That's the entire point.
Hey, it's dagobert!
Hey, it's dagobert!
And I'm just hearing about this now because......???
What did you expect? they wanted to keep the concept of Star Tours so they just updated it with modern tech. Star Tours is one of the few screen based attractions that still work simply because the screen is just a windshield and not surrounding you. The last really impressive thing that's been done with screens and simulators was Spiderman at Universal. Since movie theaters around the country are providing premium formats with 3D and seats with speakers in them, I think that it renders most screen based attractions as nothing special. It is well known that Univarsal continues to use screen based simulators as a crutch which I think is far too limited range that will cause them have trouble growing both creatively and with untapped audiences. Modern Disney currently has a much greater balance but it coul go awry. In short, I think that Disney should keep the screen heavy attractions that they have, but stay away from more unless they're in a cockpit or something.
That's fair, but what type of improvements were you expecting that weren't somehow implemented? I think they did what they could to create a new technologically up to date ride within the confines of the Star Tours concept.
I mean could you imagine the Star Wars ride being more Star Wars! The ride was never meant to a subtle Star Wars experience, just a different experience. They did the same thing by adding new planets, and letting a familiar character pilot the ship.
How was the original NOT blatantly a Star Wars ride? Sure, it may not have encompassed the whole Star Wars universe like the new ride does, but it did blow up the Death Star amongst fleets of X-Wings and TIE Fighters. R2 and 3PO were still part of the experience even though 3PO wasn't the pilot. And last but not least, the ride was set to John Williams's famous score. The placement of a "blatant" Star Wars ride in Tomorrowland might not be ideal, but I know that we both agree that it sure as hell beats an intrusive land. Nothing wrong with an individual Star Wars ride being a Star Wars ride personally speaking.
I think I get where @raven24 is coming from too, but I see a few flaws in your argument. There's a just as strong, if not stronger emphasis, on it being a travel agency. Note the passengers shadows in the window and the G2 maintenance droids now performing actions that have a direct connection to real world airport procedures. There are also new characters including spokesdroid Aly-San-San and the somewhat Rex like droid who's the intended pilot. Also, the first room in the queue is pretty much the same only way shinier and newer. The seedier aspects of the original ride have nothing to do with whether or not its a good fit for Tomorrowland and are just your personal preference as you said. In fact, the ride taking place in a more prosperous time for the spaceliner actually makes more sense in a land that's supposed to be prosperous, optimistic, and forward thinking. Again, I can understand the argument, I just think that it falls apart under close examination.
I see your point about how the ride focused on original characters rather than existing ones. But as I said in my reply to @Rich T, the spaceliner being more prosperous with a less seedy queue fits better with the utopian vision of Tomorrowland. I agree with you that the rides don't really fit the land. I only mention Star Wars Land to create juxtaposition between Star Tours imperfect but tolerable insertion into Tomorrowland and the sacrilegious addition of Star Wars land.
What's wrong with that? Its Star Wars. They have hovering platforms in that universe.
Can't wait to see this tomorrow night
