News Star Wars: Galaxy's Edge - Historical Construction/Impressions

[Curious Constance]

He's praying to Darth Vader, not Anakin Skywalker.

He's praying to Darth Vader, not Anakin Skywalker.

 

[Old Mouseketeer]

He's praying to Darth Vader, not Anakin Skywalker.

The schizophrenic is strong in this family.

 

[Disney Irish]

no AT-AT every fired in a ship in the original trilogy because not even Lucas is that stupid. and all I know is the OT never showed AT-ATs or TIE FIGHTERS being stored in in a star destroyer. now one would assume for the battle of hoth they got down to the planet by some sort of transport ship that must has stored them because a star destroyer can't enter a planet's atmosphere, but again Disney even managed to mess that up in ROGUE ONE when they showed a start destroyer in orbit. gee if the empire could bring a star destroyer into orbit with all it's fire power that would have been a better weapon to use on the hoth base than a slow moving , non precision, vehicle that is used just to scorch the earth around it. Disney does not understand STAR WARS nor will it ever.

Well I never said that AT-AT cannons were fired. But almost every other weapon has been fired on the ships by the inept Storm Troopers. So its not a far stretch to think they'd fire AT-AT cannons too.

I get that there is a large portion of the SW fandom that doesn't like what Disney has done with the SW films. But this particular idea that AT-ATs can't be on a Star Destroyer is ridiculous as its been in canon long before Disney ever bought Lucas.

I'm not even going to get into your other points about the Star Destroyers because it too is also just ridiculous.

 

[TROR]

no AT-AT every fired in a ship in the original trilogy because not even Lucas is that stupid. and all I know is the OT never showed AT-ATs or TIE FIGHTERS being stored in in a star destroyer. now one would assume for the battle of hoth they got down to the planet by some sort of transport ship that must has stored them because a star destroyer can't enter a planet's atmosphere, but again Disney even managed to mess that up in ROGUE ONE when they showed a start destroyer in orbit. gee if the empire could bring a star destroyer into orbit with all it's fire power that would have been a better weapon to use on the hoth base than a slow moving , non precision, vehicle that is used just to scorch the earth around it. Disney does not understand STAR WARS nor will it ever.

The Star Destroyer couldn't enter the atmosphere around their base for an orbital bombardment because of the shields over Echo Base. It's the same reason the Rebels had to lower the shields and fire the ion cannon at the Star Destroyers during the evacuation. My goodness, pay attention.

 

[Disney Irish]

The Star Destroyer couldn't enter the atmosphere around their base for an orbital bombardment because of the shields over Echo Base. It's the same reason the Rebels had to lower the shields and fire the ion cannon at the Star Destroyers during the evacuation. My goodness, pay attention.

It's almost as if they didn't watch the movies...

 

[Sharon&Susan]

Not sure why The Last Jedi is made out as a movie that is full of goofs compared to other Star Wars movies. All three of the Original Trilogy have more errors listed (about 90-105)on IMDb, while TLJ has only 42 errors listed (you’d think with the 10 hour videos dedicated to The Last Jedi that mostly just nitpick, you’d think that it’d be easy to find errors.)

 

[lifeisgoodboy]

Well I never said that AT-AT cannons were fired. But almost every other weapon has been fired on the ships by the inept Storm Troopers. So its not a far stretch to think they'd fire AT-AT cannons too.

I get that there is a large portion of the SW fandom that doesn't like what Disney has done with the SW films. But this particular idea that AT-ATs can't be on a Star Destroyer is ridiculous as its been in canon long before Disney ever bought Lucas.

I'm not even going to get into your other points about the Star Destroyers because it too is also just ridiculous.

There are 20 At-At that could fit in the Star Destroyer.
Here is the link:
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Imperial_I-class_Star_Destroyer

 

[marni1971]

So we need an insider to tell us how loading works for this ride. @marni1971 ??

You climb in and sit down?

Cars dispatched in pairs, maximum eight cars parked at load at once. Ride is designed to handle two adjacent pairs of cars at once.

 

[marni1971]

The FL dark rides are a small footprint, but they twist and turn in corridors which allow there to be more track length. It all depends on how well the current Imagineers designed the space. We have the hanger and AT-AT rooms which are large, but the rest could be a lot winding corridors. Again, we don't know..

The layout is a lot more Rat (or Transformers) and a lot less Alice in Wonderland or Toad.

 

[choco choco]

Space Mountain is the quickest dispatching attraction I can think of at the parks.. and it has a 20 second dispatch interval. That really takes the cast pushing the guests hard and constantly to do that. More load, settle, and check stations give guests more time.. but most people should notice how terse and direct the Space Mountain CMs are... and it's all about ensuring on-time dispatches.

Something like Indy/Dinosaur is probably more akin to what Alcatraz will be like.. as it has simultaneous load stations and about the same passenger counts and concepts. I've seen sources quote 18 seconds for Indy dispatch.. but I'm not sure how accurate that is.

Radiator Springs Racers is a 12 second dispatch interval, stated directly by Tom Morris, it's creative director.

I mean, an omnimover system is much faster than even 12 seconds, so there's loads of examples there.

The main downside to low dispatch intervals is really that you get to see other ride vehicles as you go through the experience and little time for showscenes to reset, so it's really down to what type of ride the designers are going for.

 

[choco choco]

Things to consider:

Attractions like Pirates, HM, Splash have show scenes that run on loops. IJA, RSR, the FL dark rides have shows that run on timing. Currently, we don't know how RotR will be and how much of the experience depends on timed show scenes.

Rides of the "loop" variety have greater capacity for throughput obviously. I also think they nearly always make better rides, because it forces designers to really make the environments pop to make up for the lack of direct action and - because the "loop" requires scenes with figures to be absolutely boiled down to their true essence - really come up with more on-point, creative staging. Timing rides tend to really rack the focus on riders and what is happening to them, and then we get a lot of silly, unnecessary dialogue and overly plotty nonsense and show scenes that require so much unrealistic action that the only way to solve them really involves a lot of screens which, ironically, make it more fake.

Disney (and the industry) has gone the other way, of course, thinking that characters are what is needed to sell rides instead of settings. Hence the Attractions Magazine post about how the ride is going to go not really surprising me at all. I think it would have been a better ride if the story were just we were taking a tour of a Star Destroyer and wandering through sets with lots of alien critters and robots and people populating the ship that are just doing their jobs; but for some reason we have to add a danger element to it. I don't know why, since those elements are always the least convincing and serve to really take you out of the experience rather than bring you closer into it, but somehow modern Imagineering is convinced this is the way to go.

 

[fradz]

Right, yes, Rat sends off 4 vehicles "sideways" away from the loading platform simultaneously.

3

 

[PB Watermelon]

Star Destroyers can't enter atmosphere? Don't tell George Lucas that, as his film, Attack of the Clones, ends with them (or early versions of them) ascending from a planetary surface. Oh...spoilers.

 

[PB Watermelon]

Rides of the "loop" variety have greater capacity for throughput obviously. I also think they nearly always make better rides, because it forces designers to really make the environments pop to make up for the lack of direct action and - because the "loop" requires scenes with figures to be absolutely boiled down to their true essence - really come up with more on-point, creative staging. Timing rides tend to really rack the focus on riders and what is happening to them, and then we get a lot of silly, unnecessary dialogue and overly plotty nonsense and show scenes that require so much unrealistic action that the only way to solve them really involves a lot of screens which, ironically, make it more fake.

Disney (and the industry) has gone the other way, of course, thinking that characters are what is needed to sell rides instead of settings. Hence the Attractions Magazine post about how the ride is going to go not really surprising me at all. I think it would have been a better ride if the story were just we were taking a tour of a Star Destroyer and wandering through sets with lots of alien critters and robots and people populating the ship that are just doing their jobs; but for some reason we have to add a danger element to it. I don't know why, since those elements are always the least convincing and serve to really take you out of the experience rather than bring you closer into it, but somehow modern Imagineering is convinced this is the way to go.

You can always go romp around on Tom Sawyer's Island or lurk in the hallways of Sleeping Beauty's Castle if that's what you're looking for. To me, I think the whole park is a kind of setting, wandering through sets...some of the sets have shows and rides.

 

[Disney Irish]

There are 20 At-At that could fit in the Star Destroyer.
Here is the link:
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Imperial_I-class_Star_Destroyer

Yes I'm aware, I'm not the one who said it so I'm not sure why you quoted me. You should point this out to the poster who stated AT-ATs can't be on Star Destroyers. Obviously they are wrong...

 

[MisterPenguin]

In the canonical animated TV series, I'm pretty sure I've seen AT-ATs and other big ship canons fired within a space ship.

 

[DanielBB8]

IP is both characters and settings. Not sure why it has to be separate. It’s characters set in a fictional land. Non-IP is about a generic land that has characters to fit the generic land. The problem is generic lands based on real places has been played out. There’s nothing left to mine. Fantasy lands can be developed, but without it being tested in the marketplace, it’s a very high risk of failure. Thus, we are in this debate. A debate that the fan community loves, but executives with the money will want to make more money than end their careers with failures.

 

[Phroobar]

There is a shot in Return of the Jedi of the star destroyer hanger bay with the shuttle in it. There is also a TIE bomber hanging from the ceiling.

 

[Phroobar]

Star Destroyers can't enter atmosphere? Don't tell George Lucas that, as his film, Attack of the Clones, ends with them (or early versions of them) ascending from a planetary surface. Oh...spoilers.

Heck, even the Enterprise in TOS can enter a planet's atmosphere.

 

[Phroobar]

Remember Vader ordered a ground assault of Hoth in order to capture Skywalker. He didn't want the base bombared from orbit. AT-AT's have special landing vehicles as seen in many video games.

Even ATOC was dropping AT-TEs from drop ships.