Is everything just IP mandate quota now?

[Jrb1979]

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.

I agree it needed characters to make it engaging for kids. The way the originally did it fit much better than they are doing it now. Having the character meet and greets for each country and the cancelled Maru Poppins ride fit much better

My issue it feels that now that theme fit means little as long as they can get a marketable IP into a park.

 

[HMF]

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.

Never mind the fact that it takes you out of the being in another world angle that used to be a hallmark of the WDW experience. Now everything just feels like a three-dimensional walk through movie advertisement.

 

[HMF]

I also have come to accept that the overall theme of the parks is irrelevant now.

So has Disney, sadly. No more unique or special than Universal or Six Flags is the path Disney is headed toward in terms of public perception.

 

[HMF]

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

Even that park is having its originality drained now, sadly.

 

[HMF]

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.

Characters at EPCOT should have been confined to meet and greets and smaller parts that are part of a larger concept like Circle of Life used to be.

 

[Jrb1979]

So has Disney, sadly. No more unique or special than Universal or Six Flags is the path Disney is headed toward in terms of public perception.

IMO Dollywood is catching up to the quality of Disney and Universal. They may not be a week long vacation park or have the IP but that new attraction they are adding is no joke.

 

[Disstevefan1]

In my opinion -
I think the IP in the parks mandate is here to stay and Josh will keep it going. The problem is when IP is forced in where it does not belong.

Tiana was FORCED into Splash mountain for reasons. It’s still a great log flume no matter the theme.

Guardians is a great ride and this ride system is great no matter the theme, Guardians was used to FORCE an IP in where it didn’t belong.

Frozen, a very nice reskin of Malstrom, was a FORCED in IP where it didn’t belong.

The Moana splash pad was IP forced into EPCOT where it didn’t belong.

I think Ratatouille was a good enough fit to France and the land got expanded.

I do not agree, but I understand for business reasons why they destroyed RoA, TSI, but they FORCED the Cars IP into Frontierland.

I really think Frontierland is on borrowed time as it too will go away for some IP.

I think Villains land (a true expansion) will be a good place Disney can showcase all their villains, I would love to see then free roaming the land although I know that will never happen.

There will be more IPs forced into places where they do not belong going forward. If the attractions are good, folks will want to ride them no matter the theme.

 

[solidyne]

[...] the “adult park without characters.” [...]

Bingo! Now, there's our fifth gate.

 

[Enjoy the ride]

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.

Most of Disneys rides have always had characters. So I guess you could blame Walt since he created the movie as a ride base. Yes there was non IP as well and if they created something from scratch and was well done I would be all for it. But like I said I understand why they don’t. If you want rides with no characters there are plenty of parks for that. I live minutes from carowinds so can get that fill when I want.

No my daughter goes on small world but if she had to pick she would pick little mermaid not far away. I know that ride could be better but she loves it. And Walt’s originally idea was to create a park both adults and children can enjoy.

 

[HMF]

Most of Disneys rides have always had characters. So I guess you could blame Walt since he created the movie as a ride base. Yes there was non IP as well and if they created something from scratch and was well done I would be all for it. But like I said I understand why they don’t. If you want rides with no characters there are plenty of parks for that. I live minutes from carowinds so can get that fill when I want.

No my daughter goes on small world but if she had to pick she would pick little mermaid not far away. I know that ride could be better but she loves it. And Walt’s originally idea was to create a park both adults and children can enjoy.

Eisner was the one who started the philosophy that the parks were marketing vehicles for films but to his credit he was not completely opposed to original concepts. Iger basically showed us that he saw the parks as just glorified advertising with the creative shackles of the IP mandate.

 

[Enjoy the ride]

Eisner was the one who started the philosophy that the parks were marketing vehicles for films but to his credit he was not completely opposed to original concepts. Iger basically showed us that he saw the parks as just glorified advertising with the creative shackles of the IP mandate.

Technically Walt started it. He literally built sleeping beauty castle to promote the upcoming movie. There are other examples to. Unfortunately in this day and age CEOs have one job and that is to maximize profits. After all his major acquisitions he backed himself into a corner where Disney had to blast all these new entities everywhere including parks to pinch every penny out of their investments. I do think the parks would be quite different without said acquisitions. I do want to be clear that I don’t necessarily agree with all IP as some of my favorite rides were prior to those rides becoming an IP which most have now become (jungle cruise, pirates,haunted) but I understand why they do it. Arguments could be made on placement but I’ll reserve comment until I see finished construction on everything and their actual fit.

 

[GravityFalls]

The Twilight Zone Tower of Terror is probably the best we can hope for, technically an IP, but adapted in a completely original manner. I could see Night at the Museum or National Treasure ride adaptations

 

[Biff215]

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.

Fair enough, but that’s a different issue and not the one brought up by the OP.

 

[Professortango1]

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.

German folklore is pretty interesting. I loved Maelstrom as a kid because it was different and u unique. As an adult, it could have used a major refresh, but not a retheme.

I visited Epcot without Disney characters and still loved it. Spaceship Earth blew my mind. As did Ellen's Energy Adventure. Great Movie ride was the ride I got off and called my dad about as he was a huge cinephile.

My favourite attraction as a little kid? America Sings. I'd "pop goes the weasel!" so much that it became my nickname.

Disney didn't used to need cartoon characters to draw kids in to their theme park experiences. Dumb uneducated parents are the ones who need that. Disney parks are now geared towards iPad parents. Put on something dumb and familiar and let it brainwash a kid while mom scrolls and dad gets a beer.

It's sad that edutainment was exciting for folks in the 70's, 80's, and 90's, but now we need the princesses to jangle keys and superheroes to quip to dad rock to keep adults engaged.

 

[mysto]

Ride variety and thematic variety are important to me. I don't want every single ride to be a thrill ride, or for 5 year olds, or scary, or use screens. Unfortunately "not IP" is a kind of variety that has been missing from new additions for 20 years. Complete homogeneity of this sort may be the future.

 

[Professortango1]

. And Walt’s originally idea was to create a park both adults and children can enjoy.

Bingo. Kids will enjoy good and interesting as well as familiar and shallow. Adults tend to prefer nuance and not being talked down to. So adding more IP-based attractions with thin plots and Disney Jr storytelling is going against Walt's thesis. It's turning into a park for children rather than for all ages.

 

[GenChi]

It is pretty well known Bob hated originals, he wanted the low risk built in fanbase and media synergy for the costs. But to be fair, people kind of blind out when they did originals after Everest.

Mystic Manor was the huge one and often said as the last due to being a traditional new dark ride. But Shanghai had Jet Packs and Roaring Rapids. Some might not even consider these their definition of originals, but for WDW Test Track v3, Tiki Birds, various Epcot films.

However these have caveats. MM only happened because they could not put HM in for cultural differences. Shanghai was a new park that needed any rides. TT3 had GM sponsorship. UNM had the fire.

Josh might be different, we do not know. Shanghai park #2 likely will have originals especially if it turns out to be an EPCOT successor, new parks tend to be when we get the most originals made. But in the post-Potter world without a new park I do not think they will spend huge on an original without extra circumstances. The only way I see a new build original stateside is if they create an insanely marketable character/concept which will sell a ton of merch and has potential for a streaming show/film to be made. Sadly otherwise the "hype" might not be there outside pleasing a small group of diehards, especially when they can announce to social media their favorite film is getting a ride instead.

 

[Professortango1]

It is pretty well known Bob hated originals, he wanted the low risk built in fanbase and media synergy for the costs. But to be fair, people kind of blind out when they did originals after Everest.

The reasons Everest never was a disrupter is due to a variety of factors

AK closes early and wasn't a full day park.

The star effect broke early on and still has never been fixed.

The coaster lacks and flow and pacing as you're constantly stopping and starting.

And if they had built it with Marshmallow instead of the Yeti and had it as "Elsa's Everest Adventure, it would still have those problems while also feeling more condescending and thinly executed.

A name IP being attached to a mediocre ride typically only hurts it, rather than help it.

Had 7DMT opened in AK as a Goblin themed coaster in Beastly Kingdom, you could have a great opening scene, but at the end of the day, the second half will still disappoint. However a unique interesting and original show scene would at least get the Disney nerds taking more than the current itteration.

 

[Brer Panther]

IP has long been a crutch to lean on when you don't want to put the money or effort into making something stand alone.

And it has to be an IP that's popular right now, even if it's already got an attraction in the parks. There's no way they'd greenlight, say, a Brother Bear ride nowadays.

All I was implying is IP is a much safer bet when you are investing 300 million into a ride. Sometimes we think as fans and they think in business sense.

IP doesn't always make an attraction successful, though. A lot of Disney's biggest failures in the parks were IP-based. Stitch's Great Escape, the Legend of Captain Jack Sparrow thing at Hollywood Studios, the Under New Management Tiki Room... and who could forget the Galactic Starcruiser?

"People would pay us millions to use these IPs we own, do we'd be dumb not to take advantage of these IPs in everything we do."

Don't forget his describing Expedition Everest as "some nondescript coaster that maybe is themed to India or whatever".

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

Let's see...

Movie IP, good attraction = Peter Pan's Flight
Original IP, good attraction = Big Thunder Mountain Railroad
Movie IP, bad attraction = Remy's Ratatouille Adventure (I know I'm in the minority on this)
Original IP, bad attraction = Do I have to choose one that I've actually been on? If not, Superstar Limo

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.

Yes. This.

Nemo doesn’t fit EPCOT

Honestly, putting Nemo in the Living Seas sounds like a good idea ON PAPER, and I think the stuff in the actual Sea Base Alpha section of the pavilion is done well. It's the ride and its execution that's the problem.

Small World doesn’t fit Fantasyland

Sure it does! It's about world peace - if that ain't a fantasy, I don't know WHAT is!

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

Does Tangled even take place in Germany?

 

[Professortango1]

Original IP, bad attraction = Do I have to choose one that I've actually been on? If not, Superstar Limo

As someone who rode it, it was fun and cooky. If they had cut the ABC celebrities, it would have almost worked. Especially if it was allowed to the be the original attraction. I liked it more than the Monsters Inc replacement.