Interview with Bob Iger about the Parks

[RandySavage]

I like a few of Igor's (best part of this thread) big picture investments & decisions (eg, going big and using an original locale for Star Wars Land).

But here's an analogy for his IP-centered vision for the parks:

There are only two movie studios in the world with the resources to make Big Budget Blockbuster Movies. The Presidents of those two studios both decide that making Sequels to already established movies is now the safest way to make short- and mid-term returns, so they mandate that only Sequels can be made at their Studios from now on. So, for the rest of your life, the only Big Budget movies you'll get to see are sequels or spin-offs to established popular franchises.

That is the themepark IP-mandate in a nutshell. Many are clearly fine with that, but themeparks in the macro and micro were and can be so much more if there was leader with Vision (the kind of vision described in the "Walt Disney's Disneyland" book just released by Taschen). The vaults in WDI are filled with original concepts - particularly from the great Gen II of Imagineers) that would blow everyone's socks off to the point that no one would be care about Frozen or Marvel or parks shoehorned with Disney movie rides and characters.

All of that park-centered creativity (the kind that gave us Haunted Mansion and Animal Kingdom) has been stifled - especially domestically - by Igor's IP Mandate.

 

[Haymarket2008]

I don’t think his “nondescript coaster maybe set in India” comment was about Everest. Am I wrong in thinking this? Everest is anything but nondescript. I think he’s just saying Disney does storytelling better than a Six Flag attraction that is just plopped there.

 

[IMDREW]

I guess we’ll see how well IP works with bringing in new guests when they open Frozen land at HKDL. I’m guessing they’ll see a higher rise in attendance than when Mystic of the Grizzly Gulch coaster opened for example. (I’m super for original IP-less attractions btw, just an honest observation we can keep track of)

 

[RSoxNo1]

I agree that an original attraction would be a breath of fresh air. That said, I am going to wait before making a judgement of GotG. Disney has some damn good storytellers, and I still have hope they can form a storyline that's cohesive to the park and the IP. We'll see though.

Epcot is treated differently compared to the other parks when it comes to IP. Nobody has a problem with IP going into MK, DHS, or DAK. But Epcot is another story. It's also a park whose ideals are hard to accomplish today due to the prevalence of the internet, in my opinion. Why would you travel to a theme park, and pay a high price to enter just to learn about something when everything you could possibly learn about it is at your fingertips these days?

The only hope I have for Disney pulling the trigger on an original D/E attraction is if there's a character that can be heavily marketed, like Duffy, whose merch will sell like hotcakes.

A thematically appropriate attraction in Epcot would be a breath of fresh air.

I want a healthy balance of original concepts and movie based IPs that all tie back to a cohesive theme. Epcot no longer has a cohesive theme.

 

[RSoxNo1]

I like a few of Igor's (best part of this thread) big picture investments & decisions (eg, going big and using an original locale for Star Wars Land).

But here's an analogy for his IP-centered vision for the parks:

There are only two movie studios in the world with the resources to make Big Budget Blockbuster Movies. The Presidents of those two studios both decide that making Sequels to already established movies is now the safest way to make short- and mid-term returns, so they mandate that only Sequels can be made at their Studios from now on. So, for the rest of your life, the only Big Budget movies you'll get to see are sequels or spin-offs to established popular franchises.

That is the themepark IP-mandate in a nutshell. Many are clearly fine with that, but themeparks in the macro and micro were and can be so much more if there was leader with Vision (the kind of vision described in the "Walt Disney's Disneyland" book just released by Taschen). The vaults in WDI are filled with original concepts - particularly from the great Gen II of Imagineers) that would blow everyone's socks off to the point that no one would be care about Frozen or Marvel or parks shoehorned with Disney movie rides and characters.

All of that park-centered creativity (the kind that gave us Haunted Mansion and Animal Kingdom) has been stifled - especially domestically - by Igor's IP Mandate.

It's a risk averse mentality.

I called attention to this back in 2015 and I certainly wasn't the first and only one to do so: https://micechat.com/101023-tim-grassey-addicted-easy-money/

 

[RandySavage]

I'm not sure if he was intentionally calling out Expedition Everest, a bit of a weird thing to say, unless he thinks there's some other coaster out there that's cheaply done (??) Disney execs usually don't try to bad-mouth their own attractions, even if they don't like them.

I noticed that and I don't think Everest - the major draw at the park for a decade - crossed his mind. Made the statement painfully ironic.

 

[RSoxNo1]

I'm not sure if he was intentionally calling out Expedition Everest, a bit of a weird thing to say, unless he thinks there's some other coaster out there that's cheaply done (??) Disney execs usually don't try to bad-mouth their own attractions, even if they don't like them.

It's a remarkably specific example for it not to be Everest. If he says it's not Everest he's either stupid or a liar (Adam Carolla TM). Those are the only two options.

 

[Stripes]

A thematically appropriate attraction in Epcot would be a breath of fresh air.

I want a healthy balance of original concepts and movie based IPs that all tie back to a cohesive theme. Epcot no longer has a cohesive theme.

But, and this is hypothetical, would you still be pleased if the theme settled on diverged from Epcot's original mission. It would be cohesive, but different. Again, a hypothetical question.

 

[RSoxNo1]

Also, can anyone else verify if Chapek actually said this?

 

[Stripes]

Also, can anyone else verify if Chapek actually said this?

I don't buy it. The logic doesn't even compute.

 

[RSoxNo1]

In case anyone forgot:
As we spend money at the parks on new attractions that are based on known intellectual property and brands, the likelihood of their success is greater. So when we increase Toy Story’s presence or other Pixar presence, when we put Frozen in the parks, when we grow Star Wars presence, which we will do significantly, when we do it with Princess, for instance, you’re going to see, I think, basically better bets being made that pay off, that are more likely to pay off for us than some of the bets that were made in the past. – Bob Iger, Quarter 3, Fiscal Year 2014 Earnings Call

 

[RandySavage]

It's a remarkably specific example for it not to be Everest. If he says it's not Everest he's either stupid or a liar (Adam Carolla TM). Those are the only two options.

I'm fairly certain if you asked him to name five attractions in Animal Kingdom it would be "The Avatar flying ride, the Avatar boat ride (both fresh on my mind), the Safari... sorry that's all I have."

 

[yensidtlaw1969]

Epcot is treated differently compared to the other parks when it comes to IP. Nobody has a problem with IP going into MK, DHS, or DAK. But Epcot is another story. It's also a park whose ideals are hard to accomplish today due to the prevalence of the internet, in my opinion. Why would you travel to a theme park, and pay a high price to enter just to learn about something when everything you could possibly learn about it is at your fingertips these days?

Why would I pay a high price to enter just to ride Frozen Ever After or Guardians of the Galaxy when I could stay home and watch the movies on Disney+?

 

[smile]

https://www.barrons.com/articles/di...ark-plans-and-learning-from-kodak-51546599600

i know hooking low-hanging fruit with cliched lies is part of the job
... tho i'm not sure why you'd bother, bob, considering they have reservations already.

enjoy retirement... don't look back

 

[RSoxNo1]

John Lasseter's philosophy: Quality is the best business plan.
Bob Iger's philosophy: Familiarity is the best business plan.

 

[Stripes]

Why would I pay a high price to enter just to ride Frozen Ever After or Guardians of the Galaxy when I could stay home and watch the movies on Disney+?

To experience a different story with familiar characters. I think it's often overlooked that even IP attractions are still original stories.

Besides, theme parks and films are completely different mediums of entertainment.

 

[Stripes]

John Lasseter's philosophy: Quality is the best business plan.
Bob Iger's philosophy: Familiarity is the best business plan.

In truth, the combination of the two produces the best results.

 

[ChrisFL]

To experience a different story with familiar characters. I think it's often overlooked that even IP attractions are still original stories.

Some yes, Some no. The Little Mermaid ride and show tell the same story as the movie. Finding Nemo at Epcot NEARLY tells the same story as the movie

 

[Stripes]

Some yes, Some no. The Little Mermaid ride and show tell the same story as the movie. Finding Nemo at Epcot NEARLY tells the same story as the movie

True. And, IMO, this contributes significantly to why they're so boring. There's nothing surprising.

 

[danlb_2000]

I don't see issues with IP's. When I first came back to the parks as an adult, I was shocked how little IP was actually in the parks (2004).
I think attaching IP's helps people relate better to an attraction or land. I mean, the Beauty and the Beast area of New Fantasyland wouldn't feel as magical if not tied to the movie. Just look at Be Our Guest!

And while there is a nostalgia factor to original attractions, there are still enough of those around to form a good mix.

The problem is not IP's specifically, it's the way they are being used. In the past, they looked at a park that needed something new and designed the best attraction to fill the need. Today, they are given and IP and told to put it somewhere in one of the parks even if it not the best choice.