• 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

Rteetz

Well-Known Member
Imagination = innovation when it comes to rides.
How innovative was New Fantasyland?
The Na'vi River Journey is a boring dark ride.
The bioluminescence in Pandora is a mere shadow of what it should have been.
The rides in Toy Story Land are quite generic.

Disney used to push the envelope. They don't do that much any longer. I'm sure it is a budgetary limitation, but it is noticeable to the discerning eye.
You need to look at context. Not everything is meant to be an E-Ticket pushing the envelope. Toy Story Land is meant to be a family land. NRJ also a family ride with one of the most advanced AAs Disney has. New Fantasyland another family area. Your innovation opens August 29th and is found in things like Flight of Passage.
 

danlb_2000

Well-Known Member
Advertisement
I wrote about innovation/number of rides connection to another user.
No you didn't you ticked off a list of things that you didn't think were innovative, some of which I do agree with. You didn't explain why having more rides in a land makes it innovative?
 

NormC

Premium Member
I don't have the time to read 909 pages of comments to see what has or has not yet been covered.

But in the current land there is no room to build any more. They have to expand the land to add more.
No, in the current land there IS room to build more. They do not have to expand the land to add more but they can expand if they chose for even more space.
 

britain

Well-Known Member
Rather than fighting let’s seek to understand.

I think what Mr Incredible is trying to say is that Disney used to be more innovative more often with new additions. While I wouldn't have boiled a "no longer innovative" argument down to "look, only 2 rides", I think compressed in there is a "Disney used to be innovative AND used to build fully-featured lands" sentiment.

Is that a more accurate assessment, @Mr Incredible ?
 

danlb_2000

Well-Known Member
Imagination = innovation when it comes to rides.
How innovative was New Fantasyland?
The Na'vi River Journey is a boring dark ride.
The bioluminescence in Pandora is a mere shadow of what it should have been.
The rides in Toy Story Land are quite generic.

Disney used to push the envelope. They don't do that much any longer. I'm sure it is a budgetary limitation, but it is noticeable to the discerning eye.
GE is not open yet, so we can't really judge the level of innovation. Smugglers run doesn't look ground breaking, but it does appear to have some innovative elements. Rise of the Resistance should be the signature ride, so we will have to wait and see what that delivers. If they pull off the level of immersion they are talking about, the land itself could get points for innovation.

I also think the hotel has the potential to be very innovative, no other theme park has tried to do something like that.
 

danlb_2000

Well-Known Member
Rather than fighting let’s seek to understand.

I think what Mr Incredible is trying to say is that Disney used to be more innovative more often with new additions. While I wouldn't have boiled a "no longer innovative" argument down to "look, only 2 rides", I think compressed in there is a "Disney used to be innovative AND used to build fully-featured lands" sentiment.

Is that a more accurate assessment, @Mr Incredible ?
What makes GE less "fully-featured" then lands that they have built before?
 

britain

Well-Known Member
Quantity doesn't equal Quality, but you're more likely to invent something spectacular the more often you invent period! So, I get you.

But (as we all know) WDI is told "Ok, here's your budget. Blow it all on 1 envelope-pushing attraction, or on 20 spinners." And somewhere they're trying their best to find a good balance.
 

Phicinfan

Well-Known Member
Imagination = innovation when it comes to rides.
I would argue that technology is more a driver, but that is probably being a bit petty.
How innovative was New Fantasyland?
Not that innovative
The Na'vi River Journey is a boring dark ride.
Haven't ridden it yet, will be there next week, let me get back to you.
The bioluminescence in Pandora is a mere shadow of what it should have been.
Here I disagree. The fact they have added the bioluminescence and made that area more involved to me showed a great deal of imagination and innovation. Unfortunately, it may not be that dependable or long lasting as I have heard they have had to redo some of it. I am really looking forward to seeing this.
The rides in Toy Story Land are quite generic.
Again, I disagree. The whole premise of this land is a young boy built rides out of his toys in his back yard. Would said boy be able to build TRON? I don't think so. Again, will see it first time next week, but I think some miss the fact that being immersive isn't always being TOP of LINE attractions...

Disney used to push the envelope. They don't do that much any longer. I'm sure it is a budgetary limitation, but it is noticeable to the discerning eye.
No one does. You do have the right to hold Disney more accountable than others if you wish. I personally don't think that is all that fair. I also think once SW:GE opens and folks get the full rides the bar will be reset. Much as things were with Potter area at Universal. That being said folks have to realize most cannot and will not spend the Millions of $$$$ for 4-5 ride worlds now. That is not the precedent.
 

britain

Well-Known Member
What makes GE less "fully-featured" then lands that they have built before?
Well, there's no A through D tickets to fill the place out. But perhaps it will be (correctly?) argued that the phone app or the lightsaber experiences are good enough to be considered unofficial attractions.

I'm just glad they built 2 E-tickets, not 1 E and 1 C.
 

danlb_2000

Well-Known Member
Well, there's no A through D tickets to fill the place out. But perhaps it will be (correctly?) argued that the phone app or the lightsaber experiences are good enough to be considered unofficial attractions.

I'm just glad they built 2 E-tickets, not 1 E and 1 C.
I don't think it's necessary for every land to be fully fleshed out like that, as long as the park is balanced as a whole, I don't mind that each land isn't balanced.
 

nickys

Premium Member
So you only read half of my post just so you can go on the attack....join the group think on this site. Please.
Really? Actually I did read on. You said “within the land there is no room to build more”.

Both the space for the TSR (restaurant) and the berm are within the land.

And thanks for the advice, but I’ll continue to post as I usually do thanks. And I will continue to read different opinions on all manner of topics, whether or not I agree or disagree with them.
 

flynnibus

Well-Known Member
New Fantasyland? Let's walk through the area around Seven Dwarves... or the bridge or the village... and then walk around Peter Pan and IASW and get back to slamming NFL as nothing new.

I'm no fan of NFL - but the slams here are all wrong.

GE is tackling things at scales Disney has never done before.. the closest it has approached this is Carsland... which besides being just ONE attraction with two minor ground rides... being DOMINATED by F&B and merch... is a knock out success. (and thats still with one of the three attractions being a turd and having to be replaced)

Psst... carsland was changed and elements removed for potential future uses too!

Lands like SW:GE, Carsland, or even Pandora were never done before by Disney. Yes, jewels like NOS, or FL '83 are fantastic... but they can't hold a candle to the scale or detail put into what an 'immersive' land in the last decade is. So to say there is no 'innovation' there is beyond obtuse.

What it boils down to is... people upset about the number of attractions and still trying to come up with other ways of slamming the place verse facing the root of their grief.
 
Last edited:

Rteetz

Well-Known Member
And those rides will have 3 hour waits because there are only two, just like the rides in Pandora.
The fewer rides, the longer the waits and less you can enjoy the new area.
Then your quality is going to go down because more attractions = more money.
 

Rteetz

Well-Known Member
Not necessarily. Disney has the money to make a large number of truly innovative rides without sacrificing quality.
Hell, they just spent $57 Billion on Fox.
Yes Disney has the money but that doesn't mean they are going to spend it. If you have paid any attention to the parks over the last 5 or more years they aren't going to spend more than they need too and even then they usually go over budget.
 

Phicinfan

Well-Known Member
Not necessarily. Disney has the money to make a large number of truly innovative rides without sacrificing quality.
Hell, they just spent $57 Billion on Fox.
Let me ask this, why should they? They continue to see a rise in attendance and money coming in.
Again, I understand some here holding Disney to a different standard. But lets be honest, this Disney isn't the Disney that Walt started, and is not in the world and time Walt started it in.

They by reports have gone all out with SW:GE, and as pointed out by @Rteetz have gone beyond by adding a immerse resort hotel to go with that expansion.

The cost of this setting, has been immense, and at some point you have to make money. That is what Disney has to do, due to its stock holders.
 

britain

Well-Known Member
...jewels like NOS...
Galaxy's Edge is probably most comparable to New Orleans Square, and not just in size, scope, and attraction count. At the time it was announced/built, Walt was acting like NoS was going to finally achieve what he was shooting for with Disneyland. And it nearly cost as much as the whole park originally did. This whole "Disneyland is never going to be the same after SW" sentiment is a distant echo of a similar moment from the late 1960's.
 

flynnibus

Well-Known Member
Galaxy's Edge is probably most comparable to New Orleans Square, and not just in size, scope, and attraction count. At the time it was announced/built, Walt was acting like NoS was going to finally achieve what he was shooting for with Disneyland. And it nearly cost as much as the whole park originally did. This whole "Disneyland is never going to be the same after SW" sentiment is a distant echo of a similar moment from the late 1960's.
I think it can be summarized as simply... A Disney theme park experience isn't just about rides. It's about PLACEMAKING and the enjoyment you get from experiencing those places... from sights, sounds, emotions, AND experiences.

NOS is known for its placemaking and how it used to be able to transport you into another environment so convincingly.. how the attention to the little things all tie together into a quaint, but powerful product.

Carsland, Pandora, and SW:GE tackle that on a much grander scale... but are including fantasy.... not just romanticized versions of a place and time like NOS does.

With the scale of attractions and lands now... its just impractical to people to hold out for 'the land sucks if it doesn't give me 4-5 new rides'. That's not how Disney builds theme parks.. and generally doesn't see that kind of density unless you look at entire new parks.
 

flynnibus

Well-Known Member
Not necessarily. Disney has the money to make a large number of truly innovative rides without sacrificing quality.
Hell, they just spent $57 Billion on Fox.
With a plan for specific ROI on that money. Having money doesn't mean you throw it away just because you have it.

And do you consider all the money your extended family has, yours to spend as well?
 

flynnibus

Well-Known Member
ppsstt... you know that Tokyo Disney Sea place? That place many considered the pinnacle of what Imagineering can do when they have almost free reign?

That mysterious island... it only has two attractions too... don't tell anyone!!

And no other land has more than two other major (D/E) level attractions either.
 
Top Bottom