Star Wars Land announced for Disney's Hollywood Studios

[marni1971]

Just seeing this might just be enough. If it stays true to the concept art this is going to be massive. It's almost unimaginable that they are putting something this big and tall in.

Remember forced perspective

At least one of the attractions should be a bona fide E

 

[Kamikaze]

Just seems to me that if you are going to build a land based on a beloved movie franchise, it should be a place from the movies.

It will be. Is that really so complicated to understand?

 

[jakeman]

And what part of my posting history creates any sort of image that I am being paid by Disney to promote their decisions?

EDIT: My original comment was deleted, so I'll drop it, but trust me, it wasn't you.

 

[Kman101]

I get the argument that you want to visit places that we all remember from the original three films but I find it genius they're giving us a new (probably in the new movies) planet and it opens up possibilites. They're still giving us things that would have been there if built the way we all assumed it would. Here's the thing, don't assume and you won't always be so disappointed. Judge it for what it is/could be not what you wanted it to be.

We criticize them for not being creative enough so when they seem to be, that's still not enough ... hilarious what people find problems in. I think opinion gets confused with fact by those who aren't liking Toy Story Land/Star Wars Land.

 

[twebber55]

I get the argument that you want to visit places that we all remember from the original three films but I find it genius they're giving us a new (probably in the new movies) planet and it opens up possibilites. They're still giving us things that would have been there if built the way we all assumed it would. Here's the thing, don't assume and you won't always be so disappointed. Judge it for what it is/could be not what you wanted it to be.

We criticize them for not being creative enough so when they seem to be, that's still not enough ... hilarious what people find problems in. I think opinion gets confused with fact by those who aren't liking Toy Story Land/Star Wars Land.

i ve been saying this since the announcment
people complain because we dont get original content then when they provide original content the same people complain its not from the previous movies

 

[Disneyhead'71]

EDIT: My original comment was deleted, so I'll drop it, but trust me, it wasn't you.

You think I get paid by Universal? If you knew my current relationship with Uni. I don't believe you would be saying that. Ain't that right @PhotoDave219

 

[The Empress Lilly]

And what part of my posting history creates any sort of image that I am being paid by Disney to promote their decisions?

Pretty sure you're on Disney's payroll. Here to promote the string of great creative decisions the last decade. -_-

 

[matt9112]

I want to be on someone's payroll...


Awhhhh mannnn

 

[Dropout]

They are known names, but they do not featured details that make for a place. Tatooine is desert. Hoth is ice. Coruscant is urban. It's all very big brushes.

I'm very happy with the look and idea of Star Wars Land as presented, but there are most certainly well defined locations in Star Wars. We saw a lot of Coruscant in the Prequels and Clone Wars. Tatooine and Naboo also saw a lot of coverage. Any of those would be easy to create a themed land that features locations from the films. They have plenty of options if they wanted too, and that is part of the problem. You have to appeal to as many people as possible and, with seemingly infinite movies coming out, it's better to feature a planet that has the ability to show off a bit of everything. With an outer rim trading depot you can make a cohesive land that features the best of Star Wars because the planet itself is one that takes so much from the rest of the galaxy.

As I said in a previous post, Harry Potter has it easier when it comes to locations. Hogwarts is the most significant and featured location. Most of the story take place there, no matter a fans favorite book or movie, they can visit a location from it. You'd have to be fool not to set a land there and the nearby Hogsmeade. Diagon Alley is probably the second most featured place in the story and it happens to connect directly to Hogsmeade. Universal happens to have 2 parks next to each other, why not find a way to directly connect them? I'd say it was inspired if it wasn't so obvious. Still, to pull it off is incredible.

 

[jakeman]

You think I get paid by Universal? If you knew my current relationship with Uni. I don't believe you would be saying that. Ain't that right @PhotoDave219

You should show them your posting history here, then. I'm sure that would improve the relationship.

Look, I, and more than likely the rest of the board, completely understand that you think Universal is a superior product. In some cases I completely agree, but you've been consistently conjuring up excruciatingly thin arguments that appear to be nothing more than excuses to cite Universal products.

It's tiresome needling masked as conversation. The last ten pages have essentially been you saying that you don't understand the choice of planet because you would be upset if Potter was a new place. When that got old you switched to pre-disappointment over screen based attractions, citing Gringotts.

There seems to be a basic inability to propel a conversation forward without referencing the theme park down the road. Perhaps you need an example to help? Here is goes, and believe it or not this is actually my opinion:

I am looking forward to the Star Wars land and in general I believe the choice to use a "new" world is particularly inspired given the iconic, yet passive, role locations play in both trilogies. My concern is that it will be a mush of Star Wars "styles" and won't be a focused experience truly on one unique Star Wars "influenced" planet. Regarding the cantina issue, there are cantinas all over the Star Wars universe. Transplanting that experience while tweaking the aesthetic isn't a huge concern beyond my general caution regarding style cited above.

 

[Kamikaze]

I get the argument that you want to visit places that we all remember from the original three films but I find it genius they're giving us a new (probably in the new movies) planet and it opens up possibilites.

Lets just look at the planets from Ep IV, V, VI.

Tatooine - Dust bowl. Bland. Uninteresting. Would also be extremely hot in the Florida sun.
Yavin IV - Would probably make a decent theme. They would have to build the temple, though, and I don't think they would do it.
Hoth - Ice planet in Florida is a no-go.
Cloud City - impossible to pull off as an outdoor 'land'
Dagobah - Swamp. Overgrown. Not a place you'd want to visit. There is also nothing on Dagobah but Yoda's hut and the dark side cave. So its completely out.
Endor's forest Moon - Since its basically the Redwood National Park, and thats already used at DCA with Grizzly Peak, they wouldn't repeat the same theme half a mile away. Also, we have the Ewok village with Star Tours already, which I imagine will be replaced, and I think there would be even MORE complaining if it was Endor because 'we already have Endor theming'

They aren't going to use a planet from the prequels. Coruscant could be amazing but theres problems with using Coruscant, the first being that it was Timothy Zahn's creation and it didn't originate in the movies. Naboo would be choice from the prequels but that would mean Gungans, and no one *NO ONE* wants Gungans.

So they are using a planet from the new trilogy that fits well with what they want to do.

 

[gmajew]

They aren't going to use a planet from the prequels. Coruscant could be amazing but theres problems with using Coruscant, the first being that it was Timothy Zahn's creation and it didn't originate in the movies. Naboo would be choice from the prequels but that would mean Gungans, and no one *NO ONE* wants Gungans.

Correct NO ONE WANTS GUNGANS!! Naboo would be cool as it was visually awesome but no thank you.

 

[jakeman]

They aren't going to use a planet from the prequels. Coruscant could be amazing but theres problems with using Coruscant, the first being that it was Timothy Zahn's creation and it didn't originate in the movies.

It made it into the movies therefore it is G Level canon (not that it matters now). Other than Lucas's ego (he wasn't happy that he had to use that, as well as Kashyyyk) there wouldn't be any canoncal reason that it couldn't be used. With that said, I think it would be pretty hard to create the full immersion of a several thousand foot high city-plant in 14 acres.

 

[Baltar]

The argument that we should visit places from the movies is a bit hard to wrap my head around. Lucas filmed his movies in big segments that take place in different areas. A very rudimentary description is:

A New Hope- Tattoine, Space (on the Falcon), and on the Death Star.
Empire Strikes Back- Hoth, Dagobah, Cloud City, Space
ROTJ- Jabba's Palace, Dagobah, Endor and Death Star

So That's a lot of places that were in different areas and I'm even touching the myriad of places in the prequels.

So what are people proposing? Having a land that has ALL these areas in it? That's never gonna happen in the vastness that it deserves so cramming them all in one area is a bit nonsenical. Creating a "part of the galaxy" where characters can intertwine is the best solution. Why? Because we love Star Wars for the characters and the ships and the music. A new place allows this to happen.

If they chose just Tattoine yeah we'd get Mos Eisley and Jabba's Palace but that's it. And we all know a desert climate isn't gonna vibe with Florida rain storms. Then where. Hoth? sorta bleak. I love all these places too but realistically I understand their choices. Let's save the arguments for things that problems as they arise, not just thematic choices.

 

[Disneyhead'71]

You should show them your posting history here, then. I'm sure that would improve the relationship.

Look, I, and more than likely the rest of the board, completely understand that you think Universal is a superior product. In some cases I completely agree, but you've been consistently conjuring up excruciatingly thin arguments that appear to be nothing more than excuses to cite Universal products.

It's tiresome needling masked as conversation. The last ten pages have essentially been you saying that you don't understand the choice of planet because you would be upset if Potter was a new place. When that got old you switched to pre-disappointment over screen based attractions, citing Gringotts.

There seems to be a basic inability to propel a conversation forward without referencing the theme park down the road. Perhaps you need an example to help? Here is goes, and believe it or not this is actually my opinion:

I am looking forward to the Star Wars land and in general I believe the choice to use a "new" world is particularly inspired given the iconic, yet passive, role locations play in both trilogies. My concern is that it will be a mush of Star Wars "styles" and won't be a focused experience truly on one unique Star Wars "influenced" planet. Regarding the cantina issue, there are cantinas all over the Star Wars universe. Transplanting that experience while tweaking the aesthetic isn't a huge concern beyond my general caution regarding style cited above.

I cited Potter because it is the only multi-attraction single IP "land" that I have been to. There are only 2 in the U.S., and I haven't been to Cars Land.

And I didn't bring up Gringott's.

And given the years of the "screeeenz!" debate, where many Disney fans seem to fall outside of the "Luv 'em" category, I believe that the fact SWL appears to be heavy on the screens is relevant conversation. And again, I didn't bring Gringott's into the conversation.

Oh, and Universal knows my posting history.

 

[Mawg]

Just seems to me that if you are going to build a land based on a beloved movie franchise, it should be a place from the movies.

Keep in mind there will be the iconic Falcon out front, it really is a place from the movies.

 

[jakeman]

I cited Potter because it is the only multi-attraction single IP "land" that I have been to. There are only 2 in the U.S., and I haven't been to Cars Land.

And I didn't bring up Gringott's.

And given the years of the "screeeenz!" debate, where many Disney fans seem to fall outside of the "Luv 'em" category, I believe that the fact SWL appears to be heavy on the screens is relevant conversation. And again, I didn't bring Gringott's into the conversation.

Oh, and Universal knows my posting history.

Where is there information that the attraction in the new Star Wars land are going to be heavily screen based?

 

[Mawg]

And what part of my posting history creates any sort of image that I am being paid by Disney to promote their decisions?

This is true, Lazyboy can be very critical of their decisions at times and always makes very good arguments when he is.

 

[stretchsje]

Universal's exclusivity agreement with KUKA expires in less than 2 years, doesn't it?

Yes, in 2017. And reportedly, Imagineering was heartbroken about Universal getting that exclusivity agreement.

It's a good bet that Disney is readying a Kuka arm ride.

Here's a write-up about what Disney was thinking about Kuka in 2007: http://jimhillmedia.com/editor_in_c...as-well-as-kuka-s-robotic-arm-technology.aspx

Some excerpts:

As one Imagineering insider told me last week:

"Given how difficult Rowling had been to deal with, losing "Harry Potter" wasn't really that much of a loss. But Universal scoring an exclusive on Kuka's robotic arm technology ... That was a real heartbreaker."​

You see, to date, that's been the under-reported part of this story. That it wasn't just that Universal Studios had scored the theme park rights to the "Harry Potter" characters. But that Kuka had also awarded Universal a 10-year exclusive on using its amazing technology in a theme park setting.

...continuing...

The Mouse reportedly can't get its hands on any additional Kuka arms for theme park use 'til at least 2017. Which definitely puts the kibosh on that "Incredibles" -themed "E" Ticket that the Imagineers were hoping to build. Which was to have gotten underway in a suitably incredible fashion. In that guests were first to board this free-standing ride vehicle that wasn't attached to anything. Then this enormous robotic arm was to have reached down from above and attached itself to the top of this vehicle. Then that robotic arm was to have lifted that ride vehicle that was now full of guests up (in front of everyone who was still waiting in this attraction's queue, mind you) and then carried it up out of sight into that show building.

Talk about your dramatic ways to start a ride ! So why didn't Disney ever go forward with construction of this particular attraction? As one Disney official who was familiar with this project recently explained to me:

"(This proposed ride system) required the vehicle to connect and disconnect from the arm and no Kuka arm (to date) was capable of handling the capacity of a loaded concept vehicle. A more viable Kuka system had been under development by a more credible Imagineering group. With at least a couple of years co-development with Kuka on a custom-built, heavy-duty arm that could hold over 6 passengers. A mock-up, using the off-the-shelf arm, was presented to all sorts of Disney executives, including Eisner, Iger and Rasulo – and a lot of others from different parks. That mock-up supposedly had a 'Harry Potter' element.

'The Incredibles' version was a blue sky concept that, while looking like a out-of-the-box breakthrough, just wasn’t feasible."​

That's perhaps the most ironic part of this entire tale. I mean, here was the Mouse -- almost five years ago now -- trying to use Kuka arm technology to create a "Harry Potter" -themed attraction. So what happens? Not only does Disney lose the theme park rights to J.K. Rowling's characters to Universal, but then Universal goes on to lock up the theme park rights to Kuka's robotic arm technology for the next 10 years.

 

[gmajew]

I don't get the issue with this being just a star wars planet. Why is that a problem?

The rides can transport you to any world and let you experience things you know but the land is just like the movies a star wars world. What makes these movies so easy to keep doing is that up to now no one world is really the focus point of any movie...