Bob Chapek backs up using IPs because “if our competitors had our catalog they would do the same thing”

[xdan0920]

I bet he said a lot more than that, and that you're presenting one comment out of context.

In recent comments, he talked about the genius and imagination and creativity that went into developing the Star Wars universe. He talked about the emotional feeling that these new investments will foster in guests. He talked the company as a portfolio of investments in storytelling. He talked about the parks not only a showcase for the storytelling that has gone on on screen but also as an inspiration for, and a source of, new storytelling contributions to that portfolio.

Then he talked about the power of franchises - for less than 45 seconds out of the 15 minutes.

He shouldn't listen to any critics. Talk is cheap. He should "listen" to what guests are telling him through what they're spending their money on.

The same was said about the leaders of the company who shepherded it from the brink of oblivion to its current status as the top of the top. As a matter of fact, fans expressing such appraisals in online discussions have been so consistent over the last thirty years that being criticized by fans online is now a pretty reliable indicator that someone is an excellent leader for the company.

You consistently show a fundamental misunderstanding of what made Disney Parks successful in the first place.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

About GE: 'you're in an appendage to DL' . That is such a telling quote. DL being thought of and being developed as just a collection of isolated parts, a collection of IP encounters each one isolated of the others. The treatment of the WDW parks shows he thinks the same about all the other parks too. There is no understanding of what makes the parks tick, of their internal cohesion, storytelling, mood. In DL, Adventureland and Fantasyland and Main Street strengthen one another, feed off of one another. An effect even more emphasised in the MK.

'...you don't feel like you're in DL but rather on another planet' - Chapek is actually proud that GE feels like another planet. Instead part of DL. He thinks it an accomplishment. How clueless. (Or at least, a shift away from 65 years of park development)

I found that very telling too...good thing all the old men are dead. He would have killed them with that statement.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I bet he said a lot more than that, and that you're presenting one comment out of context.

In recent comments, he talked about the genius and imagination and creativity that went into developing the Star Wars universe. He talked about the emotional feeling that these new investments will foster in guests. He talked the company as a portfolio of investments in storytelling. He talked about the parks not only a showcase for the storytelling that has gone on on screen but also as an inspiration for, and a source of, new storytelling contributions to that portfolio.

Then he talked about the power of franchises - for less than 45 seconds out of the 15 minutes.

He shouldn't listen to any critics. Talk is cheap. He should "listen" to what guests are telling him through what they're spending their money on.

The same was said about the leaders of the company who shepherded it from the brink of oblivion to its current status as the top of the top. As a matter of fact, fans expressing such appraisals in online discussions have been so consistent over the last thirty years that being criticized by fans online is now a pretty reliable indicator that someone is an excellent leader for the company.

This one is so juicy it’s hard to know what Zit to pop first.

But I’ll just concentrate on this: what “brink of oblivion”? And since when do they “listen to the guests”?

You consistently show a fundamental misunderstanding of what made Disney Parks successful in the first place.

That’s become a common disease...the CDC should be studying it

 

[Robinsad]

You consistently show a fundamental misunderstanding of what made Disney Parks successful in the first place.

I hate to say this because I love the original stuff and do feel IP is going to far but, what makes Disney parks successful now is clearly more important than what made them successful in the first place.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I hate to say this because I love the original stuff and do feel IP is going to far but, what makes Disney parks successful now is clearly more important than what made them successful in the first place.

What made them successful in the first place is a very large part of what makes them successful now.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

What made them successful in the first place is a very large part of what makes them successful now.

Building for “timeless”...a long term strategy designed to reload the business in future generations and weather economic ups and doems

But what do I know?

 

[Robinsad]

What made them successful in the first place is a very large part of what makes them successful now.

I can agree to an extent, I feel generally the best rides were not built on IP, but there is no denying that avatar and star wars especially will drive foot traffic into the park.

 

[xdan0920]

I hate to say this because I love the original stuff and do feel IP is going to far but, what makes Disney parks successful now is clearly more important than what made them successful in the first place.

Maybe, maybe. I’ve given up the ghost myself. WDW is no longer being designed or run with me in mind. So I go less and less.

I do wonder though, if TWDC decided to raze, Haunted Mansion, Pirates, Jungle Cruise, Space Mountain, BTMRR, how busy would the parks be without those attractions? Similarly, if AdventureLand got rethemed to whatever brand spanking new IP Disney just acquired from FOX (Jumanji or something) How would that impact the bottom line?

The parks are largely still busy because of what came BEFORE. IMO.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I can agree to an extent, I feel generally the best rides were not built on IP, but there is no denying that avatar and star wars especially will drive foot traffic into the park.

So? That doesn’t mean it is the only way. Do you honestly think the enduring cultural relevance of Avatar was a significant factor in Disney’s Animal Kingdom’s attendance growth? Even then, dollars to guests, the nondescript coaster themed to India or whatever was a better investment than Pandora.

 

[xdan0920]

So? That doesn’t mean it is the only way. Do you honestly think the enduring cultural relevance of Avatar was a significant factor in Disney’s Animal Kingdom’s attendance growth? Even then, dollars to guests, the nondescript coaster themed to India or whatever was a better investment than Pandora.

I think the current them for Everest has something to do with hairbands?

 

[The Empress Lilly]

WDW is no longer being designed or run with me in mind

Now there's a harsh reality i'm slowly trying to come to terms with.

It's sad. Painful too. I loved this place so, so much and would've loved it for all eternity.

I would've been a lifetime captive audience, a perfect customer, just to walk through an imaginary heyday Hollywood while Somewhere Over the Rainbow plays in the background. My vacation dollars were all theirs. But they are not for walking in between a hard liquor store and a timeshare vending booth to a bare steel coaster that I'm supposed to be all excited about because it has an oversized doll of some IP franchise at the entrance.
But hey, I guess they found an even larger audience than us that does love this.

 

[juniorthomas]

To answer the question of whether or not there is too much new IP in the parks, I feel we should first answer another question: what is the percentage of park guests who have never before visited WDW?

If the majority of guests have never before visited WDW, those guests won't know what the park looked like without franchise/new IP creep. It will all be new to them, right? If most guests are new to everything on property, TDO could then work towards justifying the addition of new IP as things that may have attracted new park guests to visit in the first place.

However, if the majority of guests are repeat visitors, then the conversation can and should switch to "does TDO actively listen to park guests and, if so, does this mean that the majority of repeat visitors are on board with new IP on property?"

It seems like most people on these boards dislike the imbalance of new IP to older, park specific IP. I'm not sure if we can generalize that to the broader population - afterall, we're a unique breed on here - but people in general do seem to dislike change.

If we knew this percentage*, we could then more accurately claim that new IP is either a good way to get new visitors to the park, and is perhaps worth the expense, or if it is a more superficial spend that should be used to benefit the parks in a different way.

*I didn't find anything in the 10-K. May have to reach out to TWDCo to get more on this.

 

[Robinsad]

So? That doesn’t mean it is the only way. Do you honestly think the enduring cultural relevance of Avatar was a significant factor in Disney’s Animal Kingdom’s attendance growth? Even then, dollars to guests, the nondescript coaster themed to India or whatever was a better investment than Pandora.

Don't get me wrong I agree with you, but these investments are probably looked at with a period of time in mind, 10, 20 years maybe. And then retheme. It's disposable which is a shame because it's not what Disney has been but it brings in money.
I think they could do better because if you look at Pirates, an original park IP that then went on to make fortunes as a movie. I think that's a better long term investment/plan.

 

[Disstevefan1]

Maybe I over simplify, but in my opinion, I dont really care what IP is used as long as the attraction is high quality and is so good you want to ride it over and over and is BETTER than the attraction it replaced.

Do I miss Horizons? YES (see my icon to the left) , BUT I Really like Mission space and can ride that over and over.

As for UOE going to Guardians, I loved the ride system in the old UOE and if it was me, That attraction should have gotten an overlay, keeping that cool ride system, that said, the Guardians attractions looks GREAT and is high quality and looks like it will be so good folks will want to ride it over and over.

Lastly the TRON coaster! WOW that looks great! Again, I dont care about the IP, that attraction folks will want to ride it over and over.

 

[lazyboy97o]

To answer the question of whether or not there is too much new IP in the parks, I feel we should first answer another question: what is the percentage of park guests who have never before visited WDW?

If the majority of guests have never before visited WDW, those guests won't know what the park looked like without franchise/new IP creep. It will all be new to them, right? If most guests are new to everything on property, TDO could then work towards justifying the addition of new IP as things that may have attracted new park guests to visit in the first place.

However, if the majority of guests are repeat visitors, then the conversation can and should switch to "does TDO actively listen to park guests and, if so, does this mean that the majority of repeat visitors are on board with new IP on property?"

It seems like most people on these boards dislike the imbalance of new IP to older, park specific IP. I'm not sure if we can generalize that to the broader population - afterall, we're a unique breed on here - but people in general do seem to dislike change.

If we knew this percentage*, we could then more accurately claim that new IP is either a good way to get new visitors to the park, and is perhaps worth the expense, or if it is a more superficial spend that should be used to benefit the parks in a different way.

*I didn't find anything in the 10-K. May have to reach out to TWDCo to get more on this.

The problem with this whole notion of balance is that it is looking at some metric outside of the actual product, a themed entertainment experience. The actual percentage of franchises isn’t the problem; the problem is why franchise content is the overwhelming majority of content produced. Every two-not Armchair Imagineer has thought of doing a Star Wars land but Disney didn’t do one because it was great idea for an experience. Story and experience have little to no bearing on what Disney builds, with box office and merchandise sales being the key factors. There would be far less discontent if Disney was only building IP attractions but they were all being selected for their potential as a themed experience.

 

[HoldenC]

I do wonder though, if TWDC decided to raze, Haunted Mansion, Pirates, Jungle Cruise, Space Mountain, BTMRR, how busy would the parks be without those attractions?

I know my entire family (and a good chunk of friends) would never set foot at WDW again if these experiences were burned to the ground. I literally cannot think of a single person I know who expresses excitement at coming to ride anything directly related to the hottest IP (except maybe Flight of Passage and now SW).

 

[juniorthomas]

The problem with this whole notion of balance is that it is looking at some metric outside of the actual product, a themed entertainment experience. The actual percentage of franchises isn’t the problem; the problem is why franchise content is the overwhelming majority of content produced. Every two-not Armchair Imagineer has thought of doing a Star Wars land but Disney didn’t do one because it was great idea for an experience. Story and experience have little to no bearing on what Disney builds, with box office and merchandise sales being the key factors. There would be far less discontent if Disney was only building IP attractions but they were all being selected for their potential as a themed experience.

I don't hear people upset about experience as much as I hear people upset that park specific IP is being replaced by new franchise IP. This does not seem to be about experience or story.

 

[monothingie]

Alfred E Chapek, what me CEO?

 

[Chef Mickey]

I bet he said a lot more than that, and that you're presenting one comment out of context.

In recent comments, he talked about the genius and imagination and creativity that went into developing the Star Wars universe. He talked about the emotional feeling that these new investments will foster in guests. He talked the company as a portfolio of investments in storytelling. He talked about the parks not only a showcase for the storytelling that has gone on on screen but also as an inspiration for, and a source of, new storytelling contributions to that portfolio.

Then he talked about the power of franchises - for less than 45 seconds out of the 15 minutes.

He shouldn't listen to any critics. Talk is cheap. He should "listen" to what guests are telling him through what they're spending their money on.

The same was said about the leaders of the company who shepherded it from the brink of oblivion to its current status as the top of the top. As a matter of fact, fans expressing such appraisals in online discussions have been so consistent over the last thirty years that being criticized by fans online is now a pretty reliable indicator that someone is an excellent leader for the company.

I'm an investor. I know the numbers. The data says the parks are doing exceedingly well. And guess what? They are doing well...no denying that. That's why Chapek will keep his job.

However, from a fan's perspective, it's a different story. I know I am biased and what I want doesn't necessarily translate into sales and profits, at least in the short term. It doesn't make me wrong though. The parks have declined in show quality, substance, and largely lack that quintessential "Disneyness" in the Iger era. This could potentially erode the brand over time and give competition a chance to catch up.

Avatarland is/was the closest land to a "Disney" park that they've had in 20 years, so I give them credit for it.

There are some lowlights during the Iger era including:

• Toy Story Land is a failure and pretty much objectively so.
• New Fantasyland was largely a disappointment.
• Ride maintenance has been horrendous.
• IP has taken over EPCOT and really, everything.
• Studios has floundered for probably 10 years and they closed GMR as a cherry on top.
• EPCOT has TONS of wasted space, unused buildings, and almost no updates for 20 years.
• Nearly every great attraction that exists today was built prior to Iger taking over. FACT.

To their credit, they have FINALLY taken steps to update EPCOT and DHS. Everything that is coming may and probably will be awesome, and I'm looking forward to it. However, almost all of it is IP, which isn't all bad, but Guardians at EPCOT? Come on man. EPCOT is to a point where I will accept anything, just to get some TLC for a park in desperate need of attention.

IP is not timeless. It's not Spaceship Earth. IP comes and goes. If you're lucky, it stays relevant, but it becomes stale. Frozen is already out of fad. Does it really celebrate the history of Norway? Does it really belong at EPCOT?

These are just some of the things that make the parks less than optimal.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I don't hear people upset about experience as much as I hear people upset that park specific IP is being replaced by new franchise IP. This does not seem to be about experience or story.

People are upset about IP just being dropped in without concern for how it integrates into the larger experience. That is how it is about story and experience.