Interview with Bob Iger about the Parks

[TrojanUSC]

Rivers of Light itself is an IP show, repurposing DIsney Nature film footage into its new narrative, just as Jungle Cruise and Nature's Wonderland repurposed bits and pieces of the True Life Adventures to create new experiences that become entirely new entities. People miss this because Nature Documentary Animals are not Marketable Brand Characters. You don't go on the Jungle Cruise and say "Look, it's the African Lion from the film "The African Lion"".

Reusing footage from Disneynature because it is excellent quality and Disney owns the copyright is a cost-saving measure, that does not make it a branded show. If it did, they would have cross-promoted it in a million other ways.

 

[Tom P.]

And Davy Crockett aired on a show called Disneyland and within the first episode of Disneyland explained Disneyland the place and also announced that the life of Davy Crockett would be serialized on Disneyland the show. Would you call a Golden Book based off The Lion King that was released a few months prior, the inspiration for The Lion King?

Cat From Outer Space and Disneyland’s Space Mountain were being developed around the same time. You can’t have much more tie in than that..

Ah, Cat from Outer Space. For some reason, I've always had a soft spot for that movie.

 

[Indy_UK]

This is words in search of a thought.

Putting someone like Chapek who's a merchandise guy in charge of parks is never a good thing. That's why I miss Stags

 

[erasure fan1]

Your actually furthering my point. Almost everything of significance at Disneyland during the Walt era had an IP-tie in

There always has been IP tie ins at the parks and I'm sure there always will be. But I believe you are missing the root of most peoples problem. Most of the issues stem from the, we don't care where we put this as long as we get it into a park, attitude that Disney has had with IPs. And also the fact that Disney has all but given up on original/new ideas. I don't think anyone thinks we shouldn’t have IPs. I don't have any desire to go to generic space outpost, I want to be in STAR WARS! But at the same time, I love, generic haunted house attraction. The point is, there is a need and want for both things and there is no reason not to have both.

 

[Conno]

But I also feel like Iger and others don't quite understand that non-IP can work too.

The difference is Iger knows that "Generic Land" doesn't look as good on marketing material as "Toy Story Land". "Generic Land" won't bring in as many new visitors that have never been to Disney World before; and maybe not even repeat occasional visitors. Let's be real - the only people who will be super hyped for a "Generic Land" are the people posting here or any other Disney World fan site.

This is about money and marketing. non-IP works, but the ROI is nothing compared to an IP attraction or land (at least in the short to medium term). I think Star Wars (as opposed to a potential Generic Space Land) will be proof enough of that.

 

[Indy_UK]

Agreed. Like which is going to draw more people, the space restaurant or Olgas Cantina in Star Wars land?

 

[LSLS]

The issue isnt ip in the park. As others have said, the issue is forcing it in where it doesnt fit just because, and the fact it sure sounds like he stuck a middle finger to everest. I love ip in the park when done well, just like I love non-ip when done well. If they decided to create an attraction based on 19th century France and stuck it in future world, I would be front and center screaming about how awful it is.

 

[Lucky]

This is about money and marketing. non-IP works, but the ROI is nothing compared to an IP attraction or land (at least in the short to medium term). I think Star Wars (as opposed to a potential Generic Space Land) will be proof enough of that.

Star Wars is the most successful IP of all time, so I’m not sure how much is proven by that cherry-picked example.

Avatar is a successful IP but I think the staying power of Africa and Asia far exceeds Pandora’s.

 

[eliza61nyc]

Yes, but for every IP-based attraction they have always developed a good amount of non-IP stuff. A nice mix of offerings. Today not one single thing even gets close to being greenlit without tying into a franchise. The one thing they did (Rivers of Light) was a bad show and is now used as an example of why you need IP in every nighttime show.

Because that's what today's younger audience relates to, they react favorably to IP. It's not 1970 or 80. Now would they also have the same feeling about totally original pieces? Don't know but Disney is going with what works. Frozen works, Star wars works. Harry Potter at Universal? Ungodly successful. IP sells period.

 

[jt04]

Putting someone like Chapek who's a merchandise guy in charge of parks is never a good thing. That's why I miss Stags

Can you list his accomplishments in the parks?

 

[jt04]

EXACTLY! Staggs was known for being a nice guy and certainly played a role in Pandora, but the kind of risks they are taking now (massive investment when Wall Street might prefer stock buybacks) is all Iger and Chapek. In that interview Iger defended massive long term infrastructure construction.... that's a long term view that is not typically popular on Wall Street which prefers short term gains. You might not agree with what he is building, but you have to give him credit for building things that make the vast majority very happy indeed.

Iger has set the table for his eventual successor to be able to focus on D and C level attractions. Iger has done all the heavy lifting essentially. It looks like he may need to stay longer until enough figure this out. Or at least stay on the board.

 

[FigmentJedi]

Are today's younger audiences that different from before? Back in the 50's Disney's Snow White/Peter Pan/Alice in Wonderland/Etc. WERE the big movies that everyone cared about and saw over and over again. Fast Forward to the 60's and what was the big movie/story? Swiss Family! Fast Forward into the 80s and now we're running up to Star Wars/Star Tours! Linking studio-generated stories into theme park attractions was invented by Disney....

Alice in Wonderland was a flop that Walt himself was disappointed with. It only became popular in the 1970s when stoners latched onto it and Fantasia. But it still went into Disneyland because the setting was still considered viable material for attractions. It'd be like if Eisner had actually gone through with the Atlantis the Lost Empire ride concepts or if they had still built Discovery Bay back in the 70s despite the failure of Island at the Top of the World.

 

[Sharon&Susan]

Your entitled to your own opinion, but facts are stubborn things:

https://photos.mouseinfo.com/DLR-News-and-Info/August-18-2018-DLR-News-and-Info/i-8X3PXML/A
Call it "inspired by" or an "adaption of"... either way, the Matterhorn was a giant piece of IP tying a studio film to Disneyland.[/QUOTE]

How again would an average guest in 1959 associate it with the film. It has no Swiss village, none of the characters from the film, and even advertisements from the time “forgot” to mention it was based off Third Man on the Mountain. Marc Davis was inspired by elements of Treasure Island while making POTC, would you say POTC is an IP ride?

All the stuff your referring to came after the opening when the movie was largely forgotten. On opening day the actors from the movie where there, and the references were everywhere. See link above! The inside wasn't finished due to $$. As time wore on and the movie faded into memories the mountain evolved... but Matterhorn was absolutely a tie in to a story originating with the studio - a movie that means nothing to us today, but was a major major project for Disney in the 50s.

Third Man on the Mountain was a mid-tier project at best that was a disappointment at the box office .

as opposed to crap like Mouholland Madness...

People want new rides like the Haunted Mansion, Expedition Everest, Submarine Voyage, and Space Mountain all rides that broke records when they opened. IP is not an indicator of success, you can make a bad ride with IP.

 

[Donfan]

Iger has set the table for his eventual successor to be able to focus on D and C level attractions. Iger has done all the heavy lifting essentially. It looks like he may need to stay longer until enough figure this out. Or at least stay on the board.

If they can turn those D and C level attractions into things like Mr. Toad, then folks could get interested in it.

 

[Dunston]

When Eisner said Iger shouldn't replace him because he is only good at the business side of things, not a creative, he was 100% right.

 

[Sharon&Susan]

After the Swiss Family Treehouse, no new IP based rides opened until Pinocchio’s Daring Journey. Can you imagine current management going 20 years without opening a new IP based ride at any park?

 

[jt04]

After the Swiss Family Treehouse, no new IP based rides opened until Pinocchio’s Daring Journey. Can you imagine current management going 20 years without opening a new IP based ride at any park?

No, not with the Everest sized mountain of content available now that wasn't then.

 

[Spash007]

And it's not like they've completely eliminated park-only stories... (every attraction is based upon a story)... but it IS true that they see more Return on Invested Capital when they tie studio stories into the attractions which justifies the massive investments. Some on here might prefer a budget that's 70% lower in order to maximize what they think is right, but I'll take the higher budget and studio-connected stories...

That’s a short term view though. Look at the rides like Space Mountain which have continued to impress audiences without an IP. Down the road people won’t care about Avatar any more, and Disney will eventually run out of Toy Story movies. It will cost a whole lot to then have to turn over these entire lands to get the latest trend into the parks. When the draw becomes the IP, rather than originality, your immediately dating the attraction/land in a way that the entire thing will have to be replaced, rather than just updated.

 

[BoarderPhreak]

...IP is not an indicator of success, you can make a bad ride with IP.

Or make a good ride worse with IP... Maelstrom, El Rio del Tiempo, etc.

 

[Indy_UK]

When Eisner said Iger shouldn't replace him because he is only good at the business side of things, not a creative, he was 100% right.

Maybe the only thing Eisner got right?