D
Deleted member 107043
I'm sure the DFM would LOVE to get their hands on it.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Star Wars themed land announced for Disneyland
- Thread starter wdwmagic
- Start date
I'm sure the DFM would LOVE to get their hands on it.
Curious Constance
Well-Known Member
Oh I'll bet! People would appreciate it about a million times more there too.
Californian Elitist
Well-Known Member
The show is a classic attraction from Disneyland's history, not to mention there aren't many attractions on Main Street in general.
If one is worried about space, other things in the park would be better choices for removal. I can think of a few things.
Curious Constance
Well-Known Member
So, anything that is classic should remain even if it hasn't aged well and guests aren't enjoying or seeing it? Just the fact that it's old means that it's untouchable? How do you define classic? What if something has been there for thirty years, twenty, ten years? What year does it get it's tenure and no longer can be removed? You can't be defining classic as something that is loved by all, because we've established in our example that no one chooses to see Lincoln. (And that's probably not too far from the truth.)
D
Deleted member 107043
I just made this up, but you'll find it helpful.
If it fits two or more of these bullets then it probably qualifies. - Walt or a notable Imagineer was involved in its development
- It's non-IP or based on a film or Disney brand that came from the studio or WED Enterprises when Walt was alive
- It was built and/or conceived before Michael Eisner became CEO
- It has never been drastically changed or altered either physically or in spirit since opening day and often no longer resonates with modern day guests visiting the park unless they are diehard Disneyland fans
Curious Constance
Well-Known Member
Well then, I guess Disney should stop trying to please die hard fans because nothing they do from this point on will ever be good enough.I just made this up, but you'll find it helpful.
- Walt or a notable Imagineer was involved in its development
- It's non-IP or based on a film or Disney brand that came from the studio or WED Enterprises when Walt was alive
- It was built and/or conceived before Michael Eisner became CEO
- It has never been drastically changed or altered either physically or in spirit since opening day and often no longer resonates with modern day guests visiting the park unless they are diehard Disneyland fans
BrianLo
Well-Known Member
I don't get this line of thinking. What does being obvious or requested have anything to do with how an area will turn out and fit Disneyland?
Avatar was certainly more of a surprise IP for Disney to use, but I assume that's not exactly what you meant. Even still - it all comes off as a bit of a subversive or hipster outlook if things are only 'worthy' if based on classic novels or cocktail napkin drawings from WED, rather than a popular franchise.
What's more important to me than a land based around a single IP is a land with more of a loose thematic narrative that can be played around with and altered in the future. What I was actually surprised about is that they set out to achieve that with this Star Wars area, creating a fictional place that both has strong nods to the source material, but isn't beholden to recreate specific events from the movies or wind up as another 'book-report'.
So in at least one small way I was 'surprised'. It was not exactly what those half-wit armchair imagineers asked for after all.
TP2000
Well-Known Member
I never understood why some folks think Harry Potter would have been a good fit for Disney parks, or even Disneyland USA. But then many of those same folks think Star Wars Land somehow doesn't fit, even though there's already been a popular Star Wars E Ticket in Disneyland for 30 years.
I can understand how Star Wars has a tentative-at-best connection to the rather jingoistic park design guidelines laid out by the 1955 dedication plaque (whose text was heavily influenced by America's socio-political climate of the early/mid 1950's). But I can't understand how an entire land for an English fantasy wizard at a Scottish boarding school has any better footing at connecting to the 1955 dedication plaque than a galaxy far, far away does.
Both Potter and Star Wars seem equally tough to defend as fitting in to Disneyland's stated 1955 design purpose. But since Disney corporate foolishly let Potter get away and allowed Universal to take a bigger chunk of the business pie, Disney is understandably doubling down on the Star Wars thing instead.
All that said, I was far more upset about Pooh replacing the Country Bears 15 years ago than I am about Star Wars editing out the Indian Village along the boring Rivers of America rides. 15 years later I'm still mad we lost the Country Bears, largely because the Pressler/Harriss execs of that era did it so cheaply. (I've been on Tokyo's fabulous Pooh ride multiple times now, and it makes me weep for Anaheim.)
Unless WDI completely bungles this River remake, by 2019 I think the edits and re-Imagineering will be a net gain for both the passengers on the Mark Twain and the people wandering around Star Wars Land.
Last edited:
Curious Constance
Well-Known Member
If you had to think of one thing that could top Potter in popularity and potential, Star Wars would certainly be it.
Californian Elitist
Well-Known Member
I didn't define classic as "something loved by all." You're putting words in my mouth.
To be honest, I don't want to answer your questions, mainly because my stance isn't going to change and we're not going to agree. We've been going around in circles for the past few pages, and I'm tired of it.
Curious Constance
Well-Known Member
My question to you was how do YOU define classic, I wasn't putting words in your mouth, I specifically stated that you couldn't be defining it as something beloved by all so was curious what classic meant to you. But whatever, you seem to take everything a bit too personal and serious so I'm fine with ending the conversation.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
The 'worthiness' should be based on the strength of a themed entertainment story. None of this nonsense of a film 'deserving' to be in the parks based on metrics not actually related to themed entertainment.
D
Deleted member 107043
There really aren't enough likes available for this comment. Well said!
Californian Elitist
Well-Known Member
I'm not taking anything personal. Trust me, you're not offending me in any way. I see no point in answering your questions because we've been going in circles. I look at Disneyland differently from how you look at it, and that has become obvious. Clearly we're not going to agree... At this point, there is no point.
I've been going to Disneyland since I was a baby. I don't know how many times I've been, but it's most likely over 100 times. Throughout childhood, I developed a deep love and appreciation for the place and its history. Yes, I have very strong opinions towards the park, and I take certain things about the park seriously. Do I take these conversations I have with strangers on the internet seriously? Not at all.
D
Deleted member 107043
That's a healthy standpoint. Certainly no point in getting riled up over something that's supposed to be fun to talk about.
Curious Constance
Well-Known Member
It seems that some people have the opinion of, "Who needs fun and enjoyment when you can have the piece of mind in knowing that something is the perfect thematic match to its surroundings."
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Do you just like making things up?
George Lucas on a Bench
Well-Known Member
They'll never get rid of Lincoln.