• 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

atighe42

Well-Known Member
I'm trying so hard to keep myself in reality and to prepare myself to be disappointed when we inevitably don't get an Indy boat ride in DHS. LOL. I'm really trying not to get my hopes up here. I've said it a million times but I'm all for this.
Same. Here. That idea thrills me to no end, but we’ve all been disappointed before. I’m.....cautiously optimistic.
 

CJR

Well-Known Member
It is a bit funny that a land about toys wasn't given a new attraction that could fit everyone, including those who play with toys. A spinner, a carousel, something. I mean, there's still TSMM, but I get it that people like "the new stuff".
 

MansionButler84

Well-Known Member
In the Parks
No
It is a bit funny that a land about toys wasn't given a new attraction that could fit everyone, including those who play with toys. A spinner, a carousel, something. I mean, there's still TSMM, but I get it that people like "the new stuff".
Most kids who play with slinkies, toy coaster sets, crane machines, tinker toys, and Candyland will be tall enough for at least 2 of TSL’s rides.
 

CJR

Well-Known Member
Most kids who play with slinkies, toy coaster sets, crane machines, tinker toys, and Candyland will be tall enough for at least 2 of TSL’s rides.
That's true, what I was saying is that I can see the irony (from the point of view of the parents who are complaining about it). I see why they're thinking it's a toyland, so it must be for babies. They're wrong, but I get where they're coming from.
 

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
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?
 
Top Bottom