Comcast CEO: "Universal will compete aggressively with Disney"

[Matt_Black]

That is exactly my point. Disney Parks, WDW in particular, has a severe problem in meaningfully exploiting IP acquired by the parent organization.

Again, that's not anything new. Even during "The Disney Decade" when the company's biggest hits came out (and the parks were so much better to hear some on these boards tell it), we didn't get many rides featuring those films. Mostly, we got live shows and M&Gs.

 

[marni1971]

Radical idea. Build amazing attractions that are successful due to being amazing attractions.

I've said it before. A great attraction will succeed regardless of the IP.

The right IP attached to an amazing attraction will only complement and enhance it.

 

[danlb_2000]

Again, that's not anything new. Even during "The Disney Decade" when the company's biggest hits came out (and the parks were so much better to hear some on these boards tell it), we didn't get many rides featuring those films. Mostly, we got live shows and M&Gs.

The fastest a totally new ride was built at WDW after a movie's release was Buzz Lightyear Space Ranger Spin which opened 3 years after Toy Story.

 

[danlb_2000]

Radical idea. Build amazing attractions that are successful due to being amazing attractions.

I've said it before. A great attraction will succeed regardless of the IP.

The right IP attached to an amazing attraction will only complement and enhance it.

Now that's just crazy talk!

 

[CDavid]

You know very well that, currently, Disney is limited to what they can do in Florida because of the Universal contract. They've been exploiting loopholes wherever and however they can, and will continue to do so in the future, until they reach some sort of deal with Uni.

The only restrictions are with Marvel, there are none with Star Wars or other IP's. With Marvel, though, what makes you think there would ever be a deal with Universal? I can't see Universal having any reason to restrict or surrender its rights to the Marvel characters; Disney could always try to get a deal for a particular character or something, but given the remarkable lack of much of anything being built in the Florida parks, why would they want to?

Building attractions or experiences using the minor, obscure Marvel characters which Disney does retain the rights to would merely be a great way to promote...the far superior Islands of Adventure Marvel attractions up the road.

 

[TubaGeek]

The fastest a totally new ride was built at WDW after a movie's release was Buzz Lightyear Space Ranger Spin which opened 3 years after Toy Story.

I don't even think that was totally new. Isn't it the exact same track that it's been since the park opened?

 

[Animaniac93-98]

I don't even think that was totally new. Isn't it the exact same track that it's been since the park opened?

Correct. Take Flight closed on January 5, 1998 and Buzz Lightyear began soft openings on October 7 of the same year. It took less than a year to build (and it shows, unfortunately).

 

[ParentsOf4]

I've said it before. A great attraction will succeed regardless of the IP.

The right IP attached to an amazing attraction will only complement and enhance it.

A popular IP is like a movie sequel; it reduces perceived risk and helps sell the project to those approving the budget.

I know you understand but sometimes we forget exactly how difficult and stressful it can be to get a multimillion dollar budget approved. For most of us, something like a Star Wars themed land seems like a no-brainer. (Because it is. ) However, those OK'ing the budget have to deal with a group who only cares about the bottom line and want absolute assurances that the investment is going to succeed.

After the current MyMagic+ budgetary fiasco and the less than stellar reception of Pandora (even on the highly censored Disney Parks blog), it's understandable that additional cash outlays have been scrutinized more than usual of late.

 

[danlb_2000]

Correct. Take Flight closed on January 5, 1998 and Buzz Lightyear began soft openings on October 7 of the same year. It took less than a year to build (and it shows, unfortunately).

So the next smallest gap would have been 9 years for Alladin's Magic Carpet. The shortest time for what people would consider a major new ride would be 12 years (based on the first movie) for Star Tours.

 

[CDavid]

So the next smallest gap would have been 9 years for Alladin's Magic Carpet. The shortest time for what people would consider a major new ride would be 12 years (based on the first movie) for Star Tours.

Eight years from Raiders of the Lost Ark to the Indiana Jones Epic Stunt Spectacular.

 

[draybook]

 

[danlb_2000]

Eight years from Raiders of the Lost Ark to the Indiana Jones Epic Stunt Spectacular.

Just talking about rides. Shows tend to be a small gap. Monster's Inc Laugh floor was 6 years.

 

[Matt_Black]

Building attractions or experiences using the minor, obscure Marvel characters which Disney does retain the rights to would merely be a great way to promote...the far superior Islands of Adventure Marvel attractions up the road.

Unless the new projects using the obscure characters are flops. If they are hits in their own right, yes, people are going to want attractions featuring those characters. We'll see in August and November, respectively, I suppose.

 

[nor'easter]

Radical idea. Build amazing attractions that are successful due to being amazing attractions.

I've said it before. A great attraction will succeed regardless of the IP.

The right IP attached to an amazing attraction will only complement and enhance it.

You're absolutely right. Most of Disney's E tkt and iconic attractions are not based on previous IP...Pirates, Haunted Mansion, Space Mtn, Big Thunder, Small World, Soarin, Kilimanjaro Safaris, Spaceship Earth, etc. Of course there are also some E tkt attractions based on existing IP...Splash Mtn, Tower of Terror, Indiana Jones, etc. The point is a great attraction becomes it's own IP.

 

[danlb_2000]

You're absolutely right. Most of Disney's E tkt and iconic attractions are not based on previous IP...Pirates, Haunted Mansion, Space Mtn, Big Thunder, Small World, Soarin, Kilimanjaro Safaris, Spaceship Earth, etc. Of course there are also some E tkt attractions based on existing IP...Splash Mtn, Tower of Terror, Indiana Jones, etc. The point is a great attraction becomes it's own IP.

Not to mention two attractions that people felt were ruined by the inclusion of IPs, Stich's Great Escape and The Enchanted Tiki Room Under New Management.

 

[Nubs70]

Radical idea. Build amazing attractions that are successful due to being amazing attractions.

I've said it before. A great attraction will succeed regardless of the IP.

The right IP attached to an amazing attraction will only complement and enhance it.

But with the lack of "organic" artistic engineering talent, does Disney have the option of going non-IP? The lack of bench talent makes non-IP even more of a risk in the eyes of executive management. Another argument to take the parks private.

 

[danlb_2000]

But with the lack of "organic" artistic engineering talent, does Disney have the option of going non-IP? The lack of bench talent makes non-IP even more of a risk in the eyes of executive management. Another argument to take the parks private.

Why would it make a difference? The same engineering talent would need to be applied to IP attractions as non IP attractions.

 

[Nubs70]

Why would it make a difference? The same engineering talent would need to be applied to IP attractions as non IP attractions.

There are different types of engineers. Financially minded engineers create from existing idea. Artistic engineers create from initial concept to idea to final product. I guess I liken it to the difference between a Baxter and your average industrial engineer.

 

[SirLink]

Well, you could ask the same thing about Disney IPs in the parks. We'll have the Dwarf Coaster, we had the little Mermaid ride, and before that... umm... hmm. The parks take longer to implement things.

Wrong. WDI and amoebas of TDO, take a long time to implement stuff ... other places are building complex, interesting and cool stuff.

 

[SirLink]

But with the lack of "organic" artistic engineering talent, does Disney have the option of going non-IP? The lack of bench talent makes non-IP even more of a risk in the eyes of executive management. Another argument to take the parks private.

That is not a 'take the parks private' its a recruit with quality moment, don't hire for just outside, but hire from division - but I like to think it is all Bruce Vaughan problem. They could of hired a couple of cool guys from Disney Interactive to help with park elements. Lets instead of hiring set designers from award winning movies lets hire from local colleges ... It is a Bruce problem and I believe a Tom F. problem as well.