RoysCabin
Well-Known Member
I don't believe we're talking about the same thing, as I'm only applying my observation to the making of a themed physical space, and how the two properties in question are not as analogous as I believe some are making them out to be. Additionally, I'm not sure what you mean by your last sentence, since I never intimated that at all. My entire point is that Star Wars is not about an individual location, so of course nobody would say that about Tatooine...but that lack of a central location has ramifications when designing themed lands that thrive on familiarity, and creates challenges that don't exist as much in properties like Potter, or Star Trek, or Tolkien.
I grew up an enormous Star Wars fan, I fully know of and embrace much of what makes it unique and interesting, but my point is that I see so many people say "this is Disney's answer to Potter", yet I don't see where the comparison comes in when it comes to the creation of a themed space, or more to the point a recreation of something from the book/film/etc. universe. Many love going to Wizarding World precisely because you can "walk in Harry's steps"; you can go to the shops he and his friends go to, eat and drink what they do, wear the clothes they wear, etc. Star Wars, by design, was never meant to be like that in the films: Tatooine and Hoth, for example, were pretty much devoid of such place-making items (again, besides the cantina), and even the locations we have in those places are largely featureless. Heck, in the prequels places like Coruscant and Naboo, while more populated, are not exactly fleshed out with notable places or items that would inspire a park-going fan of the property to think "Man, I can't wait to see </insert store/restaurant/place/etc. here>", they serve more as staging grounds for conflicts and character development. That's fine for Star Wars as it expresses itself via film, but an art medium such as theme park design has different needs and requirements if your goal is a faithful recreation.
Universal has another property besides Potter that works very well this way: The Simpsons. I adore the first ten seasons or so of the Simpsons, and I'd love to go there and say "Hey, I'm getting a squishee at the Quik E Mart", or "Wow, I'm getting to drink a Duff beer at Moe's", stuff like that. Springfield is a very well developed fictional location with tangible items and places that can be faithfully recreated down to the letter. Again, a Star Trek starship offers the same thing: fans want to see the transporter room, the ship's bar, the bridge, etc. A Tolkien Shire location can have a pub that serves dishes with vegetables grown nearby in a hobbit's garden and hold festival parties in the middle of Hobbiton; I remember seeing the first film in theaters in 2001 and nearly tearing up because the physical design of the Shire was what I had imagined when reading the books (undoubtedly influenced by the work of artists who depicted it in various mediums).
Again, none of this is to say that Star Wars Land won't work, or that this hotel won't work, just that Star Wars as a property operates in a very different way than some of the properties we've seen turned into themed areas in recent years, and that I hope that's being taken into consideration in this design process. Not better, not worse, simply different.
