Star Wars: Galaxy's Edge (Disneyland)

Nick

Staff member
Moderator
Sep 22, 2011
18,261
Orlando
We’ve also seen more investment under Chapek than we have under an head of the Parks division in all the time that I’ve been following or going to the parks.
 

Blaw923

Member
Feb 10, 2016
584
I still think this land is going to just fine in the long run. Especially once its FULLY open.

The parks and vacations are too expensive now to waste so much money on what could even potentially be a pack wasted day of waiting hours on hours.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LintemuthStudios

Chris Galindo

Veteran Member
Feb 22, 2015
2,126
LA
Finally visited - will post my full review later but damn. This land has a lot to love but at the same time a lot it falls short with. However, I am overall mostly pleased by this.
 

smoaT

Member
Mar 16, 2013
613
The article illustrates really well what we all felt but couldn't really figure out. The land feels dead because it was designed with so many things in mind that got removed, so it feels empty. Bob Iger boasted that he told them to go big with this land, but then he cut the budget so we got a half baked experience. It all makes sense now
 

OrlLover

Member
Aug 8, 2018
689
The article illustrates really well what we all felt but couldn't really figure out. The land feels dead because it was designed with so many things in mind that got removed, so it feels empty. Bob Iger boasted that he told them to go big with this land, but then he cut the budget so we got a half baked experience. It all makes sense now
You mean Bob Chapek cut the budget.
 

OrlLover

Member
Aug 8, 2018
689
Bob Iger could’ve ordered the cuts with it being a project that was already over a billion for a single land.
Al Lutz a credible insider mentioned in his little article that Chapek cut out all those things and thought Star Wars name recognition would be enough. Honestly I feel like Iger would run the parks division a lot better because even though he can be greedy as well at least I believe he understands that entertainment is important component to any land.
 

MrBlonde

Rookie
Aug 7, 2018
248
It’s also hard today they didn’t spend enough money on Galaxy’s Edge if they spent $1 billion each on a couple lands that are nearly clones of each other.

I think the better question is how did they spend so much and get to a point where after $1 billion people are saying it feels like stuff is missing?

However, it does sound like where the cuts were made were in response to have the greatest margin improvements for the park.

Actors? Gone-give cast members some lingo.
C ticket ride that could be difficult to maintain? Gone- allow people to explore on foot.

Dinner theater that would be costly? We’ll convince people that $15 cocktails (that are premade to prevent too much booze and reduce bar tending to drink slinging) or $35+ with a cup is worth it for the ambiance.

They’re only doing what they think they can get away with. Hopefully this opening will give them pause to do better in the future and not skate by on the IP alone. (Looking at you, Marvel land)
 
  • Like
Reactions: SeventyOne

Mad Dog

Premium Member
Jan 30, 2013
17,031
Pittsburgh area
I've always thought Disney could cut the rock work down a bit on their newer lands and allocate those savings, which would be substantial, for some decent entertainment and streetmosphere actors. New Fantasyland, Pandora, and now it seems GESWL, all are dead lands outside of their attractions in the respect of enough streetmosphere actors and entertainment.
 

OrlLover

Member
Aug 8, 2018
689
I've always thought Disney could cut the rock work down a bit on their newer lands and allocate those savings, which would be substantial, for some decent entertainment and streetmosphere actors. New Fantasyland, Pandora, and now it seems GESWL, all are dead lands outside of their attractions in the respect of enough streetmosphere actors and entertainment.
Well that’s a bit of drastic opinion to have and your kind of reaching a little.
 

Mad Dog

Premium Member
Jan 30, 2013
17,031
Pittsburgh area
Well that’s a bit of drastic opinion to have and your kind of reaching a little.
Just a little less rockwork. They don't have to eliminate it. Disney seems to 'really be into rockwork anymore', which is a very expensive landscaping tool. There's plenty of landscaping alternatives that can be just as beautiful, dynamic and relevant... and would cost a lot less. ...It seems the entertainment & streetmosphere in the new lands is continually being cut due to cost concerns. I'd certainly rather have more streetmosphere actors and some live entertainment....and less rocks.
 

Nick

Staff member
Moderator
Sep 22, 2011
18,261
Orlando
Al Lutz a credible insider mentioned in his little article that Chapek cut out all those things and thought Star Wars name recognition would be enough. Honestly I feel like Iger would run the parks division a lot better because even though he can be greedy as well at least I believe he understands that entertainment is important component to any land.
Sure, Chapek cut it. But it could’ve been to appease his boss.
 

rhino4evr

Veteran Member
Apr 7, 2010
4,965
holy crap was that article depressing. Makes perfect sense though. It's not really a spaceport w/o aliens. 2 or 3 AA's don't cut it.

Also, i forgot about the original cantina concept art with the giant sea creature in it...
 

SkiBum

Veteran Member
Dec 14, 2012
1,177
Cincinnati, OH
Just a little less rockwork. They don't have to eliminate it. Disney seems to 'really be into rockwork anymore', which is a very expensive landscaping tool. There's plenty of landscaping alternatives that can be just as beautiful, dynamic and relevant... and would cost a lot less. ...It seems the entertainment & streetmosphere in the new lands is continually being cut due to cost concerns. I'd certainly rather have more streetmosphere actors and some live entertainment....and less rocks.
I would even argue that cutting some of the rockwork in order to provide funding for a third ride would make even more sense. Plus the streetmosphere (I think that we're making up words here at this point) and entertainment. If I recall, portions of Island of Adventure's facades were made with foam. That may not be the best material for all locations/builds but it would have to be cheaper than concrete and heavy steel reinforcement. May not even need "rock on a stick". Still happy that they added the land with two rides and I'll get to WDW's version at some point.
 

Andysol

Veteran Member
Jun 21, 2016
3,093
Rockwork makes the pictures appear much more beautiful.

Pictures = both direct marketing and social media marketing/tags on social media.

Don't do it then. Fix the current parks first.
By "fixing" the domestic parks, how does that appeal to anyone in India?

Say it with me: Synergy. It's more than just a theme park in India, it's about expanding the Disney brand in India. It has way more to do with media and merch than the park itself.

Also- Do you think they have $2b just earmarked for "parks" and it's either spend it in Orlando or spend it in India?
While both are parks division, it's not like they're robbing Peter to pay Paul. It's no different than building the cruise ships.
 
Last edited:

Evan

Member
Feb 17, 2016
871
Canada
I would even argue that cutting some of the rockwork in order to provide funding for a third ride would make even more sense. Plus the streetmosphere (I think that we're making up words here at this point) and entertainment. If I recall, portions of Island of Adventure's facades were made with foam. That may not be the best material for all locations/builds but it would have to be cheaper than concrete and heavy steel reinforcement. May not even need "rock on a stick". Still happy that they added the land with two rides and I'll get to WDW's version at some point.
How about they keep the gorgeous rock work and just not cut the extras... why make compromise for a multi-billion dollar company.
 

darkridelover

Premium Member
May 5, 2012
1,535
Rockwork seems to be their one trick pony when it comes to these huge lands. Ever since the success of Cars Land that's their design focus. It worked very well for Cars. For Avatar we got essentially a rock arch that we're all supposed to pretend looks like its floating but even still it worked. The rock work in those two lands are the focal point.

That being said, the hundreds of million of dollars of rock work in Galaxy's Edge isn't the focal point. It's the back drop in the land. And it added very little for me. The show piece is the Millennium Falcon. I hardly noticed a lot of the rock work in the land. And if we're being honest, they could have cut 50% of it and it would still be impressive. And then they could have used that money for another attraction. That was a misstep for me.
 

Evan

Member
Feb 17, 2016
871
Canada
Rockwork seems to be their one trick pony when it comes to these huge lands. Ever since the success of Cars Land that's their design focus. It worked very well for Cars. For Avatar we got essentially a rock arch that we're all supposed to pretend looks like its floating but even still it worked. The rock work in those two lands are the focal point.

That being said, the hundreds of million of dollars of rock work in Galaxy's Edge isn't the focal point. It's the back drop in the land. And it added very little for me. The show piece is the Millennium Falcon. I hardly noticed a lot of the rock work in the land. And if we're being honest, they could have cut 50% of it and it would still be impressive. And then they could have used that money for another attraction. That was a misstep for me.
While I agree I’d like some more ways of masking show buildings, however rock work really works well and fits the settings they’ve been utilized in.

I don’t think we want Disney to do the bare minimum in show building disguise. The depth and scope of the rock work really sells the illusion, if you just barely cover the building I don’t think it would sell at all.