Disneyland's Rise Of The Resistance - Reviews, Criticism, Deep Thoughts

[flynnibus]

Edit: I forgot to reply to @George Lucas on a Bench . Disney doesn’t understand that the Star Wars environments mostly stink. What makes Star Wars successful is the characters. Stormtroopers don’t make a good story. Great characters interacting with Stormtroopers make great stories. Thus, the ride became us getting shot at by Stormtroopers in corridors.

Indy's tunnels alone are bleak... it's not the setting in isolation that makes an experience strike a cord. It can be your senses, the sounds, what all these things connect to in your conscious that makes something resonate with the guests.

you paint the Star Wars interiors as bleak... but you are treating them as if it's something with zero connection to anything. That's not really representative. These designs invoke very specific connections. They aren't just sterile hospital hallways... or empty aircraft hangers.

the deco and style IS one of the characters. Characters with very well known designs at that... even outside the SW fans.

Are the interior spaces of the attraction varied and alive? No, it’s a series of long bleak hallways while being shot at. Thus, it is a dull environment. Compare to Splash Mountain, Big Thunder, Pirates, Radiator Springs, etc.

ok, I will take a shot. Normally in those environments you are dealing with largely controlled POVs... that once off the point of focus, you are immediately reminded it's just a set designed for a fixed 'camera angle'. The ceiling is usually blacked out to avoid drawing your attention to the emptiness or the show infrastructure. You're riding around in vehicles that often have no real connection to the scenes you are passing through.. you're riding through spaces that just cycle from scene to scene instead of really trying to embrace any 'this is real' mantra.

Contrast this with Rise.. where you are 360 immersed nearly every second. None of this 'don't turn your head' stuff... You're going through DETAILED hallways and sets.. that aren't static, they are animated, they have dimension, they have effects. Really there is only one scene in the entire ride where there is a generic show ceiling (hanger).. the rest of the ride you are fully IN THAT WORLD... that is something Disney hasn't even come anywhere close to this in prior works state-side.

If someone is willing to come on here and argue that Rise of the Resistance is beautiful, I would be madly impressed. You can argue that doesn’t matter, but I would point to the success of every other E-Ticket last decade. FoP, RSRs, PotC:BftST, and Mystic Manor are all beautiful. Even Tron is visually captivating.

What's with this 'beautiful' and 'joy' kind of fixation? Frontierland is anything but 'beautiful' -- It's not aiming to be pretty, it aims to strike the whimsy and connections in the guest's minds.

If you look at scenes like these.. and don't think they are beautiful in the sense of 'wow, I can't believe this is really here' -- then maybe you just don't like sciFi and you're more a granola type?

There is nothing 'dull' in that scene except those complaining grey is cold and heartless. Which is kinda what the empire design is supposed to convey..

Isn’t there a place to critique the substance of the product? I liked a lot about it, but I (and other posters) have legitimate criticism. This is the “Criticism, Reviews, and Deep Thoughts” thread. Seems logical right?

It's not that this isn't the place... It's that some made up their mind long before any detail was there and they're just sticking to their guns. It's not objective or reflective.. It's just 'more of the same' dug in expected behavior. That's what the comments were referring to.

If this was Disney's Black Hole reimagined some of these folks would be losing their mind over what Disney has built. But... nope, it's just 'meh'... because it doesn't belong. And can't give any credit for what actually has been delivered (or not).

 

[RobWDW1971]

The CM's have an integral role in this ride, they're playing a very specific part, so I'm not going to give them a pass.

WDI has designed this attraction in such a way that the "First Order" CM's on the star destroyer have scripts and dialogue and are integral in moving you along in the story as you move physically through the space. But when the doors burst open on your captured shuttle and you are met by a morbidly obese person with social anxiety and an extremely effeminate young man camping it up, all with SoCal Suburbia accents, it was notable to me how much it broke the story and believability of what was happening. It was "Oh yeah, we're on a ride" not "Eek, the First Order officers are scary!".

Exactly - my two biggest complaints were the fundamental concept of using front line transaction oriented employees as (yet again) “actors” and the bizarrely static nature of the hangar, which really limits the “wow” factor.

 

[RobWDW1971]

@TP2000 that’s really interesting about the cast. This may be one of those rare moments when Florida actually may be stronger. I imagine your cast will only get better, but I was mostly satisfied by Florida’s performance. I’m not sure I really enjoyed what was being performed... But I have no complaints about how it was executed.

Did it in DHS - TP2000’s observations apply to both coasts.

 

[el_super]

Are the interior spaces of the attraction varied and alive? No, it’s a series of long bleak hallways while being shot at. Thus, it is a dull environment.

Sure... If you find being shot at to be dull.

 

[flynnibus]

Did it in DHS - TP2000’s complaints apply to both coasts.

Sorry, didn't you all get the 'blind casting' memo? You're not allowed to allow such physical traits exclude people from roles.. even if the traits distract from what the role is supposed to be... Then you're just an angry hateful discriminating type..

 

[flynnibus]

Sure... If you find being shot at to be dull.

By freakin laser bolts that physically damage the sets around you (as you see it).

Yeah, let's just go back to the red lights in the pirate pistols with sound effects.. That's much less dull

 

[Kram Sacul]

But do you disagree with my analysis? Do you feel that the interior spaces of the attraction are beautiful, alive, and fascinating? I would imagine the answer has got to be a definite no. Now, you could contend that this really doesn’t matter. That’s an argument. But I would then ask if said attraction belongs in Disneyland. That’s the question!

Of course I disagree. I think Flynnibus nailed it. The aesthetics of Rise are just very well done on multiple levels. They succeed in capturing the feeling of being in places you thought you would never see in person and because each reveal is done so well and serves the story it’s even more effective.

Of course it’s just a bunch of caves and dark corridors to some people and that’s fine I guess. There will always be that group.

So why don’t you write up an in depth review on why you like the attraction? Nobody is coming on here and just saying “Rise sucks.”

Maybe in a less toxic thread. We’ll see.

 

[TP2000]

If this was Disney's Black Hole reimagined some of these folks would be losing their mind over what Disney has built. But... nope, it's just 'meh'... because it doesn't belong. And can't give any credit for what actually has been delivered (or not).

You raise some good points there. And if you remember, I was one of the people who was fine with Star Wars Land going into Disneyland instead of DCA or the Simba parking lot. And I still think Disneyland is a better park for having Star Wars Land; the improvements to the Rivers of America, the Disneyland Railroad, the connection from Critter Country to Fantasyland, the aesthetic plussing the northwest quadrant of the park received, the huge increase in usable park acreage and capacity, etc.

With the opening of Star Wars Land, Disneyland increases its lead over all the other Castle parks and remains the Flagship Park of the Walt Disney Company for the forseeable future, if not forever. That's a good thing!

That said, I'm still giving the new ride an 8 out of 10. I have a fondness for Star Wars characters from the 1977-1983 movies, and I saw the big movie they did at Christmas 2015 and I enjoyed it. But I don't follow the current characters much, aside from having a vague recollection that Kylo is Leia and Han Solo's son who turned to the dark side (right?), and enjoying BB8's balancing abilities. And that baby Yoda looks adorable.

But the new ride overall? Yes, visually stunning, just like the rest of the land. Yes, technilogically impressive just like the Millennium Falcon ride. Yet the thrill factor was surprisingly mild (Seriously, why does this ride need a 40 inch height requirement??? Did they just do that to make it seem as big a deal as Space Mountain and Radiator Racers? Cause it's not.) And the animatronics were great, but broke no new ground. Paris had sword fighting pirate animatronics 30 years ago, so why don't we get a light saber battle between animatronics today?

I think it's also important to realize I'm a jaded fan who has been to all the other Disney parks around the world except in Communist China (and plan to keep it that way). I have high expectations. I think most SoCal Disneyland fans have high expectations too, since their home parks are packed full with some of the best E Tickets in existence. If you've only been to WDW a few times in the last 20 years, and your home park is Six Flags St. Louis or something, then yes Star Wars: Rise Before Dawn is going to be mind-blowingly awesome and worth waking up at dawn on your vacation for.

But for me personally? I think the Boarding Group thing is a real pain, and I give the ride itself an 8 out of 10.

 

[Disney Analyst]

You raise some good points there. And if you remember, I was one of the people who was fine with Star Wars Land going into Disneyland instead of DCA or the Simba parking lot. And I still think Disneyland is a better park for having Star Wars Land; the improvements to the Rivers of America, the Disneyland Railroad, the connection from Critter Country to Fantasyland, the aesthetic plussing the northwest quadrant of the park received, the huge increase in usable park acreage and capacity, etc.

With the opening of Star Wars Land, Disneyland increases its lead over all the other Castle parks and remains the Flagship Park of the Walt Disney Company for the forseeable future, if not forever. That's a good thing!

That said, I'm still giving the new ride an 8 out of 10. I have a fondness for Star Wars characters from the 1977-1983 movies, and I saw the big movie they did at Christmas 2015 and I enjoyed it. But I don't follow the current characters much, aside from having a vague recollection that Kylo is Leia and Han Solo's son who turned to the dark side (right?), and enjoying BB8's balancing abilities. And that baby Yoda looks adorable.

But the new ride overall? Yes, visually stunning, just like the rest of the land. Yes, technilogically impressive just like the Millennium Falcon ride. Yet the thrill factor was surprisingly mild (Seriously, why does this ride need a 40 inch height requirement??? Did they just do that to make it seem as big a deal as Space Mountain and Radiator Racers? Cause it's not.) And the animatronics were great, but broke no new ground. Paris had sword fighting pirate animatronics 30 years ago, so why don't we get a light saber battle between animatronics today?

I think it's also important to realize I'm a jaded fan who has been to all the other Disney parks around the world except in Communist China (and plan to keep it that way). I have high expectations. I think most SoCal Disneyland fans have high expectations too, since their home parks are packed full with some of the best E Tickets in existence. If you've only been to WDW a few times in the last 20 years, and your home park is Six Flags St. Louis or something, then yes Star Wars: Rise Before Dawn is going to be mind-blowingly awesome and worth waking up at dawn on your vacation for.

But for me personally? I think the Boarding Group thing is a real pain, and I give the ride itself an 8 out of 10.

I see my impact in that 2nd to last paragraph, thank you

But humour aside, I do think it's great to remind ourselves that we all have very different perspectives based on our exposure/privilege in what experiences we've had.

I know my thoughts on a Broadway show are be very different then someone who has never been to one before. Same as me having been been lucky to attend all the stateside parks (having also worked at MK for a summer), so I have a different perspective to someone who has never been to one before.

 

[flynnibus]

But the new ride overall? Yes, visually stunning, just like the rest of the land. Yes, technilogically impressive just like the Millennium Falcon ride. Yet the thrill factor was surprisingly mild (Seriously, why does this ride need a 40 inch height requirement??? Did they just do that to make it seem as big a deal as Space Mountain and Radiator Racers? Cause it's not.) And the animatronics were great, but broke no new ground. Paris had sword fighting pirate animatronics 30 years ago, so why don't we get a light saber battle between animatronics today?

Honestly this forum is the sole place I've heard anyone even mention 'thrill' as an expectation, point of discussion, or even remark about RoTR. It reeks of hunting for a reason to be negative IMO. Who gets off HM and goes "wow, that graveyard scene was impressive and all... but I just didn't feel at risk... so 8/10 for me"

I don't understand the fascination with the height requirement too. I really don't believe Disney had to contrive some nefarious scheme around trying to manipulate popularity or anything around it. This stuff around minimums is driven by overly safety experts and requirements. It's formulamatic... not a 'choice' really. I bet Disney hates having to have the RoTR taller than MFSR... and also alienate one of their biggest target demographics. To postulate it's a scheme to manipulate interest... is ... just bonkers to me.

Why don't we have light saber battles with AAs? Because the paris sword fighters look like Ben Franklin trying to get a kink out. Lack of life-like movement when it comes to speed and high impulse movement. The same reason we have a mix of physical effects along with projection to try to achieve that life-like movement with physical elements. The Kylo hybrid is a great example setup well. There is no need to harp on it not being an AA - it does its just better than an AA could.

Rise sets a new bar in many areas... and to see people just say 'meh' or "I'm ok if I never ride it again" just boggles the mind IMO when these are people that supposedly admire attractions for more than just as a lay consumer.

 

[Californian Elitist]

Indy’s better.

 

[Kram Sacul]

Indy’s better.

Not in it’s current state.

 

[Californian Elitist]

Not in it’s current state.

Yeah it is.

 

[TP2000]

Honestly this forum is the sole place I've heard anyone even mention 'thrill' as an expectation, point of discussion, or even remark about RoTR. It reeks of hunting for a reason to be negative IMO. Who gets off HM and goes "wow, that graveyard scene was impressive and all... but I just didn't feel at risk... so 8/10 for me"

I don't understand the fascination with the height requirement too. I really don't believe Disney had to contrive some nefarious scheme around trying to manipulate popularity or anything around it. This stuff around minimums is driven by overly **** safety experts and requirements. It's formulamatic... not a 'choice' really. I bet Disney hates having to have the RoTR taller than MFSR... and also alienate one of their biggest target demographics. To postulate it's a scheme to manipulate interest... is ... just bonkers to me.

I was only kidding about a deep conspiracy to give this a taller height requirement than it needed. Disney is not that dumb, nor are they that organized.

But Pirates and Mansion have no height requirement. And for the last 25 years Disney has trained us to believe "E Ticket Equals Thrill Ride". Honestly, when was the last big E Ticket they built that didn't have a height requirement? Great Movie Ride in 1989? 20K Leagues Under The Sea in Tokyo in 2001?

Both Star Wars Land rides have height requirements, 38 inches at Falcon which I understand. But the 40 inch requirement at Rise Before Dawn is baffling to me. Why? That little drop sequence when our escape pod releases from the ship and crashes back to Batuu? That seems to be equitable to the first drop on Pirates, and that has no height requirement. The rest of the actual ride consists of gliding around a shiny floor, so I just don't know where the G forces for 40 inches are coming from. Roger Rabbit Car Toon Spin has more G force action and spinning going on, and that also has no height requirement.

Maybe I'm confused because there's a heckuva lot going on outside the window on the escape pod scene that I was distracted and didn't quite realize there were decent G forces and motion going on? I'd be fascinated to see an on-ride video of our cab as we went through that sequence, like Disney released endlessly for Guardians of the Galaxy. Maybe it looks more impressive when you aren't on it?

Disney could certainly use some good viral buzz for Rise Before Dawn, like they got hysterically across the nation when they opened Guardians of the Galaxy and got priceless stuff like this! 40 Inch Height Requirement Revenge!

 

[DDLand]

Maybe in a less toxic thread. We’ll see.

I hope you don’t confuse our discussion with toxicity.

Indy's tunnels alone are bleak... it's not the setting in isolation that makes an experience strike a cord. It can be your senses, the sounds, what all these things connect to in your conscious that makes something resonate with the guests.

you paint the Star Wars interiors as bleak... but you are treating them as if it's something with zero connection to anything. That's not really representative. These designs invoke very specific connections. They aren't just sterile hospital hallways... or empty aircraft hangers.

the deco and style IS one of the characters. Characters with very well known designs at that... even outside the SW fans.



ok, I will take a shot. Normally in those environments you are dealing with largely controlled POVs... that once off the point of focus, you are immediately reminded it's just a set designed for a fixed 'camera angle'. The ceiling is usually blacked out to avoid drawing your attention to the emptiness or the show infrastructure. You're riding around in vehicles that often have no real connection to the scenes you are passing through.. you're riding through spaces that just cycle from scene to scene instead of really trying to embrace any 'this is real' mantra.

Contrast this with Rise.. where you are 360 immersed nearly every second. None of this 'don't turn your head' stuff... You're going through DETAILED hallways and sets.. that aren't static, they are animated, they have dimension, they have effects. Really there is only one scene in the entire ride where there is a generic show ceiling (hanger).. the rest of the ride you are fully IN THAT WORLD... that is something Disney hasn't even come anywhere close to this in prior works state-side.



What's with this 'beautiful' and 'joy' kind of fixation? Frontierland is anything but 'beautiful' -- It's not aiming to be pretty, it aims to strike the whimsy and connections in the guest's minds.

If you look at scenes like these.. and don't think they are beautiful in the sense of 'wow, I can't believe this is really here' -- then maybe you just don't like sciFi and you're more a granola type?

View attachment 447404

View attachment 447405

There is nothing 'dull' in that scene except those complaining grey is cold and heartless. Which is kinda what the empire design is supposed to convey..




It's not that this isn't the place... It's that some made up their mind long before any detail was there and they're just sticking to their guns. It's not objective or reflective.. It's just 'more of the same' dug in expected behavior. That's what the comments were referring to.

If this was Disney's Black Hole reimagined some of these folks would be losing their mind over what Disney has built. But... nope, it's just 'meh'... because it doesn't belong. And can't give any credit for what actually has been delivered (or not).

Settings are by definition settings. Different settings can evoke different emotions and tell, but they are still settings.

You are pointing to how well they executed the story they were telling. Look at my review, I totally agree. I’m arguing that the story is flawed not the execution. I agree that not allowing visual gaps and trying to make something realistic (within reason) is a good thing. The execution is, for the most part, pretty darn fantastic.

They built an ugly and depressing place, and had their pivotal attraction take place there. You can argue that the interior of the Star Destroyer is not dull and dreary, but you would be contradicting what the filmmakers were trying to convey there. The Empire was supposed to be brutal, lifeless, and utilitarian. That was borne out in cast and setting. Remember, the first time what would birth Rise’s setting appeared, it was in something called “The Death Star” no less back in the 1970s.

It’s common sense that the setting of Rise of the Resistance is ugly and unappealing. That’s the way it was designed. This is the war machine, and it’s bad. You skirted around that fact, but argued that the wonderment of going into said utilitarian place is so vast that it is beautiful in its own right. I would say exciting or impressive, but not beautiful.

Sure... If you find being shot at to be dull.

My argument wasn’t that the content of the ride was dull, but that the environments were. They are very dull. Though getting shot at after a while does begin to be... Dull.

Edit: on the “granola” type! I might be...

 

[flynnibus]

But Pirates and Mansion have no height requirement. And for the last 25 years Disney has trained us to believe "E Ticket Equals Thrill Ride". Honestly, when was the last big E Ticket they built that didn't have a height requirement? Great Movie Ride in 1989? 20K Leagues Under The Sea in Tokyo in 2001?

I don't agree with this logic at all. Scale, level of immersion, environment are traits I put at the start of the EvsEverythingElse discussion. I mean, your pattern logic would lead to all kinds of evil conclusions.. none of us want to embrace

Both Star Wars Land rides have height requirements, 38 inches at Falcon which I understand. But the 40 inch requirement at Rise Before Dawn is baffling to me. Why? That little drop sequence when our escape pod releases from the ship and crashes back to Batuu? That seems to be equitable to the first drop on Pirates, and that has no height requirement. The rest of the actual ride consists of gliding around a shiny floor, so I just don't know where the G forces for 40 inches are coming from.

My speculation? Something to do with the type of restraint (the individual seat belt w/o lateral supports) vs the type of movement the ride vehicle itself goes through. I don't have a hard reference to make a postulation on the specific design element - but we also don't have a 1:1 comparison with other existing attractions. Just things that share some elements, but not others. Look at MIB at universal... 42" height requirement and all it does is spin...(tho obviously much more intensely)

 

[flynnibus]

You are pointing to how well they executed the story they were telling. Look at my review, I totally agree. I’m arguing that the story is flawed not the execution. I agree that not allowing visual gaps and trying to make something realistic (within reason) is a good thing. The execution is, for the most part, pretty darn fantastic.

Your beef seems to be you don't like the Empire's style designer... while simultaneously acknowledging the style is very purposeful and on-character. So this means.. you don't want a empire styled home, so that makes a place that really is supposed to be the empire.. somehow a letdown.

The spaces are not dull - they are incredibly detailed and articulated. Flat, simple painted walls (looking at you Buzz...) would be 'dull'.. or Space Mountain's queue excuse for sciFi... Those are hollow, flat... DULL spaces.

You keep using 'dull' as its projecting 'less than desirable' or something negative... but agree the execution is on point and 'pretty darn fanastic' - That's why your comments are causing counter points.

I mean.. by your train of thought... isn't the HM graveyard 'dull' because it's just gloomy, cold, and lifeless as well?

 

[TP2000]

My speculation? Something to do with the type of restraint (the individual seat belt w/o lateral supports) vs the type of movement the ride vehicle itself goes through. I don't have a hard reference to make a postulation on the specific design element - but we also don't have a 1:1 comparison with other existing attractions. Just things that share some elements, but not others. Look at MIB at universal... 42" height requirement and all it does is spin...(tho obviously much more intensely)

I think your speculation must be right. The more I think about it and compare/contrast with rides that have no height requirement like Pirates or Roger Rabbit or Teacups, the more it must be related to the size of the seats and their choice to use seat belts only instead of a lap bar or belts/lap bar combination.

I remember thinking there was going to be a lap bar, but when I got in there was none and it was the whole "pull on the yellow tab" thing like Indy or Guardians.

 

[socalifornian]

It’s interesting that they tried so hard to create known Star Wars items for the rides but the land itself is purposefully random

 

[flynnibus]

I think your speculation must be right. The more I think about it and compare/contrast with rides that have no height requirement like Pirates or Roger Rabbit or Teacups, the more it must be related to the size of the seats and their choice to use seat belts only instead of a lap bar or belts/lap bar combination.

I remember thinking there was going to be a lap bar, but when I got in there was none and it was the whole "pull on the yellow tab" thing like Indy or Guardians.

My immediate comparison was to look at Winnie the Pooh in TDL... but they use a bench seat and lap bar.. but no drop factor (or the need to stand during the transport phase either). But when was the last attraction we got new that had a group lapbar?

There are just many factors involved that I just don't think we have the reference material behind the decisions. Certainly not to be pointing fingers IMO.. its more of a curiosity.. but seems like a safe question maybe someone can get a WDI type to answer at a D23 event or something