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

The_Mesh_Hatter

The_Mesh_Hatter

Well-Known Member
I’ve been searching my feelings more so expect more hot takes to come. On scale: the scale was not human; felt engulfed by the land, not immersed. The biggest problem was the row of facades leading up to Oga’s Cantina. The only thing on that entire street is the Cantina, yet the buildings to your left and right are towering. It feels uninhabited and empty. Putting Savi’s in the middle of the land is a mistake. It tries to be nondescript, and it is unassuming... but that just makes it so there’s a giant hole in the town center.

My favorite part of the land is the Bazaar. It starts with Ronto Rosters, which flows into a short street with a kink in it, and ends in a small plaza with a set of restrooms. The scale here wasn’t a huge contrast from the rest of the land, but the amount of detail made it feel much more intimate. I especially liked looking up at all the windows and balconies while in the plaza with the bathroom. Also, the grill for Ronto Rosters, fueled by a rocket engine and operated by a cute little droid, was fun to watch. The shops are excessively small, but they were nicely detailed. I liked how most of them seemed to have some sort of tiny stairs in the back of them, this gave them some nice depth.

One thing that is sure to be a point of criticism is the limited food items. Operationally it makes sense, but I was still surprised to see 2 menu items at Ronto’s Rosters, and just 1 item at the Cantina.

Speaking of the Cantina... we managed to get in. The inside is a circle, with an oblong bar dominated the center. In his own alcove across from the entrance sits DJ Rex. Around 8 large booths are carved into the walls along the perimeter.The booths are large enough to fit at least 8 guests, and multiple parties were being sat at a booth. Between the bar and booths were another 8 or so high top tables you stand at. Again, each of these has room for 8 guests, and all the room is used for capacity’s sake. Finally, there is more standing room along the bar. It’s a tiny space, but they pack you in there. I would guess the place could fit 150+ guests, since most of it is standing room. Serverice is unique here. You pay first to get your drinks. The atmosphere was pretty frenzied, and I felt bad for servers trying to carry drink trays around such a cramped space. The idea was for all the CM’s there to have back story, but the place was so loud and busy it was infeesable for anyone to really get into character.

Oga’s Cantina very much has a club vibe, and it’s not going to be some people’s cup of tea. The 45 minute time limit could end up being a non issue, because the area has a pretty inhospitable design. My phone was taken so I wasn’t checking the time, but we probably spent no more than half an hour there. I’m sure many people will love it because you really feel like you’re in a club, but that’s not my scene.

Here’s a map of the Cantina I made just for my friends here, because so many people seem interested in the size and seating of it.
F05F78B0-CFA9-4CA0-A901-DEA0FFE3B76C.jpeg


Can’t guaruntee it’s completely accurate, but it gives you an idea.
 
Last edited:
TROR

TROR

Well-Known Member
Phrubruh said:
What do you mean by art being objective vs subjective?
Click to expand...
Until the mid to late nineteenth century, art has had a set of criteria that defines it as good or bad. These mostly focus on the subject matter (religious, historical, mythological, portraits, landscapes, and still life all considered good subject matter; I believe I've ranked them from most to least valuable properly) and the quality of art (realistic proportions of people, proper perspective, detail, brush strokes, color, etc.). Usually there's also meaning behind what is displayed for art's primary goal is to communicate with the viewer (for example, in a still life painting there may be a skull to represent death). While these specific standards mostly apply to paintings and sculptures, all mediums of art, whether that be music, poetry, cinema, or theme parks, are still held to specific standards. Subject matter is universal across all mediums.

When it comes to theme parks, subject matter still holds great importance. It's what separates Great Moments with Mr. Lincoln from Guardians of the Galaxy: Mission Breakout. One is look back on America's history and one of our greatest presidents, the other is based on a low brow franchise. Whether or not someone prefers the thrills of Mission Breakout doesn't change the fact it is an objectively inferior attraction to Mr. Lincoln on subject matter alone.

Like a painting is judged for its quality of brush strokes, there's also the objective quality standards for theme park attractions. The main four criteria here are the narrative flow, ride vehicles/system, mediums used, and role of guest.

With storytelling for theme park attractions, the best flow for dark rides is the three act structure, much like a film. That's because there tends to be a linear narrative. This is easiest to see in Pirates of the Caribbean. You begin with the small hints of things to come (bayou), a bit more explicit (skeletons in the caverns), and finally everything is revealed (living, breathing pirates). This formula is also used on Tower of Terror (queue/library, mirror, hallway), Splash Mountain ("How Do Ya Do?," "Laughing Place," "Zip-A-Dee-Doo-Dah"), Haunted Mansion (foyer/stretching room, pre seance, post seance), and numerous other rides.

As stated, this structure only applies to narrative dark rides and not towards attractions like Autopia, Dumbo, or the Tea Cups.

The second criteria of ride vehicles/system is how well the ride system represents the property or attraction. Sticking with Pirates, it makes sense to have it be a boat ride as pirates sail the seas. The ride vehicle goes along with the story. With Indiana Jones, that's a franchise about adventure so it makes sense the ride vehicle would be an off-roading jeep. Tower of Terror is a story about an elevator, so naturally the ride vehicle should be an elevator. Star Tours is based on a franchise about space travel so it makes sense to have a flight simulator as the ride system with the gritty Starspeeder 3000 as the vehicle.

Mediums is really just the difference between full sets with advanced audio animatronics, static figures, blacklit plywood, and screen based attractions (that's from best to worst). Pirates of the Caribbean, which is primarily full sets filled with audio animatronics, is an objectively better attraction than Toy Story Midway Mania, which is all screens. Having audio animatronics and full sets creates a more realistic and believable environment just as well proportioned and proper perspective creates a better painting.

You can even get into the craftsmanship of each items within the medium. With screen based rides, they tend to work best with physical environments on screen rather than CGI (compare Soarin to Soarin 2) and without actors. With audio animatronics you can judge them as sculptures. So on and so forth.

Lastly, there is the role of the guest. Again, Pirates of the Caribbean. This is a passive attraction. It's a leisurely cruise. This is how narrative attractions should be. Second is the rider is the main character but the ride does not interact with the rider (Fantasyland rides), third is the rider interacts with the ride (Astro Blasters), and worst is the ride interacts with the rider (Mission Breakout).

There are, of course, other simple ways to evaluate an attraction. These are things such as thematic consistency of an attraction in its land (a Pixar ride should be in a land about Pixar), thematic consistency within the attraction itself (blatant references to things outside the attraction should not exist within an attraction), how much fun an attraction is, etc.

I'm tired of typing so I'm just wrapping it up here, not fully developed. There other things I didn't even talk about like how theme parks are a visual medium so the stories should be told visually.

I should just write a book on this instead of cram everything into a post on an internet forum.
 
Disney Irish

Disney Irish

Premium Member
TROR said:
Until the mid to late nineteenth century, art has had a set of criteria that defines it as good or bad. These mostly focus on the subject matter (religious, historical, mythological, portraits, landscapes, and still life all considered good subject matter; I believe I've ranked them from most to least valuable properly) and the quality of art (realistic proportions of people, proper perspective, detail, brush strokes, color, etc.). Usually there's also meaning behind what is displayed for art's primary goal is to communicate with the viewer (for example, in a still life painting there may be a skull to represent death). While these specific standards mostly apply to paintings and sculptures, all mediums of art, whether that be music, poetry, cinema, or theme parks, are still held to specific standards. Subject matter is universal across all mediums.

When it comes to theme parks, subject matter still holds great importance. It's what separates Great Moments with Mr. Lincoln from Guardians of the Galaxy: Mission Breakout. One is look back on America's history and one of our greatest presidents, the other is based on a low brow franchise. Whether or not someone prefers the thrills of Mission Breakout doesn't change the fact it is an objectively inferior attraction to Mr. Lincoln on subject matter alone.

Like a painting is judged for its quality of brush strokes, there's also the objective quality standards for theme park attractions. The main four criteria here are the narrative flow, ride vehicles/system, mediums used, and role of guest.

With storytelling for theme park attractions, the best flow for dark rides is the three act structure, much like a film. That's because there tends to be a linear narrative. This is easiest to see in Pirates of the Caribbean. You begin with the small hints of things to come (bayou), a bit more explicit (skeletons in the caverns), and finally everything is revealed (living, breathing pirates). This formula is also used on Tower of Terror (queue/library, mirror, hallway), Splash Mountain ("How Do Ya Do?," "Laughing Place," "Zip-A-Dee-Doo-Dah"), Haunted Mansion (foyer/stretching room, pre seance, post seance), and numerous other rides.

As stated, this structure only applies to narrative dark rides and not towards attractions like Autopia, Dumbo, or the Tea Cups.

The second criteria of ride vehicles/system is how well the ride system represents the property or attraction. Sticking with Pirates, it makes sense to have it be a boat ride as pirates sail the seas. The ride vehicle goes along with the story. With Indiana Jones, that's a franchise about adventure so it makes sense the ride vehicle would be an off-roading jeep. Tower of Terror is a story about an elevator, so naturally the ride vehicle should be an elevator. Star Tours is based on a franchise about space travel so it makes sense to have a flight simulator as the ride system with the gritty Starspeeder 3000 as the vehicle.

Mediums is really just the difference between full sets with advanced audio animatronics, static figures, blacklit plywood, and screen based attractions (that's from best to worst). Pirates of the Caribbean, which is primarily full sets filled with audio animatronics, is an objectively better attraction than Toy Story Midway Mania, which is all screens. Having audio animatronics and full sets creates a more realistic and believable environment just as well proportioned and proper perspective creates a better painting.

You can even get into the craftsmanship of each items within the medium. With screen based rides, they tend to work best with physical environments on screen rather than CGI (compare Soarin to Soarin 2) and without actors. With audio animatronics you can judge them as sculptures. So on and so forth.

Lastly, there is the role of the guest. Again, Pirates of the Caribbean. This is a passive attraction. It's a leisurely cruise. This is how narrative attractions should be. Second is the rider is the main character but the ride does not interact with the rider (Fantasyland rides), third is the rider interacts with the ride (Astro Blasters), and worst is the ride interacts with the rider (Mission Breakout).

There are, of course, other simple ways to evaluate an attraction. These are things such as thematic consistency of an attraction in its land (a Pixar ride should be in a land about Pixar), thematic consistency within the attraction itself (blatant references to things outside the attraction should not exist within an attraction), how much fun an attraction is, etc.

I'm tired of typing so I'm just wrapping it up here, not fully developed. There other things I didn't even talk about like how theme parks are a visual medium so the stories should be told visually.

I should just write a book on this instead of cram everything into a post on an internet forum.
Click to expand...
You’re hilarious sometimes you know that...
 
Disney Irish

Disney Irish

Premium Member
TROR said:
I'm right.

Art is only subjective over what one enjoys, but what makes art "good" is objective. To say otherwise is to make the world centered around you, which it is not. The viewer is not the one who defines what is good.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but you still miss the mark. You must have taken some Art Appreciation class and are just regurgitating what the professor told you. By your definition the viewer is inconsequential as they are passive to the experience of whether something is good or bad. However that is just not the case and is rather insulting. And if really was true then there could really never be a judge of what is good or bad, as all art would be good.

Let me give you an example, the art of telling a joke. You can have best joke that has all the correct things that make it objectively a "good" joke, timing, subject matter, setup, etc. But if the joke still bombs it is subjectively a "bad" joke because no one laughs. Meaning that no matter how "good" the art is objectively from a creation standpoint, if its subjectively "bad" to the viewer its still "bad".

Or how about another example. An artist creates a portfolio of their best work, shows it to some galleries, and impresses a gallery owner. The owner sees the artist has a lot of talent and is objectively good. So good in fact they have a showing in their gallery. However no one that attends the showing is moved by the artists work in fact most walk out. The showing is deemed a failure because if the art doesn't produce positive feelings in at least some it subjectively seen as bad art.

To put it back into the theme park context. You could have the best art driven attraction the world has ever seen. But if it doesn't resonate with the park guests, then its a bomb no matter how beautifully created it might have been.

Bottom line the viewer of the art plays an important role of what is considered good or not, no matter what that art maybe. If they didn't the Mona Lisa would just be lying in the corner of some basement in Florence instead of on a wall in the Louvre for all to see. Or to say it another way, art for the sake of art is meaningless if no one subjectively appreciates it.
 
TROR

TROR

Well-Known Member
Disney Irish said:
I'm sorry but you still miss the mark. You must have taken some Art Appreciation class and are just regurgitating what the professor told you. By your definition the viewer is inconsequential as they are passive to the experience of whether something is good or bad. However that is just not the case and is rather insulting. And if really was true then there could really never be a judge of what is good or bad, as all art would be good.

Let me give you an example, the art of telling a joke. You can have best joke that has all the correct things that make it objectively a "good" joke, timing, subject matter, setup, etc. But if the joke still bombs it is subjectively a "bad" joke because no one laughs. Meaning that no matter how "good" the art is objectively from a creation standpoint, if its subjectively "bad" to the viewer its still "bad".

Or how about another example. An artist creates a portfolio of their best work, shows it to some galleries, and impresses a gallery owner. The owner sees the artist has a lot of talent and is objectively good. So good in fact they have a showing in their gallery. However no one that attends the showing is moved by the artists work in fact most walk out. The showing is deemed a failure because if the art doesn't produce positive feelings in at least some it subjectively seen as bad art.

To put it back into the theme park context. You could have the best art driven attraction the world has ever seen. But if it doesn't resonate with the park guests, then its a bomb no matter how beautifully created it might have been.

Bottom line the viewer of the art plays an important role of what is considered good or not, no matter what that art maybe. If they didn't the Mona Lisa would just be lying in the corner of some basement in Florence instead of on a wall in the Louvre for all to see. Or to say it another way, art for the sake of art is meaningless if no one subjectively appreciates it.
Click to expand...
The problem with this view is that it places man in the center of all things. Man is not the judge on what art is good and what art is bad because man is not where beauty originates.
 
Disney Irish

Disney Irish

Premium Member
TROR said:
The problem with this view is that it places man in the center of all things. Man is not the judge on what art is good and what art is bad because man is not where beauty originates.
Click to expand...

We're talking about art here, not theology or the origins of the universe. The art didn't appear out of nowhere, there was no big bang and then all of sudden art. So of course man is where the beauty originates. It is man who creates it, it is man who defines both objectively and subjectively what is beautiful about it, it is man that is at the center of it. Without man there is no theme park for us to be discussing here.
 
TROR

TROR

Well-Known Member
Disney Irish said:
We're talking about art here, not theology or the origins of the universe. The art didn't appear out of nowhere, there was no big bang and then all of sudden art. So of course man is where the beauty originates. It is man who creates it, it is man who defines both objectively and subjectively what is beautiful about it, it is man that is at the center of it. Without man there is no theme park for us to be discussing here.
Click to expand...
A piece of art may be created by man, but what is and isn't beauty existed before us.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom