Calling all IP malcontents......

[DisneyNittany]

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".

Stay with me here, but I legitimately think that EPCOT could use existing IP for each and every pavilion, and if done right, could be so cohesive and immersive and true to the original EPCOT Center that you could appease the vast majority of both nostalgic, die-hard fans and the families that Disney markets and targets.

For example, they could have themed Innoventions to something like Big Hero Six to help draw people in, but once in there it could stay true to it's roots as a center to display new and improved technology. Hell, work with American universities and rotate in different tech displays and presentations in a mutually beneficial way.

Give us a back story other than "Peter Quill visited Epcot" as a reason for the Guardians coaster. Maybe you tie-in the Infinity Stones being the grand "energy" of our universe, use Guardians as a way to pull people in, but have an edutainment area where the ride files people into.

I mean, none of these are great, fleshed out ideas, but I also typed this up in five minutes and don't get paid to be an Imagineer or Disney Exec. I just feel like it shouldn't be too hard to include IP AND do it in an appropriate way.

 

[Cmdr_Crimson]

Stitch before it closed, perhaps? Tough to be a Bug if you include shows?

See, I thought it had to include said "inspired" wording in it..Similar to the previous HK one..

 

[tl77]

I think the main problem I have with The Walt Disney Company or Walt Disney Imagineering in regards to "IP" is what I think of as "The Disneyland Mentality" vs "The Disney World Mentality". I think there's a simple but important different between the 2 that seems to get ignored... but basically Disneyland park was the only Disney park in California for about 50 years, and in the mid 1980's they started adding the "Outside IP" to Disneyland, like Star Wars, Indy, Captain EO, ect... but to me that's the Disneyland Mentality "try and fit any cool thing in the park that you can". So for 40 years that's how they've done things out there, and the Disney Company and Disney Fans out at Disneyland seem to accept and enjoy that that's how it is.

I've never been to Disneyland, but I've been to Disney World countless times since 1979, and a big part of the appeal, and what keeps me and my family coming back year after year, is is being immersed in the different "Themed Worlds". From the Resort Hotels to the Water Parks to 4 Theme Parks, it's the "theme" or the "Fantasy Worlds" that I enjoy more so than any particular "IP".

The Magic Kingdom Park is the only "castle park" in the world that's "only ever been Classic Disney Characters/IP" I like Star Wars and Indy... at The Studios, but wouldn't want to see them at The Magic Kingdom Park. To me that's the "Disney World Mentality" the idea that there are separate areas dedicated to each theme.

It seems to me that since Imagineering is based in Califorina, that maybe the new generation of Imagineers tend to look at Disneyland Park as "the template"... even in some of the ads recently, there's a "Disneyland Mentality" advertising "The Walt Disney World Resort" ...in the TV commercial at The Grand Floridian, where Storm Troopers get out of the Elevator? and I always look at that and think "if I ever saw a Storm Trooper and the Grand Floridian something has gone terribly wrong" ...mixing all the stuff together is maybe what they like or expect at Disneyland, I know that typically people go to Disneyland Park for a single day, and I guess try and cram in as much stuff as possible... but we go to Disney World for a week on average, and want to see something different each day, and just enjoy being immersed in each of the different "make believe worlds"

So long story short, I go to Disney World, for Disney Stuff, and the Disney Themeing... but I don't mind seeing Star Wars and Indy while I'm there

 

[FettFan]

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.

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.

 

[Cmdr_Crimson]

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.

This is a guilty pleasure movie for me especially what they got away with being a Disney movie...I'll be happy once it pops up on the plus down the road...until then I have the DVD for the time being and enjoy one of my favorite moments..

 

[tl77]

Another thing that I really prefer about the "non IP" attractions is that the appear to be "real" ...and what I mean by that is the different characters "appear to be alive" and have different personalities, and are aware of you in their world. Walt Disney had this term he used to describe what they did in animation and movies like Mary Poppins, the term was "The Plausible Impossible". So a character Donald Duck, who is a duck, that talks, and wears a sailor's suit, which is "plausible" but "impossible". A lot of the original attractions fall into that same "Plausible Impossible" category

Like The Haunted Mansion is supposed to be a "real" mansion full of "real" ghosts, and "you" are going on this little adventure there to "meet the ghosts". The cast members kind of bridge the gap between the reality and the fantasy of the ride, but once inside The Ghost Host speaks to you directly, as if he is real, and he's aware of you presence in the Mansion. Then you get locked in a room "with no windows, and no doors, and you must find a way out" and that's where your adventure begins. Along the way the Busts in the Library follow you, (the paintings used to watch you) the ghosts "feel you're sympathetic vibrations" and materialize, then they hitch a ride with you, and as you leave you're told "a ghost will follow you home"... or you can stay if you want "there's room for one more"... but the Haunted Mansion appears to be a real place with real ghosts, the same way the Tiki Room appears to be a real place with real birds. The birds are "asleep" when you first enter, but then they wake up, introduce themselves to you, sing songs, ask you to sing along, and then the tell you to get out at the end...

The County Bears, The Tiki Birds, Sunny Eclipse, the Haunted Mansion Ghosts all seem to be real, and seem to live at Disney World, which back in the day was the reason to go to Disney World, because that was the only place you could see them and hear theirs songs, ect...

The "IP" attractions on the other hand, don't feel "as" real to me because they are mostly recreations of things you see in movies... The Little Mermaid ride is beautiful, but it's mostly like a "3D Highlights reel" of The Little Mermaid movie, where as The Haunted Mansion and Jungle Cruise are "Journeys" through places that appear to be real... and since The Magic Kingdom in WDW is the number 1 vacation destination in the world, and consists of "Original Disney IP" I don't why they don't create more "one of a kind characters and experiences that you can only see at Walt Disney World"

 

[erasure fan1]

and since The Magic Kingdom in WDW is the number 1 vacation destination in the world, and consists of "Original Disney IP" I don't why they don't create more "one of a kind characters and experiences that you can only see at Walt Disney World

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.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

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

This is all true and interesting but in no way at odds with the post above it, to which you were responding.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

Star Wars and Marvel are not Disney properties.

Neither are most of Disney’s greatest hits.

 

[Chicken Guy]

Neither are most of Disney’s greatest hits.

Come again?

 

[erasure fan1]

Come again?

Most all of Disneys stories are their spin on someone else's tale. So that is the point he is making I believe.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

Most all of Disneys stories are their spin on someone else's tale. So that is the point he is making I believe.

This. ^

 

[Chicken Guy]

Most all of Disneys stories are their spin on someone else's tale. So that is the point he is making I believe.

It goes without saying that that isn't what is meant by a Disney property. Movies like Peter Pan or Aladdin were directly produced in-house by Walt Disney Productions/TWDC, while movies like Star Wars and Iron Man were produced by a third party and later purchased by Disney.

 

[networkpro]

Another thing that I really prefer about the "non IP" attractions is that the appear to be "real" ...and what I mean by that is the different characters "appear to be alive" and have different personalities, and are aware of you in their world. Walt Disney had this term he used to describe what they did in animation and movies like Mary Poppins, the term was "The Plausible Impossible". So a character Donald Duck, who is a duck, that talks, and wears a sailor's suit, which is "plausible" but "impossible". A lot of the original attractions fall into that same "Plausible Impossible" category

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.

 

[erasure fan1]

It goes without saying that that isn't what is meant by a Disney property. Movies like Peter Pan or Aladdin were directly produced in-house by Walt Disney Productions/TWDC, while movies like Star Wars and Iron Man were produced by a third party and later purchased by Disney.

At what point does a star wars or a Marvel become a Disney property? The majority of Marvel movies have been produced under disney. Almost half of the live action star wars movies plus the first live action tv series are Disney as well. Disney has had a partnership with star wars for over 30yrs. So I agree some of the movies aren't Disney produced movies but the franchises are well established as Disney properties at this point in my eyes.

 

[Goofyernmost]

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.

See that is what I mean. Disney bought a franchise, but the attraction is as home grown as it can possibly be. It is now a Disney property and the concept of Star Wars Land was created after the purchase was made, ergo... it is Home Grown now.

 

[Tjaden]

For me it's more about the end of edutainment (such as the death of Future World) than any actual IP additions.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

At what point does a star wars or a Marvel become a Disney property? The majority of Marvel movies have been produced under disney. Almost half of the live action star wars movies plus the first live action tv series are Disney as well. Disney has had a partnership with star wars for over 30yrs. So I agree some of the movies aren't Disney produced movies but the franchises are well established as Disney properties at this point in my eyes.

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

 

[Goofyernmost]

For me it's more about the end of edutainment (such as the death of Future World) than any actual IP additions.

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.

 

[Heppenheimer]

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.

A thought I keep coming back to. The main inspirations for Epcot were the World's Fairs, which offered a mix of culture and demonstrations of the world's newest technologies. Crucially different from Epcot, though, were that the World's Fairs were designed as temporary exhibitions, and by their very nature, would be updated with each new iteration. Unless Disney firmly committed themselves financially to providing periodic and meaningful updates to Epcot (which they obviously did not), the march of technological progress would inevitably bypass Future World (and Tomorrowland).