Wookies, & Rebels, & Droids... OH WHY?! The Anti-SWL in Disneyland Thread

[JillC LI]

Without commenting on the desirability of a SW Land, as someone who fell asleep during the first Star Wars movie as a child and has had zero interest in seeing any of the subsequent movies, I just hope what they create holds some interest for us non-SW fans.

 

[Curious Constance]

I see what you're saying, but there does come a point where there are too few rides. Especially when there's not enough else to do.

We were in WDW in January and ended up going to other parks on days that we had planned as Epcot days. Soarin' was closed, and TT is terrible. We covered the majority of the park in one day and were just there partial days, mostly for meals, the rest of the time. Just not enough to do.

SWL needs at least one, preferably two, MAJOR attractions. Some smaller attractions in addition won't hurt either.

Plus there's the fact that Disneyland isn't hurting from a lack of attractions. The DLR resort has just about the same amount as WDW already.

 

[Curious Constance]

The reason they put the same attractions is to save on development costs by building at the same time...and quite honestly, there are tons of people that will never experience WDW but will visit DL or vice-versa. I completely get it with Star Wars Land. I don't want parks to be clones but a few attractions here and there is ok. That being said, how much have the done the same in both DL and WDW? Mermaid (different show building), Toy Story (different show building) and now Soarin' (film change only)? What else?

Cars Land - doesn't exist at WDW
Mine Train - doesn't exist at DL
Frozen Maelstrom - doesn't exist at DL
Hatbox Ghost - DL only
HM Queue and Endless Stairs - WDW only
Dueling Dumbo's - WDW only
Toy Story Land - WDW only

The two resorts still feel very different to me. Same named rides, different experiences 99% of the time.

I agree that it's good to have an east coast and a west coast version of extremely popular things like Star Wars. Most people do go to one or the other side of the country, it seems. Also, I can appreciate the cost savings measurement, because you can be assured the more they spend on development, building, etc, the higher the ticket prices/food prices/merchandise prices will go. The money they spend will most definitely be reflected in the cost to go to the park. Everyone hates when the ticket prices go up, but at the same time hates it anytime Disney does anything to save money. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Figments Friend]

I have never been keen on 'Star Wars Land' at Disneyland Park, and I really like Star Wars.
Just does not seem like a good idea from a thematic standpoint.
Seems to me DCA would be the better 'fit' since that is the Park needing attendance drivers and is already a jumbled 'catch all' of sorts.

Feeling is mutual for placing it at DHS out in Orlando - fits better thematically and in a Park that desperately needs something major to draw turnstile clicks.
But to shove it up behind the back berms of Disneyland...'Walt's Original' ..Theme Park..?
Nope. Just makes me shake my head in disbelief.

DCA - yes.
DHS - heck YES

Disneyland..?
HELL NO!

But...
It's happening.

I'm sure it will have some great eye candy, possibly some great themed areas, maybe some really cool Attractions.
It is ALSO going to have tons of retail space to sell you all the Star Wars stuff you can imagine, Meet n' Greet areas, and hopefully a really cool themed dining area with 'exclusive' themed food offerings at a premium price.
I am willing to bet that the themed environments in themselves will be an Attraction all onto themselves, inspired by the work done for Universals 'Potter Lands'.
And that's great ...and I look forward to it.....but WHY at Disneyland of all places..?

The two Attractions being planned, based on what I have gleaned thus far, give me the distinct impression that they are going to be clones of other Attractions and just re-skinned / re-themed.
I heavily suspect the new Millinium Falcon experience will be a 'clone' of the ride system currently being built at DAK right now for Avatar's 'Flight of Passage'.
A lot of similarities there.
Huge show building, cutting edge new flight simulation tech, and other bits.
I could see how this new type of flight simulation could be rethemed for a spaceship flight.
That does not mean it won't be good....I'm sure it will be terrific.....but....
Why build it at Disneyland..?
It just seems DCA needs it more from an attendance perspective.

I would think they would want to place it in a 'lesser' Park to entice people to pay another admission to experience it.
I mean, people are going to go to Disneyland Park regardless due to it being...well, Disneyland.
They might skip DCA altogether, but if 'Star Wars Land' or the major new 'Star Wars' themed E-Tickets were there I would be willing to bet most visitors would pony up the cash and be sure to spend some time at that Park, too.

What is the mentality at play in having 'Star Wars Land' and its new draws crammed into a already immensely successful and popular Park that does not need the help with attracting people?
Doesn't it make more sense to place it where it could bring additional admissions and spread the crowds out more?

Okay, maybe the lack of land space would be challanging within the DCA boundaries, but I'm all for removing some existing aspects of that Park to bring in better themed and more immersive experiences.
Take out some of the non-unique 'garbage' over in Paradise Pier and get creative.
This is WDI we are talking about....they used to literally move mountains!

Personally, I would have much preferred the original plans for that land space behind Disneyland.
Yes, I'm talking about 'Discovery Bay'
Timeless.
Exciting.
Unique experiences and theming possibilities.
Updatable in the future if need be.
Original.
Creative.

Call me 'old school', but that was a brilliant concept that still has such creative promise even today.
I would be far more excited about what was possibly to come with that concept then yet another movie-themed area in a Theme Park.

Real mixed feelings on this.
I do however have interest in seeing what the final result will be, and how Disney handles it once completed.
The DHS addition will be very welcome and a great fit.
The Disneyland addition.....hmm......

 

[TP2000]

Not only will this be the first time a land dedicated to one franchise will be introduced to the park (no, Toontown doesn't count), but the franchise itself simply does not jive and connect with the rest of the park. I look at the original lands, and even the ones added later, like New Orleans Square and Critter Country, and compare them to Star Wars, and a huge question mark hovers over my head. It makes no sense to me whatsoever, and it never will.

I admire you for starting this thread @raven24 , go big with your passion!

That said, I could buy into the argument that Star Wars Land "doesn't fit" in Disneyland if it weren't for two opening day lands called Fantasyland and Adventureland. If Disneyland had stuck to an Americana theme park as reflected in Main Street, Frontierland and even Tomorrowland (since it was all about American industry and capitalism for its first 20 years), then the Star Wars Doesn't Fit argument would have traction with me.

But Fantasyland was a mish-mash of medieval fairytales and newer fantasy stories as seen through a 1950's Technicolor lens. And then when Walt got some money, he plopped a fake Matterhorn down in the middle just because he thought it was cool. By 1960 Fantasyland was a mish-mash of fantasy adventure and three versions of Autopia, only to get slightly weirder when Walt brought the Pepsi Pavilion back from the World's Fair in 1966.

Adventureland circa 1955 was ostensibly a True Life Adventure film brought to life, but that concept only lasted a couple years until Walt got Marc Davis to plus up the Jungle Cruise with sight gags and mother-in-law jokes, and then he built the Swiss Family Treehouse next door after his movie did well at the box office and introduced singing tiki birds. By the early 1960's Adventureland was a laugh track carnival of crazy animals and pop culture weirdness, and it's never looked back.

Star Wars is the ultimate in fantasy adventure, set in the distant past but speaking to the modern audience's love of sci-fi outer space.

If tiki birds can tell jokes and Pepsi can sell world peace in Walt's version of his park, I see no reason why Star Wars can't also exist in that park from a thematic and design perspective.

Now if we want to discuss the merits of building an entire land based on one IP, that's something else entirely. But as for "Star Wars Doesn't Fit In Disneyland", I just can't agree based on the history of the park from 1959 to 1995.

 

[dweezil78]

For all you hanging onto Discovery Bay... you do realize that it was an IP-based land based on Disney's 'The Island on Top of the World' right? The main reason the land never got built was because no one saw or liked the movie.

The main attraction (a simulator) was literally going to be based on the movie w/ The Hyperion serving as the land's weenie. Look familiar?

 

[Curious Constance]

I think it all comes down to whether or not you're okay Disneyland changing. Some people will be okay with an evolving park, that constantly changes to stay current with the times, and some won't be. Some would prefer it to remain rooted more in it's history with little actually changing from how it's always been.

There really is no right or wrong, it's all preference, so it seems there is little chance of changing the minds of either viewpoint.

 

[Mike S]

A little background on me, for those who don't know: I'm a Star Wars fan (obviously). I love Star Wars. I was there the first full day of showings for Star Wars: TFA. My phone's wallpaper is currently Rey; it was previously Leia. My ringtones are Star Wars. There is SW/Disney crossover artwork in my room. When my semester ends, I take an entire day and do nothing but watch Star Wars (minus the prequels; they don't count). My username tells people that I love Star Wars. And ya know what?

I cannot say that I am a fan of putting SWL in Disneyland.

But how, being such a huge SW fan, you say, could I be against this? Well, I'm not. For Hollywood Studios. Where it makes sense to put it. Where, although I personally can spend an entire day riding TofT, Star Tours, and RnRC, there need to be more rides. More things to do in general. Where it actually does fit the theming because the entire park is themed to be, well, movies. Where it is not only wanted and could fit into, but also desperately needed.

For DL, in what universe does throwing in a land about SW fit in this park? Star Tours in Tomorrowland fits. I'm personally looking forward to seeing Hyperspace Mountain. But an entire land dedicated to Star Wars? In Disneyland? Does not fit.

I understand why they're doing it. Star Wars is insanely popular. It's proven that its popularity spans more than just one generation. Many of us who are fans of the SW series were not around when the last of the original trilogy was released. So Disney wants to cash in on its popularity. Doesn't mean that it's going to fit, though.

I'm also very tired of these "carbon copy" things Disney tends to do. Putting the same exact attraction in both DL and WDW. I'm not against them doing variations of the same attractions in both parks (the two Space Mountains, for instance, which have the same name but are very different attractions). I'm not against them doing the carbon copies here and there, but it seems like they are putting the same attractions in both parks a good bit. Now they're taking an entire land and putting it the two parks. This makes no sense. Even though MK and DL have the same lands, the execution in both parks is different. It seems like this will not be the case with SWL.

It belongs in DHS. Not in DL.

The fact we're having this discussion on the appropriateness of a whole Star Wars Land in Disneyland compared to Hollywood Studios can be traced back to just one thing: OneDisney.

I have never been keen on 'Star Wars Land' at Disneyland Park, and I really like Star Wars.
Just does not seem like a good idea from a thematic standpoint.
Seems to me DCA would be the better 'fit' since that is the Park needing attendance drivers and is already a jumbled 'catch all' of sorts.

Feeling is mutual for placing it at DHS out in Orlando - fits better thematically and in a Park that desperately needs something major to draw turnstile clicks.
But to shove it up behind the back berms of Disneyland...'Walt's Original' ..Theme Park..?
Nope. Just makes me shake my head in disbelief.

DCA - yes.
DHS - heck YES

Disneyland..?
HELL NO!

But...
It's happening.

I'm sure it will have some great eye candy, possibly some great themed areas, maybe some really cool Attractions.
It is ALSO going to have tons of retail space to sell you all the Star Wars stuff you can imagine, Meet n' Greet areas, and hopefully a really cool themed dining area with 'exclusive' themed food offerings at a premium price.
I am willing to bet that the themed environments in themselves will be an Attraction all onto themselves, inspired by the work done for Universals 'Potter Lands'.
And that's great ...and I look forward to it.....but WHY at Disneyland of all places..?

The two Attractions being planned, based on what I have gleaned thus far, give me the distinct impression that they are going to be clones of other Attractions and just re-skinned / re-themed.
I heavily suspect the new Millinium Falcon experience will be a 'clone' of the ride system currently being built at DAK right now for Avatar's 'Flight of Passage'.
A lot of similarities there.
Huge show building, cutting edge new flight simulation tech, and other bits.
I could see how this new type of flight simulation could be rethemed for a spaceship flight.
That does not mean it won't be good....I'm sure it will be terrific.....but....
Why build it at Disneyland..?
It just seems DCA needs it more from an attendance perspective.

I would think they would want to place it in a 'lesser' Park to entice people to pay another admission to experience it.
I mean, people are going to go to Disneyland Park regardless due to it being...well, Disneyland.
They might skip DCA altogether, but if 'Star Wars Land' or the major new 'Star Wars' themed E-Tickets were there I would be willing to bet most visitors would pony up the cash and be sure to spend some time at that Park, too.

What is the mentality at play in having 'Star Wars Land' and its new draws crammed into a already immensely successful and popular Park that does not need the help with attracting people?
Doesn't it make more sense to place it where it could bring additional admissions and spread the crowds out more?

Okay, maybe the lack of land space would be challanging within the DCA boundaries, but I'm all for removing some existing aspects of that Park to bring in better themed and more immersive experiences.
Take out some of the non-unique 'garbage' over in Paradise Pier and get creative.
This is WDI we are talking about....they used to literally move mountains!

Personally, I would have much preferred the original plans for that land space behind Disneyland.
Yes, I'm talking about 'Discovery Bay'
Timeless.
Exciting.
Unique experiences and theming possibilities.
Updatable in the future if need be.
Original.
Creative.

Call me 'old school', but that was a brilliant concept that still has such creative promise even today.
I would be far more excited about what was possibly to come with that concept then yet another movie-themed area in a Theme Park.

Real mixed feelings on this.
I do however have interest in seeing what the final result will be, and how Disney handles it once completed.
The DHS addition will be very welcome and a great fit.
The Disneyland addition.....hmm......

I fully agree except no insider has implied a clone of Avatar for the Falcon. What they did say is a motion sim that's actually on a track like FJ.

I admire you for starting this thread @raven24 , go big with your passion!

That said, I could buy into the argument that Star Wars Land "doesn't fit" in Disneyland if it weren't for two opening day lands called Fantasyland and Adventureland. If Disneyland had stuck to an Americana theme park as reflected in Main Street, Frontierland and even Tomorrowland (since it was all about American industry and capitalism for its first 20 years), then the Star Wars Doesn't Fit argument would have traction with me.

But Fantasyland was a mish-mash of medieval fairytales and newer fantasy stories as seen through a 1950's Technicolor lens. And then when Walt got some money, he plopped a fake Matterhorn down in the middle just because he thought it was cool. By 1960 Fantasyland was a mish-mash of fantasy adventure and three versions of Autopia, only to get slightly weirder when Walt brought the Pepsi Pavilion back from the World's Fair in 1966.

Adventureland circa 1955 was ostensibly a True Life Adventure film brought to life, but that concept only lasted a couple years until Walt got Marc Davis to plus up the Jungle Cruise with sight gags and mother-in-law jokes, and then he built the Swiss Family Treehouse next door after his movie did well at the box office and introduced singing tiki birds. By the early 1960's Adventureland was a laugh track carnival of crazy animals and pop culture weirdness, and it's never looked back.

Star Wars is the ultimate in fantasy adventure, set in the distant past but speaking to the modern audience's love of sci-fi outer space.

If tiki birds can tell jokes and Pepsi can sell world peace in Walt's version of his park, I see no reason why Star Wars can't also exist in that park from a thematic and design perspective.

Now if we want to discuss the merits of building an entire land based on one IP, that's something else entirely. But as for "Star Wars Doesn't Fit In Disneyland", I just can't agree based on the history of the park from 1959 to 1995.

To go to the end of your post, yes, this whole thread is about the appropriateness of Star Wars Land in Disneyland

 

[Rich T]

For all you hanging onto Discovery Bay... you do realize that it was an IP-based land based on Disney's 'The Island on Top of the World' right? The main reason the land never got built was because no one saw or liked the movie.

The main attraction (a simulator) was literally going to be based on the movie w/ The Hyperion serving as the land's weenie. Look familiar?

Oh, I'm aware of it. I was around to see that flop in theaters. I have zero problem with I.P. based lands, and I STILL want Discover Bay (minus an IATTOTW ride.) The land, though wasn't all based on that movie. It would have been a Verne/Wells Old San Francisco theme including a Time Machine ride and the Fireworks Factory shooting gallery. And the hot-air balloons to Dumbo's Circus where we could have ridden Mickey's Madhouse and the AA circus while waving to the expanded Casey Jr. Circus Train..... *SIGGGGGHHHHHH.*

 

[Mike S]

Oh, I'm aware of it. I was around to see that flop in theaters. I have zero problem with I.P. based lands, and I STILL want Discover Bay (minus an IATTOTW ride.) The land, though wasn't all based on that movie. It would have been a Verne/Wells Old San Francisco theme including a Time Machine ride and the Fireworks Factory shooting gallery. And the hot-air balloons to Dumbo's Circus where we could have ridden Mickey's Madhouse and the AA circus while waving to the expanded Casey Jr. Circus Train..... *SIGGGGGHHHHHH.*

Splash Mountain is living proof that the success or popularity of a movie doesn't matter one bit when it comes to theme park use.

 

[Californian Elitist]

I admire you for starting this thread @raven24 , go big with your passion!

That said, I could buy into the argument that Star Wars Land "doesn't fit" in Disneyland if it weren't for two opening day lands called Fantasyland and Adventureland. If Disneyland had stuck to an Americana theme park as reflected in Main Street, Frontierland and even Tomorrowland (since it was all about American industry and capitalism for its first 20 years), then the Star Wars Doesn't Fit argument would have traction with me.

But Fantasyland was a mish-mash of medieval fairytales and newer fantasy stories as seen through a 1950's Technicolor lens. And then when Walt got some money, he plopped a fake Matterhorn down in the middle just because he thought it was cool. By 1960 Fantasyland was a mish-mash of fantasy adventure and three versions of Autopia, only to get slightly weirder when Walt brought the Pepsi Pavilion back from the World's Fair in 1966.

Adventureland circa 1955 was ostensibly a True Life Adventure film brought to life, but that concept only lasted a couple years until Walt got Marc Davis to plus up the Jungle Cruise with sight gags and mother-in-law jokes, and then he built the Swiss Family Treehouse next door after his movie did well at the box office and introduced singing tiki birds. By the early 1960's Adventureland was a laugh track carnival of crazy animals and pop culture weirdness, and it's never looked back.

Star Wars is the ultimate in fantasy adventure, set in the distant past but speaking to the modern audience's love of sci-fi outer space.

If tiki birds can tell jokes and Pepsi can sell world peace in Walt's version of his park, I see no reason why Star Wars can't also exist in that park from a thematic and design perspective.

Now if we want to discuss the merits of building an entire land based on one IP, that's something else entirely. But as for "Star Wars Doesn't Fit In Disneyland", I just can't agree based on the history of the park from 1959 to 1995.

Why thank you, TP! And I was waiting for someone to bring up Fantasyland and Adevntureland...

The difference between Fantasyland/Adventureland and Star Wars Land is the attractions in Fantasyland/Adventureland were not based on one single property. Fantasyland had/has a Peter Pan attraction, but the entire land is not solely themed to Peter Pan. Fantasyland also had/has rides based on Snow White, Dumbo, Mr. Toad, etc. None of these properties are connected to each other. Same goes for Adventureland, Swiss Family Treehouse, Jungle Cruise, the Enchanted Tiki Room, etc. are not related to each other. They share similar themes, and so they went in the same land, but they are not each other. They have their own stories. Fantasy and adventure are fairly broad themes that allowed for some variety. Star Wars is very specific.

My main argument is not centered on individual rides based on IP's. I'm specifically referring to land theming and lands based on IP's. Notice I said nothing about Star Tours in Tomorrowland.

 

[Rich T]

Why build it at Disneyland..?

Money. There is simply no other place to build that size a land at DL resort within such a quick time-frame. They want it built now. They want the money pouring in now. DCA isn't big enough--and has built up a fan base of its own. Like it or not, (and I do like it) California Screamin' is now a beloved classic with many, many visitors, especially those under 30.

SW Land is a reality. DL is changing. I think it'll work out.

 

[Mike S]

Why thank you, TP! And I was waiting for someone to bring up Fantasyland and Adevntureland...

The difference between Fantasyland/Adventureland and Star Wars Land is the attractions in Fantasyland/Adventureland were not based on one single property. Fantasyland had/has a Peter Pan attraction, but the entire land is not solely themed to Peter Pan. Fantasyland also had/has rides based on Snow White, Dumbo, Mr. Toad, etc. None of these properties are connected to each other. Same goes for Adventureland, Swiss Family Treehouse, Jungle Cruise, the Enchanted Tiki Room, etc. are not related to each other. They share similar themes, and so they went in the same land, but they are not each other. They have their own stories. Fantasy and adventure are fairly broad themes that allowed for some variety. Star Wars is very specific.

My main argument is not centered on individual rides based on IP's. I'm specifically referring to land theming and lands based on IP's. Notice I said nothing about Star Tours in Tomorrowland.

I miss your guys' Fantasyland, and I didn't even get to ride Pan or Matterhorn!!!!!

 

[AEfx]

Splash Mountain is living proof that the success or popularity of a movie doesn't matter one bit when it comes to theme park use.

I wouldn't say it proves doesn't matter - but that it's not necessarily necessary, LOL.

 

[Californian Elitist]

To go to the end of your post, yes, this whole thread is about the appropriateness of Star Wars Land in Disneyland

*ding* *ding* *ding* *ding*

 

[Californian Elitist]

I miss your guys' Fantasyland, and I didn't even get to ride Pan or Matterhorn!!!!!

Just another excuse to return!

 

[Mike S]

Just another excuse to return!

Next summer hopefully. Also D23 at least once in my life.

 

[Filby61]

Kudos @raven24 for an excellent OP. I couldn’t agree more.

The saddest thing for me about Disney shoveling SWL into Disneyland is that it signals the official end of Disneyland as a theme park in its own right. From now on it’s a brand mall. A Walmart of every diverse, disconnected brand that the Corporation acquires. The remaining “magic” is courtesy of the creativity of people long gone from Disney – the layout, attractions, ambiance and themes that have not yet been re-skinned with brands.

Star Wars Land is a done deal in all but the question of quality of execution. I think the chance that it will live up to the promise of the concept art is virtually zero. The mindset of the Chapek regime is that slashing costs doesn’t affect attendance. It's a management culture that truly believes Disney customers are brand-motivated, and that they will crowd Disneyland’s gates no matter how cheap the offerings (sadly, they’re right, as the enthusiastic response to the sleazy “Force Awakens” in Tomorrowland testifies).

It’s also a management culture that rewards sycophants and yes-men. Every business day of all the years that SWL is under construction, the management hierarchy of Disney Parks and Resorts will be competing with each other to impress their bosses with ways to cut costs. With their eyes on Wall Street and their backs turned to WDI, they will red-pencil what they re-define as “unnecessary extras.” And there will be no one to stop them. No John Lasseter. No James Cameron.

In a corporate mindset where cost-cutting is king, Star Wars Land is Bob Chapek’s, to do with as he and his minions will.

 

[BrianLo]

And there will be no one to stop them. No John Lasseter. No James Cameron.

In a corporate mindset where cost-cutting is king, Star Wars Land is Bob Chapek’s, to do with as he and his minions will.

It's ironic that you say that. The person that will stop them is Bob Iger. Unlike pretty much every other Disney Parks project ever, Bob actually cares about this one and considers it one of his legacy projects (for better or worse). The Board of Directors are the others keeping an eye on this one too and demanding bigger and better.

Chapek can freely chop away until nothing of Disneyland is left, but this will still come and it will come with its massive budget.

Throw this in the MyMagic+, SDL column.

 

[Californian Elitist]

The remaining “magic” is courtesy of the creativity of people long gone from Disney – the layout, attractions, ambiance and themes that have not yet been re-skinned with brands.

I agreed with your entire post, but this was my favorite part. SO TRUE. I think the only fairly recent offering that somewhat reminds me of that good 'ol Disneyland charm is Fantasy Faire. It aesthetically fits well with the rest of Fantasyland and the shows that are put on don't scream corporate. Other than that, the creativity has not continued from the past, I agree.