They could just stop cleaning it for a week!!
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News Star Wars Galactic Starcruiser coming to Walt Disney World 2021
- Thread starter wdwmagic
- Start date
_caleb
Well-Known Member
Seems they may have already been testing this strategy in other parts of WDW
(Are links to ITM allowed?)
https:///2022/02/guests-comment-disney-cleanliness-ad1/
SilentWindODoom
Well-Known Member
As I watched the initial vlogs, I came to a realization about the feel of Star Wars. The OT and Prequels looked so different. With The Force Awakens, it seemed more OT. Then The Last Jedi came out and Canto Bight felt really Prequels, and I didn't really understand it. I just kinda shrugged it off as a gut feeling.
As I looked at the Halcyon and thought about the storyline and how it is from the Old Republic and comparison of the look to the different Star Wars looks. It was then that I realized the reason I think of the two appearances so differently and the lived-in look of the OT is so strong is because of the spaces that are shown, not the decoration and design. The OT was all taking place in the dingy corners of the Galaxy. In terms of "civilization", we have one starship and the guest areas of a mining operation (both of which go for all-white aesthetics) and Imperial architecture which is utilitarian. We only heard of Coruscant. Canto Bight is the kind of place where the wealthy go and it's of a similar gilded appearance to the Prequel.
As for the Halcyon... It gives me an OT vibe. Not because of the dinginess of the trilogy, but because with the lighting fixtures and numerous other touches, it is an aesthetic that evokes the Imperial look and the look of OT starships (compare the bumpy padding around the bunks and in some areas to similar features on the Falcon).
Yes, but they shouldn't due to all the click-bait, fluff, and going off on random rumors and what some rando on the Internet says.
I dropped ITM long ago as a website worth checking out.
stephmtl
New Member
"No one saw them! 'I had a vision' he said. 'It's commentary on the state of the galaxy' he said. I said 'Hank, Hank, it's boring, people see this stuff every day! How about something interesting I said... nope gritty realism was his watchword. I can see a city planet out of my window... plus do you know how much flak I took from the Jawa anti-defamation league?!
Art, shmart, I didn't spend millions of credits to see 'ripped from the headlines'... sigh."
(we're considering going at the end of May)
Edit: I should post more. I'm a new member who joined in August 2009.
TikibirdLand
Well-Known Member
Saw a youtube video where they were showing heavy scratches on some surfaces in their cabin. So, there's that...
_caleb
Well-Known Member
”What, that? Oh, that’s just some ‘carbon scoring.’“
OrlandoRising
Well-Known Member
The early Starcruiser reaction seems to me to be Galaxy's Edge in reverse.
With GE, the prevailing narrative was that this land would be nothing less than the biggest success in Disney parks history. Then through a combination of factors -- overhype, cutting back promised features, opening only with the far weaker of two attractions, and perhaps general mixed feelings about the sequel trilogy -- it wasn't as well-reviewed as anticipated.
The prevailing narrative with Starcruiser was it was an overpriced mess and doomed to be a massive failure based on underwhelming early marketing. Perhaps, in retrospect, this is because what appear to be the best parts of the experience -- the personal character interactions -- could not have been represented in marketing materials months ago before any CM training and play testing had occurred.
To me the biggest lessons here are A) Stop pre-judging things and B) Reporting on Disney parks from an undisclosed, but obvious, anti-Chapek agenda is not going to result in trustworthy content. I'm not hearing those personalities admit their assumptions were wrong, even as they now publish very positive reviews on the experience.
With GE, the prevailing narrative was that this land would be nothing less than the biggest success in Disney parks history. Then through a combination of factors -- overhype, cutting back promised features, opening only with the far weaker of two attractions, and perhaps general mixed feelings about the sequel trilogy -- it wasn't as well-reviewed as anticipated.
The prevailing narrative with Starcruiser was it was an overpriced mess and doomed to be a massive failure based on underwhelming early marketing. Perhaps, in retrospect, this is because what appear to be the best parts of the experience -- the personal character interactions -- could not have been represented in marketing materials months ago before any CM training and play testing had occurred.
To me the biggest lessons here are A) Stop pre-judging things and B) Reporting on Disney parks from an undisclosed, but obvious, anti-Chapek agenda is not going to result in trustworthy content. I'm not hearing those personalities admit their assumptions were wrong, even as they now publish very positive reviews on the experience.
WDWJoeG
Well-Known Member
Last edited:
SilentWindODoom
Well-Known Member
The chandeliers are obviously a Prequel-like gilded touch. Doesn't hurt that it looks like the CGI of that era. The fact that it looks that ways in photos (I've rarely seen them in the vlogs as the focus is more on the food on the table and the show) is pretty impressive. It looked and still looks hyper-realistic. Of course, it's not a space we've ever seen in any trilogy. There are small cantinas and personal dining rooms, but we've only seen a large space like this... maybe the officer's lounge in the Mandalorian S2? There's not much comp. Of course, there's also the inset lighting bars that are reminiscent of Imperial lighting and the panel and doors at the other end. But mainly it's wholesale original because there's little source material to draw on.
WDWJoeG
Well-Known Member
Sure, why not.
If somebody thinks that embarrassment represents the next level of themed entertainment (not to mention, remotely worthy of the Star Wars brand), well, I truly pity them.
lostpro9het
Well-Known Member
Does Close Encounters of a Third Kind qualify as a prequel? If so, then Close Encounters of a Third Kind.
mergatroid
Well-Known Member
It's all subjective and the reviews from the paying guests are holding their own to say the least. I'm not a hard core Star Wars fan but rather somebody who enjoys the movies. As it's all fictional the SW 'look' was down to a person designing a set for a movie and the story writers. Therefore if they're creating a set for this new story that's not featured in the movie, well it's possibly not going to look identical to anything from the movie and is down to the set designers.
Whilst it doesn't scream SW to me, the people who've paid to go are saying it feels very SW when you're there. I've not been but a lot who have are saying the overall feel of the experiences combined really makes them feel like they're in a SW universe. I suppose pictures of some of the areas could be easily used to say "this isn't the SW I know". From the reviews from people attending however they say the combination of characters, the story line and some of the experience capture the very essence of the SW universe for them in a way that many describe as brilliant. @lentesta who'd been very critical of the still pictures not looking like SW to him before he went, came back talking about how the experience felt great for him as a SW fan. He's probably in a great position to discuss it further and a lot better than myself or anyone who's not smelt it, touched it and lived within it for 2 days.
Nearly everyone who's talked about it after visiting it have commented that they appreciate it's not for everyone, so there's wriggle room in there to accept that opinions vary on whether it's liked or not and many of those not liking it despite not going, are probably just giving their honest opinions too. For some it works whilst for others it doesn't, however a few still pictures probably isn't a great way of measuring the overall feel to guests there as many who've experienced it personally have verified.
Last edited:
Incomudro
Well-Known Member
No one who put the Starcruiser experience together needs to be embarrassed about anything, except the approach to it.
One thing that is embarrassing is insisting that something is terrible when it clearly isn't.
SilentWindODoom
Well-Known Member
I'm glad you're here for honest, good faith discussion and not sarcastic snapping from the sidelines.
Heh. This is the second time today I've been quoted for a response that sounds like he's responding to someone else.
But I agree with you, Star Wars is indeed whatever aesthetic people bring to it. It's a big Galaxy with a huge variety.
The ppl I know who have gone, which is quite a few, say the ship feels quite Star Wars-y, but all agree the dining room is a weak point.
_caleb
Well-Known Member
I’ve posted several images from Star Wars films in this thread as I’ve looked for inspiration that might inform what a “luxur star liner” might look like in the Star Wars universe.
Part of the issue is that we really have to limit our search to ships, since most of the settings that take pace on a planet’s surface also include a great deal of natural materials (stone, stucco, sand) and are integrated into the natural environment. There just isn’t a lot to draw from, which is why I think Disney sort of just did something vaguely spacey but with clear inspiration (like the lighting).
I don’t want it to look “worn, I want it to look like it has some history. The best expensive/luxury places I’ve stayed in were originally castles, monasteries, palaces, and old hotels that don’t feel “brand new” on the inside. In my opinion, this would help tell the story of a famous old ship.
But mine is nothing more than a moderately-informed opinion of a Star Wars and Disney parks fan who will likely never visit the Galactic Starcruiser!
_caleb
Well-Known Member
Tomorrow is your big day! Hope you have an amazing time. I’m looking forward to your unbiased, unsponsored, sober, thoughtful, honest review!
flynnibus
Premium Member
Look at Phantom Menace... all the coursant stuff is more sci-fi... while Naboo is more natural materials, but still luxury focused (as most of what we see is the Palace-related stuff). Look at Kamino...
I think the problem is not 'not alot to draw on' but the opposite... people are too locked onto what they think SW is. When people say 'star wars' instantly everyone goes to EPIV... the Imperial interiors of the star destroyers/death star and tatoine. There is plenty of others, but the icons are those because of the impact of EPIV. We already know at the time Disney was trying to avoid pigeon holing on the OT... so now all that stuff is out. So what is space travel with civilians in star wars? That is something you see almost nothing of until the prequels. Remember, Disney has to have a story element here of 'why are all these people here together'... I'm sure the 'you're all refugees' probably got killed quick.. so we are in this transport/travel kind of mindset... then it's supposed to be fun pleasurable right? So now you bring in the leisure/nice angles... and this idea of cruise isn't too far off.
As with most creative stuff... most lay only know how to copy, not create. They usually take concepts and focus on reusing those 'rules' to the point of failure, because they are missing why the method was used in the first place. Same thing about Star Wars and being gritty or used - it was done to make the settings and spaces feel authentic and real.. and that they have a history/story... not that there was no such thing as 'nice' or clean in the universe. But instead now so many people are like "Star Wars MUST BE DIRTY!!" - no, grit, age, abuse should be used where it fits the story. The Falcon was dodgy and beat up because it's a smuggler's ship trying to get by... The Emperor's Shuttle is not the same story and shouldn't be shown the same as the Falcon. The Stormtroopers were all clean and tidy - while the rebel's were hodgepodged and varied.
I think so many people now forget the setting star wars came out in.. and how so many movies were done before it. People forget how movies were so frequently done in sound stages with clearly fake backgrounds and sets. So much of what people talk about Star Wars is because of it's relative differences to what was around it... not just 'these are the rules of what is star wars'.
This problem is excessively bad in the Disney fan-dom... they hate on things because it's not what they saw done before... because they've conditioned themselves to believe "this is how it must be done".
ChrisFL
Premium Member
Is it possible to pare down my overall thoughts over the past 1+ years of following this project?
Maybe. It has been endlessly interesting to watch all of this unfold and I think the results appear to be better than expected, not having experienced it personally, only by seeing lots of videos and reports so far.
Here is the hurdle for this to be successful: The "buy in".
Labeling something as Star Wars implies that anyone who is planning to spend money on this...has a built in "buy in". They've already "bought in" to the lore and the story either from the original trilogy, prequel or sequel trilogy...or at the very least, the overall lore and feeling of Star Wars.
Disney Imagineering had a lower hurdle with Batuu as it does feel like other planets all combined into one...whether it works for people is hit or miss but generally I think it works well.
The Starcruiser seems to require a whole new level of "buy in", both with the aesthetics, the food, the unfamiliar characters (other than Ray, Chewie and Kylo Ren at the VERY end) etc.
At this level of investment on Disney's part, the investment needed on marketing and finally, whether the guests feel whether they can buy-in to this unique story. It should be, as soon as ANY marketing material comes out...the #1 response should be something akin to "OMG THEY DID IT!!" not "Um...really? it doesn't look/feel right"
This would have been made easier if Disney had promoted some shows or previews on Disney+ that were JUST about a storyline and not "Behind the scenes" or something like that. A lot of what we heard about for comics or stupid mentions of Han and Leia were JUST before the whole thing opened.
Maybe. It has been endlessly interesting to watch all of this unfold and I think the results appear to be better than expected, not having experienced it personally, only by seeing lots of videos and reports so far.
Here is the hurdle for this to be successful: The "buy in".
Labeling something as Star Wars implies that anyone who is planning to spend money on this...has a built in "buy in". They've already "bought in" to the lore and the story either from the original trilogy, prequel or sequel trilogy...or at the very least, the overall lore and feeling of Star Wars.
Disney Imagineering had a lower hurdle with Batuu as it does feel like other planets all combined into one...whether it works for people is hit or miss but generally I think it works well.
The Starcruiser seems to require a whole new level of "buy in", both with the aesthetics, the food, the unfamiliar characters (other than Ray, Chewie and Kylo Ren at the VERY end) etc.
At this level of investment on Disney's part, the investment needed on marketing and finally, whether the guests feel whether they can buy-in to this unique story. It should be, as soon as ANY marketing material comes out...the #1 response should be something akin to "OMG THEY DID IT!!" not "Um...really? it doesn't look/feel right"
This would have been made easier if Disney had promoted some shows or previews on Disney+ that were JUST about a storyline and not "Behind the scenes" or something like that. A lot of what we heard about for comics or stupid mentions of Han and Leia were JUST before the whole thing opened.