Monday, August 17, 2015

Star Wars Land : What We Know and What We Don't... and When It Should Open


Undoubtedly D23 Expo major announcement was the Star Wars Land announcement for Disneyland and WDW Disney Hollywood Studios. Plenty of stunning renderings were unveiled and let's have a closer look at all this to check what we know and what we don't know.

What we know: This Star Wars land will be built both at Disneyland and WDW DHS and so far both will have the same design the one  you can see on the renderings. Although these huge pillars covered by vegetation should make a good transition at Disneyland in the back of Frontierland we can regret that the two lands don't have a different design. Two different planets environment would have been the best, and would have invited Star Wars fans to visit both of them. Yes, BUT this would be at a cost of two different research and development and, don't dream, the Mouse is not gonna pay this price. It's a mistake as there are so many different planets in Star wars mythology that could serve as inspiration but the WDC is a corporation, not a Star Wars fan club, so don't even think about it.

Star Wars land will be "Disney’s largest single-themed land expansions ever at 14-acres each, transporting guests to a never-before-seen planet, a remote trading port and one of the last stops before wild space where Star Wars characters and their stories come to life." I've said in my previous Star Wars land post my thoughts about building an unknown planet instead of a known one so i'm not going to repeat myself here and you can read them in my article HERE. That said, 14 acres of land is pretty big indeed - in comparison Cars Land is "only" 12 acres big - and hopefully it will give all the to WDI Imagineers all the space they need to build amazing rides and a great Star Wars environment.

These new lands at Disneyland and Walt Disney World "will transport guests to a whole new Star Wars planet, including an epic Star Wars adventure that puts you in the middle of a climactic battle between the First Order and the Resistance". Okay, here is the synergy side - remember as i told you that everything at Disney is about "synergy", synergy is the pillars on which is built almost everything and in this case i'm not 100% sure that they're right. In two words, Disney prefer to build a Star Wars land based on the new trilogy rather than to the old ones. So far it's a reasonable bet and if the synergy works well it could be a big success. Yes, BUT what will happen if the new trilogy is not as memorable as the old ones? Sure, kids will be too young to see the difference but there is a reason why Star Wars has reached this level of mythology since 35 years, and it's not only because of the stories, its characters or visual effects. From the start there was a kind of "shakespearian tragedy" in the background, and whether it was voluntary or not from Georges Lucas "somewhere" in the story there was some meaning coming from the dawn of time and with which spectators could find a resonance in themselves. Will it be the case with the new trilogy? The fact that the script was written by Lawrence Kasdan and J.J Abrams could help, specially considering that Kasdan is from an old generation which know well the importance of meaning. But what if the new movie as spectacular as it will be don't create the same process of identification, in two words, what will happen if we don't give a damn about the new characters or the new planets, etc...? Sure, J.J Abrams is smart and talented and i don't doubt that he has thought about all this, but what i'm saying is that there is still a risk to have based a Star Wars land on the new trilogy when there would have been no risk with the old trilogies - except with the young kids, i admit.


Thanks God, this Star Wars land will include reminiscences of the old movies including the ability to take the controls of the Millennium Falcon on a customized secret mission and a live music cafe with a design inspired by Tatooine famous "Cantina". One of the two "signature" attractions will also be "an epic Star Wars adventure that put guests in the middle of a climactic battle" but this one is the ride which most probably will be the "climactic battle between the First Order and the Resistance", so linked to the new trilogy.


What we don't know: Of course no explicit details about the rides and the technology that will be used was given, and you won't have them before a looong time as Disney and WDI will try to keep the secret as long as possible. That's okay, Universal is doing the same and it's always better to avoid spoilers. So when they say that guests will have "the ability to take the controls of the Millennium Falcon" it can mean so many different things that i'm not going to spend even one minute to think how they will do it.

You've also probably note that they didn't reveal explicitly WHERE exactly at DL and DHS they will build these SW lands. And there is some reasons for that. May be they're not yet 100% sure ( although i think they are by now ) but what we can be sure of is that the birth of these Star Wars lands will be at the cost of something that's going to die. At Disneyland you better cross your fingers if you want them to preserve Toon Town, and i will not bet that it will be the case. At DHS it's a bit different but in both cases you've noted that no words about Star Tours were said. As at DHS the Star Wars land is rumored to be build close to Star Tours it shouldn't be a major problem but what about the Star Tours at Disneyland Tomorrowland, will they keep it there at the other end of the park or dismantle it and rebuild it in the new Star Wars land behind Frontierland? The announcement of a new land is a good news but the destruction of another land is not necessarily a good one for fans and they know it, that's probably why no details were given last Saturday, to don't spoil the party...

And of course there is the big point that we don't know, which is WHEN these StarWars land will open? They didn't announce any date at D23 and they didn't even say when they expect to break the ground. An insider info is saying they're planning to start the works in 2017 and considering the scope of the project they surely will need at least two years if not three to build everything which would give an opening date for 2019 or 2020.  Now, today's O.C Register article tell us more about the reason why it'll take that long and why you better don’t expect the Millennium Falcon to arrive at Disneyland any time soon. According to OCR "theme park experts said Disney will need to fix crowding and parking issues before opening the long-rumored land and getting Han Solo and his clan in place. It’s going to take a while, at least three to five years” said Adam Bezark, creative director of The Bezark Co. and involved in helping create the “Pirates of the Caribbean” attraction at Shanghai Disneyland. Disney experts say a land of this magnitude will further escalate the crowding issues at the theme park that at times shuts its gates when hitting a self-imposed capacity estimated at 65,000 guests."

In two words they need to build new Disneyland car parks first, probably on the new lands that Disney recently acquired, and they will also need to replace warehouses and other structures located currently backstage which will be removed to get the needed space to build Star Wars land. For all these reasons we can't expect an opening before 4 to 5 years and by that time the three movies of the new trilogy would have been released and we will know if they will be as memorable as the old ones. And if Disney bet to based a Star Wars land on the new trilogy was a good idea - or not.

Pictures: copyright Disney

11 comments:

  1. We'll know pretty soon, in four short months, whether Episode 7 is a hit or a bomb. If it's a bomb, hopefully the powers that be will change the plans for Star Wars Land quickly back to the original trilogy.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I have to disagree with you that creating a new planet is a bad move. I actually feel this is one of the best moves that WDI could make, and I'll tell you my thoughts.

    Firstly, from an in-story perspective, there aren't really any other planets that are truly 'enjoyable' places to be - places that you would like to spend time on, really. At least, not planets that could serve as a 'hub' of adventures. Tatooine? A great big desert where most of the bad things in the films happened, slavery and massacres. Coruscant? Too associated with the lackluster prequel trilogy, and on top of that a generally unpleasant place to be, and the heart of the Empire in the Original Trilogy. Where else? Hoth? Bespin? The first is again mostly just the sight of a single battle and one the heroes lose, at that. Bespin would be incredibly difficult to do, and again largely the setting of kind of bad things - our heroes flee from Bespin. What I'm trying to get at is there isn't really a single planet that could work for a Star Wars land that is enjoyable and exciting to be in, rather than oppressive or uncomfortable, unless they drastically changed the fauna of Tatooine and added many trees, for example. We already know what happens when you don't have enough trees in a land from Toontown, which is much too hot on any given day. What we would be looking at would be another Tomorrowland which has a lot of 'stuff' but isn't an enjoyable place to 'be' - unlike say Frontierland or New Orleans Square.

    Then, from a logistical perspective you say, why not just throw the planets together? Have a spaceport with the Mos Eisley Cantina in one corner and the high-rise buildings of Coruscant in another character. Is that really what you want? A land that's really a non-land? More like Disney Hollywood Studios and its embracing that these places are just 'sets' and that there's no 'reality' to them. Is that what we want for Star Wars Land? A place that is not immersive in any way, but instead just a group of planets thrown together in a heap? And what about planets in the new films?

    We have to think long term. Disney is going to keep making Star Wars movies for decades. That's just a fact, as long as they keep making money. We're not just looking at three new Star Wars movies here, but dozens of them. We have to separate out the new land from ANY of the one movies, and create a true 'Port of Call' that could go anywhere in the Star Wars Universe - a place brimming with possibility and the UNKNOWN. That's why making it a new planet is a brilliant idea. Because it will truly have that feeling of discovery and possibility in a way that any other 'known' planet would not. You'll never know what you COULD find there or where you COULD go, because it's not tied down to any one character. It's actually very old school of WDI to make this new world - more like the creation of a new 'sci-fi land' than a 'carsland' which is tied very specifically to a specific set of characters. This new Star Wars Land will be able to change continually with the franchise in a way that, like Pandora: World of AVATAR will be able to create a truly interesting place ON ITS OWN that is unique to the Disney Parks, separate from the films.

    That is what is truly exciting. Et c'est suffit pour moi, je pense. Je peux comprendre que c'est difficile de voir qu'il y a un possibilite de success separe completement par les nouveaux films, mais c'est vrai. Meme si les nouveaux films ne sont pas un success, ce n'est pas important - parce que le Star Wars Land sera un personnage separe totalement - the rides can change, if the films aren't a success, but the land itself will be difficult to change.

    Does that make sense? J'asper que mon francais n'est pas totalement horrible.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I have to disagree with you that creating a new planet is a bad move. I actually feel this is one of the best moves that WDI could make, and I'll tell you my thoughts.

    Firstly, from an in-story perspective, there aren't really any other planets that are truly 'enjoyable' places to be - places that you would like to spend time on, really. At least, not planets that could serve as a 'hub' of adventures. Tatooine? A great big desert where most of the bad things in the films happened, slavery and massacres. Coruscant? Too associated with the lackluster prequel trilogy, and on top of that a generally unpleasant place to be, and the heart of the Empire in the Original Trilogy. Where else? Hoth? Bespin? The first is again mostly just the sight of a single battle and one the heroes lose, at that. Bespin would be incredibly difficult to do, and again largely the setting of kind of bad things - our heroes flee from Bespin. What I'm trying to get at is there isn't really a single planet that could work for a Star Wars land that is enjoyable and exciting to be in, rather than oppressive or uncomfortable, unless they drastically changed the fauna of Tatooine and added many trees, for example. We already know what happens when you don't have enough trees in a land from Toontown, which is much too hot on any given day. What we would be looking at would be another Tomorrowland which has a lot of 'stuff' but isn't an enjoyable place to 'be' - unlike say Frontierland or New Orleans Square.

    Then, from a logistical perspective you say, why not just throw the planets together? Have a spaceport with the Mos Eisley Cantina in one corner and the high-rise buildings of Coruscant in another character. Is that really what you want? A land that's really a non-land? More like Disney Hollywood Studios and its embracing that these places are just 'sets' and that there's no 'reality' to them. Is that what we want for Star Wars Land? A place that is not immersive in any way, but instead just a group of planets thrown together in a heap? And what about planets in the new films?

    We have to think long term. Disney is going to keep making Star Wars movies for decades. That's just a fact, as long as they keep making money. We're not just looking at three new Star Wars movies here, but dozens of them. We have to separate out the new land from ANY of the one movies, and create a true 'Port of Call' that could go anywhere in the Star Wars Universe - a place brimming with possibility and the UNKNOWN. That's why making it a new planet is a brilliant idea. Because it will truly have that feeling of discovery and possibility in a way that any other 'known' planet would not. You'll never know what you COULD find there or where you COULD go, because it's not tied down to any one character. It's actually very old school of WDI to make this new world - more like the creation of a new 'sci-fi land' than a 'carsland' which is tied very specifically to a specific set of characters. This new Star Wars Land will be able to change continually with the franchise in a way that, like Pandora: World of AVATAR will be able to create a truly interesting place ON ITS OWN that is unique to the Disney Parks, separate from the films.

    That is what is truly exciting. Et c'est suffit pour moi, je pense. Je peux comprendre que c'est difficile de voir qu'il y a un possibilite de success separe completement par les nouveaux films, mais c'est vrai. Meme si les nouveaux films ne sont pas un success, ce n'est pas important - parce que le Star Wars Land sera un personnage separe totalement - the rides can change, if the films aren't a success, but the land itself will be difficult to change.

    Does that make sense? J'asper que mon francais n'est pas totalement horrible.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Well, Nathaniel, yes, it does makes sense and i can be wrong on this one. But what i was saying was not to mix different elements from different planets in one land but to create different lands with different planets. This of course would be valid if it was a full Star Wars theme park which won't be the case. I still think however that they could have had two different "planets" at DL and WDW, but financially as i've said it would have been much more expensive...

    ReplyDelete
  5. If Star Wars Land is going at the back of Disneyland, how are they going to address the fact that Star Tours is going to be in another land on the opposite side of the park? I'm sure that will confuse people. Will they move it (and possibly repurpose it as one of the two 'new' rides)? Or maybe they will convert it into a non- Star Wars ride?

    ReplyDelete
  6. I love the idea, and dont forget this is just the "first" announcement and to be open in a few years from now.... I am sure there will be changes coming along the way and with that suprises. However how cool would that be, if Disney would build separate lands and offer unique flights between them...an extended version of Hogwarts Express...an all around vacation...

    ReplyDelete
  7. It was said on the official twitter account of Disneyland that Star Wars Land would be built on the Big Thunder Ranch Area, and current backstage. And they said it was a false that toontown will be closing.

    http://www.themeparkinsider.com/flume/201508/4697/

    ReplyDelete
  8. Luckily there's a lot we don't know yet about Star Wars Land, but at the moment I'm not impressed with it. Especially the fact that they'll have the same land in both Anaheim and Orlando. At least give the East- and West-Coast Disney fans a totally different (visual) experience.

    What worries me the most is the "adventure that put guests in the middle of a climactic battle" ... to me that sounds a lot like an updated version of Star Tours 2. I hope I'm 100% wrong on this one, and guests will get a totally new attraction.

    Some readers seem to question what'll happen with Star Tours in Tomorrowland (Anaheim). Very simple, they'll rebuild it in the new land, and the existing simulators will most likely be used for an American version of the Iron Man Experience.

    ReplyDelete
  9. At Disneyland, the Star Wars land will be to the west of Toontown, stradling Fantasyland and Adventureland zones.

    In Florida? Either some Hollywood buildings get demolished, or parking and cast member buildings move across World Drive. The crescent of land to the east of Hollywood Studios is conserved wetlands. I suspect both, as Toy Story Land will also be built there.

    Here's my prediction for Disneyland:
    Star Tours gets moved to the new Star Wars area. That building in Tomorrowland is then converted to the Iron Man Experience just announced for Hong Kong.

    Or it's demolished, along with Innoventions, Autopia (not very futuristic!), Nemo, Buzz (relocated to DCA). The monorail pretzel is simplified.

    In that space is placed a giant basement (for rides not requiring a view, like Star Tours and Space Mountain, and support buildings), and then extra rides on top.

    What goes there? Either a giant Marvel land, or a mixture of science fiction rides as seen at Shanghai. If Marvel doesn't go there, then expect it to be placed over at the old Mickey/Minnie/Timon parking lot behind the Twilight Zone.

    ReplyDelete
  10. What if they move Star Tours to the new land in Anaheim, and remodel the current Star Tours to Iron Man (HK version)? If I am not mistaken the technology would be equal. Just a wild uneducated guess.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Is there any indication yet of what they will do at Paris will it go in discovery land and if so how will this design fit around it or would it go in the studio Park ? Watching the presentation made be think how undervalued Paris is everywhere else are getting impressive upgrades while Paris just has a refurbishment luke j

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.