News Star Wars Galactic Starcruiser coming to Walt Disney World 2021

[corran horn]

Convenient when the only proof you'd accept is numbers which you can only speculate at.

I'm not sure anyone with a business perspective would argue Star Wars is in a worse spot than it was in 1992, 2002, or 2012.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Convenient when the only proof you'd accept is numbers which you can only speculate at.

I'm not sure anyone with a business perspective would argue Star Wars is in a worse spot than it was in 1992, 2002, or 2012.

I’m gonna debate Star Wars history with ya, kid…it’s time to move on. Well past.

 

[corran horn]

I’m gonna debate Star Wars history with ya, kid…it’s time to move on. Well past.

I'm 45yo. I've got two kids. I was there. I saw it all.

 

[MisterPenguin]

The bottom line? Do you think buying Star Wars lost money for Disney? They pretty much made up all that releasing TFA.

Umm... actually...

The theatrically released films of SW under Disney had a Box Office of $5.9B. However, they had a combined budget of $1.5B. When you use the general rule of thumb that the budget is 50% more due to advertising and administration, and the B.O. is split between the studio and theaters, then the total profit from SW theatrical movies is only $0.8B. (This includes Solo's $234M loss.)

Of course, there is after market income (before D+) and merch. And the hard-to-assess benefit of SW in Disney parks and Disney streaming. And LucasFilm's Industrial Light and Magic makes money from other studios.

But, the theatrical releases by themselves, have not recouped Disney's purchase price of LucasFilm.

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

The Disney sequels destroyed the Star Wars franchise just as the Lucas prequels also destroyed the Star Wars franchise.

You can't deny the facts people.

 

[MisterPenguin]

The Disney sequels destroyed the Star Wars franchise just as the Lucas prequels also destroyed the Star Wars franchise.

You can't deny the facts people.

If the PT destroyed the franchise, there wouldn't have been the ST (and the one, good standalone, Rogue One).

If the ST destroyed the franchise, there wouldn't be great SW series on D+.

Those are facts.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I'm 45yo. I've got two kids. I was there. I saw it all.

Good…then I expect more than the “…SOME people like them…” line. That is a completely irrelevant stance to the meat of the problem. They’re not using their ip properly outside of the theater…which was 95% of the point of buying it. Ask Bob and see if he’ll lie to you.

That is a business stance. It’s about longterm pull and profitability. Some people like fast and the furious…doesn’t mean Disney would or should be happy with that if they owned it either.

The Disney sequels destroyed the Star Wars franchise just as the Lucas prequels also destroyed the Star Wars franchise.

You can't deny the facts people.

Do I detect clever, tongue in cheek sarcasm?

If the PT destroyed the franchise, there wouldn't have been the ST (and the one, good standalone, Rogue One).

If the ST destroyed the franchise, there wouldn't be great SW series on D+.

Those are facts.

To be fair…prequels have been more resilient than I thought. But Is it’s five year “Renaissance” a coincidence with Disney mismanagement of sequels? Funny how the world is full of so many coincidences.

 

[corran horn]

The Disney sequels destroyed the Star Wars franchise just as the Lucas prequels also destroyed the Star Wars franchise.

You can't deny the facts people.

I imagine these are the same people who say the Abrams films destroyed Star Trek only for there to be four ongoing Star Trek series shortly after.

 

[corran horn]

Umm... actually...

The theatrically released films of SW under Disney had a Box Office of $5.9B. However, they had a combined budget of $1.5B. When you use the general rule of thumb that the budget is 50% more due to advertising and administration, and the B.O. is split between the studio and theaters, then the total profit from SW theatrical movies is only $0.8B. (This includes Solo's $234M loss.)

Of course, there is after market income (before D+) and merch. And the hard-to-assess benefit of SW in Disney parks and Disney streaming. And LucasFilm's Industrial Light and Magic makes money from other studios.

But, the theatrical releases by themselves, have not recouped Disney's purchase price of LucasFilm.

yeah, mea culpa, by 'releasing' I meant it existing at all, box office, merch, etc.

I think it's a known fact that Disney released the ST to more immediately realize a return on their investment. I don't think this is some secret.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

yeah, mea culpa, by 'releasing' I meant it existing at all, box office, merch, etc.

I think it's a known fact that Disney released the ST to more immediately realize a return on their investment. I don't think this is some secret.

How’d they do?

-37% and -43% at the box office and clearance bins at Walmart are definitely what the analysts want, eh?

 

[Disstevefan1]

I am not sure even if they didn’t write stories with an agenda in mind; even if they really tried to just write a good movie, I don’t think they could match the success the original trilogy of the 70’s.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I am not sure even if they didn’t write stories with an agenda in mind; even if they really tried to just write a good movie, I don’t think they could match the success the original trilogy of the 70’s.

…since we’re down the hole…

You are probably correct…Star Wars was a cultural blip. It fit the conditions at the time. The post Vietnam/cynicism of the 70s began to give way to the renewed desire for hero worship of the 80’s.

It fit the times and it started the technological revolution in film. Lucas has commented on it alot over the years.

Could that be “matched”?…no.

But we’ve seen with MCU what good characters and fun stories can do…and they don’t have to be juvenile or silly.

Really not that hard of a formula…give them a decent character and a somewhat coherent story and some fist pump moments.

 

[corran horn]

How’d they do?

-37% and -43% at the box office and clearance bins at Walmart are definitely what the analysts want, eh?

Again, if you think Star Wars is in a worse spot now than it was in previous decades I think you've got an agenda of your own.

 

[flynnibus]

Again, if you think Star Wars is in a worse spot now than it was in previous decades I think you've got an agenda of your own.

Until we are at the state that someone who pitches a SW product gets a response like 'eww... no one would touch anything star wars'... this idea of SW dying is bunkus.

No one will replicate the kind of hype that SW had when Lucas first started doing the SEs and working on the prequels.. but that doesn't mean the line is dead or dying.

SW is a thing to people from age 3-75 now... that's success that almost no one can touch.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Again, if you think Star Wars is in a worse spot now than it was in previous decades I think you've got an agenda of your own.

It’s been mismanaged. “Worse spot” is purely subjective. I’d say that the shows make it more impactful in a way that never could have happened before. But…big BUT that doesn’t mean it’s been managed correctly.

Disney has not managed it well considering it’s resources. Disney messed up. Bob Iger messed up. And that means Disney messed up because Bob Iger works for Disney…which means Disney messed up. But the important part is Disney messed up.

Until we are at the state that someone who pitches a SW product gets a response like 'eww... no one would touch anything star wars'... this idea of SW dying is bunkus.

No one will replicate the kind of hype that SW had when Lucas first started doing the SEs and working on the prequels.. but that doesn't mean the line is dead or dying.

SW is a thing to people from age 3-75 now... that's success that almost no one can touch.

It’s not “dead” at all. And you can’t take anything seriously that says it’s “dead”. Mismanaged? Hell yes!
Is that “understandable”? Not really…it was pretty deliberate.

 

[TP2000]

We are well into December now, two weeks until Christmas, and there's still many nights where only one cabin is left available on the Galactic Starcruiser.

The two busy weeks of Christmas are fully booked, obviously (and damn well better be!).

But then January still has one cabin available for every single voyage in the month. February is the same, just one cabin left per night for the whole month, except for the weekend after Valentine's Day. Does that mean Star Wars fans are a rather romantic bunch, or is it just because that's the holiday weekend for President's Day? The mind boggles.

But act fast. Only one cabin left on the Galactic Starcruiser for the dates shown below!

 

[GimpYancIent]

Hmmmm It will be interesting to see if prices are increased during the (cough, cough) peak periods to motivate guests to book during the non-peak periods.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Hmmmm It will be interesting to see if prices are increased during the (cough, cough) peak periods to motivate guests to book during the non-peak periods.

Who says anyone is booking at any time?

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

We are well into December now, two weeks until Christmas, and there's still many nights where only one cabin is left available on the Galactic Starcruiser.

The two busy weeks of Christmas are fully booked, obviously (and damn well better be!).

But then January still has one cabin available for every single voyage in the month. February is the same, just one cabin left per night for the whole month, except for the weekend after Valentine's Day. Does that mean Star Wars fans are a rather romantic bunch, or is it just because that's the holiday weekend for President's Day? The mind boggles.

But act fast. Only one cabin left on the Galactic Starcruiser for the dates shown below!

View attachment 684006

What makes it 1 cabin?

 

[corran horn]

Who says anyone is booking at any time?

The fact is nobody is staying there at all...ever.