EPCOT Test Track to be reimagined

[montyz81]

And what signs have you seen that Josh will dispense with the everything must be tied to an IP mandate?

Good point, I haven’t seen any signs.

 

[SoFloMagic]

Mission: SPACE, Awesome Planet, Soarin around the world all had updates with no IP attached. I think SSE could be the same

Mission space had a sponsor

Awesome planet (as someone else mentioned) was kind of a modern family synergy thing

Soarin likely had development costs shared between the two coasts (and maybe the international ones??)

All SSE needs is some serious money behind it and it could stay IP free. Or maybe theyll just replace the descent with upcoming trailers on the screens.

 

[Mr. Sullivan]

That is a good point but I am still hesitant.

Its also worth noting that, even though the plan has been scrapped, their previous intentions with updating SSE back in 2020 also didn’t include IP.

 

[The Underminer]

I’m very excited for this.

 

[Dunston]

It’s hard to picture exactly how this will be “inspired by World of Motion”. I don’t think there will be silly cavemen and chicken animatronics.

 

[TheMaxRebo]

It’s hard to picture exactly how this will be “inspired by World of Motion”. I don’t think there will be silly cavemen and chicken animatronics.

I expect it just to be a bit more about celebrating transportation and less about the science of testing - so in that way "inspired" by WoM. Also expect some Easter Eggs to WoM in the queue, maybe notes from the theme song able to be heard.

Anyone expecting recreation of scenes from WoM I suspect will be disappointed (even if that was never implied)

 

[Disstevefan1]

I expect it just to be a bit more about celebrating transportation and less about the science of testing - so in that way "inspired" by WoM. Also expect some Easter Eggs to WoM in the queue, maybe notes from the theme song able to be heard.

Anyone expecting recreation of scenes from WoM I suspect will be disappointed (even if that was never implied)

In todays Disney it makes perfect sense an attraction called Test Track would be less about testing

 

[Bocabear]

In this world of synergy, why didn't they get GM to spring for making the new pavilion be about new transportation hosted by the Pixar Cars.... keep that IP firmly attached to GM and the EPCOT Pavilion so that the MK expansion could be more tuned to franchises that fit the framework of the park....

 

[MisterPenguin]

I don’t think there will be silly cavemen

Check out the riders.

 

[Disstevefan1]

In this world of synergy, why didn't they get GM gm to spring for making the new pavilion be about new transportation hosted by the Pixar Cars.... keep that IP firmly attached to GM gm and the EPCOT Pavilion so that the MK expansion could be more tuned to franchises that fit the framework of the park....

FIFY habits are hard to break

 

[Casper Gutman]

Indeed. And it's not just Josh or Iger. Universal's only adding/refreshing attractions with IPs attached. It is now standard practice. OLC purposely chose Disney IPs because they wanted a Disney Park. It will be the same with Abu Dhabi which will spend $10B in order to get Disney IP rides.

And the film and TV industry is on board with sequels and remakes and reboots and spin-offs.

Franchises generally make more money than non-franchise entertainment. People voted for that by spending more money on franchise content than non-franchise content.

Of course that's not what everyone wants. But the success of franchise over non-franchise means there will be more franchise than non-franchise.

All true.

BUT…

Theme parks can LAUNCH franchise. It’s hardly surprising that Universal - “ride the movies” - only builds film-to-park IP-based attractions, but Disney should know better. Their reputation was BUILT on theme-park-first IPs, many of which went on to become extremely profitable transmedia franchises.

 

[ctrlaltdel]

All true.

BUT…

Theme parks can LAUNCH franchise. It’s hardly surprising that Universal - “ride the movies” - only builds film-to-park IP-based attractions, but Disney should know better. Their reputation was BUILT on theme-park-first IPs, many of which went on to become extremely profitable transmedia franchises.

Yeah, I agree with this. Honestly the creation of new IP has become incredibly underrated by the media giants. You can drive almost anything into the ground with enough exposure. While it is a greater risk, there is ultimately greater rewards for taking a chance on something new and fresh that you can ultimately exploit for decades.

 

[Kamikaze]

All true.

BUT…

Theme parks can LAUNCH franchise. It’s hardly surprising that Universal - “ride the movies” - only builds film-to-park IP-based attractions, but Disney should know better. Their reputation was BUILT on theme-park-first IPs, many of which went on to become extremely profitable transmedia franchises.

Factually incorrect.

 

[Casper Gutman]

Factually incorrect.

How so? The rides that defined Disney in the zeitgeist were Pirates, Mansion, Jungle Cruise, Bears, Small World, Tiki, Matterhorn, Thunder, etc. Yes, Disney parks have always had an IP presence, but those generally weren’t the rides that made a cultural impression.

 

[Casper Gutman]

Yeah, I agree with this. Honestly the creation of new IP has become incredibly underrated by the media giants. You can drive almost anything into the ground with enough exposure. While it is a greater risk, there is ultimately greater rewards for taking a chance on something new and fresh that you can ultimately exploit for decades.

I think a lot of media executives would agree. The problem is that the public is tremendously resistant to new IPs. The last real success story was… John Wick?

With that in mind, theme parks are arguably a great place to trial new IPs. Traditionally (and Disney is trying to change this) new rides don’t have a direct, monocausal, easily quantifiable financial impact the way a film or even tv show does. This could conceivably provide a space to trial new concepts and let them breathe.

 

[HMF]

It’s hard to picture exactly how this will be “inspired by World of Motion”. I don’t think there will be silly cavemen and chicken animatronics.

Hopefully it will be more substantial than just slapping the logo a few places like with 2.0.

 

[HMF]

. You can drive almost anything into the ground with enough exposure.

That should be the slogan for the Company.

 

[Kamikaze]

How so? The rides that defined Disney in the zeitgeist were Pirates, Mansion, Jungle Cruise, Bears, Small World, Tiki, Matterhorn, Thunder, etc. Yes, Disney parks have always had an IP presence, but those generally weren’t the rides that made a cultural impression.

Disney's reputation was built before any of those were a thing. Walt wouldn't have been able to open a theme park if not for the company's reputation already at that point.

 

[doctornick]

All true.

BUT…

Theme parks can LAUNCH franchise. It’s hardly surprising that Universal - “ride the movies” - only builds film-to-park IP-based attractions, but Disney should know better. Their reputation was BUILT on theme-park-first IPs, many of which went on to become extremely profitable transmedia franchises.

Not sure I understand or agree. Disney's reputation was certainly built based on animated films first and foremost and then expanded into live action offerings as well. The parks came later, though obviously have become a substantial - if not the greatest - part of the legacy.

But regardless of that, how "many" theme park first IPs have gone on to be anything other that just theme park things? Really just POTC. HM, Country Bears, Jungle Cruise, ToT (there was a made for TV movie!) - nothing else has really resonated. I certainly wouldn't deny that there is some significant fandom of many park generated IP but it has not really branched into other areas of entertainment. People love HM and Figment and such but they still are exclusively the domain of the theme parks, not IP franchises.

I certainly would like to see Disney create stuff specifically for theme parks rather than just trying to put in existing IPs. I think that's ideal because they the attractions are specifically designed for whatever their purpose is and don't feel shoehorned in. But I don't think "making IPs for the parks so they will become huge franchises" is a sensible strategy. More like "make IPs for the parks so that they make the parks better and more loved".

 

[Castle Cake Apologist]

Disney's reputation was built before any of those were a thing. Walt wouldn't have been able to open a theme park if not for the company's reputation already at that point.

He's obviously talking about the theme parks...