Calling all IP malcontents......

[erasure fan1]

At one point Disney owned Miramax and has owned ABC for 25 years. Does that make all related content under those banners "Disney"?

If they want to brand something from ABC Disney, then I would say yes. Personally Ive always considered something Disney, if it was Disney that made it. Most of the ABC shows are advertised on the Disney buses and in the studios... So if Disney made it, why can't it be considered Disney?

Touchstone and Hollywood Pictures were labels developed in house, but were intentionally not to be considered "Disney".

Beyond strict ownership, "Disney" also used to mean a certain style of movie or entertainment. Star Wars does fit that better than some other examples. Marvel is too inconsistent to ever be IMO. That brand includes everything from kiddie content to R rated fare and now multiple studios and theme parks are selling the characters, so it's not really tied down to Disney.

I completely agree that having the label "Disney" on something should come with certain expectations, like no R rated. And I also agree that Marvel is a bit confusing in regards to branding. Ive been an advocate of Disney just buying out Sony and universal so it can all be under the one banner. I also get why they arent. But the MCU is still very much Disney to me. And if they add Deadpool and Wolverine into that mix I have no problems with them being Disney. There are plenty of kids who love the characters from the animated series and were disappointed they couldn't see the movies. My son being one of them. So a Disney version is fine in my book especially since they own the character.

 

[ppete1975]

I dont mind ips but its like anything else. IT should be moderation. I dont want a park of only roller coasters, i dont want all boat rides, or omnimovers. I want a mixture of them all. IP is the same thing to me. I love the big blockbuster STAR WARS experience, or they are building duckburg (with money binand 3 ducking awesome rides) but i want an original attraction as well. Thats one of the things people liked about epcot and to a point animal kingdom, the ride told the story not oh look its pluto. But now we are only getting IP, and that seems a bit lazy to me. 2006 expedition everest was the latest i think.

I can understand from their pov though. its easier to sell a character than an all new experience.

 

[ppete1975]

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 park 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".

i remember when epcot wasnt popular and people didnt understand it there were times it was a ghost town especially the world showcase portion. We are the minority on this message board, im afraid.

 

[erasure fan1]

i remember when epcot wasnt popular and people didnt understand it there were times it was a ghost town especially the world showcase portion. We are the minority on this message board, im afraid.

World Showcase has always been a problem. As a kid, I loved epcot.
I loved imagination, the living seas, spaceship earth, horizons.... But I was never thrilled when my parents said, ok let's go walk the countries. It has always suffered from a lack of rides, especially a headliner. Norway and Mexico are in no way a draw to world showcase. If there had been a few more C and D level rides, coupled with actual updates, the crowds would have been there in my opinion. Unfortunately they went for glorified shopping mall and alchohol.

Granted I've only really been to Disney during the summertime, I've never seen epcot a ghost town. It might not have had magic kingdom type crowds all of the time. But it was far from a ghost town when we have been there.I'm not sure what the end all be all answer is. I just know that frozen and guardians are not it. They will draw a crowd and sell merch, and I guess that is the only factor Disney goes by anymore.

 

[ppete1975]

World Showcase has always been a problem. As a kid, I loved epcot.
I loved imagination, the living seas, spaceship earth, horizons.... But I was never thrilled when my parents said, ok let's go walk the countries. It has always suffered from a lack of rides, especially a headliner. Norway and Mexico are in no way a draw to world showcase. If there had been a few more C and D level rides, coupled with actual updates, the crowds would have been there in my opinion. Unfortunately they went for glorified shopping mall and alchohol.

Granted I've only really been to Disney during the summertime, I've never seen epcot a ghost town. It might not have had magic kingdom type crowds all of the time. But it was far from a ghost town when we have been there.I'm not sure what the end all be all answer is. I just know that frozen and guardians are not it. They will draw a crowd and sell merch, and I guess that is the only factor Disney goes by anymore.

mid 90s was when i saw it much emptier than it should have been, world showcase bored me as a kid... even with the double decker buses and kind of scary characters walking around

 

[rreading]

The problem isn't IP in itself. The problem lies with the placement of certain IP in the parks without regard to proper theming.

Indiana Jones and Star Wars at Hollywood Studios? Fine. By all means, carry on.
Ratatouille in the France Pavilion? OF COURSE! The movie actually takes place in Paris, after all!



But Guardians of the Galaxy at Epcot? In the Universe of Energy pavilion? No.
Really think about that: Universe of Energy. Roller coasters are nothing BUT energy! You could have easily had a dark ride/coaster hybrid that actually kept to the core theme of energy education. I mean hell, this would be a GREAT time for it, with the debate on how to tackle climate change while still providing energy to a growing population.

But no. They need to sell more Baby Groot plushies (even though Groot will most likely be back to his adult form by the time Thor 4 and Guardians 3 are released) and need to get people into Epcot. So they come up with some hackneyed explanation that "it's because Peter Quill once went to Epcot before Yondu abducted him, and expect things to be okay.

Might as well go ahead and turn Mission Space into, I don't know....Rocketman or something.

They can use the leftover Stitch "chili dog" scent for when Harland Williams farts in the cabin.


Side note: can't imagine how Beau Bridges must feel. Older brother Jeff got to do really cool and iconic things related to Disney, from Iron Man to Tron and Tron Legacy.
Beau got....Rocketman.

I agree that GotG would definitely SEEM to be out of place anchoring an energy ride, but you could say the same thing about Ellen Degeneris. The ride clearly overhauls the pavilion but since I haven't heard anything about what the content of the ride will be (it definitely doesn't seem to be just another roller coaster) I continue to withhold judgement.

Separately, Maelstrom was the ride that I wanted to love but really didn't. The beginning of the ride climbing up towards Odin had such potential. But in the end it was just a bunch of lame oil wells painted on a boring wall. The only thing that made the pavilion worth visiting were the Norwegians populating the pavilion.

Is Frozen better? To me, it's better than the princesses in Akershus (which makes NO sense). It is not a perfect ride, but given the space they used, it's more than I expected.

 

[correcaminos]

There are Disney IPs, original Disney IPs to the parks, bought IPs... etc. Not all IPs are the same. Also not all IPs are relevant to areas. Norway being a prime example. Nothing about that is legtimately Norwegian. The Snow Queen was written by a Danish author inspired by a Swedish woman. At least Ratatouille takes place in France. Living Seas being a more blended and thought out example. I don't think the ones upset are hating all IPs but want it appropriate.

 

[HongKongFooy]

If there had been a few more C and D level rides(in World Showcase)

Not exactly shooting for the stars there.

Showcase has always been sorely deprived of a heavy hitting ride..... a ride that would bat 3rd if it were in a baseball lineup. But no we're getting close to the bottom 3 rides batting in the 6, 7 and 8th spots.

 

[erasure fan1]

Not exactly shooting for the stars there.

Showcase has always been sorely deprived of a heavy hitting ride..... a ride that would bat 3rd if it were in a baseball lineup. But no we're getting close to the bottom 3 rides batting in the 6, 7 and 8th spots.

Thats because you didn't need to shoot for the stars. You only needed to get to the moon. A headline D ticket for world showcase would be perfect. Sure we would all love an E, but all I was saying is it wouldn't take that much to have really drawn crowds.

 

[rreading]

World Showcase has always been a problem. As a kid, I loved epcot.
I loved imagination, the living seas, spaceship earth, horizons.... But I was never thrilled when my parents said, ok let's go walk the countries. It has always suffered from a lack of rides, especially a headliner. Norway and Mexico are in no way a draw to world showcase. If there had been a few more C and D level rides, coupled with actual updates, the crowds would have been there in my opinion. Unfortunately they went for glorified shopping mall and alchohol.

Granted I've only really been to Disney during the summertime, I've never seen epcot a ghost town. It might not have had magic kingdom type crowds all of the time. But it was far from a ghost town when we have been there.I'm not sure what the end all be all answer is. I just know that frozen and guardians are not it. They will draw a crowd and sell merch, and I guess that is the only factor Disney goes by anymore.

It's interesting: while my kids have always been happy to explore World Showcase with me, I definitely recall your same perspective on WS.

I do wonder whether it was a "ghost town" in the 90s when I was in college/medical school when we weren't visiting. On returning in the late 00's it seemed plenty busy (though FW sadly was changed, WS largely wasn't)

 

[tl77]

Because it is easier, and more importantly to them, WAY safer, to use an existing IP than create something new. And to Disney brass, it's not about creating legacy, it's about making the quickest return on investment possible. I believe in balance. You need both things, properly placed IP and original concepts. An original concept can become a beloved Disney icon. Haunted mansion, thunder and space mountain, pirates, everest... Unfortunately current Disney management is extremely shortsighted.

The lager problem is that the don't see "Walt Disney World" as the "IP" that's drawing people to Orlando in the first place. I'm not sure they believe that something like "A Movie IP" makes a better more popular the ride, I think they believe it just makes it easier to sell merch at the gift shops at the ride's exit. They can't seem to realize that kind of cowardly/reactionary point of view can alienate people... Splash Mountain for example has a movie IP that's turned out to be a problem as it's because it's become "dated". They're also in the process of building a Guardians of the Galaxy coaster in EPCOT, but will that still be popular in 20 years from now? Mr Toad is no longer with us because kids today don't know who Mr Toad is and they don't care...

On the other hand Space Mountain and Big Thunder Mountain have been world famous thrill rides for over 40 years. People come to the Magic Kingdom because those rides are there, and they are experiences that will never become "dated". They also have this amazing concept for a Volcano Coaster, that could be as world famous and unique an experience as Space Mountain and Big Thunder, it could be a "center piece" attraction for Adventureland the same way Space Mt and Big Thunder are for Tomorrowland and Frontierland... but they keep "not building" this super cool Volcano Coaster because they can't find a movie IP to attach to it... First it was going to be Jules Verne/20,000 Leagues Under the Sea themed, then it was going to be themed to the movie Atlantis, and for a second people were talking about Maui and Moana... but it should really just be "Adventureland" themed... because riding a roller coaster through a volcano is an experience that will draw people to the park and never become dated, but they are too cowardly to trust that experience alone will "sell merch" in the rides gift shop ...and that is the point I'm trying to make

 

[HongKongFooy]

Thats because you didn't need to shoot for the stars.

Na, Ricky Bobby knows how it's done.

""If you ain't first, you're last""

 

[tl77]

You do comprehend that we are presented with sanitized and idealized versions in all Disney parks? You don't see the little pooper-scooper cycles putting around the France Pavillion as you do in Paris, ninety percent of the Candian Pavillion clustered around one of its boarders, etc.

IP vs idealized representation is all collectively just fantasy.

uhhh? yeah... that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about, sorry you don't "comprehend" but I have better things to do with my time than explain it to you again more thoroughly

 

[Heppenheimer]

e. If there had been a few more C and D level rides, coupled with actual updates...

My vote... build a Matterhorn-style mountain roller coaster behind the Germany pavilion, and call it the Zugspitze. Or do the same thing behind Japan and call it Mt. Fuji.

 

[HongKongFooy]

Yes,
that's how to add a heavy hitting ride into Showcase

 

[Tjaden]

The real life problem is that maintaining the rapid growth of technology was nothing short of impossible and also there were not enough of us fans of the original to support it financially. We uncloseted Disney fans have a hard time coming to grips with reality of how business economies work.

Absolutely, and I get why they won't do a super expensive ride like Horizons again. I do think that there are creative ways to make FutureWorld work, but I'm sure coaster of the month draws in bigger crowds than a ride through the history and future of energy. I wish that weren't the case, but I guess that's what makes me old and WDW is a business in a young persons game.


That makes me sound 81 instead of 31, but hey I'm not the market anymore.

 

[erasure fan1]

My vote... build a Matterhorn-style mountain roller coaster behind the Germany pavilion, and call it the Zugspitze. Or do the same thing behind Japan and call it Mt. Fuji.

Exactly, it really is not rocket science. Unfortunately Mt Fuji would cost money. Alcohol and food festivals are cheap and immediate cash.

 

[networkpro]

uhhh? yeah... that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about, sorry you don't "comprehend" but I have better things to do with my time than explain it to you again more thoroughly

Uhh no, you fail at the reality check step.

 

[Goofyernmost]

Absolutely, and I get why they won't do a super expensive ride like Horizons again. I do think that there are creative ways to make FutureWorld work, but I'm sure coaster of the month draws in bigger crowds than a ride through the history and future of energy. I wish that weren't the case, but I guess that's what makes me old and WDW is a business in a young persons game.


That makes me sound 81 instead of 31, but hey I'm not the market anymore.

Well, I am 72 so much closer to the age that has difficulty dealing with change. None the less, I miss the old Epcot, but I completely understand why the old Epcot had to die or change to fit the current demands of the public. It's simple really. I do miss the old Imagination, the World of Motion and to a lesser degree Horizon, but I also completely enjoy what replaced them. Well, maybe not so much Imagination. There is no forgiving them for that.

 

[Trackmaster]

Absolutely, and I get why they won't do a super expensive ride like Horizons again. I do think that there are creative ways to make FutureWorld work, but I'm sure coaster of the month draws in bigger crowds than a ride through the history and future of energy. I wish that weren't the case, but I guess that's what makes me old and WDW is a business in a young persons game.


That makes me sound 81 instead of 31, but hey I'm not the market anymore.

You mean like when they replaced Horizon with an even more expensive ride? Or like when the ride that is right next to it is the most expensive theme park attraction ever? Disney must play it cool going forward due to Corona, but people are paying big time bucks to go. Disney is going to spend to gets the ride that it needs. You would hope so at least. I would hope that people would hold the park accountable too. And say that we're not going to pay $140 to go to a park just for the sole purpose of buying overpriced drinks and paying for overpriced restaurant food. That in park spending should be a reward for the park, and not the reason anybody would go. You're allowed to go to bars and restaurants whenever you want. You don't have to do that during valuable park time.