Menu
What's new
By:
Filters

What if Star Wars Land fails?

Edward M

Edward M

Strata Poster
This may be a topic that would only interest me, but, after Star Wars fans boycotted the Solo movie, it became a massive flop. This got me thinking. The Last Jedi pissed a lot of people off, and the ensuing boycott seems to still be in effect. Those hardcore fans that would go to Disneyland and buy lightsabers and toys and all kinds of nonsense probably won't try and support Disney now. That leaves the main base being more casual fans of the series or run-of-the-mill visitors. In the end, Star Wars remains a popular franchise, but, c'mon, the fatigue's setting in. I know it has for me at least. I'm sure it will bring a very big boost in attendance for both parks, but Disney's expectations are really, really high here. Perhaps the final movie could change all that, but that's coming out late 2019, after both lands open. With $1 billion pumped into both of these lands, what happens if it does just, okay?

Avatar is far less popular, and it was able to anchor its own land that's considered a success. However, that was also cheaper than these lands. Discuss.
 
Star Wars holds the world record for most successful film merchandising franchise, and is valued at over $65B, and remains the fifth-highest grossing media franchise of all time.

Harry Potter value? $30B.

Marvel Cinematic Universe value? $28B.

Cars (which too has it's own land) value? $21.8B.

Avatar value? ...scrolls... $3.34B.

Star Wars Land is not only going to be a success, it has the potential makings of being more successful than Harry Potter World.

Overall, bear in mind "critical reception" and "value generated" are two very different things. Solo being a "flop" still merited $100M, and only makes Disney add a few more years to their rollout of other Star Wars spinoff movies. And while die-hard fans may have thought they found flaws with Last Jedi (of which they are clearly wrong, and unfortunately years later will recognize this as the crowning contribution of the new Star Wars trilogy :p ), it still raked in $1 billion at the box office. Amusement Park lands/sections are not built on critical review (Cars Land obviously proves this), it's built on franchise and merchandise value. If anything, it's a surprise Star Wars Land wasn't even built sooner.
 
Yeah, I'm not even a fan of Star Wars at all, but I don't see this being anything but a huge success. Even I want to visit when it opens, and I couldn't care less about the franchise. Says a lot I'd say, and it's not even finished yet.
 
From my perspective, Solo underperformed compared to the rest simply because it wasn't as good of a movie. It seems like Disney just didn't care as much about it and didn't put in the effort needed to make it better.

As for the "boycott," I think the overwhelming majority couldn't care less about the opinions of a few incels who can't handle having female leads and major supporting roles in the new movies. Quite frankly, they're scum and they can go **** themselves.

I'm in @Hyde's camp - there's tons of potential. It's half done and I still got excited to see the progress in person six weeks ago. I'm looking forward to seeing the photos and reading reviews when the lands are complete and open. Will they attract enough people to have attendance jump 30% like Wizarding World did? I'm not sure if it will have THAT much pull (and for the sake of Hollywood Studios, I kind of hope not because the park really couldn't handle that many people), but it'll certainly be successful.
 
Last edited:
Don't care about Star Wars, I'll visit the land during previews but once its open, I don't see myself stepping into DHS for a year or so... While I don't care.. I'm pretty sure *most* people will be creaming themselves over this. Potter changed Uni... This will top that (oh hey, another franchise I don't care about!) I joked with coworkers that Disney could just have a land of cardboard cutouts and people would still wait in hour long lines to see it.
 
Hyde said:
Star Wars holds the world record for most successful film merchandising franchise, and is valued at over $65B, and remains the fifth-highest grossing media franchise of all time.
(...)
If anything, it's a surprise Star Wars Land wasn't even built sooner.
Click to expand...

Looking at the ones above it on that list, one can almost ask the same question again. Obviously, Disney has two of them (Mickey Mouse and Winnie the Pooh) and have used them in parks pretty much since day 1, but the top two are Hello Kitty ($83 billion) and Pokémon ($85 billion), neither of which have received huge attention in the theme park world. I mean, they're both larger than Marvel, Harry Potter and Batman put together.

Anyway, I doubt Star Wars Land will fail. What expectations did people have for Avatar? Almost none, yet the relevant corner of Animal Kingdom has constant three-hour queues for both of its attractions. A properly executed Star Wars area will certainly draw people by the boatloads, and sell merchandise at a rate best measured in cubic meters per second.
 
Avatar was a rip off of 5 different movies, but was a James Cameron wet dream of visuals, and that didnt flop.

Like Ethan said. Cardboard cutouts would cause 12 hour waits if ****ing slinky dog is getting those.

The real concern will be capacity, because from the sound of the Millenium Falcon ride rumors I've heard, it will make Flight of Passage seem like a B&M running 4 trains.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 
Pokemaniac said:
Looking at the ones above it on that list, one can almost ask the same question again. Obviously, Disney has two of them (Mickey Mouse and Winnie the Pooh) and have used them in parks pretty much since day 1, but the top two are Hello Kitty ($83 billion) and Pokémon ($85 billion), neither of which have received huge attention in the theme park world. I mean, they're both larger than Marvel, Harry Potter and Batman put together.

Anyway, I doubt Star Wars Land will fail. What expectations did people have for Avatar? Almost none, yet the relevant corner of Animal Kingdom has constant three-hour queues for both of its attractions. A properly executed Star Wars area will certainly draw people by the boatloads, and sell merchandise at a rate best measured in cubic meters per second.
Click to expand...
If I recall correctly, Pokemon did have a traveling park around japan a few years back but Nintendo has been the one holding back that license from being used in parks. With Nintendo's newfound partnership with Universal I wouldn't be shocked if we see pokemon being used in the next few years so long as game freak signs off on it as well.
 
tomahawk said:
The real concern will be capacity, because from the sound of the Millenium Falcon ride rumors I've heard, it will make Flight of Passage seem like a B&M running 4 trains.
Click to expand...
That seems like a strange thing to do for a park chain as experienced as Disney. They know they are building one of their most hotly anticipated rides ever, themed to one of their biggest IPs (and as shown, one of the biggest IPs period), in their busiest resort. They're spending a billion dollars on the area. They have visitor statistics for the past half century, they know how the public responded to Potter at Universal, and they've opened large-scale rides with ground-breaking technology before. One would think they know to prioritize, or at the very least optimize, guest capacity when designing the rides. Suddenly building a low-capacity ride under those circumstances would be a flying violation of all experience and logic.
 
[sarcasm] But what TRULY matters the most is that it will be immersive beyond anything else because that is obviously the most important design criteria for a new ride. [/sarcasm]
 
Edward M said:
Avatar is far less popular, and it was able to anchor its own land that's considered a success. However, that was also cheaper than these lands.
Click to expand...
You kind of answered your own question there. The Avatar land was cheaper, but at $500 million it was still a huge investment and surely a much riskier investment than Star Wars - and it's been a big success. I seriously doubt a boycott by a few hardcore Star Wars fanboys is going to cause Disney to lose any sleep.
 
Can we stop calling these boycotters "hard-core SW fans" and call them what they really are, which is a bunch of fans of the collection of fanfics they formerly called the EU and that the creators of SW never really considered part of it, plus a bunch of whiny boys who feel threatened by empowered women.
We all know that true SW fans, even those who didn't like TLJ, would never call for a stupid boycott. Just as we know that this boycott had nothing to do with solo underperforming. The proximity with Infinity War, the mixed reviews and the concept of a han solo prequel whithout harrison ford, with no relation to the current saga films, that is what did hurt the movie. And it won't heart Disneyland.
 
Well if it does fail, I guess we'll get a few YouTube videos of weirdos dancing naked around a pile of burning Rose action figures cheering.
 
balrog said:
Can we stop calling these boycotters "hard-core SW fans"
Click to expand...
One person said that... Literally one person has called them hardcore fans.
Anyway before this becomes a Star Wars fap fest, I think we can say that this thing won't fail. I just don't see how it would. Unless we see another 9/11 and the tourism industry plummets, I can only see Galaxy's Edge being a huge hit?
 
Hyde said:
Star Wars holds the world record for most successful film merchandising franchise, and is valued at over $65B, and remains the fifth-highest grossing media franchise of all time.
Click to expand...
In terms of merchandise, no other film franchise has had over forty years of it like Star Wars has.
 
Ethan said:
One person said that... Literally one person has called them hardcore fans.
Anyway before this becomes a Star Wars fap fest, I think we can say that this thing won't fail. I just don't see how it would. Unless we see another 9/11 and the tourism industry plummets, I can only see Galaxy's Edge being a huge hit?
Click to expand...
Well, yes, you arr right. One persin on tje forum. But this thing is way bigger than the coaster community and you can read "true SW fans boycott solo" or similar stuff literally everywhere on the internet.
 
[QUOTE="Antinos, post: 1041393, member: 8143”]As for the "boycott," I think the overwhelming majority couldn't care less about the opinions of a few incels who can't handle having female leads and major supporting roles in the new movies. Quite frankly, they're scum and they can go :emoji_zipper_mouth: themselves.[/QUOTE]
I’d echo this, and add that most people — including Star Wars fans — aren’t even aware of a boycott. If the sales of Solo slumped, the conventional wisdom was that it was franchise fatigue for a side story (not a boycott, and not the quality of the film, as someone else said).

But if we can sustain an endless, endless parade of sheer garbage known as superhero movies, and all the boring, generic amusement park “theming” foisted upon us in connection with those superheroes, then Disney can certainly sustain a new land themed to an extremely popular franchise that actually has originality and character.
 
Last edited:
This is Disney’s first new land in a very long time. They’re going to be extremely careful- they can’t afford a fail here.
 
EpochEmu said:
This is Disney’s first new land in a very long time. They’re going to be extremely careful- they can’t afford a fail here.
Click to expand...
"A very long time" as in... one year? Toy Story Land opened in the same park on June 30 this year. Before then, there was Avatar Land in 2017. And that's not counting the overseas parks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top