News Star Wars Galactic Starcruiser coming to Walt Disney World 2021

[celluloid]

I mean come on.. we're zooming in on the column to try to make the point...

View attachment 788188

I mean yes there is a point about design in a space... and we talk about these kinds of details all the time in design. But this is not the land of 10,000 paper cuts of obstructed views sinking the ship. Nobody didn't book a trip because they were fearful of getting an obstructed view seat in the dining room.

The column is a microcosm of many other things.

 

[flynnibus]

The column is a microcosm of many other things.

So the argument isn't the column... so why is it being brought up when challenged to make the argument?

Because the arguments really aren't anything new are they?

 

[celluloid]

So the argument isn't the column... so why is it being brought up when challenged to make the argument?

Because the arguments really aren't anything new are they?

That's how microcosms work. If not enough care was given to that in a space designed to be the top dollar most immersive dining experience on property, then it is clear many other things were ignored too. Take your pick. There are a lot of them.

Objectively, the value was not there. It is over man, live in the now.

No one said arguments were new. It was just a very well-presented analysis of what many have said in here since the beginning and spread towards ten million views as plain for millions more to see now.

 

[flynnibus]

No one said arguments were new. It was just a very well-presented analysis

and I've highlighted reasons it's not. And if people's only retort to why her analysis is so good is her cute outfits, presentation and over dramatized extrapolations then I don't really have a good opinion of their take either.

 

[celluloid]

and I've highlighted reasons it's not. And if people's only retort to why her analysis is so good is her cute outfits, presentation and over dramatized extrapolations then I don't really have a good opinion of their take either.

Well that is a part of presentation, shallow as it may seem to some. Branding.

I don't see that offered a lot on the agreement around here with her points though.

Your opinion, as are mine, are irrelevant individually to the objective truth that this thing did not hold value for the audience and the business' wants for it.

 

[flynnibus]

Up next... we could make a 6hr video of 'video reaction to jenny's video' complete with PIP video of a talking head - but line by line retort is not the answer when people have already demonstrated it's not actual information they seek...

 

[celluloid]

Up next... we could make a 6hr video of 'video reaction to jenny's video' complete with PIP video of a talking head - but line by line retort is not the answer when people have already demonstrated it's not actual information they seek...

What we do know though, is that the place did not work to their business. Objectively. Disney gave up on it to the point to shutter its doors. When things are close to good or worth it, companies tend to tweak things all around.

Now you are just sort of calling for an odd attack retort on her analysis. You can make that video if you would like. I would start with good retort here first before committing to six hours. Your entire situation has seemed a bit ad hominem, rather than just disagreeing.


In business, branding and perception is an identity situation.

And Galactic Starcruiser as a whole that Disney did not want to continue, is seen as not a success for the company or audience in the sense it was given up on. The perception in every reasonable sense is that it was not a success. It closed. It is no longer existing as intended. Or even at all at the moment. It was not good for their business.

Why is there a sensitivity to people disagreeing with you on the stuff that is more subjective? Why are people disagreeing with you people not seeking information? Or not 'actual information?'

 

[flynnibus]

What we do know though, is that the place did not work. Objectively. Disney gave up on it to the point to shutter its doors. When things are close to good or worth it, companies tend to tweak things all around.

And companies under duress also often make big swing moves...

Sometimes just politics sink ships...

Until someone who was actually involved speaks out with details.. we don't know why they opt'd to go cold turkey. No 4hr analysis of how many aliens or poles were errected will answer that.

Now you are just sort of calling for an odd attack retort on her analysis. You can make that video if you would like. I would start with good retort here first before committing to six hours. Your entire situation has seemed a bit ad hominem, rather than just disagreeing.

Because when asked to present the argument... we get NOISE.

How would you like me to retort to an argument that can't be summized?

Want me to retort to every outlandish comment? Or every singular experience extrapolated incorrectly to the macro level? There's your 6hr video.. and that's a conservative estimate.

In business, branding and perception is an identity situation.

Sure - but none of which is about her credibility, qualifications, or even the foundation of her arguments. I've yet to hear anyone praising the video actually cite anything particularly damning or inspired... its just 'hey, its a cool video and she says all the things we've been saying... in a really long format!'. I'm not in a r/jenny thread - so I'm not really here to fawn over her brand... I was listening to what she had to say.

And Galactic Starcruiser as a whole that Disney did not want to continue, is seen as not a success for the company or audience in the sense it was given up on. The perception in every reasonable sense is that it was not a success. It closed. It is no longer existing as intended. Or even at all at the moment.

Why is there a sensitivity to people disagreeing with you on the stuff that is more subjective? Why are people disagreeing with you people not seeking information? or not 'actual information?'

It's not a snesitivity to disagreement - it's a frustration with lack of actual concrete material. 'brand' and sensationalism isn't convincing... but apparently makes for good youtube metrics.

 

[celluloid]

And companies under duress also often make big swing moves...

Sometimes just politics sink ships...

Until someone who was actually involved speaks out with details.. we don't know why they opt'd to go cold turkey. No 4hr analysis of how many aliens or poles were errected will answer that.

By golly we will never know. It can't possibly because people did not book it.

We will never know why.

BUT I CAN FOR SURE SAY POLITICS.

Do you understand how silly that reads?

 

[MrPromey]

When one poster keeps singing how this is the perfect rebutal and acts like it's a masterpiece of an argument... but is 4.5hrs long - no it's not a masterpiece of a shutdown.

An argument can be laid out in minutes - the supporting material is what takes more time to layout. If her logic and approach can't be outlined without retorts of 'just watch it' - Then no, I don't see a convincing argument there.

The reasons customers didn't show up is not going to be explained with 1,000 minor details or examples - because customers didn't use the same information to make their own decision not to show up.

Crap like "I had an obstructed view" is not why the majority of a room didn't like a show. Outlining drawn out every detail of an experience is not how one constructs an argument.

Most of her commentary is so eye rolling and dramatized I don't know how anyone suffers more than 10mins of it at a time. She makes conclusive assertive statements non-stop that are founded on nothing but her uninformed view yet she parades her opinion as conclusive facts.

"...Disney could have spent negligibly more in the construction phase to make every room a big room and they decided not to there is no justifiable reason for Disney to have limited the room size other than stinginess and to increase pressure to get you to pay extra for a little more space..."

She makes such claims based on her assessment that it's just a land hotel.. not a ship... so obviously... This is a supported argument. This is just someone parading their opinion as conclusive... without acknowledging they really have zero actual insight into why the choice was really made by the decision makers.

I've not really heard any highlights from this video from posters here that make me go 'wow, that will be worth hours of my time'. And I'm the kind of person surrounded by bookshelves and watches dozens of hours of documentaries a week. I'm an information sponge. But I can't stomach someone who can't meaningfully differentiate between their opinions and actual assertive facts... nor one who doesn't know their own limits. And I certainly don't need hours of recap of history - I was already here. And I've certainly not heard of any hints of actual citable material from Disney on any of the decisions... just a customer's perspective... and a young one at that.

Obviously many are swooned by her extensive use of material in her presentation... but that doesn't necessarily make it good or supported. It just means you have material to use along with your view.

Wait - are you one of the people who keeps insisting on arguing about the contents of a video they haven't actually watched?

(Re-reads your eight paragraphs*)

Okay, I guess you are.

I'd say I'm sorry I triggered you but taking issue with the contents of a video you've only experienced through hear-say makes about as much sense to me as the people who didn't go on the Starcruiser arguing with the people who did about whether they had a good time or not... So I guess I'm not sorry.

I mean, I'm glad you spent all that time typing out why you won't be watching the video you can't stop talking about but wouldn't it have just been easier to ignore the whole conversation about the video after making clear you weren't interested in watching it and didn't intend to so someone else could try to make a point?

BTW, I'm not here to "fawn" over Jenny Nicholson but you mentioned about her being young, as if that makes her opinions invalid. I don't know what the cutoff age is for people who's opinions you'll respect but wanted to point out she's 32.

*As a long-form poster I applaud your dedication to thorough writing and line breaks - just find it funny you're spending that much time justifying why you want to argue about something you feel has too much unsubstantiated opinion in it by offering your own unsubstantiated opinion about that thing you haven't actually watched. A little pot meets kettle there, don't you think?

 

[_caleb]

Some folks here are always so quick to say things like, "It was bad and that's why it failed." Or, "It didn't make money so Disney shuttered it." But some of us are trying to talk about it in a more thoughtful way. What, if anything, about the Starcruiser worked well? What, if anything, was a poor execution of a good idea (vs. a bad idea to begin with)? What lessons might be learned about the whole experience? How will they build on this for future additions to the theme parks?

 

[MrPromey]

So the argument isn't the column... so why is it being brought up when challenged to make the argument?

Because the arguments really aren't anything new are they?

Because it's one of a number of things people who watched the video with an axe to grind know they can bring up and shape with their own narrative and opinion to someone who won't bother to watch it but will still try to debate it with them.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

This isn't a video about why the hotel closed. We all know why the hotel closed - Disney foolishly priced out almost everyone who would be interested in a multi-day sci-fi LARP.

Instead this video is about how poorly designed and implemented this mult-day sci-fi LARP was ... and that's why it's a four hour video. It was sooooo poorly designed and implemented that she needed four hours to comprehensively cover everything she observed (in one trip) that was poorly designed and implemented. That's on Disney; not Jenny Nicholson.

 

[Mickey's Pal]

Some folks here are always so quick to say things like, "It was bad and that's why it failed." Or, "It didn't make money so Disney shuttered it." But some of us are trying to talk about it in a more thoughtful way. What, if anything, about the Starcruiser worked well? What, if anything, was a poor execution of a good idea (vs. a bad idea to begin with)? What lessons might be learned about the whole experience? How will they build on this for future additions to the theme parks?

All of that are in her video. I suggest you watch it and pay attention.

 

[_caleb]

All of that are in her video. I suggest you watch it and pay attention.

I watched the video (twice). The video is the reason I came back to this thread. I want to discuss the things Jenny addresses in the video with fellow parks fans here on WDWMagic.

I see no evidence here that you have watched the video, or understood it. It also seems that you’re not really paying attention to what others here are saying. So I’ll ask you kindly to keep up if you want to participate.

ETA: In case my use of questions in my previous post led you to believe I was looking for definitive answers, let me clarify: these are questions I’m interested in discussing, not questions I want Jenny to answer in the video I watched (twice).

 

[flynnibus]

Wait - are you one of the people who keeps insisting on arguing about the contents of a video they haven't actually watched?

(Re-reads your eight paragraphs*)

Okay, I guess you are.

Really.. you see me literally quoting her verbatim... and you think I haven't watched the video? You may want to try a bit harder before you pull the trigger.

I'd say I'm sorry I triggered you but taking issue with the contents of a video you've only experienced through hear-say makes about as much sense to me as the people who didn't go on the Starcruiser arguing with the people who did about whether they had a good time or not... So I guess I'm not sorry.

I think maybe you like her video because like her, you seem willing to talk authoritatively about something before you actually know (or possibly care..) that you are in fact wrong. So... birds of a feather?

BTW, I'm not here to "fawn" over Jenny Nicholson but you mentioned about her being young, as if that makes her opinions invalid. I don't know what the cutoff age is for people who's opinions you'll respect but wanted to point out she's 32.

I made the comment because so much of her 'brand' as you call it is incorporating styles, presentation, and language to appeal to a younger demo... while also not really having the same history with Disney as many other sources... and frankly she relies on connecting with people rather than making a piece of journalistic integrity or professional tone.

*As a long-form poster I applaud your dedication to thorough writing and line breaks - just find it funny you're spending that much time justifying why you want to argue about something you feel has too much unsubstantiated opinion in it by offering your own unsubstantiated opinion about that thing you haven't actually watched. A little pot meets kettle there, don't you think?

My god... instead of trying to look at things that 'kind of look alike' and thinking they are alike, try looking at what I'm basing my statements from. You will find the difference if you actually cared to try.

 

[flynnibus]

Instead this video is about how poorly designed and implemented this mult-day sci-fi LARP was ... and that's why it's a four hour video. It was sooooo poorly designed and implemented that she needed four hours to comprehensively cover everything she observed (in one trip) that was poorly designed and implemented. That's on Disney; not Jenny Nicholson.

Minus the 30mins of background recap... and nearly hour of her analysis at the end. And a massive portion of her experience recap is literally her just retelling about her stay. I mean a vast majority of the video is a video format Trip Report... not hours of analysis on Disney's good or bad. It's why I say it's not as great as everyone fawning over it is.. It's like trying to find a needle in a haystack to get to her actual points of substance.

I'm amazed the tiktok generation found anything in the videos. I guess her time markers save her and them...

 

[celluloid]

Some folks here are always so quick to say things like, "It was bad and that's why it failed." Or, "It didn't make money so Disney shuttered it." But some of us are trying to talk about it in a more thoughtful way. What, if anything, about the Starcruiser worked well? What, if anything, was a poor execution of a good idea (vs. a bad idea to begin with)? What lessons might be learned about the whole experience? How will they build on this for future additions to the theme parks?

Saying it shuttered because people did not "buy it" or get the value of it and that Disney shuttered it is not mutually exclusive to it not going forward into something else.

As far as your last sentence...these kinds of shows and things are typically a part of the theme park experience. And sadly were left out of Galaxy's Edge since day one.

People are fine with the value of the theme parks in comparison, as they have worked for many decades.
Interactive immersive shows have also successfully existed for longer.

Disney knows what can work pretty well about it, they have done it in varying degrees in the parks, resorts and shows for a long time. What they know for now is the value proposition was not enough from the audience.

For many decades the theme parks have had people meet characters, and explore stories in various intimate ways, including moments like Olivanders and building a light saber with great success.

 

[celluloid]

Minus the 30mins of background recap... and nearly hour of her analysis at the end. And a massive portion of her experience recap is literally her just retelling about her stay. I mean a vast majority of the video is a video format Trip Report... not hours of analysis on Disney's good or bad. It's why I say it's not as great as everyone fawning over it is.. It's like trying to find a needle in a haystack to get to her actual points of substance.

I'm amazed the tiktok generation found anything in the videos. I guess her time markers save her and them...

You will do well not to treat entire generations as a monolith or presume only one generation is watching. You are generalizing again. A lot of gatekeeping and generalizing from you.

She introduces things so a wider audience can fully understand her point of view rather than rushing into it. And provides a conclusion. Maybe you are a person who can't recognize that. If you don't need it, or want it, cool?

 

[flynnibus]

She introduces things so a wider audience can fully understand her point of view rather than rushing into it

The statement was "she needed four hours to comprehensively cover everything she observed (in one trip) " - The truth is, that's not the truth. Do you dispute the conflict in this statement?

. And provides a conclusion. Maybe you are a person who can't recognize that. If you don't need it, or want it, cool?

Mentioning tiktok hurt you that much? Did I ever say she didn't provide a conclusion?

Have you tried staying on point? Or is that generalizing when you keep responding to things that aren't there?