We don't really have a way of gauging whether DAK, in it's original form without IP was considered a success or not.
What do you mean by, "we don't know if DAK was considered successful in its original form without IP?" The park didn't have any more IP in 1998 than it did in 2016. If the park was struggling due to a lack of movie franchises, they could have included that in subsequent expansions to the park. But instead they added a walking trail, Kali River Rapids, and Expedition Everest. The one IP conversion they did, DINOSAUR, was considered a flop and has dated considerably because of the IP it was tied to. Illustrating some of the issues with the IP mandate. Not only can you only use movies in the parks. You can only use a handful of extremely popular movies that have proven successful with audiences. In 2017, DAK added Pandora, but you'll have a hard timd convincing me that it was the tie-in to Avatar that created that land's success, rather than the scale and quality of the land itself. Keep in mind Pandora replaced Camp Minnie Mickey, so what really changed wasn't the addition of IP, it was the addition of a quality new land with a solid E ticket attraction.
Can have value, but do you think it's an equal value or not? What would be a reasoned objection to having an IP mandate, if you think that the two are basically on equal footing? It's just personal preference right?
Some of the best attractions WDI has ever produced have been based on IP. So yes IP attractions can have as much value as original attractions. Again, and I'm sorry but I don't why I have to repeat this... there is no inherent problem IP being in the parks. There always has been IP in the parks, and there always will be. The problem here is the IP mandate. I don't know why I have to explain how it's bad??? My "objection" to it is that it severely limits creativity in the parks and forces IP where it doesn't belong. Like another poster stated, imagine if WDAS were only allowed to produce sequels or adaptations of other intellectual property. If they weren't allowed to create their own original films. This is exactly like that, but for theme parks. It's unequivocally terrible for the artistic medium. It seriously confounds me how someone can argue otherwise.
You said specifically: IP based attractions haven't proven to increase park attendance or to draw longer lines on average. What did you mean by this?
I'm sorry if how I phrased that was confusing...but I meant, "IP based attractions haven't proven to increase park attendance or to draw longer lines on average [than original attractions do]." Which is true, they haven't. As far as we can tell the largest bump in attendance WDW has ever had with the opening of a single new attraction was Expedition Everest in 2006, the only original E-ticket we've been given in the 21st century. The most popular attractions in MK and Disneyland have likewise not been those with IP either. Both original and IP based attractions can and have been popular in the parks
Your thinking here is just too boxed in and limited. If you want to tell a story about space exploration, or exploring new frontiers, you can do that within the context of IP. What I am saying though is that WDI never really made an original attraction that told a story to the same level and degree that the studios told stories. What the two groups do is distinctive and there isn't a lot of overlap between them. Space Mountain doesn't tell a story about space exploration or what it means to be a human in space... it's a roller coaster in the dark. You can create a story about human space exploration and put a video of Buzz Lightyear or Gary Sinise at the entrance, and overall the attraction tells a different story now, but the experience of being a roller coaster in the dark doesn't really change all that much.
Theme park attractions don't tell stories in the same way that films do. But that doesn't mean they're any less artistically valuable. They tell a different kind of story that is just as valuable. They're just different. Theme park attractions are short, but they're immersive and convey stronger feelings to an audience than your TV can in the same amount of time. Space Mountain for instance isn't just a "rollercoaster in the dark." That's a wildly oversimplified take.
And my way of thinking is closed minded? Quite frankly, I'd say yours is. You're making some claims about the art of theme park design that suggests it doesn't possess the same level of creativity that film, TV, etc. More commonly respected mediums of entertainment. I find that not only closed minded, but abjectly false.
African villages do already exist. You can go to them. To real ones. How is it considered MORE creative to just copy something that already exists?
Lol.... yes African villages exist... but Harambe doesn't. It's a fictional place dreampt up by WDI. It's a place governed by artistic direction and themes, not a real world location governed by economy, living situations, etc. This is really just a silly argument.
As for how original attractions are more creative than IP based attractions (all else held equal)... I have explained this before but, 'creative' is defined by google as "relating to or involving the imagination or original ideas, especially in the production of an artistic work." Using your imagination to create new ideas (new "intellectual properties") is more creative than adapting the artistic works someone else has already created.
Anyways. This will probably be my last reply to you man. I think at this point we're sort of running around in circles and not getting anywhere. Until some new information comes out, this thread is gonna kind of be like beating a dead horse.
