Why Disneyland’s $1 billion Star Wars land isn’t a bust despite flat attendance - OCR/SCNG

[el_super]

Because what was in Tomorrowland was STAR WARS we knew and loved.

Was? Most of that stuff is still there .... in Tomorrowland.

 

[lazyboy97o]

This argument still also ignores the idea that, even if it was divorced from the IP, the land should still be able to work as a functional space. It needs to create a hospital space that people want to spend time in, either to explore or relax. It needs to be executed in a way that convinces the audience of its effectiveness in telling its own story. Batuu does this exceptionally well, both on the small details and props scattered throughout the land, and also in the enormity of scale the land presents in the towering peaks. It absolutely feels like a real place in time, whether you do or do not like that place is a another matter.

It doesn’t. Black Spire Outpost ignores well established design principles of creating comfortable, habitable space. It might tell it’s story well and be full of props, but it’s an environment that is intentionally uninviting.

 

[el_super]

It doesn’t. Black Spire Outpost ignores well established design principles of creating comfortable, habitable space. It might tell it’s story well and be full of props, but it’s an environment that is intentionally uninviting.

Agree to disagree I guess.

 

[tirian]

Hogsmead and Diagon Alley very much work without Harry, Ron and Hermione. They’re not really in the lands. There are no meet and greets or walk around characters. They show up in the rides, but not the newest one which is still great and are not that important to Forbidden Journey or Hogwart’s Express. The Wizarding World works because a big part of those stories is these secret places that we are now exploring. The lands aren’t about the characters, they’re about the places.

The specific timing of Galaxy’s Edge compounds it’s problems but the fundamental problem is that it is a land based on Star Wars. There are many locations in Star Wars but they lack definition as places in the architectural sense. They’re not uniquely identifiable spaces of habitation but more extreme climates and landscapes. Even Coruscant is just known as a never ending metropolis, the city splayed out as landscape. There are no neighborhoods or distinctive locales. Mos Eisley is the go to setting for every Armchair Imagineer because it’s the only one we ever spend any time in and see as a distinctive place, but even then it’s actual design is not all that interesting. Most of it is big blank walls. Walls define many of the built locales unless they’re a hangar. Even Cloud City had to have windows added as part of the Special Edition. The Jetsons lived in glass domes because the view is a big part of the cool factor of living in the sky. There is never that city-level place that is defined and explored, there is no Star Wars equivalent of Diagon Alley.

An original planet was the best chance of making a Star Wars land work but it would have meant utilizing a new aesthetic to create that never seen environment of an inhabited space. Black Spire Outpost feels lifeless because it uses design language that has long been known to create stifling environments but are identifiable as the design language of Star Wars. The specific chronological setting removes the aspect of these harsh environments that is exciting, the anarchic lawlessness of the Outer Rim, by setting it in the one period where they are afraid of a galactic power so that even those who do engage in the role playing aspect are immediately denied the most alluring aspect of the fantasy.

That’s a really good point, and I’ll add a Fun Disney Fact that much of the Episode IV aesthetic was inspired by standard space-age futurism of the period, as well as WDW’s Space Mountain queue (really!). The special effects, storytelling, and characters were the big draw to the original trilogy—and two of the three are the big problems with the prequels and Disney sequels.

 

[DanielBB8]

The argument about and for POTC (and HM) is the lack of awareness that they are unique experiences that's seldom duplicated successfully. I have yet to see Disney use the principle of an immersive attraction so wasted away and nothing comparable happened since Walt Disney was around to make it happen.

POTC was so successful that they had to create IP out of it. It was never assured that it would work. Look at the live action movies of Haunted Mansion and Country Bears to see how those efforts were botched. Disney even tried to make it's own version of Twilight Zone thriller that failed. No wonder the attraction follows the movie IP.

They really did paint themselves into a corner by time-locking the land. I expect if sweeping changes are to be made, removing the time constraint would be high on the list.

If the time constraint is removed, there's no reason Batuu can't revert to Tatooine that's featured in all 3 trilogies. Tatooine made an appearance in the final scenes in Rise of Skywalker when Rey buried Luke and Leia's light sabers in the sand, close by Uncle and Aunt Beru's house. This is where the Blue Milk should actually be sold.

 

[EPCOTCenterLover]

"And then ... the counter argument that NOT having an IP is what makes other areas successful. So which one is it?"
I think both sides of this argument can coexist. The real debate is whether it should have been based on the original trilogy or what they picked. I'm sure if it were OT, there would be much more love for the land and its execution.

 

[el_super]

"And then ... the counter argument that NOT having an IP is what makes other areas successful. So which one is it?"
I think both sides of this argument can coexist. The real debate is whether it should have been based on the original trilogy or what they picked. I'm sure if it were OT, there would be much more love for the land and its execution.

I don't see how whether it's Luke Skywalker or Rey Skywalker makes much of a difference at all. Might as well just have made it a Star Trek land then.

 

[EPCOTCenterLover]

I don't see how whether it's Luke Skywalker or Rey Skywalker makes much of a difference at all. Might as well just have made it a Star Trek land then.

I think some people just prefer "classic" characters and stories over newer ones. Personal taste on both sides.

 

[lazyboy97o]

"And then ... the counter argument that NOT having an IP is what makes other areas successful. So which one is it?"
I think both sides of this argument can coexist. The real debate is whether it should have been based on the original trilogy or what they picked. I'm sure if it were OT, there would be much more love for the land and its execution.

No, it would not. The very fundamental design issues would all still be present. All of the issues of a “lifeless” land would still exist.

 

[EPCOTCenterLover]

ok.

 

[Mac Tonight]

Rey is in the land. She's a Skywalker right?



Star Wars: Galaxy's Edge has all of those things you mentioned. The problem isn't one of objectively classifying how Batuu presents those elements, it's a matter of subjectively saying you don't CARE for those elements they do present. That isn't indicative of bad design. Maybe if enough people didn't like them, it would be a terrible business decision, but not a bad design.

This argument still also ignores the idea that, even if it was divorced from the IP, the land should still be able to work as a functional space. It needs to create a hospital space that people want to spend time in, either to explore or relax. It needs to be executed in a way that convinces the audience of its effectiveness in telling its own story. Batuu does this exceptionally well, both on the small details and props scattered throughout the land, and also in the enormity of scale the land presents in the towering peaks. It absolutely feels like a real place in time, whether you do or do not like that place is a another matter.



Here's the real crux of the argument that I find so objectionable: You pin this argument as one that the right IP and effective use of IP is absolutely critical to the success of Batuu, but I doubt you are actually trying to say that same level of importance of IP is actually critical to other attractions like Pirates of the Caribbean. That's the inconsistency. How important is having a recognizable IP to the success of an attraction (or themed land)? From what I am understanding from these arguments, having a recognizable (and apparently deeply loved) IP is about 90% of the success of a new themed area.



And then ... the counter argument that NOT having an IP is what makes other areas successful. So which one is it? This sounds like you're suggesting that removing all the Star Wars elements from the land, and completely divorcing Batuu from it's IP, would suddenly make the land a success overnight ala Main Street and New Orleans Square. But somehow I don't think you believe that either.

So is the problem really having an IP attached to the land, or is it specifically with the IP they chose?



Of course they are comparable: they are all themed lands within a theme park. I feel like you're selling New Orleans and Main Street short in that description. At the core they are all trying to convey the same emotions and responses: whether they came from actual history, romanticized collective memories, or from a movie. I almost feel as though you're assigning TOO much importance in Batuu telling the stories you want it to, and so you've set the bar of success impossibly high.

Rey is in the land. She's a Skywalker right?
No. She's a Palpatine who now considers herself a Skywalker just because it was a neat way to tie up the saga.

Batuu does this exceptionally well, both on the small details and props scattered throughout the land, and also in the enormity of scale the land presents in the towering peaks.
That's your subjective opinion, and I'll give you that Batuu feels like a real place, but scale alone does not a great theme park land make. For the size of the land, the fact it only has 2 attractions and cramped food offerings is really sad. Better lands in DL have done so much more with much less space.

You pin this argument as one that the right IP and effective use of IP is absolutely critical to the success of Batuu, but I doubt you are actually trying to say that same level of importance of IP is actually critical to other attractions like Pirates of the Caribbean.
Yeah, Pirates was a bad example. In fact, I hate the additions of Jack Sparrow and think it takes away from what made the ride so great in the first place.

This sounds like you're suggesting that removing all the Star Wars elements from the land, and completely divorcing Batuu from it's IP, would suddenly make the land a success overnight...
No it wouldn't, because IP or not, it's still a boring land. If you took out every recognizable SW element, it would still be a land of beige abandonment with no real sense of where you're supposed to be. Having the few recognizable ships and characters on display is one of the land's most defining features. Who would want to visit a SW-free version of Batuu?

So is the problem really having an IP attached to the land, or is it specifically with the IP they chose?
It's the execution of the IP. When I walk down the streets of Cars Land, I really feel like I'm in Radiator Springs. When I walk through the canyons of Batuu, I don't feel like I'm in Star Wars.

I almost feel as though you're assigning TOO much importance in Batuu telling the stories you want it to, and so you've set the bar of success impossibly high.
I didn't set the standards. Disney did in it's lead-up to the land opening. "Live your Star Wars adventure!" "All the cast members have their own backstory and are characters in the land!" Or Bob Iger's great, "I just have to tweet that the land is open" and people will fill the land. SWL is, or at least was, supposed to be Iger's crowning achievement in theme parks. And the people simply didn't show up.

To sum it all up:
When it comes down to it, I long for Disney go back to the days when it didn't base entire lands off IP. Cars Land was executed well, but I personally don't think SWL was. That's all there is to it. The fact that you and others do, is great. I'm sure Disney appreciates all the time and money you spend in the land. But let's not kid ourselves. At the end of the day, we're both just sharing our subjective opinions on a fan forum.

 

[DanielBB8]

"So is the problem really having an IP attached to the land"

That's it!!! Why are they attaching Star Wars to the land that isn't Star Wars?

"or is it specifically with the IP they chose?"

They definitely chose the wrong IP to mess with.

 

[el_super]

No. She's a Palpatine who now considers herself a Skywalker just because it was a neat way to tie up the saga.

The intricacies of the backstory aren't really important. She's still a main character that kids look up to. She serves the same purpose as Luke Skywalker.

That's your subjective opinion, and I'll give you that Batuu feels like a real place, but scale alone does not a great theme park land make. For the size of the land, the fact it only has 2 attractions and cramped food offerings is really sad. Better lands in DL have done so much more with much less space.

It is pretty subjective, I admit. I think the space utilization in Galaxy's Edge as a whole is fine. Obviously they stretched it out to accomplish the goal of connecting the opposite ends of the park. It will take a few years for the trees and plants to grow in, but the long stretch of emptiness between Critter Country and the Resistance Base is serving the same purpose that the old Big Thunder trail did: it's breaking up the pacing of the park and providing a quiet space. Meanwhile the marketplace is meant to be the center of activity, so it actually works that everything is clumped together there. Not really different from a time long ago when Creole Cafe and Blue Bayou had their entrances facing each other. Also seems reminiscent of the early Frontierland, contrasting the far off reaches of the Frontier, with the saloon and town condensed at the riverfront landing. So faulting it for space utilization seems like an odd stand to make.

No it wouldn't, because IP or not, it's still a boring land. If you took out every recognizable SW element, it would still be a land of beige abandonment with no real sense of where you're supposed to be. Having the few recognizable ships and characters on display is one of the land's most defining features. Who would want to visit a SW-free version of Batuu?

So to back up a bit, how does that compare to the original Frontierland? That was mostly just dirt for many years. What do you think the appeal of Frontierland was originally? Since it doesn't have an IP tied to it, would you say that it's a boring land too ?

It's the execution of the IP.

So if they removed the IP you're saying that the land would fail. If they keep the current IP, the land would fail. The argument comes down to Star Wars land only ever working as long as it had the specific flavor of the IP that you personally enjoyed?

I didn't set the standards. Disney did in it's lead-up to the land opening. "Live your Star Wars adventure!" "All the cast members have their own backstory and are characters in the land!" Or Bob Iger's great, "I just have to tweet that the land is open" and people will fill the land. SWL is, or at least was, supposed to be Iger's crowning achievement in theme parks. And the people simply didn't show up.

People did show up. They still are showing up. Hollywood Studios is still the only WDW park that is running out of reservations and Rise of the Resistance was fully booked within 10 seconds today.

 

[Mac Tonight]

The intricacies of the backstory aren't really important. She's still a main character that kids look up to. She serves the same purpose as Luke Skywalker.



It is pretty subjective, I admit. I think the space utilization in Galaxy's Edge as a whole is fine. Obviously they stretched it out to accomplish the goal of connecting the opposite ends of the park. It will take a few years for the trees and plants to grow in, but the long stretch of emptiness between Critter Country and the Resistance Base is serving the same purpose that the old Big Thunder trail did: it's breaking up the pacing of the park and providing a quiet space. Meanwhile the marketplace is meant to be the center of activity, so it actually works that everything is clumped together there. Not really different from a time long ago when Creole Cafe and Blue Bayou had their entrances facing each other. Also seems reminiscent of the early Frontierland, contrasting the far off reaches of the Frontier, with the saloon and town condensed at the riverfront landing. So faulting it for space utilization seems like an odd stand to make.



So to back up a bit, how does that compare to the original Frontierland? That was mostly just dirt for many years. What do you think the appeal of Frontierland was originally? Since it doesn't have an IP tied to it, would you say that it's a boring land too ?



So if they removed the IP you're saying that the land would fail. If they keep the current IP, the land would fail. The argument comes down to Star Wars land only ever working as long as it had the specific flavor of the IP that you personally enjoyed?



People did show up. They still are showing up. Hollywood Studios is still the only WDW park that is running out of reservations and Rise of the Resistance was fully booked within 10 seconds today.

How does that compare to the original Frontierland?
I don't know. Frontierland is just a pass-thru for me. Maybe I'll go on Big Thunder, but I mostly use it as a gateway to New Orleans Square. It's not a place I have a problem with though because it's not trying to be anything more more than it is. A vaguely old-west type fortress along the riverfront.

So if they removed the IP you're saying that the land would fail. If they keep the current IP, the land would fail. The argument comes down to Star Wars land only ever working as long as it had the specific flavor of the IP that you personally enjoyed?
Yep! That's exactly what I'm saying. A Batuu without Star Wars is just an abandoned boring land. And a Batuu with the wrong aspects of Star Wars is still an abandoned boring land full of missed opportunity.


People did show up
Of course people "showed up". It's Disney. But the facts don't lie. Attendance remained flat. "But people spent more money!" That doesn't matter. Iger still famously said (on record no less) that all he had to do was tweet "it's open" and the land would be overrun by people. Project Stardust convinced us that the current walkways would be inadequate to contain the herds of hungry guests that just couldn't wait to rush back to Batuu. Didn't happen. Blackout dates were put in place for most of the passes because they feared a packed park (which though would have just upped their financial gain). And then... blackout dates were removed, and marketing's focused turned to new campaigns designed to get guests to return to the park.

Hollywood Studios is another matter. Without SWL, the park might as well not even be open right now.

 

[Mac Tonight]

The intricacies of the backstory aren't really important. She's still a main character that kids look up to. She serves the same purpose as Luke Skywalker.



It is pretty subjective, I admit. I think the space utilization in Galaxy's Edge as a whole is fine. Obviously they stretched it out to accomplish the goal of connecting the opposite ends of the park. It will take a few years for the trees and plants to grow in, but the long stretch of emptiness between Critter Country and the Resistance Base is serving the same purpose that the old Big Thunder trail did: it's breaking up the pacing of the park and providing a quiet space. Meanwhile the marketplace is meant to be the center of activity, so it actually works that everything is clumped together there. Not really different from a time long ago when Creole Cafe and Blue Bayou had their entrances facing each other. Also seems reminiscent of the early Frontierland, contrasting the far off reaches of the Frontier, with the saloon and town condensed at the riverfront landing. So faulting it for space utilization seems like an odd stand to make.



So to back up a bit, how does that compare to the original Frontierland? That was mostly just dirt for many years. What do you think the appeal of Frontierland was originally? Since it doesn't have an IP tied to it, would you say that it's a boring land too ?



So if they removed the IP you're saying that the land would fail. If they keep the current IP, the land would fail. The argument comes down to Star Wars land only ever working as long as it had the specific flavor of the IP that you personally enjoyed?



People did show up. They still are showing up. Hollywood Studios is still the only WDW park that is running out of reservations and Rise of the Resistance was fully booked within 10 seconds today.

The intricacies of the backstory aren't really important. She's still a main character that kids look up to. She serves the same purpose as Luke Skywalker.

 

[el_super]

I think some people just prefer "classic" characters and stories over newer ones. Personal taste on both sides.

I think that's fine really. I get that some people prefer some IPs and themes over others. Nothing wrong with that. I also don't think there's anything wrong with stating as such (So I hope i haven't given the impression that those opinions don't have value unto themselves). What I would hope though is that people understand where opinion and nostalgia cause blanket statements such as saying the land is a failure, to be fairly biased and harder to argue against.

 

[Mac Tonight]

I think that's fine really. I get that some people prefer some IPs and themes over others. Nothing wrong with that. I also don't think there's anything wrong with stating as such (So I hope i haven't given the impression that those opinions don't have value unto themselves). What I would hope though is that people understand where opinion and nostalgia cause blanket statements such as saying the land is a failure, to be fairly biased and harder to argue against.

For the record, it might help in the future to not blanketly reduce differing opinions to "ramblings"

 

[el_super]

For the record, it might help in the future to not blanketly reduce differing opinions to "ramblings"

Sorry, that was meant to be a clever call back to another post. As in to equate one man's ramblings to another. They're all opinions and they all basically matter equally, whether you give them no importance or too much.

 

[Mac Tonight]

Sorry, that was meant to be a clever call back to another post. As in to equate one man's ramblings to another. They're all opinions and they all basically matter equally, whether you give them no importance or too much.

No worries. Sometimes I have to step back from these boards for a bit and remember we're not discussing life or death matters. Just expressing our compliments/critques of the park and company we love.

 

[mickEblu]

I don't think the success or failure of a theme park land should really hinge on which characters or which IP is presented. It's why I find the cries of adding Luke Skywalker so baffling. Not only is it an enforcement that characters must be present in a land for it to be successful, but it absolutely matters which characters are presented. They have to be the right characters or IP or else you will be doomed to failure.

I agree that the success of a theme park land should be down to design and function instead of just which IP is presented, but that's where I think our agreements end.

I also find it baffling that you find it baffling people are upset about the non-presence of Luke Skywalker (or ANY Skywalker frankly) in Star Wars Land.

For my money, the entire point of creating an IP-specific land or attraction IS to have recognizable characters, designs, objects, music, locations, buildings, present in the land. Otherwise, what's the point of tying it to an IP in the first place?

Why tie "Temple of the Forbidden Eye" to Indiana Jones if your plan was to not use the character or music?
If POTC was created in response to the movies coming out but didn't feature Jack Sparrow anywhere, why call it Pirates of the Caribbean?

Whether you agree or not, IP-based lands create certain expectations in the guest. There's a reason guests expect to see Buzz and Woody in Toy Story Land, and a reason Disney would even create a Toy Story Land in the first place instead of something from scratch. Merchandise. Movie tie-ins. Synergy. Bob Chapek's favorite word.

From a historical perspective that's not how themed areas were developed. New Orleans Square was a place, not a character. Main Street was a place, not a character.
I'm glad you brought those places up because that's exactly why those lands have endured for so long. They're not tied to an IP. They aren't trying to be or represent a franchise... but Star Wars Land is. Black Spire Outpost is a character. SWL is the only place in Disneyland that comes equipped with it's own backstory, and claims that CM's aren't just Disneyland CM's but actual "characters" themselves. But I can guarantee you, the casual guest (heck, even the die-hard guest) couldn't care less about the "backstory" of the guy selling them a Coke.

I know you like to equate Batuu and NOS, but they're not really comparable on a certain level. One is a "timeless" representation of a place and atmosphere, and one is trying to encompass a literal universe of movies, books, characters, etc.

When the land was in development I was happy to hear it would be “original” yet still posted a few times that the idea of an original IP land is a bit counterintuitive even if it’s what I preferred at the time. I still think it was the right choice for Disneyland but with the wrong execution. I know now personally I would have preferred their original Star Wars plans for Tomorrowland. Without getting into the repercussions for TL.