Star Wars themed land announced for Disneyland

[George Lucas on a Bench]

Can we all just agree that having Star Trek in Tomorrowland would have been way cooler?

 

[Deleted member 107043]

I was really hoping for that, but I'm really pleased now that it didn't happen. I'm hoping TL will get a proper redo (TRON Light Cycle Coaster!!!) down the road.

 

[Phroobar]

Can we all just agree that having Star Trek in Tomorrowland would have been way cooler?

That would be cool. Imagine this replacing the Innoventions & Pizza Planet buildings.

with this launch coaster inside.

 

[Californian Elitist]

SWL inside of Disneyland park isn't addressing a need other than it was going somewhere.

Back when it was being designed exclusive to Disneyland, it was going into the eastern plot occupied by some of Tomorrowland (lagoon, Autopia, and some of Tomorrowland proper), or it was going into Toon Town until ambition increased bit more, it was never going to go into DCA (not really discussed in earnest at any point along the way); but, in theory - it could have; but, then what to do with Marvel became a bigger problem. Going into a 3rd gate was and is always a possibility as by design SWL is leaving doors wide open for more SWL down the road. The Tomorrowland option under consideration would've limited those growth options. SW in the parks can grow in the future by design if/when they want as you are only visiting 1 location in the SW galaxy with this expansion.

The need to put SWL in Disneyland isn't addressing any specific needs for Disneyland other than satisfying the continued need to grow and evolve and satisfy its guests.

The need for Disney Parks is to get more Star Wars into the parks. It was going somewhere in California.

Of all the options (minus holding out for a 3rd gate), the current plan is being done in the least intrusive way possible. It leaves Tomorrowland intact (and it will allow it to stay Tomorrowland into the future), it allows Toon Town to be repurposed into more "true" Disney IP in an expanded Fantasyland, it keeps Marvel next door at DCA which is a better fit for everyone. SW is set in a more fantasy non-reality universe than Marvel and it's reality (the world of today) that should always be kept out of Disneyland proper. Yesterday, tomorrow, and fantasy are welcome inside the berm - it says so right on the plaque.

Look, I wasn't pleased about where and what was happening either when I heard about the shift to the west and away from Toon Town. My friends that told me they weren't either at first. Once more information became available, the less and less concerned I've become. The only concerns I have now are about the canoes and both ships on route together and the millions of happy guests that will be waving their light sabers around for years to come and how all those extra bodies are going to fit.

It will be a good fit eventually. It's just a bumpy road to get there.

My main concern isn't the location, although that has angered me as well. My main concern is that it doesn't ANYWHERE in the park. That's what I'm most upset about. It could have gone where Toontown is and I'd still feel the same way.

Star Wars Land doesn't need to be in Disneyland. That's a far-fetched statement. Disneyland has insanely loyal and caring fans, I don't think the absence of Star Wars Land would have sent the majority of them into outrageous fits. Star Wars Land is not the only decision they could have made. I bet if Disney were to come up with something that was both original and appropriate for the park, fans would show support, but Disney refuses to actually take time and do the work, so we end up with a land based on an IP that has nothing to do with Walt's park.

 

[Deleted member 107043]

That would be cool. Imagine this replacing the Innoventions & Pizza Planet buildings.

with this launch coaster inside.

Wait he said Star Trek? I thought he wrote Star Wars lol. No, I do not want Star Trek anywhere near Disneyland, thank you.

 

[Deleted member 107043]

. Star Wars Land is not the only decision they could have made.

It is if they want Star Wars to have a major presence at their California resort. The point being made is that SW Land at Disneyland became inevitable the minute the deal to purchase LucasFilm was confirmed. This isn't about what DL fans want, or even the park's legacy, this is about what's best for one of the company's most valuable franchises.

 

[Curious Constance]

My main concern isn't the location, although that has angered me as well. My main concern is that it doesn't ANYWHERE in the park. That's what I'm most upset about. It could have gone where Toontown is and I'd still feel the same way.

Star Wars Land doesn't need to be in Disneyland. That's a far-fetched statement. Disneyland has insanely loyal and caring fans, I don't think the absence of Star Wars Land would have sent the majority of them into outrageous fits. Star Wars Land is not the only decision they could have made. I bet if Disney were to come up with something that was both original and appropriate for the park, fans would show support, but Disney refuses to actually take time and do the work, so we end up with a land based on an IP that has nothing to do with Walt's park.

We can really argue for the next three years and it won't change either sides opinion. Whether you love it, hate it, or are indifferent, it really doesn't matter. It's coming regardless. So what if I can live with the changes and someone else can't? I can practically guarantee, however, that ever since Disney purchased Star Wars, fans have been chomping at the bit to get Star Wars represented in both coast's parks. I don't think that can be questioned. When the announcement was made, the words could barely be heard for all the cheering and screaming that errupted, and this was from Disney fans who went to the Expo, not just a general audience.

 

[Californian Elitist]

We can really argue for the next three years and it won't change either sides opinion. Whether you love it, hate it, or are indifferent, it really doesn't matter. It's coming regardless. So what if I can live with the changes and someone else can't? I can practically guarantee, however, that ever since Disney purchased Star Wars, fans have been chomping at the bit to get Star Wars represented in both coast's parks. I don't think that can be questioned. When the announcement was made, the words could barely be heard for all the cheering and screaming that errupted, and this was from Disney fans who went to the Expo, not just a general audience.

I never insinuated things would change if I kept expressing my opinion. I know things aren't changing. It doesn't mean I should keep my mouth shut about the whole thing, and that's definitely not happening.

Clearly Star Wars will be a hit. Never insinuated it wouldn't. However, in saying that, the company REFUSES to come up with anything that doesn't have to do with an IP nowadays. That's frustrating to me, as a serious Disneyland fan. They wont even try. It's sad.

 

[Deleted member 107043]

That's frustrating to me, as a serious Disneyland fan.

I have to say the undercurrent of fan superiority running throughout this topic is a bit surprising. I don't want to speak for Constance or anyone else, but as fans I think it's safe to say we all get your frustration, however in making a statement like this, and maybe you don't realize it, you're implying that those of us who have accepted Disney's reliance on IP for park content aren't as serious about their love for the parks as you are.

 

[Curious Constance]

I never insinuated things would change if I kept expressing my opinion. I know things aren't changing. It doesn't mean I should keep my mouth shut about the whole thing, and that's definitely not happening.

Clearly Star Wars will be a hit. Never insinuated it wouldn't. However, in saying that, the company REFUSES to come up with anything that doesn't have to do with an IP nowadays. That's frustrating to me, as a serious Disneyland fan. They wont even try. It's sad.

I wasn't saying you should keep your mouth shut. It just feels as though you have utter contempt for anyone who doesn't agree with you. I know I'm newer, and haven't been around long,and things can be taken the wrong way in a forum, but I get the feeling most times you are either expressing dislike for everything I say or ignoring me totally, which is fine if you choose to do so, just seems odd to me that you would be so unwilling to accept someone has a different opinion than you do.

 

[lazyboy97o]

If I follow that logic, how does it translate to Disney thinks its customers are stupid and that the company views theme parks as an "inferior medium"?

Nobody would say it is a hallmark of being a movie fan if one only watches movies based on best-selling books. Decisions for the theme parks are based not on how good of an experience there will be, but unrelated financial metrics such as box office and toy sales. Pretty much the strategic planning thing. Experience in the field disqualifies one from actually running the unit. In the past 20 years the Chairmen of Walt Disney Parks and Resorts with prior experience were Paul Pressler and Jay Rasulo, and that prior experience was only their most recent position.

 

[Californian Elitist]

I wasn't saying you should keep your mouth shut. It just feels as though you have utter contempt for anyone who doesn't agree with you. I know I'm newer, and haven't been around long,and things can be taken the wrong way in a forum, but I get the feeling most times you are either expressing dislike for everything I say or ignoring me totally, which is fine if you choose to do so, just seems odd to me that you would be so unwilling to accept someone has a different opinion than you do.

Please point me to a post where I condemned someone's post and expressed "utter contempt" (that's absurd) towards someone. I'm expressing how I feel, just like you are. We are having a discussion/debate, are we not?

I just went back and read your previous post before this one. "So what if I can live with the changes and someone else can't?" Where did that come from and what are you talking about?

 

[Curious Constance]

Please point me to a post where I condemned someone's post and expressed "utter contempt" (that's absurd) towards someone. I'm expressing how I feel, just like you are. We are having a discussion/debate, are we not?

I just went back and read your previous post before this one. "So what if I can live with the changes and someone else can't?" Where did that come from and what are you talking about?

That didn't come from any where and didn't mean anything specific. And utter contempt was being over dramatic, but I just get the vibe from some of your comments, specifically about the "newer" people around here, that you don't appreciate me being around expressing opinions you seem to take offense to. Maybe I'm imagining it, like I said it's easy to take things the wrong way on a discussion board, but it's the feeling I get. You don't have to like me, and if you want to ignore me most times that's certainly your prerogative, I just was curious, if it's true, why?

 

[Phroobar]

Well Raven did ignore me because I said the plastic Indians on the river are mad that Disney won't let them put up a casino were Star Wars land will be. Sure, stupid joke but I do get a sense of a little bit of superiority complex going on from her.

 

[Deleted member 107043]

Nobody would say it is a hallmark of being a movie fan if one only watches movies based on best-selling books. Decisions for the theme parks are based not on how good of an experience there will be, but unrelated financial metrics such as box office and toy sales. Pretty much the strategic planning thing. Experience in the field disqualifies one from actually running the unit. In the past 20 years the Chairmen of Walt Disney Parks and Resorts with prior experience were Paul Pressler and Jay Rasulo, and that prior experience was only their most recent position.

So basically what you're saying is that you don't have any substantiated evidence or proof in the form of a corporate email, memo, internal communication, or media article to support your claim, just a biased opinion based on your own observation. Not saying that isn't acceptable in a casual discussion like this one, but nothing you've said gets me to the same conclusion as you, that Disney has deemed themed entertainment an inferior medium for stupid people. I'm sorry, but your rationale for this argument makes no sense to me.

 

[George Lucas on a Bench]

I have utter contempt for and pity anyone who doesn't agree with me.

 

[Curious Constance]

I have utter contempt for and pity anyone who doesn't agree with me.

You should offer those people a lot of money to pretend to agree with you.

 

[lazyboy97o]

So basically what you're saying is that you don't have any substantiated evidence or proof in the form of a corporate email, memo, internal communication, or media article to support your claim, just a biased opinion based on your own observation. Not saying that isn't acceptable in a casual discussion like this one, but nothing you've said gets me to the same conclusion as you, that Disney has deemed themed entertainment an inferior medium for stupid people. I'm sorry, but your rationale for this argument makes no sense to me.

So do always reject independent thought? Why must it be asserted by some nebulous other? Name one other creative endeavor where only copying is considered the paramount of success and interest. But yes, under investment, orders to only follow other businesses, lack of a desire for relevant experience and even wishing to dispose of a business unit are hallmarks of a strong interest in that segment.

 

[Curious Constance]

So do always reject independent thought? Why must it be asserted by some nebulous other? Name one other creative endeavor where only copying is considered the paramount of success and interest. But yes, under investment, orders to only follow other businesses, lack of a desire for relevant experience and even wishing to dispose of a business unit are hallmarks of a strong interest in that segment.

99% of movies are reboots or remakes.

 

[Deleted member 107043]

So do always reject independent thought?

Of course I don't. I asked you to support your assertion regarding Disney's corporate business strategy for its parks with some kind of substantial reference and you replied with conjecture. That's all fine and dandy, but you can't expect me to take that kind of flimsy logic seriously.