Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Disney Starcruiser Hotel in possible crisis?

Collapse

Get Away Today

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Co Foo View Post

    A lot of people bemoan how sequels and formulaic approaches dominate pop culture from movies to music, but it's also obvious why franchises are so successful. They give people what they want.

    It seems fair enough to say that Galaxy's Edge should have used the most popular original trilogy characters that fans love, but then those same people can't turn around and say that Disney should be bold and develop something brand new.
    I see your point, but I also think Disney could have had it both ways with making Galaxy’s Edge it more broader and accessible, while also giving the Imagineers some room to try bolder, more deep cut SW experiences.

    I think the land would have worked better as a ‘legends’ style land that allowed for multiple generations of SW character interactions.

    I would have preferred RotR themed to the OT, but it would also like to see a character interaction, or a D-ticket attraction with a lesser general audience known character like Grand Admiral Thrawn.

    For more experiences like the recent trilogy and expanding D+ shows like Mando, Boba Fett and the Bad Batch, it seems this would be better for Disney if they has a space in SW:GE that allowed for more seasonal shows and character experiences based on the latest SW character offerings.

    Ultimately a more expanded land scope would enable a larger audience to connect to the characters enjoyed when they became interested in SW and ‘live the SW story’ with those characters.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Jaygatzby View Post

      I see your point, but I also think Disney could have had it both ways with making Galaxy’s Edge it more broader and accessible, while also giving the Imagineers some room to try bolder, more deep cut SW experiences.

      I think the land would have worked better as a ‘legends’ style land that allowed for multiple generations of SW character interactions.

      I would have preferred RotR themed to the OT, but it would also like to see a character interaction, or a D-ticket attraction with a lesser general audience known character like Grand Admiral Thrawn.

      For more experiences like the recent trilogy and expanding D+ shows like Mando, Boba Fett and the Bad Batch, it seems this would be better for Disney if they has a space in SW:GE that allowed for more seasonal shows and character experiences based on the latest SW character offerings.

      Ultimately a more expanded land scope would enable a larger audience to connect to the characters enjoyed when they became interested in SW and ‘live the SW story’ with those characters.
      The issue with this approach is that there are multiple time periods that conflict. I guarantee that this would be a problem for some Star Wars fans, particularly the ones that are being convinced to buy $200 lightsabers or spend thousands of dollars on the Starcruiser Hotel.

      It's reasonable to say that this level of uber-immersion isn't really necessary and there can be some element of inconsistency that is passable while still delivering a great product, but it does open up a lane of criticism. I think you're probably right that this approach would have been good. I'm not sure how much I personally would have cared, but I definitely know a bunch of people who would have been carping about it.

      My takeaway from all of this discussion is that the Star Wars universe with its stories that span decades of production is simply to disparate to peg into one new story. You can just scroll through this thread with everyone having a different take on what the land should be as your proof.

      Comment


      • #63
        Disney has painted themselves into a corner with SW, especially its theme park presence. Neither the casual fans/families with kids nor the merch-crazy mega-fans are enough, by themselves, to sustain the franchise at the level of profit the shareholders demand, but the two groups' approaches to the franchise are so different that there's no reliable way to reach out to one without alienating the other.
        Like this post? Read more like it at The Disneyland Dilettante!

        Comment


        • #64
          The eternal problem here is the perceived value for the cost, For me who considers himself a upper level Star Wars fan there is nothing I can think of they could offer that I would think would be worth 6,000 dollars for 2 and a half days. To me it looks like a LARPers dream but that is really where the appeal stops and I think that and the fact that the first images coming out looks pretty cheap and plastic rather than immersive and well themed has turned people away.
          BGood! It's not just my motto its my name!

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by mickdaddy View Post
            The eternal problem here is the perceived value for the cost, For me who considers himself a upper level Star Wars fan there is nothing I can think of they could offer that I would think would be worth 6,000 dollars for 2 and a half days. To me it looks like a LARPers dream but that is really where the appeal stops and I think that and the fact that the first images coming out looks pretty cheap and plastic rather than immersive and well themed has turned people away.
            I'm in the same boat, and no amount of money would make me think it would be worth spending that much money for that experience. There are just much better ways to spend it than half-hearted design and not even getting to hold the retractable lightsaber. If the experience were outstanding, it could be truly amazing, but it looks like Chapek realized it would be just a bit too niche and cut all the budgets last minute (sound familiar?), but then creates a self-fulfilling prophecy of failure. If we know anything about Chapek, it's that he always finds someone else to take the fall for him.

            Comment


            • #66
              Also, as the cancellation window narrows/closes, we're seeing people drop their reservations as previously sold-out dates open up. And even then, I'm sure most of the initial buyers are bloggers and vloggers who are expensing the trip. Is this shaping up to be a trainwreck?

              Star Wars: Galactic Starcruiser Suffers Another Massive Wave of Cancellations

              Comment


              • #67

                Originally posted by WaltDisney'sAlec View Post
                ...If the experience were outstanding, it could be truly amazing, but it looks like Chapek realized it would be just a bit too niche and cut all the budgets last minute (sound familiar?), but then creates a self-fulfilling prophecy of failure....
                Bingo.


                Originally posted by WaltDisney'sAlec View Post
                Also, as the cancellation window narrows/closes, we're seeing people drop their reservations as previously sold-out dates open up. And even then, I'm sure most of the initial buyers are bloggers and vloggers who are expensing the trip. Is this shaping up to be a trainwreck?

                Star Wars: Galactic Starcruiser Suffers Another Massive Wave of Cancellations
                Considering the cancellation policy from that article, it's looking a mashup of trainwreck, plane crash and sinking ship:

                "The Star Wars: Galactic Starcruiser has a strict payment and cancellation policy. Cruises must be paid in full 90 days before arrival, and any cancellations beyond the 90 day mark will only receive a 50% refund. Cancellations within 30 days will not be eligible for a refund."


                "Disneyland is often called a magic kingdom because
                it combines fantasy and history, adventure and learning,
                together with every variety of recreation and fun,
                designed to appeal to everyone."

                - Walt Disney

                "Disneyland is all about turning movies into rides."
                - Michael Eisner

                "It's very symbiotic."
                - Bob Chapek

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by JLee1226 View Post

                  This is part of what I was getting at above. Setting aside the question of whether or not Batuu was the best concept to pick for a 'Star Wars land,' it is by in large a wholly new and original thing. They didn't build something from the SW universe, they built something from the ground up to exist in the SW universe. And IMHO, the aesthetics of the land are totally on point. Yes, they used parts of the SW IP, but they built ahem, 'a whole new world' around those elements. If we can't give due credit to Imagineering for GE, then we should re-evaluate what 'original' means in a parks context. Joe Rohde didn't invent the Yeti or Mt. Everest, but that is still considered a Disney original. He took pre-existing elements and built up around them. Same with Batuu.

                  Now, I am just some random dude on the internet and not privy to any insider knowledge on how Disney/Lucasfilm handled the sequel trilogy. But looking in from the outside, it seems to me that D/L over-corrected after the rough start of the Disney era films. The original plan was like a movie every year with the "Star Wars Story" stand alones filling in the gaps of the main trilogy. Rogue One turned out pretty good, even as there were apparently conflicting visions between Disney and director Gareth Edwards with extensive reshoots being done to punch up the film (IIRC, the Vader sequence at the end was one of these late additions). Solo went sideways and they brought in Ron Howard as a fixer and quietly dropped the rest of the "Story" films in development (which is why Book of Boba Fett is now a D+ series). Whenever something drifted out of the lane D/L wanted, they course corrected. Which in and of itself is not necessarily surprising, studios clash with directors all the time. But, while D/L might have had a clear idea about what they wanted from the films, I'm not sure they had a solid grasp on who they were making the movies for. The one thing Lucas has been the most consistent on since 1977, is that Star Wars is at its heart, a kid's movie. I think this intangible is a big part of why the OT resonates more widely. Consequently, this is why I grade things like Smuggler's Run and the Starcruiser bridge on a bit of a curve. It's got to work for 10 year olds and adults spanning 2-3 generations now.
                  ​​​​​
                  What clearly seems to have been the flashpoint for a certain segment of the fan base was TLJ actually trying to show something new and ask interesting questions about the series itself. There is a very vocal contingent of fans who apparently did not want Luke to be anything other than a video game God-mode Jedi (hence we get the Mando season 2 finale). For whatever reason, they ditched Colin Trevorow's script for IX and brought back JJ for clean up. The mediocrity of Rise of Skywalker is because they felt the need to pander to the most petulant fans...ok, that and stubbornly wanting to stick to the release schedule even though Trevorow's script would have needed re-writes because of Carrie Fisher's death, and JJ would eventually have to come up with whatever the heck IX ended up being in an extreme time crunch. Though had they pushed the release date back a year, that would have been 2020. Nothing bad happened that year, right?
                  I think you are glazing over a far more complicated issue than just "me want luke be god" and "everything TLJ did was wrong". When a franchise exists for so long, AND has people grow up with the expanded universe for so long then fans become accustomed to certain characters and the world that was built. The exact same thing happened with Harry Potter and the Cursed Child, despite it being "canon" the majority of fans that grew up with HP choose to simply ignore it because it changed so many rules and personalities and attributes of characters that had long been established in the original books. It doesn't help that Hamill went on record several times saying he hated what Luke was.

                  Disney's biggest issue though, was not having an established plan for all three films before production started. You can make little tweaks, these things happen all the time...Lucas wanted Obi Wan to live past the first film but was convinced otherwise. However, major plot points and character journeys are almost always well established. The fact that Disney had no real point person, love it or hate it something Lucas always was, meant that as they passed of the franchise from Director to Director and writer to writer they started to get very different visions. Lots of little divergent decisions add up, TLJ luke, Snoke not having a backstory, etc. etc. and it becomes a disjointed mess. People want something new and are willing to love something new, but it needs to be NEW. That's probably why Mando, Clone Wars, and the "stories" films Solo excluded do quite well...outside of the main Skywalker trilogy people wanted and accepted creative crazy and new....within that mainstream trilogy people wanted continuity of story.

                  How does that impact the parks, well you have no point person for Star Wars as everything is passed through multiple filters. Kathleen Kennedy has some say but it's passed through numerous parks management and the CEO himself. You have a fractured fan base some of whom like the sequels, some who grew up with prequels and some who only love the OT. You have other fans that are consumers of all the EU stuff past and present, and you have to somehow fit all this into the parks. Make a "legends" place and as you said people would complain that it's not storytelling or innovative, make a story telling place like they did and people complain about the timeline. It's all lose lose lose.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by WaltDisney'sAlec View Post

                    I'm in the same boat, and no amount of money would make me think it would be worth spending that much money for that experience. There are just much better ways to spend it than half-hearted design and not even getting to hold the retractable lightsaber. If the experience were outstanding, it could be truly amazing, but it looks like Chapek realized it would be just a bit too niche and cut all the budgets last minute (sound familiar?), but then creates a self-fulfilling prophecy of failure. If we know anything about Chapek, it's that he always finds someone else to take the fall for him.
                    I agree they set themselves up for failure. For me 6000 dollars is 2 trips to Disneyland for my family of 4. I know what I would prefer.
                    BGood! It's not just my motto its my name!

                    Comment


                    • #70

                      Originally posted by linkeq2001 View Post
                      ...How does that impact the parks, well you have no point person for Star Wars as everything is passed through multiple filters. Kathleen Kennedy has some say but it's passed through numerous parks management and the CEO himself.
                      Exactly. Also known as "Death by Committee."

                      Carsland had Cars creator John Lasseter as point person. Pandora had Avatar creator James Cameron.

                      Star Wars has whatever Revolving-Door Disney Executives are in power that year.


                      "Disneyland is often called a magic kingdom because
                      it combines fantasy and history, adventure and learning,
                      together with every variety of recreation and fun,
                      designed to appeal to everyone."

                      - Walt Disney

                      "Disneyland is all about turning movies into rides."
                      - Michael Eisner

                      "It's very symbiotic."
                      - Bob Chapek

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Mr Wiggins View Post


                        Exactly. Also known as "Death by Committee."

                        Carsland had Cars creator John Lasseter as point person. Pandora had Avatar creator James Cameron.

                        Star Wars has whatever Revolving-Door Disney Executives are in power that year.

                        I for one am hoping that with the success Jon Faveau is having with the Mandalorian and other Star Wars projects he can be that person in the future.
                        BGood! It's not just my motto its my name!

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by mickdaddy View Post
                          I for one am hoping that with the success Jon Faveau is having with the Mandalorian and other Star Wars projects he can be that person in the future.
                          Unfortunately, the Disney management hierarchy does not admit creatives to the top tier of financial and strategic decision-making executives. Even Lasseter, who had the title of Chief Creative Officer and the power that came from earning billions for the Company, had to fight tooth and nail to keep management from eviscerating Carsland. (And that was under a CEO who was 'way more knowledgeable about theme park entertainment than Chapek.) No matter his creative accomplishments, Faveau has nowhere near that level of power.

                          What he has is Chapek, and a management hierarchy of Chapek's marketeers.

                          "Disneyland is often called a magic kingdom because
                          it combines fantasy and history, adventure and learning,
                          together with every variety of recreation and fun,
                          designed to appeal to everyone."

                          - Walt Disney

                          "Disneyland is all about turning movies into rides."
                          - Michael Eisner

                          "It's very symbiotic."
                          - Bob Chapek

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by WaltDisney'sAlec View Post

                            I'm in the same boat, and no amount of money would make me think it would be worth spending that much money for that experience. There are just much better ways to spend it than half-hearted design and not even getting to hold the retractable lightsaber.
                            Hyping up the retractable lightsaber that guests were never going to get to use was really dumb.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Mr Wiggins View Post

                              Unfortunately, the Disney management hierarchy does not admit creatives to the top tier of financial and strategic decision-making executives. Even Lasseter, who had the title of Chief Creative Officer and the power that came from earning billions for the Company, had to fight tooth and nail to keep management from eviscerating Carsland. (And that was under a CEO who was 'way more knowledgeable about theme park entertainment than Chapek.) No matter his creative accomplishments, Faveau has nowhere near that level of power.

                              What he has is Chapek, and a management hierarchy of Chapek's marketeers.
                              I agree with you completely as long as Chapek or any other dollar before design CEO is in charge it won't matter who the creative is the budget won't support anything next level.
                              BGood! It's not just my motto its my name!

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by mickdaddy View Post
                                I agree with you completely as long as Chapek or any other dollar before design CEO is in charge it won't matter who the creative is the budget won't support anything next level.
                                Yep. And even more unfortunately for Disney's creatives, the Chapek management regime can impact creative projects on levels beyond just budget.

                                "Disneyland is often called a magic kingdom because
                                it combines fantasy and history, adventure and learning,
                                together with every variety of recreation and fun,
                                designed to appeal to everyone."

                                - Walt Disney

                                "Disneyland is all about turning movies into rides."
                                - Michael Eisner

                                "It's very symbiotic."
                                - Bob Chapek

                                Comment


                                • #76
                                  Originally posted by Mr Wiggins View Post

                                  Yep. And even more unfortunately for Disney's creatives, the Chapek management regime can impact creative projects on levels beyond just budget.
                                  Like shipping Imagineering off to Lake Nona Florida.
                                  BGood! It's not just my motto its my name!

                                  Comment


                                  • #77
                                    Originally posted by Mr Wiggins View Post

                                    Unfortunately, the Disney management hierarchy does not admit creatives to the top tier of financial and strategic decision-making executives. Even Lasseter, who had the title of Chief Creative Officer and the power that came from earning billions for the Company, had to fight tooth and nail to keep management from eviscerating Carsland. (And that was under a CEO who was 'way more knowledgeable about theme park entertainment than Chapek.) No matter his creative accomplishments, Faveau has nowhere near that level of power.

                                    What he has is Chapek, and a management hierarchy of Chapek's marketeers.
                                    Lassetter was on his way to a top management position but undid it himself with his behavior. He would have likely been the last "creative" first person to have that much sway though, as he was the last person of power from any significant time of "from the ground up" in the company in his role at Pixar. Since Pixar's creation no one person has really been a part of creating something so successful at Disney. Kevin Feige has done well steering the rudder at Marvel, but he did not "create" it and the IP is seen as bigger than him, the same for Kathleen Kennedy. Additionally, in both cases neither person was involved much in the business growth side of things at Marvel or Lucasfilm prior to Disney's acquisitions and therefore can be written off.

                                    As
                                    Mr Wiggins said, Favreau has done well but he is purely a creative mind, not tied directly to any business side of things and therefore wields no significant power. If tomorrow Favreau said "I'm done I want out" Disney would probably believe someone else could fill the void when it came to Star Wars, the same with Dave Filoni who is probably a more significant contributor to success than John Favreau actually is. If in the 2000 to 2010 era Lasseter ever said "Screw it I'm finished" Disney management probably would have had a heart attack.

                                    Comment


                                    • #78
                                      Originally posted by linkeq2001 View Post

                                      Lassetter was on his way to a top management position but undid it himself with his behavior. He would have likely been the last "creative" first person to have that much sway though, as he was the last person of power from any significant time of "from the ground up" in the company in his role at Pixar. Since Pixar's creation no one person has really been a part of creating something so successful at Disney. Kevin Feige has done well steering the rudder at Marvel, but he did not "create" it and the IP is seen as bigger than him, the same for Kathleen Kennedy. Additionally, in both cases neither person was involved much in the business growth side of things at Marvel or Lucasfilm prior to Disney's acquisitions and therefore can be written off.

                                      As
                                      Mr Wiggins said, Favreau has done well but he is purely a creative mind, not tied directly to any business side of things and therefore wields no significant power. If tomorrow Favreau said "I'm done I want out" Disney would probably believe someone else could fill the void when it came to Star Wars, the same with Dave Filoni who is probably a more significant contributor to success than John Favreau actually is. If in the 2000 to 2010 era Lasseter ever said "Screw it I'm finished" Disney management probably would have had a heart attack.
                                      You are 100% right, Personally I would love to see Dave Filoni take a more prominent role in Lucas Films I have lost faith in Kathleen Kennedy after the direction of films like th Last Jedi and Solo. I also don't think Favreau will ever fully hitch his wagon to Star Wars as he has way to many other projects going but I do love the direction these two are going when they are teamed up.
                                      BGood! It's not just my motto its my name!

                                      Comment


                                      • #79
                                        Originally posted by linkeq2001 View Post
                                        I think you are glazing over a far more complicated issue than just "me want luke be god" and "everything TLJ did was wrong".
                                        well, it's a forum post, not a PhD thesis.

                                        When a franchise exists for so long, AND has people grow up with the expanded universe for so long then fans become accustomed to certain characters and the world that was built. The exact same thing happened with Harry Potter and the Cursed Child, despite it being "canon" the majority of fans that grew up with HP choose to simply ignore it because it changed so many rules and personalities and attributes of characters that had long been established in the original books. It doesn't help that Hamill went on record several times saying he hated what Luke was.
                                        Hamill also went on record saying he was both wrong to say so on a public forum, and that he came around on the charactization:
                                        “I regret voicing my doubts and insecurities in public. Creative differences are a common element of any project but usually remain private,” he tweeted. “All I wanted was to make a great movie. I got more than that — @rianjohnson made an all-time GREAT one!” #Humbled Hamill
                                        , “I’ve had trouble accepting what [Rian Johnson] saw for Luke but again, I mean, I have to say, having seen the movie I was wrong. I think being pushed out of your comfort zone is a good thing because if I was just another benevolent Jedi training young padawans, we’ve seen it!”



                                        Disney's biggest issue though, was not having an established plan for all three films before production started. You can make little tweaks, these things happen all the time...Lucas wanted Obi Wan to live past the first film but was convinced otherwise. However, major plot points and character journeys are almost always well established. The fact that Disney had no real point person, love it or hate it something Lucas always was, meant that as they passed of the franchise from Director to Director and writer to writer they started to get very different visions. Lots of little divergent decisions add up, TLJ luke, Snoke not having a backstory, etc. etc. and it becomes a disjointed mess. People want something new and are willing to love something new, but it needs to be NEW. That's probably why Mando, Clone Wars, and the "stories" films Solo excluded do quite well...outside of the main Skywalker trilogy people wanted and accepted creative crazy and new....within that mainstream trilogy people wanted continuity of story.
                                        The "didn't have a plan narrative" glosses over several things itself. While I do agree it is very evident that they did not have an endpoint when they began, they had a plan. Start with JJ, who would collaborate with Rian, who would then coordinate with Trevorrow. They also had Lucas' original sequel treatment which reportedly included 'Kira,' who more or less became Rey, and "Col. Kurtz Luke" who had gone into self imposed exile after the betrayal of one of his students. So if you have an issue with this characterization of Luke, take it up with George Lucas, it was his idea and it predates Disney's involvement with the sequel trilogy. Lucas also wanted Leia to be 'the chosen one,' and Lucas also had Luke dying. That plan went out the window when they lost confidence in Trevorrow for whatever reason. From what we know about his treatment, it seems to align better with TLJ. I don't want to re-litigate every point, but the Snoke backstory complaint is just so ridiculous. The OT didn't give us the Palpatine backstory, that took a whole separate prequel trilogy...which then got criticized for having too much trade negotiation/Senate content.

                                        And again, even if they had started with an endpoint in mind, whatever episode IX was, would have had to be re-written anyways. The re-write was inevitable due to Carrie Fisher's passing. I'm not saying this 'in defense' of D/L, but that's just the reality of the situation.

                                        How does that impact the parks, well you have no point person for Star Wars as everything is passed through multiple filters. Kathleen Kennedy has some say but it's passed through numerous parks management and the CEO himself. You have a fractured fan base some of whom like the sequels, some who grew up with prequels and some who only love the OT. You have other fans that are consumers of all the EU stuff past and present, and you have to somehow fit all this into the parks. Make a "legends" place and as you said people would complain that it's not storytelling or innovative, make a story telling place like they did and people complain about the timeline. It's all lose lose lose.
                                        I also don't think it's much of a secret that Disney wanted to compete with the Wizarding World at Universal, hence immersive world.
                                        Restore Walt's Disneyland: bring back the Aluminum Hall of Fame!

                                        Comment


                                        • #80
                                          Originally posted by JLee1226 View Post

                                          well, it's a forum post, not a PhD thesis.



                                          Hamill also went on record saying he was both wrong to say so on a public forum, and that he came around on the charactization:






                                          The "didn't have a plan narrative" glosses over several things itself. While I do agree it is very evident that they did not have an endpoint when they began, they had a plan. Start with JJ, who would collaborate with Rian, who would then coordinate with Trevorrow. They also had Lucas' original sequel treatment which reportedly included 'Kira,' who more or less became Rey, and "Col. Kurtz Luke" who had gone into self imposed exile after the betrayal of one of his students. So if you have an issue with this characterization of Luke, take it up with George Lucas, it was his idea and it predates Disney's involvement with the sequel trilogy. Lucas also wanted Leia to be 'the chosen one,' and Lucas also had Luke dying. That plan went out the window when they lost confidence in Trevorrow for whatever reason. From what we know about his treatment, it seems to align better with TLJ. I don't want to re-litigate every point, but the Snoke backstory complaint is just so ridiculous. The OT didn't give us the Palpatine backstory, that took a whole separate prequel trilogy...which then got criticized for having too much trade negotiation/Senate content.

                                          And again, even if they had started with an endpoint in mind, whatever episode IX was, would have had to be re-written anyways. The re-write was inevitable due to Carrie Fisher's passing. I'm not saying this 'in defense' of D/L, but that's just the reality of the situation.



                                          I also don't think it's much of a secret that Disney wanted to compete with the Wizarding World at Universal, hence immersive world.
                                          Although quite the dissertation, your valid point is way too far into the weeds. In respect to SW and Disney, 90% of the public consider Episodes IV, V, & VI as "Star Wars". Anything after that is pretty much supporting cast. When a Company announces "Star Wars Land" or a "Star Wars Hotel", people want to see Luke, Darth, Han Solo, R2-D2, etc. and that's the simple truth.

                                          It would be the same as announcing a "101 Dalmatians" Attraction, only to get some "Cruella" dark ride...sans Dalmatians.

                                          Leave the geeky Star Wars stuff to the Books and Comics. Just do Star Wars 101 at the Parks.

                                          “Not the least hard thing to bear when they go from us, these quiet friends, is that they carry away with them so many years of our own lives.”

                                          DL Trips: '58, '59, '61, '65, '66, '67, '68x2, '69x2, '70x2, '71x2, '73x2, '74x2, '75x2, '76x2, '77, '78,x2, '79x2, '80x2, '81, '82, '83, '88, '89x3, '90x2, '91, '93, '94, '95x2, '96, '97, '98x4, '99, '00, '01, '02, '03, '04, '05, '06, '07x2, '08, '09x2, '10, '11, '13
                                          WDW Trips: '81
                                          EPCOT Trips: '93
                                          Tokyo DL Trips: '86

                                          Comment

                                          Get Away Today Footer

                                          Collapse
                                          Working...
                                          X