Home

[DLP-Photos.com]

Nemo is a Toon, so he does fit in to Toon Studios. Toon Studios takes you into a scene from a Toon film.

That is a very thin connection - and if this was to "justify" it, why aren't there any references to this being a "working set", where you experience this scene being shot?

Every new ride in Discoveryland would have to be taken from Jules Verne otherwise. Would that always be possible? Every Disney park from California to Tokyo has put Buzz into Tomorrowland, but at DLP it's called Discoveryland.

You got it - in Disneyland Paris it is not Tomorrowland, it IS Discoveryland, so yes in my opinion every main addition should be connected to Jules Verne, turn-of-the-centery visionaries, etc.

Maybe it wasn't possible for EuroDisney to build a new show building for Buzz in the Studios at the time.

So if they wanted to add Indiana Jones Adventure and no place were free in Adventureland they should just put in Main Street if space was free there?

And just because Lightning McQueen is from a CGI film it doesn't make him less important to Disney than Herbie, even if he does come from a "real" film made in the 1960's.

No it does not make him less important, but it certainly does make him less relevant for a show, which show how real life stunt effects are made

[ed-uk]

In my view Disney say how Toon Studio should be, even if some people don't get it. You couldn't have a working set ( although they tried it with the Flying Carpets ) because Disney don't make cartoon films on sets, they're are made in an animation department and on computer. The Art of Disney Animation attraction in Toon Studio tells you more about that. I think Toon Studio has added to the appeal of WDS and has opened the park up to a bigger audience. They would never want to  add Indiana Adventure to Disneyland Park because they've already got Indiana Jones and the Temple of Peril and that is in Adventureland, not Main Street. So they've never done that.

[DLP-Photos.com]

In my view Disney say how Toon Studio should be, even if some people don't get it. You couldn't have a working set ( although they tried it with the Flying Carpets ) because Disney don't make cartoon films on sets, they're are made in an animation department and on computer. The Art of Disney Animation attraction in Toon Studio tells you more about that. I think Toon Studio has added to the appeal of WDS and has opened the park up to a bigger audience.

It is their call, but it is also our right to question what they do sometimes

I know how animation is and I agree that you cannot recreate this in an attraction and that makes the name "Toon Studio" the main problem. Why this renaming if they weren't going to make it with a Studios themening? Why not have kept Animation Courtyard and then added a Pixar Place? After all, the additions that made Toon Studio is all Pixar and with Ratatouille coming it will stay that way... That would have made more sense after all...

I agree that the additions has helped making WDS a full day park - I just think they weren't completely thought through - or at least the name change wasn't.

They would never want to add Indiana Adventure to Disneyland Park because they've already got Indiana Jones and the Temple of Peril and that is in Adventureland, not Main Street. So they've never done that.

Oh, I sure think they would love to add Indiana Jones Adventure if they had the money - after all it has been planned since the beginning and the land is actually still there. But my reason for mentioning Main Street was because you suggested Buzz was built in Discoveryland due to lack of room in the studios. You didn't really answer my question or it didn't really come through - would it be fine by you if they put e.g. Indiana Jones Adventure into Main Street because of a hypothetical lack of space in Adventureland and some hypothetical free space in Main Street? (It is an extreme hypothetical situation, I know, but it still captures the essence of your point)

[ed-uk]

I must say I didn't know EuroDisney hoped to add Indiana Adventure if they had the money. I hadn't heard that, I didn't know it had been planned from the beginning. Would you want two Indiana jones rides in Adventureland? Buzz Light year replaced Le Visionarium Circle Vision as is the case in all Disney Parks. Except you think EuroDisney should have built a new show building for it with added costs, and put it in the studios. They could have kept Animation Courtyard, and called the rest of Toon Studio Pixar Place or Disney-Pixar Place, I suppose. I think I prefer Toon Studio, the Flying Carpets aren't Pixar. In the future they might want to build something that isn't Pixar?

[SM:M3]

You haven't answered forza's question though, is it, in your opinion, acceptable to add a ride that doesn't fit the theme of a land to said land just because there is space?
I think most people would say no, which is why many disagree with Buzz in Discoveryland, but seeing as you defend that, would you be happy to have Indiana Jones Adventure in the Studios for example. You also mention two IJ rides in Adventureland, yet you defend a whole land based on Toy Story?

[DLP-Photos.com]

I must say I didn't know EuroDisney hoped to add Indiana Adventure if they had the money. I hadn't heard that, I didn't know it had been planned from the beginning. Would you want two Indiana jones rides in Adventureland?

Fair enough - I would prefer Temple of Peril to be replaced, but as Indiana Jones Adventure is a top class E-Ticket attraction I would applaud if it were added to this mini Indiana Jones Land

They could have kept Animation Courtyard, and called the rest of Toon Studio Pixar Place or Disney-Pixar Place, I suppose. I think I prefer Toon Studio, the Flying Carpets aren't Pixar. In the future they might want to build something that isn't Pixar?

Again fair enough, but then the themening is very low if it is to live up to the name of "Toon Studio"

[ed-uk]

No, that's not right, I've never said I would like to see Indiana Jones in the Studios and as far as I'm aware Disney have never said that. Buzz Lightyear replaces Le Visionarium. You would have liked something else. It's for Disney to defend it, I except it. Maybe placing it in the Studios wasn't an option at the time. It was new for Disneyland Park. And I thought it was popular. I defend TSPL in Toon Studios, but I don't see the point in two Indiana Rides in Adventure land, that's right.

[CafeFantasia]

@forza_united

I totally agree. I would love to see Temple of Peril replaced. It's a painful off-the-shelf coaster that isn't up to Disney standards. Plus it's not a family ride; it separates and divides families.

I've read that even if Disneyland Paris could afford to build the Indiana Jones Adventure, they couldn't afford to keep it running due to the high maintenance costs. Apparently it's an attraction that requires a lot of engineers and mechanics to keep running.

As I've said before, if Disney can't afford to built the Indiana Jones Adventure in Paris, how about they replace the Temple of Peril with an Everest themed version of the Grizzly Trail coaster currently being built at Hong Kong Disneyland. It would provide a cheaper (more feasible to get built) version of Expedition Everest, and give the park another excellent family roller coaster, similar to Big Thunder Mountain.

[peter]

now that would be nice, but now expedition everest wouldn't cost so much, because alot goes into research and development. if you bring a slightly smaller version in, it would be ok

[ed-uk]

I don't think they should replace Indiana Jones and the Temple of Peril, and certainly not with another Indiana Adventure, I think it would be a waste of money. I would probably go for Splash Mountain. But they might have to do something about the Splash in the winter, or people would never dry off. I wouldn't want a version of Grizzly Trail Coaster, It might turn out a bit like BTM, which Hong Kong Disneyland doesn't have.

[DLP-Photos.com]

I don't think they should replace Indiana Jones and the Temple of Peril, and certainly not with another Indiana Adventure, I think it would be a waste of money. I would probably go for Splash Mountain. But they might have to do something about the Splash in the winter, or people would never dry off. I wouldn't want a version of Grizzly Trail Coaster, It might turn out a bit like BTM, which Hong Kong Disneyland doesn't have.

So you wouldn't replace Temple of Peril of you got Indiana Jones Adventure in stead? Have you seen Indiana Jones Adventure? :O

[youtube:20y3lrqd]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjA7Hdokv5c[/youtube:20y3lrqd]

[ed-uk]

I haven't looked at the video, I will do. But I still think it would be a waste of money for EuroDisney to pull down Indiana Jones and the Temple of Peril and replace it with Indiana Adventure. I would be surprised if they did. Why did they build Indiana Jones and the Temple of Peril in the first place? I'd go for Splash Mountain because DLP doesn't have a floom ride. Add just to add I don't see any new Jules Verne themed rides coming to Discoveryland in the future. Unless it's based on a Disney Film like Captain Nemo's Submarine and 20,000 Leaques Under The Sea. I'm still trying to work out how Autopia fits in with Jules Verne.

[JelleP]

I really enjoyed The Temple of Peril actually. It was my first roller coaster with a looping and it made me very proud after I rode it. So I wouldn't say it separates and divides families that much. And if it did, why do we still have Space Mountain, Tower of Terror and Rock 'n Roller Coaster?

And I agree with ed-uk: the Grizzly Trail looks to much like BTM.

[Patrick89]

I like the Temple of Peril, too. And why should it seperate families? If you argue that  way, a theme park mustn't have any thrilling rides...And I wasn't frustrated or anything like that while waiting outside when I had been too small to ride, it just increased my anticipation. I think children can bear not seeing one of their parents for some minutes...Or does La Cabane des Robinsons also divide families because some people are afraid of heights?

Concerning Autopia: Maybe we shouldn't have called it "Jules Verne theme", because it actually focused on how visionarys in the past imagined the future. But nevertheless, Jules Verne played the leading role.

[DLP-Photos.com]

I agree that Temple of Peril isn't a problem by seperating families and for me Indiana Jones Adventure would fit in nicely next to it - however, I wouldn't cry if it were demolished in order to make place for it.

Exactly Patrick, Discoveryland celebrate visionaries and I actually think we have mentioned it several times and simply used Jules Verne as an obvious main person to symobolize this