News Star Wars: Galaxy's Edge - Historical Construction/Impressions

[parksandtravel]

The land doesn’t need a Roller coaster to be successful. I think this is more of a complaint that people really want a roller coaster in the resort (which is fair and valid).

Part of the reason I say that is that a roller coaster in Galaxies Edge in Florida would be a horrible menu choice. It’s more intrinsically a complaint about DLR than specifically the land.

I’d circle back to GSATs, Galaxies Edge is Disneyland Resort guests favourite land, so they clearly didn’t something well.

Avengers campus has a true thrill ride FYI. I also anticipate both new attractions will be “pseudo-thrilling”, the flat possibly in the classical movement sense.

I for one think Rise is very thrilling. A coaster is a crowd pleaser but it’s just a cheap thrill. Rise gets crowds talking just as well.

Again, I realize people want a ride like Cosmic Rewind for the resort, which is valid. But neither land is flawed in and of themselves for not doing that.

Agree; I also believe the MCU fanbase demographic skews to gen-z and millennials so a rollercoaster matches that demographic more. SW has a wider demographic.

 

[DrStarlander]

The land doesn’t need a Roller coaster to be successful. I think this is more of a complaint that people really want a roller coaster in the resort (which is fair and valid).

Part of the reason I say that is that a roller coaster in Galaxies Edge in Florida would be a horrible menu choice. It’s more intrinsically a complaint about DLR than specifically the land.

I’d circle back to GSATs, Galaxies Edge is Disneyland Resort guests favourite land, so they clearly didn’t something well.

Avengers campus has a true thrill ride FYI. I also anticipate both new attractions will be “pseudo-thrilling”, the flat possibly in the classical movement sense.



I for one think Rise is very thrilling. A coaster is a crowd pleaser but it’s just a cheap thrill. Rise gets crowds talking just as well.

Again, I realize people want a ride like Cosmic Rewind for the resort, which is valid. But neither land is flawed in and of themselves for not doing that.

It's true they rethemed ToT as Guardians of the Galaxy (a compromised way to go about creating an IP attraction, but setting that aside), though when they opened Avenger's Campus four years later, it did not open with a thrill ride featuring the most well known characters, and the land also did not tie into Mission Breakout thematically. So the land's lukewarm reception I think has been significantly because of the lack of a thrilling ride about the characters most people think of when they think Marvel / Avengers: Spider-Man, Iron Man, Captain America, Thor...

And if you went up to complainers in 2021 and said "but Mission Breakout," I think they would have said: "we already had that ride. And even now it's not really Avengers."

I would be interested to know the company's thinking behind Cosmic Rewind and the Spider-Man coaster being built in Shanghai and why in the word they'd think those projects makes sense (said sarcastically). But I didn't say a thrill ride had to be a coaster, you'll notice.

Yet if we are going to classify Rise as a thrill ride, that's a wild debate starter.

As for SWGE, I think it was a mistake to build clones and mistake moving forward to hobble the success of one location because of park-specific issues (i.e., they shouldn't evolve in synch).

Interesting about the SWGE GSATs. I can't argue against that other than to say I have gathered a very different perception of that land from nearly everybody I've ever talked to.

SW has a wider demographic.

But doesn't Rise and Smuggler's Run target the exact same audience? I think what they seem to be doing in Villains land with a dark ride and a coaster makes much more sense: offering attractions that -- together -- cover a wider range of what fans might desire. They did not do that with SWGE.

 

[Professortango1]

Yet if we are going to classify Rise as a thrill ride, that's a wild debate starter.

I'd certainly call Rise thrilling. The pace of the attraction, the changes in direction at quick speeds, and the lift/drop sequences all serve to provide a thrilling experience.

 

[britain]

I'd certainly call Rise thrilling. The pace of the attraction, the changes in direction at quick speeds, and the lift/drop sequences all serve to provide a thrilling experience.

I sort of agree - it’s more emotionally thrilling than physically turbulent. But I wouldn’t call it a thrill ride to someone who thinks that term is only a synonym for roller coasters.

 

[PiratesMansion]

Rise isn't a thrill ride in the way I typically think of it-a roller coaster, a drop tower, things like that.

BUT it is classified by Disneyland as a thrill ride (it is labeled on the app as "Small Drops, Thrill Rides, Dark, Loud, Scary), at least in part for the heightened stakes it might appear to have, particularly for first time riders.

 

[BrianLo]

It's true they rethemed ToT as Guardians of the Galaxy (a compromised way to go about creating an IP attraction, but setting that aside), though when they opened Avenger's Campus four years later, it did not open with a thrill ride featuring the most well known characters, and the land also did not tie into Mission Breakout thematically. So the land's lukewarm reception I think has been significantly because of the lack of a thrilling ride about the characters most people think of when they think Marvel / Avengers: Spider-Man, Iron Man, Captain America, Thor...

And if you went up to complainers in 2021 and said "but Mission Breakout," I think they would have said: "we already had that ride. And even now it's not really Avengers."

I would be interested to know the company's thinking behind Cosmic Rewind and the Spider-Man coaster being built in Shanghai and why in the word they'd think those projects makes sense (said sarcastically). But I didn't say a thrill ride had to be a coaster, you'll notice.

Very much so and that’s a bit of a different argument. Did Avengers Campus botch it? Absolutely. Did Avengers Campus need to co launch Spiderman with a true headliner? Absolutely.

Should that headliner have been a thrill ride? No, Mission Breakout was already next door.


DCA’s needs have largely been accessible dark rides to truly close the gap with Disneyland. While we are losing one, we’ll hopefully net two more. As a next attraction in their pipeline I think there’s a lot of room there for a coaster after those. The needs of Shanghai and Epcot are obviously quite different and both of those Marvel attractions are plugging holes unique to those parks.

Yet if we are going to classify Rise as a thrill ride, that's a wild debate starter.

For clarity I said “thrilling”. Everyone did a good job explaining above.

 

[DrStarlander]

Very much so and that’s a bit of a different argument. Did Avengers Campus botch it? Absolutely. Did Avengers Campus need to co launch Spiderman with a true headliner? Absolutely.

Should that headliner have been a thrill ride? No, Mission Breakout was already next door.


DCA’s needs have largely been accessible dark rides to truly close the gap with Disneyland. While we are losing one, we’ll hopefully net two more. As a next attraction in their pipeline I think there’s a lot of room there for a coaster after those. The needs of Shanghai and Epcot are obviously quite different and both of those Marvel attractions are plugging holes unique to those parks.



For clarity I said “thrilling”. Everyone did a good job explaining above.

When I said SWGE and AC should have "a thrill ride" you countered with

I for one think Rise is very thrilling.

Okay, so it's not a thrill ride, but "very thrilling." Fine, it's thrilling.
Then you point out they are adding a ride to Avenger's Campus...

Avengers campus has a true thrill ride FYI. I also anticipate both new attractions will be “pseudo-thrilling”

So, Rise is a trackless dark ride (and we know how that feels to move around, they seem pretty samey to me) and has a 20-second motion-based event. Infinity Defense will be entirely motion-based (right?), so like 3 minutes or more? And just like Rise, there will likely be explosions, and attacks, and characters yelling, and story-based threats, we would presume? If so, wouldn't Infinity Defense seem like it's going to be as thrilling, if not more thrilling, than Rise?

 

[BrianLo]

And just like Rise, there will likely be explosions, and attacks, and characters yelling, and story-based threats, we would presume? If so, wouldn't Infinity Defense seem like it's going to be as thrilling, if not more thrilling, than Rise?

Yes, I’d assume so.

The point I was making is that things can be thrilling without being inaccessible and I don’t feel high speeds and fast drops were ever specifically the problem. That if Galaxies edge specifically received something new it would be nice if it wasn’t that thrilling at all. The bantha mover wasn’t bad for the menu, I’m still partial to an enchanted Star Wars room.

Disneyland is due for a high speed / fast drop in its next tranche and DCA after this round, but it didn’t have to be galaxies edge.

 

[DrStarlander]

Yes, I’d assume so.

The point I was making is that things can be thrilling without being inaccessible and I don’t feel high speeds and fast drops were ever specifically the problem. That if Galaxies edge specifically received something new it would be nice if it wasn’t that thrilling at all. The bantha mover wasn’t bad for the menu, I’m still partial to an enchanted Star Wars room.

Disneyland is due for a high speed / fast drop in its next tranche and DCA after this round, but it didn’t have to be galaxies edge.

Okay. But let's go through the logic. When I said that SWGE should have had a thrill ride, you said that Rise was "very thrilling" and I interpreted that as saying "The land does have a ride sufficiently thrilling to not also need another thrill ride." Otherwise I don't know what your comment meant.

So now we both agree that Infinity Defense is probably going to be more thrilling than the "very thrilling" Rise. So, esentially, a thrill ride? How thrilling can a ride be until we call it a thrill ride? Peter Pan at Fantasy Springs has a 40" limit, but so does Mission: Breakout, Space Mountain, Big Thunder Mountain, Radiator Springs Racers. Sounds like were getting a thrill ride (or a "very very thrilling" ride at least) in Avenger's Campus.

When I said that Avenger's Campus should have had a thrill ride, you seemed to have three objections:
1. Proximity: it would be too close to Mission Breakout.
2. Type: DCA doesn't need a thrill ride, what it needs is more non-thrill rides ("accessible dark rides" you said).
3. Timing: Even if Avenger's Campus gets a thrill ride some day, the "accessible dark rides" DCA needs should or would come first.

And yet, what is Disney doing? They are building a thrill ride (or very very thrilling ride if you'd like to stay away from categories), with a 40" height limit, same as the thrill rides mentioned above, in Avenger's Campus, right near Mission Breakout. And in the intervening 7 years since opening Avengers Campus and when Infinity Defense opens, they will have built zero "accessible dark rides." So clearly the timing was not that they had other priority attractions to add. Infinity Defense is the next new ride to open since Avenger's Campus.

That is, Disney and I are in agreement. A thrill ride in Avenger's Campus (yes, near Mission Breakout) featuring the Avengers characters was the next priority for DCA. All that's to say, my comment it should have opened with this (and avoided seven years of derision), since it was clearly necessary (Disney thinks so), doesn't seem so off.

 

[BrianLo]

Okay. But let's go through the logic. When I said that SWGE should have had a thrill ride, you said that Rise was "very thrilling" and I interpreted that as saying "The land does have a ride sufficiently thrilling to not also need another thrill ride." Otherwise I don't know what your comment meant.

So now we both agree that Infinity Defense is probably going to be more thrilling than the "very thrilling" Rise. So, esentially, a thrill ride? How thrilling can a ride be until we call it a thrill ride? Peter Pan at Fantasy Springs has a 40" limit, but so does Mission: Breakout, Space Mountain, Big Thunder Mountain, Radiator Springs Racers. Sounds like were getting a thrill ride (or a "very very thrilling" ride at least) in Avenger's Campus.

When I said that Avenger's Campus should have had a thrill ride, you seemed to have three objections:
1. Proximity: it would be too close to Mission Breakout.
2. Type: DCA doesn't need a thrill ride, what it needs is more non-thrill rides ("accessible dark rides" you said).
3. Timing: Even if Avenger's Campus gets a thrill ride some day, the "accessible dark rides" DCA needs should or would come first.

And yet, what is Disney doing? They are building a thrill ride (or very very thrilling ride if you'd like to stay away from categories), with a 40" height limit, same as the thrill rides mentioned above, in Avenger's Campus, right near Mission Breakout. And in the intervening 7 years since opening Avengers Campus and when Infinity Defense opens, they will have built zero "accessible dark rides." So clearly the timing was not that they had other priority attractions to add. Infinity Defense is the next new ride to open since Avenger's Campus.

That is, Disney and I are in agreement. A thrill ride in Avenger's Campus (yes, near Mission Breakout) featuring the Avengers characters was the next priority for DCA. All that's to say, my comment it should have opened with this (and avoided seven years of derision), since it was clearly necessary (Disney thinks so), doesn't seem so off.

No derision meant to be implied!

It was all a jump off on my comment that the problems with Galaxies Edge were what they cut, not what theoretically they could have done instead. Which I don’t know if we’ve landed on or not, but absolutely it’s a matter of opinion.