News Star Wars: Galactic Starcruiser Permanently Closed Fall 2023

[flynnibus]

Show me where Disney Quest’s scuttled expansion plans incurred a write down in the hundreds of millions.

I assume you are trying to connect my statement to starcruiser?

1- that’s not the conversion you replied to
2- you can’t write off something you do not yet have - so that is a ignorant comment to make when it comes to a discussion about future expansions
3- have you looked at the Fy01 and 02 filings yet?

(and starcruiser’s depreciation acceleration itself really isn’t big enough either to be a standout in filings. Its just explained why you have a slight bump vs the trend)

 

[celluloid]

Because the entire concept was shutdown in 2001! DTD DQ was just left to run in place… a farce of itself for 15+yrs … dead man walking… simply because it was better for disney to keep the corpse open then tear it down. Disney could sell it false value in tickets and because it provided a rainy day ‘something’.

Tearing stuff down costs money too. Disney just chose the weekend at bernie’s strategy because it was a big uncontested asset they had nothing better to put in it’s place.

They were never going to put any more into it after they gave up on the concept- because the project was shuttered. It was left there to busy guests and milk whatever they could out of the corpse. Dead Man walking

Yes. Tearing things down cost money, but you can be sure in those 17 years it more than paid for itself operating 365 for those years. Your statement makes.it sound like they just kept it because they did not want to pay to tear it down. It made money for 17 years. They saw an idea of NBA to make more of course than neglected and rotted product. It didn't. The Iger special. See Harmonious and many other projects approved under Iger and implemented under him or Chapek's brief time. Where they let something neglect.

Disney Quest WDW was financially, a success for WDW, not a liability.

Would you call River Country a failure because it became obsolete? Your definition of failure seems to have shifted.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

No one is rewriting history. It wasn’t a huge success. But comparing Disney quest to the Iger era disasters is not fair.

Isn't part of the difference that DisneyQuest was far less ambitious, thus it naturally lost less money overall and the WDW version could be left to just wheeze on life support for years as an add-on to parkhopper tickets because it didn't cost too much to run?

The swing was a lot bigger with the StarCruiser and it ultimately failed, but I'm not sure I'd hold up DisneyQuest as an example of a better era of Disney entertainment. Seems even more odd to me to compare it to Disney+ and judge DisneyQuest a bigger success for the company. Thank god Disney leadership doesn't think in quite so narrow and small terms.

 

[celluloid]

Isn't part of the difference that DisneyQuest was far less ambitious, thus it naturally lost less money overall and the WDW version could be left to just wheeze on life support for years as an add-on to parkhopper tickets because it didn't cost too much to run?

The swing was a lot bigger with the StarCruiser and it ultimately failed, but I'm not sure I'd hold up DisneyQuest as an example of a better era of Disney entertainment. Seems even more odd to me to compare it to Disney+ and judge DisneyQuest a bigger success for the company. Thank god Disney leadership doesn't think in quite so narrow and small terms.

At the time in 1998, Disney Quest was very ambitious.

Again, no one said a better era of Disney entertainment. That's subjective.
Objectively, Disney quest was a profitable success at WDW for it's 17 year run.

I.E. for business comparison sake. Disney Stores stopped expanding and eventually were reduced in the states, but no one calls Disney Stores a business failure.

As for the big swing. The company does not care when the big swing is a massive fail. Again, business, not artistic subjectivity.

Superstar Limo was a big swing, and a miss. It cost more than Maliboomer and lasted much less time.

 

[wdwmagic]

Starcruiser Resurrected: Could Disney’s $1 Billion Star Wars Experience Make an Unexpected Return? | Exclusive

Disney's pricey "Star Wars"-themed hotel closed in September, but TheWrap obtained surveys that suggest the company may be rethinking its future The post Starcruiser Resurrected: Could Disney’s $1 Billion Star Wars Experience Make an Unexpected Return? | Exclusive appeared first on TheWrap.

www.yahoo.com

 

[Disstevefan1]

Can @lentesta please tell us about the surveys sent to folks who did the Starcruiser and if this is a sign there will be a reskin or re imagine and eventual re opening of the Starcruiser??

 

[Sir_Cliff]

At the time Disney Quest was very ambitious.

Again, no one said a better era of Disney entertainment. That's subjective.
Objectively, Disney quest was a profitable success at WDW for it's 17 year run.

Do we know objectively how profitable or if it was indeed profitable over that entire 17 year run?

I'm not saying it wasn't, but there could have been other reasons they left it open than it turning a profit by itself. Part of that might have to do with them being able to bundle it into the tickets as an added bonus, but that also raises some questions about whether it was a successful enterprise or whether it survived only as an essentially 'free' add-on to tickets people had already bought.

 

[celluloid]

Do we know objectively how profitable or if it was indeed profitable over that entire 17 year run?

I'm not saying it wasn't, but there could have been other reasons they left it open than it turning a profit by itself. Part of that might have to do with them being able to bundle it into the tickets as an added bonus, but that also raises some questions about whether it was a successful enterprise or whether it survived only as an essentially 'free' add-on to tickets people had already bought.

It getting a share is still a profit. No one said it would have lived without being a WDW added offering. Different discussion. We know this because regionally it was not viable We have been saying it was viable for WDW. Figuring out how to make it turn coin is different than a complete business failure. Even if it is a near two decade run. That is why it existed where it did for as long as it did.

On a bigger scale, the points of your second paragraph, the same could be said about parks 3/4 for most people as they tack the days on, they don't pay full price. It's a different discussion on how it figured to make it's money. The point is, it did.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

It getting a share is still a profit. No one said it would have lived without being a WDW added offering. Different discussion. We know this because regionally it was not viable We have been saying it was profitable for WDW. Figurinf it out how to make it turn coin is different than a complete business failure. That is why it existed where it did for as long as it did.

Fair enough, but I guess this is where I would dispute describing DisneyQuest a success. One venue may have limped on at WDW on the basis of being an add-on to park hopper tickets. That, to me anyway, seemed more like a relic of a failed business venture than a successful business as they never would have built it in the first place if they knew that would be the outcome. The fact it stopped being updated also speaks to how the model didn't work without there being more of them. It also speaks to how stale WDW became in the late-Eisner and particularly early-Iger periods.

 

[celluloid]

Can @lentesta please tell us about the surveys sent to folks who did the Starcruiser and if this is a sign there will be a reskin or re imagine and eventual re opening of the Starcruiser??

That would be interesting. It sounds like a joke but the difficult sell on a survey there would be it would be too small a data collection for many ears and eyes in those departments.

 

[celluloid]

Fair enough, but I guess this is where I would dispute describing DisneyQuest a success. One venue may have limped on at WDW on the basis of being an add-on to park hopper tickets. That, to me anyway, seemed more like a relic of a failed business venture than a successful business as they never would have built it in the first place if they knew that would be the outcome. The fact it stopped being updated also speaks to how the model didn't work without there being more of them. It also speaks to how stale WDW became in the late-Eisner and particularly early-Iger periods.

Do you think EPCOT would have done very well the last fifteen years if not an add on to the already visiting days families had plans at other parks? Again, larger in scale but they had an after 4pm pass for EPCOT to have dining from locals and the fourth day and beyond at a theme park is cheaper than 1 2 or 3. That park has more invented included festivals than any others as it was neglected for nearly fifteen years relying on food and alcohol,only rethemes and seldom replacements.
That goes again, into a different discussion on how viable.

But more than Starcruiser (and NBA experience)is the point.

Your post could easily be about River Country or Discovery Island And I don't consider it a failure. They became obsolete but made money for the resort in their time.

 

[flynnibus]

Yes. Tearing things down cost money, but you can be sure in those 17 years it more than paid for itself operating 365 for those years.

You are completely chasing the wrong idea. "paid for itself" is not the vision DisneyQuest and LBE was started with. It's not what you measure when deciding if your plan was a success or failure.

When they go

VP: "ok, we're going to invest $300Million to create a new business segment. It will be launched with two sites, with a 3 year plan to expand to 5 more, and the potential for 15 more in the following decade. We expect these new sites to create 25+M/yr in direct revenue each with an additional pull through to the brand drawing an additional 5k new guests to other properties. Margins will be inline with our park properties. ROI on each site is under 3yrs, with an expected lifecycle of 10-15yrs between major renovations."
(exact numbers made up, but just to illustrate the pitch)

CEO: "Great. I look forward to the boost of revenue of 50M and 175M in the coming years.. and really excited for the potential for our investment to multiply it's value many times over."

When you come back 3yrs later and go
VP: "Ok, so the idea didn't work. We need to shutdown the initial launch property because it's just hemorrhaging money and we've canceled all plans for future sites because our data shows it just won't work. Because of that we won't be investing in any updates or product development. But we can keep site #2 open and just run it as is because we already own everything and there is no other plans for the gear or site. We can just keep selling it as long as guests will pay for it.. and when they won't... we'll bundle admission into our ticket model to create artificial value to help float their price point. The ongoing operation will be bare bones, no investments, and generate positive revenue, but we do not expect enough to justify new enhancements."

Your CEO isn't going to say "oh, bummer, I hope we can make the 300M back eventually... what do you think.. 10-15 years?"

NO he's going to say
CEO: "F'ing Great! Now I have a 175M dollar hole in my revenue forecast and all the growth I was bragging about is gone. Way to go... nadga.. nadga... not gonna be working here any longer!"

"Failure" isn't measured by "making your money back". Businesses don't invest in new markets just to break even. They invest to achieve a plan... and if that plan is GROWTH... and you don't achieve it. Then the project was a FAILURE - because it failed to achieve what it set out to do.

Would you call River Country a failure because it became obsolete? Your definition of failure seems to have shifted.

I've never heard any details on River Country's financials, but from the outside it seemed to do exactly what it was built to do for over 20yrs. So no, not a failure. It was a successful concept, so much so that Disney expanded upon it with their new water parks.

My definition has never shifted. DisneyQuest was the tip of the spear of the company initiative to move into LBE. It proved to be unworkable VERY quickly and Disney abandoned their plans. How long or how much money DQ made in DTD is completely irrelevant - The company strategy and growth initiative failed and never happened. That's what is measured.

 

[celluloid]

You are completely chasing the wrong idea. "paid for itself" is not the vision DisneyQuest and LBE was started with. It's not what you measure when deciding if your plan was a success or failure.

When they go

VP: "ok, we're going to invest $300Million to create a new business segment. It will be launched with two sites, with a 3 year plan to expand to 5 more, and the potential for 15 more in the following decade. We expect these new sites to create 25+M/yr in direct revenue each with an additional pull through to the brand drawing an additional 5k new guests to other properties. Margins will be inline with our park properties. ROI on each site is under 3yrs, with an expected lifecycle of 10-15yrs between major renovations."
(exact numbers made up, but just to illustrate the pitch)

CEO: "Great. I look forward to the boost of revenue of 50M and 175M in the coming years.. and really excited for the potential for our investment to multiply it's value many times over."

When you come back 3yrs later and go
VP: "Ok, so the idea didn't work. We need to shutdown the initial launch property because it's just hemorrhaging money and we've canceled all plans for future sites because our data shows it just won't work. Because of that we won't be investing in any updates or product development. But we can keep site #2 open and just run it as is because we already own everything and there is no other plans for the gear or site. We can just keep selling it as long as guests will pay for it.. and when they won't... we'll bundle admission into our ticket model to create artificial value to help float their price point. The ongoing operation will be bare bones, no investments, and generate positive revenue, but we do not expect enough to justify new enhancements."

Your CEO isn't going to say "oh, bummer, I hope we can make the 300M back eventually... what do you think.. 10-15 years?"

NO he's going to say
CEO: "F'ing Great! Now I have a 175M dollar hole in my revenue forecast and all the growth I was bragging about is gone. Way to go... nadga.. nadga... not gonna be working here any longer!"

"Failure" isn't measured by "making your money back". Businesses don't invest in new markets just to break even. They invest to achieve a plan... and if that plan is GROWTH... and you don't achieve it. Then the project was a FAILURE - because it failed to achieve what it set out to do.



I've never heard any details on River Country's financials, but from the outside it seemed to do exactly what it was built to do for over 20yrs. So no, not a failure. It was a successful concept, so much so that Disney expanded upon it with their new water parks.

My definition has never shifted. DisneyQuest was the tip of the spear of the company initiative to move into LBE. It proved to be unworkable VERY quickly and Disney abandoned their plans. How long or how much money DQ made in DTD is completely irrelevant - The company strategy and growth initiative failed and never happened. That's what is measured.

I don't think anyone else is the one chasing a wrong idea in this discussion.

 

[el_super]

Objectively, Disney quest was a profitable success at WDW for it's 17 year run.

I don't think you understand the scope or scale of what Disney Quest was or was meant to be.

Saying the one location at WDW was profitable (which is disputable) and successful is like gauging success of go.com on how the domain is still being used. Or judging the success of Starcruiser on continuing lightsaber sales.

 

[LSLS]

Since this has fallen into a Disney Quest thread, I'm curious, how did the price compare to the price of the parks? I'm remembering it costing almost the exact same, but I'm not sure. It's kind of funny that pricing could have been the same thing to bring both down.

 

[flynnibus]

Since this has fallen into a Disney Quest thread, I'm curious, how did the price compare to the price of the parks? I'm remembering it costing almost the exact same, but I'm not sure. It's kind of funny that pricing could have been the same thing to bring both down.

DQ opened in Chicago with about a $34 price point in 1998. A one day WDW park ticket in 1998 was basically $40.

They lowered the price to about $26 within 2yrs.. and closed before 3yrs.

 

[celluloid]

A

I don't think you understand the scope or scale of what Disney Quest was or was meant to be.

Saying the one location at WDW was profitable (which is disputable) and successful is like gauging success of go.com on how the domain is still being used. Or judging the success of Starcruiser on continuing lightsaber sales.

I do. And said the regional plans for Disney Quest failed, and quickly.
It's not really disputable that the one at WDW was any more viable than anything else that exists or does not exist on WDW property with a decade or two operating life. If we want to go down that road and can of worm-hoke of a discussion. You start questioning viability of many more things that have been opened.

The WDW Disney Quest was not, however, a business failure on the level of NBA Experience or Starcruiser. This is fact.

 

[Basil of Baker Street]

A


I do. And said the regional plans failed, and quickly.
It's not really disputable that the one at WDW was any more viable than anything else that exists or does not exist on WDW property with a decade or two operating life. If we want to go down that road and can of worm-hoke of a discussion. You start questioning viability of many more things that have been opened.

The WDW Disney Quest was not, however, a business failure on the level of NBA Experience or Starcruiser. This is fact.

Anyone trying to argue that just wants to argue.

 

[celluloid]

My definition has never shifted. DisneyQuest was the tip of the spear of the company initiative to move into LBE. It proved to be unworkable VERY quickly and Disney abandoned their plans. How long or how much money DQ made in DTD is completely irrelevant - The company strategy and growth initiative failed and never happened. That's what is measured.

Again, Bob Iger is the one who could not make it work and abandoned the division completely. You make it sound like Disney abandoned their regional division right after Chicago did not work out. That did not happen. They never broke ground on the other locations that Disney Quest may have had but still operated that business with ESPN Zones and random plans until Bob Iger shut it down much later in 2010. Eisner never completely abandoned the concept. He left and no one fixed it and they held onto it all until Iger gave up in 2010. Just important to get the facts clear. He then failed at replacing both Disney Quest, and ESPN Zone with a replacement. That sit vacant auxiliary space today Notice a trend here?

 

[Sir_Cliff]

Anyone trying to argue that just wants to argue.

I don't know if there's some arguing at cross purposes here, but I think it's more a question of whether one was a success and one was a failure. Both failed, but, of course, Starcruiser was a more ambitious/expensive concept so the failure was obviously bigger.

Where we are now seems to be whether they can find a way to salvage something from it, which is basically what Disney did with the DisneyQuest venture by keeping the Downtown Disney venue running for many years.

Again, Bob Iger is the one who could not make it work and abandoned the division completely. You make it sound like Disney abandoned their regional division right after Chicago did not work out. That did not happen. They never broke ground on the other locations that Disney Quest may have had but still operated that business with ESPN Zones and random plans until Bob Iger shut it down much later in 2010. Eisner never completely abandoned the concept. He left and no one fixed it and they held onto it all until Iger gave up in 2010. Just important to get the facts clear. He then failed at replacing both Disney Quest, and ESPN Zone with a replacement. That sit vacant auxiliary space today Notice a trend here?

Regional entertainment may also just be an idea for which there is no great fix for Disney. Obviously the ESPN Zones weren't a big profit centre for the company and, as mentioned, DisneyQuest was abandoned after they couldn't make the Chicago venue work. While Universal is venturing into regional parks, Disney seems to have no interest in doing the same. As also mentioned on this thread, theme restaurants haven't seemed great business for quite a while.

Perhaps regional entertainment just hasn't proved a great business for Disney and they figure they're better off investing in their existing parks and resorts. I wouldn't be surprised if they still view even Aulani as a bit of a disappointment.