Calling all IP malcontents......

HongKongFooy

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
For those of you who don't dig on IP infestation in the parks I'm curious if you find one type of IP more egregious than the other: home grown Disney IP vs buying another's creation like Star Wars, Avatar, Marvel, Indiana Jones or Pixar.
 
Last edited:

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
Advertisement
There is no difference except in the minds of the anti IPers. Every idea, no matter who thought of it is an IP. Disney has them all over the park like their version of Peter Pan or Cinderella. They payed an Imagineer a decent salary over many years in return for IP's like Imagination, Small World, Spaceship Earth and paid others a bunch of money for IP's like Mary Poppins, Avatar, Star Wars and so on. Every idea is an IP, someone thought of it and were compensated, one way or the other, for that idea. Every idea that Walt came up with was his IP and decided to use it for business purposes. He was paid fairly well too.
 

danlb_2000

Well-Known Member
There is no difference except in the minds of the anti IPers. Every idea, no matter who thought of it is an IP. Disney has them all over the park like their version of Peter Pan or Cinderella. They payed an Imagineer a decent salary over many years in return for IP's like Imagination, Small World, Spaceship Earth and paid others a bunch of money for IP's like Mary Poppins, Avatar, Star Wars and so on. Every idea is an IP, someone thought of it and were compensated, one way or the other, for that idea. Every idea that Walt came up with was his IP and decided to use it for business purposes. He was paid fairly well too.

It is well understood by most people on these message board, that when we talk about "IP" in the parks we are talking about the use of an existing IP as opposed to developing an new IP specifically for an attraction. Using an existing IP can become problematic if it needs to be "force fit" into the attraction or park.

My problem with IPs is how they seem to be using them recently. Imagineers are given a specific IP, and often a park or even a specific attraction, and then they must make the IP fit. I would rather the Imagineers be told what is needed in a specific park, say for example a new thrill ride in Epcot, and they determine what is the best fit whether it be an existing IP or something new. Balance is a big part of the problem now, everything needs to be tied to an existing IP, Imagineers aren't getting the ability to come up with totally original ideas.


I actually don't have a problem with using outside IPs. I still remember when I first heard Disney was teaming up with Lucas to create Star Tours. I could only imagine what amazing things would come out of Disney applying their magic to the Star Wars franchise. Of course at this point Disney should have little need to go outside for IP's since they already own everything. :)
 
Last edited:

WondersOfLife

Blink, blink. Breathe, breathe. Day in, day out.
I’m okay with individual attractions such as Rat, Guardians, and Tron.

What I’m not okay with is full out lands based on only one franchise that takes up a huge chunk of the park (TSL, GE) which could otherwise host dozens of various different movies.

As someone who hates Star Wars, I grew up loving the OG Star Tours as a kid... and that was enough Star Wars for me. I then enjoyed riding the backlot tour and seeing LMA. But with a whole freakin land taking up half of the entire park, Hollywood Studios is now my least favorite park. I love Toy Story. But I absolutely hate having an entire land themed around the franchise. Buzz & TSM were enough for me.

In my head, the more properties you can use for INDIVIDUAL attractions, the better.

The only place where I accept full out lands, is Animal Kingdom. AK is so drastically large that they can easily add an entire land like Avatarland without drastically changing a majority of the park’s feel, unlike Star Wars and Toy Story in HS.

So yea. I know I’m probably in the minority here, but I’m just not a fan of singular movie based lands, unless the park has already done that in the past... Like Islands of Adventure.
 

Heppenheimer

Well-Known Member
The manner in which the parks integrate the IP is more important than the nature of the IP (excluding Marvel, but that's just my own personal dislike). Executed well, we get examples like Cars Land. Poor execution gave us the adjacent Chapek Village...er, I mean Pixar Pier, and that Up-themed bird show at Animal Kingdom.

The Pixar Pier overlay is particularly frustrating because the original theme, although maybe not the most elaborate in Disney park history, basically worked well for what they were attempting. The Pixar addition was also done unimaginatively on the cheap, and further, it then negated the tie-in theme to the Paradise Pier hotel next door.
 

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
It is well understood by most people on these message board, that when we talk about "IP" in the parks we are talking about the use of an existing IP as opposed to developing an new IP specifically for an attraction. Using an existing IP can become problematic if it needs to be "force fit" into the attraction or park.

My problem with IPs is how they seem to be using them recently. Imagineers are given a specific IP, and often a park or even a specific attraction, and then they must make the IP fit. I would rather the Imagineers be told what is needed in a specific park, say for example a new thrill ride in Epcot, and they determine what is the best fit whether it be an existing IP or something new. Balance is a big part of the problem now, everything needs to be tied to an existing IP, Imagineers aren't getting the ability to come up with totally original ideas.


I actually don't have a problem with using outside IPs. I still remember when I first heard Disney was teaming up with Lucas to create Star Tours. I could only imagine what amazing things would come out of Disney applying their magic to the Star Wars franchise. Of course at this point Disney should have little need to go outside for IP's since they already own everything. :)
I still think that the obsession with an attraction fitting in a park that is themed to fantasy needs to result in angst to anyone. From the way people act fantasy has a specific location and then go to extreme to decide what is appropriate in every given situation. Instead of being entertained or impressed by the sheer engineering of it all, they are stuck on details so minor that they ruin it for themselves. Case in point, the upheaval about Frozen in Norway. I can't think of a place that is less important to be that picky about. The Norway pavilion was a dead place. The completely off the wall connection to Trolls was nothing short of wild fantasy and not a real thing in Norway. However, armchair imagineers have insisted that frozen isn't a real representation of Norway like that other stuff was. My only impression of Norway was a closely psychotic representation of Trolls, dirty Polar Bears, sea based oil wells and a, put your butt completely to sleep, tourism film that even they gave up on eventually.

Even the objection to Star Wars in Disneyland is beyond my ability to understand. So, they added yet another land to the Magic Kingdom. It isn't in the middle of anything it is just a new land and a new fantasy. I swear that people just do everything in their power to not accept change and not allow themselves to enjoy the spectacular gifts that Disney has provided over the years. Who could possible give a damn about WHO thought of something as long as it is an original idea and Disney is able to put its own spin on the idea which is what Disney has done since the beginning.

Anyway, I know that I'm not going to convince anyone of the futility of it all, but I just wish there was a legitimate problem that could be identified and corrected, but there isn't. In my mind it is just an irrational, completely fabricated problem with no real basis for concern. The original five lands were Adventureland, Frontierland, Fantasyland, Tomorrowland and Main Street USA. And now there are six including StarWarsLand. A company in expansion.
 

HongKongFooy

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
For me home grown is far more palatable. Of course I do not want IP based attractions and lands but if Disney has to inject them into the parks I prefer an organically Disney created one like a Mickey Runaway Railway rather than an Iron Man or Kilo Ren all up in my grill.
 

danlb_2000

Well-Known Member
I still think that the obsession with an attraction fitting in a park that is themed to fantasy needs to result in angst to anyone. From the way people act fantasy has a specific location and then go to extreme to decide what is appropriate in every given situation. Instead of being entertained or impressed by the sheer engineering of it all, they are stuck on details so minor that they ruin it for themselves. Case in point, the upheaval about Frozen in Norway. I can't think of a place that is less important to be that picky about. The Norway pavilion was a dead place. The completely off the wall connection to Trolls was nothing short of wild fantasy and not a real thing in Norway. However, armchair imagineers have insisted that frozen isn't a real representation of Norway like that other stuff was. My only impression of Norway was a closely psychotic representation of Trolls, dirty Polar Bears, sea based oil wells and a, put your butt completely to sleep, tourism film that even they gave up on eventually.

Even the objection to Star Wars in Disneyland is beyond my ability to understand. So, they added yet another land to the Magic Kingdom. It isn't in the middle of anything it is just a new land and a new fantasy. I swear that people just do everything in their power to not accept change and not allow themselves to enjoy the spectacular gifts that Disney has provided over the years. Who could possible give a damn about WHO thought of something as long as it is an original idea and Disney is able to put its own spin on the idea which is what Disney has done since the beginning.

Anyway, I know that I'm not going to convince anyone of the futility of it all, but I just wish there was a legitimate problem that could be identified and corrected, but there isn't. In my mind it is just an irrational, completely fabricated problem with no real basis for concern. The original five lands were Adventureland, Frontierland, Fantasyland, Tomorrowland and Main Street USA. And now there are six including StarWarsLand. A company in expansion.

The attention to detail is what made Disney parks so great. The parks are a sum total of thousands of tiny details that you may not consciously notice, but they combine to make the parks what they are. Take this quote from John Hench. This is an entire paragraph about how to represent an Apple. This is the kind of attention to detail that I have come to expect from Disney.

"Color supports the identity of form by helping to define it. For example, in painting an apple in black and white, if I depict the fruit with a bite taken out of it, it makes its identity as an apple, rather than a peach or a plum, clearer. But an apple painted in red doesn't need the bite taken out of it; its color supports the viewer's perception of what it is. The form, carefully rendered in color, creates the image's "appleness." the shinny red apple given to Snow White by the wicked witch is clearly identified by its color and form, and is an essential element in the story highly prized by guests in the Snow White dark ride." -- John Hench
 

Chicken Guy

Member
Each park has a theme to upkeep and a level of integrity to maintain. As for why some IP is worse than others?

Star Wars and Marvel are not Disney properties. Disney didn’t create them. Disney bought them and told Disney fans, “hey, you have to like this now because it’s suddenly Disney after decades of not being Disney.” Not that I particularly dislike Star Wars; the movies and lore are fun, and we had Star Tours before; but Star Wars and Marvel are not inherently Disney, and I do not appreciate having them force-fed to me as if they were.

I hardly want to go on too long about IP; many arguments against it are ones people have heard before. Below are a couple more short bullet points on what I dislike about it. Would be happy to elaborate on some.

1. The IP mandate infringes on creativity and true innovation
2. Corporate feel/insincerity
3. Lack of cohesion with their parks; disregard to theme (GotG, SW: GE, TSL, Avengers Campus in DCA)
4. Long term issues; not timeless, not easily replaceable
4.5. Some attractions are patchwork in nature (FEA, for example)
 
Last edited:

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
The attention to detail is what made Disney parks so great. The parks are a sum total of thousands of tiny details that you may not consciously notice, but they combine to make the parks what they are. Take this quote from John Hench. This is an entire paragraph about how to represent an Apple. This is the kind of attention to detail that I have come to expect from Disney.

"Color supports the identity of form by helping to define it. For example, in painting an apple in black and white, if I depict the fruit with a bite taken out of it, it makes its identity as an apple, rather than a peach or a plum, clearer. But an apple painted in red doesn't need the bite taken out of it; its color supports the viewer's perception of what it is. The form, carefully rendered in color, creates the image's "appleness." the shinny red apple given to Snow White by the wicked witch is clearly identified by its color and form, and is an essential element in the story highly prized by guests in the Snow White dark ride." -- John Hench
I'm not talking about design detail, I referring to details that do not matter and that is where it is located. As long as there is no coherency in the attraction itself or if it is put into something so far off that it is laughable (for example, Frozen in Saudi Arabia, if they had such a place) then where it is located should not be of any concern. Especially if it is a land of it's own. Proper detailed design, colors and so on are very important, where it is located within a park, within reason is not. That is especially since we are not the ones that have the ability to make that decision. If it is there and it is good and I enjoyed it, it really doesn't matter. I always have to ask was Walt really so simple minded that he thought that his being upset over seeing a cowboy in Tomorrowland meant anything to the general public, if so, he was wrong. I see a 5 foot tall Mickey in many random places. I hope to have the strength of mind to not have any affect altered by his presence. Hopefully people are not that simple minded that they cannot differentiate between more then one thing at a time. Even the utilidors were a very wise choice because of efficiency. The fact that they can disappear quickly and get relief from heat and harassments makes them very useful, Especially in todays aggressive world. But, just because it ruins some imaginary submersion just doesn't make any sense to me. I can be in the moment as well as anyone, but I really hope that on my head stone the words "he always knew were he was" is engraved deeply.
 

Brer Oswald

Well-Known Member
There is no difference except in the minds of the anti IPers. Every idea, no matter who thought of it is an IP. Disney has them all over the park like their version of Peter Pan or Cinderella. They payed an Imagineer a decent salary over many years in return for IP's like Imagination, Small World, Spaceship Earth and paid others a bunch of money for IP's like Mary Poppins, Avatar, Star Wars and so on. Every idea is an IP, someone thought of it and were compensated, one way or the other, for that idea. Every idea that Walt came up with was his IP and decided to use it for business purposes. He was paid fairly well too.
This is exactly true. Theme park fans are unable to realize that they just prefer their own original theme park created IPs as opposed to disliking “all IPS”.

Me personally? I’m a sucker for the stuff created just for the parks. Like any movie franchise, the parks and lands have their own brand identity. So when they, say, add Monster’s Inc or Lilo and Stitch to Tomorrowland, I feel like it dilutes the brand of “Tomorrowland”. As opposed to something like Space Mountain or the Peoplemover, contributes to the land’s iconography.
 

WondersOfLife

Blink, blink. Breathe, breathe. Day in, day out.
I still think that the obsession with an attraction fitting in a park that is themed to fantasy needs to result in angst to anyone. From the way people act fantasy has a specific location and then go to extreme to decide what is appropriate in every given situation. Instead of being entertained or impressed by the sheer engineering of it all, they are stuck on details so minor that they ruin it for themselves. Case in point, the upheaval about Frozen in Norway. I can't think of a place that is less important to be that picky about. The Norway pavilion was a dead place. The completely off the wall connection to Trolls was nothing short of wild fantasy and not a real thing in Norway. However, armchair imagineers have insisted that frozen isn't a real representation of Norway like that other stuff was. My only impression of Norway was a closely psychotic representation of Trolls, dirty Polar Bears, sea based oil wells and a, put your butt completely to sleep, tourism film that even they gave up on eventually.

Even the objection to Star Wars in Disneyland is beyond my ability to understand. So, they added yet another land to the Magic Kingdom. It isn't in the middle of anything it is just a new land and a new fantasy. I swear that people just do everything in their power to not accept change and not allow themselves to enjoy the spectacular gifts that Disney has provided over the years. Who could possible give a damn about WHO thought of something as long as it is an original idea and Disney is able to put its own spin on the idea which is what Disney has done since the beginning.

Anyway, I know that I'm not going to convince anyone of the futility of it all, but I just wish there was a legitimate problem that could be identified and corrected, but there isn't. In my mind it is just an irrational, completely fabricated problem with no real basis for concern. The original five lands were Adventureland, Frontierland, Fantasyland, Tomorrowland and Main Street USA. And now there are six including StarWarsLand. A company in expansion.
If you don’t think the minor details are what Disney is (or was) known for, then you’re part of the problem.

The problem being, Disney thinking people don’t care about the tiny details. Slap Star Wars on something and it’ll mean CHACHING.
 

UNCgolf

Well-Known Member
I don't care about the use of IP as long as it fits the location.

EPCOT is really the only park where the IP infestation is a disaster, because it's mostly just been shoehorned in. Even when they used an IP that could potentially fit if executed correctly (like Nemo at the Seas -- although it would never have fit in the original, incredibly well done concept of Seabase Alpha) they did it in a terrible way. It's at the point where a ride like Ratatouille going in essentially gets a shrug because "eh, it could be a whole lot worse like GotG or Frozen Ever After; at least Ratatouille is set in France".
 

Brer Oswald

Well-Known Member
If you don’t think the minor details are what Disney is (or was) known for, then you’re part of the problem.

The problem being, Disney thinking people don’t care about the tiny details. Slap Star Wars on something and it’ll mean CHACHING.
Where you place an attraction is very significant. It distinguishes a good themed ride from a great ride. Sure, it can have a fine ride through experience. But if it feels like it doesn’t belong, that takes me out of the experience, and the experience is EVERYTHING at a Disney park.

To act like it is a nitpick is quite astounding.
 

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
Where you place an attraction is very significant. It distinguishes a good themed ride from a great ride. Sure, it can have a fine ride through experience. But if it feels like it doesn’t belong, that takes me out of the experience, and the experience is EVERYTHING at a Disney park.

To act like it is a nitpick is quite astounding.
When you figure that Norway was very close to closing and becoming just another building with no use for now and forever, to me that is nitpicking to the point of not thinking about the alternatives. Especially with Epcot! Before I say more I was there in February 1983, just months after it opened. It wasn't much then but as the year(s) passed and they added more to it, it was my favorite park. The problem was that I don't have enough money to support Epcot all by myself and it was dying a slow and agonizing death. Why do you think they came up with food and wine (AKA.. the eat and puke) festival or the flower festival? Because the rest of the place was not drawing people in at the rate the was needed to support it.

Norway was in need of the last rites and instead they placed an attraction in the belly of the pavilion and gave a face lift the the surrounding areas and made it very popular with young kids who couldn't care less about what fit or didn't fit in Norway.. Do you know what comes with the young children? It is their parents that are paying on average for 3 or 4 admissions to a part that might never have been seen. What excited response did it get. Whining about how Norway was not where Frozen fit in. One can nitpick about it's location till the cows come home, but it injected life back into a sad location. The more they add that appeals to younger people the sooner it becomes a place worthy of visiting. Is it like it was in the 80's? Nope, in fact hardly even recognizable, but it isn't terrible, it has more entertainment that is family friendly and gives more and more incentive to bring the family. I hope they add more and more entertainment items to EPCOT and make it a truly fun two day park.

The fact of the matter is that they no longer give the Imagineers the free run of the place. It is more like Walt's days than the couple of decades after his death. When they are designing a NEW park with no particular theme they can be creative and the public will accept it because it is new and they will give it a chance, just like they did when EPCOT opened, but after a while the public needs to see something new or there is no reason to go there. Epcot (the old) was not a sustainable idea or even an easily accepted premise, but the people gave it a chance until they tired of it and then it could no longer continue in the way it started.

Now in the words of Forrest Gump.... "That's all I have to say about that".
 

Cmdr_Crimson

Well-Known Member
Where you place an attraction is very significant. It distinguishes a good themed ride from a great ride. Sure, it can have a fine ride through experience. But if it feels like it doesn’t belong, that takes me out of the experience, and the experience is EVERYTHING at a Disney park.

To act like it is a nitpick is quite astounding.
That is what is called the Six Flags level of theming...How many parks do we have a Goliath, Viper, or DC comic related named ride?
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Top Bottom