Talk:Star Tours

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


A Little Much[edit]

"Technically speaking, the intense shaking that the passengers feel should not be there. Most Star Wars starships are equipped with inertial compensators, which ideally would negate shaking and bouncing around. These compensators, although built primarily for starfighters, would probably also be present on passenger starships as well. Since the passengers feel shaking and bouncing, one can assume that the inertial compensators are either faulty or nonexistent, which is probabbly a breach of some public safety law. But it is a theme park ride, after all. However, several ships in the Star Wars films are seen shaking during flight, such as the Millennium Falcon and the X-Wing fighters, though the inertial compensators are primarily intended to comfort the rider, not the vehicle."

Good lord. Is this really necessary to go into detail like this information? How did the writer of this know exactly if anyone who designed the ride even knows what "intertial compensators" are. The shaking is due to the ride being 19 years old with no major upgrades to the simulators. This would be more necessary for the Star Wars Wiki, but not really for an attraction that has just aged. --Lyght 03:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, I can agree on the overload of information, but on Star Wars articles, what can you expect? :) The Wookieepedian
I didn't expect something like that in the article, since a lot of people seem to excuse it as not being canon in the first place. Although Jerry Holkins of Penny Arcade had something to say about that [1]. :D --Lyght 07:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Well, technically, it is considered canon. Strange, yes, but elements from it have actually been written into some of the Star Wars novels and such. I know the whole story behind it, but I won't go into, as I'm sure you wouldn't be interested. --The Wookieepedian 09:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am. Please do. --maru (talk) Contribs 23:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you remember The Jedi Academy trilogy, which were Kevin J. Anderson novels that dealt with the Death Star prototype built at the Maw installation? Well, the death star present in Star Tours is supposed to be the Death Star prototype. And the battle that the Star Tours ride finds itself in the middle of is supposed to be the battle where the prototype was destroyed. Also, the StarSpeeder 3000 from the ride was actually identified by name in the old TIE Fighter computer game. The StarSpeeder 3000 was also referenced in Vision of the Future. The Wookieepedian 00:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a long time since I rode Star Tours, but I remember the prototype being destroyed in a far less climactic battle than the ride showed. At the time, I thought it was the 2nd death star. --maru (talk) Contribs 01:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the key word here is depiction, I suppose. ;) The Wookieepedian 14:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you really want to get technical, inertial compensators can be dialed-down, or taken offline completely. This is generally done by fighter pilots who like to feel their ship during maneuvers. If power is needed elsewhere, it's not entirely inconceivable that the pilot of a civilian transport would reduce the power to his inertial compensators in order to provide a power boost to his shields, or to power weapon systems that ordinarily go inactive.--Anonymous 13:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC) PS The Star Tours ride is absolutely not canon, and the battle during the ride is absolutely not the one in which the third Death Star (Jedi Academy Trilogy) was destroyed. Do your homework. Read the rest of this discussion page.

Shaking during the ride[edit]

I'm going to restore the section detailing the shaking during the ride. That has always been there. It isn't a product of old age. The reason it was included in the article was to explain the shaking on the actual ride in relation to the shaking experience on ships in the actual films. The ride is designed to replicate Star Wars spaceflight after all! :) The Wookieepedian 04:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just didn't think it really belonged there. Some of that shaking is due to age, though. I thought that was the shaking that was being referred to, but there is shaking that is programmed. I believe that is what is what explained in the article, then. --Lyght 04:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. The designers of the ride apparently designed it to specifically simulate Star Wars spaceflight. The Wookieepedian 04:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No one has, to date, cited that internal compensators cannot be overwhelmed by g-forces in certain situations, nor if civvie compensators are as good. We don't see this as a problem before nitpicking at the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.74.102.241 (talk) 01:19, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Star Tours 2[edit]

Anybody has heard any news on this I think its much needed

Lucas mentioned at Celebration III that a Star Tours II is in development. That's conformation enough, methinks, so I will add that to this article. :) The Wookieepedian 01:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canon?[edit]

There is a section concerning Canon but it dosnt actually say whether it is or not.


A while ago, I put "Some fans just don't consider it canon." Why was that deleted? -EG


"R2-D2's presence on board the Star Tours StarSpeeder 3000 precludes the possibility of this being any other Death Star's destruction, as his whereabouts are accounted for at the Death Star explosions of the Battle of Yavin, Battle of Endor, and the prototype's destruction in the Maw." In regards to canon, this quote means absolutely nothing. It assumes that there is only one droid designated R2-D2. This implies that, in the entire galaxy, there can be only 260 R2-type astromech droids. That's hardly practical, economically speaking.--Anonymous 13:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It can't be Canon. C3PO and R2-D2 talk about their experience on Hoth and Endor's Moon in the queue. Unless it takes place AFTER EP6, then it's totally not canon. --135.214.40.68 (talk) 15:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a freakin' ride at Disneyland, I'm sure they designers were more interested in how to give the riders a full Star Wars experience rather than keep in canon. There is absolutely no evidence supporting either claims regarding its place in the Star Wars universe and thus both sides must either be present or erased. Obviously the ride had to ignore certain elements of canon to make ride feel more like the movies, like letting planets like Hoth be a tourist spot (wasn't too much of picnic for the Alliance huh?) and the same thing for Endor. So unless certain evidence can be presented on it where it falls in Star Wars canon, then I think it should be mentioned that it may not be or this section should be deleted entirely. -EG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.229.181.251 (talk) 20:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should be deleted entirely. This is a ride and other than being based on the movies is there anything that connects them. Is there any evidence that the creators of the ride had any intention of connecting it into the official cannon, or that Lucus Films and George Lucas feel that it is cannon? Nukeguy04 (talk) 01:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Reubens?[edit]

Is there any verifiable information that the new voice is NOT Reubens'? I got on the ride three times last week a the MGM park in Fla and it really, really sounded like ol'Paul to me. Smylere Snape 21:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It absolutely is still porn-loving Pee Wee even now. At least that annoying laugh is only heard once or twice. 68.210.57.116 (talk) 21:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Five[edit]

Whatever happened to Five? I've been to Disneyland often and, through the last time I was there (5 years ago), the pilot was Five. Then I went to Disneyworld two years ago and it was Rex. Then I went to Disneyland for the 50th anniversary and that was Rex, too. What happened?

The pilot has always been RX-24 (Rex). If this "Five" you are referring to is the character from the Short Circuit movies, when I was little I thought they were the same, but it has always been Rex. If you want proof, look at the Star Tours poster on the main page of this article. It is from 1987 (or possibly 1986 to help promote it, I'm not sure) and Rex is right there on the poster along with the StarSpeeder 3000, R2-D2 and C-3PO. --Lyght 23:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lightspeed to Endor![edit]

Has anyone ever thought this is a little strange? How Rex says, "Lightspeed to Endor!" and then jumps into hyperspace? Yes, Rex is a little f-ed up as a character, but could this be a goof on the Imagineers' part? If the ride indeed starts on Earth, which would make a lot more sense as that is where you boarded from, it would take a lot more than the speed of light to get you to "a galaxy far, far away." Also, if I'm not mistaken, aren't planets in the Star Wars galaxy usually as far as tens of thousands of lightyears away from each other?

This always kinda bugged me. I guess "Hyperspace to Endor!" just doesn't sound as exciting, lol. --Lyght 23:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


When the rider boards, it may no longer "be" Earth, because those rides need a little imagination to get the full effect. Also, I'm pretty sure "Hyper-Space" is sometimes referred to as "Jumping to lightspeed".

Energizer still a sponsor?[edit]

I was at Disneyland Sep. 16-17 and I noticed that the "Presented by Energizer" sign under the "Star Tours" was removed. Unfortunately I didn't get to go on the ride and check if the Energizer posters were still up on the exit ramp. Can anyone confirm?

Infobox[edit]

This attraction has a Film infobox. Should it be replace by a Disney Attraction infobox? Disneyfile 17:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andysund 07:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)== Fastpass? ==[reply]

Why does it say that the California Disneyland does not support fastpass for this ride when it clearly does?Gnrlotto 03:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a test in 2004, several Disneyland attractions that had Fastpass regularly were taken offline from the FastPass system. These included "it's a small world" Holiday, Star Tours, Haunted Mansion, and Pirates of the Caribbean. I know for a fact that Haunted Mansion reopens their fastpass for Haunted Mansion Holiday, and I think Star Tours on occation during peak seasons uses theirs, but when I worked Star Tours, there wasn't ever enough of a line to justify it, the attraction's OHRC is just too high to justify it. Small World Holiday and Pirates (at least before the movie elements were added, can't say for the moment), remain without fastpass. --Andysund 20:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So how is that "excluded" again?Gnrlotto 10:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After a recent visit to the park, it is confirmed that Star Tours in Disneyland no longer offers FastPass. --Andysund 07:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Futurama[edit]

I don't think it's a reference to the ride, by star tours it means, tours of the stars (as in celebs) and the joke of 'does not leave earth' has nothing to do with it?

Template:Disneyrides[edit]

Is Template:Disneyrides necessary on this page? It seems redundant with the information provided in the Disneyland and Disney-MGM Studios templates. Anubis3K 03:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed template due to a lack of objections. Anubis3K 03:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DOF[edit]

"4 degrees of freedom (roll, pitch, yaw, x, y, and z(heave))."

That seems to be 6 degrees to me. Something doesn't add up. Also heave should not be the only one of x/y/z named (surge and sway are the other two). TheHYPO (talk) 15:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

StarSpeeder 3000 redirect[edit]

The StarSpeeder 3000 redirect currently goes to List of Star Wars spacecraft, which doesn't mention the StarSpeeder. I'm assuming that at one time it did, but was removed since (as far as I know), the StarSpeeder wasn't mentioned in the six films. Either it should be mentioned in that article, or the redirect changed to point to this article. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 19:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've redirected StarSpeeder 3000 to point to this article. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 20:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like you said, the Starspeeder wasn't mentioned in the films. But it was in a TIE Fighter video game. Although, there is an article about it on the Star Wars wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.34.216 (talk) 15:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Films?[edit]

After dealing with a tag-happy bot that branded practically every movie-themed attraction and theme park article, it looks like there is a question regarding whether or not this article should indeed fall under the scope of the Films WikiProject. While a major component of the attraction is indeed its ride-film, said component is more of a special effect than anything. However, said special effect is indeed a motion picture by any definition of the term. I wanted to see what the other editors thought. So, the question is this: Does Star Tours (and, potentially, any other Disney attraction with a film component, including 3-D movies like Mickey's PhilharMagic) fall under the scope of a cinema WikiProject? I'm also asking this same question of the Films WikiProject, to see what they think. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 14:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, based on my review of the scope of the Films WikiProject. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 14:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see how this isn't a film. It has a director and actors; it is shot on film and displayed with a projector. To me, the animatronic character in front of the screen and the motion simulator used as a theater are the "special effects"; the film itself is the key. Mickey's Philharmagic is even more of a no-brainer. That is simply a 3-D short film, and I see no reason to classify it any differently than, say, Captain EO. Powers T 02:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't a film; it's an amusement park ride. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 03:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course it's a film. It's a motion picture with actors and a script, displayed on a screen. What makes it not a film? Powers T 13:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, everyone take a deep breath. The question is not about if Star Tours is a film itself, but does its film component merit inclusion under the scope of WikiProject Films? The affected WikiProject doesn't seem to think so. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 13:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Black Hole[edit]

This article seems to indicate that the ride, which was originally intended to be based off of the movie "The Black Hole," was redlighted initially because of the unpopularity of the movie. It received mixed reviews from critics, in addition to a few notable praising reviews from significant sources, made a net profit of around 10 million, and won two academy awards. While it may not have been as successful as desired, nothing I have seen so far has indicated it was an unpopular movie, in general. It might be more accurate to change the wording of the article to better reflect the hesitancy to invest in a project based off something as commercially risky as a movie such as "The Black Hole" rather than to outright say that it was unpopular and they chose not to follow through for that reason. It might leave others, as it did myself, with the unfounded opinion that it was an unquestioningly bad movie. I had to view other sources to ascertain that it was indeed not such a movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.74.102.241 (talk) 01:27, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ride updates that never happened.[edit]

I rode the original Star Tours at Anaheim in 1987. The Big Deal about it in magazine articles was how easy and (relatively) inexpensive the ride would be to change or even convert into a totally different theme. Change the film, change the script, change the motion programming = new ride. I was disappointed that with four simulators the ride didn't have four different "tours", should have been "Star Tour" since there was really only one "trip" available. From searching the WWW it appears as if Disney made no changes at all in 23 years of Star Tours operation at Anaheim. So much for the ease of giving the ride makeovers to keep the experience fresh. At least the "prequel" has 54 slightly different ride experiences. Bizzybody (talk) 22:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Star Tours. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Star Tours. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:10, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:52, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Star_Tours&oldid=1195603723"