You mean Bob Chapek cut the budget.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
Bob Iger could’ve ordered the cuts with it being a project that was already over a billion for a single land.You mean Bob Chapek cut the budget.
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.Bob Iger could’ve ordered the cuts with it being a project that was already over a billion for a single land.
Well that’s a bit of drastic opinion to have and your kind of reaching a little.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.
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.Well that’s a bit of drastic opinion to have and your kind of reaching a little.
Sure, Chapek cut it. But it could’ve been to appease his boss.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.
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.
Don't do it then. Fix the current parks first.
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.
Exactly.How about they keep the gorgeous rock work and just not cut the extras... why make compromise for a multi-billion dollar company.
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.