Is everything just IP mandate quota now?

[osian]

I can tell you my daughter would much rather go an attraction with characters from a movie she loves than a ride where she doesn’t know the characters. I could go either way if the ride is well done.

Why does a ride need to have "characters" from a movie, or indeed characters at all? If rides didn't have characters there would be no need to second-guess what some guests might be confused by and then the ride could appeal to everyone. Would your daughter react against Small World because the dolls are not from a movie she loves? Tiki Room? People Mover? Certainly, during my "formative" years I never get upset that rides and attractions and amusement parks and theme parks did not feature characters, or movies at all. Perhaps because the amusement parks round here were not run by giant media behemoths that wanted to push their products everywhere? A theme park doesn't have to be about movies. There doesn't even need to be IP, in the sense that we use that acronym. Why do we need IP in theme parks? Because Disney say we do! It's circular and self-fulfilling reasoning. Think outside the IP box and jnstead think about what actually makes a park good for families. That's what Walt did.

 

[solidyne]

Movie IP, good attraction = _______
Original IP, good attraction = _______
Movie IP, bad attraction = _______
Original IP, bad attraction = _______

Surely we can think of attractions to fill all of these blanks. It's not the IP; it's how it's used, don't you think? Or is there something inherently "lesser" about a "used" IP?

On second thought, I can't think of an original IP – bad attraction. Wait, oh, yes I can. Kali River Rapids. Shove some Pixar in there, LOL! (Yeah, the queue, I know, I know.)

 

[Jrb1979]

Original attractions aren’t always good. IP attractions aren’t always bad. When a company is investing billions on IP, you can bet they’re going to want to capitalize on that, for better or worse.

“Good” attractions are all we can all hope for at this point, which is a matter of opinion. I’d argue the past decade has been pretty good for the parks, far better than the stagnation that followed Everest.

The added attractions have been good. The issue with this IP mandate is that more and more they just don't fit the theme of the park.
Guardians doesn't fit Epcot, Piston Peak doesn't fit Frontierland and the Americas area doesn't fit Animal Kingdom.

 

[The Leader of the Club]

On second thought, I can't think of an original IP – bad attraction. Wait, oh, yes I can. Kali River Rapids. Shove some Pixar in there, LOL! (Yeah, the queue, I know, I know.)

Mission: Space, Awesome Planet, and Superstar Limo also send their regards.

 

[Tha Realest]

In my view New Orleans Square and Cars Land are possibly the two best lands within a Disney park (in my view, within that order). One is decidedly non-IP, and does not use IP as an organizing principle. The other is the greatest manifestation of IP, likely to be unsurpassed. Both feature at least one tremendous signature attraction (two in NOS’s case).

IP integration is not inherently and automatically bad. It can lead to a Cars Land. But it also means we will never get another New Orleans Square.

 

[The Leader of the Club]

The added attractions have been good. The issue with this IP mandate is that more and more they just don't fit the theme of the park.
Guardians doesn't fit Epcot, Piston Peak doesn't fit Frontierland and the Americas area doesn't fit Animal Kingdom.

This has always been an issue.
Nemo doesn’t fit EPCOT, Small World doesn’t fit Fantasyland, Carousel of Progress doesn’t fit Tomorrowland, Rock N Roller Coaster doesn’t fit Sunset Boulevard.

When the themes are vague enough, you can make an excuse to fit anything in there.

 

[Jrb1979]

This has always been an issue.
Nemo doesn’t fit EPCOT, Small World doesn’t fit Fantasyland, Carousel of Progress doesn’t fit Tomorrowland, Rock N Roller Coaster doesn’t fit Sunset Boulevard.

When the themes are vague enough, you can make an excuse to fit anything in there.

Its much worse now. IMO adding Guardians to Epcot, even though it's a good ride, was one of their worst ideas.

 

[The Leader of the Club]

It’s much worse now. IMO adding Guardians to Epcot, even though it's a good ride, was one of their worst ideas.

The Disney Parks have had plenty of bad ideas since 1955. I don’t think this is one of them.

I think GotG is just like Nemo or Frozen in that none of those rides really fit into EPCOT’s theme, but they get people in the door. My family skipped EPCOT as a kid because it had a reputation as the “adult park without characters.” These rides have helped change that perception. While they might not be as educational as what came before, to the average guest, these rides are a lot more fun and accessible.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

This has always been an issue.
Nemo doesn’t fit EPCOT, Small World doesn’t fit Fantasyland, Carousel of Progress doesn’t fit Tomorrowland, Rock N Roller Coaster doesn’t fit Sunset Boulevard.

When the themes are vague enough, you can make an excuse to fit anything in there.

I think this is both a pro and a con, I agree a lot of the IPs don’t belong where they’re putting them but the areas generic theme allows the imagineers a lot of artistic freedom, living cars make no sense in Frontierland but Piston Peak (a National park) makes a lot of sense in that setting, the problem with a constrained land like Radiator Springs is you can’t go outside that theme without absolutely destroying the immersion. I think in the future Disney will regret how limited they’re going to be by IP. It’s fairly easy to make a ride fit in “space” or “frontier”, much harder to make it fit in the very strict theme of Star Wars or Pandora.

 

[Jrb1979]

The Disney Parks have had plenty of bad ideas since 1955. I don’t think this is one of them.

I think GotG is just like Nemo or Frozen in that none of those rides really fit into EPCOT’s theme, but they get people in the door. My family skipped EPCOT as a kid because it had a reputation as the “adult park without characters.” These rides have helped change that perception. While they might not be as educational as what came before, to the average guest, these rides are a lot more fun and accessible.

I feel they could do all of that without the IP. Had they finished World Showcase as planned with the Mt Fuji coaster, the Germany boat ride it could have accomplished the same thing.

I also have come to accept that the overall theme of the parks is irrelevant now. Put IP that children and families love is all that matters

 

[Jsellav]

You must have really loved Space Mountain: Ghost Galaxy. Same projections of a giant space monster, but it had two physical objects to see rather than one.

The moon is better lit though, so I guess one well lit sphere in one element of the coaster is the best themeing ever applied to a coaster. Suck it Big Thunder and Taron and Expedition Everest and all of you other themed coasters with sculpted scenic design! You just needed one and voice over! Eating your car I think you can buy thisOh, and some dad rock. If only RnRC could have swapped out the multiple things you fly past for one globe, it would be as well themed as Cosmic Rewind's coaster.

RnRC: Disney's Icarus. It simply tried too hard.

I personally don’t find those 2 experiences equivalent or your opinions relatable to mine.

 

[AidenRodriguez731]

I feel they could do all of that without the IP. Had they finished World Showcase as planned with the Mt Fuji coaster, the Germany boat ride it could have accomplished the same thing.

I also have come to accept that the overall theme of the parks is irrelevant now. Put IP that children and families love is all that matters

Yeah I'm not sure exactly what child is aching to go on a Rhine River cruise in Germany instead of, say, a Tangled boat ride in Germany but you do you.

 

[phillip9698]

Having IP lead over ride design and storytelling is the issue.

IP attractions, especially modern ones, tend to rely heavily on their IP and your familiarity with it. Star Tours 1.0 was a solid Space Adventure with fun characters. Star Tours the Adventure Continues is just three video game cut scenes where we can all do the DiCaprio meme and say "I know that from the movie!"

The Guardians attractions at both parks exemplify this half-hearted surface level themeing and execution. Tiana's and Tron are able to under deliver because of the window dressing on a good ride system. Look at the Nemo downgrade of Stormrider at TDS.

Does SWGE have a lot of great attractions that feel inspired or a solid ride themed to Star Wars and something else they had to put in because they can't have a land with only 1 ride? It reminds me of those cheap film companies who just churn out vague slop to coincide with whatever is "in." People like Witch movies? Quick, make a witch movie and it needs to be ready in 6 months. When story comes last, the audience suffers.

The original Disney attractions hold up because they draw off simple classic ideas. Exploring a haunted house. Sailing through a pirate adventure. Zooming through space. Ride a runaway mine train.

No complex back stories to learn. Preshows were a function of the queue/ride relationship rather than something required to dump exposition

Simple tone poems that tie to the things that interest/fascinate us as a society.

Absolutely none of what you said has anything to do with original attractions meaning the company was good and for good people. Which is what the OP said.

 

[Jrb1979]

Yeah I'm not sure exactly what child is aching to go on a Rhine River cruise in Germany instead of, say, a Tangled boat ride in Germany but you do you.

Yet Kids will line up for Jungle Cruise, Haunted Mansion, Pirates, Tiki Room.
All I'm saying is IP is fine, but make it fit the theme of the park. I'm not a fan of making all parks and extension of castle parks.

A good example of a Disney park that is very successful and has little IP is DisneySea in Japan

 

[mergatroid]

I personally don’t find those 2 experiences equivalent or your opinions relatable to mine.

It's as though they think trying to be rude to you somehow makes their opinion more valid or superior to yours sadly.

 

[The Leader of the Club]

Yet Kids will line up for Jungle Cruise, Haunted Mansion, Pirates, Tiki Room.
All I'm saying is IP is fine, but make it fit the theme of the park. I'm not a fan of making all parks and extension of castle parks.

A good example of a Disney park that is very successful and has little IP is DisneySea in Japan

Families do line up for the MK classics, but Peter Pan, Pooh Bear, Snow White, Buzz Lightyear, and Ariel get them through the door. I think we can all agree Pirates, Ghosts, and Jungle Animals are more interesting concepts to kids than “Germany.” Even Maelstrom with trolls and Vikings never really had an impact comparable to Pirates or Mansion.

EPCOT needed Disney characters to make it engaging for kids. Could they implemented them better? Of course. But I think they were inevitable sooner or later.

 

[𝐌𝖆𝖓 𝖎𝖓 𝐖𝖊𝖇]

Disney used to be a good company, making good products for good people,

but everything has been really, REALLY bad lately

I mean, let's be completely honest. The last original attraction that wasn't tied in to a movie franchise was Expedition Everest at Animal Kingdom in 2006.

That's 20 years ago.

And they just took out Tom Sawyer Island

They've just given up completely, no?

Yeppers.

 

[HMF]

Disney used to be a good company, making good products for good people,

but everything has been really, REALLY bad lately

I mean, let's be completely honest. The last original attraction that wasn't tied in to a movie franchise was Expedition Everest at Animal Kingdom in 2006.

That's 20 years ago.

And they just took out Tom Sawyer Island

They've just given up completely, no?

That is indeed the state of affairs and has been since Iger walked in the door and I don't see Josh abandoning it sadly.

 

[HMF]

Yep. Did Josh ever deliver on an original IP attraction in all his years over various parks?

The only example I can think of is Disneyland's Adventureland Treehouse.

 

[HMF]

I feel like the real problem is that they assume the IP will be the draw, and allow themselves to skimp on delivering as great a product as they might otherwise. They assumed that just slapping "Star Wars" on it would make it a home run. Today they are assuming that slapping "Bluey" on it will do the same. And it did for the first days. But that won't be sustained. GOOD attractions maintain despite the IP over the long haul.