Depressing. And so conservative and defensive.
I think Iger's thoughts here are being led too much by mistakes in the recent past that didn't pay off, the string of non-IP driven failures of Eisner's second decade, DCA 1.0, DAK 1.0, individual underwhelming rides. And too little by the successes of earlier non IP-dominated parks and rides, that did pay off, astonishingly well: WDW, MK, EPCOT, Pirates, Soarin'.
Disneyland and the MK, even EPCOT, are still the greatest properties Disney ever produced. I wouldn't make them subordinate to frickle IPs, to the currently fashionable IP-driven lands, whose longevity has yet to be proven. New Orleans Square is going strong into its sixth decade. Will Cars Land prove to be as long-lasting?
It's true that IP-driven stuff runs the risk of becoming outdated (how did Twister survive that long over at Universal? Yeesh...), although I would argue that some non-IP stuff runs that same risk (original Epcot attractions, Tomorrowland stuff, etc). But I've been thinking. For me personally, the reason that Iger's quote is so depressing is not that IP is inherently bad to me. After all, I love MuppetVision 3D, Tower of Terror, Indiana Jones Adventure, and Splash Mountain, all of which are arguably "IP-driven" to some extent. What's depressing is the attitude that Disney seems to be taking with it's IP-driven stuff lately. It's a mindset question.
Instead of asking the question, "What is the fantasy at the root of this franchise and how can we bring that to life for our guests?" Disney seems to be asking "What is the least risky thing we can do to satisfy fans of an existing franchise?" Take Ariel's Incredibly Bland Undersea Whatever at Magic Kingdom - the ride could've been like Peter Pan and taken you under the sea into another world. We could've gone exploring with Ariel, or been dazzled by Triton's kingdom, or any number of things. Instead it's a bunch of dioramas asking the question, "Hey, remember that scene from the movie? Wasn't that great?!" Little kids will get to point and cry "ARIEL!" and their job is done. They can spend money on detail and theming and "story" and make everything quite attractive, but they somehow completely miss the heart of the thing, which suggests they weren't even trying. The ride brings nothing to the table other than it's connection to an IP.
The reason, I think, that people like me are so distrustful of rides based on existing franchises isn't that the rides CAN'T be awesome, it's that they frequently AREN'T, because they don't have to be. The fact of being a Frozen ride or a Star Wars ride is enough to bring people in all by itself, so the pressure to generate awesome is lessened, and the result is blandness, or worse, something involving chili dog smellitzers. And all the signs are that Frozen Ever After will be just as bland as anything else they've done lately, although I could definitely be wrong, of course. What emotional connection will it make with people who aren't Frozen fans, if any? You don't have to know anything about Indiana Jones to appreciate the Temple of the Forbidden Eye, or anything about Star Wars to appreciate Wacky Space Adventures with Peewee-Herman-Droid. There was enough awesome for everyone. Will there be enough awesome in Frozen Ever After that even non-Frozen fans be able to go on an adventure, or experience a fantasy? I hope so, but I remain apprehensive.
(And by the way, I think Cars Land has a chance to survive, because even without the talking cars it's still a love letter to Route 66 and classic automobiles, which goes beyond a particular franchise)
