It was just announced the building is being converted into offices for Disney Imagineering. Any hope of it reopening and having anything to do with Star Wars is gone.
I can't tell you how many Pixie Dusters wanted to endlessly debate me on how it was coming back better than ever.
Well said Jack. Pixie Duster actually sounds like someone who abuses Pixie Stix for recreational purposes lol.
"That being said, I highly encourage you not to use the term "pixie dusters" as it just comes off as juvenile."
Agreed.
Have you ever engaged with the cult?
TBF, Disney didn't have a lot of options to reutilize this space. While it's technically on DHS property, it's far outside the current park boundaries, and because the structure was so built for purpose, trying to make it a guest space would have been incredibly challenging without a massive and costly renovation. I think there was hope that they could have used it as an excursion type attraction where guests would board a transport inside Galaxy's Edge for an abbreviated version of the Starcruiser Experience, but the costs to operate it on a part time/demand-based schedule would never have worked.
We can go back and reanalyze the experience and the causes for its failure, but there were a lot of contributing factors to its closure. It makes sense for Disney to cut their losses and at least find a way to use the space, and give WDI a constant reminder of their potential and yet the cost of hubris and the economics of themed entertainment. It's ironically fitting that WDI staff will be working in a building that both represents the immense potential of the group and yet at the same time was one of its most spectacular failures.
From day 1 - I said NO - Way too expansive..
I even started a Thread asking if Disney was pricing itself out...
Now I sit here - chest puffed Out - you can't get rich off of a few rich folks.
You never make more off of a few - you make more - little by little off the many...
SO will it be called Galactic Starcruiser Office?
It's too bad, I was actually optimistic when it opened...
Five reasons that I think it failed (as someone who definitely never stayed there)
1. The cost. No notes.
2. The design philosophy -it felt less "star wars" and more "apple tries star wars"
3. It was themed after the sequel trilogy. Nobody likes the sequel trilogy.
4. The activities were hit or miss. Some of them looked alright. The shows sucked.
5. It was very strictly contained -if I wanted to go on a Disney vacation, I would want to visit the real parks, not just Galaxy's edge.
It's a pity, really. The world of themed hotels will never be the same.
To clarify your point #5, you weren't necessarily contained to Galaxy's Edge as part of the Starcruiser Experience. In fact, when we did the Media Event, we walked over and rode MMRR, because that ride was new since our previous visit in January 2020. Now, the park admission you were given as a guest aboard the Starcruiser was limited to DHS, but it's not like there were CMs standing at the entrances to Galaxy's Edge preventing you from walking to other parts of the park, even if you were in full cos-play.
The concept was supposed to be part of a longer Disney vacation. You stay at the Starcruiser for the 3-day/2-night adventure, and then you move to another resort and stay another few days to enjoy the other parks. The Starcruiser was never intended to be a hotel where guests stay to visit the other parks, because you were paying $1,000/night for all the Star Wars stuff, not to go ride Space Mountain.
I think the biggest flaw of the experience was that it was unlike anything else ever attempted in the themed entertainment space, and nobody knew what to do or how it should be run. Disney wanted guests to go all-in as a completely immersive experience ("Live Your Own Star Wars Adventure"), and there just aren't that many people out there interested in being that involved and doing all the work that goes along with it. The other issues you note certainly played a role in the experience not living up to expectations, but in the end, I just don't think people were ready to pay what it costs to be dumped into a real-life choose your own adventure situation. Ultimately, the Starcruiser was not the "vacation" experience most guests go to WDW for, and the high cost set expectations impossibly high.
I truly think just a Star Wars Themed deluxe hotel would be perfect and very successful, and I don't know why they didn't just go with that or go with that in the future.
@russel Meyer
Thanks for clarifying because, again, I didn't go (see point #1) but the overall confusion on how this hotel was supposed to interact with the parks could have contributed to its failure.
Take out the Animation building/move all those people to the old Starcruiser building, take out Star Wars Launch Bay, and expand the park. Seems like a pretty common-sense move.
Also take out Team Disney/move all those people to the old Starcruiser site, build a parking garage in that spot, remove a giant chunk of surface parking, and expand Disney Springs. Also seems like a pretty common-sense move.
I still think they need another FIW (Fuel/Inspect/Wash), bus maintenance area, and staging locations to service the ever growing demand for buses, but Disney Springs is too far away from everything and adding bus traffic there late at night is not ideal.
Jack H: "The hotel was a disaster and just a bundle of terrible ideas."
Me: When did you experience the Galactic Starcruiser?
You've got to give Disney kudos for at least trying the idea out and putting their money at risk. And I do believe that the lessons learned and the opportunities identified in the Galactic Starcruiser (experiment?) are going to impact the theme park industry for the next 20-30 years.
In my humble opinion the two most detailed, definitive reviews of the Galactic Starcruiser were Russell's multi-part review for TPI and the one given by David Cobb during his appearance on the 'Heroes of the Halcyon' podcast -- which can be found here:
https://poddtoppen.se/podcast/1625599346/heroes-of-the-halcyon/igniting-the-spark-with-immersive-experiences-designer-dave-cobb-part-one
"When did you experience the Galactic Starcruiser? " - Well, never. And I can't now because it was a disaster and just a bundle of terrible ideas. If it weren't, it would still be open, and flourishing.
The biggest problem with this idea was it was executed by Disney, and it shows. Can't remember if it made it a whole year or just shy.
@NB - The Galactic Starcruiser opened on March 1, 2022 and closed on September 30, 2023, so it last almost a year and a half.
Just because something closed doesn't mean it was a "disaster and just a bundle of terrible ideas". As I detailed in my review of the experience, there were a number of flaws with the experience, but there were opportunities for improvement and tweaking of the experience that could have made it better. Unfortunately, I think the amount of money Disney spent on bringing this experience to life and the costs to maintain it (along with the delays caused by the Pandemic) put this project in a difficult spot and made it really tough for Disney to make it financially viable.
I do hope that Disney has or will perform an assessment of the Galactic Starcruiser, because there were a number of really solid ideas in the experience that was unfortunately weighed down and impacted by the price that Disney had to sell this experience at to make ends meet.
@Russell: If you have not listened to the podcast discussion I referenced, it's really impressive -- especially hearing about Mr. Cobb's experience. One of the points brought up in their conversation was the suggestion that the Halcyon would've succeeded had it opened on the west coast. I remember some of their reasons -- entertainment and tech industry patronage, tourists from east Asia -- but I am not doing their analysis justice.
@The Other TPI TH (Hillman), I also applaud Disney for swinging for the fence. This was about theater and certainly not greed. It is hard to imagine the company (by Disney standards) ever imagined this would be a monstrous revenue stream. And if it was overpriced (I don't believe it really was), the excess would be measured in hundreds (not thousands) of dollars.
I'll have to carve out some time to listen, but I would agree that the Starcruiser experience would probably have appealed better to the creative-focused locals in California than the tourist-heavy guest profile in Florida. I also think that Disney didn't do a great job of explaining/selling the experience, relying on media outlets, influencers, and fans to get the word out. Disney also dropped the ball numerous times in their marketing campaign leading up to the launch, which undermined a lot of excitement and interest in the project. Once the price was officially announced, it created a level of backlash that they could never overcome and established expectations that could never be reached.
I do think the Starcruiser established a bit of a "cult" status, much like The Adventurer's Club, which shared a lot of immersive and improvisational aspects, but I think the death knell was that WDI spent so much developing the project (and taking shortcuts in too many visible places that frustrated guest to try to cut costs) that the additional costs run up by the Pandemic doomed any chance of the Starcruiser breaking even financially. Every project becomes a numbers game in a publicly traded company, and when a project like this has costs and revenue/demand that can be easily segregated from overall park operations ledger, it makes it easy for executives with no emotional connection to the project to cut the cord when the books are running in the red. The problem is that Disney could only cut costs and prices so much before they cut what little profit that the experience was clearing (and needed to offset development and construction), so when the accountants went in and saw a bare-bones operation struggling to just operate at NET ZERO, there was no way Disney was going to let the project dig its own grave, especially when there was an opportunity to take a massive write-off.
Disney really didn't have a choice but to take that loss to prevent further depreciation of the asset and impact on the overall company's financials.
@Th I appreciate your zingers, but I'm not sure one needs to personally experience something in order to form an opinion on it. Otherwise there would be a host of things that no one could speak to. But I think you know that.
I've looked at the reviews you mentioned, along with many others. There were a bundle of bad ideas when it came to marketing, design choices, and how the experience actually played out. I appreciate them for trying something, I do, and I'm generally a Disney guy. But I stand by my informed opinion that this was a poorly executed idea that could have been much better.
Maybe I should remove the word "just" from my original post. I didn't mean there wasn't a lot of good ideas in it, but there were also a "bundle" of poor choices that made it unable to achieve a popular and lasting appeal.
Jack H writes: "I'm not sure one needs to personally experience something in order to form an opinion on it".
Me: Where did I contend that someone "needs to personally experience something in order to form an opinion on it"?
Look, I reference two different reviews. One in writing and the other in a podcast. They involve the opinion of two people who I regard as experts in the themed entertainment industry. People whose opinions I respect.
Both of these people actually experienced the Halcyon. Both concluded the experience was impressive.
And, as far as I know, neither one of these people have back-peddled on their opinions -- as in, "Maybe I should remove the word 'just' from my original post".
Best wishes.
@TH Fair enough! I guess I'm not sure what the point of your question was then, as I seemed to misinterpret it.
Russell Meyer is the only one here who has actually experienced this, so his opinion is valuable. However valuable experience is, the fact that only one person in a group of like-minded theme park goers has gone- or planned on going- to this hotel speaks to its value.
Disney should have known the cost of planning and developing a hotel. Disney should have known during tests and trials that some of the games they made were trivial and boring. Disney should have taken early reviews and used those to improve what they had. Disney should have known that the cost of all of this would inflate the price to a ridiculous degree. Disney should have taken any effort to market this hotel at all.
This is Disney, for goodness sake! They've built enough hotels to house armies! Even if a hotel is an experimental, one-of-a-kind experience, Disney should have taken some hint that this was going to be a disaster and fixed it!
Now Disney is just going to build more and more bland resorts on the lake for dvc members until the end of time.
I've read all the comments here and although I can't add anything new , I just wanted to support those who
commended Disney for recognising that it was a project that wasn't working and decided early to throw in the towel.
Also , whilst it's disappointing that the site isn't being re-imagined in the way some would've hoped , it is providing much needed office space. So if the offices weren't there , in a site far,far away, then they would've had to have chosen another site.
I never got to visit GS so can't comment on that but you have to admit that it was a bold venture. Something different. But it failed and we move on.
Disney have cut their losses and perhaps there will be funds available for something better.
@VelocicoasterFan - I have no doubt that Disney knew what they were getting into when they gave the green light to the Galactic Starcruiser project, but you have to realize that it wasn't just a hotel/resort like the Contemporary, Grand Floridian, Poly, et al. This was a full, immersive experience that happened to include a room where you could sleep, and frankly shared more characteristics with a theme park than a hotel/resort. That's what made this experience so unique and challenging, and why it's massively flawed to think of the Galactic Starcruiser as the "Star Wars Hotel".
Also, when Disney originally hinted at this idea at 2015's D23, everyone knew that such an immersive, role-playing experience would come at an incredibly high price. Even here on TPI, there were discussions about what the Galactic Starcruiser would cost prior to Disney officially releasing pricing, and for the most part, the rates were within a few hundred dollars of what many expected. Ultimately, it wasn't an experience for everyone, and I really think the price was set at a level to not only ensure profitability, but to also ensure commitment from the guests (you're not going to spend that kind of money and sleepwalk through the experience), which would be essential to the experience delivering for everyone on board. I do think price was one of the main reasons why the experience failed, not just because it was expensive, but because of the perceptions and criticism the price created. It created so much hatred for the project that it didn't matter how much guests who actually got to experience it liked it, the Keyboard Warriors were always going to criticize it for being a cash grab. Those who tried to rationalize and justify the price were instantly called shills for Disney and accused of being "bought" by Disney because they either got to visit as part of the Media Voyage or had money to burn through sponsorships and other financial backing to pay for and review the experience on their socials.
In the end, I think Disney was in a Catch-22, and were trying to sell something that they couldn't accurately describe and an experience that much of the public just wasn't ready for at the time.
@RM: I also believe that (foundationally) it was a hotel. The standard operation (amenities, service and staffing) of a hotel can be sustained if a day's occupancy rate drops below 50%. On the Halcyon, the occupancy rate had to be higher (maybe as high as 70%) for the entertaining element of the experience to be effective.
@RM: I also believe that (foundationally) it was a hotel. The standard operation (amenities, service and staffing) of a hotel can be sustained if a day's occupancy rate drops below 50%. On the Halcyon, the occupancy rate had to be higher (maybe as high as 70%) for the entertaining element of the experience to be effective.
The fact that every guest wanted to live stream and record everything that happened every hour of every day was the cringe part for me. Nothing but a sea of phones held up in every video I have ever watched. I would have left my phone in my room and enjoyed the immersion, but everyone else spoiled that, in my opinion.
The guest were more interested in letting people know they were there, than actually being there. By all accounts, the food seemed pretty horrible, but unlimited blue and greem milk... so that's good.
Wait, you mean people don't want to pay thousands of dollars to be trapped in a dungeon and told to do various things that do not look fun at all?
I wouldn't stay there if they were paying me.
Hopefully, Disney doesn't buy the theme park rights to the Squid Game. ;)
Wait a minute...something goes wrong. That would be a better fit as a Universal IP.
NB: "By all accounts, the food seemed pretty horrible ..."
Me: Yeah, "By all accounts ..."
Russell: "In general, the food and drinks aboard the Galactic Starcruiser were excellent".
Russell: "Nori-crusted Redfish with Mushrooms and Red Cabbage. This dish was excellent and would have been equally acceptable as a dinner entree. The salmon was excellently cooked with a couple of sheets of nori, which are typically rolled for sushi, placed on top to create a second skin for the fish."
Russell: "Bantha Beef Tenderloins (Tamarind glazed with crushed moon rock potatoes) Of the main course selections, this was by far the best, so much so that we ordered a second serving that was even better than the first. The filet was cooked a perfect medium rare, and the au-jus was very rich and flavorful."
Russell: "Stewed Shrimp with Lemongrass, Lobster Cream, and Coconut Lime Foam: "I really liked the flavor profile of this dish, and the foam was not as off-putting texturally as some foam toppings can be. The south Asian and Indian flavors blended well here, but the sauce was more like soup with the shrimp almost drowning in the portion we received."
Russell: "Tip Yip Chicken (bourbon-glazed with red peppers and sesame seeds) This was a big hit at our table despite it being a rather ordinary dish. The pieces of chicken were not as chunky either, and retained a good amount of crunch even after sitting for a few minutes. This dish skews away from the overall theme of food on the Galactic Starcruiser but was really good."
Russell: "Surabat Spiced Flora These grilled vegetables were tasty without being over-seasoned. There was also a wide variety of vegetables to please a number of different tastes. I appreciated the use of purple cauliflower and other more common veggies cut in unusual shapes to give this dish a bit of a foreign look."
Russell: "Crispy Tuber Waffle with Cheddar Egg Bite, Apple Fruit Bacon, and Herbed Egg-butter Sauce. This dish was pure perfection. The bacon spiral on top was like candy, and the hash brown-style waffle underneath was crispy on the edges and tender in the middle. The sauce brought everything together by adding salty notes to the fluffy egg bite. If I wasn’t making a concerted effort to try as many different items as possible, I would have filled up my tray with multiple portions of this dish."
Russell: "Bantha-vinegared Herb Sauce and Coti-cheese Pizza This was another delicious mini pizza with sun dried tomatoes and a sweet yet savory herb sauce. As with all the pizzas, the crust was pillowy while still having a crispy bottom and edge."
I actually enjoy all of Russell's in depth dish reviews and details. I also watched dozens of video from guests live streaming and blogging from the main dining room / "nightclub".
Can we at least agree the food options weren't going to be the driving force to keep that place profitable and open? Words have to be chosen carefully when you are on approved media lists.
"The Gorgonzola Bacon cheeseburger featured a garlic butter toasted bun, and the thin onion slice was put on previous to being removed from the broiler, and just before the cheese was added, so, it was just starting to become caramelized. The Gorgonzola cheese was broiled to a perfect golden brown on top. The oven cooked bacon melted in your mouth and had just the right amount of salt.
The beer battered onion rings were toasted to perfection. Right between crispy, and still easy to bite through. The home made honey dijon dipping sauce was not too heavy and didn't overpower everything else. I detected a hint of fresh squeezed lemon.
The Landshark bottled beer was chilled to just above freezing, and was the perfect compliment to this meal."
This was the dinner I made tonight... you see how this works?
NB: "Words have to be chosen carefully when you are on approved media lists."
Me: What exactly does that have to do with Russell's assessment of the food served to guests who experienced the Galactic Starcruiser -- The one which he began by writing "In general, the food and drinks aboard the Galactic Starcruiser were excellent"?
I wasn't going to pick apart NB's comment, but the food was far from "horrible". Yes, there were reports that Disney was starting to water down the menu as they appeared to be belt tightening, but they also removed some of the more adventurous dishes because they just weren't that popular. In fact, there was a dish reported being served during CM previews that didn't even make it to Media Voyage that feature dried bonito flakes that would wiggle on the plate as if it featured living organisms, so like any restaurant, there was a gradual evolution of refining of the menu. However, "horrible" is nowhere close to the word I would use to describe the food of the Galactic Starcruiser, and is not something I saw from other guests who had an opportunity to experience it.
@NB - perhaps you can cite some reviews that described the food as "horrible", because that's not a sentiment I have seen from any trip report on the Starcruiser. I've seen a few instances from guests that didn't like specific dishes or felt that they didn't think the food was as good as you would expect from a "luxury" experience commensurate with the cost, but nobody has outright called the food "horrible".
In terms of how I chose to review and write about the food, that had absolutely NOTHING to do with being on the Media Voyage, and is generally how I write about culinary experience, even those I've paid for out of my own pocket (see my various review of restaurants and dining events over the 2 decades I've been contributing to TPI). It's just my writing style that conforms to a general format for a culinary review that you might see in a major news publication. I could have said "blue shrimp was weird looking, but tasted good and the filet was yummy", but I think when you're trying to describe how something smells or tastes, it's important to use more descriptive language. When you're reviewing dozens of different dishes experienced over a 72 hour whirlwind, there are going to be some cliches and crutch-y language, but I'm pretty happy with how that piece turned out.
Russell, I've been on this page for a very very long time. Everything is homogenized and filtered to put Disney in the best light possible at all times.
My point was anything, even a simple home made burger and frozen onion rings can be made to sound amazing. It was directed at the apologists, not you. I like your attention to small details about the dishes.
I've seen the Instagram photo worthy dishes, and the sad dried up breakfast trays. I've seen the approved media live streams, and the cringe compilations from average guests. The lobby line dancing, and the "fashion shows". I've seen guests just sitting down to dinner being told to get up as part of the LARPing before touching a thing on their plate.
It seemed so disjointed and confusing. Perhaps. "horrible" with regard to the food was a bad word choice. Average, probably would have not caused such an uproar. Again, so offense to you or your writing style.
Lastly, i didn't help Disney filed a copyright strike on critical videos from paying guests, but never went after the approved media videos with the exact same footage. Scrubbing YouTube of any embarrassment was a top priority.
Disney also deleted their own promo video with that kid from the Goldbergs after the backlash.
NB: "By all accounts, the food seemed pretty horrible ..."
Russell: "@NB - perhaps you can cite some reviews that described the food as "horrible", because that's not a sentiment I have seen from any trip report on the Starcruiser."
NB: (Insert Crickets Chirping)
Me: NEXT!
(Chuckle)
Easy, TH. It's over, man... they tried. I realize I gave you something to obsess over, but the Starcruiser's problems extended further than just the cuisine.
You can check out the objective reviews yourself, or watch the approved media reviews. That's up to you. They are everywhere. YouTube, DisBoards, you name it.
Still no sources, but whatever. And no, YouTube is not a source. This was a good idea with bad execution, but the food has nothing to do with it.
"It's over, man... they tried."
And right there is what is lost in all of this. Theme park fans should realize and appreciate that at least WDI was able to get this project through development and into reality. Designers had to make compromises to make it work financially and logistically, which I think created a lot of the issues, but there's definitely something to be said for Disney taking the risk to have a go at what was a very unique and very challenging concept to execute.
The hotel was a disaster and just a bundle of terrible ideas.
That being said, I highly encourage you not to use the term "pixie dusters" as it just comes off as juvenile.
Theme Park tribalism is just as "middle school" as the old "console wars" where Xbox people would call Playstation people "Ponys." It adds nothing to the discourse.