Starcruiser: What do you think it'll be used for in 5 years?

[donsullivan]

I will never understand the culture in 'some' so-called Disney fans of Root for it to fail before it has even opened. Nobody here has experienced it, you've only seen some brief videos but you've decided this is a failure.

How about waiting until it's open, deciding if it's right for you and then if you think it is- you go if you don't think it is- you don't go?

Whether this will work long term is totally and completely unknown but the premise of the creation of boutique size 'experience' resorts whether they be Star Wars themed or something else along the road is a kind of intriguing thing for Disney to be experiment with. if it doesn't work, it will go the way of Disney Quest. If it does, then there could be others with other themes down that road. Why does everyone care so much if you don't intend to participate?

Rooting for failure on something you have not personally experienced seems like a lot of wasted energy to me.

 

[UNCgolf]

I will never understand the culture in 'some' so-called Disney fans of Root for it to fail before it has even opened. Nobody here has experienced it, you've only seen some brief videos but you've decided this is a failure.

How about waiting until it's open, deciding if it's right for you and then if you think it is- you go if you don't think it is- you don't go?

Whether this will work long term is totally and completely unknown but the premise of the creation of boutique size 'experience' resorts whether they be Star Wars themed or something else along the road is a kind of intriguing thing for Disney to be experiment with. if it doesn't work, it will go the way of Disney Quest. If it does, then there could be others with other themes down that road. Why does everyone care so much if you don't intend to participate?

Rooting for failure on something you have not personally experienced seems like a lot of wasted energy to me.

I'm not rooting for it to fail -- I think what they've shown looks awful, but I truly hope it is great and people have a phenomenal time. With that said, it's more complicated than you're suggesting.

If it's successful enough to drive Disney to build more of these boutique experiences, there's a very real chance they focus on those at the expense of theme park investment, which would be a negative for anyone who likes the parks but isn't interested in these experiences.

On the other hand, if it does fail, it could push Disney to significantly cut back on resort/theme park investment in general, which would also be a negative for people that enjoy the parks. It's impossible to know what will happen.

 

[GuyFawkes]

My thought is simply this. Why on Earth wouldn't you use the original Star Wars characters? That is the major down fall of the hotel.

The endless march to wokeness is turning out no good characters.

 

[Minthorne]

We don’t talk about Bruno.

 

[rct247]

5 years from now? I think it will still be doing its thing because there will still be people willing to want to try it out. There will be tweaks on what works and what doesn't, but I don't think it will fail despite me thinking it still a weird concept.

Now 15-20 years from now, that will be interesting and I think 30-40 years from now it will be much different.

 

[SteveAZee]

Sort of a bed and breakfast but this would be a “Batuu and breakfast” , sorry I had to, but seriously I like this idea a lot. I like the overnight thing. This is doable/affordable by more people, I think will cost Disney less, easier for Disney to staff and operate, and I think to will make MORE money for Disney.

I would think it would feel like you're spending the night in the park, or at least the Star Wars part of it... the bubble inside the bubble inside the bubble.

 

[Brad Bishop]

I could see it becoming a restaurant. That would be kind of cool.

But like some blogger said (and I completely agree) do we really want DIS to fail on this? The mentioned that the point DIS will take away from all of this is not the point we hope they will (you can't phone it in, Star Wars fans are not Star Trek fans, etc). The point they will take away is to not be ambitious and to play it safe. No one wins in that case. My apologies to whichever blogger or WDWmagic member said (I forget) that but they were spot on!

I don't want them to fail on this. I just see them as doing just that based on their previous budgetary actions, them seemingly doing this on the cheap, etc.

Every time Disney does something on the cheap it's noticed and it either fails (DCA) or isn't well received. When they put time and money into their projects they become timeless. Basically, you don't get timeless attractions, resorts, experiences on the cheap and Disney can't seem to figure it out. Toting people around in a box truck who've just given you $6-10K doesn't look good (but it's cheap!). they could have created some kind of transport experience (like the Hogwart's train) which would have at least shown some effort.

In other situations they end up spending even more money doing the whole project over again (like DCA) than if they'd done it right the first time. In other projects we're just stuck with what they gave us (I'd argue New Fantasyland fits this with 7DMT (I think the whole Belle experience is pretty great, however - they tried something different there and it works really well)).

With the Star Cruiser, I think, based on its proximity, that it'll eventually just be shuttered or, as others have noted, become a break room for bus drivers or maybe a storage place for wigs. It's not "a whole park that disappointed" (DCA) but it'll be seen as a failure / not viable and not worth converting into anything else (they didn't lose a theme park's budget on this but essentially a "tiny hotel" cost on it).

 

[Brad Bishop]

Yeah, I would think the obvious would be to pivot to reservation only dining, lightsaber training, bat with entertainment. People make reservations and then they take transport from DHS for the requisite experience. You could still use the rooms/other parks of the ship for backstage and support for DHS if they aren’t needed/used otherwise

I think that's an interesting take: What if it just became an extension to Galaxy's Edge? It may not be worth it due to construction costs, but they could build an elevated walkway (themed so you're not overlooking the parking lot) to it and then have the light saber training, dining, a lounge, etc. there. I think, based on looking at it from above, that they'd need to build in the area where the roads to the hotel are now so it doesn't feel like you're walking a mile to get to some "fluff" in the park. They could even build a ride on that side and use the hotel rooms for something (intergalactic brothel? "No no.. Leave the fins on." ) Basically they'd have some unique spaces that could be used or opened up and some land that could be used to expand Star Wars.

I don't think they'll do this, but it would be a cool use of it.

 

[Brad Bishop]

5 years from now? I think it will still be doing its thing because there will still be people willing to want to try it out. There will be tweaks on what works and what doesn't, but I don't think it will fail despite me thinking it still a weird concept.

Now 15-20 years from now, that will be interesting and I think 30-40 years from now it will be much different.

I think 20-30 years out that Star Wars will have lost its charm. They'll likely rebuild the entire land sometime after that into something else.

 

[Brad Bishop]

My thought is simply this. Why on Earth wouldn't you use the original Star Wars characters? That is the major down fall of the hotel.

The endless march to wokeness is turning out no good characters.

I'm not a fan of Kathleen Kennedy. Yep, she's all about the woke.

That being said, I think she, on the surface at lease, made a fairly good point about, "Galaxy's Edge is about the future of Star Wars and the characters that'll inhabit it." (paraphrased) Agree with it or not, I think it's a really good point.

They screwed up because they decided to make crap Star Wars movies (except for Rogue One - I'll give them that one though there were parts of it that were really contrived). The rest of it was woke. "Look at Rey. She can do anything without studying / practicing / discipline because: she's a woman!" (that's NOT a strong female character - if it were Ron instead of Rey and they applied the same principle it'd be a crap male character.) The wokeness just got worse with every movie.

We get it. You're in a cult.

Still, had they just made good movies, with characters who grew / had an arc / simple morals, etc. Kennedy probably would have been correct on her statement for Galaxy's Edge. The conversation would likely be along the lines of Star Trek captains:
- "The original characters were better!" (I'd have argued against his as Luke, in IV, was REALLY whiny)
- "No. The new characters are SO much better!"
- "Guys.. The old characters were great AND we have new great characters!"

...but we got woke characters seasoned with more wokeness.

 

[UNCgolf]

I thought the new Star Wars trilogy was basically a disaster from start to finish, but I don't understand the wokeness complaint. There's nothing especially woke about any of the characters in the movies. The movies wouldn't be any better if they were all white dudes, and it also wouldn't really affect the plots whatsoever because there's basically nothing about the characters that's written differently than if they were all white dudes.

 

[jloucks]

I know - "It's still yet to open!" and "Disney could turn it around!"

I think this thing is flawed from the get-go:
- it doesn't make sense. It makes sense on the surface until you realize:
- Guests aren't looking for a "cruise" in space.
- Why would you take a cruise that went anywhere near a war zone?
- On a normal cruise ship it may take me a week or more to explore the entire thing. If you look at the size of the Star Cruiser it's essentially the size of a large city. This building is the size of a very small hotel. I can't help but think that your brain is going to map it out as: The 12 rooms for guests are over there. There's the "bridge". There's the light saber training. There's the lounge. There's the dining area. That's it. It's going to be painfully obvious that this is like the opposite of the Tardis where it's actually tiny on the inside compared to the (supposed) outside (the giant ship they're saying you're on).
- done on the cheap
- Capt. Karen
- They'll be using technology of the past (because Star Wars IS in the past) like the iPhone or iPad you bring with you.
- when enter a port, you'll be transported by box car to a theme park that has sort-of Star Wars in it. You know you're in a theme park.

I think other realities will be:
- Disney isn't big on paying for actors to LARP (see Galaxy's Edge which was going to be so immersive with such people)

My guess is that this entire thing is management driven: "We bought Star Wars! We have to make money with Star Wars! Get Kennedy on the phone!"

Instead of an Imagineer driven thing which I think would have caught the #1 problem: No one really want to take a Star Wars space cruise. What they want is to be on a battleship on one side or the other blasting away. If you look at other interviews with Imagineers like Rhode, they always seem to catch these kinds of flaws and say things like, "Well, in this situation, if you think about it, you'd expect X, not Y," and you're left with, "That's both genius and incredibly obvious!" and that's where the brilliance is!

Left to the imagineers, I think we would have gotten a much better Star Wars land where we could have had interactive simulators (all battling in the same space) including the Millennium Falcon, X-wing, Y-wing, Tie-fighters, etc. How cool would it have been if it were all just a constant battle and you got to get in line to play until you were either hit or some time limit expired. You could have the Imperial side of the land (maybe you were "transported" to the Death Star) or the Rebel side (on one of the ships just on the other side of some planet).

Instead, (management), we got:
- $200+ droid building
- $40+ Star Wars drinks at a bar
- Expensive Star Wars plush / T-shirts
- 2 rides, one which isn't talked about much any longer.
- kind of an empty desert land
- a tiny "Star Cruiser" hotel at $6K/stay (not quite 48hrs)

I just think that management has blown it on this. From the looks of it, the Star Cruiser was done cheaply enough that they won't lose much by shutting it down in a few years. There's no fancy ride mechanism to simulate a shuttle to Galaxy's Edge. Nope. Just a box truck. Easily used for transporting plush.

...and that's leads to the subject of this post: I think, 5 years out, we're likely to see the Star Cruiser become long-term (because there's a road in the way) back-stage storage.

The few who will try it at $6K/stay (min) aren't likely to be repeat customers. The average Disney guest really is priced out of this one. The offerings for the $6K/stay (min) look pretty weak. Also, this isn't a park that they've invested $$B into. In that situation (like DCA) they pretty much have to redo it. This? It's a small building that can easily be repurposed for storage.

I'd guess that they'll try to rework it once or twice in that 5 years but, ultimately, they really don't want to spend the money on it. They really just want people to hand over $6K/stay (or more). I think that management sort of just expects people to do this because: Disney and Star Wars.

When Universal wanted to transport people, they build the Hogwarts train and it's an experience. Disney? They decorate the inside of a box car. This tells you what they think: You love them. You'll pay. Doesn't matter what they do.

As somebody that is going next month I felt compelled to respond...


"Guests aren't looking for a "cruise" in space." - Yes they are. An all immersive, all inclusive spachip cruise in space. yes please.

"Why would you take a cruise that went anywhere near a war zone?" - It's fiction, and exciting at that.

"On a normal cruise ship it may take me a week or more to explore the entire thing" - It does seem small, you have a point here. But it is also short, so that should help.

"done on the cheap" - You mean done on the expensive. I could take 3 cruises for the price I paid for Starcruiser.

"Capt. Karen" - Not sure what you mean. But it can't be worse than Carnival.

"The few who will try it at $6K/stay (min) aren't likely to be repeat customers. The average Disney guest really is priced out of this one. " - Now they are sure. Demand is racking up the price. If demand falls, so to will price. But, I do suspect, even at half price, I would not go again. This seems like it might be a once-in-a-lifetime type thing. Maybe. Dunno yet.

"When Universal wanted to transport people, they build the Hogwarts train and it's an experience." - This is a really good point you may or may not have been trying to make. Think of Starcruiser as a private Wizarding World at Universal where you could actually stay at Hogwarts and dress up and play a part with other likeminded individuals. Almost like Larping. As I type, I am 3D printing out Inquisitor armor pieces for my costume that is on it's way from Latvia. We are going as a party of 7, and all of us are going full larp level immersion.

So, if you are the type that thinks Trekkies, Larpers, and Ren Faire'ers that dress up are all wackadoodles, then yea, I can see how you wouldn't get it. It is an ultimate escape, even from your own mind.

 

[Brad Bishop]

As somebody that is going next month I felt compelled to respond...

"Guests aren't looking for a "cruise" in space." - Yes they are. An all immersive, all inclusive spachip cruise in space. yes please.

"Why would you take a cruise that went anywhere near a war zone?" - It's fiction, and exciting at that.

"On a normal cruise ship it may take me a week or more to explore the entire thing" - It does seem small, you have a point here. But it is also short, so that should help.

"done on the cheap" - You mean done on the expensive. I could take 3 cruises for the price I paid for Starcruiser.

"Capt. Karen" - Not sure what you mean. But it can't be worse than Carnival.

"The few who will try it at $6K/stay (min) aren't likely to be repeat customers. The average Disney guest really is priced out of this one. " - Now they are sure. Demand is racking up the price. If demand falls, so to will price. But, I do suspect, even at half price, I would not go again. This seems like it might be a once-in-a-lifetime type thing. Maybe. Dunno yet.

"When Universal wanted to transport people, they build the Hogwarts train and it's an experience." - This is a really good point you may or may not have been trying to make. Think of Starcruiser as a private Wizarding World at Universal where you could actually stay at Hogwarts and dress up and play a part with other likeminded individuals. Almost like Larping. As I type, I am 3D printing out Inquisitor armor pieces for my costume that is on it's way from Latvia. We are going as a party of 7, and all of us are going full larp level immersion.

So, if you are the type that thinks Trekkies, Larpers, and Ren Faire'ers that dress up are all wackadoodles, then yea, I can see how you wouldn't get it. It is an ultimate escape, even from your own mind.

"On the cheap" - I meant what it appears that Disney is spending, not you.

I used to (like 10-15yrs back) think LARPers, etc. were a little nutty (same with D&D players and whatnot). The thing is: You're just trying to live life and have fun with what you like to do and you're not hurting anyone else. I had to change my tune on that one. In addition to that, the freaking detail you guys put into your outfits, and those faires is pretty amazing. Staying in character because that's who you want to be right then and that's who you are. I think it's kind of awesome.

My "Hogwart's Train" bit was about the box truck they'll be driving you in. For the amount of money you're paying and how it's supposed to be a high-end event, it seems like they could have done something more than a box truck. Then again, from the previews so far, it looks like they could have done something more for a lot of it.

All that being said, I understand you're putting a bunch of money into this and I hope it's a fantastic experience for you and I hope that a lot of our initial thoughts on this are wrong. Report back here when you've completed your trip.

 

[durangojim]

I don’t know enough about accounting and depreciation but is it possible Disney created this so that it would lose money, kind of like the theme of the show “The Producers”?

 

[danlb_2000]

I will never understand the culture in 'some' so-called Disney fans of Root for it to fail before it has even opened. Nobody here has experienced it, you've only seen some brief videos but you've decided this is a failure.

How about waiting until it's open, deciding if it's right for you and then if you think it is- you go if you don't think it is- you don't go?

Whether this will work long term is totally and completely unknown but the premise of the creation of boutique size 'experience' resorts whether they be Star Wars themed or something else along the road is a kind of intriguing thing for Disney to be experiment with. if it doesn't work, it will go the way of Disney Quest. If it does, then there could be others with other themes down that road. Why does everyone care so much if you don't intend to participate?

Rooting for failure on something you have not personally experienced seems like a lot of wasted energy to me.

I think sometime people root for things to fail because they think it will send a message that Disney is going the wrong direction on something.

 

[ᗩLᘿᑕ ✨ ᗩζᗩᗰ]

Let's see how well Lightyear performs at the box office and we'll revisit this discussion.

 

[HauntedPirate]

I don’t know enough about accounting and depreciation but is it possible Disney created this so that it would lose money, kind of like the theme of the show “The Producers”?

Bob and Josh don't greenlight anything that will lose money.

 

[GimpYancIent]

Bob and Josh don't greenlight anything that will lose money.

There is a first time for everything.

 

[Brad Bishop]

I think sometime people root for things to fail because they think it will send a message that Disney is going the wrong direction on something.

The following is "in general" and not directed directly at @danlb_2000, directly.

I don't accept that premise. I know that's what's pushed here: "You don't like the new thing / have problems with the new thing / don't think the new thing is up to snuff!!! Why do you want Disney to fail????"

It's sort of like not wanting new taxes to "feed the children" and then being categorized as, "WHY DO YOU WANT THE CHILDREN TO STARVE???" <- that would make me a horrible person, right?

... or maybe.. I'm just saying there is a different, and perhaps better, way.

When people get on this forum and talk negatively about something Disney is doing it's because, at least on the surface, it looks like a HUGE mistake. This mistake may break some of the founding principles of the park such as:
- Sight lines
- theming
- original intent
- doing things on the cheap / ending up with something less than it could have been

If anything, this isn't, "I want Disney to fail!," but more along the lines, "I really want them to succeed!"

I could argue that sitting idly by just allowing them to spoon feed you whatever and charge you more actually does more harm than good. It allows them to sit on their laurels and not progress.

It just seems to be such a misunderstood thing in today's society and it's simplistic thinking of, "Well, if you're not 100% for us, then you're 100% against us!!" - and that really isn't the case either on this forum or in society. Just because someone criticizes something doesn't mean that they hate that something. In fact, it may be that they really care for that something and don't want to see it changed (it's going to change, however) / get sloppy / ruined.

Six Flags used to be a pretty good set of theme parks. Not back in the early 200s but going back to the 1970s. They're now the discount park. They're the Walmart of theme parks. You don't really want to go but, yeah, you'll go because your cousin is in town. That's how it is now. It's not how it used to be. They've had decades of "We're the discount park!" crap where they just added coaster after coaster with no theming (the originally had theming), and now? They're kind of a crappy regional theme park with decent sized coasters. Not the best coasters, but what do you expect from a discount chain?

During all of those decades you could have made all sorts of commentary, much like is written here, that, "They really shouldn't be doing that.. That's not a good idea... At some point they're going to have to pay on that debt for all of those coasters..." and, if you think about it, you were hoping they wouldn't become some crappy amusement park chain but others, using today's logic, would have said, "Why do you hate Six Flags and want to see them fail???"

Getting back to Disney:
- I still think the Star Cruiser is not a great fit. Others disagree.
- I still think Disney has shown, through their actions, that they're not really intent on paying for street performers in their parks. They've got rid of quite a few of them in recent years and used COVID to do some of that. Galaxy's Edge was supposed to be teeming with them but, outside of the first month or so, they seem to be mostly missing. I think you can extrapolate from that that you'll likely have something akin to a meet & greet with Vader or whomever at the hotel and then there'll be the necessary employees to make things work (like manning the attractions (light saber training / bridge) or staffing the bar / dining room / kitchen. Sure, maybe in the first month or two they'll do something more elaborate, but, long term, they're just not committed to that idea (as seen by their own history).
- from the previews: It doesn't look well themed. It doesn't look like Star Wars. It looks "generic 1970s-ish space props".
- It doesn't look like it has much and, how can it based on it's size? (another ding against the whole "cruise ship" idea
- box truck <- You're paying, min, $6K to be taken in a box truck over to the park. You can come out of it, and with the amount of money you've spent I could see you saying, "it was the best box truck ride, EVER!" - you still paid $6K to be carried in a box truck. Of all of the ideas of how to get customers from the star cruiser to the park, how did they land on "box truck". Build the hotel closer to the park and have a room with TV screens for windows that shakes a bit and you have your shuttle to Galaxy's Edge. No no.. Box truck. You can see how they've done something very similar and clever with the entrance to RotR - they could have done that!
- The inside of the cruiser looks like a regular hotel with dry wall and all that.

From what I can tell, Disney has built this to maximize profits (I mean that to an extent of: Whatever you thought they could charge someone for something, they multiplied it by 10). How much money can they charge for the least amount of effort? I don't think that is a recipe for success. I don't think it's a recipe for repeat customers. I think, at the same time, and I'm not even against this notion, it prices out everyone else (unless they start offering discount passages for $1000/stay and your ride in stowage - imagine the immersion of paying $1000/stay and your riding in stowage through space)

Along the same lines: Imagine if they were going to build a 300ft coaster right behind Cinderella's castle. I'd argue:
- That doesn't belong there.
- It screws up the sight lines.
- I'm not sure that's the kind of park the Magic Kingdom is.
- How do you theme something at 300ft?

Others would argue against me:
- You don't know it'll look bad until they're done
- Wait until it opens and THEN make your decision
- Disney will just color it go-away-green and you'll never see it
- They're going to have character cut outs all up and down the lift hill to immerse you!
- Why do you hate Disney and want it to fail?

 

[danlb_2000]

The following is "in general" and not directed directly at @danlb_2000, directly.

I don't accept that premise. I know that's what's pushed here: "You don't like the new thing / have problems with the new thing / don't think the new thing is up to snuff!!! Why do you want Disney to fail????"

It's sort of like not wanting new taxes to "feed the children" and then being categorized as, "WHY DO YOU WANT THE CHILDREN TO STARVE???" <- that would make me a horrible person, right?

... or maybe.. I'm just saying there is a different, and perhaps better, way.

When people get on this forum and talk negatively about something Disney is doing it's because, at least on the surface, it looks like a HUGE mistake. This mistake may break some of the founding principles of the park such as:
- Sight lines
- theming
- original intent
- doing things on the cheap / ending up with something less than it could have been

If anything, this isn't, "I want Disney to fail!," but more along the lines, "I really want them to succeed!"

I could argue that sitting idly by just allowing them to spoon feed you whatever and charge you more actually does more harm than good. It allows them to sit on their laurels and not progress.

It just seems to be such a misunderstood thing in today's society and it's simplistic thinking of, "Well, if you're not 100% for us, then you're 100% against us!!" - and that really isn't the case either on this forum or in society. Just because someone criticizes something doesn't mean that they hate that something. In fact, it may be that they really care for that something and don't want to see it changed (it's going to change, however) / get sloppy / ruined.

Six Flags used to be a pretty good set of theme parks. Not back in the early 200s but going back to the 1970s. They're now the discount park. They're the Walmart of theme parks. You don't really want to go but, yeah, you'll go because your cousin is in town. That's how it is now. It's not how it used to be. They've had decades of "We're the discount park!" crap where they just added coaster after coaster with no theming (the originally had theming), and now? They're kind of a crappy regional theme park with decent sized coasters. Not the best coasters, but what do you expect from a discount chain?

During all of those decades you could have made all sorts of commentary, much like is written here, that, "They really shouldn't be doing that.. That's not a good idea... At some point they're going to have to pay on that debt for all of those coasters..." and, if you think about it, you were hoping they wouldn't become some crappy amusement park chain but others, using today's logic, would have said, "Why do you hate Six Flags and want to see them fail???"

Getting back to Disney:
- I still think the Star Cruiser is not a great fit. Others disagree.
- I still think Disney has shown, through their actions, that they're not really intent on paying for street performers in their parks. They've got rid of quite a few of them in recent years and used COVID to do some of that. Galaxy's Edge was supposed to be teeming with them but, outside of the first month or so, they seem to be mostly missing. I think you can extrapolate from that that you'll likely have something akin to a meet & greet with Vader or whomever at the hotel and then there'll be the necessary employees to make things work (like manning the attractions (light saber training / bridge) or staffing the bar / dining room / kitchen. Sure, maybe in the first month or two they'll do something more elaborate, but, long term, they're just not committed to that idea (as seen by their own history).
- from the previews: It doesn't look well themed. It doesn't look like Star Wars. It looks "generic 1970s-ish space props".
- It doesn't look like it has much and, how can it based on it's size? (another ding against the whole "cruise ship" idea
- box truck <- You're paying, min, $6K to be taken in a box truck over to the park. You can come out of it, and with the amount of money you've spent I could see you saying, "it was the best box truck ride, EVER!" - you still paid $6K to be carried in a box truck. Of all of the ideas of how to get customers from the star cruiser to the park, how did they land on "box truck". Build the hotel closer to the park and have a room with TV screens for windows that shakes a bit and you have your shuttle to Galaxy's Edge. No no.. Box truck. You can see how they've done something very similar and clever with the entrance to RotR - they could have done that!
- The inside of the cruiser looks like a regular hotel with dry wall and all that.

From what I can tell, Disney has built this to maximize profits (I mean that to an extent of: Whatever you thought they could charge someone for something, they multiplied it by 10). How much money can they charge for the least amount of effort? I don't think that is a recipe for success. I don't think it's a recipe for repeat customers. I think, at the same time, and I'm not even against this notion, it prices out everyone else (unless they start offering discount passages for $1000/stay and your ride in stowage - imagine the immersion of paying $1000/stay and your riding in stowage through space)

Along the same lines: Imagine if they were going to build a 300ft coaster right behind Cinderella's castle. I'd argue:
- That doesn't belong there.
- It screws up the sight lines.
- I'm not sure that's the kind of park the Magic Kingdom is.
- How do you theme something at 300ft?

Others would argue against me:
- You don't know it'll look bad until they're done
- Wait until it opens and THEN make your decision
- Disney will just color it go-away-green and you'll never see it
- They're going to have character cut outs all up and down the lift hill to immerse you!
- Why do you hate Disney and want it to fail?

Just to be clear, I am not putting all people with negative comments in the "I want to see if fail camp", but I do believe there are people who do want to see if fail so it sends a message to Disney.

I never understand the people who criticize others for raising criticisms of Disney. It would be a pretty boring discussion board if everyone just liked everything.