Star Wars themed land announced for Disneyland

[Deleted member 107043]

It may be the single worst idea in the history of the Disneyland park.

Worse than Holidayland? C'mon admit it, that concept and the execution stunk.

Worse then the Disney Afternoon overlay in the 90s?

Actually, now that you mention it, Disney Afternoon Avenue wins the prize for the single worst idea ever at Disneyland, even if it was temporary.

While it may not be a perfect fit in Disneyland, it wouldn't fit into DCA any better.

Not only that, you can't carve 14 acres of space in DCA to put it.

 

[Californian Elitist]

It just doesn't work having an entire land themed to a single property like that and it doesn't jive with the rest of the park, which is classic Disney. Even Tomorrowland, which is a junkyard, still maintains enough of that feel. Even Toontown (which feels like an extension of Fantasyland) and Critter Country (which feels like a buffer between Frontierland and Fantasyland that got built on the wrong side of the river) have more of the classic DL feel.

Exactly. Any single IP just doesn't fit with the concept of Disneyland.

A lot of change has occurred within the park, but I feel Fantasyland is the one original land that, for the most part, hasn't changed much since opening, and is still very much "Walt-esque."

 

[Curious Constance]

Speaking of Holidayland, did you know you could buy food baskets that came with beer there when it was open???

 

[Deleted member 107043]

I totally agree that a single franchise land doesn't fit the Disneyland many of us grew up with, however that Disneyland hasn't existed for a long, long time. It fits perfectly fine with the concept of Disneyland today.

I remember when Star Tours and Indy opened there was quite a bit of surprise and awkwardness because they weren't home-grown Disney films. Today few people care and the attractions fit into DL well enough. Ironically Disney now owns both franchises.

 

[Deleted member 107043]

Speaking of Holidayland, did you know you could buy food baskets that came with beer there when it was open???

I did! That was probably the only thing worthwhile about it.

 

[Curious Constance]

I totally agree that a single franchise land doesn't fit the Disneyland many of us grew up with, however that Disneyland hasn't existed for a long, long time. It fits perfectly fine with Disneyland concept of today.

I remember when Star Tours and Indy opened and there was quite a bit of surprise and awkwardness because they weren't home-grown Disney films. Today few people care and the attractions fit into DL well enough. Ironically Disney now owns both franchises.

I was just going to mention Star Tours and Indy and how they were probably originally both met with hesitant reactions. In twenty years, the next generation will never know Star Wars wasn't always classic Disney. I expect their placement of Star wars in Disneyland, was in part to solidify the Disney and Star Wars brands.

 

[mickEblu]

Worse than Holidayland? C'mon admit it, that concept and the execution stunk.

Actually, now that you mention it, Disney Afternoon Avenue wins the prize for the single worst idea ever at Disneyland, even if it was temporary.



Not only that, you can't carve 14 acres of space in DCA to put it.

SWL in the Simba lot could have been cool and they could have connected it to DCA proper with a bridge or underground tunnel.

The good part is maybe they can still use this land for a DCA expansion in the future. Especially since the only expansion pad left at DCA is going to Marvel and apparently might extend from the expansion pad and wrap around TOT and take over the Hollywood backlot as well.

WOW that was Holidayland?? I had never seen any pictures.

 

[Deleted member 107043]

SWL in the Simba lot could have been cool and they could have connected it to DCA proper with a bridge or underground tunnel.

Can't tell if you're being sarcastic or serious.

 

[mickEblu]

Can't tell if you're being sarcastic or serious.

Haha not being sarcastic ...why would it be far fetched? The tunnel I could see being a big undertaking but not the bridge. Theres plenty of land there. What's the problem ? The hated Paradise Pier hotel? That could of have been themed into a Star Wars themed hotel

 

[Deleted member 107043]

Yeah, I guess anything is possible, but I don't see how an awkward extension of DCA across the street is a better plan than placing the land neatly within the existing confines of DL and its backstage facilities. Also, unless there's some region of the golden state where the Star Wars saga takes place, I also don't get how the project make more sense in a theme park called California Adventure.

 

[mickEblu]

Yeah, I guess anything is possible, but I don't see how an awkward extension of DCA across the street is a better plan than placing the land neatly within the existing confines of DL and its backstage facilities. Also, unless there's some region of the golden state where the Star Wars saga takes place, I also don't get how the project make more sense in a theme park called California Adventure.

In not sure it would be a better plan but my point was that if it was simply about not having the space at DCA the Simba lot could have been the answer and this would have helped balance crowds out between both parks.

Im happy that the hack job of the ROA isn't as bad as I thought it would be, going by the concept art at least. I like the enhancements that are going in the ROA and and that the plan is to hide SWL from the rest of the park. When, let's face it, never before has so much thought gone into transitions between lands other than maybe Fantasyland into Toontown, that one is pretty slick. Not to say that I have a problem seeing the Astro orbiter while I eat my Main Street turn of the 20th century fried chicken or that you walk out of Tarzans treehouse and 2 feet later your in NOS or that I can hear "Zipidee Doo Dah" while waiting in line for the Haunted Mansion. Ok... maybe the Astro orbiters location is bothersome but I've never been bothered by any of the sudden transitions at DL because they all just seem to work. But this makes me wonder. Why with SWL are they going through so much trouble to hide it from the rest of the park? Is it because they know that it doesn't really fit in with Walt's original park ? Or are these massive show buildings really that massive and would be quite the eye sore?

Oh ya, the whole DCA being about California theming boat sailed a long time ago when they added monsters and mermaids and bugs and cars that can talk.

 

[dweezil78]

For better or for worse, I think themed entertainment has just evolved in the past 60 years. We used to have lands that followed a specific theme which featured similarly themed experiences living together. But thanks to advances in show design and technology, guests can literally feel as if they were transported to a completely different world (i.e. Harry Potter, Carsland) where everything ties back to a sole creative universe. While I think these types of endeavors are more of a gamble and risk, I think when done right, it allows for a far more immersive experience.

The biggest problem with these types of singular IP lands, IMO, is -- what happens if/when guests eventually lose interest in the IP it's based on? With a single attraction in a non-specific IP land, you simply shut it down and put something new in it's place -- or at the very least, re-skin it to something more relevant. What happens when guests grow tired of an entire land??

In the case of Cars and Avatar, I don't think either franchise has proven itself to have that kind of longevity. Star Wars (and probably Harry Potter for UNI) I think certainly has. It's been huge since 77 and wildly successful at Disney parks since the mid 80s. It is a modern day fairy tale up there with Fantasyland's greatest hits.

We've entered a new era of themed entertainment. One where themed lands and IP lands are going to have to co-exist and be enjoyed for what they are.

 

[Deleted member 107043]

The mermaid is at a seaside pier and the monsters are part of an area themed to a Hollywood movie studio backlot. I guess if you're going to nitpick the connections are extremely tenuous, but they work better than Star Wars land would imo, and it's not like DL's thematic realms are authentic to the last detail either.

 

[mickEblu]

The mermaid is at a seaside pier and the monsters are part of an area themed to a Hollywood movie studio backlot. I guess if you're going to nitpick the connections are extremely tenuous, but they work better than Star Wars land would imo, and it's not like DL's thematic realms are authentic to the last detail either.

Sure, the Mermaid facade works just fine. It's the content I'm referring to that doesn't work if we re using your point of view that Star Wars doesn't fit into DCA. Personally I like DL and DCA just the way they are and I think thematically SWL can work in either park. Especially since they are working so hard to integrate it into its surroundings. I just think SWL would work better in DCA since they already have a few single IP lands. And the benefit of dispersing the crowds between 2 parks would be huge. When SWL opens I know where I'm going. DCA! RSR will be a 15 minute wait and TOT will be a walk on.

 

[mickEblu]

For better or for worse, I think themed entertainment has just evolved in the past 60 years. We used to have lands that followed a specific theme which featured similarly themed experiences living together. But thanks to advances in show design and technology, guests can literally feel as if they were transported to a completely different world (i.e. Harry Potter, Carsland) where everything ties back to a sole creative universe. While I think these types of endeavors are more of a gamble and risk, I think when done right, it allows for a far more immersive experience.

The biggest problem with these types of singular IP lands, IMO, is -- what happens if/when guests eventually lose interest in the IP it's based on? With a single attraction in a non-specific IP land, you simply shut it down and put something new in it's place -- or at the very least, re-skin it to something more relevant. What happens when guests grow tired of an entire land??

In the case of Cars and Avatar, I don't think either franchise has proven itself to have that kind of longevity. Star Wars (and probably Harry Potter for UNI) I think certainly has. It's been huge since 77 and wildly successful at Disney parks since the mid 80s. It is a modern day fairy tale up there with Fantasyland's greatest hits.

We've entered a new era of themed entertainment. One where themed lands and IP lands are going to have to co-exist and be enjoyed for what they are.

I honestly don't mind the single IP lands as much as the fact that all new modern E tickets need to be media based. I just hope the integration between screens and physical sets/ AAs gets better with time. I would like to see more new rides like RSR , Indy, HM, POTC and Splash mountain that maybe push the envelope a little further as well as some modern technologically advanced roller coasters.

 

[dweezil78]

I honestly don't mind the single IP lands as much as the fact that all new modern E tickets need to be media based. I just hope the integration between screens and physical sets/ AAs gets better with time. I would like to see more new rides like RSR , Indy, HM, POTC and Splash mountain that maybe push the envelope a little further as well as some modern technologically advanced roller coasters.

Definitely agreed on the overuse of screens/video! Was talking to a friend about Universal Hollywood the other day and they were complaining about all the 3D/video there and at first I was thinking they were exaggerating, but really aside from Jurassic Park and Mummy, almost EVERY single attraction is video based there now with very few practical effects. There's only so much of that you can take before it starts to get old and lose its sizzle. Like any good attraction effect, it needs to be used properly and in moderation.

 

[mickEblu]

Definitely agreed on the overuse of screens/video! Was talking to a friend about Universal Hollywood the other day and they were complaining about all the 3D/video there and at first I was thinking they were exaggerating, but really aside from Jurassic Park and Mummy, almost EVERY single attraction is video based there now with very few practical effects. There's only so much of that you can take before it starts to get old and lose its sizzle. Like any good attraction effect, it needs to be used properly and in moderation.

I agree and USH should have never got rid of ET for this reason. USH has no concern building any sort of nostalgia except for the Tram Tour.

The problem with Star Wars attractions is that its just really difficult to emulate a battle in space without screens. I hope that the first order battle attraction doesn't rely so heavily on screens as from the descriptions that battle seems to be taking place on land. This is where I think they can use some more practical effects, mouth dropping sets and AAs

 

[dweezil78]

The problem with Star Wars attractions is that its just really difficult to emulate a battle in space without screens.

Perhaps WDI is using Hyper Space Mountain as a test as to what can be done as far as space battles go without 100% use of screens. Let's hope!

 

[mickEblu]

Perhaps WDI is using Hyper Space Mountain as a test as to what can be done as far as space battles go without 100% use of screens. Let's hope!

That Would be nice!

 

[lazyboy97o]

I suppose you could say that New Orleans Square is just as limited of a land as Star Wars land will be. I realize its different, but it is very limited too. I'm pretty sure all future additions to all theme parks are going to be centered on one property. That just seems to be the preferred method now. And as far as not working, I guess it depends on how you define "work". It will most certainly be popular, successful, and make gazillions of dollars which will be just the definition Disney is looking for.

New Orleans Square was conceived as part of Frontierland.

For better or for worse, I think themed entertainment has just evolved in the past 60 years. We used to have lands that followed a specific theme which featured similarly themed experiences living together. But thanks to advances in show design and technology, guests can literally feel as if they were transported to a completely different world (i.e. Harry Potter, Carsland) where everything ties back to a sole creative universe. While I think these types of endeavors are more of a gamble and risk, I think when done right, it allows for a far more immersive experience.

The biggest problem with these types of singular IP lands, IMO, is -- what happens if/when guests eventually lose interest in the IP it's based on? With a single attraction in a non-specific IP land, you simply shut it down and put something new in it's place -- or at the very least, re-skin it to something more relevant. What happens when guests grow tired of an entire land??

In the case of Cars and Avatar, I don't think either franchise has proven itself to have that kind of longevity. Star Wars (and probably Harry Potter for UNI) I think certainly has. It's been huge since 77 and wildly successful at Disney parks since the mid 80s. It is a modern day fairy tale up there with Fantasyland's greatest hits.

We've entered a new era of themed entertainment. One where themed lands and IP lands are going to have to co-exist and be enjoyed for what they are.

Themed entertainment being deemed inferior to cinema is not an evolution and should not be celebrated.