Star Wars themed land announced for Disneyland

[yookeroo]

A Theme Park works best when you have a mixture..the thrills, the milds, and the mellow.
Disneyland in particular excels in that department as far as its roster of available Attractions goes.
You have the excitement to be had by the various thrilling options, and then you have the more relaxing options to do when you need to take a breather from said thrills.

Sure. But parks also need attractions that people like enough to watch/ride. And a park as popular as Disney, with the severe space limitations that it has could probably find a better use for the space of a very unpopular attraction.

The guy who destroyed what charm was left in Tomorrowland in '98 and then fought to resurrect the Subs with a hokey Nemo overlay? No thank you.

I think I might be the only person left who doesn't hate or worship Tony Baxter. His heart is in the right place. He's done some good things and some awful things. I don't think I'd want him in charge though.

Every half-wit armchair Imagineer has been talking about a Star Wars land for years.

So what? Doesn't mean it's not a huge coup to be able to create a land based on this IP. One that obviously has legs and has a diverse universe to start from creatively.

The IP that would be the real coup would be one that surpises, not one that was announced after years of pestering because it is so painfully and blatantly obvious to anyone, including the most creatively inept.

Building a land based on Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigalo, would've surprised me. And not have been creatively inept!

I'm not sure "surprise" is the best measure of creativity.

And of course fans would've believed it was the most incredible thing Disney ever created because Tony Baxter laid his blessed hands on it. Had it sucked the fans would've blamed someone else.

Heh.

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 hope they've realized this long ago.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Building a land based on Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigalo, would've surprised me. And not have been creatively inept!

I'm not sure "surprise" is the best measure of creativity.

If you at all understood the point you wouldn't have made yet another statement of evaluation by using film as the base criteria. Film is not the lord and master of storytelling mediums.

 

[GiveMeTheMusic]

If you at all understood the point you wouldn't have made yet another statement of evaluation by using film as the base criteria. Film is not the lord and master of storytelling mediums.

But then how do you know if something is good if you can't watch the movie first?!!!??

 

[Deleted member 107043]

I'm not sure if some people here are able to distinguish their personal biases and preferences from the ugly realities of operating a universally beloved global theme park brand in the 21st Century. Fundamentality I agree with most of the rigid philosophy being preached here, but I also happen to believe it's pretty impractical to expect Disney to run the place like its still 1972. If you think the addition of Discovery Bay today would be equally as popular as Star Wars Land will be with guests then I'm stumped.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I'm not sure if some people here are able to distinguish their personal biases and preferences from the ugly realities of operating a universally beloved global theme park brand in the 21st Century. Fundamentality I agree with most of the rigid philosophy being preached here, but I also happen to believe it's pretty impractical to expect Disney to run the place like its still 1972. If you think the addition of Discovery Bay today would be equally as popular as Star Wars Land with guests then i'm lost at how to respond.

And yet there wasn't anything impractical about Frozen not including Disney characters. Nor Inside Out not including Pixar characters. The notion of creative bankruptcy being a business requirement is a lie perpetuated by people who do not like theme parks. People who see themed entertainment as debase pablum for the idiot masses.

 

[Californian Elitist]

I'm not sure if some people here are able to distinguish their personal biases and preferences from the ugly realities of operating a universally beloved global theme park brand in the 21st Century. Fundamentality I agree with most of the rigid philosophy being preached here, but I also happen to believe it's pretty impractical to expect Disney to run the place like its still 1972. If you think the addition of Discovery Bay today would be equally as popular as Star Wars Land will be with guests then I'm stumped.

Some of us don't agree with each other because we look at the park differently. The answer is simple, really. We're just as stumped as you are.

 

[Deleted member 107043]

And yet there wasn't anything impractical about Frozen not including Disney characters. Nor Inside Out not including Pixar characters. The notion of creative bankruptcy being a business requirement is a lie perpetuated by people who do not like theme parks. People who see themed entertainment as debase pablum for the idiot masses.

You still don't get it. The parks today exist as vehicles to promote Disney brands, not the other way around. If you continue to refuse to wrap your head around this new reality you're going be left behind. Actually from your tone it sounds like it's already too late. And that's OK, but know that defiantly stomping your feet and complaining on a fan discussion board isn't going to change anything.

 

[GiveMeTheMusic]

You still don't get it. The parks today exist as vehicles to promote Disney brands, not the other way around. If you continue to refuse to wrap your head around this new reality you're going be left behind. Actually from your tone it sounds like it's already too late. And that's OK, but know that defiantly stomping your feet and complaining on a fan discussion board isn't going to change anything.

Not true. In the past several years there have been multiple Disney films developed and released based on IP created for the parks. More of these films are in various stages of development or production now, including a Haunted Mansion reboot, a Jungle Cruise movie and a fifth Pirates of the Caribbean film.

The parks do not exist solely to promote Disney brands, although they're useful for that. They've also proven useful in creating their own IPs.

 

[Deleted member 107043]

Those films were based on "classic" magic kingdom attractions that have existed for decades. What original new attraction can Disney use as the basis of a future movie from today's DL Park headliners? I can't think of one.

 

[dweezil78]

Not true. In the past several years there have been multiple Disney films developed and released based on IP created for the parks. More of these films are in various stages of development or production now, including a Haunted Mansion reboot, a Jungle Cruise movie and a fifth Pirates of the Caribbean film.

The parks do not exist solely to promote Disney brands, although they're useful for that. They've also proven useful in creating their own IPs.

Maybe true, but to this day, only one of those (and its sequels) has been successful -- the others have been giant box office stinkers!!

 

[GiveMeTheMusic]

Those films were based on "classic" magic kingdom attractions that have existed for decades. What original new attraction can Disney use as the basis of a future movie from today's DL Park headliners? I can't think of one.

That's because Disneyland hasn't had a major new attraction added in 20 years, and it was IP based. There are no headliners at DL that haven't existed for decades at this point.

 

[yookeroo]

If you at all understood the point you wouldn't have made yet another statement of evaluation by using film as the base criteria. Film is not the lord and master of storytelling mediums.

I was responding to a claim that the problem with Star Wars is that it is too obvious and that many people have suggested it. Oh noes! We need a surprise!

If your problem is that Disney is using existing IP, well, say this outright. Not the most original criticism, but a valid one.

And yet there wasn't anything impractical about Frozen not including Disney characters. Nor Inside Out not including Pixar characters. The notion of creative bankruptcy being a business requirement is a lie perpetuated by people who do not like theme parks. People who see themed entertainment as debase pablum for the idiot masses.

You are my new favorite poster. This is priceless. "Debase pablum for the idiot masses". This stuff is gold. Are you pining away for a land based on War and Peace? Or is the written word off limits too?

 

[dweezil78]

If Disney announced anything other than Star Wars Land for an expansion of this size (with maybe the exception of Marvel), can you imagine the chaos that would have ensued?

 

[lazyboy97o]

I was responding to a claim that the problem with Star Wars is that it is too obvious and that many people have suggested it. Oh noes! We need a surprise!

If your problem is that Disney is using existing IP, well, say this outright. Not the most original criticism, but a valid one.



You are my new favorite poster. This is priceless. "Debase pablum for the idiot masses". This stuff is gold. Are you pining away for a land based on War and Peace? Or is the written word off limits too?

You're still not getting it.

You still don't get it. The parks today exist as vehicles to promote Disney brands, not the other way around. If you continue to refuse to wrap your head around this new reality you're going be left behind. Actually from your tone it sounds like it's already too late. And that's OK, but know that defiantly stomping your feet and complaining on a fan discussion board isn't going to change anything.

Why should I accept as fact the statements of people who don't like theme parks?

 

[Californian Elitist]

That's because Disneyland hasn't had a major new attraction added in 20 years, and it was IP based. There are no headliners at DL that haven't existed for decades at this point.

And this has been our entire point for the past couple of pages.

 

[Travel Junkie]

Disneyland is truly an original and unique place. It is a very historical place. All theme parks should try and preserve their history while at the same time staying relevant, but Disneyland is historical to the point it could be declared a national historic monument. That will never happen because as I said it must evolve and places on the national registry aren’t allowed to change, but that is how much Disneyland means to this country and to the theme park industry.

In particular the Lincoln attraction is steeped in history and represents a huge step forward in technology that must be preserved not in some museum but in an environment that it was supposed to be in. If you don’t understand why seeing art or historical items where they are supposed to be displayed is better than in some museum then I can’t help you. Some attractions are replaceable, some are not. Because of its historical significance Lincoln belongs in Disneyland.

There’s also a dangerous precedent set when you employ a Vegas style of planning, meaning if it doesn’t make enough money blow it up and start over. You get a bunch of shiny new toys that lack history and soul. There is no doubt that cities like London, Paris, New York etc are much better cities than Las Vegas. It’s because they have soul and history that places like Vegas just blew up and built over and over the last few years even Vegas has seen the light and begun to preserve its history . Disneyland has a soul, it has history that no other place has. Taking out something like Walt’s apartment for a retail opportunity is counterproductive and destroys part of Disneyland’s soul. Even if you don’t visit Lincoln or Walt’s apartment, you subconsciously feel different about the place with them there opposed to if they were removed. The philosophy of taking out Lincoln for some attraction just to get a few more butts in seats turns Disneyland just into another theme park. I don’t want Disneyland to just be another theme park. It is a unique special place and should embrace its historical significance while at the same time evolving with the times. If you go to a place like London you will see how they combine old with new and it enriches the city as a whole. For the most part Disneyland has been able to do that to this point.

There are plenty of attractions that can come and go at Disneyland. Certain attractions and places at Disneyland should be preserved. Lincoln is one that needs to stay because of its historical significance.

 

[Californian Elitist]

^^^^Someone gets it.

 

[TP2000]

There've been a lot of changes along the Rivers of America in the last 60 years, and I think editing this 20 minute experience down to a 15 minute experience (I'm including the five minutes of standing around on the boat waiting for it to leave) is a good thing.

Through the 1970's the back half of the River had a White Man vs. The Indians theme, where the Settlers Cabin was ablaze after Indian attack and a white settler was laid out in front of the burning cabin with an arrow shot into his heart. It was grizzly, and violent, and Politically Incorrect. For decades.

And there were two Indian Villages seen along the route. Near the cabin was the Unfriendly Indians in their teepees, who attacked this guy. Further along was the Friendly Indians, who are still there today telling stories and making cornmeal and ignoring all the tourists on the Mark Twain. I don't think most folks today realize why that's called the Friendly Indian Village, because originally you first saw the Unfriendly Indians who shoot arrows into white guys hearts and set their cabins on fire.

The River changed in the past, and it will change in the future. And I'm okay with that, especially if it helps free up room for a kick-butt new land with multiple new E Tickets. Bring it on! Change is good!

 

[Curious Constance]

Just because someone isn't agreeing with you doesn't mean they aren't getting it. I can totally see where you're coming from and even on some levels feel the same. I just don't think a personal feeling can always have much merit when reality comes into play. Disney isn't a person, therefore acting as if it has feelings or does things out of greed or the goodness of it's heart is silly. It's comprised of thousands of people who will either maximize profits in their own little way or they will be replaced by someone who does. No one person has the power to do whatever they want to do with the company. That went away long ago. It will never come back to that again, it would be impossible with the size and scope Disney is at today. That can either be embraced and dealt with or if you can't, it's probably best to find something you can enjoy and be happy with. Getting angry about every single thing is such a waste of time.

 

[Phroobar]

How does moving the berm out and slightly shortening the ROA and island destroy the theme park's "soul"?