mikejs78
Well-Known Member
Given I was responding to someone claiming that the last two Star Wars movies had mostly negative reviews, how is that relevant?
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Star Wars Land announced for Disney's Hollywood Studios
- Thread starter CheekBoys
- Start date
J. D.
Well-Known Member
It was sarcasm.
HonorableMention
Well-Known Member
I don’t know if this is the right thread but I noticed something cool in Solo tonight that I haven’t seen mentioned yet (I also haven’t checked around much though).
This isn’t a spoiler, but there’s one part of the movie where a character mentions Black Spire in conversation, which I thought was a great tie-in to Galaxy’s Edge. This was all right after I watched the Galactic Nights presentation, so I was taken aback that it showed up.
This isn’t a spoiler, but there’s one part of the movie where a character mentions Black Spire in conversation, which I thought was a great tie-in to Galaxy’s Edge. This was all right after I watched the Galactic Nights presentation, so I was taken aback that it showed up.
Exactly. People with degrees in literature writing for a national news organization can't hold a candle to an uber-fan ranting in a YouTube video for 20 minutes dropping F-bombs every other sentence. If there's no spittle, it ain't worth it.
Jones14
Well-Known Member
And that's what can make it so frustrating. The Last Jedi is not immune from criticism; there are several problems that I had with the movie (continued lack of planetary/galactic worldbuilding, Finn hitting the reset button on his character development, Phasma's use throughout), but it's hard not to come rushing to the movie's defense when the loudest voices you're competing against are saying that Rian raped their childhoods, and that Rey is only powerful because they're kowtowing to the SJW's.
When everyone grows up, we'll all be able to sit at the table and discuss the actual problems with it, but right now we're stuck in camps of "ruined my childhood" or "explaining that including women and people of color doesn't need to be rationalized through a story arc in a setting about ancient space aliens, because this isn't a WW2 drama set on the frontlines of Germany".
Or here a year ago...
TiggerDad
Well-Known Member
Or clearly visible in construction pictures.
GlacierGlacier
Well-Known Member
Forced perspective. If they built a real-height AT-AT they'd likely have to strap a Blinky light on top. This is as big as reasonable for a ride building, I'd say.
HairyLegPirate
Active Member
If we're going by the chart from a few pages back, the smallest AT-AT is 22.5 meters tall, which is roughly 75 feet. The ones being built could be to scale without having to install the blinking light (which would only be required if it hit 200 feet.)
Mike S
Well-Known Member
We hadn’t seen them “finished” though.
MJ6987
Active Member
I know this is probably a "dumb question" but why didn't Disney base Star Wars land on environment/s that actually exist in the movies, preferably the original trilogy, since that is by far the most popular, enduring and the reason that most people got into Star Wars?
Why have they seemingly based it on an environment that isn't even featured in the films? In fact, apart from the fact that the Milennium Falcon happens to be visiting, you could say that it's only "inspired by Star Wars" - like, would there be anything to stop, say, Universal coming up with a similar land as long as they don the have the Falcon or reference any actual Star Wars characters?
Why have they seemingly based it on an environment that isn't even featured in the films? In fact, apart from the fact that the Milennium Falcon happens to be visiting, you could say that it's only "inspired by Star Wars" - like, would there be anything to stop, say, Universal coming up with a similar land as long as they don the have the Falcon or reference any actual Star Wars characters?
DisneyCane
Well-Known Member
Why would the Empire spend so many resources on the Death Star to be able to destroy planets that they want to rule? Why rule the galaxy if you blow up all the planets in it and therefore lose the resources. It would have made more sense to design a weapon that vaporizes the life forms and keeps the planets intact. After all the engineering of it, too bad they forgot to account for the one critical weakness that allows the enemy to easily destroy it.
The answer to all questions is that when making an adventure movie, all things are designed to create excitement and cool visuals, not to make sense.
The imagineers on this project answered that exact question at the Star Wars Celebration Disney Parks Panel.
They wanted a new land with new stories and not some place where the story had already been told. It essentially gave them a clean slate on which to create.
here s my theory
because no land in any of the movies adapt well to a theme park setting
no land is really fleshed out in depth in the movies
danlb_2000
Premium Member
Yeah, this has been discussed a lot since Star Wars land was announced. Star Wars has very few iconic locations. The two biggest are probably the Cantina and the inside the Falcon both of which will be represented in this land in some way. Star Wars is more about the details and over all "feel" of the land then it is about a specific location.
drod1985
Well-Known Member
I'm glad they went the route of a new setting in the Star Wars universe. Just looking at pictures you instantly get the Star Wars vibe. The design language is there, but the freedom to be creative is also there. I'd much rather a new setting like Batuu than a riff off Mos Eisley (Tatooine) or Jedha city (Rogue One). Though Jedha is fairly similar to Batuu.
agreed this land has allowed some artistic freedom to the imagineers
Stripes
Premium Member
