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

[Old Mouseketeer]

Looks like it was taken from the top of the TDA parking structure.

I said this in another thread. I believe this is the case.

 

[Old Mouseketeer]

This is about as close as I could get them to overlap. It's not a perfect fit.

BRILLIANT! Thank you. (And not just because it proves me right on one of my biggest objections to the MC plan--namely the angle of the approach to the final curve going into Toontown/Fantasyland station.) This is a huge help to visualizing where things are going to be.

 

[Old Mouseketeer]

I'd love if you could draw that radius. I don't even know where the fireworks launch from.

Forgive me for the crudeness, but I have limited tools on this computer. The red is the main fireworks launch farm and the green is the approximate fallout zone. However, the latter could be expanded in adverse wind conditions.

 

[Old Mouseketeer]

I would much rather visit Coruscant than some random spaceport planet.

Shanghai? Dubai? (Minus the flying transports, of course.)

/snark

 

[Phroobar]

I would much rather visit Coruscant than some random spaceport planet.

Well this is suppose to be built in London someday. If they take off the Star Trek stuff, this could be a very good Tomorrowland.

 

[britain]

Star Wars is at it's best in a creative mix of run-down settings, mythic ancient settings and the brutally clean empire. That's why it doesn't belong in Tomorrowland that well. Building a Coruscant is just building another sci-fi city.

 

[Professortango1]

It's the most overrated fictional spaceship ever. To me, the whole concept is very dumb and, like Disney's Star Wars output thus far, it wreaks of gimmicky fan service. It won't be as cramped or sickening as Mission:SPACE, but it sure makes me want to throw up just thinking about it. It's about as banal a concept for a Star Wars attraction as you could come up with because of how much its pandering to the fanboys. It will surely be replica Falcon cockpits with a screen and buttons, and some characters "talking to you" to make it seem interactive. Ugh.

See? I called it. I can't really call the other one, that's why it's interesting.

Aren't all fictional spaceships overrated to people not hip to a franchise? I know there's a game where you are on the bride of the Starship Enterprise and fans used to act like they stepped into Mecca in the Las Vegas attraction.

If you don't like Star Wars, don't go. I could care less which spacecraft I'm flying in, I'm more concerned with the experience. The Falcon cockpit does lend itself nicely to an emmersive experience due to the cone shape.

 

[Phroobar]

Aren't all fictional spaceships overrated to people not hip to a franchise? I know there's a game where you are on the bride of the Starship Enterprise and fans used to act like they stepped into Mecca in the Las Vegas attraction.

If you don't like Star Wars, don't go. I could care less which spacecraft I'm flying in, I'm more concerned with the experience. The Falcon cockpit does lend itself nicely to an emmersive experience due to the cone shape.

The Star Trek Experience was fun but at the end of the day it was just Star Tours and Minion Mayhem with cosplay and really expensive.

 

[Professortango1]

The Star Trek Experience was fun but at the end of the day it was just Star Tours and Minion Mayhem with cosplay and really expensive.

In its heyday, it was phenomenal. The ride was just one part of the overall experience. Once they slashed budgets and pushed everyone through to the simulator, it no longer worked.

 

[Phroobar]

In its heyday, it was phenomenal. The ride was just one part of the overall experience. Once they slashed budgets and pushed everyone through to the simulator, it no longer worked.

That's too bad they did that. I only got to see the Klingon star tours ride. It was really cool to be "beamed" to the Enterprise. I liked how the roof opened up to see the entire imax screen. Too bad Paramount doesn't do anything with the property. If they were Disney, there would be an entire theme park by now. I don't think the London Paramount park will ever open.

 

[yookeroo]

That's too bad they did that. I only got to see the Klingon star tours ride. It was really cool to be "beamed" to the Enterprise. I liked how the roof opened up to see the entire imax screen. Too bad Paramount doesn't do anything with the property. If they were Disney, there would be an entire theme park by now. I don't think the London Paramount park will ever open.

Another reason for Disney to keep using IP in the parks. It helps keep them relevant. And Disney has soooo much intellectual property that it's got to be real hard to keep it all in the public eye.

There is lots of incentive to keep putting existing IP in the parks. Not the least of which is public demand.

 

[Earl Sweatpants]

Another reason for Disney to keep using IP in the parks. It helps keep them relevant. And Disney has soooo much intellectual property that it's got to be real hard to keep it all in the public eye.

There is lots of incentive to keep putting existing IP in the parks. Not the least of which is public demand.

Pirates of the Caribbean is celebrating 50 years in the parks next month.
In a few years, Haunted Mansion will celebrate its 50th anniversary as well.
Fan favorites don't require IP's for longevity. They need strong, creative ideas in immersive experiences.

IP inclusion to simply stay relevant is a poor reason to butcher the park's footprint. Disney has run into "relevant" problems in the past when technology can't keep up with demand (see Tomorrowland, Future World in Epcot).

 

[Mike S]

Pirates of the Caribbean is celebrating 50 years in the parks next month.
In a few years, Haunted Mansion will celebrate its 50th anniversary as well.
Fan favorites don't require IP's for longevity. They need strong, creative ideas in immersive experiences.

IP inclusion to simply stay relevant is a poor reason to butcher the park's footprint. Disney has run into "relevant" problems in the past when technology can't keep up with demand (see Tomorrowland, Future World in Epcot).

I agree but most of Future World was actually based on the past. Horizons, the most futuristic of the bunch, presented things that still haven't happened and probably won't for quite some time.

 

[Earl Sweatpants]

I agree but most of Future World was actually based on the past. Horizons, the most futuristic of the bunch, presented things that still haven't happened and probably won't for quite some time.

True true. I actually feel like Horizons could operate today and still be WAY beyond our scope of the future. Especially with all our updated technology since the 80's...probably the only thing they did "predict" that's come to be is FaceTime.

 

[yookeroo]

Pirates of the Caribbean is celebrating 50 years in the parks next month.
In a few years, Haunted Mansion will celebrate its 50th anniversary as well.
Fan favorites don't require IP's for longevity.

That's nice. Also a bit of a straw man.

IP inclusion to simply stay relevant is a poor reason to butcher the park's footprint.

It's not simply to stay relevant. It's one of many factors that influence the decision. Most of those factors strongly push them to put IP in the parks.

I know if I was in charge, it would have to be a VERY compelling idea that would get me to pass up putting IP in the parks. The public loves existing IP. It helps keep the IP relevant (and there's loads of it). It keeps the board happy. SellIng me on something new and original would be a very hard sell.

 

[Earl Sweatpants]

That's nice. Also a bit of a straw man.



It's not simply to stay relevant. It's one of many factors that influence the decision. Most of those factors strongly push them to put IP in the parks.

I know if I was in charge, it would have to be a VERY compelling idea that would get me to pass up putting IP in the parks. The public loves existing IP. It helps keep the IP relevant (and there's loads of it). It keeps the board happy. SellIng me on something new and original would be a very hard sell.

Straw man or not, it proves that you don't always need an IP to sell an attraction, or increase public demand.

I guess that's where you and I differ. For me, if I was in charge, I would have to basically see WDI completely run out of original creativity before tossing them an IP softball.

 

[yookeroo]

Straw man or not, it proves that you don't always need an IP to sell an attraction, or increase public demand.

Has anyone ever claimed this? Ever?

I guess that's where you and I differ. For me, if I was in charge, I would have to basically see WDI completely run out of original creativity before tossing them an IP softball.

Easy to say. Following through with this is a lot harder when you have a multi-billion dollar empire to run and a demanding board to satisfy. One high profile failure could end things quickly.

 

[Curious Constance]

Has anyone ever claimed this? Ever?



Easy to say. Following through with this is a lot harder when you have a multi-billion dollar empire to run and a demanding board to satisfy. One high profile failure could end things quickly.

Especially when theme parks are just a part of your business, and adding IP is not only popular for your theme parks, but also has the added bonus of promoting movies/shows/merchandise, etc.

 

[SSG]

Especially when theme parks are just a part of your business, and adding IP is not only popular for your theme parks, but also has the added bonus of promoting movies/shows/merchandise, etc.

It's that type of rational response that we discourage here on the internet.

 

[Earl Sweatpants]

Especially when theme parks are just a part of your business, and adding IP is not only popular for your theme parks, but also has the added bonus of promoting movies/shows/merchandise, etc.

With that logic, you might as well ditch any and every original idea/concept and just stick to IPs.