Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why are we so afraid of change?

Collapse

Get Away Today

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Karalora View Post
    As regards Galaxy's Edge, while it is magnificently well-built and immersive, I feel like Star Wars is not the ideal source material for a single theme park land. The thing about a theme park is that it is first and foremost a place you go to, and it is at its best when it simulated places you might wish to go to. That means that if a theme park is going to go for recreating a movie setting in a big way, it ought to be one where the setting itself is the main draw, rather than the plot or characters necessarily. That's why I think Universal's Harry Potter stuff succeeds so well. Everyone who read those books was invested in the story all right, but the hook that got them there was the simple notion of this hidden wizard society. They wanted to get their letter from Hogwarts and be inducted into that world just to live there. The point of Wizarding World isn't the rides so much as the opportunity to go and LARP wizards for a while. Pandora has a similar advantage, in that the plot and characters of Avatar are entirely secondary, even forgettable, compared to the lush environment of the alien planet itself.
    This is really well said. I would go a little further: I think a lot of classic Disneyland is designed around atmosphere, and its psychologically rigged in all sorts of ways to put you in a great headspace. You go to the parks because you like how you feel, and who you are, when you're there. Some of the original Imagineers -- most notably John Hench -- talk about this pretty openly: everything is designed so you feel continuously relaxed, reassured, and positive. You can ride Pirates, have a meal in the Blue Bayou, and then take a cruise on the Mark Twain, and yes, those are all fun things to do as entertainment, but at least to me, the really special thing is the overall headspace that you're in while doing those things. You're just a better version of you for those hours.

    This is I think commonly conflated with, but separate, from being "immersive" or "well themed." Like, when you're walking down Main Street, the main thing isn't that you are able to believe that you are in Marceline, Missouri in this blessed year of our Lord 1892, it's that it's a great atmosphere and environment to be in. There's a story, and it could be in the foreground, but it's a story that doesn't mind being in the background either. And yes, all the little immersive details are absolutely vital to this effect, but so are things like the reassuring forced perspective on the buildings, the carefully controlled scents and colors, the forward motion towards the beckoning, glittering castle assuring you that exciting things are on the horizon. And you notice these things, even if only subconsciously. I think that's why rides like Peter Pan are still such a draw, even if the underlying IP no longer is, and why experiences like the Tiki Room still work, even if the technology they're supposedly showing off is fifty years outdated.

    I think a lot of the newer stuff, and Star Wars land in particular since that's what we're talking about, doesn't do this. It's certainly "immersive" in the sense of being very large and impressive, and undoubtedly it is extremely detailed, and its clear that in the main they spent a lot of money on it (even though its also clear where they decided to cut corners). And sure, you could say its atmospheric, to the extent that "Star Wars" is an atmosphere. But, at least for my money, it's not the same thing. There's no sense of joy or enchantment. You aren't talking to your friends, maybe having a meal, and having the whole atmosphere elevate and accentuate that experience subconsciously. Galaxy's Edge doesn't work that way. It works by having you look at Star Wars themed items, and having you thinking about Star Wars locations or characters. In fact, the less you notice the people you're with, the better, because it allows you to focus more exclusively on Star Wars. Which is not a bad thing in and of itself, but again, it's different.

    The most succinct way of putting it is this: the product of Main Street is happiness. The product of Fantasyland, Tomorrowland, and Adventureland is happiness. The product of Buena Vista Street and Radiator Springs and Soaring and the World of Color is happiness. Even the product of downtown Disney, and the hotels, is happiness. The product of Galaxy's Edge is not happiness. The product of Galaxy's Edge is entertainment. And I don't mean to knock entertainment: it's no small thing, obviously people like it and obviously there's quite a market for it. But entertainment alone isn't happiness, and for me at least it's unfortunate that they've devoted so much of Disneyland's very limited acreage to mere entertainment.

    Comment


    • ^ WOW. That's one of the best, if not the best, analysis I've read of how Disneyland's magic works.

      "Disneyland is often called a magic kingdom because
      it combines fantasy and history, adventure and learning,
      together with every variety of recreation and fun,
      designed to appeal to everyone."

      - Walt Disney

      "Disneyland is all about turning movies into rides."
      - Michael Eisner

      "It's very symbiotic."
      - Bob Chapek

      Comment


      • So many long posts I wanted to take time to respond to my favorite bits but instead I think I'm just going to take it in and try to adjust my own personal thesis as I learn more about how everyone thinks XD

        Originally posted by J. Thaddeus Toad View Post

        Yeah, I rode the Falcon and Hondo was technically impressive and sort of fun to listen to, but in the end I had no emotional connection to him because I don't really know who he is or what he's supposed to represent.

        I'd argue the original Star Wars did a much better job at crafting archetypal characters and myth-making, rather than just storytelling. For instance, one can never have seen Star Wars and still easily discern who is bad and who is good just by looking at Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader. Whereas with a character like Hondo.... I'm sure theres pages of backstory on his costume, but to a layman like me, it's lost.

        This was why Walt's idea of modernizing fairytales, which are heavily steeped in subconscious archetypes and myths, was one of many genius moves!
        Emotional connection wise I suppose I'm left wondering how you could form that connection? Hondo's use is quite litterally as a tutorial that happens to have an accent. Sallah's use was the same in Indy but I think Hondo stands out more due to being an expensive effect rather than just a video/audio recording.

        There isn't a backstory to his constume at all, I mean he sometimes wears different clothes but that's never been something we're supposed to follow. I mean I do recall seeing Youtubes on "the importance of Lukes black clothes in Jedi" but honestly I don't think there was a real reason to that either lol.


        Hondo is of the same race that we see as Jaba's bodyguards in Jedi and fits the pirate/smuggler archtype that is in the films (Blurr has correctly called it the Rouge like Han). It's not a designation the films make a great deal about but is decently represented when you get into nerd fandom. It makes an easy premise for the ride but may not be the first deal alot of people think of with Star Wars despite how big Smuggling is in the films.




        As I've read through this thread I'm beginning to lean an odd way with Hondo. I think Disney was too scared/marketing focused on his implementation. The focus on the ride was to neutralize all backstory or information on him and yet it has somehow increased anxiety about his backstory or lost context. Hondo is a VERY basic double dealer archtype who functions the same way in every story without ever needing to know who he was or weather he's done this before.

        The queue to Smugglers run is very nicely detailed and interesting to look at but tells you little of the personality of the owner or the kind or organization you're about to get involved in. Compared the the queue of Star Tours which is quite busy with boarding notices and droids all letting you get the premise and feel of the fictional organization before we ever reach our boarding instructions. I'd guess Disney considered it odd for Pirates to be so garrish but the communication is fairly low until you hit Hondo which puts alot of storytelling burden on one short bit. Sure the core deal is getting to ride the Falcon but the other land details should matter if they're in a completed story.

        Mr Wiggins was discussing how imagineering used to be comprised of film writers/creators and it had me thinking of my old Pirates complaints. Namely how the new additions are very machine like in function with catch phrase style dialogue that unravels the machine nature of the ride too easily. I've argued int he past how I love the dinner conversation nature of Pirates where the circular dialogue is a bit more nested just for the adventure of going down a waterway with pirates.


        Theoretically the whole idea of the Star Wars land was to be immersed in the world and meet all these fresh new Aliens and locations most of us hadn't met before. The sad part is the land never really accomplishes this and while alot is due to cutbacks in entertainment budgets there were still other areas where maybe stronger execution should've helped out.

        One of the things that excided me the most about the premise here was that they were letting Imagineering design the world and it looks great to me architecturally but the hackable concepts and the deep exploration ideas just never really came to be.



        As an odd aside I kinda wish the ride had more ways of recognizing return players. For all this talk of the land remembering what we did here or there it'd certainly be nice if Hondo became a little less of a tutorial bot when piloting the attraction but maybe there's an internal fear that engineers would miss their cue or something.
        "We all have sparks, imagination! it's how our minds... create creations!"

        Comment


        • Here is what I can say to this whole topic. Ever since I've started following Disney Parks (mostly just Disneyland) news, the cycle has been the same for every new project announced:

          1) Disney announces new project
          2) Fans on forums (and now also Facebook) complain about every aspect of the new (insert hotel, restaurant, ride, etc) up until it opens
          3) Opening day arrives and the majority of the time people find themselves surprised they like the new thing

          There is only 2 times in the last decade that I can think of, that fans were genuinely displeased by an update after it opened and for legitimate reasons (not just nostalgia). 1) PixarFest bringing in the extremely poorly planned "Alien Pizza Planet" to Tomorrowland. Since then it has gotten proper signage and isn't quite such an eyesore, but that was just bad originally. 2) Pixar Pier still leaves much to be desired, and IMO is actually worse than it was as Paradise Pier 2.0 (Incredicoaster just feels like a rushed cheap execution, Inside out and Jessie are just re-skins of existing attractions, and personally I feel Lamplight Lounge is nowhere near as good as Ariel's Grotto was, but, I really like character dining and I really hate the bar/lounge atmosphere.
          Trips coming up:

          May 22-26th
          July 13th-18th
          November 19th-25th

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Jesser-pie View Post

            If you were going to fire someone but don’t want to divulge that, you wouldn’t use wording that suggested you hoped to continue many years. There are so many other ways he could have phrased it or brushed it off without praise. Thus, I can use it and I did. Sequel-hater dude who asked the question was shutdown effortlessly. I am embarrassed for anyone who dislikes sequels in peace by unintentional association.

            You are still arguing the sequels did poorly based on little evidence. You still dubiously try to claim they were poorly received when they weren’t. The same people who claimed that the sequels were universally hated are the same people who claim Kennedy would be fired long ago. They claimed Gina was going no where. They also whine about Brie Larson who has nothing to do with Star Wars. Their “facts” are proven wrong time and time again. The shareholders meeting is just more evidence of that.

            I don’t understand why people can’t just dislike the sequels and move on. They have to have this weird vendetta and “prove” that no one else liked the sequels. It suggests there is a deeper issue and motivations at stake than set of movies.

            ETA: I am not sure why I bother trying to have a discussion when it always ends up in an ugly dismissal game like this (including my part).

            Star Wars fans on this board have laughed at me, called me selfish, heartless, or implied I am inferior because I like the ST. It’s a weird feeling trying to engage with something you love in this way. Is it a wonder some of us engage in the schadenfreude of those who consider you a lesser fan?

            No where did I insinuate that she was going to be fired, I was just pointing out that a CEO's stock talk during a shareholder meeting should never be used to justify anything ever. Sorry, appear to have hit a nerve, interesting that you make many assumptions though. Never did like Gina, nor do I care at all about Brie Larson, never seen anything that she is in, don't care if she is amazing or awful; I literally have no opinion on her.

            Never brought up the movies as a point of discussion in and of themselves, I was just pointing out the discrepancy between people demanding amazing theming and storytelling and the dislike of a land that largely brought all of that. The conversation began as one searching for why people do not like change and the fact that a lot of change was IP based; the discussion was looking for answers about why people seemingly want strong storytelling but then dislike a particular land that achieved that.

            I do not care at all if people enjoyed the sequels, movies are entertainment and subjective, people can like what they like. Numbers DO point out though that they were not as popular as many thought they would be, the massive decline in box office alone should make that pretty clear. Merchandise sitting in clearance, and a number of Disney store employees pointing to poor sales also makes it pretty clear. And the dissatisfaction with the sequels that apparently lots of people have MAY have led to the dissatisfaction with SWGE despite it ticking the boxes of what so many on this board constantly call for, which is at the core of the conversation here.

            The thread is far from a SWGE or sequels bashing thread, they came up as part of a larger discussion on change, what people demand, and the interesting fact that SWGE checks so many boxes but people asking for those things are still unhappy.

            I find it very interesting that you seemingly need to conflate people who dislike the movies with people that support some sort of hardcore right wing conservative agenda. Not every conversation or every opinion needs to be political. Why do Americans need to make every single conversation about some "us vs. them" political agenda piece?

            Last edited by linkeq2001; 04-01-2021, 09:44 AM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Karalora View Post
              Vader is definitely still the iconic villain of the Star Wars franchise, but...I don't think he's all that scary anymore to most people, even kids. We're all too used to him by now. He's your dad's bad guy. Years before SWGE was even a thing, Disney made commercials where he rode the Carrousel and had an ice cream cone. With Kylo Ren, at least there's the possibility that he'll throw a tantrum and mangle your ride vehicle.
              Fair point, but I will say that Vader is still pretty intimidating in the Launch Bay meet-and-greets. And I say that as a guy who stands 6' 3".

              Comment


              • Originally posted by BasilOregano View Post
                I think a lot of the newer stuff, and Star Wars land in particular since that's what we're talking about, doesn't do this. It's certainly "immersive" in the sense of being very large and impressive, and undoubtedly it is extremely detailed, and its clear that in the main they spent a lot of money on it (even though its also clear where they decided to cut corners). And sure, you could say its atmospheric, to the extent that "Star Wars" is an atmosphere. But, at least for my money, it's not the same thing. There's no sense of joy or enchantment. You aren't talking to your friends, maybe having a meal, and having the whole atmosphere elevate and accentuate that experience subconsciously. Galaxy's Edge doesn't work that way. It works by having you look at Star Wars themed items, and having you thinking about Star Wars locations or characters. In fact, the less you notice the people you're with, the better, because it allows you to focus more exclusively on Star Wars. Which is not a bad thing in and of itself, but again, it's different.
                Great post, but I don't agree with this part entirely. Or at least I think there are some shades of gray here, and, to be fair, maybe it's more gray if you're a bigger Star Wars fan (as I am).

                I had no high hopes for SWGE or any particular desire for it, but I love it now that it's here. And one of the things I love is not just the immersion, but the way I feel when I'm there. My kid and I will sit at a favorite table in view of the Falcon for hours sometimes just chatting, watching Chewie go by and hug the little kids, and just generally enjoying the vibe. Whether it's Main Street, Adventureland, or SWGE, I think a lot of Disneyland and the feeling you describe is about escaping everyday reality, and SWGE definitely does that for me in a very positive, uplifting sense. I would certainly call it joy and enchantment. Is that because my family and I are fans? Maybe. But if it was just about immersion, I don't think we'd feel as good as we do when we're there. Something can be immersive without being uplifting. That doesn't describe SWGE for me.

                Comment


                • Change
                  Can be Good and also can be Bad !
                  in the Business world

                  It mostly what make MONEY for the company , But not always good ,for Consumer
                  But the company want there consumer ,think other wise.
                  As Disney Parks goes.......
                  I one who does not like ,how the today company being run ....nor there type of leadership
                  IMO


                  Soaring like an EAGLE !

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Mr Wiggins View Post
                    ^ WOW. That's one of the best, if not the best, analysis I've read of how Disneyland's magic works.
                    Thank you!!!

                    Originally posted by Blake View Post
                    Great post, but I don't agree with this part entirely. Or at least I think there are some shades of gray here, and, to be fair, maybe it's more gray if you're a bigger Star Wars fan (as I am).
                    Yeah, I can definitely understand exceptions if you're a bigger SW fan (and hey, I'm glad you enjoy it).

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by BasilOregano View Post

                      This is really well said. I would go a little further: I think a lot of classic Disneyland is designed around atmosphere, and its psychologically rigged in all sorts of ways to put you in a great headspace. You go to the parks because you like how you feel, and who you are, when you're there. Some of the original Imagineers -- most notably John Hench -- talk about this pretty openly: everything is designed so you feel continuously relaxed, reassured, and positive. You can ride Pirates, have a meal in the Blue Bayou, and then take a cruise on the Mark Twain, and yes, those are all fun things to do as entertainment, but at least to me, the really special thing is the overall headspace that you're in while doing those things. You're just a better version of you for those hours.

                      This is I think commonly conflated with, but separate, from being "immersive" or "well themed." Like, when you're walking down Main Street, the main thing isn't that you are able to believe that you are in Marceline, Missouri in this blessed year of our Lord 1892, it's that it's a great atmosphere and environment to be in. There's a story, and it could be in the foreground, but it's a story that doesn't mind being in the background either. And yes, all the little immersive details are absolutely vital to this effect, but so are things like the reassuring forced perspective on the buildings, the carefully controlled scents and colors, the forward motion towards the beckoning, glittering castle assuring you that exciting things are on the horizon. And you notice these things, even if only subconsciously. I think that's why rides like Peter Pan are still such a draw, even if the underlying IP no longer is, and why experiences like the Tiki Room still work, even if the technology they're supposedly showing off is fifty years outdated.

                      I think a lot of the newer stuff, and Star Wars land in particular since that's what we're talking about, doesn't do this. It's certainly "immersive" in the sense of being very large and impressive, and undoubtedly it is extremely detailed, and its clear that in the main they spent a lot of money on it (even though its also clear where they decided to cut corners). And sure, you could say its atmospheric, to the extent that "Star Wars" is an atmosphere. But, at least for my money, it's not the same thing. There's no sense of joy or enchantment. You aren't talking to your friends, maybe having a meal, and having the whole atmosphere elevate and accentuate that experience subconsciously. Galaxy's Edge doesn't work that way. It works by having you look at Star Wars themed items, and having you thinking about Star Wars locations or characters. In fact, the less you notice the people you're with, the better, because it allows you to focus more exclusively on Star Wars. Which is not a bad thing in and of itself, but again, it's different.

                      The most succinct way of putting it is this: the product of Main Street is happiness. The product of Fantasyland, Tomorrowland, and Adventureland is happiness. The product of Buena Vista Street and Radiator Springs and Soaring and the World of Color is happiness. Even the product of downtown Disney, and the hotels, is happiness. The product of Galaxy's Edge is not happiness. The product of Galaxy's Edge is entertainment. And I don't mean to knock entertainment: it's no small thing, obviously people like it and obviously there's quite a market for it. But entertainment alone isn't happiness, and for me at least it's unfortunate that they've devoted so much of Disneyland's very limited acreage to mere entertainment.
                      This is brilliant, really. I am a Stars Wars fan. I love Star Wars, I like GE. It's fine. It's cool. It doesn't have the magic for me though, and you nailed why.

                      Comment


                      • Can someone please copy/paste Basil’s brilliant post on Disneyland’s secret X factor into an email and send it to Bob Chapek? Also, CC Bob Iger, Josh Dmarro and Kim Irvine?

                        ASAP?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by linkeq2001 View Post

                          Kennedy's current status aside. You can't use a statement by a CEO regarding the manager of one of his biggest brands at a shareholder meeting as any sort of evidence. Even if Chapek was planning to fire Kennedy the next day, which we know he isn't, there is zero chance that he would say anything to jeopardize the image of the company and its stock at that meeting. If he answered that question with any hint of poor confidence or negativity the immediate follow up questions would ask why and people would start to question Chapek's judgement.

                          Stock holder meetings are not the place to discern the true state of any company other than perhaps through the hard data that they supply to shareholders. Everything else is a sales pitch to convince people to hold and or buy/buy more stake.
                          How about this as an indication of what Disney thinks of how she's doing?

                          https://collider.com/kathleen-kenned...tract-renewed/

                          Three years, y'all. They love her because she's an experienced producer who delivers.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by crunchyy View Post

                            How about this as an indication of what Disney thinks of how she's doing?

                            https://collider.com/kathleen-kenned...tract-renewed/

                            Three years, y'all. They love her because she's an experienced producer who delivers.
                            I don't think there's ever been a time (while I've been alive, at least) that fans less understood the business of filmmaking than today. My only explanation is that it's one of the many crises of hubris brought about by the Information Age—just because you have access to a glut of details on every subject under the sun doesn't suddenly make you an expert on any of them.

                            Kennedy is a highly respected producer with a track record most people in the biz could only dream of having. Her one bad habit lately has been hiring hotshot directors/creators at the drop of a hat before figuring out what the project is. IMO (not an expert! just another part-time film/lit buff), she should be hiring writers first and having them develop story treatments, then finding the right director to execute an idea once it's formed.

                            If y'all want to blame anybody for the scattershot state of SW film at the moment, blame Iger. He and the higher-ups at Disney corporate are the ones who demanded ridiculously compressed production schedules for the Disney-era SW films in an attempt to Marvelize the Star Wars universe. Many directors that Lucasfilm tried to court simply refused to work on such a timetable. Abrams is to be pitied for the marathon >2-year script-to-finished-film process that gave us Rise of Skywalker; at least he dove in and tried. (Iger wanted TROS out before his retirement.) Apparently, only now are the knuckle-headed execs listening to Kennedy and backing off—she's been begging them for more time and breathing room for creators for awhile now.
                            carrying bottled skies around
                            twitter.com/equustel

                            Comment


                            • When you have too much change you can take it to the coin-master machine at the supermarket.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by merlinjones View Post
                                When you have too much change you can take it to the coin-master machine at the supermarket.
                                That what I doLOL

                                As Change goes..... It can be Good and also can be Bad
                                and this world we a seen a lot change -depends on the people as well.
                                Soaring like an EAGLE !

                                Comment

                                Get Away Today Footer

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X