Guardians of the Galaxy - Monsters After Dark coming this Halloween

[HonorableMention]

Ok, you know what I really like about this overlay? You're way more involved.

Sure, the original has you invested by making you the reason the breakout can happen, but the Guardians barely acknowledge your existence until the ride is over.

Here, Rocket is telling you to do stuff as the action unfolds, and he still talks to you when you're just watching. It makes it feel like you're not just riding something.

 

[mickEblu]

It's ironic that you use Soarin and Grizzly as examples of quality. When the park first opened a large number of online fans criticized Disney for being cheap with its execution of both rides. Personally I thought they were fine, but they were routinely trotted out as examples of Eisner cutting corners with theming and storytelling at DCA.



So you believe there's little evidence between the steady increase in attendance and profits at DLR with the expansion of Studio IP at the parks? You think that if Disney didn't extend the reach of Star Wars, Princesses, and Pixar characters and stories that the parks would be just as successful as they currently are?

Disney's IP is what sets it apart from other theme parks today. People visit Disney Parks now in part to relive experiences from their favorite Disney/Pixar/Marvel/SW characters. Like you I dislike the way that IP driven attractions have been shoehorned in everywhere, but there's no denying that from a business perspective the strategy is working quite well for the P&R BU. It's also pretty clear to me that customers want and expect these types of experiences.

To Eggs point I also think people confuse quality with IP. When an IP is attached to a project there is less risk and with that comes a higher budget so when the big #s and positive survey results are tallied the bean counters think the common denominator of success is IP as opposed to quality.

Then of course there is merchanidse, which may the biggest reason IPs have taken over. How long does it take for a new character to gain popularity amongst the fans and sell a ton of merch? A heck of a lot longer than It does for BB8 or Groot. I'm guessing when the HM opened in 1969 most people weren't raiding the stores to buy hitch hiking ghosts merch. That takes years and nostalgia. But the films speed that process up due to the #s of people they reach and a saga like Star Wars already comes with nostalgia baked in. So all this is is a for profit company trying to take as less risk as possible all while maximizing profit and see returns with the quickest TAT possible. As a business you can't blame them. But what happenes when you stop taking risks over the long term? Things get stale, predictable and boring. The people in power now don't care of course because they won't be around.

I have no problem with IPs when they are used in the right way to tell a story that fits in its respective land. i.e Indy and although some may disagree, Star Tours, especially 1.0. But Pixar Pier? Nah. That's just IP for the sake of IP, no story, no theme. It's just lazy and cheap. im guessing there weren't many complaints on the online fan community when Indy opened in 95 because it is quality.

In the end I would like to see a little more balance. For every 5 IP rides create one new one (with a real budget) because original rides are part of the park brand and why the we love the place. And for the new IP rides I'd like to see them created with the same attention, passion and thematic integrity that went into Indy.

I think many on the online fan community are upset with SWL not only because it isn't the greatest fit but it took away all possibility for a new land with original attractions at DL. Toontown will probably be Frozen in a few years. I guess if they really want to create somethint original there is always Tomorrowland (won't hold my breath though). What I don't like seeing is a lot of space being devoted to fewer and fewer different types of experiences and IPs. 14 acres for SWL. Toontown for Frozen. I don't want to see DL start to become like some of the castle sister parks- IP dumping grounds.

 

[mickEblu]

It's ironic that you use Soarin and Grizzly as examples of quality. When the park first opened a large number of online fans criticized Disney for being cheap with its execution of both rides. Personally I thought they were fine, but they were routinely trotted out as examples of Eisner cutting corners with theming and storytelling at DCA..

I could see why people thought they were cutting corners, especially the likes of us on these boards. GRR and Soarin were 2 out of 3 of the only E tickets at the park when it opened. All 3 not traditional Disney E tickets at that. GRRs first take was the extreme sport tacky version (not that newer theming makes or breaks the experience) and I'm guessing (I wasn't on any online forums back then) people complained about Soarin because of the boring queue and unthemed load areas. With that said both attractions were vastly better than most other stuff at the park so all the attention was on them.

 

[No Name]

So you believe there's little evidence between the steady increase in attendance at DLR and the expansion of Studio IP at the parks?

You sound surprised.

IPs sometimes carry more interest than something original, and sometimes do not. The most obvious and most recent example being that people have more interest in dragons, unicorns, the Loch Ness monster, etc. than they do in Avatar Na'vi and banshees. People have more interest in Dinosaurs than in Indiana Jones. People will always have more interest in ghosts than in Coco skeleton people. From my experience I'd say people have more interest in cars than Cars.
Star Wars is an exception, but there are only so many Star Wars's in our world.

You still have no evidence that something original usually increases attedance less than something IP-based.

Why is Tokyo DisneySea Disney's most attended non-castle-park in the world? Why did Frozen Ever After and Mission Breakout fail to increase attendance as Disney had hoped?

Disney's IP is what sets it apart from other theme parks today. People visit Disney Parks now in part to relive experiences from their favorite Disney/Pixar/Marvel/SW characters.

It's definitely not because Disney's parks are higher in quality than any competitors'.

Also notice how you consider "Disney's IP" and "Disney characters" only as things that originated on the big screen. Is Soarin' not a Disney IP? Is Figment not a Disney character? Has Bob Iger successfully brainwashed you? I imagine Bob Chapek and Iger and Co. have similarly flawed arguments, so it's a good discussion.

 

[George Lucas on a Bench]

I think the Popeye raft ride at Universal ruined all other raft rides for me. But to be honest, I never cared for that type of ride. The DCA one is pretty much like the rest, it just has a larger drop. You just spin around and around over and over again and get splashed. At least Animal Kingdom's crappy one has an amazing waiting line and a ridiculous "conservation message" scene with a logging truck with no driver. It's so charming. One of the worst things I've ever experienced in a Disney theme park is being told to remain seated on the Grizzly ride by some totally tubular California tie dye surfer guy that seems to be suffering from Corey Feldman in The 'Burbs envy.

 

[Deleted member 107043]

Is Soarin' not a Disney IP?

You overlooked that I specifically said Studio IP. Disney's core customers love it, and the P&R business unit depends on it.

Has Bob Iger successfully brainwashed you? I imagine Bob Chapek and Iger and Co. have similarly flawed arguments, so it's a good discussion.

P&R is performing exceptionally well on the foundation of Studio IP. That's a fact. How is that an indication that I'm brainwashed? Explain how this business strategy is inherently flawed if it's successful and sustainable for the time being.

Once again, I AGREE with you that IP everywhere in the parks is not ideal for Disneyland traditionalists. However, our preferences aside, there are some proven business reasons for why Disney has chosen this path.

 

[Practical Pig]

Of course that's to be expected.

But there's no good reason why, since Bob Iger became CEO, the US parks have been forbidden from creating a single original attraction. Soarin' was successful, Expedition Everest was successful... why did they suddenly stop? Why are they allowed to create new franchises on the big screen, but not in the theme parks? It makes absolutely no sense, it's simply a result of Bob Iger's opinion that theme parks are inferior.

Oh, that lamentation. OK fine.

Sure there’s a good reason for it. It has produced financial results that please the stock-holders and the Board-of-Directors. From any CEOs viewpoint, that's a very good reason. I've read your rationalizations trying to dismiss this, but none of that means anything against a stock-holder perception of success. I think that's just a basic fact of life.

The IP-only ship has sailed in the domestic parks for now, and I’m not one to linger at the dock shaking my fist at the horizon. If fist-shaking brings you satisfaction, then cheers! Enjoy! Indulge! And you have lots of company. But this is the new normal until the model fails. When it eventually stops producing the results they want, they will do something else, and maybe that will make all us fans happy. Or not.

Look, on this topic, I wish for the same things as you and pretty much every Disney fan I’ve ever encountered, But I do try to be a realist. I don’t expect a gigantic publicly-traded corporation to stop pursuing a successful strategy that is currently bringing in bucketloads of cash until it stops bringing in bucketloads of cash. I don’t expect a publicly-traded media company to not be hyper-sensitive to the short-term response from a fickle public, possibly to the detriment of long-term health. It’s a media company. That’s what they do.

 

[No Name]

You overlooked that I specifically said Studio IP. Disney's core customers love it, and the P&R business unit depends on it.



P&R is performing exceptionally well on the foundation of Studio IP. That's a fact. How is that an indication that I'm brainwashed? Explain how this business strategy is inherently flawed if it's successful and sustainable for the time being.

Once again, I AGREE with you that IP everywhere in the parks is not ideal for Disneyland traditionalists. However, our preferences aside, there are some proven business reasons for why Disney has chosen this path.

Oh, that lamentation. OK fine.

Sure there’s a good reason for it. It has produced financial results that please the stock-holders and the Board-of-Directors. From any CEOs viewpoint, that's a very good reason. I've read your rationalizations trying to dismiss this, but none of that means anything against a stock-holder perception of success. I think that's just a basic fact of life.

The IP-only ship has sailed in the domestic parks for now, and I’m not one to linger at the dock shaking my fist at the horizon. If fist-shaking brings you satisfaction, then cheers! Enjoy! Indulge! And you have lots of company. But this is the new normal until the model fails. When it eventually stops producing the results they want, they will do something else, and maybe that will make all us fans happy. Or not.

Look, on this topic, I wish for the same things as you and pretty much every Disney fan I’ve ever encountered, But I do try to be a realist. I don’t expect a gigantic publicly-traded corporation to stop pursuing a successful strategy that is currently bringing in bucketloads of cash until it stops bringing in bucketloads of cash. I don’t expect a publicly-traded media company to not be hyper-sensitive to the short-term response from a fickle public, possibly to the detriment of long-term health. It’s a media company. That’s what they do.

I'm not denying that their current model is successful, but you have absolutely no way to prove that some non-studio-IP-based attractions wouldn't be even more successful. They haven't built any since 2006. They haven't even given it a shot. When Frozen Ever After, Mission Breakout, Pandora, and other recent things aren't producing the intended results, you gotta wonder if maybe they ought to spend their billions differently.

As a shareholder myself, I am disappointed that they're not doing as well as I believe they could be, both short-term and long-term.

 

[Deleted member 107043]

but you have absolutely no way to prove that non-studio-IP-based attractions wouldn't be even more successful.

My proof is in how well the P&R BU is performing. If sticking Studio IP everywhere wasn't accomplishing Disney's business goals Iger and the Board wouldn't continue doing it. It's just that simple. The fact that they are doubling down and expanding the reach of Studio IP at the parks tells us all we need to know about how customers are responding to the strategy.

 

[Practical Pig]

I'm not denying that their current model is successful, but you have absolutely no way to prove that some non-studio-IP-based attractions wouldn't be even more successful.

I wouldn't dream of trying. I'd love to see this happen. Ideals are wonderful things, and believe me, I get the frustration when the real world doesn't produce.

As a shareholder myself, I am disappointed that they're not doing as well as I believe they could be, both short-term and long-term.

You're a shareholder and a FAN. That's a different category from the bulk of the investors.

 

[No Name]

My proof is in how well the P&R BU is performing. If sticking Studio IP everywhere wasn't accomplishing Disney's business goals Iger and the Board wouldn't continue doing it. It's just that simple. The fact that they are doubling down and expanding the reach of Studio IP at the parks tells us all we need to know about how customers are responding to the strategy.

We're going in circles. Again, you have no proof, because customers haven't been given the opportunity to respond to any strategy but that. And there's room for improvement in any business, especially one who's recent investments have't been meeting internal expectations.

The fact that Bob Iger and Co. are continuing with this strategy tells us nothing. Disney had a huge success in the original videogame Where's My Water, then never produced another original game, and now that division is failing. It's ridiculous. They abandoned a successful strategy because someone didn't like it, and are now less profitable.

You're a shareholder and a FAN. That's a different category from the bulk of the investors.

That's very true, but it also means I have enough interest to pay attention.

Recall that not a single person at any shareholder meeting has questioned Bob on where the extra $800 million investment in Shanghai went. He claimed they decided to add additional attractions for opening day, but it really went toward paying out bribes and cost overruns. The attraction lineup had leaked in 2013, the extra $800 million was announced in 2014, and the park actually opened with fewer attractions than had been planned! (Toy Story Land was delayed as a phase 2). My point is, if investors don't have the attention to discover and question this most obvious lie, I don't expect them to question the use of studio IP.

 

[Practical Pig]

My point is, if investors don't have the attention to discover and question this obvious lie, I don't expect them to question the use of studio IP.

I disagree with none of that, though I question why Disney, or any other media company, would care as long as their current model is producing the results they want. But I doubt we have much more to say to each other on this. I think our positions are clearly stated and we're unlikely to budge the other from our slightly different POVs.

 

[Ismael Flores]

I will worry when Disney decides to focus on one IP and put to much reliance on it. Universal seems to be focusing way to much time and real estate on Harry Potter. With two large lands and rumors about even more Harry Potter taking over real estate in Orlando.
That's the thing that worries me about the focus on toy story. As long as they mix it up I'm ok with the addition of IP attractions and lands

 

[TROR]

I disagree with none of that, though I question why Disney, or any other media company, would care as long as their current model is producing the results they want.

They shouldn't care. It's producing the results they want, at least for now. But it begs the question, why should I care if it's producing the results they want if it's not producing the results I want? Should I be ok with lazy and cheap attractions and overlays in the parks because it makes Bob Iger money that I'll never see in my life?

 

[Californian Elitist]

I will worry when Disney decides to focus on one IP and put to much reliance on it. Universal seems to be focusing way to much time and real estate on Harry Potter. With two large lands and rumors about even more Harry Potter taking over real estate in Orlando.
That's the thing that worries me about the focus on toy story. As long as they mix it up I'm ok with the addition of IP attractions and lands

Disney's already doing that with the Pixar films and Star Wars.

 

[BrianLo]

The foley of all of this is that IP's are in no way superior to original ideas as the Bob's think and original ideas are not inherently superior to IP's, like the fanboi's think.

The only thing an IP might do off the bat is make for an easier appealing marketing push and move more merch upfront... after a while the 'original ideas' are really just IP organically grown in its own medium. Eventually the theme park original is on par with the IP (unless said IP is having tons of cross-coverage in an alternate medium to constantly prop up awareness).


We don't need to demand IP or original, we need to demand good, appropriate and thematically coherent content. Well executed, well invested and appealing theme park projects.

Above all - variety.

 

[Deleted member 107043]

Again, you have no proof, because customers haven't been given the opportunity to respond to any strategy but that.

Customers were given the opportunity for decades before the strategy was adopted. Disney's parks have not always operated this way.

 

[FigmentForver96]

Customers were given the opportunity for decades before the strategy was adopted. Disney's parks have not always operated this way.

They have and it was met with huge success. One only has to look at original Magic Kingdom attractions like Haunted Mansion and Pirates of the Caribbean to see how non IP rides are popular. Then EPCOT Center was one of, if not the most groundbreaking things Disney had even done. It certainly was the most risky and it proved well worth the risk. Being one of the biggest achievements of the company.

 

[Deleted member 107043]

They have and it was met with huge success. One only has to look at original Magic Kingdom attractions like Haunted Mansion and Pirates of the Caribbean to see how non IP rides are popular. Then EPCOT Center was one of, if not the most groundbreaking things Disney had even done. It certainly was the most risky and it proved well worth the risk. Being one of the biggest achievements of the company.

Agreed, but whatever successes they had then with WDI created characters and stories pales in comparison with the performance of the US parks today on the strength of Studio IP.

 

[George Lucas on a Bench]

I like egg.