5th gate question?

[Stripes]

Someone here wrote a detailed post (which I cannot find) making a case the Disney will need a fifth gate sooner then later.

This one?

Why Walt Disney World Needs a 5th Theme Park By 2025

Please note this is not a rumor that Disney is building another theme park, only an analysis of Disney’s Parks & Resorts (P&R) financial data, suggesting that Disney needs to construct another Walt Disney World (WDW) theme park by the mid-2020s in order to maintain healthy growth within P&R...

forums.wdwmagic.com

I DM'd @ParentsOf4 a while back regarding an updated analysis, but understandably he/she is very busy and it's hard to find the time to construct such a post.

 

[Walt Disney1955]

Animal Kingdom was 1998. That was 21 years ago. It was a great concept and while I am not always a big fan of over indulging in IP rides I am surprised stuff like Bambi, Jungle Book or Lion King wasn't added as a ride. They'd have made great ones.

But I am honestly not even sure they have the ability to innovate anymore. Everest was the last big non-IP ride and that was 2005. If they can't even add rides that aren't tied to movies how the heck do they fill a park in? The ongoing rumors of classics in the Magic Kingdom having a short shelf life makes you wonder that with all this space how they can't even make that work let alone add a new park. Sorry, who is the one with any imagination anymore in that company? 5 parks would be nice but let's say tomorrow it was announced, would it even be ready by 2025?

 

[larryz]

If they can't even add rides that aren't tied to movies how the heck do they fill a park in?

I'm glad nobody felt that way while they were designing/installing Peter Pan, Mr Toad, Winnie-the-Pooh, Snow White, Dumbo, Etc...

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I'm glad nobody felt that way while they were designing/installing Peter Pan, Mr Toad, Winnie-the-Pooh, Snow White, Dumbo, Etc...

Are you saying that it ISNT a different era?

I’d you’re going to fight the battle on that hill...might want to bring a box with you

 

[wdisney9000]

I personally feel that a main reason to build a 5th gate would be simple guest satisfaction. So many people spend so much money at WDW and it would be good to see them do more than add a land to a park in return. Not saying GE, Pandora and TSL are bad, but having an additional gate would seriously lighten crowds at the existing parks. Especially considering that that keep building resorts to allow more people to stay on property.

 

[larryz]

Are you saying that it ISNT a different era?

I’d you’re going to fight the battle on that hill...might want to bring a box with you

There's nothing to fight about. Everything Disney invents is an IP. Even those rides that "don't have IP" have IP, because Disney invented them. Themed them. Overlaid them.

We've got some people laboring under the misconception that "IP is BAD." My perspective: everything in the parks is Disney IP. And that's why they trademarked everything.

 

[larryz]

I personally feel that a main reason to build a 5th gate would be simple guest satisfaction. So many people spend so much money at WDW and it would be good to see them do more than add a land to a park in return. Not saying GE, Pandora and TSL are bad, but having an additional gate would seriously lighten crowds at the existing parks. Especially considering that that keep building resorts to allow more people to stay on property.

ESPECIALLY if they built the 5th gate based on one of the several Fandoms they now own.

 

[danlb_2000]

But I am honestly not even sure they have the ability to innovate anymore. Everest was the last big non-IP ride and that was 2005. If they can't even add rides that aren't tied to movies how the heck do they fill a park in

It's not a matter of the Imagineers being unable to do this, they just aren't being allowed.

 

[danlb_2000]

There's nothing to fight about. Everything Disney invents is an IP. Even those rides that "don't have IP" have IP, because Disney invented them. Themed them. Overlaid them.

We've got some people laboring under the misconception that "IP is BAD." My perspective: everything in the parks is Disney IP. And that's why they trademarked everything.

When people on these message board refer to "IP" in relation to rides they are almost always talking about theming a ride to an existing IP instead of developing something original specifically for the purposes of the ride.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I personally feel that a main reason to build a 5th gate would be simple guest satisfaction. So many people spend so much money at WDW and it would be good to see them do more than add a land to a park in return. Not saying GE, Pandora and TSL are bad, but having an additional gate would seriously lighten crowds at the existing parks. Especially considering that that keep building resorts to allow more people to stay on property.

But where’s the money in that?

And I dispute they “keep building resorts”. They keep building timeshares - which isn’t the same thing at all.

There's nothing to fight about. Everything Disney invents is an IP. Even those rides that "don't have IP" have IP, because Disney invented them. Themed them. Overlaid them.

We've got some people laboring under the misconception that "IP is BAD." My perspective: everything in the parks is Disney IP. And that's why they trademarked everything.

I just wouldn’t dismiss the very valid worry that going IP crazy will cheapen the parks by building a 60 year old bridge to “people like Peter Pan”

Seems obtuse to the trends and shifts

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

When people on these message board refer to "IP" in relation to rides they are almost always talking about theming a ride to an existing IP instead of developing something original specifically for the purposes of the ride.

Indeed...it’s reckless use that is cautioned...not appropriate use.

Putting the little mermaid ride In fantasy land = good...

Changing Epcot pavilions to flash in the pan franchises = bad

 

[larryz]

When people on these message board refer to "IP" in relation to rides they are almost always talking about theming a ride to an existing IP instead of developing something original specifically for the purposes of the ride.

Ok, in my world, that's saying "They don't like IP if it's IP based on a movie, but IP based on some other fictional thing is OK." I get the distinction, but it's like arguing about whether Granny Smiths are better than Winesaps.

They're all apples. Most people like apples. And most people today don't care if a ride/attraction is movie-based or edutainment. All they know is that it's a Disney park, and OBTW, where the heck are Mickey and Minnie?

 

[danlb_2000]

Ok, in my world, that's saying "They don't like IP if it's IP based on a movie, but IP based on some other fictional thing is OK." I get the distinction, but it's like arguing about whether Granny Smiths are better than Winesaps.

They're all apples.

No, that's not the distinction. Instead of Imagineering being given the freedom to simply create a great attraction (whether it uses an existing IP or is a new idea from scratch) that fits well with where it's going to be built it, they are being given the current hot IP and being told to make it work. The needs of the park, theme of the land, and Imagineers ideas should drive the choice of IP, instead of the choice of IP driving the rest of the process.

 

[larryz]

No, that's not the distinction. Instead of Imagineering being given the freedom to simply create a great attraction (whether it uses an existing IP or is a new idea from scratch) that fits well with where it's going to be built it, they are being given the current hot IP and being told to make it work. The needs of the park, theme of the land, and Imagineers ideas should drive the choice of IP, instead of the choice of IP driving the rest of the process.

That made sense in an age where people could concentrate for more than a minute or two. But in today's climate (to quote someone else), that seems "obtuse to the trends and shifts."

Folks are assuming that today's visitors actually pull their heads out of their phones long enough to care about the theming.

I perceive that they're more concerned about tweeting and twixing and gramming about where they are and how much they spent to get there than about enjoying what they're doing. As long as they can get into the ride before they realize they've spent two hours waiting for a two minute experience, they'll move on to the next line/shop/restaurant without even noticing.

Sadly, their followers are probably having a better time reading about their vacation than THEY are...

 

[Goofyernmost]

When people on these message board refer to "IP" in relation to rides they are almost always talking about theming a ride to an existing IP instead of developing something original specifically for the purposes of the ride.

Sure, but, it still started out as an idea no matter who had it. Disney's part is to take that idea, no matter who had it, and build a great attraction like the other ideas, no matter who had it, that Disney made famous. I know everyone has heard of things like Cinderella, Snow White, Toad, Br'er Rabbit, Mary Poppins and many others that Disney acquired and put the Disney twist on them. It seems like they think that the only legitimate topic has to come from the Disney offices. Almost all had some connection to another thought or idea. Disney really wasn't the first one or group to think about creating a Haunted House or had stories about Pirates. They just made it special due to the magic of Disney.

 

[Goofyernmost]

No, that's not the distinction. Instead of Imagineering being given the freedom to simply create a great attraction (whether it uses an existing IP or is a new idea from scratch) that fits well with where it's going to be built it, they are being given the current hot IP and being told to make it work. The needs of the park, theme of the land, and Imagineers ideas should drive the choice of IP, instead of the choice of IP driving the rest of the process.

Everyone seems to forget that most of the original ideas that we have seen, were generated by one Walter Disney. He lit that one little spark, that made them run with it. They didn't have total freedom to create whatever they wanted to create. Walt had to approve of it and then decide what the end result would be. No one had that kind of freedom. Walt didn't have to be sold on an idea that he basically came up with or approved in kind. He lit the spark and the rest filled in the blanks within the direction of the head man.

After he died and MK and EPCOT were created, it was the same people that Walt had been working with for years. They knew how his mind worked and what he liked and didn't like. Even after death his influence was felt in everyone of them. They are now as dead as Walt or at the very least, long retired. That pre-approved idea machine is no longer working. Eisner and Frank Wells had it for a while then Frank died and so did any blue sky creativity in the company. If it weren't for outside "successful" IP's now, the parks would not exist as we know them. As long as the Imagineers do the job of punching up the ideas Disney style, it should be accepted without unrealistic origin requirement.

 

[danlb_2000]

Everyone seems to forget that most of the original ideas that we have seen, were generated by one Walter Disney. He lit that one little spark, that made them run with it. They didn't have total freedom to create whatever they wanted to create. Walt had to approve of it and then decide what the end result would be. No one had that kind of freedom. Walt didn't have to be sold on an idea that he basically came up with or approved in kind. He lit the spark and the rest filled in the blanks within the direction of the head man.

But there is a big difference between being given an entirely complete creative work and asked to design a ride around it, and being told "I want a haunted house attraction" and designing a attraction/ride around that. Working from an existing IP leave a lot less blanks to fill in.

I personally think it's a mistake to force every new attraction to be based on an existing IP.

 

[Goofyernmost]

But there is a big difference between being given an entirely complete creative work and asked to design a ride around it, and being told "I want a haunted house attraction" and designing a attraction/ride around that. Working from an existing IP leave a lot less blanks to fill in.

I personally think it's a mistake to force every new attraction to be based on an existing IP.

Respectfully, anything ever created in the past or will be created started out as a new idea. Everything is someones IP unless it was left there by aliens. Then, of course, the idea would be alien to us.

 

[JohnD]

There is always a lot of discussion about Disney should put in a "5th gate". Is this something in the realm of possibility?? Is this something Disney is even considering?

No

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Walt Disney did not originate really any theme park ideas other than rough ideas of the original park layout.

To say he’s responsible for the rides is inaccurate and diminishes the team efforts it took to create them.

And it’s not just WDI...arrow development did a lot or the ride systems and got things to work...including the classic dark rides, the onmimover tech and eventually - the Matterhorn and the modern thrill ride