows of seats with seat belts. The list goes on...

I think the best way to relate to TSL is that it is simply a land built around the popular Toy Story IP. The idea that we are in Andy's backyard and shrunk to the size of toys is just meant to give some context to the land - this helps to explain why our favorite TS characters appear so large and why they are all outside. If you look at the land through this lens, the scale inconsistencies are a lot less troubling.
The scale inconsistencies are with the custom designed and built props. That absolutely is completely controlled and not difficult to deal with. For something that “isn’t a big deal” there sure is a lot of stretching going on to make up excuses.
 
Last edited:

Disneyhead'71

Well-Known Member
The scale inconsistencies are with the custom designed and built props. That absolutely is completely controlled and not difficult to deal with. For something that “isn’t a big deal” there sure is a lot of stretching going on to make up excuses.
I don't mean to be mean or anything, but so many people these days, including some I've met at WDI, are so intellectually shallow, they just don't "get" the importance of that kind of detail. To them, immersion is just being surrounded in iconography. Cohesion and consistency to the parameters of the source material simply isn't important. It truly is the definition of "eye candy".

eye can·dy
ī ˈkandē/
noun
informal
  1. visual images that are superficially attractive and entertaining but intellectually undemanding.
 

RSoxNo1

Well-Known Member
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 suspect it will finally pass the 1987/1997 peaks in 2016, but drop below it again in 2017 because of Pandora.
 

Mad Stitch

Well-Known Member
It looks like there is only one car between the head and tail. The model showed 4. So capacity is only 6 people per train?
 

egg

Well-Known Member
I suspect it will finally pass the 1987/1997 peaks in 2016, but drop below it again in 2017 because of Pandora.
2016 tea estimates are already out. Epcot's attendance (and the other three parks') slightly dropped from the year prior.
 

RSoxNo1

Well-Known Member
2016 tea estimates are already out. Epcot's attendance (and the other three parks') slightly dropped from the year prior.
You're right. I forgot they were out.
2016: Epcot 11,712,000 per TEA
1997: Epcot I have 11,800,000. I can't find my source though.
If I remember correctly, @marni1971 said that the attendance in 1987 was actually the peak. Either way, it looks like Epcot hasn't recovered from the opening of Disney's Animal Kingdom and I'm guessing it will take a hit this year from Pandora.
 
Top Bottom