Does anyone else think Galaxy’s Edge is a misfire?

[Pizza Moon]

Yet everytime Disney creates a new land or ride based on IP we get the endless choruses of 'Why doesn't Disney create any new orginal attractions anymore???'.

This isn't an 'either or' kind of thing.. your argument is 'lack of familiarity' is a problem.. when in reality familiarity is just often used as an accellerant or a 'shortcut' for the story telling. The idea of a 'hidden rebel base' and numerous constructs from the struggle between the Empire, it's oppression, and those opposed to it are the familar constructs Batuu is structured with. You say "it has no backstory" -- The SW Galaxy is it's backstory.. this is just a new spot in it we are introduced to.. with it's own unique things.. just like is done in virtually EVERY Star Wars story.

I don't know how you do it, but you make endless false equivalences.

You clearly are stuck in a mindloop and it won't change.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Imagine if there were no Harry Potter books or movies, and you built a room with the Sorcerer's Stone in it. Now you have a room with a random rock in it.

The philosopher’s stone predates Harry Potter by centuries.

You really can't "introduce a new world" in the above scenarios and get the same emotional impact, because park lands are experienced differently. Movies contain far more exposition and action, park lands have to give you a very immediate, visceral sense of where you are without much further explanation (or, alternately, rely on the fact that park goers already know the story of where they are.)

What you and so many others miss is that the locales shown in Star Wars do not have a strong sense of place. Go actually look at Mos Eisner. It’s a lot of beige stucco with very minimal ornamentation. It’s largely placeless because the where is largely immaterial to the story. Over and over again the locales can be described as things like desert, ice, swamp or forrest. That existing attachment doesn’t create a space that is enjoyable to experience (and even more so when the place is supposed to hostile to the protagonist). People aren’t interested in seeing the stucco of Tattoine or the trees of Endor, they want to go on an adventure where they see aliens and robots, things not actually tied to the physical space.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I miss this so much. Obviously wouldn't make sense in the land except for special events, but it just celebrated Star Wars.

I kind of miss the world I grew up in, honestly.

Ok…that’s weird

But you are NOT…under any circumstances …getting slave girl Leia every again…no deal there

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

The philosopher’s stone predates Harry Potter by centuries.


What you and so many others miss is that the locales shown in Star Wars do not have a strong sense of place. Go actually look at Mos Eisner. It’s a lot of beige stucco with very minimal ornamentation. It’s largely placeless because the where is largely immaterial to the story. Over and over again the locales can be described as things like desert, ice, swamp or forrest. That existing attachment doesn’t create a space that is enjoyable to experience (and even more so when the place is supposed to hostile to the protagonist). People aren’t interested in seeing the stucco of Tattoine or the trees of Endor, they want to go on an adventure where they see aliens and robots, things not actually tied to the physical space.

This sounds like how a non-star wars fan who works for a corporate monolith would try to summarize Star Wars before they blow their “experiency” o-ring

 

[lazyboy97o]

This sounds like how a non-star wars fan who works for a corporate monolith would try to summarize Star Wars before they blow their “experiency” o-ring

Thanks for including me in today’s torrent of nonsense spam.

 

[Pizza Moon]

Ok…that’s weird

But you are NOT…under any circumstances …getting slave girl Leia every again…no deal there

Have you ever been to Universal's Halloween Horror Nights?

 

[DisneyHead123]

Yet everytime Disney creates a new land or ride based on IP we get the endless choruses of 'Why doesn't Disney create any new orginal attractions anymore???'.

I am all for novel lands. Like I said, I think they just require a different approach.

This isn't an 'either or' kind of thing.. your argument is 'lack of familiarity' is a problem.. when in reality familiarity is just often used as an accellerant or a 'shortcut' for the story telling. The idea of a 'hidden rebel base' and numerous constructs from the struggle between the Empire, its oppression, and those opposed to it are the familar constructs Batuu is structured with. You say "it has no backstory" -- The SW Galaxy is it's backstory.. this is just a new spot in it we are introduced to.. with it's own unique things.. just like is done in virtually EVERY Star Wars story.

I do think Galaxy’s Edge has some backstory, of course. It’s not like anyone is going to walk to GE and have zero idea what movie it’s supposed to be about, or wonder if they’re in Paw Patrol land. And I actually think GE works in a lot of ways. What I’m saying is that to really stick the landing, they either needed to create something that required no backstory (something more viscerally accessible) or else just go with something people already understand.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Thanks for including me in today’s torrent of nonsense spam.

I don’t have my hand inside your sock today…don’t shoot the messenger

You tried to say that the setting had nothing to do with the appeal of Star Wars.

Thats redonkulous. It is a character story as the primary driver…but the tone and look is what sticks to the ribs and reinforces it. Star Wars lasted because of the feel and texture of empire and Jedi…that’s what got it through hibernation and made it a legend.

But please…more talk of “experiency psychology”?

 

[Pizza Moon]

I am all for novel lands. Like I said, I think they just require a different approach.



I do think Galaxy’s Edge has some backstory, of course. It’s not like anyone is going to walk to GE and have zero idea what movie it’s supposed to be about, or wonder if they’re in Paw Patrol land. And I actually think GE works in a lot of ways. What I’m saying is that to really stick the landing, they either needed to create something that required no backstory (something more viscerally accessible) or else just go with something people already understand.

Disneyland Paris' Frontierland has an infinitely more interesting backstory, for instance.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Have you ever been to Universal's Halloween Horror Nights?


View attachment 896809

And were we talking about what universal does?

I missed that fork in the road.

It’s a comp…but not a 1:1

 

[DisneyHead123]

The philosopher’s stone predates Harry Potter by centuries.

How does this relate to my point? You think putting a stone in a room and labeling it The Philosopher’s Stone (in a world where Harry Potter didn’t exist), would be a popular theme park design?

People aren’t interested in seeing the stucco of Tattoine or the trees of Endor, they want to go on an adventure where they see aliens and robots, things not actually tied to the physical space.

Also a plausible theory. I do think you can make a drab landscape work if it’s iconic enough, but maybe people just want action and excitement.

 

[Pizza Moon]

And were we talking about what universal does?

I missed that fork in the road.

It’s a comp…but not a 1:1

Disney has gone puritan. Wasn't trying to even make that point with the video about the Star Wars Hoopla, but more so that Disney used to understand their audience and were human, instead of just catering to HR basically.

Universal hasn't had that problem, and I have no idea why Iger and executives have done this to all of their franchises.

Not only do the remakes suck the color (literally) and life out of must more artistic originals, they literally act like it's 1920 again, culturally in our media:

.
What's strange is as our culture has gotten less Puritan, Disney has gotten more, it's really weird.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Disney has gone puritan. Wasn't trying to even make that point with the video about the Star Wars Hoopla, but more so that Disney used to understand their audience and were human, instead of just catering to HR basically.

Universal hasn't had that problem, and I have no idea why Iger and executives have done this to all of their franchises.

Not only do the remakes suck the color (literally) and life out of must more artistic originals, they literally act like it's 1920 again, culturally in our media:

View attachment 896813
View attachment 896814

View attachment 896815
View attachment 896816
.
What's strange is as our culture has gotten less Puritan, Disney has gotten more, it's really weird.

I give Disney a bit of a pass here…because the shall we say…”societal” currents have never been more reactionary and swinging with this frequency. It’s tough to make the center happy when the flanks are the loudest and cause trouble in a social media driven world

 

[flynnibus]

I'm gonna say right up front.. I'm unlikely to get to all your points because I have a real job and frankly 90% of your argument is just the same stuff spun a bit.

While you claim the "old" stories are milked and dead, 2025 Disney+ streaming data proves the exact opposite. People are voting with their remotes, look at this top 5, and they are choosing the "Lord of the Rings" equivalent in worldbuilding while rejecting the "Hobbit" cash grab.

• #1 The Phantom Menace
• #2 Revenge of the Sith
• #3 Attack of the Clones
• #4 A New Hope
• #5 The Empire Strikes Back

Notice what isn't there? The sequels. The Last Jedi and Solo are legitimate streaming black holes. Disney built a land based on the franchise's least popular era which is not future-proofing but more like ignoring the entire Lord of the Rings trilogy to build a land based solely on The Hobbit sequels because they were "newer." It’s betting on the filler instead of the foundation.

Let's go through this.. First, Congratulations on your promotion to Captain Hindsight. The sequels were released between 2015 and 2019. Do you need a reminder of when SWGE was being developed?

You blame the company for wanting a theme park product that actually works with the PRODUCT THEY ARE CREATING FOR THE NEXT DECADE? Listen to yourself and stop acting like a decade of hindsight is common knowledge YEARS BEFORE IT HAPPENED.

Second - Notice your own list has... wait for it.. NOT OT FILMS at the top. Should Lucas never have made the prequels because everyone wanted to know what happened to Luke and Leia after ROTJ?

I have zero against creating new stories, but even if they turned out to be good, I question the judgment to lock them in a Sequel timeline without including much of the most expansive worldbuilding of any world in human history, which has taken decades, literally cast aside in favor of a safe, puritan-friendly land.

You have zero against creating new stories? Yet.. your 'solution' is to just retread known characters as if that fixes all. You say this, yet every action and retort is companies should just recycle what was already done.

Your comment proves I’m the only one looking at the math while you swallow marketing terms. You’re arguing from a 2018 theoretical playbook; I’m citing the 2025 reality that anyone with a brain saw coming under Iger.

Literally you're trying to use insight from 10yrs later as justification to decisions made in 2013-2014.. Maybe you're Admiral Hindsight...

The goal of a $2B+ investment across two identical lands was to actually resonate, and the data proves this strategy failed. The Sequel Trilogy bled half its audience (dropping from $2B to $1B—an insane decline in a year with Frozen 2 or Endgame making $1.4B and $2.7B). Consequently, the land failed to capture non-Disney fans the way Harry Potter did for non-Universal fans and just based on anecdotal discussions in my own life and reading online, this seems very apparent it's because a lot of people were sort of sick of the direction things went.

ALL THINGS THAT HAPPENED AFTERWARDS. Do you think Disney should have borrowed Doc Brown's delorean and gone back and stopped them? SW GE wasn't built after the Sequel Trilogy flopped. It was designed and conceived while the sequel trilogy was being developed.

Contrast that with Pandora! Cameron demanded strict quality control, and the result was higher attendance from a smaller, cheaper land based on a 'weaker' franchise domestically. Almost like it could be foretold as well... Disney’s Star Wars Sequel merch and cosplay appeal cratered because the stories, characters, and worldbuilding were weak, rather than admitting the films were directionless slop.

This is back to what was said before... "the problem was they simply they weren't good stories they came up with"

You're trying to argue a decade later they should have never committed to their new stories because they flopped, with insight after the fact.

Timeless themed environments aren’t built around specific actors’ faces as they’re built around icons: planets, ships, mythology. Nobody in 2019 was demanding a Harrison Ford animatronic in his 70s; having a younger character animatronic would function just like Indiana Jones Adventure, which opens in 2027...

Yet you contradict yourself where just before you tried to argue Hondo was a mistake instead of giving us Maul or other characters.

The Indiana Jones ride is a great example of your short sighted take on this whole topic. The Indiana Jones ride is not a pillar of a generational franchise building plan to capitalize on a 4 Billion dollar one in a lifetime investment (Hint: SWGE was...). The Indiana Jones ride is just a theme park ride. Disney isn't retheming Dinosaur to it as part of a multi-prong strategy to drive growth from the Lucasfilm acquisition. It's being done because it's the same ride system and a clone of a world class winning attraction.

Imagine if Disney built SWLand around Tatootine and then spent the next 10yrs creating amazing stories everyone wanted to experience... and instead Disney is like "NOPE! You told us you wanted OT.. so OT is what you got". It's literally the most contradictory thing the company could do.. and kids growing up would be like "where is the Ashoka ride?" and you'd have to tell them "Sorry kid, don't you like Lando Calrissian?"

People wanted design elements and the worldbuilding from Tatooine, Endor, Hoth, Naboo, and Coruscant.

So you wanted more pigs... "but I'm not against creating new stories" -- Right.. you just want to keep repeating the same ones.

You can literally make up an entirely new location if it just takes design cues from them rather than focusing on one specifically, but they really didn't at all.

You think Batuu doesn't have 'design cues' from the SW universe? It literally is a town with a space port, cantina, market, etc. If anything people could cry it's a knock-off of tatooine instead of being unique enough...

Does anyone even know new planets from the new trilogy? Just plopping down the Falcon in the land without little attachment to the characters that made Falcon itself interesting?

Again, ignoring how essentially every planet and culture is introduced in SW.. We learn to love them AFTERWARDS, not before.

If the goal was "new stories," why isn't there a single reference to Exegol or the High Republic in the land today? Because even Disney knows that "new" generally stuff isn't working, and calling me an idiot doesn't change the fact that Imagineering’s original plan was exactly what I described.

Sorry, if we throw around 'imagineer' that is somehow equivalent to Divine authority now?

Exegol or High Republic? The first hadn't been flushed out yet in the sequel plots.. so again, hindsight. High Republic is an entirely different era. Are we just throwing stuff around and ignoring all time and consistency now?

Walt understood the concept that Familiarity and Excellence trumps Forced Originality.

What? He used old stories because he liked the story.. not because he knew his audience knew the tale. The quote was brought up because people nagged him to do exactly what you are saying... GIVE US MORE OF WHAT WE LOVE.. and Walt was instead insistent on creating NEW stuff for you to love.

Walt amplified timeless tales. Iger greenlit a land that deliberately ignored 40 years of beloved stories for a blank slate that had zero cultural footprint except for being "New Star Wars," not because it was inherently better but becasue of arrogance, which in of itself literally just relies on better movies and worldbuilding to even exist. That’s not what Walt did at all. It's purely arrogance by Iger, and the market punished it with attendance coming in 20-30% below projections in year one AFAIK.

Your promotion to Admiral Hindsight is granted..

Your whole mindset is shortsighted and singlar focused on a theme park land... you're playing checkers while Disney was playing chess with a global conglomerate working to advance for decades to come.

Walt used steamboats and Tom Sawyer because Mark Twain was still relevant nearly 100 years later, because he made them immersive experiences, which oftentimes relied on classic stories and Americana.

No, Walt took his personal interests and passions and made them into reality in his pet project with the bet that others would find solace in the harmonized and idealized fantasyland he would create. He literally created the 'rose colored glasses' version of the 1800s because of his ideals and bet the immersion would woo guests.

You’re quoting Walt to defend a CEO who is in real-time sandblasting Walt’s legacy

No, I'm countering an argument that says "recycle because its popular" instead of creating new. Your insistence on name dropping Iger every 3rd line just goes to show how you're going at this as some internet fanboi critic instead of objectively. What was your profile on here before you created this account just to create this post?

This is completely wrong.

Universal built Hogsmeade and Diagon Alley, which were 100% classic era before they touched Fantastic Beasts.

Once again, you show your lack of understand.. trying to compare things that 'look alike' instead of realizing they are completely different things.

Let's look at how Disney's SWGE intentions are so very different from UNI Creative's take on HP land 1 and 2.
1 - Comcast doesn't own Harry Potter - Comcast isn't responsible for driving the future of the franchise
2 - Comcast wasn't developing new Harry Potter lore and characters
3 - Comcast didn't just complete a 4billion dollar acquisition and wasn't laying out the plan on how to leverage the diverse divisions of the company to fuel growth from that acquisition
4 - Comcast was building in a complete greenfield - They had no existing HP attractions nor HP theme park products.. of course you're gonna build Hogwarts.
5 - The HP films and books were of the current generations.. Literally the HP story arc movies were still being made when the land was designed. The target audience for the land had grown up with those films. Contrast with SW OT which was 30+yrs old at the time and had a long history of expanding beyond the OT

And years later when there was more of an extended HP lore.. and films like Fantastic Beasts had been a thing.. they did start leaning into those new spots and characters.

Stop being a theme park fanboi and step up and realize Disney is operating more than a theme park.

That is exactly what Disney did, which is why we ended up with what we did; ironically, so much of the Sequels relied on having Han Solo, Luke, and Leia all come back for marketing only to somehow squander that too. I just look back to the teaser for Force Awakens and it's like man, they could've taken it in an interesting direction.

Again... "the problem was they simply they weren't good stories they came up with"

 

[DrStarlander]

It was designed and conceived while the sequel trilogy was being developed.

You're trying to argue a decade later they should have never committed to their new stories because they flopped, with insight after the fact.

Imagine if Disney built SWLand around Tatootine and then spent the next 10yrs creating amazing stories everyone wanted to experience... and instead Disney is like "NOPE! You told us you wanted OT.. so OT is what you got". It's literally the most contradictory thing the company could do.. and kids growing up would be like "where is the Ashoka ride?" and you'd have to tell them "Sorry kid, don't you like Lando Calrissian?"

Your whole mindset is shortsighted and singlar focused on a theme park land... you're playing checkers while Disney was playing chess with a global conglomerate working to advance for decades to come.

Stop being a theme park fanboi and step up and realize Disney is operating more than a theme park.

Sounds like your defense of SWGE is that Disney was making a strategic choice to base it on the yet to be released sequel content (at the time of design) as part of an overall initiative to relaunch the SW brand and set the stage for many years of franchise success? Do I have that right?

I wonder what we would have thought if they had done this with, say, their Tomorrowland movie -- spending hundreds of millions on attractions and lands...before it came out. Or how about Indiana Jones Dial of Destiny or Lightyear, Wish, John Carter...on and on?

That's "playing chess"?? That sounds like playing the fool. Hollywood is fickle and success is elusive. To me, it seems like hubris and false confidence and they got ahead of their skis (by a couple billion dollars).

They should have built a land half the size that they did based on the Star Wars IP that people have loved for 40 years. The middle-aged people. With money. For vacations.

Then, later, when the sequels were successful and it's confirmed people like the characters and such, expand the lands to include them. That's chess.

They took a huge swing and missed. That was evident from day 1, not years later. No hindsight necessary.

 

[flynnibus]

Sounds like your defense of SWGE is that Disney was making a strategic choice to base it on the yet to be released sequel content (at the time of design) as part of an overall initiative to relaunch the SW brand and set the stage for many years of franchise success? Do I have that right?

It's not a 'defense of SWGE' - it's an explanation of the actions. They weren't just building a theme park ride, they were moving in unison with what was meant to be the new foundation for tons of SW content going forward. Their failure was creatively they blew it with the sequels and you could have a whole seminar on why that all happened.

If they had just built a OT tatooine or whatever they would have created their own problem in they would be competing with themselves. Left hand is trying to generate buzz and experiences for the new product... right hand is dug in trying to just milk a product that is aging and not very compatible with what the left hand is doing.

The whole point is this isn't a theme park ride in isolation. Disney was planning forward, not just trying to make a singular popular ride/land.

I wonder what we would have thought if they had done this with, say, their Tomorrowland movie -- spending hundreds of millions on attractions and lands...before it came out. Or how about Indiana Jones Dial of Destiny or Lightyear, Wish, John Carter...on and on?

Not really like for like comparisons.. none of those things were these massive franchises that were setting up for a reboot that was meant to anchor the product for new generations. They were already under a lot of crique for not having a theme park product... you want to suggest they should have waiting another 10 yrs? Or built one, and then have to build another years later?

But to your point, companies do this all the time, especially as you scale down. JJP built a Toy Story pinball machine.. know what movie Disney forced them to base it on? Toy Story 4.. instead of the TS1/TS2 everyone wanted. Tron anything.. they are gonna push the modern TRON, not 1982 tron.

That's "playing chess"?? That sounds like playing the fool. Hollywood is fickle and success is elusive. To me, it seems like hubris and false confidence and they got ahead of their skis (by a couple billion dollars).

In hindsight we can critique and say was it the right choice or not.. but if the films actually were good and popular, no one would be having this conversation. In hindsight we know the franchise struggled throughout this period due to competing mandates and leadership.

The whole point about Chess is.. this wasn't just a theme park ride discussion.. yet fanbois often want to focus on a narrow slice of the world and act like it operates in isolation. That's not reality.

They should have built a land half the size that they did based on the Star Wars IP that people have loved for 40 years. The middle-aged people. With money. For vacations.

Look around the parks - Disney's demo is still the family vacation. Starcruiser could have been that middle aged product.. but that fell apart too.

Then, later, when the sequels were successful and it's confirmed people like the characters and such, expand the lands to include them. That's chess.

You can take that kind of safe approach, yes.. and you can also miss the boat doing that too. They were aggressive.. no doubt. But you have to acknowledge the bigger game in play.

They took a huge swing and missed. That was evident from day 1, not years later. No hindsight necessary.

In 2014 this was evident? yeah ok...

 

[UNCgolf]

The philosopher’s stone predates Harry Potter by centuries.


What you and so many others miss is that the locales shown in Star Wars do not have a strong sense of place. Go actually look at Mos Eisner. It’s a lot of beige stucco with very minimal ornamentation. It’s largely placeless because the where is largely immaterial to the story. Over and over again the locales can be described as things like desert, ice, swamp or forrest. That existing attachment doesn’t create a space that is enjoyable to experience (and even more so when the place is supposed to hostile to the protagonist). People aren’t interested in seeing the stucco of Tattoine or the trees of Endor, they want to go on an adventure where they see aliens and robots, things not actually tied to the physical space.

Mos Eisner is a hilarious typo or autocorrect.

 

[DrStarlander]

It's not a 'defense of SWGE' - it's an explanation of the actions.

Your tone sounds super defensive of Disney's approach, and antagonistic toward any criticism of Disney's approach.

If they had just built a OT tatooine or whatever they would have created their own problem in they would be competing with themselves. Left hand is trying to generate buzz and experiences for the new product... right hand is dug in trying to just milk a product that is aging and not very compatible with what the left hand is doing.

They took a risk spending billions of dollars on a huge project based on stories and characters no audience had shown interest in. It was foolish. Not just in hindsight. Nobody would be "upset" if the first portion of the land was based on the original trilogy at the same time the sequel trilogy came out...and then when they expanded with sequel trilogy attractions later (if it was successful) people would be excited to come back.

The whole point is this isn't a theme park ride in isolation. Disney was planning forward, not just trying to make a singular popular ride/land.

Yeah, but it has to work as a theme park when as a guest you are there paying admission to be in a theme park. If people go see a bad movie and on the way out someone explains "Yeah, it was a bad movie, but it was necessary as part of a relaunch of the franchise and..." NO, IT WAS BAD ENTERTAINMENT. No rationalization of the company's behind-the-scenes business strategy is going to convince an audience that what they endured wasn't just bad.

SWGE should have been a successful theme park land. It wasn't. Who cares what their business strategy was.

Not really like for like comparisons.. none of those things were these massive franchises that were setting up for a reboot that was meant to anchor the product for new generations. They were already under a lot of crique for not having a theme park product... you want to suggest they should have waiting another 10 yrs? Or built one, and then have to build another years later?

You mean wait...like they are in adding Frozen to DLR, or Beauty and the Beast, or Tangled, or Moana, or Zootopia, or something good for Avengers...or countless other IPs? Yeah, wait Disney. Your movies will likely fail (statistically) so wait.

In hindsight we can critique and say was it the right choice or not.. but if the films actually were good and popular, no one would be having this conversation.

Of course we wouldn't be having this conversation if the movies were good and popular. But what are the chances of any movies being good and popular? 20%? It was a bad bet.

The whole point about Chess is.. this wasn't just a theme park ride discussion.. yet fanbois often want to focus on a narrow slice of the world and act like it operates in isolation. That's not reality.

I'm sorry, when I'm in SWGE and it's lame, knowing Disney had a very, very bold business strategy does not make my time there more fun. And that's all I care about after shelling out for admission. Not the meetings and powerpoint presentations they had in Burbank.

You can take that kind of safe approach, yes.. and you can also miss the boat doing that too. They were aggressive.. no doubt. But you have to acknowledge the bigger game in play.

Again, miss the boat like...Frozen in DLR, etc., etc.? Since when is Disney in a hurry with multi-billion-dollar theme park investments other than SWGE?

In 2014 this was evident? yeah ok...

Any time a theme park company commits to spending two billion dollars on a theme park project based on movies that are still in development, yes, the 80% or so chance the movies would fail and the "plan" would be a failure would be evident up front.

 

[flynnibus]

Your tone sounds super defensive of Disney's approach, and antagonistic toward any criticism of Disney's approach.

No, I'm antagonistic to people who act like armchair QBs who selectively pick what realities they want to accept.

SWGE should have been a successful theme park land. It wasn't. Who cares what their business strategy was.

Know who doesn't care? consumers and Fanbois . Ironically, the same audience who always think they could do a better job... without knowing the job.

You mean wait...like they are in adding Frozen to DLR, or Beauty and the Beast, or Tangled, or Moana, or Zootopia, or something good for Avengers...or countless other IPs? Yeah, wait Disney. Your movies will likely fail (statistically) so wait.

Tell me again which of those were a Four Billion dollar external acquisition that Disney was expecting to turn into new product and was already under scrutiny for tabling their theme park plans for years? The only one that is close to that is Marvel.. and we know Marvel has other complications.

I'm sorry, when I'm in SWGE and it's lame, knowing Disney had a very, very bold business strategy does not make my time there more fun. And that's all I care about after shelling out for admission.

Great feedback for the customer sat survey. Now back to the actual discussion about why Disney would bother creating new content and not just re-use the OT forever...

 

[DrStarlander]

Great feedback for the customer sat survey. Now back to the actual discussion about why Disney would bother creating new content and not just re-use the OT forever...

"just re-use the OT forever"...yeah, how dumb that would have been, right? Use one of the most beloved and successful IPs in the history of entertainment, with characters and content known to generations? Doing just that would have been absurd.