Star Wars Land announced for Disney's Hollywood Studios

Mike S

Well-Known Member
Advertisement
It's time for my recurring reminder that you can still interact with more known characters in SWGE than you can in WWoHP, in which you can meet: 0.
And the other reminder that you see Harry, Hermione, and Ron in the rides. Also plenty of other fan favorites. The Harry Potter equivalent to SWGE would be if the parks only included characters from Fantastic Beasts.
 

drod1985

Well-Known Member
And the other reminder that you see Harry, Hermione, and Ron in the rides. Also plenty of other fan favorites. The Harry Potter equivalent to SWGE would be if the parks only included characters from Fantastic Beasts.
No, only including characters from Fantastic Beasts would be the equivalent of only including characters from Rogue One, Solo or The Mandalorian.
 

Mike S

Well-Known Member
No, only including characters from Fantastic Beasts would be the equivalent of only including characters from Rogue One, Solo or The Mandalorian.
Well Potter doesn’t really have any other equivalent to the sequel trilogy where new main characters are introduced. Also your comparison doesn’t work as Rogue One and Solo would allow the use of Princess Leia and Han Solo, 2 of the 3 big main characters. Galaxy’s Edge is set when both Han and Luke are dead and for whatever reason even Leia isn’t present.
 

999th Happy Haunt

Well-Known Member
I feel like the one factor everyone overlooks when arguing what trilogy Galaxy’s Edge should have been based on is the age of the actors that have appeared in each trilogy. If they wanted to make an OT land, we’d have to have uncanny CGI versions of Luke, Leia, and Han appear in the attractions. Having the actors available from the ST while they are the same age as they are in the movies is a huge plus and is probably part of the reason Disney chose to go with that trilogy for the land.
 

THE 1HAPPY HAUNT

Well-Known Member
I feel like the one factor everyone overlooks when arguing what trilogy Galaxy’s Edge should have been based on is the age of the actors that have appeared in each trilogy. If they wanted to make an OT land, we’d have to have uncanny CGI versions of Luke, Leia, and Han appear in the attractions. Having the actors available from the ST while they are the same age as they are in the movies is a huge plus and is probably part of the reason Disney chose to go with that trilogy for the land.
if they can have a walkaround Rey they can have a walk around young Luke, obi wan, Han, etc. nice try but you are wrong.
 

RobWDW1971

Well-Known Member
I feel like the one factor everyone overlooks when arguing what trilogy Galaxy’s Edge should have been based on is the age of the actors that have appeared in each trilogy. If they wanted to make an OT land, we’d have to have uncanny CGI versions of Luke, Leia, and Han appear in the attractions. Having the actors available from the ST while they are the same age as they are in the movies is a huge plus and is probably part of the reason Disney chose to go with that trilogy for the land.
Who are these people saying the entire land should be only OT based? I honestly never hear those people make that claim, just people arguing against it.
 

999th Happy Haunt

Well-Known Member
Who are these people saying the entire land should be only OT based? I honestly never hear those people make that claim, just people arguing against it.
I may be in the minority here but I think there would be more criticism if we were jumping from timeline to timeline while we were in the land, it’s one of the main complaints I hear from Star Wars fans about Star Tours. Different time periods work in lands like Fantasyland because each attraction kind of exists in a bubble and just aren’t in the same franchises/stories as the other attractions in the same land. If I’m supposed to feel like I’m on a specific planet in the Star Wars universe, I shouldn’t be time traveling as I walk around it or looking at the landscape of a different planet just down the path.
 

TrainChasers

Well-Known Member
If I’m supposed to feel like I’m on a specific planet in the Star Wars universe, I shouldn’t be time traveling as I walk around it or looking at the landscape of a different planet just down the path.
Does it really feel like the marketplace and the resistance area are the same planet?

It’s pretty obvious where they ran out of money. “Umm let’s just plant some trees and put a few plastic airplanes up... that will work!”
 

SplashZander

Well-Known Member
It’s pretty obvious where they ran out of money. “Umm let’s just plant some trees and put a few plastic airplanes up... that will work!”
I disagree in just about every way. If it were all city it would feel less authentic. In Adventureland, you have the town portion, and then next to Jungle Cruise, you have a bunch of trees as it sets the scene and makes it feel more real. If GE was purely city it would be excessive. The land is already huge, a huge portion of the land is already city, if you add more city it adds less variation which would honestly make it become boring. The Eastern entrance is through the forest which funnels to the city, it is a great buildup to the land, it doesn't immediately throw you into it.

Lastly, one of the expansion plots is the northern spot where there are currently trees, by not constructing some random useless building, they have more freedom when they actually do decide to utilize the plot. That is not being cheap, that's just planning for the future, the same way World Showcase had a bunch of plots for future countries.
 

Movielover

Well-Known Member
Does it really feel like the marketplace and the resistance area are the same planet?

It’s pretty obvious where they ran out of money. “Umm let’s just plant some trees and put a few plastic airplanes up... that will work!”
Yes, the overall plant life and rock formations tie both sections together. Plus the resistance area matches to the other resistance bases we've seen on screen.

1585332854654.png

1585332871165.png

1585332890680.png
 
Top Bottom