Toy Story Land expansion announced for Disney's Hollywood Studios

Casper Gutman

Well-Known Member
Fun fact: by the end of the year, there will be as many versions of Toy Story Land in Disney parks around the world as there are of Frontierland.

I don't know that we've quite acknowledged just how... revolutionary it is. It's really the first land that Disney has inserted, aesthetically unchanged, into multiple different kinds of parks (two castle parks, two studio parks). Star Wars Land will be the second such land. It marks a pretty decisive shift in the company's approach to theming.
 
Last edited:

EricsBiscuit

Well-Known Member
Advertisement
Fun fact: by the end of the year, there will be as many versions of Toy Story Land in Disney parks around the world as there are of Frontierland.

I don't know that we've quite acknowledged just how... revolutionary it is. It's really the first land that Disney has inserted, aesthetically unchanged, into multiple different kinds of parks (two castle parks, two studio parks). Star Wars Land will be the second such land. It marks a pretty decisive shift in the company's approach to theming.
I bet you're forgetting Grizzly Gulch. And before you say it's too small, it's the size of DL's Frontierland.
 

Casper Gutman

Well-Known Member
I bet you're forgetting Grizzly Gulch. And before you say it's too small, it's the size of DL's Frontierland.
Nah, I'm fully aware of Grizzly Gulch. I'd argue it's substantially different from Frontierland, not only in name but in aesthetics and ride composition. It bears a kinship to Frontierland, but one more similar to the link between TSL and Bug's Land in DCA. It's a subjective judgement, of course - I didn't include Main Street in the original post, for instance, because I consider World Bazaar to essentially be Main Street in all but name.

Grizzly Gulch and Mystic Point are interesting in other ways as regards Disney design philosophy - they seem to be more elaborate settings for single rides than lands themselves. Sort of like slightly enlarged variations on the area around ToT.
 

CJR

Well-Known Member
OK, then how about Pandora. Seems like an never before land in the world of Disney.

It is! Although, the original plan was for it to be in multiple parks around the world. Could still happen too if Disney buys Fox and the upcoming films do well. Not betting on more though, but "never say never".

If they do make more versions of Pandora, I hope they do it like they did with Toy Story Land and make the lands similar, but different from being exact copies of each other. We're talking probably well over a decade out though unless there's a sudden push for it post-Fox buyout.
 
Last edited:

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
And it even fits thematically in AK! While I have other issues with Pandora (no surprise) it strengthens the park, didn't replace anything significant, and is likely to remain unique to WDW - all pluses.
I agree... I think the new direction they are going is great for now and for the future. There are possibly a few out there that disagree, but, they don't pay my bills so I don't care.
 

smile

Well-Known Member
Fun fact: by the end of the year, there will be as many versions of Toy Story Land in Disney parks around the world as there are of Frontierland.

I don't know that we've quite acknowledged just how... revolutionary it is. It's really the first land that Disney has inserted, aesthetically unchanged, into multiple different kinds of parks (two castle parks, two studio parks). Star Wars Land will be the second such land. It marks a pretty decisive shift in the company's approach to theming.

i dare say a like aesthetic has been steadily infiltrating for quite some time, most overtly represented by the slightly refined, yet rather obvious, tsl global invasion

it strengthens the park

surely it couldn't detract, even if only from an operational perspective...
i'd even add that for what was installed, it was executed well, and can accept it on those terms alone, in and of itself.

didn't replace anything significant, and is likely to remain unique to WDW - all pluses.

the former is really a sad plus, but certainly one; while the latter is rather funny, but also plus

And it even fits thematically in AK!

:cautious:
 

smile

Well-Known Member
I agree... I think the new direction they are going is great for now and for the future. There are possibly a few out there that disagree, but, they don't pay my bills so I don't care.

which leads me to infer you encourage a direction predicated on acquiring franchises from elsewhere and inserting them into the parks.

why?
 

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
which leads me to infer you encourage a direction predicated on acquiring franchises from elsewhere and inserting them into the parks.

why?
Because they are now Disney Franchises. Just because someone that wasn't a Disney employee at the time came up with a good idea they shouldn't use it? It is now Disney, like it or not. It is an entertainment venue and if it is entertaining and a property of Disney it should be used. So I will follow with another question.

Why not? What is so freaking sacred about the necessity of the idea coming from a person sitting at a desk at Disney? BTW, they are sitting there now. Disney paid for the idea just like they did for things like Mary Poppins. Should they not have used that either?
 

smile

Well-Known Member
Why not? What is so freaking sacred about the necessity of the idea coming from a person sitting at a desk at Disney? BTW, they are sitting there now. Disney paid for the idea just like they did for things like Mary Poppins. Should they not have used that either?

there is an inordinate amount of twdc generated content either poorly used or not at all...
stories and inspiration were taken from elsewhere but they were always reinvented as disney;
most lying virtually inert or had been long forgotten tales/folklore - and they certainly weren't franchises
 

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
there is an inordinate amount of twdc generated content either poorly used or not at all...
stories and inspiration were taken from elsewhere but they were always reinvented as disney;
most lying virtually inert or had been long forgotten tales/folklore - and they certainly weren't franchises
So you buy a story or you buy the company that owns the story. It's the same thing except that you don't have to pay for it year after year or until the copyright runs out. There really is no valid reason, that I can see, for anyone to even harbor a minor amount of concern about where an idea came from, but, just in how it is used. The process of putting a Disney spin on those IP's still exists. Sorry, I just don't see the problem. It seems petty to me and totally without merit. Those long forgotten tales, have been pretty much used up or have fallen out of favor with the majority of today's more sophisticated demands for entertainment. Stories about wooden puppets that want to be real boys are no longer in vogue.
 

smile

Well-Known Member
So you buy a story or you buy the company that owns the story. It's the same thing except that you don't have to pay for it year after year or until the copyright runs out. There really is no valid reason, that I can see, for anyone to even harbor a minor amount of concern about where an idea came from, but, just in how it is used. The process of putting a Disney spin on those IP's still exists. Sorry, I just don't see the problem. It seems petty to me and totally without merit. Those long forgotten tales, have been pretty much used up or have fallen out of favor with the majority of today's more sophisticated demands for entertainment. Stories about wooden puppets that want to be real boys are no longer in vogue.

so, disney becomes universal... interesting
 

Casper Gutman

Well-Known Member
so, disney becomes universal... interesting
Eh, the focus on IPs is THE fundamental reality of modern Hollywood. And, though the nature and degree of the practice has certainly changed, Walt himself was perhaps the foremost innovator in cross-media promotion dating back to the thirties.

All of which is to say that IP integration into the parks is unavoidable. What's an issue is just how BADLY Disney is handling that IP integration. Films remain, at least for the moment, the primary drivers of franchises, but the best IP-based lands - Potter and Cars - further the story of the franchise and increase its value. Theme park lands need to be viewed as something more than "ancillary;" they should be integral components in an IP. If they aren't, if they represent an earlier era of marketing logic in which you just slapped a logo on as much junk as possible and hoped for synergy, you cheapen the IP. I'd argue that's what TSL does. Pixar - like Star Wars and Marvel and Disney itself - are "Tiffany" IPs. Every iteration of the franchise, including theme park lands, has to make clear that Disney understands and believes that.

The other danger of IP lands is that not only does each manifestation of the IP need to maintain their thematic and narrative integrity of the franchise, but IP lands need to maintain the thematic and narrative integrity of the parks into which they are placed. IP lands can't just be chunks that are cut-and-pasted into completely different parks, regardless of overarching theme - like TSL. Pandora fits AK. It wouldn't fit EPCOT. SWL does not fit DL. Gaurdians REALLY doesn't fit EPCOT. Indy doesn't fit AK. If Disney wants to build IP lands (and it should - the lack of a major Marvel land in California and the delay in building SWL should have shareholders seriously questioning Iger's leadership) they need to integrate them into the aesthetic, narrative, and thematic unity of individual parks. This is one of the reasons the MGM makeover is so awful - Disney has SO MANY IPs that deserve rides or lands that would fit in MGM, a park that BADLY needs rides and lands, and yet they're crowbarring those IPs in to other parks in which they don't fit.
 

smile

Well-Known Member
And, though the nature and degree of the practice has certainly changed, Walt himself was perhaps the foremost innovator in cross-media promotion dating back to the thirties.

not speaking to cross-media promotion as that is and was fundamental... synergy bruh -
more like entertaining the notion of walt dedicating a large section of his park to the wizard of oz as opposed to something in-house


Pandora fits AK.

especially considering avatar's narrative and characters were virtually discarded, there were clearly other ways to tell the 'story' of pandora that didn't involve an outside company or a fictional existence other than the fact that said property was viewed for either box office success or distrust in one's own existing catalog to tell the same (or another option even worse) - in that sense, i have a hard time as not seeing it 'physically rationalized' into DAK as opposed to being the most logical fit creatively, fiscally, or thematically.
 

HauntedMansionFLA

Well-Known Member
Because they are now Disney Franchises. Just because someone that wasn't a Disney employee at the time came up with a good idea they shouldn't use it? It is now Disney, like it or not. It is an entertainment venue and if it is entertaining and a property of Disney it should be used. So I will follow with another question.

Why not? What is so freaking sacred about the necessity of the idea coming from a person sitting at a desk at Disney? BTW, they are sitting there now. Disney paid for the idea just like they did for things like Mary Poppins. Should they not have used that either?
You are correct. Walt bought up a bunch of IP’s that weren’t created by Disney.
 

smile

Well-Known Member
You are correct. Walt bought up a bunch of IP’s that weren’t created by Disney.

walt had a habit of taping into many stories that were free, some not, but he certainly wasn't absorbing franchises, especially as we know them today
... suppose he could have found a way to squeeze in that ben-hur chariot race land in somewhere, but hindsight's 20/20
 
Top Bottom