TheMaxRebo
Well-Known Member
it definitely wasn't true LARPing - but there was an immersion, role playing in live action element going on - which, whatever term you use for that, doesn't appeal to everyone
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News Star Wars: Galactic Starcruiser Permanently Closed Fall 2023
- Thread starter DCBaker
- Start date
it definitely wasn't true LARPing - but there was an immersion, role playing in live action element going on - which, whatever term you use for that, doesn't appeal to everyone
_caleb
Well-Known Member
Right. My point is that it wasn’t a requirement that guests wear costumes, develop a character with a backstory, interact in character, play pretend, or even actively participate.
It was immersive, in that it happened all around you over the course of your stay. It offered opportunities to interact, but could have been enjoyed passively.
Splash4eva
Well-Known Member
Then why didnit fail?!? I cant buy it was solely money. We have Taylor Swift selling out concerts across the globe for more money than the SC cost. So i really need to know why such a great experience failed
UNCgolf
Well-Known Member
I think that could be part of the issue in terms of a limited audience -- while there are a ton of positive reviews of the Starcruiser, they're mainly from people who were active participants.
I imagine if you didn't actively participate, you'd feel like you didn't get your money's worth (putting aside the cost problem in general) because it seems the whole experience was designed around/geared towards active participation in the story.
_caleb
Well-Known Member
Maybe. I just don’t understand why people keep talking about LARPing rather than comparing the Starcruiser to other immersive/interactive entertainment options out there that really aren’t considered edgy or weird and don’t require character role play: escape rooms, haunted houses, dinner theater, MagicQuest, Colonial Williamsburg, WWHP, even SW:GE.
UNCgolf
Well-Known Member
I don't think it's really comparable to those things, and intentionally so. Disney was trying to build something much more involved and I'm pretty sure they didn't want people to think it was remotely similar to something like an escape room.
I'm not calling it edgy or weird, but I do think it required some sort of character roleplay. That doesn't mean people needed to dress up or anything at that level (i.e. it didn't necessarily require stereotypical LARPing), but if you just went and kind of passively wandered around without engaging you were only getting a small fraction of the intended experience. Some of the positive reviews from attendees have even pointed that out here.
And I think that's what made it so great for people who liked it -- it sounds like it was a truly immersive experience that put you inside the story and reacted to your choices (at least to some extent). But you had to buy in and really participate to get that experience.
Last edited:
_caleb
Well-Known Member
If we’re thinking in terms of frame of reference, don’t you think it might’ve helped to point to interactive experiences that potential guests are likely to already have positive experiences with?
Seems to me that if they’d marketed the Starcruiser as being more like the things I listed than a “Star Wars hotel” or a LARP, people might have better understood what to expect.
UNCgolf
Well-Known Member
I posted that comment too quickly and made significant edits.
Regardless, I don't think marketing it as something similar to dinner theater would have set the proper expectations. Not that I think their actual marketing did a good job either (far from it), but I think marketing along the lines of what you mentioned may have caused more people to have a poor experience because they would not have realized how much they needed to actively participate and engage with the characters. While I don't think LARPing is necessarily the best description of the experience, I do think it's closer to what they were going for than any of the things you listed.
It wasn't designed as something where you just sit back and watch a story play out in front of you; if you do that you were only getting a tiny fraction of the intended experience. You were supposed to be part of the story (and that's also part of the reason it cost so much).
EDIT: Basically, almost everything you described is a passive experience. You show up, things happen, and they happen more or less the same for everyone. The experience doesn't change based on your individual choices. Escape rooms are an exception re: the passive nature, but they're about solving puzzles rather than engaging in a story (of course there can be a story involved, but that's more about context than the crux of the experience).
The Starcruiser was an active experience -- different people could have significantly different experiences based on the choices they made. They'd interact with different people, see different scenes, etc. from someone else, even on the same "voyage".
Last edited:
_caleb
Well-Known Member
Good points, as usual. I do think it was pretty carefully designed to be accessible to a variety of preferences/styles. I have friends who are super introverted and basically went and watched the experience like a show and loved it.
They could see how someone might say they didn’t get the full experience, but I think they got something they enjoyed.
UNCgolf
Well-Known Member
That's fair, but I do think the price was very, very high to simply watch it like a show -- they probably could have charged half the price if it was going to function more like a much longer dinner theater without all the highly interactive and changing elements. I also think it may have lessened the experience for other guests if too many others treated it passively (which is a possible reason why Disney wouldn't want to market it that way) -- that's admittedly speculation on my part, but based on some of what I've read I'm not sure it would have worked very well if only a smaller percentage of guests were truly engaged in the interactive content.
Of course, the price was too high in general, and that's one of the reasons it failed. What we don't know is if it was even feasible for them to significantly lower the price or if the operating costs were astronomical due to that highly interactive nature and the necessary staffing requirements etc.
Last edited:
_caleb
Well-Known Member
LOL, that’s EXACTLY what I said! “You went to the Starcruiser and WATCHED?”
TheMaxRebo
Well-Known Member
They did try to message that you could participate in as much or as little as you wanted - but that is where the high price plays a role (at least using myself as an example)
Could I have gone and stayed back and been more passive and just observed? Sure, but then I would be questioning internally if I was getting the full experience or if I had to force myself to participate to "get my money's worth"
It's one thing to spend $200 and try it out, see what I think, see how much I need to engage. Much harder fore to spend $6,000 for my family to go - just too big of a risk that I will feel like I didn't get the full experience
Nubs70
Well-Known Member
Star Cruiser was designed for extroverts. Was there enough thoughtful detail to keep the introvert entertained?
Dranth
Well-Known Member
It had several issues but cost was the biggest and made the others worse than they would have been. For example, say you weren’t sure about the whole interacting with characters/other guests and found the idea a little unsettling. Maybe you aren’t sure about the setting as the sequel trilogy isn’t your thing. Perhaps you aren’t found of taking two days out of a trip to spend on one thing or thought it looked kind of cheesy. All reasons to make you not want to try the SC.
Now, price it at $50.00 a night. How many people would look past their misgivings and try it anyway at that price? My guess is it would be permanently booked with a giant backlog. How about $150.00 a night? $250.00 a night? $450.00 a night?
We know what happened at $2500 a night. Not enough people went and I don’t blame them. The fact that it had to be priced this high for Disney to make the margins they wanted is exactly why this was a business failure. That is different than the experience itself not being enjoyable.
Incomudro
Well-Known Member
Taylor Swift delivers Taylor Swift fans what they want.
danlb_2000
Premium Member
I think the biggest challenge for the Starcruiser was being able to explain to people what it actually was.
TheMaxRebo
Well-Known Member
I think over time it became pretty clear what it was from all the reviews and videos - just what it was didn't appeal to enough people sufficiently to get them to be willing to pay the pricing
I mean, you basically needed to hit the center of a ven diagram that included:
- into / open to Star Wars
- not anti-Disney Star Wars/sequel trilogy
- into/open to immersion/role playing
- willing to devote 3 days/2 nights to this
- could afford it
Now add in that there was only one storyline so how many people that met the above willing to pay that much to repeat it?
It could be the most amazing exoeri nice ever, but just too small of a population
pdude81
Well-Known Member
Very introverted here, and yes. As an introvert I still have to talk to people at work or playing recreational sports, so the minor lift of answering questions on a tablet or talking to actors wasn't uncomfortable at all. It was overdesigned in a sense to allow you to participate at any level you were comfortable with. The more goofy stuff you see in pictures and video in this thread appeals more to the extroverts, who by and large had fun with the red carpet or learning the dance moves.
danlb_2000
Premium Member
Yes, but when you are marketing to the average guest you have to them interested enough to even get to reviews and videos.