Rumor Fantasyland Expansion

mickEblu

Well-Known Member
I think the Falcon ride experience is ultimately disappointing. For all of Disney's talk about how immersive and detailed Galaxy's Edge would be, the setup of the Falcon is so unrealistic that it actively hurts the ride experience.

By "actively hurt" I mean that it's virtually impossible for the Falcon's gunner and engineer roles to do their jobs *and* watch the action at the same time. Their seats are facing forward, toward the (small-ish) screen. But all of their controls are rotated 90 degrees from the screen. As a result, you're constantly looking away from either the screen or your controls, to see what's happening with one or the other.

Similarly, Disney divided the flight controls on the Falcon so that one pilot controls left and right, and the other pilot controls up and down.

It's horrible ergonomics. No flying machine would ever be designed like that. AND WE KNOW THE FALCON DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY.

It's so implausible that I gave up trying, because coordinating the actions of six people isn't fun - it's like being in a human random number generator experiment.

Also, the gunner positions aren't anything like what we know the gunners look like from Episode 4. Like the engineer, the gunner sits in a seat whose push-button controls are situated 90 degrees from the screen. It's not the real Falcon, the ergonomics are horrible, and it ultimately feels like anything you try is hopeless and frustrating.

The movie script is so hilariously similar to every Disney simulator ever made, with the same tropes, that it's actively distracting: even during the first ride, part of me was saying "This is Star Tours and Mission: Space." The same plot points, the same tempo, the same kind of dialog.

If you've ever been on a Disney simulator, you've experienced the cliche where the action pauses for a second, but you know the ride isn't over, and then something unexpected happens, right? I called the "here's where something goes wrong" point to Guy on our initial ride, right before the script actually says "...That was unexpected." First-timers shouldn't be able to predict the plot like that - it's a bad sign that I was even trying to, but that's how bad the script is.

It didn't need to be this way. Disney had the talent, time, and money to make the gunner positions more realistic, to make better consoles for the engineers, to figure out a better set of responsibilities for each pilot, and hire someone to write a fresh script (FOR THE LOVE OF GOD!)

There's only one Falcon. Everybody loves it. Everyone knows how it's supposed to work. It's a precious thing. Disney wasted it on a C-ticket ride.

I'd give it 3 1/2 stars.

Sounds like most of your issues are with the interactive elements of the ride experience. Those were less of a concern for me before the first reviews came in. Most of us predicted the engineer position would be boring but I don’t think any of us realized that the gunner position would be a big dud too.

What are your thoughts on the movement and the visuals?

My concerns were more focused around the Visuals being video game quality being a let down after all the work and world building they do leading up to the cockpit... like the stunning rockwork outside, huge Falcon, great queue and Top 3 AA in Hondo.

The other concern I had after the 38 inch height requirement was announced was the movement being too tame. It sounds like most people universally agree this ride moves less than Star Tours which is a huge flaw for me considering this is the Millenium FALCON!! Which means if I want a more wild ride I need to hop onto a spacebus aka the Starspeeder 3000.

I think if I take all the reviews together I come to the conclusion that the Falcon is a decent but flawed ride. Underwhelming but still sort of fun/ good enough if you consider the experience as a whole and that it is meant to be the secondary attraction to ROTR.
 

Disney Analyst

Well-Known Member
As well, Disney definitely still has it, IMO:

Mystic Manor - Amazing
Grizzly Coaster - Amazing
FoP - Amazing
Radiator Springs Racers - Amazing
Shanghai Pirates - Insane

Sure, domestically things have lacked... but Disney as a whole has been making some incredible attractions.
 

shambolicdefending

Well-Known Member
...Han Solo isn't alive. But Lando is. Chewey is. Why have Hondo as the host? The connection to Han Solo is actually more in line with the Solo release that came out last year.

Well, Chewbacca can't communicate with Earthlings, so he's out. Using Lando would force Disney into image rights negotiations with Billy Dee Williams and some of the same messy problems they had with Harrison Ford and Indiana Jones. Not to mention, he isn't getting any younger and likely won't feature much beyond Episode IX.

I mean, given the practicalities, Hondo makes about as much sense as anybody. This level of criticism seems a little over the top, IMO.
 

shambolicdefending

Well-Known Member
As well, Disney definitely still has it, IMO:

Mystic Manor - Amazing
Grizzly Coaster - Amazing
FoP - Amazing
Radiator Springs Racers - Amazing
Shanghai Pirates - Insane

Sure, domestically things have lacked... but Disney as a whole has been making some incredible attractions.

I have my gripes with WDI (some of them significant), but there's still nobody else that comes close to the quality and consistency they produce. The Harry Potter stuff is great, but Disney has cranked out probably 3-4 things of equal or greater quality in the same time frame.
 

TalkingHead

Well-Known Member
Well, Chewbacca can't communicate with Earthlings, so he's out. Using Lando would force Disney into image rights negotiations with Billy Dee Williams and some of the same messy problems they had with Harrison Ford and Indiana Jones. Not to mention, he isn't getting any younger and likely won't feature much beyond Episode IX.

I mean, given the practicalities, Hondo makes about as much sense as anybody. This level of criticism seems a little over the top, IMO.

Star Tours understood the need to connect guests with classic, recognizable characters — hence even though Rex was the pilot originally, we had the AAs of C-3PO and R2 in the queue.

Chewbacca couldn’t be the “spokesman” for the Falcon pre-show, but they could have included him as an AA assisting/grunting. That would have given guests a stronger connection to the movie series without needing to negotiate with the actors.
 

skubersky

Active Member
I think the Falcon ride experience is ultimately disappointing. For all of Disney's talk about how immersive and detailed Galaxy's Edge would be, the setup of the Falcon is so unrealistic that it actively hurts the ride experience.

By "actively hurt" I mean that it's virtually impossible for the Falcon's gunner and engineer roles to do their jobs *and* watch the action at the same time. Their seats are facing forward, toward the (small-ish) screen. But all of their controls are rotated 90 degrees from the screen. As a result, you're constantly looking away from either the screen or your controls, to see what's happening with one or the other.

Similarly, Disney divided the flight controls on the Falcon so that one pilot controls left and right, and the other pilot controls up and down.

It's horrible ergonomics. No flying machine would ever be designed like that. AND WE KNOW THE FALCON DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY.

It's so implausible that I gave up trying, because coordinating the actions of six people isn't fun - it's like being in a human random number generator experiment.

Also, the gunner positions aren't anything like what we know the gunners look like from Episode 4. Like the engineer, the gunner sits in a seat whose push-button controls are situated 90 degrees from the screen. It's not the real Falcon, the ergonomics are horrible, and it ultimately feels like anything you try is hopeless and frustrating.

The movie script is so hilariously similar to every Disney simulator ever made, with the same tropes, that it's actively distracting: even during the first ride, part of me was saying "This is Star Tours and Mission: Space." The same plot points, the same tempo, the same kind of dialog.

If you've ever been on a Disney simulator, you've experienced the cliche where the action pauses for a second, but you know the ride isn't over, and then something unexpected happens, right? I called the "here's where something goes wrong" point to Guy on our initial ride, right before the script actually says "...That was unexpected." First-timers shouldn't be able to predict the plot like that - it's a bad sign that I was even trying to, but that's how bad the script is.

It didn't need to be this way. Disney had the talent, time, and money to make the gunner positions more realistic, to make better consoles for the engineers, to figure out a better set of responsibilities for each pilot, and hire someone to write a fresh script (FOR THE LOVE OF GOD!)

There's only one Falcon. Everybody loves it. Everyone knows how it's supposed to work. It's a precious thing. Disney wasted it on a C-ticket ride.

I'd give it 3 1/2 stars.
While I agree on many of the specifics, I have to respectfully disagree with Len on the final score. To me, millennium falcon is a four star ride, comparable to Star Tours, with a five star preshow. Final verdict: 4 1/2 stars
 

skubersky

Active Member
Star Tours understood the need to connect guests with classic, recognizable characters — hence even though Rex was the pilot originally, we had the AAs of C-3PO and R2 in the queue.

Chewbacca couldn’t be the “spokesman” for the Falcon pre-show, but they could have included him as an AA assisting/grunting. That would have given guests a stronger connection to the movie series without needing to negotiate with the actors.
Since Chewie is a strong presence as an actor walking around the park, I think it would be jarring to also see him as an AA, since it could never be as lifelike. His presence in the ride as video & audio seemed sufficient to me. The real character here is the Millennium Falcon herself, and guests guest plenty of face time with her.
 

TROR

Well-Known Member
As well, Disney definitely still has it, IMO:

Mystic Manor - Amazing
Grizzly Coaster - Amazing
FoP - Amazing
Radiator Springs Racers - Amazing
Shanghai Pirates - Insane

Sure, domestically things have lacked... but Disney as a whole has been making some incredible attractions.
Oh, I disagree. Mystic Manor has great flaws in its storytelling and outlandishly cartoon design. It’s the best dark ride they’ve built in years, and I love it for that, but it’s certainly evidence that WDI has gone down hill.

Shanghai’s Pirates is a giant piece of garbage. It’s disgraceful to the Pirates of the Caribbean attraction around the world. Inferior in every conceivable way.

Since Chewie is a strong presence as an actor walking around the park, I think it would be jarring to also see him as an AA, since it could never be as lifelike. His presence in the ride as video & audio seemed sufficient to me. The real character here is the Millennium Falcon herself, and guests guest plenty of face time with her.
A Chewbacca animatronic would be just as lifelike, if not more, as Hondo because he doesn’t have a human face. Also, how is that jarring? Kylo Ren will be in the land and on RotR. Having Chewbacca physically present in the queue, just working away on an engine and occasionally turning to guests with his Wookiee sounds would be fantastic.
 

peter11435

Well-Known Member
Oh, I disagree. Mystic Manor has great flaws in its storytelling and outlandishly cartoon design. It’s the best dark ride they’ve built in years, and I love it for that, but it’s certainly evidence that WDI has gone down hill.

Shanghai’s Pirates is a giant piece of garbage. It’s disgraceful to the Pirates of the Caribbean attraction around the world. Inferior in every conceivable way.
Lol

Interesting opinions there.
 

wityblack

Well-Known Member
Oh, I disagree. Mystic Manor has great flaws in its storytelling and outlandishly cartoon design. It’s the best dark ride they’ve built in years, and I love it for that, but it’s certainly evidence that WDI has gone down hill.

Shanghai’s Pirates is a giant piece of garbage. It’s disgraceful to the Pirates of the Caribbean attraction around the world. Inferior in every conceivable way.

Mystic Manor and Shanghai Pirates focus more on narrative as opposed to atmosphere. I think both types of rides are valid. While Pirates of the Caribbean at Disneyland is a miraculous ride, porting it to other parks never seem to do it justice, and creating another copy would be incredibly expensive if they wanted to update everything to modern levels. Having that many A-100s would be pricey, but putting in the originals would look cheap. Regardless, we have that version of Pirates, I always think creating new E-tickets is better than copying old ones.

If you look at the ride more of a ride based on the movies with homages to the original, then you may be less upset with the differences. For the new concept, I think it was executed incredibly well, and all of the incredible touches and effects make it greats. But it's not an atmosphere ride like Pirates, it's a story, where you have to watch certain action. That makes it feel less detailed, because you're focused on action pieces, but that's not true. Plus, with English voice acting, the ride would probably be a hit in the US (NOT AS A REPLACEMENT, THEY BETTER NOT TOUCH PIRATES).

As for Mystic Manor, it seems smaller scale, but again, that's due to its storied nature. While I wouldn't say it's as good as Haunted Mansion, it still holds up. I can agree on it being a bit cartoonish, but that's simply preference. I think we all internally agree it is the stand-in for Haunted Mansion at that park, but we often compare them too closely, even though they really are only linked by big houses and things that aren't alive coming to life.
 

cheezbat

Well-Known Member
As well, Disney definitely still has it, IMO:

Mystic Manor - Amazing
Grizzly Coaster - Amazing
FoP - Amazing
Radiator Springs Racers - Amazing
Shanghai Pirates - Insane

Sure, domestically things have lacked... but Disney as a whole has been making some incredible attractions.
And of course the only one of those things in WDW is FoP...which I think is why so many people want these rides ported to the US.

They still can build quality, but everything is IP driven now and isn’t what us - the hardcore fans are asking for.
 

TROR

Well-Known Member
Mystic Manor and Shanghai Pirates focus more on narrative as opposed to atmosphere. I think both types of rides are valid. While Pirates of the Caribbean at Disneyland is a miraculous ride, porting it to other parks never seem to do it justice, and creating another copy would be incredibly expensive if they wanted to update everything to modern levels. Having that many A-100s would be pricey, but putting in the originals would look cheap. Regardless, we have that version of Pirates, I always think creating new E-tickets is better than copying old ones.

If you look at the ride more of a ride based on the movies with homages to the original, then you may be less upset with the differences. For the new concept, I think it was executed incredibly well, and all of the incredible touches and effects make it greats. But it's not an atmosphere ride like Pirates, it's a story, where you have to watch certain action. That makes it feel less detailed, because you're focused on action pieces, but that's not true. Plus, with English voice acting, the ride would probably be a hit in the US (NOT AS A REPLACEMENT, THEY BETTER NOT TOUCH PIRATES).

As for Mystic Manor, it seems smaller scale, but again, that's due to its storied nature. While I wouldn't say it's as good as Haunted Mansion, it still holds up. I can agree on it being a bit cartoonish, but that's simply preference. I think we all internally agree it is the stand-in for Haunted Mansion at that park, but we often compare them too closely, even though they really are only linked by big houses and things that aren't alive coming to life.

To paraphrase the words of Marc Davis, theme parks are not a storytelling medium. Obviously a confusing statement as we all know they are, what he's saying here is that they're not linear stories with main characters whose journey you witness. The riders are the main characters of the ride they're on. Look at Indiana Jones - we're not following Indiana Jones on an adventure, it's our adventure. With Shanghai's Pirates, it's Jack's adventure and we're just viewers. It's a story told in the wrong medium.

There's a lot I can say about how theme parks are a visual medium for storytelling and how theme parks' strengths are atmospheric in nature, but that's an essay in itself that I can't exactly type up as I sit between flights.

With Mystic Manor, there are really just a few issues that could be easily fixed with a big refurb. The issues are these:
  • The character designs are too far on the cartoon side and don't match the rest of the attraction. This is most noticeable in the queue where Lord Henry is depicted next to human beings. Either the entire attraction needs to fit the style of Toon Town, or just a simple fix to have Lord Henry Mystic look more like a normal person with a cartoon flair (Marc Davis style). The original concept art for Albert did a good job of this.
  • The constant stopping of the ride to play out the show scenes instead of the 'gif' format. The show scenes don't loop, instead they start and stop. What results is a choppy attraction with little to no flow. While I know it's needlessly explained, it's a side affect of the ride system needing to stop and charge throughout the ride. When the technology is finally there, new ride vehicles should be added to allow for a better flowing ride.
  • The house is too clean and kept up. While the story is that Mystic turned his home into a museum, by not feeling like a home it loses any of the purpose of being set in a manor to begin with. Going from kitchen to hall of armor to a trophy room and so on gives it purpose to be set in a house. The rooms can still maintain themes of different regional themes, but they should definitely be more realistic rooms that someone would actually have.
Also, this is just a pet peeve and not a flaw, but I do wish it was a "layered" attraction, as in inclines and declines throughout. I know that's not possible because of the ride system, but it's a personal preference. It's no doubt one of the best attractions, if not the best, WDI has built in the last decade, but it's not perfect.
 
Last edited:

Stripes

Premium Member
I think the Falcon ride experience is ultimately disappointing. For all of Disney's talk about how immersive and detailed Galaxy's Edge would be, the setup of the Falcon is so unrealistic that it actively hurts the ride experience.

By "actively hurt" I mean that it's virtually impossible for the Falcon's gunner and engineer roles to do their jobs *and* watch the action at the same time. Their seats are facing forward, toward the (small-ish) screen. But all of their controls are rotated 90 degrees from the screen. As a result, you're constantly looking away from either the screen or your controls, to see what's happening with one or the other.

Similarly, Disney divided the flight controls on the Falcon so that one pilot controls left and right, and the other pilot controls up and down.

It's horrible ergonomics. No flying machine would ever be designed like that. AND WE KNOW THE FALCON DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY.

It's so implausible that I gave up trying, because coordinating the actions of six people isn't fun - it's like being in a human random number generator experiment.

Also, the gunner positions aren't anything like what we know the gunners look like from Episode 4. Like the engineer, the gunner sits in a seat whose push-button controls are situated 90 degrees from the screen. It's not the real Falcon, the ergonomics are horrible, and it ultimately feels like anything you try is hopeless and frustrating.

The movie script is so hilariously similar to every Disney simulator ever made, with the same tropes, that it's actively distracting: even during the first ride, part of me was saying "This is Star Tours and Mission: Space." The same plot points, the same tempo, the same kind of dialog.

If you've ever been on a Disney simulator, you've experienced the cliche where the action pauses for a second, but you know the ride isn't over, and then something unexpected happens, right? I called the "here's where something goes wrong" point to Guy on our initial ride, right before the script actually says "...That was unexpected." First-timers shouldn't be able to predict the plot like that - it's a bad sign that I was even trying to, but that's how bad the script is.

It didn't need to be this way. Disney had the talent, time, and money to make the gunner positions more realistic, to make better consoles for the engineers, to figure out a better set of responsibilities for each pilot, and hire someone to write a fresh script (FOR THE LOVE OF GOD!)

There's only one Falcon. Everybody loves it. Everyone knows how it's supposed to work. It's a precious thing. Disney wasted it on a C-ticket ride.

I'd give it 3 1/2 stars.
I think this video puts many of your criticisms to rest. This isn't a passive ride. It's an experience, and a brilliant one at that.


Calling this ride a C-ticket is crazy. It's an E-ticket.

If you're looking for a Star Wars ride where you can sit in front of a screen and do nothing, then I've got just the thing: Star Tours.
 
Last edited:

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom