IP is not synonymous with film. The idea that themed entertainment has to follow film has nothing to do with the nature of intellectual property. It is "IPs in IPs" and it is nonsensical that theme parks need to copy film to somehow be understood and accepted.
Actually, I understood your point quite well. And my point is that while the headliners may not cater to their age range, there is certainly *plenty* for them to do in the park. Disney's main demographic is families with children (many of them younger children). They've wanted AK to be more than a half day park for a while, to pull the strain off of MK in the evenings (or so I read). They're not pulling strain off MK at all if there's nothing for the preK age at Animal Kingdom after dark (which, we'd all agree, they are lacking for that age range *at night*). It'll take more than a well-testing ROL to accomplish that, though.
Well, thanks!! I always appreciate when I can learn something!
Not to mention that park attractions are more then capable of becoming IPs unto themselves. Untapped franchise potential abound in the various original attractions.
The "resort" that they're talking about is not the Poly like we're used to thinking of it. The regular old Poly has had part of it disappear and is called Disney's Polynesian Village Resort. The resort that they're talking about is Disney's Polynesian Villas & Bungalows, which is just the DVC part, legally separate from the old Poly. It happens all over where there is DVC metastasized to an existing resort. The Wilderness Lodge, the Boulder Ridge Villas, and the Copper Creek Villas are each their own, separate "resort", for example.
The bottom line is who pays to operate the room and who is eligible to occupy it. The 14% is DVDs responsibility to bear all costs, and rent all the rooms.
Emphasis added. You actually do exactly what I'm refuting. Something becomes intellectual property when it is created. It is not some higher status that things attain, namely by becoming a film.
You should see the strollers during EMH
There are no sales, ownership or fee simple title in a DVC agreement. The entire property is still owned by Disney and they can use it anyway they desire at anytime. Ownership or use of DVC points has nothing to do with property ownership. DVC is a long term and very expensive property lease.
I like some ips in the park to create balance, but not if they're placed in the wrong location (or park).
If it ain't broke, don't fix! 
Or, more crucially, Chappie's ascension to SVP of P&R marks the culmination of the parks being seen as an ancillary product versus a unique offering in and of themselves.
Shows what they know about why Disneyland was built in the first place.
The parks are their own IP.
Thanks!!!
Not sure if this is sarcasm, but there's an element of truth here. Certain classic attractions probably have better name recognition than some intellectual property counterparts. As a concept, what are people more familiar with Space Mountain or Tron? it's a small world or Frozen?The parks are their own IP.
"Intellectual property counterparts" is still a nonsense distinction. The whole theme park experience, without film associations, is intellectual property. Copyright, trademarks and patents all apply. The constant misuse of the term 'IP' to refer to something external and distinct (namely cinema) only reinforces the idea that themed entertainment is a lesser medium.
