News Disney CFO Christine McCarthy says Disney will continue to focus on existing intellectual property for new park investments

[JD80]

That should be step one for sure. Fun and entertaining will make or break a ride, ip or not. Mermaid didn't benefit from ip. Just like thunder mountain wouldn't benefit from a woody toy story makeover.

I'd say yes and no. If they really thought that way, Princess and the frog would not be a thing going to the parks. Or tron for that matter. Now Frozen on the other hand, of course it should be in the parks. But then we get into if they did all the work with Frozen, why shoehorn it in Norway? All the things you mentioned say it should have a much grander attraction. And that's where so much of the ip pushback comes from. It's the inconsistent nature of how Disney uses it.

Welcome to corporate budgets. Nothing operates in a vacuum.

 

[SpectreJordan]

Sure, but now that version of the Guardians is now over, so does Cosmic Rewind become more dated with time? Does it feel out of place if you're a big Guardians fan?

I always feel that's the risk with an IP-focus - you're betting on something popular now being popular later.

Guardians has the benefit of being a superhero franchise, which can potentially be evergreen (Spidey, Batman, Superman & X-Men for example). They just gotta keep producing comics, cartoons & games inbetween film series reboots to keep it in the public conscious.

It's the animated movies that pose more of a risk. The good ones will always remain sort of relevant. But like the kind of relevant that would support a single ride, not an entire land. Frozen is super popular right now, but there's going to be another princess who overtakes Elsa in popularity & then those Frozen lands lose a lot of relevance.

Stuff like Tron might as well be an original IP now with how irrelevant it is. The original bombed & Legacy was only a mild hit, I can't believe it got a ride. Even if the idea of riding a Lightcycle is awesome.

 

[BlakeW39]

Guardians has the benefit of being a superhero franchise, which can potentially be evergreen (Spidey, Batman, Superman & X-Men for example). They just gotta keep producing comics, cartoons & games inbetween film series reboots to keep it in the public conscious.

It's the animated movies that pose more of a risk. The good ones will always remain sort of relevant. But like the kind of relevant that would support a single ride, not an entire land. Frozen is super popular right now, but there's going to be another princess who overtakes Elsa in popularity & then those Frozen lands lose a lot of relevance.

Stuff like Tron might as well be an original IP now with how irrelevant it is. The original bombed & Legacy was only a mild hit, I can't believe it got a ride. Even if the idea of riding a Lightcycle is awesome.

For sure. Single IPs don't have the long-lasting appeal of broader themes like adventure or futurism. That's one of the reasons I've never been a huge fan of single IP lands, outside of ones based on the super popular IPs like Star Wars, HP, and Marvel. But we don't need an entire land devoted to 'Zootopia' which has already kind of been overtaken in popularity by newer animated films like Encanto.

 

[Kamikaze]

Except for Tron so far.

Eh, I'm not sure if you can say that. There was definitely a rush & it definitely has changed crowdflow through the park. Plus it would be a complete disaster with Splash offline without it. But MK essentially is stable with attendance always, so its hard to tell in that particular park.

 

[Kamikaze]

Sure, but now that version of the Guardians is now over, so does Cosmic Rewind become more dated with time? Does it feel out of place if you're a big Guardians fan?

I always feel that's the risk with an IP-focus - you're betting on something popular now being popular later.

In the Marvel Theme Park Universe, (yes its a thing) the story changes at the snap (never happens) so its a branch timeline, meaning the team stays together.

 

[BlakeW39]

Eh, I'm not sure if you can say that. There was definitely a rush & it definitely has changed crowdflow through the park. Plus it would be a complete disaster with Splash offline without it. But MK essentially is stable with attendance always, so its hard to tell in that particular park.

The fact that Disney would rather base an attraction on an irrelevant IP like TRON, as opposed to basing an attraction on any original concept at all, is proof of how creatively bankrupt their parks are.

But yes, I agree with you.

 

[SpectreJordan]

And yet, at this point in time, I trust Universal's leadership with regards to what goes in their parks more than I do Disney and what goes into theirs.

Why? On the Disney side, 1- Killing Great Movie Ride to put in a fun, kid focused ride that could and should have gone elsewhere. 2- Their watering down of Epcot, and 3- Taking the Toy Story franchise and building one good coaster but adding two carnival rides as supporting attractions.

All this does not bode well, IMHO, for the future of DAK, the Studios, or the MK. (Epcot is already too far gone even though I love the place.)

On the Universal side, recent additions have been top notch- Velocicoaster, anything Potter, and the upcoming work of Minions land.

This is lowkey disingenuous. I could hype up Pandora, Galaxy's Edge & Cosmic Rewind while going "Dohoho look at Universal adding Jimmy Fallon & Fast & Furious! They took down Shrek to push Minions more! Woody Woodpecker's gone for Dreamworks shilling!"

Both have done fantastic things in recent years, but they've had some duds as well. It's gray, not black & white.

 

[Jrb1979]

This is lowkey disingenuous. I could hype up Pandora, Galaxy's Edge & Cosmic Rewind while going "Dohoho look at Universal adding Jimmy Fallon & Fast & Furious! They took down Shrek to push Minions more! Woody Woodpecker's gone for Dreamworks shilling!"

Both have done fantastic things in recent years, but they've had some duds as well. It's gray, not black & white.

Yes they have had some duds I will say Epic Universe though looks like it will be a hit with a lot of amazing attractions.

That is my issue with Disney more than the IP debate. They just don't build amazing attractions in the US parks. The great ones go to international parks.

 

[SpectreJordan]

For sure. Single IPs don't have the long-lasting appeal of broader themes like adventure or futurism. That's one of the reasons I've never been a huge fan of single IP lands, outside of ones based on the super popular IPs like Star Wars, HP, and Marvel. But we don't need an entire land devoted to 'Zootopia' which has already kind of been overtaken in popularity by newer animated films like Encanto.

I think you need a universe with tons of stories so that replacing rides is easier. Honestly, Potter could struggle with that in the future if they don't expand that franchise in ways that connect with people. Fantastic Beasts was a flop & the series is still just those original stories 25 years later. It's pretty sad, that series should've expanded massively the same way Star Wars did.

Yes they have had some duds I will say Epic Universe though looks like it will be a hit with a lot of amazing attractions.

That is my issue with Disney more than the IP debate. They just don't build amazing attractions in the US parks. The great ones go to international parks.

Epic Universe looks fantastic. I imagine there'll be an attraction or two that's mid, but Nintendo Land looks fantastic elsewhere so I'm hoping the whole park is on that level.

I definitely disagree with the latter though.

 

[BlakeW39]

I think you need a universe with tons of stories so that replacing rides is easier. Honestly, Potter could struggle with that in the future if they don't expand that franchise in ways that connect with people. Fantastic Beasts was a flop & the series is still just those original stories 25 years later. It's pretty sad, that series should've expanded massively the same way Star Wars did.

Agreed. I actually think a third Harry Potter land is too much. The Ministry of Magic doesn't interest me very much as a location for a theme park.

Singular films don't deserve entire lands. Moana in particular doesn't warrant her own land, even though that film is more relevant than Zootopia. It's still just one animated movie from 2016. A ride, great. An entire land? Unnecessary.

 

[Jrb1979]

I think you need a universe with tons of stories so that replacing rides is easier. Honestly, Potter could struggle with that in the future if they don't expand that franchise in ways that connect with people. Fantastic Beasts was a flop & the series is still just those original stories 25 years later. It's pretty sad, that series should've expanded massively the same way Star Wars did.

Epic Universe looks fantastic. I imagine there'll be an attraction or two that's mid, but Nintendo Land looks fantastic elsewhere so I'm hoping the whole park is on that level.

I definitely disagree with the latter though.

Remy is very meh, Guardians, while fun isn't mindblowing, Tron is nothing special either and Moana is a waste.

 

[Dead2009]

So I need to just keep wall-e, fox and the hound, and muppets on repeat and 1000s of others do this as well, and I can get rides built for them?

Ill be sure to watch Alien on repeat then.

 

[el_super]

Thanks. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but that is a similar amount to DAK no? Characters and IP exist, but the majority of attractions are not based on movies. So if the primary reason as to why DCA failed was a lack of IP..... why didn't the same issue cause problems in DAK? It's no more "Disney" right now than it ever was.

Isn't it still the least attended WDW park? Maybe Pandora fixed that, but it certainly had its share of problems.

Well I was just making the simple point that original attractions can be successful. Since there are original attractions currently in the park that are currently successful, I think that reflects the idea that original attractions currently have the potential to succeed.

It really depends here on how you define successful and over what period of time. It's easy to say that something like Carousel of Progress is successful because it still gets enough traffic to justify the maintenance expense on it (although admittedly, even that sounds questionable). That success over the course of 50 years though, doesn't equate to successful theme park design and development in 2023.

 

[SpectreJordan]

Agreed. I actually think a third Harry Potter land is too much. The Ministry of Magic doesn't interest me very much as a location for a theme park.

Singular films don't deserve entire lands. Moana in particular doesn't warrant her own land, even though that film is more relevant than Zootopia. It's still just one animated movie from 2016. A ride, great. An entire land? Unnecessary.

We'll have to see what those plans actually are. If they're smart then Moana is just a ride in an island themed area. Zootopia seems like it's just that small area where Dinosaurs's at currently.

Lands for either isn't wise unless they become these big franchises with the potential for tons of different stories.

Remy is very meh, Guardians, while fun isn't mindblowing, Tron is nothing special either and Moana is a waste.

I think Remy would do its job better if it wasn't a C ticket operating at E ticket levels. It's a nice little dark ride. I think the wait times that thing gets goes to show how desperately EPCOT needs more rides or shows.

I'm in the camp that absolutely loves Guardians. It doesn't belong in EPCOT, but it's a hell of a ride. I think alot of more casual park fans are in that camp too.

No comment on Tron yet since I haven't rode it, but the short length makes me think I'll be disappointed in it.

 

[el_super]

The fact that Disney would rather base an attraction on an irrelevant IP like TRON, as opposed to basing an attraction on any original concept at all, is proof of how creatively bankrupt their parks are.

I don't get it.

If the inherent property of being an IP attraction is that I go into it knowing the characters and backstory, having an attraction built on an irrelevant IP (where the audience doesn't know the characters or backstory) puts that attraction on the same creative level as an "original" attraction where they developed everyone separate from the franchise.

Believing that original attractions somehow have more value than IP focused ones, creates this weird backwards math where, as an IP slowly fades from the zeitgeist, the value to the theme park audience should go up. People that tend to believe that original attractions have more value though, tend to argue exactly the opposite: that the IP will fade and the attraction, in a state close to being original, would be worthless.

 

[BlakeW39]

Isn't it still the least attended WDW park? Maybe Pandora fixed that, but it certainly had its share of problems.

Before Pandora opened, DAK had similar attendance to DHS. The year prior to Pandora's opening DAK actually had higher annual attendance. Additionally, EPCOT had higher attendance than either long before its IP rethemes occurred.

Also, Magic Kingdom's most popular rides are not based on IP. Ditto for most of the Disney Parks classics in general.

It really depends here on how you define successful and over what period of time.

Does it though? No matter how you define success, and no matter what time period you define it over, Disney has always had highly successful original attractions. Pirates, Haunted Mansion, Space Mountain, etc. The most popular attractions in the most popular theme parks on earth.

When Animal Kingdom was being built, they could have made Harambe a Lion King land instead. It would have had plenty of cross marketing appeal, just like IP does today. But they didn't, becausd they realized there are more important things in a park than, hey look it's that one movie! Or, oh look it's Simba. Quality matters. I for one am glad we got Harambe as opposed to some tacky land based on TLK (which, BTW, is one of my favorite movies).

 

[BlakeW39]

I don't get it.

If the inherent property of being an IP attraction is that I go into it knowing the characters and backstory, having an attraction built on an irrelevant IP (where the audience doesn't know the characters or backstory) puts that attraction on the same creative level as an "original" attraction where they developed everyone separate from the franchise.

Believing that original attractions somehow have more value than IP focused ones, creates this weird backwards math where, as an IP slowly fades from the zeitgeist, the value to the theme park audience should go up. People that tend to believe that original attractions have more value though, tend to argue exactly the opposite: that the IP will fade and the attraction, in a state close to being original, would be worthless.

I never said original attractions have more "value" than IP attractions, and I'm unclear what "value" means in this context. I said the fact that TWDC would rather usr an irrelevant IP with no draw, than come up with an original idea, is proof of how creatively bankrupt they are. And it is. Coming up with new ideas is more creative than using ones that already exist.

 

[el_super]

Before Pandora opened, DAK had similar attendance to DHS.

Sure, but does that mean that it didn't have any problems? Zootopia and Moana being targeted at DAK seem to suggest that there are still problems at DAK that they are trying to address... right?

Does it though? No matter how you define success, and no matter what time period you define it over, Disney has always had highly successful original attractions. Pirates, Haunted Mansion, Space Mountain, etc. The most popular attractions in the most popular theme parks on earth.

It would be great to have the data that shows how successful those attractions really are in today's world. Whether people really do spend and plan a Disney vacation around going on Pirates for the 50th time, or whether they are really going to see the new stuff. Having the old stuff around is great, but is it actually pushing people toward booking those vacations? Probably not.

But you know who does have those numbers? Bob Iger.

I never said original attractions have more "value" than IP attractions, and I'm unclear what "value" means in this context.

You have implied it several times, when you initially stated that IP attractions are not more likely to succeed and then doubled down by claiming that IP attractions do not increase attendance. But you have not been able to define why an IP focused attraction, that just comes with an extra layer of familiarity, is supposed to somehow be at a disadvantage than an original attraction.

I said the fact that TWDC would rather usr an irrelevant IP with no draw, than come up with an original idea, is proof of how creatively bankrupt they are. And it is. Coming up with new ideas is more creative than using ones that already exist.

You know.... the more I think about where you are trying to come from here the more and more it sounds off.

I don't think WDI has ever been creative at the level you seem to want them to be. WDI very rarely ever created attractions with full backstories and character development and core themes to the degree that you seem to think they should be doing. For most of their existence, their attraction development centered around the idea of you being in a place and just a bunch of things (usually in the form of sight gags) happen to you.

That type of experience making still happens on attractions whether they have an IP or not. You don't have to know who Jack Sparrow is to understand that there are pirates in the town. You don't have to know who Anna and Elsa are to know you are being invited to an ice castle. You don't have to know what the Twilight Zone is to know that it's a spooky place you probably don't want to be. WDI still has to create a physical place, show sets, and sight gags in order to pull of those attractions and the IP at that point is just icing on the cake.

I get that some people don't like icing, but suggesting that cakes are better off if no one gets icing is wrong.

 

[BlakeW39]

Sure, but does that mean that it didn't have any problems? Zootopia and Moana being targeted at DAK seem to suggest that there are still problems at DAK that they are trying to address... right?

I don't really understand what you're getting at here^^

I don't believe Moana or Zootopia will fix any supposed "problems" with DAK, whatever you believe those are. Does Bob Iger think DAK has problems and wants to fix them with Zootopia/Moana... I don't know? I can't possibly speak on his specific motivations regarding that decision.

You have implied it several times, when you initially stated that IP attractions are not more likely to succeed and then doubled down by claiming that IP attractions do not increase attendance. But you have not been able to define why an IP focused attraction, that just comes with an extra layer of familiarity, is supposed to somehow be at a disadvantage than an original attraction.

No, I haven't. I never said original attractions have more 'value' than IP attractions do. To the contrary, I have made it very clear that IP attractions can have value. I don't have an issue with IP, I have an issue with the IP mandate. I have said that 10000 times.

I also never said IP attractions don't increase attendance... that's a misrepresentation my argument. My point wasn't that IP attractions don't increase attendance, my point was that original attractions can as well. I also didn't say IP attractions are at a disadvantage to original attractions, other than the fact that their premise in my opinion has less broad appeal.

You know.... the more I think about where you are trying to come from here the more and more it sounds off.

I don't think WDI has ever been creative at the level you seem to want them to be. WDI very rarely ever created attractions with full backstories and character development and core themes to the degree that you seem to think they should be doing. For most of their existence, their attraction development centered around the idea of you being in a place and just a bunch of things (usually in the form of sight gags) happen to you.

That type of experience making still happens on attractions whether they have an IP or not. You don't have to know who Jack Sparrow is to understand that there are pirates in the town. You don't have to know who Anna and Elsa are to know you are being invited to an ice castle. You don't have to know what the Twilight Zone is to know that it's a spooky place you probably don't want to be. WDI still has to create a physical place, show sets, and sight gags in order to pull of those attractions and the IP at that point is just icing on the cake.

I get that some people don't like icing, but suggesting that cakes are better off if no one gets icing is wrong.

Your take that WDI has never been creative in the way I'm claiming is a bizarre take and one I strongly disagree with.

The IP mandate by definition limits the creativity in WDI and the kinds of attractions they can design. Because the number of popular IPs Disney owns is very limited compared to the infinite number of ideas WDI creatives could come up with if WDC executives allowed them.

Again. It's the difference between the world building that exists in Harambe, and that never happening because execs thought WDI should just use what already exists instead. "Just make a land based on The Lion King." Yes they still have to design the land as a physical space, but all the thematic richness created specifically for Harambe would have never happened. The themes of the land would just be whatever 'themes' already exist in the film setting they're trying to replicate.

 

[Jrb1979]

Sure, but does that mean that it didn't have any problems? Zootopia and Moana being targeted at DAK seem to suggest that there are still problems at DAK that they are trying to address... right?




It would be great to have the data that shows how successful those attractions really are in today's world. Whether people really do spend and plan a Disney vacation around going on Pirates for the 50th time, or whether they are really going to see the new stuff. Having the old stuff around is great, but is it actually pushing people toward booking those vacations? Probably not.

But you know who does have those numbers? Bob Iger.



You have implied it several times, when you initially stated that IP attractions are not more likely to succeed and then doubled down by claiming that IP attractions do not increase attendance. But you have not been able to define why an IP focused attraction, that just comes with an extra layer of familiarity, is supposed to somehow be at a disadvantage than an original attraction.




You know.... the more I think about where you are trying to come from here the more and more it sounds off.

I don't think WDI has ever been creative at the level you seem to want them to be. WDI very rarely ever created attractions with full backstories and character development and core themes to the degree that you seem to think they should be doing. For most of their existence, their attraction development centered around the idea of you being in a place and just a bunch of things (usually in the form of sight gags) happen to you.

That type of experience making still happens on attractions whether they have an IP or not. You don't have to know who Jack Sparrow is to understand that there are pirates in the town. You don't have to know who Anna and Elsa are to know you are being invited to an ice castle. You don't have to know what the Twilight Zone is to know that it's a spooky place you probably don't want to be. WDI still has to create a physical place, show sets, and sight gags in order to pull of those attractions and the IP at that point is just icing on the cake.

I get that some people don't like icing, but suggesting that cakes are better off if no one gets icing is wrong.

When Epcot debuted was when WDI was at its best. Those opening day attractions IMO blow away just about anything they have build today. They were well themed, has great AAs and had great stories.