Fans vs. IPs - what gives? (I apologize if it was brought up before)

Master Yoda

Pro Star Wars geek.
Premium Member
While I am sure some are completely opposed to it in spite of the fact that the man himself said otherwise, the only real contention I have with it is it seems like it is all they do now. I think the last non-IP linked attraction to go up in WDW was Expedition Everest and the announcement for that was in 2003.

IP connected attractions have become the theme park equivalent of Hollywood doing nothing but sequels and remakes.
 

drizgirl

Well-Known Member
I'm pretty sure this was brought up before on more than one occasion, so I apologize if it has, but...

Why are fans so fundamentally opposed to intellectual properties added to the parks?
I actually love IPs in the parks. Just not recently acquired IPs that do nothing for my Disney nostalgia.
 

justintheharris

Well-Known Member
So I probably come off as if I'm very anti-IP and perhaps that actually isn't true. I am in favor of IPs being added into the park when I see its truly justified. Tron does belong in Tomorrowland. Coco belongs in Mexico. Nemo fits nicely into the Living Seas. However, I do not like how EVERYTHING needs to be based on an IP now and it sometimes doesnt even make sense such as Frozen in Norway. Frozen, while it is hinted that it takes place in Norway, would be the exact same story if it took place in Alaska. On the other hand, Coco is so well tied to Mexican culture that the story could not have happened anywhere else. So in essence, I just wish Disney would 1. Properly incorporate IPs and 2. Would remember to put out a ride that isn't based on any IPs once in a while. The last ride to not be based on an IP I believe was Expedition Everest in 2006.
 

The Empress Lilly

Well-Known Member
I love IP-driven rides.


I also love Empire Strikes Back. And I love Frozen. Yet I would detest Empire being remade so that the rebels now hide out in Elsa's castle.

Rat, Frozen, Donald, Marvel in EPCOT is not less daft to me than Tatooine suddenly being the home planet of Aladdin.
 

Mainahman

Well-Known Member
I love IP-driven rides.


I also love Empire Strikes Back. And I love Frozen. Yet I would detest Empire being remade so that the rebels now hide out in Elsa's castle.

Rat, Frozen, Donald, Marvel in EPCOT is not less daft to me than Tatooine suddenly being the home planet of Aladdin.
I have less problem with the IP, than the lack of capacity of the new ride systems.
 

Professortango1

Well-Known Member
I don't mind IPs, but they should work for the land/ride not the other way around. Indiana Jones Adventure fits Adventureland perfectly. Star Tours fits Tomorrowland. Twilight Zone Tower of Terror is a phenomenal attraction. But Monsters Inc Laugh Floor, just an excuse for a cheap MI attraction. Stitch replacing Alien Encounter was a lazy uninspired way out of an issue. Guardians in Epcot makes no sense in terms of the park. Tron doesn't work in Tomorrowland. Just shoving IP attractions in where they don't fit is what people hated about Universal for so many years and slapping an IP name on a basic attraction (Incredicoaster for example) reminds us of Six Flags or even Disneyland's Disney Afternoon Avenue layovers.

IPs seem to give Disney the excuse to be lazy and turn out a mediocre project because they know fans will flock to see the IP and the quality of ride doesn't matter. Also, when IP becomes dated, it makes the attraction feel more dated than it should.
 

BraveGirl

Well-Known Member
I only mind when they get rid of a class non-IP ride to replace with an IP. I'm still bitter over Ellen being replaced with a movie I've never seen and have no interest in.
 

Jedi Stitch

Well-Known Member
I don't know which is worse. Having the Classic ride completely taken out for the IP or having the classic ride made more PC? Most of the people also seamed to have an opinion on the older ride, like Ellen and when will they replace it with something exiting, and when that happens, even more contempt for the loss of a classic. Loose Loose I guess.
 

Model3 McQueen

Well-Known Member
In the Parks
No
IP's are okay, only if it meets certain conditions. There also needs to be a healthy mix of originality. I can sit here and list some of my favorite rides that are IP, and I don't mind it.

I think the major problem isn't with an IP attachment, but it's when an idea is copy and paste and put into a ride. Also the takeover of any attraction with a new IP gives it a feel that the "new" ride was only born to advertise a property.
 

wdwfan4ver

Well-Known Member
I'm pretty sure this was brought up before on more than one occasion, so I apologize if it has, but...

Why are fans so fundamentally opposed to intellectual properties added to the parks?
IPS is something that has been Disney theme parks since the beginning. Walt knew how to use them properly, but Walt also did Original rides also. The problem lays under Bob Iger. The complaining with IPS is due to Bob Iger and people basically do IP Rides in WDW even if the rides don't fit the theme of the land.

Disney is supposed to be a theme park and that means the ride is supposed to fit the theme of that section of that park or the theme of the park itself. Take a look at Epcot. You can say rat the movie does take place in France, but you can not say that for Frozen. There is claims that Norway influenced Frozen, but its a stretch.

Nemo makes sense for the seas. Guradians of the Galaxy doesn't appear to at this point unless there is something educational about the ride that fits the Future World section of Epcot. The Future World section of Epcot addresses real topics such as space, cars, and seas. Imagination has a pavilion because creations were designed due to a persons imagination.

The problem with Guardians of the Galaxy is you are dealing with a fictional world and showed a fictional energy stone. The nature of Guardians of the Galaxy fits in Tomorrowland or DHS.

The other complain with IPS with people comes from is if a Non IP gets replaced by an IP ride.
 

Model3 McQueen

Well-Known Member
In the Parks
No
IPS is something that has been Disney theme parks since the beginning. Walt knew how to use them properly, but Walt also did Original rides also. The problem lays under Bob Iger. The complaining with IPS is due to Bob Iger and people basically do IP Rides in WDW even if the rides don't fit the theme of the land.

Disney is supposed to be a theme park and that means the ride is supposed to fit the theme of that section of that park or the theme of the park itself. Take a look at Epcot. You can say rat the movie does take place in France, but you can not say that for Frozen. There is claims that Norway influenced Frozen, but its a stretch.

Nemo makes sense for the seas. Guradians of the Galaxy doesn't appear to at this point unless there is something educational about the ride that fits the Future World section of Epcot. The Future World section of Epcot addresses real topics such as space, cars, and seas. Imagination has a pavilion because creations were designed due to a persons imagination.

The problem with Guardians of the Galaxy is you are dealing with a fictional world and showed a fictional energy stone. The nature of Guardians of the Galaxy fits in Tomorrowland or DHS.

The other complain with IPS with people comes from is if a Non IP gets replaced by an IP ride.

I was extremely confused at the decision to put GotG in Epcot. But then again.. Mission: Breakout and Pixar Pier are a thing.
 

Raineman

Well-Known Member
I love IP-driven rides.


I also love Empire Strikes Back. And I love Frozen. Yet I would detest Empire being remade so that the rebels now hide out in Elsa's castle.

Rat, Frozen, Donald, Marvel in EPCOT is not less daft to me than Tatooine suddenly being the home planet of Aladdin.
“Gotta keep
One jump ahead of the Tusken
Raiders cause they can’t be seen
I shoot
Womp rats in my T-16”
:D
 

networkpro

Well-Known Member
In the Parks
Yes
Define "internal." Film characters were still created by The Walt Disney Company (exclude Marvel and Star Wars if you want).

Original ? If its not the Fab 5, its borrowed.

Sir James Barrie - Peter Pan
Carlo Lorenzini - Pinocchio
Snow White - Collected by Brothers Grimm
Rapunzel - Collected by Brothers Grimm
Winnie the Pooh -AA Milne
Beauty and the Beast - Gabrielle-Suzanne de Villeneuve
 

CaptainAmerica

Well-Known Member
Original ? If its not the Fab 5, its borrowed.

Sir James Barrie - Peter Pan
Carlo Lorenzini - Pinocchio
Snow White - Collected by Brothers Grimm
Rapunzel - Collected by Brothers Grimm
Winnie the Pooh -AA Milne
Beauty and the Beast - Gabrielle-Suzanne de Villeneuve
That's kind of my point. Even OG Disney is ripped from somewhere.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom