News Cars-Themed Attractions at Magic Kingdom

[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.

 

[flynnibus]

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

Different focus

When Walt built Disneyland and the decade after he had the sole purpose of building the best theme park. He wasn't trying to boost WDP with Disneyland... he just wanted Disneyland to be the most incredible thing. When they went to expand, it was the same thing, he was trying to make Disneyland East the most incredible thing it could be. Walt wasn't playing CEO... he was playing dreamer and entertainment architect.

Now the company is a conglomerate that wants more from it's children. It doesn't want just customers for the best known dark rides ... it wants customers for products in theme parks, film, DTC, merchandise, licensing, etc. You're not going to sell a bunch of lunch boxes and licensing for BTMRR... but if you build a brand around Toy Story, you will be able to make money in all those categories.

It shouldn't be hard for people to grasp that the theme parks do not live in isolation. Management has interests that go beyond the theme park success. They want their individual pieces to leverage and promote each other.

 

[CoasterCowboy67]

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.

Yeah. This forum is also an echo chamber of likely a specific age range that really values the classics. My partner is 5 years younger than me, and he clearly doesn’t connect with Lion King, BATB, and Aladdin like I do. He’s all about Mulan, Hercules, Emperor’s New Groove

The even more recent IP is probably just trying to appeal to younger kids and families with them, no?

 

[BuzzedPotatoHead89]

Yeah. This forum is also an echo chamber of likely a specific age range that really values the classics. My partner is 5 years younger than me, and he clearly doesn’t connect with Lion King, BATB, and Aladdin like I do. He’s all about Mulan, Hercules, Emperor’s New Groove

The even more recent IP is probably just trying to appeal to younger kids and families with them, no?

But arguably isn’t that the problem with tying everything to a specific IP vs an evergreen set of thematic principles/settings in the first place?

That eventually it “ages out” and becomes no longer relevant.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

This forum is also an echo chamber of likely a specific age range that really values the classics.

Not really - I’m pretty sure all ages are represented here. It’s often older generations saying “you don’t understand what millennials and gen z wants” when the actual millennials and gen z are posting they want the opposite.

I was once called an “old man” by a poster who is quite a bit older than me. Haha.

 

[Bocabear]

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

it didn't fail because of a lack of IP...it failed due to a lack of Attractions and Theming. That was the big thing.....

 

[Raineman]

it didn't fail because of a lack of IP...it failed due to a lack of Attractions and Theming. That was the big thing.....

You'll have to excuse him-he has an obsession with the idea that Disney theme parks are successful mainly because of IP.

 

[JD80]

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.

You dodged the question. If you needed to build a land with a rollercoaster, a flat and a dark ride along with merch and restaurants with the price tag of something like $1B would you choose to build it off of existing IP or would you choose to build something based on a new idea?

(or if you were sold on a new concept/IP would you try floating the new IP in a lower cost show/movie/merch via DTC to see if it would draw before betting $1B on it? If you would do this this, does this mean non-IP ride fans would then ultimately call it a Disney IP and not fit for the parks?)

 

[JD80]

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

So you think starting off a conversation saying "If X is more popular remove everything that's not X" is a good place to start? Weird.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

If you needed to build a land with a rollercoaster, a flat and a dark ride along with merch and restaurants with the price tag of something like $1B would you choose to build it off of existing IP or would you choose to build something based on a new idea?

That would depend on the area of the park, which park, and other hypotheticals. Also… can we mix things up a bit and have a mix of IP and original?

 

[JD80]

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.

That's a giant non answer.

 

[Andrew C]

it didn't fail because of a lack of IP...it failed due to a lack of Attractions and Theming. That was the big thing.....

Yeah. It was just an underdeveloped piece of garbage done on the cheap...

 

[SpaceMountain77]

Ive been to Epcot alot between 2019-2024 and not once did the construction define my park experience. Just saying. Why go to the parks if that’s your relationship with it.

Sounds a bit bombastic.

When walls went up and the hub was closed for reimagining, navigating the walkways from the former Future World East and West sides was not always easy. During those years, I did push a family member in a wheelchair and traveled with another in a scooter, so it could have been specific to our experience with the walkways.

 

[MagicEye99]

Not really - I’m pretty sure all ages are represented here. It’s often older generations saying “you don’t understand what millennials and gen z wants” when the actual millennials and gen z are posting they want the opposite.

I was once called an “old man” by a poster who is quite a bit older than me. Haha.

Agreed - I'm 25 and a massive supporter of the classics. I recognize their value and uniqueness. While I appreciate the Disney media I grew up with, and do enjoy their presence in the Parks, there needs to be a balance. I'm more impressed by an original idea, like PoTC or the original EPCOT Center dark rides, than I am of anything media IP-related that's opened in the Parks during my lifetime. And it's not even just "boring" rides - Everest is a more engaging experience to me than something like Tron or GotG (which I won't deny is a great coaster). I've been engaged with EPCOT Center lore, for example, since I was 10 - I took my profile picture when I was like 13 because I was enamored by the history of the Imagination Pavilion.

TWDC is not solely pushing its IP mandate because "it's what people like" - clearly people "like" Marvel, Princesses, Star Wars (arguable, not opening that can here), Pixar, and all of the the other media Disney puts out. But they clearly also like Park original ideas. As it stands, that's the issue though; there is no balance. It's just a deluge of attractions ONLY based on media IP. And anyone who makes the argument for the removal of TSI and ROA under the pretense "people's interests have changed since the 50s", the same thing can be applied to ALL of the IP-specific attractions and lands that have opened/will continue to open at the Parks. The beauty of non-media IP attractions is that they are often timeless in nature and bend with changing interests - that's why attractions like BTMRR, PotC, HM, Space Mountain, Living with the Land, Spaceship Earth, Figment (in theory), Test Track, Soarin', etc. are all still popular with guests, regardless of whether they're interested in a specific movie or TV show. What's going to happen in 25 years when nobody cares about superheroes, just like audiences stopped caring about Westerns or gangster films? (Also, the reason why attractions based on the classic IPs, i.e., in Fantasyland, are still relevant is because those films are timeless stories - many of Disney's current media is not, at all).

The problem here is that Imagineering has a mandate from management to implement more IP into the Parks - I'm sure there are folks at WDI who are extremely clever and creative, who have thought of park-exclusive, original ideas. I guarantee you that the second those ideas are presented, WDI higher-ups/management from TWDC shoot them down OR repurpose them to fit a preexisting IP. And it's not because "it's what people like", it's because Bob Iger is creatively bankrupt and hellbent on proving that the very, very costly acquisitions he made during his tenure were worth it (read his autobiography "The Ride of a Lifetime" and I promise you'll draw the same conclusion). It's done under the guise of "more timeless, more relevant, and more Disney" to shift the hot potato into the hands of the consumer, who Disney has now painted as too stupid to care about any attraction other than ones where the guest points and says "I know that thing from XYZ movie!".

SWGE, Avengers Campus, etc. are neat in concept and pieces of these attractions are impressive in execution, but the motive for shoehorning them into the Parks is nothing more than what I indicated above, and as an advertisement for Disney+. As Chapek said a while back, Disney+ is essentially the Company's gauge for parkgoers' tastes. Now, sure, this might be a sound financial move in the short-term - they are a publicly traded Company, after all, and have a responsiblity to shareholders to turn a healthy profit. Whether that's from merchandise sales, park tickets/LL+, or Disney+ is irrelevant once it all consolidates, it's cash in vs. cash out. However, Disney guests have proven that they are perfectly smart enough to enjoy experiences that are not based on the most recent film by Marvel, Lucasfilm, or Pixar. Like I said above, what's gonna happen when SWGE, Toy Story Land, Avatar, Marvel, etc. are irrelevant to consumers? It's a lot easier to [insert new attraction here] into an area of your park that wasn't purpose-built a specific IP; to me, that's long-term foresight that management lacks. Believe me, I get all the buzzwords, synergy, leveraging properties to sell merchandise, interconnectivity between attractions and media, etc. - I understand that the bean-counters probably determined that the NPV of tearing-out ROA/TSI and building Cars + all the shops meant $X million in future cash flows. That's all well and good. But there's more to making a business decision than just cash flows; Disney is a Company whose reputation is built on decades of goodwill, to which the accountants (of which I am one) can't determine a value.

But what do I know. These are just my thoughts, and all of this could blow up in my face. I'll come back to this in 25 years and take the heat, if I am wrong.

 

[October82]

You dodged the question. If you needed to build a land with a rollercoaster, a flat and a dark ride along with merch and restaurants with the price tag of something like $1B would you choose to build it off of existing IP or would you choose to build something based on a new idea?

(or if you were sold on a new concept/IP would you try floating the new IP in a lower cost show/movie/merch via DTC to see if it would draw before betting $1B on it? If you would do this this, does this mean non-IP ride fans would then ultimately call it a Disney IP and not fit for the parks?)

I’d go to my design team - the same team that built Tokyo DisneySea and EPCOT Center - and let them tell me what concepts they think will work best. Why? Because this is a group of people who have conceptualized and executed industry leading products that have helped make the company I lead one of the largest media conglomerates in the world.

And if they come back with a great fit for an existing park - like the Car land concept for DCA - that’s when I might suggest - what if we use our existing IP as all or part of this. I’d then trust the design and engineering experts who I’ve hired.

That’s the key difference between how Disney - imperfectly - once worked and how they do now. Disney’s media executives make decisions and instruct the design teams to follow. Disneys designers should be making decisions about products with input from other parts of the company.

 

[FettFan]

Pandora is preferred over the animal trails correct? So remove all animals from DAK?

Don’t give them ideas. It’ll be just like Fierce Creatures, where to cut zoo costs, the corporate suits propose replacing all the animals with animatronics.

And Kevin Kline rides a robot panda.

 

[JD80]

I’d go to my design team - the same team that built Tokyo DisneySea and EPCOT Center - and let them tell me what concepts they think will work best. Why? Because this is a group of people who have conceptualized and executed industry leading products that have helped make the company I lead one of the largest media conglomerates in the world.

And if they come back with a great fit for an existing park - like the Car land concept for DCA - that’s when I might suggest - what if we use our existing IP as all or part of this. I’d then trust the design and engineering experts who I’ve hired.

That’s the key difference between how Disney - imperfectly - once worked and how they do now. Disney’s media executives make decisions and instruct the design teams to follow. Disneys designers should be making decisions about products with input from other parts of the company.

No one here doubts that WDI has some incredibly creative people that could execute both IP and original concepts in the parks. It's all about risk aversion and product cohesion.

You could come up with the best original IP idea, but your bosses are going to ask how it will grow DTC and merch sales vs. existing popular IP that isn't in a particular park. Expedition Everest is a fantastic non-IP ride but they still needed Pandora to drive people to that park.

If you are looking to develop new and creative IP is easier to do that with shows/movies/merch and create a following and fandom and then put it in the parks so it reinforces the new franchise. It's just smart business practices.

Even with popular new IP over the last few decades how long did it take to get Lion King, Little Mermaid, Beast, Moana etc. in to the parks?

What do you think is better for the bottom line? A new Moana attraction in the Magic Kingdom or Brand New IP Ride? Which is going to fill up the hotel better? Which is going to drive more merch sales in the parks?

It's a business. Your bosses would ask you to project ROI of an attraction with no only ticket sales at the parks but merch sales and future IP expansion across all different kinds of media.