Is Toy Story Land really needed?

[JoshuaShaw]

No way is primeval whirl a thrill ride

And so I repeat my earlier question: how does one quantify a thrill ride? Is there rigid criteria or is it completely subjective?

and RNRC while I would call a thrill ride would only be extreme to someone under 10.

Completely subjective. I imagine there are a number of posters here that would disagree with you. Not everyone's threshold for thrill rides is the same, so why does yours get to be the baseline? Big Thunder is quite tame to me now, but it was plenty thrilling when I was eight-years-old.

 

[ucfknight]

Based on the images it looks like an army parachute drop tower could be in place near the ride area of Slinky (based on the one at DLParis). Sure it would be a clone, but it would at least up the ride count.

There is no such ride in the images. There is a toy version of one which will just be set decoration for the Slinky coaster, but it won't be a ride.

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

With the announcements of Star Wars, Toy Story,is Disney done with Single E tickets? Whats wrong with just making Single thrilling attractions? It will still draw guest and take a lot less time in construction. Does it really take 3-4 years to build a carnival like ride and an outdoor family coaster for Toy Story? No it doesn't but having it spread acres with themed gift shops and restaurants is the reason it takes such a long time. Star Wars/Avatar do however seem worth the time because they will be similar to Harry Potter and actually have E Ticket Attractions.

Just wanted to state my opinion

DHS needs some more of those C and D type attractions that families can do together. It can also use another E ticket ride (as opposed to another show) that is tamer than the TOT and RNR. They're also going to add new areas to TSMM. So yes. It will make a fine addition.

 

[mummabear]

Not everyone's threshold for thrill rides is the same, so why does yours get to be the baseline?

The most obvious way is to look at the genre and have them ranked (as have been voted by the masses and has been done multiple times in different ways) from least to most extreme.
I am not saying RNRC is not a thrill ride but it doesn't make the cut of being extreme by any means.
​

 

[amg35]

That's interesting, since Big Thunder and Splash Mountain are both faster and taller than Space Mountain

For me, and perhaps I'm alone in this, but I have a wide range that I use to classify thrill rides. So sure, there are very mild ones, like Star Tours or Primeval Whirl and there are extreme ones, such as Rock 'n' Roller Coaster, but the existence of the extreme thrill rides don't keep the mild ones from still being thrill rides.

Space Mountain is in the dark!

My personal process in deciding if a ride qualifies as a thrill ride to me is this - is my heart starting to race a bit/do I get a little nervous before I get on. Seriously!

I still enjoy the mild ones, maybe even more than some of the thrill rides, but they don't fall into my "thrill" category.

 

[cakebaker]

I am a grown woman and I don't like thrill rides. I like fun immersive rides. If I wanted thrill I'll go to cedar point or kings island. I go to disney for disney. The way they do things is just perfect for me.

This is exactly how I feel. There are some thrill rides I like, but it's only because Disney did more than just throw a thrill ride out with no immersive qualities. Take away the look and feel of TOT and I wouldn't be interested. Disney does what it does better than anyone- create an environment where families with children of all ages can have a fun time. They've got a handful of thrill rides, but if one wants extreme thrills go where that's what they do.


We're thrilled with the idea of Toy Story Land. A family oriented coaster is exactly what HS needs and I can't wait to see what they do with the entire land.

 

[JimmyV]

Somehow this thread veered quickly off track (pardon the pun) into a "thrill ride vs. family ride" debate when I don't think that is what the OP was asking at all. Let's assume for the sake of argument that we all agree that the announced spinning ride and family coaster are a perfect fit for DHS. I think what the OP is asking is, is it necessary to slow down the construction schedule so that these easy-to-build rides can be "immersed" in a new land. By way of example, RnR sits all by itself and people love it. But I get the sense that if this ride were announced today, it would take 5 years to build because Disney would find it "necessary" to build an entire immersive "land" based on the music industry including shops and character meals. But isn't the ride enough? Do we need giant blades of grass to accompany the family coaster if doing so will slow down the construction and divert money away from other new attraction? I think that is what the OP was asking.

Oh. And for the "Disney is no place for unthemed thrill rides" crowd, I offer up California Screamin' as Exhibit 1. It is a thrill ride by any definition and it didn't need a fully immersive land to support it.

 

[amg35]

Somehow this thread veered quickly off track (pardon the pun) into a "thrill ride vs. family ride" debate when I don't think that is what the OP was asking at all. Let's assume for the sake of argument that we all agree that the announced spinning ride and family coaster are a perfect fit for DHS. I think what the OP is asking is, is it necessary to slow down the construction schedule so that these easy-to-build rides can be "immersed" in a new land. By way of example, RnR sits all by itself and people love it. But I get the sense that if this ride were announced today, it would take 5 years to build because Disney would find it "necessary" to build an entire immersive "land" based on the music industry including shops and character meals. But isn't the ride enough? Do we need giant blades of grass to accompany the family coaster if doing so will slow down the construction and divert money away from other new attraction? I think that is what the OP was asking.

For myself personally? Sure! My favorite part of WDW is the details, feeling immersed in make believe, etc. - the rides are secondary to me. That's why I'm so excited for Pandora. Do I need an entire new land for a new ride? Of course not, but it's a bonus!

I realize I'm in the minority.

 

[mejo]

For myself personally? Sure! My favorite part of WDW is the details, feeling immersed in make believe, etc. - the rides are secondary to me. That's why I'm so excited for Pandora. Do I need an entire new land for a new ride? Of course not, but it's a bonus!

I realize I'm in the minority.

I don't believe you are in the minority, that is the way I feel as well.

 

[amg35]

I don't believe you are in the minority, that is the way I feel as well.

On this thread, we will be the minority.

 

[JimmyV]

Do I need an entire new land for a new ride? Of course not, but it's a bonus!

I realize I'm in the minority.

First, I don't think you are in the minority. I think most people love immersion...after it is finished. The key word that you used was "bonus". This is true. The immersive land is a bonus. But it comes at a high price in terms of time and cost. It's an interesting trend. Splash Mountain didn't need an immersive land when it was added. Neither did Thunder Mountain. Nor Pooh. Nor TSMM. Nor Star Tours. Nor Tower of Terror. Nor RnR. But when Kali and Everest were added, they were part of an immersive Asia expansion. So expansion can be done both ways. But it seems that Disney has opted to follow only one path from now on. (See Cars Land, NFL, Pandora, and the recent announcements.) I'm not taking sides here. The new trend has and will bring us some cool stuff. But we have to accept that we will get less "stuff" this way and it will take longer for us to get it.

 

[Quellman]

There is no such ride in the images. There is a toy version of one which will just be set decoration for the Slinky coaster, but it won't be a ride.

I know it isn't labeled as a ride and there doesn't appear to be a queue. I was just mentioning that they could install one of those there if they choose. The announcement was on two rides that were not anywhere else in the world, and the expansion to TSMM. No comments about potential recycling of existing rides. I'm not exactly optimistic that it will come, as you said, it looks like a static prop. But it could provide as a nice drop ride for those not able or willing to ride ToT.

 

[StirlingSilver83]

Personally I think they should of brought Carsland to Florida. Don't get me wrong I like Toy Story but Cars is much cooler in my opinion, lol. I think the kids will get a kick out of toy story land and being the size of an actual toy and I think thats cool, but DHS needs something in the NOW...not 3-5 years from now.

 

[mesaboy2]

Personally I think they should of brought Carsland to Florida. Don't get me wrong I like Toy Story but Cars is much cooler in my opinion, lol. I think the kids will get a kick out of toy story land and being the size of an actual toy and I think thats cool, but DHS needs something in the NOW...not 3-5 years from now.

How long do you think it would take to open Cars Land at DHS?

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

Somehow this thread veered quickly off track (pardon the pun) into a "thrill ride vs. family ride" debate when I don't think that is what the OP was asking at all. Let's assume for the sake of argument that we all agree that the announced spinning ride and family coaster are a perfect fit for DHS. I think what the OP is asking is, is it necessary to slow down the construction schedule so that these easy-to-build rides can be "immersed" in a new land. By way of example, RnR sits all by itself and people love it. But I get the sense that if this ride were announced today, it would take 5 years to build because Disney would find it "necessary" to build an entire immersive "land" based on the music industry including shops and character meals. But isn't the ride enough? Do we need giant blades of grass to accompany the family coaster if doing so will slow down the construction and divert money away from other new attraction? I think that is what the OP was asking.
Oh. And for the "Disney is no place for unthemed thrill rides" crowd, I offer up California Screamin' as Exhibit 1. It is a thrill ride by any definition and it didn't need a fully immersive land to support it.

I'm of the opinion that Disney probably should have slowed down a bit on RNR and put in better theming and maybe made the coaster itself something other than a Stock Vekoma. As for California screamin, the pier area is widely maligned as not up to Disney standards. And in fact the park it was in was a failure because of too many stock minimally themed or rides that weren't themed at all. Hence why they spent so much money theming nearly the entire park and adding many more themed attractions.

First, I don't think you are in the minority. I think most people love immersion...after it is finished. The key word that you used was "bonus". This is true. The immersive land is a bonus. But it comes at a high price in terms of time and cost. It's an interesting trend. Splash Mountain didn't need an immersive land when it was added. Neither did Thunder Mountain. Nor Pooh. Nor TSMM. Nor Star Tours. Nor Tower of Terror. Nor RnR. But when Kali and Everest were added, they were part of an immersive Asia expansion. So expansion can be done both ways. But it seems that Disney has opted to follow only one path from now on. (See Cars Land, NFL, Pandora, and the recent announcements.) I'm not taking sides here. The new trend has and will bring us some cool stuff. But we have to accept that we will get less "stuff" this way and it will take longer for us to get it.

Splash and Big Thunder didn't need a new immersive land because they already had one that worked where they were put. Pooh didn't need one either. It was put in one that already had one. The studios have never been the immersive experience and have for some time been a sort of default park to shoe horn things in they don't otherwise know where to put. So now we're getting some immersive theming and I for one am glad to see it.

 

[JimmyV]

Hence why they spent so much money theming nearly the entire park and adding many more themed attractions.

Except they didn't really do anything in the way of additional theming at the pier. And yet it is still a popular area.

Personally, I'd like to see an immersive land into the world of Pixar. Not just Andys BA k yard. I love the idea of theming. Just not sold on what they chose. Yet.

Splash and Big Thunder didn't need a new immersive land because they already had one that worked where they were put. Pooh didn't need one either. It was put in one that already had one.

While that is somewhat true for BTMRR, the point is a bit ex post facto for Splash. It doesn't really fit seamlessly into Frontierland. In fact, at DL, it isn't in Frontierland at all. They could have put the attraction anywhere other than Tomorrowland and one could have said: There was already theming there. As for Pooh, it was not put into a heavily themed area in the way we are now thinking of tbeming. It was placed amid a bunch of buildings with Black Forest/Bavarian facades.

Again, I'm not arguing against theming. I'm just pointing out that the Goofy coaster could be built today in 6 months. The Slinky coaster will take 3 or more years. It is debatable whether that time delay is worth it when the end result will be similar. I think that is what the OP wants to debate. Not whether Disney should build a Toy Story themed Kraken.

Personally I would love to see and immersive themed land based on Pixar. I'm just not sold yet on the idea of a land based on Andy's back yard. At least not yet.

 

[BuckeyeBama]

And so I repeat my earlier question: how does one quantify a thrill ride? Is there rigid criteria or is it completely subjective?

Almost everything is subjective, but thrill rides are at least rated. Nothing at WDW, including ToT, would rate higher than a 3.

I am cool with the idea that people want more of these low end thrill rides at WDW. Heck, I am even cool with the idea that some people want real category 5 thrill rides at WDW (though we all know that this isn't going to happen).

I will be the first to admit that I was disappointed when I saw what Disney was doing with the mine train ride. I have been to WDW 3 times since that ride opened and rode it only twice. It is just not my cup of tea. But when I see how much joy it brings to so many others, I realize that Disney made the right call. I was wrong.

My needs and desires do not supersede those of others, and Disney knows a lot more about the real desires of its patrons than I do.

 

[angierae]

RnR, TOT, Everest are all thrill rides. Successful businesses don't say to their customers, "Oh you want that, you can go somewhere else, thanks."

RnR and Everest are not "thrill rides". Not at all. Not compared to actual thrill rides. They're just the "thrilliest" Disney has to offer.

(I'm not saying WDW needs thrill rides. I think they're doing a very good job at making rides that appeal to a wide range. But they are not thrill rides, not compared to what's out there.)

 

[Angel Ariel]

With the announcements of Star Wars, Toy Story,is Disney done with Single E tickets? Whats wrong with just making Single thrilling attractions? It will still draw guest and take a lot less time in construction. Does it really take 3-4 years to build a carnival like ride and an outdoor family coaster for Toy Story? No it doesn't but having it spread acres with themed gift shops and restaurants is the reason it takes such a long time. Star Wars/Avatar do however seem worth the time because they will be similar to Harry Potter and actually have E Ticket Attractions.

Just wanted to state my opinion

DHS desperately needs attractions for *all* heights. The two they've announced for TS land and the two for SW all sound like they will have height requirements. I sincerely hope Disney has a few fully family friendly rides in mind that they haven't shown us yet.

 

[mummabear]

Oh. And for the "Disney is no place for unthemed thrill rides" crowd, I offer up California Screamin' as Exhibit 1. It is a thrill ride by any definition and it didn't need a fully immersive land to support it.

CS is in a themed area-the pier. One it fits in perfectly.