Interview with Bob Iger about the Parks

[Notes from Neverland]

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

Doubt the validity without the source. That source may be He Who Can Not Be Named, her significant other.

 

[smile]

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.

that shot probably took one of joe's earrings with it

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."

what's the over/under on him having forgotten how much it cost?
... cause i'll go all-in on that being a direct reference relating to his point.

 

[ChrisFL]

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.

Agreed...there's, in my estimation, a few ways that imagineering can come up with attractions.

These are my guesses, without a lot of insider knowledge:

Sometimes they find or create a new technology and see what IP would fit the idea and pitch that. Other times, they get handed a theme and are asked to make something based on it.

 

[yensidtlaw1969]

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.

Thank you for proving my point - no one was going to EPCOT Center because they specifically wanted to learn about Fossil Fuels and couldn't find an encyclopedia. Disney presented that information in the context of a grand and unique experience unlike anything anywhere, which was true of all the original Future World Pavilions.

Most times these days they don't even take that level of care with their biggest franchises (I'm looking at you, Frozen Ever After and Big-Box-Store of the Galaxy).

 

[RSoxNo1]

that shot probably took one of joe's earrings with it



what's the over/under on him having forgotten how much it cost?
... cause i'll go all-in on that being a direct reference relating to his point.

It also resulted in a 1 million guest attendance bump to DAK

 

[HauntedMansionFLA]

isn't Mystic Manor part of S.E.A.?

i just think that once Disney aquired a ton of IP through acquisitions the days of projects being approved that are not IP based ended.

The door is shut.

Acquiring IP’s dates back to Walt Disney himself

 

[erasure fan1]

And which one is actually going to make them more money, a yeti plush or a slinky dog

I don't know but I've bought more than a few yeti items and nothing slinky dog. Lol My kids had to have a yeti plush.

For anyone who is a fan of the ARTFORM of theme park design, the number one guy thinks the parks exist only as a trasnferral vehicle for film and tv IP , not as a unique creative engine in and of themselves

And the funny part is that it was a unique creative original ride that brought back Disney's mostly sub par live action studio back from being an embarrassment. Pirates might be the best argument against his theory of IP has to drive rides.

 

[Stripes]

Thank you for proving my point - no one was going to EPCOT Center because they specifically wanted to learn about Fossil Fuels and couldn't find an encyclopedia. Disney presented that information in the context of a grand and unique experience unlike anything anywhere, which was true of all the original Future World Pavilions.

I agree that the presentation of technology was the key to Epcot's success. Creating grand stories and an equally grand execution, was a recipe for success. As I said earlier, execution tops everything, so I must retract my earlier argument as it contradicts this belief.

I'm not sure though that society is as enthusiastic about technology and the future today as it was in the 80s. On top of the masterfully crafted stories, there was a great deal of fascination and hope in the future that permeated world culture. I don't see or feel that today. But again, execution is king.

If Disney opened a breakthrough attraction with a focus on renewable energy and narrated by a newly imagined character like Figment, would it capture as much interest as a Guardians of the Galaxy ride would? I'm not sure.

 

[smile]

It also resulted in a 1 million guest attendance bump to DAK

amidst his claims of a mature market, followed by never doing it again on anything nearing that scale and/via gratuitous mandates

 

[Tom P.]

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

But I've never heard that women are fearful to be in the same room as Bob Iger, so there's that.

Also, Iger seems to clearly indicate in his responses that he is concerned with both quality and familiarity. Not one over the other.

 

[Stripes]

But I've never heard that women are fearful to be in the same room as Bob Iger, so there's that.

Well gawrsh Mickey!

 

[smile]

But I've never heard that women are fearful to be in the same room as Bob Iger, so there's that.

Also, Iger seems to clearly indicate in his responses that he is concerned with both quality and familiarity. Not one over the other.

i give far more credit to rai for an adherance to quality and defense against brand degradation than to his predecessor, who'd drag mickey through any and all available muck to make a buck

 

[Indy_UK]

I think Disney will struggle slightly with their movie slate in a few years though when Bob is timed to bolt out of the company.

Where they are re-making very animated film as a live action, everyone knows that this is all about short term gains but what does happen in 3-4 when they have all been exhausted? They certainly won't want to rely on original films as even now they are flopping for the most part, so they're going to need to think ahead in that area.

In the same breath, Fox will certainly bolster their box office takings

 

[lazyboy97o]

There's a lot of factors, but IP has the benefit of being easily marketable. This, in conjunction with a pre-exposed familiarity increases attendance and merch sales. I think arguing that original attractions with equal execution would produce greater or equal revenue growth compared to IP-based attractions is a tough mountain to climb. The inclusion of IP is far from being the sole dictator of monetary success, but it's always going to help.

Pandora would have had to increase attendance to Disney’s Animal Kingdom by at least 50% to out perform Expedition Everest.

In less than 3 decades, Disney’s Hollywood Studios and Universal Studios Florida are each down to a single attraction left from their opening year.

Despite the Boy Who Lived, the phenomenal world dominating popularity of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, the recent resurgence of Jurassic Park and the continued allure of Dr. Seuss, Islands of Adventure still draws fewer people than boring, dated, irrelevant Epcot.

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 worse then just that. At least with movies you can rewatch he originals you first fell in love with and ignore the sequels and remakes. Once an attraction is torn down, it’s just gone. Once a land is turned into a hodgepodge of attractions, it’s beautiful composition is but a memory.

 

[Stripes]

Pandora would have had to increase attendance to Disney’s Animal Kingdom by about 50% to out perform Expedition Everest.

Assuming you are getting your numbers from TEA, you've made an error.

In less than 3 decades, Disney’s Hollywood Studios and Universal Studios Florida are each down to a single attraction left from their opening year.

They didn't exactly have a very big line-up to begin with. Also, across all the Orlando parks, the closed attractions have been a balanced mix of IP/non-IP attractions. I don't think any conclusion can be drawn here.

Despite the Boy Who Lived, the phenomenal world dominating popularity of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, the recent resurgence of Jurassic Park and the continued allure of Dr. Seuss, Islands of Adventure still draws fewer people than boring, dated, irrelevant Epcot.

Why do you think that is?

 

[Tom P.]

I think Disney will struggle slightly with their movie slate in a few years though when Bob is timed to bolt out of the company.

Where they are re-making very animated film as a live action, everyone knows that this is all about short term gains but what does happen in 3-4 when they have all been exhausted? They certainly won't want to rely on original films as even now they are flopping for the most part, so they're going to need to think ahead in that area.

In the same breath, Fox will certainly bolster their box office takings

I think there is a vast untapped market waiting to explode to the first major Hollywood studio that actually has the guts to try going back to original, creative filmmaking rather than the endless glut of sequels, remakes, reboots, and re-imaginings. Yes, the American viewing public likes their flashy summer blockbuster action superhero films. But I also think they are desperate for something fresh and original. I think the studio that is actually willing to take the leap -- if they do it well -- could benefit mightily. I'm not saying that studio will be Disney, but I think it would be a smart move on their part if it was.

 

[Tom P.]

Why do you think that is?

Gonna take a big leap here and guess that it's because, despite its flaws and its need for improvement, Epcot is neither boring nor irrelevant and in most areas is not even particularly dated.

 

[voodoo321]

What struck me was not what he said but what he didn't say. He said everything but never said he personally enjoyed any aspect of the parks. Even when asked directly about a ride he enjoyed he just gave a stock answer. If he was so appreciative about POC being the last attraction that Walt worked on then why has he had no problem hacking it up during his tenure? The typical park goer is nothing but a flea to him. The parks would never fit his refined and sophisticated tastes. We are just rubes to him.

 

[TwilightZone]

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

But lasseter did come up with pixar pier.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Assuming you are getting your numbers from TEA, you've made an error.

AECOM’s numbers aren’t needed. Even just looking at what Disney releases, Pandora did not bring in 5x the number of people as Expedition Everest.

They didn't exactly have a very big line-up to begin with. Also, across all the Orlando parks, the closed attractions have been a balanced mix of IP/non-IP attractions. I don't think any conclusion can be drawn here.

Those parks are very much tied to the current model. That non-IP attractions closed is irrelevant and clearly don’t fit the franchise model. Longevity is part of the return an attraction provides. As part of having a better return on invest IP attractions should clearly and consistently outlast non-IP attractions, but they don’t.

Why do you think that is?

That’s not obvious? That IP doesn’t just provide the claimed advantages.