News Cars-Themed Attractions at Magic Kingdom

[October82]

Oh no doubt there is still value in a physical experience. At least for now. But that doesn't really help to explain why one type of experience (IP) is preferred over another (non-IP). Or that a reality based experience (like a jungle river or Mississippi steam boat) isn't preferred over something more fantastical. Accessibility to information, changing social standards and even just the overabundance of media could all play into this... but it's hard to deny it hasn't already happened. That shift in the audience started way back in the 1960s.

[citation needed]

 

[Raineman]

I don't think anyone's given Disney a reason to believe IP-only investments are the wrong strategy. I too would love non-IP, but the IP stuff they keep churning out is popular and in high demand. We say they run the risk of alienating certain fans who demand non-IP attractions, but is that bearing out in the numbers? Do we see folks boycotting the parks? Attendance numbers do look to be tapering out. Though not sure anyone will make the conclusion it's because they don't have enough non-IP. They may make the opposite conclusion

It's not currently bearing out in attendance numbers per se, but if the trend of non-IP attractions being replaced by recent IP based attractions continues, especially to the point of almost everything in the parks being IP-based, then I think you will see some long time guests choosing to spend their vacation $ elsewhere. Part of the allure of Disney theme parks has always been the element of nostalgia, and that element looks to be on track to be minimized going forward. If new attractions were being built that were based on classic Disney IP, I think that would soften the blow somewhat, but everything seems to be trending to Pixar characters, recent new Disney princesses, Disney-era Star Wars, etc. The only nostalgia generated from that IP comes from the younger generations, so it does kinda feel like Disney is focusing on those guests and not the boomers and Gen-Xers.

 

[Andrew C]

I seem to remember people thinking Eisner was doing a horrible job at the end

That is because he was doing a horrible job at the end. For every leader, even the good ones, their time eventually comes to an end.

 

[Dizknee_Phreek]

That is because he was doing a horrible job at the end. For every leader, even the good ones, their time eventually comes to an end.

Someone needs to tell Iger.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

This is a bad faith argument and you should feel bad for typing it.

How so? What I typed is correct - Pandora is more popular than the animal trails.

That is because he was doing a horrible job at the end. For every leader, even the good ones, their time eventually comes to an end.

Park wise Eisner was beginning to improve at the end. I feel like he saw the error of the budget cuts and was approving good attractions - lights, motors, Everest, and Soarin all getting built at the same time was an excellent commitment to the WDW parks and all of them fit the parks and the area well.

Soarin should have gotten a custom “Soarin over the land” movie and ideally would not have completely replaced food rocks but it was still a solid addition to the park.

 

[John park hopper]

Basically the Disney powers to be have no understanding of what their guests want and have no interest in finding out. Just look at the TBA debacle and the Star Wars Galactic cruiser and now the proposed canning of RoA, Shooting Arcade, Mr Toads wild ride endless lit of things gone. IMO guest want nostalgia and new and new not all based on IP

 

[DisneyHead123]

It kind of is. Case in point Mizner’s Lounge being replaced with BatB at the Grand Floridian, and the Incredibles-themed rooms at the Contemporary.

Riviera has IP in art form sense, The new Poly Tower happens to be Moana but interesting enough in hints and touches contrast to Edna Mode and Incredible bodies in your face at The Contemporary !

Enchanted Rose, Riviera, and Poly Tower all have subtle touches of things or a style that is “inspired by” a movie.

The Incredibles is maybe an exception but they seem to have sharply reversed course after that refurb.

I stand by the idea that in the areas they designate as the most important expensive and “deluxe”, Disney suddenly becomes slightly allergic to heavy, literal, IP theming.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

I stand by the idea that in the areas they designate as the most important expensive and “deluxe”, Disney suddenly becomes slightly allergic to heavy, literal, IP theming.

They did turn an excellent and classy restaurant into a princess dinner at wilderness lodge too. Give them time and they will ruin the resorts too haha

 

[DisneyHead123]

They did turn an excellent and classy restaurant into a princess dinner at wilderness lodge too. Give them time and they will ruin the resorts too haha

I don’t know, they seem to have done a sharp u-turn on theming the resorts. Honestly I’m more of an IP person so I prefer the type of theming you see in Tokyo and Shanghai, but it just seems to me that if Disney sees subtle theming and ambiance as the best, the most deluxe type experience - why wouldn’t they try to theme their parks to what they see as the highest standard?

 

[October82]

How so? What I typed is correct - Pandora is more popular than the animal trails.

Park wise Eisner was beginning to improve at the end. I feel like he saw the error of the budget cuts and was approving good attractions - lights, motors, Everest, and Soarin all getting built at the same time was an excellent commitment to the WDW parks and all of them fit the parks and the area well.

Soarin should have gotten a custom “Soarin over the land” movie and ideally would not have completely replaced food rocks but it was still a solid addition to the park.

Eisner's relationship to the parks is a complicated one, IMO. The parks deserved more and consistent investment under his watch, but he also clearly didn't think of the parks as vehicles for selling Disney IP, and actually invested significant resources in bringing in leading architects to design resort properties and engage in creative work for them.

 

[el_super]

I seem to remember people thinking Eisner was doing a horrible job at the end, but he would be miles better than what we have now.

People hated Eisner because he built DCA with almost no Disney IP and it failed.

 

[lazyboy97o]

If you were a business executive in charge of developing a new land/ride would you risk $500M on an existing popular IP with metric for merch, ratings and sales or would you risk it on a new non existing IP where you have a higher risk if missing?

The decision to only invest in franchises occurred during the incredibly successful, widely publicized opening of an attraction that lacked a franchise attachment. The executive made the decision in spite of that huge success because he didn’t understand why people were interested in what he considered a non-descriptive coaster or how he could extract higher licensing fees when he sold off the whole stupid business.

The high cost of new projects is itself a big part of the problem. Disney has always had higher costs but the escalation of the past two decades has been extreme and unsustainable. Despite being a talking point for decades it remains unsolved because the people charged with fixing the problem don’t understand it because the business as a whole, despite its continued success, is not trusted to its own operation. It’s stupid entertainment for stupid people, and only stupid people make a career of it.

The executives need the reassurance of spreadsheets because they don’t know the business and cannot confidently defend it. A movie can flush away a few hundred million dollars in a weekend, it sucks but it’s also just recognized as part of the business. Compare that to the theme parks where Easter being in a different quarter, something that is known and predictable, can cause all out panic. There is no confidence in the parks business which causes meddling and drives up the costs, self-justifying the “need” for a known property and more micromanaging. And unlike a movie it is actually possible to tweak and rework an attraction that isn’t hitting quite right and as a last resort rework it completely.

I wouldn’t approve a $500 million attraction because that’s too much to spend nor would I approve a land because that’s probably not actually enough for good capacity. The content would have to be compelling, because compelling experiences is what actually juices guest spending.

 

[disneylandtour]

History has shown that the vast majority of non-IP/non-existing IP attractions have never missed the mark, and have consistently been popular and busy, so the risk of introducing those types of attractions to the parks is minimal.

There's plenty of great non-IP rides. But, um, phantom boats, Primeval Whirl, superstar limo, skyway, rocket rods, astro orbiter, hall of presidents, triceratops spin, if you had wings, pack mules, stage coaches, motor boat cruise, Space Station X-1, the World Beneath Us, Dutch Boy Color gallery, Bathroom of Tomorrow, etc. There's definitely under-performing attractions on both sides of the IP fence.

 

[erasure fan1]

I don't think anyone's given Disney a reason to believe IP-only investments are the wrong strategy.

That's because they aren't a bad investment strategy. People expect to go to Disney and see their favorite favorite characters and movies represented. The thing is, none of this is all or nothing. The same question can be said just in reverse. I don't think anyone has given Disney a reason to believe non ip is the wrong investment strategy. I mean, mansion, thunder, space, everest, mystic manor, test track, soarin.... all prove it's good. It's really all about balance. Ip or non Ip, what makes the most sense for the space, the area, the ride type... If the company just continues to require Ip, we will continue to get terrible shoehorning. Again, it's not an all or nothing, or at least it shouldn't be.

 

[HMF]

Do we see folks boycotting the parks?

I am. At least the Florida parks.

 

[Quietmouse]

That's because they aren't a bad investment strategy. People expect to go to Disney and see their favorite favorite characters and movies represented. The thing is, none of this is all or nothing. The same question can be said just in reverse. I don't think anyone has given Disney a reason to believe non ip is the wrong investment strategy. I mean, mansion, thunder, space, everest, mystic manor, test track, soarin.... all prove it's good. It's really all about balance. Ip or non Ip, what makes the most sense for the space, the area, the ride type... If the company just continues to require Ip, we will continue to get terrible shoehorning. Again, it's not an all or nothing, or at least it shouldn't be.

I imagine it’s a lot like the video game industry and their aversion to new ips and focus on sequels.

In this case, the rising cost of building out these new attractions is easily in the hundreds of millions dollars nowadays. That’s a lot of money, and a lot of money equals alot of risk.

I think there is hesitancy on how successful a non ip based ride can be and the ultimate financial risk attached to the investment.

Obviously Disney makes profit from merchandise sales, and lightning passes. At the very least an ip based attraction that is from a popular film will generate some degree of interest, even if the ride is bad, because the kids will want to go on it to see there f, y, z favorite character and buy a themed ip stuffed animal or shirt.

A non ip attraction can’t guarantee those same results.

Also, things have been just plain weird financially since Covid. I feel like everyone is waiting for the bottom to drop for a while now.

So I at least understand the ip mandate from a business perspective.

 

[GhostHost1000]

People hated Eisner because he built DCA with almost no Disney IP and it failed.

What was he thinking?
Attractions built with no Disney IP?!

Why would anyone do something like Pirates, Jungle Cruise, Big Thunder Mountain, Haunted Mansion, Small World, Space Mountain, etc. etc.

 

[FigmentJedi]

Don’t get me started on “the professor” again! Haha.

There is nothing in the new show that sets it in the 20th century correct?

Country Bears was always 20th century. Most of the songs from the original show were from the 50s and 60s.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

Country Bears was always 20th century. Most of the songs from the original show were from the 50s and 60s.

When a song was written doesn’t set the period - it’s the style of performance.

Ragtime piano and dapper dans frequently perform modern songs in a vintage style.

 

[Raineman]

There's plenty of great non-IP rides. But, um, phantom boats, Primeval Whirl, superstar limo, skyway, rocket rods, astro orbiter, hall of presidents, triceratops spin, if you had wings, pack mules, stage coaches, motor boat cruise, Space Station X-1, the World Beneath Us, Dutch Boy Color gallery, Bathroom of Tomorrow, etc. There's definitely under-performing attractions on both sides of the IP fence.

I don't disagree with you. But for some people here to state that IP based attractions have been and will always be more successful and wanted and integral to the parks than non-IP based attractions-that's simply not true, and is not based on any factual information. That is one of the most frustrating things about this whole discussion so far.