News Bluey To Join Disney Experiences at its U.S. Theme Parks and Cruise Line Beginning in 2025

[Stripes]

The switch to the franchise mandate wasn’t something done over time responding incrementally to market conditions and came out of a big success. It came from Iger’s personal inability to understand the appeal of non-franchise content. We got “Non-descript roller coaster themed like India or whatever” from him discussing how he didn’t see the appeal of such things. It came from one guy, not some rational process of evaluation.

Was Iger not involved in the decision to build Mystic Manor, Grizzly Gulch, or Adventure Isle/Roaring Rapids?

Also, hello!

I’m willing to be a complete hypocrite and support Bluey’s Australia Pavilion in World Showcase.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Was Iger not involved in the decision to build Mystic Manor, Grizzly Gulch, or Adventure Isle/Roaring Rapids?

Disney is the minority partner in the Chinese parks.

 

[Stripes]

Disney is the minority partner in the Chinese parks.

I know. The implication that Iger didn’t have absolute control over the design of those projects is unfathomable. Give me a break. In fact, my understanding is that Disney provided all of the capital for the Mystic Manor and Grizzly Gulch expansion, which increased their equity stake in the resort versus the Hong Kong government. Tokyo Disney, a company that is more removed from Iger’s control, has demanded exclusively IP-based attractions from WDI for years, with the lone exception of Soarin’ and, if you count it, Space Mountain 2.0, both of which are proven properties where there is little creative or financial risk.

Speaking of Soarin’, I’m pretty sure Disney is investing quite a bit in filming the new Soarin’ Across America film, a non-IP attraction, as well.

There’s also the Adventureland Treehouse at Disneyland, which although “inspired” by Swiss Family Robinson, it’s basically original as far as I’m concerned.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

Was Iger not involved in the decision to build Mystic Manor, Grizzly Gulch, or Adventure Isle/Roaring Rapids?

I know. The implication that Iger didn’t have absolute control over the design of those projects is unfathomable. Give me a break.

Disney not having full control or say in those parks probably did have some influence in their willingness to commit to certain ideas over others. I don't think it's a coincidence that all examples were for parks they don't own outright.

And even if it didn't, Mystic Manor opened almost 13 years ago, and would have been green lit years earlier.

Disney's reluctance to build or support substantial non IP additions has decreased since than.

Speaking of Soarin’, I’m pretty sure Disney is investing quite a bit in filming the new Soarin’ Across America film, a non-IP attraction, as well.

There’s also the Adventureland Treehouse at Disneyland, which although “inspired” by Swiss Family Robinson, it’s basically original as far as I’m concerned.

If we're including refreshes of existing attractions, I could just as easily point to Mission: Breakout or Frozen Ever After, or Flight Force, or Muppet Rock N Roller Coaster as examples of non-IP or not Disney owned IP rides getting overlays with Disney IP specifically

Again, the IP mandate discussion is about a consistent, noticeable trend over time. Any exceptions are just outliers.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Again, the IP mandate discussion is about a consistent, noticeable trend over time.

It’s not even just noticing a trend. It’s a thing Iger has spoken about publicly and on the record.

 

[AidenRodriguez731]

If people want to settle for crap, that’s fine. Disney likes it. The new Disney Difference. “I can see Elsa. I can see Nick Wilde. I can see bluey.” That’s what matters now. Quality be damned.

The quality.

I can imagine another world where Maelstrom was Frozen first and people are going "Yeah it wasn't a perfect attraction but this was based on a Disney classic and had way more animatronics! Then they strip it to add in less animatronics, a few mannequins, and OIL RIGS??? Then they want to say that this is representative of Norway and make you walk past a big old ad? What a bunch of sell-outs!"

 

[BrianLo]

Was Iger not involved in the decision to build Mystic Manor, Grizzly Gulch, or Adventure Isle/Roaring Rapids?

The mandate change wasn’t triggered day one. It largely arose coming off the performance of Potter and Radiator Springs.

The Hong Kong projects and even Shanghai were under development in a different lifetime. If SDL opened a few years later I’d imagine it would be partially unrecognizable.

 

[Andrew C]

View attachment 897135


The quality.

I can imagine another world where Maelstrom was Frozen first and people are going "Yeah it wasn't a perfect attraction but this was based on a Disney classic and had way more animatronics! Then they strip it to add in less animatronics, a few mannequins, and OIL RIGS??? Then they want to say that this is representative of Norway and make you walk past a big old ad? What a bunch of sell-outs!"

Cool straw man.

 

[Chi84]

Cool straw man.

That’s not a straw man. Do you mean it’s a poor analogy?

 

[AidenRodriguez731]

Cool straw man.

Actuslly I’m pretty sure mannequins are made of plastic not straw, that would be a scarecrow

 

[lazyboy97o]

The mandate change wasn’t triggered day one. It largely arose coming off the performance of Potter and Radiator Springs.

The Hong Kong projects and even Shanghai were under development in a different lifetime. If SDL opened a few years later I’d imagine it would be partially unrecognizable.

It was very much a day one thing and not a process.

The entire Disney’s California Adventure rebuild project very much involved not just updating the visuals of the entrance and Paradise Pier but also slapping Disney characters on to them.

 

[BrianLo]

It was very much a day one thing and not a process.

Then at least a successful campaign bringing down the partners to their level. Maybe Miral will surprise me? I don't see anything original going forward out of the Asian parks anymore.

 

[MisterPenguin]

Then at least a successful campaign bringing down the partners to their level. Maybe Miral will surprise me? I don't see anything original going forward out of the Asian parks anymore.

Well, Tokyo very specifically wanted Disney IP. That's why they licensed Disney IP rather than build a non-IP theme park.

And when they experimented a bit into IP-less attractions, they turned back and doubled down on Disney IP with Fantasy Springs.

 

[Comped]

Disney could, under relatively new laws in China (and Hong Kong) buy out the remainder of the stakes they do not own in either park. They simply see no reason to do so...

 

[Stripes]

Again, the IP mandate discussion is about a consistent, noticeable trend over time. Any exceptions are just outliers.

It’s not even just noticing a trend. It’s a thing Iger has spoken about publicly and on the record.

I am not disputing the IP “trend” or whatever you want to call it. My assertion is that the IP trend/mandate wasn’t made by Bob Iger for ideological or close-minded reasons, but rather a financial analysis of the performance of IP-based attractions versus original story attractions came to the conclusion that IP-based attractions simply outperform original attractions.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

I am not disputing the IP “trend” or whatever you want to call it. My assertion is that the IP trend/mandate wasn’t made by Bob Iger for ideological or close-minded reasons, but rather a financial analysis of the performance of IP-based attractions versus original story attractions came to the conclusion that IP-based attractions simply outperform original attractions.

There's no real evidence to support this because Disney overwhelming only builds IP attractions, and as such, hasn't really had any point of comparison to draw such conclusions from over the last 20 years. If anything, the enduring popularity of older, non IP staples like Big Thunder Mountain and Spaceship Earth over things like Little Mermaid suggests guests are capable of drawing their own conclusions on quality if presented with more options.

@lazyboy97o already pointed out that Everest cost far less than subsequent IP rides to build, and that Iger made up his mind long ago, without much analysis or understanding, that IP rides were simply better.

You're falling into the same trap so many Disney fans do. Thinking that because corporate Disney decides to do something, must mean that it was the most logical option to select. Or that past failures were because of the last guy in charge (Chapek, Eisner, Ron Miller) and as long as the current CEO keeps his job it must be because he's doing everything right.

That ignores the entire history of the company, one fraught with poor financial decisions and assumptions about their audience and expectations, and was impacted negatively or positively by external factors beyond its control

 

[lazyboy97o]

I am not disputing the IP “trend” or whatever you want to call it. My assertion is that the IP trend/mandate wasn’t made by Bob Iger for ideological or close-minded reasons, but rather a financial analysis of the performance of IP-based attractions versus original story attractions came to the conclusion that IP-based attractions simply outperform original attractions.

The “non-descript roller coaster themed like India or whatever” was a huge financial success. That phrase came from him discussing his views. What’s this hypothetical data set? Disney’s California Adventure versus what? Expedition Everest versus Buzz Lightyear Astro Blasters?

 

[Animaniac93-98]

Disney’s California Adventure versus what?

The parking lot?

 

[Brer Panther]

The parking lot?

Didn't the Disneyland parking lot that California Adventure replaced have sections named after Disney characters? If so, does that make it "IP-based"?

 

[Stripes]

@lazyboy97o already pointed out that Everest cost far less than subsequent IP rides to build, and that Iger made up his mind long ago, without much analysis or understanding, that IP rides were simply better.

This assumes that original attractions would cost less than IP-based attractions today, which is obviously a dubious, nonsensical claim.

You're falling into the same trap so many Disney fans do. Thinking that because corporate Disney decides to do something, must mean that it was the most logical option to select. Or that past failures were because of the last guy in charge (Chapek, Eisner, Ron Miller) and as long as the current CEO keeps his job it must be because he's doing everything right.

That ignores the entire history of the company, one fraught with poor financial decisions and assumptions about their audience and expectations, and was impacted negatively or positively by external factors beyond its control

I don’t assume anything. However, I look at the industry as a whole. Whether it’s Disney, Universal, OLC, etc. everybody that can get their hands on popular IP, focuses almost exclusively on IP-based attractions. That’s not a coincidence. Is there any doubt that Miral will have the same demands?

I mean, you’re twisting yourself into a pretzel to argue that original attractions were more financially successful than IP-based attractions, when all of the evidence including Disney’s own ROIC calculations of IP-based attractions (which, as you pointed out, cost significantly more to build than attractions used to) show a near tripling of their return on investment.

The “non-descript roller coaster themed like India or whatever” was a huge financial success. That phrase came from him discussing his views. That phrase came from him discussing his views. What’s this hypothetical data set? Disney’s California Adventure versus what? Expedition Everest versus Buzz Lightyear Astro Blasters?

Surely you recognize how ROIC creates a fair comparison of the financial results of of original projects and their IP-based counterparts.

The full quote is as follows:

“The acquisition of these brands and the creation of intellectual property behind them have had a tremendous impact on growing our returns at the parks. When you have Star Wars to market at the parks...Avatar is a good example, Cars Land, we’re building a Frozen land in [Hong Kong, Tokyo and Paris parks], the interest among the potential audience is higher. It’s not like “I’m going to ride some nondescript coaster somewhere, that maybe is [themed like] India or whatever.” No, you’re going to Arendelle and you’re going to experience Frozen with Anna and Elsa. Or you’re going to fly a banshee into Pandora. Go to Cars Land. We built Radiator Springs. You’re with the characters in that town.

The success of these has allowed us to raise our margins significantly. There’s just more demand for our product than there ever was, because people are coming not just to visit a theme park, they’re coming to experience the stories and the characters, the places, that were part of the movies they loved.

The investment cycle that we’re in is a reflection of that success. Our ROIC, it’s not quite triple where we were, but it’s certainly above our cost of capital. And it’s a good place to put our money.“

I’m willing to be a complete hypocrite and support Bluey’s Australia Pavilion in World Showcase.

You and I both know that an Australia pavilion would be more successful with Bluey than without her.