mickEblu
Well-Known Member
Lol. Well, they were alive weren't they? It was the start of 61+ of years of growth that would become the wall of trees. Being that I don't know how old the trees were before they were planted I'm going with 1954.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Wookies, & Rebels, & Droids... OH WHY?! The Anti-SWL in Disneyland Thread
- Thread starter Californian Elitist
- Start date
Lol. Well, they were alive weren't they? It was the start of 61+ of years of growth that would become the wall of trees. Being that I don't know how old the trees were before they were planted I'm going with 1954.
Stevek
Well-Known Member
Andy is a nutjob and a hack, I take nothing he says seriously at this point. As for Spirit, I generally fall somewhat in line with many of his thoughts. That being said, when he makes statements like "But again, don't twist and contort and spin things to get it to fit your conclusion or your definition of what DL should be" he does exactly what he's railing against...that his opinion of is right (in this situation) and that if you disagree you are wrong and just don't get it. I don't necessarily agree with SW land going in to Disneyland but I've come to accept it. That being said, the Disneyland I started visiting 45 years ago is not that same park today as it was back then. Indy, Star Tours, Toontown...all things that started the change over the past 3 decades. SW Land, appropriate for DL or not (I'm not throttling anyone for their opinions), should have zero impact on the enjoyment of even the purist of purists (beyond increased crowds) because of exactly where it was built. It is out of the way and the person that wants to enjoy the "original" Disneyland and pretend that SW was never built, can do so very easily by just not setting foot back there.
Curious Constance
Well-Known Member
"But again, don't twist and contort and spin things to get it to fit your conclusion or your definition of what DL should be."
And this is different than what he's doing, how exactly?
And this is different than what he's doing, how exactly?
George Lucas on a Bench
Well-Known Member
The real question is, why does nobody pronounce 'Falcon' correctly? It's like they've never seen or heard the old Star Wars movies. It's pronounced 'Fulcun'.
They clean it.
They clean it.
I've never followed Andy Castro on anything, besides his pictorial Disneyland updates, so I can't speak on him. In saying that, I do agree with everything he wrote in his Twitter update.
Spirit, on the other hand, is someone I know personally outside of these forums. He is one of the most respectful people I've met and know, and I beieve you misinterpreted his words. People really do make up ridiculous reasons as to why GE is a nice fit for Disneyland. Our favorite, JT, did just that yesterday, claiming George Lucas was a follower of Walt Disney, and therefore GE fits in the park. Also, people generally take quotes from Walt Disney and spin them in a way to the point where they misunderstand the meaning of the quotes and their argument is watered down because it's solely based on them. Spirit wasn't saying that anyone who disagrees or looks forward to this opening is flatbout wrong.
I can bet no one is looking for Disneyland as it was back in 1955. The original Disneyland, as it was as a park, is gone, obviously. Unfortunately, so are the original ideals and concepts it was built on, thanks to the greed of Iger. GE's placement in the park doesn't soothe anything for me, because it's still in the park, hidden or not. If anything, its "incognito placement leads me to believe Disney is acknowledging it doesn't jive with the rest of the park.
It's nice you've accepted it. Others haven't, including myself, so I will continue to express my opinions with this thread.
Stevek
Well-Known Member
Which is exactly what you should continue to do. Nobody should have a problem with that. Some may disagree but that can lead to good discussion.
Donaldfan1934
Well-Known Member
These tweets are spot on. It's like I've been saying early on, the building of the wall is basically an admission that the land doesn't fit and shouldn't be lauded as a thematic achievement because of it. But considering the reality of things, I have very mixed feelings for the final execution of it all. On one hand, I like that the idea of the RoA and DLRR adding something like these canyons and waterfalls to make things more visually interesting regardless of the insertion of Galaxy's Edge. But since it's core intention is to simply do whatever it can to block out Galaxy's edge, it's extremely unfortunate that it came at the expense of the highly necessary "Wall of Green" which, as I predicted, gives very clear views into Galaxy's edge. To be fair, the imagineers probably did the best they could possibly do with this situation and the area's appearance may change as the trees grow and look better than ever, but I'm still very disapointed Disney didn't use that massive expansion area to build lands/attractions that complimented the RoA and instead chose to permanently land lock it with something completely out of place.
Last edited:
shortstop
Well-Known Member
I think many, myself included, agree with this. But it kind of misses the point. Star Wars in Disneyland, right or wrong, wasn't about using underutilized land in the NW corner of Disneyland, it was about finding a way to get Star Wars in the park. I suspect we wouldn't have seen this land used for anything significant without Star Wars, and by extension, we would have never gotten the river enhancements.
Amen!
Couldn't have said it better myself.
BrianLo
Well-Known Member
I think people will read into this however they want to suite their beliefs... but I don't believe it was an admission of guilt to build this behind a berm. Hyperion wharf would still be built behind a berm. I somewhat doubt they would have pushed the train back even further with a different concept and built a land against the northern boundary of the river... that would have also ruined the river in a different way.
The reason they built a physical barrier is that they really like the envelopes created within Diagon Alley, Mysterious Island and the one entrance with CarsLand. First and foremost it was a design decision for the reveal. Yes it does have the secondary effect of a park within a park, which I understand is in stark contrast to what has come before at DL and folks obviously aren't a fan in this park.
However, lands beyond the berm are hardly a new conceit. Hong Kong has done it in spades and I think most people would be remiss to say Grizzly Gulch doesn't fit or Mystic Point... and that's as Disneyland as a copycat as any park. Paris pushes their canal boats and Casey Junior beyond the railroad berm too.
DHS is also going for the reveal. Not an admission of being a poor fit, but a purposeful design choice. Plus for people who really don't like this land... consider it a blessing in disguise, you could have had a small version of this in plain site occupying the Autotopia plot. At least DL prime is more or less unharmed and arguably got a nice little improvement along the river and railroad.
Travel Junkie
Well-Known Member
As someone who said months ago that WDI did this because they knew it didn't fit and was laughed at, I am glad some others have come around. Had this been a land that fit more thematically with the rest of the park I think you would have seen less of a berm and the railroad be integrated into the new land. When you see Disney or really most major theme park operators build a new land they make an attempt to blend it with the aesthetic of the rest of the park. They are choosing to go in a different direction here. The one positive is that the mountain tops are meant to blend in with Frontierland. But you don't have a situation where you have Frontierland to NO Square to Critter Country transitions. This is letting the guest know there is a purposeful break. I believe that is intentional on WDI's part, an admission of knowing it doesn't fit.
I'm sure there was an element of that, but WDI should not be praised for it. It's the same reason they fail to come up with their own Butterbeer by creating drinks with foam. They don't get why it works for Diagon Alley if they are just copying it.
Hong Kong has many elements that are similar to Disneyland, but it was designed to flow differently than Disneyland. The lands don't mash together. Lands have visual breaks that inform the guest there is a transition from land to land. Grizzly Gulch and Mystic Point don't feel any different being on the other side of the berm than Adventureland. You can barely tell you are on the other side of the railroad. There is consistency. From a design perspective GE will feel different than the rest of the park.
It's a cut and paste from Disneyland. All the insiders have said that this was Disneyland's project and DHS was simply tagging along. Had they designed GE for DHS it would look a whole lot different. In a lot of ways it will be an even more awkward a fit in DHS when comparing it to the design of the rest of the park. It "fits" DHS thematically but not from a design standpoint.
At the end of the day I think GE edge will look great. I just wish it wasn't in Disneyland park as currently constructed.
George Lucas on a Bench
Well-Known Member
The only time I will complain about Star Wars Land at this point is if it causes Disneyland to implode like the house from Poltergeist. It will be in the back of the park separate from everything else and ignorable.
It's not the actual section of the park I'm concerned about. It's all the extra bodies that will be flooding the park that have me concerned.
BrianLo
Well-Known Member
I agree with what you are saying - but I think it's the intent behind the words people are misappropriating. The conclusion is that Star Wars does not fit because they are separating it from the park. WDI, free from the chains of designing any one particular set location from a movie, could have totally created a little land with Star Wars that ran into any surrounding land. They didn't. That was purposeful for many reasons... to create a more separate divide between their renaissance fare land. To have bigger reveals. To be able to market that whole Potter park within a park thing they are jealous of. Because the modern designs of major theme parks these days have drifted away from Walt's first take: disparate themes of things he liked that rammed against one another. AND - maybe because they were lazy... albeit nothing about the ROA project or the plot they picked was the path of least resistance.
Despite all those reasons, the conclusion is that it was a subtle nod to fanboi's that they were in open rebellion about how off theme it was?
Visually, this land will flow far better into Frontierland than Fantasyland does, even if they tore down the berm. It will make more sense than Tomorrowland to Matterhorn. It is stylized to work well from Frontierland and at the other end stylized to work well with Critter Country. Certainly, if there was no berm tunnel at the critter country end I doubt it would even be a visual hinderance at all. Why would they go to all that trouble to make something that works with Disneyland if they think it doesn't actually work with Disneyland and can just be fully hidden behind a dirt wall? Star Wars could have easily been a tomorrowland 2.0 behind that berm - and yet they made the one end look like frontier land and the other look like critter country.
If you want to actually talk about something that starkly stands out of theme... KABLAM.
At least they used a berm and not a line in the sidewalk, which has never actually materialized!
BrianLo
Well-Known Member
Also, can we all agree that nobody loves to stir this hornets nest of drama more than Spirit? He needs to co-author your thread with you @raven24 - continual shots fired. I love watching the fireworks of people in that thread to this topic, I've learned to bite my lip up there on this touchy area.
dweezil78
Well-Known Member
Yeah, but what people seem to forget/not realize is that the bulk of what you see in Harry Potter was actually based on Disney's design to begin with. Disney was there first working on it and a very significant portion of it was literally handed off to Universal to execute after Disney walked away from the deal when JK Rowling wanted total creative control over it. Universal unfairly gets the credit and the public assumes Disney is doing these highly immersive type lands because of Universal's work with HP when in reality they were already headed down that path a long time ago.
Travel Junkie
Well-Known Member
I agree that WDI is doing everything they can to make it work as best they can and I give them big props for doing so. Chances are any new land that was put into Disneyland would not fit in design wise with how Disney is designing lands currently. It just so happen to be Star Wars. If they put Star Wars behind TL (although we know that is logistically impossible) it would have been more of a futuristic themed land.
I don't believe it was some sort of open rebellion on WDI's part. For many reasons they are going for the park within a park concept. One of them is because they know/believe that GE does not fit in with the rest of the park from a design and operation standpoint. IMO.
And I agree with you on spirit. He loves to stir the pot and everything he writes has to be looked at through that lens.
I created an entire thread on this topic. Spirit, every once in a while, comments on the subject and then will talk about something else. If anything, I'm the queen bee in this hive, not Spirit. And it's not drama, it's a topic discussion.
"Spirit" calls me from time to time, and even when we have those phone calls, we speak of this subject for a few minutes and move on.
D
Deleted member 107043
It's impossible for me or anyone else to know what Walt Disney would have thought of Galaxy's Edge, much less his opinion of it being built inside of Disneyland, but assuming it'll arrive as spectacularly as planned I can't help but think he'd be proud of the achievement. I suppose the very fact that this can be debated says that there is no definitive answer on whether a Star Wars realm belongs in Disneyland or not. Disneyland is a state of mind as much as it is a physical place.
IMO I think a lot of us here get overly caught up in our emotional connection with Disneyland and are unable to see or experience it objectively. Consider this as you read the quotes from Walt below. Not trying to change minds about a Star Wars land at Disneyland, just hoping to open a few in the context of this discussion.
"I can never stand still. I must explore and experiment. I am never satisfied with my work. I resent the limitations of my own imagination."
"We keep moving forward, opening new doors, and doing new things, because we're curious and curiosity keeps leading us down new paths."
"Times and conditions change so rapidly that we must keep our aim constantly focused on the future."
IMO I think a lot of us here get overly caught up in our emotional connection with Disneyland and are unable to see or experience it objectively. Consider this as you read the quotes from Walt below. Not trying to change minds about a Star Wars land at Disneyland, just hoping to open a few in the context of this discussion.
"I can never stand still. I must explore and experiment. I am never satisfied with my work. I resent the limitations of my own imagination."
"We keep moving forward, opening new doors, and doing new things, because we're curious and curiosity keeps leading us down new paths."
"Times and conditions change so rapidly that we must keep our aim constantly focused on the future."