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

[SuddenStorm]

It was used as part of the park... artificially using the lands label to include/exclude stuff is just mental gymnastics. The early years of the park saw lots of radical change and experimentation... lots of temporary stuff, and lots of stuff that people today would just blow their lid over. How did we end up with situations like the Matternhorn? Simple... Walt don't care. He knew the gains would outweigh the cons and didn't need to stick to some rule book. It was a fantasy.. and he just rolled with it.

Let me reiterate- Holiday Land was separate admission. Guests paying standard admission to Disneyland COULD NOT access Holiday Land, and vice versa. It was more of an off shoot from Disneyland, a separate venue feeding off of it's proximity of Disneyland.

In the case of the Matterhorn, I'd argue that Walt very much did care, he just had a greater understanding of the park than anyone else, so something that might not obviously work to someone else made perfect sense to him.

Why are you mixing in storytelling with operational models as if the are the same thing? When in Frontierland... neither the storytelling nor operationals model are pitching you about other lands on the otherside of the park.. the are pitching you Frontierland. Your obcession about this 'isolation' as something radically different is hyper analyzing things that have essentially always been done.

The point I'm trying to make is that the story telling approach used within Galaxy's Edge both differs and clashes with the rest of the park. This is well documented on here- even the CM's will have to wear separate nametags and act as if they're actually in Batuu.

No, the railroad is not there to be a tease. It's there to be a train.. because Walt loved trains. The rest is about how to make it fit.

The 'and more..' comment was to reference that the park piercing the railroad loop has been done in many ways. As full on lands, as extensions, as guests actually knowing it... as guests not knowing it.. as the train feeling like its on the edge, and areas where you have no idea. The train has become 'the old city walls' of Disneyland, and while it represents a traditional border of the park - it is not some design criteria nor new thing to go beyond the tracks. Both in sight and out of sight of the guests.

The railroad very much does provide a tour of the park (Grand circle tour...), I'd like to think that in 60+ years and many alterations, the attraction has evolved beyond simply "Walt's love for trains".

In regards to the rest of your comments- you're certainly right, the berm/railroad tracks haven't functioned as a literal border of the park in decades. I guess I just wish that the railroad was better integrated in the new land, since Galaxy's Edge will be far and away the most isolated from the railroad when it opens.

 

[Sharon&Susan]

I need to reiterate that the train did not run through Frontierland until very recently

From 1955 until the construction of IASW, the DLR could be seen on the ROA:

 

[TROR]

Frontierland had its own train station with its own train before New Orleans Square.

 

[SuddenStorm]

Has anyone ever figured out what land the River Bell restaurant is in? To this day, I have no idea if it's Adventure, New Orleans or Frontier. It could be all three.

Park map says Frontierland, for what it's worth.

 

[Californian Elitist]

Walt Disney DID care about the placement of attractions in the park, including everything else regarding the park. Unlike folks today.

 

[flynnibus]

I never claimed that a wienie needs to be visible everywhere else, you're intentionally misrepresenting what I'm saying

You are bringing up the weenie concept when arguing how the land is too isolated. You keep using this visual isolation as some sort of failure/conflict and use the weenies to support why the visual intrusion should be there. What would you say you are trying to bring weenies into the topic for if not that?

The examples I listed as Wienies I listed are directly from John Hench's book Designing Disney. None of them were listed to be "acceptable compromises" by the Imagineering legend. I'll quote some passages here:

Look at those quotes and read my line again....
“The lands were built to TRANSITION between them and landmarks were used to draw people in/out of the hub design”

The quotes you sight are not about making space mountain seen from across the park, etc... they are about drawing people deeper into the space when you are on the cusp. They are the tease... it’s not about justification for why something should be conflicting over the tree tops etc.... nor is it about making sure vistas include other areas. It’s more akin to walking past a door... and catching a glimpse that makes you do a double take... then draws you in like a moth to the flame.

When mentioning visual intrusions in my comment, I wasn't talking about being able to see into Galaxy's Edge from the rest of the park- but more so the fact that once inside Galaxy's Edge, every effort has been made to make you forget the rest of the park, and the rest of the park will be blocked by the faux rockwork and buildings.

Which is a common tool used in nearly every land? The guests move very close to the buildings with no set backs in the park for a reason... more sightline blocking from less height.

Really the roa is the only area of the park where such open mixing happens... and it’s more a byproduct of compromise. Yet you can see for instance at wdw where they handle the blurred line between liberty sq and Frontierland well. Dl is a bit more of a mess here, but they manage it by changing guest directions with the paths and heavy foiliage.

Disneyland has been designed to make the guest want to traverse and explore the park and each of its lands, making progress through the park and discovering new things. Galaxy's Edge has been designed to make the guest want to traverse and explore only Galaxy's Edge..

And that’s when you over reach Again... the hub is that concept... not once you’re pulled into a land. They aren’t trying to tease you to explore Tomorrowland while you were exploring the magic shop on man street... nor while figuring out this jungle cruise.

You’re misapplying the transition techniques and controls to take some outcomes and make them the initial purpose.

Within Fantasyland, you can see Big Thunder Mountain Railroad. You can see Splash Mountain and the Haunted Mansion from as far as Frontierland.

Again... don’t mistake compromise for purpose.

In your justifications you’ve taken outcomes and misapplied them as the reason for doing it in the first place.

The railroad wasn’t added because they needed a way to tour all the lands... it was added because Walt wanted a train... and this was the best way to integrate it and make it more interesting.

Walt knew the Matterhorn size would screw with the castle... but he knew the mountain had to be big to do its own thing... and said f it to the castle problem. These are plenty of such compromises made... that you write off as to how they can still add some value and not be all negative... that doesn’t mean you started with that value as the purpose of why you did it in the first place.

And the other isolation points you make... characters in Frontierland would act as if you were in the west... not Disneyland. Same as on Main Street. Certainly they can’t deny the realities of other things you may bring up... but the immersion is about the land... not Disneyland. People have different costumes, etc... you are really stretching to make the name tag thing some big diversion from the past. It’s tradition... not land unification

 

[flynnibus]

Let me reiterate- Holiday Land was separate admission. Guests paying standard admission to Disneyland COULD NOT access Holiday Land, and vice versa. It was more of an off shoot from Disneyland, a separate venue feeding off of it's proximity of Disneyland.

Well it doesn’t make sense to have attraction ticketbooks for something with no rides right? It was part of Disney’s park... not some coresident other Disney venture.

In the case of the Matterhorn, I'd argue that Walt very much did care, he just had a greater understanding of the park than anyone else, so something that might not obviously work to someone else made perfect sense to him.

You misunderstood the quote. I didn’t mean he doesn’t care... it meant he wasn’t bound by something else. He wanted it... so make it happen. Even his own people were against it, but he said do it... because he wasn’t going to be constrained and he knew it could work... even if it did break exisiting conventions and had negative consequences.

What people try to spin up justifications now is about trying to sell the OUTPUT... not that they were the initial motivation. (Like the grand tour on the railroad...)

The point I'm trying to make is that the story telling approach used within Galaxy's Edge both differs and clashes with the rest of the park. This is well documented on here- even the CM's will have to wear separate nametags and act as if they're actually in Batuu.

Like how the mayor of Main Street wears a diffrent costume and talks about a fictional place?

In regards to the rest of your comments- you're certainly right, the berm/railroad tracks haven't functioned as a literal border of the park in decades. I guess I just wish that the railroad was better integrated in the new land, since Galaxy's Edge will be far and away the most isolated from the railroad when it opens.

Like all good story telling... decide if something actually serves a purpose or advances the need. If not... it’s probably more a distraction than an add. The railroad would serve no real purpose to swge itself... so it’s likely to detract more than add.

Swge is going for a level of immersion unlike has been done before in the parks... that means doing some things differently.

No one mourns not seeing other parts of DCA when soaking in caddilac range.

 

[BrianLo]

From 1955 until the construction of IASW, the DLR could be seen on the ROA:
View attachment 337801

Frontierland had its own train station with its own train before New Orleans Square.

Thanks, @SuddenStorm’s video helped... I’m clearly misremembering, I thought it was exclusively out in the woods (is that Florida?)... even still it had overgrown so much that it was nothing like it was or is.

Glimpses of rivers of America would be more accurate.

 

[BrianLo]

I guess I just wish that the railroad was better integrated in the new land, since Galaxy's Edge will be far and away the most isolated from the railroad when it opens.

Im curious what you would theoretically sacrifice to achieve this?

Certainly it belongs running on the river, I like it running by Big Thunder...

Ideally if a third attraction is ever built it can peak in at that dogleg there. But I just see the intentional choice as the preferential one rather than an omission.

I think you all have very valid concerns/opinions, but the train just rings ultra nit picky. Especially since the train by almost everyone’s metric has now improved. I think if the land was less hidden we’d be hearing the opposite remarks about how it visually ruins Frontierland.

 

[SuddenStorm]

Im curious what you would theoretically sacrifice to achieve this?

Certainly it belongs running on the river, I like it running by Big Thunder...

Ideally if a third attraction is ever built it can peak in at that dogleg there. But I just see the intentional choice as the preferential one rather than an omission.

I think you all have very valid concerns/opinions, but the train just rings ultra nit picky. Especially since the train by almost everyone’s metric has now improved. I think if the land was less hidden we’d be hearing the opposite remarks about how it visually ruins Frontierland.

The answer is simple- I'd sacrifice Galaxy's Edge in it's entirety. That's the point of this thread, that SWL shouldn't be in Disneyland.

The issues with sightlines, creative approach, and train integration are all just symptoms of the bigger problem.

 

[SuddenStorm]

Swge is going for a level of immersion unlike has been done before in the parks... that means doing some things differently.

No one mourns not seeing other parts of DCA when soaking in caddilac range.

That's the point that's trying to be made- the level of immersion they're going for here doesn't belong in Disneyland proper.

And honestly, that's DCA. There's a reason no one cares about seeing parts of it. What works there shouldn't be said to automatically work in Disneyland. I'm sure not seeing the Incredicoaster is a huge loss when inside DCA, but at Disneyland, the sights are far more beloved and iconic.

 

[SuddenStorm]

You are bringing up the weenie concept when arguing how the land is too isolated. You keep using this visual isolation as some sort of failure/conflict and use the weenies to support why the visual intrusion should be there. What would you say you are trying to bring weenies into the topic for if not that?



Look at those quotes and read my line again....
“The lands were built to TRANSITION between them and landmarks were used to draw people in/out of the hub design”

The quotes you sight are not about making space mountain seen from across the park, etc... they are about drawing people deeper into the space when you are on the cusp. They are the tease... it’s not about justification for why something should be conflicting over the tree tops etc.... nor is it about making sure vistas include other areas. It’s more akin to walking past a door... and catching a glimpse that makes you do a double take... then draws you in like a moth to the flame.



Which is a common tool used in nearly every land? The guests move very close to the buildings with no set backs in the park for a reason... more sightline blocking from less height.

Really the roa is the only area of the park where such open mixing happens... and it’s more a byproduct of compromise. Yet you can see for instance at wdw where they handle the blurred line between liberty sq and Frontierland well. Dl is a bit more of a mess here, but they manage it by changing guest directions with the paths and heavy foiliage.



And that’s when you over reach Again... the hub is that concept... not once you’re pulled into a land. They aren’t trying to tease you to explore Tomorrowland while you were exploring the magic shop on man street... nor while figuring out this jungle cruise.

You’re misapplying the transition techniques and controls to take some outcomes and make them the initial purpose.



Again... don’t mistake compromise for purpose.

In your justifications you’ve taken outcomes and misapplied them as the reason for doing it in the first place.

The railroad wasn’t added because they needed a way to tour all the lands... it was added because Walt wanted a train... and this was the best way to integrate it and make it more interesting.

Walt knew the Matterhorn size would screw with the castle... but he knew the mountain had to be big to do its own thing... and said f it to the castle problem. These are plenty of such compromises made... that you write off as to how they can still add some value and not be all negative... that doesn’t mean you started with that value as the purpose of why you did it in the first place.

And the other isolation points you make... characters in Frontierland would act as if you were in the west... not Disneyland. Same as on Main Street. Certainly they can’t deny the realities of other things you may bring up... but the immersion is about the land... not Disneyland. People have different costumes, etc... you are really stretching to make the name tag thing some big diversion from the past. It’s tradition... not land unification

The concept of a wienie doesn't just apply to the hub, it's a tool used throughout the park. Once off the hub and into Tomorrowland, Space Mountain's facade functions as a visual draw encouraging guests to venture further.

Small World's facade does the same. Splash Mountain's iconic structure was setup in such a way to help encourage guests to make the trip around the river past the Mansion.

I'm not saying every attraction or iconic structure has to be visible from everywhere, or that the current lands aren't isolated to varying degrees.

The point I'm trying to make is that Galaxy's Edge has been designed to eliminate view from the rest of the park. That it's purpose is to function as a pseudo "park within a park" and that, in my opinion, is the wrong approach when discussing Disneyland proper.

 

[VJ]

Since the railroad doesn't go through the Haunted Mansion, it is not an actual part of Disneyland.

 

[Disney Irish]

The only thing I'll say with regards to the recent discussion is this:

The past cannot and should not dictate the future. And this is even more true in the theme park business. So while any current and future park project should pay homage to the designs of the past, it should not be ruled by them. You have to design for the future, not the past. And while I know its sensitive because its "Walt's Park", Disneyland is no different, it has to move into the future. Because if a theme park, especially the worlds number one theme park company, doesn't design and change for the future they will lose customers long term. The world is changing, and so is consumers tastes and preferences in terms of theme park experiences. Nostalgia plays a big role right now because of the divisive world we currently live, but that won't last forever. As the next generations come up they aren't going to have the same nostalgic feelings as the generations of the past. As such the parks, how they are built, and the experiences contained within them have to change. The theme park design rule book written by Disney is not set in stone, its written in pencil so it can be changed in the future.

 

[SuddenStorm]

Since the railroad doesn't go through the Haunted Mansion, it is not an actual part of Disneyland.

As mentioned many times earlier, there's a difference between an attraction and a land.

 

[George Lucas on a Bench]

Yeah but we're talking about the numero uno park here. There haven't been any major changes for a long time and with good reason. If it ain't broke? DL and The Magic Kingdom don't need to make any drastic changes because they'll always be the top theme parks. Partly due to the nostalgia and the maintenance of their classic-ness, if you will. For instance, DL didn't need to add a gigantic Star Wars land to bring back guests or remain relevant. If anything, they have too many guests. Meanwhile, the park across the way still has drastically fewer people going through...

So what I'm saying is, when it comes to the classic Magic Kingdom parks, yes, the past should dictate the future. The original park and TMK were shaped by the turbulent 1960s and they haven't changed all that much since then when you get down to it. That's the way they should be kept.

 

[Disney Irish]

Yeah but we're talking about the numero uno park here. There haven't been any major changes for a long time and with good reason. If it ain't broke? DL and The Magic Kingdom don't need to make any drastic changes because they'll always be the top theme parks. Partly due to the nostalgia and the maintenance of their classic-ness, if you will. For instance, DL didn't need to add a gigantic Star Wars land to bring back guests or remain relevant. If anything, they have too many guests. Meanwhile, the park across the way still has drastically fewer people going through...

So what I'm saying is, when it comes to the classic Magic Kingdom parks, yes, the past should dictate the future. The original park and TMK were shaped by the turbulent 1960s and they haven't changed all that much since then when you get down to it. That's the way they should be kept.

Except when you really get down to it, even Walt knew the parks had to change over time. Its the reason why he continued to tinker with it until the day he died.

And just because they on top today, doesn't mean they will always stay that way.

 

[DanielBB8]

This argument is moot. Just like every other decision that’s been made over the years. It will be explained away. Disneyland doesn’t need Star Wars, but that’s like saying Disneyland doesn’t need Indiana Jones. Yet here we are.

 

[SuddenStorm]

The only thing I'll say with regards to the recent discussion is this:

The past cannot and should not dictate the future. And this is even more true in the theme park business. So while any current and future park project should pay homage to the designs of the past, it should not be ruled by them. You have to design for the future, not the past. And while I know its sensitive because its "Walt's Park", Disneyland is no different, it has to move into the future. Because if a theme park, especially the worlds number one theme park company, doesn't design and change for the future they will lose customers long term. The world is changing, and so is consumers tastes and preferences in terms of theme park experiences. Nostalgia plays a big role right now because of the divisive world we currently live, but that won't last forever. As the next generations come up they aren't going to have the same nostalgic feelings as the generations of the past. As such the parks, how they are built, and the experiences contained within them have to change. The theme park design rule book written by Disney is not set in stone, its written in pencil so it can be changed in the future.

Certainly Disneyland has to change. It needs to grow.

But not all change is good change, and in the context of this thread, Galaxy's Edge isn't a good change.

 

[Disney Irish]

Certainly Disneyland has to change. It needs to grow.

But not all change is good change, and in the context of this thread, Galaxy's Edge isn't a good change.

Well that is debatable as you can see. So from your perspective it might not be a good change, but from others perspective it is a good change. Just like anything in life time will be the decider of all things. However my opinion is that just like most change, in time it will be accepted even by the most stringent of critics.