A Spirited Perfect Ten

[Funmeister]

I agree, it's a very "Disney fan" viewpoint and doesn't accurately reflect what is happening, nor does it reflect the realities of the times they are comparing to, or even the history of the company.

There are so many reasons that is true, but the main one with Marvel in particular is precisely as you say - the comic books that these films are based upon are no closer to their film counterparts created under Disney ownership than Snow White or Cinderella are to their source materials. They just didn't need to be paid for because of their age. And Disney himself certainly had no problem purchasing other folks stories - Peter Pan, Mary Poppins.

This myth that somehow the Walt Disney Company is known for creating unique or original stories is just that - a myth. I'm not saying that I think the Marvel films, for example, are of that same caliber quality - but this "they aren't Disney" is just a product of the Internet age and rose colored blinders about the history of the company. They have been mining existing stories since the beginning of feature film production.

Lucasfilm is a bit different, but let's face it - it's the biggest IP of all time, it pretty much invented the concept of "franchise", and it was the coup of the century to bring it under the Disney banner because there never really were two more perfect matches in terms of IP strength and corporate ecosystem to support it. Even the prequels couldn't kill it - they still made billions.

Peter Pan and Mary Poppins became more popular after the received the creative Disney treatment.

Pixar, Marvel and Lucas were already popular on their own creative laurels without Disney.

Disney did nothing creative to those properties to make them successful...they already were.

PP and MP were already popular but not nearly on the same scale. It was the Disney creative force that really boosted their popularity.

 

[Funmeister]

Wouldnt anybody any company hired or 'purchased' generally be creative before being hired?

That is not the argument.

 

[flyerjab]

Here is another article I found that I thought was interesting. I believe that it is older (2012) but it is still more than relevant to what has been going on regarding the development of the idea of a Shanghai park and how Disney is going about its business. I does highlight that even thought he Shendi Group is the majority owner, the Disney Company still owns the majority of the overall managing group that controls the decision rights to the theme park.

http://www.amcham-shanghai.org/amchamportal/InfoVault_Library/2012/Insight-Mickey-takes-Shanghai.pdf

 

[culturenthrills]

I'm looking forward to The Winter Pam myself.

 

[truecoat]

UNI does a lot of things right as of late, but they dropped the ball big time with the 25th Anniversary. A major milestone and what are they doing to celebrate? Where's the unique entertainment or merchandise?

This is something Disney does better. Just look at the 60th in California.

Or the 25th @ Epcot. Oh, wait...

 

[Mike S]

Or the 25th @ Epcot. Oh, wait...

Or the 40th of MK. Cupcakes all around!!!!!!!

 

[Bairstow]

UNI does a lot of things right as of late, but they dropped the ball big time with the 25th Anniversary. A major milestone and what are they doing to celebrate? Where's the unique entertainment or merchandise?

This is something Disney does better. Just look at the 60th in California.

Maybe, maybe not.
Universal may be underplaying their anniversary on purpose
Celebrating a 25th anniversary also means admitting that your theme park is 25 years old.
That's kind of off-message for a park that attracts people by being new and different, not banking on nostalgia.

 

[invader]

Maybe, maybe not.
Universal may be underplaying their anniversary on purpose
Celebrating a 25th anniversary also means admitting that your theme park is 25 years old.
That's kind of off-message for a park that attracts people by being new and different, not banking on nostalgia.

I was thinking this mixed with the fact that they know there isn't really a market for 25th anniversary merch. The only reason Disney religiously does anniversary celebrations is because they know lifestylers will line up for four hours to pay 25 dollars for a pin that marks a date on a calendar. Uni has a fan base but I don't see them being that crazy.

 

[culturenthrills]

Look at UNI's merchandise? They have great stuff. And it isn't just Potter. If you want Simpsons, or Transformers or Marvel or simple movie items or resort stuff. It's not the same in every store.

To be fair, DAK has some wonderful stuff as does World Showcase (about the only two places I buy stuff that isn't Property Control or an outlet store). But beyond that merchandise, which often is priced quite reasonably before an AP or CM discount, it's the same Disney crap whether you are at Pop Century, the Contemporary, the Emporium or basically anywhere else. Nothing is unique or location specific because heaven forbid that some 380-pounder has to walk to a shop in Fantasyland or the back of the Studios to buy it.

The only annoying thing is that the Potter merchandise is now being sold in other locations, even now has a kiosk in Citywalk. But at least it seems the are only allowed to sell certain kinds of Potter stuff outside of DA and Hogsmeade or that just goes to show you the diversity and shear amount of all the Potter merchandise available especially since the opening of DA. And let's not even talk about an entire shop devoted to villains. I remember a shop like that at Disney that seems to be filled with mostly Jack merchandise now.

 

[culturenthrills]

I generally agree, although some UNI locations still have issues. Cowfish was good, but not all that special and the service flat out sucked, even though I liked our server. Antojitos is phenomenal for Mexican in Florida, though. I honestly don't think I've had better here in a very long time.

Cowfish has been hit or miss. It was great the first time and it has been ok the last two times I have been. To me it is a little overrated and overpriced. Antojitos has been excellent both times I have been. Gotta say it looks like the NBC Sports Grill is gonna put that dinky ESPN Club to shame. It still boggles my mind they never built an ESPN Zone/club at Downtown Disney. Talk about leaving money on the table.

 

[AEfx]

I think it's because Marvel most likely would've been making the same movies whether Disney bought them or not. Except for "I've got no strings" being in the Ultron trailers of course which I think fit perfectly (I haven't seen the actual movie yet). That's how I see that argument anyway. Would The Force Awakens have been made the same way without Disney though?

I'm not so sure it's that simple. It's not about adding surface or overt Disney references. It's the coordination and the synergy between the franchise that is what Disney as a company I believe is responsible for. That's such a loaded corporate word due to misuse, but it's the most accurate term to describe what Disney brings to the table. And when it's done correctly, it benefits the company and the consumers who buy the product at the same time.

With both Marvel and Star Wars, even Pixar, I think of it like this: Disney has built this factory, a one stop shop for film, television, and merchandising. They are the unquestionable "kings" of that arena, no one has the experience or relationships they do, with vendors, manufacturers, distribution, networks, basically everything from the top on down as to how you manage an IP.

There is no one better at Disney at what Disney does, the infrastructure is the model others try (and blunder) at emulating. The Harry Potter films, for example, were really poorly merchandised - they just slapped some promo pics on generic products, there was such a missed potential for a decade of films - which is one reason Universal benefits so because they finally are merchandising Potter the way it always could have been.

Even Lucasfilm, the House that Action Figures Built, wasn't leveraged to the fullest benefit because Lucasfilm had really just become a licensor with who made lawyers very busy but had no real creative direction. That's why Lucasfilm was sold, they couldn't keep supporting the entire company on ancillary Star Wars anymore, they had to go back into the feature film business and Lucas just didn't want to - thank the sky above - spend another ten years of his life making a new trilogy.

That's why I think you see the credit given for their purchases the way you do - they greatly expanded the audience for Disney and were incredibly appropriate to take advantage of the machine Disney has built. While on the surface yes, in some ways a good amount of what Disney has output is for "all ages", that's it's limitation as well. Let's face it - the majority of what Disney output through this factory they created was aimed at the 10-and-under set, enough to keep parents from being totally bored, and nostalgic adult fans.

They had that market by the you-know-whats, but now they have opened up the market for "Disney" product under Marvel and Lucasfilm to a much broader and just as financially lucrative audience using the expertise they developed in making product aimed mostly at grade-school and under children. There were exceptions that were able to break past that, but they were the exceptions, not the rule. Sort of like how sometimes a country song becomes a massive cross-over hit, but by and large - the audience overall for country doesn't change.

That's why they were masterstroke purchases, and so appropriate for Disney to buy as no other company had the expertise and resources to do what they are doing with them. Traditionally, they would have "Disney-fied" any property they acquired, and that's the other half - they didn't try to change the IP's to suit their existing audience, they used their resources to greatly expand past the audience Disney has traditionally targeted. That's smart business.

 

[Ariel1986]

Sounds like your priorities are right where they should be Although I notice a disturbing omission from that list... if you're from the UK, you do realise it's your moral obligation to visit DLP as much as possible, right? ;-)

More seriously - I suspect WDW really depends on the 3-week on-siters... Even if they stray to Uni for a day or two, they'll be spending most of their time at WDW, and even if they spend less per-day than a 3-day guest, the total spend is pretty huge.

Just as an example, that day hitting the shops in O-Town's malls is going to look a lot less attractive if the prices are higher than back home... And the extra per-diem cost will reduce the justification for longer trips.

I guess there'll be a delayed effect since most bookings are done way in advance... But they must be concerned by the fact they're selectively discouraging their most profitable guests from visiting.

Actually... I was in DLP 8 days ago! (Currently in the middle of writing a Trip Report in the Trip Reports section!). I've been there many times... but mostly in the 90's. It did seem special then and I used to love visiting. I've only been twice in the last 10 years, 2011 and then last week. And I have to say though, even with re-investment (and I know there is a lot ongoing now, as well as more to come) that it still is in pretty rough shape- we just spent a day there, but it was enough for the time being. A lot of the problems that people people complain about here regarding WDW are a lot worse in DLP- maintenance, cleanliness, customer service, expense... we're not really inclined to go back for quite a long time.

Whereas, we still find a lot of value in Orlando, which is why we still spend 2-3 weeks there. Not all onsite, but often at least half the time. They're not discouraging us yet... so that's where I will disagree with you. Maybe if we only went to Disney and exclusively Disney for all our holidays it might decrease in value and appeal to us, I don't know. I honestly haven't noticed a huge bump-up in prices in our on-site stays in the last 5 years. So for now we're still happy to visit!
When in DLP I kept thinking- now I can see chipped paint, faded buildings, holes in the pavement, filthy restrooms, rude CM's, litter, a lack of atmosphere, QS meals that were 3x the price of those in the US parks... And this is what is described of WDW, yet when I'm at WDW myself, I honestly do not see most if not all of the main complaints. I can see them in DLP so I'm not a crazy brand addict... so I don't know.

I also don't think the other people who book far out and come once every few years for weeks at a time will stop coming for a while yet... I think Disney is already seen/presumed as expensive and the "big trip". And when you visit infrequently it's still "fresh" because it's been a while since you've visited, so you're ready to do the "same things" again, as well as the few newer experiences. There's a lot to be said for the "American experience" element when visiting Orlando from abroad also... which personally adds to the experience for me and other people I know who visit.

The dollar has fallen recently but not enough for prices to be higher than back home... I'm not sure that will happen really... Everything always appears cheaper! It may become similar in price perhaps, I don't think that prices will ever be more expensive than in the UK! Well, except for UK products in the US supermarkets! HOW much for a tin of baked beans and a jar of Marmite?!

Edited to add: I guess I'm more of a grey area person- I don't see why everything has to be "Disney is awesome" vs "Disney is rubbish- look at all the other places you could go instead! Why would anyone go or waste their money?!" instead of "There's lots of great things and places to see all over... you could go to this state which is great, or this country which is great, or experience this unique thing over here... or, if you're looking for a theme park holiday, Disney/Orlando is a great place to go."
Disney is still far ahead of a lot of theme park resort destinations (not getting into a Uni vs Disney debate, I like and enjoy both tremendously). For example, as I have recently seen- Disneyland Paris. WDW is miles ahead. And so if a theme park resort holiday is what you're wanting to go for, then Orlando is the place to visit. If it's not, then go somewhere else, of course! Or, like we do... do both.

 

[AEfx]

They've had a few concerts to celebrate the 25th, but nothing other than that. In some ways I'm sad, but in other ways, I also understand that there's lots of people who don't have the same nostalgia for the park when it first opened as I do....heck, there's only 3 attractions still remaining since it first opened.

That's just it, though. We have been conditioned to expect anniversary celebrations at Disney parks (that go on for 18-24 months) because Disney has relied so heavily on nostalgia as a marketing tool. There is really nothing organic or significant about it other than "phew we don't have to think of a theme for this marketing cycle".

Universal is seen as "cutting edge" right now - not only do they not need the nostalgia crutch, they have all the publicity they can handle with such a constant spate of new product to offer, it also just doesn't fit into the product they are offering. They are about now, not coasting on the past.

If you look at the most recent Disney anniversaries, Disneyland gets a bunch of hooplah because so many of the guests live within a day's drive and it does bring them in when they are marketed to. Disneyland has a very strong presence in the mind of native Southern Californians. Yet, the ones at WDW are largely ignored - because not only does that kind of timely marketing not really apply in the same ways.

Look at things like Epcot's 30th, all they would have done if they made a big deal is remind folks how little has changed in the past decade and highlighted how dated Future World really is and how far it has come from what it was. That's not something they want to remind folks of.

 

[doctornick]

Right, but Disney did not clean house and replace those creative engines with their own people. Those acquisitions were already creatively sound before Disney bought them.

Pixar "made good content" before Disney bought them not because Disney bought them.

There is a difference you are missing.

I don't think I'm missing it. I just think folks blow it out of proportion as being important.

Who exactly are Disney's "own people"? That's such an arbitrary labeling -- it's not like people are born with some Disney tattoo that means that only they can be considered a pure part of the company. "Disney people" are folks who work for The Walt Disney Company.

Kevin Feige is a "Disney person". Kathleen Kennedy is a "Disney person". The fact that they became employed by the TWDC since their previous employee was brought out is just a footnote. If Iger had gone and hired Kevin Feige directly away from another company, would that have made a difference? Either way, you're spending money to bring in talented people.

I don't really care about the source of the creative talent or how there were acquired. The point to me is that Disney is indeed making quality creative products nowadays despite comments from detractors.

I'll also point out for the skeptics that WDFA -- arguably the heart and soul of the company -- has been doing great in recent years and has some cool sounding ideas being developed. So, to whatever extent one believes that the "Disney brand" needs new unique offerings, it is getting it there.

 

[doctornick]

Peter Pan and Mary Poppins became more popular after the received the creative Disney treatment.

Iron Man, Thor and Captain America became more popular after they received the creative Marvel Studios treatment.

 

[Nmoody1]

Look at UNI's merchandise? They have great stuff. And it isn't just Potter. If you want Simpsons, or Transformers or Marvel or simple movie items or resort stuff. It's not the same in every store.

To be fair, DAK has some wonderful stuff as does World Showcase (about the only two places I buy stuff that isn't Property Control or an outlet store). But beyond that merchandise, which often is priced quite reasonably before an AP or CM discount, it's the same Disney crap whether you are at Pop Century, the Contemporary, the Emporium or basically anywhere else. Nothing is unique or location specific because heaven forbid that some 380-pounder has to walk to a shop in Fantasyland or the back of the Studios to buy it.

My favourite would be the Disneyland mug available for sale in the Magic Kingdom and countless other places across property. My biggest annoyance is when people call the Magic Kingdom Disneyland (it's missing several e-tickets to be Disneyland) - yet Disney merchandisers think it's acceptable to sell a mug for a park that isn't even in Orlando! I hate the One Disney initiative. I remember a time of park specific merchandise... I am reminded of it every Xmas when I see my EPCOT 2000 bauble or my Disney MGM studio bauble.

I did always think a small shop at Downtown Disney that sold a few key items from various parks around the globe would have been nice... Limited in availability - maybe limited to CDs, the odd piece of merch... But then the bloggers would be kitted out in it and heaven forbid anyone realises that at international parks (where they fork out and pay for music rights) that CDs of park music is available. Aside from my favourite CD at Disneyworld that has music for 3 extinct parades... And another that has music for the millennium celebration that ended 14 years ago!

 

[AEfx]

Peter Pan and Mary Poppins became more popular after the received the creative Disney treatment.

Pixar, Marvel and Lucas were already popular on their own creative laurels without Disney.

Disney did nothing creative to those properties to make them successful...they already were.

PP and MP were already popular but not nearly on the same scale. It was the Disney creative force that really boosted their popularity.

I don't think you can really say that, though. We are talking the better part of a century ago at this point - before mass media existed.

Peter Pan, long before Disney got a hold of it, was already very much a classic. It had already been made into a silent film, it had a hugely successful stage play. Within the confines of the media of the era it was very well known. Mary Poppins had already had five very successful books under her belt before the Disney film. And remember, this was back when kids used to read - like, every day, not just for school. It was one of the only entertainment venues they had. He made those stories because they were so popular with children, not plucking them out of some obscurity.

There is no question that Disney expanded the audience because of the film format, and their absorption of the characters into the "Disney family". But you really can't judge them in the same way as to what or was not popular since the media you are looking for to make something appear "popular" in retrospect hadn't been invented yet.

In any case, it's the same exact thing they have done with Marvel. They have greatly expanded the audience and somehow have been able to do so on what was previously considered the lower-tier of Marvel characters. It's amazing what they have been able to do with Thor, Black Widow, GoG, and even Captain America who was the "Wonder Woman" of the group - that just by himself was incredibly difficult to translate into modern media because of the very origins of the character were so rooted in a past era.

Even Lucasfilm - George Lucas completely lost sight of what people loved about Star Wars. The power of the franchise still made the prequels financial successes, but they were not able to capture an entire generation as the first trilogy did. Lucas kept revising what Star Wars was all about and what people loved about it so much that he lost sight of its core.

Much of that core he didn't like as he got older - for example, the prequels as originally part of the story "back in the day" were about Obi-wan, not Anakin. When Lucas became a father, he felt he needed to "atone" for Darth Vader - and effectively neutered one of the great screen villains in the process. Suddenly, Star Wars was turned into the fall and redemption arc of Darth Vader which really no one ever asked for and certainly wasn't what made the first trilogy popular to begin with. It was no longer a series of "Heroes Journeys" (Obi-wan, then Luke, then the next generation) it was the rise and fall of a completely unsympathetic character no one ended up caring about.

All appearances are that Disney was able to be objective in a way Lucas lost long ago - so ironically, under current leadership, it looks like Disney is about to return a property to it's authentic roots. That is very un-Disney, I'll grant you - but in all the best ways. It shows an outside of the box thinking that defies the cultural stereotype of "Disney-fying" - and all goes back to not shoving every acquisition into a one-sized Disney box, but doing what's appropriate for the property all while using the full power of their Disney resources.

And they are going to redefine the movie industry while doing it.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

Or the 25th @ Epcot. Oh, wait...

The Universal equivalent of the 25th of Epcot would be the 25th of Islands of Adventure.

This is the anniversary of the resort as a whole. One they are acknoledging in a change of logo in resort branding, some shop window signs and (maybe) an exhibit in the park itself. They've also slightly chaged the name of their usual summer concert series.

They mention it, but in a very half-hearted way. Why not update the night-time show (since the studio's 100th is now over)? Sell some T-shirt or items in the main CityWalk gift shop? How hard would it have been to replace or upgrade the afternoon parade?

No, they don't need to sell nostalgia or anniversaries every 5 years like Disney, but typically when a business hits 25 you do something special to mark they occassion beyond just modifying the usual press releases. Is there even a party (after-hours or not) planned for tonight?

 

[PhotoDave219]

The Universal equivalent of the 25th of Epcot would be the 25th of Islands of Adventure.

This is the anniversary of the resort as a whole. One they are acknoledging in a change of logo in resort branding, some shop window signs and (maybe) an exhibit in the park itself. They've also slightly chaged the name of their usual summer concert series.

They mention it, but in a very half-hearted way. Why not update the night-time show (since the studio's 100th is now over)? Sell some T-shirt or items in the main CityWalk gift shop? How hard would it have been to replace or upgrade the afternoon parade?

No, they don't need to sell nostalgia or anniversaries every 5 years like Disney, but typically when a business hits 25 you do something special to mark they occassion beyond just modifying the usual press releases. Is there even a party (after-hours or not) planned for tomorrow?

Apparently theyre celebrating it with mile long backups to the parking garage due to their credit card system being out at toll plazas.

 

[Bairstow]

Apparently theyre celebrating it with mile long backups to the parking garage due to their credit card system being out at toll plazas.

That's bananas.
Why not just throw their hands up make the garages free until they can fix them?
Surely they're losing more revenue from people not being able to enter the parks.