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

[EricsBiscuit]

If I may try and shed some insight onto this...
NOS is a land about "one city" in principal, but, the attractions themselves aren't entirely reliant on NO for their success. I would even venture that you could lose the New Orleans name and hardly miss a beat with people's favor of the area.

In direct contrast, SWL will ONLY be about SW. There is no escaping it. Like Cars Land and Pixar Pier, they exist to push their respective brands. NOS doesn't exist to push NO as a product, but more as atmosphere. It seems Disney is into large, single-focused brand-lands where the creativity of attraction is limited to the franchise's borders.

But you don't understand the scale and scope of the Star Wars IP. When one land is dedicated to an iP, it enables you to create a more cohesive theme. Have you been to Pandora? It is amazing! FOP is amazing. Anyways, Star Wars has a universe so huge and expansive you could dedicate MULTIPLE PARKS to it! I think SWGE will make a great addition to the park. It fits the parks mission statement as a world of fantasy.

 

[Hatbox Ghostbuster]

But you don't understand the scale and scope of the Star Wars IP. When one land is dedicated to an iP, it enables you to create a more cohesive theme. Have you been to Pandora? It is amazing! FOP is amazing. Anyways, Star Wars has a universe so huge and expansive you could dedicate MULTIPLE PARKS to it! I think SWGE will make a great addition to the park. It fits the parks mission statement as a world of fantasy.

I have not been to Pandora, no.
And I'm not even saying that SW doesn't have enough stuff to give it longevity. Clearly its a universe unparalleled in story-telling.

Which is why I always argued that it deserved its own park instead of being shoved into the backside of DL where its scope is so shrunken.

I guess I just didn't fully agree with your comparison to NOS.

 

[Antaundra]

Cars Land represents California car culture, which is very much part of California's history.

I does not it represents a single IP acquisition. By your logic if a single IP can represent California car culture then single IP Star Wars can represent a world of fantasy in Disneyland.

 

[spacemt354]

I'm now excited for SWGE in DL. Once some more details came out it changed my mind. With the logic of the OP, New Orleans square is an entire land about one city that becomes more irrelevant every year (the city becomes more irrelevant that is). NOS has 2 amazing attractions and I love it for the record. SWGE will have two amazing attractions. I see no reason not to dislike this addition.

I've had the opposite trajectory. At first I was pumped as a Star Wars fan, for the last few months I've been a bit concerned.

Leave the IP argument aside, or whether the IP fits Disneyland, both of those things are easy to defend considering Star Wars has been in DL for decades.

The point I've never seen been given a good defense for is - each land in Disneyland has diverse and ornate architectural styles, and with many pointing how Disneyland holds the highest number of attractions of any Disney Park, fitting attractions into every nook and cranny, I'm puzzled how a 14 acre land with 2 attractions 'fits' the style of Disneyland?

Adventureland was recently compared to Star Wars in another thread in an attempt to assimilate the two styles. Perhaps the models just have bad lighting, but the planet looks dirty, monochromatic, and not eclectic and fanciful as other, more exploratory lands do such as Adventureland. New Orleans Square is another example of diversity - seeing as you can go from pirates on the seven seas centuries ago, stroll down a timepiece New Orleans street, or visit a mansion with 999 ghosts.

Star Wars: Galaxy's Edge is a massive land set is the same universe and time period - whereas in New Orleans Square and Adventureland both represent many different time periods and adventures, -- and moreover could, combined together, easily fit within the land SWGE takes up.

It's hard for me to see the justification for the way this is being implemented, other than Bob Iger wanted his big IP land in Disneyland, and he's getting it.

 

[Hatbox Ghostbuster]

I've had the opposite trajectory. At first I was pumped as a Star Wars fan, for the last few months I've been a bit concerned.

Leave the IP argument aside, or whether the IP fits Disneyland, both of those things are easy to defend considering Star Wars has been in DL for decades.

The point I've never seen been given a good defense for is - each land in Disneyland has diverse and ornate architectural styles, and with many pointing how Disneyland holds the highest number of attractions of any Disney Park, fitting attractions into every nook and cranny, I'm puzzled how a 14 acre land with 2 attractions 'fits' the style of Disneyland?

Adventureland was recently compared to Star Wars in another thread in an attempt to assimilate the two styles. Perhaps the models just have bad lighting, but the planet looks dirty, monochromatic, and not eclectic and fanciful as other, more exploratory lands do such as Adventureland. New Orleans Square is another example of diversity - seeing as you can go from pirates on the seven seas centuries ago, stroll down a timepiece New Orleans street, or visit a mansion with 999 ghosts.

Star Wars: Galaxy's Edge is a massive land set is the same universe and time period - whereas in New Orleans Square and Adventureland both represent many different time periods and adventures, -- and moreover could, combined together, easily fit within the land SWGE takes up.

It's hard for me to see the justification for the way this is being implemented, other than Bob Iger wanted his big IP land in Disneyland, and he's getting it.

Make no mistake, they really should have called this place Star Wars: Iger's Legacy.

 

[TROR]

I does not it represents a single IP acquisition. By your logic if a single IP can represent California car culture then single IP Star Wars can represent a world of fantasy in Disneyland.

Ok? I don't have a huge problem with SWL. I don't WANT it, but I'm not going to boycott Disneyland because of it.

 

[Travel Junkie]

HOW CAN YOU SAY THAT CARS LAND FITS A CA THEME

Route 66 runs through California

The Cozy Cone Motel's design is based on the two Wigwam Motels along Route 66, in Holbrook, Arizona and Rialto, California.

The character "Fillmore", referring to the famous San Francisco music venue The Fillmore, was at one time to be named "Waldmire" after Bob Waldmire, a self-proclaimed hippie artist known to Rt. 66 fans for his detailed pen-and-ink maps and postcards of the route.

The bridge that McQueen sees Sally driving on resembles several bridges on Route 66, including the Colorado Street Bridge in Pasadena, California

The venue for the Piston Cup tiebreaker race (the Los Angeles International Speedway) is a conglomeration of the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum, the Arroyo Seco in Pasadena where the Rose Bowl is located, as well as the Auto Club Speedway in Fontana.

 

[EricsBiscuit]

I've had the opposite trajectory. At first I was pumped as a Star Wars fan, for the last few months I've been a bit concerned.

Leave the IP argument aside, or whether the IP fits Disneyland, both of those things are easy to defend considering Star Wars has been in DL for decades.

The point I've never seen been given a good defense for is - each land in Disneyland has diverse and ornate architectural styles, and with many pointing how Disneyland holds the highest number of attractions of any Disney Park, fitting attractions into every nook and cranny, I'm puzzled how a 14 acre land with 2 attractions 'fits' the style of Disneyland?

Adventureland was recently compared to Star Wars in another thread in an attempt to assimilate the two styles. Perhaps the models just have bad lighting, but the planet looks dirty, monochromatic, and not eclectic and fanciful as other, more exploratory lands do such as Adventureland. New Orleans Square is another example of diversity - seeing as you can go from pirates on the seven seas centuries ago, stroll down a timepiece New Orleans street, or visit a mansion with 999 ghosts.

Star Wars: Galaxy's Edge is a massive land set is the same universe and time period - whereas in New Orleans Square and Adventureland both represent many different time periods and adventures, -- and moreover could, combined together, easily fit within the land SWGE takes up.

It's hard for me to see the justification for the way this is being implemented, other than Bob Iger wanted his big IP land in Disneyland, and he's getting it.

It doesn't matter about attraction density. Most of Disneyland's attractions are small scale relics from the 50s and 60s (I.e. Fantasyland). These will be the two best attractions in the park. I'm calling it. And so what if the land looks rundown? It's MEANT to look like that. DL is known for maintenance (unless you're Splash Mountain). There's a difference between meant to look rundown and actually being rundown. I think it fits amazingly actually into the park. It's a world of fantasy in complete immersion. It along with its sister will be the pinnacle of theme park design.

 

[EricsBiscuit]

I have not been to Pandora, no.
And I'm not even saying that SW doesn't have enough stuff to give it longevity. Clearly its a universe unparalleled in story-telling.

Which is why I always argued that it deserved its own park instead of being shoved into the backside of DL where its scope is so shrunken.

I guess I just didn't fully agree with your comparison to NOS.

I agree that it and Marvel should have their own parks but what's done is done. You can still have another park win these IPs. Marvel and Staw Wars have universes that are so incredibly huge that they could easily be in multiple parks and be unique.

 

[spacemt354]

It doesn't matter about attraction density. Most of Disneyland's attractions are small scale relics from the 50s and 60s (I.e. Fantasyland). These will be the two best attractions in the park. I'm calling it. And so what if the land looks rundown? It's MEANT to look like that. DL is known for maintenance (unless you're Splash Mountain). There's a difference between meant to look rundown and actually being rundown. I think it fits amazingly actually into the park. It's a world of fantasy in complete immersion. It along with its sister will be the pinnacle of theme park design.

This is the typical deflecting response. Not actually addressing the point.

A great themed land may not stylistically fit within a park. Taking the brilliant Mediterranean Harbor from Tokyo DisneySEA, and plopping it in the Magic Kingdom, doesn't fit stylistically. Doesn't take away from the fact that on its own, Mediterranean Harbor is great, but its placement within a park setting is critical to themed entertainment.

----

Disneyland is 85 acres, the 3rd smallest Disney park, and is receiving a 14 acre land, making one of the largest themed lands ever designed. Each land in Disneyland boasts eclectic timelines, stories, and attractions. Star Wars will have 2 attractions and an entire land set in one time period and telling a unified narrative.

^ To me, it really doesn't take much to recognize in those few lines that there's a big departure creatively from the way Disneyland has been previously designed.

 

[EricsBiscuit]

This is the typical deflecting response. Not actually addressing the point.

A great themed land may not stylistically fit within a park. Taking the brilliant Mediterranean Harbor from Tokyo DisneySEA, and plopping it in the Magic Kingdom, doesn't fit stylistically. Doesn't take away from the fact that on its own, Mediterranean Harbor is great, but its placement within a park setting is critical to themed entertainment.

----

Disneyland is 85 acres, the 3rd smallest Disney park, and is receiving a 14 acre land, making one of the largest themed lands ever designed. Each land in Disneyland boasts eclectic timelines, stories, and attractions. Star Wars will have 2 attractions and an entire land set in one time period and telling a unified narrative.

^ To me, it really doesn't take much to recognize in those few lines that there's a big departure creatively from the way Disneyland has been previously designed.

And is that a bad thing? There was nothing wrong with Disneyland's previous design but this is a new era in themed design. Sure, it might clash with Main Street if it was right next to Main Street, however it is well hidden.

 

[Travel Junkie]

And is that a bad thing? There was nothing wrong with Disneyland's previous design but this is a new era in themed design. Sure, it might clash with Main Street if it was right next to Main Street, however it is well hidden.

It was probably inevitable, but I do wish they had decided to follow the same thematic rules so the speak that the rest of Disneyland has. When building the two different Big Thunder Mountain's Tony Baxter said each was designed to fit the park they were going in. Disneyland's was "charming" while Magic Kingdom's was "spectacular."

The fact is most parks do stray from their original vision and thematic design. You can walk around and pick up on what decade their were built in. I was hoping Disneyland would avoid this, but that doesn't appear to be the case. For example the new pathway where Big Thunder Ranch used to be looks great, but you can tell it was designed and built in a different era than Big Thunder Mountain. Some people care about that some don't.

The best parks that I have seen that largely maintain their original design and scale are Tokyo Disney Sea, Animal Kingdom, and Efteling. The first two are fairly recent parks and Efteling is actually older than Disneyland, although it has its own set of thematic problems. It still however pays attention to its surroundings and makes decisions based on maintaining the proper scale. For example when everyone is going for bigger is better, Efteling took a step back and one of their latest coasters was built smaller to fit in with the rest of the park.

On the other hand Disneyland is going huge with Star Wars and the battle attraction in particular will dwarf the scale of anything else in the park. You have to wonder how the rest of the park will now age with their being something so modern and large scale. Does Indy suddenly look over the hill with the two cutting edge star wars a short walk away?

 

[spacemt354]

There was nothing wrong with Disneyland's previous design

If it aint broke, don't fix it?

That's my take on it anyway.

I'm not going to force anyone to see it that way though. It's just a bit tough to discuss it when the counter to every criticism of the land seems to be the same vague rhetoric of... 'the IP fits Disneyland' or 'it fits with the fantasy theme' or 'the rides will be awesome!'

None of those address the actual concerns of size, scope, and story compared to the rest of Disneyland, which nobody seems to have a good answer for because it's tough to justify.

 

[Disney Irish]

If it aint broke, don't fix it?

That's my take on it anyway.

I'm not going to force anyone to see it that way though. It's just a bit tough to discuss it when the counter to every criticism of the land seems to be the same vague rhetoric of... 'the IP fits Disneyland' or 'it fits with the fantasy theme' or 'the rides will be awesome!'

None of those address the actual concerns of size, scope, and story compared to the rest of Disneyland, which nobody seems to have a good answer for because it's tough to justify.

I think people have tried to state it, but you may not agree. Here is my take on it.

In reality a majority of Disneyland was built over 60 years ago. It was built in a different time and under different circumstances. Things are a certain size and scope due to various reasons, including it was unknown if DL would even be a success. If it was done all over again it would have been a larger park, Walt even stated as much. This is why WDW has such a larger foot print and land to spare.

Fast forward 60 years and themed experiences are different now. Things are larger, more expansive, more flashy, just "more". So they are trying to compete with that while still trying to maintain at least some of the look and feel around it. The fact its surroundings are built in a far gone era shouldn't limit what they do with it.

Some will say it works, some will say it doesn't. In the end it'll likely be a success no matter what we on a fan board think about it.

 

[dweezil78]

This is the typical deflecting response. Not actually addressing the point.

A great themed land may not stylistically fit within a park. Taking the brilliant Mediterranean Harbor from Tokyo DisneySEA, and plopping it in the Magic Kingdom, doesn't fit stylistically. Doesn't take away from the fact that on its own, Mediterranean Harbor is great, but its placement within a park setting is critical to themed entertainment.

----

Disneyland is 85 acres, the 3rd smallest Disney park, and is receiving a 14 acre land, making one of the largest themed lands ever designed. Each land in Disneyland boasts eclectic timelines, stories, and attractions. Star Wars will have 2 attractions and an entire land set in one time period and telling a unified narrative.

^ To me, it really doesn't take much to recognize in those few lines that there's a big departure creatively from the way Disneyland has been previously designed.

Tony's Discovery Bay would have been just as significant a departure had that arrived back in the 80s (but hey, not tied to IP wooo (even though it kinda sorta was)!), yet many in this thread and beyond continue to have a huge fan b-ner for that thing and resent Star Wars Land for taking up the space it had been earmarked for.

 

[spacemt354]

I think people have tried to state it, but you may not agree. Here is my take on it.

In reality a majority of Disneyland was built over 60 years ago. It was built in a different time and under different circumstances. Things are a certain size and scope due to various reasons, including it was unknown if DL would even be a success. If it was done all over again it would have been a larger park, Walt even stated as much. This is why WDW has such a larger foot print and land to spare.

Fast forward 60 years and themed experiences are different now. Things are larger, more expansive, more flashy, just "more". So they are trying to compete with that while still trying to maintain at least some of the look and feel around it. The fact its surroundings are built in a far gone era shouldn't limit what they do with it.

Some will say it works, some will say it doesn't. In the end it'll likely be a success no matter what we on a fan board think about it.

And yet, despite the transition to bigger = better (the good/bad of that is another debate) Disneyland remains #2 worldwide in attendance numbers.

Your theory would make more sense if Disneyland was suffering from out of date lands and low attendance, with this land injecting new life to the park.

But that isn't the case. Disneyland is beloved for what it always has been that many other parks nowadays dont have...and that's charm.

It will undoubtedly be popular and successful. What that affects going forward is a bit concerning to those who cherish Disneyland's 60 years of charm and diversity, not having it in the future turn into an Islands of Adventure park.

 

[spacemt354]

Tony's Discovery Bay would have been just as significant a departure had that arrived back in the 80s (but hey, not tied to IP wooo (even though it kinda sorta was)!), yet many in this thread and beyond continue to have a huge fan b-ner for that thing and resent Star Wars Land for taking up the space it had been earmarked for.

So youre comparing a never built land, to one that's currently being built? Lol okay...bit of a stretch there.

Discovery Bay was not perfect and took up a lot of space (maybe why it wasnt built?), however it took inspiration from Jules Verne, time travel, and flight set in the Victorian steampunk era. Once again, varied stories set in different worlds yet connected through the theme of the land. That's not what Galaxy's Edge is. Moreover, the themes of Discovery Bay have been seen in several Magic Kingdom style parks, done very well in Disneyland Paris' Discoveryland.

 

[dweezil78]

So youre comparing a never built land, to one that's currently being built? Lol okay...bit of a stretch there.

Discovery Bay was not perfect and took up a lot of space (maybe why it wasnt built?), however it took inspiration from Jules Verne, time travel, and flight set in the Victorian steampunk era. Once again, varied stories set in different worlds yet connected through the theme of the land. That's not what Galaxy's Edge is. Moreover, the themes of Discovery Bay have been seen in several Magic Kingdom style parks, done very well in Disneyland Paris' Discoveryland.

LOL. No, not a stretch at all. It was the land in development for the same space and the concept so many people (maybe not you, no idea)
point to when bagging on Star Wars and giving an example of what a true masterpiece vision of non-IP'ness should be. People (many throughout this very thread) continue to this day continue to cry about it never happening.

It was to be a significant, ambitious-in-scale addition (especially when you consider it would've been 30 years ago) that would be extremely at odds with the land it was right up against and suffer the same issues you reference. You can argue the merits of its varied theming against SWL's more singular focus, but it doesn't get around the fact it would have stuck out like a sore thumb.

 

[spacemt354]

LOL. No, not a stretch at all. It was the land in development for the same space and the concept so many people (maybe not you, no idea)
point to when bagging on Star Wars and giving an example of what a true masterpiece vision of non-IP'ness should be. People (many throughout this very thread) continue to this day continue to cry about it never happening.

It was to be a significant, ambitious-in-scale addition (especially when you consider the time) that would be extremely at odds with the land it was right up against and suffer the same issues you reference. You can argue the merits of it varied theming against SWL's more singular focus, but it doesn't get around the fact it would have stuck out like a sore thumb.

Its a stretch to compare something that was only in development stage to something actually being built because there are many levels of development that could alter designs before the finished product.

Perhaps people like the idea of Discovery Bay's themes and story more than its size...i dont know, i cant speak for others, but that is the category I fall under.

 

[dweezil78]

Its a stretch to compare something that was only in development stage to something actually being built because there are many levels of development that could alter designs before the finished product.

Perhaps people like the idea of Discovery Bay's themes and story more than its size...i dont know, i cant speak for others, but that is the category I fall under.

All I'm saying is, people point fingers at current day management for a wide assortment of things they do wrong. Many of which I agree with. Point being though, 30 years ago, there was already significant intent to be pretty dang disruptive with what we've grown to think of what a land within Disneyland should be. The idea to do this is not new, not indicative of some lack of care or inspiration, and just took a lot longer to get around to.

IMO -- if anything, Disneyland has always been guilty of remaining too stagnant due to its limited size and lack of willingness to take any risks after Walt died. I think it's smaller in scope 'charm' is way less by design and more of a consequence of that. It took a huge surefire win like Star Wars to finally get them to take the leap and completely restructure operations to make something like this happen and move the park into the 21st century.