Old Mouseketeer
Well-Known Member
Not true. Even today there is room for a show building five times the size of what they built.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News Star Wars: Galaxy's Edge - Historical Construction/Impressions
- Thread starter BrianLo
- Start date
Not true. Even today there is room for a show building five times the size of what they built.
Disney Irish
Premium Member
Depends on your point of view. I personally think it does fit like a glove or glass slipper. The back part of the park at the junction of FrontierLand and FantasyLand is exactly where SW fits.
Hatbox Ghostbuster
Well-Known Member
You’re talking thematically. And I’d give you that. I’m talking spacially. And if you still think it fits, I have a truncated Rivers of America and the ghost of Big Thunder Ranch that would like a word.
Disney Irish
Premium Member
Things get modified all the time to make other things fit. Jungle Cruise got modified so IJA could get added, this is no different.
Now do I wish they could have found a way to do it without modifying things such adding a 3rd gate, absolutely. But that isn't in the cards for the next 15-30 years at least.
So long post short, it fits just fine both in the thematic and spacial sense to me.
Professortango1
Well-Known Member
So it fits perfectly fine in real life, but when people want to hold it to scrutiny and argue a false narrative, they can misshape the elements enough to make it appear as if it doesn't fit? Wow, that was a great simile as it describes Galaxy's Edge and the hoops people jump through to attack it to a "T".
THE 1HAPPY HAUNT
Well-Known Member
"If the land doesn't fit, you must aquit!"
PB Watermelon
Well-Known Member
K2-KLN lives in the guest house.
britain
Well-Known Member
Very good!
Rich Brownn
Well-Known Member
Not unless they went vertical. Behind the building is the inceratior and the storage for the EWP. Otherwise they';d have had to redesign the entire ride and as we know, Pirates was a rush job at WDW. I worked there during the opening and I know the story and the anger from some of the Imagineers. Basically they took DL's Pirates, truncated it to fit, and plopped in the space in Adventureland they could squeeze it in.
TP2000
Well-Known Member
Not sure where you got that idea from. In the early 1970's they had nothing but open land west of Magic Kingdom to expand. Much of it was slated for Western River Expedition, but the area to the west of Adventureland was also wide open when they began Pirates construction in 1972.
Satellite imagery doesn't exist from 1972, but here we see an aerial shot of the western half of Magic Kingdom Park circa 1972. The land that Big Thunder is on has been cleared for Western River Expedition, and the area south of it where Pirates will go is wide open. There is no "backstage" buildings there at all. Nothing but marsh and trees zoned for park expansion.
Fast forward to the 21st century, and we have satellite imagery and a gaggle of parade and support buildings built in the 1980's and 1990's. Even when you take those out of the mix, there was and still is a huge swath of developable land southwest of Adventureland where they could have built Pirates on. They could have done a Pirates of the Caribbean that was TRIPLE the size of the Disneyland original, and still had a wide buffer of trees to hide it from Seven Seas Lagoon.
But they chose not to use that land. There's are reasons why, well documented in books and blogs and Imagineering interviews. But the choice was purposeful in '72, and WDW got a truncated 8 minute version of the 15 minute long Disneyland original.
But saying the Imagineers and Orlando execs were "blocked by backstage buildings" that didn't exist in 1972 is not the reason why.
By the way: vanilla google maps has updated for me. I was still seeing the old version with the Circle Ranch still intact very recently. This version even has Cleo as dirt, so not 3 years out of date!
ETA: The highlights again being there is some pretty cool potential now for Critter Country to become a bit more realized - requiring the sacrifice of Pooh and eating a bit into the current holding pen of Galaxy Edge. Also lots of space for them to do something cool with the Wonderbra plot.
ETA: The highlights again being there is some pretty cool potential now for Critter Country to become a bit more realized - requiring the sacrifice of Pooh and eating a bit into the current holding pen of Galaxy Edge. Also lots of space for them to do something cool with the Wonderbra plot.
Last edited:
Disney Irish
Premium Member
Yay, now only have to wait 3 more years before it gets updated again with the finished product!
Rich Brownn
Well-Known Member
The incinerator was there in 1972 (Its part of the disposal system) To use that open land, it would require the ride to have been redesigned. It was a quick and dirty job and they just cut and paste what they could. There was no other reason for why the ride was truncated so. There have many many articles published about this.Not sure where you got that idea from. In the early 1970's they had nothing but open land west of Magic Kingdom to expand. Much of it was slated for Western River Expedition, but the area to the west of Adventureland was also wide open when they began Pirates construction in 1972.
Satellite imagery doesn't exist from 1972, but here we see an aerial shot of the western half of Magic Kingdom Park circa 1972. The land that Big Thunder is on has been cleared for Western River Expedition, and the area south of it where Pirates will go is wide open. There is no "backstage" buildings there at all. Nothing but marsh and trees zoned for park expansion.
Fast forward to the 21st century, and we have satellite imagery and a gaggle of parade and support buildings built in the 1980's and 1990's. Even when you take those out of the mix, there was and still is a huge swath of developable land southwest of Adventureland where they could have built Pirates on. They could have done a Pirates of the Caribbean that was TRIPLE the size of the Disneyland original, and still had a wide buffer of trees to hide it from Seven Seas Lagoon.
View attachment 326370
But they chose not to use that land. There's are reasons why, well documented in books and blogs and Imagineering interviews. But the choice was purposeful in '72, and WDW got a truncated 8 minute version of the 15 minute long Disneyland original.
But saying the Imagineers and Orlando execs were "blocked by backstage buildings" that didn't exist in 1972 is not the reason why.
britain
Well-Known Member
Some good Galaxy's Edge video in this article:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...a/disney-invests-billions-in-theme-parks.html
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...a/disney-invests-billions-in-theme-parks.html
Disney Irish
Premium Member
Its amazing the little details they are putting into the top of the Falcon, especially since it may not even be seen by guests walking by. It shows you that WDI (and even management) still does care about little details.
britain
Well-Known Member
1) They know marketing will want a lot of drone footage, so there is value in finishing the top of the falcon.
2) I think there will be a second story of queueing, one that will get a nice view of the top of the falcon. See the windows with awnings here.
SSG
Well-Known Member
The reporter on this article Tweets: [B]Brooks Barnes[/B] @[B]brooksbarnesNYT[/B]
FollowFollow @brooksbarnesNYT
"I tried a test version of the Millennium Falcon ride as part of reporting. Built in a CA warehouse. I must say, pretty amazing. You're in the cockpit with only a few others. But they will have enough pods to handle 1,800 people/hour."
Disney Irish
Premium Member
I'm just impressed that it wasn't something cut, especially with all the negative talk surrounding how cheap current management is with budgets. They could have easily put a top together with a lot less detail and covered it more with a hanger.
I wasn't aware there was actually going to be a second level with external facing queues. Are we sure about that or are we just assuming based on views from the model?