Animaniac93-98
Well-Known Member
That's what I meant. They deliberately avoided tying the land to any of the movie's characters or conflict.
With Star Wars, it's set between Episodes 8 and 9.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Former VP Details Original Star Wars Land Plans
- Thread starter WDW Pro
- Start date
That's what I meant. They deliberately avoided tying the land to any of the movie's characters or conflict.
With Star Wars, it's set between Episodes 8 and 9.
BrianLo
Well-Known Member
The problem with Star Wars is that no setting is that iconic in comparison to Harry Potter’s. Ships, absolutely. Small locales? Absolutely.
Tatooine is pretty much it and it’s incredibly sparse and drab. It lends itself most to a pod racer attraction and were people jostling to celebrate a prequel attraction?
Creating a new centralized planet definitely gave them a lot more opportunity, in spite of the results. Batuu I think is just a more vibrant Tatooine stand in. Even still people accuse it of being drab and colorless.
Tatooine is pretty much it and it’s incredibly sparse and drab. It lends itself most to a pod racer attraction and were people jostling to celebrate a prequel attraction?
Creating a new centralized planet definitely gave them a lot more opportunity, in spite of the results. Batuu I think is just a more vibrant Tatooine stand in. Even still people accuse it of being drab and colorless.
doctornick
Well-Known Member
Agreed.
When they bought Lucasfilm and it was obvious they were going to build a Star Wars themed land, most people seemed to assume it would either be (a) a hodgepodge of different planets next to each other in "mini-lands" or (b) one specific planet with Tatooine being the most common option. For my part - you could easily look up old posts here - I strongly promoted the idea of a single locale and Tatooine in particular. With the success of Harry Potter and Cars Land, I think it was obvious where people were coming from with those ideas of recreating a known place.
When they announced the official plans with a brand new location though, I've got to admit that I thought it made a lot of sense. Doing so allowed for a lot more creative freedom and a chance for WDI to create the best possible theme park land not simply a copy of a movie set. Conceptually, it made a lot of sense and the announcements - and original plans it seems - were more ambitious. In fact, it was actually a shocking thing that Disney seemed to put creativity first rather than simply trying to evoke nostalgia with a cut and paste.
It definitely seems to me that the bigger issue is with the land is based on the budgets and not delivering on what was planned/promised. A third ride, roaming characters, the dining location with band, the level of interactivity promoted - those are execution issues, not conceptual ones.
Edit: I also think a big problem is that two of the key experiences are stuck behind big pricetags to experience. they needed to go more like Olivander's there with a basic experience everyone could experience/enjoy but the price tag and maybe some smaller elements to actually buy the stuff.
Last edited:
Disney Analyst
Well-Known Member
And most those issues can and likely would have been addressed... unsure where anything stands now.
doctornick
Well-Known Member
Indeed. If you are saying simply that it is interesting that they approached the properties incompletely different ways, I agree.
Maybe I read too much into your post as being a desire for GE to be similar to Pandora, but most of the complaints about Galaxy's Edge aren't people saying they want it to be more like Pandora (e.g. set completing apart from the films, without any known characters or locations or timeframe). They are saying they want it less like Pandora - desiring specific places and characters from the films that didn't make it into the land.
I know there's also the sentiment that Disney shouldn't be such a stickler for timeframe in Galaxy's Edge, but that's not what Pandora does either. It's just set well beyond the time of the film.
It would have been... interesting if they had gone full Pandora and made a land completely unrelated to the films with only the general universe as a setting. But I don't think that would have been well received.
Captain Neo
Well-Known Member
Original Plan made a lot more sense. I especially like its focus on the original trilogy and having Star Tours in the land while also leaving room for future expansion.
Animaniac93-98
Well-Known Member
I think had they done Tatooine they might have taken liberties to add buildings/things not in the original 1977 movie.
choco choco
Well-Known Member
Exactly. All that article shows is that VP Dan Cockerell doesn't give one about theme parks as an art form and place for creative spark, and simply sees it as a business that preys on a certain weakness in people (in this case, their weakness for familiarity over being challenged by new ideas); it's exactly the type of business mentality that we always criticize on this site for ruining the parks.
doctornick
Well-Known Member
There's a lot of different details coming out in this thread, but I think it is very important to realize that at different points in time, there were different ideas and plans and that they constantly change. And cool sounding things don't always get approved and funded. And thing that do get approved often get cut or value engineered.
That said...
At the D23 in 2013, they teased Star Wars the parks presentation:
I remember distinctly in these parts that the earliest plans that were approved or considered at that time for DHS were indeed in DHS... and that most insiders were disappointed by them. It was basically theme to Tatooine, keep Star Tours, build a cantina like Mos Eisley, have an indoor Jedi training (with an AA or force ghost Yoda) and have some M&Gs. Oh and lots of merchandise.
My guess is that what Cockerell is talking about in that interview is from this timeframe. And I suspect that those Tatooine ideas were all just bluesky ideas that could be implemented and never got to the point of funding/approval/etc
Somewhere along the line before the big 2015 D23 announcement, these plans were sent back to the drawing and (reportedly) Iger and other in leadership wanted something much more bold and impressive for their new toy. That's when Galaxy's Edge was developed and approved and what we got lines up very much with the 2015 concept art and plans publicly announced (though with cuts
).
Even after the 2015 D23 announcement, the plans for DHS were to use Echo Lake, but sometime shortly thereafter they were shifted to Streets of America and LMA/Backlot Tour. The reason for that IIRC was that it could be built more quickly and open closer to the time of DL (since Galaxy's Edge was designed for DL and was being cloned/adapted to DHS).
I'm confident that most of the ideas that @WDW Pro is bringing up indeed existed and were real... as concepts, not as approved plans. And sure they sound cool but WDI always comes up with ambitious awesome sounding ideas that never get approved or get downsided once the money guys get a hold of them. I'm extremely skeptical that anything "more ambitious" was approved and changed.
That said, Kennedy recommending a shift to the new trilogy as a setting and not copying a place from the OT? Sure, I think that's quite likely. I also don't think that it it intrinsically a bad idea especially given the excitement that was palpable in 2015 for The Force Awakens. I actually think that trying to get ahead of a popularity wave be a part of ongoing storytelling was a bold move and the kind of move that I think Disney doesn't do - instead relying on nostalgia too much - but the failure in that would be the problems with the ST film execution not the idea of the land being set during that time frame.
I also think it was foolish to not incorperate the OT more in the land (Jedi temple or Force sensitive area allowing for Force Ghosts or old characters, using R2-D2 and C-3PO, etc). Perhaps that stuff falls on Kennedy and if so then yes she should have pushed for more inclusion of the entire saga history.
That said...
At the D23 in 2013, they teased Star Wars the parks presentation:
I remember distinctly in these parts that the earliest plans that were approved or considered at that time for DHS were indeed in DHS... and that most insiders were disappointed by them. It was basically theme to Tatooine, keep Star Tours, build a cantina like Mos Eisley, have an indoor Jedi training (with an AA or force ghost Yoda) and have some M&Gs. Oh and lots of merchandise.
My guess is that what Cockerell is talking about in that interview is from this timeframe. And I suspect that those Tatooine ideas were all just bluesky ideas that could be implemented and never got to the point of funding/approval/etc
Somewhere along the line before the big 2015 D23 announcement, these plans were sent back to the drawing and (reportedly) Iger and other in leadership wanted something much more bold and impressive for their new toy. That's when Galaxy's Edge was developed and approved and what we got lines up very much with the 2015 concept art and plans publicly announced (though with cuts
).Even after the 2015 D23 announcement, the plans for DHS were to use Echo Lake, but sometime shortly thereafter they were shifted to Streets of America and LMA/Backlot Tour. The reason for that IIRC was that it could be built more quickly and open closer to the time of DL (since Galaxy's Edge was designed for DL and was being cloned/adapted to DHS).
I'm confident that most of the ideas that @WDW Pro is bringing up indeed existed and were real... as concepts, not as approved plans. And sure they sound cool but WDI always comes up with ambitious awesome sounding ideas that never get approved or get downsided once the money guys get a hold of them. I'm extremely skeptical that anything "more ambitious" was approved and changed.
That said, Kennedy recommending a shift to the new trilogy as a setting and not copying a place from the OT? Sure, I think that's quite likely. I also don't think that it it intrinsically a bad idea especially given the excitement that was palpable in 2015 for The Force Awakens. I actually think that trying to get ahead of a popularity wave be a part of ongoing storytelling was a bold move and the kind of move that I think Disney doesn't do - instead relying on nostalgia too much - but the failure in that would be the problems with the ST film execution not the idea of the land being set during that time frame.
I also think it was foolish to not incorperate the OT more in the land (Jedi temple or Force sensitive area allowing for Force Ghosts or old characters, using R2-D2 and C-3PO, etc). Perhaps that stuff falls on Kennedy and if so then yes she should have pushed for more inclusion of the entire saga history.
choco choco
Well-Known Member
I like the idea of a Star Wars version of Rivers of America. Where you get in a ginormous sandcrawler and get to wander up and down and around the vehicle while it cruises through a desert canyon landscape with some animals in it. There's like real life performers in jawa sandrobes and stuff, and lots of little beepy-bloopy things to press and push. The ship is its own exploration area even if you want to avoid the scenery passing outside.
UNCgolf
Well-Known Member
This is exactly it, and why Galaxy's Edge doesn't come close to Diagon Alley. Using a planet from the movies would have helped make it feel more like Star Wars (if you removed the specific Star Wars ships from Batuu, it could be almost anywhere in any setting), but there just aren't very many good options. Tatooine would not work specifically for the reason you mentioned. Mos Eisley is just a flat desert town with absolutely nothing interesting going on visually. Jabba's Palace and the Cantina would work as specific locations, but the planet itself is not an especially good idea (and Jabba's Palace isn't anywhere near Mos Eisley, so that still wouldn't work if you were trying to say it was all one specific area on Tatooine).
I actually thought they should use Naboo if they wanted to use a specific planet. Not that Phantom Menace is a good movie, but Naboo itself is gorgeous and would be far more visually interesting than Batuu. Coruscant would also be an option, but that would likely be cost prohibitive (even moreso than Naboo) and even then would likely feel fake. Almost all of the interesting planets come from the prequel trilogy, strangely enough, but I assume they never even considered using them. For understandable reasons, of course (that the movies were not good), but they could have used the planet without setting it in that timeline. With that said, though, I don't think it would have really made any difference in quality beyond being more visually interesting.
I think it may have been better to just create specific locations/attractions (like the Cantina) without trying to put it all into one cohesive, canon, in character land. I also think they could have built something more interesting than Batuu once they settled on that route. None of that matters now, though. We've got what we've got, and while I don't think it's a home run and could easily be better, it's certainly not a failure. All you have to do is look next door at Toy Story Land to see something that's actually a total failure.
Last edited:
Mickey5150
Well-Known Member
Galaxy's Edge is awesome. It's immersive, it looks and feels like Star Wars. The rides are incredible, the food is good. There are a fair amount of characters walking around, Interacting with guests, and you can even see R2 roaming around. What makes Batuu better than Tatooine is that it allows the guests to become part of the story. Stick me on Tatooine and I'm at a Star Wars museum.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
I wouldn’t be surprised if Iger was oblivious to that fact.
Flat, beige stucco walls aren’t exactly hard to build.
Animaniac93-98
Well-Known Member
He said once he used to watch Davy Crockett, and the audio clip used in the show has that tin-can 60s Disney sound, but maybe he wasn't paying attention in any of the pitch/marketing meetings.
Animaniac93-98
Well-Known Member
Now I'm just imagining Disney's Tatooine looking like the Coronado Springs expansion.
999th Happy Haunt
Well-Known Member
An endless desert with no trees, no water, and no rain is. And I certainly wouldn’t want a land with just flat stucco walls.
Not to mention the dome that would have to be built in FL to stop a desert planet where moisture has to be farmed from having daily deluges.
Kram Sacul
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- Yes
Is this another Star Wars Land complainer thread? I can’t tell.
bryanfze55
Well-Known Member
A fifth gate with lands themed to Tatooine, Endor, Coruscant, Hoth, and Dagonah would have been the “go big or go home” approach that would’ve made Universal Studios and Harry Potter all but irrelevant. They probably didn’t have space in Anaheim but could’ve done that in Orlando.
They went small. Now I’m waiting patiently for someone to build Middle-Earth or at least Westeros (AKA Middle-Earth with nekkid people).
They went small. Now I’m waiting patiently for someone to build Middle-Earth or at least Westeros (AKA Middle-Earth with nekkid people).