-
The new WDWMAGIC iOS app is here!
Stay up to date with the latest Disney news, photos, and discussions right from your iPhone. The app is free to download and gives you quick access to news articles, forums, photo galleries, park hours, weather and Lightning Lane pricing. Learn More -
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Does anyone else think Galaxy’s Edge is a misfire?
- Thread starter Pizza Moon
- Start date
Obviously you wouldn’t have Darth Vader and Darth Maul or General Grievous swapped out, you’d have to make it consistent, but purely to let your mind run, it just seems even wackier that they chose to time lock it in between 8 and 9.
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
Yes.
Next question?
Next question?
You go on X and literally the entirety of the theme park community there acts like it would make no difference.
Was watching the Star Tours Behind the Attraction episode and the way they act like it was some “obvious” choice when it literally just shows how creatively bankrupt Iger is because he’s the one that made the decision for both the scripts for the Star Wars sequels AND the land being set between 8/9.
God I hope Mandalorian and Grogu flops so hard; Lucasfilms needs to learn a lesson, while I’m hopeful Falcon the ride is much improved and will have guest feedback to show for it.
Baloo124
Well-Known Member
Strange that this would be confusing to some, but let me help you out and explain.
I gather it's AI imagery depicting what Galaxy's Edge would look like if characters from the original and prequel trilogies were implemented into the environment and story. All hypothetical scenario, of course.
Does that help?
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
Pretty sure it was just a question about Star Wars…not a definitive statement on the future of the “arts”
Quite simply…Disney never got it…doesn’t understand it…and built a monument to it in 2 locations
And now since little Bobby has ego issues…he’ll have to be dead for their ever to be the slimmest of chances to course correct.
ChrisFL
Premium Member
In addition to using exorbitant amounts of electricity and water and now there's a major RAM shortage causing PC and other electronics who rely on RAM to spike...all thanks to AI Slop
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
Is that why the spiny thing has returned with vengeance?
StarWarsGirl
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- No
I get why from a story perspective they did it. They wanted to have it in a timeline where they hadn't fully explored, they wanted it on a planet where they hadn't filmed any movies so they would have creative freedom, and by centering the rides on when they were creating the movies, they had the actors available. Rise of the Resistance is definitely amazing work, and the lightsaber building experience was amazing. My family has also banned me from going into Droid Depot.
But they definitely need more there and to incorporate more classic characters besides just Chewy.
And, most importantly...they needed more than two rides.
On the bright side, in Batuu west, those are my favorite restrooms in the park. 10/10.
But they definitely need more there and to incorporate more classic characters besides just Chewy.
And, most importantly...they needed more than two rides.
On the bright side, in Batuu west, those are my favorite restrooms in the park. 10/10.
flynnibus
Premium Member
Anyone else wanna beat a dead horse?
Disney needed a franchise with new blood... get over it already
FiestaFunKid
Well-Known Member
It wasn't for lack of effort IMO - details are there, Rise was a huge step forward in attraction tech and execution - but a major miscalculation of what content people wanted showcased.
The characters are not as timeless as those from the classic films and the land itself is based on fairly generic rock work and trees - it's not amazingly transformative to a Star Wars specific time and place - so it doesn't generate the high level of immersive feeling as Harry Potter does with it's familar locales.
And just anecdotally, regular people (not us parks fanatics) were raving about Potter after it opened. I do/did not sense the same with GE with the exception of some Rise love.
The characters are not as timeless as those from the classic films and the land itself is based on fairly generic rock work and trees - it's not amazingly transformative to a Star Wars specific time and place - so it doesn't generate the high level of immersive feeling as Harry Potter does with it's familar locales.
And just anecdotally, regular people (not us parks fanatics) were raving about Potter after it opened. I do/did not sense the same with GE with the exception of some Rise love.
StarWarsGirl
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- No
I think Potter also has more attractions and continues to get more attractions. Disney just stuck GE there and was like "alright, we're done."
But on the other hand, the Potter actors are (mostly) still alive and available to do voice work (or to do filming and be aged down). James Earl Jones passed, and Carrie Fisher obviously is gone. So we have the prequel actors, Harrison Ford, and Mark Hamill. They can use them, but their voices sound significantly different.
The Mandalorian also wasn't released until after GE opened, which could have caused a significant change in creative direction given its popularity.
Disstevefan1
Well-Known Member
To answer OP, Does anyone else think Galaxy’s Edge is a misfire?
Yes.
Firstly, I miss the Osborne lights
But the real mistake was not going with the original trilogy for this area.
In my opinion.
Yes.
Firstly, I miss the Osborne lights
But the real mistake was not going with the original trilogy for this area.
In my opinion.
This is such a tired and lazy excuse, it’s like saying I must accept a “Wish” or “Raya and the last dragon” land instead of Lion King because it’s all Disney animation and we must accept newer, less beloved and popular IPs; sure, a land is not about IP quality in the end, but if you’re going to use IP you might as well do it right. Or a Lion King remake land in Paris right? Wasn’t there confusion and backlash for a moment until we got clarity—there’s a reason for that.
It is the equivalent of making 2 cloned, billion dollar Fantastic Beasts lands, and time locking yourself in between Fantastic Beasts 2 and 3. The mockery from Potter fans would’ve been forever endless.
Imagineering wanted to do what I’m describing, it was Iger directly that made the choice according to Disney’s own documentary, which prompted me to rethink this whole thing again and make this post, so no, it was about Iger’s idiotic decision to say “it’s about new blood” when that’s not what people wanted, and they keep pushing that PR term instead of admitting it was a bad idea.
They literally acted like anything George Lucas did is bad, and you still act like it was anything other than Bob’s ego. The land has good elements, particularly Rise’s execution, but it could be better with a more interesting world we actually care about, and a land deliberately less sterile (Batuu wasn’t an inherently bad idea how they committed way too hard to “realism” to it instead of integrating aspects from Star Wars that would flesh out a land in the real world). I’m not even complaining about the shopping mall feel, but it just feels lifeless and like a knockoff.
I mean, I’m not a huge Cars fan, but Cars Land itself is just so much more pleasant to be in.
At the very least, not involving so many characters people like in the land today, just as an easy switch, is mind boggling and really just shows the stubbornness has nothing to do with anything other than their pride, sort of like how Jasmine doesn’t wear her movie costume anymore in the park which is ridiculous.
Experiencing Isle of Berk and Ministry of Magic (the land) woke me back up to this reality. For a while I had this thought process and just waved it off and accepted it despite my frustrations, but I’m like, why does Pandora, despite being smaller and a franchise I care less about feel so much more natural and artistic? Why do these lands at Epic with so much interactivity and animatronics feel so much more alive? Why is it true despite me preferring Star Wars?
I am simply giving my perspective into what the land could’ve been, and deep down we all know it would’ve been a bigger hit. In what world is Avatar a bigger draw than Star Wars, yet that’s how it played out, literally according to Bob’s own words as well. They seemed to have learned their lesson entirely with Villains Land, and aren’t cutting things, and rather than giving us Maleficent 2014, they are giving us what we actually want. What gives with Galaxy’s Edge still?
No one makes these comparisons with the Harry Potter lands because they actually did the franchise justice; to me the films are irrelevant, even if they were elite I think it would’ve been silly to just focus on them exclusively. There are so many interesting things pull from, yet they’ve already admitted the original Smuggler’s Run concept was horribly executed, Rise was at least well done, but still.
They could’ve incorporated the sequels, even though they’re a mess, even tho I’m not a fan of any of it but really the cinematography and editing of Episode 7 and the art direction of 8, but to literally create a land with these arbitrary constraints makes absolutely no sense.
I get the sense we also got a very sanitized, childish version compared to what we should’ve had too, and of course the “Galactic Starcruiser” directly impacted the results of Florida.
Attachments
Lack of Osborne Lights, GMR, and an OG Trilogy land I honestly think are stupider misses than EPCOT. Star Wars Weekends felt more Star Wars than the land today does.To answer OP, Does anyone else think Galaxy’s Edge is a misfire?
Yes.
Firstly, I miss the Osborne lights
But the real mistake was not going with the original trilogy for this area.
In my opinion.
Disstevefan1
Well-Known Member
Yes, Disney (actually KK) tried (and failed) to get new blood into the franchise, and in my opinion this area is also a misfire.
Spectro shire
Well-Known Member
Tha Realest
Well-Known Member
That infusion of “new blood” has resulted in one of the most profitable theatrical franchises becoming afraid of movie theaters for going on 7 years, a moribund land, and a hotel experience that lasted a year and a half and likely cost the parks a few hundred million dollars. All germane to the conversation.