Printable View
Why is it, of all the Pixar/Disney films, those chose to create an entire "land" from what is probably the least successful Pixar/Disney film?
Was it that they ran to build it, at the time it had been released the same time DCA opened? Eisner had a Bug up his azz? (lol)
A Toy Story Land would have been much more fun.
...if I'm not mistaken...Quote:
Originally Posted by PanTheMan
"a bug's land" was meant to be a quick-fix for the many complaints that there wasn't enough for kids to do. The quickness of the fix is apparent in the types and qualities of attractions they placed back in that little land. The land's themeing is great, but boy do the rides stink!
Also, it turned into "a bug's land" because of the proximity of It's Tough To Be A Bug and the ability to tie in the land into the farm theming in that area of the park and make transformation from "Bountiful Valley" to "a bug's land" less obtrusive and obvious.
Master Gracey basically said it for me, but with Tough to be a Bug right in the area, it was a more natural fit. They could loosely claim that it was an extension of the farming area and that there are bugs in CA. At the time, There were no Incredibles, no Nemo and barely Monster's Inc., while a Toy Story area would be more fun in my oppinion as well. Thematically, a Toy Story land would seemingly all need to be indoors (Andy's room). So, then it comes down to the money factor again. Bug's Land was made the way it was, because it was quick and easy.
^ Agreed with tie-in to the show, and agreed with quick fix. IMO, Andy's room would be a great idea for an indoor play area. In the old millionair building? Have it look like a movie set, but it would be a fully functional play area, like the Honey I shurnk the Kids area at WDW.
I love its tough to be a bug, but the rest, no its not good and its not fun and its a waste of space!!