Star Wars Land announced for Disney's Hollywood Studios

flyerjab

flyerjab

Well-Known Member
MichWolv said:
TSL is a strange animal. It's what should have been built along with TSMM. Had that happened, we'd have looked at the little coaster and the flat ride as nice companions that turned a headliner attraction into a fully fleshed out land. Because it's being done separately, we evaluate these additions harder.

WDSP did the opposite -- it built the heavily-themed but light on attraction-quality land without the headliner (no TSMM).

We're finally getting what should have been done at first, so that TSL will be a complete land, like Carsland at DCA -- it'll have a headliner attraction, a couple of smaller attractions, good theming (I assume) and shops and restaurants (I assume). It'll just take a decade to arrive instead of arriving at all once like it should have.
Click to expand...

This is how I have always viewed this addition I suppose. I compare the TSL as a whole to the other Toy Story lands that are in Paris and Hong Kong. Each one seems incredibly small with 3 rides aimed very much at small kids (the little parachute drop and slinky merry-go-round as examples). This land isn't its own land but an extension to an extremely popular ride that already exists. In the end, I think that this entire TSL - TSMM, Slinky family coaster and a spinner ride - will be great for families and kids. I can say as a matter of fact that these are 3 rides that I will definitely go on in this park when this expansion is done.

My only reservation with this expansion is that while I don't doubt that the theming will be excellent, I would have preferred the first version of the coaster. Diving below grade would have really been neat. And I also can't feel that cutting out that section where you first entered that appeared to have shops, etc. themed to a small cowboy town would have been a nice addition also. Other than that, though, I am looking forward to it and am glad to see that it is going vertical.
 
DinoInstitute

DinoInstitute

Well-Known Member
MichWolv said:
TSL is a strange animal. It's what should have been built along with TSMM. Had that happened, we'd have looked at the little coaster and the flat ride as nice companions that turned a headliner attraction into a fully fleshed out land. Because it's being done separately, we evaluate these additions harder.

WDSP did the opposite -- it built the heavily-themed but light on attraction-quality land without the headliner (no TSMM).

We're finally getting what should have been done at first, so that TSL will be a complete land, like Carsland at DCA -- it'll have a headliner attraction, a couple of smaller attractions, good theming (I assume) and shops and restaurants (I assume). It'll just take a decade to arrive instead of arriving at all once like it should have.
Click to expand...
I don't agree that's the problem with TSL at all. At the time, when it opened, I think the Pixar Place concept is exactly what should have been built- it fit the theme of the park and lended itself to great expansion. Of course, we never got any expansion.

IMO, the problems with TSL all boil down to poor use of resources. TSL is something that should be a smaller, side addition, not a main project as huge as it is. It takes up so much land, it is taking them waayyyy longer than it should, and is costing them an insane amount for what we're getting, which means budget cuts.

Again-it's a fine concept...but not for a huge anchor land. I wouldn't have minded us getting the generic TSL and have it opening next year, with more projects on the way on that plot of land in the following years. So, I think it's not that it's a decade late or even that the idea of a TSL a bad theme, they are just executing it all so poorly.
 
DinoInstitute

DinoInstitute

Well-Known Member
flyerjab said:
This land isn't its own land but an extension to an extremely popular ride that already exists.
Click to expand...
Which in itself is an interesting point to think about. I feel like they've mistaken the demand for TSMM for demand for more Toy Story content. When in actuality it's likely just that it's a nice family ride in a park with not many, as DCA's wait times would suggest. Not that TSL wouldn't have a lot of popularity and draw, but at the same time I'd imagine a lot of those crowds would likely have been pleased with anything. So that could have factored into their reasoning for a TSL too.
 
Last edited:
Earl Sweatpants

Earl Sweatpants

Well-Known Member
IDInstitute said:
Which in itself is an interesting point to think about. I feel like they've mistaken the demand for TSMM for demand for more Toy Story content. When in actuality it's likely just that it's a nice family ride in a park with not many, as DCA's wait times would suggest. Not that TSL wouldn't have a lot of popularity and draw, but at the same time I'd imagine a lot of those crowds would likely have been pleased with anything. So that could have factored into their reasoning for a TSL too.
Click to expand...
It makes perfect sense. Take one of the more popular attractions in an already attraction barren park, and react to its popularity by building an entire "land" behind it. Brilliant.
 
WDWtraveler

WDWtraveler

Well-Known Member
Photo update, as of Thursday, October 20. Finally, the old Town Hall wooden building between the Lights, Motors, Action stunt show entrance and the old Premiere Theatre is being taken down.

IMG_8517.JPG
 
Rob562

Rob562

Well-Known Member
danlb_2000 said:
Yes, but I assumed they would re-route that and then take the building down. Maybe they found it would be easier to carefully remove the building and then do the re-route.
Click to expand...

Rerouting major power lines is a large and expensive undertaking. If they can at all avoid it I'm sure they'd try. (Just look at the lengths they went to in Avatar to keep the old CMM bathrooms in place for reuse?

Since that looks like it'll be backstage (or barely on-stage) on some of the groundplan renderings I've seen, they may just build a new enclosure around it that more easily blends into the new landscape.

-Rob
 
Last edited:
Master Yoda

Master Yoda

Pro Star Wars geek.
Premium Member
Rob562 said:
Rerouting major power lines is a large and expensive undertaking. If they can at all avoid it I'm sure they'd try. (Just look at the lengths they went to in Avatar to keep the old CMM bathrooms in place for reuse?

Since that looks like it'll be backstage (or barely on-stage) on some of the groundplan renderings I've seen, they may just build a new enclosure around it that more easily blends into the new landscape.

-Rob
Click to expand...
It would not surprise me one bit if that was done to be able to legally classify the Avatar expansion as a remodel.
 
danlb_2000

danlb_2000

Premium Member
Rob562 said:
Rerouting major power lines is a large and expensive undertaking. If they can at all avoid it I'm sure they'd try. (Just look at the lengths they went to in Avatar to keep the old CMM bathrooms in place for reuse?

Since that looks like it'll be backstage (or barely on-stage) on some of the groundplan renderings I've seen, they may just build a new enclosure around it that more easily blends into the new landscape.

-Rob
Click to expand...

Good point.
 
1023

1023

Provocateur, Rancanteur, Plaisanter, du Jour
IDInstitute said:
Which in itself is an interesting point to think about. I feel like they've mistaken the demand for TSMM for demand for more Toy Story content. When in actuality it's likely just that it's a nice family ride in a park with not many, as DCA's wait times would suggest. Not that TSL wouldn't have a lot of popularity and draw, but at the same time I'd imagine a lot of those crowds would likely have been pleased with anything. So that could have factored into their reasoning for a TSL too.
Click to expand...

Brilliant insight. This type of thinking is not new. It is just a way to tie a type of "attraction area" together.

Thoughts on the imagineering today versus yesteryear to follow:

Looking at Disneyland, you created a place where once you crossed the berm, you were truly someplace that never quite existed or couldn't possibly exist. Truthfully, the whole park could have been named Fantasyland. Instead, Walt walked you down Main Street at the turn of the century with a fondness from an idealized version of memories. He presented you with a castle, that for some reason didn't seem out of place because you were led to it. Led into a Fantasy.

If you think about it, once you entered through the Castle, you were actually in Fairytaleland. This was a collection of the retelling of these stories that Walt had re-crafted to make his own. The cohesive theme was fairytales and it was big enough for all IPs in that realm/genre.

Now we move forward to just a few years ago and one example that can't be ignored. In 1998, a popular attraction was placed in a Disney park "weenie" (well sort of placed in it) - It's Tough to be a Bug. Fast forward a few years to 2001 when this attraction opens in DCA. Now, a few year after that, the park needs major fixing. (sound familiar?) In drops the family friendly zone the park desperately needed in "A Bug's Land". The park needed a huge area full of kid friendly rides. So instead of making an area that would be inclusive of other IPs, we build an area onto an existing attraction. (To be fair, the land was considered during construction, but the concept is the same.)

Building an entire zone to a single IP is very limiting in some ways but practical in others. The Star Wars IP has nearly limitless expansion directions. Some other IPs really shouldn't have more than one attraction.

Observations and 2 cents reflected above.

*1023*
 
Earl Sweatpants

Earl Sweatpants

Well-Known Member
1023 said:
Brilliant insight. This type of thinking is not new. It is just a way to tie a type of "attraction area" together.

Thoughts on the imagineering today versus yesteryear to follow:

Looking at Disneyland, you created a place where once you crossed the berm, you were truly someplace that never quite existed or couldn't possibly exist. Truthfully, the whole park could have been named Fantasyland. Instead, Walt walked you down Main Street at the turn of the century with a fondness from an idealized version of memories. He presented you with a castle, that for some reason didn't seem out of place because you were led to it. Led into a Fantasy.

If you think about it, once you entered through the Castle, you were actually in Fairytaleland. This was a collection of the retelling of these stories that Walt had re-crafted to make his own. The cohesive theme was fairytales and it was big enough for all IPs in that realm/genre.

Now we move forward to just a few years ago and one example that can't be ignored. In 1998, a popular attraction was placed in a Disney park "weenie" (well sort of placed in it) - It's Tough to be a Bug. Fast forward a few years to 2001 when this attraction opens in DCA. Now, a few year after that, the park needs major fixing. (sound familiar?) In drops the family friendly zone the park desperately needed in "A Bug's Land". The park needed a huge area full of kid friendly rides. So instead of making an area that would be inclusive of other IPs, we build an area onto an existing attraction. (To be fair, the land was considered during construction, but the concept is the same.)

Building an entire zone to a single IP is very limiting in some ways but practical in others. The Star Wars IP has nearly limitless expansion directions. Some other IPs really shouldn't have more than one attraction.

Observations and 2 cents reflected above.

*1023*
Click to expand...
SW might have endless expansion directions...but where are they going to go?? They're already building themselves into a literal corner...yet another reason why an entire park makes more sense than a smaller "land". SWL cannot expand its borders anymore without encroaching on something that already exists.
 
LuvtheGoof

LuvtheGoof

Grill Master
Premium Member
1023 said:
Building an entire zone to a single IP is very limiting in some ways but practical in others. The Star Wars IP has nearly limitless expansion directions. Some other IPs really shouldn't have more than one attraction.
*1023*
Click to expand...
And this is where I disagree with pretty much everyone. We have Fantasyland, Frontierland, Adventureland, etc. Now I realize that Disney is calling it Star Wars Land, but it could just as easily have been called something like Spaceland. They have already stated that you are NOT visiting ANY planet that currently exists in the SW universe, nor is the cantina going to be a copy of Mos Eisley. They are creating an area where you are visiting another planet. They could easily add different "space" related areas into it in the future, and it would fit the theme just fine. I think people are getting way too hung up on the Star Wars part, just like they are getting too hung up over the Avatar movie for Pandora. Oh, and the billions of people that have never seen Star Wars or Avatar are going to love those areas, and they aren't going to care one whit if it was based on a movie franchise.
 
danlb_2000

danlb_2000

Premium Member
Earl Sweatpants said:
SW might have endless expansion directions...but where are they going to go?? They're already building themselves into a literal corner...yet another reason why an entire park makes more sense than a smaller "land". SWL cannot expand its borders anymore without encroaching on something that already exists.
Click to expand...

If they really want to...

upload_2016-10-21_16-26-2.png
 

Attachments

  • upload_2016-10-21_16-25-39.png
    upload_2016-10-21_16-25-39.png
    1.3 MB · Views: 50

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

Back
Top Bottom