I'm gonna say right up front.. I'm unlikely to get to all your points because I have a real job and frankly 90% of your argument is just the same stuff spun a bit.
I appreciate the time you're putting into this, but you really only think this because you have a frame of reference that you are stuck in. I'm literally being as observant as possible.
I really am not trying to push an agenda; I just see what I see, but nearly every point you make misses my point with some obfuscation, so even if I respond I get the feeling you won't "get it," in the same way people that didn't understand Nvidea's potential back in 2018 look back and say "No way I could've predicted its meteoric rise."
Let's go through this.. First, Congratulations on your promotion to Captain Hindsight. The sequels were released between 2015 and 2019. Do you need a reminder of when SWGE was being developed?
This is false. You keep doing this, starting with false premises and drawing conclusions from them.
Fans never begged for a blank-slate sequel outpost, ever, and if Iger had taken two seconds to understand the fandom or just listened to Imagineering's original plans, rather than shifting directions after the original 2015 announcement, all of this could have been avoided, but he meddled, ignored criticism, and the results are
an inevitable consequence, and you are defending it. You act like everything is just a shot in the dark; it's literally not.
I vividly remember and have been alive to witness people warning that Disney, with Iger's leadership buying Star Wars, was going to be terrible for the franchise, which turned out to be true.
As for the movies, I also specifically remember discussions with people concerned about JJ Abrams creating mystery boxes that went nowhere in Lost, Iger throwing out George Lucas' story treatment in favor of an unplanned one, and JJ not being considered the ideal director for Star Wars after a so-so reception to the Star Trek Trilogy.
It was obvious to a lot of people, it wasn't to you, and that's fine, but you cannot in good faith say there haven't been people this whole time aware of MULTIPLE wrong directions from the lands to the films because it wasn't just one area it was many, and the fact that both Iger and Kathleen Kennedy greenlit so many things shows that they were not competent for the job; hindsight is not 20/20, perhaps that's true for you.
You blame the company for wanting a theme park product that actually works with the PRODUCT THEY ARE CREATING FOR THE NEXT DECADE? Listen to yourself and stop acting like a decade of hindsight is common knowledge YEARS BEFORE IT HAPPENED.
The entire point of buying Star Wars was to use existing IP and build on it, not discard it completely.
Luke Skywalker, Han, and Leia all appear in this "new product" they created but weren't in the land at all in favor of "Iger's Star Wars," what on Earth kind of a decision is that? No Anakin/Vader, like at all? It is literally like making a Newt Scamander ride instead of Harry Potter for Forbidden Journey. What moron would do that? Imagine putting Martin Freeman instead of Elijah Wood in a Lord of the Rings land, what idiot would do that? The cultural relevance of those prequels could be integrated in a LOTR land in some capacity, but basing it in it would be ridiculous.
Disneyland Paris making their Lion King ride based on the original is proof that Disney internally knows their new stuff is not timeless and it's only because that's what the company does now, despite LK 2019 making $1.6 billion.
I blame them for making inevitably poor decisions both in the films and for the land.
Second - Notice your own list has... wait for it.. NOT OT FILMS at the top. Should Lucas never have made the prequels because everyone wanted to know what happened to Luke and Leia after ROTJ?
Usually Empire is number 1, but the Prequels soared with 1/3s annivesary. Last Jedi, which leads up to the land's timeline is dead last.
This is a really illogical conclusion to draw, as if anything it boosts my point that aspects of the prequels (pod-racing, walk-around characters like Padme and Darth Maul, potentially making Rise set during a Clone Wars battle) would've actually made sense, I'm literally just arguing to incorporate more things people like.
The Prequels made so much money in merchandise, the Sequels were an unmitigated disaster. If Disney cared about money they should've listened to the creatives that actually understood this stuff (again, cough cough, like they did with James Cameron and Pandora).
You have zero against creating new stories? Yet.. your 'solution' is to just retread known characters as if that fixes all. You say this, yet every action and retort is companies should just recycle what was already done.
This is a false equivalence, and that's not what I implied at all: your takeaway loses absolutely all the nuance of my argument.
I never once said retreading known characters would magically fix it.
Literally you're trying to use insight from 10yrs later as justification to decisions made in 2013-2014.. Maybe you're Admiral Hindsight...
ALL THINGS THAT HAPPENED AFTERWARDS. Do you think Disney should have borrowed Doc Brown's delorean and gone back and stopped them? SW GE wasn't built after the Sequel Trilogy flopped. It was designed and conceived while the sequel trilogy was being developed.
Again, hindsight is 20/20 for you and Iger about this specifically, but it wasn't for millions of people, LOL.
This is back to what was said before... "the problem was they simply they weren't good stories they came up with"
You're trying to argue a decade later they should have never committed to their new stories because they flopped, with insight after the fact.
Yet you contradict yourself where just before you tried to argue Hondo was a mistake instead of giving us Maul or other characters.
Yeah it was, what moron includes Hondo and not Darth Maul or Ahsoka in a land representative of decades of worldbuilding? Who wanted that, and the result was bad anyway so it's not like Rise where at least it stands on its own.
The Indiana Jones ride is a great example of your short sighted take on this whole topic. The Indiana Jones ride is not a pillar of a generational franchise building plan to capitalize on a 4 Billion dollar one in a lifetime investment (Hint: SWGE was...). The Indiana Jones ride is just a theme park ride. Disney isn't retheming Dinosaur to it as part of a multi-prong strategy to drive growth from the Lucasfilm acquisition. It's being done because it's the same ride system and a clone of a world class winning attraction.
I literally directly destroyed your point about Harrison Ford being too old.
Imagine if Disney built SWLand around Tatootine and then spent the next 10yrs creating amazing stories everyone wanted to experience... and instead Disney is like "NOPE! You told us you wanted OT.. so OT is what you got". It's literally the most contradictory thing the company could do.. and kids growing up would be like "where is the Ashoka ride?" and you'd have to tell them "Sorry kid, don't you like Lando Calrissian?"
I am not even arguing for a Tatooine land, re-read my posts, I wanteda better concept, Imagineering came up with a better one than what we have so we should've at least gotten that, and the land should've included elements from all the films. It didn't have to retread and be a book report ride or recreation of anything.
Rise of the Rebels and an X-wing coaster alone would've been more successful, even if we ignore the land itself.
So you wanted more pigs... "but I'm not against creating new stories" -- Right.. you just want to keep repeating the same ones.
No, I told you, it's like making a land for The Hobbit instead of Lord of the Rings. What idiot would do that? It's all based on an IP still, I'd rather have it based on interesting worldbuilding.
Rise is original in that if take away the IP, but it's a unique story.
You think Batuu doesn't have 'design cues' from the SW universe? It literally is a town with a space port, cantina, market, etc. If anything people could cry it's a knock-off of tatooine instead of being unique enough...
It has many design cues, but it's not executed well or represents why Star Wars is interesting to most people, which I detailed extensively. I already explained the nuance and addressed those points if you've read my posts, you clearly did not or it went over your head.
Again, ignoring how essentially every planet and culture is introduced in SW.. We learn to love them AFTERWARDS, not before.
The Acolyte will never be loved, mark my words.
Sorry, if we throw around 'imagineer' that is somehow equivalent to Divine authority now?
No, but they had a better idea than Iger, clearly, you even admit that hindsight is 20/20 for you and Iger, so in this specific scenario Imagineering was right.
Exegol or High Republic? The first hadn't been flushed out yet in the sequel plots.. so again, hindsight. High Republic is an entirely different era. Are we just throwing stuff around and ignoring all time and consistency now?
Missed my point again.
What? He used old stories because he liked the story.. not because he knew his audience knew the tale. The quote was brought up because people nagged him to do exactly what you are saying... GIVE US MORE OF WHAT WE LOVE.. and Walt was instead insistent on creating NEW stuff for you to love.
Walt is a visionary creative that transformed the world; Iger is an HR boardroom executive that has creatively bankrupted the entire studio. Do you really think Pixar is better today than before Disney bought it? You think Fox is better today?
Your promotion to Admiral Hindsight is granted..
Your whole mindset is shortsighted and singlar focused on a theme park land... you're playing checkers while Disney was playing chess with a global conglomerate working to advance for decades to come.
Disney isn't playing chess, they have corporate politics and idiotic leadership that gets some things right while getting so many wrong. They are massively investing in parks too now, anyone with a brain could've told you that made more sense to do, but why did it take Iger 20+ years to figure out that it's the bread and butter of Disney?
No, Walt took his personal interests and passions and made them into reality in his pet project with the bet that others would find solace in the harmonized and idealized fantasyland he would create. He literally created the 'rose colored glasses' version of the 1800s because of his ideals and bet the immersion would woo guests.
Iger doesn't do this, creatives like George Lucas, Joe Rhode, and James Cameron do.
No, I'm countering an argument that says "recycle because its popular" instead of creating new.
Not what I'm saying, miss the point again.
Your insistence on name dropping Iger every 3rd line just goes to show how you're going at this as some internet fanboi critic instead of objectively. What was your profile on here before you created this account just to create this post?
You keep supporting his positions despite evidence proving he made mistakes, that's why I keep mentioning him because so many of these issues are direclty related to him. I don't think he's completely terrible but I don't think he's a visionary leader either, and he has mismanaged the entirity of Star Wars.
Once again, you show your lack of understand.. trying to compare things that 'look alike' instead of realizing they are completely different things.
Let's look at how Disney's SWGE intentions are so very different from UNI Creative's take on HP land 1 and 2.
1 - Comcast doesn't own Harry Potter - Comcast isn't responsible for driving the future of the franchise
2 - Comcast wasn't developing new Harry Potter lore and characters
3 - Comcast didn't just complete a 4billion dollar acquisition and wasn't laying out the plan on how to leverage the diverse divisions of the company to fuel growth from that acquisition
4 - Comcast was building in a complete greenfield - They had no existing HP attractions nor HP theme park products.. of course you're gonna build Hogwarts.
5 - The HP films and books were of the current generations.. Literally the HP story arc movies were still being made when the land was designed. The target audience for the land had grown up with those films. Contrast with SW OT which was 30+yrs old at the time and had a long history of expanding beyond the OT
All straw men or non-sequiturs. None of that is relevant.
And years later when there was more of an extended HP lore.. and films like Fantastic Beasts had been a thing.. they did start leaning into those new spots and characters.
Stop being a theme park fanboi and step up and realize Disney is operating more than a theme park.
Again... "the problem was they simply they weren't good stories they came up with"
They literally changed Epic's plans to have less of an emphasis on Fantastic Beasts, but it is a very different context after making two already, and the land itself literally has an "OG Trilogy equivalent" as it's only ride...
There's an argument making a prequel land at disneyland, original trilogy in orlando, and sequels in Paris could've made sense, not what I would've done but even that would've been more logical than just going full on Hobbit which is what we got.
Bro I don't really know what to say except this is a weird position to defend passionately and being compeltely unable to see any other person's legitimate points.
You literally admit the direction they took with the movies and land being a mistake, and keep coming up with weird excuses to defend it.
