• Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.You can use your Twitter or Facebook account to sign up, or register directly.

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

Smooch

Well-Known Member
If you don't like the place, that's certainly one thing. I'm definitely not spending a lot of time over there. But trying to claim that the article is inaccurate, and using your personal feelings as proof of that, is folly. The expansion is certainly not a failure. Revenues were up after the opening. The reservations for the light sabers and bar were booked solid for weeks. Rise of the Resistance tickets were the hardest to obtain and the level of interest in it, generated its very own daily tracking thread here. I also don't really think that saying attendance was flat at the second most attended theme park on the planet is really the embarrassing condemnation some here are painting it as.

They saw poor attendance and the parks only had an increase in profit due to spending in other parks / areas. Sure the whole park wasn't a ghost town but you can't make the claim that what happened is what Disney planned. They talked about how they wouldn't need to advertise the land cause people would fill the land. They did Project Stardust to increase the size of walkways because they anticipated huge crowds to fill the park, and then nothing. They saw practically the same attendance as before it opened, if not worse. If they just wanted to maintain crowd levels why open up areas of the park and spend all the time and money widening walkways and removing planters for the same crowd levels? Sure I'm not saying I know exactly what Disney wanted but to try and claim they just wanted to keep attendance levels the same and add all this land to existing crowd levels is a silly claim given everything around the opening of the land, there's no doubt they wanted to increase attendance and see a huge influx. Yeah the lightsabers and bar were booked constantly but that's not hard to do considering how abysmally low the number of people they could fit a day is, same with RotR.

You have to admit none of this rhetoric matches with what Disney was claiming would happen. They were talking about how packed to the gills the park would be with people visiting their new billion dollar land, they placed CM restrictions on attendance and tried to limit how many people were gonna come to the park. Then they saw a big wave of people during the reservation period of the land the month it opened, then when it opened to everyone they saw everyone who really cared already went and nobody was flooding the land so they lifted restrictions and made promotions to get more people into the park just months after adding the biggest expansion to Disneyland. They did not expect this to happen, they failed in their original plans for the land and have since done what Disney always does and tries to change the narrative and claim that they did exactly what they wanted. Even if that was true that's a horrible business model: spend a billion dollars on a new land just to have the same attendance numbers and with all that money and land used they just want to sell $200 lightsabers and some merch and overpriced drinks at Oga's Cantina. They could have made a much much smaller area and put those money making experiences in there and spent less money for the same profit. I'm not claiming Disney has absolutely fallen on its face with GE and that it was a complete failure, I'm just stating that Disney expected the opening of the land to go much different and now they're making different claims and trying to save face.
 
Last edited:

Smooch

Well-Known Member
Okay but how is this thread different than the others? It’s getting old.

Because we're specifically responding to these claims the article makes about how this is what Disney wanted to see with the opening of their new land. If you want to believe Disney has said from the beginning they wanted the same levels of attendance as before and didn't expect huge crowds to be coming for years then you can believe that, but look at the claims they made before opening and all the work they did to prepare the park for "massive levels of crowds" that never came after the month of boarding groups into the land. Sure we are bringing up the same points previously of what was disappointing about the land and the things they promised then cut, etc. but it's not like this is just a random thread created to bash Star Wars. I just find it hilarious Disney is trying to spin the turnout they've had since the land opened as something they planned for and envisioned when creating GE when it is obviously not in the same tune of what they've been boldly claiming since the announcement, they're trying to save their reputation by claiming different things and that's what I'm calling out.
 

el_super

Well-Known Member
They saw poor attendance and the parks only had an increase in profit due to spending in other parks / areas.

Poor attendance is a bad choice of words. It was still matching the attendance of the second most visited park in the world. It wasn't hurting for business at all. And saying that the increase in profit came from other parks is disingenuous at best. Specifically with regard to Disneyland they said:

Parks, Experiences and Products revenues for the quarter increased 8% to $6.7 billion, and segment operating income increased 17% to $1.4 billion. Operating income growth for the quarter was due to increases from merchandise licensing, Disneyland Resort and Disney Vacation Club.

Growth at Disneyland Resort was primarily due to higher guest spending, partially offset by expenses associated with Star Wars: Galaxy’s Edge, which opened on May 31, and, to a lesser extent, lower attendance. Guest spending growth was primarily due to increases in average ticket prices and higher food, beverage and merchandise spending.

BTW a 17% jump in operating income, is huge.

Sure the whole park wasn't a ghost town but you can't make the claim that what happened is what Disney planned.

Sure you can (see OP).

It's really hard to gauge what Disney expected would happen (and most likely none of us really know), because their actions at different times indicated different directions. You're right that they seemed concerned that attendance would be radically out of control, but then they took actions to make sure that didn't happen (some of which you noted). So we know that they took very deliberate actions to control demand. They increased prices (some as high as 20%), reconfigured the AP system, they implemented restrictions on attendance and they implemented a reservation system.

And just for clarity here: you're trying to argue that they didn't plan for any of those actions they took to have an impact on attendance?

Which you're then assuming is a referendum on the quality of the land itself?

Long story short, they can make the attendance whatever they want it to be, so it's a useless metric for gauging the success of Star Wars Land. If you don't want to believe me, then you can try to come up with a good reason why Disneyland attendance was increasing from January through March.
 

Jae Sea

Member
I’ll say it again. If Disney’s goal was to decrease attendance by raising prices, they could have avoided building a $1 billion dollar land. All they needed to do was... raise prices. If they wanted a new marketable ride they could have built an expansion to an existing land at a fraction of the price. This was not sold as incremental or to decrease crowding. Star Wars Land was sold as something that would radically increase attendance at Disneyland Resort. Hence the new parking garage, new hotel, new DVC, enhancements to walkways, etc. Local partners like Anaheim, Gardenwalk, and other hoteliers were expecting sizable attendance increases. The original gate tax deal was premised on Galaxy’s Edge being so popular that hotel tax revenue alone would more than compensate the no gate tax deal.

This gaslighting is unbelievable



Kim Irvine is not my favorite. This last castle redo told us everything we need to know about her artistic abilities...

These comments make me think Trowbridge is an insincere hack. Watch this video. The end is extremely perplexing in light of these comments he just made:

In the video Trowbridge uses Legends of Frontierland as an EXAMPLE of a successful experiment. He even mentions the chickens! The whole role playing initiative Disney has been pushing is stupid. Theme park attractions are successful because they can swallow thousands of guests economically and simply and tell incredible stories. These sorts of games cannot scale within current technological constraints.


Star Tours provides the template. The queue is so alive with characters, aliens, and droids. It feels so cool! Think of Smuggler’s Run. The queue is a missed opportunity. There is practically no kinetics. It’s boring. There are more animated figures in the first room of Star Tours than the entire Millennium Falcon attraction. I wanted a Star Wars land where I could see droids and aliens up to crazy antics. Animated figures should have been sprinkled throughout the land. Where I differ is these should not be roaming or actors. Actors can be fired and droids will be destroyed by guests. They should have been integrated into small show scenes. The land should have been like a walking tour.

The force not making an appearance was also shortsighted. Missed opportunities all around...

Also the Blue Milk is putrid!

Galaxy's Edge is one giant missed opportunity. From not doing the actual Mos Eisley Cantina, which would probably be the #1 Instagram photo spot next to Cinderella's castle in DW, to not incorporating any OT or PT characters or settings so that fans could connect with it. Instead, we got a place that has virtually no connection to any of the movies, and thus, no connection to the fans. Only the casuals really enjoy the land and the rest just tolerate it the best they can. I never wanted to leave the Galactic Nights special events because it had the first 6 movies in it. I'm bored after 30 mins in GE.
 

Sharon&Susan

Well-Known Member
TOT is outstanding rethemed as GoG...and Marvel is getting their own land now - pending pandemic outcome.

Lazy rethemes for Kennedy? Guess you haven't read this thread and the people talking about how lazy GE is with the pelican cases everywhere.
Is it any more lazy than prominently having the old Matterhorn Yeti static as a prop with no attempt to have it make sense in-universe?

Or having the windows on the back of the tower painted bronze with no attempt to hide it beyond that?

Any more lazy than keeping the Art Deco Fastpass station the same? Or no attempt to make it match the rest of the style of Hollywood Land or the upcoming Avengers Campus?

Galaxy's Edge is no masterpiece or even that good with the possible exception of ROTR (but I still haven't ridden it or watched any ridethroughs so I can't give my thoughts on that yet), but even if the Imagineers somehow had the greatest ideas EVER for Star Wars, I'm glad that they kept it far away from Echo Lake (second best land in HS) and Tomorrowland (Star Wars is not and should not ever be solution to fixing Tomorrowland IMO)
 

Smooch

Well-Known Member
Galaxy's End is at least fully original. It's impeccably themed, it's just horribly themed.

GOTG does feel slapped together.

I agree completely, GOTG feels cheaply done and scrapped together because they were told to make it rather than having an actual original vision to create a GOTG ride in the ToT footprint. GE however (from pictures / videos / consensuses from my friends [I haven't gone yet]) looks to be very well themed and aside from the lack of entertainment that get's discussed to death, what is there looks to be done very very well. There's no arguing the land doesn't look convincing. That said, the theme they executed so well is such a boring theme, it has no ties to any movie in any way and it is just what looks like a war torn town. I know that SW has a lived in / dirty look, but when the land is based on a location nobody has ever heard of or seen in any movie / game / anything aside from a comic series made specifically for the land then it doesn't look like some "SW location recreation" it just looks like a random dirty town. I know the issues of making a land based off something from a movie but I still think they needed to compromise and do a mix of both. Oga's should've just been the Mos Eisley Cantina, it doesn't matter if it isn't actually on Batuu. This is why the timeline restriction is so dumb and ruins what can be done. They could've put the Cantina in and then done the forest area to have Ewok Villages in the trees and things like that, make a unique planet / land but incorporate elements / places from ALL trilogies so EVERYONE can connect since they care so much about inclusive experiences you can relate too. I wasn't a big fan of the ST movies so I don't think I will connect to the land / characters aside from seeing the Falcon and Chewie.
 

Disney Analyst

Well-Known Member
I’ll say this again, as I’ve said before. Universal parks had a lot of attendance to gain, LOTS. Of course their moderately attended parks would see HUGE gains after finally adding substantially themed, immersive, and loved franchises.

I honestly don’t believe for a second that Disneyland really has that much more room to grow attendance wise. The parks are already maxed during the key travel periods, and it is the #2 most attended in the country, and realistically I’d say attendances beats MK as most people park hop and use DCA as just an extension of Disneyland.

My point being, Disneyland doesn’t need the attendance increase headlines like Universal did, nor did they need those gains. I firmly think the execs also realize this, especially with the AP base. Their goal is to increase spending, and they certainly have.

And let’s be real, money went up last summer, and the parks were blissful.
 

Darkbeer1

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
Here comes the gimmicks...


>>
A trio of Star Wars seasonal events tied to a local Batuuan harvest festival, a delightfully bad 1970s Christmas television special and the film franchise’s unofficial May the Fourth holiday could be coming soon to the twin Galaxy’s Edge themed lands at Disneyland and Disney World.

A new Star Wars book from Lucasfilm and Walt Disney Imagineering reveals new details about the Black Spire Day, Batuaan Harvest Festival and Life Day local holidays celebrated annually in Galaxy’s Edge.

Wait? What? Disneyland and Disney World haven’t held any festivals yet in the new Star Wars lands. Easter Eggs cleverly woven into a new Batuu travel guide offer hints of what may lay ahead for the Star Wars: Galaxy’s Edge themed lands.<<
 

SoCalMort

Well-Known Member
Celebrating Life Day at Batuu is already a thing for many:

Screen Shot 2020-07-26 at 2.16.56 PM.png
 

SoCalMort

Well-Known Member
...These comments make me think Trowbridge is an insincere hack. Watch this video. The end is extremely perplexing in light of these comments he just made..........In the video Trowbridge uses Legends of Frontierland as an EXAMPLE of a successful experiment. He even mentions the chickens!...

I think he is saying the same thing in both the article and video: They conducted an experiment to answer the question: "Would this game work in real life?" The experiment was an incredible success because it definitively answered that question: "Absolutely not."

It's just the video was edited to leave a certain impression.....
 

DDLand

Well-Known Member
Poor attendance is a bad choice of words. It was still matching the attendance of the second most visited park in the world. It wasn't hurting for business at all. And saying that the increase in profit came from other parks is disingenuous at best. Specifically with regard to Disneyland they said:

Parks, Experiences and Products revenues for the quarter increased 8% to $6.7 billion, and segment operating income increased 17% to $1.4 billion. Operating income growth for the quarter was due to increases from merchandise licensing, Disneyland Resort and Disney Vacation Club.

Growth at Disneyland Resort was primarily due to higher guest spending, partially offset by expenses associated with Star Wars: Galaxy’s Edge, which opened on May 31, and, to a lesser extent, lower attendance. Guest spending growth was primarily due to increases in average ticket prices and higher food, beverage and merchandise spending.

BTW a 17% jump in operating income, is huge.



Sure you can (see OP).

It's really hard to gauge what Disney expected would happen (and most likely none of us really know), because their actions at different times indicated different directions. You're right that they seemed concerned that attendance would be radically out of control, but then they took actions to make sure that didn't happen (some of which you noted). So we know that they took very deliberate actions to control demand. They increased prices (some as high as 20%), reconfigured the AP system, they implemented restrictions on attendance and they implemented a reservation system.

And just for clarity here: you're trying to argue that they didn't plan for any of those actions they took to have an impact on attendance?

Which you're then assuming is a referendum on the quality of the land itself?

Long story short, they can make the attendance whatever they want it to be, so it's a useless metric for gauging the success of Star Wars Land. If you don't want to believe me, then you can try to come up with a good reason why Disneyland attendance was increasing from January through March.
In the months following the opening of both Galaxy’s Edges, margins were either flat or down YoY at Domestic Parks (check the supplemental income). Disney did not open a land to have lower margins. The whole point of expanding a theme park is to leverage the existing infrastructure to bring more people in. That should increase margins if well executed. Instead, we saw a contraction in margins. Bob Iger endlessly brags about Disney’s ROI and Margins. Going to Iger with an investment idea that would not result in strong margins growth (or even a contraction) is an anathema. Galaxy’s Edge did not move Domestic Parks significantly, and likely even caused a contraction. Both @WDW Pro and MiceChat confirmed cuts were made to counter rising costs.

Lower margins at the parks isn’t always a bad thing. In some cases it means guests are getting better bang for their buck. Honestly, I wouldn’t mind if Disney decided to up quality and capacity for a few percentage points of margins. But was that what Disney was trying to do with Galaxy’s Edge? No, and any suggestion to the contrary is wrong.

I’ll say this again, as I’ve said before. Universal parks had a lot of attendance to gain, LOTS. Of course their moderately attended parks would see HUGE gains after finally adding substantially themed, immersive, and loved franchises.

I honestly don’t believe for a second that Disneyland really has that much more room to grow attendance wise. The parks are already maxed during the key travel periods, and it is the #2 most attended in the country, and realistically I’d say attendances beats MK as most people park hop and use DCA as just an extension of Disneyland.

My point being, Disneyland doesn’t need the attendance increase headlines like Universal did, nor did they need those gains. I firmly think the execs also realize this, especially with the AP base. Their goal is to increase spending, and they certainly have.

And let’s be real, money went up last summer, and the parks were blissful.
Disney has stated that Galaxy’s Edge expanded Disneyland Park’s capacity by 20%. That was BEFORE RotR opened. Galaxy’s Edge, the new parking garage, the new tram area, and project sparkle were supposed to prepare the way for attendance growth of millions. Instead, we got flat attendance YoY. Anaheim was supposed to surge significantly. This idea that Disney added 20% capacity out of the goodness of their hearts is crazy. This is the same Disney that has happily stuffed thousands of guests into under-built parks like DAK and DHS.

They expected surging attendance and surging margins. They got neither. Why that happened remains up in the air...

Edit: I’m going to link some quotes...
1) “We expect to see millions of new visitors come to Star Wars: Galaxy’s Edge, which will help support what we do for our residents.
We’re planning for the opening and will be working to handle the additional visitors to ensure everyone has a great experience.”

From City of Anaheim Doc.

2) ”We’re a world-class destination. We attract more than 22 million visitors every year to Disneyland and the West Coast’s largest convention center. With Disney’s new plan for Star Wars Land and the continued success of our professional sports teams, we expect even more millions in the years to come.“
State of Anaheim Speech 2016

3) “Meanwhile, The Anaheim Resort continues to see growth with new hotels and legions of new visitors expected for the May opening of Star Wars: Galaxy’s Edge at Disneyland Park.“
Anaheim First Proposal Document
 
Last edited:

Disney Analyst

Well-Known Member
In the months following the opening of both Galaxy’s Edges, margins were either flat or down YoY at Domestic Parks (check the supplemental income). Disney did not open a land to have lower margins. The whole point of expanding a theme park is to leverage the existing infrastructure to bring more people in. That should increase margins if well executed. Instead, we saw a contraction in margins. Bob Iger endlessly brags about Disney’s ROI and Margins. Going to Iger with an investment idea that would not result in strong margins growth (or even a contraction) is an anathema. Galaxy’s Edge did not move Domestic Parks significantly, and likely even caused a contraction. Both @WDW Pro and MiceChat confirmed cuts were made to counter rising costs.

Lower margins at the parks isn’t always a bad thing. In some cases it means guests are getting better bang for their buck. Honestly, I wouldn’t mind if Disney decided to up quality and capacity for a few percentage points of margins. But was that what Disney was trying to do with Galaxy’s Edge? No, and any suggestion to the contrary is wrong.


Disney has stated that Galaxy’s Edge expanded Disneyland Park’s capacity by 20%. That was BEFORE RotR opened. Galaxy’s Edge, the new parking garage, the new tram area, and project sparkle were supposed to prepare the way for attendance growth of millions. Instead, we got flat attendance YoY. Anaheim was supposed to surge significantly. This idea that Disney added 20% capacity out of the goodness of their hearts is crazy. This is the same Disney that has happily stuffed thousands of guests into under-built parks like DAK and DHS.

They expected surging attendance and surging margins. They got neither. Why that happened remains up in the air...

At this point I was waiting for 5 years of data to see, as I just don’t think Disneyland would jump that significantly right away, regardless of the expansion, especially with a twin out at their flagship destination resorts.

but I don’t think we’ll ever know the real story, as COVID has certainly put a wrench in that data.
 

October82

Well-Known Member
Disney has stated that Galaxy’s Edge expanded Disneyland Park’s capacity by 20%. That was BEFORE RotR opened. Galaxy’s Edge, the new parking garage, the new tram area, and project sparkle were supposed to prepare the way for attendance growth of millions. Instead, we got flat attendance YoY. Anaheim was supposed to surge significantly. This idea that Disney added 20% capacity out of the goodness of their hearts is crazy. This is the same Disney that has happily stuffed thousands of guests into under-built parks like DAK and DHS.

Not to disagree, but it's worth pointing out that all of this investment was necessary because of years of underinvestment in Disneyland. I don't know if any of this was sufficient for actually adding guests more than it was finally making the infrastructure sufficient for the guests that were already there.
 

Disney Analyst

Well-Known Member
Not to disagree, but it's worth pointing out that all of this investment was necessary because of years of underinvestment in Disneyland. I don't know if any of this was sufficient for actually adding guests more than it was finally making the infrastructure sufficient for the guests that were already there.

Very good point. Sometimes we need to have this discussion from a broader perspective like that. It’s great that we can fight about whether the land is any good, or the IP, or whatever.

But you are right in the fact that Disneyland needed more space, badly. And now it has it.
 

BuzzedPotatoHead89

Well-Known Member
Not to disagree, but it's worth pointing out that all of this investment was necessary because of years of underinvestment in Disneyland. I don't know if any of this was sufficient for actually adding guests more than it was finally making the infrastructure sufficient for the guests that were already there.

I actually do agree with this. In the pre-pandemic age, we were looking at a Disneyland pricing model that was bulging with APs, and packed to the gils. While some of the “stardust” changes and Galaxy’s Edge itself were unpopular with fans, they were a necessity given the parks current pricing and attendance model.

While SWGE leaves more to be desired it also has room to work out its growing pains. The three biggest complaints - 1) the lack of opening day attractions, 2) lack of characters/kinetic energy, and 3) over-reliance on sequel trilogy characters, all can be addressed over time as the land (and presumably Lucasfilm’s storytelling) evolves.

Numbers 2 and 3 in particular can be easily addressed with little effort, particularly with the success of the Mandalorian. Number 1 was had been addressed in part by RoTR, though MFSR would benefit from new rotating “missions”. In a perfect world the “hard time setting” will be dropped/loosened and the land will take place in an “evolving” span of time between Ep. 6 and 7.

Thus, this would still allow us to keep the presence of the Resistance (and RoTR) but also maintain a multitude of Mandalorian and post-Empire themed settings for the Falcon. Maybe even the (long rumored) Endor-esque Ewok speeder bike coaster as an addition within the current “Resistance Forest” area. This could be done by overtaking Pooh/Hunger Bear section of Critter Country, and overtaking Muppets by formally morphing the rest of GE with Star Tours at DHS.
 

Disney Irish

Premium Member
In the months following the opening of both Galaxy’s Edges, margins were either flat or down YoY at Domestic Parks (check the supplemental income). Disney did not open a land to have lower margins. The whole point of expanding a theme park is to leverage the existing infrastructure to bring more people in. That should increase margins if well executed. Instead, we saw a contraction in margins. Bob Iger endlessly brags about Disney’s ROI and Margins. Going to Iger with an investment idea that would not result in strong margins growth (or even a contraction) is an anathema. Galaxy’s Edge did not move Domestic Parks significantly, and likely even caused a contraction. Both @WDW Pro and MiceChat confirmed cuts were made to counter rising costs.

Lower margins at the parks isn’t always a bad thing. In some cases it means guests are getting better bang for their buck. Honestly, I wouldn’t mind if Disney decided to up quality and capacity for a few percentage points of margins. But was that what Disney was trying to do with Galaxy’s Edge? No, and any suggestion to the contrary is wrong.


Disney has stated that Galaxy’s Edge expanded Disneyland Park’s capacity by 20%. That was BEFORE RotR opened. Galaxy’s Edge, the new parking garage, the new tram area, and project sparkle were supposed to prepare the way for attendance growth of millions. Instead, we got flat attendance YoY. Anaheim was supposed to surge significantly. This idea that Disney added 20% capacity out of the goodness of their hearts is crazy. This is the same Disney that has happily stuffed thousands of guests into under-built parks like DAK and DHS.

They expected surging attendance and surging margins. They got neither. Why that happened remains up in the air...

Edit: I’m going to link some quotes...
1) “We expect to see millions of new visitors come to Star Wars: Galaxy’s Edge, which will help support what we do for our residents.
We’re planning for the opening and will be working to handle the additional visitors to ensure everyone has a great experience.”

From City of Anaheim Doc.

2) ”We’re a world-class destination. We attract more than 22 million visitors every year to Disneyland and the West Coast’s largest convention center. With Disney’s new plan for Star Wars Land and the continued success of our professional sports teams, we expect even more millions in the years to come.“
State of Anaheim Speech 2016

3) “Meanwhile, The Anaheim Resort continues to see growth with new hotels and legions of new visitors expected for the May opening of Star Wars: Galaxy’s Edge at Disneyland Park.“
Anaheim First Proposal Document
I think its important to point out the lands ROI was never meant to be immediate. While yes I would agree there was an initial surge expected that never materialized (it can be debated endlessly on why that happened), however there wasn't meant to be 100% ROI in the first 12 months. This was a long term investment in the both Parks it was put into. The first 12 months I should remind you that was 1. without its marque ride for the first 6 months and 2. was interrupted by a global pandemic.

So the debate on whether this was a good investment is far from over. And one that I'm sure will be debated for years to come.
 

DDLand

Well-Known Member
I think its important to point out the lands ROI was never meant to be immediate. While yes I would agree there was an initial surge expected that never materialized (it can be debated endlessly on why that happened), however there wasn't meant to be 100% ROI in the first 12 months. This was a long term investment in the both Parks it was put into. The first 12 months I should remind you that was 1. without its marque ride for the first 6 months and 2. was interrupted by a global pandemic.

So the debate on whether this was a good investment is far from over. And one that I'm sure will be debated for years to come.
I agree with this. But this comment is more nuanced than what the article in question argued. This article tried to convince its readers that the current situation (just before COVID) is what Disneyland wanted. Disneyland wanted attendance increases and promised as much to Anaheim. Instead, it had a weak opening year.

I’m the type of person that believes an investment in Disneyland will pay dividends in the long run. Galaxy’s Edge will be an important part of Disneyland for decades to come. It’s not my favorite due to certain choices about its placement and execution, but I also know that it’s exactly the type of capacity expansion Disneyland needed/needs. So I think in the long run this land will be a net positive. But I also am loath to let Disney get away with gaslighting investors, fans, and the media. This was not a paradigm of success. The launch was bungled and this article is covering it up...
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Top Bottom