News Cars-Themed Attractions at Magic Kingdom

[TrainsOfDisney]

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.

So what is your opinion- that only IP should be built? And is that opinion only because you think Disney should do what’s best for the business?

 

[lazyboy97o]

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.

Funny how information that contradicts this is a non-answer.

The franchise mandate at Walt Disney World hasn’t yielded better ROIs than the Nondescript Coaster Themed Like India or Whatever.

 

[FettFan]

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.

I would counter by saying that a hotel that is already themed doesn’t need those “inspired by a movie” touches.

Chiefly, in that a hotel called “Grand Floridian” and is themed to the US Atlantic coast circa 1900-1920 should not have any nods to a fairytale that originated in 17th century France.

 

[FettFan]

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

He also built Euro Disneyland with tons of Disney IP and nearly bankrupted the whole operation.

 

[Stripes]

Funny how information that contradicts this is a non-answer.

The franchise mandate at Walt Disney World hasn’t yielded better ROIs than the Nondescript Coaster Themed Like India or Whatever.

Disney’s accountants seem to think otherwise.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

Disney’s accountants seem to think otherwise.

View attachment 812097

is this a real graph from Disney? Talk about stroking the CEO’s…. Ehhh… ego.

 

[MagicEye99]

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

That's a very simplistic way of putting it. People hated DCA because, except for Soarin', California Screamin', and Grizzly River Run, all of the attractions were extremely underwhelming. It's no shocker that the Orange Stinger and Golden Vine Winery weren't drawing in crowds? It actually proves my point that original ideas, done right and in a timeless way, can be as impactful to guests as media IP-based attractions.

 

[wannabeBelle]

And yet when Epcot opened there wasnt any IP driven attractions and the park did well, as it was something new and unique. Also one of the IP to come out of that, Figment, is wildly popular today. IP or not, a good attraction is a good attraction. Marie

 

[CoasterCowboy67]

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.

I doubt we have the 5-12 year old segment represented here

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.

Well no, not if it’s a great ride. I don’t see Radiator Springs Racers or Flight of Passage or Midway Manía or many other examples aging out for a long, long time. and if they do age out or culturally unfit, clearly Disney isn’t afraid of a refresh ala Splash. I don’t think they see it as wasted investment

 

[KDM31091]

That's a very simplistic way of putting it. People hated DCA because, except for Soarin', California Screamin', and Grizzly River Run, all of the attractions were extremely underwhelming. It's no shocker that the Orange Stinger and Golden Vine Winery weren't drawing in crowds? It actually proves my point that original ideas, done right and in a timeless way, can be as impactful to guests as media IP-based attractions.

Exactly. Had DCA been done well and properly funded it would have been a success, despite the lack of IP. Unfortunately, cheap attractions like the Winery and Orange Stinger you mention, cheapened the whole park. Attendance wasn't good, and now it is just a hodgepodge IP mess.

Many classic and very popular Disney attractions are not IP based. They don't have to be IP based to be successful. The parks should have a balance.

 

[DisneyHead123]

I would counter by saying that a hotel that is already themed doesn’t need those “inspired by a movie” touches.

Chiefly, in that a hotel called “Grand Floridian” and is themed to the US Atlantic coast circa 1900-1920 should not have any nods to a fairytale that originated in 17th century France.

Sure although I was making a different point in bringing it up.

 

[Ghost93]

Tom Sawyer is pretty much an IP....one that happened to slide into public domain by the time Disney got around to making it a theme park attraction. It just doesn't feel like one because it's a very old IP and is therefore seen as more of a classic and more "respectable." I imagine once Cars becomes old enough, it too will be viewed as more of a classic piece of Americana instead of a studio franchise.

Cars Land may feel like a corporate cash grab today, but 100 years from now it will be viewed as a charming relic of a bygone era and Lightning McQueen and Mater will be as revered and studied by educators as Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn.

 

[flynnibus]

That's a very simplistic way of putting it. People hated DCA because, except for Soarin', California Screamin', and Grizzly River Run, all of the attractions were extremely underwhelming. It's no shocker that the Orange Stinger and Golden Vine Winery weren't drawing in crowds? It actually proves my point that original ideas, done right and in a timeless way, can be as impactful to guests as media IP-based attractions.

The lack of Disney character was very much part of it too.. the park was full of hits, but people came in and did the hits and left. Disney aimed differently with DCA with a creative angle that was more aimed more mature and it flunked. The over the top puns everywhere.. the cheap hollywood... a pretty, but still extremely basic set of carnival rides with a bunch of non-ride stuff that people were one and dones for. It's no accident that character infusion was very much part of the DCA v2 plan including changing Cars Land to the Cars movie franchise, the rework of the pier, World of Color, changing of the entrance to the Carthay Theatre and working the rest of the entrance to support that.. trying to change it all to the California of the dawn of Walt Disney Studios. I mean, they put a statue of Walt in where before was a giant sun sculpture.

Disney character Fusion was a pillar of DCA v2 designs.

 

[October82]

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.

I'm curious why you asked the question about what other people would do if you were planning to just restate your position in response? You're just restating that your personal preferences are for IP themed experiences. Mine aren't. And I don't think most high end hotel guests love IP decorations in their rooms either. So when you ask me how I'd run Disney, I'm going to say I'd run the company the way it was run for decades and that attracted me to spend money on the Disney Parks. I can also state unequivocally that I put my money where my mouth is - I spend a small fraction of what I once did on the Disney Parks.

In the scenario you outlined, I am the person betting a billion dollars and I don't have bosses to answer to beyond my bank account (or those of my shareholders). And if you ask me if I'm going to bet a billion dollars on Cars or Tokyo DisneySea/EPCOT Center, I'm going to pick the latter. Because I want two billion dollars, and another two billion after that, and so on and I think the design experts that I carefully hired from the best design colleges and poached from my competitors are a better judge of what people might want than simply going with what the marketing MBAs think is best.

(I'll listen to them too - I just don't think the former group needs to be subservient to the latter anymore than I think my movie studio creatives should be subservient to what marketing thinks is best - this is how we end up with Toy Story 5.)

 

[el_super]

Exactly. Had DCA been done well and properly funded it would have been a success, despite the lack of IP. Unfortunately, cheap attractions like the Winery and Orange Stinger you mention, cheapened the whole park. Attendance wasn't good, and now it is just a hodgepodge IP mess.

A hodgepodge of IP mess... with higher attendance and revenue right?

And you know the Orange Stinger is still there right... they just slapped Mickey's face on it and called it a day. Somehow though that "saved" it in the eyes of the fans.

When that parked opened, most of the complaints against it were about the lack of Disney IP and things for kids to do. They moved quickly to add Bugs Land and Disney Junior, Aladdin, and swap Limo over to Monsters Inc as stop-gaps until they pulled the trigger on the 2007 announcement of Mermaid and Cars. Their focus on DCA has been IP driven since 2002, and there has been no sign of any change over the course of some 22 years of data.

 

[Disstevefan1]

TSI is really fun to explore, its just some folks never gave it a chance.

I hope I can get there before the walls and bulldozers show up as I want to go there one last time.
I also want to get on the riverboat one last time.

Some last times I did not know was the last time, like -
Horizons
The fountain of nations in EPCOT
Innoventions in EPCOT
Illuminations in EPCOT
Riding in the front of the monorail.
Mouse Gear in EPCOT.
The lights of Winder in EPCOT
I could go on....

A last time I missed a last time because I chose wrongly was when 45 was in office. I was just going to step in the doorway of HOP and at the last moment I chose the parade. I know I will never get that opportunity ever again as we pretty much know HOP will be destroyed.

There were last times we knew it was the last time -
My kid and I was on what could have been the last ride of Body Wars - it was just THE TWO of us on the ride.

The saddest of last times was, yes, the Osborne lights. Before we left for the last time, I stood at the end of the street and just took it all in for a few minutes, knowing I would never see it again. I still miss it.

We now confirmed, nothing is sacred in WDW, so I recommend treat every attraction as its the last time you see it because it may well be the last time you see it.

 

[el_super]

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 missed this the first time, but did want to quote it for truth since it's a good case for why Cars Land v2 will be a huge success.

 

[Brer Panther]

What is your basis for saying that IP experiences are preferred over non-IP? If that statement were true, then attractions like Haunted Mansion, Jungle Cruise, Space Mountain, Big Thunder, Expedition Everest, Spaceship Earth, Kilimanjaro Safaris, would never be as busy as Peter Pan's Flight, Monsters Inc. Laugh Floor, Buzz Lightyear, Frozen, TBA, 7 Dwarfs Mine Train, Tower Of Terror, Slinky Dog-which is not true at all. The non-IP attractions are consistently the busiest attractions in the parks, and at the very least have have the same guest numbers as the IP attractions.

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.

It's also worth noting that IP attractions have proven they can still be failures. Stitch's Great Escape, Under New Management Tiki Room, The Legend of Captain Jack Sparrow, and - most recently - the Galactic Starcruiser were all IP-based but were failures. And apparently Muppet-Vision 3D and Dinosaur, both IP-based rides, are unpopular enough for Disney to want to remove them.

and now the proposed canning of RoA, Shooting Arcade, Mr Toads wild ride

...wait, is there a rumor flying around that they're gonna replace Disneyland's Mr. Toad?

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.

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.

Yes. This.

 

[el_super]

He also built Euro Disneyland with tons of Disney IP and nearly bankrupted the whole operation.

I'm sure EuroDisney would have been fine had he not built a river with TWO steamboats.

 

[October82]

Disney’s accountants seem to think otherwise.

View attachment 812097

This is what we call a 'junk chart' in my profession. Lots of choices (such as obscuring the y-axis) and picking specific percentage changes to make it look like revenue growth is way up. Including logos of specific IPs also makes it look like there's a causal relationship - good for PR but not good for understanding the business fundamentals.

If you take Parks & Resorts revenues pre-2012 and fit for revenue growth in inflation adjusted dollars, you get estimated 2024 revenues of something like ~$20-21 billion. Actual revenues are $24ish billion which is <$20 billion in inflation adjusted dollars, so right in line with expectations rather than reflecting significant IP driven increases.

This is hardly scientific (I could only easily grab a limited amount of data) but meant to illustrate why charts like this are misleading and how 'junk charts' can spin a narrative that the data doesn't actually support.

The real issue is that the tourism industry, in general, is way up in real terms. Is Disney capturing an increasing or decreasing share of global tourist dollars? Should we actually expect them to have grown revenues faster than the trend line shown? Or is growth right in line with inflation + the previous trend expected or unexpected (maybe macroeconomic factors should be pushing the parks into a downturn)? Charts like this don't answer (and can't) that.