• Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.You can use your Twitter or Facebook account to sign up, or register directly.

Is Disney unlikely to invest in buidling a "land" again?

Darkbeer1

Well-Known Member
How can they survey someone who is not in their park?
Easy, all theme parks/amusement parks/tourist attractions (well, most) hire Market Research firms to gather info. Ever walk in a shopping mall, public area, etc. and have someone with a clipboard/pad ask you a few questions, then might invite you to sit down for an interview offering you a gift/cash for your time?

How about in an e-mail? Click on an ad?

Visit Anaheim does it as a Destination Marketing Organization (DMO) Aka Tourism Bureau. And Disneyland does partner in and adds questions they want answers to from the general public.
 

1LE McQueen

Well-Known Member
Advertisement
As for the cheap rides and not investing, Galaxy Edge was the exception since '12, yeah? All other new attractions have been repurposed existing rides. All the money they blew on GE for a big depressing middle eastern city in a canyon could have been spread around the resort. Instead, they cheaped out on everything else.
I love your responses, it breaks my heart to see you enjoy M:BO ;)
 

SuddenStorm

Well-Known Member
Anyone else get this survey? It was mainly about DCA, dtd, and resort entry/exit experience. Covered everything that emotional whirlwind opening VP is in charge of. The GE question popped up out of nowhere, they never asked if I went or not. The DCA ride one was funny since the date in question was the day of the 7.1. I was at DL
Edit: they also asked how big of a Star Wars fan I am
View attachment 388720View attachment 388721View attachment 388722
Doing the Lord's work with the 'no interest' answer 🙌
 

MisterPenguin

Rumormonger
Premium Member
No new land has failed.

SW:GE hasn't even been fully implemented yet to declare it a failure.

Potterlands, Carsland, New Fantasy Land, Pandora, Toy Story Land... they have all been successful (though one my have complaints and negative opinions... they are commercially succeeding). Which means even if SWL was a failure, it would be an outlier.

OP's Premise is based on a false assumption.
 

Janir

Well-Known Member
I tend to disagree. IF the new Star Wars Land was Themed to the original Story Land and Characters, I think you would have had a higher positive response. And of course, the original fans on average, have a higher income and can afford the current admission fees.
Disney, by way of Kennedy, wanted to remake Star Wars into their own image of what they believed it should be with out having the same background and even love for Star Wars most fans have. Now, in stead of using material they already had, they made their big declaration to sweep anything not in a video format completely to the side and redo things from this point forward, allowing maximum flexibility but killing off a TON of "lore and legend" that they are now trying to piecemeal back into cannon. Good case in point - Grand Admiral Thrawn. Ok fine, but now they have the flexibility to do whatever future stories they want but that also means they have to actually fill in the background with those stories etc, and that's a ton of work. Now they managed to want to move forward with new characters but they need the older story lines. Instead of working new movies into the existing material and stories they moved forward in time and made stories recreating the original trilogy premise, by having to come up with completely new characters and villains and somehow rewind the Star Wars universe to allow for a Rebels vs Imperial government again. Starkiller base etc, and get rid of the old characters, kill off Han, and Luke but the new characters can now take the place of the old functionally. So in wanting to set up their own "New" story line, they just defaulted back to old ones they owned directly, vs attempting to play different parts in the original dynamic like Rebels and Clone Wars managed to at least do.
Now lets add in that they also started some planning for Disney Lands in various parks and they wanted these lands to be with in the cannon of the material they are producing. Great idea, but now they are limited to the 1/2 re-baked material they boxed themselves into by making the main movie story lines further in the future with new faces but the similar rebel vs Imperial, but not the same rebel vs Imperials. They need a location now that they can map anything they want into it, and instead of doing the story work to make someplace like Tatooine, they made Batuu. Honestly they could have done the same thing in Tatooine, on say Mos Eisely and it could have worked the same, even if they wanted to keep the future timeline and resistance vs First Order.
Most of their problems are self inflicted story problems, IMO. They would have just spent a bit more time thinking out how to flesh out stories, maybe actually read some of the legends stories to get some ideas, they would have written themselves some more flexibility. Not saying it's easy to do, I've been writing some Star Wars RPG story lines for our gamign group and for GenCon a few years now and attempting to not box yourself in can be hard, so I've also learned to lean on other material that already exists to expand with vs trying to write up everything from scratch.
Now Disney managing to divorce the old fans from any real connection to the new material begins to cut out the older fans, WITH THE MONEY TO SPEND in leiu of the future fans only. Forgetting that future fans become fans when older fans introduce them to the fandom and 'teach' for lack of a better word, the fandom to the new generation. Sure the new generation will pick up some fandom with out the older ones doing anything, but it's now become its own fandom at that point and loses any of the backing of the old fandom to keep the new fandom going. The Clone wars era trilogy created new fans as older ones brought their kids/newphew/nieces to see those movies and play those video games with them. Those movies SUCKED, in comparison with the original, but they at least kept the fandoms connected, allowing the old to bridge with the new and that new to carry some more of the fandom.

Ok I'm done with my Star Wars fanboy paper now...
 
Last edited:

DanielBB8

Well-Known Member
The original trilogy would not have tied Disney down anymore than the sequel trilogy. I agree with your assessment that Disney deliberately cut off the old fandom for the new fandom that doesn’t exist with how TLJ was botched. I’m not willing to give Disney any slack with how they managed it. They just blew it. So what. Let’s move on. They might have blew Lil’ Mermaid, but no predictions.
 

WDW Guru

Well-Known Member
This thread shows how toxic the fanbase really is. Despite being from the sequel trilogy, which I'll admit has its problems, the land is beautiful and really evokes a Star Wars feeling that I cant get over. The architecture, the Stormtroopers roaming, the Cantina, and hopefully RotR too. It's easily one of the best things to happen to the franchise since the OT.
 

raven24

Well-Known Member
This thread shows how toxic the fanbase really is. Despite being from the sequel trilogy, which I'll admit has its problems, the land is beautiful and really evokes a Star Wars feeling that I cant get over. The architecture, the Stormtroopers roaming, the Cantina, and hopefully RotR too. It's easily one of the best things to happen to the franchise since the OT.
Just because you enjoy it and others have criticisms, it doesn’t mean those with criticisms are “toxic.”
 

TROR

Well-Known Member
Disney, by way of Kennedy, wanted to remake Star Wars into their own image of what they believed it should be with out having the same background and even love for Star Wars most fans have. Now, in stead of using material they already had, they made their big declaration to sweep anything not in a video format completely to the side and redo things from this point forward, allowing maximum flexibility but killing off a TON of "lore and legend" that they are now trying to piecemeal back into cannon. Good case in point - Grand Admiral Thrawn. Ok fine, but now they have the flexibility to do whatever future stories they want but that also means they have to actually fill in the background with those stories etc, and that's a ton of work. Now they managed to want to move forward with new characters but they need the older story lines. Instead of working new movies into the existing material and stories they moved forward in time and made stories recreating the original trilogy premise, by having to come up with completely new characters and villains and somehow rewind the Star Wars universe to allow for a Rebels vs Imperial government again. Starkiller base etc, and get rid of the old characters, kill off Han, and Luke but the new characters can now take the place of the old functionally. So in wanting to set up their own "New" story line, they just defaulted back to old ones they owned directly, vs attempting to play different parts in the original dynamic like Rebels and Clone Wars managed to at least do.
Now lets add in that they also started some planning for Disney Lands in various parks and they wanted these lands to be with in the cannon of the material they are producing. Great idea, but now they are limited to the 1/2 re-baked material they boxed themselves into by making the main movie story lines further in the future with new faces but the similar rebel vs Imperial, but not the same rebel vs Imperials. They need a location now that they can map anything they want into it, and instead of doing the story work to make someplace like Tatooine, they made Batuu. Honestly they could have done the same thing in Tatooine, on say Mos Eisely and it could have worked the same, even if they wanted to keep the future timeline and resistance vs First Order.
Most of their problems are self inflicted story problems, IMO. They would have just spent a bit more time thinking out how to flesh out stories, maybe actually read some of the legends stories to get some ideas, they would have written themselves some more flexibility. Not saying it's easy to do, I've been writing some Star Wars RPG story lines for our gamign group and for GenCon a few years now and attempting to not box yourself in can be hard, so I've also learned to lean on other material that already exists to expand with vs trying to write up everything from scratch.
Now Disney managing to divorce the old fans from any real connection to the new material begins to cut out the older fans, WITH THE MONEY TO SPEND in leiu of the future fans only. Forgetting that future fans become fans when older fans introduce them to the fandom and 'teach' for lack of a better word, the fandom to the new generation. Sure the new generation will pick up some fandom with out the older ones doing anything, but it's now become its own fandom at that point and loses any of the backing of the old fandom to keep the new fandom going. The Clone wars era trilogy created new fans as older ones brought their kids/newphew/nieces to see those movies and play those video games with them. Those movies SUCKED, in comparison with the original, but they at least kept the fandoms connected, allowing the old to bridge with the new and that new to carry some more of the fandom.

Ok I'm done with my Star Wars fanboy paper now...
Shut up nerd before I slam you in a locker
 

WDW Guru

Well-Known Member
Just because you enjoy it and others have criticisms, it doesn’t mean those with criticisms are “toxic.”
When the people are biased against the land because they don't like the sequel films, thats where I have the problem. There are plenty of attractions or even lands that I don't like the property or have no opinion on, such as Avatar, Harry Potter and Transformers, yet I know how to separate the two. When I went into the Transformers ride I didn't go in saying, "Michael Bay ruined Transformers therefor I dislike this attraction." I thought it's an attraction. Lets see how it is. And guess what? I enjoyed the attraction. Now with Star Wars, there are "fans" that haven't been to the land yet are saying how much they hate the fact that it uses the sequel characters and that they have no interest in going without the OT characters.

EDIT: Point is, I don't care if you dislike or even hate the sequel trilogy. If you are a real fan of Star Wars, don't you think visiting a planet where they have a cantina, the ability to fly the falcon, the option to build your own lightsaber, meet Chewbacca and in the future enter a battle as prisoners of the First Order is worth seeing?
 

Touchdown

Well-Known Member
Dont blame it on the fans, as always fans are only a small part of the potential guests. The problem is why the general public isn’t flocking there. That as always is due to these main reasons:

Value-Joe Public has determined that it is not worth their time to pay $150 to visit Disneyland. This does not just involve cost, and I realize for political and Wall Street reasons they won’t change the price, if an experience is good enough people will pay a lot, however word has gotten out about how crowded Disney Parks can be and people don’t want to risk paying through the nose to wait in 2.5 hour lines. WDW offering longer hours is a good start as I think people are finally realizing those parks aren’t open long enough. However, the problem in CA is more complicated, a lot of their customers have done the math and decided a lower tier AP is worth it for them, those people are blocked out this summer and aren’t coming until the black outs lift.

If you want to get tourists to change your opinion you need to entice them I still don’t understand why SWGE isn’t open for MM but if it is really too expensive to operate for an extra hour here’s a low cost way to entice them:
-If you buy a 3 day or longer hopper in addition to MM you will receive a one time Fastpass for MFSR that you can use any day during your stay
-Come stay in our resorts and you will receive a FP for MFSR every day during your stay, also I don’t know why Maxpass isn’t included with a resort stay, so I would give that too.

Lack of awareness: Bob Iger famously said he didn’t think he needed to spend any money on advertising for the new land and Disney cheaper out relying on free advertising (news programs, online journalists) because of that word isn’t out, and a lot of people don’t know it’s open. I hope the company learned its lesson on that one for this role out has been a huge marketing misstep.
 

raven24

Well-Known Member
When the people are biased against the land because they don't like the sequel films, thats where I have the problem. There are plenty of attractions or even lands that I don't like the property or have no opinion on, such as Avatar, Harry Potter and Transformers, yet I know how to separate the two. When I went into the Transformers ride I didn't go in saying, "Michael Bay ruined Transformers therefor I dislike this attraction." I thought it's an attraction. Lets see how it is. And guess what? I enjoyed the attraction. Now with Star Wars, there are "fans" that haven't been to the land yet are saying how much they hate the fact that it uses the sequel characters and that they have no interest in going without the OT characters.

EDIT: Point is, I don't care if you dislike or even hate the sequel trilogy. If you are a real fan of Star Wars, don't you think visiting a planet where they have a cantina, the ability to fly the falcon, the option to build your own lightsaber, meet Chewbacca and in the future enter a battle as prisoners of the First Order is worth seeing?
But what does it matter if the land has already been built and you’re enjoying it? Great, you enjoyed it. I highly doubt fans care if you and other strangers enjoy it or not.

No one is toxic. People have differing opinions. Just enjoy the land and let people be.
 

Rich T

Well-Known Member
This thread shows how toxic the fanbase really is. Despite being from the sequel trilogy, which I'll admit has its problems, the land is beautiful and really evokes a Star Wars feeling that I cant get over. The architecture, the Stormtroopers roaming, the Cantina, and hopefully RotR too. It's easily one of the best things to happen to the franchise since the OT.
Your comment is a bit vague. Are you addressing SW fans, DL fans, or both? When you say "the land is beautiful and really evokes a Star Wars feeling that I cant get over," you're expressing an opinion. A lot of us feel differently (understatement). I think the place looks depressing, and it's becoming clear that when most of the GP see a photo of the land, they don't get a SW feeling from it at all unless the Falcon's in the shot. The big issue with most of the critics here is that the place doesn't look or feel like a land in Disneyland. There's a reason DL's so beloved and famous, and it has much to do with warmth, color, and familiarity. Galaxy's Edge has none of that. And on top of that, it's a land that opened with it's star attraction MIA, almost none of the promised character interaction, and not much at all in the way of entertainment. It's a vast expanse of land with not much to do--Especially for those who don't think spending $200 on a glow stick purchasing"experience" is a smart way to spend money. Personally, though I'm a fan of the 1977 original film and both versions of Star Tours, I really couldn't care less about SW in general.

As others have said, just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make their comment toxic. Most people here are simply Disneyland fans expressing honest opinions about a big change that's happened to the park. By all means, go to Galaxy's Edge, have a wonderful time, and make some great memories. :)
 
Last edited:

Mac Tonight

Well-Known Member
This thread shows how toxic the fanbase really is. Despite being from the sequel trilogy, which I'll admit has its problems, the land is beautiful and really evokes a Star Wars feeling that I cant get over. The architecture, the Stormtroopers roaming, the Cantina, and hopefully RotR too. It's easily one of the best things to happen to the franchise since the OT.
To be fair... what is your definition of "toxic"?
Like, Brittany Spears hit song "Toxic", or radioactive like the Toxic Avenger?
 

WDW Guru

Well-Known Member
To be fair... what is your definition of "toxic"?
Like, Brittany Spears hit song "Toxic", or radioactive like the Toxic Avenger?
I don't have an exact definition of toxic but some examples of Star Wars fans is abusing KMT on social media to the point of her deleting every account she had, ruining multiple prequels actors lives such as Ahmed Best and Jake Lloyd, and dismissing many things that Star Wars has put out before even giving it a chance. These "fans" are detrimental to Star Wars and sorry if I came off the wrong way. I wrote that during my break at work and was just ranting and I didn't really make it too clear what I was referring to.

Your comment is a bit vague. Are you addressing SW fans, DL fans, or both? When you say "the land is beautiful and really evokes a Star Wars feeling that I cant get over," you're expressing an opinion. A lot of us feel differently (understatement). I think it the place looks depressing, and it's becoming clear that when most of the GP see a photo of the land, they don't get a SW feeling from it at all unless the Falcon's in the shot. The big issue with most of the critics here is that the place doesn't look or feel like a land in Disneyland. There's a reason DL's so beloved and famous, and it has much to do with warmth, color, and familiarity. Galaxy's Edge has none of that. And on top of that, it's a land that opened with it's star attraction MIA, almost none of the promised character interaction, and not much at all in the way of entertainment. It's a vast expanse of land with not much to do--Especially for those who don't think spending $200 on a glow stick purchasing"experience" is a smart way to spend money. Personally, though I'm a fan of the 1977 original film and both versions of Star Tours, I really couldn't care less about SW in general.

As others have said, just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make their comment toxic. Most people here are simply Disneyland fans expressing honest opinions about a big change that's happened to the park. By all means, go to Galaxy's Edge, have a wonderful time, and make some great memories. :)
I also believe there are some areas lacking and I never liked the placement of the land itself, but I never meant to discredit yours criticisms. I just saw a few people criticizing the land because it is attributed with the sequel trilogy and I don't know why, but it bothers me. It isn't a true criticism of the land itself and it discredits a lot of the work that Imagineers put into creating and crafting the land.
 

Mac Tonight

Well-Known Member
I don't have an exact definition of toxic but some examples of Star Wars fans is abusing KMT on social media to the point of her deleting every account she had, ruining multiple prequels actors lives such as Ahmed Best and Jake Lloyd, and dismissing many things that Star Wars has put out before even giving it a chance. These "fans" are detrimental to Star Wars and sorry if I came off the wrong way. I wrote that during my break at work and was just ranting and I didn't really make it too clear what I was referring to.



I also believe there are some areas lacking and I never liked the placement of the land itself, but I never meant to discredit yours criticisms. I just saw a few people criticizing the land because it is attributed with the sequel trilogy and I don't know why, but it bothers me. It isn't a true criticism of the land itself and it discredits a lot of the work that Imagineers put into creating and crafting the land.
I was mostly making a joke, but thanks for clarifying :)

Truthfully, I'm light on the SW-side of things, keeping a respect for the original trilogy and its place
in pop culture, but beyond an affinity for Daisy Ridley, not much Disney has done with the franchise has been worthwhile to me.
 
Top Bottom