• Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.You can use your Twitter or Facebook account to sign up, or register directly.

Star Wars Land announced for Disney's Hollywood Studios

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
Advertisement
I haven't seen the new parking lot setup in person, but isn't this the view you get only from the employee entrance road now?

Won't all visitors be arriving in the new entry lanes further north?
Not sure, but, I believe that for the most part that will be true. Certainly not in immediate sight anymore.
 

MisterPenguin

Rumormonger
Premium Member
I haven't seen the new parking lot setup in person, but isn't this the view you get only from the employee entrance road now?

Won't all visitors be arriving in the new entry lanes further north?
The backside view will be visible from everywhere outlined in red. I doubt that that will all be CM parking. But, you're right that people driving in and parking in the more immediate parking spots won't get close to that view. But, when they fill the lot, some will.

349537
 

drod1985

Well-Known Member
I would think that we could think of SWL as a film set as well, since, it doesn't really exist. But, if it bothers you and others, well it does, so I will just not say anymore about how it doesn't bother me anymore then the back side of Everest seen from the guest parking lot.
The difference is that it is not the intent for SWL to be seen as a film set. It's meant to be immersive, to make guests feel like they're really somewhere else. It's part of why they just removed the movie set theming from Tatooine Traders. They're going for in-world, not real-world.
 

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
The difference is that it is not the intent for SWL to be seen as a film set. It's meant to be immersive, to make guests feel like they're really somewhere else. It's part of why they just removed the movie set theming from Tatooine Traders. They're going for in-world, not real-world.
I was just being sarcastic there, however, we are talking about the backside of things and views that one will not get while "in-world" or if you are a CM. If you are a CM then you have seen how the magic was made anyway. It is just another non-problem, problem! However, I am curious how it will be hidden from the alleged, mystery Star Wars Hotel. I'm sure they will figure it out before they build it.
 

Movielover

Well-Known Member
And the New York Streets weren't even suppose to be guest areas either. It was only accessed on the Studio Tour, only opened to guest foot traffic by the end of the first year. But that's what happens when you build your new park the size of a double wide... ;)
 

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
Just a reminder, that was kind of the idea.
If it was, then the screwed up entirely in the quest for immersion. It doesn't matter anyway, that was when people didn't have their knickers so tightly in a knot and weren't able to realize the they were in a freaking theme park and it was all nothing but an illusion. Some of us knew and realized that what was important was what was on the other side, that is were the illusion was formed in the movies or in real life. As noble as it may seem the back sides of those building were not completed for two reasons, one was because that is the reality of a film set and the other was because the point was, we weren't supposed to see they backside of them. When fully operational almost none of the back of Streets of America were exposed to the public the same as Residential Street, but, we knew it was there unless we were 6 years old. This isn't about that anyway, do you really think that people are going to really think that they are really at the Edge of the Galaxy and also wasn't it established that almost none of the guests are going to be seeing it anyway. But, again I will point out the backside of Everest. Was that to show us that it wasn't really Mt. Everest? For the sake of humanity I certainly hope not!
 

marni1971

WDW History nut
Premium Member
If it was, then the screwed up entirely in the quest for immersion.
The immersion was that of a film and tv studio backlot. So it was correct in that respect.
the point was, we weren't supposed to see they backside of them. When fully operational almost none of the back of Streets of America were exposed to the public
To the contrary, they were very much exposed. You could actually walk through them from onstage to backstage. And back again.
 
Last edited:

Rich Brownn

Well-Known Member
The difference is that it is not the intent for SWL to be seen as a film set. It's meant to be immersive, to make guests feel like they're really somewhere else. It's part of why they just removed the movie set theming from Tatooine Traders. They're going for in-world, not real-world.
Its a film set, pretending to be an immersive world, in a theme park that pretends its a studio, located in a resort that has multiple pretend areas. That should keep your mind busy :D
 

MisterPenguin

Rumormonger
Premium Member
If it was, then the screwed up entirely in the quest for immersion. It doesn't matter anyway, that was when people didn't have their knickers so tightly in a knot and weren't able to realize the they were in a freaking theme park and it was all nothing but an illusion. Some of us knew and realized that what was important was what was on the other side, that is were the illusion was formed in the movies or in real life. As noble as it may seem the back sides of those building were not completed for two reasons, one was because that is the reality of a film set and the other was because the point was, we weren't supposed to see they backside of them. When fully operational almost none of the back of Streets of America were exposed to the public the same as Residential Street, but, we knew it was there unless we were 6 years old. This isn't about that anyway, do you really think that people are going to really think that they are really at the Edge of the Galaxy and also wasn't it established that almost none of the guests are going to be seeing it anyway. But, again I will point out the backside of Everest. Was that to show us that it wasn't really Mt. Everest? For the sake of humanity I certainly hope not!
Do you think seeing the girders on the backside of the AT-AT in front of Star Wars was a mistake? Or seeing a dozen studio lot buildings was a mistake or an unfortunate incompleteness in theming?
 

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
The immersion was that of a film and tv studio backlot. So it was correct in that respect.

To the contrary, they were very much exposed. You could actually walk through them from onstage to backstage. And back again.
I stand corrected, I just don't remember seeing any of them. In fact I never saw the back of the NY scene until it was close to being torn down. Just never notice those things. I know I saw some of it, but, it was never glaring to me. But, contrary to obviously popular belief I understand that. See my message at the bottom.
The whole idea was that the park was a working movie studio making an incomplete backside part of the immersion.
Message at the bottom.
Do you think seeing the girders on the backside of the AT-AT in front of Star Wars was a mistake? Or seeing a dozen studio lot buildings was a mistake or an unfortunate incompleteness in theming?
No, I did not think that it wasn't planned that way because it was a working studio and they were just trying to display the sets. I never notice that back of the AT-AT's either. The first time I ever saw that was in a picture someone posted just last week on this board.

In it's own way, Galaxy is also a movie immersion set. Once in the land you will not see the structure of it because you aren't supposed to see it while you are in there. It has been shown that very few, if any, are going to see those structures, yet we had to have a big discussion about how they shouldn't be visible. In Galaxy, they aren't except to the few explorers that will inevitably photo them and post them on You-Tube so that everyone can get all upset again. I do know the difference between the two, but, the very idea that it is wrong to do it the way they did, is just knee jerk reactions by people that somehow think that they should spend huge amounts of money to fill it in so that no one will see it at all. If they do build the hotel in a place where that is in view then I will join all of you in complaining about it. But, alas, there aren't even done building the place yet. What they do as a form of possible camouflage is not yet become a reality. When it is and if it is seen by or if it somehow prevents one from enjoying the land, then it will be a problem. I believe the name of the park is still going to be "Disney's Hollywood Studio's" so it really is still a copy of a movie set. I know you all will jump on your horses and say that I am wrong in my thinking, hell you maybe correct, but, it is what it is. Enjoy it or don't, that is also your right.
 

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
He's gonna come back with a few dozen paragraphs screaming at everyone, get ready
No, I'm not going to scream at anyone, everyone has their own way of processing reality. Mine could be right or it could be wrong. I do know that you didn't attempt to "correct" my evil outlook or inability to state myself clearly, but, you did choose to ridicule me. Thanks for that.
 

Timothy_Q

Well-Known Member
No, I'm not going to scream at anyone, everyone has their own way of processing reality. Mine could be right or it could be wrong. I do know that you didn't attempt to "correct" my evil outlook or inability to state myself clearly, but, you did choose to ridicule me. Thanks for that.
You got it

I've tried many times in the past, and have since learned it's always in vain
 

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
Thank god it’s not worth caring about. Imagine if we did.
Passive aggressiveness does not become you, Martin. I do understand that I didn't express myself in a sufficient way that I could make people understand my point, but, I suppose that your two or three word sentences are far more significant then my sometimes unsuccessful wordy explanations. And yes, I can imagine if we did. Absolutely nothing would be different. I didn't see it as a problem and you folks do. It doesn't matter who is correct, it isn't going to stop the backside of that land from being any different.
 
Top Bottom