Wookies, & Rebels, & Droids... OH WHY?! The Anti-SWL in Disneyland Thread

[Curious Constance]

It's not about being right, I can understand both sides if there's a level of compatibility between viewpoints, and not the I'm right and you're wrong attitude that others seem to have.

But this doesn't really answer my question which is more geared towards the thematic elements of SWL behind Frontierland in a Magic Kingdom style park. How does it fit thematically? And if it does fit thematically, does that also mean it would have fit in the Magic Kingdom as well? Magic Kingdom is also in desperate need of an E-Ticket and added capacity. Plus, Disney has plenty of films it could use for attractions to boost DHS. So taking logistics out of the picture and just from a thematic standpoint...that's my main criticism.

I think Han's post may have been misunderstood. I don't think he had any intention of having a "I'm right and you're wrong" attitude, I think his point was that he has seen plenty of arguments as to why SWL doesn't fit in Disneyland, but none that convinces him it doesn't belong.

And regarding SWL at Magic Kingdom, I don't think it would be a bad fit there, I just think it would have made zero sense to add another huge draw to that park when it's already outperforming all the other parks by such a huge margin.
Again, same could be said for DL/DCA, but we're back at the size issue.

 

[BrianLo]

The concerning thing that I see is the encroachment on theme, disrupting the flow of Disneyland. If this was such a good fit and Disney is building SWL on both coasts, then naturally it would go in the same empty plot behind Frontierland in the WDW Magic Kingdom, right? But instead, they're placing it in Hollywood Studios...hmm. Maybe it's because the plot behind Frontierland isn't the greatest fit.

To be fair, that argument doesn't hold much weight when the land was 100% designed, aesthetically and layout wise, for Disneyland. That's not an opinion, everyone is quite aware that's how this shook out.

It is being copied and pasted to DHS because that park is a giant mess and MK is overflowing with guests. The opposite rhetorical argument applies, if the land was supposed to only go in a studio park why did they design it for the castle park on the west coast and copy paste it in the 'wrong' park on the east? Why isn't DCA getting it out West if the 'studio' park is the only correct fit?

I know and fully admit for thematic reasons DHS is the way easier pill to swallow, but the transitions make more sense in Disneyland. That's not me convincing people they have to *like* it, or that it makes it right. But the transitons were made for a rocky frontier land or a forested critter country. Not for plastic Toy Story Land or weird muppet studios/New York streetscape remnants into a foreign planet that's half frontier land-esque rock work, half critter country in aesthetic.

 

[dweezil78]

Actually it's exactly what you said.

If it's such a good fit then why wouldn't it be in the same spot in WDW? Forget about the size argument, if it's a good fit thematically behind Frontierland, then there should be no reason to put it somewhere else, especially when the Magic Kingdom in WDW hasn't gotten an E-Ticket since 1992.

No. I am not trying to debate whether or not it is a good thematic fit -- I think that is where you continue to mistake things. That is a very subjective debate that I'm not about to get into because I've been there, done that and it goes nowhere. I'm purely looking at this logically -- and logically there was only one place this could go at DL regardless of whether or not it is a good thematic fit.

You asked why this did not go in the same place at WDW. For all I know, SWL was born as a DHS idea that they wanted to bring to Anaheim as well. Well, there is no DHS in Anaheim. Only DL and a California themed park. Third gate not happening anytime soon. So that decision is a rather simple one if SWL is a must-have in Anaheim. Whether or not you like it or it fits thematically is a whole other thing.

 

[Deleted member 107043]

I think Han's post may have been misunderstood. I don't think he had any intention of having a "I'm right and you're wrong" attitude, I think his point was that he has seen plenty of arguments as to why SWL doesn't fit in Disneyland, but none that convinces him it doesn't belong.

Note that I clarified by saying that philosophically there hasn't been an argument made, including the current back and forth here, that proves SW Land is unaligned with DL's core values.

I get being unhappy that SW Land is what they decided to build in Disneyland, maybe because you personally don't care for SW, or don't care for single IP theme land trend, or don't like the idea of so much space being devoted to one concept, or some other personal reason, but some of you are reacting as if they are building nuclear warheads for the North Koreans behind Frontierland or something equally criminal.

 

[spacemt354]

I think Han's post may have been misunderstood. I don't think he had any intention of having a "I'm right and you're wrong" attitude, I think his point was that he has seen plenty of arguments as to why SWL doesn't fit in Disneyland, but none that convinces him it doesn't belong.

And regarding SWL at Magic Kingdom, I don't think it would be a bad fit there, I just think it would have made zero sense to add another huge draw to that park when it's already outperforming all the other parks by such a huge margin.
Again, same could be said for DL/DCA, but we're back at the size issue.

It wasn't misunderstood. It was someone who claimed there was no basis for a differing opinion. To each his own though.

And we can agree to disagree on its placement, but I haven't been convinced of its thematic relevance and proper placement, especially for the size that it is taking up. To have to re-route and re-organizing things entirely, taking the mystery and ambiance of the back corner of the park and making it something that I personally feel, fits better in another park.

To be fair, that argument doesn't hold much weight when the land was 100% designed, aesthetically and layout wise, for Disneyland. That's not an opinion, everyone is quite aware that's how this shook out.

It is being copied and pasted to DHS because that park is a giant mess and MK is overflowing with guests. The opposite rhetorical argument applies, if the land was supposed to only go in a studio park why did they design it for the castle park on the west coast and copy paste it in the 'wrong' park on the east? Why isn't DCA getting it out West of the 'studio' park is the only correct fit?

I know and fully admit for thematic reasons DHS is the way easier pill to swallow, but the transitions make more sense in Disneyland. That's not me convincing people they have to *like* it, or that it makes it right. But the transitons were made for a rocky frontier land or a forested critter country. Not for plastic Toy Story Land or weird muppet studios/New York streetscape remnants into a foreign planet that's half frontier land-esque rock work, half critter country in aesthetic.

DHS has been a mess of theme for a long time, however starting over with Star Wars Land, in a film/Hollywood park and in the back of the park transitioning from a forested Toy Story Land with proper tunneled transitions as it seems, is a much better fit than shoehorning it in the back of Disneyland (to me at least). If you've been following along, the rhetorical argument began by someone saying that SWL fits thematically in that area of Disneyland. I have yet to hear something to sway me that opinion is an accurate one. All parks plan for specific inclusions, so obviously Disney planned for SWL to be in that location. That is not what is being debated. What is being debated is whether that planning was right and had considerations for what Disneyland is all about.

No. I am not trying to debate whether or not it is a good thematic fit -- I think that is where you continue to mistake things. That is a very subjective debate that I'm not about to get into because I've been there, done that and it goes nowhere. I'm purely looking at this logically -- and logically there was only one place this could go at DL regardless of whether or not it is a good thematic fit.

You asked why this did not go in the same place at WDW. For all I know, SWL was born as a DHS idea that they wanted to bring to Anaheim as well. Well, there is no DHS in Anaheim. Only DL and a California themed park. Third gate not happening anytime soon. So that decision is a rather simple one if SWL is a must-have in Anaheim. Whether or not you like it or it fits thematically is a whole other thing.

Yes, but that was my question -- regarding thematic relevance. If you don't want to talk about that, fine. But you do realize this is an anti-Star Wars thread, correct? Some topics you may not like will probably be discussed and asked to people who agree with the decision for its inclusion. But nevertheless, I can agree in one point that people are dug in their opinions and nobody is going to change at this point, so I guess going on any further will just be rinse and repeat, which is a waste of time.

 

[spacemt354]

Note that I clarified by saying that philosophically there hasn't been an argument made, including the current back and forth here, that proves SW Land is unaligned with DL's core values.

And your side of the argument has yet to prove this as well. You post as if you've already proven that it fits philosophically, or thematically, or whatever adjective you want to use, and the "against" it side needs to keep defending themselves. This kind of thinking is why this debate goes in circles.

 

[mickEblu]

No. I am not trying to debate whether or not it is a good thematic fit -- I think that is where you continue to mistake things. That is a very subjective debate that I'm not about to get into because I've been there, done that and it goes nowhere. I'm purely looking at this logically -- and logically there was only one place this could go at DL regardless of whether or not it is a good thematic fit.

You asked why this did not go in the same place at WDW. For all I know, SWL was born as a DHS idea that they wanted to bring to Anaheim as well. Well, there is no DHS in Anaheim. Only DL and a California themed park. Third gate not happening anytime soon. So that decision is a rather simple one if SWL is a must-have in Anaheim. Whether or not you like it or it fits thematically is a whole other thing.

Well I don't think DCA Being a California themed park is what stopped SWL from going there. Cough cough (The Collectors Tower) Cough Cough. It was likely that it didn't go into DCA because there was not enough room. Unless they created a bridge to the Simba Lot but that's another conversation.

 

[Deleted member 107043]

And your side of the argument has yet to prove this as well.

What's there for me to prove? It's a series of universally popular space fantasy stories about good and evil forces suitable for a family audience that Disney OWNS and controls. Of course it fits.

 

[spacemt354]

What's there for me to prove? It's a series of universally popular space fantasy stories about good and evil forces suitable for a family audience that Disney OWNS and controls. Of course it fits.

This kind of thinking is how we got Guardians Tower in a California based park.

 

[BrianLo]

DHS has been a mess of theme for a long time, however starting over with Star Wars Land, in a film/Hollywood park and in the back of the park transitioning from a forested Toy Story Land with proper tunneled transitions as it seems, is a much better fit than shoehorning it in the back of Disneyland (to me at least).

Keep in mind what I am talking about is the land, not the intellectual property behind the land. I only bring this up because you were trying to discuss land transitions to justify mismatch of the intellectual property.

Toy Story Land is not forested. There are trees, but it is not a forest. You go from the size of a toy in Andy's Backyard with strung Christmas bulbs to the space frontier with the design scale sensibilities of Disneyland and the aesthetic rock work picked to blend into frontierland. The other problem is you don't even transition into the forested side of Star Wars, you transition into the rock work side from that entrance.

Let alone the other transition walking down the remnants of Streets of America and erupting into a random space forest. A tunnel is not a transition, the tunnels were/are picked for the reveal originally and conveniently at least allow it to workout in DHS. Currently DHS goes from cityscape (streets of America) -> Forest (Battlescape) -> cityscape (the main trading post) -> 'Forest' (Toy story). They copied and pasted it the wrong way.

Again, the land was designed ground up for Disneyland, it was shoehorned into DHS. I just don't think you can apply the criticism that this was shoehorned into Disneyland and organically added to DHS when, in actuality, the opposite is the actual truth. I'm not trying to take away from the grander points, I just don't think accusing the land of not being designed for Disneyland can be one of them.

I'm also of the opposite opinion, I see no point in visiting this in WDW. It technically costs me about the same to visit either resort. I am however a bit proponent of their hotel idea, something actually designed for the resort mindset of WDW.

 

[spacemt354]

Toy Story Land is not forested. There are trees, but it is not a forest. You go from the size of a toy in Andy's Backyard with strung Christmas bulbs to the space frontier with the design scale sensibilities of Disneyland and the aesthetic rock work picked to blend into frontierland. The other problem is you don't even transition into the forested side of Star Wars, you transition into the rock work side from that entrance.

Let alone the other transition walking down the remnants of Streets of America and erupting into a random space forest.

Again, the land was designed ground up for Disneyland, it was shoehorned into DHS. I just don't think you can apply the criticism that this was shoehorned into Disneyland and organically added to DHS when, in actuality, the opposite is the actual truth. I'm not trying to take away from the grander points, I just don't think accusing the land of not being designed for Disneyland can be one of them.

I'm also of the opposite opinion, I see no point in visiting this in WDW. It technically costs me about the same to visit either resort. I am however a bit proponent of their hotel idea, something actually designed for the resort mindset of WDW.

I never said it wasn't designed for Disneyland and clearly they've made attempts to have it blend in. Please stop insinuating that I've said that they didn't design it for Disneyland, or the opposite for DHS, because I didn't. At the same time, the footprint in Disneyland gives off the impression that it is being forced into the park, that was my point. As you even stated before, the placement in DHS is the easier pill to swallow. Is it perfect in DHS? No, but in my opinion, whether right or wrong, it fits better than it does in Disneyland due to the reasons that I have expressed throughout the day to various people. That's all I was trying to say.

From a financial standpoint, it makes much more sense for someone on the east coast who is closer to Florida to visit SWL in WDW. So that opinion is simply based on location.

 

[BrianLo]

I never said it wasn't designed for Disneyland and clearly they've made attempts to have it blend in. Please stop insinuating that I've said that they didn't design it for Disneyland, or the opposite for DHS, because I didn't.

Fair enough, you never said designed. I was taking the implication from the word shoehorned. I guess I just couldn't see how one was purpose built but shoehorned, and the other was copy-pasted - but not shoehorned.

I'm actually just annoyed that they didn't consider the needs of DHS and copied and pasted it. You are right, there is no reason to visit both ultimately. DHS should have received their own unique planet. If we held WDW to the same standards as Disneyland it would be in a much better place.

 

[Deleted member 107043]

This kind of thinking is how we got Guardians Tower in a California based park.

 

[spacemt354]

I'm actually just annoyed that they didn't consider the needs of DHS and copied and pasted it. You are right, there is no reason to visit both ultimately. DHS should have received their own unique planet. If we held WDW to the same standards as Disneyland it would be in a much better place.

Haven't agreed with much today here for some reason -- but 100% agree with this.

 

[Travel Junkie]

What's there for me to prove? It's a series of universally popular space fantasy stories about good and evil forces suitable for a family audience that Disney OWNS and controls. Of course it fits.

To clarify you are saying that anything Disney owns fits into Disneyland or any Disney theme park? Anything? Anywhere?

 

[Deleted member 107043]

To clarify you are saying that anything Disney owns fits into Disneyland or any Disney theme park? Anything? Anywhere?

Thanks for asking. To answer your question, no. If Disney owned a chain of brothels or strip clubs do you think I'd approve of them being included inside Disneyland? Remember my position is that SW Land fits in Disneyland philosophically, or rather that it isn't opposed conceptually in any way to the guiding framework laid by Walt Disney and the Imagineers for the park's original 5 themed lands.

 

[Curious Constance]

I think that no matter what you think about the fit for Star Wars land in DL specifically, it's hard to argue that they aren't doing everything they can to make the fit as seamless and smooth as possible. And at the end of the day, that's what really important to me.

In reality, there are going to be gigantic IPs that the public demands come to life in the theme parks, and there may be times when that requires less than ideal placement circumstances. It's not like they can build a new park every time something doesn't fit perfectly elsewhere. As long as they take care to to the best with what they got, I'm good.

 

[Travel Junkie]

Thanks for asking. To answer your question, no. If Disney owned a chain of brothels or strip clubs do you think I'd approve of them being included inside Disneyland? Remember my position is that SW Land fits in Disneyland philosophically, or rather that it isn't opposed conceptually in any way to the guiding framework laid by Walt Disney and the Imagineers for the park's original 5 themed lands.

Obviously Disney doesn't own any of those things and we are talking about what they currently own. Your previous statement is that if it's popular, family friendly, and owned by Disney, it automatically belongs period end of discussion. Meaning that Star Wars can not only be included but included in any fashion. Frozen can be used in Frontier land because it's popular and family friendly and popular. That fits the criteria of your previous statement.

Now you say something different. SWL fits philosophically. But How? Why? What guiding principle? I don't see it as Idealized Americana in any way.

 

[SuddenStorm]

Whew, I thought I was on the Micechat boards for a sec there...

 

[SuddenStorm]

I think the biggest takeaway from the last few pages is that Disneyland means different things to different people. And that's the beauty of it- it has a theme but a loose one.

The opening dedication states "Disneyland is your land. Here, age relives fond memories of the past, and here youth may savor the challenge and promise of the future. Disneyland is dedicated to the ideals, the dreams, and the hard facts that have created America, with the hope that it will be a source of joy and inspiration to all the world."

"Here, age relives fond memories of the past" For the last 40 years, people have been growing up with Star Wars. It's nostalgic. It defined a generation. AND, new content is constantly being created winning over a new generation.

I think SWL fits better than I'd like to admit, since I am opposed to it being built. Personally, I would have preferred them developing a variety of new IPs, attractions, and experiences based on new stuff the imagineers dream up than put in a SW land. But, since that's not the direction Disney is taking, SW is the next best thing. When Disneyland was built going to space, the old west, etc. was all the rage. Kids dressed up like astronauts, played cowboys and Indians, etc. We've long since gone to space. The old west is all but forgotten. Today, kids play with lightsabers. They pretend to be superheroes.

The best part is, all the old west stuff, Tomorrowland, and Fantasyland are still there. They aren't going anywhere. Since SWL is in the back corner of the park, those that are against it will never have to go near it. Ever.