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. The most recent non-IP attraction, Expedition Everest, is an example of that. If you introduce an attraction that provides thrills, enjoyment, and immersive theming, it will be a hit, whether there is IP involved or not.
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. He believed in creativity over pure profit. He and Frank Wells did an amazing job overall, and if Wells hadn't have passed away, who knows where the parks would be now?
[citation needed]
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.
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.
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.
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!
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?
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.
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.
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.
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 am. At least the Florida parks.
