News Star Wars: Galactic Starcruiser Permanently Closed Fall 2023

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Small correction. It looks like crap in pictures (which I agree, it does) but the people who have actually been there have pointed out many times that it didn't look nearly as bad in person. Doesn't mean it shouldn't have been better but it likely gets called out unfairly because it just doesn't photograph well.

You gotta admit it’s a huge downshift from what they portrayed it to be in the concepts. Very “cafeteria with neon”. But that’s not unusual…just sticks out more here.
If you take a close look at be our guest…it kinda sucks too. Why do you think the lights are so low?

It was better in every way except one but let's face it, quality doesn't win out in most cases. People want cheap and easy first and foremost with quality being a distant third in most cases.

I think it’s a balance between value and price…

And that’s what often missing with this completely stupid “luxury” tact that Bob has said non-committal for years. They’re saying it…not building it. Hefty budgets not bringing back the delivery of value.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Yall are trying too hard to crap on people's good time. Go outside and touch some grass.

The bigger picture is making excuses for bad product/pricing is good for no one. Neither the person making the excuses or the ones they try to convince. Disney will pick up on that feedback and push their agenda further the next time. We all lose. Different day…same truth.

But if it makes you feel better…I walked out into my yard in my bare feet to commune with nature before I typed this.
Namaste

 

[MrPromey]

I don't bristle at that at all. But there is huge psychological impact from "play-pretend" that Disney tapped into. LARP drop is a real phenomenon that is a subject of study by psychologists. It likely also was a huge factor in how many of us who went once thinking we could only ever spend the money to go once or perhaps every 4-5 years found ourselves back again in the same 12 month period. We had to have that experience again and it was even better on repeat visits. You can downplay the play-pretend aspect, but it is likely regardless of the financial failure of this attempt to become a bigger and bigger part of entertainment. Disney is not going to abandon the interactive immersion concept.

Oh, I'm not downplaying it at all and I'm glad you didn't take it the wrong way.

My wording on this is kind of blunt but I'm really not trying to insult anyone who did it and enjoyed it.

I'm just saying that a literal escape from reality, available to only those with the means to pay, seems like a weird thing to compare to the original Woodstock and yet the people who speak so highly of it here talk about it in religious-like ways that I have a hard time getting my head around.

 

[Dranth]

The point im trying to make is this. If the Starcruiser was a “success” by peoples admission again we will take them at their word that means Disney created a product that people liked yet it still was not worthy of them keeping it… ive suggested lowering the price and market more been told that probably will not work because of internal margins. So what can Disney do better if they are not willing to lower the price point on an already “successful” innovative idea? Cheapen said product/experience? I am genuinely confused to what people who are defending this see as an alternative

I have been in a number of meetings in my life where the future of a product was discussed and more than once came across a highly reviewed product that was not being adopted by the customer base.

At that point it is always the same general discussion to determine what is done next:

• What can we do to entice others to try this product that clearly those who use it like?
• What will it cost us to make these changes/updates?
• How long will it take for those changes to take hold and start seeing a return?
• How will the costs of the changes impact margins and will costs increase enough to make the product no longer viable? If so for how long?
• Will the changes impact the product in such a way as to lower customer perception or actual quality, thus hurting its chance for adoption?

A price decrease, like you mentioned, is always one of the first things a company will look at but it inevitably leads to a lot more questions. For example, is it permanent? If so, is the new margin acceptable? If it is not permanent how long do we need to run a promotional price for it to build enough forward momentum? Will people just dump it again when it returns to a higher price? Will we have to run the promotion so long that customers adapt to the new price and see it as the base going forward? This generates an amazing amount of ill will in my experience when the promotion stops.

Assuming a company makes it through all those discussions and has a plan they think will work, there is always one last hurdle that needs to be overcome:

• Can the money we are spending/will spend on this product be better spent elsewhere no matter what we do?

This is where I find things generally fall apart. People come up with all kinds of ideas and ways to make something work but at the end of the day, if there are better uses of that money, whatever that other use is will win.

In the case of the SC who knows, maybe they found a way to make the numbers work and legit have a plan to reopen this as something else down the line that incorporates what they learned from the first run. Maybe they close it for a while instead of just updating so as to distance whatever the new thing is form the negativity towards the old. Maybe despite having a plan nothing ever happens because something changes between now and then.

All we know for sure is that the people who went enjoyed it and rated it highly, it didn’t get a ton of traffic outside its opening and closing run, and Disney decided to close it.

 

[celluloid]

You don't know that. They have said something will be done next. Disney does not announce things until they are ready. If there is work going on there (as the public work order filing suggests), then they most likely have already gone back to that drawing board. That and other grapevine indicators suggests various levels of activity under way. My guess is it will probably be sometime in 2024 before the public gets to find out what they have chosen as a new direction.

As for the personal shots against me as newer to posting on these boards, that's all fine. But I have been in business longer than most on these boards have been alive. I've learned along the way that sometimes the best products fail in the market. Disney seems to have a "build it and they will come" attitude sometimes. But it doesn't work that way. Some amazing products and many products that were higher quality than their competitors have failed over the decades because the companies didn't figure out how to win in the marketplace regardless of how good their products were. Anyone remember Betamax?

My response you quoted was specifically in response to it being a creative failure. Not that they can't one day do something with the building or real estate. That is a seperate argument. Salvaging it creatively is a different drawing board than closing the entire place until the company decides to utilize the real estate. I have been in the themed entertainment industry longer than these boards have been, so it is an industry I understand very well. Wonders of Life, River Country or Disney Institute were all examples of great ideas that they did not salvage before they were replaced in concept or shuttered completely. There are many more.
Galactic Star cruiser is not Woodstock, an event that was so unruly from its rapid demand of a tough crowd that they had to stop charging admission for safety, it is Disney wondering if people would stay the night in a boutique theme park without as much to offer as they should, in a price point they could not figure out a ROI for because theme parks are expensive to staff, so they allow entertainment in bulk with large attendance to pay for it.

That is great that you understand that for business, but as even you say, this product failed the market.
Personally, I am of the business philosophy that while a product that tried really hard can fail the market, if it failed the market, it was not delivering what it said it would do. This is why this product under that, failed in both senses.

 

[pdude81]

Really? This is your definition of "tremendous"?

You're just beating on the same drum here. First of all, that room was much more white and sanitized during looking than this picture shows, so it was either shot with filters or color corrected in some way. Second, this space is designed to be a quick buffet during the day and more like a night club at night. The day meals are only for people who choose to eat there just after check in or on day 2 when they are supposed to be in the park doing missions. It's also used for a card tournament, so they aren't looking to have all the guests lingering there when supposed to be doing other things to further their stories.

Pictures like this shown out of context by people who know nothing about the experience worried me before my visit last year, though I stuck with it ultimately. I'm sure a number of people cancelled after the troll army decended on the experience and posted red herring after red herring about it.

Have you been to a concert venue or a night club during the day when the lights are on? They look rather sad, don't they?

And no, I don't think this picture of the dining room is tremendous. The food was though, even at lunch time.

 

[pdude81]

It doesn’t look that much more impressive from other angles though. In all the videos and photos I’ve seen, it doesn’t scream “dining room” so much as corporate cafeteria with neo-futuristic succulents.

View attachment 749528
View attachment 749529

This is a more accurate representation of what it looks like during the day. However, at night with the bright lights off and the concert going, it looked completely different and was packed. So the feel was very different. It certainly wasn't somewhere I wanted to be for very long when eating in the afternoon, but I think that's part of the point.

 

[pdude81]

I think that’s the point…

“Degrees of failure” are somewhat irrelevant.

But here’s the big thing: I don’t think that those that worked in the swamp locker didn’t do everything they can…so it’s not a failure “on the ground”.
The entire thing was DOA. Overall - a failure in an order of magnitude. Any suggestion they’ll “tweak and reopen” is fool.

Even I didn’t pop on here and say “it’s gonna be a disaster”…many did. I NEVER underestimate the eastern US’s ability to toss money into the mangroves. Not for one second.

But they pulled the plug in earth shaking fashion. That is a “strong indicator” that it was far worse than people are giving it credit for in the autopsy.

A post of above said “hundreds of thousands of people loved it…”

Somebody gonna have to seriously question that. The decision to close it was made in 10-12 months…hell - knowing how the controlling brain cluster works - it may have been on a “clock” before if ever opened. Not just possible…likely.

They’re good with data. I’m sure what the C-suite laments is financing the construction…not the closure. And that’s a house of ego…and they STILL closed it.

We’re underplaying the fail here in reality…not overstating it.

Now enjoy the circus

I think they pulled the plug because it wasn't making a ton of money and to get another large round of bookings, they'd either have to announce it's closure or come up with a new story. I would go back if it wasn't the same exact thing I already did, but the number of people who would replay the same experience for 6 large was not going to do it long term.

Right now I think they are doing everything in their power to show decent financials in a few weeks, and they needed an accounting gimmick. And this was low hanging fruit

 

[Splash4eva]

I think they pulled the plug because it wasn't making a ton of money and to get another large round of bookings, they'd either have to announce it's closure or come up with a new story. I would go back if it wasn't the same exact thing I already did, but the number of people who would replay the same experience for 6 large was not going to do it long term.

Right now I think they are doing everything in their power to show decent financials in a few weeks, and they needed an accounting gimmick. And this was low hanging fruit

I am NOT buying the accounting loss 1 bit… it obviously needs to be disclosed & do you really think anyone with a brain on Wall St is nit going to see thru that “gimmick”. I assure you they are not….

 

[pdude81]

I am NOT buying the accounting loss 1 bit… it obviously needs to be disclosed & do you really think anyone with a brain on Wall St is nit going to see thru that “gimmick”. I assure you they are not….

I don't think serious analysts on Wall St. are super focused on SWGS. They care about the financials and this is one small bit

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I think they pulled the plug because it wasn't making a ton of money and to get another large round of bookings, they'd either have to announce it's closure or come up with a new story. I would go back if it wasn't the same exact thing I already did, but the number of people who would replay the same experience for 6 large was not going to do it long term.

Right now I think they are doing everything in their power to show decent financials in a few weeks, and they needed an accounting gimmick. And this was low hanging fruit

Fair

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I am NOT buying the accounting loss 1 bit… it obviously needs to be disclosed & do you really think anyone with a brain on Wall St is nit going to see thru that “gimmick”. I assure you they are not….

…I don’t know if Wall Street is as “astute” as it used to be.

Used to be men In suits with pocket watches who could smell BS in numbers…

Now it’s people that can’t wait past tomorrow to be rich and the computers do the legwork.

If there’s $1 a share to be made in the “perception”…they’ll run with it. No matter what it actually is.

 

[edfhinton]

I don't think serious analysts on Wall St. are super focused on SWGS. They care about the financials and this is one small bit

I agree. You have to put it in perspective. Sure, they are aware of SWGS. But this was developed over 5+ years (longer for the story engine they will continue to use and still use in Galaxy's Edge). Over that 5 years period, the entire accelerated depreciation they are taking amounts to 0.1% of revenue for the period. Looks like a lot of money when you write out the number with all the zeros, but for wall street 0.1% is a rounding error. That size write-down will yield a corresponding tax savings of about 0.1% tax reduction compared to current fiscal year revenue. SWGS is a financial blip outside of Disney internal management. Whereas Disney internally has to look at the financial returns of each of its separate activities including SWGS and make budget choices at the more granular level, Wall St is looking at major segments such as parks, streaming, etc. They will not care about the why associated with a financial blip. They will care about the overall company numbers that are multiple orders of magnitude larger.

 

[Splash4eva]

I don't think serious analysts on Wall St. are super focused on SWGS. They care about the financials and this is one small bit

Then the theory of using this to help the financials is meaningless that you alluded to…

 

[Splash4eva]

…I don’t know if Wall Street is as “astute” as it used to be.

Used to be men In suits with pocket watches who could smell BS in numbers…

Now it’s people that can’t wait past tomorrow to be rich and the computers do the legwork.

If there’s $1 a share to be made in the “perception”…they’ll run with it. No matter what it actually is.

Algo’s have taken over sadly agreed but this write down is not something that is gonna fool anyone imo

 

[Bocabear]

This is a more accurate representation of what it looks like during the day. However, at night with the bright lights off and the concert going, it looked completely different and was packed. So the feel was very different. It certainly wasn't somewhere I wanted to be for very long when eating in the afternoon, but I think that's part of the point.

Even so, it is a sad room...lights on, lights dimmed etc...It does look like a corporate cafeteria as opposed to a spaceship cruise. It looks like it was deigned by an outsourced company that did not understand what the setting was supposed to be...and certainly not what you would imagine an Intergalactic Cruise Liner to be like...
I wanted to love this whole concept but all of the spaces I have seen look underwhelming and usual... Not a fantastical Luxury Spaceship Cruiseliner through outerspace...
Every guest space should have looked unique and Wow!

 

[celluloid]

Even so, it is a sad room...lights on, lights dimmed etc...It does look like a corporate cafeteria as opposed to a spaceship cruise. It looks like it was deigned by an outsourced company that did not understand what the setting was supposed to be...and certainly not what you would imagine an Intergalactic Cruise Liner to be like...
I wanted to love this whole concept but all of the spaces I have seen look underwhelming and usual... Not a fantastical Luxury Spaceship Cruiseliner through outerspace...
Every guest space should have looked unique and Wow!

That is fair. There is a difference between an extended queue with the lights on of an attraction, or a night club with the lights on vs
a place you are going to eat your meals for what the experience charged.

 

[flynnibus]

I am NOT buying the accounting loss 1 bit… it obviously needs to be disclosed & do you really think anyone with a brain on Wall St is nit going to see thru that “gimmick”. I assure you they are not….

The accountants don't need your blessing and they've already told the world they are taking these claims.. and already did so in part last quarter. And what happened? Nothing, because this is normal business.

Analysts already look at results with and without major impairments.. nothing new here. What Disney wants is the tax advantages, which aren't a matter of impressions/opinions.

 

[edfhinton]

Then the theory of using this to help the financials is meaningless that you alluded to…

Not at all. To improve the financials, Disney took multiple publicly visible steps including the SWGS. There are likely to have been a lot of things they did not visible to the public. All those individual steps added together affect the numbers Wall St cares about. But Wall St is not looking at the individual blips that add up to the bigger numbers.

Having been through corporate cost cutting discussions myself on more than one occasion, it would not surprise me if Disney had a specific number they wanted to hit for the year. When you start with a top down number, you end up making tough decisions on things that taken on their own you would have kept. At that point, something like SWGS had little chance with failure to hit margins. They could always retain the most effective concepts and come up with something more profitable after on whatever timeline makes sense to them, but quarterly and annual financials don't wait for later.

 

[Disstevefan1]

Not at all. To improve the financials, Disney took multiple publicly visible steps including the SWGS. There are likely to have been a lot of things they did not visible to the public. All those individual steps added together affect the numbers Wall St cares about. But Wall St is not looking at the individual blips that add up to the bigger numbers.

Having been through corporate cost cutting discussions myself on more than one occasion, it would not surprise me if Disney had a specific number they wanted to hit for the year. When you start with a top down number, you end up making tough decisions on things that taken on their own you would have kept. At that point, something like SWGS had little chance with failure to hit margins. They could always retain the most effective concepts and come up with something more profitable after on whatever timeline makes sense to them, but quarterly and annual financials don't wait for later.

Since they lose about 100 Million per movie, the best cost cutting step would be to halt all movie work for a year or two.