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

[Californian Elitist]

Unless you've been living under a rock, you know an entire land themed to George Lucas' Star Wars franchise is coming to Disneyland in a few years, as well has Hollywood Studios in Florida. While I'm not against Star Wars Land in general, and I'm happy for Florida, to say I'm livid about this entire land themed to Star Wars coming to Walt Disney's original park is an understatement.

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.

Star Wars Land in Disneyland, and maybe even as a whole, is just another example of many things wrong with the current greedy mindset of DisneyParks. There's absolutely no room for genuine creativity and originality anymore. As @lazyboy97o says, the parks are "creatively bankrupt," and as long as the fans accept this, the longer it will take to see something truly original again. Get used to more Cars Lands, Star Wars Lands, Toy Story Lands (really?), and original concepts being replaced by something based on a movie, or characters from a movie, i.e. the possibility of Tower of Terror being re-themed to Guardians of the Galaxy (WHAT?).

Some of you like the idea of an entire land themed to Star Wars going into the original Disney theme park. Some of you are totally okay with Disney re-themeing the Jungle Cruise, one of the very few remaining opening day, and original attractions left, into The Jungle Book. Some of you are fine with the so many Disney characters in It's a Small World, turning the classic attraction about peace on earth and friendship into an "I Spy" game. Whatever floats your boat, fine. But to those of us who are against the "cartoonification" of Disneyland, as well as the ridiculous amount of IP-based attractions in the park, will eventually be going into the park, and unfortunately will continue to go into the park, this thread is for you to express your feelings.

For those of us who've been told to be "rational" or basically been told to shut up, since SWL is going into the park, whether we like it or not, this thread is for you. For those of us who've been seen by others as strange or odd for connecting with Disneyland and told "it's not that big a deal," as I have, this thread is for you. For those of us who feel our opinion is not welcomed unless it's pro-SWL, and you've strayed away from the forum, this thread is for you. @Donaldfan1934 and @Virtual Insanity, I'm looking at you. This thread is also for those who are for SWL in Disneyland. @Mike S I'm tagging you.

Although this thread is open to both sides, I would really like to hear the opinions and thoughts of those who are against SWL going into Disneyland. This thread is for you to express yourself without having to feel like your opinion is unwelcome. I probably will post nostalgic photos of what once was before the mounds of dirt and construction came along, like the petting zoo, which I loved. Feel free to do the same. Let the complaining, crying, whining, bi***ing, moaning, kicking, and screaming begin, while I charge my battery.

 

[Donaldfan1934]

Great start to the thread @raven24. Anyways, over the years, I've always been one who's been optimistic about the parks even through the rough patches. No matter the issue, and there have been many, or resort, I've al been and continue to be hopeful that Disney eventually rights them. However, Star Wars land's placement at Disneyland has brought me to a point where I'm extremely dissilussioned about the state of the parks worldwide. Out of all the many cases of negative change and stagnancy by Disney, this is one of the few, if not only decisions that I feel will permanently break A park from a thematic and operations stand point. As I stated, I've never felt complete hopelessness about one of Disney's parks before and am even more saddened by the fact that its the original. I do feel a bit better know that I have a place to vent my concerns on the this site again. It always good to read the words of yourself or those with likeminded opinions on the Internet.

 

[cheezbat]

While I didn't mind Stsr Tours in Tomorrowland or Indiana Jones in Adventureland, I do have to agree that placing a whole Star Wars Land into Disneyland makes me cringe. I had always figured something this big would be built in DCA to balance crowds...or better yet at a third park built sometime in the future. Instead, Disney is going to flood their castle park with more tourists, and wait times are only going to get worse and the imbalance between the two gates attendance will grow.

 

[Rich T]

Nicely put, and I love this thread's title! I'm not anti-Star Wars in DL (or anti-toon), but I do agree with many of your points. I would love to see more original attractions like Mystic Manor and Sinbad's Storybook Voyage appear in the U.S. parks. And given a choice between Star Wars Land and Discovery Bay (the Jules Vernian addition to the Rivers of America once planned for DL), I'd pick Discovery Bay in a blink.

But I also think Cars Land is one of the greatest Imagineering creations I've ever seen--so full of life, humor and energy. I don't mind single-I.P. lands as long as their world is large enough to tell many stories. All I ask is that it be well done.

I would never have put Star Wars Land where it's going. But, given that it's going there... I'm optimistic based on the concept art of how it will give the River new waterfalls and add a lot of interest to the railroad route. If it doesn't live up to the concept art, I'll be very disappointed.

I'm glad you created this thread, and I'm also curious to hear some thoughts about what others would have done in Bob Iger's position. What land would you build in Disneyland that you think would be as popular as Star Wars Land? Or at least as much fun? What new non-I.P. environment would be a draw for folks planning their vacation?

Disneyland is undergoing a huge change. For an old-timer like me, the park stopped being "my" version of classic DL when Big Thunder ousted Nature's Wonderland... and then again when Fantasmic took over the Rivers of America every summer night. I enjoy the new and miss the old at the same time. So I'm watching this new change knowing that again, we're going to lose something and gain something. Is it worth it? Everyone will have their own opinion on that one. Personally, I don't think it could possibly be worse than the trashing of Tomorrowland that has yet to be remedied. At least we'll get an impressive E ticket ride out of this one.

 

[mickEblu]

Lol nice title. I was against SWL for most of the reasons you mention above but mostly for the fact that they re taking 14 acres for one IP. I would like to see more diversity and some original experiences with that amount of acreage.

Flash forward... the realization that this is happening has settled in and I guess I just have accepted it. With that, I try to see the positive in this change as I do with a lot of things in life.

Below are some positives IMO...with a few concerns.

1. It appears that a lot of care will be taken to preserve sight lines and that the ROA is not being butchered as bad as we once thought and that northern portion may actually be more exciting when it's all said and done with the trestles, waterfalls etc.

2. This expansion took up mostly backstage area expanding park capacity. Yes it will be crazy crowded at first but like all things the hype will die down and the park will definitely have more capacity.

3. We are getting two brand new E tickets that will most likely be very innovative ride experiences. (Although I worry that they may not have much repeatability for me personally being that they are both screen/media based while being an overload of Star Wars content that may get old for me with 3 Star Wars E tickets in the park. And that's nothing against Star Wars. I wouldn't want 3 pirate rides or 3 jungle rides etc. )

4. There will be better crowd flow around the park with the new Critter Country path ( although I worry what that will do to the quaint feel of Critter Country as well as the ROA views from the Hungry Bear)

5. If everyone is in SWL that means all of our favorite E tickets ( especially at DCA) will see shorter lines.

 

[Curious Constance]

I don't think you'll see shorter lines at any attractions once Star Wars opens. I think it'll attract a whole lot of people to the resort. Those people won't be spending all of their time specifically in Star Wars Land, and will likely push all wait times up for awhile.

 

[mickEblu]

Maybe for a while but then it will balance out.

 

[Kiwiduck]

I think it's a great idea Raven to have a seperate thread for debate in addition to the construction thread. I've been reading your posts in the WDW section and anticipating the new thread. It is a Great thread name!! I'm no Disney expert or historian so don't really have anything constructive to add apart from my feelings of excitement for the new land. But I'm looking forward to understanding people's other viewpoints.

 

[Mike S]

Great title, lol. I fully agree with you on this. Disneyland's lands aren't supposed to be so specific. They're supposed to be more general so that anything can come in as long as it fit. If Walt built specific IP lands we wouldn't have a lot of the great attractions we do now. Let's say he built Neverland instead of Adventureland. Sorry, no Indiana Jones in 1995. Not to mention Disneyland would've been "complete" much sooner because they would've locked themselves in to the point of destroying things to add new. Discovery Bay, or some other original concept, would've worked much better on that plot and left the possibility of future concepts. Now, the only thing that can go there is more Star Wars. Star Wars and Marvel should've been saved for the third park. We WDW fans are in the same boat you are concerning EPCOT Center.

I didn't mind the characters in Small World though

I don't think you'll see shorter lines at any attractions once Star Wars opens. I think it'll attract a whole lot of people to the resort. Those people won't be spending all of their time specifically in Star Wars Land, and will likely push all wait times up for awhile.

Especially when you consider Star Wars Land is coming to Disneyland first. I can easily imagine crowds the size of Hogsmeade's opening in Orlando. People from all over will be converging on that park to "see it first." The problem could be even worse at DHS where there's not nearly the same amount of attractions to soak up crowds.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

The problem could be even worse at DHS where there's not nearly the same amount of attractions to soak up crowds.

That may or may not be true, depending on which theaters are operating when SWL opens. DHS has always had a small number of attractions, but the theaters have huge capacities compared to traditional rides.

I think the park that feels the pinch of Star Wars the worst will be the Magic Kingdom, unless DHS is able to extend park hours into the MSEP / Wishes time. Otherwise, the big crowds doing Star Wars will hop to the MK.

 

[FerretAfros]

Much like the Frozen boat ride in Norway in Epcot, I don't mind the concept, but the location of Star Wars land is completely wrong. It works fine as an attraction or two within a broader-based land, but the single IP area is a drastic departure from the park's 60 year history.

But what bothers me the most about this is the huge opportunity cost of the expansion. We all know that Disneyland Resort, and specifically Disneyland Park is extremely limited for physical space. I have no problem with going nuclear for a big expansion, but if you're going to do it, make sure that you use the space as wisely as possible. DL is known for its density, with clever ways to squeeze attractions into tiny spaces, and charming scenery that changes around every corner.

For reference, Fantasyland is about 12 acres and includes 12 rides, a walkthrough, the park's central icons, a major theater venue, and a large portion of the parade route. It includes at least a dozen of Disney's most valuable franchises that are widely-recognized around the world. This Star Wars land will be even bigger, at 14 acres. It will have just 2 rides, possibly a walkthough, and will represent only one franchise (with no realistic option to repurpose the area to include others in the future).

Disneyland doesn't have a ton of land to use. Realistically, when this is complete, it will more-or-less define the boundaries of the park forever. That's it. There just isn't any more space. Maybe they can add another ride or two along the periphery, or replace some existing stuff, but there just isn't any more room to grow. When the space is gone, it's gone for good.

With that in mind, can anybody say that the proposed Star Wars project is really the best use of the available resources?

 

[Travel Junkie]

I like Star Wars
I like the concept art of Star Wars Land/Experience
I hate where they are putting it. This doesn't belong in Disneyland.

This represents a significant and troubling shift for the park on many levels. This cannot be undone. Tomorrowland can be salvaged. This can't.

 

[Californian Elitist]

Fantastic responses so far, guys and gals. I'd love for the thread to stay as civil as possible.

I do want to talk about two points that have stood out to me so far. One of them was a comment/ point Mike S made. He said the lands at Disneyland aren't supposed to be so specific. Using Neverland and Adventureland are great examples. The lands are supposed to be fairly broad so they'll have room for some variety. Pirates and Mansion in New Orleans Square are great examples. Any new attraction going into Star Wars Land will have to be based on Star Wars.

Another comment that stood out to me was Ferret's comment about Disneyland's lack of space, a point I was meaning to bring up in my OP, but I forgot. They are clearing away 14 acres for this new land, and they've decided to go with a single IP; this isn't a smart thing to do, in my opinion. Something like Discovery Bay (a land not based on a single IP and has a broader range) would have been a much wider choice because at least we would have had some actual options and a variety of choices. There will be no room for expansion after this. It is poor planning.

Using Fantasyland was a fantastic example. There are 12 rides, as well as an eatery and a stage show. Star Wars Land will have a whopping two rides, restaurant or two, etc. It's 14 acres and that's the most its getting? Yes, there's a possibility of more attractions, but how long will that take? Cars Land has been open for nearly four years and one ride was simply replaced because it wasn't popular. And again, if another ride is built in Cars Land, it will have to be based on Cars, and good luck finding the space for it.

 

[Californian Elitist]

Let's not forget about what Disney is doing to Maelstrom over at EPCOT... Forgot to use that as an example in my OP, too.

 

[Mike S]

Fantastic responses so far, guys and gals. I'd love for the thread to stay as civil as possible.

I do want to talk about two points that have stood out to me so far. One of them was a comment/ point Mike S made. He said the lands at Disneyland aren't supposed to be so specific. Using Neverland and Adventureland are great examples. The lands are supposed to be fairly broad so they'll have room for some variety. Pirates and Mansion in New Orleans Square are great examples. Any new attraction going into Star Wars Land will have to be based on Star Wars.

Another comment that stood out to me was Ferret's comment about Disneyland's lack of space, a point I was meaning to bring up in my OP, but I forgot. They are clearing away 14 acres for this new land, and they've decided to go with a single IP; this isn't a smart thing to do, in my opinion. Something like Discovery Bay (a land not based on a single IP and has a broader range) would have been a much wider choice because at least we would have had some actual options and a variety of choices. There will be no room for expansion after this. It is poor planning.

Using Fantasyland was a fantastic example. There are 12 rides, as well as an eatery and a stage show. Star Wars Land will have a whopping two rides, restaurant or two, etc. It's 14 acres and that's the most its getting? Yes, there's a possibility of more attractions, but how long will that take? Cars Land has been open for nearly four years and one ride was simply replaced because it wasn't popular. And again, if another ride is built in Cars Land, it will have to be based on Cars, and good luck finding the space for it.

On the number of attractions that will be in Star Wars Land I do have one point to make. Judging from the concept art if it's built anywhere close to that I fully expect the scenery of the land to be an amazing attraction in and of itself much like Hogsmeade, Diagon Alley, and how Avatar is shaping up. It's just in the wrong damn place out west.

 

[Curious Constance]

I agree that two rides for the acreage they are using isn't ideal, and another reason why I wish they would relocate Star Tours to the new land. However, on the flip side, I think it would be a huge mistake to build new rides on the same scale as the Fantasyland attractions.

 

[Californian Elitist]

On the number of attractions that will be in Star Wars Land I do have one point to make. Judging from the concept art if it's built anywhere close to that I fully expect the scenery of the land to be an amazing attraction in and of itself much like Hogsmeade, Diagon Alley, and how Avatar is shaping up. It's just in the wrong damn place out west.

Oh yeah, of course. I still see no reason why it is getting just two rides, however.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Oh yeah, of course. I still see no reason why it is getting just two rides, however.

I really hate the emphasis on "rides" that seems to have taken over much of the Disney fan community. One of the biggest things that differentiates the Disney theme park experience from many others is the variety of offerings that aren't strictly "rides." It goes back to the argument we always have about whether DAK and DHS are half-day parks. Of course they are, if the only things you grant any legitimacy to as attractions are the rides. I could spend an entire day at DAK and be perfectly content walking the Oasis, Discovery Island Trails, Maharajah Jungle Trek, the Pangani Forest Trail; playing with our daughter in the Boneyard and the Affection Section; watching Finding Nemo, Festival of the Lion King, and Flights of Wonder; and talking with the animal keepers or watching a procedure at the Conservation Station. That's a darn full day and doesn't include a single ride (unless you count the train to and from Rafiki's). Framing Star Wars Land as "only two rides" drastically undersells its scope and scale IMO.

 

[Crazydisneyfanluke]

They are taking a crowded park, adding a extremely popular ip, with only two rides (Dl is know for how many rodes it has in the given space). This will be a operational disaster.

 

[Californian Elitist]

I really hate the emphasis on "rides" that seems to have taken over much of the Disney fan community. One of the biggest things that differentiates the Disney theme park experience from many others is the variety of offerings that aren't strictly "rides." It goes back to the argument we always have about whether DAK and DHS are half-day parks. Of course they are, if the only things you grant any legitimacy to as attractions are the rides. I could spend an entire day at DAK and be perfectly content walking the Oasis, Discovery Island Trails, Maharajah Jungle Trek, the Pangani Forest Trail; playing with our daughter in the Boneyard and the Affection Section; watching Finding Nemo, Festival of the Lion King, and Flights of Wonder; and talking with the animal keepers or watching a procedure at the Conservation Station. That's a darn full day and doesn't include a single ride (unless you count the train to and from Rafiki's). Framing Star Wars Land as "only two rides" drastically undersells its scope and scale IMO.

People come to Disneyland to ride rides. That's just the way it is. Yes, it'll be pretty, buy people will need things to do there.

You're comparing parks to one single land...