News Bluey To Join Disney Experiences at its U.S. Theme Parks and Cruise Line Beginning in 2025

[lazyboy97o]

This assumes that original attractions would cost less than IP-based attractions today, which is obviously a dubious, nonsensical claim.

There are entire layers of bureaucracy and review that would be cut out of the process.

I mean, you’re twisting yourself into a pretzel to argue that original attractions were more financially successful than IP-based attractions, when all of the evidence including Disney’s own ROIC calculations of IP-based attractions (which, as you pointed out, cost significantly more to build than attractions used to) show a near tripling of their return on investment.

A nonsense comparison because there’s no data set to compare against. They’ve done only one thing which you take as proof that it’s best because it’s the only thing they do.

 

[JMcMahonEsq]

There's no real evidence to support this because Disney overwhelming only builds IP attractions, and as such, hasn't really had any point of comparison to draw such conclusions from over the last 20 years. If anything, the enduring popularity of older, non IP staples like Big Thunder Mountain and Spaceship Earth over things like Little Mermaid suggests guests are capable of drawing their own conclusions on quality if presented with more options.

@lazyboy97o already pointed out that Everest cost far less than subsequent IP rides to build, and that Iger made up his mind long ago, without much analysis or understanding, that IP rides were simply better.

You're falling into the same trap so many Disney fans do. Thinking that because corporate Disney decides to do something, must mean that it was the most logical option to select. Or that past failures were because of the last guy in charge (Chapek, Eisner, Ron Miller) and as long as the current CEO keeps his job it must be because he's doing everything right.

That ignores the entire history of the company, one fraught with poor financial decisions and assumptions about their audience and expectations, and was impacted negatively or positively by external factors beyond its control

No real evidence?

The entire entertainment industry for that time period has been based almost exclusively around leveraging pre-existing IP as opposed to unique content. Go back to lord of the rings, Marvel, DC universe, Harry Potter, Star wars, hunger games, Maze runner. Sequel after sequel release. Look up your top movies, tv shows, for that entire time period and you are going to find your top sellers are all either sequels, reboots, or based on books or other pre-existing IP. Quality of rides can be subjective and up to interpretation. What the general entertainment market is consuming over the past 20 years isn't. People are buying what is familiar, and entertainment companies aren't investing huge production budgets into projects that don't have some history of success and a built in fan base.

Hell you want to look at Universal and their expansion over the same period. It was based upon leveraging popular IP like Harry Potter with pre-existing fan bases and markets to see stuff to.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

Hell you want to look at Universal and their expansion over the same period. It was based upon leveraging popular IP like Harry Potter with pre-existing fan bases and markets to see stuff to.

Universal has always been "ride the movies", almost exclusively, since day one

Every discussion about Disney's IP focus includes Universal as a justification for the company's current strategy.

One that ignores both the history of Disney and how Universal consistently trails them in market share and attendance.

Universal's use of IPs has had its shortcomings too (F&F Supercharged), proving that name recognition and box office performance alone does not guarantee success with theme parks. Wizarding World benefited from a unique set of circumstances (external input and approval) that differentiate it from other projects made by Universal Creative

Disney's reputation and success in themed entertainment is the result of many factors beyond just IP, and focusing so much on it, at the expense of everything else, is why many here are frustrated with the company

I'm not a Disney customer simply because they make money and own things. I am because of the totality of the experience and the recognition of themed entertainment as its own creative medium that produces things like Mystic Manor. It would be a shame if they never built something like that again because of an arbitrary rule on synergy

 

[lazyboy97o]

Universal has always been "ride the movies", almost exclusively, since day one

Every discussion about Disney's IP focus always includes Universal as a justification for the company's current strategy.

One that ignores both the history of Disney and how Universal consistently trails them in market share and attendance.

It’s also ignores that “Ride the movies” only made sense as a slogan because it was widely recognizable as a differentiator.

More than just financials, Universal trails in terms of popular culture. People know Disneyland and even the [“failed”] EPCOT Center as a thing more than they are familiar with a Universal Studios, much less an Islands of Adventure. The Evolved, “more Disney” Epcot tried to tie itself to the cultural image of EPCOT Center. Even as the butt of a joke, more people are going to have some familiarity with EPCOT Center as a distinct thing versus Epic Universe.

 

[V_L_Raptor]

Spoke to some folks over the weekend. If you’re at all attached to the wildlife murals around the entrance, now would be a good time to stop by and take your photos. (That potential loss, in favor of a “keepy-uppy” cartoon, has me gutted.)

Same goes for the artwork for the rainforest exhibit, as well as the area for the Conservation Fund exhibit, and likely the interpretive desk facing the far entrance near the Nutrition window. Everything facing Grandmother Willow’s area in front of the viewing window walkway is slated to go.

The animal care/science areas are supposed to remain viewable.

 

[Stripes]

There are entire layers of bureaucracy and review that would be cut out of the process.

And surely new layers of bureaucracy and review would be created for an original project, with executives seeking more financial analysis and reviews to justify the expenditure. In any event, the increased cost of an IP-project would likely fall somewhere in the neighborhood of 10-20%, which is a negligible increase considering the extra revenue generated by IP projects versus original projects.

A nonsense comparison because there’s no data set to compare against. They’ve done only one thing which you take as proof that it’s best because it’s the only thing they do.

There are loads of data sets to compare against within the travel and entertainment industry, including the recent trend of the average sequel outperforming the average original film at the box office. Despite a craving for original stories by many, including myself, general audiences don’t seem to have the same enthusiasm.

 

[Andrew C]

Universal's use of IPs has had its shortcomings too (F&F Supercharged), proving that name recognition and box office performance alone does not guarantee success with theme parks. Wizarding World benefited from a unique set of circumstances (external input and approval) that differentiate it from other projects made by Universal Creative

I still say IP alone is not the issue. If Disney can start delivering on their IP to the level of Dark Universe and Isle of Berk, people will become much more forgiving about the use of that IP. But when they continue to trend at a Zootopia, Frozen ever after, Moana way of water (or F&F supercharged to use your Uni example) level, people who care about the totality of the experience will continue to complain. Remember that Disney could have had Wizarding World but their plans were extremely underwhelming.

Anyways, as I mentioned previously, WDW is pulling in that money so the general public isn't giving them any reason to switch gears.

 

[Biff215]

Spoke to some folks over the weekend. If you’re at all attached to the wildlife murals around the entrance, now would be a good time to stop by and take your photos. (That potential loss, in favor of a “keepy-uppy” cartoon, has me gutted.)

Same goes for the artwork for the rainforest exhibit, as well as the area for the Conservation Fund exhibit, and likely the interpretive desk facing the far entrance near the Nutrition window. Everything facing Grandmother Willow’s area in front of the viewing window walkway is slated to go.

The animal care/science areas are supposed to remain viewable.

Thanks for the update. So this is sounding more significant than just a cheap temporary overlay. Will Affection Station survive this?

 

[V_L_Raptor]

Thanks for the update. So this is sounding more significant than just a cheap temporary overlay. Will Affection Station survive this?

Not sure. Based on the conversation I had, it seems as though this is to live in the building.

 

[AidenRodriguez731]

I still say IP alone is not the issue. If Disney can start delivering on their IP to the level of Dark Universe and Isle of Berk, people will become much more forgiving about the use of that IP. But when they continue to trend at a Zootopia, Frozen ever after, Moana way of water (or F&F supercharged to use your Uni example) level, people who care about the totality of the experience will continue to complain. Remember that Disney could have had Wizarding World but their plans were extremely underwhelming.

Anyways, as I mentioned previously, WDW is pulling in that money so the general public isn't giving them any reason to switch gears.

Yeah I’m gonna say EU can keep the spirit Halloween mannequins and visible parking lots on the ground level of their coasters

 

[Comped]

Remember that Disney could have had Wizarding World but their plans were extremely underwhelming.

Having spoken to people who were part of the negotiations for both Uni and Disney on this... Disney's plan was pretty slapdash, but they knew that they didn't own the IP or were confident in how long it would be popular. Universal had to take a much longer bet (to their eventual benefit), but they really didn't have much of a choice in terms of needing it to succeed (or in many matters related to the Potter lands until recently). Uni needed it because they were so far behind Disney, and Disney didn't need it nearly as much. They really didn't. Could WDI have designed something better, operationally or otherwise, than we got with the various Potter areas? I don't doubt it. But they didn't have their hearts set in winning the deal from the outset unlike Universal. Many at Disney do not regret dealing with "certain issues", which I'm sure you can fill in the blanks on (either PR, operational, or design) which working on Potter imposed on Universal.

Disney eventually snagged Avatar, but I doubt Cameron would have looked elsewhere to be honest. Nobody else would have gotten anywhere else. Now only if we had an expansion...

 

[HauntedPirate]

Yeah I’m gonna say EU can keep the spirit Halloween mannequins and visible parking lots on the ground level of their coasters

Honest question - Have you physically been inside EU?

 

[Andrew C]

Yeah I’m gonna say EU can keep the spirit Halloween mannequins and visible parking lots on the ground level of their coasters

This is just ridiculous. If you cannot state the obvious about the quality of those two areas, and at the same time defend everything that Disney does, you just look silly. Take a step back and find your balance.

 

[Andrew C]

Honest question - Have you physically been inside EU?

He is just coming across as the typical Disney Adult where WDW=good and Uni=bad. And there are many out there like this that Disney lives off...

No nuance...

 

[Andrew C]

Disney's plan was pretty slapdash,

A trend that continues today it seems.

 

[HauntedPirate]

He is just coming across as the typical Disney Adult where WDW=good and Uni=bad. And there are many out there like this that Disney lives off...

No nuance...

I just want to know if he’s actually set foot in the park. If he has, fine, throw out all the criticisms about the park you want. If not, my gloves come off going forward.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Remember that Disney could have had Wizarding World but their plans were extremely underwhelming.

To be fair, Universal’s original pitch wasn’t that great either. Some new signage on Merlinwood with Hogwarts dropped into it. They accepted that Warner Bros. would be involved in setting the art direction.

 

[Andrew C]

I just want to know if he’s actually set foot in the park. If he has, fine, throw out all the criticisms about the park you want. If not, my gloves come off going forward.

Criticism is fine. Nothing is perfect. Blowing if off completely in spite of critical reception is just nonsensical. Not to mention it misses the point of the post completely.

 

[Comped]

To be fair, Universal’s original pitch wasn’t that great either. Some new signage on Merlinwood with Hogwarts dropped into it. They accepted that Warner Bros. would be involved in setting the art direction.

Disney was less amenable than Universal in terms of listening to JKR in particular... Who had requirements which made Disney very unhappy (castle, no M&Gs, design requirements, among others). This forum's censoring system will not allow me to repeat what some then-senior execs (and others) have called her in our discussions.

 

[Alice a]

Disney was less amenable than Universal in terms of listening to JKR in particular... Who had requirements which made Disney very unhappy (castle, no M&Gs, design requirements, among others). This forum's censoring system will not allow me to repeat what some then-senior execs (and others) have called her in our discussions.

I find it arrogant and stupid that they didn’t just agree.

As an elder Millennial (Xennial) there was 0 doubt that a well-realized HP environment would basically print money.