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

[Stevek]

I agree... but I as mentioned above, neither are original ideas: Both are based on previous stateside attractions.

Which Rides? Do you mean the tech is using something from the states?

Grizzly = Everest?
Mystic = Pooh?

EDIT: Saw your post where you compared Mystic to Mansion. I get it but while there are homages to it...feels so very different (based on the videos only).

 

[Rich T]

Which Rides? Do you mean the tech is using something from the states?

Grizzly = Everest?
Mystic = Pooh?

EDIT: Saw your post where you compared Mystic to Mansion. I get it but while there are homages to it...feels so very different (based on the videos only).

What I really mean is that their very existence is due to the Imagineers adapting already existing ideas for Hong kong. Grizzly Gulch is their Frontierland. Mystic Manor is their mansion. Existing attractions/lands were the starting points.

 

[Earl Sweatpants]

Okay, opinion time. While this rule allows for beautiful, sprawling environments like Cars Land and Star Wars Land, for many of us that doesn't nearly make up for the compromise of practically forbidding original attractions and changing (debatably for the worse) Disneyland's identity. Or the MK's identity or Epcot's identity for that matter.

Don't even get me started on the abomination that is overtaking Epcot...

 

[Donaldfan1934]

What you're not taking into account is that the people down-the-line who would notice will be the people who grew up with and bonded with the Star Wars Land version of DL. Already we have a whole generation who never experienced the No-DCA version of DL. Only one thing could really hurt DL's future: The point where people don't think they've gotten their money's worth of entertainment. Everything else we discuss is completely subjective; What's an atmosphere breaker to us will be cozy familiarity to the next gen.

You have an interesting point, but you're not taking into account that SWL is only the first step in this process. If Disneyland becomes a completely unrecognizable place in the decades to come, there will be still be older generations who'll detest the direction and start taking the younger generations elsewhere. Again, this is just my subjective theory, but its one I strongly believe in.

 

[Californian Elitist]

And those writers and producers based 99% of their non-short-film work on previously created works. One of the mains reasons Walt chose Snow White as his first feature film was because he felt it wise to go with a "sure thing" when risking so much. In fact, I'd be hard-pressed to think of a successful Disney film that was NOT based on a previously published non-studio property. And that's why so much of DL is based on previous Disney works, from Davy Crockett to Treasure Island.

I think we can all agree even the most original attractions are based on other things. I don't think anyone is objecting to that, but there is still a major difference between the original four lands and SWL, or any other IP-based land.

 

[flynnibus]

And those writers and producers based 99% of their non-short-film work on previously created works. One of the mains reasons Walt chose Snow White as his first feature film was because he felt it wise to go with a "sure thing" when risking so much. In fact, I'd be hard-pressed to think of a successful Disney film that was NOT based on a previously published non-studio property. And that's why so much of DL is based on previous Disney works, from Davy Crockett to Treasure Island.

I don't have time to dissect this now nor go through and disprove your 99% claim... but I'll leave you with the term 'adaptation' and let that sink in to differ between taking a previous story and what Disney typically did with their shorts and films.

And taking a novel, poem, or fable and making it into a live medium is far different from simply taking a movie to an in person attraction.

And while DL leaned on successful genres... it was far from simply making attractions out of previous works.

 

[Rich T]

I don't have time to dissect this now nor go through and disprove your 99% claim... but I'll leave you with the term 'adaptation' and let that sink in to differ between taking a previous story and what Disney typically did with their shorts and films.

And taking a novel, poem, or fable and making it into a live medium is far different from simply taking a movie to an in person attraction.

And while DL leaned on successful genres... it was far from simply making attractions out of previous works.

My 99% is pure non-guaranteed guesstimation. And, yes, I'm familiar with the word "adaptation." I'm sure Imagineers would agree adapting a film into a successful attraction is every bit as challenging as adapting from another medium (I'm not counting overlays/recycling of previous ride systems). To imply that it's "simple" to adapt a movie into attraction form is a great insult to a lot of Imagineers, including everyone who has ever created an attraction for Fantasyland.

 

[SuddenStorm]

The worst thing about this, is that once the land is built, there's not going back. Even if it sucks, it'll be years before Disney decides to put more money into it.

The best thing about this land, is Disney is working hard to hide it from the rest of the park. So if we don't like it, we can pretend it isn't there and avoid going to it

 

[SuddenStorm]

Which is proof that it does not belong.

Exactly

 

[SSG]

If you don't mind, could you please explain why you support it? I just want to get a better understanding of how supporters think it fits in the park.

If you don't mind, why doesn't it? By all accounts it will be a fully immersive land with what insiders are hyping as two of the best attractions WDI have done in recent years. A fun, exciting area with knock out attractions. It might not be exactly what Walt have built but the game has changed a bit since he left us. Frankly I've never understood the angst over this.

 

[SSG]

Because that space could have been put to much better use. Imagine if instead of SW going there, they saved SW for the third gate, and they added a new land in that space that would allow for multiple different types of attractions--- some IP based, others not. Just imagine how those who do not like Star Wars, but enjoy Disneyland feel about this. I'm sure they are saddened by how the space is being used. Personally, I enjoy Star Wars, but I still find this project to be a disappointment location-wise.

Well, if you asked me if I would rather have Star Wars being a large part of a 3rd Gate instead of the current plan, then I would say yes. But that isn't the plan on the table. Disney is offering a well executed Star Wars land in a couple of years, as opposed to the maybe of a 3rd Gate in 15 to 20 years. The bottom line for me is this is a positive change to improve the park fairly soon. I'm on board.

 

[SSG]

I completely agree that the land will be amazing, but I think we have to agree to disagree on location.

Fair enough. It's late; have a good night.

 

[Californian Elitist]

Thanks for inviting me to the party @raven24 . I seriously don't understand how anybody can say they support SWE in Disneyland with a straight face. Its almost as if those who say they are for SWE are just saying so to irritate the TRUE Disneyland fans. I highly doubt Walt would have ever acquired a third party IP and built an entire land devoted to it in his park, no matter what some of the pixie dusters around here tend to believe.

You're welcome!

Feel free to moan and complain all you want here.

This truly is a catastrophe. A whole land dedicated to one IP, Star Wars of all choices, in the original Disney Park, for decades to come. There goes that valuable space.

UGH.

Please continue!

 

[Stevek]

Thanks for inviting me to the party @raven24 . I seriously don't understand how anybody can say they support SWE in Disneyland with a straight face. Its almost as if those who say they are for SWE are just saying so to irritate the TRUE Disneyland fans. I highly doubt Walt would have ever acquired a third party IP and built an entire land devoted to it in his park, no matter what some of the pixie dusters around here tend to believe.

TRUE Disneyland fans...oh boy. Would love to see where that is defined.

 

[Stevek]

Because that space could have been put to much better use. Imagine if instead of SW going there, they saved SW for the third gate, and they added a new land in that space that would allow for multiple different types of attractions--- some IP based, others not. Just imagine how those who do not like Star Wars, but enjoy Disneyland feel about this. I'm sure they are saddened by how the space is being used. Personally, I enjoy Star Wars, but I still find this project to be a disappointment location-wise.

People who enjoy Disneyland but don't like Star Wars, saddened? It's very easy for people, like Raven has said, to just not set foot in the area. Pretend it was never built, enjoy the other experiences that are still there like you would have before SWE opened.

 

[Californian Elitist]

TRUE Disneyland fans...oh boy. Would love to see where that is defined.

I agree that this is something that can't be defined. However, there are definitely levels of fandom with everything, not just Disney.

 

[Stevek]

I agree that this is something that can't be defined. However, there are definitely levels of fandom with everything, not just Disney.

Of course, we definitely have our share of 24/7 Disney fans in our midst. I've seen it with Star Wars Fans, LA Kings Fans, Steelers Fans...all sorts of folks out there where you might question their mental stability or ability to do anything outside of the "one thing" that they love.

 

[dweezil78]

Just imagine how those who do not like Star Wars, but enjoy Disneyland feel about this. I'm sure they are saddened by how the space is being used.

You mean like kids (or anyone else born after the 50s for that matter) who have no attachment to the old west or anyone who never cares to visit New Orleans? Despite this, it is still possible to find enjoyment in these lands. I personally have no attachment whatsoever to the Harry Potter franchise, yet I've had an amazing time wandering around WWoHP.

 

[Californian Elitist]

Of course, we definitely have our share of 24/7 Disney fans in our midst. I've seen it with Star Wars Fans, LA Kings Fans, Steelers Fans...all sorts of folks out there where you might question their mental stability or ability to do anything outside of the "one thing" that they love.

Definitely. I've questioned the mental health of multiple Disney fans, and I'm saying this as an Uber fan myself. I've seen some scary Dodger fans, and I'm also saying this as a Dodger fan.

 

[Californian Elitist]

OK guys, I didn't mean to start an all-out war in this thread and the other one. This will be my last post about my opinions because these threads are making my head spin.

There is no definite definition, but I was referring to the die-hard fans that care about how the land is used thinking long term, as well as those who care about how attractions / lands fit thematically.


I agree, but I can see them being saddened by the loss of so much expansion space to a franchise that they do not enjoy.

Don't let the other comments deter you from posting.

I created this thread specifically for those of us who are against the project. This is what it's for, and I'm going to continue to voice my opinion here.