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

[Professortango1]

You keep saying that, but you keep being wrong.

View attachment 282942

The park is clearly through the lens of Americana. I believe there was a PBS Documentary on it a few years ago.

 

[Deleted member 107043]

The park is clearly through the lens of Americana. I believe there was a PBS Documentary on it a few years ago.

It is, but couldn't the same be said of pretty much any theme park developed in the 20th century? The thing that makes magic kingdom parks distinct from other Disney parks to me is that they aren't themed specifically to a single topic or idea.

 

[Professortango1]

It is, but couldn't the same be said of pretty much any theme park developed in the 20th century? The thing that makes magic kingdom parks distinct from other Disney parks to me is that they aren't themed specifically to a single topic or idea.

I guess. I think its just a 1950's wholesome American view on the themes presented. America's version of what Adventure is (oooo, exotic cultures and the tropics), Manifest Destiny, Disney's view on children's fantasy, our view of the future. The Main Street I think establishes the core of any park. DHS has a 1920's Hollywood establishing it as a park which pays homage to film and film nostalgia. Animal Kingdom has a winding path leading to Discovery Island letting us know this will be a park where animal exhibits are peppered in alcoves and the park thrives on exploration and nature. The castle parks establish that the park is rooted in a nostalgic American view.

 

[Deleted member 107043]

I guess. I think its just a 1950's wholesome American view on the themes presented.

Yep, and again, I would say that's true, more or less, for Six Flags, Universal, Disney, Knott's, Paramount, etc. Furthermore America exports theme park experiences and rarely, if at all, imports them.

 

[__r.jr]

Well it should. It's the reason big decisions have been made throughout Disney's theme park history. If a certain film had been a box office blockbuster Discovery Bay would be back there behind Big Thunder instead of SW:GE.

In the opinion of some, Walt Disney Imagineering seems to only green-light projects that are tied to a proven, box-office success. And they might have a point, as a vast majority of Disney’s creative endeavors in the parks today are (perhaps rightly) tied to film franchises that are easy to market and come with a built-in fan base (and merchandise sales as well).

Don’t misunderstand – that is not how Disney operated in the 1970's, the same decade that brought Country Bear Jamboree, Space Mountain, and Big Thunder Mountain. However, one major selling point for the Discovery Bay concept was the release of Disney’s Island at the Top of the World, that would’ve served as artistic inspiration for Discovery Bay and been the focus of the land’s E-ticket attraction.

The film’s abysmal performance at the box office and lukewarm reviews during its 1974 debut cooled executives’ reactions to Discovery Bay. While the land didn’t need a runaway box-office success to justify its construction like we might picture today, this alone might not have sealed the land’s fate, it was merely a strike that weakened Discovery Bay at its foundation.

 

[Professortango1]

Yep, and again, I would say that's true, more or less, for Six Flags, Universal, Disney, Knott's, Paramount, etc. Furthermore America exports theme park experiences and rarely, if at all, imports them.

Six Flags has no theme other than landscaping and coasters. Knotts is clearly themed to California (The Original DCA), Universal's entryway clearly sets up a park based upon cinema.

 

[Practical Pig]

It is, but couldn't the same be said of pretty much any theme park developed in the 20th century? The thing that makes magic kingdom parks distinct from other Disney parks to me is that they aren't themed specifically to a single topic or idea.

Disneyland (and the MK in WDW of course) has a strong expression of Americana built into Walt's Dream©, and at least in fan sentiment, I think the lens projecting that may be more tightly focused than in other parks. I agree that the Magic Kingdom parks are built on a very versatile foundation, and I've always been in the camp that thinks SW:GE is placed as sensibly as it could be considering where the goals of the WDC for the franchise landed.

 

[Deleted member 107043]

Six Flags has no theme other than landscaping and coasters

It didn't start that way. Six Flags Over Texas, their first park, had six themed lands representing each of the different nations that have governed the state.

Knotts is clearly themed to California (The Original DCA), Universal's entryway clearly sets up a park based upon cinema.

Both are very much experienced through the lens of Americana.

 

[Phroobar]

Don’t misunderstand – that is not how Disney operated in the 1970's, the same decade that brought Country Bear Jamboree, Space Mountain, and Big Thunder Mountain. However, one major selling point for the Discovery Bay concept was the release of Disney’s Island at the Top of the World, that would’ve served as artistic inspiration for Discovery Bay and been the focus of the land’s E-ticket attraction.

The film’s abysmal performance at the box office and lukewarm reviews during its 1974 debut cooled executives’ reactions to Discovery Bay. While the land didn’t need a runaway box-office success to justify its construction like we might picture today, this alone might not have sealed the land’s fate, it was merely a strike that weakened Discovery Bay at its foundation.

Don't forget that Disney of the 70's was not the same thing as today. They made only children's movies and didn't appeal to anyone over 12. Disneyland was vastly under valued and cheap to get into. However it was relativity deserted since only families took their children there once a year. No one went to Disneyland without kids. They simple didn't have the money or the will to gamble on unproven properties.

Disney was also facing hostel takeovers that would have split up the company and sold off Disneyland to the likes of Cider Fair or Six Flags. If it wasn't for Wells and Eisner, we wouldn't have Disneyland at all anymore.

 

[__r.jr]

Don't forget that Disney of the 70's was not the same thing as today. They made only children's movies and didn't appeal to anyone over 12. Disneyland was vastly under valued and cheap to get into. However it was relativity deserted since only families took their children there once a year. No one went to Disneyland without kids. They simple didn't have the money or the will to gamble on unproven properties.

Absolutely. The failure of Island at the Top of the World might’ve changed filmmakers’ tastes, too, which consequently changed the kinds of movies that major studios filmed. However the film's failure wasn't so much that audiences didn't want a Jules Verne film. It was because it was a bad film overall. Tony Baxter has even admitted to this.

In addition, it's not as if Discovery Bay would have been enslaved to the principles and mandates of the film. It's not limited to one specific set of rules of one universe like Galaxy's Edge is. If it were built today, it would still be great. About the only element of Discovery Bay that probably would be best left in the past would be the headlining Island at the Top of the World dark ride, if only because the land would be better anchored by:

• A version of DisneySea’s Journey to the Center of the Earth
• A version of DisneySea’s 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea
• A version of Baxter’s lost hot air balloon dark ride from The Land
• An original attraction based on a Jules Verne story

After 40 years it's regarded as, another, legendary concept that was never built and it's still highly acclaimed among the theme park community. The attractions, the stylistic setting and aesthetics, the time period, its grounded sense of reality intertwined with real history and (sci-fi) fantasy, the literary source material that transcends decades (centuries?)... It's timeless. That’s how a land at Disneyland should be, not tied to a movie (no matter how successful or enduring the film might be).

 

[Phroobar]

It will still be popular because it's Disney and it's there. That is the same reason people still stumble into the Country Bears at MK. It's not like people are going to avoid the area because it's based on the movie older than they are and actors that no one remembers. Beside any movie with Mako in it deserves at least an attraction.

 

[Deleted member 107043]

Absolutely. The failure of Island at the Top of the World might’ve changed filmmakers’ tastes, too, which consequently changed the kinds of movies that major studios filmed. However the film's failure wasn't so much that audiences didn't want a Jules Verne film. It was because it was a bad film overall. Tony Baxter has even admitted to this.

In addition, it's not as if Discovery Bay would have been enslaved to the principles and mandates of the film. It's not limited to one specific set of rules of one universe like Galaxy's Edge is. If it were built today, it would still be great. About the only element of Discovery Bay that probably would be best left in the past would be the headlining Island at the Top of the World dark ride, if only because the land would be better anchored by:

• A version of DisneySea’s Journey to the Center of the Earth
• A version of DisneySea’s 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea
• A version of Baxter’s lost hot air balloon dark ride from The Land
• An original attraction based on a Jules Verne story

After 40 years it's regarded as, another, legendary concept that was never built and it's still highly acclaimed among the theme park community. The attractions, the stylistic setting and aesthetics, the time period, its grounded sense of reality intertwined with real history and (sci-fi) fantasy, the literary source material that transcends decades (centuries?)... It's timeless. That’s how a land at Disneyland should be, not tied to a movie (no matter how successful or enduring the film might be).

Agree with everything you said, but let's suppose the film had been a SW sized hit. Had that happened there's no question whether or not DB would have been greenlit.

 

[Hatbox Ghostbuster]

Considering how apparently easy it is to adapt a film into a theme park attraction, its a real head-scratcher that it doesn't always work as well going the opposite direction.

 

[DanielBB8]

Absolutely. The failure of Island at the Top of the World might’ve changed filmmakers’ tastes, too, which consequently changed the kinds of movies that major studios filmed. However the film's failure wasn't so much that audiences didn't want a Jules Verne film. It was because it was a bad film overall. Tony Baxter has even admitted to this.

In addition, it's not as if Discovery Bay would have been enslaved to the principles and mandates of the film. It's not limited to one specific set of rules of one universe like Galaxy's Edge is. If it were built today, it would still be great. About the only element of Discovery Bay that probably would be best left in the past would be the headlining Island at the Top of the World dark ride, if only because the land would be better anchored by:

• A version of DisneySea’s Journey to the Center of the Earth
• A version of DisneySea’s 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea
• A version of Baxter’s lost hot air balloon dark ride from The Land
• An original attraction based on a Jules Verne story

After 40 years it's regarded as, another, legendary concept that was never built and it's still highly acclaimed among the theme park community. The attractions, the stylistic setting and aesthetics, the time period, its grounded sense of reality intertwined with real history and (sci-fi) fantasy, the literary source material that transcends decades (centuries?)... It's timeless. That’s how a land at Disneyland should be, not tied to a movie (no matter how successful or enduring the film might be).

Tokyo DisneySeas is the best known version of Discovery Bay that should be visited by every Disney aficionado;however, I just don’t see how it works in Disneyland. Jules Vernes represents Steam Punk and it’s trappings. Such a style doesn’t work in California casual. Plus, the failure of the style in Tomorrowland 1998 can’t just merely be discounted by saying they botched it’s design. They need a higher commitment that just doesn’t exist. Tokyo’s OLC had the commitment and the money. Their colder climate works better to shelter the volcano.

Anyways, importing the hokey Journey to the Center of the Earth and the 20K Leagues Under the Sea makes no sense. Such mythology is so cynical in California. It requires an appreciation of old lore and morals and especially classic literature. Those times are in the past.

Disney will be hardpressed to find an audience who really likes this stuff. It’s once and done here. The punchline in 20K is Aliens . That’s what you’re suspending your disbelief for and in the timeline of 1900s turn of the century.

 

[TP2000]

Where DOES it fit in that statement? Memories of the past I interpret as traveling back in time to old places. Is Star Wars a dream or fact that created America? I'm sorry, I honestly don't see the fit.

Ok, I appreciate your reply.

I've always thought of Star Wars as a modern fairy tale, and a HUGE part of American pop culture of the last 40 years. Star Wars has already been a very popular part of Disneyland for 31 of its 62 years of operation. Personally, I think Star Wars fits into Disneyland and Walt's original mission statement for the place quite nicely. At worst, it fits at least as well as all the European fairy tales mish-mashed into Fantasyland, or a robot of a dead president from 1865 giving a speech in the Opera House of 1905 Main Street USA. At best, Star Wars Land fits much better than a giant chunk of the Swiss Alps plopped next to a tropical lagoon with atomic submarines, or singing tiki birds plopped next to an Oregon Trail log fort.

Disneyland is not a Colonial Williamsburg style living history museum. It's just a fun theme park. Or as Walt so eloquently put it at the 10th Anniversary Dinner in the Disneyland Hotel ballroom in 1965, "that damn amusement park". (Walt said that line repeatedly, and the speech was available on YouTube for years until humorless Disney Legal wised up and had it removed.)

I think sometimes us fans take these places waaaaay too seriously, when Walt and his initial team of Imagineers knew it was just supposed to be a fun place for parents and children to spend time together. And Star Wars Land is going to be really, really fun for people. I can't wait!

 

[Deleted member 107043]

I think sometimes us fans take these places waaaaay to seriously, when Walt and his initial team of Imagineers knew it was just supposed to be a fun place for parents and children to spend time together.

 

[SuddenStorm]

Anyone know if this show's gonna make a comeback in Galaxy's Edge?

Easily the best use of the Star Wars IP I've seen in a Disney park.

 

[dweezil78]

I think sometimes us fans take these places waaaaay too seriously, when Walt and his initial team of Imagineers knew it was just supposed to be a fun place for parents and children to spend time together. And Star Wars Land is going to be really, really fun for people. I can't wait!

I think some people on here unfortunately don't get a chance to go to the parks often enough and instead create these awful scenarios in their head of how bad things have gotten or how obtrusive IP/seasonal festivals are, when in reality the parks (Disneyland proper at least... DCA is a guinea pig of sorts and I'm fine with that) are virtually the same as they have been for years.

 

[SuddenStorm]

I think some people on here unfortunately don't get a chance to go to the parks often enough and instead create these awful scenarios in their head of how bad things have gotten or how obtrusive IP/seasonal festivals are, when in reality the parks (Disneyland proper at least... DCA is a guinea pig of sorts and I'm fine with that) are virtually the same as they have been for years.

It's as if every seasonal promotion is Eisner's Disneyland State Fair.

http://disneyonparole.blogspot.com/2010/06/disneyland-state-fair-1987.html

 

[Little Green Men]

Ok, I appreciate your reply.

I've always thought of Star Wars as a modern fairy tale, and a HUGE part of American pop culture of the last 40 years. Star Wars has already been a very popular part of Disneyland for 31 of its 62 years of operation. Personally, I think Star Wars fits into Disneyland and Walt's original mission statement for the place quite nicely. At worst, it fits at least as well as all the European fairy tales mish-mashed into Fantasyland, or a robot of a dead president from 1865 giving a speech in the Opera House of 1905 Main Street USA. At best, Star Wars Land fits much better than a giant chunk of the Swiss Alps plopped next to a tropical lagoon with atomic submarines, or singing tiki birds plopped next to an Oregon Trail log fort.

Disneyland is not a Colonial Williamsburg style living history museum. It's just a fun theme park. Or as Walt so eloquently put it at the 10th Anniversary Dinner in the Disneyland Hotel ballroom in 1965, "that damn amusement park". (Walt said that line repeatedly, and the speech was available on YouTube for years until humorless Disney Legal wised up and had it removed.)

I think sometimes us fans take these places waaaaay too seriously, when Walt and his initial team of Imagineers knew it was just supposed to be a fun place for parents and children to spend time together. And Star Wars Land is going to be really, really fun for people. I can't wait!

Honestly, I'm just kidding around and replying to the whole 'DHS SWL is waaaay smaller than DL's'. Don't take it too seriously. I mean I am serious, but in a cheeky way...