Star Wars themed land announced for Disneyland

[Disney Analyst]

I love that it is hidden... it's a nice design feature. Keeps the mystery, the reveal, and the feeling of a remote far away planet... and then anyone who really does not like Star Wars in Disneyland can mostly ignore it, forget about it, and avoid it.

Diagon Alley is completely hidden from view, and it really makes that area all the more incredible.

 

[odc]

I'm thinking that Walt just really did some forward planning here, he built an entire interactive cue standby line for SWL (the rest of Disneyland). It's genius.

Walt is probably turning in his grave faster than my washing machine on its final spin cycle.

 

[Donaldfan1934]

I'm thinking that Walt just really did some forward planning here, he built an entire interactive cue standby line for SWL (the rest of Disneyland). It's genius.

Walt is probably turning in his grave faster than my washing machine on its final spin cycle.

That's what they're probably going to start selling the park as tragically. It's going to be "STAR WARS LAND...and the rest of disneyland".

 

[Phroobar]

I think we need to come up with a better name for Star Wars Land.
How about Far Far Away land? Would Dreamworks get upset?

 

[George Lucas on a Bench]

I feel like it will be the name of the alien planet or spaceport or whatever it's supposed to be.

 

[BrianLo]

Yes! Back when they actually IMAGINED. Not anymore. It's based on a movie? Put it in! Original idea? You're fired!

But what if it's an original idea they imagined... Based on a movie. I suppose that's an adaption.

Something strangely no one seems to have a problem with when it comes to introducing movie content into parks based on classic fairytales, Jules Verne novels or American Iconography.

A completely original land and ideas based on the Starwars Universe on the other hand = creative bankruptcy.

 

[BrianLo]

I said that they couldn't be seen from most of Adventureland. I know that they're behind the train track. But like you said, the transition is like Toontown, which is very unlike what the Star Wars Land transition looks like. That Toy Story land transition complaint is yet another reason for imagineers not to build franchise lands in Magic Kingdoms.

I think you've lost me. What in your mind is the departure of hiding HKDL lands completely behind a berm, hiding Toontown (more poorly) behind a berm and hiding this Star Wars Land behind a berm...

Nice Rock work?

Because the lands at HKDL were very much 'hidden'. The train track was made to be modifiable and expandable in the original park design. They chose not to expand the berm and instead hide those lands.


And no, the Toy Story complaint is about not building ugly drop towers that can be seen from neighboring lands.

This is turning into such a silly argument and it's probably my fault for engaging

 

[Californian Elitist]

But what if it's an original idea they imagined... Based on a movie. I suppose that's an adaption.

Something strangely no one seems to have a problem with when it comes to introducing movie content into parks based on classic fairytales, Jules Verne novels or American Iconography.

A completely original land and ideas based on the Starwars Universe on the other hand = creative bankruptcy.

How can it be original if it's based on a movie?

Star Wars Land is nowhere near completely original. Compared to the original lands of Disneyland, with the exception of Fantasyland, there's nothing creative about it, in terms of concept. The world of Star Wars has been created already, by Lucas and any of the other writers.

Attractions based on classic fairy tales have been in the park since day one. This is the first time a land dedicated and based one one entire franchise and a multitude of films will be going into the original park, and I find that a travesty. Something like Baxter's Discovery Bay would have been a better fit and would have stuck with the original concept of Disneyland, in my opinion.

You look at what the Imagineers were doing during Disneyland's early years, then you look at what they're doing now, and it's a jarring difference, in a bad way.

 

[BrianLo]

How can it be original if it's based on a movie?

Star Wars Land is nowhere near completely original. Compared to the original lands of Disneyland, with the exception of Fantasyland, there's nothing creative about it, in terms of concept. The world of Star Wars has been created already, by Lucas and any of the other writers.

Attractions based on classic fairy tales have been in the park since day one. This is the first time a land dedicated and based one one entire franchise and a multitude of films will be going into the original park, and I find that a travesty. Something like Baxter's Discovery Bay would have been a better fit and would have stuck with the original concept of Disneyland, in my opinion.

You look at what the Imagineers were doing during Disneyland's early years, then you look at what they're doing now, and it's a jarring difference, in a bad way.

Well... Again the problem is not imagineering. The old mentality that people really are asking for is still fully present in projects like Grizzy Gulch, Mystic Point, Adventure Isle at SDL etc. Granted, none of that has or will come to North America.

I guess my point is I was pleasantly surprised with how much they were allowed to start from scratch and imagine a completely new place from Star Wars as opposed to lifting from previous movie set designs or going the Fantasyland book-report version of the movies. If they *had* to adapt Star Wars I'm impressed with how much creative leeway they were given. People are so (maybe rightfully) upset with the project they are not willing to admit there are some very good things about it that we don't usually see from WDI stateside these days.

I appreciate its still totally jarring, but there is a heck of a lot more creativity going into this than the by-the-books copy-and-paste set designs UC was given by Warner Brother for Potter. For better or worse.

 

[Travel Junkie]

Well... Again the problem is not imagineering. The old mentality that people really are asking for is still fully present in projects like Grizzy Gulch, Mystic Point, Adventure Isle at SDL etc. Granted, none of that has or will come to North America.

I guess my point is I was pleasantly surprised with how much they were allowed to start from scratch and imagine a completely new place from Star Wars as opposed to lifting from previous movie set designs or going the Fantasyland book-report version of the movies. If they *had* to adapt Star Wars I'm impressed with how much creative leeway they were given. People are so (maybe rightfully) upset with the project they are not willing to admit there are some very good things about it that we don't usually see from WDI stateside these days.

I appreciate its still totally jarring, but there is a heck of a lot more creativity going into this than the by-the-books copy-and-paste set designs UC was given by Warner Brother for Potter. For better or worse.

I was pleasantly surprised with how much leeway they are appeared to have been given with Star Wars Land, instead of just recreating an existing planet. IP can be an inspiration or it can be a crutch. For this particular project it appears to be an inspiration and that's a good thing.

 

[dweezil78]

How can it be original if it's based on a movie?
You look at what the Imagineers were doing during Disneyland's early years, then you look at what they're doing now, and it's a jarring difference, in a bad way.

Look, we all love the park and love the classics. Pirates, HM, and IASW were the pinnacle of the glory days of WED. But if you really want to start getting into nitty gritty of the thematic elements of the park in these fully original lands you keep going on and on about, it boils down to some mountains with varying degrees of rock work, storefronts that either look like they were in the jungle, old west, or America, and -- until 1983 -- a bunch of tents that were re-themed to look like a non-descript European city. 67 Tomorrowland, my favorite Tomorrowland ever and one which I obsess over, looked like a lot of airports from the era. Or a clean, prostitute-less, New Orleans. (I guess that's original?)

To say that something on the level of what they're going to create for Star Wars Land doesn't hold up to the imagination used in other parts of the park is just downright silly. Just because it's an established franchise doesn't mean you should discredit the great work going on at WDI on this project or other franchise-based projects in other parks for that matter. It's one thing to create some special fx in a computer that viewers will see flash by in seconds on screen, it is something else entirely to create a living, breathing version of that kind of world which guests can enjoy up close and feel like they have been transported to another planet.

Have you seen what's going on over at AK's Avatar land?? They have started putting up FLOATING MOUNTAINS. That is insane.

 

[GiveMeTheMusic]

Looks like SWL may be in for more cuts if WDI can't deliver on the money they initially asked for (hint: they never deliver for the money they initially ask for). Lots of people in Glendale brushing up their resumes right about now.

 

[Californian Elitist]

Look, we all love the park and love the classics. Pirates, HM, and IASW were the pinnacle of the glory days of WED. But if you really want to start getting into nitty gritty of the thematic elements of the park in these fully original lands you keep going on and on about, it boils down to some mountains with varying degrees of rock work, storefronts that either look like they were in the jungle, old west, or America, and -- until 1983 -- a bunch of tents that were re-themed to look like a non-descript European city. 67 Tomorrowland, my favorite Tomorrowland ever and one which I obsess over, looked like a lot of airports from the era. Or a clean, prostitute-less, New Orleans. (I guess that's original?)

To say that something on the level of what they're going to create for Star Wars Land doesn't hold up to the imagination used in other parts of the park is just downright silly. Just because it's an established franchise doesn't mean you should discredit the great work going on at WDI on this project or other franchise-based projects in other parks for that matter. It's one thing to create some special fx in a computer that viewers will see flash by in seconds on screen, it is something else entirely to create a living, breathing version of that kind of world which guests can enjoy up close and feel like they have been transported to another planet.

Have you seen what's going on over at AK's Avatar land?? They have started putting up FLOATING MOUNTAINS. That is insane.

I'm a little busy right now, buy all I'm going to say is that's how I feel, and that's not changing. You sound a little offended in this post, but it's my opinion, so there's that.

I'll say it again, I'm more impressed with the Imagineers from decades ago. And Disney Imagineers didn't come up with the idea of floating mountains.

You can think it's silly, but it won't change my opinion, so...

 

[dweezil78]

I'm a little busy right now, buy all I'm going to say is that's how I feel, and that's not changing. You sound a little offended in this post, but it's my opinion, so there's that.

I'll say it again, I'm more impressed with the Imagineers from decades ago. And Disney Imagineers didn't come up with the idea of floating mountains.

You can think it's silly, but it won't change my opinion, so...

Not offended. But if you are going to throw words like 'imagination' around, you should probably take a closer look at what you feel was so imaginative and ask yourself just how imaginative it really, truly was.

 

[Californian Elitist]

Well... Again the problem is not imagineering. The old mentality that people really are asking for is still fully present in projects like Grizzy Gulch, Mystic Point, Adventure Isle at SDL etc. Granted, none of that has or will come to North America.

I guess my point is I was pleasantly surprised with how much they were allowed to start from scratch and imagine a completely new place from Star Wars as opposed to lifting from previous movie set designs or going the Fantasyland book-report version of the movies. If they *had* to adapt Star Wars I'm impressed with how much creative leeway they were given. People are so (maybe rightfully) upset with the project they are not willing to admit there are some very good things about it that we don't usually see from WDI stateside these days.

I appreciate its still totally jarring, but there is a heck of a lot more creativity going into this than the by-the-books copy-and-paste set designs UC was given by Warner Brother for Potter. For better or worse.

Yes, I understand why people are happy with Star Wars Land coming to the park. I get it.

 

[Californian Elitist]

Not offended. But if you are going to throw words like 'imagination' around, you should probably take a closer look at what you feel was so imaginative and ask yourself just how imaginative it really, truly was.

No, I shouldn't. I'm not even talking about aesthetics in my posts, I'm talking about concepts of the different lands.

You and I are talking about two different things. I respect your opinion. Please respect mine.

 

[George Lucas on a Bench]

Space...the final frontier.

 

[Deleted member 107043]

Lots of people in Glendale brushing up their resumes right about now.

Not to be rude or brush off your post, but who cares?

 

[George Lucas on a Bench]

The economics of the future are somewhat different. You see, money doesn't exist in the 24th century.

 

[Donaldfan1934]

I think you've lost me. What in your mind is the departure of hiding HKDL lands completely behind a berm, hiding Toontown (more poorly) behind a berm and hiding this Star Wars Land behind a berm...

Nice Rock work?

Because the lands at HKDL were very much 'hidden'. The train track was made to be modifiable and expandable in the original park design. They chose not to expand the berm and instead hide those lands.


And no, the Toy Story complaint is about not building ugly drop towers that can be seen from neighboring lands.

This is turning into such a silly argument and it's probably my fault for engaging

What I'm saying is that while the other lands are behind the berm, they didn't take any additional procedures aside from just putting them behind the berm. I personally see what they're doing in Star Wars land with the extensive work work involved just to try and hide it as possible admission to the fact that it's a terrible fit. Also, the tree like structures will probably be seen anywhere in the park no matter how hard they try to hide it.