Toy Story Land expansion announced for Disney's Hollywood Studios

Jones14

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

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.
 
DisneyDodo

DisneyDodo

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

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
dodolitsky said:
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.
Click to expand...
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

Disneyhead'71

Well-Known Member
lazyboy97o said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
 
RSoxNo1

RSoxNo1

Well-Known Member
marni1971 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I suspect it will finally pass the 1987/1997 peaks in 2016, but drop below it again in 2017 because of Pandora.
 
dreamscometrue

dreamscometrue

Well-Known Member
Slinky Testing.jpg
 
RSoxNo1

RSoxNo1

Well-Known Member
egg said:
2016 tea estimates are already out. Epcot's attendance (and the other three parks') slightly dropped from the year prior.
Click to expand...
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.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom